Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ec.930 King St. Historic Lot Split A94-97&I Y r 2737-073-00037 A94-97 930 King Street Villoric Landmark Lot P I 'EI l ■ JULIE MAPLE, R.A. / ARCHITECT 605 EAST MAIN STREET % ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL(970)925-4755 FAX(970)920-2950 ^37-o,73-ooc,3 2 % � ,?7�1_ �7�3 0003 �130 R t A '� Aspen/Pitidn Community 112 Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5090 City Land Use Application Fees: 00113-63850-041 Deposit _ -63855-042 Flat Fee _ -63860-043 HPC _ -63885-268 Public Right -of -Way _ -63875-046 Zoning & Sign Permit _ -MR011 Use Tax _ IOWM7100-383 Park Dedication _ 15000f3050-480 AH Commercial 15000-63065482 AH Residential County Land Use Application Fees: 00113-63800-033 Deposit _ -63805-034 Flat Fee _ -63820-037 Zoning _ -63825-038 Board of Adjustment _ (deferral Fees: 0010-63810-035 County Engineer 00115-63340-163 City Engineer 62W-3-03340-190 Housing 00125-63340-205 Environmental Health _ 00113-63815-036 County Clerk 00113-63812-212 Wildlife Officer Sales: 00113-63830-039 County Code -69000-145 Copy Fees Other Total_Za�_ Name: ( k'� (M' - ��P,� I N 'C_V Date: _ Check: Address: - Project: nCir _ /J Case No: Phone: No. of Copies r PARCEL I 2737-073-000 CASE NAM 930 King Street :PROJ ADQ 930 King Street OWN/ApP: NPI Partners, LLC LIP 37 DATE RCVD 12/1 5/ 77 # COPIES: — CASE NO A94-97 FEES DUE:1245+600+110+70= REFERRA PLNR: Amy Guthrie CASE TYP: 930 King Street C/S/Z: Aspen, Co 8161 1 PHN: C/S/Z: PHN. D25 FEES RCVDJ 245+600+110+70=1025 STAT: ORDINANCE NO.6 (SERIES OF 1999) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR AN HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT AND A LANDMARK DESIGNATION GRANT FOR 930 KING STREET, CITY OF ASPEN WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5) and 26.72.010(G) of the Municipal Code, an Historic Landmark Lot Split is a subdivision exemption subject to review and approval by City Council after obtaining a recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission (hereinafter HPC); and WHEREAS, the applicant, NPJ, LLC, requested and received approval via Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1998, to split the 13,343 square foot parcel to create two separate single-family residential lots; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1998 incorrectly represented the lot sizes that would be created by the approved site plan; and WHEREAS, the error must be corrected through adoption of a new ordinance; and WHEREAS, due to the late discovery of the error in the ordinance, the applicant requested and received a 30 day extension in the deadline to file the subdivision exemption plat and subdivision agreement; and WHEREAS, the applicant also requests a $2,000 landmark designation grant, which was not awarded in Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1998; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has reviewed the application and recommends approval of the requests, with conditions as originally established in Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1998; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the clarification to the approved lot split and landmark designation grant under the applicable provisions of Chapters 26.72 and 26.88 of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered those recommendations made by the Community Development Department, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the clarification of the lot sizes created by the Historic Landmark Lot Split, with conditions, meets or exceeds all applicable development standards of the above referenced Municipal Code sections; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the public health, safety and welfare. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to Sections 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5), 26.72.010(G), and Section 26.76.020 of the Municipal Code, and subject to those conditions of approval as specified herein, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the clarification of the subdivision exemption: 1. The applicant's submission is complete and sufficient to afford review and evaluation for approval; and, 2. The subdivision exemption is consistent with the purposes of subdivision as outlined in Section 26.88.010 of the Municipal Code, which purposes include: assist in the orderly and efficient development of the City; ensure the proper distribution of development; encourage the well -planned subdivision of land by establishing standards for the design of a subdivision; improve land records and survey monuments by establishing standards for surveys and plats; coordinate the construction of public facilities with the need for public facilities; safeguard the interests of the public and the subdivider and provide consumer protection for the purchaser; and, promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen. Section 2: Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 1, above, the City Council does hereby approve the historic landmark lot split application for 930 King Street, with the lot sizes and assigned floor areas as clarified below. All other conditions of Ordinance #20, Series of 1998, as follows, remain in effect. 1. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall: a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.88.040(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code; b. Contain a plat note stating that development of Lot A shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c) of the Municipal Code; 2 c. Contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; d. The two lots created by this lot split shall have a total allowable base FAR, on both lots combined, equal to 4,634 square feet of floor area prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements, etc.). The applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR on each lot, taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided into two parcels, Lot A containing 8,748 square feet and Lot B containing 4,594 square feet. Provided it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on Lot A will be 2,889 s.f. and 1,745 square feet of floor area on Lot B (the two historic outbuildings will remain). The information verified by the City Zoning Officer shall be included on the plat, as a plat note; e. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R15A zone district, except the variances approved by the HPC. f. That the base elevation from which building height will be measured is hereby established by the topographic elevation of the site in 1975, prior to fill activity. (See Exhibit 1.) g. That the two lots will share a common driveway on King St. The common driveway will be 10' wide at King St. to the front setback line and then widened as necessary to provide adequate maneuvering room between the two garages. This requirement shall be reflected on the final exemption plat and shall contain language addressing a cross -access easement between the two properties. h. That the front yard setbacks from both Neale St. and King St. will be 25'. i. That the development of both Lots A and B have received HPC Final Development approval in accordance with Section 26.72.010. 2. As a minimum, the subdivision exemption agreement shall include the elements outlined in Section 26.88.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code, and shall meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section 26.88.030(A)(2)(e). 3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either lot, the applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement and pay the applicable recording fees. 3 E • 4. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the City Council shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by City Council. 5. That the construction of a new single-family dwelling on Lot A created through this Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to section 26.88.030(A)(5) is exempted by the Community Development Director from residential Growth Management allocations and shall not be deducted from the pool of annual development allotments or from the metro area development ceilings, in accordance with Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e). Section 3: A $2,000 landmark designation grant is hereby awarded to NP.1, LLC. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 6: A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 12th day of April, 1999, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 8th day of March, 1999. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk John Bennett, Mayor 4 APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 12th day of April, 1999. John Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 16 *V1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manage THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer] am RE: 930 King St. (No Problem Joe)- Clarification to Approved Historic Landmark Lot Split, Landmark. Designation Grant, Extension of Plat and Subdivision Exemption Agreement Filing Deadline, First Reading. Parcel I.D. 2737-073-00-037 DATE: March 8, 1999 SUMMARY: On September 28, 1999, via Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1998, Council approved a historic landmark lot split for the property at 930 King Street, former home of "No Problem Joe." During the course of the Council review, the applicant was asked to make changes to the proposal, including creating a shared driveway between the two new parcels, and respecting certain setbacks to address neighborhood issues. These changes were reflected on the site plan that ultimately received Council approval. Although the site plan was revised, it was not recognized at the time of approval that the ordinance listed the lot sizes incorrectly, as they had been proposed before amendments were made. In preparing to file their required subdivision exemption plat, the applicant noted that their site plan and ordinance did not coincide and staff determined that a new ordinance would have to be approved. Because this issue has surfaced very close to the 180 day filing deadline for the plat and subdivision exemption agreement (March 28, 1999), staff recommends that an additional 30 days be allowed for the filing deadline. Finally, the previous ordinance also did not award the $2,000 landmark designation grant, which is typically given to all new landmarks as an incentive. Staff recommends approval of the attached ordinance, which correctly reflects the approved lot sizes created by the lot split, allows an additional 30 days to file the subdivision exemption plat and subdivision exemption agreement, and approves a $2,000 landmark designation grant. APPLICANT: No Problem Joe, LLC, represented by Gibson Reno Architects. LOCATION: 930 King Street (see attached Exhibits), R-15A zone district. BACKGROUND: The site in question (approximately 13,343 s.f.) currently contains three (3) separate structures. The principal structure, or house, was built in the late 1800's and is approximately 432 square foot in size. The one-story, cross -gabled structure has a covered front porch, three rooms, and other features typical of mining era structures. It is in extreme disrepair. The other two structures, also in poor condition, include a smokehouse and an outhouse, both of which are probably of a similar age. The applicant has landmarked the property and received HPC final design approval. HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT REVIEW STANDARDS: The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of Section 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5), Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), and Section 26.72.010(G). Section 26.88.030(A)(2), Subdivision Exemptions, Lot Split. The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all 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 previously subdivided.. 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). Response: Two lots are created, both of which conform to the requirements of the R- 15A zone district. An Accessory Dwelling Unit has been approved for the new residence on Lot A. 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); and Response: No previous lot split exemption was granted. 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 RA 0 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 filing of said subdivision plat shall be a condition of this approval. e. Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Response: The applicant has 180 days from the original approval of the lot split (September 28, 1998) to file the plat and subdivision exemption agreement. Because of the amendment entailed in the attached ordinance, Staff recommends an additional 30 days be allowed, so that the plat must be filed by April 28, 1999. 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: A total of two units will be created. Section 26.88.030(A)(5), Historic Landmark Lot Split. The following standards must be met: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of 9,000 square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or a minimum of 13,000 square feet and be located in the R-15A zone district. Response: The parcel is approximately 13,343 square feet which is larger than the required 13,000 square feet and is located in the R-15A 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 duplex FAR which would have been allowed for the fathering parcel, which in this case is 4,384 square feet, plus an FAR bonus of 250 square feet from HPC, 3 will be divided between the new parcels. Lot A will be developed with a new single family residence of 2,889 s.f. Lot B will contain 1,745 s.f. (which includes the FAR bonus.) The applicant has indicated on the attached previously approved site plan that Lot A will be an 8,748 square foot parcel, and Lot B will be a 4,594 square foot parcel. These lot sizes and floor areas must be indicated on the plat. C. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. Response: Setback variances have been requested and approved by the HPC for the historic structure. An FAR bonus has also been approved by the HPC. 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. Response: An exemption by the Community Development Director was previously granted via Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1998 and is reiterated in the attached ordinance. 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. Response: The HPC held a noticed public hearing and recommended approval of the lot split, the exact detail of which was later revised at City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council approve the historic landmark lot split application for 930 King Street, with the lot sizes and assigned floor areas as clarified in Ordinance No. b, Series of 1999. Staff further recommends that the City Council approve an extension on the deadline to file the subdivision exemption plat to April 28, 1999, and that Council approve a $2,000 landmark designation grant for the property. All other conditions of Ordinance #20, Series of 1998, as follows, remain in effect. 1. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City Council, which shall be extended to April 4 0 28, 1999. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall: a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.88.040(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code; b. Contain a plat note stating that development of Lot A shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c) of the Municipal Code; c. Contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; d. The two lots created by this lot split shall have a total allowable base FAR, on both lots combined, equal to 4,634 square feet of floor area prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements, etc.). The applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR on each lot, taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided into two parcels, Lot A containing 8,748 square feet and Lot B containing 4,594 square feet. Provided it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on Lot A will be 2,889 s.f. and 1,745 square feet of floor area on Lot B (the two historic outbuildings will remain). The information verified by the City Zoning Officer shall be included on the plat, as a plat note; e. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R15A zone district, except the variances approved by the HPC. f. That the base elevation from which building height will be measured is hereby established as 7926' which represents the topographic elevation of the site in 1975, prior to fill activity. g. That the two lots will share a common driveway on King St. The common driveway will be 10' wide at King St. to the front setback line and then widened as necessary to provide adequate maneuvering room between the two garages. This requirement shall be reflected on the final exemption plat and shall contain language addressing a cross -access easement between the two properties. h. That both Neale St. and King St. will have a front yard setback of 25'. i. That the development of both Lots A and B have received HPC Final Development approval in accordance with Section 26.72.010. 5 2. As a minimum, the subdivision exemption agreement shall include the elements outlined in Section 26.88.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code, and shall meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section 26.88.030(A)(2)(e), with an extended deadline for filing by April 28, 1999. 3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either lot, the applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement and pay the applicable recording fees. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the City Council shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by City Council. 5. That the construction of a new single-family dwelling on Lot A created through this Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to section 26.88.030(A)(5) is exempted by the Community Development Director from residential Growth Management allocations and shall not be deducted from the pool of annual development allotments or from the metro area development ceilings, in accordance with Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e). RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. k, Series of 1999, on First Reading." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: Exhibits: Ordinance No. k, Series of 1999. Exhibit "A" - Staff memo dated March 10, 1999. Exhibit `B" — Application 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager FROM: Julie Ann Woods, Acting Community Development Directort RE: 930 King St. (No Problem Joe House) Landmark Designation and Historic Lot Split Second Reading, Parcel I.D. 2737-073-00-037 (continued from July 27, 1998; August 10, 1998, and September 21, 1998) DATE: September 28, 1998 SUMMARY: The applicant requests both landmark designation and approval of a historic lot split for the property at 930 King St. (No Problem Joe House). To be eligible for designation, a structure or site must meet two (2) or more of the five (5) standards contained in Section 26.76.020 of the Municipal Code. In order to qualify for a lot split, all of the criteria set forth in Section 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5), Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), and Section 26.72.010(G) must be met. Staff recommends approval of the landmark designation, finding that three (3) of the five landmark designation standards are met. Staff further recommends approval of the historic lot split, finding that, with conditions, the criteria for lot splits have been met. ISSUES FROM LAST MEETING: At the City Council's meeting on September 21, 1998, the council voted to direct staff to modify Ord. 20, Series of 1998 by including language addressing a shared driveway between Lots 1 and 2, and establishing a 25' front yard setback for both Neale Ave. and King St. Staff has incorporated these modifications to the ordinance per City Council's direction. In addition, staff has added clarifying language which establishes the topographic elevation of 7926' as the base elevation from which building height will be measured. APPLICANT: No Problem Joe, LLC, represented by Gibson Reno Architects. LOCATION: 930 King Street (see attached Exhibit A vicinity map). R-15A zone district. BACKGROUND: The site in question (approximately 13,343 s.f.) currently contains three (3) separate structures. The principal structure, or house, was probably built in the 1880's and is approximately 432 square foot in size. The one-story, cross -gabled structure has a covered front porch, three interior "rooms", typical of mining era structures, and is in extreme disrepair. The other two structures, also in poor condition, include a smokehouse (which could also have been a chicken coop at one time) and an outhouse, both of which are probably of a similar age. Although the applicant has indicated that the "...house is believed to be an original Sears and Roebuck, ship and build cabin, which was commonly used at the beginning of this century. .."(see attached Exhibit B, land use application), staff believes that the structure pre -dates the 20th century. The double rounded glass and panel doors and the stacked trim above the windows is more indicative of an 1880's architectural style. The 1896 townsite map (see attached Exhibit C) indicates a structure of similar proportions was present on the site at that time. The property has been highlighted on the historic inventory map, however, staff was unable to locate the inventory file for this property. The applicant proposes to landmark the property, split the lot, then redevelop the site by relocating the existing historic building on -site, renovating it, and linking it to a larger addition for a total of 1,561 s.f. (Lot 2) This includes a requested FAR Bonus of 250 square feet which was granted by the HPC at the conceptual public hearing. Lot 1 would be developed with a new single family residence, including an ADU (approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on May 19, 1998). This residence would have approximately 2795 s.f. for a total square footage of 4,356 s.f. divided between the two lots. (The two historic outbuildings will remain on Lot 2). Both the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this project for Landmark status, and recommended approval (see attached minutes, Exhibits E and F). HISTORIC LANDMARK Section 26.76.020, Standards for designation. Any structure that meets two or more of the following standards may be designated "H," Historic Overlay District, and/or Historic Landmark. It is not the intention of the City Council to landmark insignificant structures or sites. The City Council should focus on those 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. 4 Response: This structure is a good example of housing built in Aspen in the late 1800's. It has a cross gable roof, front porch, two front entries, and detailing which was common to these buildings. It is one of the few historic structures left in town that remains as it was originally built with no later additions. It does appear that an addition had been placed at the rear of the house at one time, but this has been subsequently removed. 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: At one time, there were many miner's cabins in this neighborhood( please refer to the 1896 map). There are two others in the immediate vicinity and their preservation, together with this resource is important to maintaining the character of the area. 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 19th century, Aspen's primary period of historic significance. HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT REVIEW STANDARDS: The Historic requirements of Section 26.88.030(A)(2) Section 26.72.010(G). Landmark Lot Split shall meet the and (5), Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), and Section 26.88.030(A)(2), Subdivision Exemptions, Lot Split. The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all 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 previously subdivided. 3 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). Response: Two lots are created, both of which conform to the requirements of the R- 15A zone district. An Accessory Dwelling Unit has been approved for the new residence on Lot 1. 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); and Response: No previous lot split exemption was granted. d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. Response: The filing of said subdivision plat shall be a condition of this approval. e. Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Response: The filing of said subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be a condition of this 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. The existing historic house will have an addition to the rear, if approved by the HPC at final design. g. Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. Response: The applicant represents that a total of two units will be created. 4 Section 26.88.030(A)(5). Historic Landmark Lot Split. The following standards must be met: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of 9,000 square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or a minimum of 13,000 square feet and be located in the R-15A zone district. Response: The parcel is approximately 13,343 square feet which is larger than the required 13,000 square feet and is located in the R-15A 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 duplex FAR which would have been allowed for the fathering parcel, which in this case is 4,384 square feet, plus a possible FAR bonus (approximately 250 square feet) from HPC, will be divided between the new parcels. According to the applicant, Lot 2 will contain 1,561 s.f. (which includes an FAR bonus, granted by the HPC at conceptual). Lot 1 would be developed with a new single family residence, which would have approximately 2795 s.f. for a total square footage of 4,356 s.f. divided between the two lots. The applicant has indicated on Exhibit "D" that Lot 1 will have 8059.99 square feet, while Lot 2 will have 5282.66 square feet. The allowable FAR for each lot must be indicated on the plat prior to recordation. It should be noted that this is the maximum square footage allowed; slope reductions and reductions for easements will be determined by the Zoning Officer prior to the recordation of the final plat. C. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. Response: Setback variances have been requested and approved by the HPC for the historic structure. An FAR bonus has also been approved by the HPC at conceptual 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. 5 Response: An exemption by the Community Development Director has been incorporated into Ord. 20, Series of 1998. 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. Response: The HPC's meeting was noticed as a public hearing. As City Council is aware, the neighbors to this project have objected to the proposed location of a driveway along the north property line onto Neale Ave. Staff has attached letters of opposition as Exhibit G. In an effort to address a concern with pedestrian safety (though the City Engineer concluded in the attached Exhibit H that there is adequate vehicular site distance and stopping distance with the proposed location of a Neale Ave. driveway), the City Council directed the applicant to investigate shared driveway options on King St. At the September 21, 1998 meeting with HPC present, City Council directed staff to modify Ord. 20 to address the shared driveway issue. This has been incorporated into Ord. 20. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the landmark designation of the structure and property located at 930 King St. based on a finding that standards B (architectural importance), D (neighborhood character) and E (community character) of Section 26.76.020 are met. Staff further recommends that the City Council approve the Historic Lot Split as indicated on Exhibit "D", finding that the requirements for a lot split have been met and that the lot split will further the intent of preservation by dividing the allowable square footage between the two lots as indicated, subject to the following conditions: 1. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall: a. - Meet the requirements of Section 26.88.040(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code; b. Contain a plat note stating that development of Lot 1 shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c) of the Municipal Code; c. Contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; 6 d. The two lots created by this lot split shall have a total allowable base FAR, on both lots combined, equal to 4,384 square feet of floor area prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements, etc.). The applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR on each lot, taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided into two parcels, Lot 1 containing 8059.99 square feet and Lot 2 containing 5282.66 square feet. Provided it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on Lot 2 would be 1561 square feet of floor area (including a 250 square foot floor area bonus, if granted by the HPC) and 2795 square feet of floor area on Lot I (the two historic outbuildings will remain). The information verified by the City Zoning Officer shall be included on the plat, as a plat note; e. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R15A zone district, except the variances approved by the HPC. f. That the base elevation from which building height will be measured is hereby established as 7926' which represents the topographic elevation of the site in 1975, prior to fill activity. g. That the two lots will share a common driveway on King St. The common driveway will be 10' wide at King St. to the front setback line and then widened as necessary to provide adequate maneuvering room between the two garages. This requirement shall be reflected on the final exemption plat and shall contain language addressing a cross -access easement between the two properties. h. That both Neale St. and King St. will have a front yard setback of 25'. i. That the development of both Lots 1 and 2 are further subject to HPC Final Development approval in accordance with Section 26.72.010. 2. As a minimum, the subdivision exemption agreement shall include the elements outlined in Section 26.88.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code, and shall meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section 26.88.030(A)(2)(e). 3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either lot, the applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement and pay the applicable recording fees. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the City Council shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by City Council. 7 5. That the construction of a new single-family dwelling on Lot 1 created through this Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to section 26.88.030(A)(5) is exempted by the Community Development Director from residential Growth Management allocations and shall not be deducted from the pool of annual development allotments or from the metro area development ceilings, in accordance with Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e). RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve, on second reading, Ord. No. 20, Series of 1998, Landmark Designation and the Historic Lot Split for 930 King St." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: Exhibits: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit `B" - Applicant's Landmark Designation Application Exhibit "C" - 1896 Townsite Map Exhibit "D" - Applicant's Proposed Lot Split configuration Exhibit "B" - HPC Minutes dated March 25, 1998 Exhibit "F" - P&Z Minutes dated May 19, 1998 Exhibit "G" - Letters of opposition Exhibit "H" - City Engineer's Findings g:/pimmingiaspa✓ tpc/wses/IarMmirkN30kin3.dm 8 FROM : RIUER CITY SURVEYS PHONE NO. 970 945 6019 Feb. 24 1999 02:58PM P2 0 fro 05 • �5 e�, colorgdo� I �1 .r 1 Y J 20 Lit A , L 0 t IS 0,10AC+ J / / n ORDINANCE NO. !Q (SERIES OF 1999) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR AN HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT, AN EXTENSION OF THE PLAT AND SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION AGREEMENT FILING DEADLINE, AND A LANDMARK DESIGNATION GRANT FOR 930 KING STREET, CITY OF ASPEN WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5) and 26.72.010(G) of the Municipal Code, an Historic Landmark Lot Split is a subdivision exemption subject to review and approval by City Council after obtaining a recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission (hereinafter HPC); and WHEREAS, the applicant, NPJ, LLC, requested and received approval via Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1998, to split the 13,343 square foot parcel to create two separate single-family residential lots; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1998 incorrectly represented the lot sizes that would be created by the approved site plan; and WHEREAS, the error must be corrected through adoption of a new ordinance; ITM WHEREAS, due to the late discovery of the error in the ordinance, the applicant requests a 30 day extension in the deadline to file the subdivision exemption plat and subdivision agreement; and WHEREAS, the applicant requests a $2,000 landmark designation grant, which was not awarded in Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1998; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has reviewed the application and recommends approval of the requests, with conditions as established in Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1998; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the clarification to the approved lot split, request for extension of filing deadlines, and landmark designation grant under the applicable provisions of Chapters 26.72 and 26.88 of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered those recommendations made by the Community Development Department, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the clarification of the lot sizes created by the Historic Landmark Lot Split, with conditions, meets or exceeds all applicable development standards of the above referenced Municipal Code sections; and • C7 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the public health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to Sections 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5), 26.72.010(G), and Section 26.76.020 of the Municipal Code, and subject to those conditions of approval as specified herein, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the clarification of the subdivision exemption: 1. The applicant's submission is complete and sufficient to afford review and evaluation for approval; and, 2. The subdivision exemption is consistent with the purposes of subdivision as outlined in Section 26.88.010 of the Municipal Code, which purposes include: assist in the orderly and efficient development of the City; ensure the proper distribution of development; encourage the well -planned subdivision of land by establishing standards for the design of a subdivision; improve land records and survey monuments by establishing standards for surveys and plats; coordinate the construction of public facilities with the need for public facilities; safeguard the interests of the public and the subdivider and provide consumer protection for the purchaser; and, promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen. Section 2: Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 1, above, the City Council does hereby approve the historic landmark lot split application for 930 King Street, with the lot sizes and assigned floor areas as clarified below. All other conditions of Ordinance #20, Series of 1998, as follows, remain in effect. 1. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall: a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.88.040(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code; b. Contain a plat note stating that development of Lot A shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c) of the Municipal Code; c. Contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; d. The two lots created by this lot split shall have a total allowable base FAR, on both lots combined, equal to 4,634 square feet of floor area prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements, etc.). The applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR on each lot, taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided into two parcels, Lot A containing 8,748 square feet and Lot B containing 4,594 square feet. Provided it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on Lot A will be 2,889 s.f. and 1,745 square feet of floor area on Lot B (the two historic outbuildings will remain). The information verified by the City Zoning Officer shall be included on the plat, as a plat note; e. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R15A zone district, except the variances approved by the HPC. f. That the base elevation from which building height will be measured is hereby established as 7926' which represents the topographic elevation of the site in 1975, prior to fill activity. g. That the two lots will share a common driveway on King St. The common driveway will be 10' wide at King St. to the front setback line and then widened as necessary to provide adequate maneuvering room between the two garages. This requirement shall be reflected on the final exemption plat and shall contain language addressing a cross -access easement between the two properties. h. That both Neale St. and King St. will have a front yard setback of 25'. i. That the development of both Lots A and B have received HPC Final Development approval in accordance with Section 26.72.010. 2. As a minimum, the subdivision exemption agreement shall include the elements outlined in Section 26.88.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code, and shall meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section 26.88.030(A)(2)(e). 3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either lot, the applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement and pay the applicable recording fees. LJ 4. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the City Council shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by City Council. 5. That the construction of a new single-family dwelling on Lot A created through this Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to section 26.88.030(A)(5) is exempted by the Community Development Director from residential Growth Management allocations and shall not be deducted from the pool of annual development allotments or from the metro area development ceilings, in accordance with Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e). Section 3: The deadline for filing the final plat and subdivision exemption agreement is hereby extended to April 28, 1999. Section 4: A $2,000 landmark designation grant is hereby awarded to NPJ, LLC. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 6: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 7: A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 22nd day of March, 1999, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 8th day of March, 1999. John Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk • rI APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 22nd day of March, 1999. John Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk • C-1 February 26, 1999 0% Ms. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer DAVID Aspen/Pitkin County Community o- LF` GIBBON AIA Development Department 130 South Galena St. AUGUST Aspen, CO 81611 RENO AIA RE: 930 King Street No Problem Joe SCOTT SMITH AIA Dear Amy, I have attached information regarding the Historic Lot Split for the March 8, 1999 City Council meeting. As you know this submission is required because of a minor lot split adjustment due to setbacks and the shared driveway. G I BSON ' R ENO A R C H I T E C T S, L. L. C. The total area of the lot is 13,340 SF. We would propose that the lot be III spilt into two parcels so that the western lot will be 8,748 SF and the YMAN east lot is 4,594 SF. The floor areas of the proposed houses will be 210 EAST N°20202 2,795 SF for the western house and 1,669 SF for the east lot. ASPEN This information includes: COLORADO I. Vicinity map 81611 2. Legal description 3. Historic lot split 970.925.5968 4. List of adjacent property owners FACSIMILE 5. Lot split survey map (reduced) 970.925.5993 Thanks for your assistance concerning this project. Please contact me if you should have any questions. P.O. BOX 278 101 E. COLORADO AVE R ctfully yours, SUITE 301 TELLURIDE COLORADO Leigh an Letson 81435 970.728.6607 cc: H. Cahn FACSIMILE 970.728.6658 AT7 Ns- L/Ml • • ATTACMVENT 2 No Problem Joe 930 King Street LEGAL DESCRIPTION A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE S'h OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. IN CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. - BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF A TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 645 AT PAGE 892 OF THE PITKIN COULTY RECORDS WHENCE CORNER NO. 11, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE BEARS N52 DEGREES 23' 03" E 160.23 FT., THENCE S 26 DEGREES 52' 00" W 103.58 FT. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID TRACT: THENCE N 61 DEGREES 57' 06" W 27.78 FT., THENCE N 55 DEGREES 52' 50" W 18.64 FT., THENCE N 58 DEGREES 48' 18" W 34.01 FT., THENCE N 58 DEGREES 29' 54" W 23.85 FT., THENCE N 48 DEGREES 15' 12" W 34.73 FT., THENCE N 23 DEGREES 28' I T' E 81.89 FT., THENCE S 65 DEGREES 20' 3 1 " E 142.47 FT. TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 13,343 SQ. FT. MORE OR LESS. ATTACHMENT 3 HISTORIC LOT SPLIT The applicant requests an Historic Lot Split per Sections 26.88.30 (A) (2), 26.100.050 (A) (2) (e), and 26.72.010 (G). The proposed Historic Lot Split complies with Section 26.88.030 (A) (2). This property has never been subdivided before; will only create two (2) lots; and will only construct two (2) units plus an affordable dwelling unit. The proposed Historic Lot Split complies with Section 26.72.010 (G) and Section 26.100.050 (A) (2) (e) if the property is designated as an lEstoric Landmark. • ATTACHMENT 4 LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET. N C71 co t0 co t0 tD co co co cD cD ? N_ N_ N O ,= O M M coo _ cL7 t0 tC) O O to N tC) N cD t0 O t0 tD M �D T a Ln co O tD cC ao co c0 er w z c0 m O m CO CO a0 c0 CD M M CO CO m CO C1N1 M O a00 m a00 M m a0 m a0 CO Q�7 to c0 m m CJOf o7 m m O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 o O Q J O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X O a z 0 OI x O 0 a 0 0 0 U U U U U U LL U 010 010 U 0 z U U U 2 Z U lu w Lu cn (nCt LU J z w z w z w z w z w z w z w z w 3 z w z z w z z z g J S g z ¢ w z ¢ w z z z z z a z> Q Q w a Z z O ❑ z z a Z o Z 0 Z 0 w w w w a. z w w a. w w w W N w w� o W w> w W w> N W w w w a. w N w co w cn a wLu W ¢ a (a a a a (a a w a a 0 Q c Q w a a Q a a g Y a❑ a❑ a co Q a a a S U a J i z O co a cn s g cn a fn a Q w Q U Q U Q U a ❑ z w Q LL 00 m z w ¢ Q ¢ C0 ¢ ao a } 3 O U W¢ ❑ ❑ CC ❑ ¢ aCCwa fn Q C0 Q�WpF- p¢ W <�aQ W c�jJ Y> n Q Ln Paz>Q�c=nv=i W �- cn z O n J S 3 W F- Cn W J F- fn �. J co J¢ � O J z O m O z O Z J O `n z F- W > p Z rn ¢ W Z O J w Z Q LL tL ti z z In m N x U F a f- a C7 Z Q a C? z a C7 'T¢ x a S z UZ J g y Cp r X to M a U m x❑ W w❑¢¢ co U Q Cl) x 3 a cn m J o. W U O Z O Z O Z Y c7 m Y cn Y fn M rn Qp z c7 m O w cn O O ¢ m 0 a M M-j-i-i m c07 n c07 o cn O N O O n J O O O tD O U. U. LL Cf m LL Qf CD CTf CL fD ? Of CL M CA coo LL Qf tN� C� OOi CC7 N CL CL CD CA N N O <D O fo o w 00 Z Q Z Q } M z Q ¢ N Z Z a Q _ a w Q v a _ w a CL > W U' ¢ o p❑ z -� O cc �U M IL w cc Z J S to Z J Q Z O 0 = W a N w a Q -� a 2 p �- J W M F- to W U J ¢ W o. W > Q z¢ cn w J M M O¢ a m Q z o V' W¢ J w w J Q¢ CL >- U = to Q r M Q S U W U co ¢¢ LL N w} Y¢ Q Cn a Q Y O F- W F� CO Q N fn a m Q J o a i Q Q a 2 w z z LL om LL >-< Q W ¢ o m J LL¢ o Z ¢ Wa U x F Z M N LL w N F.. 3 Q U) p Y U n. n ~ Z ❑ 3 M w O C07 O Q g In O N a Z Z O ❑ Q ¢ CL r- Q .- n M ❑ U a U Y U N CL r U M Q U [L W F- F- S F- Q ¢ v> S > ¢ O N U Q g U Q a Z 0� \ W Z > J cn ¢o w 333 W w w w =,p > -+ , ' �JO S Za z 000 w❑ v w ❑ - w v- J¢ ¢ 3 ❑ �>-�U 30 W -a ¢¢¢ O ¢ Q 2 Q = (7 Z cn x ❑ Cn W p 3 ¢ W W N U Z y. ¢ Q to W Z to CL -� FS- w z J =w¢ J -� W Q O¢ U d Q Z } cn to cn ao W=,r ccao¢azF =w=QMctWQ ogQa¢¢SJZwa¢W i�waU¢Q2awz�dzcncna} =XW0Z Otn� 000 z¢°a=wJ = aWoo�,��oo ct ¢ a Z¢ U 0 Y a o W w °Coz=3z z v O J u~i C7 cc xUa�oc''w = J Q} z z 0 0 0 0 w aac LL w J 0 0 w=¢¢¢ U Z(n F- W C7 a S' Q a �d z= o F- U J W F- y a w F- N } W 3 O$ W S W S M ¢ Q Y Z ¢ W w cn CL in ¢ S ¢ LL fn J 0 M } F- w 2 U Z _ > > > cn M W Q F- Q Q¢❑ Z Z cc a CL O 0 ¢ W 3 Z J CO [L w W W w Q J C7 Z m cn Z Z Z N a¢ J¢ = O¢ a o❑ F- a ¢ W a M a z Z 3 w to a w=❑ p❑ a CL a ¢ a 3 w -� a 3 CL w ,L ru > O S Q S Z¢ ❑ a p w¢ W (7 a C7 Q C7 a Mco Uc)U❑❑❑__TYYggJJJJiMi zzocLaaXwwwwF-F-F->>> O m O O DD e aer� M N N O . O n N O 'n O� CA m O cD N O O rn N O W O (D O Of Q) O O N N n N w r QI w M n n n M N Of �_ Lo O_ N N iD M �? CA c0 8 O O O of co d' O O +" to N O 0 n M 0 N 0 w 7 O 0� a0 N a m d' O N �' t0 M n O 0 r c7 ee�� O O N M c9 r N S O O O apt 0 v 0 9 0 0 0 ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ i ¢ cc ¢ 2, ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ O N r M r O O O O N pp 0 O 0 N O 0 O cD M N N N io O N O N O O p C7 N M CA pp -,I- O to n M O v N M M N O n a N O w N_ N M O N O w N w M 0 N 0 v 0 M lq O CA M In O CA O to n r O O N N N O v r ca D O O O O O O O m M u7 0 v 0 M T 0 6 O 0 M to 0 O T a T +- 0 T 0 0 O 0 0 v 0 O O O O to 0 O O 0 M T 0 O O 0 p O 0 N N O O 0 M to O CD O O O O S O O_ r 0 0) 0 0 O 0 0- 0 0 0 v n v n v n a n M n M n v n v n v n n M n v n v n v n v n v n v n v n v n v n v n v n M n n M n M n M n v n M n n M n M n v n v n v n v n v n M n v n v n v n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C9 Cl) M M M M M M M M M Cl) M M M N. M N. M � M r- M r" M rL Cl) r: CO rs M M r; M 11 M N. c7 r; M r1 C9 r; M r: M r` M r` M r: M r; M 'L M is M rr co r; Cl) n Cl) n M n N n N n N n N n N rl N n N rn N n N n N n N n N n N n N n N n N n N n N n N n N I n N n N I rl N n N I n N rl N n N I n N n N I n. N n N I n N I n N I n N I n N n N n N n N I n N I n N 1 n N, 0 is 3 O 0i m1on, N 0 • To: Prc Arch. proj. # �'^�i9 Date: We Transmit: Herewith Under Seperate Cover _Per Your Request Via: Mail For Your �D Messenger Fax reuel di CXPI ess UPS The Following: Specifications Drawings _Addenda _Payment Application Product Literature Samples Change Order _Shop Drawing >4 Other _Information _Record / Use Review TRANSMITTAL L E T T E R RECEIVED r.pprcval 1999 MAR 3 _Dist. to Parties ASPEN 1 PI �Ki r`nv,v.l INIT`/ DEV Action Taken: Approved _Reviewed _Revise & Resubmit GIBSON ' RENO _Make Corrections AR C H I T E C T S, L,L,C. . _Submit Specific Item 000 No Exceptions _Rejected Copies: Date: Description: I _!_�>• IZ-19 .AV�F__1s� Remarks: Copies To: (With encl.) Submitted by: 210 E. HYMAN No 202 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 970.925.5968 FACSIMILIE 970.925.5993 EMAIL: gibsnrno@rof.net 101 E COLORADO No 301a TELLURIDE COLORADO 81435 970.728.6607 FACSIMILIE 970.728.6658 • Attachment 8 • County of Pitkin ss. State of Colorado AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS SECTION 26.52.060(E) I, L.•��- being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following manner: By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the J!�L day of �, 199!� (which is Adays prior to the public hearing date of T 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the La day of �V_' 199a-, to the ZZ day of 1994. (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. (Attach photograph here) z , Sign Signed before me this Z day of , 1991. by Z & �9// Ze T n� WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SFA My Commissi xpires: Notary ublic April 28, 1999 Leigh Letson ASPEN • PTTKIN Gibson and Reno COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 210 E. Hyman, Suite 202 Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 930 King Street, Subdivision Exemption Plat Dear Leigh; This letter is to confirm that the City received the 930 King Street Subdivision Exemption Plat before the deadline to file, which is 5 p.m. today. You and I discussed two minor amendments to the plat notes, and the error on the notary's signature. Please make the corrections as soon as possible so that the City approvals can be finalized. Amy 0 0 Preservation Officer 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 • PHONE 970.920.5090 • FAx 970.920.54 Printed on Recycled Paper ATTAC i Fi 5 G 19 9 PEN L I11� 1-rS 7 p5 9 2 \I I � 5 � a 2 PUDl 3 345I6 7 *2 2 1 FR N S S �n II � 13 1 15 16 17 18 I Ay 930 KING .STREET MAP June 12, 1998 Mrs. Julie Ann Woods DAV I D Aspen/ Pitkin County Community Development Department GIBSON 130 South Galena Street AIA Aspen Colorado 81611 AUGUST RENO Re: 930 King Street AIA Dear Julie Ann, scoTTSMITH AIA I have attached information regarding Landmark Designation and Historic Lot Split for the June 22, 1998 City Council meeting. As you know, the Historic Preservation Commission has supported both of these issues and the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the-1 Landmark Designation on May 13, 1998. This information includes: GIBSON • RENO A R C H I T E C T S, L.L.C. I.Vicinity Map 2. Legal Description 3.Landmark Designations 210 E. HYMAN Standards/Responses N" 202 4.Historic Lot Split 5. List of Adjacent Property Owners ASPEN 6. Lot Split Survey Plat COLORADO 81611 Per our previous discussions, my only concern has to do with the City 970.925.5968 approving the Historic Lot Split prior to the final Historic Preservation Commission approval. Depending on the final direction and outcome, FACSIMILE there is a potential for minor lot size adjustments. If this can be handled at 970.925.5993 the administrative level my concern diminishes. Thanks for your assistance concerning this project. Please contact me of P.O. Box 278 you should have any questions. 117 N. WILLOW �1 N" 2 TELLURIDE COLORADO 81435 Au¢uO. Reno, IfA.I.A. \\ / � 970.728.6607 FACSIMILE 970.728.6658 • • ATTACHMENT 9 NO PROBLEM JOE 930 KING STREET LEGAL DESCRIPTION A TRACT OF LAND SMl iATED IN THE S 112 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTI- RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. IN, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER F A TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 645 AT PAGE 892 OF THE PITKIN COUNTY RECORDS WHENCE CORNER NO. 11, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE BEARS N52 DEGREES 23' 03" 03"E 160.23 FT., THENCE S 26 DEGREES 52' 00" W 103.58 FT. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID TRACT; THENCE N 61 DEGREES 57' 06" W 27.78 FT., THENCE N 55 DEGREES 52' 50"W 18.64 FT., THENCE N 58 DEGREES 48' 18" W 34.01 FT.; THENCE N 58 DEGREES 29' 54" W 23.85 FT. THENCE N 48 DEGREES 15' 12" W 34.73 FT., THENCE N 23 DEGREES 28'17" E 81.89 FT., THENCE S 65 DEGREES 20' 3 1 " E 142.47 FT. TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 13,343 SQ. FT. MORE OR LESS • 11 ATTACHMENT 1 Landmark Designation Standards For Designation: Any structure or site that meets two (2) or more of the following standards may be designated as "H" Historic Overlay District, and/or historic landmark. STANDARD: A. Historic importance. The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. RESPONSE: The structure and the site were occupied by Joe Candreia, otherwise known as "No Problem Joe" from approximately 1952 until his death in 1993. "No Problem Joe" was considered one of Aspen's old local characters because of the words that he commonly muttered, "No Problem" when anyone needed his assistance. Another aspect of "No Problem Joe's" tenure was a vegetable garden that he personally tended to for approximately thirty (30) years. He was often seen sharing his prize crops with people that were just passing by. STANDARD: 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 specimen. Response: The house is believed to be an original Sears and Roebuck, ship and build cabin, which was commonly used at the beginning of this century. The smoke house and outhouse are structures that were also commonly used in an era that has passed us by with new technologies regarding plumbing and food storage preparation. STANDARD: C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: This project does not meet this standard in our opinion. STANDARD: D. Neighborhood Character. The structure or site is a significant component of a historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood (character). Response: The house and outbuildings were very typical for this neighborhood during the early part of the century. During the late 19th century and early part of the 20th century this neighborhood consisted of very modest type structures that were meant to house the working class (primarily miners). There are a number of these structures scattered throughout the Eastern section of Aspen. This house and the outbuildings contribute to the publics' awareness of what once occupied this neighborhood that still remain today. STANDARD: 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 of historical or architectural importance. Response: The house and outbuildings contribute significantly to the character of the historic Aspen community. These contributions include being a vital piece of the "Silver Boom" fabric. While the West End of Aspen represented the wealth of the "Silver Barons" with all of its elaborately design houses, the East End of Aspen represented the work force. The structures on this property represent a period of boom and bust with the birth of the City and the quiet years that followed once the original mining economy faded. The 930 King Street structures that remain today meet four (4) out of the possible five (5) Standards for Designation. We request that 930 King Street be designated as an Historic Landmark. NPJLAND.DOC L71 • ATTACHMENT 5 HISTORIC LOT SPLIT The applicant requests a Historic Lot Split per Sections 26.88.30 (A) (2), 26.100.050, (A) (2) (e), and 26.72.010 (G). The proposed Historic Lot Split complies with Section 26.88.030 (A) (2). This property has never been subdivided before; will only create two (2) lots; and will only construct (2) units plus an affordable dwelling unit. The proposed Historic Lot Split complies with Section 26.72.010 (G) and Section 26.100.050, (A) (2) (e) if the property is designated as an Historic Landmark. npjlot.doc • ATTACHMENT 15 LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET. N CA t0 CD CD CO CD CO CD c0 cD c0 N CO r CO N O f\ M f` M '= CA O N L N r N r C �' '7 N N_ N r r L O C; N M N M N N CO NO CD NO CD CD cD cD CD CMD 'a et ^ cD c0 t0 CO CD CD CO lD O O CD CO w w a0 O w aO a0 w M M m M O O w Go O O� M CD n m C7) N O M M n OD M O O m CD O O OOO O O O O O O O O O O Q J O O OOOx O O x O O Q 0U 0 0 U U UU U LL U U U i Z U U 2 U U Cn Q c }LLI Cn J Z W J W J W J zzzzzzzz<zzzzzzggzWZWzzzzz�z>w<zz 0zza000 w w W w w w w w w w w w w w 0 w> w> w w w w w a w a.z J Z O w w a.SQ w w w M Q N Q 0 Q M Q 0 Q M Q M Q w Q Z fn M Q co Q Cl) Q co Q Cn Q (o Q Q�Q J W Y to Q W p CA Q W p Cn Q co Q co Q CA Q CA Q S U Cn Q CA Q Cn Q QcL J Cq Q to Q Q w Q U Q U Q U Q p z w_ S LL 0 m O f- p C9 O w Cl)S f- r- S W W~ w W W S S Q Q Z 00 n W Q Q Q W p CC H cl) Q Z v co Q Z Q z F- co Q w Q fO Q Z Q Cn u. C=n CL w l� M O Cn N S U W C~n w� J w. J H O S J J O r O w J CO coW Z �"' fn >¢ z Cn M W Z O W J Q W (9 (5 0 C7 z m0QOzaz t- Q C7 Y Q C7 Q c70=Z� Cn m0m(7 m Q x)D0LLJ W p Q ct x m QmQU m a O Z Z Z Y C7 m co w Y fn m �, Q z 0 Co 0 Cn Co 0 0 J rn S U 2 ..}� LL u- LL m u) O 0 Cl) v 0 ao 0 M LO rn o M O o g v N O c� m O r- rn O 0 0 `D rn p O a0 n. CA r M. r IM r (L t0 r v O) LL O r LL CA C� r N tL ri rn r COD CC COO U p Z LL Q Q z Q m M Z Q 2 Z jr z Q Q 2 - _ Q w O Q v a cc w M d > W J :7 a:p p Z J 0 W a: z S z a m Q W w Q Q S J F- r=r J w w Q Cn W JM O�aC m Q �-)QJaa } CL ClJCL U) U. Cl) Lu aco_> 0LU 04 m z a J a. w J 2 U Q LLO Q LL U V W cc > cc Y¢ Q LL �e S H Z f— d Q� � Cn � Z x m Q� Q Q S w O J z X m O m 3 (Q7 m x m cr p W a } Y 0 a w Z p x m 3 w m CLC*4 v �c"'.iCL zZ �a cc rnc~n o av�� arM w� S Q p S U U) J ? cc O U LO Q z J J J co U O z Z J 2 p z z z ¢ J 2 S _ O Q Q O p> Q= O � Q 0 0 0 as U0E- z a o=} fn oQ Jad p m JUm w0CC mmm S S U S C4 z H Cn S O Y p Cl) w 0 S S W w U z} Q Q Cl) w Z to J cn W Z= z J }} W p Y a Z U Cn to CL0 °� = w � = w S Q¢ ¢ SQa��= J w Q U m ZwQacw Q 2 a w z a CO wo: Cn LL}= p wo m� W 0 0 0 z S oC S Q(L O Z J Q U M a0wwzWO-'�C S � U S� fn cc S Q } zzOzzpLLCC H w H 0 0 0' w S W S 0cc -� w S tt Q 2 Q U w Z O � m w 0 (7 F- a O m- O Q z Z 0 F- J W F- N O 0 z w H M } Z w 0 x 0 U w Q� S W S M Q Q Y Q W rn S to S 2 LL to J J m } H w S U- z>> W W S w Q J 2 Q Q W g `n Q Z Z ?S 3 a 0 V W d� W W > 2 W Q Q m Q m U S U O U U 0 O 0 0 2 m Y Y W J J J 322 Q Q Q 2- Z Z 0 G I (Z ILL I= U M U N S w Q S >>> Q M O 00 of O co CA N wp n O m n O np M w O to t0 CA m O M Cn n w M M w N M O w O m O N O w M O Ne O w CD O_ O tlf O) 0 O N N w n N C� W r O) m M n M N N m �_ p to O v N N M (A CA O O M O st V' ppppp �' pQQ r N a' CfI CA et epp}} �' t0 OpnpD O o8o '7 gyp�p}} aOD CppD C) 4) S S S S S m S S S S CC Q Q S S Q Q S Q Q S 0 S S Q Q Q Q 2 2 m S 2 2 S S 2 S S S 0 Q M O O tf N r o O M +- S N O O N pp O pp cD N N M O S N pp M O in M pp N S S S O 6 O M to O O Cp O) r O 0 N 0 N 0 v CO O O O O O O C7 O 4 6 O$ O M O 6 r 0 r 0 0 0 0 6 0 g tD O O O M O d O O N� O 6 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 O 6 to 6 6 N ?) n CJ) N O r O O O to CO 0 0 0 0 m O v O 0$ W O O N 1n to CA O r O) O a r n n et n n C7 n N n 'V' n n n n C7 n v n n a n v n V n n n rn v rnrn 't �' n co n n Cl) n Cl) n C.) n n c9 n d' n C7 n M n �7 n n of n v n v n M n v n a n V n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M M Cl) Cl) M M M co M M M M M M Cl) M M M M M M M n M r- M rL M r: M n M r: M n M � M n M r: M r- M r, M r: M r: M � M r% Cl) r Cl) n Cl) n C) N N n N n N rn N n N n N n N N. N N n N n N I n N I n N I n N I n N n N n N n N n N I rn N I n N I n N n I N n N n N I n N n N n N N. N I n N rn N n N rn N I n N I n N 1 n N rn N rn I N 104 n 1 n N I r. N 0 Ch w & a = & — § 7 § § § 20 e o z o o G . . LU q z a: a. o E z w 7kt§ C14 E > w \ 0 O § c / cc L » § » § L § M to 9 z @ « W Q \ § § LL, cc } I a. Ccw ® § w zLL, 2 / Q-2 w z z z CC w -j a E \ k§ ciu-n - a:< < — m - § z } z Q E z \ Z % z -J \ z > j o Q _j k E L < w c = R E § I CL z 2 w & a m E/< a w e CC ° § M § § k k co s§ Lons § §) Cc, § = ) I � « \ 2 � p p % ƒ 0 9 0 0 0 0 a % % % % \ - d o. y I e ZZI L y 0 �39(� ter. LG`. C•:.- r� tt— t Ap - o Jv • I OL /G l N o, / /' � '��' Ot046 f � �Q /� • ^ �� •ice i - j V ? �l'i1 dt s1 A.N Q e .y ,A do let ZO Ae �+• .i � 1 IIf Area e-v V. jor QMA- Ar 41 10 AVC % a V � � �+ I •• IQ Q s . u i � �+ / �r • .� I L - - I��s• i KM STREET II 1 I I of I b w� I o 5 20 30 A0 3arT I erg• I' -Ka I n4torwwAbTAKENr119tUacmM I I I I rrvcmoerc�rcr nwrr,�x�nari �fhT10N YC�J' GIl11D 31iQ'i7,-JaTYaJ � 1471 (wwOOIIIL�R/Q[OS. I� �MrW .1Z MC OF C I I Ae5 D% r CE ".K- 4 TH I uxnromweaec.wrieavn+P5 Nvr I -"' -- Alpine Surveys, Inc. ♦eo«�, cov.ao e�eia e>o sxs xeee jT() _J1I ire jaw Lo mcmEK-j pr tc-r:�t cie .1:r7 ri. ca�a;vn s • s owindows. Clerestory windows, deter to the architects on the HPC. Majority comfortable with the design of the house. Some members disliked the garage facing the street and the Iona linear corridor. Concerns of the neighbors need addressed. Grant designation. Clerestory represented on the model is closer to what is acceptable as opposed to the drawings presented. Don't loose the horizontality of the roof. Concern of the height of the stair tower volume as it over powers the house, possibly adjust window portions or add a band. 1LIOTION: Roger moved to continue the public hearing and table conceptual review, partial demolition and landmark designation until.jpril 8, 1998; second by .Llelanie. .-Ill in favor, motion carried. Site visit scheduled at NOON, April 8, 1998. 930 KING STREET - CONCEPTUAL - LD - PH - Partial demolition on -site relocation, variances Amy Guthrie, planner informed the HPC that three the five standards have been met. It is a modest miners cottage of the Victorian era. There are three issues: relocation of the historic house on the site; where driveways should be placed for the two houses and the third compatibility concerns. Staff is generally in favor with the concept of the program. It is a great way that the historic landmark lot split can benefit everyone. The previous approval was for a single family house. HPC needs to give solid feedback on this project. A reduction in height was addressed. The FAR bonus was reduced. Staff recommends reversing the site plan so that the historic house remains on the corner site and this proposal places it on an interior lot and she feels it will be lost in the mass of the addition. In the proposed site plan they shifted the house to the east but it is in the drip line of the trees and Staff has not received formal comments from the parks department but typically that is not allowed. Staff recommends tabling and to restudy the architecture and address compatibility but the lot split and partial demolition and landmark requests are acceptable. 0 ASPEN HISTORI&ESERV ATION CONIMISSIS MINUTES OF March 25, 1998 Sworn in by Chief Deputy Clerk: Augie Reno, Harris Kahn, Laurie Winnerman, Larry Winnerman. Jackie Kasaback, Julie Maple and her husband and Jim Mickey. Augie Reno, architect presented: At the worksessions the placement of the historic house has always been in the same position, never once until a site visit was the discussion brought up to relocate the house and that was not clear due to interruptions. The proposed driveway is off of Neale Ave. which Amy suggested. At the third .Vorksession rotation of the house was mentioned but not by the majority of the board and option 5 was chosen by the HPC as the plan to go with. The goal is to preserve the house. , After each worksession the architects determined the summation as HPC did not give anv summary on what the majority wanted. There are site constraints on how ,he historic house would be seen, the lot narrows to the west. If the house were to be relocated to the west it would be much further away from the road than it is today just by the shape of the lot. The topography of the lot is different as it is higher on the corner. The proposal is to keep the house ten feet away from the street pretty much in the same location where it would ce viewed as it is today. The corner house sits back further and will not overbear the historic house. Augie corresponded with the Parks Dept. and he indicated that the roots have been directed to the area of least resistance and he assured me by lifting the building up that the trees could be saved by the right technology in digging out for the foundation and the feeding of the trees. It is the intention to leave the trees. Harris Kahn relayed the partners intention as it relates to the project. He lives four houses away and he owns property on King St. He has been familiar with the site for the past 15 years. The intent is to make the site look natural and they aren't looking for anything other than what they are entitled to. r Augie relayed that the historic house would be moved approximately ten feet to the east. It is still ten feet off the property line. A variance would be needed. There is a five foot setback variance for the side yard requested. The house would get renovated and there is an eight foot, one story length between the historic house and the new addition. The old house will stand on its own. The smoke house and out house will stay as they are for storage 7 V March 25, 1998 use. The new house sits at the west and of the property and the front yard is 25 feet from the Neale Ave. side and 16.8 from the King Street side. We are 7 feet behind the front face of the historic house. The driveway on house A is 60 feet from the corner and a, ence is proposed on the north and east property line and splits the properties and the fence will not exist for the first 30 feet from the west property line. On the south elevation the historic house will be renovated with the original materials and what cannot be saved will be replicated. Materials will be picked up from the historic house. The new house on the wegt tries to keep gabled forms and tries to keen ver ical windows and horizontal siding -all to be compatible. The size of the new building is 55 feet in length by 24 feet. The Maples house is 50 feet and the adjacent houses are 53 and 90 feet. Mr. Mickev reported that his house is 37 feet long and the Maple's house is 40 feet long. Augie informed the HPC that on the west elevation the architecture was broken up by a porch and a one story element. A corner element was created by turning the mass. The mass is also broken up on the west side. The west side plane steps back. The breaking up also creates a view. The chimney is stone and the roof is broken up with small shed type dormers. The east elevation of the historic house stays as it is and there is a link between and the gabled shape that sits behind the houses. In both houses they tried to put the garages away from the street view. On the North elevation the roof height relates to the historic house. Stone, siding and wood timber are proposed. Horizontal siding is proposed and it is compatible with the horizontal clapboard siding. There is no stone on the old house but in the neighborhood some houses have stone and some do not. Stone, base is proposed. The fence proposed is a six foot high solid fence. Gilbert inquired about the glass on the historic building that faces east as it faces the adjacent property line. Augie relayed that the glass gives the view to Independence pass and it is the dining area. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing. N. March 25, 1998 Julie Maple wrote a letter in behalf of her Father-in-law which was included in the packet. One major Issue is the driveway between her father -in-laws property and the proposed property. She is not positive the engineering dept. has given approval for the driveway and she requested that the application go to Engineering and have it approve as part of the conditions. There were three conditions and she has concerns about the hardship condition. There is a big visibility and safety issue for the driveway as people enter into the traf- c and coming down that hill it is hard to see what is coming out. She also requests that the house be brought back to the original grade. The dirt mound on the corner is not natural. Mike Maple, son of the neighbor. The most important issue is preserving the views. He feels the lot split is appropriate because it reduces the mass of the house and it has economic value. The lot split is a tremendous windfall financially. In terms of bonuses the code states that the FAR is for the historic structure and this lot split would allow a 1200 sq. ft. house and there is no need for the FAR bonus. Through the years dirt has been brought into the site for a garden and the grade should return to its normal state. Introducing a driveway into an area where there has not been one is a safety hazard. Jackie Kasabach, concerned citizen stated she is concerned about this development as she lived in the west and and watched the death of the west end and now is in the middle of the east end die. When she walks down King street it is becoming a tunnel and all you see is mass. The ice build up on the south side of the street have created enormous hazards in the winter time. When you turn the corner there should not be a huge mass. Jim Mickey, neighbor relayed that he is against the mass. When he looks out his window he sees four houses being built. Laurie Winnerman stated that the views were kept open in order to respect the neighbors views. The chair, Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. 66 March 25, 1998 Commissioner Comments Roger relayed that the lot split is beneficial to the community. The neighborhood looses one monster house. The applicant gets to build two houses and HPC reviews the entire project. Roger is opposed to moving the cottage to the other side of the property. He also felt that the Eng. Dept. should provide a definitive statement on the driveway. He also had no problem with the variance but is unclear about the bonus. Overall project is quite good but there are concerns about the fenestration. The fence on the south and west should not be solid but no problem with the north and east. Amy Guthrie informed the HPC that Nick Adeh is looking for something as a reason why the driveway should be on Neale Ave., a hardship or a preservation reason from HPC. The majority of the board felt that that lot split, partial demolition and landmark request are acceptable. The fenestration needs restudied i.e., the larger windows. There should be a strong compatibility between the addition to the historic house and the historic house and encourage that the new house have better compatibility than it does now. Gilbert felt that there is a stronger restoration if the house is closer to the existing footprint. If there are safety concerns regarding the driveway they should be addressed. Mary indicated that the applicant came in when the HPC decided to have worksessions which was time consuming for the applicant. The applicant and neighbors got caught in the middle of that process. She also felt that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. Melanie relayed that the bonus should only be given to exemplary projects. Her interpretation of the ADU is a fourth bedroom. The architecture needs more study and the house and rock fireplace are overwhelming. The back house needs broken up more and a solid fence is not appropriate and needs broken up. 10 March 2:5. 1998 Jeffrey relayed that the architect addressed the concerns of the neighbors. He also felt that the two story walls need broken up. The plate heights are high. He feels the stepping back from. the Victorian house is appropriate but has some concern about the competing gable end. The chimney is a large element on house A and needs restudied in its height and massing. Keeping the fence back on the west property line to maintain the view is appropriate. The height of the ridges on the main house need restudied as it reflects to the street and the Victorian house. It was reduced but the relationship to the Victorian. needs stepped down and restudied on the south elevation. Heidi relayed that the cottage is lost in the site on this project. The new house is far more dominant. The addition on the cottage is appropriate but the mass of the new house needs addressed. Suzannah felt that the right solution is flipping the cottage. The project should be beneficial to the historic Douse and she cannot support the current plan. The character of the addition to the historic house is well done. The driveway presented is a typical pattern. Combining the driveways is not to the advantage of the historic house. On the new house a simplified roof shape needs studied. HPC vote on the FAR bonus requested: Gilbert - yes Mary - yes Jeffrey - yes Roger - yes Melanie - no Heidi - no S uzannah - no Amy relayed that the variances requested would be 14 foot variance on the front yard for the historic house, a five foot side yard setback variance eon the east sidse of the historic house, and the 250 square foot FAR bonus. NIOTION: Roger moved that HPC grant approval at 930 King Street for the Historic Landmark, Historic Lot Split, Partial Demolition and on -site relocation. Conceptual is granted with the following conditions: 11 a) — 0 sq. ft. FAR bonus is granted b) Restudy the fenestration. c) Restudy the stone chimney. d) Restudv the architecture of the addition to the historic mouse and the new, house. Creare-a more direct compatibility in materials and design elements. e) Full landscape plan showing anv exterior Perimeter fencing. f) .4 structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the srrzccture proposed for relocation and whether the structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and resiting. - A •relocation plan shall be submitted. including posting a bond or other financial security in the amount o(330, 000. to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if ?-equired) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. ;.lotion second by .11far ,,. _Votion carried -1- 3. Su annah, _.telanie and Heidi voted no. Gilbert, Roger, Mar.- and .Ieffrey voted ves. 712 W. FR-k CIS - VID i OR Chairperson Suzannah RCid reViewed the Last and .vest dormer revision. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the revisions, second by Suzannah. All in favor, motion carried. TIPPLE INNT Melanie excused. Amy Guthrie, planner relayed at the last meeting it was recommended that HPC delay action until the Inventory is done in 1999 to see how it fits in the overall history of the town. HPC asked Staff to provide information on the status of the Tippler and if there was anything that HPC should have been involved in. Thev have their Growth Management allocation, P&Z 12 building, the special review for parking as proposed, and the special review to establish the AH1-PUD lot area requirements as suggested by the applicant, without conditions for Alpine Cottages. Tim Mooney second. APPROVED 4-0. MOTION: Roger Hunt further moved to recommend approval of the consolidated conceptual/final PUD, rezoning to AH1-PUD, and subdivision for the Alpine Cottages to the City Council with conditions 1-31 outlined in the Community Development Staff memo dated May 19, 1998 with the deletion of the 6th bullet under condition 2. Tim Mooney second. APPROVED 4-0. PUBLIC HEARING: BIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE MEADOWS SPA MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearing on Biennial review of the Meadows SPA to June 2, 1998. Tim Mooney second. APPROVED 4-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 930 KING STREET ADU and LANDMARK DESIGNATION Sara Garton, Chairperson, opened the continued public hearing. Julie Ann Woods noted the commission had the information from the May 5, 1998 meeting with the addition of a petition. She added a cover memo noting Standard C. She said there was a historic lot split that goes onto council from HPC. Garton stated that HPC recommended the two curb cuts. Augie Reno, architect for applicant, responded that the HPC recommended having the two separate driveways. He said there was discussion that an alley was originally platted along that driveway and worked with Mr. Maples (north side of property) to preserve his view of Aspen Mtn. Reno noted the Neale Street side setback was 25' and King Street setback was 16' 8" which pushed the house closer to the old house with the addition but not enough room two driveways between the houses. Garton said if the lot split goes through, there will be two different owners; therefore driveways should not be shared. Reno stated the shared driveways could cause problems and R Ll there would be more pavement surface to allow for 2 cars in one area; engineering and HPC concurred that amount of hard surface was too much. Garton asked what engineering said about the blind hill. Reno said they had satisfied everything engineering requested; 50' distance from the corner of King Street and cone of vision. He said midday on Friday Nick Adeh, the city engineer, requested that they have an engineer look at the grades at Gibson and Neale; they are in the process of doing that now. He said the engineer was looking for drainage flow and capacity from their driveway. Garton stated the area was a pedestrian right-of-way all down through ?Neale with a mess at the four corner stop, which needed to be re -designed by the city. Reno said the 3rd reason for the Neale Street driveway was the one-way King Street which would be almost I %, miles further to go that way. Roger Hunt said he did not see another or a better solution to the driveway situation. Tim Mooney asked if there was an FAR bonus for the ADU and what were the intentions of the ADU. He said there was an obvious door connecting to the main residence; the recommendation stated it must have a private entrance. He wanted to know if this was going to be another bedroom or will a unit be gained. Reno replied the unit was being built by what was allowed by the ordinance. He said many caretaker units were built with a connecting door for easier access. Garton wanted to be sure this was the best land use. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to recommend approval for historic landmark designation and to approve the conditional use for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 930 King Street with the conditions #2A.-J as outlined in the Community Development Memo dated May 5, 1998. Marta Chaikovska second. APPROVED 4-0. Meeting adjourned. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 7 • PETITION 0 TO: The Historical Preservation Commission FROM: Concerned Neighbors and Negatively Impacted Neale Avenue Citizens RE: Opposition to the Proposed Second Driveway Onto Neale Avenue from the No Problem )oe/930 King Street Development We, the undersigned, concerned neighbors and Neale Avenue area citizens do hereby wish to register our concern and opposition to the proposed construction of a second driveway onto Neale Avenue and across the sidewalk that is currently shown on the 930 King Street site plan. While it may seem obvious, the second driveway as proposed would only benefit the one new residence and it would create an unnecessary hazard and potential danger source to all other users of Neale Avenue including vehicular traffic, pedestrians and bicycles. Please do not allow this needless, significant safety hazard to occur on Neale Avenue. Access can be safely provided to the subject property from the proposed King Street driveway. Thank you for your consideration. STREET AND NUMBER AND PRINT NAME MAILING ADDRESS DATE SIGNATURE I. CUtllplq K. C�uu�uc,ttiltyl Wc: HR1� G�tuF� � 1Z C a � �. ,� 2. _ .a ,GO �pllvl 1 X Q�L� 6. l•_ � - Y I 1 ` - 1 7. 1C//�lr"lIi ��lK j��" 11�ki1r?'r,r_ 9. 10 A II ✓� S C �iL % I P ! PETITION • TO: The Historical Preservation Commission FROM: Concerned Neighbors and Negatively Impacted Neale Avenue Citizens RE: Opposition to the Proposed Second Driveway Onto Neale Avenue from the No Problem Joe/930 King Street Development We, the undersigned, concerned neighbors and Neale Avenue area citizens do hereby wish to register our concern and opposition to the proposed construction of a second driveway onto Neale Avenue and across the sidewalk that is currently shown on the 930 King Street site plan. While it may seem obvious, the second driveway as proposed would only benefit the one new residence and it would create an unnecessary hazard and potential danger source to all other users of Neale Avenue including vehicular traffic, pedestrians and bicycles. Please do not allow this needless, significant safety hazard to occur on Neale Avenue. Access can be safely provided to the subject property from the proposed King Street driveway. Thank you for your consideration. STREET AND NUMBER AND PRINT NAM£T _ MAILING ADDRESS _ _ -- DATE S19ATURE C kl vGK 4 MRycE CO RNrz R Mr -AL t G 1654N MAY A 1. MAPLE M,-, gel 47-7 s, 9 2. 34� tdu.rs�- /L I q41 �1. o f2 t l E1} I fC 1Z l l� 7. 1 �j2t�1 a. !o/aN LRNLs -2,Zs Povtth­ 2Z Ct-' 1J. P R �/� 10. 11. 12. 13. PETITION TO: The Historical Preservation Commission FROM: Concerned Neighbors and Negatively Impacted Neale Avenue Citizens RE: Opposition to the Proposed Second Driveway Onto Neale Avenue from the No Problem Joe/930 King Street Development We, the undersigned, concerned neighbors and Neale Avenue area citizens do hereby wish to register our concern and opposition to the proposed construction of a second driveway onto Neale Avenue and across the sidewalk that is currently shown on the 930 King Street site plan. While it may seem obvious, the second driveway as proposed would only benefit the one new residence and it would create an unnecessary hazard and potential danger source to all other users of Neale Avenue including vehicular traffic, pedestrians and bicycles. Please do not allow this needless, significant safety hazard to occur on Neale Avenue. Access can be safely provided to the subject property from the proposed King Street driveway. Thank you for your consideration. STREET AND NUMBER AND PRINT NAME MAILING ADDRESS DATE SIGNATURE 2.R'GS 3. Ins I 4. L 'ct( IC<iSvi� 5'LI'�ik >I 2 I,I-1 1 10. 12 13. • PETITION 0 TO: The Historical Preservation Commission FROM: Concerned Neighbors and Negatively Impacted Neale Avenue Citizens RE: Opposition to the Proposed Second Driveway Onto Neale Avenue from the No Problem Joe/930 King Street Development We, the undersigned, concerned neighbors and Neale Avenue area citizens do hereby wish to register our concern and opposition to the proposed construction of a second driveway onto Neale Avenue and across the sidewalk that is currently shown on the 930 King Street site plan. While it may seem obvious, the second driveway as proposed would only benefit the one new residence and it would create an unnecessary hazard and potential danger source to all other users of Neale Avenue including vehicular traffic, pedestrians and bicycles. Please do not allow this needless, significant safety hazard to occur on Neale Avenue. Access can be safely provided to the subject property from the proposed King Street driveway. Thank you for your consideration. STREET AND NUMBER AND PRINT NAME MAILING ADDRESS DATE SIGNATURE 1. K T r 71 cl y �� 4. 5. 6. 7. S. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. PETITION CS (i. PIS 41 P TO: The Historical Preservation Commission t L FROM: Concerned Neighbors and Negatively Impacted Neale Avenue Citizens 4 RE: Opposition to the Proposed Second Driveway Onto Neale Avenue from the No Problem Joe/930 King Street Development We, the undersigned, concerned neighbors and Neale Avenue area citizens do hereby wish to register our concern and opposition to the proposed construction of a second driveway onto Neale Avenue and across the sidewalk that is currently shown on the 930 King Street site plan. While it may seem obvious, the second driveway as proposed would only benefit the one new residence and it would create an unnecessary hazard and potential danger source to all other users of Neale Avenue including vehicular traffic, pedestrians and bicycles. Please do not allow this needless, significant safety hazard to occur on Neale Avenue. Access can be safely provided to the subject property from the proposed King Street driveway. Thank you for your consideration. STREET AND NUMBER AND PRINT NAME MAILING ADDRESS DATY SIGNATURE 2.-cic✓Ld 3. W -130 MA-nALE55 O2 MEAMSJBr F' .... • 1� //.:�< vim. � r� CA.,(F T' 9. toLe i l� �� DN.�1L -'rm'j 13. l- � JKa (l- • PETITION TO: The Historical Preservation Commission FROM: Concerned Neighbors and Negatively Impacted Neale Avenue Citizens RE: Opposition to the Proposed Second Driveway Onto Neale Avenue from the No Problem Joe/930 King Street Development We, the undersigned, concerned neighbors and Neale Avenue area citizens do hereby wish to register our concern and opposition to the proposed construction of a second driveway onto Neale Avenue and across the sidewalk that is currently shown on the 930 King Street site plan. While it may seem obvious, the second driveway as proposed would only benefit the one new residence and it would create an unnecessary hazard and potential danger source to all other users of Neale Avenue including vehicular traffic, pedestrians and bicycles. Please do not allow this needless, significant safet), hazard to occur on Neale Avenue. Access can be safely provided to the subject property from the proposed King Street driveway. Thank you for your consideration. STREET AND NUMBER AND PRINT NAME MAILING ADDRESS DATE --SIGN TUBE P-LtYN K 5. 4. / i 7 f LAA 6. 8. ",�J foo`('J 10. / l APC.Y Lut% 11. Nla C i rt D le La v+e S 3 9� < `� C9, 12. SV CZ901 s l� • PETITI00 TO: The Historical Preservation Commission FROM: Concerned Neighbors and Negatively Impacted Neale Avenue Citizens RE: Opposition to the Proposed Second Driveway Onto Neale Avenue from the No Problem Joe/930 King Street Development We, the undersigned, concerned neighbors and Neale Avenue area citizens do hereby wish to register our concern and opposition to the proposed construction of a second driveway onto Neale Avenue and across the sidewalk that is currently shown on the 930 King Street site plan. While it may seem obvious, the second driveway as proposed would only benefit the one new residence and it would create an unnecessary hazard and potential danger source to all other users of Neale Avenue including vehicular traffic, pedestrians and bicycles. Please do not allow this needless, significant safety hazard to occur on Neale Avenue. Access can be safely provided to the subject property from the proposed King Street driveway. Thank you for your consideration. STREET AND NUMBER AND PRINTNAME MAILING ADDRESS DATE SIGNATURE JCn7T ti1At6k4C4,.6d/ M i nt.u./ - - u F NOUN `,1 rt ► I • n - �X TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager FROM: Mick Adeh, City Engineev� l DATE: July 20, 1998 RE: Proposed Driveway for 930 King Street Single Family House Early in May 1998. the applicant's architect. Gibson Reno. requested a review of their client's house plan with a curb cut on Neale Avenue. This request was conditionally acceptable to Engineering Department if certain safety criteria was met. This criteria was explained to project architect and further filed information was requested to evaluate the feasibility of a curb cut on top of a hill with 10.77% longitudinal slope. The criteria described to the architect includes the following safety measurement parameters: VISION TRIANGLE AT DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE OR EXIT POINT This parameter is generally defined as the length of the longest size vehicle entering or exiting a driveway, and is measured perpendicular to the sidewalk or edge of street pavement. We selected a 15 feet long passenger car from the back edge of the existing sidewalks towards the property. No vertical sight barriers. including, trees, or other landscaping features such as fences, hedges or bushes taller than 36 inches shall be allowed within this vision triangle. The applicant will have to set the driveway at a point from the north property line to meet this criteria to ensure safe vehicle exits onto -Neale Avenue. The applicant is also asked to maintain a 50 ft. minimum distance between the closest edges of the new driveway and King Street. The property frontage is long enough to accommodate this criteria. SIGHT DISTANCE VISUAL OBSERVATION TESTS FOR VARIOUS SPEED TAPERS Using 25mph posted speed limit, we conducted two directional sight distance tests between Gibson and Queen Avenues. We used the following parameters: 1. Driver's perception, decision and action = 3 seconds, equaled to 110 ft. road length. 2. Deceleration taper length for local/residential collector street functional classification = 8/1. 3. Visual sight distance measurement at actual driver eye level (42 inches) measured from the driveway surface which is normally 6 inches above the road surface. The results of our observation tests based on the actual drive conditions are shown in the following tabular form: Speed Reduction Taper (Linear Feet) Posted Speed (ytPH) Min. Sight Dist. Required (SSD. in Linear Feet) Visible Sight Distance (SD. in Linear Feet) 8 feet per each speed mile 25 310 311 • • 930 King Street Page 2 CALCULATED STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE In this examination, we used the formula found in the AASHTO's book, 1984 edition, and obtained necessary parameters presented in several tables. We used the following data to calculate the stopping sight distance (SSD) for 25mph and 30mph travel speeds: 1. Total SSD = Decision Distance + Braking Distance 2. Design speeds = 25 mph & 30 mph 3. Road profile slope = 10.77% (obtained from survey data provided by Sopris Engineering Company on July 16, 1998. 4. Visible distance from driver eye level to toe of slope = 264.0 ft. Using the formula for roads at significant slope and the criteria for responsible and responsive drivers, we calculated the SSD for the following speeds: a) SSD at 25 mph speed = 186.50 ft < 264.0 ft, vehicle visible distance b) SSD at 30 mph speed = 255.80 ft < 264.0 ft, vehicle visible distance CONCLUSIONS We can learn from various sight distance evaluations discussed in this report that a 16 ft. wide proposed driveway, if centered at 23 ft. from the north property line, will not pose any traffic movement hazard under posted speed limits. As it can be noted from the calculated results, the visible distance to motorist at driveway exit point, is significantly greater than needed minimum SSD. Therefore, I recommend the location for the proposed driveway as an acceptable option. 930KLNG I • 40 1Xt4 iB iT tj TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Amv Margerum, City Manager FROM: dick Adeh, City Enginee%�� DATE: July _0, 1998 RE: Proposed Driveway for 9=0 K-ing Street Single Familv House Early in May 1998. the applicant's architecL Gibson Reno, requested a review of their client's house plan with a curb cut on Neale Avenue. This request was conditionally acceptable ro Engineering Department if certain safety cntena .vas met. This cntena was explained to project architect and further filed information was requested to evaluate the feasibility of a curb cut on top of a hill with 10.7 71'c longitudinal slope. The cntena described to the architect includes the following safery measurement parameters: VISION TRIANGLE AT DRIVEWAY EN7K-V CE OR EXIT POINT This parameter is generally defined as the length of the longest size vehicle entering or exiting a driveway, and is measured perpendicular to the sidewalk or edge of street pavement. We selected a 15 feet long passenger car from the back edge of the existing sidewalks towards the property. No vertical sight ba:ners. including Lees. or other landscaping features such as fences. hedges or bushes taller than 36 inches shail be allowed within this vision triangle. The appiicant will have to set the drivewav at a point from the north property line to meet this cntena to ensure sane vehicle exits onto Neaie Avenue. The applicant is also asked to maintain a 50 ft. minimum distance between the closest edges of the new drivewav and King Street. The property frontage is long enough to accommodate this criteria. SIGHT DISTANCE VISUAL OBSERVATION TESTS FOR VARIOUS SPEED TAPERS Using 25mph posted speed limit, we conducted two directional sight distance tests between Gibson and Queen Avenues. We used the following parameters: 1. Driver's perception, decision and action = 3 seconds, equaled to 110 ft. road length. 2. Deceleration taper length for local/residential collector street functional classification = 8/1. 3. Visual sight distance measurement at actual driver eye level (42 inches) measured from the driveway surface which is normally 6 inches above the road surface. The results of our observation tests based on the actual drive conditions are shown in the following tabular form: Speed Reduction Taper (Linear Feed I Posted Speed (MPH) Na. Sight Dist. Required (SSE). Ln -1 =u Feet) Visible Sight Distance (Sr). m Linear Feet) 8 feet per each speed mile 25 310 311 930 King Street Page 2 CALCULATED STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE In this examination, we used the formula found in the AASHTO's book, 1984 edition, and obtained necessary parameters presented in several tables. We used the following data to calculate the stopping sight distance (SSD) for 25mph and 30mph travel speeds: 1. Total SSD = Decision Distance + Braking Distance 2. Design speeds = 25 mph & 30 mph 3. Road profile slope = 10.77% (obtained from survey data provided by Sopris Engineering Comp--^.y on July 16, 1998. 4. Visible distance from driver eye level to toe of slope = 264.0 ft. Using the formula for roads at significant slope and the criteria for responsible and responsive drivers, we calculated the SSD for the following speeds: a) SSD at 25 mph speed = 186.50 ft < 264.0 ft, vehicle visible distance b) SSD at 30 mph speed = 255.80 ft < 264.0 ft, vehicle visible distance CONCLUSIONS We can learn from various sight distance evaluations discussed in this report that a 16 ft. wide proposed driveway, if centered at 23 ft. from the north property line, will not pose any traffic movement hazard under posted speed limits. As it can be noted from the calculated results, the visible distance to motorist at driveway exit point, is significantly greater than needed minimum SSD. Therefore, I recommend the location for the proposed driveway as an acceptable option. 9-30UNG 1 vW Q � d U O z 3 a� 0 U N w A0930 King Street age 2 CALCULATED STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE In this examination, we used the formula found in the AASHTO's book, 1984 edition, and obtained necessary parameters presented in several tables. We used the following data to calculate the stopping sight distance (SSD) for 25mph and 30mph travel speeds: 1. Total SSD = Decision Distance + Braking Distance 2. Design speeds = 25 mph & 30 mph 3. Road profile slope = 10,77% (obtained from survey data provided by Sopris Engineering Company on July 16, 1998. 4. Visible distance from driver eye level to toe of slope = 264.0 ft. Using the formula for roads at significant slope and the criteria for responsible and responsive drivers, we calculated the SSD for the following speeds: a) SSD at 25 mph speed = 186.50 ft < 264.0 ft, vehicle visible distance b) SSD at 30 mph speed = 255.80 ft < 204.0 ft, vehicle visible distance CONCLUSIONS We can learn from various sight distance evaluations discussed in this report that a 16 ft. wide proposed driveway, if centered at 23 ft. from the north property line, will not pose any traffic movement hazard under posted speed limits. As it can be noted from the calculated results, the visible distance to motorist at driveway exit point, is significantly greater than needed minimum SSD. Therefore, I recommend the location for the proposed driveway as an acceptable option. YwKII:G I 0 • , X t4 i II i T 1-� TO: THRU FROM DATE: TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT Mayor and City Council ,tnv Margerum, City Manager Nick Adeh, City July 20, 1998 Enginee l RE: °ronosed Drivewav for 930 King Street -SinolP F,m ly uou,e Early in May 1998. the applicant's architect. Gibson Reno. requested a review of their client's house plan with a curb cut on Neale Avenue. This request was conditionally acceptable to Engineering Department if certain safety criteria .vas met. This criteria was explained to project architect and further filed information was requested to evaluate the feasibility of a curb cut on top of a hill with 10. ; 7'o longitudinal slope. The criteria described to the architect includes the following safety measurement parameters: VISION TRIANGLE AT DRI 'E`VAY ENTR--kNCE OR EXIT POINT This parameter is generally defined as the length of the longest size vehicle entering or exiting a driveway, and is measured perpendicular to the sidewalk or edge of street pavement. We selected a 15 feet long passenger car from the back edge of the existing sidewalks towards the property. No vertical sight banners. including trees. or other'andscaping features such as fences. hedges or bushes taller than 36 inches shail be allowed within this vision triangle. The applicant will have to set the driveway at a point from the north property line to meet tuns criteria to ensure sale vehicle exits onto Neaie Avenue. The applicant is also asked to maintain a 50 ft. minimum distance between the closest edges of the new driveway and King Street. The property frontage is long enough to accommodate this criteria. SIGHT DISTANCE VISUAL OBSERVATION TESTS FOR VARIOUS SPEED TAPERS Using 25mph posted speed limit, we conducted two directional sight distance tests between Gibson and Queen Avenues. We used the following parameters: 1. Driver's perception, decision and action = 3 seconds, equaled to 110 ft. road length. 2. Deceleration taper length for local/residential collector street functional classification = 8/1. 3. Visual sight distance measurement at actual driver eye level (42 inches) measured from the driveway surface which is normally 6 inches above the road surface. The results of our observation tests based on the actual drive conditions are shown in the following tabular form: Speed Reduction Taper (Linear Feetl Posted Speed (M. PH) :Y1in. Sight Dist. Required SSD.:n Linear Feet) Visible Sight Distance (sD. in Linear Feet) 8 feet per each speed mile 25 310 311 00 • PETITION 0 TO: The Historical Preservation Commission FROM: Concerned Neighbors and Negatively Impacted Neale Avenue Citizens RE: Opposition to the Proposed Second Driveway Onto Neale Avenue from the No Problem Joe/930 King Street Development We, the undersigned, concerned neighbors and Neale Avenue area citizens do hereby wish to register our concern and opposition to the proposed construction of a second driveway onto Neale Avenue and across the sidewalk that is currently shown ort the 930 King Street site plan. While it may seem obvious, the second driveway as proposed would only benefit the one new residence and it would create an unnecessary hazard and potential danger source to all other users of Neale Avenue including vehicular traffic, pedestrians and bicycles. Please do not allow this needless, significant safety hazard to occur on Neale Avenue. Access can be safely provided to the subject property from the proposed King Street driveway. Thank you for your consideration. STREET AND NUMBER AND PRINT NAME MAILING ADDRESS /V1A<-6A--XC=of iU3 Mr r)L,4Wg )7 ,L PC_ AS Pr C4 111-13 DATE 1,2 SIGNATURE / -1V -Pee 4. yeti c�dJ+��rl L��� �ckc +cp r ROL 6.�i� y01,-Pu, gax `�$2q ASPEN 8. 'Iii7ltl — eu (--tLiLkl 31 i Lt � W C ,� G . S . s z % - 5? 9. ') � r 13. 1 U, Q N c 4 . • PETITION • TO: The Historical Preservation Commission FROM: Concerned Neighbors and Negatively Impacted Neale Avenue Citizens RE: Opposition to the Proposed Second Driveway Onto Neale Avenue from the No Problem Joe/930 King Street Development We, the undersigned, concerned neighbors and Neale Avenue area citizens do hereby wish to register our concern and opposition to the proposed construction of a second driveway onto Neale Avenue and across the sidewalk that is currently shown on the 930 King Street site plan. While it may seem obvious, the second driveway as proposed would only benefit the one new residence and it would create an unnecessary hazard and potential danger source to all other users of Neale Avenue including vehicular traffic, pedestrians and bicycles. Please do not allow this needless, significant safety hazard to occur on Neale Avenue. Access can be safely provided to the subject property from the proposed King Street driveway. Thank you for your consideration. STREET AND NUMBER AND PRINT NAME MAILING ADDRESS DATE SIGN TU / i � s PETITION PIC TO: The Historical Preservation Commission (F U 1 FROM: Concerned Neighbors and Negatively Impacted Neale Avenue Citizens —(�A �2- RE: Opposition to the Proposed Second Driveway Onto Neale Avenue from the No Problem Joe/930 King Street Development We, the undersigned, concerned neighbors and Neale Avenue area citizens do hereby wish to register our concern and opposition to the proposed construction of a second driveway onto Neale Avenue and across the sidewalk that is currently shown on :he 930 King Street site plan. While it may seem obvious, the second driveway as proposed would only benefit the one new residence and it would create an unnecessary hazard and potential danger source to all other users of Neale Avenue including vehicular traffic, pedestrians and bicycles. Please do not allow this needless, significant safety hazard to occur on Neale Avenue. Access can be safely provided to the subject property from the proposed King Street driveway. Thank you for your consideration. STREET AND NUMBER AND PRINT NAME MAILING ADDRESS D/AT SIGNATURE 4 III 6�9 3 - (::�)_ 1. ky � * 23 2. 3. \� C - �(6O 613192, V� 4�-711(� � UJ N ; l f� Z3Z3 /2?k ��n L!�s (� y�-7 V_ Ear- 1: Loti, 8. )7114 L""d &%viAie . 3 h n�atj 10. 1. ,a 73�5 12.E • PETITION • TO: The Historical Preservation Commission FROM: Concerned Neighbors and Negatively Impacted Neale Avenue Citizens RE: Opposition to the Proposed Second Driveway Onto Neale Avenue from the No Problem Joe/930 King Street Development We, the undersigned, concerned neighbors and Neale Avenue area citizens do hereby wish to register our concern and opposition to the proposed construction of a second driveway onto Neale Avenue and across the sidewalk that is currently shown on the 930 King Street site plan. While it may seem obvious, the second driveway as proposed would only benefit the one new residence and it would create an unnecessary hazard and potential danger source to all other users of Neale Avenue including vehicular traffic, pedestrians and bicycles. Please do not allow this needless, significant safety hazard to occur on Neale Avenue. Access can be safely provided to the subject property from the proposed King Street driveway. Thank you for your consideration. STREET AND NUMBER AND PRINT NAME MAILING ADDRESS DATE SIGNATURE 1. �Gc) Eu � E 0 (Q o$ I jj� 2. —1 � , ��-� �. I 1 's' t\J e c,S .� ,t�:l 3 / 9 3. I►-�t11 �Uk� �'� 'llclY PETITION • C4 , TO: The Historical Preservation Commission FROM: Concerned Neighbors and Negatively Impacted Neale Avenue Citizens RE: Opposition to the Proposed Second Driveway Onto Neale Avenue from the No Problem Joe/930 King Street Development We, the undersigned, concerned neighbors and Neale Avenue area citizens do hereby wish to register our concern and opposition to the proposed construction of a second driveway onto Neale Avenue and across the sidewalk that is currently shown on the 930 King Street site plan. While it may seem obvious, the second driveway as proposed would only benefit the one new residence and it would create an unnecessary hazard and potential danger source to all other users of Neale Avenue including vehicular traffic, pedestrians and bicycles. Please do not allow this needless, significant safety hazard to occur on Neale Avenue. Access can be safely provided to the subject property from the proposed King Street driveway. Thank you for your consideration. STREET AND NUMBER AND PRINT NAME MAILING ADDRESS DATE SIGNATURE ` Cf}cte(Sk� �D S & 1. �OSe � P ccih 191, e B9 3 2.(!� l P—t 4 C)Pfl_I 3. toK l� SeQ6 fZ14t� d �? - 4. Mct( �< �%�r S ri �T' i� ` �'CA��w CaV V �e 6. �- 10 12. 13 q-2HP, r • PETITION 0 TO: The Historical Preservation Commission FROM: Concerned Neighbors and Negatively Impacted Neale Avenue Citizens RE: Opposition to the Proposed Second Driveway Onto Neale Avenue from the No Problem Joe/930 King Street Development We, the undersigned, concerned neighbors and Neale Avenue area citizens do hereby wish to register our concern and opposition to the proposed construction of a second driveway onto Neale Avenue and across the sidewalk that is currently shown on the 930 King Street site plan. While it may seem obvious, the second driveway as proposed would only benefit the one new residence and it would create an unnecessary hazard and potential danger source to all other users of Neale Avenue including vehicular traffic, pedestrians and bicycles. Please do not allow this needless, significant safety hazard to occur on Neale Avenue. Access can be safely provided to the subject property from the proposed King Street driveway. Thank you for your consideration. STREET AND NUMBER AND PRINT NAME- MAILING_ ADDRESS _ DATE SIG ATURE c i ci< 4 M)WE jj -.MAILING IVFAL If GIBSoN May � 1. M A PL. E hq�7 GJB�opr y4v6 , 2. ,3 cafa .0, Z 4. 1��s a C�fi►� 3R�n2 n3-1(,ali i 5. r� `e� A J\A'► r\� z 2-1-1 -Te a I P zz 7. \ 8. 10. 12. 13. 6 PETITION 0 TO: The Historical Preservation Commission FROM: Concerned Neighbors and Negatively Impacted Neale Avenue Citizens RE: Opposition to the Proposed Second Driveway Onto Neale Avenue from the No Problem Joe/930 King Street Development We, the undersigned, concerned neighbors and Neale Avenue area citizens do hereby wish to register our concern and opposition to the proposed construction of a second driveway onto Neale Avenue and across the sidewalk that is currently shown on the 930 King Street site plan. While it may seem obvious, the second driveway as proposed would only benefit the one new residence and it would create an unnecessary hazard and potential danger source to all other users of Neale Avenue including vehicular traffic, pedestrians and bicycles. Please do not allow this needless, significant safety hazard to occur on Neale Avenue. Access can be safely provided to the subject property from the proposed King Street driveway. Thank you for your consideration. STREET AND NUMBER AND PRINT NAME MAILING ADDRESS DATE 1. 0-W1)ig V— A) M414—tA �� 15- 12-Cg 0eSse vVary s. 6.,� Kea ,Gv olw! 1 16Dt VYlg n T �7x �3S f i i • W S </-qg L S�i�Y1 Tr I21 IV� rie no,& EfL -i-,?, Ilq SIGNATURfr SO I 1 I � d I I II I I MNG ----------- � 1 I i O 5 10 20 30 ZKD W FT `--CALE` 1 °=10' j THE MAMWN A9TAKEN FROM U•g• COAbT I AND C-�Ef�DETK.. SUFYEY TRIMK�IJLATION 5fAT10N °ASPEN QUAD 3`11GYn�, STATIOi�i 1001 (NOWOf�UTPFATED) TD °ASPEN I AZIMUTH NWRK11 OF SOD'22'an,E: WA--:) I USCD A5 THE DA J C) OF DEAKING ON THIS MAP. I Alpine Surveys, Inc. Post Oltke Box 1730 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 2688 STREET Sur-&j Drafted NI)9�'�d1OPROBLEM1 • ntw LLO PFCC)UM JOF_Lr,)T SPLIT A�I'erl, CaC�4'�Cx� Job No 93 - `0 Client NO PFUFAE1A 'CAE Ini-,T11ERS, LLC. TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager Stan Clauson, Community Development Direct /640/ FROM: Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Director Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Addendum: Responses to questions 930 King St. (No Problem Joe House) Landmark Designation and Historic Lot Split DATE: August 10, 1998 Prior to the last scheduled public hearing, the Mayor had several questions related to this project. These questions are not specifically related to the landmark designation or lot split, but nonetheless are important points to be understood in considering the project. For this reason, responses are provided in a separate memo, not part of the council packet. In addition to the following responses, the staff report regarding 930 King Street, written to HPC on March 25, 1998, and the minutes of that meeting are attached. 1. Why does the house "pretend" to face Neale Ave? The address is 930 King St. Both proposed houses face and open onto King St. As shown on the proposed site plan, both houses will face King St., which is a typical and appropriate orientation for homes in this neighborhood. Only the driveway for the new house will enter off of Neale Avenue. Under the land use code, on a corner lot, the applicant may choose which yard to call the front yard. In this case, the applicant proposes to establish the front yard from Neale Avenue in order to provide a larger setback on the west side of the lot and avoid blocking views of Aspen Mountain for the neighbor behind this property (Maple). Ordinance 30 also stipulates that the front door should face the block with the most width, which in this case would be King St. 2. How much of the property has the 6' fence around it? A fence will be built on the north and east property lines: On the north, the fence will not begin until a point 30' from the west lot line in order to avoid blocking the neighbor's (Maple's) view. On the east the fence will run the full length of the property line. 3. The new house apparently has no relation whatsoever to the old. Was this considered by staff? HPC held three worksessions and at least two site visits before the March 25th meeting when conceptual approval was granted. Throughout those discussions the architect was advised to make the new house more compatible with the old building. (Originally the proposed new house had more log and stone detailing, so some progress has been made in this regard). The staff recommendation on March 25 was to continue the review again with more direction for the applicant, however the HPC voted to grant conceptual with very specific conditions for restudy, namely "restudy the fenestration, restudy the stone chimney, restudy the architecture of the addition to the historic house and the new house, create a more direct compatibility in materials and design elements." The project must still return to HPC for final approval. The applicant will be required to demonstrate that these conditions have been met satisfactorily. However, this is not an issue applicable to the Historic Lot Split criteria. 4. The old house addition appears to be an absolutely classic "hunch back. " We've talked a great deal about discouraging these, but I see no mention of the issue in the minutes or memos. Can you shed any light on this? As stated above, the conceptual approval includes a condition to restudy the architecture of the new addition. The staff memo states that the square footage the applicant wishes to add onto the old house can probably be accommodated in a compatible manner. However, more effort needs to be made to break the bulk of the new addition down into components which are more like the historic building. The gable end which meets the back of the old house is found to be overpowering in scale. 5. A number of neighbor letters refer to the FAR bonus possibly going to the new structure. What I read in the packet seems to indicate otherwise. Is it definitely untrue? Under the land use code, the FAR bonus can only be given to the designated landmark. It cannot be applied to the new residence. 6. Letters and testimony from neighbors speak to the importance of restoring the property to its original grade before doing height measurements. Has this been done? Staff met with the applicant and the neighbors to the north (Maple) to discuss this measurement. It was agreed that there probably had been some filling of the subject site. A topographic elevation of 7926' was determined to have predated fill activity (1975), and that this will be the appropriate measure from which height would be determined. 7. When HPC voted 4 to 3 to recommend approval of the project on March 25th, they attached a number of conditions for additional review and approval: fenestration, the stone chimney, compatibility of design and materials between old and new buildings. Has this additional review been conducted and the conditions satisfied? No. The HPC has not conducted their final review yet. They are waiting to see if the landmark designation and lot split are approved by the City Council. The applicant has made modifications to the design to better address these issues of the HPC. However, until action is taken by the City Council, the design cannot be finalized as the applicant may only be left with the option of designing a single family residence. 8. I see petitions signed by 88 neighbors asking for a consolidated driveway, yet this idea doesn't seem to be taken seriously in any of our memos. Is there a reason why it would not work? There were three possible options discussed in Amy Guthrie's memo to the HPC dated March 25, 1998. One option is that presented by the applicant with one driveway off of Neale Ave. and one off of King St. A second option was to have a driveway for each house off of King St., and the third option was to have a shared driveway for the two houses off of King St. The shared driveway was rejected by the applicant due primarily to inconvenience and the reduction of FAR associated with an easement being placed on the property. Staff did not feel that two side -by -side driveways would work well as pavement would dominate the view of the property. Staff found the two separate driveways acceptable and encouraged this solution as it maintains open yard space in front of the houses. The premise was to have the driveway at the back of the property function like an alley, and get cars and the garage off of the street. 9. Likewise, I see a lot of discussion in the HPC minutes (leading to their 4 to 3 vote) and a good many neighbor comments asking that the historic house be moved to the west. The memos don't tell us much about this. Would it work? Staff recommended that the historic house be moved to the corner because the smaller house on the corner would give it more prominence and a more pedestrian -scaled entry into the neighborhood. It would also have a good relationship with the historic house across the street at 114 Neale Ave. The HPC was divided on this issue and the majority decided that the historic house should remain as close as possible to its original location. 10. In one of his letters, Augie Reno refers to needing variances for both the side yard and front yard. On the other hand, his application form refers only to the side yard --and the memos do not deal much at all with this issue. What exactly, is the applicant asking? What is staffs recommendation?. Variances are requested and granted by the HPC at the conceptual design stage. A variance was granted to allow the historic residence to be setback 10' from the front. property line where 25' is required. Likewise, a 5' sideyard setback was approved where 10' is required. On corner lots, front yard is determined by the property owner, in this case they chose Neale Avenue. The remaining street facing yard (King Street) is required to meet the front yard setback requirement less 1/3 of that distance (see definition of yard, corner lots), which in this case would be 16'-6". The applicant has established the setback at 16' 8", which exceeds the minimum setback by 2". The HPC granted the requested variances. Staff was generally in favor of the concept of the proposal, but did recommend further study. 11. If we were to approve this historic designation, lot split and FAR bonus, what, if anything, would come back to us for additional approval? Would we see this project again? City Council is only considering the historic designation of a landmark and a historic lot split. City Council does not consider the FAR bonus. This is considered by the HPC during their conceptual review and a 250 square foot bonus has been approved. If the City Council approves the historic designation and lot split, there will be no further action required before City Council. The Council would not see this project again unless it chose to call up for review a subsequent HPC decision. 12. What is the justification for the FAR bonus? (I know they have the legal right to request it, but we're not obligated to give it automatically). This project makes me ask "what are we getting in return. ? " Perhaps an exceptional public benefit exists here, but I can't say it's obvious in two spec houses with an underground ADU. They are saving an old 400 square foot structure, but would they have to anyway? In May of 1997, at HPC's request, Council approved a code amendment which established the following guidelines for the bonus: "The floor area bonus will only be awarded to projects which make an outstanding preservation effort, for instance by retaining historic outbuildings or by creating breezeway or connector elements between the historic resource and new construction. Lots which are larger than 9,000 square feet and properties which receive approval for a Historic Landmark Lot Split may also be appropriate recipients of the bonus. No development application which includes a request for an FAR bonus may be submitted until the applicant has met with HPC in a workshop format to discuss the proposal, prior to design." The property is larger than 9,000 square feet and is utilizing the historic landmark lot split, which HPC finds to be a very positive program. They have created a one story linking element between the old house and new addition and they are retaining two outbuildings. As a result, HPC found the 250 square foot bonus was warranted. 13. The memos refer to `possible "future approval by the HPC of the FAR bonus. Has HPC given it? Yes. The HPC must consider the bonus at the public hearing, which takes place at conceptual review. 14. What could happen on this lot if we simply turn down the lot split? The lot is 13,343 square feet in size and is zoned R-15A, Moderate Density Residential. If the lot split is not approved, the only residential use which would be allowed on a property this size is single family residential. This would likely result in a proposal to • • add up to 4,000 square feet onto the historic house. This is the reason why the HPC is so strongly in favor of the landmark lot split concept. The FAR which could be added onto the historic house is broken into two smaller buildings, which are hopefully more compatible with the historic resource and the neighborhood. attachments: Staff memo to HPC, 3/25/98 Minutes of HPC meeting, 3/25/98 g:/planning/aspen/hpc/mscs/lartd=rV930mema.doc TO: THRU: FROM: MEMORANDUM Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Director Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer EXHIBIT ! ,O. � RE: 930 King Street- Landmark designation, Conceptual Review, Historic Landmark Lot Split, Partial Demolition, On -site Relocation -Public Hearing DATE: March 25, 1998 SUMMARY: Several worksessions and site visits have been held to discuss this proposal, which involves landmarking the property, doing a historic landmark lot split, making an addition to the existing historic structure, and building a new house on the newly created lot. Variances requested are a front yard setback variance and side yard setback variance for the historic house and an FAR bonus. Staff recommends tabling, with specific direction to the applicant for areas to be restudied. APPLICANT: No Problem Joe, LLC, represented by Gibson Reno Architects. LOCATION: 930 King Street, R-15A zone district. HISTORIC LANDMARK Section 26.76.020, Standards for designation. Any structure that meets two or more of the following standards may be designated "H," Historic Overlay District, and/or Historic Landmark. It is not the intention of HPC to landmark insignificant structures or sites. HPC will focus on those 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 good example of housing built in Aspen in the late 1800's. It has a cross gable roof, front porch, two front entries, and detailing which was common to these buildings. 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: At one time, there were many miner's cabins in this neighborhood. There are two others in the immediate vicinity and their preservation is important to maintaining the character of the area. 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 19th century, Aspen's primary period of historic significance. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, UPC 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 2 exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: As stated above, HPC has held several worksessions on this proposal, to give direction to the applicant and to review the request for an FAR bonus. From those worksessions, several key issues have been discussed, namely (1) whether, or how, the historic house should be relocated on the site, (2) how garages for the two houses should be accessed, (3) neighborhood concerns such as preservation of views. The changes that the applicant has made as an outcome of the discussions are detailed in their attached letter, dated March 18, 1998. In summary, the applicant has chosen to pursue a site plan which shifts the house towards the east. The two historic outbuildings are to be placed directly behind the old house and used as garden sheds. The new house has been set back from Neale Street so that the property owner to the north will still have clear views of Aspen Mountain. The ridgeline height of the new building has also been lowered by five feet. It must be noted that there is a problem with the site plan as proposed; the historic house is shown within the dripline of the existing trees, so that to move it eastward, it will also have to be moved back from the street. The variances requested for the proposed site plan are as follows: up to a �4 foot variance on the front yard for the historic house, a iv�e foot side yard setback variance on the east side of the historic house, and a 250 square Toot bonus (reduced from the original request for 500 square feet.) Staff is in favor of the general concept of the proposal. The existing historic house is 432 square feet. The allowed FAR, which could be added onto that small house is just less than 4,000 square feet. This is the scenario that was troublesome to HPC in the previous approval in 1994. The historic landmark lot split approach taken here is positive for both the developer and the HPC. The allowed floor area is divided into two separate structures, reducing the impact on the historic structure and the neighborhood as a whole. Referring back to the issues which HPC has focused on in the worksessions, the first issue was whether the historic house should remain in, or as close to, its original location on the lot as possible, or whether there was some benefit in changing its siting. The HPC seems to be in agreement that the house should remain as close to King Street as it currently is. As noted above, if the house is shifted towards the east, it will have to move back from the street to stay out of the tree dripline. The alternative considered was whether the site plan should be flipped, so that the old house moves to the west side of the property. This idea seems to have a lot of merit because having the smaller house on the corner gives it some prominence and provides a more pedestrian scaled entry into the neighborhood. It would also have a good relationship with the historic house across the street, at 114 Neale Avenue. 3 HPC has held a special worksession on the topic of relocating historic buildings. The outcome was a general agreement that HPC is interested in seeing historic buildings remain in their original locations. If a house is to be moved, as a result of a lot split or other remodeling activities, the house should be moved in a way that maintains its original character (i.e. a lateral move rather than moving back on the site.) There are several factors that HPC may weigh, on a case by case basis, to determine whether or not a building should be moved. The goal is to place the historic house to its best advantage in terms of historic context, visibility and compatibility with surrounding development. Staff recommends in this case that the site plan as proposed be reversed. The nature of the site will be significantly changed with the renovation of the house and addition of a new home. The historic building may be lost in the new building mass. Placing the renovated historic house on the corner will however make it all the more important that the addition is successful, since it will have high visibility. In terms of the driveways, there appear to be three possible solutions. The applicant proposes to have a separate driveway for each house, one of which accesses off of King Street, and one off of Neale Avenue. Another alternative would be to have both driveways access off of King Street, which staff finds would cause pavement to dominate that view of the property. A third alternative would be to have a shared driveway between the two buildings. The applicant has rejected the third alternative, finding that there is inconvenience associated with a shared driveway and that the easement that would be required to share access affects the maximum FAR allowed on the site. (This loss of FAR could be offset by an FAR bonus from HPC.) Staff finds that the proposed driveway configuration is acceptable and maintains adequate open yard space in front of the houses. This issue seems to be an area for compromise in relation to other issues of site plan and architectural compatibility. The applicant proposes to add approximately 1375 square feet onto the 432 square foot cabin. This is a significant increase in size, however can probably be accommodated in a compatible manner. The proposed one story connecting element between the old house and new addition is effective, however more effort needs to be made to break the bulk of the new addition down into components which are more like the historic building. The gable end which meets the back of the old house is overpowering in scale. With regard to the new house, staff finds that the materials which are used on the new house but do not exist on the old, namely log and stone, cause a conflict and are keeping the two structures from relating well to each other. Window sizes and characteristics are also significantly different. Although the property is to be subdivided into two lots, it is still important that the new and old are strongly compatible with each other. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 4 Response: The King Street area is undergoing significant redevelopment. Historically, it has been a neighborhood of fairly small, modest, single family homes. The intent of the recommendation to reverse the site plan and restudy aspects of the architecture is to help ease the transition in scale between new houses and old in the neighborhood. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: This proposal goes much further towards protecting the historic significance of the structure than did the previous one, when the only option in the Land Use Code was to build one single family house. The allocation of FAR as proposed involves a reasonable addition to the historic structure, which can be made while still retaining the overall character of the house. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: No additional demolition of the existing structure is required, beyond where the new addition connects to the historic house. The house is in a deteriorated state and will require a significant restoration effort. Detailed specifications for restoration and replication of materials where necessary must be provided. Staff has identified issues with the design of the proposed addition, which should be addressed for the next meeting. HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT REVIEW STANDARDS: The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of Section 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5), Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), and Section 26.72.010(G). Section 26.88.030(A)(2). Subdivision Exemptions Lot Split. The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all 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. 5 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). Response: Two lots are created, both of which conform to the requirements of the R- 1 5A zone district. An Accessory Dwelling Unit is proposed for the new residence. 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); and Response: No previous lot split exemption was granted. d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. Response: The filing of said subdivision plat shall be a condition of this approval. e. Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Response: The filing of said subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be a condition of this 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 applicant represents that a total of two units will be created. Section 26.88.030(A)(5), Historic Landmark Lot Split. The following standards must be met: 0 a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of 9,000 square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or a minimum of 13,000 square feet and be located in the R-15A zone district. Response: The parcel is larger than 13.000 square feet and is located in the R-15A 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 duplex FAR which would have been allowed for the fathering parcel, which in this case is 4,384 square feet plus a possible FAR bonus from HPC, will be divided between the new parcels. The applicant must clarify exactly how the FAR is to be allocated. C. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. Response: An FAR bonus and setback variances have been requested for the historic structure. 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. 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 to section 26.88.030(A)(5) shall be reviewed by HPC at a public hearing. Response: This meeting is a noticed public hearing. PARTIAL DEMOLITION 1. Standard: 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. 7 Response: Only a limited area at the rear of the house is to be demolished in order to add onto the building. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: As stated above, demolition is limited. 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: Compatibility issues are detailed above. ON -SITE RELOCATION 1. Standard: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. Response: As described above, it is important to keep the historic house close to the street, but there is interest in shifting it towards the west to give it the most prominence on the lot and within the neighborhood. 2. Standard: The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re -siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Response: Said report will be a condition of approval. 3. Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: The relocation plan and bond will be a condition of approval. 8 COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE #30 Response: Windows shown on all sides of the new construction extend into the "no window zone." The applicant may either accept a double FAR calculation for the interior space associated with these windows, eliminate the windows where they violate the standard or ask for a variance. Staff has recommended restudy of some aspects of the architecture. A variance from this standard may be appropriate in some areas of the new house, but staff does not support any variance on the historic structure because the large areas of glass are not generally compatible with the windows which are characteristic of the historic house. 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 final review • Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) • Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC continue the application to April 8, 1998, with the following direction: 1. Reverse the site plan so that the historic house is on the western lot. 2. The western lot may be accessed by a driveway from Neale Street, as shown, and the eastern lot may be accessed from King Street, as shown. 3. Restudy the architecture of the addition to the historic house and the new house. Create a more direct compatibiity in materials and design elements. 4. The lot split, partial demolition, and landmark requests are acceptable in concept, but are continued to April 8 so that the overall proposal can be amended. 9 ASPEN HISTOR&RESERV aTION COMMISAN MINUTES OF March 25, 1998 owindows. Clerestory windows, defer to the architects on the HPC. Majority comfortable with the design of the house. Some members disliked the garage facing the street and the long linear corridor. Concerns of the neighbors need addressed. Grant designation. Clerestory represented on the model is closer to what is acceptable as opposed to the drawings presented. Don't loose the horizontality of the roof. Concern of the height of the stair tower volume as it over powers the house, possibly adjust window portions or add a band. 110TION: Roger moved to continue the public hearing and table conceptual review, partial demolition and landmark designation until April 8, 1998; second by Melanie. All in favor, motion carried. Site visit scheduled at NOON, April 8, 1998. 930 KING STREET - CONCEPTUAL - LD - PH - Partial demolition - on -site relocation, variances Amy Guthrie, planner informed the HPC that three the five standards have been met. It is a modest miners cottage of the Victorian era. There are three issues: relocation of the historic house on the site; where driveways should be placed for the two houses and the third compatibility concerns. Staff is generally in favor with the concept of the program. It is a great way that the historic landmark lot split can benefit everyone. The previous approval was for a single family house. HPC needs to give solid feedback on this project. A reduction in height was addressed. The FAR bonus was reduced. Staff recommends reversing the site plan so that the historic house remains on the corner site and this proposal places it on an interior lot and she feels it will be lost in the mass of the addition. In the proposed site plan they shifted the house to the east but it is in the drip line of the trees and Staff has not received formal comments from the parks department but typically that is not allowed. Staff recommends tabling and to restudy the architecture and address compatibility but the lot split and partial demolition and landmark requests are acceptable. ASPEN HISTORI&RESERVATION COy1MI S& MINUTES OF March 25, 1998 Sworn in by Chief Deputy Clerk: Augie Reno, Harris Kahn, Laurie Winnerman, Larry Winnerman, Jackie Kasaback, Julie Maple and her husband and Jim Mickey. Augie Reno, architect presented: At the worksessions the placement of the historic house has always been in the same position, never once until a site visit was the discussion brought up to relocate the house and that was not clear due to interruptions. The proposed driveway is off of Neale Ave. which Amy suggested. At the third worksession rotation of the house was mentioned but nut by the majority of the board and option 5 was chosen by the HPC as the plan to go with. The goal is to preserve the house. After each worksession the architects determined the summation as HPC did not give any summary on what the majority wanted. There are site constraints on how the historic house would be seen, the lot narrows to the west. If the house were to be relocated to the west it would be much further away from the road than it is today just by the shape of the lot. The topography of the lot is different as it is higher on the corner. The proposal is to keep the house ten feet away from the street pretty much in the same location where it would be viewed as it is today. The corner house sits back further and will not overbear the historic house. Augie corresponded with the Parks Dept. and he indicated that the roots have been directed to the area of least resistance and he assured me by lifting the building up that the trees could be saved by the right technology in digging out for the foundation and the feeding of the trees. It is the intention to leave the trees. Harris Kahn relayed the partners intention as it relates to the project. He lives four houses away and he owns property on King St. He has been familiar with the site for the past 15 years. The intent is to make the site look natural and they aren't looking for anything other than what they are entitled to. Augie relayed that the historic house would be moved approximately ten feet to the east. It is still ten feet off the property line. A variance would be needed. There is a five foot setback variance for the side yard requested. The house would get renovated and there is an eight foot, one story length between the historic house and the new addition. The old house will stand on its own. The smoke house and out house will stay as they are for storage 7 ASPEN HISTOAPRESERVATION COMMISON -MINUTES OF March 25, 1998 use. The new house sits at the west end of the property and the front yard is 25 feet from the Neale Ave. side and 16.8 from the King Street side. We are 7 feet behind the front face of the historic house. The driveway on house A is 60 feet from the corner and a fence is proposed on the north and east property line and splits the properties and the fence will not exist for the first 30 feet from the west property line. On the south elevation the historic house will be renovated with the original materials and what cannot be saved will be replicated. Materials will be picked up from the historic house. The new house on the west tries to keep gabled forms and tries to keep vertical windows and horizontal siding all to be compatible. The size of the new building is 55 feet in length by 24 feet. The Maples house is 50 feet and the adjacent houses are 53 and 90 feet. Mr. Mickey reported that his house is 37 feet long and the Maple's house is 40 feet long. Augie informed the HPC that on the west elevation the architecture was broken up by a porch and a one story element. A corner element was created by turning the mass. The mass is also broken up on the west side. The west side plane steps back. The breaking up also creates a view. The chimney is stone and the roof is broken up with small shed type dormers. The east elevation of the historic house stays as it is and there is a link between and the gabled shape that sits behind the houses. In both houses they tried to put the garages away from the street view. On the North elevation the roof height relates to the historic house. Stone, siding and wood timber are proposed. Horizontal siding is proposed and it is compatible with the horizontal clapboard siding. There is no stone on the old house but in the neighborhood some houses have stone and some do not. Stone base is proposed. The fence proposed is a six foot high solid fence. Gilbert inquired about the glass on the historic building that faces east as it faces the adjacent property line. Augie relayed that the glass gives the view to Independence pass and it is the dining area. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing. ASPEN HISTORI&RESERV aTION COMMISS& MINUTES OF March 25, 1998 Julie Maple wrote a letter in behalf of her Father-in-law which was included in the packet. One major issue is the driveway between her father -in-laws property and the proposed property. She is not positive the engineering dept. has given approval for the drivetivay and she requested that the application go to Engineering and have it approve as part of the conditions. There were three conditions and she has concerns about the hardship condition. There is a big visibility and safety issue for the driveway as people enter into the traffic and coming down that hill it is hard to see what is coming out. She also requests that the house be brought back to the original grade. The dirt mound on the corner is not natural. Mike Maple, son of the neighbor. The most important issue is preserving the views. He feels the lot split is appropriate because it reduces the mass of the house and it has economic value. The lot split is a tremendous windfall financially. In terms of bonuses the code states that the FAR is for the historic structure and this lot split would allow a 3200 sq. ft. house and there is no need for the FAR bonus. Through the years dirt has been brought into the site for a garden and the grade should return to its normal state. Introducing a drivewav into an area where there has not been one is a safety hazard. Jackie Kasabach, concerned citizen stated she is concerned about this development as she lived in the west end and watched the death of the west end and now is in the middle of the east end die. When she walks down King street it is becoming a tunnel and all you see is mass. The ice build up on the south side of the street have created enormous hazards in the winter time. When you turn the corner there should not be a huge mass. Jim Mickey, neighbor relayed that he is against the mass. When he looks out his window he sees four houses being built. Laurie Winner -man stated that the views were kept open in order to respect the neighbors views. The chair, Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. 9 ASPEN HISTOR&RESERV aTION COMMISSAN MINUTES OF March 25, 1998 Commissioner Comments Roger relayed that the lot split is beneficial to the community. The neighborhood looses one monster house. The applicant gets to build two houses and HPC reviews the entire project. Roger is opposed to moving the cottage to the other side of the property. He also felt that the Eng. Dept. should provide a definitive statement on the driveway. He also had no problem with the variance but is unclear about the bonus. Overall project is quite good but there are concerns about the fenestration. The fence on the south and west should not be solid but no problem with the north and east. Amy Guthrie informed the HPC that dick Adeh is looking for something as a reason why the driveway should be on Neale Ave., a hardship or a preservation reason from HPC. The majority of the board felt that that lot split, partial demolition and landmark request are acceptable. The fenestration needs restudied i.e., the larger windows. There should be a strong compatibility between the addition to the historic house and the historic house and encourage that the new house have better compatibility than it does now. Gilbert felt that there is a stronger restoration if the house is closer to the existing footprint. If there are safety concerns regarding the driveway they should be addressed. Mary indicated that the applicant came in when the HPC decided to have worksessions which was time consuming for the applicant. The applicant and neighbors got caught in the middle of that process. She also felt that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. Melanie relayed that the bonus should only be given to exemplary projects. Her interpretation of the ADU is a fourth bedroom. The architecture needs more study and the house and rock fireplace are overwhelming. The back house needs broken up more and a solid fence is not appropriate and needs broken up. 10 March 25, 1998 Jeffrey relayed that the architect addressed the concerns of the neighbors. He also felt that the two story walls need broken up. The plate heights are high. He feels the stepping back from the Victorian house is appropriate but has some concern about the competing gable end. The chimney is a large element on house A and needs restudied in its height and massing. Keeping the fence back on the west property line to maintain the view is appropriate. The height of the ridges on the main house need restudied as it reflects to the street and the Victorian house. It was reduced but the relationship to the Victorian needs stepped down and restudied on the south elevation. Heidi relayed that the cottage is lost in the site on this project. The new house is far more dominant. The addition on the cottage is appropriate but the mass of the new house needs addressed. Suzannah felt that the right solution is flipping the cottage. The project should be beneficial to the historic house and she cannot support the current plan. The character of the addition to the historic house is well done. The driveway presented is a typical pattern. Combining the driveways is not to the advantage of the historic house. On the new house a simplified roof shape needs studied. HPC vote on the FAR bonus requested: Gilbert - yes Mary - yes Jeffrey - yes Roger - yes Melanie - no Heidi - no Suzannah - no Amy relayed that the variances requested would be 14 foot variance on the front yard for the historic house, a five foot side yard setback variance eon the east sidse of the historic house, and the 250 square foot FAR bonus. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC grant approval at 930 King Street for the Historic Landmark, Historic Lot Split, Partial Demolition and on -site relocation. Conceptual is granted with the following conditions: 11 March 25, 1998 a) 250 sq. ft. FAR bonus is granted. b) Restudy the fenestration. c) Restudy the stone chimney. d) Restudy the architecture of the addition to the historic house and the new house. Create a more direct compatibility in materials and design elements. e) Full landscape plan showing any exterior perimeter fencing. fi A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation and whether the structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and resiting. g) A relocation plan shall be submitted. including posting a bond or other financial security in the amount of S30, 000. 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. Motion second by Mary. Motion carried 4 - 3. Suzannah, 11elanie and Heidi voted no. Gilbert, Roger, _Wary and Jeffrey voted yes. 712 W. FRANCIS - MINOR Chairperson Suzannah Reid reviewed the east and west dormer revision. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the revisions, second by Suzannah. All in favor, motion carried. TIPPLE INN Melanie excused. Amy Guthrie, planner relayed at the last meeting it was recommended that HPC delay action until the Inventory is done in 1999 to see how it fits in the overall history of the town. HPC asked Staff to provide information on the status of the Tippler and if there was anything that HPC should have been involved in. They have their Growth Management allocation, P&Z 12 Julie Z. Alaple 10 1250 Mountain New Drive Aspen, Colorado 81611 May 22, 1998 Ms. Suzatmah Reid Chairperson Historic Preservation Committee AsperyPiGdn County Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Pr uposai for 930 :wing ytree. March 25,1998 Meeting Minutes, Approvals Chairperson Reid: Having attended the March ?5,1998 Hearing for this proposed development, vvt require clarification of the.Motion and/or take serious exception to the Motion as reported in the Meeting Minutes. My notes indicate Roger Moyer moved to grant approval for the Historic Lot Split, partial demolition and on -site relocation. He further proposed Conceptual Approval be granted, including the 250 square foot FAR Bonus, if (emphasis added), a number of components are restudied including fenestration, stone chimney, compatibility of materials, etc. As presented, members of our neighborhood group in attendance all understood there was a motion to approve the Project, including the FAR Bonus, ifthe HPC,,vas satisfied with the developer/architect's restudy on the identified items. Put another way, we understood the FAR Bonus had not been granted, and would not be granted unless and until the project is improved. Our review of the Meeting Mmutes and discussions with staff suggest the FAR Bonus has already been granted. We believe this is incorrect. We remain steadfast in our opposition to the FAR Bonus in support of the HPC requirement that the project be improved as well as for all the reasons identified in our past correspondence and Public Hearing comments. Thank you for your consideration. Mayor John Bennett Julie Woods Sarah Thomas Chuck & Bryce Maple 06-18-98 To: Whom it may concern From: Rick Magnuson Community Safety Officer Aspen Police Department This letter is in reference to the building lot between King St. and 927 Gibson Ave. I am writing this letter at the request of Mike Maple, whose family lives at 927 Gibson Ave. The building lot, which is going to be developed, has access from two streets: Neale and King. Considering both the pitch of Neale street and the speed of traffic, which causes a limited site path, I would recommend that the access to that lot be on King street. A King street access would be much safer in my opinion for vehicles , pedestrians and bicyclist. If you wish to discuss the matter further, please feel free to contact me. Very 54 yours, Rick Magnuson PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 930 KING STREET HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, July 13, 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 NPJ Partners, LLC, of Aspen, CO, requesting historic landmark designation and a historic lot split of the property located at 930 King Street, described as a parcel of land situated in the South Half of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., City of Aspen, State of Colorado, formerly known as the "Robert Davey improvements situated in the Hughes Addition to the Townsite and City of Aspen". For further information, contact Julie Ann Woods at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5100. s/John Bennett, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on June 26, 1998 City of Aspen Account County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION State of Colorado } SECTION 26.52.060 (E) 1, '3g�- ��1 , being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the following manner: 1A4M T=- J 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class, postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property with three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the _ day of , 199_ (which is _ days prior to the public hearing date of ) 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the _ �� day of _, 199t (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. Signature Si ed b fore e this ' day ,199_by WITNESS MY HAND ANP OFFICiAI, SEAL My c9nuWssion piresL� A,q), A Aj s7o-A) Notary Public's Signature ' • • PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 930 KING STREET HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, September 28, 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 NPJ Partners, LLC, of Aspen, CO, requesting historic landmark designation and a historic lot split of the property located at 930 King Street, described as a parcel of land situated in the South Half of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., City of Aspen, State of Colorado, formerly known as the "Robert Davey improvements situated in the Hughes Addition to the Townsite and City of Aspert". For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5096. s/John Bennett, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on September 12, 1998 City of Aspen Account County of Pitldn } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION State of Colorado } SECTION 26.52.060 (L) L. �- . being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the following manner. 1. By mailing of notice. a copy of winch is attached hereto, by first-class, hostage prepaid U.S. _Mail to all owners of property with three hundred (3100) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the3� day of 1998 (which is _ days prior to the public hearing date of ?. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest oublic way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuousiv from the � day of J 0-199 (Must be posted for at least ten (10) foil days before the hearing date). A photograph of the poste is attached hereto. S Signed before me this l0 day ,199Zby SIT �cN� WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: Z. — 741ZZ�-7/rl/S _— Notary b i Notary Publ c's Signature PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 930 KING STREET HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, July 13, 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 NPJ Partners, LLC, of Aspen, CO, requesting historic landmark designation and a historic lot split of the property located at 930 King Street, described as a parcel of land situated in the South Half of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., City of Aspen, State of Colorado, formerly known as the "Robert Davey improvements situated in the Hughes Addition to the Townsite and City of Aspen". For further information, contact Julie Ann Woods at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5100. s/John Bennett. Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on June 26, 1998 City of Aspen Account MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager Stan Clauson, Community Deve opment Direct r FROM: Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Director Acting Historic Preservation Officer RE: 930 King St. (No Problem Joe House) Landmark Designation and Historic Lot Split First Reading, Parcel I.D. 2737-073-00-037 DATE: June 22, 1998 SUMMARY: The applicant requests both landmark designation and approval of a historic lot split for the property at 930 King St. (No Problem Joe House). To be eligible for designation, a structure or site must meet two (2) or more of the five (5) standards contained in Section 26.76.020 of the Municipal Code. In order to qualify for a lot split, all of the criteria set forth in Section 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5), Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), and Section 26.72.010(G) must be met. Staff recommends approval of the landmark designation, finding that three (3) of the five landmark designation standards are met. Staff further recommends approval of the historic lot split, finding that, with conditions, the criteria for lot splits have been met. APPLICANT: No Problem Joe, LLC, represented by Gibson Reno Architects. LOCATION: 930 King Street (see attached Exhibit A vicinity map), R-15A zone district. BACKGROUND: The site in question (approximately 13,343 s.f.) currently contains three (3) separate structures. The principal structure, or house, was probably built in the 1880's and is approximately 432 square foot in size. The one-story, cross -gabled structure has a covered front porch, three interior "rooms", typical of mining era structures, and is in extreme disrepair. The other two structures, also in poor condition, include a smokehouse (which could also have been a chicken coop at one time) and an outhouse, both of which are probably of a similar age. Although the applicant has indicated that the "...house is believed to be an original Sears and Roebuck, ship and build cabin, which was commonly used at the beginning of this century. .."(see attached Exhibit B, land use application), staff believes that the structure pre -dates the 20th century. The double rounded glass and panel doors and the stacked trim above the windows is more indicative of an 1880's architectural style. The 1896 townsite map (see attached Exhibit C) indicates a structure of similar proportions was present on the site at that time. The property has been highlighted on the historic inventory map, however, staff was unable to locate the inventory file for this property. The applicant proposes to landmark the property, split the lot, then redevelop the site by relocating the existing historic building on -site, renovating it, and linking it to a larger addition for a total of 1,561 s.f. (Lot 2) This includes a requested FAR Bonus of 250 square feet which could be granted by the HPC at final approval. Lot 1 would be developed with a new single family residence, including an ADU (approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on May 19, 1998). This residence would have approximately 2795 s.f. for a total square footage of 4,356 s.f. divided between the two lots (the two historic outbuildings will remain). Both the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this project for Landmark status, and recommended approval (see attached minutes, Exhibits E and F). HISTORIC LANDMARK Section 26.76.020, Standards for designation. Any structure that meets two or more of the following standards may be designated "H," Historic Overlay District, and/or Historic Landmark. It is not the intention of the City Council to landmark insignificant structures or sites. The City Council should focus on those 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 good example of housing built in Aspen in the late 1800's. It has a cross gable roof, front porch, two front entries, and detailing which was common to these buildings. It is one of the few historic structures left in town that remains as it was originally built with no later additions. It does appear that an addition had been placed at the rear of the house at one time, but this has been subsequently removed. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. 2 / 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: At one time, there were many miner's cabins in this neighborhood( please refer to the 1896 map). There are two others in the immediate vicinity and their preservation, together with this resource is important to maintaining the character of the area. 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 19th century, Aspen's primary period of historic significance. HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT REVIEW STANDARDS: The Historic requirements of Section 26.88.030(A)(2) Section 26.72.010(G). Landmark Lot Split shall meet the and (5), Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), and Section 26.88.030(A)(2). Subdivision Exemptions, Lot Split. The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all 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 previously subdivided. 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). Response: Two lots are created, both of which conform to the requirements of the R- 15A zone district. An Accessory Dwelling Unit has been approved for the new residence on Lot 1. 3 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); and Response: No previous lot split exemption was granted. d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. Response: The filing of said subdivision plat shall be a condition of this approval. e. Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Response: The filing of. said subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be a condition of this 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. The existing historic house will have an addition to the rear, if approved by the HPC at final design. g. Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. Response: The applicant represents that a total of two units will be created. Section 26.88.030(A)(5), Historic Landmark Lot Split, The following standards must be met: 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. 4 Response: The parcel is approximately 13,343 square feet which is larger than the required 13,000 square feet and is located in the R-15A 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 duplex FAR which would have been allowed for the fathering parcel, which in this case is 4,384 square feet, plus a possible FAR bonus (approximately 250 square feet) from HPC, will be divided between the new parcels. According to the applicant, Lot 2 will contain 1,561 s.f. (which includes and FAR bonus, if granted by the HPC). Lot 1 would be developed with a new single family residence, which would have approximately 2795 s.f. for a total square footage of 4,356 s.f. divided between the two lots. The applicant has indicated on Exhibit "D" that Lot 1 will have 8059.99 square feet, while Lot 2 will have 5282.66 square feet. The allowable FAR for each lot must be indicated on the plat prior to recordation. It should be noted that this is the maximum square footage allowed; slope reductions and reductions for easements will be determined by the Zoning Officer prior to the recordation of the final plat. C. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. Response: Setback variances have been requested and approved by the HPC for the historic structure. An FAR bonus has also been requested but cannot be granted by the HPC until final 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. 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 to section 26.88.030(A)(5) shall be reviewed by HPC at a public hearing. Response: The HPC's meeting was noticed as a public hearing. It should be noted to City Council that the neighbors to this project have objected to the proposed location of a driveway along the north property line onto Neale Ave., expressed in terms of safety 5 concerns. Though the HPC has granted conceptual approval for this project, staff expects that this issue may be revisited by the HPC at the time of final review. Should the driveway be changed to a shared driveway on King St., then the lot sizes may need to be modified administratively, following that approval. The City Engineer has been working with the applicant to evaluate the sight distance along Neale Ave. to determine if it meets the city's standards. At the time of this writing, the results of this study have not yet been finalized. Staff has attached letters of opposition as Exhibit G. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the landmark designation of the structure and property located at 930 King St. based on a finding that standards B (architectural importance), D (neighborhood character) and E (community character) of Section 26.76.020 are met. Staff further recommends that the City Council approve the Historic Lot Split as indicated on Exhibit "D", finding that the requirements for a lot split have been met and that the lot split will further the intent of preservation by dividing the allowable square footage between the two lots as indicated, subject to the following conditions: 1. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall: a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.88.040(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code; b. Contain a plat note stating that development of Lot 1 shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c) of the Municipal Code; c. Contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; d. The two lots created by this lot split shall have a total allowable base FAR, on both lots combined, equal to 4,384 square feet of floor area prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements, etc.). The applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR on each lot, taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided into two parcels, Lot 1 containing 8059.99 square feet and Lot 2 containing 5282.66 square feet. Provided it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on 6 Lot 2 would be 1561 square feet of floor area (including a 250 square foot floor area bonus, if granted by the HPC) and 2795 square feet of floor area on Lot 1 (the two historic outbuildings will remain). The information verified by the City Zoning Officer shall be included on the plat, as a plat note; e. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R15A zone district, except the variances approved by the HPC. 2. As a minimum, the subdivision exemption agreement shall include the elements outlined in Section 26.88.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code, and shall meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section 26.88.030(A)(2)(e). 3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either lot, the applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement and pay the applicable recording fees. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the City Council shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by City Council. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve, on first reading, Ord. C;k2:), Series of 1998, landmark designation and the Historic Lot Split for 930 King St." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: Exhibits: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit `B" - Applicant's Landmark Designation Application Exhibit "C" - 1896 Townsite Map Exhibit "D" - Applicant's Proposed Lot Split configuration Exhibit "E" - HPC Minutes dated March 25, 1998 Exhibit "F" - P&Z Minutes dated May 19, 1998 Exhibit "G" - Letters of opposition g:/planning/aspen/hpc/cases/landnwk/730king. doc 7 T119AFFIC ANALYSIS REPftT TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager FROM: Nick Adeh, City 7/4�1 DATE: July 20, 1998 RE: Proposed Driveway for 930 King Street Single Family House Early in May 1998, the applicant's architect, Gibson Reno, requested a review of their client's house plan with a curb cut on Neale Avenue. This request was conditionally acceptable to Engineering Department if certain safety criteria was met. This criteria was explained to project architect and further filed information was requested to evaluate the feasibility of a curb cut on top of a hill with 10.77% longitudinal slope. The criteria described to the architect includes the following safety measurement parameters: VISION TRIANGLE AT DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE OR EXIT POINT This parameter is generally defined as the length of the longest size vehicle entering or exiting a driveway, and is measured perpendicular to the sidewalk or edge of street pavement. We selected a 15 feet long passenger car from the back edge of the existing sidewalks towards the property. No vertical sight barriers, including trees, or other landscaping features such as fences, hedges or bushes taller than 36 inches shall be allowed within this vision triangle. The applicant will have to set the driveway at a point from the north property line to meet this criteria to ensure safe vehicle exits onto Neale Avenue. The applicant is also asked to maintain a 50 ft. minimum distance between the closest edges of the new driveway and King Street. The property frontage is long enough to accommodate this criteria. SIGHT DISTANCE VISUAL OBSERVATION TESTS FOR VARIOUS SPEED TAPERS Using 25mph posted speed limit, we conducted two directional sight distance tests between Gibson and Queen Avenues. We used the following parameters: 1. Driver's perception, decision and action = 3 seconds, equaled to 110 ft. road length. 2. Deceleration taper length for local/residential collector street functional classification = 8/1. 3. Visual sight distance measurement at actual driver eye level (42 inches) measured from the driveway surface which is normally 6 inches above the road surface. The results of our observation tests based on the actual drive conditions are shown in the following tabular form: Speed Reduction Taper Linear Feet) Posted Speed (MPH) Min. Sight Dist. Required (SSD, in Linear Feet) Visible Sight Distance SD, in Linear Feet) 8 feet per each speed mile 25 310 311 930 King Street Page 2 CALCULATED STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE In this examination, we used the formula found in the AASHTO's book, 1984 edition, and obtained necessary parameters presented in several tables. We used the following data to calculate the stopping sight distance (SSD) for 25mph and 30mph travel speeds: 1. Total SSD = Decision Distance + Braking Distance 2. Design speeds = 25 mph & 30 mph 3. Road profile slope = 10.77% (obtained from survey data provided by Sopris Engineering Company on July 16, 1998. 4. Visible distance from driver eye level to toe of slope = 264.0 ft. Using the formula for roads at significant slope and the criteria for responsible and responsive drivers, we calculated the SSD for the following speeds: a) SSD at 25 mph speed = 186.50 ft < 264.0 ft, vehicle visible distance b) SSD at 30 mph speed = 255.80 ft < 264.0 ft, vehicle visible distance CONCLUSIONS We can learn from various sight distance evaluations discussed in this report that a 16 ft. wide proposed driveway, if centered at 23 ft. from the north property line, will not pose any traffic movement hazard under posted speed limits. As it can be noted from the calculated results, the visible distance to motorist at driveway exit point, is significantly greater than needed minimum SSD. Therefore, I recommend the location for the proposed driveway if other options are not feasible. 930KINGI / wRVE`2X5 CEKfIFICATE w r ti- 9) AA 15,----4'3 .tiY.FT • VSo EL.-M7 O WELL CAVm EhGCNCPMEHr CY rf-AXf EXCEP7rO FRCWI LAND r7af C4J4C Ll CCAW/7W/7)NLNrAV 0.371575 2. 100 DNE 5TOKY WOOD FRAME HQ=E y\ Ar[1U41 orfD R!✓^TIVC1'IG� IN PUDIC 'r,2 AT riG[' 7It °EftTP.YiS T7J THIS STFL.LTUICE �� ��' � � . . YELLOW rLA,5Tic W. Ln 1154 r AT545E/r 4D' OLH AILLM. CAr (w/AVCLE IRTi) BURVEyoW5 CEKIFICATE I HEXW'r CMnFY7HATTHn MAr �frl[C7ENPS A 5L R rtrll p UNDER MY W-tfVI-'0N C)" OC.7DDM 9, 19U OF THE rV0rF-RTY -HO+vN HEREON. ALrINE WKVEYS INC. Uf_----------------•---- .NME5 F F ESER, EWE`--------------- L5.1154 DAMES F fC, HEICEUr C:LKZTIFTTHAT ON MAfQ::H 26, 197 A VISUAL INSPEcnCJN WA-5 MADE UNDER MY 5U-r�ION OF THE F?0rfJK7Y S1-40WN AND DE }GIBED HE'r=tJ. NO G-WJCoES WERE FCJL)t-V APT A5 SrK)w1V ANC) NOTED HEREt)hl. -ALPTNE �Jra/t^r'S, Its. DT`------------------------------- JAME5 F ICZ._f,, SSE'- -- — -- - - LS 1,154 NOTES* LA,4PTITL GUARANTEE. C'- MITMENT NO. Q 371575 WA5 J"!%ED IN THE rfCEPARAIION OF THIS tx- Vf r. 2. TOft7C,Wl-IY 3F•DA'rJ 7 FKOM A l'14 SURVEY AND WHILE IT APrEAiZSTO DE ttUCt-TAMIALLY CL7� THE DIJICVEYOR HA`J NOT C01.4fF rTED I79 A'CL(.J r. TOro:,K I, THE , f7 SHOWN FOR ORIENTA7Kfil PUfcftJ5C9 ONLY. LF-&N- DF-49M ION: A -rr, - T Cr L"40 'iITU/TL7 M 76W- '5A CIF 31!S.TI01.1 7, 10 iOC7T:1, RAI.K£ 04 WDSr C= THE Co 74 1..M. IN, r-I- Y of ^V-MN, ?5EINX;. NY.KC FULL'f Oc7L_.RIpE.p rl7 fi7LLCTV7: 1't3' IhMtNS /Cr T4E 1JGCTFMK3T CDRAIL]C CT �. 71GLT Cf LMY) IxSIC1r�Q� IN PFOIC &*5 AT rAsC 0'YZ Cr IFE PITgN CaN Krr W"eW CDRNE7i ND lf, f.�rASPEN .bDiTQ-,4L. 1> l�lTir P-cArn N7P2Y07E IGO2f5 rT, THENCE 5 24'52'CD' W 1O'S.6f: {T ALDN& 7wF- WCST LINE or SNv 71;Ac.;-. TNGJCE N 41. 37'GYi" W 7-7 70 FT., TH&W--E N 7Y 52' 9U•' W 19. (�+ F-r' 7UUIGC L1'3d4f'IO° W 3440I FT.: 77dE7•CL N W*-,1' 54• W 23." I-T-; 71-� N- W I'S' 12• W 34.77 rT - 7HCN'x N 2')' 2D' Y7" L D I. I" FT THCI.C,E 7G9?0'3t"F- t42.4-7 fT. -Tb 744G }L71I,Ir Or De4"NNINa, CDLITAJU IALC. M, 04'i la - FT "C"M C K LZ-7 r (a,,wm Frx-P i (r 0 pqc r790, ASPEN, C-) - o 3 u L 30 40 30 n n. 5CALE: P-b' DZ715 OF DEARING U.g,C.4A6rtN Az IML7TH! 51URVEYOR'S CERTIMAM I HEREDY CERTIFY THAT T� 15 MAP AGCURATELI DEFICT5 A 5L RVIfY ~VIDE LNDei MY SUPERVI5ON cN .w tARY 5, 1114, OF THE PR7PffR Y .5l-CTNN H ON THE MALDINGe WERE CL )ND TO 2E LMkTED ENTIRELY WITH P-E ABOVE DE: MUM) PtCrnRT EicCtPf A5 f' Y AND V-� 1!- C I. THE LOCATION MAD 011"EN51ON5 Or ALL MALD'r-5, IMFRDVEMENT5, FA5&-E , RIGHTS -OF -WAY IN LMUE>`C.E OR KNDWN M ME, AND ENR'NCHHENT5 P7f OR CN THESE PREHI5IT5 ARE ACCURATELY -'+- J. ALL FiSrJ+tENT'S Or R::CORD AS INDICA=rJ7 C7.1 1-ITSC-4 Ca)LT(YTITLE, INC. TITLE POLICY (CASE NO. P'CT- 8202 C2... DATED M qr-,H 1, 1'19+ I-WVf- rtCN ALPINE a)RvtYJ 1K 0^'TE: _ ,5r .7A•MG� r< 1zG yCtC L.7. 91194 jAN 0 7 1998 is Inc, �+rMd I / 14 DL fIMIh17rM 3 -114 Ipine Surveys, 3.27 97 UPDATE 77f4 Lae No 9y 90- 2 ontw.d 17 M Qt 44 94 ibOfloe Bafl,{ Q"wd 734 A550C. 303 i25in 2"s SW" 7' I'44 INP. 7UFNEY �/T OP AND DITLJATCD IN TI 1 X JIl { 7.27A14 (ADD E.VEHF]VT) HALF OF 7EGP0N 7, TDW NSF-11- 10 t QT H F•AhL,E 10'1514 7D10fFAPHY N \✓E5TOFTHE C,TI-I PM.. CITY0FA5PEN, I`lTrJN CO., COLORAZ:0. • � 1�1 ` 1�1 1:1 r. L 11 �� 1:1 i r ice:_ r rj M4 1 VAO MAM 1 1/2 story to /* Ll w 11 lent �. 1916 1% �- V T/ parking `\ 2 1 story arKin 3c o�v zs. y I- 600Li -n3 Pft14m8,1G,A ll oN p 1 RAF r_sil Ay� 34 I� IF r . IWc i' t NEIGI-IRQI-yi-IOOD BLOCK ATTACHMENT 13 ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant: NPJ Partners Address: 317 Park Avenue, Aspen, CO. 81611 Zone district: R-15 A Lot size: 13,343 S.F. Existing FAR: Allowable FAR: 4384 S.F. Proposed FAR: 4801 S.F. includes 493 S.F. of Bonus Existing net leasable (commercial): N/A Proposed net leasable (commercial): " A Existing % of site coverage: N/A Proposed % of site coverage: N/A Existing % of open space: N/A Proposed % of open space: Existing maximum height: Pri ci a� I bldg: +/ - 18 FT Acceso ojdg• Proposed max. height: Principal bIda: 2b FT Accessory blda: Proposed % of demolition: 0 % Existing number of bedrooms: 1 Bedroom Proposed number of bedrooms: House "A" 4 Bedrooms/House "B" 3 Bedrooms Existing on -site parking spaces: 2 Spaces On -site parking spaces required: 4 spaces Setbacks Existing: Minimum required: Prcposed:House "A" 25 r Front: 11 FT Front: 25FT Front: House "B" 25 FT * Rear: 68 FT Rear: 10FT Rear. Ho B" J� f T Combined Combined Combined Front/rear: 79 FT Front/rear: Front/rear. **Side: 20 FT ( East) Side: 10 FT Side: Side: 9 4 FT (West) Side: 10 FT Side: Combined Combined Combined Sides: 114 FT Sides: Sides: Existing nonconformities or encroachments: Front setback of existing Historic House, rear yard setback re: Smokehouse & Outhouse. East side yard setback 5 FT, and 493 S.F. of Bonus Variations requested: F.A.R. related to Historic Landmark/Proposed Development. (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.ft., site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O zone districts) * Existing Historic Smokehouse rear setback is 3 FT. Existing Historic Outhouse rear setback is 4 FT. ** Existing Historic Smokehouse side (West) setback is 110 FT. Existing Historic Outhouse side (East) setback is 11 FT. i AT-T aft -04_ 4 2 !� 3 i�3 4 5I1 7 F R N C II 13114/15 16 17 16�1 2 2 7!g 9 10 11 s 5 ` ; 7'a 111 \ 2 PARK P 3 2 �.ti11ic � \ 1 �J 930 KING -STREET MAP • • • • SAN iblr i 10 SCwmg FxN pair • • Ll 6CNIRW 4r x01 �• O Ake OFF i x w i EXISTING \ NED—TO 8E RELOCATED OM SITE i !Ile TZi' / / X 96. Z \� \ 97.E t EDGE OF EXIS77NG GRAVEL DRIVE II ./ / / • ' 9,921.4.304 / / / '� `� �`� t : �`, . • 104028.3858 R OWUNE (TYP-) SET: I / e� � , /� � - --,.� _� •2*'�• Pjtt�'-�- P.EBAR W/ PIAS,CAP z;,- E S 201 1 / co ! !K t - - / / 4, _ y X9� . t- r / 9;910,030.8603 (7 1�0�5� 2770j TF PROPOSED DRVEIy Y f r_l , ►1 j �,., r SET: } REBAR WJMAS.CAP s �# L $ 20101 PLAS / �, « �� `� 1 i i ► s fib � p X„ '�•_ �\� _ � - � IV IL ' IN 00, 7 'ALE.• 1 "= 10, EKED N 0 BE \ '` • ' OCATED \0� SITE 00, / , A - X 96.201 i 1197.E EDGE OF EX/STING GRAVEL DRIVE \ / j 15 F NE \ 9,921.4304 FLOWL/NE (TYP.) 1 , 10 02 8.3858 �f \ ��JCS^�1Na' ,j f. i� - SET�:�p 2�; P H %�% P03AR W PLAS.CAP xo/ P 1 X 97� / NN , i i10, 7 - 910.5277 F PROPOSED DRIVEWAY ; ��P 1 �// ' ! �% :•,.: r/ r I 1 \ i0,0308603 5�� SET: REBAR W PLAS.CAP 00 /_fir / f , / DRYWELL GR.4TL 0.0 DRYW£LL (SEE 1 100, op 4NA xro ', 'L6 OR. -w► � £XlS77J� sPOr iniEvA noN (TYP) R Exls77NG OVERHANG L/ 1 •moo .� X � -� EX/STING BUlLO1NC PROPOSED 8 �rG FQOTP,7�N1 (TYP j f MNG MEET \O 11,1110BILI-I'M .d01? TAOT SPLIT coat vmc. — Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 2688 • PETITION • TO: The Historical Preservation Commission FROM: Concerned Neighbors and Negatively Impacted Neale Avenue Citizens RE: Opposition to the Proposed Second Driveway Onto Neale Avenue from the No Problem Joe/930 King Street Development We, the undersigned, concerned neighbors and Neale Avenue area citizens do hereby wish to register our concern and opposition to the! proposed construction of a second driveway onto Neale Avenue and across the sidewalk that is currently shown on the 930 King Street site plan. While it may seem obvious, the second driveway as proposed would only benefit the one new residence and it would create an unnecessary hazard and potential danger source to all other users of Neale Avenue including vehicular traffic, pedestrians and bicycles. Please do not allow this needless, significant safety hazard to occur on Neale Avenue. Access can be safely provided to the subject property from the proposed King Street driveway. 'Thank you for your consideration. PRINT NAME 4. 5. 6. 8. 9. t0. 12 13 STREET AND NUMBER AND MAILING ADDRESS 1 u'-At4- 115 t'J r DATE SIGNATURE v o� 4s i w/3/`1IF; • PETITION 0 TO: The Historical Preservation Commission FROM: Concerned Neighbors and Negatively Impacted Neale Avenue Citizens RE: Opposition to the Proposed Second Driveway Onto Neale Avenue from the No Problem Joe/930 King Street Development We, the undersigned, concerned neighbors and Neale Avenue area citizens do hereby wish to register our concern and opposition to the proposed construction of a second driveway onto Neale Avenue and across the sidewalk that is currently shown can the 930 King Street site plan. While it may seem obvious, the second driveway as proposed would only benefit the one new residence and it would create an unnecessary hazard and potential danger source to all other users of Neale Avenue including vehicular traffic, pedestrians and bicycles. Please do not allow this needless, significant safety hazard to occur on Neale Avenue. Access can be safely provided to the subject property from the proposed King Street driveway. Thank you for your consideration. STREET AND NUMBER AND PRINT NAM[: MAILING ADDRESS DATE SIGNATURE 1. �OSe `P [ ficl�l Skl D 5 s60h aj, e 2119 k�. /293_ -- 2. !J LALL I L- 6.LL&:L" P)U:S 't-'L. aA Eb7' C' � fhb , - -------- 3. S 'V leU n'j-ee"' c. 4- --a -J S=Z� 1( V W 6�9�5g 10. 11. 12. 13 • PETITION 0 TO: The Historical Preservation Commission FROM: Concerned Neighbors and Negatively Impacted Neale Avenue Citizens RE: Opposition to the Proposed Second Driveway Onto Neale Avenue from the No Problem Joe/930 King Street Development We, the undersigned, concerned neighbors and Neale Avenue area citizens do hereby wish to register our concern and opposition to the proposed construction of a second driveway onto Neale Avenue and across the sidewalk that is currently shown on the 930 King Street site plan. While it may seem obvious, the second driveway as proposed would only benefit the one new residence and it would create an unnecessary hazard and potential danger source to all other users of Neale Avenue including vehicular traffic, pedestrians and bicycles. Please do not allow this needless, significant safety hazard to occur on Neale Avenue. Access can be safely provided to the subject property from the proposed King Street driveway. Thank you for your consideration. STREET AND NUMBER AND PRINT NAME _ _ MAILING ADDRESS DATE SI ATURE IC PIt1Gt< 4 SP.YCE II CD -MAILING /VFAc f Gi�soN MAY AI 1.1 M A PI.E 1 q92 GIasobt 1'1v6__ __. / 9!l IA7 2.Z_ r s /18 a. 65 2TA. 22 0i S/A FnF1�kK Job LANt:�zs;- 1 ohm 5 Z 2 N 10. 11. . 12. 13. 0 PETITION 0 TO: The Historical Preservation Commission FROM: Concerned Neighbors and Negatively Impacted Neale Avenue Citizens RE: Opposition to the Proposed Second Driveway Onto Neale Avenue from the No Problem Joe/930 King Street Development We, the undersigne4j, concerned neighbors and Neale Avenue area citizens do hereby wish to register our concern and opposition to the proposed construction of a second driveway onto Neale Avenue and across the sidewalk that is currently shown on the 930 King Street site plan. While it may seem obvious, the second driveway as proposed would only benefit the one new residence and it would create an unnecessary hazard and potential danger source to all other users of Neale Avenue including vehicular traffic, pedestrians and bicycles. Please do not allow this needless, significant- safety hazard to occur on Neale Avenue. Access can be safely provided to the subject property from the proposed King Street driveway. Thank you for your consideration. STREET AND NUMBER AND PRINT NAME: MAILING ADDRESS DATE 1 CU �Iq k (:t)UuiNC�ti ( 14t1 HMj-t✓ /.Awr---- 6. 12 I GO �pllvll o 2. �, - "`' 6"Dt al', n L3. T 6D 61 SIGNATURE �L c. �� P-01-101.0100 o 10. � r 1 U PETITION 0 TO: The Historical Preservation Commission FROM: Concerned Neighbors and Negatively Impacted Neale Avenue Citizens RE: Opposition to the Proposed Second Driveway Onto Neale Avenue from the No Problem Joe/930 King Street Development We, the undersigned, concerned neighbors and Neale Avenue area citizens do hereby wish to register our concern and opposition to the proposed construction of a second driveway onto Neale Avenue and across the sidewalk that is currently shown on the 930 King Street site plan. While it may seem obvious, the second driveway as proposed would only benefit the one new residence and it would create an unnecessary hazard and potential danger source to all other users of Neale Avenue including vehicular traffic, pedestrians and bicycles. Please do not allow this needless, significant safety hazard to occur on Neale Avenue. Access can be safely provided to the subject property from the proposed King Street driveway. Thank you for your consideration. STREET AND NUMBER AND PRINT NAME: MAILING ADDRESS DATE qb:3 A ()L,4N0 P4r1*- Pc- 5-3-'70f 2.kit r 3.k1 SIGNATURE ;���,�Pa. �Ke-A--�0 7 ASS /,- 5. r ,LA. a MA 1 6. T�Q Be 301 '(u'VV0 P� p,C), gax `7'5'19 AS�E� s' Zi-9g 8. L.EvEtZtc�1 Arc 1V E1,qS- � a ►��- v , Ia. )+-S e J v 11,E 4)� _ rL- Z ;� s FL) 2S S- �5 12. 0 - 1 ' IAG ` l,l.At �1-� hrvi 3'7 ( Uj 13. �lSKxv�, • PETITION • TO: The Historical Preservation Commission FROM: Concerned Neighbors and Negatively Impacted Neale Avenue Citizens RE: Opposition to the Proposed Second Driveway Onto Neale Avenue from the No Problem Joe/930 King Street Development We, the undersigned, concerned neighbors and Neale Avenue area citizens do hereby wish to register our concern and opposition to the proposed construction of a second driveway onto Neale Avenue and across the sidewalk that is currently shown on the 930 King Street site plan. While it may seem obvious, the second driveway as proposed would only benefit the one new residence and it would create an unnecessary hazard and potential danger source to all other users of Neale Avenue including vehicular traffic, pedestrians and bicycles. Please do not allow this needless, significant safety hazard to occur on Neale Avenue. Access can be safely provided to the subject property from the proposed King Street driveway. Thank you for your consideration. STREET AND NUMBER AND PRINT NAME MAILING ADDRESS DATEIGN TU Ss ..9� 3. l [L �1 it d ����J eLLY10 K a. L''J K s. Q� 6.7. ��.�l-- L7 ( (o 10.. Appit- I F-4 11. �� ► �l D ) aOe La vk e 3 4� ,tom C97\ 12. 404 rl J. TO: FROM: RE: PETITION ��. is The Historical Preservation Commission �Q � 4k\, Concerned Neighbors and Negatively Impacted Neale Avenue Citizens 2 Opposition to the Proposed Second Driveway Onto Neale Avenue from the �j No Problem Joe/930 King Street Development 5PM We, the undersigned, concerned neighbors and Neale Avenue area citizens do hereby wish to register our concern and opposition to the proposed construction of a second driveway onto Neale Avenue and across the sidewalk that is currently shown on the 930 King Street site plan. While it may seem obvious, the second driveway as proposed would only benefit the one new residence and it would create an unnecessary hazard and potential danger source to all other users of' Neale Avenue including vehicular traffic, pedestrians and bicycles. Please do not allow this needless, significant safety hazard to occur on Neale Avenue. Access can be safely provided to the subject property from the proposed King Street driveway. Thank you for your consideration. STREET AND NUMBER AND PRINT NAME; MAILING ADDRESS D/AT SIGNATURE T30 9 2,w LL �' 4`1(��U`� bs�, Y k, 7. 8. 9. �Awr, L"I 1q � IO e, D5 SdYI A5 11. _J 12.0 0� 0 March 18, 1998 DAV I D GIBSON Ms. Amy Guthrie AIA Aspen Pitkin County Community AUGUST Development Department RENO 130 South Galena Street AIA Aspen, Colorado 81611 SCOTT RE: 930 King Street SMITHAIA Dear Amy: I have enclosed revised Architectural Drawings that should be included in our original submission package. The revisions include: ' 1. Site Plan 2. Exterior Elevations GIBSON - RENO Regarding the Site Plan, the revised drawings represent moving the A R C H I F E 7 r S, L. L. Q. . historic house (Residence "B") directly to the East. The proposed front yard is ten (10) feet from the South property line, which is exactly what exists today. The East side yard is proposed to be five 210 E. HYMAN N" 202 (5) feet. Both the proposed front and side yards will require a variance. ASPEN COLORADO Residence "A" remains as originally sited. The Neale Street side is 81611 considered the front yard with a setback of twenty five (25) feet. The 970.925.5968 King Street side is considered the side yard with a setback of sixteen feet, eight inches (16-8"). No variance is required for Residence "A" FACSIMILE with regard to setbacks. 970.925.5993 The driveway to Residence "A" has been revised regarding width. The revised driveway is ten (10) feet wide. P.O. BOX 278 117 N. WILLOW The proposed revised fence on the North property line begins thirty N" 2 (30) feet from the West (Neale Street) property line running to the East property line. The entire East property line remains as originally TELLURIDE proposed with a fence running the entire length. COLORADO 81435 970.728.6607 FACSIMILE 970.728.6658 44 COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE 430 Response: Windows shown on all sides of the new construction extend into the "no window zone." The applicant may either accept a double FAR calculation for the interior space associated with these windows, eliminate the windows where they violate the standard or ask for a variance. Staff has recommended restudy of some aspects of the architecture. A variance from this standard may be appropriate in some areas of the new house, but staff does not support any variance on the historic structure because the large areas of glass are not generally compatible with the windows which are characteristic of the historic house. 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 final review • Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) • Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC continue the application to April 8, 1998, with the following direction: 1. Reverse the site plan so that the historic house is on the western lot. 2. The western lot may be accessed by a driveway from Neale Street, as shown, and the eastern lot may be accessed from King Street, as shown. 3. Restudy the architecture of the addition to the historic house and the new house. Create a more direct compatiblity in materials and design elements. 4. The lot split, partial demolition, and landmark requests are acceptable in concept, but are continued to April 8 so that the overall proposal can be amended. 9 Ms. Amy Guthrie March 18, 1998 Page 2 The exterior of Residence "A" has been revised regarding the following: 1. The height of the ridge has been lowered by five (5) feet. In the original design, the ridge was thirty five (35) feet. In the revised design, the ridge is located at thirty (30) feet. 2. The fireplace chimney has been lowered by five (5) feet. 3. All of the original log roof outriggers have been eliminated. The fascias are now a more traditional one (1) by similar to the surrounding houses. Finally, we have reduced the amount of additional F.A.R. (493) by two hundred forty three (243) square feet. Our revised request is for two hundred fifty (250) square feet. These revisions are based upon the input we have received from the Historic Preservation Commission and the goals of the applicant. If you should have any questions please contact me. December 10, 1997 DAVID GIBSON AIA Ms. Amy Guthrie AUGUST Aspen Pitkin County Community RENO Development Department ,CIA 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO. 81611 SCOTT SMITH RE: 930 King Street MA Dear Amy: I am submitting the enclosed application for the proposed development located at 930 King Street. I am representing the NPJ Partners, LLC, the legal owners of this property. GIBBON • RENO A 2 C 1i I T E C T S. L.L.0 From the numerous meetings and telephone conversations that we have had, and the pre -application conference summary memorandum which is enclosed, the NPJ Partners, LLC are making this application regarding the following: 210 HUMAN N" 202 1. Landmark Designation -1SPEN 2. Significant Development CO LO RADO 3. On -Site Relocation 81611 4. Residential Design Standards 5. Historic Landmark Lot Split 70.925.5968 6. Conditional Use FACSIMILE 970.925.5993 As you know from our discussions, it is the intent of the owners to historically renovate the existing house, smoke house, and outhouse that was once occupied by Joe Candreia, otherwise known as "No P.O. Box 278 Problem Joe". 117 N. WILLOW N" 2 In addition to the renovation, the development proposed includes an addition to the historic structure, which would create a single TELLURIDE family residence at the East end of the property. COLORADO 81435 The development proposal also includes the development of a 970.728.6607 separate single family residence, which will be located at the Western portion of the property. It is our intent to seek a lot split FRCS 1 v11 LE that would create two (2) separate parcels. 970.728.6658 • • Amy Guthrie December 10, 1997 Page 2 I have enclosed numerous attachments for this submission which are listed separately. Thank you for your assistance in answering the many questions I have had concerning this proposal. I also want to thank you for your time in reviewing our requests for this proposed application. Please contact me with any further questions regarding this application. �Rgspectfully, r� Au gusG. Reno, attachments LIST OF ATTACHME*, DRAWINGS, PHOTOGRAPHS,*OSTT ATTACHMENT 1 LANDMARK DESIGNATION ATTACHMENT 2 SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT ATTACHMENT 3 ON -SITE RELOCATION ATTACHMENT 4 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS ATTACHMENT 5 HISTORIC LOT SPLIT ATTACENfliNT 6 CONDITIONAL USE ATTACHMENT 7 VICINITY MAP ATTACHMENT 8 GENERAL WARRANTY DEED ATTACHMENT 9 LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATTACHMENT 10 REQUEST FOR HISTORIC LANDMARK GRANT ATTACHMENT 11 OWNER AUTHORIZATION LETTER ATTACHMENT 12 SIGNED FEE AGREEMENT ATTACHMENT 13 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM ATTACHMENT 14 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM ATTACHMENT 15 LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET ATTACHMENT 16 PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY MEMORANDUM ATTACHMENT 17 FLOOR AREA DRAWINGS: 1. ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAIN FLOOR PLANS (3) EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS (4) 2. SURVEY IMPROVEMENT SURVEY NEIGHBORHOOD BLOCK PLAN SITE PLAN PHOTOGRAPHS 1. PANORAMA PHOTOGRAPHS (3) 2. PHOTOGRAPHS OF EXISTING STRUCTURES 3. PHOTOGRAPHS OF EXISTING ADJACENT STRUCTURES DEPOSIT: A CHECK IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,025.00 TO THE ASPEN/PnX N COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WHICH BREAKS OUT AS FOLLOWS PER THE PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY MEMORANDUM: H.P.C. $600.00 P&Z 245.00 CITY ENGINEER 110.00 HOUSING 70.00 NPJATACH.DOC XTTACHMENT 1 Landmark Designation Standards For Designation: Any structure or site that meets two (2) or more of the following standards may be designated as "H" Historic Overlay District, and/or historic landmark. STANDARD: r .e l..Y\lLL1G of s«c ib a principai or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen. the State of Colorado, or the United States. RESPONSE: The structure and the site were occupied by Joe Candreia, otherwise known as "No Problem Joe" from approximately 1952 until his death in 1993. "No Problem Joe" was considered one of Aspen's old local characters because of the words that he commonly muttered, "No Problem" when anyone needed his assistance. Another aspect of "No Problem Joe's" tenure was a vegetable garden that he personally tended to for approximately thirty (30) years. He was often seen sharing his prize crops with people that were just passing by. STANDARD: 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 embo-cies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type, (based on building form) or specimen. Response: The house is believed to be an original Sears and Roebuck, ship and build cabin, which was commonly used at the beginning of this century. The smoke house and outhouse are structures that were also commonly used in an era that has passed us by with new technologies regarding plumbing and food storage preparation. STANDARD: C. Designer. The structure is a significant worm of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: This project does not meet this standard in our opinion. STANDARD: D. Neighborhood Character. The structure or site is a significant component of a !uswri.: Ily ca:,t r,eig;.bo U- ;u dnd the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood (character). Response: The house and outbuildings were very typical for this neighborhood during the early pan of the century. During the late 19th century and early part of the 20th century this neighborhood consisted of very modest type structures that were meant to house the working class (primarily miners). There are a number of these structures scattered throughout the Eastern section of Aspen. This house and the outbuildings contribute to the publics' awareness of what once occupied this neighborhood that still remain today. STANDARD: 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 of historical or architectural importance. Response: The house and outbuildings contribute significantly to the character of the historic Aspen community. These contributions include being a vital piece of the "Silver Boom" fabric. While the West End of Aspen represented the wealth of the "Silver Barons" with all of its elaborately design houses, the East End of Aspen represented the work force. The structures on this property represent a period of boom and bust with the birth of the City and the quiet years that followed once the original mining economy faded. The 930 King Street structures that remain today meet four (4) out of the possible five (5) Standards for Designation. We request that 930 King Street be designated as an Historic Landmark. \'PJLA.ND.DOC • :7 ATTACHMENT 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT The applicant proposes the following: A. Historically renovate the existing house, Smokehouse, and Outhouse. This entails keeping existing materials where they are deemed salvageable and able to be renovated. Where this is not possible, the materials, windows, doors, siding, rooting, etc. will be reproduced to replicate the original materials. B. Relocation of the Historic house, Smokehouse, and Outhouse on -site as described in the On -Site Relocation Section of this application. A side yard setback variance on the East side is requested to be reduced to five (5) feet in lieu of the ten (10) foot required. C. An addition of 1372 Square Feet to the existing 432 square foot Historic House consisting of an eight (8) foot wide one (1) story link that preserves the form of the existing house on the South, East and West sides. A floor area bonus of four hundred ninety three (493) square foot bonus is requested. The two (2) story portion of the proposal is connected to the North side of the link. Exterior materials, forms, proportions will reflect those of the Historic House. D. A Historic Lot Split is requested in order to create two (2) separate parcels, which allows for separate ownership of the Historic House. A smaller addition to the Historic House is also beneficial, which keep he scalexof the overall building small.. Please refer to the Historic Lot Sp Section of this application. E. The development of a new single family residence consisting of 2795 square feet of F.A.R. to be located on the newly proposed Western lot. The proposed house is sighted to allow for a twenty-five (25) foot buffer between the two (2) structures. Keeping the Historic House relatively in its original location. The proposed house has been designed with similar forms, shapes, and proportion that reflect those of the Historic House. The East side of the proposed new house is designed with a one (1) story segment that runs the entire depth (North -South) twelve (12) feet wide. New materials such as log columns, architectural accents and stone are introduced to not replicate the style of the Historic House. This allows each house to retain it's own character and yet respect each other. Materials that will match or be similar will be the roofing and siding. The design of the new house is reminiscent of the turn -of -the -century corner Victorian, with its corner tower that relates to both streets. npjhist.doc ATTACHMENT 3 ON SITE RELOCATION The proposed development relocates the existing historic house, the smokehouse and the out house on site. Currently the existing historic house is located with the Southern -most wall approximately eleven (11) feet from the South property line. The East wall of the house is located approximately twenty (20) feet from the East property line. The proposed development relocates the historic house on -site with the Southern -most wall at twenty five (25) feet from the South property line, and the Eastern most wall at seven (7) feet from the East property line. Currently the historic smoke house is located with the Northern wall approximately three (3) feet from the North property line. The East wall of the structure is located approximately twenty five (25) feet from the East property line. The proposed development relocated the historic smoke house on -site with the Northern wall at twenty five (25) feet from the North property line and the East wall at fifty (50) feet from the East property line. The existing historic outhouse is located approximately four (4) feet from the North property line. The East wall of the structure is located approximately eleven (11) feet from the East property line. The proposed development relocates the historic outhouse on -site with the structure five (5) feet from the North property line and the East wall being at thirty two (32) feet from the East property line. EXISTING PROPOSED S.F.SIZE LOCATION ON -SITE LOCATION HISTORIC HOUSE 432 SF Porch 72 SF South front yard 11 FT 25 FT East yard setback 20 FT 7 FT HISTORIC SMOKEHOUSE 54 SF North yard setback 3 FT 25 FT East yard setback 25 FT 50 FT HISTORIC OUTHOUSE 22 SF North yard setback 4 FT 5 FT East yard setback 11 FT 32 FT • • ON -SITE RELOCATION NPJ - 930 King Street Page The proposed development relocates the existing historic house on -site fourteen (14) feet further back from the South property line. This brings the house into compliance with the front yard setback requirement and also with the adjoining strsc►sre located on the adjacent parcel to the East. By locating the house further back also give the house relief from being right on King Street. This relief will focus more attention on the house and will provide for an area to be landscaped. The historic smokehouseand outhouse relocations on -site are being proposed primarily so that each of the structures will be visible from King Street. Structurally all of these buildings are wood frame construction and are in poor to average condition. The structural frame of each building is sound and with care may be moved the short distances the development proposal calls for. In all of the buildings, new concrete foundations will be constructed. Before we move each structure, we will have a structural engineer review and recommend methods for any physical impacts that may occur during relocation. We will submit this information to the Aspen/Pitkin Country Community Development Department prior to any relocation. *reloc.doc ATTACHMENT 4 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The proposed design for both of the residences comply with: A. Building Orientation B. Building Elements 1. Residence "A" has one (1) story element that comprises 100% of the building's overall width on the King Street and Neale Street orientations. This is accomplished with a verandah porch. 2. Residence "B" has a one (1) story element that comprises 100% of the buildings overall width on the King Street orientation. This is accomplished with the one (1) story existing historic structure being _ located directly on the King Street elevation. C. Build -To Lines The proposed residences follow the common setbacks of the King Street orientation- D. Primary Mass 1. The primary mass for each of the proposed residences is below 70% of the total floor area. E. Inflection Proposed Residence "A" is designed with a one (1) story element at the East elevation for a width of twelve (12) feet, the entire depth of the residence. This element is adjacent to the one (1) story historic structure. F. Garages and Driveways 1. Both garages in the proposed residences are at the rear of the property and while attached, they are not visible from either King Street or Neale Street. G. Areaways 1. All areaways for both residences are recessed behind vertical planes established by the portion of the building facade which is closest to the street. H. Decks 1. All decks in excess of 15% of the floor area for each of the proposed residences have been calculated into the total floor area. I. Garages 1. The floor area in excess of the two hundred fifty (250) square feet that is exempt has been figured into the total floor area for each of the proposed residences. J. Floor Area 1. The floor area for each of the proposed residences has taken into account: (a) Plate heights (b) Below -grade areas with exposed walls greater than eighteen (19) inches above grade and walls exposed through the use of area wells. K. Building Height 1. Residence "A" complies with the formula for roofs with a slope of 8:12 or greater. 2. Residence "B" complies with the formula for roofs with a slope of 8:12 or greater. L. Parking 1. Each of the proposed residences exceeds the requirements for parking. noresds.doc • • ATTACHMENT 5 HISTORIC LOT SPLIT The applicant requests a Historic Lot Split per Sections 26.88.30 (A) (2), 26.100.050, (A) (2) (e), and 26.72.010 (G). The proposed Historic Lot Split complies with Section 26.88.030 (A) (2). This property has never been subdivided before; will only create two (2) lots; and will only construct (2) ,anits plus an affordable dwelling unit. The proposed Historic Lot Split complies with Section 26.72.010 (G) and Section 26.100.050, (A) (2) (e) if the property is designated as an Historic Landmark. noladoc ATTACHMENT 6 CONDITIONAL USE (AFFORDABLE DWELLING UNIT) An affordable dwelling unit is proposed for the new residence located at the Western portion of the property within Residence "A". The unit is three hundred seventy (370) square feet in size. The unit consists of a studio -type floor plan which includes: Living/Sleeping area Closet Kitchenette Bath The unit also includes a separate exterior entry. RESPONSE TO REVIEW STANDARDS: DEVELOPMENT OF CONDITIONAL USE A. The current zoning of the property R15-A which allows Accessory Dwelling Units as a Conditional Use of this zone district. The Aspen Comprehensive Plan encourages the provision of the A.D.U.'s within residences to help supply housing within the Aspen area. B. The Conditional Use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity. The underlying zone district allows for duplex development, which is an increased density relative to single family residential design standards. The surrounding area consists of several similar projects with existing A.D.U.'s. C. The proposed residence will have three hundred seventy (370) square foot studio A.D.U. The A.D.U. will be located at the garden level of the unit accessible from Neal Street. There is a provision for one (1) parldng space within the proposed driveway. The A.D.U. will have no adverse effects on the surrounding properties. The Accessory Dwelling Unit is located within the City limits of Aspen and has access to all public facilities, transportation, and services. E. As a requirement to Ordinance #1, replacement housing program, for a new residence in the R15-A Zone District, the applicant must provide an Accessory Dwelling Unit or pay a fee in lieu. This A.D.U. fulfills this requirement. F. The Conditional Use of the Accessory Dwelling Unit complies with standards by the Aspen area Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Ordinance #1. noadu.doc MAP, 26 ' 9Y 04 : 28PM ASPEN HOUSING GFC P . 1 • 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Amy Guthrie, Community Development Dept, FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office DATE: March 26, 1998 RE: 930 King Street Use for an Accessary Dwelling Unit Parcel ID No. 2737-073-00-037 REQUM; The applicant is requesting approval for an accessory dwelling unit to be located in the garden level of the primary residence. B GKaROUND: According to Section 26.40.090, Accessory Dwelling Unks, a unit shall contain not less than 300 square feet of net livable area and not more than 700 square feet of net livable area. .t;S MES: When the Housing Office reviews plans for an accessory dwelling unit, there are particular areas that are given special attention. They are as follows: The unit must be a totally private unit, which means the unit must have a private entrance and there shall be no other rooms in this unit that need to be utilized by the individuals in the principal residence: i.e., a mechanical room for the principal residence. 2. The kitchen includes a minimum of a two -burner stove with oven, standard sink, and a 6- cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer. 3. The unit is required to have a certain percentage of natural light into the unit; i.e., windows, sliding glass door, window wells, etc., especially if the unit is located below grade. The Uniform Building Code requires that 10% of the floor area of a unit needs to have natural light. Natural light is defined as light which is clear and open to the sky. 4. Should the unit be used to obtain an FAR bonus, the unit MUST be rented to a qualified employee. 5. A deed restriction MUST be recorded PRIOR to building permit approval. The deed restriction shall be obtained from the Housing Office. RECOMMENQATLD.N: Staff recommends approval of this unit as long as conditions 9 through 5, stated above, are meet. %refett J%Mks398.adu • To: Thru: From: Date: Re: MEMORANDUM Amy Guthrie, Planner Nick Adeh, City EngineerAo�i Chuck Roth, Project Engineer C-9- April 2, 1998 930 King Street, aka "No Problem Joe's" (Parcel ID No. 2737-073-000-37) The Development Review Committee has reviewed the above referenced application at their March 25, 1998 meeting, and we have the following comments: 1. Improvement Survey - The improvement survey is incomplete because it is not stamped and signed by the surveyor. For future applications, please obtain one full size, wet ink stamped and signed improvement survey for including with the referral to the Engineering Department. 2. Drainage - The existing City storm drainage infrastructure system is sub -standard and cannot adequately convey storm runoff. The site development approvals must include the requirement of meeting runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Sec. 26.88.040.C.4.f and a requirement that the building permit application include a drainage mitigation plan (24"06" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan) and a report signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado, submitted as part of the building and site plan, as well as a temporary sediment control and containment plan for the construction phase. 3. Parking - The application addresses parking requirements and provisions in a satisfactory manner. There is no on street parking available in the area. So parking is needed on site as presented. The application drawings do not show the parking spaces that are stated in the application. The building permit drawings must show these spaces. One must be designated for the accessory dwelling unit. 4. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter - Sidewalk, curb and gutter have already been constructed by the City on the Neale Avenue frontage. The King Street frontage is not planned for sidewalk, curb and gutter at this time. Therefore the applicant needs to sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement, and pay recording fees, prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. Trash & Utilities - All utility meters and any new or relocated utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the applicant's property, with easements as needed, and not in the public right- of-way or within access easements. The building permit drawings need to indicate all utility meter 1 locations. Meter locations have to be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed by trash storage. Holy Cross Electric Association has requested 10 foot side and rear lot line easements. 6. Access - As was explained at the HPC meeting, driveway access onto Neale Avenue is not approved unless the applicant demonstrates a hardship. Neale Avenue is a highly utilized vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian corridor. The applicant's parcel has access from King Street which can serve the proposed lots with a common driveway or adjacent driveways separated by landscaping. If the applicant is able to demonstrate an acceptable hardship, then the site design for a curb cut on Neale Avenue must show on -site and neighboring landscaping and other improvements to provide 30' vision triangles for safe vehicular entry to Neale Avenue. The berm on the southwest corner of the parcel may need to be trimmed to provide a 30' line -of -sight vision triangle at King and Neale. The street is one way at this time, but it has been a two way in the past. 7. Right-of-way Width - The King Street right-of-way width is substandard. As with the Billing growth management application and subsequent re -subdivision of the Astor subdivision, the right- of-way width must be brought up to standard (50) with dedications generally split equally between property owners on each side of the street. The final plat must indicate the varying, existing right- of-way widths along the frontage of the property. The applicant must dedicate a parcel that is about 7' wide at the east end which will taper to zero feet to the west. 8. City Water Department - The existing house was not connected to City water. The new dwellings must be connected to City water with well abandonment performed to meet Water Department standards. 9. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District - The District has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project. The applicant must obtain District approvals and pay District fees prior to submitting for a building permit. 10. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant must receive approval from city engineering (920-5080) for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for vegetation species and for public trail disturbance, and 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. DRC Attendees Staff: Amy Guthrie, Phil Overeynder, Cindy Christensen, Ed VanWalraven, Chuck Roth 98M93 2 • • Memorandum TO: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer FROM: Rebecca Schickling, Assistant Parks Director DATE: April 6,1998 RE: 930 King St. We have reviewed the development application submitted for 930 King Street and offer the following comments. Stephen Ellsperman, our new City Forester, and myself visited the site yesterday. The two existing cottonwoods in front of the historic cabin are stressed, most likely due to lack of water and neglect for several years. The development plan shows a basement being excavated for the relocated house. Even though the existing asphalt driveway and the current location of the house has limited the root zone in this area, the excavation of a basement and a new driveway will further stress both of the cottonwoods. If this occurs, and the trees are to be preserved, it is imperative to consistently irrigate the trees and monitor the moisture levels throughout the construction project (including winter watering when necessary). If the trees are to be removed or die within two years of the construction then mitigation will be required. The site/ plan shows a few trees on each of the lots, primarily along the back side (north side) and between the two lots. However, no streetscape trees are shown. We would recommend the applicant plant two cottonwoods on Neal St. and two to three cottonwoods on King St. in front of the new residence. Neal Street has been identified as a primary pedestrian corridor and the City performs the snow removal on the sidewalk for this street. However, each property owner will be required to do snow removal on their abutting sidewalk for King Street, per the municipal code. • Memorandum TO: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer FROM: Rebecca Schickling, Assistant Parks Director DATE: April 6,1998 RE: 930 King St. We have reviewed the development application submitted for 930 King Street and offer the following comments. Stephen Ellsperman, our new City Forester, and mvself visited the site yesterday. The two existing cottonwoods in front of the historic cabin are stressed, most likely due to lack of water and neglect for several years. The development plan shows a basement being excavated for the relocated house. Even though the existing asphalt driveway and the current location of the house has limited the root zone in this area, the excavation of a basement and a new driveway will further stress both of the cottonwoods. If this occurs, and the trees are to be preserved, it is imperative to consistently irrigate the trees and monitor the moisture levels throughout the construction project (including winter watering when necessary). If the trees are to be removed or die within two vears of the construction then mitigation will be required. The site/ landscape plan shows a few trees on each of the lots, primarily along the back side (north side) and between the two lots. However, no streetscape trees are shown. We would recommend the applicant plant two cottonwoods on Neal St. and two to three cottonwoods on King St. in front of the new residence. Neal Street has been identified as a primary pedestrian corridor and the City performs the snow removal on the sidewalk for this street. However, each property owner will be required to do snow removal on their abutting sidewalk for King Street, per the municipal code. 03/23/98 15:21 e970 925 2537 ACSd • �'7 140001 Tele. (970) 925-3601 Sy Kelly - a2irnian Paul Smith - Treas. Louis Popish - Secy. March 23, 1998 Amy Guthrie, Planner Comm -unity Development City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 0 Gonsol10Qte0 cyan lC.Gt.1412 Dis i'IC[ 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 31611 RE: 930 King St.-a.k.a. `No Problem .Yoe" Dear Amy, FAX #(970) 925-2537 Michael Kelly Frank l c)ushin Brucc Mathcrly, Mgr. The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has Sufficient wastewater collection and treatment eapacfty to serve this project. Service to this property is contingent apan compliance with the District's Rules, Regulations, and Specifications which are on file at the District office. A tap permit must be completed at our office when detailed plans become available. Fees will be estimated at that time. The total connection charges due the District must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. The applicant is encouraged to contact our office for information concerning main sanitary sewer lone and service line requirements and the location of the subsequent connection to the public system. Two sanitary wastewater service lines will be required, one for each flee standing structure. . Sincetel I Thomas R. Bracewell Collection Systems Superintendent Chuck Roth, City of Aspen Engineering EPA Awards of Excellence 1976, 1986 - 1990 Regional and National ATTACHMENT 14 • • ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name 930 King Street 2. Project location 930 King Street , see attached legal description (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning R-15 A 4. Lot size 13 , 3 4 3 S . F . 5. Applicant's name, address and phone numberN P J Partners , 21 7 -ark Avenue Aspen i rn Osi 11 1 • + 7 2 'J -_ 3 5 1 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number au g i e Reno, Gibson -Reno architects 210 E. Hyman, 4202 Aspen, ca. 31611 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA X Conceptual HPC _ Special Review Final SPA X Final HPC _ 8040 Greeniine Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD X Relocation HPC _ Subdivision Text/Map Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condom iniumization Design Review X Lot Split/Lot Line Appeal Committee 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) Single Family P. Dfsc%tign?tdgveloRmentapRlication Landmark Designation, Significant eve opm n Sing a Fami y Res , re oca ion of a Historic Huildincr, Historic Lot Solit, and rnndit;nna1 11sa for an Affordable Dwelling Unit. 10. Have you completed and attached the following? X Attachment 1- Land use application form x Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form X Response to Attachment 3 X Response to Attachments 4 and 5 r, �S • �tt (TLc.�i rc � . RECEIVE® JAN 1 4 1998 AZ:,HtN / ri I rVN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ave �9�C8�"h.fN a i p5 44NS ro ed are U. AJ 6 r s dt /�Z(.v4</f CA Cp may 7�` ;Z Sim?4e Fr,eA. �. � r2 Plat , /ICJ a. v-,e . � w,�. y� Y eAA. pr qre S rQ5 O�VQ�c,ti9 s�tAA. 5 wv -ec f lle Ir'e 15 A4 9 Name• Address: � 6TH ANNUAL HOLIDAY BAZAAR Vendor Contact: Marlene Mickey 970-925•5493 931 Gibson Ave., Aspen, Co 81611 j APPLICATION DEADLINE SEPTEMBER 7TH3,1997 Telephone: Social Security/Tax ID• Enclosed is my check in the amount of. - to .reserve a booth space ft x ft Price range for items to be sold: Detailed list of items to be sold: (To avoid conflict with other vendors, please bring only the items whose categories you have listed here.) Please indicate here if you absolutely need a back wall space: Will you use a screen or grill? Will you require electricity to your booth? If you are in need of a table please indicate what size, and we will let you know if we can accommodate you: , Additional comments: Signed: Date: OFFICE USE ONLY check received amount booth sue approved 0 LI FAR Bonuses and Density No additional FAR bonuses should be granted. The site is a non -conforming R-15A lot. The proposal calls for three residences on a lot heretofore zoned for a single family dwelling. While we do not object to the lot split, the granting of the lot split is a huge economic bonus for the developer and the granting of additional FAR bonuses is unwarranted and unsupported by the Code. Furthermore, the massing additions that are inherent in the lot split should be carefully considered. Since up to 250 square feet in garages are exempt from FAR calculations and the next 250 square feet of garage is counted as .5 FAR, the lot split effectively creates a massive floor area and volume bonus (approximately 10%) in the form of an additional garage. Paragraph 26.88.030 A. 5. c. states that "HPC variances and bonuses are Qp--Iy (emphasis added) permitted on the parcel that contains the historic structure." Pursuant to the code, the owner would be permitted to build up to 2,700 FAR on a 3,000 square foot lot created by an Historic Landmark Lot Split. Since the structure proposed on the Historic Landmark Lot Split site is less than the permitted FAR, no FAR bonus is needed. As proposed, the FAR bonus is applied to Residence A, not the Historically Land marked building. Documentation To date, the developer has agreed to a 25 foot set back from Neale and elimination of portions of fence. We had also requested a limitation of landscaping (nothing over six feet above "natural" grade) within the front yard set back. We request that the HPC and/or Planning authorities properly document these conditions to ensure enforcement in perpetuity. The Neale and King Street neighborhood has recently witnessed dramatic increases in density. We respectfully request the HPC carefully enforce the Code in this "Moderate Density Residential" area. Sincer y, 1100�& Chuck &Bryce Maple c: Mayor John Bennett Sarah Thomas Julie Zeiler Maple • � ��thQIT � Julie Z. Maple 1250 Mountain Nov Drive Aspen, Colorado 81611 Ms. Amy Guthrie January 14, 1998 Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Development Proposal for 930 King Street Submitted by Gibson - Reno Architects. L.L.C. 12/10/97 Dear Amy, As a representative for the interests of my in-laws, Chuck and Bryce Maple, residents and owners of the property at 927 Gibson Avenue, located directly south of the proposed development, we would like to raise a number of concerns. It should be noted that I approached the owner of the property in approximately September, 1997 with many of these issues. At that time the owner's representative suggested we work in a cooperative manner to address the concerns of the Maple family prior to submission of planning documents. While I agreed to cooperate in addressing the Maple's concerns, the owner has made no attempt to contact me or the Maples to discuss their issues. The Maples have also repeatedly advised the Planning and Building Department of their interest in the review of development proposals for this site. The Maple concerns can be summarized as a desire to retain the neighborhood community, their front yard and the views of Aspen Mountain from their living room they have enjoyed for thirty years. While we commend the front yard set back off of Neale Street as a major improvement over the earlier proposal, a number of additional issues relative to preserving their views, the Neale & Gibson community and the spirit of Ordinance 30 should be considered and addressed. Set Backs, Landscaping and Height Issues: • We endorse the front yard set back off of Neale Street. • The code requires that all maximum heights be established from "natural" grade. During the thirty years the Maples have resided at 927 Gibson Avenue, they observed substantial land fill of the site. In fact, the 1968 "natural" grade along the western edge of the property was approximately equal to the current elevation of Neale Street. The land fill by Candreia consisted of soil and annual deposits of organic material to fill and level the garden site. Later, poisoning of the soil by Mr. Candreia required burying and diluting of the poisoned soil. Finally, Mr. Candreia abandoned his gardening yet continued to place fill on the site. The magnitude of this fill is easily observed by comparing the "natural" grade of the Maple property versus the 930 King property. The fill was so substantial that the Maples finally had to construct a retaining wall to hold back the earth. • The Maple's request and expect that all code determined height limitations be properly enforced from the recreated "natural" grade. While no heights are indicated on the plans as submitted, it appears the chimneys as drawn extend beyond maximum height limitations. • The Maples request that the0-mers and second story roofs of ResidAk- A be staked with height poles prior to any final review and approval. • Residential Design Standards (Ordinance 30) outlines that relationships to the streets establish the character of a neighborhood and that the area surrounding the home create a transition between the private life of a dwelling and the public realm. The proposed six foot fence along Neale Street would create a harsh barrier to the public realm of the street. The Maples request that the fence along Neale Street be eliminated in its entirety and that all trees and other landscape elements between the house and Neale Street be limited to a maximum height of six feet. Additionally, the Maples request that the north property line fence be set back approximately- 30' from the westerly property boundary to preserve the Maple's "front yard" relationship to the street and community as well as to preserve their view of Aspen Mountain. As noted above, all landscaping and other heights should be established from the historic "natural" grade. • The proposed Residence A automobile entrance from Neale Street creates a safety hazard as a result of its proximity to a sharp hill crest and it should therefore be reconsidered. Additionally, this entrance is at odds with the ideas of Ordinance 30 and at the same time adversely impacts the Maple's front yard environment with headlights penetrating their home and sounds and odors disturbing the public area of their front yard. We request that an auto entrance or shared auto entrance from King Street be utilized. Den i The property is zoned Moderate Density Residential R-15A. As the name implies, this zone is intended to be "moderate" density. The neighborhood enthusiastically supported the idea of moderate density of new developments during the recent debate over a proposed development on Walnut Street. While the subject property is currently zoned R-15A, the neighborhood is already overburdened with density and therefore any attempts to increase the density of the neighborhood should be carefully examined. The Maples wish to point out that 26.88.030 Exemptions. A. 5. Historic Landmark Lot Split appears to have been drafted specifically for the 930 King site. While we are not aware of the legal notice requirements, and despite the Maple's proximity to the site and repeated notice of interest in the development of this site, no notice was ever provided to the Maples to allow comment on this code provision as it applies to this site. • The 930 King Street proposal contemplates three (3) residences on what is already a non -conforming lot. While the Maples endorse community objectives of employee housing and historic preservation, this level of density on this site is inappropriate. The Maples therefore request that the Historic Landmark Lot Split be denied or that the Accessory Dwelling Unit ("ADU') be eliminated. Separately, it appears the ADU, as designed, does not meet our understanding of code requirements for a "separate" dwelling due to the entrance from the Rec. Room. • The Maple's request and expect that all code FAR limitations be properly enforced as it relates to the project in its entirety. Historic Landmark FAR Bonus: • 26.88.030 A. 5. b. states that total FAR for both residences which may be allowed by an Historic Landmark Lot Split shall not exceed the floor area allowed for the original parcel. Paragraph 26.88.030 A. 5. c. states that "HPC varia& and bonuses are only (emphasis addopermitted on the parcel that contains the historic structure." Pursuant to the code, the owner would be permitted to build up to 2,700 FAR on a 3,000 square foot lot created by an Historic Landmark Lot Split. Application of a 500 square foot FAR bonus would permit the construction of a 3,200 FAR structure on the Historic Landmark Lot Split site. Since the structure proposed on the Historic Landmark Lot Split site is 1,804 square feet, no FAR bonus is needed. As proposed, the FAR bonus is not applied to the Historic Landmark Lot Split lot, but rather to Residence A. The FAR bonus should therefore be denied. Architectural Review: • Since the applicant is seeking the benefit of lot subdivision and other development bonuses through provisions on the reuse of the historic structure, we feel the proposed development as a whole should place a greater emphasis on the historic structure. As proposed, the more prominent structure, Residence A, is expressed by a large hipped roof mass of log and stone detailing which bears little relationship to the Historic House. Furthermore, the plan as proposed misses an opportunity to create a link between the existing Historic Landmark structure on the opposite corner of King and Neale streets. Locating the historic structure on the western parcel would more accurately preserve the historic character of the neighborhood and Neale Streetscape.. • The proposal to set the historic house further back off King Street leaves it 'barely visible from Neale Street and overpowered from King Street. As an alternative to locating the Historic House on the westerly portion of the site, consideration should be given to leaving the structure in its existing and historic relationship to King Street, 1 V from King Street. This would preserve the historic siting while giving the Historic House greater visibility. This siting would also allow for the grouping of the two remaining historic outbuiidings in approximately their historic location and relationship. As currently proposed, these structures are disassociated from each other and lost in the higher density of the site. Historic Development Incentives: • As proposed, the owners of 930 King Street have requested many variances, bonuses and grants in the name of historic preservation. While we support the idea of incentives for historic preservation, the requested variances, bonuses and grants for this site are excessive. If the Historic Landmark Lot Split is granted, approximately $500,000 or more in value will have been conferred to the owner. The granting of such value should be adequate to support preservation of this structure without the granting of additional bonuses, variances, grants and the like. The Maple family built their home and have resided there for thirty years, actually prior to and longer than Joe Candreia's residence at 930 King Street (He made the site his residence in approximately 1969 or 1970, shortly after acquiring title). The speculative developments in the neighborhood to date have had little regard for the historic elements or the concerns of existing residents. It is hoped that cooperative resolution of these issues can be achieved. Sincerely, Julie Zeiler Maple c: Chuck & Bryce Maple Mayor John Bennett kr11(3iT ASPEN HISTORICaRESERV aTION CONIMIISSIO NUNtiTES OF ylarch 25. 1998 owindows. Clerestory windows, defer to the architects on the HPC. iMajority comfortable with the design of the house. Some members disliked the garage facing the street and the long linear corridor. Concerns of the neighbors need addressed. Grant designation. Clerestory represented on the model is closer to what is acceptable as opposed to the drawings presented. Don't loose the horizontality of the roof. Concern of the height of the stair tower volume as it over powers the house, possibly adjust window portions or add a band. ,LIOTION: Romer moved to continue the public hearing and table conceptual review, partial demolition and landmark designation until April 8, 1998; second by Melanie. 411 in favor, motion carried. Site visit scheduled at NOON, April 8, 1998. 930 KING STREET - CONCEPTUAL - LD - PH - Partial demolition - on -site relocation, variances Amy Guthrie, planner informed the HPC that three the five standards have been met. It is a modest miners cottage of the Victorian era. There are three issues: relocation of the historic house on the site; where driveways should be placed for the two houses and the third compatibility concerns. Staff is generally in favor with the concept of the program. It is a great way that the historic landmark lot split can benefit everyone. The previous approval was for a single family house. HPC needs to give solid feedback on this project. A reduction in height was addressed. The FAR bonus was reduced. Staff recommends reversing the site plan so that the historic house remains on the corner site and this proposal places it on an interior lot and she feels it will be lost in the mass of the addition. In the proposed site plan they shifted the house to the east but it is in the drip line of the trees and Staff has not received formal comments from the parks department but typically that is not allowed. Staff recommends tabling and to restudy the architecture and address compatibility but the lot split and partial demolition and landmark requests are acceptable. rel ASPEN HISTORIC&ESERVATIOr CONINMISSIO MINUTES OF March 25, 1998 Sworn in by Chief Deputy Clerk: Augie Reno, Harris Kahn, Laurie Winnerman, Larry Winnerman, Jackie Kasaback, Julie Maple and her husband and Jim Mickey. Augie Reno, architect presented: A: :he work -sessions the placement of the historic house has always been in the same position. never once until a site visit was the discussion brought up to relocate the house and that was not clear due to interruptions. The propos--d driveway is off of Neale Ave. which Amv suggested. At the third ,.Vorksession rotation of the house was mentioned but not by the majority ofi the board and option 55 was chosen by the HPC as the plan to go with. The coal is to preserve the house. After . each worksession the architects deterilined the summation as HPC did not give any summary on what the major_t.: wanted. There are site constraints on how- the '.aistoric house would be seen, the lot narrows to the west. If the house were :o be relocated to the west it would be much further away from the road :han it is today just by the shape of the lot. The topography of the lot is diferent as it is higher on the corner. The proposal is to keep the house ten feet -away from the street pretty much in the same location where it would be viewed as it is today. The corner house sits back further and will not overbear the historic house. Augie corresponded with the Parks Dept. and he indicated that the roots have been directed to the area of least resistance and he assured me by lifting the building up that the trees could be saved by the right technology in digging out for the foundation and the feeding of the trees. It is the intention to leave the trees. Harris Kahn relayed the partners intention as it relates to the project. He lives four houses away and he owns property on King St. He has been familiar with the site for the past 15 years. The intent is to make the site look natural and they aren't looking for anything other than what they are entitled to. r Augie relayed that the historic house would be moved approximately ten feet to the east. It is still ten feet off the property line. A variance would be needed. There is a five foot setback variance for the side yard requested. The house would get renovated and there is an eight foot, one story length between the historic house and the new addition. yThe old house will stand on its own. The smoke house and out house will stay as they are for storage 7 RVATION CQ March 2:5, 1998 use. The new house sits at the west end of the property and the front yard is 25 feet from the Neale Ave. side and 16.8 from the King Street side. We are 7 feet behind the front face of the historic house. The driveway on house A is 60 feet from the comer and a fence is proposed on the north and east property line and splits the properties and the fence will not exist for the first 30 feet from the west property line. On the south elevation the historic house will be renovated with the original materials and what cannot be saved will be replicated. Materials will be picked up from the historic house. The new house on the west -tries to keep gabled forms and tries to keep ver-.ical windows and horizontal siding all to be compatible. The size of the new building is >j feet in length by 24 feet. The Maples house is 50 feet and the adjacent houses are 53 and 90 feet. Mr. Mickey reported that his house is 3 7 feet long and the Maple's house is 40 feet long. Augie informed the HPC that on the west elevation the architecture was broken up by a porch and a one s,ory element. A corner element was created by turning the mass. The mass is also broken up on the west side. The west side plane steps back. The oreaking up also creates a view. The chimney is stone and the roof is broken up with small shed type dormers. The east elevation of the historic house stays as it is and there is a link between and the gabled shape that sits behind the houses. In both houses they tried to put the garages away from the street view. On the North elevation the roof height relates to the historic house. Stone, siding and wood timber are proposed. Horizontal siding is proposed and it is compatible with the horizontal clapboard siding. There is no stone on the old house but in the neighborhood some houses have stone and some do not. Stone base is proposed. The fence proposed is a six foot high solid fence. Gilbert inquired about the glass on the historic building that faces east as it faces the adjacent property line. Augie relayed that the glass gives the view to Independence pass and it is the dining area. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing. N. ASPEN HISTORI &ESERV aTION CONIMISSA MINUTES OF March 25, 1998 Julie Maple wrote a letter in behalf of her Father-in-law which was included in the packet. One major issue is the driveway between her father -in-laws property and the proposed property. She is not positive the engineering dept. has given approval for the driveway and she requested that the application go to Engineering and have it approve as part of the conditions. There were three conditions and she has concerns about the hardship condition. There is a big visibility and safety issue for the drivewav as people enter into the traffic and coming down that hill it is hard to see what is coming out. She also requests that the house be brought back to the original grade. The dirt mound on the corner is not natural. Nike Maple, son of the neighbor. The most important issue is preserving the views. He feels the lot split is appropriate because it reduces the mass of the house and it has economic value. The lot split is a tremendous windfall financially. In terms of bonuses the code states that the FAR is for the historic structure and this lot split would allow a 3200 sq. ft. house and there is no need for the FAR bonus. Through the years dirt has been brought into the site for a garden and the grade should return to its normal state. Introducing a driveway into an area where there has not been one is a safety hazard. I Jackie Kasabach, concerned citizen stated she is concerned about this development as she lived in the west end and watched the death of the west end and now is in the middle of the east end die. When she walks down King street it is becoming a tunnel and all you see is mass. The ice build up on the south side of the street have created enormous hazards in the winter time. When you turn the corner there should not be a huge mass. Jim Mickey, neighbor relayed that he is against the mass. When he looks out his window he sees four houses being built. Laurie Winner -man stated that the views were kept open in order to respect the neighbors views. The chair, Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC&ESERV ATIOr ONINIT I(O NIINLUTES OF MW March 251998 Commissioner Comments Roger relayed that the lot split is beneficial to the community. The neighborhood looses one monster house. The applicant gets to build two houses and HPC reviews the entire project. Roger is opposed to moving the cottage to the other side of the prope.n. He also felt that the Eng. Dept. should provide a definitive statement on the driveway. He also had no problem with the variance but is unclear about the bonus. Overall project is quite good but there are concerns about the fenestration. The fence on the south and west should not be solid but no problem with the north and east. Amy Guthrie informed the HPC that Nick Adeh is looking for something as a reason why the driveway should be on Neale Ave., a hardship or a preservation reason from HPC. The majority of the board felt that that lot split, partial demolition and landmark request are acceptable. The fenestration needs restudied i.e., the larger windows. There should be a strong compatibility between the addition to the historic house and the historic house and encourage that the new house have better compatibility than it does now. Gilbert felt that there is a stronger restoration if the house is closer to the existing footprint. If there are safety concerns regarding the driveway they should be addressed. Mary indicated that the applicant came in when the HPC decided to have worksessions which was time consuming for the applicant. The applicant and neighbors got caught in the middle of that process. She also felt that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. Melanie relayed that the bonus should only be given to exemplary projects. Her interpretation of the ADU is a fourth bedroom. The architecture needs more study and the house and rock fireplace are overwhelming. The back house needs broken up more and a solid fence is not appropriate and needs broken up. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC I SERV ATION CONI �tISSIO. TINUTES OF March 25. 1998 Jeffrev relaved that the architect addressed the concerns of the neighbors. He also felt that the two story walls Need broken up. The plate heights are high. He feels the stepping back fror:: the Victorian house is appropriate but has some concern about the competing gable end. The chimney is a large element on house A and needs restudied in its height and massing. Keeping the fence back on the west propery lire to maintain the view is appropriate. The height of the ridges on the main rouse need restudied as it reflects to the street and the Victorian house. It %vas reduced but the relationship to the Victorian needs stepped down and :restudied on the south elevation. Heidi relayed that the cottage is lost in the site on this project. The new house is far more dominant. T'ne addition on the cottage is appropriate but the mass of the new house needs addressed. Suzannah felt that the right solution is ilipping the cottage. The project should be beneficial to the histor-.c iouse and she cannot support the current plan. The character of the addition to the historic house is well done. The driveway presented is a typical patt-1.= Combining the driveways is not to the advantage of the historic house. On the new house a simplified roof shape needs studied. HPC vote on the FAR bonus requested: Gilbert - yes Mary - yes Jeffrey - yes Roger - yes Melanie - no Heidi - no Suzannah - no Amy relayed that the variances requested would be 14 foot variance on the front yard for the historic house, a five foot side yard setback variance eon the east sidse of the historic house, and the 250 square foot FAR bonus. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC grant approval at 930 King Street for the Historic Landmark, Historic Lot Split, Partial Demolition and on -site relocation. Conceptual is granted ivith the following conditions: 11 ASPEN HISTORESERVATION CONEMISS M NUTES OF March 2. 1998 a) 230 sq. ft. F.4R bonus is granted. b) Restudv the fenestration. C) Restudv the stone chimney. d) Restudv the architecture of the addition to the historic house and the new house. Create a more direct compatibility in materials and design elements. e) Full landscape plan showing any exterior perimeter fencin(z. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation and whether the structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and reciting. g) A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security in the amount of S3 0, 000. 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. 116tion second by _Llarv. ,Wotion tarried 4 - 3. Suzannah, .Llelanie and Heidi voted no. Gilbert, Roger, _Clan- and Jeffrey voted yes. 712 W. FRANCIS - MINOR Chairperson Suzannah Reid reviewed the east and west dormer revision. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the revisions, second by Suzannah. All in favor, motion carried. TIPPLE INN Melanie excused. Amy Guthrie, planner relayed at the last meetinc, it was recommended that HPC delay action until the Inventory is done in 1999 to see how it fits in the overall history of the town. HPC asked Staff to provide information on the status of the Tippler and if there was anything that HPC should have been involved in. They have their Growth Management allocation, P&Z 1? PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 930 KING STREET HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, July 13, 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 NPJ Partners, LLC, of Aspen, CO, requesting historic landmark designation and a historic lot split of the property located at 930 King Street, described as a parcel of land situated in the South Half of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., City of Aspen, State of Colorado, formerly known as the "Robert Davey improvements situated in the Hughes Addition to the Townsite and City of Aspen". For further information, contact Julie Ann Woods at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5100. sLJohn Bennett, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on June 26, 1998 City of Aspen Account building, the special review for parking as proposed, and the special review to establish the AH1-PU D lot area requirements as suggested by the applicant. without conditions for alpine Cottages. Tim Mooney second. APPROVED 4-0. MOTION: Rover Hunt further moved to recommend approval of the consolidated conceptual/final PUD, rezoning to AH1-PUD, and subdivision for the Alpine Cottages to the City Council with conditions 1-31 outlined in the Community Development Staff memo dated May 19, 1998 with the deletion of the 6th bullet under condition 2. Tim Mooney second. APPROVED 4-0. PUBLIC HEARING: MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearing on Biennial review of the Meadows SPA to June 2, 1998. Tim Mooney second. APPROVED 4-0. CON-TITN ED PUBLIC HEARD=vG: Sara Garton, Chairperson, opened the continued public hearing. Julie Ann Woods noted the commission had the information from the 'May 5, 1998 meeting with the addition of a petition. She added a cover memo noting Standard C. She said there was a historic lot split that goes onto council from HPC. Garton stated that HPC recommended the two curb cuts. Augie Reno, architect for applicant, responded that the FTC recommended having the two separate driveways. He said there was discussion that an alley was originally platted along that driveway and worked with'Ir. Maples (north side of property) to preserve his view of Aspen Mtn. Reno noted the Neale Street side setback was 25' and King Street setback was 16' 8" which pushed the house closer to the old house with the addition but not enough room two driveways between the houses. Garton said if the lot split goes through, there will be two different owners; therefore driveways should not be shared. Reno stated the shared driveways could cause problems and n N TROFIC ANALYSIS REP TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager FROM: Nick Adeh, City Enginee/4;7 DATE: July 20, 1998 RE: Proposed Driveway for 930 King Street Single Family House Early in May 1998, the applicant's architect, Gibson Reno, requested a review of their client's house plan with a curb cut on Neale Avenue. This request was conditionally acceptable to Engineering Department if certain safety criteria was met. This criteria was explained to project architect and further filed information was requested to evaluate the feasibility of a curb cut on top of a hill with 10.77% longitudinal slope. The criteria described to the architect includes the following safety measurement parameters: VISION TRIANGLE AT DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE OR EXIT POINT This parameter is generally defined as the length of the longest size vehicle entering or exiting a driveway, and is measured perpendicular to the sidewalk or edge of street pavement. We selected a 15 feet long passenger car from the back edge of the existing sidewalks towards the property. No vertical sight barriers, including trees, or other landscaping features such as fences, hedges or bushes taller than 36 inches shall be allowed within this vision triangle. The applicant will have to set the driveway at a point from the north property line to meet this criteria to ensure safe vehicle exits onto Neale Avenue. The applicant is also asked to maintain a 50 ft. minimum distance between the closest edges of the new driveway and King Street. The property frontage is long enough to accommodate this criteria. SIGHT DISTANCE VISUAL OBSERVATION TESTS FOR VARIOUS SPEED TAPERS Using 25mph posted speed limit, we conducted two directional sight distance tests between Gibson and Queen Avenues. We used the following parameters: 1. Driver's perception, decision and action = 3 seconds, equaled to 110 ft. road length. 2. Deceleration taper length for local/residential collector street functional classification = 8/1. 3. Visual sight distance measurement at actual driver eye level (42 inches) measured from the driveway surface which is normally 6 inches above the road surface. The results of our observation tests based on the actual drive conditions are shown in the following tabular form: Speed Reduction Taper (Linear Feet) Posted Speed (MPH) Min. Sight Dist. Required (SSD, in Linear Feet) Visible Sight Distance (SD, in Linear Feet) 8 feet per each speed mile 25 310 311 T 930 King Street • Page 2 CALCULATED STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE In this examination, we used the formula found in the AASHTO's book, 1984 edition, and obtained necessary parameters presented in several tables. We used the following data to calculate the stopping sight distance (SSD) for 25mph and 30mph travel speeds: 1. Total SSD = Decision Distance + Braking Distance 2. Design speeds = 25 mph & 30 mph 3. Road profile slope = 10.77% (obtained from survey data provided by Sopris Engineering Company on July 16, 1998. 4. Visible distance from driver eye level to toe of slope = 264.0 ft. Using the formula for roads at significant slope and the criteria for responsible and responsive drivers, we calculated the SSD for the following speeds: a) SSD at 25 mph speed = 186.50 ft < 264.0 ft, vehicle visible distance b) SSD at 30 mph speed = 255.80 ft < 264.0 ft, vehicle visible distance CONCLUSIONS We can learn from various sight distance evaluations discussed in this report that a 16 ft. wide proposed driveway, if centered at 23 ft. from the north property line, will not pose any traffic movement hazard under posted speed limits. As it can be noted from the calculated results, the visible distance to motorist at driveway exit point, is significantly greater than needed minimum SSD. Therefore, I recommend the location for the proposed driveway if other options are not feasible. 930KINGI Nick Adeh, 10 : 04-Al�i�6 Jam, Re: Cliu—c k & Bryce lore X-Sender: nicka@comdev Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 10:04:37 -0600 To: Julie Ann Woods <juliew@ci.aspen.co.us> From: Nick Adeh <nicka@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Re: Chuck & Bryce Maple Cc: stanc@ci.aspen.co.us, nicka@ci.aspen.co.us Hi Julie Ann, Yes, the field tests are completed and the good news are; it satisfies the clear distance needs for a visual line of sight. The criteria was based on 25MPH posted speed limit and a speed reduction ratio of 10:1. The field information provided by Gibson Reno will also be utilized to determine the stopping sight. distance by using the A..ASHTO's formula for SSD. A brief memo will follow. Nick Adeh At 08:01 AM 6/15/98 -0600, you wrote: >Stan -- >It's my understanding that Nick received the innformation he needed from >Gibson Reno and that he was going to conduct the test Friday and get back to >me today about his findings. Nick, is this correct? JA. >At 12:19 PM 6/14/98 -0600, Stan Clauson wrote: >>Nick, >>Did we conduct these tests? Can you tell me if they were conclusive in any >>respect? >>Thanks, >>Stan >>At 03:14 PM 04.30.1998 -0600, you wrote: >>>Hi Stan ! >>>We will conduct the 1110:1 and 8:1 speed taper test" based on 25 MPH - 30 >>>MPH, and 36" high driver line of sight, plus a 3 second driver's >>>Perception/Reaction time used in transportation designs and we will find out >>>whether there is a motorist related accident hazard. Then we would have the >>>actual data versus assumptive judgements and I will share the results with >>>Bob. I view this method as the only way out of this messy lot development >>>proposal from a technical stand point, although this is the responsibility >>>of the applicant to demonstrate safety related issues and we have not heard Prim-fo—r—Julie-- nn Woods <juliewgc—i.aspen co.us> �- NicIcAdeehl 10--;--04 AM*6/98 Re: Chuff & Bryce late >>>back from the applicant. >>>Please let me know if you have other suggestions. >>>Thanks, >>>Nick >>>At 11:42 AM 4/30/98 -0600, you wrote: >> >>Thanks Bob, this is a good analysis which I would like to have carried on to >> >>the HPC meeting. See if you can get together with Nick to come up with a >> >>unified response. »»Stan >>>> At 10:30 AM 04.30.1998 -0600, you wrote: >> >>>Chuck, Stan, Julie Ann, and Sara: >> >>>Based on a site visit, Tuesday 28 April, I do not believe there is a safety >> >>>issue relating to the Neale Avenue driveway. The drive access from Neale is >> >>>relatively flat with adequate sight -distance in both directions even with >> >>>the vertical curve in Neale Avenue as Nick identified. With the drive in >> >>>this location, there is direct access from the lot into town versus having >> >>>to drive east on the one-way King Street. >> >>>The neighbors (Maples and Shoaf) are concerned about headlights shining into >> >>>their windows due to the proposed driveway location on Neale. The Maples are >> >>>also concerned with having a drive along their "front" yard. >> >>>I concur with HPC's recommendation of having two separate drives for the >> >>>same reasons Amy stated. Thanks, Bobn. >>>>> 08:45 AM 4/30/98 -0600, you wrote: >>>>>>>X-Sender: stanc@comdev >> >> >>>Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:36:41 -0600 >> >> >>>To: Julie Ann Woods <juliew@ci.aspen.co.us> >> >> >>>From: Stan Clauson <stanc@ci.aspen.co.us> >> >> >>>Subject: Re: Chuck & Bryce Maple >> >> >>>Cc: sarat@ci.aspen.co.us, juliew@ci.aspen.co.us »»»> Printed for Julie Ann Woods <juliew-@ci.aspen.co.us> -2 Nick de-h,-10 04 AM 106/98 , Re: Chuc -_ & Bryce 16le »»»>Bob, »»»> >> >> >>>What is your take on the driveway issue for this site? Nick insists >that a >> >> >>>driveway onto Neale Street would be unsafe because of the rise in the >>street >> >> >>>at the proposed location. HPC felt that separate driveways made for a >> >> >>>better site plan than a shared driveway off of King Street. »»»> >> >> >>>Thanks, »»»> »»»>Stan »»»> >> >> >>>At 03:28 PM 04.27.1998 -0600, you wrote: >> >> >> >>Bob will attend the site visit tomorrow at 2 with Sara T. I believe Ross >> >> >> >>from engineering will be there. I'm cc'ing Nick and John so they know. >>>Bob >> >> >> >>will carry the case (landmarking, ADU) through P&Z; I'll carry it through >> >> >> >>council in his absence. JA. >>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>At 01:55 PM 4/27/98 -0600, you wrote: >> >> >> >>>Julie Ann, »»»»> >> >> >> >>>Can you please set up a site visit with Nick Adeh--and John Worcester, »»if he >> >> >> >>>wants to attend --to review Nick's concerns. »»»»> >> >> >> >>>Thanks, »»»»> >> >> >> >>>Stan »»»»> >>>>>>>>>>X-Sender: amyg@comdev >> >> >> >> >>Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 08:07:02 -0600 >> >> >> >> >>To: Nick Adeh <nicka@ci.aspen.co.us> >> >> >> >> >>From: Amy Guthrie <amyg@ci.aspen.co.us> >> >> >> >> >>Subject: Re: Chuck & Bryce Maple >> >> >> >> >>Cc: johnw@ci.aspen.co.us, stanc@ci.aspen.co.us, juliew@ci.aspen.co.us >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>»HPC has been reviewing this project for some time and feels strongly >>that >> >> >> >> >>the appropriate design is to access the historic house off of King >>Street >> >> >> >> >>and the new house off of Neale. This is for a variety of reasons, >> >>>including >> >> >> >> >>not wanting to have a predominance of pavement across the front Printed for Julie Ann Wooer <juliew�gci.aspen.co.us> 3 Ni� c_k_A_deh, 10 : 04—AM06/98--,Re: Chuck —&Bryce &-re of the >> >> >> >> >>property. >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>The idea is also driven by the fact that the 1896 Willit's map of the >>>City >> >> >> >> >>of Aspen shows an alley running through this block. I do not know the >> >> >> >> >>status of that alley- whether it was vacated or what. >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>I do not have a problem with the Maple's complaint, but would say >>>that the >> >> >> >> >>project has been through a fairly lengthy set of public hearings, >>>>>>>>>>worksessions and site visits, all of which they have attended and the >> >> >> >> >>applicant has conceptual approval for this site plan. They are >> >>planning on >> >> >> >> >>coming in for final the end of May. Nick attended the meetings of >>>HPC and >> >> >> >> >>did express the point of view that he lays out below, but I feel >>that the >> >> >> >> >>decision should have been stated earlier if this is the way it was >going »»»»to go. >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>Please forward any further correspondance on this to Stan and Julie Ann >> >> >> >> >>since I won't be here. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>At 01:22 PM 4/23/98 -0600, you wrote: >> >> >> >> >>>I have received numerous complaints >> >>driveway on >> >> >> >> >>>Neale Avenue for the corner property at the >> >> >> >> >>>corner of Neale & King. The HPC has >> >>engineering for regarding the proposed new at 930 king Street located deferred this case to >> >> >> >> >>>review and recommendation. My response has been: »»»»»> >>>>>>>>>>>1. Our preferred alternative would be the construction of a >>driveway on >> >> >> >> >>>King Street >>>>>>>>>>>2. The applicant must submit a written justification for hardship (if »»>any) >> >> >> >> >>>that might >>>>>>>>>>> result from driveway on King Street. >>>>>>>>>>>3. One street or personal likings for having a driveway off of >heavily >> >> >> >> >>>traveled Neale Printed_f -o—r _Ju13e-2dinWoods <Juliew@ci.aspen.co.us> - - 4 Nick Ade�i;-TO:04 AM46%98 , Re: Chuck & Bryce Wle >>>>>>>>>>> Avenue does not justify hardship. Access from Neale Avenue is »»unsafe »»»»»>and in a >>>>>>>>>>> blind spot, it sits on a hill crest. »»»»»> >> >> >> >> >>>Maples are apposing it because the driveway is next to their property »»line >> >> >> >> >>>and will add another road hazard to neale Avenue. »»»»»> >> >> >> >> >>>Neighbors are opposing this proposed access from Neale Avenue for >>safety >> >> >> >> >>>reasons, and they have submitted written opposition. They are: »»»»»> >>>>>>>>>>>1. Chuck and Bryce Maple >>>>>>>>>>>2. Marlene and James Mickey >>>>>>>>>>>3. Jeffrey Shoaf >>>>>>>>>>>4. Jackie Kasabach »»»»»>5. »»»»»> >> >> >> >> >>>I have not received any response from the owners of 930 King Street >> >> >> >> >>>property, so I am not sure what you or I should do. My best guess is >> >>>let's >> >> >> >> >>>wait to see if we hear from the applicant. »»»»»> >> >> >> >> >>>Nick Adeh »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»»> >> >> >> >> >>>At 12:57 PM 4/23/98 -0600, you wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>I assume you guys got a copy of the letter sent to me by the maple's. >> >> >>>Do you >> >> >> >> >> >>know what their concern is? Is there something I need to do? >>>>>>>>>>>> »»»»»>>JohnW >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»»> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> »»»»> »»»»> »»»»> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> »»»> Printedfor Julie Ann Woods <juliewQci.aapen.co.us> 5 - Nick A e , Re: CH-u-c-k & Bryce qWjLe lPrinted for Julie Arm Woods <juliew@ci.aspen.co.us> r ORDINANCE No. 2-20 (SERIES OF 1998) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING APPROVAL OF LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND A SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR AN HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT AT 930 KING STREET CITY OF ASPEN WHEREAS, pursuant Section 26.76.020 of the Municipal Code, to be eligible for landmark designation, a structure or site must meet two (2) or more of the five (5) standards; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5) and 26.72.010(G) of the Municipal Code, an Historic Landmark Lot Split is a subdivision exemption subject to review and approval by City Council after obtaining a recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission (hereinafter HPC); and WHEREAS, the applicant, NPJ, LLC, has requested to split the 13,343 square foot parcel to create two separate single-family residential lots of 8,059.99 square feet and 5,282.66 square feet respectively; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.72.010(G) of the Municipal Code, the HPC reviewed the request for the historic lot split, and pursuant to Section 26.76. 030, they reviewed the request for landmark designation at a properly noticed public hearing on March 25, 1998 and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.76. 030, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the request for landmark designation at a properly noticed public hearing on May 19, 1998 and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has reviewed the application and recommended approval of both the Landmark Designation and the Historic Landmark Lot Split, with conditions; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the Landmark Designation and the subdivision exemption under the applicable provisions of Chapters 26.72 and 26.88 of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered those recommendations made by the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation Commission, and the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Landmark Designation and the Historic Landmark Lot Split, with conditions, meets or exceeds all applicable development standards of the above referenced Municipal Code sections; and • • WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the public health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to Sections 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5), 26.72.010(G), and Section 26.76.020 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 and the Historic Landmark Designation: 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. 3. The landmark designation is appropriate, finding that standards B (architectural importance), D (neighborhood character) and E (community character) of Section 26.76.020 are met. Section 2: Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 1, above, the City Council does hereby designate as an Historic Landmark and grant an Historic Landmark Lot Split subdivision exemption for 930 King Street with the following conditions: 1. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall: a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.88.040(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code; b. Contain a plat note stating that development of Lot 1 shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c) of the Municipal Code; c. Contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; d. The two lots created by this lot split shall have a total allowable base FAR, on both lots combined, equal to 4,384 square feet of floor area prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements, etc.). The applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR on each lot, taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided into two parcels, Lot 1 containing 8059.99 square feet and Lot 2 containing 5282.66 square feet. Provided it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on Lot 2 would be 1561 square feet of floor area (including a 250 square foot floor area bonus, if granted by the HPC) and 2795 square feet of floor area on Lot 1 (the two historic outbuildings will remain). The information verified by the City Zoning Officer shall be included on the plat, as a plat note; e. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R15A zone district, except the variances approved by the HPC. 2. As a minimum, the subdivision exemption agreement shall include the elements outlined in Section 26.88.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code, and shall meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section 26.88.030(A)(2)(e). 3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either lot, the applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement and pay the applicable recording fees. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the City Council shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by City Council. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the • • ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 13th day of July, 1998 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 22nd day of June, 1998. John Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk John Worcester, City Attorney FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 1998. John Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk g /planning/nspen/hpc/cascylouplit/930wd. doc Amy Guthrie, 68:�0-7-Re: Chuck & BrycA4aple X-Sender: amyg@comdev Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 08:07:02 -0600 To: Nick Adeh <nicka@ci.aspen.co.us> From: Amy Guthrie <amyg@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Re: Chuck & Bryce Maple Cc: johnw@ci.aspen.co.us, stanc@ci.aspen.co.us, juliew@ci.aspen.co.us HPC has been reviewing this project for some time and feels strongly that the appropriate design is to access the historic house off of King Street and the new house off of Neale. This is for a variety of reasons, including not wanting to have a predominance of pavement across the front of the property. The idea is also driven by the fact that the 1896 Willit's map of the City of Aspen shows an alley running through this block. I do not know the status of that alley- whether it was vacated or what. I do not have a problem with the Maple's complaint, but would say that the project has been through a fairly lengthy set of public hearings, worksessions and site visits, all of which they have attended and the applicant has conceptual approval for this site plan. They are planning on coming in for final the end of May. Nick attended the meetings of HPC and did express the point of view that he lays out below, but I feel that the decision should have been stated earlier if this is the way it was going to go. Please forward any further correspondance on this to Stan and Julie Ann since I won't be here. At 01:22 PM 4/23/98 -0600, you wrote: >I have received numerous complaints regarding the proposed new driveway on >Neale Avenue for the corner property at 930 king Street located at the >corner of Neale & King. The HPC has deferred this case to engineering for >review and recommendation. My response has been: >1. Our preferred alternative would be the construction of a driveway on >King Street >2. The applicant must submit a written justification for hardship (if any) >that might > result from driveway on King Street. >3. One street or personal likings for having a driveway off of heavily >traveled Neale > Avenue does not justify hardship. Access from Neale Avenue is unsafe >and in a > blind spot, it sits on a hill crest. >Maples are apposing it because the driveway is next to their property line >and will add another road hazard to neale Avenue. Printed ror Puri Ann Woo Ts <juliew ci:aspen.co..us> - - I Amy Guthrie,�-8--007 A*/2419-8 , Re: Chuck & BryAap� >Neighbors are opposing this proposed access from Neale Avenue for safety >reasons, and they have submitted written opposition. They are: >1. Chuck and Bryce Maple >2. Marlene and James Mickey >3. Jeffrey Shoaf >4. Jackie Kasabach >5. >I have not received any response from the owners of 930 King Street >property, so I am not sure what you or I should do. My best guess is let's >wait to see if we hear from the applicant. >Nick Adeh >At 12:57 PM 4/23/98 -0600, you wrote: >>I assume you guys got a copy of the letter sent to me by the maple's. Do you >>know what their concern is? Is there something I need to do? >>JohnW riP 'nted-for Julie�i -Woods <juliew@ci.aspen.&o us> 2 • Mr. & Mrs Charles A. Maple • 927 Gibson Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 April 16, 1998 Historic Preservation Committee C/O Ms. Amy Guthrie Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 APR 2 2 1998 RE: l f Development Proposal 930 Kin Street ii�rtiv 1 rl I KIN p p g COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Submitted by Gibson - Reno Architects. L.L.C. 12/ 10/97 Members of the Historic Preservation Committee: We are appreciative of the HPC's input to date on the proposed development at 930 King Street. Nonetheless, we believe the HPC may be considering granting the developer a number of concessions that are contrary to the City of Aspen Municipal Code Land Use Regulations ("Code"). While the proposed development may be a vast improvement over the plan proposed by another owner under a different set of codes, such consideration is irrelevant. The proposed development must comply with the Codes and requirements currently in place. Natural Grade and Height Issues: We believe the proposed development should be required to restore the natural grade. The Code requires that all maximum heights be established from "natural" grade. Specifically, the Code states: "If it shall be determined that the natural grade has been disturbed prior to development, the building inspector shall establish what had been natural grade and measure from that elevation." The owners offer to calculate total height from the "natural" grade appears to be both suspect and inadequate. The offered approach, when carefully applied to the proposed development, fails to comply with Code in several ways: 1) it overlooks the "General" purpose of 26.58.010 (Ordinance 30), "To ensure Aspen's street and neighborhoods are conducive of walking....", 2) heights must be calculated from the exterior perimeter of the building (26.58.040 F. 5.) and 3) subgrade areas would be partly above grade and partly below the true "natural" grade and would therefore have to considered in the floor area calculation (26.58.040 F. 11.). Driveway On Neale The proposed curb cut and drive access from Neale Street conflicts with the "General" purpose of 26.58.010 (Ordinance 30), City Engineering Standards and creates a safety hazard for pedestrians and vehicles. Neale Street is perhaps the single most traveled pedestrian route outside the downtown core. Adding a curb cut and driveway will distract from the walking experience. The proposed driveway will create a serious safety hazard due to the proximity of the hill crest. 0 PETITION 0 TO: The Historical Preservation Commission FROM: Concerned Neighbors and Negatively Impacted Neale Avenue Citizens RE: Opposition to the Proposed Second Driveway Onto Neale Avenue from the No Problem Joe/930 King Street Development We, the undersigned, concerned neighbors and Neale Avenue area citizens do hereby wish to register our concern and opposition to the proposed construction of a second driveway onto Neale Avenue and across the sidewalk that is currently shown on the 930 King Street site plan. While it may seem obvious, the second driveway as proposed would only benefit the one new residence and it would create an unnecessary hazard and potential danger source to all other users of Neale Avenue including vehicular traffic, pedestrians and bicycles. Please do not allow this needless, significant safety hazard to occur on Neale Avenue. Access can be safely provided to the subject property from the proposed King Street driveway. Thank you for your consideration. STREET AND NUMBER AND PRINT NAME MAILING ADDRESS DAT SIGNATURE C(-JO ytiJ t1 55 02 51319, 4.��t� (CNN Cie &OA C-� F 7. VuVi �S'1 C. I CC -17 s. • ' f _ 10.. Vljj < Q1kl OSbA 6 �9g 61 bSdh is _6JALt 09 12. f T d Z 13. A 4A - • JEFFREY S. SHOAF is Post Office Box 3123 Aspen, Colorado 81612 (970) 925-4501 May 1, 1998 Stan Clausen Community Development Director City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Stan: Thank you for taking the time to meet with me yesterday regarding the No Problem Joe/930 King Street Development Project located across the street from my 117 Neale Avenue house. Your advice, to involve the neighborhood by Petition addressed to the Historical Preservation Commission, is very sound and I intend to follow through on it regarding opposition to the current development plans calling for a second, extra, unnecessary driveway onto busy Neale Avenue. As I said yesterday, I believe the current site plans now on the table for a driveway onto Neale Avenue only benefits the 930 King Street developers/property owners. It does create a needless hazard and risk to the entire neighborhood as well as all users of Neale Avenue and the sidewalk. A second driveway is unnecessary when a driveway off of King Street is also proposed. Your statement to me that the Historical Preservation Commission has the final say on the site plan (including the extra Neale Avenue driveway) certainly warrants the Petition to follow. Stan, if I can be of any assistance to you or the HPC regarding this issue, or if I have misstated anything here, please call me as soon as possible. Otherwise, I look forward to meeting with the HPC on May 27`''. Thank you again. r ORDINANCE No. (SERIES OF 1998) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING APPROVAL OF LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND A SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR AN HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT AT 930 KING STREET CITY OF ASPEN WHEREAS, pursuant Section 26.76.020 of the Municipal Code, to be eligible for landmark designation, a structure or site must meet two (2) or more of the five (5) standards; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5) and 26.72.010(G) of the Municipal Code, an Historic Landmark Lot Split is a subdivision exemption subject to review and approval by City Council after obtaining a recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission (hereinafter HPQ and WHEREAS, the applicant, NPJ, LLC, has requested to split the 13,343 square foot parcel to create two separate single-family residential lots of 8,059.99 square feet and 5,282.66 square feet respectively; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.72.010(G) of the Municipal Code, the HPC reviewed the request for the historic lot split, and pursuant to Section 26.76. 030, they reviewed the request for landmark designation at a properly noticed public hearing on March 25, 1998 and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.76. 030, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the request for landmark designation at a properly noticed public hearing on May 19, 1998 and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has reviewed the application and recommended approval of both the Landmark Designation and the Historic Landmark Lot Split, with conditions; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the Landmark Designation and the subdivision exemption under the applicable provisions of Chapters 26.72 and 26.88 of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered those recommendations made by the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation Commission, and the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Landmark Designation and the Historic Landmark Lot Split, with conditions, meets or exceeds all applicable development standards of the above referenced Municipal Code sections; and 0 0 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the public health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to Sections 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5), 26.72.010(G), and Section 26.76.020 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 and the Historic Landmark Designation: 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. 3. The landmark designation is appropriate, finding that standards B (architectural importance), D (neighborhood character) and E (community character) of Section 26.76.020 are met. Section-L. Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 1, above, the City Council does hereby designate as an Historic Landmark and grant an Historic Landmark Lot Split subdivision exemption for 930 King Street with the following conditions: 1. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall: a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.88.040(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code; b. Contain a plat note stating that development of Lot 1 shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c) of the Municipal Code; c. Contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; d. The two lots created by this lot split shall have a total allowable base FAR, on both lots combined, equal to 4,384 square feet of floor area prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements, etc.). The applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR on each lot, taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided into two parcels, Lot 1 containing 8059.99 square feet and Lot 2 containing 5282.66 square feet. Provided it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on Lot 2 would be 1561 square feet of floor area (including a 250 square foot floor area bonus, if granted by the HPC) and 2795 square feet of floor area on Lot 1 (the two historic outbuildings will remain). The information verified by the City Zoning Officer shall be included on the plat, as a plat note; e. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R15A zone district, except the variances approved by the HPC. 2. As a minimum, the subdivision exemption agreement shall include the elements outlined in Section 26.88.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code, and shall meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section 26.88.030(A)(2)(e). 3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either lot, the applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement and pay the applicable recording fees. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the City Council shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by City Council. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided. and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 15 A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 13th day of July, 1998 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 22nd day of June, 1998. John Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathrvn S. Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 1998. John Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk g7plamring/aspemfipc/ a lorsplid930ord.doc June 10, 1998 Mr. Augie Reno Gibson -Reno Architects 210 E. Hyman, No. 202 Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 930 King St. Dear Augie: As per our telephone conversation last week regarding the proposed schedule for 930 King St., I would like to suggest the following revised schedule: Monday, June 22, 1998 First Reading on Landmark status and Historic Lot Split before City Council Monday, July 13, 1998 Second Reading on Landmark status and Historic Lot Split before City Council Wednesday, July 22, 1998 Final review and DRAC Variance by the HPC It is my understanding from reading through the minutes of both the HPC and the P&Z that the following is the current status of your project: HPC P&Z Landmarking Recommended Recommended Approval 3/25/98 Approval 5/13/98 4-3 Vote 4-0 Vote ADU Conditional Use Historic Lot split Partial demo/relocation Recommended Approval 3/25/98 4-3 Vote Approved 3/25/98 Subject to conditions 4-3 Vote Approved 5/13/98 4-0 Vote Conceptual review Recommended Approval 3/25/98 Subject to conditions 4-3 Vote Final review and DRAC variance Pending Clearly, there are still many concerns by the HPC regarding this property and the proposed changes. The City Council now must decide whether or not they think the landmarking and lot split are appropriate, and this must occur through the passing of an ordinance, which requires a first and second reading. A public hearing on the matter will be held at the second reading. I hope that after our meeting today we will be able to confirm these dates and better prepare for these final meetings. If you have any questions regarding this case, please feel free to call me at 920-5100. Sincerely, Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director Acting Historic Preservation Officer • M�i������� l May 19, 1998 Ms. Julie Ann Wood Deputy Community Development Director City of Aspen Aspen Pitkin County Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: No Problem Joe 930 King Street Dear Julie Ann: DAV I D G I BSON AIA e- AUGUST RECE ValcD RENO AIA JUN 1 1998 SCOTT ,�5rtivI F'11KIN SMITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AIA I have enclosed ten (10) copies of the 930 King Street Project for your review. The drawings have been revised responding to the Historic Preservation Commission requests. These revisions include: 1. Re -study of the window fenestration (Residence "A") 2. Re -study of the stone fireplace chimney (Residence "A"). 3. Re -study of the addition to Residence "B" (Historic structure) 4. Landscape Plan showing exterior perimeter fencing. 5. Structural report regarding the Historic structure. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Au t eno, '� cc: H. Cahn, L. Winnerman enclosure GIBSON • R ENO A RC If ITECTS, L.L.C. III 210 E. HYMAN N" 202 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 970.925.5968 FACSIMILE 970.925.5993 P.O. BOX 278 117 N. WILLOW No 2 TELLURIDE CO LO RADO 81435 970.728.6607 FACSIMILE 970.728.6658 4ay',1.9-98 04 _ 27P M & N(6enver • P.01 Ucmvr. (ol0f'.Ido "ail. Cok,rldo Monroe & Newell 1711gint'cc,, Inc RECEIVED JUN 1 1998 ASPEN I PI 1 NuN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT May 19, 1998 Gibson Reno Architects 210 E. Hyman St., Suite 202 Aspen, CO Attn: Mr. Augie Reno Re: "No Problem Joe" Miner's Shack (M&N #4024) 930 King Street Aspen, CO Gentlemen: A representative from our office observed the existing historic ininer's shack located at 930 King Street in Aspen, Colorado on April 23, 1998. Our report will describe our observations and provide information on the structural adequacy of the existing structural framing. The project plans for the site include the incorporation of this miner's shack into a 3,000 square foot residence (2,500 square foot addition to the miner's shack). The existing miner's shack is a 500 square foot, one-story, wood framed structure located at the southeast corner of the site at 930 King Street. The building is reportedly approximately 100 years old. The wood framing appears to be rough sawn spruce. The roof is framed with 2 x 4 (actual size) joists at 2'-0" on center with a 1 x 6 rough sawn ridge beam and 2 x 4 ceiling framing at 1'-4" on center. The roof deck is comprised of sheet metal over wood shingles on I planks. The walls are framed with 2 x 4 (actual size) studs at 1 `-4" on center. The existing exterior siding includes wood siding and'or plastic sheeting, and plywood, and corrugated fiberglass sheets. IC)i,rl tiro •nl''•nlli tii . will- 3ir) . 1)i•11, rr. C " i " I Id" r;u 2 u? 0 ( iuil I,23—I1)' . I :\.\ ( 3)A) 623-6602 May-19-98 O4:27P M & N#enver • P_O2 "No Problem Joe" Miner's Shack Page 2 May 19, 1998 The floor framing is 2 x 6 (actual size) rough sawn joists at 2'-0" on center spanning between the exterior bearing walls with a 1 x 6 rough sawn post installed at midspan. A single 2 x 6 rough sawn rim joist was installed around the perimeter of the floor. The following consists of/<inch thick tongue and groove planks with some additional sheets of plywood installed over presumed damaged planking. The foundation, as could best be determined, consists of wood blocks and/or logs intermittently spaced around the perimeter and a single 2 x 6 plate below the interior, midspan supports for the floor joists. Additional items include a brick chimney located in the center of the building and supported by wood stud framing. A porch is attached at the south side of the building. It consists of wood planks roof declining, 2 x 4 wood roof joists, 4 x 4 wood posts, I wood plank floor and presumed 2 x 4 wood floor joists (inaccessible). In our opinion, based on our limited visual observations, the structure, except for the front porch, appears to be in good structural condition, with floors and roof relativelv level and walls relatively plumb (structure leans slightly to the east). We have analyzed the existing roof, wall and floor framing based on our estimated wood species. The existing roof rafters do not meet current code requirements but the wall and floor framing do assuming the interior support conditions. The structural does not appear to have any significant damage due to water, external loads (wind or snow), wood rot, vandalism or time. The front porch has deteriorated extensively and is generally beyond repair or salvaging. There are several items that would need to be corrected if the building was remodeled. Additional 2 x 4 Douglas -Fir No. 2 roof rafters would need to be installed between the existing roof rafters because the existing roof rafters would be overstressed under full snow load. In addition, the new and existing roof rafters, and ceiling framing should be attached to the bearing walls with metal clips (Simpson H2.5 anchors). The existing headers above the windows would need to be removed and replaced with properly sized dimension lumber. Several wall studs that were cut near the gable roof end walls would need to be repaired. The interior midspan support posts for the floor joists would need to be replaced with a properly sized timber member or some type of foundation wall. The existing rim joists should be removed and replaced, and adequate bearing of the existing floor joists on the new foundation wall confirmed. The wood support members for the brick chimney should be replaced with properly sized wood or steel members. The exterior siding should be replaced with l x siding and/or plywood. The existing roof planks should have plywood sheathing (3/8inch thick minimum) installed on top. The existing floor planks should have plywood sheathing (1/2inch thick minimum) installed on top. The above listed items should be reviewed with the building relocation subcontractor as further items may need to be included. May-1,9-98 04:28P M & - enver P.04 "No Problem Joe" Miner's Shack Page 3 May 19, 1998 Temporary support members and bracing will need to be installed below and on the structure prior to and during the relocation of the miner's shack. These support members and bracing should consist of the following minimum structural components. Wood or steel support members should be provided below the east and west bearing walls and below the interior bearing wall. These temporary support members may be incorporated into or accounted for with regard to the final structural support framing. Additional support framing may be required below the north and south bearing walls. Since the front porch may not be salvaged, temporary support will probably not be required below. Plywood/OSB sheathing, '/s inch thick x 4%0" x 8'-0" (vertical), should be installed over the existing exterior siding (not including corrugated fiberglass siding which should be removed), over all exterior walls that do not have siding and over all exterior windows. The sheathing should be attached along the bottom to the existing rim joists. In addition, '/2 inch thick plywood/OSB sheathing should be installed on one face of the interior bearing wall. The existing corrugated metal roof sheeting should have additional screw attachment to the roof planking installed. If the metal roofing is to be removed, additional '/2 inch thick sheathing should be installed perpendicular to the roof joist at all upper and lower corners of the roof. Temporary support members and bracing in addition to that described above may be required by the building relocation subcontractor. All temporary support members and bracing shall be designed, detailed, installed by and be the responsibility of the building relocation subcontractor. The construction documents that our office will prepare for this project will include new foundation drawings and details for the relocated building. In addition, the documents will include framing details to show the upgrade of the existing structure (to meet current design criteria) and to show the revisions required for relocation to the new foundation. The structure relocation subcontractor should submit shop drawings and details for the relocation process to be reviewed by Monroe & Newell Engineers. Please call our office if you have any questions or require any additional information. Sincerely, James I. Ness, P. . Project Engineer Nick Adeh, 03:14 PM 4/ 98 , Re: Chuck & Bryce M X-Sender: nicka@comdev Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 15:14:20 -0600 To: Stan Clauson <stanc@ci.aspen.co.us> From: Nick Adeh <nicka@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Re: Chuck & Bryce Maple Cc: bobn@ci.aspen.co.us, nicka@ci.aspen.co.us Hi Stan ! We will conduct the "10:1 and 8:1 speed taper test" based on 25 MPH - 30 MPH, and 36" high driver line of sight, plus a 3 second driver's Perception/Reaction time used in transportation designs and we will find out whether there is a motorist related accident hazard. Then we would have the actual daLa versus assumptive judgements and I will share the results with Bob. I view this method as the only way out of this messy lot development proposal from a technical stand point, although this is the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate safety related issues and we have not heard back from the applicant. Please let me know if you have other suggestions. Thanks, Nick At 11:42 AM 4/30/98 -0600, you wrote: >Thanks Bob, this is a good analysis which I would like to have carried on to >the HPC meeting. See if you can get together with Nick to come up with a >unified response. >Stan > At 10:30 AM 04.30.1998 -0600, you wrote: >>Chuck, Stan, Julie Ann, and Sara: >>Based on a site visit, Tuesday 28 April, I do not believe there is a safety >>issue relating to the Neale Avenue driveway. The drive access from Neale is >>relatively flat with adequate sight -distance in both directions even with >>the vertical curve in Neale Avenue as Nick identified. With the drive in >>this location, there is direct access from the lot into town versus having >>to drive east on the one-way King Street. >>The neighbors (Maples and Shoaf) are concerned about headlights shining into >>their windows due to the proposed driveway location on Neale. The Maples are >>also concerned with having a drive along their "front" yard. Printed for Bob Nevins <bobn@ci.aspen.co.us> 1 Nick Adeh, 03:14 PM 4 /98 , Re: Chuck & Bryce blWe >>I concur with HPC's recommendation of having two separate drives for the >>same reasons Amy stated. Thanks, Bobn. >> 08:45 AM 4/30/98 -0600, you wrote: >>>>X-Sender: stanc@comdev »»Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:36:41 -0600 >> >>To: Julie Ann Woods <juliew@ci.aspen.co.us> >> >>From: Stan Clauson <stanc@ci.aspen.co.us> »» Subject: Re: Chuck & Bryce Maple >> >> Cc: sarat@ci.aspen.co.us, juliew@ci.aspen.co.us »»Bob, »»What is your take on the driveway issue for this site? Nick insists that a »»driveway onto Neale Street would be unsafe because of the rise in the street »»at the proposed location. HPC felt that separate driveways made for a »»better site plan than a shared driveway off of King Street. »»Thanks, »»Stan »»At 03:28 PM 04.27.1998 -0600, you wrote: »» >Bob will attend the site visit tomorrow at 2 with Sara T. I believe Ross >> >>>from engineering will be there. I'm cc'ing Nick and John so they know. Bob >> >>>will carry the case (landmarking, ADU) through P&Z; I'll carry it through »»>council in his absence. JA. >> >>>At 01:55 PM 4/27/98 -0600, you wrote: >> »»Julie Ann, >>>>>> »»»Can you please set up a site visit with Nick Adeh--and John Worcester, >if he »»»wants to attend --to review Nick's concerns. »»» »»»Thanks, >>»» »»»Stan >>»» >>»»>X-Sender: amyg@comdev >> >> >>>Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 08:07:02 -0600 >> >> >>>To: Nick Adeh <nicka@ci.aspen.co.us> >> >> >>>From: Amy Guthrie <amyg@ci.aspen.co.us> 2 Printed for BobNevins<bobn@ci.aspen.co.us>- John Worcester, 1-2:57 _.M 4%2-379&_ CHuck-& Bryce 9pre Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 12:57:16 -0600 (MDT) X-Sender: johnw@commons To: nicka@ci.aspen.co.us, sarat@ci.aspen.co.us From: John Worcester <johnw@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Chuck & Bryce Maple I assume you guys got a copy of the leeter sent to me by the maple's. Do you know what their concern is? Is there something I need to do? JohnW Printed f—or Sara Thomas <sarat@ i .—as peri__.co. us> - - Mr. & Mrs Charles A. Maple . 927 Gibson Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Historic Preservation Committee C/O Ms. Amy Guthrie Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 G f��jf,'D April 16, 1998 00 PSpEN�E1��- l 1 1 GCPI RE: Development Proposal for 930 King Street Submitted by Gibson - Reno Architects. L.L.C. 12/10/97 Members of the Historic Preservation Committee: l�VVI\ . J We are appreciative of the HPC's input to date on the proposed development at 930 King Street. Nonetheless, we believe the HPC may be considering granting the developer a number of concessions that are contrary to the City of Aspen Municipal Code Land Use Regulations ("Code"). While the proposed development may be a vast improvement over the plan proposed by another owner under a different set of codes, such consideration is irrelevant. The proposed development must comply with the Codes and requirements currently in place. Natural Grade and Height Issues: We believe the proposed development should be required to restore the natural grade. The Code requires that all maximum heights be established from "natural" grade. Specifically, the Code states: "If it shall be determined that the natural grade has been disturbed prior to development, the building inspector shall establish what had been natural grade and measure from that elevation." The owners offer to calculate total height from the "natural" grade appears to be both suspect and inadequate. The offered approach, when carefully applied to the proposed development, fails to comply with Code in several ways: 1) it overlooks the "General" purpose of 26.58.010 (Ordinance 30), "To ensure Aspen's street and neighborhoods are conducive of walking....", 2) heights must be calculated from the exterior perimeter of the building (26.58.040 F. 5.) and 3) subgrade areas would be partly above grade and partly below the true "natural" grade and would therefore have to considered in the floor area calculation (26.58.040 F. 1 l.). Driveway On Neale The proposed curb cut and drive access from Neale Street conflicts with the "General" purpose of 26.58.010 (Ordinance 30), City Engineering Standards and creates a safety hazard for pedestrians and vehicles. Neale Street is perhaps the single most traveled pedestrian route outside the downtown core. Adding a curb cut and driveway will distract from the walking experience. The proposed driveway will create a serious safety hazard due to the proximity of the hill crest. • FAR Bonuses and Density No additional FAR bonuses should be granted. The site is a non -conforming R-15A lot. The proposal calls for three residences on a lot heretofore zoned for a single family dwelling. While we do not object to the lot split, the granting of the lot split is a huge economic bonus for the developer and the granting of additional FAR bonuses is unwarranted and unsupported by the Code. Furthermore, the massing additions that are inherent in the lot split should be carefully considered. Since up to 250 square feet in garages are exempt from FAR calculations and the next 250 square feet of garage is counted as .5 FAR, the lot split effectively creates a massive floor area and volume bonus (approximately 10%) in the form of an additional garage. Paragraph 26.88.030 A. 5. c. states that "HPC variances and bonuses are only (emphasis added) permitted on the parcel that contains the historic structure." Pursuant to the code, the owner would be permitted to build up to 2,700 FAR on a 3,000 square foot lot created by an Historic Landmark Lot Split. Since the structure proposed on the Historic Landmark Lot Split site is less than the permitted FAR, no FAR bonus is needed. As proposed, the FAR bonus is applied to Residence A, not the Historically Land marked building. Documentation To date, the developer has agreed to a 25 foot set back from Neale and elimination of portions of fence. We had also requested a limitation of landscaping (nothing over six feet above "natural" grade) within the front yard set back. We request that the HPC and/or Planning authorities properly document these conditions to ensure enforcement in perpetuity. The Neale and King Street neighborhood has recently witnessed dramatic increases in density. We respectfully request the HPC carefully enforce the Code in this "Moderate Density Residential' area. SinceE,E4y, Chuck & Bryce Maple c: Mayor John Bennett Sarah Thomas Julie Zeiler Maple 0 • RECFlV'FD APR 2 9 1998 A5F'tiv r ri i n„� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Amy -GutFirie, AM j24%99--, —Re.- Chuck & Bryc ap e X-Sender: amyg@comdev Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 08:07:02 -0600 To: Nick Adeh <nicka@ci.aspen.co.us> From: Amy Guthrie <amyg@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Re: Chuck & Bryce Maple Cc: johnw@ci.aspen.co.us, stanc@ci.aspen.co.us, juliew@ci.aspen.co.us HPC has been reviewing this project for some time and feels strongly that the appropriate design is to access the historic house off of King Street and the new house off of Neale. This is for a variety of reasons, including not wanting to have a predominance of pavement across the front of the property. The idea is also driven by the fact that the 1896 Willit's map of the City of Aspen shows an alley running through this block. I do not know the status of that alley- whether it was vacated or what. I do not have a problem with the Maple's complaint, but would say that the project has been through a fairly lengthy set of public hearings, worksessions and site visits, all of which they have attended and the applicant has conceptual approval for this site plan. They are planning on coming in for final the end of May. Nick attended the meetings of HPC and did express the point of view that he lays out below, but I feel that the decision should have been stated earlier if this is the way it was going to go. Please forward any further correspondance on this to Stan and Julie Ann since I won't be here. At 01:22 PM 4/23/98 -0600, you wrote: >I have received numerous complaints regarding the proposed new driveway on >Neale Avenue for the corner property at 930 king Street located at the >corner of Neale & King. The HPC has deferred this case to engineering for >review and recommendation. My response has been: >1. Our preferred alternative would be the construction of a driveway on >King Street >2. The applicant must submit a written justification for hardship (if any) >that might > result from driveway on King Street. >3. One street or personal likings for having a driveway off of heavily >traveled Neale > Avenue does not justify hardship. Access from Neale Avenue is unsafe >and in a > blind spot, it sits on a hill crest. >Maples are apposing it because the driveway is next to their property line >and will add another road hazard to neale Avenue. Printe for JulieAnn Woods- <julieww@ci.aspen:co.us> Amy Gut. rie, Owe 0'T j24/98 Re: Chuck & Bryc apre >Neighbors are opposing this proposed access from Neale Avenue for safety >reasons, and they have submitted written opposition. They are: >1. Chuck and Bryce Maple >2. Marlene and James Mickey >3. Jeffrey Shoaf >4. Jackie Kasabach >5. >I have not received any response from the owners of 930 King Street >property, so I am not sure what you or I should do. My best guess is let's >wait to see if we hear from the applicant. >Nick Adeh >At 12:57 PM 4/23/98 -0600, you wrote: >>I assume you guys got a copy of the letter sent to me by the maple's. Do you >>know what their concern is? Is there something I need to do? >>JohnW Printed for Julie Ann Wooer <juliew@ci.aspen.co.us> Nick Adeh, 03:14 PM 4/W/98 , Re: Chuck & Bryce A e »»»>Subject: Re: Chuck & Bryce Maple »»»>Cc: johnw@ci.aspen.co.us, stanc@ci.aspen.co.us, juliew@ci.aspen.co.us »»» > »»»>HPC has been reviewing this project for some time and feels strongly that >> >> >>>the appropriate design is to access the historic house off of King Street >> >> >>>and the new house off of Neale. This is for a variety of reasons, >>including >> >> >>>not wanting to have a predominance of pavement across the front of the »» >>>property. »»»> »» >>>The idea is also driven by the fact that the 1896 Willit's map of the City »»»>of Aspen shows an alley running through this block. I do not know the »» >>>status of that alley- whether it was vacated or what. »»»> >> >> >>>I do not have a problem with the Maple's complaint, but would say that the »» >>>project has been through a fairly lengthy set of public hearings, >>>>>>>worksessions and site visits, all of which they have attended and the >>»» >applicant has conceptual approval for this site plan. They are >planning on »»»>coming in for final the end of May. Nick attended the meetings of HPC and »»»>did express the point of view that he lays out below, but I feel that the »»» >decision should have been stated earlier if this is the way it was going »»>to go. »»»> >> >> >>>Please forward any further correspondance on this to Stan and Julie Ann >> >> >>>since I won't be here. »»»> »»»> »»»> »»»> »»»> »»»> >> >> >>>At 01:22 PM 4/23/98 -0600, you wrote: >> >> »»I have received numerous complaints regarding the proposed new >driveway on »»»»Neale Avenue for the corner property at 930 king Street located at the >> >> »»corner of Neale & King. The HPC has deferred this case to >engineering for »»»»review and recommendation. My response has been: »» >>>> »» >>»1. Our preferred alternative would be the construction of a Printed for Bob Nevins <bobn@ci.aspen.co.us> 3 Nick Adeh, 03:14 PM 4/w/98 , Re: Chuck & Bryce Mwe driveway on »» »»King Street >>>>>>>>2. The applicant must submit a written justification for hardship (if >> any ) »»»»that might »»» >> result from driveway on King Street. »» »»3. One street or personal likings for having a driveway off of heavily >> >> >> >>traveled Neale »» >>>> Avenue does not justify hardship. Access from Neale Avenue is >unsafe »»»»and in a >>>>>>>> blind spot, it sits on a hill crest. »» »» »» »»Maples are apposing it because the driveway is next to their property >line >> >> >> >>and will add another road hazard to neale Avenue. >>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>Neighbors are opposing this proposed access from Neale Avenue for safety >>»» >>reasons, and they have submitted written opposition >>>>>>>> >>>>>>»1. Chuck and Bryce Maple »» >>>>2. Marlene and James Mickey >>>>>>>>3. Jeffrey Shoaf >>»» >>4. Jackie Kasabach »»»» 5 . »» »» >> >> >> >>I have not received any response from the owners of »» »»property, so I am not sure what you or I should do. is >>let' s >> >> >> >>wait to see if we hear from the applicant. >>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>Nick Adeh >>»» >> »» >>>> >>»»» »»»»At 12:57 PM 4/23/98 -0600, you wrote: They are: 930 King Street My best guess »»»»>I assume you guys got a copy of the letter sent to me by the maple's. »»Do you >> >> >> >>>know what their concern is? Is there something I need to do? »»»»> >>>>>>>>>JohnW »»»»> »»»»> »»»»> >>>>»» >>>>>>>> Printed for Bob Nevins <bobn@ci.aspen.co.us> 4 1 • Mr. & Mrs Charles A. Maple • 927 Gibson Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 April 16, 1998 Historic Preservation Committee C/O Ms. Amy Guthrie Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department RECEIVED 130 South Galena Street APR 2 2 1998 Aspen, Colorado 81611 ASNLN i H I KIN RE: Development Proposal for 930 King Street COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Submitted by Gibson - Reno Architects. L.L.C. 12/10/97 Members of the Historic Preservation Committee: We are appreciative of the HPC's input to date on the proposed development at 930 King Street. Nonetheless, we believe the HPC may be considering granting the developer a number of concessions that are contrary to the City of Aspen Municipal Code Land Use Regulations ("Code"). While the proposed development may be a vast improvement over the plan proposed by another owner under a different set of codes, such consideration is irrelevant. The proposed development must comply with the Codes and requirements currently in place. Natural Grade and Height Issues: We believe the proposed development should be required to restore the natural grade. The Code requires that all maximum heights be established from "natural" grade. Specifically, the Code states: "If it shall be determined that the natural grade has been disturbed prior to development, the building inspector shall establish what had been natural grade and measure from that elevation." The owners offer to calculate total height from the "natural" grade appears to be both suspect and inadequate. The offered approach, when carefully applied to the proposed development, fails to comply with Code in several ways: 1) it overlooks the "General" purpose of 26.58.010 (Ordinance 30), "To ensure Aspen's street and neighborhoods are conducive of walking....", 2) heights must be calculated from the exterior perimeter of the building (26.58.040 F. 5.) and 3) subgrade areas would be partly above grade and partly below the true "natural" grade and would therefore have to considered in the floor area calculation (26.58.040 P. 11.). Driveway On Neale The proposed curb cut and drive access from Neale Street conflicts with the "General" purpose of 26.58.010 (Ordinance 30), City Engineering Standards and creates a safety hazard for pedestrians and vehicles. Neale Street is perhaps the single most traveled pedestrian route outside the downtown core. Adding a curb cut and driveway will distract from the walking experience. The proposed driveway will create a serious safety hazard due to the proximity of the hill crest. • FAR Bonuses and Density No additional FAR bonuses should be granted. The site is a non -conforming R-15A lot. The proposal calls for three residences on a lot heretofore zoned for a single family dwelling. While we do not object to the lot split, the granting of the lot split is a huge economic bonus for the developer and the granting of additional FAR bonuses is unwarranted and unsupported by the Code. Furthermore, the massing additions that are inherent in the lot split should be carefully considered. Since up to 250 square feet in garages are exempt from FAR calculations and the next 250 square feet of garage is counted as .5 FAR, the lot split effectively creates a massive floor area and volume bonus (approximately 10%) in the form of an additional garage. Paragraph 26.88.030 A. 5. c. states that "HPC variances and bonuses are Qz UI (emphasis added) permitted on the parcel that contains the historic structure." Pursuant to the code, the owner would be permitted to build up to 2,700 FAR on a 3,000 square foot lot created by an Historic Landmark Lot Split. Since the structure proposed on the Historic Landmark Lot Split site is less than the permitted FAR, no FAR bonus is needed. As proposed, the FAR bonus is applied to Residence A, not the Historically Land marked building. Documentation To date, the developer has agreed to a 25 foot set back from Neale and elimination of portions of fence. We had also requested a limitation of landscaping (nothing over six feet above "natural' grade) within the front yard set back. We request that the HPC and/or Planning authorities properly document these conditions to ensure enforcement in perpetuity. The Neale and King Street neighborhood has recently witnessed dramatic increases in density. We respectfully request the HPC carefully enforce the Code in this "Moderate Density Residential' area. Sincer Chuck & Bryce Maple Mayor John Bennett Sarah Thomas Julie Zeiler Maple *Mr. & Mrs Charles A. Maple 927 Gibson Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 April 16, 1998 City Attorney City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Easement Correction at 927 Gibson Avenue and 930 King Street City Attorney: On June 27, 1994, Mayor Bennett issued a Quit Claim Deed (attached) correcting the legal description of our 927 Gibson Avenue lot. At about the same time, the 930 King Street legal description was also corrected. Unfortunately no correction of the utility easement that was intended to encroach onto both 927 Gibson and 930 King lot lines was made at that time. Since the 930 King property is now being redeveloped with a significant likelihood that the utilities will be relocated or buried, we request that the City of Aspen correct this oversight prior to allowing the approval of the 930 King Street development proposal and building permit. A copy of the 930 King Street survey showing the mis-aligned 10' power line easement is attached for your convenience. Please call my son Michael Maple at 920-1558 if you have any questions on the issue. Sincerely, Chuck & Bryce Maple Mayor John Bennett Sarah Thomas, City Zoning Official Nick Adeh, City Engineering Julie Zeiler Maple, RA JAN 23 '95 03:17PM ASPEN CTR FOR PHYSICS P.2i3 • 373314 B-758 P-83L 08/ 18/94 01 t 19P PO 1 OF 2 REC DOC SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER 10.00 0.00 QUIT CLAIM DEED THIS DEED made this day of J LA.AA-0-._ , 1994, between the Mayor off the C ty of Aspen, John S. Bennett, of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, Trustee for the East Aspen Additional Townsite, of the first part, and Charles A. Maple and Bryce M. Maple, of the County.of Pitkin and State of Colorado, of the second part, WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on the 21st day of August, A.D., 1958, a patent did i SL: for }i.,, ra � r p raa:�1 •L .. t va. �r.Ltr J..1uu♦,. L>ut/Gl■ c>uuiV.lVll 1v1N�1.711..G t�U LL1C Llay61iUl L.Ile Incorporated City of Aspen and to his successors and assigns in trust for the occupants of said Townsite in accordance with their respective interests, and said patent having been issued in conformity with the Acts of Congress for such cases made and pro- vided, and has been recorded as Document No. 106874, Bcok 185, Page 69, of the records for Pitkin County; WHEREAS, the second parties have complied with all require- ments of law of the State of Colorado entitling them to a deed of conveyance from the Mayor of Aspen as Trustee, to the lots or parcels of land hereinafter described: NOW, THEREFORE, the said first party, for and in consider- ation of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) to the first party in hand paid by the said second parties, the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged has remised, released, granted, sold, conveyed and quitclaimed unto the second parties, their heirs and assigns forever, all right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said first party has in and to the following described lots or parcels of land situate, lying and being in the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, to wit: A tract of land situated in the South one-half of Section 7. Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado: being more fully uesc'ribed as follows: Commencing at Corner No. 11, East Aspen Additional Townsite, a Bureau of Land Management Brass Cap Monument; thence North 79034130" West, 143.21 feet to a point on the southwesterly right-of-way boundary of Gibson Avenue as located in the City of Aspen, said point being also located on the westerly boundary of the Sunset Lode, MS 5310, the true point of beginning; thence South 62054141" East, 31.65 feet along said Gibson Avenue right-of-way boundary; thence South 29017109" West, 105.62 feet to a point on the northeasterly boundary of that tract of land described on JAN 23 '95 03:17PM ASPEN CTR FOR PHYSICS 373314 B--756 P--633 O*9J94 01,19p pe 2 OF 2 0 P.3i3 the document recorded in Book 755 at Page of the Official Records for Pitkin County; thence North 65020031" West, along said northeasterly bound- ary 100.98 Feet to a point of intersection with the south-- easterly right-of-way of Neale Avenue as located in the City of Aspen; thence,northerly along said Neale Avenue southeasterly right-of-way boundary, North 2401011411 East, 109.97 feet to an intersection with the southwesterly right-of-way boundary Of Gibson Avenue; thence southeasterly along said Gibson Avenue southwesterly IL 4i� East, 79.89 feet to the true point of beginnina. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the salve, together with all and singular and appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging, or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever, of the first party, either in law or equity, to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said Parties of the second part, their heirs and assigns forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Mayor has hereunto set his hand and seal the day and year above first written. OF 4 =kl: 3 E A L � �'aqB COLORADO } ss . County of Pitkin } (�� 5. /'_9_z John A. Bennett, Trustee and Mayor of the City of Aspen, Colorado The foxeg g instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of r_ 1994, by John S. Bennett as Mayor of the City of As n and Trustee or the East Aspen Additional Town- ".ite, Pitkin County, Colorado. HFSS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. I? . ission expires. Y, Notarr Public �lj 0 F E �_ Address N 4 R IPA I'. • • o-Sa GL T1� ONE STCxCY WCt�O FRAME HOC15� PC'crczxL � Iaes1�-L��� IN =K 7&1 AT r,"CsL 77 ! P"UT".6,70fl-117-1v.clulC= i J ti / Y.ZM.L'�w I LADT1G • CAf. J 1Ib4 h T fACiQ2Ki/N1CNi CF F�A,CL EXGCJ'7L7 FRCM uN0 il7l£ GU4GWTCC CL7�T/7�4/T�'/tN/.�C1 Q 37J375 . e 9 :t'a'1ron.cn Ar &W 7' • Pv 'g ORT IFICATE I, J.�lv>Eg F" =�R, HECEC.Y G=�T1F-, THAT GN MARC-.I 2c, I'q7 A VI°zJAL tNSPECTIC�I wA5 1 E Vkh -IC MY Vt'.710N OF THE r?GY_.ei`!-ti-TOWN /WD O".r' KJOrJ HEKEL-I. NO 0 Al'-6 , `/'t..'C_ ;� MCZr7 AS --"CwN AND NCi I ED 1-IMIR=01-1. JAMES F. IG�C rATC ---- L.S. 9 I. LN`{D I -- Gua --M= C,0"MITMENT T-c- Q -371375 WA-5 Lt�:o IN TLiE r,ce,-,R�i7cN of r�+1� ZIL)VZY L �"�Gt�AP.HY -N- C 'N '.7 MOM A 1-1A V--Ww-`f, AND Wr:11 IT AP,".APF� 7D DE tW=TANTALLY CCmgt Cr THE HA5 NQf C:JNf IRM=2 75 /C:^lCT MrCsi AP.-d1 -r1E4tf:Cr, r-7 tHOVIR•1 Mr. 0-Jr-- TTATION mmVbM CNL; . LEG0I_ Dr:5=f Tl0H- - A TRACT Cr LAND yrrUA, M7 W TI•+C'5Yi. OQ =TI04 7, 'owNxalr 10 ri(JTN, RAhC£ 64 WL5rr C'THE Co 7W.1 P." IN, C--Y Or nXL-.V, PITKrw CQJNTY,. GOLOKAf7 17E11.Y W%om rULl:f DCXtC16ED A5 fCL.LOW-5: IDV-INWO.IL AT Tic /rac� C1KXdM CPAT1cr(--. Cr lMo r2=QY= 44 P¢1:K GK Ar PACs- "Z C7 Ifs MTK w CMINW )=o wpr-lm co el-u Na 11, E '3r^5rZN ADDIT.LTrY.. TOWhtJIT'= 5E,4c! W=ZVOY= IGC273 rT. TFICNCC 5 3! '52' W' W VS.S(, fTALONG IWS WMST LING OP "D 7RACn`, Tf-1ek. NGPDT'Cli• W 2770 PT, THENCE N7Y Sz'%U-w 16.G4 r7' -rWr CL.,. Li-W4►'IOsW 3401 PT:; TWEIVCL: N%'2S'54'W 25.D'f Pr <• TL�FJ.CG Noy ; Y 12• W ".7? PT,i 7W-- CL N 2'l'20' r7' = D L 6T P-', t+t THEf.C:C JG920'•i1"� t42.4T r r. -1b 7wm rvfW7r Of ^JZtYttvNllEs, COI.I•TAIIJ IAY. t�7,'/'�g �Yi• FT. vlrR-. CK _ A -A) (PC1 rfX 1750�0, ASrEJ,I, C=-0) AP ao° e1•l • P,t.rf /Wti. CAP W N c I c tSkL=: r.C' P4713 OF 1e{lAN� V.9.C.4 E:.? *A&r-e l -P SA5MIJ AZIML'T1-i! 5UR�5 CEFMFICATE I HCX=' CE.'ClF'f THATTH5 MAY KnrFZSENTS A 5LXWF-Y r'CVIZIArD V!`=K 1/IY N ah{ OGW6CC 3, 19U OF HE rW7rviny HER ON. ALPINE .Y�MES F ICESGc, I K!RE c--`-KnFY riAT 71-15 W-W N=UrATELY CelICT5 A V-Rvcf rv1DC lJN0E'C' YIY _%*rRVL5.^1, V CN AMARY r114, OF THE PR�PE?ZTY 5FC7wN h5moN TI-C M10.OIK%5e W13ce PJUND TC °.£ 1:XATED 134nFMLY WITH 7T• ABOVE CE5G41DM:� PR-'PMKT1 E%c-- T 1'5 `.kGl^RJ AvD) ?f h '9D 1 T1•E LCC^TiC 1 AND DWEN510N5 CF ALL CUILMW.CZ iMPtS7JEME)`iTS, Eia5LmHegM, IZC4•TD-CF-WAY IN _ACej=- oz Kf`CJWN TO NE, Al-C 1:143c CHIllr' /T5 27Y On Ct! rREM15E5 ARE ACCtPATRY -54DM4- ALL EA--CJAM T 5 Cr FZZORV At INIvICAT.17 CN PI'TiL `L CaXTT' TITLE, INC. TITLE ?CL1CY (CAVE NO. rCT- 52� 02-G', GYIMQ,rmv, ;4 I, 11'l! : AVC r.:1.f .0 51-IOIMI +�LN, ALPINE D,JRVtY7 IhC. DLT�• w: C"� F. rel:'-XA- L.7 life¢ I Aline Surveys, Inc. PON Ottfea eat T730 Apm Colorado SWI 303 M 2WS SIXywld I-i-++'X or~ 1.7.14 QL PAVWkX s 3.7.14- 4.4•14 4.7 --* 7- I.44 Mr. x�n/tY 7.2/.44 (ADD EA�BiEM) Iafo•14 700n� iY 3.27 97 Ut'DATF- 71de. .lab No ID-90-2. IMPKCVMMEM 5( VL-r Cleat 734 A550 .A OFA7r-^Cr Or VNID--An?ATLD IN TT-lE X],)TH HALF OF 'ION 7, 70WhF"IF 10:- T RANSE C4 W✓ 5TOFTHC C.TH rNL. C11YOFA`etN, �17NN CO., GOLOMA--*• rr J.,. " 1 fe J ■ i�1 N A9?'250 iiol Survey Co. V, ARIZONA (PILED BY tAMMETRr,14E-THODS IY DATE ?ACT NO. x ci k\_ 7922.7 X 7920.8 • x 7923.4 x Q 25.4 — O I I Ex J 7928.1 xi i ��x793 3.0 x79257 � O \19 9pp � o Tank 9 x 7� 7891.7x N 40 0 0 LU Q ^ 7924.8 x v Q x7914.8 x 7913.8 • x7943.7/ / X x \ x 7924.8 Gle ON 326.7 \ KING 1. 921.4 x7922.8 20.5)( i x7933.2 — �9L F� x7931.3 �9 3p O Tank )x7925.0 x 7! I I 1 x 7925.9 I I • STREET 7921.5 I• -_x Ix I \ EDGE MATCH TO SHEET 7 (A. V i 'I. J'..i fONM fCtC ; I 41t Y 13, 343 �Q. Fr: • VSO rl. 7i7 ONE 5TOKY \60000 FRAME H- ( F- IfAretLAL OECD IM-1 mcrioN IN naac 7t:2 AT rAGE 171 FurAre-a n-1ro �77u.c7vlcc , 1 N / ti / Y � f-LA6TK ov u ve4 ti - c s E� T ln1 O WELL Gl'yA.G EACA--W�MCNr ar r£,trc cXCZrf= rasa L 4HO r77L£ GtJAGVJ7i<C 62%IWl7M/7X4rVr M2 Q 37/775 t ------ - V�r 0 _ st'an7a�n�a a/a • - aAr &M Or YP op - am Alm, CAP (M/mIrAr IIC.T•J) SURVEYOR'S Grj;cn r C ATE I HE W'l' CeJalr ' 71-1AT TI.1r7 ~ R FZMNT5 A 5LVWF-Y rtR1010sMD LKXK I✓11' 'VjrCKvI AoN Qy (X—IM 9C 9, 1994 OF THE PrOrMlY .-l'iOMN HEM N. ALPINE `UR`/EY'S INC. HI ___-------_------- ,LWIE`� F f:ESC1�, wrT -------- ------ L5.1154 5URYE` ZX5 CERTIFICATE �Afy�`7 Fmr--tK HEREn r G'.',TIrYTHAT CN MAR} 1 2G, i997 A Vlal JAL ;t ` J- ON WAS MADE UNDER MY ICN OF THE r?OP`.eTY SHOWN A7JC DEYRIOW HMECN, NO CHAFE -ES Y%El,E FCUt v n<zj-r /h JrIOWtN AND N0M:E HUM50N. ------ J-VC5 F CATS'-- -- — -- - L.tL 91 to LAND TLt GL;Ar,^P4TEE CCAAMITMENr NO. Q 371775 WA5 U'nEO IN THE I`KF-9 AT IC N OF TH17 tLANti. 2. TO APHY JI IpMN 'D FROM A I `MA CURVE f AND WHI LE. IT AFTEAK`7 TO DE tuttTANTALLr comcmr 714E tJ1o/CYCtC HAS NCT CON F-WED 17'7 ISO:(f 'r-10FOGlw + ,, TNEN�iaC, r>71-•IOWIJ FOM OFAWTATION OINLY. LM— A1. DCWJtJMCH- n TRAc:T (r trd•O S11INMC IN 7NG 5Yt CF MLTI W 7, 7DVVW-4411- 10 70URi , RAMC£ 84 WLSr Co -TNE rc iL1 P M. IN, G11Y or ^vTN, PITK174 COUNTY, GOILJR/'•L7 Pl mr W%Dptr- FULLY V C1CIeED A7 f0LL01Y)' f5M;- IwMS AT `LC MUcr•6v1=r CDKJ- R Cr A. 7IG4Cr Cr LAND LEYRIf M ,N P.G77K 0 5 ,a f70L 0M cr Ii r- FIYKJN =NTY 10.L' Olmi WLKl'Y'L CDR7. M Ha 11, EAST A.JFPJV N7DmCA AL l'OlM1 t51TC .P-_AM N 7C 2V G"YE 4OM Pr, •T}ICNCr- 82G'152!CD W 105.5E fr ALONH THE YVLST LINE CP SVO TRACT,. TNCNCE N61.7rCWW 277E f'T, 111-4 CN73^-W 'Xd"W 16, 44 PT.,. 7WE.N •C. 119H4#'t#- W '4+-m FT: TL+GYCC M W M' 54' W "." f r, 7v4eI.CQ Noy FY 12'W 34.n P'f 71-1Cf•CC N2•Y 1s'r7'E DI. A? P'T, rWCt-CC 76920'151'M 142.47 FT. -TV 7ML rDlWr Or DC&INN9,6,, CDWTIJw INL rsJ, *+e 10. Fr. VIO7m C K ( 7A AM F. Ri-SGR % ( F. a eQ� MC, A'lIE-, CC-) 0 ! a b 37 �o 3CA1.I-'' 1'- e' E/1 5 OF DENUNG- U.S.C.4 E_.? 'AcgP o 7D 'A6mw A2IMUTI•4 5L RVEYOR'S COMM CATS: I HERMY CERTIFY TFIAT T1 c MAP KLURAT LY QrCM A 91 RVEY vKV LJNOCK MY a MV15 ON CN J 1-� !�, 1114, M THE pFUreRTY SF� Hele Tl-e MALDIf, s WET FOUND M W LLXJATED L3JT MY WrtH THE AeGYE Ce9M"V Ptl-,XM`( EiICEFf A5 5,CW4 M 0 7 arEV I,1. THE LOCATICN AW DWEISM ON5 CF ALL eUILDIN65 IMPR7ve-e-T5, 545EHENM, R*HT5-CIF-WA IN MCel=- CR KNOWN M ME, AND Ei MACHMENT5 &r CR GN TT•TF5E PREM15e5 ARE ACQ/RATELY `..t' •OWN ALL. eA-C AE14T'i Or KEDD CD A7 INMr-A-rMP CW rtTie,v C•CLa.lY TITLL, RNC. TITLE ?OLICY icmz No. PET- 8202 G2,,, PA -rev MA� I, I"+ r7AVc '.:-tN 3H- M +4err.CN, ALPINE-5WVrY5 :NC tX 7I NIC3 F. WZ1CM. D^-rg _. L7. '110+ RECEIVED JAN 0 7 1998 ASrEN ,' !'I I KIN COMMUI`;ITY DE1 ELOPMEIUI Aq" wSurveys, Im. Poet Offba oat Tm PAMM. Colorado 816" 303 US 2000 aoff%VV d 1 3.7a R DMAW 1-7-% CR f�R 317.7E 44•1+ 4.7 'ff 7-1-44 IL-tr. 5 x&vef 7.27.44 (ADD 5%MD IENT) ID.IG•14 10oXvrArHr IMPRd✓Ety1ENTSLhCVt"L �e 734A550CW7 OFA7K^Z OrL,WDJ1TlJATr-D INTI-IE SQTH HALF CIF -tl- DN 7, 7OW NE:4-NP 10 5O-7H RAKC-Z II WMTOFlHE (`l•4 rNL. 0rrOFA,`PEN, 16ITKIN CO., COLS i' E stft2KJWA4jrMr Or AZXCE EZCrp= rACA4 t.No nnr Gu+eavrtr C0-,W17Mr7XfrNr4o. 037/575 o- 5URVEYOR'5 CERnFICATE I HL`F-LY MAt R: 'ICL7ENT5 A tLA EY rw—KMD !ED IMDTMR MY 7L7r`..<vr_,CN ON OGIODC7C I 19i4 OF THE FROrEKTY --+CwH HER.'DN. ALPINE t0f C f�- It IC.9f__---------------. -WAE5 F. r'[-' ;, D.AT1- ------ LZ.9154 RYEyo5 CE-Krimc- F- I, �vvE J F rztc C, HE!CE.e:`" C.:tmr-i TNAT CN ffJ+� 1 tG, 1-197 A VI- JAL f C ION WAS >✓tACE UhIDEt vIY 5L)1--K CNI OF THE P 4ZO _-KTY -- -+'OWN /wC Dt�X,IBEC i-IE.eEOJ. to CWdJ6 Y•tS_ D<--PT AS -1Ow1-4 AND N,il ED HEQ.10Iv. ALI'NiE ..JF� - h IhG. --------- --- C4.TE •-------- -- . L.S. 9 I �:4 NOTES: I. LANDTM-F C4-A ^r TfEE COMMITMENT NO. Q 371575 WA-5 !N THE MF-rARA11CN OF 7H17 WKYrY. 2. Z `27Cof ` P-Il' -N-10AIN t, -! -CM A Il� 'UNEY AVD W ! IT APr'-At� TO DE GCJE,^_TAN"TIALLT- COST HE tL-N^fC'C HAS NC7 C A-f f,M`.D IT5 AGrU r. i0rCr-rAr-fY, "T IE4`.R7F, hSHOWN FOM Cx[ILVU.TION rLnzM`J CNL:. LEGOL De--wrnoN, A Cr LAND yrTUlTG7 IN 7NG -sY- Q `. VC'r'(;.1 7, 7OWNr44If 10 �OL77i-(, RA/.K£ 04 WL'ST C= T.C- Co li-r P. M. IN, UTY Or PITK7N COUNTY, CDL0ICAf7 6EII r- W'OM rULLK DCDC.RIGED A7 rCL.Lo,-). P.f.'rtt-✓r1ri.Ys T 73-[ Nac'f1�t 3' O?V.'C� -r �.7T.''C. 1 LA -ID ZY_tit.. CJ PCMK fo'K R W-r- Vm cr TFE nTKIN CCiJh71Y T.ECOR75 WI ewe COR -4m Ha 11• PXAM N5rn'CY�. I4017)F-. 114et cr- 5 14'52'O')" W !l7 5f rT AtoNb THE WG5T LINE. 01` S.+417 7RA(:n,- 7UrJ.)CE 7J G1. 571OG' W 2` 70 rT, THENCE N 95- 52-' -XJ- W 16. C.4 P`,. -rusep Z_ L) 4y4A' IAI W 54 d FT; -nAe `LG N W' 4R' 54' W 2'f." F- Tl-FJ.CE. No:' IV W 54.7? rT 7H[KG N S5'26' I'T' L 9lI.64 PT 741CI.CC 141.4-7 r-T- lb 744E TOlrrf CV- DCb NNIW�, Col-TTIJ%! m1 10, -A4 !G1. T "Ca— QC _ -S-5 ( vAMCO F. Z 5. K % ( {• O CC;c r750, AN-W, CC-) D N5 OF D5kiZNG' 'j.5.c. CE..? 'A&rejj, -D 'l6Pm.l AZIMUTH`. I WERE( L-Ki FY Ti AT TF 15 ?,W ACIURATELY OE"ICT5 A 'a-R%t-Y 1V+tJR 11 DEf M11 SUPERVlSCN CN NNHRY " I'I14,GF THE PRCFE' SHJwN j-- ON THE EAILDII -- WERE F'J'UI`1D TO e2 LXATTV ENTIRELY WM4 TI-E ACOVF CE5MD=) PFU-STY ' "a et l A7.iD N?CED 1$'SkJ. TIF LoYATIGN MID DINENVONS CF Ail EUILDIW, , IMPRDI✓EE , EA5E la,'rr5, RIGHTS-CF-WAY IN-TAC5�4=- CZ <NVIVN 10 M=, A"_, E^<3r>Ct,N- 2 f OR CX 1 HE"E PiwM15If5 ARIE ,ICOJRAT=LY SFCJMJ. AL:. EA CMZ-'n'S C' rZWKJ Ah INO'IGATFIJ cw PITSG V CJaj*-� TITL-, INC. ?IT LE �CUGY (C h-V- PCT- 82OZ-G2.', AR'.TC7 MAFC1 I, 119! : AVG flGGN y +•Iu-Ltv, ALPINE a RVM INC. D/^iZ: PJf: vrMC� is KL�CfC. LI t3+ Alpine Surveys, Inc. Post OHloa BM Tm Mpw4 Colorado av" 3W M 2M s,r.w,ad 1-,,•x OL Do Apad 1-7.14 CL garblom 3 7-s4 4.7 14 7.1.44 IWIF. SUwrY 7.VA4 (A170 C CeHENT) ID• 10.14 ll:n�rf r 3.27 97 Ur -PATE 11ft. lMfFCVEMEWT I- Ow ft 734 A550�x 0FA7r.,1C7 Or LAND JITL)AT LD IN 71-4E -CL TH HALF OF 7ECrION 7, TOWNr*41F 10 ` aJ RARE 64 Wt5TOFTHE GTH rlNA. C41YOF.1`-fEN, I`'ITKIN CO., C•CCM-*�- April 6, 1998 Ms. Sarah Thomas, Zoning Officer Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Development Proposal for 930 King Street Scheduled for Final HPC Review 4/22/98 Dear Sarah, Per our telephone conversation of last week, I represent the interests of my in-laws, Chuck and Bryce Maple, who's properriy lies directly north of the former Candria property (930 King Street). Attached is a letter we submitted to the HPC in January which addresses a number of zoning issues. While a variety of zoning codes must be applied, The City of Aspen Municipal Code, Chapter 26.58 Residential Design Standards, Section 26.58.010 A. states: ".....The purpose of the following design standards are to preserve established neighborhood scale and character, and to ensure that Aspen's streets and neighborhoods are public places conducive of walking. Front facades and their relationship to the street establish the character of the neighborhood...." At the HPC Conceptual Hearing, it was apparent that changes to the natural grade we identified were not a major concern of the Board and that the HPC would not require the developer to restore the natural grade. It remains our contention that even though the current owners are not responsible for the addition of fill on the site, they should be required to restore the natural grade for the determination of building and fencing heights. Consistent with the objectives of 26.58.010, we feel that the aesthetic of the streetscape would be dramatically improved with the restoration of the grade along the sidewalk at Neale Street. We are aware of the architect's representation that heights have been proposed to be established from some semblance of natural grade. Nonetheless, we remain concerned about how grading and height relate to the streetscape and perceived massing. Finally, a six foot fence from the existing grade will appear to be an approximately 8' barrier from the natural grade of the Maple property. Despite the option of an individual or shared drive off King Street, the proposai indicates a curb cut and drive access from Neale Street. We believe this site configuration conflicts with 26.58.010. Neale Street is the primary, and one of only a few, pedestrian access routes from the northeast quadrant of the City of Aspen to downtown. Adding a curb cut and driveway will distract from the walking experience. If historic grade is not restored, the proposed driveway will violate 26.58.040 F. 4. c. which states that: "No section of a driveway shall be below the natural grade within the required setback." We also believe the proposed driveway creates a safety hazard due to the proximity of the hill crest and are addressing the safety issues directly with City Engineering. Finally, the location of this driveway will create a major impact on the Maples residence as headlights of cars turning iqW the driveway will penetrate the Maples Living Room (view of Aspen Mountain and town). :—r z'I flm` G ? m� r% m 4 While we endorse the community ideals that support ADU's and the facilitation of the preservation of historic structures through lot splits, we believe our concerns should in part be addressed against the fact that the proposal calls for three residences and FAR bonuses on a 13,000 SF lot, in a 15,000 SF zone, where the impacts of high density and heavy traffic already overwhelm the neighborhood. We are concerned that the issues of grading, impact on existing neighborhood patterns and increased density have been compromised in the HPC Hearing process for other concessions desired of the design. I would appreciate your comments on these issues prior to Final Approval Proceedings for this project scheduled for April 22, 1998. Sincerely, .I CJ Zeile aple Architect cc: Chuck & Bryce Maple 2�7 0 0 April 6, 1998 Ms. Sarah Thomas, Zoning Officer Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Development Proposal for 930 King Street Scheduled for Final HPC Review 4/22/98 Dear Sarah, Per our telephone conversation of last week, I represent the interests of my in-laws, Chuck and Bryce Maple, who's property lies directly north of the former Candria property (930 King Street). Attached is a letter we submitted to the HPC in January which addresses a number of zoning issues. While a variety of zoning codes must be applied, The City of Aspen Municipal Code, Chapter 26.58 Residential Design Standards, Section 26.58.010 A. states: ".....The purpose of the following design standards are to preserve established neighborhood scale and character, and to ensure that Aspen's streets and neighborhoods are public places conducive of walking. Front facades and their relationship to the street establish the character of the neighborhood...." At the HPC Conceptual Hearing, it was apparent that changes to the natural grade we identified were not a major concern of the Board and that the HPC would not require the developer to restore the natural grade. It remains our contention that even though the current owners are not responsible for the addition of fill on the site, they should be required to restore the natural grade for the determination of building and fencing heights. Consistent with the objectives of 26.58.010, we feel that the aesthetic of the streetscape would be dramatically improved with the restoration of the grade along the sidewalk at Neale Street. We are aware of the architect's representation that heights have been proposed to be established from some semblance of natural grade. Nonetheless, we remain concerned about how grading and height relate to the streetscape and perceived massing. Finally, a six foot fence from the existing grade will appear to be an approximately 8' barrier from the natural grade of the Maple property. Despite the option of an individual or shared drive off King Street, the proposal indicates a curb cut and drive access from Neale Street. We believe this site configuration conflicts with 26.58.010. Neale Street is the primary, and one of only a few, pedestrian access routes from the northeast quadrant of the City of Aspen to downtown. Adding a curb cut and driveway will distract from the walking experience. If historic grade is not restored, the proposed driveway will violate 26.58.040 F. 4. c.` A. which states that: "No section of a driveway shall be below the natural grade within the required �/ setback." We also believe the proposed driveway creates a safety hazard due to the proximity of the �� ¢ hill crest and are addressing the safety issues directly with City Engineering. Finally, the location of 6�Q� this driveway will create a major impact on the Maples residence as headlights of cars turning into �v 11 1M the driveway will penetrate the Maples Living Room (view of Aspen Mountain and town). �� 0 • While we endorse the community ideals that support ADU's and the facilitation of the preservation of historic structures through lot splits, we believe our concerns should in part be addressed against the fact that the proposal calls for three residences and FAR bonuses on a 13,000 SF lot, in a 15,000 SF zone, where the impacts of high density and heavy traffic already overwhelm the neighborhood. We are concerned that the issues of grading, impact on existing neighborhood patterns and increased density have been compromised in the HPC Hearing process for other concessions desired of the design. I would appreciate your comments on these issues prior to Final Approval Proceedings for this project scheduled for April 22, 1998. cc: Chuck & Bryce Maple .1 To: Guthrie.Amy From: Ross Soderstrom <ross@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: No Problem Joe's Plat Cc: City.Engineering Bcc: X-Attachments: Amy, I suspect that the "finger" of City Property to the east of No Problem Joe's lot which I pointed out on the map of the area (north of the Roaring Fork River) only exists on paper due to an incorrect survey tie and/or legal description. In the field No Problem Joe's lot appears to be immediately next to the neighbor's property on the east side. This would make the R-O-W of Neale Ave. approximately 35'-38' wide which is what Jim Reser has shown on his survey. The existence of the BLM monument with a cap at the northeast corner of the lot gives me more confidence that the "gap" between the lots is a paper error and not a "gap" between the physical lots in the field. I spoke to Chuck about this and he confirmed that this hiatus was corrected and closed in the paper records a couple years ago when we did the Neale Ave. sidewalk project. From memory Chuck thought the correction was made by rotating the lot around a point, consistent with an error in the angle portion of the tie. (I was not involved with that portion of the Neale Ave. project.) I have returned to you the copy of the survey which you lent to me and a copy of the map which we were referencing for inclusion in the file for this property. lPrinted for Ross Soderstrom <ross@cLaspen.co.us> •1 O O O A o • r- • z 1 7 0. 3- WV 161' cv 11B � via R • LOT I S•' • 8 y O M • �t �[ t4'10 •I L~ • ^{ - e'O • THE UROAR Rl10MT • • - CONDOMIN1Ur0 • ♦ p O _ LAT/ !t t • �� � • �� a •_ r •If. 14 1 •II• r r b ♦ ••T•40, rr/ o = •,.09. Oka 46 n lt'" • t 'oB.14. . • 1119mmes sea 0 70• PARK s ��, fp0 Ib••[ M r• = o BIB RO 1B' [ 4. e• NARK rp r • i o" S" • 0• s • tit f ,. , aft 'Olt. fO0 1• { t s• 'S „ s •2' • 4i••4 r• 1 • ` R[ CR[EKTR[E 404 SUBBIVISIOR i % = o_ • 0 ►B • • OROA" •ATER}ALL �O y{4•r • N • MRC[L / ,•, dfO - 'y C SUBDIVISION ` >f./ •'► y • • • .. _ / •SSId3d•'• 2 w y •4.20'" 9 8 .4t' ff. Ir LOT 4 /d�,• 4•' dd 04.4/• KIMiI f• 4 f{• 't'+ of '• . ••1 %{o Zt• p, r tr sSs•s7'w. 105.42 dr Sf{.t{:r+ 4 se,: .Ao'� 1T.p0• LOT •• + ++• M••40.t I •K f{4 R{ Nt ± tj0 i !I SO •ft t 101 0>. „ • AS • sr. i . ` •r�•r't c v o •. 002.07'10'+•, 47.01' O I� �• Rk•tf'I ,' • O ♦ :• 2 PARCEL I e PARCEL v I. i A • PROPERTY I ' "ENRO■ •ARK i i R1{•14'N•[ A{REENEI p • BIL 229 Pill ago w ♦ + fi. 00' �D � o • r 3 As►[R) • • •� - PARCEL A ~ + 60.0f~ 0 � � fN •4- Bost t w It ?too,, r SI O. • '`4j•r1 �Sj w •t2•'• 1t1.1{b4 ��' C2 CI 0 i - r 4E> 00 +4� • �° o \ •O• •• • ►ARCEL 7 + M !p ` �' 1• w r J ♦ : o c rA RCS L { \•� ` t• _ • SOUTH 1/4 ROARING FORK RIV[R OIXTI/ ►.N r- cm J 2 C� Q O I- N G 2 W H t/1 W 3 March 25, 1998 owindows. Clerestory windows, defer to the architects on the HPC. Majority comfortable with the design of the house. Some members disliked the garage facing the street and the long linear corridor. Concerns of the neighbors need addressed. Grant designation. Clerestory represented on the model is closer to what is acceptable as opposed to the drawings presented. Don't loose the horizontality of the roof. Concern of the height of the stair tower volume as it over powers the house, possibly adjust window portions or add a band. 1I0TION. Roger moved to continue the public hearing and table conceptual review, partial demolition and landmark designation until April 8, 1998; second by �Llelanie. All in favor, motion carried. Site visit scheduled at NOON, April 8, 1998. 930 KING STREET - CONCEPTUAL - LD - PH - Partial demolition - on -site relocation, variances Amy Guthrie, planner informed the HPC that three the five standards have been met. It is a modest miners cottage of the Victorian era. There are three issues: relocation of the historic house on the site; where driveways should be placed for the two houses and the third compatibility concerns. Staff is generally in favor with the concept of the program. It is a great way that the historic landmark lot split can benefit everyone. The previous approval was for a single family house. HPC needs to give solid feedback on this project. A reduction in height was addressed. The FAR bonus was reduced. Staff recommends reversing the site plan so that the historic house remains on the corner site and this proposal places it on an interior lot and she feels it will be lost in the mass of the addition. In the proposed site plan they shifted the house to the east but it is in the drip line of the trees and Staff has not received formal comments from the parks department but typically that is not allowed. Staff recommends tabling and to restudy the architecture and address compatibility but the lot split and partial demolition and landmark requests are acceptable. no March 25, 1998 Sworn in by Chief Deputy Clerk: Augie Reno, Harris Kahn, Laurie Winnerman, Larry Winnerman, Jackie Kasaback, Julie Maple and her husband and Jim Mickey. Augie Reno, architect presented: At the worksessions the placement of the historic house has always been in the same position, never once until a site visit was the discussion brought up to relocate the house and that was not clear due to interruptions. The proposed driveway is off of Neale Ave. which Amy suggested. At the third worksession rotation of the house was mentioned but not by the majority of the board and option 5 was chosen by the HPC as the plan to go with. The goal is to preserve the house. After each worksession the architects determined the summation as HPC did not give any summary on what the majority wanted. There are site constraints on how the historic house would be seen, the lot narrows to the west. If the house were to be relocated to the west it would be much further away from the road than it is today just by the shape of the lot. The topography of the lot is different as it is higher on the corner. The proposal is to keep the house ten feet away from the street pretty much in the same location where it would be viewed as it is today. The corner house sits back further and will not overbear the historic house. Augie corresponded with the Parks Dept. and he indicated that the roots have been directed to the area of least resistance and he assured me by lifting the building up that the trees could be saved by the right technology in digging out for the foundation and the feeding of the trees. It is the intention to leave the trees. Harris Kahn relayed the partners intention as it relates to the project. He lives four houses away and he owns property on King St. He has been familiar with the site for the past 15 years. The intent is to make the site look natural and they aren't looking for anything other than what they are entitled to. Augie relayed that the historic house would be moved approximately ten feet to the east. It is still ten feet off the property line. A variance would be needed. There is a five foot setback variance for the side yard requested. The house would get renovated and there is an eight foot, one story length between the historic house and the new addition. The old house will stand on its own. The smoke house and out house will stay as they are for storage 7 March 25, 1998 use. The new house sits at the west end of the property and the front yard is 25 feet from the Neale Ave. side and 16.8 from the King Street side. We are 7 feet behind the front face of the historic house. The driveway on house A is 60 feet from the corner and a fence is proposed on the north and east property line and splits the properties and the fence will not exist for the first 30 feet from the west property line. On the south elevation the historic house will be renovated with the original materials and what cannot be saved will be replicated. Materials will be picked up from the historic house. The new house on the west tries to keep gabled forms and tries to keep vertical windows and horizontal siding all to be compatible. The size of the new building is 55 feet in length by 24 feet. The Maples house is 50 feet and the adjacent houses are 53 and 90 feet. Mr. Mickey reported that his house is 37 feet long and the Maple's house is 40 feet long. Augie informed the HPC that on the west elevation the architecture was broken up by a porch and a one story element. A corner element was created by turning the mass. The mass is also broken up on the west side. The west side plane steps back. The breaking up also creates a view. The chimney is stone and the roof is broken up with small shed type dormers. The east elevation of the historic house stays as it is and there is a link between and the gabled shape that sits behind the houses. In both houses they tried to put the garages away from the street view. On the North elevation the roof height relates to the historic house. Stone, siding and wood timber are proposed. Horizontal siding is proposed and it is compatible with the horizontal clapboard siding. There is no stone on the old house but in the neighborhood some houses have stone and some do not. Stone base is proposed. The fence proposed is a six foot high solid fence. Gilbert inquired about the glass on the historic building that faces east as it faces the adjacent property line. Augie relayed that the glass gives the view to Independence pass and it is the dining area. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing. March 25, 1998 Julie Maple wrote a letter in behalf of her Father-in-law which was included in the packet. One major issue is the driveway between her father -in-laws property and the proposed property. She is not positive the engineering dept. has given approval for the driveway and she requested that the application go to Engineering and have it approve as part of the conditions. There were three conditions and she has concerns about the hardship condition. There is a big visibility and safety issue for the driveway as people enter into the traffic and coming down that hill it is hard to see what is coming out. She also requests that the house be brought back to the original grade. The dirt mound on the corner is not natural. Mike Maple, son of the neighbor. The most important issue is preserving the views. He feels the lot split is appropriate because it reduces the mass of the house and it has economic value. The lot split is a tremendous windfall financially. In terms of bonuses the code states that the FAR is for the historic structure and this lot split would allow a 3200 sq. ft. house and there is no need for the FAR bonus. Through the years dirt has been brought into the site for a garden and the grade should return to its normal state. Introducing a driveway into an area where there has not been one is a safety hazard. Jackie Kasabach, concerned citizen stated she is concerned about this development as she lived in the west end and watched the death of the west end and now is in the middle of the east end die. When she walks down King street it is becoming a tunnel and all you see is mass. The ice build up on the south side of the street have created enormous hazards in the winter time. When you turn the corner there should not be a huge mass. Jim Mickey, neighbor relayed that he is against the mass. When he looks out his window he sees four houses being built. Laurie Winnerman stated that the views were kept open in order to respect the neighbors views. The chair, Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. 9 March 25, 1998 Commissioner Comments Roger relayed that the lot split is beneficial to the community. The neighborhood looses one monster house. The applicant gets to build two houses and HPC reviews the entire project. Roger is opposed to moving the cottage to the other side of the property. He also felt that the Eng. Dept. should provide a definitive statement on the driveway. He also had no problem with the variance but is unclear about the bonus. Overall project is quite good but there are concerns about the fenestration. The fence on the south and west should not be solid but no problem with the north and east. Amy Guthrie informed the HPC that Nick Adeh is looking for something as a reason why the driveway should be on Neale Ave., a hardship or a preservation reason from HPC. The majority of the board felt that that lot split, partial demolition and landmark request are acceptable. The fenestration needs restudied i.e., the larger windows. There should be a strong compatibility between the addition to the historic house and the historic house and encourage that the new house have better compatibility than it does now. Gilbert felt that there is a stronger restoration if the house is closer to the existing footprint. If there are safety concerns regarding the driveway they should be addressed. Mary indicated that the applicant came in when the HPC decided to have worksessions which was time consuming for the applicant. The applicant and neighbors got caught in the middle of that process. She also felt that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. Melanie relayed that the bonus should only be given to exemplary projects. Her interpretation of the ADU is a fourth bedroom. The architecture needs more study and the house and rock fireplace are overwhelming. The back house needs broken up more and a solid fence is not appropriate and needs broken up. 10 March 25, 1998 Jeffrey relayed that the architect addressed the concerns of the neighbors. He also felt that the two story walls need broken up. The plate heights are high. He feels the stepping back from the Victorian house is appropriate but has some concern about the competing gable end. The chimney is a large element on house A and needs restudied in its height and massing. Keeping the fence back on the west property line to maintain the view is appropriate. The height of the ridges on the main house need restudied as it reflects to the street and the Victorian house. It was reduced but the relationship to the Victorian needs stepped down and restudied on the south elevation. Heidi relayed that the cottage is lost in the site on this project. The new house is far more dominant. The addition on the cottage is appropriate but the mass of the new house needs addressed. Suzannah felt that the right solution is flipping the cottage. The project should be beneficial to the historic house and she cannot support the current plan. The character of the addition to the historic house is well done. The driveway presented is a typical pattern. Combining the driveways is not to the advantage of the historic house. On the new house a simplified roof shape needs studied. HPC vote on the FAR bonus requested: Gilbert - yes Mary - yes Jeffrey - yes Roger - yes Melanie - no Heidi - no Suzannah - no Amy relayed that the variances requested would be 14 foot variance on the front yard for the historic house, a five foot side yard setback variance eon the east sidse of the historic house, and the 250 square foot FAR bonus. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC grant approval at 930 King Street for the Historic Landmark, Historic Lot Split, Partial Demolition and on -site relocation. Conceptual is granted with the following conditions: 11 March 25, 1998 a) 250 sq. ft. FAR bonus is granted b) Restudy the fenestration. ' c) Restudy the stone chimney. d) Restudv the architecture of the addition to the historic house and the new house. Create a more direct compatibility in materials and design elements. e) Full landscape plan showing any exterior perimeter fencing. fi A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation and whether the structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and resiting. g) A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security in the amount of 530, 000. 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. Motion second by. .1L1ary. .Llotion carried 4 - 3. Suzannah, Melanie and Heidi voted no. Gilbert, Roger, .Clary and Jeffrey voted yes. 712 W. FRANCIS - MINOR Chairperson Suzannah Reid reviewed the east and west dormer revision. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the revisions, second by Suzannah. All in favor, motion carried. TIPPLE INN Melanie excused. Amy Guthrie, planner relayed at the last meeting it was recommended that HPC delay action until the Inventory is done in 1999 to see how it fits in the overall history of the town. HPC asked Staff to provide information on the status of the Tippler and if there was anything that HPC should have been involved in. They have their Growth Management allocation, P&Z 12 • I� MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Director j FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer /1SL RE: 930 King Street- Landmark designation, Conceptual Review, Hite Landmark Lot Split, Partial Demolition,.On-site Relocation -Public Hearing DATE: March 25, 1998 + 2 N yo $ 3o4 �38 `f 500 Sol SUMMARY: Several worksessions and site visits have been held to discuss this proposal, which involves landmarking the property, doing a historic landmark lot split, making an addition to the existing historic structure, and building a new house on the newly created lot. Variances requested are a front yard setback variance and side yard setback variance for the historic house and an FAR bonus. Staff recommends tabling, with specific direction to the applicant for areas to be restudied. APPLICANT: No Problem Joe, LLC, represented by Gibson Reno Architects. LOCATION: 930 King Street, R-15A zone district. HISTORIC LANDMARK Section 26.76.020, Standards for designation. Any structure that meets two or more of the following standards may be designated "H," Historic Overlay District, and/or Historic Landmark. It is not the intention of HPC to landmark insignificant structures or sites. HPC will focus on those 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 good example of housing built in Aspen in the late 1800's. It has a cross gable roof, front porch, two front entries, and detailing which was common to these buildings. 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: At one time, there were many miner's cabins in this neighborhood. There are two others in the immediate vicinity and their preservation is important to maintaining the character of the area. 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 19th century, Aspen's primary period of historic significance. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for FTC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section 2 exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: As stated above, HPC has held several worksessions on this proposal, to give direction to the applicant and to review the request for an FAR bonus. From those worksessions, several key issues have been discussed, namely (1) whether, or how, the historic house should be relocated on the site, (2) how garages for the two houses should be accessed, (3) neighborhood concerns such as preservation of views. The changes that the applicant has made as an outcome of the discussions are detailed in their attached letter, dated March 18, 1998. In summary, the applicant has chosen to pursue a site plan which shifts the house towards the east. The two historic outbuildings are to be placed directly behind the old house and used as garden sheds. The new house has been set back from Neale Street so that the property owner to the north will still have clear views of Aspen Mountain. The ridgeline height of the new building has also been lowered by five feet. It must be noted that there is a problem with the site plan as proposed; the historic house is shown within the dripline of the existing trees, so that to move it eastward, it will also have to be moved back from the street. The variances requested for the proposed site plan are as follows: up to a 14 foot variance on the front yard for the historic house, a five foot side yard setback variance on the east side of the historic house, and a 250 square foot FAR bonus (reduced from the original request for 500 square feet.) Staff is in favor of the general concept of the proposal. The existing historic house is 432 square feet. The allowed FAR, which could be added onto that small house is just less than 4,000 square feet. This is the scenario that was troublesome to HPC in the previous approval in 1994. The historic landmark lot split approach taken here is positive for both the developer and the HPC. The allowed floor area is divided into two separate structures, reducing the impact on the historic structure and the neighborhood as a whole. Referring back to the issues which HPC has focused on in the worksessions, the first issue was whether the historic house should remain in, or as close to, its original location on the lot as possible, or whether there was some benefit in changing its siting. The HPC seems to be in agreement that the house should remain as close to King Street as it currently is. As noted above, if the house is shifted towards the east, it will have to move back from the street to stay out of the tree dripline. The alternative considered was whether the site plan should be flipped, so that the old house moves to the west side of the property. This idea seems to have a lot of merit because having the smaller house on the corner gives it some prominence and provides a more pedestrian scaled entry into the neighborhood. It would also have a good relationship with the historic house across the street, at 114 Neale Avenue. 3 HPC has held a special worksession on the topic of relocating historic buildings. The outcome was a general agreement that HPC is interested in seeing historic buildings remain in their original locations. If a house is to be moved, as a result of a lot split or other remodeling activities, the house should be moved in a way that maintains its original character (i.e. a lateral move rather than moving back on the site.) There are several factors that HPC may weigh, on a case by case basis, to determine whether or not a building should be moved. The goal is to place the historic house to its best advantage in terms of historic context, visibility and compatibility with surrounding development. Staff recommends in this case that the site plan as proposed be reversed. The nature of the site will be significantly changed with the renovation of the house and addition of a new home. The historic building may be lost in the new building mass. Placing the renovated historic house on the corner will however make it all the more important that the addition is successful, since it will have high visibility. In terms of the driveways, there appear to be three possible solutions. The applicant proposes to have a separate driveway for each house, one of which accesses off of King Street, and one off of Neale Avenue. Another alternative would be to have both driveways access off of King Street, which staff finds would cause pavement to dominate that view of the property. A third alternative would be to have a shared driveway between the two buildings. The applicant has rejected the third alternative, finding that there is inconvenience associated with a shared driveway and that the easement that would be required to share access affects the maximum FAR allowed on the site. (This loss of FAR could be offset by an FAR bonus from HPC.) Staff finds that the proposed driveway configuration is acceptable and maintains adequate open yard space in front of the houses. This issue seems to be an area for compromise in relation to other issues of site plan and architectural compatibility. The applicant proposes to add approximately 1375 square feet onto the 432 square foot cabin. This is a significant increase in size, however can probably be accommodated in a compatible manner. The proposed one story connecting element between the old house and new addition is effective, however more effort needs to be made to break the bulk of the new addition down into components which are more like the historic building. The gable end which meets the back of the old house is overpowering in scale. With regard to the new house, staff finds that the materials which are used on the new house but do not exist on the old, namely log and stone, cause a conflict and are keeping the two structures from relating well to each other. Window sizes and characteristics are also significantly different. Although the property is to be subdivided into two lots, it is still important that the new and old are strongly compatible with each other. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood_of the parcel proposed for development. 4 Response: The King Street area is undergoing significant redevelopment. Historically, it has been a neighborhood of fairly small, modest, single family homes. The intent of the recommendation to reverse the site plan and restudy aspects of the architecture is to help ease the transition in scale between new houses and old in the neighborhood. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: This proposal goes much further towards protecting the historic significance of the structure than did the previous one, when the only option in the Land Use Code was to build one single family house. The allocation of FAR as proposed involves a reasonable addition to .the historic structure, which can be made while still retaining the overall character of the house. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: No additional demolition of the existing structure is required, beyond where the new addition connects to the historic house. The house is in a deteriorated state and will require a significant restoration effort. Detailed specifications for restoration and replication of materials where necessary must be provided. Staff has identified issues with the design of the proposed addition, which should be addressed for the next meeting. HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT REVIEW STANDARDS: The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of Section 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5), Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), and Section 26.72.010(G). Section 26.88.030( )(2). Subdivision Exemptions, Lot S liit. The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all 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. W, 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). Response: Two lots are created, both of which conform to the requirements of the R- 15A zone district. An Accessory Dwelling Unit is proposed for the new residence. 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); and Response: No previous lot split exemption was granted. d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. Response: The filing of said subdivision plat shall be a condition of this approval. e. Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Response: The filing of said subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be a condition of this 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 applicant represents that a total of two units will be created. Section 26.88.030(A)(5)Historic Landmark Lot Split. The following standards must be met: 6 0 • a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of 9,000 square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or a minimum of 13,000 square feet and be located in the R-15A zone district. Response: The parcel is larger than 13,000 square feet and is located in the R-15A 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 duplex FAR which would have been allowed for the fathering parcel, which in this case is 4,384 square feet plus a possible FAR bonus from HPC, will be divided between the new parcels. The applicant must clarify exactly how the FAR is to be allocated. C. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. Response: An FAR bonus and setback variances have been requested for the historic structure. 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. 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 to section 26.88.030(A)(5) shall be reviewed by HPC at a public hearing. Response: This meeting is a noticed public hearing. PARTIAL DEMOLITION 1. Standard: 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. 7 • 0 Response: Only a limited area at the rear of the house is to be demolished in order to add onto the building. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: As stated above, demolition is limited. 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: Compatibility issues are detailed above. ON -SITE RELOCATION 1. Standard: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. Response: As described above, it is important to keep the historic house close to the street, but there is interest in shifting it towards the west to give it the most prominence on the lot and within the neighborhood. 2. Standard: The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re -siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Response: Said report will be a condition of approval. 3. Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: The relocation plan and bond will be a condition of approval. 8 • MEMORANDUM To: Amy Guthrie, Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer From: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer Date: March 26, 1998 Re: 930 King Street, aka "No Problem Joe's" (Parcel ID No. 2737-073-000-37) The Development Review Committee has reviewed the above referenced application at their March 25, 1998 meeting, and we have the following comments: 1. Improvement Survey - The improvement survey is incomplete because it is not wet ink stamped and signed. For future applications, please obtain one full size, wet ink stamped and signed improvement survey for including with the referral to the Engineering Department. 2. Drainage - The existing City storm drainage infrastructure system is sub -standard and cannot adequately convey storm runoff. The site development approvals must include the requirement of meeting runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Sec. 26.88.040.C.4.f and a requirement that the building permit application include a drainage mitigation plan (24"06" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan) and a report signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado, submitted as part of the building and site plan, as well as a temporary sediment control and containment plan for the construction phase. 3. Parking - The application addresses parking requirements and provisions in a satisfactory manner. There is no on street parking available in the area. So parking is needed on site as presented. The application drawings do not show the parking spaces that are stated in the application. The building permit drawings must show these spaces. One must be designated for the accessory dwelling unit. 1 4. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter - Sidewalk, curb and gutter have alredy been constructed by the City on the Neale Avenue frontage. The King Street frontage is not planned for sidewalk, curb and gutter at this time. Therefore the applicant needs to sign a. sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement, and pay recording fees, prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. Trash & Utilities - All utility meters and any new or relocated utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the applicant's property, with easements as needed, and not in the public right- of-way or within access easements. The building permit drawings need to indicate all utility meter locations. Meter locations have to be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed by trash storage. Holy Cross Electric Association has indicated the need for an 8' x 10' transformer easement at the northwest corner of the property. 6. Access - The curb cut on Neale Avenue has been approved subject to properly placed landscaping and other improvements to provide 30' vision triangles for safe vehicular entry to Neale Avenue. 7. Right-of-way Width - The King Street right-of-way width is substandard. As with the Billing GMP application and subsequent re -subdivision of the Astor subdivision, the right-of-way width must be brought up to standard (50') with dedications generally split equally between property owners on each side of the street. The fmal plat must indicate the varying, existing right-of-way widths along the frontage of the property. The applicant must dedicate a parcel that is about 7' wide at the east end which will taper to zero feet to the west. 8. City Water Department - The existing house ws not connected to City water. The new dwellings must be connnected to City water with well abandonment performed to meet Water Department standards. 9. .Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District - The District has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project. The applicant must obtain District approvals and pay District fees prior to submitting for a building permit. 10. Work in the Public Right-of-vi,ak - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development M public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant must receive approval from city engineering (920-5080) for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for vegetation species and for public trail disturbance, and 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. 2 DRC Attendees Staff: Amy Guthrie, Phil Overeynder, Cindy Christensen, Ed VanWalraven, Chuck Roth 98M93 Phi-. Overeyncle-r, 02 : 2&M 'S/2-6/98 , DRC meeting- Oo Problem" Joe X-Sender: philo@water Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 14:20:37 -0700 To: chuckr@ci.aspen.co.us From: Phil Overeynder <philo@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: DRC meeting --"No Problem" Joe Well-930 King St Cc: amyg@ci.aspen.co.us, ryanm@ci.aspen.co.us Chuck, >I am sending you a hard copy of our standard language used in our utility connection permits as it applies to lot split for the "No -Problem Joe" property. I am also enclosing a handout on the proper procedures to be used in abandoning a well when connecting to the municipal water system. Some of the steps outlined in the handout may not be applicable to this case since the existing plumbing system will be completely removed from the existing house before there is a connection to the municipal system. Water Department staff has checked and verified that there is no curb box and no water account established for this property. It therefore appears that the existing house was never connected to the City water system. The applicants will need to abandon the well and provide a new tap for each of the 2 lots to be in conformance with the Municipal Code. I would recomend you use the same language the Water Department uses on the utility connection permit to condition abandonment of the existing well. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions please feel free to call me at x5111. > >Phil >>Received: from comdev.ci.aspen.co.us (comdev.ci.aspen.co.us [205.170.53.11) by water.ci.aspen.co.us (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA29844 for <philo@water.ci.aspen.co.us>; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 14:34:24 -0700 (MST) >>Received: from eddystone (eddystone.ci.aspen.co.us [205.170.53.341) by comdev.ci.aspen.co.us (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA22207; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 14:34:12 -0700 (MST) »Message-Id:<199803232134.OAA22207@comdev.ci.aspen.co.us> >>X-Sender: chuckr@comdev.ci.aspen.co.us >>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 »Mime -Version: 1.0 >>Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 14:38:14 -0700 >>To: bille@ci.aspen.co.us, chuckr@ci.aspen.co.us, jackr@ci.aspen.co.us, >> nicka@ci.aspen.co.us, ross@ci.aspen.co.us, timw@ci.aspen.co.us, >> bobn@ci.aspen.co.us, juliew@ci.aspen.co.us, philo@ci.aspen.co.us, >> carolynh@ci.aspen.co.us, mitchh@ci.aspen.co.us, chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us, >> sarat@ci.aspen.co.us, tomd@ci.aspen.co.us, cindyc@ci.aspen.co.us, >> parks@ci.aspen.co.us, nancym@ci.aspen.co.us, amyg@ci.aspen.co.us, >> edv@ci.aspen.co.us, stephenk@ci.aspen.co.us, jackiel@ci.aspen.co.us, >> kevind@ci.aspen.co.us, lorih@ci.aspen.co.us >>From: Chuck Roth <chuckr@ci.aspen.co.us> >>Subject: DRC meeting »Content -Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Printed for Amy-Gu_thrie <amyg@ci.aspen.co.us> 1 Phil Overeynder, 02a2&M 3%26%98 , DRC meeting- Oo Problem" Joe >>We will meet this Wednesday at 1:30 in the Sister Cities meeting room to review >>1. No Problem Joe's - lot split, single family residence with ADU, addition >>to historic structure. Printed —for -Amy Guthrie <amyg9ci.aspen.co.us> -- 2 '1AR =5 ' -:G 4: =9PM :r+SFIEN �UUSING _,F. • • Exhibit B MEMQRANDUM TO: Amy Guthrie, Ccmmunity Development cent. FROM: Cindy Christensen, iousirg Office DATE: March 25, a 998 RE: 930 King Street Use for an Accessory Dwelling Unit Parcel ID No. 2737-073-00-037 $EflUE3T: The 3opficant is requesting approval for an accessory dwelling unit o be located in the garcien level of the primary residence. SACKt3ROUND: According b Sec:ior 26.40,090. Accessory Dwelling Units. a unit shall ccntain not less than 300 square feet of ret 5vable area and -act more fian 700 Square feet of net livable area. .AS-11J.ES: When the Housing Office reviews ?ians -or an accessory dweilirg unit, here are particular areas that are given special attention. ; ney are as foi ows: he unit must be a totally private unit, which means the unit must have a private ervanca and there snail be no otter rocros ;r 'his unit that need tc be utilized by the individuals in the principal residence: i.e., a mechanical rccm for the princical residence. 2. The kitchen includes a minimum of 3 two -burner stove wth oven, standard sink, and a 3- cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer. 3. The unit Is required ;o have a certain percentage of natural light ;into the unit; i.e., windows, sliding glass door, Mndow wells, etc., especially :f the unit 's located below grade. The Uniform Building Code requires that 10% of the floor area of a unit needs to have natural light. Natural light is defined as light whiff is dear and open to the sky. 4. Should the unit be used to obtain an 7AR bonus, the unit MUST be rented to a qualified employee. 51 A deed restricticn MUST be recorded PRIOR to building permit approval. The deed restriction shall be obtained frcm the Housing Office. SECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval cf this unit as Icing as conditions 1 through 5, stated above, are met. %. WL4 , a 114W k-, 39 8. adu • 0 MEMORANDUM To: Amy Guthrie, Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer i%2 From: Chuck Roth. Project Engineer e Date: April 2, 1998 Re: 930 King Street, aka "No Problem Joe's" (Parcel ID No. 2737-073-000-37) The Development Review Committee has reviewed the above referenced application at their March 25, 1998 meeting, and we have the following comments: 1. Improvement Survey - The improvement survey is incomplete because it is not stamped and signed by the surveyor. For future applications, please obtain one full size, wet ink stamped and signed improvement survey for including with the referral to the Engineering Department. 2. Drainage - The existing City storm drainage infrastructure system is sub -standard and cannot adequately convey storm runoff. The site development approvals must include the requirement of meeting runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Sec. 26.88.040.C.4.f and a requirement that the building permit application include a drainage mitigation plan (24"x36" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan) and a report signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado, submitted as part of the building and site plan, as well as a temporary sediment control and containment plan for the construction phase. 3. Parking - The application addresses parking requirements and provisions in a satisfactory manner. There is no on street parking available in the area. So parking is needed on site as presented. The application drawings do not show the parking spaces that are stated in the application. The building permit drawings must show these spaces. One must be designated for the accessory dwelling unit. 4. Sidewalk. Curb and Gutter - Sidewalk, curb and gutter have already been constructed by the City on the Neale avenue frontage. The King Street frontage is not planned for sidewalk, curb and gutter at this time. Therefore the applicant needs to sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement, and pay recording fees, prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. Trash & Utilities - All utility meters and any new or relocated utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the applicant's property, with easements as needed, and not in the public right- of-way or within access easements. The building permit drawings need to indicate all utility meter ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone (970) 920-5090 FAX (970) 920-5439 TO: Environmental Health FROM: Amy Guthrie, Planner mm MEMORANDUM Parcel ID No. 2737-073-000-37 DATE: March 20, 1998 Mu,i e '� lgga Asv OWMUNIT� ur1, r.60PMEW Attached is an application to do a historic landmark lot split, make an addition to,the existing historic house, and build a new house with an ADU. This item is scheduled for DRC on Wednesday, March 25th. Thank you. Memorandum TO: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer FROM: Rebecca Schickling, Assistant Parks Director DATE: April 21,1998 RE: 930 King St. We have reviewed the development application submitted for 930 King Street and offer the following comments. Stephen Ellsperman, our new City Forester, and myself visited the site yesterday. The two existing cottonwoods in front of the historic cabin are stressed, most likely due to lack of water and neglect for several years. The development plan shows a basement being excavated for the relocated house. Even though the existing asphalt driveway and the current location of the house has limited the root zone in this area, the excavation of a basement and a new driveway will further stress both of the cottonwoods. If this occurs, and the trees are to be preserved, it is imperative to consistently irrigate the trees and monitor the moisture levels throughout the construction project (including winter watering when necessary). If the trees are to be removed or die within two years of the construction then mitigation will be required. The site/ plan shows a few trees on each of the lots, primarily along the back side (north side) and between the two lots. However, no streetscape trees are shown. We would recommend the applicant plant two cottonwoods on Neal St. and two to three cottonwoods on King St. in front of the new residence. Neal Street has been identified as a primary pedestrian corridor and the City performs the snow removal on the sidewalk for this street. However, each property owner will be required to do snow removal on their abutting sidewalk for King Street, per the municipal code. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer EXHIBIT /l 014C RE: 930 King Street- Landmark designation, Conceptual Review, Historic Landmark Lot Split, Partial Demolition, On -site Relocation -Public Hearing DATE: March 25, 1998 SUMMARY: Several worksessions and site visits have been held to discuss this proposal, which involves landmarking the property, doing a historic landmark lot split, making an addition to the existing historic structure, and building a new house on the newly created lot. Variances requested are a front yard setback variance and side yard setback variance for the historic house and an FAR bonus. Staff recommends tabling, with specific direction to the applicant for areas to be restudied. APPLICANT: No Problem Joe, LLC, represented by Gibson Reno Architects. LOCATION: 930 King Street, R-15A zone district. Section 26.76.020, Standards for designation. Any structure that meets two or more of the following standards may be designated "H," Historic Overlay District, and/or Historic Landmark. It is not the intention of HPC to landmark insignificant structures or sites. HPC will focus on those 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 good example of housing built in Aspen in the late 1800's. It has a cross gable roof, front porch, two front entries, and detailing which was common to these buildings. 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: At one time, there were many miner's cabins in this neighborhood. There are two others in the immediate vicinity and their preservation is important to maintaining the character of the area. 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 19th century, Aspen's primary period of historic significance. 6 al 1 ' o 1040 IFUKINIIJA W Il PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section 2 • exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: As stated above, HPC has held several worksessions on this proposal, to give direction to the applicant and to review the request for an FAR bonus. From those worksessions, several key issues have been discussed, namely (1) whether, or how, the historic house should be relocated on the site, (2) how garages for the two houses should be accessed, (3) neighborhood concerns such as preservation of views. The changes that the applicant has made as an outcome of the discussions are detailed in their attached letter, dated March 18, 1998. In summary, the applicant has chosen to pursue a site plan which shifts the house towards the east. The two historic outbuildings are to be placed directly behind the old house and used as garden sheds. The new house has been set back from Neale Street so that the property owner to the north will still have clear views of Aspen Mountain. The ridgeline height of the new building has also been lowered by five feet. It must be noted that there is a problem with the site plan as proposed; the historic house is shown within the dripline of the existing trees, so that to move it eastward, it will also have to be moved back from the street. The variances requested for the proposed site plan are as follows: up to a 11,,4 foot variance on the front yard for the historic house, a ive foot side yard setback variance on the east side of the historic house, and a 250 square foot FAR bonus (reduced from the original request for 500 square feet.) Staff is in favor of the general concept of the proposal. The existing historic house is 432 square feet. The allowed FAR, which could be added onto that small house is just less than 4,000 square feet. This is the scenario that was troublesome to HPC in the previous approval in 1994. The historic landmark lot split approach taken here is positive for both the developer and the HPC. The allowed floor area is divided into two separate structures, reducing the impact .on the historic structure and the neighborhood as a whole. Referring back to the issues which HPC has focused on in the worksessions, the first issue was whether the historic house should remain in, or as close to, its original location on the lot as possible, or whether there was some benefit in changing its siting. The HPC seems to be in agreement that the house should remain as close to King Street as it currently is. As noted above, if the house is shifted towards the east, it will have to move back from the street to stay out of the tree dripline. The alternative considered was whether the site plan should be flipped, so that the old house moves to the west side of the property. This idea seems to have a lot of merit because having the smaller house on the corner gives it some prominence and provides a more pedestrian scaled entry into the neighborhood. It would also have a good relationship with the historic house across the street, at 114 Neale Avenue. 3 HPC has held a special worksession on the topic of relocating historic buildings. The outcome was a general agreement that HPC is interested in seeing historic buildings remain in their original locations. If a house is to be moved, as a result of a lot split or other remodeling activities, the house should be moved in a way that maintains its original character (i.e. a lateral move rather than moving back on the site.) There are several factors that HPC may weigh, on a case by case basis, to determine whether or not a building should be moved. The goal is to place the historic house to its best advantage in terms of historic context, visibility and compatibility with surrounding development. Staff recommends in this case that the site plan as proposed be reversed. The nature of the site will be significantly changed with the renovation of the house and addition of a new home. The historic building may be lost in the new building mass. Placing the renovated historic house on the corner will however make it all the more important that the addition is successful, since it will have high visibility. In terms of the driveways, there appear to be three possible solutions. The applicant proposes to have a separate driveway for each house, one of which accesses off of King Street, and one off of Neale Avenue. Another alternative would be to have both driveways access off of King Street, which staff finds would cause pavement to dominate that view of the property. A third alternative would be to have a shared driveway between the two buildings. The applicant has rejected the third alternative, finding that there is inconvenience associated with a shared driveway and that the easement that would be required to share access affects the maximum FAR allowed on the site. (This loss of FAR could be offset by an FAR bonus from HPC.) Staff finds that the proposed driveway configuration is acceptable and maintains adequate open yard space in front of the houses. This issue seems to be an area for compromise in relation to other issues of site plan and architectural compatibility. The applicant proposes to add approximately 1375 square feet onto the 432 square foot cabin. This is a significant increase in size, however can probably be accommodated in a compatible manner. The proposed one story connecting element between the old house and new addition is effective, however more effort needs to be made to break the bulk of the new addition down into components which are more like the historic building. The gable end which meets the back of the old house is overpowering in scale. With regard to the new house, staff finds that the materials which are used on the new house but do not exist on the old, namely log and stone, cause a conflict and are keeping the two structures from relating well to each other. Window sizes and characteristics are also significantly different. Although the property is to be subdivided into two lots, it is still important that the new and old are strongly compatible with each other. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 4 0 • Response: The King Street area is undergoing significant redevelopment. Historically, it has been a neighborhood of fairly small, modest, single family homes. The intent of the recommendation to reverse the site plan and restudy aspects of the architecture is to help ease the transition in scale between new houses and old in the neighborhood. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: This proposal goes much further towards protecting the historic significance of the structure than did the previous one, when the only option in the Land Use Code was to build one single family house. The allocation of FAR as proposed involves a reasonable addition to the historic structure, which can be made while still retaining the overall character of the house. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: No additional demolition of the existing structure is required, beyond where the new addition connects to the historic house. The house is in a deteriorated state and will require a significant restoration effort. Detailed specifications for restoration and replication of materials where necessary must be provided. Staff has identified issues with the design of the proposed addition, which should be addressed for the next meeting. HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT REVIEW STANDARDS: The Historic requirements of Section 26.88.030(A)(2) Section 26.72.010(G). Landmark Lot Split shall meet the and (5), Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), and Section 26.88 030(A)(2), Subdivision Exemptions, Lot Split. The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all 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. 5 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). Response: Two lots are created, both of which conform to the requirements of the R- 15A zone district. An Accessory Dwelling Unit is proposed for the new residence. 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); and Response: No previous lot split exemption was granted. d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. Response: The filing of said subdivision plat shall be a condition of this approval. e. Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Response: The filing of said subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be a condition of this 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 applicant represents that a total of two units will be created. Section 26.88.030(A)_(5) Historic Landmark Lot Split The following standards must be met: 2 a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of 9,000 square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or a minimum of 13,000 square feet and be located in the R-15A zone district. Response: The parcel is larger than 13,000 square feet and is located in the R-15A I one 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 duplex FAR which would have been allowed for the fathering parcel, which in this case is 4,384 square feet plus a possible FAR bonus from HPC, will be divided between the new parcels. The applicant must clarify exactly how the FAR is to be allocated. C. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. Response: An FAR bonus and setback variances have been requested for the historic structure. 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. 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 to section 26.88.030(A)(5) shall be reviewed by HPC at a public hearing. Response: This meeting is a noticed public hearing. PARTIAL DEMOLITION 1. Standard: 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. 7 Response: Only a limited area at the rear of the house is to be demolished in order to add onto the building. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: As stated above, demolition is limited. 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: Compatibility issues are detailed above. MOS119 It a.0 1 • 1 1. Standard: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. Response: As described above, it is important to keep the historic house close to the street, but there is interest in shifting it towards the west to give it the most prominence on the lot and within the neighborhood. 2. Standard: The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re -siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Response: Said report will be a condition of approval. 3. Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: The relocation plan and bond will be a condition of approval. 8 D 07- - J. 1 ' 1 CK41I Response: Windows shown on all sides of the new construction extend into the "no window zone." The applicant may either accept a double FAR calculation for the interior space associated with these windows, eliminate the windows where they violate the standard or ask for a variance. Staff has recommended restudy of some aspects of the architecture. A variance from this standard may be appropriate in some areas of the new house, but staff does not support any variance on the historic structure because the large areas of glass are not generally compatible with the windows which are characteristic of the historic house. 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 final review • Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) • Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC continue the application to April 8, 1998, with the following direction: I. Reverse the site plan so that the historic house is on the western lot. 2. The western lot may be accessed by a driveway from Neale Street, as shown, and the eastern lot may be accessed from King Street, as shown. 3. Restudy the architecture of the addition to the historic house and the new house. Create a more direct compatibiity in materials and design elements. 4. The lot split, partial demolition, and landmark requests are acceptable in concept, but are continued to April 8 so that the overall proposal can be amended. 9 V�w1a rr a • March 18, 1998 DAVI D GIBSON Ms. Amy Guthrie AIA Aspen Pitkin Countv Community AUGUST Development Department RENO 130 South Galena Street AIA Aspen, Colorado 81611 SCOTT RE: 930 King Street SMITH AIA Dear Amy: I have enclosed revised Architectural Drawings that should beA . included in our original submission package. The revisions include: ' 1. Site Plan 2. Exterior Elevations GIBSON • RENO Regarding the Site Plan, the revised drawings represent moving the A R H I C E .: i S. L.L.Q. lu historic house (Residence "B") directly to the East. The proposed front yard is ten (10) feet from the South property line, which is exactly what exists today. The East side yard is proposed to be five 210 E. HYMAN (5) feet. Both the proposed front and side yards will require a N" 202 variance. ASPEN COLORADO Residence "A" remains as originally sited. The Neale Street side is 51611 considered the front yard with a setback of twenty five (25) feet. The King Street side is considered the side yard with a setback of sixteen 970.925.5968 feet, eight inches (16-8"). No variance is required for Residence "A" FACSIMILE with regard to setbacks. 970.925.5993 The driveway to Residence "A" has been revised regarding width. The revised driveway is ten (10) feet wide. P.O. BOX 278 117 N. WILLOW The proposed revised fence on the North property line begins thirty NO 2 (30) feet from the West (Neale Street) property line running to the East property line. The entire East property line remains as originally TELLURIDE COLORADO proposed with a fence running the entire length. 81435 970.728.6607 FACSIMILE 970.728.6658 Ms. Amy Guthrie March 18, 1998 Page 2 The exterior of Residence "A" has been revised regarding the following: The height of the edge has been lowered by five (5) feet. In the original design, the ridge was thirty five (35) feet. In the revised design, the ridge is located at thirty (30) feet. - The fireplace chimney has been lowered by five (5) feet. All of the original log roof outriggers have been eliminated. The fascias are now a more traditional one (1) by similar to the surrounding houses. Finally, we have reduced the amount of additional F.A.R. (493) by two hundred forty three (243) square feet. Our revised request is for two hundred fifty (250) square feet. These revisions are based upon the input we have received from the Historic Preservation Commission and the goals of the applicant. If you should have any questions please contact me. j I V . ATTACHMENT 8 0 0 734 Associates, a Colorado General Partnership, whose address is c/o Margaret Stanzione, 64 Washington Street, Toms River, NJ 08753, for the consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, in hand paid, hereby sells and conveys to NPJ Partners LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company, whose address is 317 Park Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611, the following real property in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado: 3 A parcel of land situated in the South Half of Section 7, Township 10 o b° South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., City of Aspen, State of Colorado, formerly w c 3 known as the "Robert Davey improvements situated in the Hughes Addition to the m H Townsite and City of Aspen", which parcel is more particularly described as follows: o w� Commencing at a.point from which Corner 11 of the East Aspen Townsite bears >a a N. 52 degrees 23 03 E. 160.23 feet; thence along existing fence lines the H 3 w c^r following courses and distances: U E+ M - A 3 S 26052-00" W 103.58 feet; N 61057'06" W 27.78 feet; N 55 °52' 50" W 18.64 feet; N 58048' 18" W 34.01 feet; N 58 °29' 54" W 23.85 feet; V N48°15'12" W 34.73 feet; N 23 °28' 17" E 81.89 feet; S 65020'31" E 142.47 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. also known by street and number as: 930 King Street, Aspen, CO 81611, with all its appurtenances, and warrants the title to the same, subject to and except for: 0 1. General taxes for 1997 and thereafter payable in 1998 and thereafter. 9 2. Building and zoning regulations. vi 3. All matters described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this a.� reference. i ALL REFERENCES BEING TO THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. U �•o Signed this U—�_9 day of April, 1997. SIGNATURES AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ARE ON THE FOLLOWING TWO PAGES I I"III "III I'I"I II'II IIII' III'II'I"I III "I'I II'I I"I 4D3925 04/30/1997 03:48P WD 1 of 3 R 16.00 D 77.50 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CLERK 403925 TRANSFER DECLARATION RECEIVED 04/30/1997 -0 734 Associates, A Colorado General Partnership BY: Margaret S ione, its General �ner STATE OF NEW JERSEY ) ss. COUNTY OF OCEAN 1 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this? 9 day of April, 1997, by Margaret Stanzione, as General Partner of 734 Associates, a Colorado General Partnership. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: (SEAL) n Notary Public ELEAfJOR J. CADNI",1101! MY j"',i 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IN 3925 04/30/1997 03:48P WD 2 of 3 R 16.00 D 77.50 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CLERK -2- :t Stanzione T , ' General Partner STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SARASOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2 day of April, 1997, by Donald Stanzione, as Trustee of -the Richard and Margaret Stanzione Trust, a General Partner of 734 Associates, a Colorado General Partnership. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 9 . ZO 9'7 (SEAL) REBECCA MCFADDEN N, public MY COMMISSION i CC 317M EXPIRES: SepWr6w 20 1997 4115.0 ' B=W Thru NONY POW lkrderw�lEen I I"III "III I'I'II II'II II'II III'II'I"I III'II" IIII I"I 403925 04/30/1997 03s48P WD 3 of 3 R 16.00 D 77.50 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CLERK -3- 0 0 ATTACHMENT 9 NO PROBLEM JOE 930 KING STREET LEGAL DESCRIPTION A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE S 1/2 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. IN, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER F A TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 645 AT PAGE 892 OF THE PITKIN COUNTY RECORDS WHENCE CORNER NO. 11, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE BEARS N52 DEGREES 23' 03" 03"E 160.23 FT., THENCE S 26 DEGREES 52' 00" W 103.58 FT. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID TRACT; THENCE N 61 DEGREES 5706" W 27.78 FT., THENCE N 55 DEGREES 52' 50"W 18.64 FT., THENCE N 58 DEGREES 48' 18" W 34.01 FT.; THENCE N 58 DEGREES 29' 54" W 23.85 FT. THENCE N 48 DEGREES 15' 12" W 34.73 FT., THENCE N 23 DEGREES 28'17" E 81.89 FT., THENCE S 65 DEGREES 20' 3 1 " E 142.47 FT. TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 13,343 SQ. FT. MORE OR LESS DEC.12.1997 11:03AM GIBSON RENO NO.e65 P.2 ATTACHMENT 10 December 3, 1997 NP7 Partners, LL.0 317 Park Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Ms. Amy Guthrie Aspen Pitkin County Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO. 81611 VIA: Hand Delivery RE: 930 King Street (Please see legal description enclosed) Dear Amy: Please accept this letter as authorization for the firm of Gibson -Reno Architects, L.L.C., located at 210 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 202, Aspen, Colorado 81611, (970) 925-5968, to submit and process the application on my behalf for: 1. Landmark Designation 2. Significant Development 3. On -Site Relocation 4. Residential Design Standards 5. Historic Landmark Lot Split 6. Conditional Use Gibson & Reno Architects may represent my interest at any related meetings, hearings, or presentations. Sincer / Larry W erman ATTACHMENT 11 DAV I D GIBSON December 3, 1997 AIA AUGUST RENO AIA Ms. Amy Guthrie Aspen/Pitkin County SCOTT Community Development Department SMITH AIA 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 930 King Street Dear Amy: On behalf of the NPJ Partners, I am requesting that if the 930 King G I B S O N • R E N O A R C H I T E C T S. L.L.C. Street proposed development is designated as a historic landmark, Ilt we receive the appropriate grant from the Aspen City Council. I understand that the amount of the grant is pre -established in the 210 E. HYMAN N° 202 annual City of Aspen budget. ASPEN Thank you or your attention to this matter. Please contact me if COLORADO you should have any questions. 81611 970.925.5968 Re tfully, FACSIMILE 970.925.5993 Aug st .J. Reno, P.O. BOX 278 117 N. WILLOW N°2 TELLURIDE COLORADO 81435 970.728.6607 guthrl23.1tr FACSIMILE 970.728.6658 ATTACHMENT 12 • ASPEN/PTTKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees (Please Print Clearly) CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and N P J P a r t n e r s (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: Landmark-, Conceptual Developmen 1. APILLIC'f has ubmited t� CI Y an a�licti�n fad Partial Demolition , o n -sit e Re- oca ion, esi en is Des n an arrdds,Htstarte 13aff4mark Lotsplit, and Conditional Use. (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 43 (Series of 1996) establishes a fee structure for land use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow APPLICANT to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $1 , 0 2 5 which is for hours of Planning staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT Signature: Stan auso Date: Community Development Director Printed Name: City of Aspen Mailing Address: Gibson -Reno Arc 210 Human i t e c t s 4202 F. AvP_, Aspen, Colorado 81611 ATTACHMENT • ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant: NPJ Partners Address: 317 Park Avenue, Aspen, CO. 81611 Zone district: R-15 A Lot size: 13 343 S.F. Existing FAR: Allowable FAR: 4384 S.F. Proposed FAR: 4801 S.F. includes 493 S.F. of Bonus Existing net leasable (commercial): N / A Proposed net leasable (commercial): N/A Existing % of site coverage: N/A Proposed % of site coverage: N/A Existing % of open space: N/A Proposed % of open space: A Existing maximum height: Principal bldg: +/ - 18 F T Accesory Bldg: Proposed max. height: Principal bldg: 25 FT Accessory bldg: Proposed % of demolition: 0 % Existing number of bedrooms: 1 Bedroom Proposed number of bedrooms: House "A" 4 Bedrooms/House "B" 3 Bedrooms Existing on -site parking spaces: 2 Spaces On -site parking spaces required: 4 Spaces Setbacks Existing: Minimum required: Proposed: "A" 25 Front: 11 FT Front: 25FT House FT Front: House "B" 25 FT * Rear: 68 FT Rear: 1oFT Rear: Ho�use�"A„ J4 FT Combined Combined Combined Front/rear: 79 FT Front/rear: Front/rear: **Side- 20 FT (East) Side: 10 FT Side: Side: 94 FT (West) Side: 10 FT Side: Combined Combined Combined Sides: 114 FT Sides: Sides: Existing nonconformities or encroachments :Front setback of existing Historic House, rear yard setback re: Smokehouse & Outhouse. East side yard setback 5 FT. and 493 S.F. of Bonus Variations requested: F.A.R. related to Historic Landmark/Proposed Development. (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.ft., site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O zone districts) * Existing Historic Smokehouse rear setback is 3 FT. Existing Historic Outhouse rear setback is 4 FT. ** Existing Historic Smokehouse side (West) setback is 110 FT. Existing Historic Outhouse side (East) setback is 11 FT. ATTACHMENT 140 • ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name 930 King Street 2. Project location 930 King Street, see attached legal description (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning R-15A 4. Lot size 13,343 S.F. 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number" 7 partners , 317 Park Avenue, Aspen, CO, 81611 920-1851 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number Au g i e Reno, Gibson -Reno Architects 210 E. Hyman, #202 Aspen, CO. 81611 9 6 8 7. Type of application (check all that apply): X Conditional Use Conceptual SPA x Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA X Final HPC _ 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD X Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. X Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review X Lot Split/Lot Line Appeal Committee 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) Single Family PDlescriptW� tdeveloRmentapplication Landmark Designation, Significant eve opm n Sing e Family Res c , on -site re oca ion of a Historic Buildinq, Historic Lot Split, and Conditional Use for an Affordable Dwelling Unit. 10. Have you completed and attached the following? X Attachment 1- Land use application form x Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form X Response to Attachment 3 X Response to Attachments 4 and 5 ATTACHMENT 15 LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET. ATTACHMENT 16 0 • CITY OF ASPEN PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Amy Amidon DATE: 03/07/97 PLANNER'S PHONE: 920-5096 PROJECT: 930 King Street REPRESENTATIVE: Augie Reno/Gibson and Reno PHONE/FAX: 925-5968/925-5993 OWNER: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Option 1: Partial Demolition, On -site relocation, Ordinance #30, Conditional Use Option 2: Landmark, Significant Development (including Partial demolition and On -site relocation), Ordinance #30, Historic Landmark Lot Split, Conditional Use DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Option 1: The applicant may construct a single family house and retain the existing residence as a voluntary ADU. HPC would review the new residence for compatiblity with the historic house in terms of general mass and scale issues. Option 2: Landmark designate the property, pursue a historic landmark lot split which would create two legal parcels; one which contains the historic house (with an addition if desired) and one which contains a new single family residence (ADU required). The maximum FAR for the two parcels would be the FAR allowed for a single family residence on the original parcel; the applicant may propose how that FAR is allocated between the two houses. Both parcels would have HPC design review, and the parcel which contains the historic house is eligible for the dimensional variances and bonuses generally allowed for landmarks. Land Use Code Section Section 26.72.020.0 Section 26.72.020.E Section 26.58.040 Section 26.60.040 Option 2: Section 26.72.020/030/040 Section 26.72.010.F Section 26.72.020.0 Section 26.72.020.E Section 26.58.040 Section 26.100.050.e Section 26.60.040 Partial Demolition On -Site Relocation Residential Design Standards Conditional Use Landmark Designation Significant Development (Conceptual and Final) Partial Demolition On -Site Relocation Residential Design Standards Historic Landmark Lot Split Conditional Use Review process (in order proposed by staff): HPC Landmark, Conceptual Development*, Partial Demolition, On -Site Relocation, Residential Design Standards, Historic Landmark Lot Split* P&Z Landmark*, Conditional Use* CC Landmark* WEM Final Review Public Hearing: Yes, for those applications marked with an asterik. Applicant shall mail notice to adjacent properties and post a public notice sign per Section 26.52.060.E. • • Referral Agencies: Parks, Engineering, Housing Fees: Planning Deposit: Option 1: $120 for HPC, $245 for P&Z Option 2: $600 for HPC, $245 for P&Z Referral Agency Fees: $110 for City Engineer, $70 for Housing TOTAL DEPOSIT: Option 1: $545, Option 2: $1025 To apply, submit the following information: 1. Proof of ownership 2. Signed fee agreement 3. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant, which also states the name, address and telephone number of the representative. Include street address and legal description of the property. 4. Total deposit for review of the application 5. 12 copies of the complete application packet and maps. 6. Summary letter explaining the request (existing conditions and proposed uses) and addressing the standards of the Land Use Code sections listed above. 7. An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. 8. Site improvement survey, including all easements, parking 9. Site plan, including landscaping. 10. Floor plans and elevations 11. List of adjacent property owners within 300'. 12. Site photos 13. Copies of prior approvals DISCLABIER: The foregoing opinion is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The opinion is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinion does not create a legal or vested right. The City urges you to consult with your personal attorney or representative. ATTACHMENT 17 FLOOR AREA RESIDENCE "A" Garden Level 288 S.F. Main Level 1143 S.F.* Upper Level 1364 S_F" TOTAL 2795 S.F. RESIDENCE W Garden Level 141 S.F. Main Level 887 S.F.* Upper Level 776 S.F. TOTAL 1804 S.F.** DECKS (in excess of 15% of the total S/ ✓1 `� r allowed F.A.R.) 202 S.F. HISTORIC OUTBUILDINGS 76 S.F. fro A� R Pam,o TOTAL FLOOR AREA: 4877 S.F. `j-� 3/1t/q�. * Includes garage square footage in excess of 250 S.F. ** Includes 493 S.F. of bonus F.A.R. npjfloor.doc 0 Op GIBSON-REN A K C H I T I C T I 4pa .0 .20 L KV%W AN ANMLCOLON W 491W eml as-" 0" OWN" v rawft op VAL � 2M 117 K WLLD W.2 ManIMLLUMMmvm u4CMAs 72640 73&dm WAAWAAft j.j. J 3N3E Y V art: 2•(1•�16 olaaQ a0nw«r © H '1D "IBSON-REN A R C H I T E C T S 111 A4 Oft- 2 10 E Hyx&: AVQiL1E N.. 202 A,S N. COLORAW 81611 (9/01 925 "U l9A 925-5"3 (FAX) Temvi/e ODIoL: P.O. BOX M I IT N. WILLOW %.2 Tfl11'RM COLORADO 11.35 721 60 (970) 72S 66M(FAX) Wei S6. AA*w: 9 p :�) e.FW- QT >4• 9'fCG an. 2.11.96 o[a� sv� conwort © n±• g Z A.Pa Of -- 110 E. HTMAli AVENUE ASPEM. CCLORADO 31611 (viol 92SAW (M 9215993(FAX) T.M.W Ofjin: P.O. am T1f 117 N. MI{i3ON No. 2 TEUIMD)F C'OLCRADO 11435 (9./(1) 773,6E07 Wb Sin AJbm: ter. pbsrm.iv �.� ..� .17_ -1 f A O V - %SV :;l SON•REN A l C M I T E C T S 2A 11 ftYM AV VNM V- i ..III SAI gzDwft ON 121l.f ,-wi) fYrr �R PAX am Im I n K RiOW M.3 T'LX'I OIfQAM am " TaauvT IIV iAY�: • p•. �i•f0f orr. oot 2•ll•�16 om orc mnort � w AI �R V sIBSON • REIN -A ICH IT[C T1 m AVM qp- TM l ■VUMI AVolu M. M ASPWWOlADO aml " 1QSPY ffM ftL1M!MAX) 7WYr qp— PA 9Q ZM 11T K Wuw N.1 TKLLM 0L OMAKA00 Sim " T]Nrl of TA."mok D Ih�>�I Afro: v (37AfRIDE-N LEVEL FL.00F�,' FLAN SCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0" REVISIONS A A A JOB NO.: DRAWN BY: DATE: CHECKED: SCALE: FILE ID: COPYRIGHT CC) GRA 1998 210 EAST HYMAN SUITE # 202 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 925-5968 FAX (970) 925-5993 P.O. BOX 278 117 N. WILLOW SUITE # 2 TELLURIDE, COLORADO 81435 (970) 728-8607 FAX (970) 728-6658 SHEET # A21 GARDEN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN I\I NfA I N LEVEL FLOOR FLAN 5GALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" i REVISIONS L, A A JOB NO.: DRAWN BY: DATE: CHECKED: SCALE: FILE ID: COPYRIGHT U CRA 1998 210 EAST HYMAN SUITE # 202 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 925-5968 FAX (970) 925-5993 . a . P.O. BOX 278 117 N. WILLOW SUITE # 2 TELLURIDE, COLORADO 81435 (970) 728-6607 FAX (970) 728-6658 (SHEET # A2.2 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN N OFFER LEIVE-L FLOOD FLAN SGRL_E: 1 %4" = 1'-0" M REVISIONS A A A A A JOB NO.: DRAWN BY: DATE: CHECKED: SCALE: FILE ID: I COPYRIGHT (CJ GRA 1998 I (n M 210 EAST HYMAN SUITE # 202 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 925-5968 FAX (970) 925-5993 P.O. BOX 278 117 N. WILLOW SUITE # 2 TELLURIDE, COLORADO 81435 (970) 728-6607 FAX (970) 728-6658 I SHEET # I A2.3 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN m SOUTH ELEVATION 5CALE 1/4" . I'-O" EXTERIOR MATERIALS NEW RE51 DENCE "A" 1. GEDAR SHINGLE ROOFING 2. WOOD TIMBER COLUMNS 5. 2X GEDAR TRIM 4. IX& CEDAR LAP SIDING 5. STONE VENEER 6. WOOD CLAD WINDOWS AND DOORS VICTORIAN RESIDENCE "B" I. GEDAR SHINGLE ROOFING 2. I X 12 BOARD � BATTEN LADLE SIDING (N.) 5. I X FASCIA, CORNER, 4 W I NDOW TRI M 4. I XC CEDAR CLAPBOARD SIDING 5. WOOD GLAD WINDOWS AND DOORS w REVISIONS A A 0 A A JOB NO.: DRAWN BY: DATE: CHECKED: SCALE: FILE ID: COPYRIGHT CK) GRA 1998 210 EAST HYMAN SUITE # 202 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 925-5968 FAX (970) 925-5993 P.O. BOX 278 117 N. WILLOW SUITE # 2 TELLURIDE, COLORADO 81435 (970) 728-6607 FAX (970) 728-6658 SHEET # v* ELEVATIONS BAST ELEVATION "A" SCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0° WEST ELL\/ATION "A'' GALE: I/4" = 1'-0" r► EXTERIOR MATERIALS NEW RE51 DENGE "A" 1. CEDAR SHINGLE ROOFING 2. WOOD TIMBER COLUMNS 5. 2X CEDAR TRIM 4. IXG CEDAR LAP SIDING 5. STONE VENEER 6. WOOD GLAD WINDOWS AND DOORS VI CTORI AN RE51 PENCE 15" I. CEDAR SHINGLE ROOFING 2. I X 12 BOARD $ BATTEN GABLE SIDING (N.) 5. IX FASCIA, CORNER, D W I NDOW TR I M 4. I XC CEDAR CLA 50ARD SIDING 5. WOOD GLAD WINDOWS AND DOORS I � � REVISIONS U 0 0 JOB NO.: DRAWN BY: DATE: CHECKED: SCALE: FILE ID: I COPYRIGHT (K) GRA 1998 I 210 EAST HYMAN SUITE # 202 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 925-5966 FAX (970) 925-5993 o e P.O. BOX 278 117 N. WILLOW SUITE # 2 TELLURIDE, COLORADO 81435 (970) 728-6607 FAX (970) 728-6658 ISHEET # a3.z ELEVATIONS EXTERIOR MATERIAL5 NEW RE5IDENCE "All . CEDAR SHINGLE ROOFING 2. WOOD TIMBER COLUMNS 5. 2X CEDAR TRIM 4. IXC CEDAR LAP SIDING 5. STONE VENEER &. WOOD GLAD WINDOWS AND DOORS VI CTORI AN RE51 PENCE 11 5" 1. CEDAR SHINGLE ROOFING 2. I X 12 BOARD � BATTEN GABLE SIDING (N.) 5. IX FASCIA, CORNER; 4 W NDOW TR I M 4, I XC CEDAR CLAPBOARD SIDING 5. WOOD GLAD WINDOWS AND DOORS EAS I ELL X AT10N II5II SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I L--------J WEST ELEVATION 11511 SCALE: 1/4" = I'-O" ,0 REVISIONS A A A 0 JOB NO.: DRAWN BY: DATE: CHECKED: SCALE: FILE ID: COPYRIGHT (�) GRA 1998 wi M�F..�f4oa 009 210 EAST HYMAN SUITE # 202 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 925-5968 FAX (970) 925-5993 P.O. BOX 278 117 N. WILLOW SUITE # 2 TELLURIDE, COLORADO 81435 (970) 728-6607 FAX (970) 728-6656 (SHEET # A3.3 ELEVATIONS m EXTERIOR MATERI AL5 NEW RE51 DENCE "A" 1. CEDAR 5H I NC7LE ROOFING 2. WOOD TIMBER COLUMNS 5. 2X CEDDAR TRIM 4. IXC CEDAR LAP SIDING 5. STONE VENEER &. WOOD GLAD WINDOWS AND DOORS V I CTORI AN RE51 DENCE 118" 1. CEDAR SHINGLE ROOFING 2. I X 12 BOARD � BATTEN GABLE 51 D I NG (N.) 5. IX FASCIA, CORNER, $ W NDOW TRIM 4. I XC CEDAR CLAPBOARD SIDING 5. WOOD CLAD W I NDOWS AND DOORS NORTH ELEVA ON SCALE: 1/4" = I'-C" 10 REVISIONS A 0 A 0 JOB NO.: DRAWN BY: DATE: CHECKED: SCALE: FILE ID: COPYRIGHT QC GRA 1998 w E-' 0 0 � U z w a o o� i 0 0 210 EAST HYMAN SUITE # 202 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 925-5968 FAX (970) 925-5993 P.O. BOX 278 117 N. WILLOW SUITE # 2 TELLURIDE, COLORADO 81435 (970) 728-6607 FAX (970) 728-6658 ISHEET # I A3.4 ELEVATIONS I LANDSc�AFE "EC:7'IND: EXISTING CCTV`, OD TREES TO REMA I N NEW LANCELEAF COTTONWOOD TREES (2-5" CALIFER SIZE) NEW ASFEN TREES (2-5" CALIPER SIZE) BOULDER LANDSCAFE RETA I N I NCB WALL s PERENNIAL BEDS ALL AREAS NOT SHOWN TO BE FAVED SHALL BE SODDED AND IRRIGATED �'E FR0FER7Y FE NCB DEfiA I 1 SCALE, 1/2" PENCE LINE MOVED BACK N 51==71E FLAN/LAND5C�-AFE FLAN REVISIONS 0 0 G L JOB DRAWN BY: DATE: CHECKED: SCALE: FILE ID: COPYRIGHTGRA 1996 210 EAST HYMAN SUITE # 202 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 925-5968 FAX 925-5993 P.O. BOX 278 117 N. WILLOW SUITE # 2 TELLURIDE, COLORADO 81435 (970) 728-6607 FAX (970) 728-6658 (SHEET # M.1 SITE PLAN