The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.HP.216 E Hallam St.HPC029-02Â£ 1 V Â£, .Â·= ridlidUI 2735-073-14-001 HPC029-02 yH 89 *-1 2-3 9 P .. CASE NUMBER HPC029-02 PARCEL ID # 2735-073-14001 CASE NAME Frost Property Historic Lot Split, Conditional Use PROJECT ADDRESS 216 E. Hallam PLANNER Amy Guthrie CASE TYPE Historic Lot Split, Conditional Use OWNER/APPLICANT The Frost Property LLC. REPRESENTATIVE Stan Clauson DATE OF FINAL ACTION 01/04/03 CITY COUNCIL ACTION HPC 44-2002 PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION HOA ACTION DATE CLOSED 03/18/03 BY D DRISCOLL Certificate of Appropriateness THE CITY OF ASPEN f E~Approved f] Denied Applicant: -~'4 Ki /06 4/ flo r~/u t-1 I (-.1//4- For the property at: ~-21 49 F---* i 1- 44 21/1/\ d A l/L l- c 0 4--3 4.ll/, This . day of \E~-10 0Â·0Â·-1 , 20 2 -4 C tt (1Â·Oll/i 6( Lk--65 UU 1 44 l.<1113-StÂ«-7 00 61%1140 ~CA- 2,Â·~,t [jyThe following alterations have been approved: 72.614& 61-0-G o i.01 0-6 +Le ti@6 F G B c â‚¬-22 + r,/0 L.1 cilj~~ec_4--t~Â·, .1 0 f .Â» i.Â·10-,-4 1,# Â£52, (16,1-ar 44 L 1-<f 2,*07~ [U<~proval was granted via Resolution # 44Â·' ~ 6.an-64 0 0 77752-~ , which details the conditions. L] The applications has been denied for the following reasons: / i /\ f 6/3/k:6LQ 02 i ' Hisldric Pr~se*affon Planner Expires 3 years\from date shown. Issuance of this certificate does not exempt the applicant from complying with all City codes. including land use and building codes. DEVELOPMENT ORDER ofthe City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order. hereinafter 4'Order". is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070. - Development Orders". and Section 26.308.010, -Vested Property Rights -. of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals. described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three-year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order. unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075. or unless an exemption. extension. reinstatement. or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights. this Order shall remain in full force and effect. excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470. but shall be Subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below fur the site specific development plan as described below. The Frost Propertv LLC, Camilla Auger, Managing Partner, 709 North Spruce Street, Aspen, CO 81611.544-0745. Property Owners Name. Mailing Address and telephone nuniber 216 E. Hallam Street, Lots H, and I, aka Lots N, and O, and a portion of vacated alley, Block 71, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. Legal Description anci Street Address o f Subject Property The Historic Preservation Commission has approved :t plan to restove and the cristing historic house. A new house will be constructed to its east on a lot created through a historic landmark lot split. Written Description ofthe Site Specific Plati and/or Attachment Describing Plan Approved per HPC Final Resolution #44, Series of 2002, December 11,2002 Land Use Appro,al(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) January 4,2003 Effective Date of Development Order (Saine as date of publication of notice of approval.) .january 4,2005 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension. reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issuqd this 4th da, of JanuarY. 2002. by the City of Aspeli Community Development Director. Lt, z#VJ ..ir _ .1~06 Anti Woods. Comill,Illi*bevelopment Director PUBLIC NOTICE Of DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL -Notice is hereby given to tlie general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, ancl the creation of a vested property right pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 216 E. Hallam Street, Lots H, and L aka Lots N, and O, and a portion of vacated alley, Block 71, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado by Resolution of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission numbered 44, Series of 2002. The approval is for a restoration of the existing house and construction of a new house to its east on a lot created through a historic landmark lot split. For further information contact Julie Anti Woods at tile Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Dept., 130 S. Galena St, Aspen. Colorado (970) 920-5090. City of Aspen Published in The Aspen Times on January 4,2003 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL), ON-SITE RELOCATION, AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 216 E. HALLAM STREET, LOTS H, AND I, AKA LOTS N, AND 0, AND A PORTION OF VACATED ALLEY, BLOCK 71, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 44, SERIES OF 2002 PARCEL ID: 2737-073-14-001 WHEREAS, the applicants, The Frost Property LLC, represented by Camilla Auger and Studio B Architects, have requested Major Development Review (Final), On-Site Relocation. and Variances for the property located at 216 E. Hallam Street. Lots H and I (also known as Lots N and O), and a portion of vacated alley, Block 71. City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. The property is listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures;" and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered. repaired. relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review; and WHEREAS, for Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project' s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove. approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, iii order for HPC to grant an FAR bonus. per Section 26.415.110.E, HPC must find that: 1. In selected circumstances the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; and b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building and/or c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; and/or e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/0 r g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained; and WHEREAS, in order for HPC to grant setback variances, per Section 26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code, HPC must make a finding that the variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance (Â»r architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district; and WHEREAS, the application included a request for approval of on-site relocation of the historic house. In order to approve Relocation of a historic structure. per Sectio n 26.415.090.C, the HPC must find that the proposal meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; gr 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservatio n method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated December 11, 2002. performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended that the project be approved with conditions; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting on December 11, 2002. the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and other applicable sections of the Municipal Code and approved the application with conditions by a vote of 4 to 0. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC approves Major Development Review, On-site Relocation. and Variances for 216 E. Hallam Street, Lots H and I (also known as Lots N and O). and a portion of vacated alley: Block 71, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the conditions listed below: 1. The HPC hereby approves a 500 square foot FAR bonus. a 5 foot west sideyard setback variance for the historic structure, a 4 foot east sideyard setback variance for the historic structure, and a combined sideyard setback variance of 9 feet for the historic structure. 2. Finalization of exact window and door locations and sizes will be determined through demolition and discovery by removing the asphalt siding and the interior plaster to expose framing evidence. All details of the restoration will be driven by any photographic and physical evidence that is available and will be reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 3. The applicant must submit a preservation plan with the building permit indicating what original materials appear to still exist on the structure. and what treatments will be used to retain them. HPC staff and monitor will conduct a meeting with the contractor and architect at the site to determine how much can be salvaged, and where replacement will be necessary. 4. Any original millwork that remains on the house will be retained and used as a pattern for locations where woodwork must be recreated. HPC staff and monitor will be provided with shop drawings to review and approve prior to the milling of any new exterior woodwork. 5. The existing historic chimney will be carefully dismantled prior to relocation and reassembled to maintain its original exterior appearance. to be reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 6. The foundation of the historic house is to be concrete, with no stone veneer. since th none is visible in the 19 century photographs. 7. Cut sheets must be provided for all windows and doors that will be installed in the historic house. to be reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. All lightwells shall be covered with grates. not surrounded by a railing. 8. A sample of the metal roofing to be used on the new building and the historic house's garage must be submitted for review and approval by HPC 9. The applicant will provide HPC staff and monitor with a plan for how the housemover proposes to lift the building, for review prior to submittal of a building permit. The approach chosen. whether it be to move the house with its original floor system, or without. must be demonstrated to result in the removal of the least amount o f historic exterior materials, and the least damage to th e building possible. 10. A structural report demonstrating that the buildings can be moved and/or information about how the house will be stabilized from the housemover must be submitted with the building permit application. 11. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the structure must be submitted with the building permit application. 12. A relocation plan detailing how and where the buildings will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 13. HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures by reviewing a plan prior to wiring. purchasing. or installing the fixtures. 14. Coiifirm that the site plan represents all major landscaping that is to take place and what the material for the sidewalks to the historic structures will be. HPC is particularly concerned with planting large trees or shrubs in locations that could damage the historic structure or block important public views of it. HPC staff and monitor must approve any changes to the landscape plan. 15.Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved drawings shall be provided for review and approval by HPC staff and monitor when the information is available. 16. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set. indicating exactly what areas of tlie existing house are to be renioved as part of the renovation. 17. No elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist. No existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of HPC staff and monitor. 18. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 19. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 20. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 21. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. 22. The applicant shall install a warning system that will alert pedestrians on Sheeley Boulevard of any cars backing out from the subject property, to be approved by HPC staff and monitor. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 1 lth day of December, 2002. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Rally Dupps, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 2-/O Eff, 1-0/0 ~<clti , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 1-73 I 6 /67- ,200 l. 1 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, 1-- cuu_y.---9 [_-ffrÂ·fE C (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City ofAspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) o f the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: < Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an o fficial paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made o f suitable, waterproo f materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed o f letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of , 200 , to and including the date and time o f the public hearing. A photograph Of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing o f a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records o f Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part o f a general revision o f this Title, or whenever the text o f this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal o f this Title and enactment o f a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing ofnames and addresses of owners of real property in the area ofthe proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. - =Â· (1<1AAA Ql>J -237:/1 -tjk~~ Si@dture The foregoing "Affidavit ofNotice" was apkngwledged beforQ me this=D- -Tlay of 2Â©20/, , 200.6 by ,_3/ Â·-) A-,110-n<r E'E PUBLIC NOTICE 1 RE: 216 E. HALLAM STREET HISTORIC [25 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL P MARK LOT SPLIT ~ NOTICE IS HERELY GIVEN that a public . -7.=rk h ! hearing will be held on Monday, December 16, 4 4 2002 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the ~ My commission expires: 1â€ž0552. tw*-~f-Â·0' !Â· Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, y 33.- , '' \A 1 130 S, Gatena St., Aspen, to consider an applica- ..3<9 11 4 tion submitted by The Frost Property LLC re- 9 (030~ ...01 ' I questing approval for a Historic Landmark Lot \ ~ Split. The property is located at 216 E. Hallam " ....i . V 0 ..1 0 Yl Street, Lots H and I (also known as Lots N and O), Notary Public Ew : - "044 : and a portion of the vacated alley, Block 71, City & and Townsite of Aspen and is to be subdivided IAA I. into two 3,000 square foot lots. The existing Vic- torian house is to be relocated to the west lot, | .... 0 and a new detached house is proposed on the I east lot. For further information. contact Amy Guthrie at the City of Aspen Community Development De- partment, 130 S, Galena St. Aspen, CO (970) 920- ~ 5096, amyg@ci.aspen.co.us. 5/Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Aspen City Council ATTACHMENTS: Published in The Aspen Times on November 30, , 2002.(9744) COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 216 E. Hallam Street- Historic Landmark Lot Split, Second Reading of Ordinance #44, Series of 2002 DATE: December 16,2002 ~ - / SUMMARY: In June of 2002, HPC reviewed and approved a conceptual plan for the redevelopment of this site, which is actually composed of two separate parcels. The lot which fronts the street contains the "Mona Frost House," and a lot to the rear contains a large barn. Both properties are designated historic. The proposal with regard to the Mona Frost house involved expanding it into a duplex. The historic barn was to be adapted to become a single family home. While the development involving the barn is a "use by right" and required no further hearings, the Planning and Zoning Commission subsequently denied the applicant' s request for the duplex on the Frost house parcel, a proposal which, on a lot of the subject property's size, is only available for Landmarks based on a finding of compatibility with the neighborhood. When the whole project returned to HPC for final review in July, the representation was that, although the architecture was basically unchanged, the Frost structure would be a single family home. LIPC granted approval for the project. City Council was involved in the review of this property by approving a request to vacate an adjoining alley and by granting a license agreement to allow the use of public property along the east side of the Red Brick Arts and Recreation Center to access the site. The applicant has re-examined the land use options available for the Mona Frost parcel, some of which changed with the adoption of the new HPC ordinance and benefits, and has since determined that an appropriate course that will meet their goals and, they hope HPC's as well, would be to propose a Historic Landmark Lot Split. That has the effect of subdividing the front property into two 3,000 square foot lots, each of which will contain a single family home. and completely detaching almost all of the new construction from the historic resource. Under this scenario, HPC conducts a design review and makes a recommendation on the Historic Landmark Lot Split to City Council. Community Development staff supported this application and the significant results it achieves in terms of retrieving the deteriorated historic structures on this site in the project' s previous iteration and finds that the proposal has only improved. In either of the applicant's scenarios, 4 12 U #V i Dincul O Vl 9640 FAE,69% s. 4, 4- 14 A,Â·J ~ 04- - 1 loo 0 0 6 2 4.3-7 ~21'4 % A'Wi=w\(31% 44Â·24- vtdp *13- 6 00, F ait VA .V\.4 ) ~24-0 %4415lt )74/4(60 0 whether the Frost house is single family or involved in a lot split, the house is relocated a few feet west of its current position, and restored in a very accurate manner. APPLICANT: The Frost Property LLC, represented by Camilla Auger and Studio B Architects. PARCEL ID: 2737-073-14-001. ADDRESS: 216 E. Hallam Street, Lots H and I (also known as Lots N and O), and a portion of vacated alley, Block 71, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential). CURRENT LAND USE: Single-family residence. HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT In order to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the applicant shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Land Use Code: Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.470.070(C), and Section 26.415.010(D.) 26.480.030(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 Staff Finding: The property is part of the historic townsite and 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). Staff Finding: This proposal will create two 3,000 square foot lots, each of which meet minimum size set for Historic Landmark Lot Splits. A site plan is attached. 2 Council has recently adopted new benefits for historic properties, pursuant to Section 26.420 of the Municipal Code, which states that affordable housing mitigation will not be required for properties created through a historic landmark lot split. 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 Staff Finding: The land has not been subdivided previously. 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 ofjice of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. Staff Finding: The subdivision plat shall be a condition of approval. It must be reviewed by the Community Development Department for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use action. e) Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the Office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing Of good cause. Staff Finding: The subdivision exemption agreement shall be a condition of approval. D 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 alot split. Staff Finding: No dwelling unit is to be demolished in order to split the lot. The Victorian will be preserved as part of this plan in accordance with the land use code. 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 aitd a singledamily home. 3 Staff Finding: The parcel currently contains one dwelling unit. A second house will be constructed on the newly created lot at some time in the future. 26.480.030(A)(4), SIJBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures for the development of one new single-family dwelling may receive a subdivision exemption if it meets the following standards: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square feet in size and be located in the R-6, R-15, R-15A, RMF, or O zone district. Staff Finding: The subject parcel is 6,000 square feet and is located in the R-6 Zone District. b. The total FAR for both residences shall be established by the size of the parcel and the zone district where the property is located. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. In the Office zone district, the following shall apply to the calculation of maximum floor area for lots created through the historic landmark lot split. Note that the total FAR shall not be stated on the Subdivision Exemption Plat because the floor area will be affected by the use established on the property: lf all buildings on what was the fathering parcel remain wholly residential in use, the maximum floor area will be as stated in the R-6 zone district. If any portion of a building on a lot created by the historic landmark lot split is in commercial/office use, then the allowed floor area for that lot shall be the floor area allowed for all uses other than residential in the zone district. If the adjacent parcel created by the lot split remains wholly in residential use, then the floor area on that parcel shall be limited to the maximum allowed on a lot of its size for residential use according to the R-6 standards. If there is commercial/office use on both newly created lots, the maximum floor area for all uses other than residential in the zone district will be applied. Staff Finding: The two lots will be used wholly for residential purposes. The maximum floor area for the original parcel, containing a historical landmark in an R-6 zone, is 3,240 square feet. The applicant has received HPC approval for a 500 square foot FAR bonus. The total FAR of 3,740 square feet is to be allocated as follows: 1,874 square feet to the lot which contains the Frost house and 1.794 square feet to the new parcel. 4 4 y . c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. The variances provided in Section 26.415.120(B)(1)00,(b), and (c) are only permitted on the parcels that will contain a historic structure. The FAR b onus will be added to the maximum FAR allowed on the original parcel. Staff Finding: Variances are being requested for the lot which contains the historic structure. There are no variances being requested for the new house. 26.470.070(c), GMOS Exemption, Historic Landmark Lot Split . The construction of each new single-family dwelling on a lot created through review and approval of an Historic Landmark Lot Split shall be exempt from the scoring and competition procedures. The exemption is to be approved by the Community Development Director, but is not to be deducted from the respective annual development allotments or from the development ceilings. Staff Finding: With the new benefits of the Historic Preservation Program the existing house, as well as any house on the new lot are exempt from GMQS requirements. 26.415.010(D), Historic Landmark Lot Split A Historic Landmark Lot Split is a two step review, requiring a public hearing before HPC and before City Council. Staff Finding: HPC has held a hearing on this project and Council will hold a hearing at Second Reading of this Ordinance on December 16,2002. RECOMMENDATION: Staff and HPC recommend that Council approve the request for a Historic Landmark Lot Split at 216 E. Hallam Street, Lots LI and I (also known as Lots N and O), and a portion of vacated alley, Block 71, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department 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 26.480 of the Aspen Municipal Code; b. Contain a plat note stating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals 5 pursuant to the provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; c. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district, except the variances approved by the HPC. d. The FAR on the two lots created by this lot split shall be allocated as follows: the lot containing the historic house will have 1,874 square feet of FAR, and the lot containing the new house will have 1,794 square feet of FAR, which shall be noted on the plat. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to adopt Ordinance #44, Series of 2002, for a Historic Landmark Lot Split at 216 E. Hallam Street, Lots H and I (also known as Lots N and O), and a portion of vacated alley, Block 71, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Exhibits: Ordinance #44, Series of 2002 A. Staff memo dated December 16, 2002. B. Proposed site plan. C. Application. 6 ORDINANCE NO. 44 (Series of 2002) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR A HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT AT 216 E. HALLAM STREET, LOTS H AND I (ALSO KNOWN AS LOTS N AND O), AND A PORTION OF VACATED ALLEY, BLOCK 71, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN PARCEL ID#: 2737-073-14-001 WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.470.070(C), and Section 26.415.010(D) of the Municipal Code, a 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, The Frost Property LLC, represented by Camilla Auger and Studio B Architects, has requested approval to split a 6,000 square foot parcel into two 3,000 square foot parcels; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has reviewed the application and recommends approval of the Historic Landmark Lot Split; and WHEREAS, the HPC reviewed the request for a Historic Landmark Lot Split at a properly noticed public hearing on November 20,2002 and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council reviewed and considered the subdivision exemption under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, reviewed and considered those recommendations made by the Community Development Department, and the HPC, and took and considered public comment at a public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Historic Landmark Lot Split 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 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.470.070(C), and Section 26.415.010(D) of the Municipal Code, and subject to those conditions of approval as specified herein, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the subdivision exemption: 1. The applicant's submission is complete and sufficient to afford review and evaluation for approval; and 2. The subdivision exemption is consistent with the purposes of subdivision as outlined in Section 26.480 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; acquire and ensure the maintenance of public open spaces and parks, provide procedures so that development encourages the preservation of important and unique natural or scenic features, including but not limited to mature trees or indigenous vegetation, bluff, hillsides, or similar geologic features. or edges of rivers and other bodies of water, and, promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents o f the City of Aspen. Section 2 Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 1, above, the City Council does hereby grant an Historic Landmark Lot Split Subdivision Exemption for 216 E. Hallam Street with the following conditions: 1. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department 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 26.480 of the Aspen Municipal Code; b. Contain a plat note stating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to the provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; c. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district, except the variances approved by the HPC. d. The FAR on the two lots created by this lot split shall be allocated as follows: the lot containing the historic house will have 1,874 square feet of FAR, and the lot containing the new house will have 1,794 square feet of FAR, which shall be noted on the plat. Section 3 This Ordinance shall not have any effect on 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 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 portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5 A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 16th day of December, 2002, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 25th day of November, 2002. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 16th day of December, 2002. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John P. Worcester City Attorney Joseph A. Amato 222 E. Hallam St. Aspen, CO 81611 December 9,2002 Re: Mona Frost Property - 216 E. Hallam St. Application Before Historic Preservation Committee and City Council Dear City Council Member, Neighbor, and Friends: In June 2002, I wrote to each of you about a proposal before the HPC, Planning and Zoning and the City Council of Aspen. A recent proposal was submitted to HPC which is the subject matter of a public hearing at City Council on December 16111 at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, City Hall - 130 S. Galena St. Aspen. The essence of the "new proposal" is a lot split of the 6,000 sq. ft. lot into two 3,000 sq. ft. lots that will front on Hallam St. and the remainder lot (3rd lot) to the rear which contains the old barn. The end result is the same result as the June proposal except the Frost house is not attached to the new house (i.e. eliminating the duplex). Three houses (the historic barn lot application will be submitted at a later date) will exist on approximately 9,000 sq. ft. of space whereas at the present time two houses (Frost home and historic barn) exist on 9,000 sq. ft. of space. Once again, we have "mass, size and density" not in keeping with the neighborhood. By this letter I am asking that the members of City Council review the findings of Planning & Zoning and reject the current proposal. The essence of Planning & Zoning's rejection of the June proposal was mass, size, density and the safety of all in the neighborhood as well as the youngsters at the Red Brick School House. Attached are additional notes relating to the present application as well as my letter of June 2002. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, 1,2 Loh Joseph A. Amato JAA/lag Enc. December 9,2002 -2- Additional Notes Relating to the Newest Proposal Mona Frost Property - 216 E. Hallam St. Application before Historic Preservation Committee and City Council The new plan by law does not conform to the legal setbacks as required by the Aspen Codes. Hence, if the relocation of the Frost house is denied and the variance and the setback variances are denied; and the City Council agrees with the findings of Planning & Zoning then the Frost house and old barn will be restored without the new third house. I have no problem with this and I'm comfortable to say the neighborhood does not have any problem with restoring the two old houses. The following is a table from the developer's application which notes the setback and variances required in order to develop the plan as submitted. "East Side Setback: Existing -3' Required 5' minimum Proposed 0 West Side Setback: Existing 7' Required 5' minimum Proposed 1' Combined Sides: Existing N/A Requi red 10' Proposed _ _ 1 Can you imagine (if this plan is approved) - aside from minimal light and air on the east and west locations of four structures in a row, persons living in each structure can reach out of their respective building and touch their neighbor's hands! In my humble opinion, the closeness of these structures represents a fire hazard not only to the four houses that are close together but to the old school house which adjoins the Frost house. I ask you to consider the following: 1. Is this good planning? Does the proposed plan negatively affect the character of the specific properties and the neighborhood? 2. Does this represent preservation of historic structures when the Frost house will only be visible from the front elevation and the old historic barn on the rear lot will be totally and completely hidden from view? Section 26.410.040 of the Design Code specifically refers to Historic Restoration - Restoration is OK provided it does not eliminate visibility from the street. 3. Why are we subsidizing a developer and allowing a relocation of the Frost house when this developer recently purchased this property with "their eyes wide open". The developer now comes before the community and claims a hardship! As noted in the local law "hardship" is required in order to grant the relocation and variances requested. 4. The overall density - mass - poor planning is the very reason for rejecti ng this application. The application dwarfs and diminishes the integrity and character of the specific properties and the neighborhood. -3- At a recent HPC hearing on this matter the audience was "shocked" by the comments of an assistant city attorney when he told members of the HPC to "essentially ignore the P&Z findings in June on this particular application". How absurd! Fortunately, at least on member of the HPC took leave to review the P&Z comments. To summarize: The relocation of the Frost house, the granting of the setback variances, and the addition of the third structure as a result of allowing the relocation and variances does adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District, compromise the integrity of the lot split ordinance and diminishes the historic, architectural and aesthetics of the neighborhood bv adding such mass and size where such does not have to exist. For those of you who are not members of City Council I urge you to contact members of the city council and ask that they deny this application. The City Council may disapprove what the HPC approves for the reasons noted as well as others. Mailing List City Council Members City Hall 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Tom McCabe Tony Hershey Tim Semaru Terry Paulson Planning & Zoning Members Jasmine Tyg re Roger Haneman Ron Erikson Eric Cohen Bert Myrin Ruth Druger Jack Johnson Dylan Johns Fire Chief Van Walraven 420 E. Hopkins St. Aspen, CO 81611 Joseph A. Amato 222 E. Hallam St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 July 3,2002 Re: Mona Frost Property; 216 E. Hallam St. Aspen - Application Before Planning And Zoning - City Council & Historic Preservation Commission Dear Neighbor: I am writing to you in an effort to provide information for your review and consideration. A development group has purchased the "Mona Frost Parcel" which includes Mona Frost's home and the old barn to the rear of her home. Both are in a sad state of disrepair. The good news is that the developer plans to "restore" the old house and barn. The bad news is that they are planning to create "duplexes" on the side of each structure which will produce 12 bedrooms and 11 bathrooms. This will essentially destroy "all green areas" on this site and create "mass and density" which does not exist in our neighborhood. In order to accomplish this goal (4 structures - 12 bedrooms & 11 bathrooms) they need variances, waivers, and the use of the pedestrian walkway located along the western side of the Red Brick School House. The bottom line is the dramatic effect and unnecessary change from our Victorian single family neighborhood to a multiple family village type setup (i.e. too many bedrooms, cars, and excessive massing of structures.) The streetscape changes and impacts all of us in a negative way. Aside from a dramatic change to the neighborhood by additional cars (from the 12 bedrooms and the new structures), they will be using the existing pedestrian walkway. At the present time, only emergency vehicles and occasional service vehicles use the pedestrian walkway. This will create a dangerous condition for young children entering or leaving the gymnasium and for pedestrians using the walkway to get to the music tent. What can you do? -2- The HPC is prepared and willing to overlook so many of their design standards as set forth in the "Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" dated April 2000 (see attached list) and is willing to waive set back requirements, parking requirements, and FAR restrictions to permit the uses requested. Without the setback waivers, variances and permission to use the pedestrian walkway, the Mona Frost house and the old barn car-1 be restored without the duplexes! Fortunately, the Planning & Zoning Commission has questioned many of the issues and problems associated with this high density, massive scale proposed development. The city counsel has to approve the use of the pedestrian walkway as a driveway for this new construction. If you feel as I do that the development should be limited to the restoration of the Mona Frost home and the old barn in keeping with our neighborhood, please take some time to call the Chair of Planning and Zoning or a member City Counsel and express your disappointment and feelings with the development of this large scale development in our neighborhood. You could attend the meeting at City Council on Monday July 8th @ 5:00 PM to express your concern for the safety of the kids and people using the pedestrian walkway and the traffic associated with a 12 bedroom development on this property. (Less mass, less congestion.) You could also attend the HPC meeting on Wednesday July 10th @ 5:00 PM and the continuation of the public hearing at the next meeting of Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday July 16th @ 4:30 PM and voice your objection to the proposed waivers and variances. A curb cut is available to serve the Mona Frost house and the old barn as opposed to using the pedestrian walkway. Your letter and voice is extremely important. As I said in the beginning of this note, the restoration of the Frost house and the old barn is fine. The addition of duplexes and the increase to 12 bedrooms and 11 bathrooms destroy the very fabric of our single family neighborhood. There is nothing personal here. Good planning in our neighborhood requires serious consideration of the impacts to the subject site as well as its neighbors. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Joseph A. Amato JAA/lag Enc. -3- Additional Facts Development - Mona Frost Home and Old Barn 216 E. Hallam St. Aspen 1. The duplexes added to each of the old structures (which in total produce 12 bedrooms and 11 bathrooms) can only be created with the waivers and variances requested. Without the setback waivers and variances and the use of the pedestrian walkwav, the onlv development that could occur would be the restoration of the Mona Frost house and the old barn. The restoration of the two old structures would be in keeping with our single familv neighborhood and would be satisfactory. 2. Reference is made to the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines dated April 2000. These design guidelines are in effect and are the rules and regulations to be followed by the Historical Preservation Commission in considering development at or on historically designated sites. I call your attention to the following pages and language relating to this development. â€¢ Page 2-" .... in general setback variances and parking waivers are supported by the HPC when they benefit the landmark structure and have no detrimental effect on the property of the neighborhood. The FAR bonus is very valuable to some applicants, but its one that HPC generally feels should only be awarded to projects of significant merit . . . . to preserve or restore the historic structure when it is used to create a historic landmark lot split. Comment - A lot split would occur here for the old barn and the Mona Frost house; however, there are 2 buildings and those 2 buildings are being restored. However, they wish to add 2 additional structures (duplexes) which essentially have a major detrimental effect on the property as well as the immediate neighborhood. â€¢ Page 35 - "Private Yard 1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site particularly landmark trees and shrubs. Comment - By creating the duplexes a major tree will be taken away on the easterly side of the development as well as 60 to 75 year old lilac bushes which should be preserved. By granting the Mona Frost house variance, 3' to the west there are a grouping of lilac bushes that would be destroyed. â€¢ Page 78 -"Preserving Building Locations and Foundations...it must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. " -4- Comment - The sole purpose of moving each of the existing structures is to create duplexes. HPC very rarely allows the relocation of a building. Why have they allowed this here based on their normal consideration of relocation? â€¢ Page 82 -"Basic Principals for New Additions" - "The addition also should not affect the perceived character of the building. In most cases, loss of character can be avoided by locating the addition to the rear." "Keeping the size of the addition small in relation to the main structu re also will help minimize its visual impacts. . U For example, a side addition may change the sense of rhythm established by side yards in the block. Locating the addition to the rear could be a better solution in such a case." Comment - The basic orientation of the existing barn is being turned in order to add a large duplex. Why? The Mona Frost house is being moved 3' to the west by granting a setback variance so a duplex can be added alongside of the Frost home. Why? Based on the above they are violating the basic principles for new additions. The barn should be left where it is. â€¢ On page 88 - "Mass and Scale - The mass and scale of a new building is also an important design issue. A new building should be considered compatible in mass and scale with its historic neighbor and not overwhelm it." Comment - By adding the two duplexes the mass and scale of the old houses is overwhelmed and so is the lot. Therefore, the current development plan does not conform to the mass and scale that the design guideline speaks to. â€¢ Pedestrian Walkway - There is a letter from the city attorney - The pedestrian walkway should not be used as a means of ingress and egress from the proposed development. Comment - Why has HPC chosen to ignore the contents of this letter? City Council will vote on this and hopefully not ignore the City Council's Attorney. â€¢ There are numerous other sections of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines that are essentially being ignored. If you wish to take the time to review this book it is available at the HPC or other places in town. There has not been a public hearing notice made available for the Planning & Zoning Meeting yet. Time and place is listed below: Re: Mona Frost Property Tuesday July 16% @ 4:30 PM at Sister Cities Room, City Hall Lower Level 130 S. Galena St. Aspen; If you have any questions please call Joyce @ (970) 920-5090. ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: -21 w (2 ' PI 01 In\AA , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: \7- 11\ /0 -2 , 200_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, 4-7-1~- i f f *p Â« / i ') 1 Op -U- (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City o f Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) o f the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteqn (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting o f notice, which form was obtained from tile Community Development Department, which was made o f suitable, waterproo f materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed o f letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of , 200 , to and including the date and time of the public headng. Aphotograph oftheposted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing o f a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class pestage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records o f Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text o f this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment o f a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses o f owners o f real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. AL UÂ«G.S.7>3Â»Â»f 53ghature The foregoing "Affidavit ofNotice" was acknowledged before me this AD day of (74\)39 - , 2002 by TFU-<--6 1-1 r.42. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: 5L/L)-3,6--0>3 <S, (1-tA__-<Sg?FR~~ Notary Public -#44 / 1 00:tp- Â¢ ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION m PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE, OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 216 E. HALLAM STREET- MAJOR DEVELOP- MENT (FINAL) AND VA.(IANCES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, December 11,2002 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St. Aspen. to consider an application submitted by The Frost Property LLC requesting approval for Major De- velopment (Final) and Variances. The property is located at 216 E. Hallam Street, Lots H and I (also known as Lots N and O), and a portion of the va- cated alley, Block 71, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is to be subdivided into two 3,000 square foot lots. The existing Victorian house is to be relocated to the west lot, and a new detach- ed house is proposed on the east lot. The entire development will share the floor area that would be permitted for a single family house on the fa- thering 6,000 square foot parcel, plus one 500 square foot bonus that has been requested. A correction is being made to the setback varian- ces applied for at the time of conceptual review. The variances are for the western lot only and are a 5 foot west sideyard setback variance (to- wards the Red Brick School). a 4 foot east side yard setback variance (this will be interior to the lot), and a 9 foot combined sideyard setback var- iance. These variances are needed to accommo- date the width of the existing historic house. All other dimensional requirements, including on- site parking, are belng met in the application. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at ~ the Aspen/ Pitkin County Community Develop- ment Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen. CO ~ (970) 92(>-5096. amyg@r ,.aspen.co.us. s/Rally Dupps, Chair ' Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in The Aspen Times on November 23, 20()2. (9695) 11iC c.j MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce 0hlson, Deputy Planning DirectorJAD FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 216 E. Hallam Street- Major Development Review (Final) and Variances - Public Hearing DATE: December 11,2002 SUMMARY: In June of 2002, HPC reviewed and approved a proposed redevelopment of this property which involved rehabilitating the Mona Frost house and expanding it into a duplex. On a separate parcel located to the north, approval was granted to rehab a historic barn and adapt it to become a single family home. While the development involving the barn is a "use by right" and required no further hearings, the Planning and Zoning Commission subsequently denied the applicant' s request for the duplex on the Frost house, a proposal which, on a lot of the subj ect property's size, is only available for Landmarks based on a finding of compatibility with the neighborhood. When the project returned to HPC for Final review in July, the representation was that, although the architecture was basically unchanged, the structure would be a single family home. In re-examining the land use options available for this site, the applicant has since determined that an appropriate course that will meet their goals and, they hope HPC's as well, would be to propose a Historic Landmark Lot Split. That has the effect of subdividing the front parcel into two separate 3,000 square foot lots and completely detaching the new construction from the 19th century home. HPC has granted conceptual approval for the new design and made a recommendation that Council approve the Historic Landmark Lot Split. The public hearing before City Council is scheduled for December 16,2002. Community Development staff supported this application and the significant results it achieves in terms of retrieving the deteriorated historic structures on this site in the project' s previous iteration and finds that the proposal has only improved by taking all but a very small portion of the new construction off of the Victorian house. APPLICANT: The Frost Property LLC, represented by Camilla Auger and Studio B Architects. PARCEL ID: 2737-073-14-001. ADDRESS: 216 E. Hallam Street, Lots H and I (also known as Lots N and O), and a portion of vacated alley, Block 71, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. 1 ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential). CURRENT LAND USE: Single-family residence. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the final level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. A list of the design guidelines relevant to Final Review is attached as "Exhibit B." The house is to be relocated on its site and fully restored, based on historic photographs that have been located showing views of all but the back of the house in the 1 gtli century. All portions o f the original building are being preserved and the only addition is in the form of a two car garage. The total FAR for the development on both lots is limited to what could be built in a single family house, with or without a lot split, plus a 500 square foot bonus that is being requested. It is the applicant's role to propose how the square footage will be allocated. In this case, most of it is being placed in a new building on the east side of the Frost home. The design of the new house is very similar to what HPC saw in the previous proposal and staff has no concerns with it whatsoever. It is respectful to the historic building in terms of height, massing. and architectural detailing and meets all of the setback and parking requirements. LIPC granted Conceptual approval for this project on November 20,2002 with the following conditions: 2 1. The HPC hereby approves a 500 square foot FAR bonus. 2. The public notice for Final review must include the setback variances as corrected to meet UBC concerns, and HPC will make a formal determination on the request at that time. 3. The new windows added to the east/west gable ends on the historic house are not approved. 4. For final review, restudy the garage doors to determine if they can be relocated to the back of the structure. 5. Finalization of exact window and door locations and sizes will be determined through demolition and discovery by removing the asphalt and the interior plaster to expose framing evidence. 6. A structural report demonstrating that the buildings can be moved and/or information about how the house will be stabilized from the housemover must be submitted with the building permit application. 7. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the structure must be submitted with the building permit application. 8. A relocation plan detailing how and where the buildings will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 9. An application for Final review shall be submitted for review and approval by the HPC within one year of Nov. 20,2002 or the conceptual approval shall be considered null and void per Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.3 of the Municipal Code. 10. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department 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 26.480 of the Aspen Municipal Code; b. Contain a plat note stating that no further subdivision may be granted for the se lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to the provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; c. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district, except the variances approved by the HPC. d. The FAR on the two lots created by this lot split shall be allocated as follows: the lot containing the historic house will have 1,874 square feet of FAR, and the lot containing the new house will have 1,794 square feet of FAR, which shall be noted on the plat. Only conditions 2,3, and 4 contain direction that must be addressed at this meeting. A new public notice has been issued to state the setback variances needed, which will be reviewed later in the memo. With regard to the windows proposed to be added in the east and west gable ends of the historic house, they have been eliminated as requested. The applicant has also restuclied 3 the garage entry, but finds that moving the doors to the back of the building is problematic, primarily in terms of the practicality of making the turn to enter the stalls. Staff is satisfied with the response and does not recommend further discussion on the topic. The design guidelines for final review deal primarily with details such as the landscape plan. lighting, selection of new materials, and technical issues surrounding the preservation of existing materials. All representations made by the applicant indicate that their intention is to complete the restoration of the historic home on this property in a manner that is consistent with the guidelines. A number of documents that will confirm this outcome are included in the recommended conditions of approval. SETBACK VARIANCES The setback variances needed are only on the west lot, which will contain the historic structure. No variances are proposed on the new east lot. The request is for a 4 foot east sideyard setback variance (this would be interior to the site), a 5 foot west side yard setback variance (facing the Red Brick School), and a 9 foot combined sideyard setback variance. Because of the width of the historic house, which obviously cannot be changed, the applicant proposes to place the building right on the west lot line (towards the Red Brick School), a location that addresses UBC concerns that relate to window openings close to a property line. The criteria, per Section 26.415.110.C ofthe Municipal Code are as follows: HPC must make a finding that the setback variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the variances are appropriate in that they allow the construction of two houses on the lot in a traditional side by side configuration. Because of the distance between the Frost House and the Red Brick Arts and Recreation Center, a generous amount of space will be provided for the public to view the house. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve Major Development Review, On-site Relocation, and Variances for 216 E. Hallam Street, Lots H and I (also known as Lots N and O), and a portion of vacated alley, Block 71, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the conditions listed below: 4 1. The HPC hereby approves a 500 square foot FAR bonus, a 5 foot west sideyard setback variance for the historic structure, a 4 foot east sideyard setback variance for the historic structure, and a combined sideyard setback variance of 9 feet for the historic structure. 2. Finalization of exact window and door locations and sizes will be determined through demolition and discovery by removing the asphalt siding and the interior plaster to expose framing evidence. All details of the restoration will be driven by any photographic and physical evidence that is available. 3. The applicant must submit a preservation plan with the building permit indicating what original materials appear to still exist on the structure, and what treatments will be used to retain them. HPC staff and monitor will conduct a meeting with the contractor and architect at the site to determine how much can be salvaged, and where replacement will be necessary. 4. Any original millwork that remains on the house will be retained and used as a pattern for locations where woodwork must be recreated. HPC staff and monitor will be provided with shop drawings to review prior to the milling of any new exterior woodwork. 5. The existing historic chimney will be carefully dismantled prior to relocation and reassembled to maintain its original exterior appearance. 6. The foundation of the historic house is to be concrete, with no stone veneer, since none is visible in the 19th century photographs. 7. Cut sheets must be provided for all windows and doors that will be installed in the historic house. Alllightwells shall be covered with grates, not surrounded by a railing. 8. A sample of the metal roofing to be used on the new building and the historic house's garage must be submitted for review and approval by HPC 9. The applicant will provide HPC staff and monitor with a plan for how the housemover proposes to lift the building, for review prior to submittal of a building permit. The approach chosen, whether it be to move the house with its original floor system, or without, must be demonstrated to result in the removal of the least amount of historic exterior materials, and the least damage to the building possible. 10. A structural report demonstrating that the buildings can be moved and/or information about how the house will be stabilized from the housemover must be submitted with the building permit application. 11. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the structure must be submitted with the building permit application. 12. A relocation plan detailing how and where the buildings will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 13. HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures by reviewing a plan prior to wiring, purchasing, or installing the fixtures. 14. Confirm that the site plan represents all major landscaping that is to take place and what the material for the sidewalks to the historic structures will be. HPC is particularly concerned with planting large trees or shrubs in locations that could damage the hi storic structure or block important public views of it. 15. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described iii the approved drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the information is available. 5 16. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the existing house are to be removed as part of the renovation. 17. No elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist. No existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor. 18. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 19. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 20. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 21. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution # , Series of 2002." Exhibits: Resolution # , Series of 2002 A. Staff memo dated December 11,2002 B. Relevant Design Guidelines C. Application 6 "Exhibit B, Relevant Design Guidelines for Final Review" 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. u This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in the "private" spaces beyond. 3 Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree. o Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style. Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles. 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic structures. 1 The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod, and not covered with paving, for example. 1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. u Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. u If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project. 1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs. u Retaining historic planting beds, landscape features and walkways is encouraged. 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site. u Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact of mature growth. u Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent. i Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials. 1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are inappropriate. u Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer than the mature canopy size. u Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural features or block views to the building. ci It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard. 1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting. u Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes. 7 2.1 Preserve original building materials. u Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. u Only remove siding which is deteriorated and must be replaced. u Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved. i Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity. 2.2 Protect wood features from deterioration. u Provide proper drainage and ventilation to minimize rot. i Maintain protective coatings to retard drying and ultraviolet damage. 2.3 Plan repainting carefully. o Always prepare a good substrate. Prior to painting, remove damaged or deteriorated paint only to the next intact layer, using the gentlest means possible. o Use compatible paints. Some latex paints will not bond well to earlier oil-based paints without a primer coat. 2.4 Brick or stone that was not painted historically should not be painted. i Masonry naturally has a water-protective layer, or patina, to protect it from the elements. 2.5 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing-in, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the material. u Avoid the removal of damaged materials that can be repaired. u Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be used. 2.6 Maintain masonry walls in good condition. i Original mortar that is in good condition should be preserved in place. u Repoint only those mortar joints where there is evidence of a moisture problem or when mortar is missing. u Duplicate the original mortar in strength, composition, color, texture, joint width and profile. u Mortar joints should be cleared with hand tools. Using electric saws and hammers to remove mortar can seriously damage the adjacent brick. o Do not use mortar with a high portland cement content, which will be substantially harder than the brick and does not allow for expansion and contraction. The result is deterioration of the brick itself. 2.7 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. u If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then the replacement material must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, the amount of exposed lap and finish. u Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those should be replaced, not the entire wall. 8 2.8 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for primary building materials. u In some instances, substitute materials may be used for replacing architectural details, but doing so is not encouraged. If it is necessary to use a new material, such as a fiberglass column, the style and detail should precisely match that of the historic model. u Primary building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced with synthetic materials. 1 Synthetic materials include: aluminum, vinyl siding and panelized brick. 1 EIFS (synthetic stucco) is not an appropriate replacement for real stucco. 2.10 Consider removing later covering materials that have not achieved historic significance. u Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material. 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. u Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, silk heads, jambs, moldings, operation and groupings of windows. u Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them, whenever conditions permit. o Preserve the original glass, when feasible. 3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. i Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character-defining facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening. This is especially important on primary facades where the historic ratio of solid-to-void is a character-defining feature. o Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls. ci Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it to receive a larger window on primary facades. 3.4 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. o If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window should also be double-hung, or at a minimum, appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number and position of glass panes. o Matching the original design is particularly important on key character-defining facades. 3.5 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original. o Using the same material as the original is preferred, especially on character-defining facades. However, a substitute material may be considered if the appearance of the window components will match those of the original in dimension, profile and finish. 3.6 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. o Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to receive a larger window is inappropriate. u Consider reopening and restoring an original window opening where altered. 3.7 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. 0 A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window's casing, the sash steps back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, 9 k h which individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane of the wall. 3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy conservation rather than to replace a historic window. o Install a storm window on the interior, when feasible. This will allow the character of the original window to be seen from the public way. 1 If a storm window is to be installed on the exterior, match the sash design and material of the original window. It should fit tightly within the window opening without the need for sub-frames or panning around the perimeter. 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. i Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These may include the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights. u Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances. o If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut any work that is done must be reversible so that the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position. o If the secondary entrance is sealed shut the original entrance on the primary facade Inust remain operable. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. o Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. 4.3 When a historic door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic appearance. 3 For additional information see Chapter 14: General Guidelines "On-Going Maintenance of Historic Properties". 4.4 If a new screen door is used, it should be in character with the primary door. o Match the frame design and color of the primary door. =1 If the entrance door is constructed of wood, the frame of the screen door should also be wood. 4.5 When replacing a door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the house. o A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement. 1 A historic door from a similar building also may be considered. u Simple paneled door s were typical. o Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. 4.6 If energy conservation and heat loss are concerns, consider using a storm door instead of replacing a historic entry door. o Generally, wood storm doors are most appropriate when the original door is wood. u If a storm door is to be installed, match the frame design, character and color of the original door. 10 5.1 Preserve an original porch. u Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions and spacing of balusters when replacing missing ones. 3 Unless used historically on the property, wrought iron, especially the "licorice stick" style that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, is inappropriate. i Expanding the size of a historic porch is inappropriate. 5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details on a porch. i Removing an original balustrade, for example, is inappropriate. 5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and detail. u Use materials that appear similar to the original. i While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted appropriately, alternative materials may be considered. o Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have been used on the house or others like it. i When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building. u The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork. 1 The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those used historically as well. 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features. u Repair only those features that are deteriorated. u Patch, piece-in, splice, consolidate or otherwise upgrade the existing material, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible. u Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be used. i Removing a damaged feature when it can be repaired is inappropriate. 6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that minimize damage to the original material. o Document its location so it may be repositioned accurately. Always devise methods of replacing the disassembled material in its original configuration. 6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced. u Match the original in composition, scale, and finish when replacing materials or features. u If the original detail was made of wood, for example, then the replacement material should be wood, when feasible. It should match the original in size and finish, which traditionally was a smooth painted finish. 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features should be based on original designs. 11 o The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a misrepresentation of the building's heritage. u When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence, develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and maintains similar scale, proportion and material. 6.5 Do not guess at "historic" designs for replacement parts. u Where "scars" on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in character to related buildings. o Using overly ornate materials on a building for which there is no documentation is inappropriate. u It is acceptable to use salvaged materials from other buildings only if they are similar in style and detailing to other features on the building where they are to be installed. 6.6 Replacement of missing elements may be included in repair activities. u Replace only those portions that are beyond repair. o Replacement elements should be based on documented evidence. o Use the same kind of material as the original when feasible. o A substitute material may be acceptable if the form and design of the substitute itself conveys the visual appearance of the original material. For example, a fiberglass cornice may be considered at the top of a building. 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. u Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street. u Retain and repair roof detailing. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. u The shadows created by traditional overhangs contribute to one's perception of the building's historic scale and therefore, these overhangs should be preserved. 7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional. 7.8 Preserve original roof materials. u Avoid removing historic roofing material that is in good condition. When replacement is necessary, use a material that is similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities and use a color that is similar to that seen historically. u Specialty materials such as tile, slate or concrete should be replaced with a matching material. 7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to those used traditionally. u Replacement materials should be similar to those used historically on comparably styled buildings. o If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. 12 i Flashing should be in scale with the roof material. u If copper Hashing is to be used, it should be treated to establish a matte, non-reflective finish. 7.10 If it is to be used, a metal roof should be applied and detailed in a manner that is compatible and does not detract from the historic appearance of the building. u A metal roof material should have an earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. u A metal roof with a lead-like patina also is an acceptable alternative. o Seams should be of a low profile. 3 A roof assembly with a high profile seam or thick edge is inappropriate. 8.4 A garage door should be compatible with the character of the historic structure. u A wood-clad hinged door is preferred on a historic structure. u If an overhead door is used, the materials should match that of the secondary structure. u If the existing doors are hinged, they can be adapted with an automatic opener. 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. i In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. o It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. o Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. o A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. u Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. i The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. u In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. u On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. 3 Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. o Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. u Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. 9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space. o In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design Standards). 13 o The size of a lightwell should be minimized. o A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it shoul d be surrounded by a simple fence or rail. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. o The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. 11.7 Roof materials (on the new house) should appear similar in scale and texture to those used traditionally. u Roof materials should have a matte, non-reflective finish. 11.8 Use building materials (on the new house) that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. u Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are encour aged. u Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged. 14.3 Keep color schemes simple. (Advisory) o Using one base color for the building is preferred. 3 Using only one or two accent colors is also encouraged, except where precedent exists for using more than two colors with some architectural styles. 14.4 Coordinating the entire building in one color scheme is usually more successful than working with a variety of palettes. (Advisory) a Using the color scheme to establish a sense of overall composition for the building is strongly encouraged. 14.5 Develop a color scheme for the entire building front that coordinates all the faca de elements. (Advisory) o Choose a base color that will link the entire building face together. For a commercial building, it can tie signs, ornamentation, awnings and entrances together. On residences, it can function similarly. It can also help your building relate better to othels in the district. u The complexity of the accent colors should be appropriate to the architectural style of the building. u Doors may be painted a bright accent color, or they may be left a natural wood finish. Historically, many of the doors would have simply had a stain applied. i Window sashes are also an excellent opportunity for accent color. u Brilliant luminescent or "day-glo" colors are not appropriate. Lighting 14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that used traditionally. i The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be approved by the HPC. 14 o All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence. 14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting. u Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be permitted. o Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures. o Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night. u Do not wash an entire building facade in light. i Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls of buildings. u Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area. 14.8 Minimize the visual impact of light spill from a building. o Prevent glare onto adjacent properties by using shielded and focused light sources that direct light onto the ground. The use of downlights, with the bulb fully enclosed within the shade, or step lights which direct light only on to walkways, is strongly encouraged. o Lighting shall be carefully located so as not to shine into residential living space, on or off the property or into public rights-of-way. 14.14 Minimize the visual impacts of service areas as seen from the street. o When it is feasible, screen service areas from view, especially those associated with commercial and multifamily developments. 3 This includes locations for trash containers and loading docks. u Service areas should be accessed off of the alley, if one exists. 14.15 Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equipment as seen from the public way. u Mechanical equipment may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not create a negative visual impact. o Mechanical equipment or vents on a roof must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. o Screen ground-mounted units with fences, stone walls or hedges. u A window air conditioning unit may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not create a negative visual impact. o Use low-profile mechanical units on rooftops so they will not be visible from the street or alley. Also minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Use smaller satellite dishes and mount them low to the ground and away from front yards, significant building facades or highly visible roof planes. o Paint telecommunications and mechanical equipment in muted colors that will minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds. 14.16 Locate standpipes, meters and other service equipment such that they will not damage historic facade materials. u Cutting channels into historic facade materials damages the historic building fabric and is inappropriate. Do not locate equipment on the front facade. u If a channel must be cut, either locate it on a secondary facade, or place it low on the wall. 15 14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. 3 Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts are not permitted. o If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it. 14.19 Use a paving material that will distinguish the driveway from the street. o Using a change in material, paving pattern or texture will help to differentiate the driveway from the street. D Porous paving materials will also help to absorb potential water runoff typically associated with impervious surfaces such as asphalt or concrete. 14.22 Driveways leading to parking areas should be located to the side or rear of a prinlary structure. u Locating drives away from the primary facade will maintain the visual importance the structure has along a block. See Chapter 8: Secondary Structures. 16 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL), ON-SITE RELOCATION, AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 216 E. HALLAM STREET, LOTS H, AND I, AKA LOTS N, AND O, AND A PORTION OF VACATED ALLEY, BLOCK 71, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 2002 PARCEL ID: 2737-073-14-001 WHEREAS, the applicants, The Frost Property LLC, represented by Camilla Auger and Studio B Architects, have requested Major Development Review (Final), On-Site Relocation, and Variances for the property located at 216 E. Hallam Street, Lots H and I (also known as Lots N and O), and a portion of vacated alley, Block 71, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. The property is listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures;" and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review; and WHEREAS, for Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project' s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve: disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, in order for HPC to grant an FAR bonus, per Section 26.415.110.E, HPC must find that: 1. In selected circumstances the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a. The design of the project meets au applicable design guidelines; and b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building and/or c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or d. The new construction is renective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; and/or e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained; and WHEREAS, in order for HPC to grant setback variances, per Section 26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code, HPC must make a finding that the variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district; and WHEREAS, the application included a request for approval of on-site relocation of the historic house. In order to approve Relocation of a historic structure, per Section 26.415.090.C, the LIPC must find that the proposal meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; gr 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated December 11, 2002, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended that the project be approved with conditions; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting on December 11, 2002, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the C ' "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and other applicable sections of the Municipal Code and approved the application with conditions by a vote of_ to NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC approves Major Development Review, On-site Relocation, and Variances for 216 E. Hallam Street, Lots H and I (also known as Lots N and O), and a portion of vacated alley, Block 71, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the conditions listed below: 1. The HPC hereby approves a 500 square foot FAR bonus, a 5 foot west sideyard setback variance for the historic structure, a 4 foot east sideyard setback variance for the historic structure, and a combined sideyard setback variance of 9 feet for the historic structure. 2. Finalization of exact window and door locations and sizes will be determined through demolition and discovery by removing the asphalt siding and the interior plaster to expose framing evidence. All details of the restoration will be driven by any photographic and physical evidence that is available. 3. The applicant must submit a preservation plan with the building permit indicating what original materials appear to still exist on the structure, and what treatments will be used to retain them. HPC staff and monitor will conduct a meeting with the contractor and architect at the site to determine how much can be salvaged, and where replacement will be necessary. 4. Any original millwork that remains on the house will be retained and used as a pattern for locations where woodwork must be recreated. HPC staff and monitor will be provided with shop drawings to review prior to the milling of any new exterior woodwork. 5. The existing historic chimney will be carefully dismantled prior to relocation and reassembled to maintain its original exterior appearance. 6. The foundation of the historic house is to be concrete, with no stone veneer, since none is visible in the 19th century photographs. 7. Cut sheets must be provided for all windows and doors that will be installed in the historic house. All lightwells shall be covered with grates, not surrounded by a railing. 8. A sample of the metal roofing to be used on the new building and the historic house's garage must be submitted for review and approval by HPC 9. The applicant will provide HPC staff and monitor with a plan for how the housemover proposes to lift the building, for review prior to submittal of a building permit. The approach chosen, whether it be to move the house with its original floor system, or without, must be demonstrated to result in the removal of the least amount of historic exterior materials, and the least damage to the building possible. 10. A structural report demonstrating that the buildings can be moved and/or information about how the house will be stabilized from the housemover must be submitted with the building permit application. 11. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the structure must be submitted with the building permit application. 12. A relocation plan detailing how and where the buildings will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 13. LIPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures by reviewing a plan prior to wiring, purchasing, or installing the fixtures. 14. Confirm that the site plan represents all major landscaping that is to take place and what the material for the sidewalks to the historic structures will be. HPC is particularly concerned with planting large trees or shrubs in locations that could damage the historic structure or block important public views of it. 15. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the information is available. 16. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the existing house are to be removed as part of the renovation. 17. No elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist. No existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor. 18. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 19. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and alI other prints made for the purpose of construction. 20. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 21. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 11th day of December, 2002. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Rally Dupps, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 219 North Monarch Aspen, Colorado 81611 November 17, 2002 Rally Dupps, Chair Members of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611-1975 Re: 216 E. Hallam Street - Major Development (Conceptual), Variances, On-site Relocation, Historic Landmark Lot Split Dear Commission Members: On behalf of our family (owners of 219 North Monarch across from the subject property), we respectfully request that the major development application, particularly the lot split, at 216 E. Hallam be denied. It is not necessary to split the lot in order to preserve Mona Frost's house. The proposed lot split with resulting separate residences are out of character with the historic nature of the house and surrounding neighborhood, and substantially more dense than the neighboring homes. The current application is really no different from the conditional use application for a duplex on a 6,000 square foot lot that we strongly opposed and that was denied in July 2002. The house does not have to be relocated to be preserved nor to avoid demolition. The sole reason for relocation is to obtain a 3,000 square foot additional lot for development next to the structure, thus the accompanying request for lot split. We would prefer keeping one single family residence on the site, even though it might result in a substantial addition being added. If the lot split is approved, the ultimate effect of this Application, like the conditional use application before it, will be to convert Mona Frost's single family home of 2-3 bedrooms and one bath on the current property, into two large 3 bedroom homes with at least 3 baths in each and both with a two-car garage. If the lot is allowed to be split, the resulting homes will be barely 5 feet apart, and the intensity of the proposed use would push development below ground, above ground, and with the requested setback variances virtually to the extremes of the property lines, consuming the historic site with structures. Given the fact that apparently a separate building site exists at the back of this property where the barn currently exists, for all intents and purposes, if the lot split is approved, there will be three large homes on the site where historically only one existed. The historical character of the neighborhood will be irreconcilably altered by this development and its adverse effects. Our home, 219 N. Monarch, is diagonally across the street from the Mona Frost house. During the 40 years of our ownership, we have greatly appreciated the City's efforts to maintain the character of our West End neighborhood as it was when we purchased in the 1960's. The City has done this despite changes iii ownership and those new owners' desires to reap large financial rewards from more intensive development. The first challenge to the distmctive qualities of our neighborhood was when Fred and Florence Glidden's house sold. The next was the Reynolds' house adjacent to the Glidden's on the west. Perhaps the greatest threat to neighborhood character occurred when the School District determined to vacate the red brick elementary school. In each case, even though an addition was approved on the Glidden house and a new single family home was approved to replace the one on the Reynold's, the density and intensity of use has not changed. As a result, population density, traffic, and parking on the street have not measurably changed over the years. Two, multi-thousand-square-foot residences on the Mona Frost site, are not even close in character or use to such homes as the Be ko's or ours, each of which have historically had only a small one-bedroom apartment incorporated as part of the residence. If the Frost site is split, allowing two single family residences on 30 foot lots, with 5 feet in between, does that mean that we can construct three large single family residences on our property since we have three 30 foot lots? We respectfully appeal to you to preserve the character of our neighborhood and deny the application as presented. The adverse consequences of a development of the nature, magnitude, scale, and intensity that has been proposed by the applicant will have significant, adverse effects upon and forever change the historic nature and integrity of the neighborhood that the City has consistently worked so long to protect. Thank you for your serious and thoughtful consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, A. A. 4*La.429 William C. Light CC: Amy Guthrie, Planner 2- STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Planning â€¢ Urban Design Transportation Studies Project Management 200 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE: 970.925.2323 FAx: 970.920.1628 2 December 2002 E-MAIL: clauson@scaplanning.com WEB: www.scaplanning.com Ms. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer City o f Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Historic Landmark Lot Split and Final Review for 216 E. Hallam, Aspen Dear Amy: On behalf ofthe Camilla Auger, Managing Partner for the Frost Property, LLC, I am submitting this application for Final Review with respect to the Historic Landmark Lot Split and HPC Conceptual Review, initially submitted on 21 October 2002. This application includes on-site relocation, floor area bonus and variances, for the historic property known as the "Frost Property," located at 216 East Hallam Street in Aspen. This historic property, consisting of an existing historic house, is located in the R-6 residential zone on a 6,000 square foot lot that also contains a portion of the vacated alley with an area o f approximately 638 square feet. The property is served by an access agreement with the City ofAspen to use Sheeley Blvd. to access the rear of the parcel for garages and parking. The front parcel containing the historic house was the subject of an Historic Development application, which received final approval from the Historic Preservation Commission on 10 July 2002. That application provided for a duplex or single-family residential design on the property. Conditional Use approval for a duplex was subsequently denied by the Planning & Zoning Commission, leaving the property with HPC approval for a single family residence with an allowable floor are of 3,740 square feet. The proposed lot split will redistribute the same amount of floor area into two single- family residences, each on their own fee simple parcel. As with our previous approval, we believe this redevelopment continues to represent an outstanding preservation activity qualifying for a 500 square foot floor area bonus. This application includes a specific request for the 500 square foot bonus, to be allocated approximately 60% to the historic resource property and 40% to the new construction property. At this conceptual stage of the application, the resulting floor areas for the structures would be 1,946 square feet for the resulting reconstruction o f the historic resource and 1,794 square feet for the new construction residence. 4 .4 PLANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CLIENTS City of Aspen Community Development Department 2 December 2002 Page 2 This historic landmark lot split is permitted under Section 26.45.110 ofthe City of Aspen Land Use Code, as amended by Ordinance 1, Series of2002. This provision provides an exemption from subdivision and growth management, allowing owners of designated historic properties to create a second unit in addition to the historic building on their lot, through subdivision ofthe property. The lot split and resulting development oftwo single- family homes will provide the further advantage of separating the historic resource from the bulk and massing ofmuch ofthe new development. The rear parcel, by way of information, is a separate parcel that has been approved for development as a single-family residence, incorporating the historic barn found on that parcel. The overall property was previously the subject ofa request placed before the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council for access, and the addition and rezoning of a portion of land to the rear parcel to R-6, consistent with the rest ofthe neighborhood. This request was approved by City Council on 8 July 2002. This request for a lot split on this 6,000 s.f. front parcel is consistent with historic preservation goals for the property. The property meets all the code requirements for a lot split, which can be granted without adverse effects to the neighborhood and will support the revitalization of an historical property that his been in disrepair for some time under its prior ownership. The historic landscape and forms will be preserved to the greatest extent possible, and the resulting structures will provide an appropriate streetscape transition from adjacent residential properties to the Red Brick Arts and Recreation Center. Attached are our responses to Sections 26.480.030 and 26.470.070, which show that our request is consistent with the applicable standards. With respect to the request for dimensional variances, it is understood that a newly created lot not containing an historic resource is not eligible for dimensional variances. However, dimensional variances may be accorded to the lot containing the historic resource. Accordingly, the non-historic lot is not seeking any dimensional variances, and the proposed structure will be conforming in every respect. The lot containing the Frost House, however, will require a variance because the width ofthe existing historic house is 29 feet, which will not allow for the required setbacks of five feet on each side ofthe structure. Therefore, the dimensional variance requested is a reduction in the combined side yard setback from 10 feet to 1 foot, with a 1 -foot lot line setback internally and a zero lot line setback adjacent to Sheeley Blvd. The 1 -foot internal setback on the historic lot, combined with the 5-foot internal setback on the non-historic lot, together provide for the 6- foot internal setback required by the Building Code for separation o f an historic resource. This means that normal fenestration and construction techniques may be used on the internal facades of both proposed residences. City of Aspen Community Development Department 2 December 2002 Page 3 At the Conditional Review hearing, the HPC made the following requests: 1. Eliminate the upper-level windows on the cross-gable of the historic Frost House; and 2. Study the rotation ofthe garage entry for the Frost House, so that the garage doors face to the rear of the property. Additionally, our application has been amended to provide for the 1 -foot setback to be on the east side of the historic property and the zero lot line setback to be on the west side, and to clarify that the full 500-square foot bonus was being requested for distribution between the two properties as stated above. This Final Review Application and accompanying plans, therefore, reflect these required changes, as well as a study of the re-orientation o f the garage entry. In studying the re- orientation ofthe garage-and the associated sub-grade bedroom areas, we find that facing the garage doors to the back ofthe property has the following issues: 1. It results in a difficult turning radius into the garage from Sheeley Blvd. that would require backing movements to position a vehicle for entry into the garage; 2. It would require widening of the driveway between the front and rear properties, thereby eliminating some planting area; 3. It would place the window well serving the sub-grade bedroom areas in a position that encroaches on the non-historic lot. Alternately, the window well would remain in place, but require a structural grating that could be driven over by a vehicle entering the garage, which would reduce light entering the sub-grade areas. In either event, the window well cannot be narrowed from its existing width, because of Building Code egress requirements. 4. It would face the garage doors toward the historic Frost Barn, which would actually increase the visibility ofthis non-historic element. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the garage orientation be allowed to remain as shown, and as previously approved by the City Council in the Sheeley Blvd. access agreement. On the other hand, we would propose to work with the HPC monitors to determine an approach to materials and color for the garage doors that would minimize any visual intrusion from the garage doors as they continue to face the Red Brick Gymnasium. City of Aspen Community Development Department 2 December 2002 Page 4 We look forward to an opportunity to present our application for Final Review to the Historic Preservation Commission, and remain ready to answer any questions that you may have regarding the application. Very truly yours, Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Attachments 1-9: 1. Land Use Application Form 2. Architectural Drawings Enclosures: 10 copies of application, 10 full size copies ofdrawings in Item 2, above. LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: Frost Property Location: 216 E. Hallam Street; Lots H and I (also known as Lots N and O), and a portion of vacated alley, Block 71 (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) APPUCANT: Name: Camilla Auger, Managing Partner Address: Frost Property, LLC, 709 North Spruce Street, Aspen, CO 81611 Phone #: 970 544-0745 REPRESENTAnVE: Name: Stan Clauson Associates, LLC Address: 200 E. Main Street, Aspen, CO 81611 Phone #: 970 925-2323 TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check allthat apply): Conditional Use E Conceptual PUD E Conceptual Historic Devt. Special Review U Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) Â® Final Historic Development Design Review Appeal U Conceptual SPA U Minor Historic Devt. GMQS Allotment U Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) U Historic Demolition GMQS Exemption U Subdivision E Historic Designation ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream U Subdivision Exemption (includes E Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane Â® Lot Split El Temporary Use U Other: D Lot Line Adjustment U Text/Map Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description ofexisting buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) Parcel ofland having a lot area of 6,000 s.f, containing an unoccupied 1,355 s.f historic residence. PROPOSAL: (description ofproposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Provide Historic Landmark Lot Split, side yard dimensional variances, relocation, and floor area bonus to create two 3,000 s.Â£ parcels, and permit redevelopment ofthe historic house and construction of an additional residence. Have you attached the following? FEES PAID: $ 1.205.00 U Pre-Application Conference Summary U Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement Â® Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form ~ Response to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents El Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents El Resnonse to Attachment #5. Review Standards for Your Annlication mmnmuu ATTACHMENT lA DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Frost Property Historic Landmark Lot Split-West Parcel Applicant: Camilla Auger Location: 216 East Hallam Street Zone District: R6 Lot Size: 30'x100% plus a portion ofvacated alley, approximately 320 s.f. Lot Area: 3,000SF (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: Proposed: Number ofresidential units: Existing: 1 Proposed: 1 Number of bedrooms: Existing: 3 Proposed: 3 Proposed % ofdemolition (Historic properties only): 2% (Existing Carport) DIMENSIONS: C wITH +/-326 SE BONUS) Floor Area: Existing: 1355 SF Allowable: 1.610 SF Proposed:1,946 SP Principal bldg. height: Existing: 20' Allowable: 25' Proposed: 21' Access.bldg. height. Existing: NIA Allowable: 21'.12' Proposed: NA On-Site parking: Existing: 2 Required: 2 Proposed: 1- % Site coverage: Existing: 23% Required. N/A Proposed: N/A_ % Open Space: Existing: N/A Required: N/A Proposed: NIA Front Setback: Existing.- 18' Required: 10'minimum Proposed: 18' Rear Setback: Existing.- 21' Required: 10'mm\mum Proposed: 13' Combined ER: Existing: 39' Required: 30' Proposed: 31' East Side Setback: Existing: -3' Required: 5' minimum Proposed: 1' West Side Setback: Existing.- 7' Required: 5' minimum Proposed: 0' Combined Sides: Existing: N/A Required: 10' Proposed: 1' Existing non-conformities or encroachments: Existing historic house is 29 feet in width and encroaches 3 feet on the proposed westerly parcel the encroachment would be corrected by relocating the historic house. Variations requested: _Combined side yard setback. East and West side setbacks ATTACHMENT 1 B DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Frost Property Historic Landmark Lot Split-East Parcel Applicant: Camilla Auger Location: 216 East Hallam Street Zone District: R6 Lot Size: 30'x100', plus a portion ofvacated alley, approximately 320 s.f. Lot Area: 3,000SF (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: Proposed: Number ofresidential units: Existing: 0 Proposed: 1 Number ofbedrooms: Existing: 0 Proposed: 3 Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): None DIMENSIONS: ( WITH +/-174 SF BONUS) Floor Area: Existing.- 0 Allowable: 1.620 SF Proposed: 1,794 SP Principal bldg. height: Existing.- 0' Allowable: 25' Proposed: 14' Access.bldg. height: Existing: N/A Allowable: 21'.12' Proposed: N/A _ On-Site parking: Existing 0 Required: 2 Proposed: 1- % Site coverage: Existing: -NIA Required: N/A Proposed: NIA_ % Open Space: Existing: N/A Required: N/A Proposed: N/A Front Setback: Existing: N/A Required: 10'minimum Proposed: 30' Rear Setback: Existing: N/A Required. 10'minimum Proposed. 16' Combined ER: Existing. N/A Required.- 30' Proposed: 46' East Side Setback: Existing: N/A Required: 5' minimum Proposed. 5'_ West Side Setback: Existing: N/A Required: 5' minimum Proposed: 5' _ Combined Sides: Existing: N/A Required: 10' Proposed: 10' _ Existing non-conformities or encroachments: Existing historic house encroaches 3 feet on the proposed westerly parcel the encroachment would be corrected bv relocating the historic house. Variations requested: _None Major Building Materials to be Used in the Development Historic House: The exterior material palette includes a stone base and painted clapboard siding, with painted wood windows and doors. New House: The new architecture has sealed natural wood siding, clad doors, and standing seam metal roofs. This difference in materials would provide the element ofcontrast between old and new, while contextually responding in massing proportion, and scale to Hallam Street and the neighborhood. Material samples were previously provided as part ofthe earlier Final HPC Approval. During demolition, should the actual fenestration pattern be different than what has been proposed, we would work with monitors and staffto modify the proposed elevations. Vild MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council 1&<.I THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director (~/ FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 216 E. Hallam Street- Historic Landmark Lot Split, First Reading of Ordinance #~, Series of 2002 DATE: November 25,2002 SUMMARY: In June of 2002, HPC reviewed and approved a proposed redevelopment of this site, which is actually composed of two separate parcels. The lot which fronts the street contains the "Mona Frost House," and a lot to the rear contains a large barn. Both properties are designated historic. The proposal with regard to the Mona Frost house involved expanding it into a duplex. The historic barn was to be adapted to become a single family home. While the development involving the barn is a "use by right" and required no further hearings, the Planning and Zoning Commission subsequently denied the applicant's request for the duplex on the Frost house parcel, a proposal which, on a lot of the subject property's size, is only available for Landmarks based on a finding of compatibility with the neighborhood. When the whole project returned to HPC for Final approval in July, the representation was that, although the architecture was basically unchanged, the Frost structure would be a single family home. City Council was involved in the review of this project by approving a request to vacate an adjoining alley and by granting a license agreement to allow the use of public property along the east side of the Red Brick Arts and Recreation Center to access the site. The applicant has re-examined the land use options available for the Mona Frost parcel, and has since determined that an appropriate course that will meet their goals and, they hope HPC' s as well, would be to propose a Historic Landmark Lot Split. That has the effect of subdividing the front property into two 3,000 square foot lots and completely detaching the new construction from the 19th century home. Under this scenario, HPC conducts a design review and makes a recommendation on the Historic Landmark Lot Split to City Council. Community Development staff supported this application and the significant results it achieves in terms of retrieving the deteriorated historic structures on this site in the project' s previous iteration and finds that the proposal has only improved by taking all but a very small portion of the new construction off of the Victorian house by completing a lot split. In either of the applicant's scenarios, whether the Frost house is single family or involved in a lot split, the house is relocated a few feet west of its current position, and restored in a very accurate manner. 1 APPLICANT: The Frost Property LLC, represented by Camilla Auger and Studio B Architects. PARCEL ID: 2737-073-14-001. ADDRESS: 216 E. Hallam Street, Lots H and I (also known as Lots N and O). and a portion of vacated alley, Block 71, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential). CURRENT LAND USE: Single-family residence. HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT In order to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the applicant shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Land Use Code: Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4). Section 26.470.070(C), and Section 26.415.010(D.) 26.480.030(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 Staff Finding: The property is part of the historic townsite and 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)69. Staff Finding: This proposal will create two 3,000 square foot lots, each of which meet minimum size set for Historic Landmark Lot Splits. A proposed site plan is attached. Council has recently adopted new benefits for historic properties, pursuant to Section 26.420 of the Municipal Code, which states that affordable housing mitigation will not be required for properties created through a historic landmark lot split. 2 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 Not split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.040(0(1)(a); and Staff Finding: The land has not been subdivided previously. d) A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. Staff Finding: The subdivision plat shall be a condition of approval. It must be reviewed by the Community Development Department for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use action. e) Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the o#ice of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Staff Finding: The subdivision exemption agreement shall be a condition of approval. D In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. Staff Finding: No dwelling unit is to be demolished in order to split the lot. The Victorian will be preserved as part of this plan in accordance with the land use code. g) Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. Staff Finding: The parcel currently contains one dwelling unit. A second house will be constructed on the newly created lot at some time in the future. 3 26.480.030(A)(4), SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures for the development of one new single-family dwelling may receive a subdivision exemption if it meets the following standards: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square feet in size and be located in the R-6, R-15, R-15A, RMF, or O zone district. Staff Finding: The subject parcel is 6,000 square feet and is located in the R.-6 Zone District. b. The total FAR for both residences shall be established by the size of the parcel and the zone district where the property is located. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. In the Office zone district, the following shall apply to the calculation of maximum floor area for lots created through the historic landmark lot split. Note that the total FAR shall not be stated on the Subdivision Exemption Plat because the floor area will be affected by the use established on the property: If all buildings on what was the fathering parcel remain wholly residential in use, the maximum floor area will be as stated in the R-6 zone district. If any portion of a building on a lot created by the historic landmark lot split is in commercial/office use, then the allowed floor area for that lot shall be the floor area allowed for all uses other than residential in the zone district. If the adjacent parcel created by the lot split remains wholly in residential use, then the floor area on that parcel shall be limited to the maximum allowed on a lot of its size for residential use according to the R-6 standards. If there is commercial/office use on both newly created lots, the maximum floor area for all uses other than residential in the zone district will be applied. Staff Finding: The two lots will be used wholly for residential purposes. The maximum floor area for the original parcel, containing a historical landmark in an R-6 zone, is 3,240 square feet. The applicant is requesting 428 square feet of the 500 square foot in FAR bonus. Should the FAR bonus be granted, the total FAR of 3,740 square feet is to be allocated as follows: 1,874 square feet to the lot which contains the Frost house and 1,794 square feet to the new parcel. c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. The variances provided in Section 26.415.120(B)(1)(a),(b), and (c) are only permitted on the parcels that will contain a historic structure. The FAR bonus will be added to the maximum FAR allowed on the original parcel. 4 Staff Finding: Variances are being requested for the lot which contains the historic structure. There are no variances being requested for the new house. 26.470.070(c), GMOS Exemption, Historic Landmark Lot Split The construction of each new single-family dwelling on a lot created through review and approval of an Historic Landmark Lot Split shall be exempt from the scoring and competition procedures. The exemption is to be approved by the Community Development Director, but is not to be deducted from the respective annual development allotments or from the development ceilings. Staff Finding: With the new benefits of the Historic Preservation Program the existing house, as well as any house on the new lot are exempt from GMQS requirements. 26.415.010(D), Historic Landmark Lot Split A Historic Landmark Lot Split is a two step review, requiring a public hearing before HPC and before City Council. Staff Finding: HPC has held a hearing on this project and Council will hold a hearing at Second Reading of this Ordinance, scheduled for December 16, 2002. RECOMMENDATION: Staff and HPC recommend that Council approve the request for a Historic Landmark Lot Split at 216 E. Hallam Street, Lots H and I (also known as Lots N and O), and a portion of vacated alley, Block 71, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. The LIPC has approved a 428 square foot FAR bonus and setback variances. 2. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department 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 26.480 of the Aspen Municipal Code; b. Contain a plat note stating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to the provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; c. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district. except the variances approved by the HPC. 5 d. The FAR on the two lots created by this lot split shall be allocated as follows: the lot containing the historic house will have 1,874 square feet of FAR, and the lot containing the new house will have 1,794 square feet of FAR, whi ch shall be noted on the plat. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to approve Ordinance #_, Series of 2002, for a Historic Landmark Lot Split at 216 E. Hallam Street, Lots H and I (also known as Lots N and O), and a portion of vacated alley, Block 71, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, on First Reading." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Exhibits: Ordinance #_, Series of 2002 A. Staffmemo dated November 25,2002. B. Proposed site plan. C. Application. 6 ORDINANCE NO. ~' (Series of 2002) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR A HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT AT 216 E. HALLAM STREET, LOTS H AND I (ALSO KNOWN AS LOTS N AND O), AND A PORTION OF VACATED ALLEY, BLOCK 71, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN PARCEL ID#: 2737-073-14-001 WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.470.070(C), and Section 26.415.010(D) of the Municipal Code, a 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, The Frost Property LLC, represented by Camilla Auger and Studio B Architects, has requested approval to split a 6,000 square foot parcel into two 3,000 square foot parcels; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has reviewed the application and recommends approval of the Historic Landmark Lot Split; and WHEREAS, the HPC has reviewed the request for a Historic Landmark Lot Split at a properly noticed public hearing on November 20,2002 and recommends approval; and WIIEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the subdivision exemption under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered those recommendations made by the Community Development Department, and the HPC, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Historic Landmark Lot Split 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 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.470.070(C), and Section 26.415.010(D) of the Municipal Code, and subject to those conditions of approval as specified herein, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the subdivision exemption: 1. The applicant's submission is complete and sufficient to afford review and evaluation for approval; and 2. The subdivision exemption is consistent with the purposes of subdivision as outlined in Section 26.480 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; acquire and ensure the maintenance of public open spaces and parks, provide procedures so that development encourages the preservation of important and unique natural or scenic features, including but not limited to mature trees or indigenous vegetation, bluff, hillsides, or similar geologic features, or edges of rivers and other bodies of water, and, promote the health, safety and general wel fare of the residents of the City of Aspen. Section 2 Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 1, above, the City Council does hereby grant an Historic Landmark Lot Split Subdivision Exemption for 216 E. Hallam Street with the following conditions: 1. The HPC has approved a 428 square foot FAR bonus and setback variances. 2. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department 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 26.480 of the Aspen Municipal Code; b. Contain a plat note stating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to the provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; c. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district, except the variances approved by the HPC. d. The FAR on the two lots created by this lot split shall be allocated as follows: the lot containing the historic house will have 1,874 square feet of FAR, and the lot containing the new house will have 1,794 square feet of FAR, which shall be noted on the plat. Section 3 This Ordinance shall not have any effect on 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 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 portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5 A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 16th day of December, 2002, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 25th day ofNovember, 2002. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 16th day of December, 2002. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John P. Worcester City Attorney 1 '1.- . -34 .-.t**43-1,02'fÂ¢11-14*4*2;-77'~7tiÂ¢*= 3141.2.j-' f.,7.. :..Â· ./--.221.-2*.ila;*6*.i,441*...r:.4.; :7333feâ‚¬4&42.:Â·07',,4.*....P-Â·2. Â· ~ '16<6953:.Al:Â·/.:-Â«73Â·" 1/3,4 .rks- \ X'- ot'IOPY' O F â‚¬\ k F -7 _ _ 21 - I ,v,#~*&M&,p 4 -: -/ 11 _32[kEEZE-_ - 1&2 .111 1 Tri , 1 ..8 10 Ill g t--A r '~ ~ adk*A 'O ..31 1 64**n, ng:>â‚¬:1Â·9- 4 6 * f U i. 1. lA - 0 1 f r 44*97- ~ hAr.ip P.f 1 C l-2 -- (& M hâ€¢AM Clwikr'110' trf)=2-7. I/1-w-, . 12 4!r: -1 6 4-0... 1, 1/Â£/m//WH/m."=m"' / *, t. ., k // LA~ 1 ---4 /Â·1 ! PH v.5 3 ! lA /0 -1 1 . - 1 , 11 41/ 1 , 1 irA M 1 1 . M /1 IM t. I i 1 . p.0,1. -9 - 1 ! M *1 ; F 1 1 f in- IT[ I . C Mon:*re 17Â©n j f - A- O,1 + 1 o M * - 7 â€¢ e L o C-*129 -2 114.r 01 1 G 1 1Â· . .... , ., 4 4 erÂ·Â·r #,24 VEL--\ 1 I. P 1 .- 74/&14 J Lvalook 1 r g. -0--T ,- 4- --5- '0' ~.-22..MLIF- -2 1 M ..,-~ -5~ .EL -I J...f.. 102.3 -23 -27/ 77* 104Â·0f _ 1 8Â»4 95 4*Â·(5441.%-4.*;i#3?49Â»fffF#f.K#:041'lli,33/:IMMIft'iliesieitil:als#fe*31:1*8:~9.2"4, /4 -I-Â·. Â£:2*131.7 . / -,43>2 P..: 1- 1 CAP\0" of Â©\ 1 2 0"=u N I ADJ kt,CMâ€¢r p, - 1 -4/ V.Mt'* 1 . . 1.Ve 4$ I 'll. r I -*~. 4/lit:Eglit A . 1_1 i: /1 , . t! / 4 -r , 1-- -1 - - 404 4 0 ,#.,FAM'r' 1,1~>f' ' ' f -- Abt Â£ 3 ----1\ 1 . -3 10 I j.i . 1~ 6 ~~ajo b r 1, 4 .: 6-er-- 1 1 8 1 - Pyp 'f Â» M. ==.r---U.-U=,=F-+%ia.i.A I. 4 /1 $. ti .CLE '' 1 ... '44'Mxw. i 1 CAA ;ARAte 1 5-~ I ,; * -q/220:2'' Â¥,4 r/. 1 +Al. 1 1. ..1 1 11 1 1 P Y rÂ¥ 1-4 422 A & 1.-0 .1 v ;fr-4;:...8*/-.p# 1/ . - - f 41 4 A AU..AM - 44 ! 4 Im V. ' rri,#frfi~((STEff 1 ~hA'WHi 4.,r: ~1 k / LF,,414- r - , 4/ 1 145 0 2 4 f - 2 : p#JV.61 ~ ~1~00~;~ ~ 1-rAI' . - '_~*~; / -4- fE--- -Iz.kzl -17 1 j Â·12 v~ .-f--3 i \ El| ~ - # -- 1 liA' 11 1 149 \ 1 - [4/3 / 1 --- -A 1 1 ' .- . . r N.*rf' li . . =- 1 1 3 - i I j .* . - 1 4 wre I :I 1\ 1 A p p I T f 0 M , - -10 E t. 0 0-*le:P . *.1 6.-1- 0 R. 2 6 Pito,466 1 13 . 1. 1. -+4.---4- .. - R 9 9 51 # Fiv rf *\# + ap 4 - 110!IN,1. 1 L *48&16 1 1 1 1 1 1 - I f k --0 -- r # 4 -6 9 fludod, E ! - .. FROST P Râ€¢O P ER T Y 216 E. HALLAM ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 1 2 HPC-FINAL 1 REVIEW '41 NOVEMBER 27,2001 C , .. ' %- 1 S 46?-7,~ tÂ· 6 u uÂ· RÂ·Â·Â· 1 Â· Â· 0 8 arch~t~cts 555 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLORAD O 212.Â·Â·1: Uk. jite~.Â·le.L . ff' r . Ct,110{9 Ge A '10 '7442% M \ ADJ AÂ·14$/Fr -./*.--. * ' * /Â»41 f#MÂ¥0* - 1 ~w vee ~rvt' N / \%\1 1 64 1 %:04 h Â· 4 ti e . i 1,4,reeÂ¢ uu.4..SV - . "-' C /1 , 0â€¢ 1 1 *:.-4)4cra- 1 1.I#*r,veÂ» 1 11 9.ErÂ»AÂ« y A ---d' f ,?, -P . $. 1. 1.1 + h X ..'k Â¥3 . 3./1 ~ 6 Unr*f 4 18 : - I. .' Â»Â·20.6 j 1 Â· - ~ /A# p "B 1 '6 ~Tr AN -mhe., 1 f ..4 9 . I K *---, 1-4 â€¢UL 9 W i 1 . 1,) , im E. 1. ~. . : I a - 72 546 6;AÂ·RM.* f U-02 2.i i %>41*k[520)r. fn..0-9134'13: . */,4 VUL- 9 .6-,L - ..N 100. .t tÂ« . 11 74- 1 ' - Â·11 Mt, :*09 Â· ' t 4. f I 1 111 . i ..1 - i I ..t' I 41 1 , ;- ' 61 6, ' / 46*fie#- la@$,I~.,InwAd~W-Z.~mY*Em~Btltr 3- JLA~PAS*1- bl |082â€¢&32*?Seete,4,#I~,I.~. -5 -------m- :. -- 41 r 1 4 1. 1 -14 r 4. Â· R At,AAM 1 1 - c -~ r=. -- -- Â·Â·-Â·----#.".'ww<* 1 Awpl 0 4 \A l verr,ripup. 1 . 0 15 . /4 .4\2 /4,3, O. / 5. 2,1 L.0,4, 0 .1 7- 1 ...1-- 2 i/ .. ., 4 E r IF, , .. . 10 /4 1 K 10 12 1 A Eli A ' i ./ 1 ./ ./.4 . % a / / ./mai ,. i 44 i . T \ 17-8 , -4. I 2 .4 *#Al ./1.0 M 0 4-uÂ· 9 i Â£0 - ' ll,u~ u~u.1 + -- tkl-4 A 1 PAI V.Gh 1 4. /6 .-2.--1 ZED'.% .. 1 4 37 . 0 . .M 4 -â‚¬*4 1 1 4. 1 1..4/ f u VAO Orep - 4 1 I ..r m 04' . u- A-Prit ' ''Ag..1....,P . W.0.~ 1,1. .?0.04 - . V - 849 / 44*1- 161 11 \ 1. i . 1 .. i hy 1 4 *-Il-#.- 9. . . I I. I I I r '00*Frf# le - 14-7 4 . C 1,311Â¢ 1 . * 0 60 Â¢*159 nt.\ 45Â£0*. 1 4 : 1 A 4 0 , Â· A 9 91 T. lÂ¢ M s I. - -........â€¢u-.Â·-.*- .r~~., -. i.....~,. â€ž,.- . Â·ce.,0 v.. Â·,:vÂ·.Â·Â· v .-. Â·...*...i-Â«.â€žÂ· .........Â«...,-Â·.Â·.Â·Â·.---e-~----...,-.d~g....... . I ....a ./ 4 . a ........ - I . 4 4 Im ... - '. .. 040Â· 6- STY . /4 ; 1/ 8~ 7-7 - ' ' . I . . Â¥ 1 4 .... . I . I h NFI . . 6 . 4 1. . . ' I - 4 , .. 4 4 . --, 0 -L 1 4.1.- ft:19 *46 1 457 #m 09 dÂ· H ## 60 Â¥.- A 0 r 0 9 ..& 12-f....- -- -841 ..713.1. .1 /~~ E.~~~"~~V~ E~ l,;- ~ , *~4~1~43Â¥*%~74~Nt~.Â»=**#-*:*.*~'0*'--=*W*t#*,W(*-.-=mHW*.R*=0*eÂ»Uâ€¢.Â¥V,.â€¢,A~~trAt/,1â€¢eÂ·â€¢,-*,5NAM,~1M,ZÂ»,4â€¢*il,3Ma~Â·,09*.*Ht,r44eI,~fl~,~ee,M*Â·1/V,>â€¢w,â€¢2-Kt,KIW:-*9-iâ€¢,4,~~,1,~-eN,N,el-gâ€¢.,-~,â€¢-~â€¢444:*-tâ€žâ€žâ€¢~~,*â€¢â€žv:p.~Â·ij,..,,,-Â·~r-,.*.M#t--.p~#-**I, -' ... -~ ..' . I ./ .... 24. / 7-- =4-:-":Â·Vâ€¢:7t:-f~Â·OVâ€¢*,-4,404Â» .â€¢/,4 .........I 1 I . 1 6 -- /< //\ 1 P 1 j'' 1 1 1 . .-. 1 - 4 1 18 .liu - =Â·VE_.4 ' I . . . r rl 1 ,- 1 /Â«f .--- 1 1 . h: h.1 . / : //-*- - - - r- 1 , 1 1 - 222-L__ Â· Â· Ai Z---7--iri- *f#i 1 \:. * /7- )41 i 7 j i =In K 1, LA N t. . Â· Â· ~--'FN~9325.%':m?~?prpÂ·ruÂ·~VWT .rfez,'Â· -7 -15,Â»m~em,~,t'f- ...Â»Â¥~.~.-%. '~.. . j -1- , 11- I -BIN/ - .1 1 t 1 - ..- 1 1 /0 pe M, 4 ro Â· ~~ 70 -# 60'2' w*-,1 . i 97- 4 ./1. \ i m ,"Imil#J.i 1 M //Ill;-Jj'.Ij,lk 5\ Â·-7 2 - - 1 1,-~1 1 '1 - M Er. 1 1.-4 1 I .&4.- - G.11 till . , .- -././*. ' I. .... ( j ......?.MY..0 4*0 - . A. 9flt-13.0--tf...2 _- F 6~66.0.c AFT-I@-37....._ k Ji. -4-X ~9.--Al 4 ..... --140 # v 9-f.7- Â· 1 . .. Â¥ -5 0 f 8 4 .6. , P -I '--I '...-I.'' I .... p. '..... 4 6-Â· E- v .Â¢ ItÂ·/ , .. ./.--I ....'- ...I , 1, 14 P> Â©trj~4'*i'65**WNg.EANd , l.44 1/. . IN-- Â· ISA . - -. .- '4--., ~4--1.- - - -t ./ #14. . I. 4, I e' 61 4 7 1 ri 0. 1-1 AUJâ€¢ ,i V - filk ~0. 4 w i 1 0 V Li i X 01 / 1 hEL' R weq*vs# -- 0 * r 0 \ R 1 .1 1 , r\-1 12 1 -- 4 Â· ./. -/&*.*'. I t 9 1 i F>/0 1 , / 1,3 1,; k 406 Â¢1 Vt i ! 0% 1 - 2<WL %10' i 123 1 2 - *pL,GL.I2.-C-_- I bep!.â€¢â‚¬5;-.Elit,#711(9/8/1. 1. br.akifibki-/27'411"'-9Â» â€¢tra Â· pif i. ' R.I i : 4 7.1 ..L D-11 1 f.timmet.""le/M,3/qpr"TM - 41 zÂ·.- m . al F: a..,- aft'*:=Wpa ,[09~4*K...~ . , ... i 0.-We=14 1 1 - P 1 1 Â»1 --- .wÂ·st t :#r~ k - -I k> i .. .. 6 0 .\N A G 6 - L ......Â¢r:/4-Â¥h~-\-9.1.- 1 Â»t 11 1 Â· ./.06 â‚¬7 / fl '\4 D i E ..4 i Z .1 t. 1 : 7 73 1 1 1. 4% 1 1 + 1 /2 4,Â·11 \ \ -,4 / WÂ· /7 --'.Al u':Â·Â·': t4\ I // .y/hÂ¥.%41 i.'U )Â©i_â€ž-1wk i fÂ« f 9/ .1I.~2 .-.-... , ~ i ev < . 1 I. 1Â¢14,~ 9 - -9. 4/ -1&1316Â· - PER tere-.9 .-_.:~.0 .2..0 L 81 i&B i IF@ itt 1 ... 1 %/ 2 b i .4.. ; i 5 / 1- 11 r :,'. 1 1 : # U i &111 I. 4 i - 4.. - -i â‚¬ D. -- - I.-' 1 --â€ž Â»-40-722- WT--ry"-rrrA-f~ i 4--0- -T-*7,7- 4. --I .49...... ~e~#tod*Â¢ 4 - *. -k .. -'- 9.4< , 111' /1 t=*# mu 4 , 'al....AL 1.t A.....A -me ... 111# f..1 - .0 ,"..........0 -mett~~.r.:'-I'.'I.'I"Il-.'""I.I.- 3 1,=- /f . / Vl~ WI '*eâ€¢mr ..1. i /.1 -,milk 11 ITi '% - . 0 I Illti-il - *11//P=il' 0 I'lii--I--.-Al.' littÂ¥11 * :-- .-1-. *:,11-i"ll'Eli@Ii 1.71=-Al . m 111 i!*11~!Mi . L. U............ 3 1-1 I~.-Ii,:0â€ž-,9,:,-=I ' 2 - 1l li- 4 =r m /-*t Â£1" 4* ./fl 40/1.4 . .â€¢k ./C--- mmimi#=Mil -.-#:.:..:.--=r-- 1, r 7 =.~ r Imil.11-- 7 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 40, 4, P 1-â€¢1=1 ~ *a,Im.mwi 71'. . ...-1 1 - .1 - a - - -..ill""p#- .1 ./ . I.1,%.Iidirm-millmili~ill.~.~..:.~:~~I.~Aill~-~=~~~~~~~~~ m.r/ ./.18"i IUâ€¢mi --,,/ I 0. ' ~mm~~~11~111~11 1 ---6.--1- -Illp- ililine'll"*Immilimillilillill'I./.i.,~1â€¢Imillialitilluilii-imillillinal' -. * 1. . -I...Ill-J-. f 1 m I , 1-" r --11 ,~=i~~~211::::::::M:i::::::R::I:" ililililiwL-3........il all f---11 9 1,"I'll'llitil*le'llill:,1 ap:::~::::::':91:::In:*FRFF:::::::Ii:imj.iff::FR:'ll:-I~:m 111,111"'1:11111,1 mli , = I.-/./-3 <1111 Val~----3 , 3 con'm~- ~- 3 1 '' f 3.0 â€ž '. , vl HE '*11 , 1111-1. .... â€¢Hmm ~ ----===-i~1-~m ~~â€¢@==-=2522~2~::n::Z~~-**~ 4 . 1. -W.1-==m --/1..... illl =m.*1== . milmm ....- i limim ....r=g *. ...#/*' I.*I.'-.- l-/*- V' *W.lt'i./.-t..%U- .... . - 2-liltil=imililimil"~miju 1 1,t I b-----4-1- .1 i il =:~R~:~~=1.ill'I=Ilin'l=!-il r 11= ./ a 11 A) MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Guthrie. Historic Preservation Officer RE: 216 E. Hallam Street- Major Development Review (Conceptual), Variances, On- site Relocation, and Historic Landmark Lot Split- Public Hearing DATE: November 20,2002 SUMMARY: In June of 2002, HPC reviewed and approved a proposed redevelopment of thi s property which involved rehabilitating the Mona Frost house and expanding it into a duplex. On a separate parcel located to the north, approval was granted to rehab a historic barn and adapt it to become a single family home. While the development involving the barn is a "use by right" and required no further hearings, the Planning and Zoning Commission subsequently denied the applicant's request for the duplex on the Frost house, a proposal which, on a lot of the subj ect property's size, is only available for Landmarks based on a finding of compatibility with the neighborhood. When the project returned to HPC for Final review in July, the representation was that, although the architecture was basically unchanged, the structure would be a single family home. In re-examining the land use options available for this site, the applicant has since determined that an appropriate course that will meet their goals and, they hope HPC's as well, would be to propose a Historic Landmark Lot Split. That has the effect of subdividing the front parcel into th two separate 3,000 square foot lots and completely detaching the new construction from the 19 century home. Under this scenario, HPC conducts a design review and makes a recommendation on the Historic Landmark Lot Split to City Council. Community Development staff supported this application and the significant results it achieves in terms of retrieving the deteriorated historic structures on this site in the project' s previou s iteration and finds that the proposal has only improved by taking all but a very small portion of the new construction off o f the Victorian house. APPLICANT: The Frost Property LLC, represented by Camilla Auger and Studio B Architects. PARCEL ID: 2737-073-14-001. ADDRESS: 216 E. Hallam Street, Lots H and I (also known as Lots N and O), and a portion of vacated alley, Block 71, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. 1 ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential). CURRENT LAND USE: Single-family residence. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) und/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Pfan unless agreed to by the applicant. A list of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit B." This memo will discuss only those which staff finds need discussion with regard to this proposal. The house is to be relocated on its site, the review standards for which will be discussed below. It is to be fully restored based on historic photographs that have been located that show views of all but the back of the house in the 19th century. All portions of the original building are being preserved and the only addition is in the form of a two car garage at the back of the site. The total FAR for the development on both lots is limited to what could be built in a single family house, with or without a lot split, plus a 500 square foot bonus that is being requested. It is the applicant' s role to propose how the square footage will be allocated. In this case, most of it is being placed in a new building on the east side of the Frost home. The design of the new house is very similar to what LIPC saw in the previous proposal and staff has no concerns with it whatsoever. It is respectful to the historic building in terms of height, massing, and architectural detailing and meets all of the setback and parking requirements. Staff has a few minor concerns related to the Frost house, one of which is the location of the garage doors on the addition. This is something that did not come up in the previous review, perhaps because of certain constraints that were being created in an effort to make the house a duplex. However, it does not appear to staff that, in this case, there is no solution available that 2 / would relocate these doors to face the common drive, away from the street and public view. (This would have the added benefit of avoiding having cars back out onto the trail alongside the Red Brick School, although it should be noted that Council has already granted all approvals necessary for the applicant to use so called "Sheeley Boulevard" in that manner.) The relevant design guidelines are: 14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene. 14.22 Driveways leading to parking areas should be located to the side or rear of a primary structure. Locating drives away from the primary facade will maintain the visual importance the structure has along a block. Staff does not find that the proposal creates a situation where the garage dominates the street scene, however it appears that there could be an improvement to one's overall perception of the historic character of the building, particularly given the fact that a public trail runs along the west side, if the doors to the garage were relocated to the back of the house. One other guideline related to garages is of note, however, HPC found earlier that it was not problematic. That guideline is: 8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure. o Traditionally, a garage was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structure is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. There is not sufficient room on this lot to detach the garage given the existing distance of the historic house from the street, which is not being changed in the relocation. The one story height of this element is sufficient to create the appearance of a secondary structure that is desired by the standard. In terms of alterations to the historic house, the HPC should be aware that there are small windows proposed in the east/west cross gable that are not original. Staff would prefer that they not be included in order to fully preserve the original, sparse window pattern typical of a house like this one. per the following design guideline: Windows 3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a facade. 3 t.4-/ o Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character-defining facade will negatively affect the integrity of a structure. The LIPC may wish to provide some flexibility on this issue given the fact that the building and its original scale are being preserved so well, however, there is a request for a floor area bonus involved with this proposal. A small new dormer is shown on the west elevation, which staff does not find has any negative impacts. As was discussed during the previous review, the exact location and size of the windows and doors being restored on this house will ultimately be determined in the field when the original framing is exposed to view, however, there are better photographs of this resource in its original condition than are available in most cases and a very historically accurate project can be expected at the Frost house. FAR BONUS The applicant is requesting a 500 square foot floor area bonus. The following standards apply to an FAR bonus, per Section 26.415.110.E: 1. In selected circumstances the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a. The design of the project meets gU applicable design guidelines; and b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building and/or c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; and/or e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. 2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices. Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood of being awarded additional foor area. 3. The decision to grant a Floor Area Bonus for Major Development projects will occur as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.415.070(14 No development application that includes a request for a Floor Area Bonus may be 4 submitted until after the applicant has met with the IIPC in a work session to discuss how the proposal might meet the bonus considerations. Staff Response: Staff finds that the design of the project meets all the standards for an FAR bonus. The existing historic structure will be maintained as the key element of the property and will be retrieved from its very deteriorated condition. Staff finds that the bonus should be granted because the proposal is attempting to maintain the integrity of the existing structure and the applicant should be congratulated for finding a way to preserve not only this house, but also the large outbuilding on the back parcel. SETBACK VARIANCES The setback variances needed are only on the west lot, which will contain the historic structure. No variances are proposed on the new east lot. The specific request was for a 5 foot east sideyard setback variance (this would be interior to the site), a 4 foot west side yard setback variance (facing the Red Brick School), and a 9 foot combined sideyard setback variance. Because of the width of the historic house, which obviously cannot be changed, the applicant proposed to place the building right on the common lot line between the two parcels being created by this application. It was later determined however, that UBC issues would be brought up by this zero lot line and would prohibit windows on the east side of the house, an unacceptable situation. As a result, the house is to be pushed over to sit on the west lot line (towards the Red Brick School) where the UBC concerns are mitigated by the fact that the nearest building is a further distance away. (This has been confirmed in writing as an acceptable solution by the Chief Building Official.) The corrected sideyard setback variances will need to be included in the notice for Final review, and HPC will make their determination at that time. The criteria, per Section 26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code are as follows: HPC must make a finding that the setback variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Staff Finding: The correct variances will be included in the notice for Final review. ON-SITE RELOCATION The intent of the Historic Preservation ordinance is to preserve designated historic properties in their original locations as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical relationship to their surroundings as well as their association with events and people with ties to particular site. However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a property may be 5 appropriate as it provides an alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that make it significant. 16.415.090.C Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; gr 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; Ur 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. Chapter 9 discusses the guidelines regarding the relocation of historical buildings. The guidelines that are important to the discussion are: Preserving Building Locations and Foundations 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-ease basis. o In general. relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. o It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. o Rehabilitation ofa historic building must occur asa first phase of any improvements. u A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. u Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation. utilities. and to restore the house. ci The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. o In general. moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood iS 11Ot approved. 6 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. u It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. u It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. Staff Finding: The policy regarding the relocation of a historic structure is that movement of the structure is discouraged unless it is important for preservation purposes. The background information in Chapter 9 indicates that the integrity of an historic structure is partially based on its original placement. The Frost house is to be moved approximately 7 feet west of its current location. It is maintaining its original front yard setback. Relocation creates the space to place the new construction in a detached building alongside the historic home. This is a minimal change in siting and allows for a lot split, which, staff feels strongly, has been the key to creating good preservation projects in Aspen given our development pressures. Through this mechanism, we have been able to move away from developments which involve overwhelming additions connected to, and in many past cases, looming over or consuming, our historic houses. A modest change in location is an appropriate trade off to achieve this goal. Staff recommends that HPC allow the house to be moved as proposed. HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT Iii order to complete a I-Iistoric Landmark Lot Split, the applicant shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Land Use Code: Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.470.070(C), and Section 26.415.010(D.) 26.480.030(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 tile adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969; and Staff Finding: The property is part of the historic townsite and 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 7 development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursua nt to Section 26.100.040(A)(1)(c). Staff Finding: This proposal will create two 3,000 square foot lots, each of which meet minimum size set for Historic Landmark Lot Splits. Council has recently adopted new benefits for historic properties, pursuant to Section 26.420 of the Municipal Code, which states that affordable housing mitigation will not be required for properties created through a historic landmark lot split. 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 Staff Finding: The land has not been subdivided previously. d) A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and confor,â€žs to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk anci recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. Staff Finding: The subdivision plat shall be a condition of approval. It must be reviewed by the Community Development Department for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use action. e) Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shaff 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 (7 80) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Staff Finding: The subdivision exemption agreement shall be a condition of approval. D In the case where an existing singledamily dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished pdor to application for alot split. 8 Staff Finding: No dwelling unit is located in a manner that necessitates its demolition in order to split the lot. The Victorian will be preserved as part o f this plan in accordance with the land use code. 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 c, single-family home. Staff Finding: The parcel currently contains one dwelling unit. A second house will be constructed on the newly created lot at some time in the future. 26.480.030(A)(4), SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures for the development of one new single-family dwelling may receive a subdivision exemption if il meets the following standards: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square feet in size and be located in the R-6, R-15, R-15A, RMF, or O zone district. Staff Finding: The subject parcel is 6,000 square feet and is located in the R-6 Zone District. b. The total FAR for both residences shall be established by the size Of the parcel and the zone district where the property is located. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. In the Office zone district, the following shall apply to the calculation of maximum floor area for lots created through the historic landmark lot split. Note that the total FAR shall not be stated on the Subdivision Exemption Plat because the floor area will be affected by the use established on the property: If all buildings on what was the fathering parcel remain wholly residential in use, the maximum floor area will be as stated in the It-6 zone district. If any portion of a building on a lot created by the historic landmark lot split is in commercial/office use, then the allowed noor area for that lot shall be the foor area allowed for all uses other than residential in the zone district. If the adjacent parcel created by the lot split remains wholly in residential use, then the floor area on that parcel shall be limited to the maximum allowed on a lot of its size for residential use according to the R-6 standards. If there is commercial/office use on both newly created lots, the maximum floor area for all uses other than residential in the zone district will be applied. 9 Staff Finding: The two lots will be used wholly for residential purposes. The maximum floor area f,r the original parcel, containing a historical landmark in an R-6 zone, is 3,240 square feet. The applicant is requesting 428 square feet of the 500 square foot in FAR bonus. Should the FAR bonus be granted, the total FAR of 3,740 square feet is to be allocated as follows: 1,874 square feet to the lot 1,794 square feet to the new parcel. c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. The variances provided in Section 26.415.120(B)(1)(a),(b), and (c) are only permitted on the parcels that will contain a historic structure. The FAR b onus will be added to the maximum FAR allowed on the original parcel. Staff Finding: Variances are being requested for the lot which contains the historic structure. There are no variances being requested for the new house. 26.470.070(c), GMQS Exemption, Historic Landmark Lot Split The construction of each new single-family dwelling on a lot created through review and approval of an Historic Landmark Lot Split shall be exempt from the scoring and competition procedures. The exemption is to be approved by the Community Development Director, but is not to be deducted from the respective annual development allotments or from the development ceilings. Staff Finding: With the new benefits of the Historic Preservation Program the existing house, as well as any house on the new lot are not subject to GMQS requirements. 26.415.010(D), Historic Landmark Lot Split A Historic Landmark Lot Split is a two step review, requiring a public hearing before LIPC and before City Council. Staff Finding: HPC is holding a hearing on this project and Council will hold a hearing at Second Reading of this Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve Major Development Review (Conceptual), an FAR bonus, and On-site Relocation for 216 E. Hallam Street. Lots H and I (also known as Lots N and O), and a portion of vacated alley, Block 71, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the conditions listed below, and recommend that Council approve the Historic Landmark Lot Split. 0ao 40 1. The LIPC hereby approves a158 square foot FAR bonus. C700 4/0 10 2. The public notice for Final review must include the setback variances as corrected to meet UBC concerns, and HPC will make a formal determination on the request at that time. 3. The new windows added to the east/west gable ends on the historic house are not approved. 4. For final review, restudy the garage doors to determine if they can be relocated to the back of the structure. 5. Finalization of exact window and door locations and sizes will be determined through demolition and discovery by removing the asphalt and the interior plaster to expose framing evidence. 6. A structural report demonstrating that the buildings can be moved and/or information about how the house will be stabilized from the housemover must be submitted with the building permit application. 7. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the structure must be submitted with the building permit application. 8. A relocation plan detailing how and where the buildings will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 9. An application for Final review shall be submitted for review and approval by the HPC within one year o f Nov. 20,2002 or the conceptual approval shall be considered null and void per Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.3 of the Municipal Code. 10. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department 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 o f Section 26.480 of the Aspen Municipal Code; b. Contain a plat note stating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to the provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; c. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district, except the variances approved by the HPC. d. The FAR on the two lots created by this lot split shall be allocated as follows: the lot containing the historic house will have 1,874 square feet of FAR, and the lot containing the new house will have 1,794 square feet of FAR. which shall be noted on the plat. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution # , Series of 2002." Exhibits: Resolution # , Series of 2002 11 A. Staff memo dated November 20,2002 B. Relevant Design Guidelines C. Application 12 "Exhibit B, Relevant Design Guidelines for Conceptual Review" Replacement Windows 3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. i Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character-defining faeade is inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening. This is especially important on primary facades where the historic ratio of solid-to-void is a character-defining feature. 3 Greater tlexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls. 3 Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it to receive a larger window on primary facades. 3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a facade. o Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character-defining facade will negatively affect the integrity of a structure. 3.6 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. o Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to receive a larger window is inappropriate. o Consider reopening and restoring an original window opening where altered. Doors 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. o Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These may include the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes. paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights. u Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances. a If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position. o If the secondary entrance is sealed shut, the original entrance on the primary facade must remain operable. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. o Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. Porches 5.1 Preserve an original porch. u Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions and spacing of balusters when replacing missing ones. o Unless used historically on the property, wrought iron, especially the "licorice stick" style that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, is inappropriate. o Expanding the size of a historic porch is inappropriate. U 5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and detail. u Use materials that appear similar to the original. 13 i While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted appropriately, alternative materials may be considered. 1 Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have been used on the house or others like it. u When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building. o The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork. o The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those used historically as well. Architectural Details 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features should be based on original designs. o The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a misrepresentation of the building's heritage. o When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence, develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and maintains similar scale, proportion and material. 6.5 Do not guess at "historic" designs for replacement parts. o Where "scars" on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in character to related buildings. u Using overly ornate materials on a building for which there is no documentation is inappropriate. u It is acceptable to use salvaged materials from other buildings only if they are similar in style and detailing to other features on the building where they are to be installed. Roofs 7.7 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and character. u A new dormer should fit within the existing wall plane. It should be lower than the ridgeline and set in from the eave. It should also be in proportion with the building. u The mass and scale of a dormer addition must be subordinate to the scale of the historic building. Secondary Structures 8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure. i Traditionally, a garage was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structure is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. 8.4 A garage door should be compatible with the character of the historic structure. u A wood-clad hinged door is preferred on a historic structure. o If an overhead door is used, the materials should match that of the secondary structure. u If the existing doors are hinged, they can be adapted with an automatic opener. 14 Building Relocation and Foundations 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. u In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. o lt must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. o Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. 1 A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. o Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. 01 The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. u In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9.2 Moving an existing building that contributes to the character of a historic district should be avoided. u The significance of a building and the character of its setting will be considered. o In general, relocating a contributing building in a district requires greater sensitivity than moving an individually-listed structure because the relative positioning of it reflects patterns of development, including spacing of side yards and front setbacks, that relate to other historic structures in the area. 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel. u If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties. 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. ci It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. 01 It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. o On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. u Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design ofthe mortar joints. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. u Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. u Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. 9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space. u In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design Standards). u The size of a lightwell should be minimized. 15 1 A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded by a simple fence or rail. Building Additions 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. u Such an addition is usually similar in character to the original building in terms of materials, finishes and design. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. o A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. u An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. u An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. o An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building. while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. =1 A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. u An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. u A 1 -story connector is preferred. o The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. i The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. o Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. o Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. o Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. u Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. 16 u Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. u For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. 10.14The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic building. u If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar. u Eave lines on the addition should be similar to those of the historic building or structure. New Buildings on Landmarked Properties 11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street. o The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the site. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. u The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry. o A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. zi In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street; nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to the street. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. u Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. o The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure. o The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch. 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. u They should not overwhelm the original in scale. 11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. 3 Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. u Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. u On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context. ci Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames. 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. a These include windows, doors and porches. u Overall, details should be modest in character. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. 1 This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. 17 ci Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged on historic sites. General Guidelines 14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. o Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts are not permitted. o If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it. 14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene. See Chapter N: Secondary Structures. 14.22 Driveways leading to parking areas should be located to the side or rear of a primary structure. o Locating drives away from the primary facade will maintain the visual importance the structure has along a block. See Chapter 8: Secondary Structures. 18 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), A FLOOR AREA BONUS, ON-SITE RELOCATION, AND A HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 216 E. HALLAM STREET, LOTS H, AND I, AKA LOTS N, AND 0, AND A PORTION OF VACATED ALLEY, BLOCK 71, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 2002 PARCEL ID: 2737-073-14-001 WHEREAS, the applicants, The Frost Property LLC, represented by Camilla Auger and Studio B Architects. have requested Major Development Review (Conceptual), a 500 square foot FAR bonus, On-site Relocation, and a Historic Landmark Lot Split for the property located at 216 E. Hallam Street, Lots H and I (also known as Lots N and O), and a portion of vacated alley, Block 71, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. The property is listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structuress" and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected. constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review; and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the LIPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project' s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny: and WHEREAS, in order for HPC to grant an FAR bonus, per Section 26.415.110.E, HPC must find that: 1. In selected circumstances the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; and b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building and/or c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; and/or e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained; and WHEREAS, the application included a request for approval of on-site relocation of the hi storic house and barn. In order to approve Relocation of a historic structure, per Section 26.415.090.C, the HPC must find that the proposal meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; gr 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; ur 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security; and WHEREAS, in order to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the applicant shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Land Use Code: Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.470.070(C), and Section 26.415.010(D.) 26.480.030(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 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). 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 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. 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. D 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. 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; and 26.480.030(A)(4), Subdivision Exemptions, Historic Landmark Lot Split The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures for the development of one new single-family dwelling may receive a subdivision exemption if it meets the following standards: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square feet in size and be located in the R-6, R-15, R-15A, RMF, or O zone district. b. The total FAR for both residences shall be established by the size of the parcel and the zone district where the property is located. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. In the Office zone district, the following shall apply to the calculation of maximum floor area for lots created through the historic landmark lot split. Note that the total FAR shall not be stated on the Subdivision Exemption Plat because the floor area will be affected by the use established on the property: If all buildings on what was the fathering parcel remain wholly residential in use, the maximum floor area will be as stated in the R-6 zone district. If any portion of a building on a lot created by the historic landmark lot split is in commercial/office use, then the allowed floor area for that lot shall be the floor area allowed for all uses other than residential in the zone district. If the adjacent parcel created by the lot split remains wholly in residential use, then the foor area on that parcel shall be limited to the maximum allowed on a lot of its size for residential use according to the R-6 standards. If there is commercial/office use on both newly created lots, the maximum floor area for all uses other than residential in the zone district will be applied. c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. The variances provided in Section 26.415.120(B)(1)(a),(b), and (c) are only permitted on the parcels that will contain a historic structure. The FAR bonus will be added to the maximum FAR allowed on the original parcel; and 26.470.070(c), GMQS Exemption, Historic Landmark Lot Split The construction of each new single-family dwelling on a lot created through review and approval of an Historic Landmark Lot Split shall be exempt from the scoring and competition procedures. The exemption is to be approved by the Community Development Director, but is not to be deducted from the respective annual development allotments or from the development ceilings; and 26.415.010(D), Historic Landmark Lot Split A Historic Landmark Lot Split is a two step review, requiring a public hearing before HPC and before City Council; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated November 20,2002, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended that the project be approved with conditions: and WHEREAS, at a special meeting on November 20,2002, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and other applicable sections of the Municipal Code and approved the application with conditions by a vote of to . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: HPC approves Major Development Review (Conceptual), an FAR bonus, and On-site Relocation for 216 E. Hallam Street, Lots H and I (also known as Lots N and O), and a portion of vacated alley, Block 71, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the conditions listed below, and recommends that Council approve the Historic Landmark Lot Split. 1. The HPC hereby approves a 428 square foot FAR bonus. 2. The public notice for Final review must include the setback variances as corrected to meet UBC concerns, and HPC will make a formal determination on the request at that time. 3. The new windows added to the east/west gable ends on the historic house are not approved. 4. For final review, restudy the garage doors to determine if they can be relocated to the back ofthe structure. 5. Finalization of exact window and door locations and sizes will be determined through demolition and discovery by removing the asphalt and the interior plaster to expose framing evidence. 6. A structural report demonstrating that the buildings can be moved and/or information about how the house will be stabilized from the housemover must be submitted with the building permit application. 7. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the structure must be submitted with the building permit application. 8. A relocation plan detailing how and where the buildings will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 9. An application for Final review shall be submitted for review and approval by the HPC within one year of Nov. 20,2002 or the conceptual approval shall be considered null and void per Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.3 of the Municipal Code. 10. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department 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 26.480 of the Aspen Municipal Code; b. Contain a plat note stating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to the provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; c. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district, except the variances approved by the HPC. d. The FAR on the two lots created by this lot split shall be allocated as follo-ws: the lot containing the historic house will have 1,874 square feet of FAR, and the lot containing the new house will have 1,794 square feet of FAR, which shall be noted on the plat. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 20th day of November, 2002. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Rally Dupps, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Sent By: STUDIO B ARCHITECTS; 970 920 7822; Oct-31-02 15:21; Page 1 555 North MIll Street Aspen, CO 81611 Phone. 970.920.9428 STUDIO B Fax: 970.920.7822 architects Fax To; Amy Guthrie From: Scott Lindenau, AIA Fic &44 9251 / 9201628 / 920 5439 Date: October 31, 2002 Phone: Pages: 2 R.: Frost Property Conversation CC: Stan Clausen, Camilla Auger Amy, I met with Steven Kanipe this afternoon briefly and reviewed my conversation with him from yesterday. The following letter sun,s up that discussion and he reviewed the same memo and agrees. I showed him the set of the Conceptual HPC drawings currently submitted and reviewed them as well. We will need to move the historic house to the west property line (0 Lot-Une) in order to achieve the 6' separation be*een the 2 structures and we do not need to use a fire protection system. We can make this minor dimensional change for the HI'C Final presentation. As stated, because the alley is a public right-of-way, we can use the centerline of the alley as our west boundary. Best Regards, Â«P Sent By: STUDIO B ARCHITECTS; 970 920 7822; Oct-31-02 15:21; Page 2/2 architects 30 October 2002 Steven Kanipe Chief Building Official City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Steven, Here is a summation of our discussion from yesterday, October 29 regarding the Mona Frost Property located at 216 East Hallam Street. 1. H we have 6 feet of clearance between the historic house and the new residence, we are allowed to have operable windows on each of those facing clcvations. 2. The city of Aspen owns the Public Right-of-Way to the alley titled Sheeley Blvd. My client, Camilla Auger has the approvals and liscense in place from City Council and the city attorney to use this as a driveway to access both the front and rear lots. We could essentially extend our west facing placement of the historic house to the west lot line and consider Lhe centerline of the tight- of-way as our west setback line for builkding permit/code purposes. < The two structures may require fire protections systems by the Fire Department. 91Â»0 6 1 GaÂ·Â»- r, 47 47 ,-4k~ 555 n. mill at. aspen co. 81612 970.920 942B tax 970.920.7822 ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ~- 1 &1 ~ 1--1 01 )~41 l.14 , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: /7 :/ 701 /~-nuu , 200_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, (name, please print) 3-1 1 1 1- Â«Q ~ -i~ L f O ~ ~ - being or representing an Applicant to the City ofAspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) o f the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: ..~C Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting ofnotice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproofmaterials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inchet wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of , 200 , to and including the date and time o f the public hear\ng. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By fae mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records o f Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. t (continued on next page) \0 6 0 ,<89.9....2\ 11 2 g - 9 i fef utt~8~ .... Â£1 ' J pt :.0.n PUBL[C N()1'ICE Rbi @ Kl ~ 8 C. ep./ :j gn RE: 216 E. HALLAM STREET- MAJOR DEVELOP- Â· 1 + MENT (CONCEPTUAL), VARIANCES, ON-SITE REâ€ž. 9 Ap A Q e: :. O - 11)CATION, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPUT f 1 -d@ C NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing , will be held on Wednesday, November 20,2002 atÂ· ' GrATE:be ' -23 M a meeting ti, begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen d Historic Preservation Commission, Council ~hambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, ta Â¢ C ~ 0 4 U 44 ~onsider an application submitted by The FrostÂ· u E Â·9 0 2 U Property LLC requesting approval for Major De- 1 t. A U M Z '5 rn A \1 velopment (Conceptual), Variances, On-Site Relog 5 2 ~ 8 S <Â·8 .2 \24 .ation, and a Historic Landmark Lot Split. TheÂ· ~~roperty is located at 216 E. Hallam Street. Lots H 1 2 .m ~ pnd I (also known as Lots N and 0). and a portion Â» *of the vacated alley, Block 71. City and Townsite *4 ~ .0 4.4 0 ~4 of Aspen. The property is to be subdivided into b :N = 9 -0 -2 2 11 (R# N two 3,000 square foot lots. The existing Victorian 1 f .112 C B:* Eff C,YL 6 jr 3 râ€¢ .8 2 ~ The entire development will share the floor area house is to be relocated to the west lot, and a ~4 new detached house is proposed on the east lot. that would be permitted for a single family house: $ 9 -2 3 #0 4 1 4 \-4â€ž ~4 on the fathering 6.000 square foot parcel. plusl 1~ tbne 500 square loot bonus that is requested. Thei Or,C ;application includes a request for setback varian,Â·' U 0 E.43 19 2, EL 9, no ~ces on the western lot only. which are: a 5 foot,~ ~east sideyard setback variance (this will be inter~ 9 - 0 u 50 Â© or to the property). a 4 fc,ot west side yard set- 0U E.5 3 69 back variance (facing the Red Brick School), and ,Â·a 9 foot combined sideyard setback variance. * S E * * ;2 8 U ~hese variances are needed to accommodate th~ m % 4 A ~width of the existing historic house. All other dll D 04 0 9 ~lensional requirements, including on-site park~ 5 U 4 0 1 0Â£ 1 ting. are being met in the application. For further ink rmation. contact Amy Guthrie at Q ~the Aspen/ Pitkin County Community Develop- 2 2 ~ Â·3 Â·d ~c Le Iment Department. 130 S. Galena St., Aspen. CO - 9 0 ~2H i096. arnyg~ciaspeI, CO US ~~ 4 0 C g ..M b M .2 .41 E .3 .0 U - - a U =M E M. -2- Â¢ 4 On 4 4 0 50 v b~ 11 9 ezoning or text amendment. the official zoning district map is in way to be ha as part of a general revision whether such ate survey map s of owners of real proposed chang uring all business hours for fifteen (15) days 1~yas acknowled~d tfÂ°12*t? 1 *- day WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL mmission expires: 9-L a:DILLON SVIONG[OV 1VING[WNH NOTIVOITUfld ZIHI m AdOO to the public hearing on such amendments. I.LON GaISOd ZIHI zIO Hd NG[WHOV.LIV revisi ASPEN PLANNII.u & ZONING COMMISSION i.linutes JUNE 18,2002 PUBLIC HEARING: MAROUSEE REZONING Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Marqusee Rezoning. Notice was provided to the Clerks. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to continue the Marqusee Rezoning Public Hearing to August 6,2002; seconded by Bert Myrin. APPROVED 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 216 EAST HALLAM - CONDITIONAL USE Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the property 216 East Hallam. Stan Clauson, representative for the applicant, provided the public notice. Joyce Ohlson stated that this was an application for a conditional use to allow for a duplex in the R-6 medium density residential zone district. The property was 6,000 square feet in size and designated as a historic landmark. Ohlson noted that in March of 2002 P&Z recommended the rezoning of a portion o f the property; the property was also known as the Mona Frost property or trust. Stan Clauson and Camilla Auger represented the Frost Property LLC. Ohlson stated that the front parcel was the subject of tonight's discussion. The additional survey data showed the property at 6,000 square feet, which falls under a legally conforming lot with the opportunity to request a duplex on this size lot. The rezoning did not affect the front property. Ohison said that there was a proposed alley vacation that bisected the center of the properties; the alley went nowhere, which was set for first reading at City Council next week. The use of the driveway/trail was not meant for vehicular use but was part of the proposal to remain with the historic use of the driveway/trail as a driveway. Ohlson said that there would be no parking on that driveway but rather parking in the vacated alley. Ohlson said that the applicants would pave the driveway/trail to a standard, which had been desired by other city agencies to make it a 14 foot paved surface with shoulders connecting with the parking lot behind the Red Brick. Ohlson said that the Fire Department wanted better circulation behind the Red Brick. Ohlson stated that staff felt the criteria for conditional use had been met with the Red Brick use across the street, the Methodist Church and other duplexes in the neighborhood. Ohlson said there were no other adverse impacts because of the conversion from a single family to a duplex; trip generation was between 4 to 6 trips a day because of the proximity to town it would probably be lower. 3 ASPEN PLANNIT. <, & ZONING COMMISSION .Iinutes JUNE 18,2002 Ohlson said that the duplex development of this site attained conceptual approval by HPC; HPC supported the use of the historic driveway so that there would not be another curb cut on Hallam. There was no accessory dwelling unit proposed on site; they would be required to pay cash-in-lieu. Ohlson said there were conditions in the resolution addressing the public right-of-way and other city agencies requirements. Staff recommended approval o f the conditional use. Amy Guthrie said that these were 2 legally separate properties and each by right could have a single-family house; the conditional use added one more dwelling. Guthrie said that 2 residences on this site were pretty much a given at this point; no more FAR was gained by virtue of doing a duplex. The 6,000 square foot lot could have a 3,240 square foot house; the same as a duplex. A duplex would not gain any more floor area. Guthrie mentioned that the City received an award for the new benefits package for historic preservation. HPC has been concerned for this barn for many years and now someone came forward to rescue the building and HPC felt it important to help them out with that by affording a second unit. HPC felt that this was a great design and project. Ohlson said that there were 5 types of actions happening all at once on this site: rezoning, alley vacation, conditional use, license agreement for the easement and < improvements requirements. Ohlson noted that there were many processes for this applicant; HPC looked at the architectural compatibility and P&Z looked at the conditional use. Bert Myrin asked i f it were a single-family home relating to the FAR, could there still be 8 bedrooms in the front half as a possibility. Amy Guthrie replied that the number o f bedrooms were not limited, only the square footage was limited. Stan Clauson, planner for the applicant, stated that the property was in a unique transitional neighborhood with residential and public uses; he said that this property redevelopment was a difficult and sensitive issue. Clauson said that the redevelopment could be done consistent with the code with a conditional use as a historic resource. There were 5 standards to consider a conditional use: 1.) consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan, with the intent of the zone district and complies with all other applicable requirements; 2.) consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of the complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; 3.) the location, size, design and operating characteristics o f the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; 4.) adequate public facilities 4 ASPEN PLANNIA s & ZONING COMMISSION idinutes JUNE 18,2002 and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems and schools; 5.) commits to meet the incremental need for increased employee generation. Clauson stated that the applicant because of improvements to what was known as Sheeley Boulevard and the enhanced trail met the 5 standards and the applicant committed to supply affordable housing. Clauson restated that the code allows the same square footage for a duplex as a single-family residence, 3240 square feet. Clauson said that a single- family residence probably wouldn't look any different than the duplex. Bill Stirling, realtor, provided a map with color-coding for duplexes and photographs of town (not provided for exhibits). Stirling described each lot with the history. Stirling said that the intent and purpose of this buyer was to protect this property and utilize the property under what the city allows. Scott Lindenau, architect, explained the elevation drawings to show the mass and scale o f the property. Lindenau provided a model o f the area showing the adj acent properties as well as the proposed. Clauson stated that this would meet the standards for the proximity to downtown and the residents would be permanent residents not part-time ones. Camilla Auger, representative of the Frost Trust LLC, stated that the design of this project was to meet historic preservation as a priority. Auger said the new elements were to be secondary to the historic elements, which were emphasized. Auger said that improving the trail should provide a good view of the historic elements. Bert Myrin questioned some of the duplexes in Bill Stirling's photographs. Stirling replied that they were not all duplexes but some were multiple uses. Hal Dishler, public and attorney for the Amato's, stated that they were not anti- development or anti-progress or anti-HPC; the Amato's lived next door and have obvious concerns. Dishler said that the density of this development, although well designed and attractive had substantial changes to what existed when the Amato's went through their process. Dishler said the development depended upon the use of a public trail to create two driveways to maximize the property. Dishler suggested the driveway cross the front property to the back property for access. Dishler said that every rule was bent to achieve something on this property that was inconsistent with the neighborhood pattern; the neighborhood pattern was not on Main Street but this street. Dishler said that they were not here to question the 5 ASPEN PLANNINu & ZONING COMMISSION idinutes JUNE 18,2002 integrity o f any process but this was a conditional use for a single- family house to a duplex project. Dishler said that it was important to preserve historic development but this was a private developer for the purpose of providing economic return, which was a laudable goal but without public benefit. Joseph Amato, public, stated that he and his wife Deborah owned 222 East Hallam Street. Amato said that he had no problem with the restoration but had concern with the mass and density. Amato said that there was no grass left anywhere except in the front of this property, which created several issues of concern with 12 bedrooms in the mass that would generate many cars. Amato cited the adjacent area properties not as duplexes but single-family residences some with one- bedroom apartments. Amato referred to the Historic Preservation Guidelines pages 2,35,88 and 135 regarding special relationships, parking variances, landscaping, mass and scale compatible for the rehabilitation of a historic property. Amato said that the 75-year old lilac bushes and large tree would be removed from the property and the new structure would over-power the historic structure. Charles Cunniffe, public, stated that preserving Mona's house was an excellent project and there were many ways to do a project well; this approach may not be the best. Cunniffe said that they were trying not to have the driveway on their own property so you would think that there would be more open space on their property but wasn't the case, they required more setbacks on the property to build this mass. Cunniffe said that there were a lot of design assumptions but there would be another way to go back and rethink the setback variances so the application could conform with the code rather than ask for more variances. Mitch Haas, public, said that the questions on the process for the appropriateness of the building and consistency of the HPC Guidelines were for HPC. Haas said that what was before P&Z was the conditional use if a duplex was appropriate here; the question was were 2 units appropriate here. Charles Knight, public, provided background on the Amatos and himself being on HPC in 1987. Knight said there were no visible signs of duplexes from the back of the Jerome to Mona's house; this was a historic asset and should be treated as such. Knight said if an addition was necessary it should not destroy the streetscape. Knight spoke about the moratorium placed on historic houses in the 1980's, which he agreed with and this was an inappropriate redevelopment of a historic resource. Phil Hodgson, public, said that he lived on North Monarch and questioned the discrepancy on the surveys. Hodgson noted the Red Brick generated lots ofkids in the street and to add those 12 bedrooms would not be appropriate. Hodgson said that he was against high density and in-fill. 6 ASPEN PLANNII, ~, & ZONING COMMISSION ..Iinutes JUNE 18,2002 Wiley Hodgson, public, said that the integrity o f the barn was stressed by the design and changing the direction of the barn. Wiley Hodgson said that the structure was not very stable. Garret Brandt, attorney for the applicant, stated that there has been research done on the street issue and provided the background of State vacation laws when the city deeded the property to the school district in 1953. Stan Clauson noted that a map was included in the packet. Brandt said that in 1953 the alley behind the Mona Frost property was not vacated because it would have landlocked the triangular portion ofprivate property; state law reaffirmed in 1976 or 1978 that a municipality may not vacate a street i f will totally land lock a parcel. Brandt said that the city reserved a 30-foot strip known as Lot G as public right-of-way, which was the intent and as a matter of state law have access to this property regardless of anything else said or done. Jasmine Tygre stated that without the city attorney she did not feel qualified to ask questions. Brandt stated that there was a letter from John Worcester on the right- of-way. Joyce Ohlson reiterated that the application was before the planning commission for review and evaluation as a conditional use. Ohlson said that one of the request being made to the City Council next week was the use o f that public right-of-way; should you approve the conditional use as a use of that property, that approval would be null and void if in fact there was no legal approval of that right- of-way by City Council. Tygre stated that the members of this commission were not comfortable with the two different representations from the applicant and the neighbors concerning this vacation, which was critical in the commission's evaluation of the conditional use. Bill Stirling, public, stated that duplex use was technically and legally different than multiple use; the effect was the same. Stirling said that multiple use meant more than one use on a property, two families were using one property instead of just one, which means two plus cars and more than two plus people. Stirling explained his response when he was mayor in 1987 to the radical loss of duplexes, four and five-plexes of free-market affordable housing; the moratorium stopped the loss of all of those from the townsite with Ordinance #1 for mandatory contribution to affordable housing and the RETT. Stan Clauson said that the setback conformed to the neighbors but the overall setback received a variance. Amy Guthrie said that they met the five-foot side yard setbacks but were short on the combined setback requirement. Clauson read the R.-6 medium residential zone purpose statement, which was to contain relatively dense settlements ofpredominately detached duplex residences within walking distance of the center of the city. 7 ASPEN PLANNIT. u & ZONING COMMISSION ~dinutes JUNE 18,2002 Camilla Auger said that they have tried to meet the infill objectives and the HPC objectives. Auger stated that the historic structure was torn down on the lot next door and replaced with a new structure; if this was done on the Frost property any reconfiguration could occur without objections from the neighbors and one solution to that would be for the neighbor to buy the Frost property and do what they want to their satisfaction. Auger said that they have changed the design as far back from the sidewalk so that the streetscape would be softened and the new part would be as subservient as possible to the historic structure. Auger said that due to the HPC commitment, i f they were denied the flexibility within the same square footage of a duplex, the design would not change. Jasmine reiterated the role of the P&Z was for the conditional use application but that did not mean that there wasn't concern for the parts of the application since they were a land use planning board. Design, parking, density and HPC findings were of concern. Ron Erickson stated that it was laudable that everyone wanted to meet infill but infill was not passed into legislature; he said that those objectives could not be considered at this time. Erickson stated that there was access for this lot from the street since they were not discussing the back lot. Erickson voiced concern for the children in the neighborhood with the proposed density; he said that it did not meet the criteria for a conditional use. Eric Cohen asked if there was a current curb cut for the trail now. Ohlson replied that there was a curb cut for the trail now and it would be widened and signed with a goal to improve this trail. Cohen said that there was an impact with the increased pedestrian circulation and added parking spaces. Amy Guthrie replied that there were 2 spaces on the back parcel and 3 on the front parcel. Cohen stated concern for increased pedestrian traffic with the traffic flow in the same area. Joyce Ohlson said that there were many goals to be achieved here and the trail paving was requested for greater usage by Parks and Recreation and allowed for fire trucks and emergency vehicles to circulate around the Red Brick. Ruth Kruger stated concern for the operation characteristics for the use of the property. Clauson replied residential. Auger said that an ADU was required under the city rules, so the front property included an ADU. Kruger voiced concern for the parking. Guthrie explained that there 5 on-site parking spaces. Roger Haneman asked i f the number o f bedrooms were reduced would that help the commissioners' concerns. Kruger replied that she had concern for the density concerning the number of bedrooms. Erickson said the use of the road by cars would multiply exponentially because the original Mona Frost property was one 8 ASPEN PLANNIZ. u & ZONING COMMISSION ..Iinutes JUNE 18,2002 car with a single-family residence. Erickson voiced concern for the dual use of pedestrian and vehicular traffic on that trail. Haneman asked if this were denied would the LLC be able to sell fractions of the property. Ohlson said that would be allowed. Clauson said that i f the access were decided by council, which was scheduled for July 8th then P&Z could make a decision regarding the duplex. Camilla Auger stated that there was currently a lot of vehicular as well as pedestrian traffic on the trail and found no objection to limiting the number of bedrooms to 3, if that was an issue. Auger said that with regard to the selling of units in the LLC, they had no intention of doing that. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to continue the public hearing to July 16,2002 for the conditional use for the Mona Frost property located 216 East Hallam. Ruth Kruger seconded. Roll call vote: Haneman, yes; Myrin, yes; Cohell, yes; Kruger, yes; Erickson, no; Tygre, 11{). APPROVED 4-2. Myrin expressed concern for criteria A, B&C not meeting the AACP, the increased density, community goal for an ADU, making the trail more public use friendly, preserving the streetscape, the number of bedrooms, and how to keep it as local housing. Cohen asked i f this were a single- family dwelling would a driveway be placed on the other side of the property. Guthrie relied that HPC Guidelines would not allow another curb cut so there would not be another driveway possibility on the property. Erickson said that he wanted to know what HPC granted this applicant. Tygre agree with Ron and said that information would have been helpful for the commission in decision-making. Tygre requested that information for the continued hearing. Tygre stated that she shared concerns for the interaction with pedestrians and access for parking and landscaping. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to extend the P&Z meeting until 7:15 p.m.; seconded by Ron Erickson. ASPPROVED 4-2. PUBLIC HEARING: INNSBRUCK INN MINOR PUD, GMOS EXEMPTION FOR LODGE PRESERVATION and AFFORDABLE HOUSING Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Innsbruck Inn. Proof ofnotice was provided. James Lindt explained that the application was submitted by 9 p4 ASPEN PLANNIN- 1 ZONING COMMISSION 1.lintltes JULY 16, 2002 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular Planning and Zoning meeting at 4:30 p.m. in the Sister Cities Meeting Room with Ruth Kruger, Bert Myrin, Ron Erickson and Eric Cohen. Roger Haneman was excused. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Community Development Director; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS Ron Erickson asked if the bookstore on Hopkins (Quandrant Books) was a demolition; he said that it was a change ofuse to a residence. Amy Guthrie replied that she had not gone past to look at it; she said that the definition for demolition was 50Â°/o. Erickson stated that it was more than 50%. Joyce Ohlson responded that the zoning officer Sarah Oates would look into the building permit. M Joyce Ohlson stated that the Harley Baldwin zoning violation was reported through . Sarah Oates, components of the structure were removed that were not in WA compliance and a new application was submitted to HPC. Amy Guthrie replied , that she has not reviewed the new application. Guthrie said that they were in compliance with the open space requirements with proposed minor modifications to the building. MINUTES MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve the minutes from June 18, 2002 and July 2,2002. Ruth Kruger seconded. APPROVED 5-0. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Bert Myrin disclosed that he lived 2-3 houses east of 216 Hallam but did not have any preconceived ideas about the project. David Hoefer stated that as long as the case was not prejudged. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (06/18/02): 216 EAST HALLAM - CONDITIONAL USE Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing. Tygre stated that there were areas that P&Z had criteria on to evaluate the conditional use portion of the project. Letters from Richard Johnson, Allergy Associates, Richard E Bump, William C. and Joan E Light, Mr. Sutton and Mr. Amato were placed into the public record. Joyce Ohlson provided the updated overview from the HPC and City Council decisions. Council reviewed and approved the rezoning of the back parcel of the Mona Frost parcels, which was currently SCI to be rezoned R-6; vacation of the old historic remnant alley and use of 20 feet of city property for access to the 2 ASPEN PLANNIZ , ~ & ZONING COMMISSION - Iinutes JULY 16, 2002 P5 houses and back structures. The easement was not to be paved but rather a weight bearing capacity gravel to handle fire and emergency access was to be used. Jasmine Tygre asked how the vacated land from the alley was allocated. Ohlson replied that Colorado Statute divided the land equally but the accrued land did not count for density or floor area. Ohlson stated that the HPC granted final approval for the development of the historic landmark. Amy Guthrie stated that the entire property was considered a historic landmark; HPC reviewed the outside architecture of the structures and were not concerned if the building were a duplex or not other than the incentive to help people with historic structures. Guthrie stated HPC granted variances for combined side yard setbacks and a small variance on the other side yard on the to the back lot where the barn was located, which was being rotated and restored with a connecting piece and a new addition. Guthrie stated that on the front lot no demolition on the old structure would be done, only new construction to the rear and side of the building setback from the historic portion with variances from 1 required parking space (2 in the garage and 1 in back), a combined front and rear yard setback waiver of 5 feet and 500 square foot floor area bonus for an exceptional historic preservation project. A Mary Hays 1950's photo was provided of the property for a true restoration with trim and windows. Scott Lindenau explained the redevelopment and provided a model of the property and the neighboring properties. The materials used would be all natural. Tygre asked the FAR o f the duplex. Guthrie replied that it was 3,740 square feet for the duplex. Stan Clauson replied that the barn parcel was 2,509 square feet. Ohlson reiterated the criteria for P&Z was a review of the proposed duplex on a 6,000 square foot R-6 lot with 5 criteria: 1.) Conditional use was consistent with the purposes goals, standards and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan and the intent of the zone district in which it was proposed. 2.) Consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. 3). The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse affects; impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, delivery service, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. 4). Adequate public facilities to service the conditional use such as roads, water, sewer, parks, police, emergency medical service, drainage systems and schools. 5). Affordable Housing will be provided to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. Staff made positive findings provided with the conditions in the resolution. 3 P6 ASPEN PLANNING & INING COMMISSION Mii :s JULY 16,2002 Erickson asked if all 5 standards had to be applicable and met. Ohlson responded that they were all applicable; some were more applicable than others. Camilla Auger explained that she selected this project because it was a historic preservation project with one of the highest preservation goals and for the opportunity to enhance the trail and create a pocket park in the back to enhance the neighborhood. Auger said that the design was in contrast to the existing structure; if the duplex were granted the duplex will have no effect on the square footage, the square footage will be the same wither way. Auger said it will not change the design in any way but gives more flexibility and more likely to have someone live in the house as a resident of Aspen, which would be a benefit. Clauson said that there were discrepancies in the Amato letter; there was only one duplex requested on the front lot. There were 2 separate lots with 4 bedrooms proposed for the single-family house in the rear lot, which was not under this purview; on the front lot there were 3 bedrooms proposed for each side o f the duplex. Clauson said that the scale drawings show the landscaping and existing trees being preserved along with green areas and trail enhancement with a gravel surface for public use. Clauson said that the variances related more to the historic preservation rather than the duplex. Clauson noted that some additional traffic may result from two households rather than one, but that would not be inconsistent with the neighborhood, which contained many duplex occupancies (map illustrated yellow highlighting not included). Clauson said that there was only one duplex proposed and the Frost family historically used the driveway. Clauson went through the findings being consistent with the character of the neighborhood and enhanced the character of the neighborhood in conjunction with the Red Brick. The applicant committed to supply affordable housing in a manner consistent with the code. Paul Penn, public, stated that it was an exaggeration because all the yellow highlighted sites were not duplexes on that map. Penn asked for clarification of the duplexes or houses with ADUs. Ohlson responded that a residential structure that contained a residence as well as an ADU does not a duplex according to the land use code. Ohlson noted that an ADU was not considered a unit of density. Bert Myrin said that the maps differed greatly. Ron Erickson asked the HPC vote. Guthrie replied that it was unanimous in favor of the project. Erickson asked who would be responsible for the park. Auger said that they would landscape their portion of the property and connect the path with a set of stone stairs and signage with a gift to the city. Ohlson noted that this park was not part of this application but the applicant worked with parks on the 4 ASPEN PLANNIZ,u & ZONING COMMISSION ..Iinutes JULY 16,2002 E landscaping. Erickson asked what the parking requirements were if this were a single-family dwelling. Guthrie responded that 2 spaces would be required for a single-family residence. Erickson asked how the residents would be more permanent than part-time if this were a duplex. Auger responded that she said that it would be more likely to be inhabited by someone who was a full-time resident if it were a duplex, since it would be more affordable. Erickson noted that whatever happened today could only be guaranteed for this point in time but not for 2 years down the line. Auger agreed. Clauson responded that they all agreed that more affordable housing tends to be more generally occupied by people that are local, whereas the very expensive single-family large houses are occupied by a population that spends time here and elsewhere. Eric Cohen asked where the responsibility for payment for-the path was held. Ohlson replied that Council placed a condition that the applicant's would be required to maintain, plow and built the path. Erickson asked about signage for the easement. Ohlson answered that the applicant would enter into a license agreement with the City of Aspen and the condition regarding signage from City Council for the use of the driveway by the applicant. Myrin inquired about the yellow on the map across the street from the applicant. Ohlson stated that the map from last week re flected that assessor' s records with multi-family but not necessarily duplexes or legal apartments. Guthrie said that there may be errors where there were ADUs or multifamily units. Guthrie said that there have been 3 other projects approved by P&Z on 3,000 square foot lots; she noted that 3,000 square foot were common in the West End neighborhood. Ruth Krueger asked where the trash was located in the structures. Clauson responded that it was in the garage. Myrin asked the distance between the house and the trail. Guthrie replied that it was 3 feet from the property line. Myrin asked if the planting would be in that 3 6 feet area or will it encroach into the easement. Auger responded that all of the lilacs may not be preserved in that one spot but the planting will not encroach. Tygre reiterated that the process was for P&Z to simply rule on whether a duplex was acceptable rather than a single-family house. The dimensional requirements, parking variances and setback variances were established through the HPC review, which were not options for P&Z review. 5 P8 ASPEN PLANNING & NING COMMISSION Min s JULY 16, 2002 Ruth Kruger said that the only difference in the structure built would be an extra kitchen and an extra parking spot if this were granted to be a duplex, all else would F. remain the same the size, FAR and architectural design no matter what the zoning was. Clauson said that the external structure would appear the same but the interior would be an extra household. Dr. Richard Johnson, public, stated that he and his wife have lived at 123 East Hallam for over 20 summers; they bought their Aspen home because of the historical nature. Johnson said that there were many original single-family dwellings such as the Mona Frost house, which maintained the character of their street with single-family dwellings. (Johnson distributed photos of the neighborhood, not kept in the record). Montage Johnson, public, stated appreciation for the commission's time and said that she accepted the fact that the colored map may not be accurate (many of the yellow sites were ADUs and not duplexes). Mrs. Johnson stated that she and her husband have done historic restoration in 3 sites and that they were interested in maintaining the National Registry for Historic Preservation and they were concerned in this case. Paul Penn, public, stated that he and his wife Susan lived at 134 East Bleeker Street at the corner of Bleeker and Aspen. Penn said that they bought their house in 1992, which was in about the same condition as the Frost house was today. Penn said that with the help of HPC they remodeled and enlarged it in 1992-93 but they investigated the zoning, historical guidelines, FAR and codes so they were well prepared with very few surprises. Penn asked if a duplex was appropriate in the neighborhood; he said the neighbors felt that it was an exception to the norm for a duplex, there were some duplexes but there was an easy way to find out which were duplexes and which were not by tax records. Penn stated that they were encouraged to build the ADU and a qualified local worker continuously from the day the occupancy permit was received has occupied it. Penn stated that they - were concerned about Aspen and did not mean to be contrary. Penn said that when a property owner comes for a zoning change (as in a duplex) there was no benefit to the society at large but the applicant had much to gain in property value by rezoning. Penn said that in his experience the property value increases with up- zoning and decrease the neighboring properties; he said that difference of increased property value should be distributed to the neighboring property owners in cash. Penn said that this method would remove the financial incentives of asking for a rezoning. Hal Dishler, public, stated that he represented Mr. Amato and appreciated the comments from the homeowners. Dishler said that he counted 12 bedrooms and 6 ASPEN PLANNIAu & ZONING COMMISSION ~,Iinutes JULY 16,2002 P9 asked about the ADU, housing goals, density and parking. Dishler said that density would be increased with this redevelopment and that there was a compatibility issue with responses from the people in the audience tonight regarding a duplex. Dishler said that the duplex would create greater density and use with a negative effect on this immediate community. Dishler said this would create an additional burden on the public services and create an additional safety hazard. Dishler asked how this project would make this occupancy a local or partly full time and asked to review the economic plan for this project. Bob Viera, public, stated he was representing Aspen Carriage Company and read the letter from the Company, which did not support the redevelopment plan because it did not fit into the historical character of the neighborhood. Denise Diers, public, stated that she represented herself and lived in one of the ADUs that was called a duplex; she also was the caretaker for the Kermit and Jenny Sutton property at the west corner of Hallam and Aspen. The Sutton's letter was placed into the record earlier. There was concern for the additional traffic that the duplex would generate because of the amount of children across the street, there was concern for the carriages at the slow speed and the traffic from the walking tours with the addition of this duplex. There was concern for the density in the neighborhood with the properties built lot line to lot lines. Diers pointed out ; her residence, an ADU on the map and the neighboring properties, which were not duplexes. Diers stated that she was not anti-development and provided her background as a real estate agent, political consultant with projects in town that she helped develop. Diers stated that she loved the ambiance of the neighborhood and asked P&Z to take a visual from the trail on to the carriage houses, which will be obliterated by the new development. Diers stated that there was no neighborhood benefit from the redevelopment of the path to Clark's and the additional density. Suzannah Reid, public, stated that she was the chair of the HPC; she said that they have worked very hard to develop incentives that help balance the benefit to the community from the property owner doing the restoration. Reid stated that there was an important balance to achieve and in this case she believed the community was getting a benefit from the work that was being done by this developer. Reid said there were impacts on the neighbors but any project had a benefit to the broader overall community for an appropriate as well preserved project as in this case. Jamie V. Hall, public, stated that she was a lifetime resident of Aspen and grew up with Mrs. Frost as her Aspen grandmother. Hall stated that she was impressed with what was presented for the renovation and restoration of this truly historic building. Hall said that impacts to the neighbors were inevitable and cannot be 7 . Plo ASPEN PLANNING & )NING COMMISSION Min_.es JULY 16,2002 diminished; she was please about the stairs down to Clark's. Hall said that the whole proj ect was preserving the overall integrity o f the historical aspect o f the lot. Bill Stirling, public, stated that he was the real estate broker that sold the property and he said that he was an old friend of Mona Frost that managed the property for many years from 1995-2000 when Mona moved to Colorado Springs. Stirling said that he did the best he could with what the trust allowed with a lack of resources for restoration; it was the last true Victorian without any restoration. Stirling stated that the barn was about to fall down; he commented that the Amato's house was a Victorian-style house not a restored one. Stirling stressed the HPC incentives were hoped to be balanced decisions to benefit the purchaser and the biggest to the town; he said that the photos from Mary Hays show how the house willlook in the restored state with the addition of a garage in back. Stirling said that if the duplex were approved it would add to the diversity of the neighborhood, which provided a greater chance for the long-tenn best interest of Aspen. Helen Palmer, public, stated that she has known the Frost family and a little creative zoning might be a good thing for Aspen and not a bad thing for the immediate neighbors that have changed and have been sold. Palmer commented that the West End was dark because the homes were not lived in very much of the time and not loved like when you live in a house all the time. Palmer said that this was a chance for the neighborhood to be a little lively than it tends to be in most of the West End at the moment. Palmer said that they see what happens when the little miner's cottages were changed and bear no resemblance to what they used to be with a bustle effect looming over them. Palmer said that saving the 100-year- old lilacs and the Mary Hays photo showed the eyebrow treatment, which was very special with a chance to regain some of the past. Palmer stated that this was a very good project for Aspen. Clauson said that he had to clarify some things that ownership did not define a duplex if it was a multifamily nature. Clauson said that if they erred in the mapping they apologized but tried to consistently show where multifamily uses existed. Clauson said that the purpose o f the zone district was quite clear with single-family and duplex uses. David Hoefer noted that in this zone district a single-family house was a permitted use and a duplex was a conditional use but the zoning did not change. Clauson said that the number of bedrooms show the final form with 3 bedrooms. Scott Lindenau stated that the average number of bedrooms in the West End was just under 5 per house. Auger said that the references to the quaint little red brick school was really 31,000 square feet of mixed industrial use; she said that there was a gymnasium, TV and radio stations with a large antenna and storage. Auger said that they were trying to 8 ASPEN PLANNI~ 6 & ZONING COMMISSION idinutes JULY 16,2002 Pll make their project as nice as they can by adding greenery and a little park in addition to preserving as much of the lilacs as they possibly can. Auger said that they do believe that a duplex would contribute to the likelihood of local people living there. Erickson asked i f they did not get approval for a duplex was the implication that the properties would not be restored. Auger replied no that was not what they said; she said there was no such comment. Guthrie noted that there were 2 historic buildings that they were significantly altered or deteriorated; benefits were created to try to assist with an incentive to have someone willing to take the step. Auger said that the package incentives make it possible to finance these historic preser-vation projects otherwise they would be impossible; she said that by not granting a duplex it would be a sever disadvantage. Auger stated that had she had not anticipated this request to be a problem. Eric Cohen said that it was the commission's purview to consider the 5 standards; he said that standard "C" minimizes the impacts on vehicular and pedestrian ' circulation was not met by this project with the duplex and the pedestrian path as conflicting and competing uses. Cohen said that it would have a negative impact by encouraging the pedestrian use and increasing the vehicular use. Cohen said that he agreed with HPC on some of the other things. Bert Myrin said that the criteria was not met because it did not fit the historical character of the neighborhood, another duplex may take away from the Victorian feel. Myrin said that the historic nature of the street did not appear more dense than 100 years ago; he said unless this were an RO or ADU then he said the price per square foot would not have a big difference. Myrin noted that this was the immediate vicinity or neighborhood and it did not extend to Nick DeWolfe's house. Myrin said that he agreed with Eric on the vehicular and pedestrian use; he said that the driveway use would be more intensive use for a duplex than it would be for a single-family home if the structure would be the same on the outside regardless if it were a duplex or not. Ruth Kruger said that she was torn with mixed feelings for the project. Kruger applauded the HPC preservation program but she stated concern for the school and traffic that maybe added to the path and driveway by a duplex. Kruger stated that she supported anything that encouraged local people to live in Aspen and not move down valley. Ron Erickson stated that he agreed with what Ruth said but wasn't having trouble with a decision. Erickson stated concern for the density with the children; he said the review criteria met #1 but he did not feel that it met points "B" and "C", which 9 ... Pl 2 ASPEN PLANNING & -ONING COMMISSION Min..es JULY 16,2002 were compatible to the immediate vicinity, location, design and operating characteristics of the conditional use for adverse effects. Erickson said that this i building will be built the same size as a single-family, it puts P&Z in a box; he said that he would be more inclined to approve a duplex if setbacks were adhered to and the building were smaller. Jasmine Tygre stated that the problems for her had to do with the size, dimensions and setbacks, which were not the P&Z purview. Tygre said that generally speaking additional density would be preferable, two 1800 square foot units. Tygre stated concern for the waiver o f parking and the impact on the neighborhood was going to be severe. Tygre stated that if the FAR bonus wasn't gained and there were fewer bedrooms there would be less impact on the neighborhood in terms of density. Myrin said that the parking may not be under the P&Z purview but it did come under the neighborhood impacts. Cohen said that it was ironic that by denying an application for a duplex you increase the chance that it was a seldom used trophy home and loose out on some sort o f mitigation for employee housing to maintain the exact same size structure and massing. Cohen said the neighbors would probably be disappointed because this was the same outer box as a duplex or single-family home. Cohen said that he did not think that there would be much difference in the traffic generated but he wanted to find a way to separate the increased traffic with the pedestrian needs. Cohen said that the project did not meet criteria "C" but he said that for every other reason wanted to approve the application. Auger said that there was a lot of discussion about a duplex resulting in more traffic and she said that there were currently between 1 and 4 trucks and hour that go to the Red Brick based upon her observation while working on the property. Auger said with people living in the houses there would likely be less traffic. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to extend the meeting until 7:30 p.m. Bert Myrin seconded. APPROVED 4-1. Lindenau explained the design solution as compatible with the scale. Auger said that the footage between the houses was dictated. Clauson said that if this were to be a single-family house it would lend itself to having the housing mitigation requirement met on site with an ADU. Clauson said even though an ADU would not be considered a unit of density, there would be that additional family as part of the ADU. Tygre noted that the ADU rules have changed to be a detached unit above ground. 10 ASPEN PLANNIZV 6 & ZONING COMMISSION idinutes JULY 16,2002 P13 MOTION : Ron Erickson moved to approve Resolution #19, series of 2002, approving the conditional use for a duplex on a 6,000 square foot lot in the R-6 Zone District with the conditions as contained in the resolution. Ruth Kruger seconded. Roll call vote: Myrin, no; Kruger, yes; Cohen, no; Erickson, no; Tygre, no. DENIED 4-1. Discussion: Cohen asked the allowed vehicular use on the pedestrian path. Ohlson stated said that there were very few limitations today, there were no signs posted so it was seen as a way. Cohen said with the City Council decision and proposal on the table there would be gravel; he asked if there would be any change in that allowable use. Ohlson replied that the driveway would be signed for pedestrian use and could be used as it was used today. Auger stated that it was a throughway called Sheeley Boulevard. Cohen said that if the driveway were only used for this project and Red Brick use, then he would have a different view of the traffic problems. Clauson and Auger stated that they could sign the driveway Authorized Vehicles only. Myrin asked ifthis was a P&Z purview to change the use. Hoefer said that it could be a condition of approval. Clauson commented that he originally brought this project forward prior to this applicant and at that time the Parks Department thought a paved roadway was the best solution; clearly City Council spoke in another direction and Parks was amenable to the new approach. Clauson said that if this commission wanted to make a condition for signage that the Park Department would find a solution to go forward with it. Auger said that having worked with the Parks Department she thought that they would welcome it because they were looking for a concept to limit traffic in amore appropriate manner, which no one has thought of this and she though that everyone would be pleased by such a suggestion. Erickson said that the problem with that condition was that it was not enforceable; he said that they were asking to restrict the use ofpublic land as a condition for a change in use and he did not feel that they were compatible. Erickson said that this was a public right-of-way used by the Red Brick. Erickson stated that he would change his motion if the applicant could build a duplex that was under 3,000 square feet and only housed 8 people maximum, but this house was too bug for the lot. Cohen said that wasn't what the issue was because that had already been decided. Tygre asked who chose the form o f mitigation for the employee-housing requirement. Ohlson replied that it was up to the housing authority. Cohen stated that he couldn't vote for the motion as it stood unless the applicant could get a change in use for that path so that it was restricted to pedestrian and emergency vehicles with a special permit. Ohlson responded that the applicants already had a license agreement to use the driveway. Cohen said if there were a restriction on the motorized vehicular use on the now increased pedestrian byway, 11 P14 ASPEN PLANNING & LUNING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 16,2002 he would be in favor of it. Clauson said that they would welcome that condition and would work to try to implement it. MOTION: Eric Cohen moved to include that the licensed area be signed such that only emergency vehicles or authorized vehicles were permitted use of the roadway with approval from the Parks Department. Ruth Kruger seconded. Roll call vote: Myrin, no; Kruger, yes; Cohen, yes; Erickson, no; Tygre, no. DENIED 3-2. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (07/02/02): LITTLE AJAX CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL/FINAL PUD Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing and continued it to August 6th. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing for the Little Ajax Consolidated Conceptual/Final PUD to August 6,2002; seconded by Eric Cohen. APPROVED 5-0. The commission adjourned into a discussion of the Board Reports at 7:30 p.m. Board Reports Ruth Kruger and Bert M)Tin reported on the COWOP. U - 4/ - . Lfed//800 k41Â·9(-2 ~ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 12 ml PARCEL ID:~2735-073-14001 DATE RCVD: |10/21/02 - #COPIES:| CASE NO~ HPC029-O2 CASE NAME:~Frost Property Historic Lot Split, Conditional Use PLNR:~ PROJ ADDR:~216 E. Hallam CASE TYP:|Historic Lot Split, Conditional Use STEPS:1 OWN/APP: The Frost Property L ADRj709 N. Spruce St. Clst ~Aspen/CO/81611 PHNA REP:~Stan Clauson ADR:1200 E. Main St. C/S/Z:~Aspen/CO/81611 PHN:~925-2323 FEES DUE:~1205 D FEES RCVD:|1205 STAT: F- REFERRALS| REF:~ BY~ DUE:~ MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED DATE OF FINAL ACTION:~ CITY COUNCIL: REMARKS| PZ: BOA: CLOSED:~ BY: ~ DRAC: PLAT SUBMITD: ~ PLAT (BK, PG):~ ADMIN: APPLICATION Frost Property Historic Landm ark Lot Split and Conditional Review 21 October 2002 Applicant: Camilla Auger The Frost Property LLC 709 North Spruce Street Aspen, CO 81611 Location: 216 E. Hallam Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Zone District: R-6 An application for an historic landmark lot split and Conditional Review, including on-site relocation, floor area bonus, and dimensional variances. Represented by: Stan Clauson Associates, LLC 200 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 970-925-2323 drAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Planning â€¢ Urban Design Landscape Architecture Transportation Studies Project Management 200 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 21 October 2002 TELEPHONE: 970.925.2323 FAx: 970.920.1628 E-MAIL: clauson@scaplanning.com WEB: www.scaplanning.com Ms. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street - Aspens Colorado 81611 Re: Historic Landmark Lot Split and Conceptual Review for 216 E. Hallam, Aspen Dear Amy: On behalf ofthe Camilla Auger, Managing Partner for the Frost Property, LLC, I am submitting this supplementary application requesting that the City ofAspen conduct the necessary reviews to provide an Historic Landmark Lot Split and HPC Conceptual Review, including on-site relocation, floor area bonus and variances, for the historic property known as the "Frost Property," located at 216 East Hallam Street in Aspen. This historic property, consisting ofan existing historic house, is located in the R-6 residential zone on a 6,000 square foot lot that also contains a portion ofthe vacated alley with an area of approximately 638 square feet. The property is served by an access agreement with the City ofAspen to use Sheeley Blvd. to access the rear ofthe parcel for garages and parking. The front parcel containing the historic house was the subject of an Historic Development application, which received final approval from the Historic Preservation Commission on 10 July 2002. That application provided for a duplex or single-family residential design on the property. Conditional Use approval for a duplex was subsequently denied by the Planning & Zoning Commission, leaving the property with HPC approval for a single family residence with an allowable floor are of 4,740 square feet. The proposed lot split will redistribute the same amount of floor area into two single- family residences, each on their own fee simple parcel. As with our previous approval, we believe this redevelopment continues to represent an outstanding preservation activity qualifying for a 500 square foot floor area bonus. This application includes a specific request for the 500 square foot bonus, to be allocated approximately 60% to the historic resource property and 40% to the new construction property. At this conceptual stage of the application, the resulting floor areas for the structures would be 1,874 square feet for the resulting reconstruction ofthe historic resource and 1,794 square feet for the new construction residence. -- PLANNING AND DESIGN 50LUTI0N5 FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CLIENTS City of Aspen Community Development Department 21 October 2002 Page 2 This historic landmark lot split is permitted under Section 26.45.110 ofthe City ofAspen Land Use Code, as amended by Ordinance 1, Series of 2002. This provision provides an exemption from subdivision and growth management, allowing owners of designated historic properties to create a second unit in addition to the historic building on their lot, through subdivision ofthe property. The lot split and resulting development oftwo single- family homes will provide the further advantage ofseparating the historic resource from the bulk and massing ofmuch ofthe new development. The rear parcel, by way of information, is a separate parcel that has been approved for development as a single-family residence, incorporating the historic barn found on that parcel. The overall property was previously the subject of a request placed before the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council for access, and the addition and rezoning of a portion of land to the rear parcel to R-6, consistent with the rest ofthe neighborhood. This request was approved by City Council on 8 July 2002. This request for a lot split on this 6,000 s.Â£ front parcel is consistent with historic preservation goals for the property. The property meets all the code requirements for a lot split, which can be granted without adverse effects to the neighborhood and will support the revitalization of an historical property that his been in disrepair for some time under its prior ownership. The historic landscape and forms will be preserved to the greatest extent possible, and the resulting structures will provide an appropriate streetscape transition from adjacent residential properties to the Red Brick Arts and Recreation Center. Attached are our responses to Sections 26.480.030 and 26.470.070, which show that our request is consistent with the applicable standards. With respect to the request for dimensional variances, it is understood that a newly created lot not containing an historic resource is not eligible for dimensional variances. However, dimensional variances may be accorded to the lot containing the historic resource. Accordingly, the non-historic lot is not seeking any dimensional variances, and the proposed structure will be conforming in every respect. The lot containing the Frost House, however, will require a variance because the width of the existing historic house is 27 feet, which will not allow for the required setbacks of five feet on each side of the structure. Therefore, the dimensional variance requested is a reduction in the combined side yard setback from 10 feet to 3 feet, with a zero lot line setback internally and a 3-foot setback adjacent to Sheeley Blvd. Smooth Feed Sheets TM Use template for 5163Â® ... City of Aspen Community Development Department 21 October 2002 < Page 3 We look forward to an opportunity to present our application for an historic landmark lot ' split on the front parcel to the Historic Preservation Commission and City Council, and remain ready to answer any questions that you may have regarding the application. Very iruly yours. /3-4-9 1 --- -1 - 6 f Stan Clauson, AIC.P. ASLA . ST?N CI.AUSON ASSOC]AL S, LLC Attachments 1-9: 1. Iiand Use Application Form 2. Applicant's name and address, and letter of authorization for representation 3. Response to Land Use Code Standards 4. Vicinity Map 5 Disclosure of Ownership 6. Architectural Drawings , 7. Survey 8. Red Brick School Plat IrmlonIes. 1. 20 copits ofapplication, 1.5 full size cop es oj drawuids U, items 7 aii,18. 2. Derooit for review of the application in the amount ( t $1:205. Pieviously piovidea. 1. Signed fee agreenient Ce: Camilla Aliger, Managing Partner, The Fiost Properly, LI.C ST.AN CLAUSON Assoc[Â·41 ES, LLC 200 E.751Â· MAIN STREE-1 â€¢ A,PEN, CO 81611 Planning â€¢ Udian Design â€¢ 7/ ansportanon Studies â€¢ Proica Management llIIII/.'II'IIII,,l'Il,llIll'/'I Ms. Ursula Cowgill P.O. Box 1327 9%\ 4 f Carbondale, CO 81623 PIANNING AND Di %1(,N 5()LUTIONh FOR COWWI X,T/ES .AND PRiv.ANz 5Â£Clt)R G N.\73 ~ ~AVERYÂ® Shipping Labels Laser 5163Â® .... LAND USE APPLICA- PROJECT: - Name: Frost Property Location: 216 E. Hallam Street; Lots H and I (also known as Lots N and O), and a por-tiâ‚¬cÂ»â€¢3 0 f vacated alley, Block 71 (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) APPUCANT: Name: Camilla Auger, Managing Partner Address: Frost Property, LLC, 709 North Spruce Street, Aspen, CO 81611 Phone #: 970 544-0745 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Stan Clauson Associates, LLC Address: 200 E. Main Street, Aspen, CO 81611 Phone #: 970 925-2323 TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): Conditional Use U Conceptual PUD Â® Conceptual Historic Devt. Special Review U Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) U Final Historic Deve:1.opinent Design Review Appeal U Conceptual SPA U Minor Historic De-rt. GMQS Allotment j Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) U Historic Demolitio*1 GMQS Exemption U Subdivision U Historic Designat ieÂ»n ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream U Subdivision Exemption (includes ~ Small Lodge Con-&1.(*I-siOIV Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane Â® Lot Split U Temporary Use E Other: D Lot Line Adjustment U Text/Map Amendment -------i.- - EXISTING CONDITIONS: Nescription ofexisting buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) - Parcel ofland having a lot area of6,000 s.f., containing an unoccupied 1,355 s.Â£ historic residence. - .-I PROPOSAL: (description ofproposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Provide Historic Landmark Lot Split, side yard dimensional variances, relocation, and floor area bonus to cirâ‚¬ate - two 3,000 s.f parcels, and permit redevelopment ofthe historic house and construction of an additional r-esi--<19:nce .- Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ 1.205.00__ Â® Pre-Application Conference Summary U Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement Â® Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form Â® Response to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents Â® Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents IN| Resnonse to Attachment #5- Review Standards for Your Annlication mmmmmm ATTACHMENT lA DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Frost Property Historic Landmark Lot Split-West Parcel Applicant: Camilla Auger Location: 216 East Hallam Street Zone District: R6 Lot Size: 30'x100', plus aportion ofvacated alley, approximately 320 s.f Lot Area: 3,000SF (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition ofLot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: Proposed: Number ofresidential units: Existing: 1 Proposed: 1 Number ofbedrooms: Existing: 3 Proposed: 3 Proposed % ofdemolition (Historic properties only): 2% (Existing Carr)ort) DIMENSIONS: ( WrrH +/-254 SF BONUS) Floor Area: Existing: 1355 SF Allowable: 1,674 SF Proposed.1874 SF Principal bldg. height: Existing.- 20' Allowable: 25' Proposed: 'Ir Access. bldg. height: Existing: NIA Allowable: 21: 12' Proposed: NA On-Site parking: Existing.- 2 Required: 2 Proposed: 1 % Site coverage: Existing: 23% Required. N/A Proposed: -NIA_ % Open Space: Existing: N/A Required: N/A Proposed: NIA Front Setback: Existing: 18' Required: 10'rmnimum Proposed: 18' Rear Setback: Existing: 21' Required: 10' minimum Proposed: 13' Combined ER: Existing: 39' Required: 30' Proposed: 31' East Side Setback: Existing: -3' Required: 5' minimum Proposed: 0' West Side Setback: Existing: 7' Required: 5' minimum Proposed: 1' Combined Sides: Existing: N/A Required: 10' Proposed: 1' Existing non-conformities or encroachments: Existing historic house is 29 feet in width and encroaches 3 feet on the proposed westerly parcel, the encroachment would be corrected by relocating the historic house. Variations requested: _Combined side yard setback. East and West side setbacks ATTACHMENT 1B DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Frost Property Historic Landmark Lot Split-East Parcel Applicant: Camilla Auger Location: 216 East Hallam Street Zone District: R6 Lot Size: 30'x100', plus a portion of vacated alley, approximately 320 s. f. Lot Area: 3,000SF (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slope Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: Proposed: Number ofresidential units: Existing: 0 Proposed: 1 Number ofbedrooms: Existing: 0 Proposed: 3 Proposed % ofdemolition (Historic properties only): None DIMENSIONS: ( WITH +/-174 SF BONUS) Floor Area: Existing. 0 Allowable: 1.620 SP Proposed:l.794 SE Principal bldg. height: Existing: 0' Allowable: 25' Proposed: 14' Access.bldg. height: Existing: NIA Allowable: 21'.11' Proposed: N/A_ On-Site parking: Existing. 0 Required: 2 Proposed: 1 % Site coverage: Existing: N/A Required: N/A Proposed: N/A_ % Open Space: Existing. NIA Required: N/A Proposed: NIA Front Setback: Existing: N/A Required. 10'minimum Proposed. 30' Rear Setback: Existing. N/A Required. 10'minimum Proposed.- 16' Combined F/R: Existing: N/A Required: 30' Proposed: 46' East Side Setback: Existing: NIA Required: 5' minimum Proposed: 5'_ West Side Setback: Existing: N/A Required: 5' minimum Proposed: 5'- Combined Sides: Existing: N/A Required: 10' Proposed: 10' _ Existing non-conformities or encroachments: Existing historic house encroaches 3 feet on the proposed westerly parcel. the encroachment would be corrected bv relocating the_ historic house. Variations requested: _None 19 Apri12002 Joyce Ohlson City OfAspen Community Development Departnent Aspen, Co 81611 To Whom it May Concern: This letter is to certify that I, Camilla Auger, Managing Partner ofthe FROST PROPERTY, LLC, 709 North Spruce Street, Aspen, Co, authorize Stan Clauson Associates to represent us in the hearing process for rezoning, alley vacation, and utilization of Sheeley Blvd- for access, for lhe Frost Property, 216 E. Hallam Street Aspen, Colorado. Their contact infbrmation is as follows: Stan Clauson Associates, LLC 200 E. Main Street ANpen, Co 81611 (970)925-2323 (970)920-1628 Fax Very Truly Yours, Camilla Auger Managing Partner FROST PROPERTY LLC Attachment 3 Land Use Code Standards Report Offered below are responses to relevant review standards as identified in the City Of Aspen Land Use Code: 1. Responses relating to Historic Landmark Lot Split 26.480.030(A)(2) Lot Split. The split ofa lot for the purpose ofdevelopment ofone single- family on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all ofthe following conditions are met: a. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24,1969. Response: This land is located within the Aspen Historic Townsite and is not part of a subdivided parcel, therefore this condition is met. b. No more than two (2) sites are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements ofthe underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c). Response: No more than two sites will be created by the lot split. The lot split is exempt from the provisions of affordable housing as an incentive for this type of preservation activity. 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 26.470.040(C)(1)(a). Response: No previous subdivision exemption or lot split exemption has been applied to this property. d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms ofthis Chapter, and conforms to the requirements ofthis Title, is submitted and recorded in the office ofthe 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 46.470. Response: The required subdivision plat with the restrictions stated above will be prepared for review and filing following approval of this application. e. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part ofthe applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Land Use Code Standards Report Page 2 Frost Property Historic Landmark Lot Split Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration ofthe plat by the City Council will be required for a showing ofgood cause. Response: The required documents will be prepared for review and filing in a timely way relative to this requirement. Â£ In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. Response: The existing single-family dwelling is an historic resource and subject to a request for on-site relocation as part of this application. It is not intended to 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 ofa duplex and a single-family home. Response: Only two (2) units are proposed for the parcels created by this Historic Landmark Lot Split. These will be two single-family homes. 26.480.030(A)(4) Historic Landmark Lot Split. The split ofa lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory ofHistoric Landmark Sites and Structures for the development ofone new single-family dwelling. The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), section 26.470.070(C), and section 26.415.120(A) of this Code, and the following standards: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum o f six thousand (6,000) square feet in size and be located in the R-6, R-15, R-15A, RMF, or O zone district. Response: The original parcel is 6,000 square feet in size and is located in the R-6 zone district. b. The total FAR for both residences shall be established by the size ofthe parcel and the zone district where the property is located. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. Response: Thetotal floor areafor bothresidences will notexceedthat ofa single- family residence on a 6,000 square foot lot, plus the requested 500 square foot bonus requested of the HPC (an previously granted to this site and a similar design) for an outstanding preservation project. c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements ofthe underlying zone district. The variances provided in Section 26.415.120(B)(1)(a), (b), and (c) are only permitted on the parcels that will contains a historic structure. Land Use Code Standards Report Page 3 Frost Property Historic Landmark Lot Split The FAR bonus will be applied to the maximum FAR allowed on the original parcel. Response: The proposed development on the newly created parcel meets all the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. The parcel containing the historic structure will require side yard and combined side yard setback variances because of the width of the existing historic structure. No new non- conformities will be created. Afloor area bonus is being requested and would be divided between the two parcels. 26.740.070(C) Historic Landmark Lot Split. The construction of each new single-family dwelling on a lot through pursuant to Section 26.480.030(E) [is exempt from the growth management competition and scoring provisions ofthis Title]. This exemption shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotments established pursuant to Section 26.470.050 or from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. Exemption review is by the Community Development Director. This exemption shall only apply if the standards of Section 26.470.070(B)(1) or (2), as applicable, are met. Response: This application meets the requirements for an Historic Landmark Lot Split and is therefore exemptfrom the growth management and scoring provisions of the land use code. It is further understood that this application is exempt from requirements relating to the provision of affordable housing, as no additional floor area is added to the proposed development. 26.415.110 Benefits The City of Aspen is committed to providing support to property owners to assist their efforts to maintain, preserve and enhance their historic properties. Recognizing that these properties are valuable community assets is the basic premise underlying the provision of special procedures and programs for designated historic properties and districts. A complete list of benefits available to properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures may be found in Section 26.420. A. Historic Landmark Lot Split This provision provides an exemption from the Subdivision and Growth Management Quota System, pursuant to 26.480.030 and 26.470.070, allowing owners of designated historic properties to create a second unit in addition to the historic building on their lot through the subdivision ofthe property. 1. An application for a lot split of a designated historic property may be filed by the owner by providing the standard information required in Section 26.304. 2. The procedure for the review of a historic lot split application is a two-step process including a public hearing before the HPC and the City Council. Notice for Land Use Code Standards Report Page 4 Frost Property Historic Landmark Lot Split these hearings includes publication, mailing and posting pursuant to Section 26.304.060 (E)(3) (a)(b) and (c) 3. Staff will review the submittal material and prepare a report with relevant information and a recommendation to continue, approve, approve with conditions or disprove and the reason for the recommendation. 4. The HI?C may approve a resolution, recommending that City Council approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the application. 5. The City Council may, by ordinance, approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the application. Response: This application is submitted in accordwith the provisions stated above. 2. Responses relating to Maior Redevelopment 16.415.07064 Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development 1. The review and decision on the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development shall begin with a determination by the Community Development Director that the proposed project constitutes a Major Development. A Major Development includes one or more ofthe following activities: a. The construction of a new structure within a historic district; and/or b. Alterations to more than three (3) elements of a building fagade including its windows, doors, roof planes or materials, exterior wall material, dormers, porches, exterior staircase, balcony or ornamental trim; and/or c. The expansion of a building increasing the floor area by more than two hundred and fifty (250) square feet; and/or d. Any new development that has not been determined to be Minor Development. 2. The procedures for the review of Major Development projects include a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. If a Major Development project involves additional City Land Use approvals, the Community Development Director may consolidate or modify the review process accordingly, pursuant to Section 26.304.060 (B). 3. Conceptual Development Plan Review a. An application for a Conceptual Development Plan shall include the following: I. The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. 2. A site plan and survey showing property boundaries, the location and orientation of existing and proposed improvements and predominant site characteristics. 3. Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all elevations. Land Use Code Standards Report Page 5 Frost Property Historic Landmark Lot Split 4. Preliminary selection of primary building materials to be used in construction represented by samples and/or photographs. 5. Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or streetscape elevations. 6. Verification that the proposal complies with Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards, or a written request for a variance from any standard that is not being met. b. The procedures for the review o f Conceptual Development Plans for Major Development projects are as follows: 1.The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for Conceptual or Final Development Plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060*)(3)(a), (b), and (c). 2. Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. 3. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. c. The effect of approval ofa Conceptual Development Plan is as follows: 1. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall not constitute final approval of a Major Development project or permission to proceed with the development. Such authorization shall only constitute authorization to proceed with the preparation of an application for a Final Development Plan. 2. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form ofthe envelope ofthe structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of Land Use Code Standards Report Page 6 Frost Property Historic Landmark Lot Split the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. If the applicant chooses to makes substantial amendments to the Conceptual Design after it has been approved, a new Conceptual Development Plan hearing shall be required. 3. Unless otherwise specified in the Resolution granting Conceptual Development Plan approval, a development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. 4. Final Development Plan Review a. An application for a Final Development Plan shall include: 1. The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. 2. Final drawings ofall proposed structures(s) and/or addition(s) included as part ofthe development at lA" = 1.0' scale. 3. An accurate representation o f all major building materials to be used in the development, depicted through samples or photographs. 4. A statement, including narrative text or graphics, indicating how the Final Development Plan conforms to representations made or stipulations placed as a condition ofthe approval ofthe Conceptual Development Plan. b. The procedures for the review of Final Development Plans for Major Development projects are as follows: 1.The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for Final Development Plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E)(3)(a), (b) and (C). 2. Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the Land Use Code Standards Report Page 7 Frost Property Historic Landmark Lot Split hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. 3. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the apphcation to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. 4. A resolution of the HPC action will be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.130 and no permit will be issued for construction o f the project until the thirty (30) day "call up" period by City Council has expired. 5. Be fore an application for a building permit can be submitted, a final set of plans reflecting any or all required changes by the HPC or City Council must be on file with the City. Any conditions of approval or outstanding issues which must be addressed in the field or at a later time shall be noted on the plans. Response: It is understood that the proposed construction relating to this application constitutes "Major Development" for an historic property. Material included with this application is intended to respond to the requirements for a Conceptual Development Plan. Following review and approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, a Final Development Plan will be submitted responding to any issues raised during Conceptual Development Plan review. 3. Responses relating to On-Site Relocation 26.415.090. Relocation of Designated Properties The intent of this ordinance is to preserve designated historic properties in their original locations as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical relationship to their surroundings as well as their association with events and people with ties to particular site. However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a property may be appropriate as it provides an alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that make it significant. A. Application An application for relocation shall include: 1. The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. 2. A written description and/or graphic illustrations of the building, structure or object proposed for relocation. 3. A written explanation ofthe type ofrelocation requested (temporary, on-site or off-site) and justification for the need for relocation. Land Use Code Standards Report Page 8 Frost Property Historic Landmark Lot Split 4. A written report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the building, structure or object, its ability to withstand the physical move and its rehabilitation needs, once relocated. 5. A conceptual plan for the receiving site providing preliminary information on the property boundaries, existing improvements and site characteristics and the associated planned improvements. 6. If the applicant does not own the receiving site, proof from the site's property owner ofthe willingness to accept the relocated building, structure or object. 7. Evidence that the applicant has or is seeking the necessary approvals to place the building on the identified receiving site. If the site is outside of the City limits, verification that the building will be preserved on its new site through a formal action of the other jurisdiction or a preservation easement. 8. Evidence of the financial ability to undertake the safe relocation, preservation and repair of the building, structure or object; site preparation and construction of necessary infrastructure through the posting of bonds or other financial measures deerned appropriate. 9. Supplementary materials to provide an understanding of the larger context for the relocated property and its impact on adjacent properties, the neighborhood or streetscape. Response: This application includes a request for on-site relocation of the existing single- family historic house. Relocation will allow the house to be re-centered on one of the lots created by the Historic Landmark Lot Split and provide for the installation of a new basement that will stabilize the historic structure. The actual relocation will be minimal- - approximately three (3) feet-and will not affect the relationship of the historic resource to its site. An engineering analysiswill beprovided aspart ofthe Final Review submittalfor the Historic Preservation Commission. Appropriatefinancial guarantees will be provided to ensure the satisfactory completion of the project. B. Procedures for the Review of Relocation Request 1. The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for relocation approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. 2. Notice for the review of the Relocation Request shall include publication, posting and mailing pursuant to Sections 26.304.060 (E) (3) (a)(b) and (c). 3. Ifthe relocation request is part ofa Major Development project, the Community Development Director may consolidate or modify the review process accordingly pursuant to Section 26.304.060 (B). 4. Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the Standards for Relocation approval set forth below, the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Standards Report Page 9 Frost Property Historic Landmark Lot Split Land Use code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine ifthe standards for relocation have been met. 5. The HPC shall approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. 6. A resolution of the HPC action will be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.120 and no relocation will occur until after the thirty (30) day "call up" period ofthe City Council has expired. Response: The on-site relocation portion of this application is submitted in accordance with the above-referenced procedures. C. Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one ofthe following standards: 1. It is considered a non-contributing element ofa historic district and its relocation will not affect the character ofthe historic district; gr 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; gr 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; g 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Response: The proposed on-site relocationfalls under standard 4 above, in that it will provide an acceptable preservation method and will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district. There are no immediately adjacent designated properties that would be a#ected by the on-site relocation. Additionally. for approval to relocate all ofthe following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts ofrelocation; and 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. Land Use Code Standards Report Page 10 Frost Property Historic Landmark Lot Split Response: This structure has already been approved for on-site relocation as part of an existing development approval. The proposed on-site relocation does not differ materially from the previous plan, andwould provide for the safe relocation, repair, and preservation of the building. Moreover, it would provide a stable foundation for the structure that would ensure its long-term viability. D. Procedures for Considering Request for Relocation of Properties Under Consideration for Designation. While it is the intent of this ordinance to preserve properties of demonstrated significance, it is also recognized that all buildings and areas of importance to the general welfare, prosperity and civic pride of its citizenry cannot be identified, evaluated, documented and designated at one time. However, it is important to protect properties which potentially qualify for designation against needless loss until review and hearings can be completed. 1. No relocation will be permitted for properties under consideration for designation to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures unless relocation approval is issued by the Historic Preservation Commission or City Council. 2. All properties under consideration for designation and, therefore, subject to the temporary stay of relocation will be identified on a list maintained by the Chief Building Official. Property owners will be notified by registered mail that their property is under consideration for designation and have an opportunity to review all materials compiled at that time to verify accuracy. 3. These procedures shall apply to any building located within an area under preliminary application for designation from the time the application is filed until the time action is taken on the application by the City Council. 4. If a public hearing to consider the application for designation is not held by the City Council within six (6) months of the initiation of the stay, the stay will expire. An additional six-month stay period may be approved by City Council in the form of a resolution, at a public hearing, with a showing ofgood cause. Response: This property is already a designated historic resource. 4. Responses relating to Historic Preservation Variances 26.415.110(14 Variances t Land Use Code Standards Report Page 11 Frost Property Historic Landmark Lot Split Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards. 1. The HPC may grant variances ofthe Land Use code for designated properties to allow: a. Development in the side, rear and front setbacks; b. Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings; c. Up to five (5) percent additional site coverage; d. Less open space than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic properties. 2. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Response: The only type of variance being requestedisfor side yard setbacks onthelot that will contain the historic residence. The historic house is 29-feet wide at its central axis and this required that variance be granted for both the side yard setbacks and the combined side yard setback. No additional non-conformities will be created as part of the proposed development. The conforming setbacks of the lot proposed to contain new development to the east, along with the substantial separation from the adjacent Red Brick Gymnasium on the West, will ensure that the historic resource is not adversely affected by the granting of these variances. The resulting development will be similar in pattern to other examples of 3,000 s.f lot development within the District. 26.415.110(E> FloorArea Bonus 1. In selected circumstances the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a. The design ofthe project meets all applicable design guidelines; and b. The historic building is the key element ofthe property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity o f the historic building and/or c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or d. The new construction is reflective o f the proportional patterns found in the historic building' s form, materials or openings; and/or e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or Land Use Code Standards Report Page 12 Frost Property Historic Landmark Lot Split Â£ An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions ofthe building; and/or g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. Response: A prior application for this site was approved with the 500 s.f floor area bonus. All of the above criteria are been met in the current application, which actually enhances the relationship of the historic building to the site by including most of the new development as a separate structure. Considerable research has been done to find original photographs of the historicfenestrationfor the fagade of the Mona Frost house. Two examples Of these photographs are provided as part ofthis application. The proposed design restores the original fenestration and removes non-historical windows that were installed in the 19501 The bulk and massing ofthe proposed addition to the rear of the historic structure does not protrude beyond the historic form in either width or height. Additional liveable area for the structure is added below grade, so as not to intrude upon the historic form. It should also be noted that this is a restoration of a considerably deteriorated and uninhabited structure, which will constitute a significant expense. 2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon the sole discretion ofthe HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices. Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood of being awarded additional floor area. Response: Criteria a-f are all met as part of the proposed development proposal, providing multiple elements in support of the request for afloor area bonus. The key criterion is "c," reflecting the research that has gone into the restoration ofthe original appearance qf the house. 3. The decision to grant a Floor Area Bonus for Major Development projects will occur as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.415.070(D). No development application that includes a request for a Floor Area Bonus may be submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how the proposal might meet the bonus considerations. Response: This application builds upon previous preservation efforts discussed in review - meetings with the Historic Preservation Commission. 1 ~TÂ· \ i -. ..V- \ " 1 . 1 , . I * I D - ' , 2,. 1 ' I '. . r 4 1 , i W . L' . 1 J .fÂ·â€¢t 4 +~1,0Â·3%1'1715:'4)1<Y - ~ , Â» . ar<,437..: r* - . 1 1 - :=13V . 5 -- . 1 1- ..-*--I--=--1-* . ---- . --- , .7--2- . 1 D-Â». Â· - t 'Â·3426~4: 4 4 - 4 -p 7 1 . 1 Â·e 9 K .. 1.., f 992*. - Â·Â·re Â· - -. 4 Â¢ 0 ..... ---Il--klf < 1%4 - . 1 :Fte 4.1 3 *i .-I 1 A , ~- - . - 1 1!tit, 4 % / 4. .rk 1. 1 %4: 4Et@Â¢ +16 1 . I ./ 11 31,11 1 4 1 -,9 44* 1, 9.111. ., 1.-1 K.N. .1 11 1 . .., , 4-3 tl. , lili 4 1 1. 1 1.1.110% 11' i : ., 1,1 - 4 - I. â‚¬ : * ---I Y g i S4 ' rbi- 1- 1 V a - . 0.. . L . -Ilk./ + -1 -4, I + + I ...4: - . 7 4-./..... -.-2*.K ... I I. . MONA FROST TRUST BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION/LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND VICINITY MAP el.T.S.) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots H and I, (also known as Lots N and O) and a portion ofthe vacated alley, Block 71, Aspen, Co (PARCEL ID #273707314001) 216 West Hallam Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 I. .. -V--6-~-1*-ji-- . 1 Hallam Street . -2 / 4-__-ft I 5 --\ :I'llililill"i" 1 Â¢_ Bleeker Street - .'ll. , . .1...3 -1 W, Main S ~reet (Hwy. 82) Â«Â·--- - -- - ---24 4. C .- 3 f,1,., 06./.-t. .11 I. D '2 ..1 W, Hopkinsi Ave 0 4/0. . 1.- 1.-1 fil..-*4.r :~ Garmis-Ch-St. ATTACHMENT 4 .19. 2002 9:29AM No.5885 P. 2 Attachmant 5 CITY OF ASPEN - CITY OF ASPEN WRETT PAID HRETT PAID DATE REP NO- 1 Up 4 i * 2/9 TRUSTEE'S DEED b. E * l 40 - O THIS TRUSTEE'S DEED, (rhe "Deed") is made by MONA J. FROST TRUST and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (formerly known as Colorado National Bank also formerly known as First National Bank. in Grand Junction), a national banking association organized and doing business under the laws of the United States, Trustee of the MONA J. FROST TRUST, (collectively, "GrantorD, to FROST PROPERTY LLC, a Colorado limited liability property, Grantee, whose address is 709 North Spruce Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, WITNESSETH that Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration to Grantor. in hand paid by Granree, the receipt of which is hereby confessed and acknowkdged, does hereby sell, convey, assign, transfer and set over unto Grantee the following described real property situate in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado: 42 See Property Description attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof. u Also known by street and number as 216 East Hallam Street, Aspen. CO 81611 f~ WITH all appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging, or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever of Grantor, either in law or in equity, to the use and benefit of Grantee, its successors and assigns forever; subject to covenants, easements, reservation, restrictions and rights-of- way of record including, but not limited to the Exceptions to Title listed on Exhibit '.'B" attached hereto. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the premises above bargained and described, with the appurrenances unto Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. And Grantor for itself and its successors covenants and agrees to WARRANT AND FOREVER ~ DEFEND Grantee, its successors and assigns in The quiet and peaceable possession of the above-bargained premises against all and every person claiming tile whole or any part thereof by, through or under Grantor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, U.S. Bank National Association, in its capacity as Trustee of the Mona J. Frost Trust, has caused its corporate name to be hereunto subscribed by its Assistant Vice President, Kenneth D. Roth, and its corporate seal to be ~- Â·~~ hereunto affixed, attested by its Trust Officer, Lori Hamilton. EXECUTED: January 24,2002 MONA J. FROST TRUST, UTA dated U.S. Bank National Association (formerly June 18,1970 known as Colorado National Bank and , By: U.S.Bank National Association - also formerly known as First National (formerly known as Colorado National Bank in Grand Junctiozi), Trustee of the Bank and also formerly known as First MONA J. FROST TRUST, UTA June 18, ...t'' National Bank in Grand Junction), Trustee 1970 ,. :41â€žc,L, ' - 73-2 b..~~ZE By: 7<Â« 3 -*cE .- ,Â· Jt@i Hamilion, Trust Officer Ke~neth D. Roth, Assistant Vice President 1 64-2041/1.3 Kerketh D. Roth0 AssistaM vice By: AW- ---.1 0 Â·Â·Â·<b'A President tori Hamilton. Trust Offied.Â·2 0 -,4 - ' LU.J...1 ..... Re,4-unt. 1-33 +Ituribbl Â·Â«FE,it-f~Â·I 1 El Iliff Im :1 1111111111 10 Ill 111 lili lili 463336 Pag.: 1 of 3 & s a / 0 , 80 9/ 6 9-1 01 /25/2002 03,20P SILVIA DAVTS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 15.00 0 170.00 3row-9 6 Tl Â»1 8PrÂ·!tl. ZUUZ 9 :29AM i j No,5885 P. 4 EXHIBIT "B" TO TRUSTEE'S DEED MONA J. FROST/FROST PROPERTY LLC List of Exceptions to Title 1. The lien for 2002 real property taxes due and payable in 2003. 2. Exceptions and mineral reservations as contained in patent recorded March 1, 1897 undet Reception No. 60156, 3- Right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States as reserved in United States Patent recorded August 29, 1958, in Book 185 at Page 69. 4. Basement and right of way for access purposes as granted to Aspen One Company in Deed recorded November 29, 1973 in Book 281 at Page 761. 5. Terms, conditions, and provisions of Subdivider's Agreement as contained in instrument recorded April 8, 1977, in Book 327 21 Page 25. 6. Easements, rights of way and other matters as set forth on the plat of , Trueman Neilihborhood Commercial Project recorded April 8, 1977 in Plat Book 5 at Page 70. 7. Easements, rights of way and all matters shown on Improvement Survey Plat dated January 23,2002 prepared by Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. as Job No. 25089C. 2897645_1.DOC I m In M i mm i lunI E ml il lm 01/29/2002 03.zop 463336 P.g.: 3 of 3 SILVIA OAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO It 16.08 0 17e,00 Apr.19. 2002 9:29AM No,5 P, 3 EXHIBIT "A" TO TRUSTEE'S DEED MONA J. 'FROST TRUST/FROST PROPERTY LLC Propertv Description Pamel 1: Lots lettered D and E in Block numbered Seventy-Onc (71) and Lots lettered N and O (also known as H and I) in Block numbered Seventy-One (71) in the Townsite and City of Aspen. p Parcel 2. A parcel of land being that portion of Lot 4, Trucman Neighborhood Commercial Project adjacent to Lots D and E, Block 71 City and Townsite of Aspen (according to the 1959 official map of the City of Aspen) described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of Aspen Townsite Line 4-5 and the West line of Lot K, BlocM 71, City and Townsite of Aspen, projected northerly (said point of beginning being the Southwest Corner of that parcel of land described in Book 343 at Page 518 0 f the Pitkin County records); thence North 14 degrees 50'49" East 37,98 feet along the westerly boundary of said Book 343 at Page 518; thence North 75 degrees 09' 11" West 59.82 feet; thence South 14 degrees 50'49" West 5.35 feet to the Southwesterly boundary of said Lot 4; thence south 43 degrees 08'33" West 70.54 feet along said southwesterly boundary of Lot 4 to the westerly boundary of said Book 343 at Page 518; thence North 14 degrees 50'49' East 4.77 feet along the westerly boundary of said Book 343 at Page 518 to the point of beginning. COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO 463336 Pagâ€¢: 2 of 3 01/29/2002 03:20P BILVIC Dâ€¢VIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 15.00 D 170.00 / Ab.1 *teill ,-11--. A /--43DE*%*& 1 * 4 / p \1. i f . 1 r Preve 1-1-' b \ E-T-7 f , f r.,MetÂ·' ui.pt*~>f' 1-- ' _.ILE?4=Ii-' 4-4<** ' 4 *ET*â€¢6*1/-7 " " ~*;fe.-~0*14â‚¬GArâ‚¬=0DCÂ«PATI-37ZJ*~*rrT*~-I;,I â€¢,9.tÂ«,+Â· 2~wi~~~:*war~geÂ·t:~:..111143 i W MPPI ilkÂ·' 1=~ ~~* 1Â»4 , .9, +-Â·-4 ... .....--*.. P ... - .-4-, , 0 1 * U -024-3 r.:CAA A#7 11 441~2~i 2 1 . 43441% . ' # Pim ' * tz.......tfDZ> tOi "~-'Ar r- 1 1 8 - 4 1 A . 9,1 " 1 f. .1 1, .' fi ,#4.& 44 - '/ 71 '' Â·~~f-j Â·kÂ«ItÂ·*I'Â«*ifi. :=1 -4:*4*+b~~3- 41- .Wig..41///gd b| 19:Wt:%***49-~Ag~28*N- . . i - f , i 1 4.Â¥t h \ . r-' 6.127:74*7~i 1+ it'T-k),yfkÂ·Â·:Â· 1- F ~--~ . e / 0 +20- if -ih 1 1 4/9 7 / 11 0 i 1 X.0/IK 'hu n ' ilp B ,/-r 4--=>-- .... . PAJ V.Sh i :li.. im L r . 4 I i 74-11[ MIC -4 -31 --3 - 7.0- -1=_E- 4 - 11 1 (' 1 . 1 1[- 1.4 1 1 0 1 :Al Mve Tr: Z~ f Â¢ 3/ , L==1*i - li ' ' 1 1 ' 1 1 - - 1 --1 y.. . 1 f Mo~*re C 1 . A /1 1 n Â£ bard 1 j Applit# M R 7--TE t.O 6-*14. ->* CATOR.1 G .0-4904 i /4 R 9 6 5,1 j I ' ./ 1 ' ..$ . ' *9â€¢ " 3,Â· 4-'-i 1~ &159 P>4 '*>22 r- 9 GH P Â¢ 60 1. --1 .Â·f A-of# 4-,-5.--ty ----- --61 --~A-7~i M - 37" f L-f . /4- /94,00 ~ ~-- - 1~ 'i, I , 1 & A ,/'7 -' 7 6 08A 4 9 9 9 1 0 4 & 1 - - -4 1 1 --'19-6-AP +I- - --9--rÂ¥-0-1-4-7-9 - -8-4 1-9 5701.1 11- - 3-14-0, Ul-44 -v ~ -43-40-toi~2 1. - 1 k 1 ... 44 1.1/ J J__ 74-+u; Lul Ag-~ OIL k 4\ W#d e./ 1 1 U 4 6104/ ' 4 ~21Â« I \- f i 3 1 ru~--~***-7-*, 4, , i I m - 1 J A . 1 Iii m / - 4 1 '-1/' I. 1 - L -~233~ * . 9 1 ft-9/ 1 \4 1/ 1 6 9 1 -- 44Â»3/Â«4.- ariliL-44*4 rr-Nud- _3>~~ 2 ej Â· ~21 - -tlf *Elf=:3~-- 7 - 19 . 6; fi-1 M :M *v 011 0 6 y * 1 ; - 1 + ; ,"ME, 1 t...4 1 5 2 1 1* m-c# rv 4-2 -1 --b-+-,-1- 1 1.1% 7. Â¥+17 1 -y -rt-.1.fLÂ© 451* n M . Ii==0./ I. 6 eÂ¢ 0.0 114 1- 1 \R f 74 /-1 1 ; 07$/ 0% I r e n , 7-0 1 !1-1, lili + P 1 1 -141 1Â» 1 11 1 1 WIP . Dek Pt i _- *4*91*52Â¢22*fiy 4%*alc 42zab#;40Â· -*)ER. ':-4* A t_ ..0 . W f 6 E V & 1- Wf' Â· â€¢2 . 1 A-t--Â·. - 1 - 1 W - 1/ 4 Ii. lit , \ 'FW'*94 /'I IIi a Al 11 -;â€ž7-44!. 11 IT 31; 1 . --1 3 411 , 11-11 1- iI'~ F lL Il till- 4 1 11 I /21 j'-7.1:.(11.-t -- 1 -1->\.1 9:K . I -j, "22 1193; 11- - V 4 9 --- Ar *1 TI 1 --- 1 -111 ... 1 1,441, 1 i 7-61 -- 1= ===ti I +1: - 7. Â· Â» Â·Â·g: U -- -* 'Â·tkaÂ£r 'rÂ· 111 111 4 / 11 iii I TH | h - 1 lit t/ 1 1 722.*Uk#3#.-- Â·: _ 1 --my,WAY - 1 ~ 1 1 11 F H i , re e I C, M *W 1 .1/ 91 L te' f 4' 7 9 1 , 91 01 jl. .1 - -- - H-- 1 1, p , M-, . ---.- 1 42#-- --Â·te#VI'Al#Â· 40 v - 10?t-MIN.tÂ¥ 1 %93+ . ..0,!54,"'AETC'*4 I-j*Aftl@fper 18'iI{/iJ Â·1 -4- .-:- 'Â· - -Â· -- :.p:.. ...u:Â·j:' WIL 1:h,1,1.A-*19 -3.Tu.:14........ r. .2 A - 1 - %. ./MI~11 - - JU**0:$:1:z#HYI~:~:,,AL. q-$.Â»Â» 11 111 1 11.1 i.4.1. TIll 1111 . . C:.. *47171/2.21*zÂ¥-9 11111.111 J lilli, 1 -1 [1114 3,2r?mekith-IDIâ€¢61 ~*WifferwiJPF 1 i l| .7 .4- I $ ' i Â·4 1 . 1. - UU.- liENU-Lwal?. _.6.- , ; . 1 1 . > 1 1 1. 1 1 -Ir t. 1111111 111 lili.1 1 1 -3097 4 #MM -fl __~ 'iI'li / 7-.Â·Â·LÂ·-~ .:'.21Â·Â·1 1 -4- .11 ~11'- - EM93*81*LIEDER14- i Â· WIM.00*61/740Â£.0 6 M...-14#R*9 4 illir + 4 23Â·,2-2, :'.Â·:':444'13.Â·*1Â·.bi. ' I ./ I l.30- - _-2/'-+Al ----*-,--,--------*i#.*--.*-#.----+----i- -----m..1-- 11-0 '- 0 1 10i' OV < ;4=--.UE.lu_f_t____j__~j~LILEÂ»Eliz~-.w-1--mi___~ r /1 r---~2*---7--A 41 . . fi--M-- &2-1 F, 'r--~-P-----0 - ~ --i--r -211.1--2.--1-1--EL.-1_1_1- 5 --------.---1/rL#$ -- 14' to-0 - *#Â¢ 0149. H,ve <9'em.,9 i g= Ht++4+H#fe" 1 9'Ti If++ftttiff 11111'11 1 J I Ft -4==,-"--2,-- 11:111]Y'44!1111 . \ 1 4 e . r _+uozÂ·:22:-----222--i-9*.AÂ·iii Â£1911 im.Hili,ii .,t , 114 l'il,IliN . 1 ?-,1 %.11 ] ~i.:11 t].lit].91.1 i.j..f iffl i .fl ' .11-jl: hi... Ttll-U f.1 -tid li i. 131Â· 1.i.R' i i.:4 i 1 i.,1'~?ffl ---- r. i--jÂ·Iltlit'j.1-'Â·~I.i;'Â·.Â·1Â·.Â·iÂ·1:1:'(1Â·~~i.--1-i.-131 ' 1..~â€¢~â€¢â€¢~;' ~,~~'' WV;l-[Â· .Â·1Â·~.11Â·ChÂ·I-'14~Â·I ~~ i;4.-11-'.. i --=-=-=*=.--5 4-I-- !1 1Â·11--!lit,-114,*,I,1.,4:~1 ..y.9.-'*i. ~.~Â».I4}:Ltj..1,2.1.L 11.41Â·14-11:1 Â· Â·Â· -Â·r ..2 - 1'1, 17~Â·TtiNÂ®,1#111~ !11 44%4*,.:441 1 Pr.kÂ«-0 - 4 19.1-*A:9 .1 1 .:tf.-i:9 ' 3;~Â·i...i " 1.-4'F:Hltj-'tlk' 4 1.b' i~~ 7. ir..'1*14Â·'413:11-1 -- - ' 2- ~ 12 11-- - -7.lili.,!1<Lic i . fit. 7. 1.9,4 Â¢1>24 J. C 3* - 3:Â· A? 4/Â· ' Â·' :'i 1>. I .' 1 ---- : .,1 ... .3.14 . i fl ~. * f 1. ftÂ· til % .1,4 '1 . . 1 - Â· ... . I ..:Ii' . 4 /& Â·Â·'Â· Â·Â·4 -Â·eN'.I- â€¢-Â· 07.; 1 "50 i .-Â· ,-' --Â·---- -.=e .*.. Â«D -Mt-JÂ·t-- ~W-- 2--FEEPINXIL'~iI J.~TIL.I.2-i-- -~--- -~~- f----J-~-"-7- - 73~7 - - ----- ---- Iff.~15 - "UNJ-Uf.2132*21EllILL--LF._.-_-_LILLI- ._. -fr--- --H.-/--7-~127 ULL-4..-.f, -1-i~*i- f_*f_- #LIC 2.-- 7-2 --ff.ib - 1410 -0 Al 779..147*Mitr ALLEY VACATION BLOCK 71 RECORD- POS,noR OF CORNER 5 - ~ ASPEN TOWNSmi PER OPACIAL FOUND =râ€¢ BLOCk , FOUND 1954 BLM X 105â€¢ MAP NOTES Â· Â· CtÂ»ER 'DIUIEN' 1 UHASS CAP 114.-DE / , ...--' -~ 1* SPU 1954 1978 0 1. TNiS PLAT 0â€¢AP) HAS Ute# CNE*TED *ROM OFÂ¥EIAL RECORDED DOâ‚¬tNENTF IND rIEUD OBSERÂ¥ATIONS WS PLAY â„¢Al) WAS PREPARED FOR â„¢E VACATION OF THE ALEEY \~~r~ BRASS CAP WO,a{EDIT NORTHERLY OF LOTS N AND L BLOCK n OF THE OFflcIAL â€¢Ar . CITY or 4*Pt,4, ASPEN TOWNSITE DATED NOVEMBEN 16. I55. PROCIESS Â¢5 UNAUTHORIZED- IME USE CÂ»: THiS PUT O,AP: FOR INYTHING OTHER THAN THE ALLA' VACATION 2 7% BASI OF **INGS FOR â„¢,5 SURVEY IS IkE RECORD BEARM OF SOUTH I> =2(2~ FROST PROPERTY 1 75'09'tf EAST, SAD BEARING WAS ESTABLESWED BETWEEN TMEJOUND ORIGINAL i * 90*LE. 1.26. 1 6.45/ 1989 DiTY OF ASPEN SLOCK COIDER NONIRENT /; TNE SOUTHEASTERLÂ¥ COme OF ' Asvel ST. IND HALLIN ST. AE 1%Â£ rc]UND vel#Nelt Al INE SOUIWNESTEÂ®21 CORIER ' .4/ 0 5 10 20.40,6 j OF MIARCH ST AND Hal.L.,11 ST. TIE FOU,E> 44*<IdENT AT Â·ASPEN ST. AND NALLAN ST. WAS USED AS TIE BASIS OF LOCATION THE FOUNO MEURER SERAFINI MEURER MIN 0-25 SHIWI HEREON WAS USED FOR TIE LOCA*ON OF LOT 4. rRLIMAN 18*mORHOOD colaERIAL PROJECT. 3. THE FOLÂ»le U.5 BUREAU OF Â·LAND WINAgEMEN7 {AN) IRASS CAI WOHIMENT SET IN 1954 AS CORPER 5. F THE ASPEN .OWNSIVE â‚¬STABUSHED INE Â·NORTHWESTERLY END OF THE ASPEN TOWNS!7Â£ LÂ»E 4-5. 10â‚¬ FOUND 1975 kl BRASS CAP MONUMENT CON# 5. ASPER TOWNS,Â·TE WAS USED TO ESUKISH NE 197#10=* OF SAm ComER. TME COINER 2 EKSY ASMEN ADDIr!011 1â‚¬AST ASPEN TOWNSITE). W.M 1 1 REPORTED Â»1 19.4 *S ..t ON THE ASPEN YOWNSFTE 00#JNDANY ONE 4-5. TIRS 1,0MU,â‚¬*T FOR COmER 38 HAS BEEN 08,(TERATED. THE 195â€¢ AND 1978 ILI) SURVEÂ¥S MABUSIED TES FOR TWE CORIER. 71 nE Te â„¢E SOUTHEASTEILÂ¥ CORMER OF THE 1959 -OFFICIAL IAP. CITY oF ASPEN. THESE omENG LOCANONS FOR-TIlt C z 98 w. 8. 2 THE OUDDEN HOUSE WAS USED Â¥5 13TAIUSH T:HE CORNER POSIT#* THE ASPEN ' ~~~~~--Â· SEE BOOK T77 PAGE 606 7- ./ 5 3.-4 1 TOWNNTE CORNER NO. 5 WAS ALSO ESTAIUS,ED BY THE RECORD I,FORNATIN FROM shi :51.:9 %561 '~~~3/7 .511.16 4, ..5 â€¢COL: LINE 4-5 THE *fERENT LOCATIONW FOR CORNER-ND. 5 AL-Se WAKES FOR GAPS AND Â· i 3-7.55 ASPEN TOWNSITE CORNER NO 5 WAKES FOR DIFFERING LOCATIONS FOR THE TOWNS,TE OVERLAPS FOR THE PROPERTIES ADJOINNG SAÂ© t#E. FOLID 1/2 STEEL ROD R ~Â»>4 -Al. -*.-- Â·-Â·-Â» ---L_ 1/432 40 -i , WITH RED FLISTIC Â·CAP -Â·--7- -, L.ZO ES:i 0 ~ O/ **El *120 1 --0 *-*el-K %+) A. â„¢E LOCATION M LOT 4. TRUEVAN NEIG}mORROOD Â¢01*ERCIAL PROJECT WAS ESTABLGH 8*,05#40 'TME SLINOWSION M.ATS RECORDED *4 PmaN toUNTÂ¥. N ..35. W 0.20. 1 7 - fil:; hs / A.$7 f 31 OF SURÂ¥EYOR'$ POSnON j~ 0> ~,0,Â·1< LOT R <41 \440â€¢Â· 1 5. LOTS D & E. 2 & 1, (W , 0), BLOCI[ 71 0*JOINAL *SPEN TOWNSt?t ARE OFACiALLY 1 k. 30 BY 100 FEET AS DEPICIED ON nE OFFIC,AL MAP Of ISPEk. APPROVED / 1951 4 N %56*46. 1:4- THE FeEÂ« OF LOTS WirHIN SA10 PLOCK ESTIBLISMES A FIELD LOT WIDTH W : THE,APPROVED PRACT,CE Or DIVIDING Tz TOTAL FELD WEARRED *LOCK LENGTH BY 19.9, FEEI FOR THOSE IN BLOCK IL TH15 DISTANCE fS AN ADJUSTWENT SO AS TO ~~ +40 - ~f EOUATE THE FEW WORK Or TO-OAY WIâ„¢ THE FED WORK OF YESTEROAY. F 6 â„¢E UntrrY UNES SHOWN HEREON ARE FROW FILD OBSERVATIONS Of LOCATTON Â£ 4.80, â€¢ANKINGS PLACED ON THE GROUND BÂ¥ THE WLITY REPRESENTATIVE. ' W.N...K'. 2 C...9~0Â£1, .//./ 4 W.*R 7. TMS SURI[X ODES NET CONSTITUTE A IFTLE SEARCH NY SURVIVOR TO DETERIFIE ./. UTLE OR EISEENTS OF RECORD. RESEARCH f OR THS SURVEr WAS PERFORMED IN BIL 5 i 152 J * , . 4 4 4Â¢ ACCORDANCE Wtâ„¢ COLSRADO REVISED STATUTES 30-ShÂ·106 AND THE ROLES OF SLO. 4 1 PROCEDURE AND 80*11/ UCY STATEMENTS OF THE STATE BOARD OF PROFEsSIONAL 1} .... 82 ENODERS AND PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS. SPECF{CALLY Â·THOSE BOARD RULE:5 4: (0) Sr 5 44 AND POUCY STATEMENTS RELATING 70 THE DEPICâ„¢N OF Â£*SE,ENTS Â·ARD NOMT-or- - ir VIANE . 9 WAÂ¥ ON SURVe PLITS. THE TITLE POLICY FROW UND TILE GUARANTEE COMPANY. â€¢ I. h V , tu ORDER Â·NO. 0382825. DATED JANUARY 29. 2002 AT &00 PM. WAS RELIED UPON ZOR t . 49. W ACTIONS OF RECORD. 4, S 14-52 ALL Wom,ATION REGARDNG EASE)*ENTS. RIGHTS-OF-WAY, 711Â·Lt. ANC> CIVIL COURT - - FOUND 1.2~ STEEL ROD 4Â·00' Rt - CORD WITH RED PLASTIC CAP m- 9 AUEY VACATION DESORIPTION :*. 12 MARKED ASE! 1Â®129 8. THE DOCUMENIS USTED BELOW WEPE USED IN ASCERTAP,ING THE LOCATION OF THE N :3'*1'10- E 0.30' THAT /14 8*- TME ALLEY .OCATI) NORTHERLY OF LOTS H AND 4 BL.OCK 71, PER THE PROPERTY SHOWN +ENEON. THERE WAY DeST OMER DOCUIENTS THAT COULD Ente T 1959 OFFKNAL NAP. Ort OF ASPEN, RECORDED AS RECEPTION NO. 81 THE TRS PROPERTY BOUNIURÂ¥ LOCATKI. BUT THEY ARE UNKNOWN TO SURVEYORâ‚¬ Of SURVEYORâ€¢S POSITION FOUND 6/8' STEEL ROD 4 -CI*CUE WH RED PLASTS CAP . ~~ .4 .1.1 OFâ„¢]Al RECORDS FOR PITKN! COMTÂ¥, COLORApo, SAID ALLIÂ¥*ING DESCRIDES AS: A) THE OFFICIAL WAP. CITY or ASPIN. APPROVIC 859 - 1. SL{Â»I B) THE TRIEWAITWEIGHBOR+4000 COUNERC.AL PROICT PLATS RECORDED â€¢4 1977 1 f i : LOTS K 2 *i s 887.10- w 0.89 Ff 0EGIN-G AT BE NORTHWESTERLY CORNE* OF 50dD LIT }t C) 71 8[14 1954 TELLER. ADVANCE DATA PELD NOTES. THIS SURVEY WIS NEVER QF St)RVEYOWS POSI , THENCE NOR*EASTERLY ALONG A PROLONDATION Or THE WE5TERLY BOUNDARY OF SliD LOI APPROVED BLOCK 71 H. (RECORD BEA**G AND DISIANCE IENG.NORTH 14'30Â·Â« EAST. A DISTANCE OF 21.07 0) â„¢E BLIA 1978 RESJRVEY. APPROVED 1900 4 FEET MORE OR LESS). TO THE SOUIHWESTâ‚¬RLY CORNER OF LOT D BLOCK 71 E) TIE 1896 WILUTS WAP OF ASPEN~ OR~GNAL ASPEN 4 7 . 6% n TOWNSITâ‚¬ 7+ENCEÂ·EASTERI:T ALONG IHE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF S*lf) LOT D AND LOT E. BLOCK 71 0 THE PLAT Or EAST ASPEN ADDITION, [AKA ASPEN TOWNSITE ADMION). AND 0Â«45% Â· 44% 6; 6 AS MAY BE,<RECORD BEAR*K; saNG SOUâ„¢ 75+0991Â» EAST), TO THE NORTHEASTERLY HUGHES ADDITION- THENCE SOUTHERLÂ¥ ALONG SAID NORTHERLY PROLOMGANON To THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER 9. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE PITKIN OMITY, COLORADO AND INCORPORATED " â€¢-tn 12 , ELE..c .AN.0,/'. 0 3 m , .1/Â¥ PEDEST.S BOUNDARY OF SAD ASPEN TOWNSIE BOUNDARY CINE 4-5 AS SHOWN ON THE -RECORDED G> DEED 70 .,AIES TRIEWA BOOK 276 AT PAGE 604. PLAT; H) MELREP SERATINI NEURER 1966 90<UNDARY SUNWEY. DENVER RÂ© GRANDE WESTERN des ' ta f i THENCE SOUâ„¢EASTERLY ALONG SAID ITY TOWNSITE BOU,(DARY LINE 4-5TOAN R.R. CO. le, i INTERSECNON Â¥/mt â„¢E MORâ„¢ERLAY PROLONGAT,ON OF THE -EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID 0 ISTRO COURT CIVIL ACT,ON, CASE NO. 02 CÂ¥ 40 LOT 4 BLOCK 71,(RECORD *ENIOG OF SAE BROLO,GAT+ON HEING NORTH 16Â·50â€¢49- 1) TRUSTEEâ€¢5 DEED RECORDED AS RECE'NON NO. 4033336 EAST}; OF SAID LOT l; AREAS, NATIONAL fLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM. FL-000 -SURANCE RATE MAP DATED AREA Of DEED BO~ 572. PAGE 003 1/ C TMENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAE LOT i AND li {RECORD JUNE 4,1,87, COMMUNITY-FANEL.-mER 00097 CO 203 C. TIE PROPERTY 5 . BEARÂ»NG BEING NORTH 75Â·00Â·11- WEST. * DISTANCE OF Â·60.00 FEE,1 TO THE POINT Of W~THIN â„¢E ZONE W. OR IN TIE AREA OUTSIDE TIE 500-Â¥EAR FLOOD PLAIN. * i 1 BESINNNG. S 14-42'02" W 8125 POINT Of BEgNNING FOR 1 10. NO Iâ‚¬W CORNERS FOR FRAPERTY CORNERS WER[ SET DURING AELD OBSERVAT+ONS FOR TE Come .32 DEED BOOK 572. PAGE 003 r. / - / ~ ~ 8# OF A*PEN AS LOTS N AND 0.-00* 71, ASPEN 7.OWNSITO. RECORDED DOCU~ENYS. THE Â·nGURES 61*RKED -FILD- ARE ADJUSTED TO CORRESPIND Fol;le cir- 0.062' - (LOTS H *ND I. BLOCK Â·72 ARE SHOWN ON TE ;939 OFfloAL VAP, CITY THIS PLAT. TME *ARINGS AND OETANCES MARKED AS ~RECORD' ARE FROM ntt CORNER WONUMENI ~ A- 0 TO Fllb CONBITIONS. 71â‚¬ DÂ»1'ERENCE *1 >EOUND PROPERTY UARK* POSITION AND 6 SEWEN - TE ABOVE DEÂ®RIFTKIN WAS WRITTEN hY: SURVEYOR'L CALCULATED LOCATION ARE NOTED. ~ ~ Louis k *Â»En,Â£& . 0040 WEST SOPRIS CREEK ROAD 11 THE EXISTING WOOD FRAME HOUSE Â·WAS FOUND WITHIN LIB H & 1,(N & O), OF W. BLOCk 71, ORIGINAL ASPEN rOWNS]TE, THE BARN WAS FOUND TO BE LOOAT=ED ON 49. - -cy 970-923-36/ LOTS DI E. SLOOK 71 AND ENCIDACHÂ»15 LIT 4. TRUE),AN NOGHSURHOOD (014â€¢ERCLAL @ASILI, OOLORADO 1 1/Â· ~8-/251 Â¥0 .51.1 PROICT. 12. THE PROPERTY DESCWPTION FOR 'F+ALLEY VACAMOIN SHOWN NEREON 18 BASED ON 3' SURVEYOrS CER']FICATÂ£ Â£ , 00 V THE 1959 OFF'lcIAL MAP OITY OF ASPEN. 1. LOLRS h. SUCTNER. A REGISTERED LANU SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO, DO :H f 11REBY CONFIRâ€¢ â„¢AT THIS PLAT WAS M,rDE FROW RECORDED DOCUMENTS ,â€¢ND FED NOTES .03 0/ A SURVEY OF TRE j*OPE*Tr MIDE BY WYSELF. ON UNDER MY DIRECT RESPONSEITY. SIPERvISION. AND OECKING. THE NONU).ENTATION SHOWN HEREIN ON THE PROPERTY WAS FOUND BleING THIS SMVEÂ¥. THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF TliE COURT CIVI. ACTION CASE z NO. 02 CÂ¥ *0 WAS NOT MONUMENTED AT THE TIE OF FEED OBSERVADONS ALL IMENWONS AND: OETA]LS SHOWN HEREON ARE CORRECT To THE BEST of WY KNOWLEDGE. n 1 i . TE . -0 2- SQUARE CONC. LOWS H. BUETTNER LS 13166 r i ' NUMENT MÂ»RKEO USN 0-25 UTÂ¥ ENGJNEÂ£R APPROVAL 26.66' CO RIL POINT ASPEN CITY COUNCi APPROVAL 1 , CrrY ENONEER FOR TME CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, DO DAÂ·rt HEREBY APPROVE THE PLAT (MAP) FOR THE ALLEY VACATION. BLOCK 71. ASPEN TOWNS,TE * THIS PLAT (MAP) 0# Al-LEY VACAPON. BLOCK 71. ASPEN TOWNSITE, WAS APPROVED BY THE f CITY OF ASPEN, CITY COUNCIL ON THE ___ DAY O.F _ , 2OD__.AS SHOWING TO BE RECORDED W THE OFFICE OF THE CLEAK AND RECORDER OF PIT,ON COUNTY, COLOR.1,0- ~\~ 4 THE ALLEY VACATION APPROVED 8Â¥ OR[MNANCE NO 1. * 1 - MAYOR te e. i - . - CrrY INGÂ»EER \ 4 1 '. 4 2.40 ATTESTED BY CrrY CLERK 1 1 .4 2,442 CLERK AND RECORDER'S CERTIFIATE '' ~ DATE T+OS PLAT [MAP) WAS F]LED FOR RECORD W â„¢E OFfNCE OF CLERK AND RECORDER AT X49/ \ 4,- .0 -.-. Oti.OCK:_ *, THE _ DAY OF .--___-____ 200_, AND }S RECORDED #N 400* PLA'T BOOK -_-- AY PAGE _____ AS RECEPTION NO. Â£0-UNITY DEVELOPIENT IPIROML THE COUMUNrTY DEVELOPMENT DRETOR FOR THE UNTÂ¥ OF ASPEN. COLORADO. DOES HEREBY ~ APPROVE MS PLAT O.1AP) FOR TE ALLEY VACATION. BLOCK 71, AS'PEN TOWNSITE. CLERK AND RECORDER '' COWWUNITY DEYELDIVIA ORECTOR NOUCE: ACCont> Ale Â·rÂ© COLOR*11'6 LA, YOU =eCE *Wr l:Â£0,1 ... I BUETI'l ...Eâ€¢Il ~cÂ·TioN 8*,ED u,ON ANÂ¥ W=EcT i. â„¢45 suRvEÂ¥ wirH#~ â„¢REE TE# 7 004~ :' toâ€¢eis ~E[k ROAC DATE ' AFTER rou F f IT DICOVERED Wch DEFECT .110 ./6. .LINY 8*.: ./.:ADD .6. ACTION BASED) UPON AMÂ¥ DUIES *N Â¥HIS SURÂ¥KY ~ CO~*ENCED WDRE 57.-g,7 .' Â· Â· TH*N IEÂ« YEANS 'ROM ....TE OF THE CERT IF t...4 01â€¢ 5,0*1, 'ERES. ~55;92731 POSTION JUWA, "E %47-OF; 40*0* 8 311Â¢NM 1 .2/7 k -23-2,127---- ---u--c~---2&-J ---- -------I-- ------ -------------Â· ----- - , ~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION ~ ' ' ~ CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL - THIS ASPEN ART5 AND RECREATION CENTER P.U.0. PLAN WAS REVIEWED AND LOTS A naOUGH I A}Â® LOT, I TEIOU- 3. TOUETIER WITI ADE) INCLI.1)111@ ,/-- A CERTAIN STRIe OF UlÂ® 4 IN ILLEY EXTE,Â®ING TWOU- OR IETIEEN ASPEN ARTS AND RECREATION CENTER SAID LOTS. ILOCE 64. CITY AND TOINSITE OF ASPEN APPROVED FOR WaRDING BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CL.TY OF ASPEN THIS LOTS E. F. 6 At FRACTIONAL LOTS A. 1. IND C, ILOCK 71. CITY ~aD B â‚¬ 75 7 4 1 4 /~2. DAY OF "A.4 . 1993 SY ORDINANCE NUMBER d;e&==:. RECO]UDED IN BOOK - IT PAGE _~._ OF TIE P 1 TK I N COUNTY RECORDS. TOIC ITE OF *SPEN P.U.D. PLAN 51 GNED TH I I -22- DAY oF ~5~â‚¬~6â€¢-â€¢AM-4993 ~L 0,.~t-~ 4 ~/~rl L h~\961__ TOGETIER WI TH THE VACATED PORTIONS OF NORâ„¢ ASPEN STREET AND THE ATTESTÂ· ~ ALLEY OF ILOCK 7 i LY 1 NG ADJACENT TO THE AIOVE= DESCR I DED PARCELS . WAYO~ 'T=247777 '- I STATEN COLO~ADO ' PER EU.D. AGREEMENT RECORDED IN BOOK _PAGE-- OF L.All. CITY Abl TOWNS I TE OF ASPEN Â£ TH E ASPEN ARTS AND RECREATION CENTER P.U.D. PLAN WAS REV ]EWED , , ~ PLANNING AND ZONING APPROVA COUISSION THIS Zi_ DAY OF Lf-4 , 1993 BY RESOLUTION NUMBER B.~-0 REUR NO CAP AND APPROVED FOR NECORD I NG BY THE CITY oF ASPEN PLAIN I NG AND ZONING SIGNED THIS - DAY oF -, 1993. | FOUte TELE CHA lilli ' ~ ..61-1 6--5 -2 1.- r i j. t. {329.PIA. 4 (10 rn, u.Â£7l~.~re CITY ENGINEER,-S APPROVAL 4- i /4 Z ' '** SCALE 4.4/ tin E-,=En 4:Â· Â·, 1-Â·Ch. ,. Â·. THIS *3~EN ARY5 AN0<,Et**2119~&*,,TER /.U.D. PLAN IAS ~REVIEWEED . 1 INCH - 20 FEET AND APPROVED FOR 840*kNEE.e*AITY oF ASPEN ENG INEER ING - - M Py Crw- i p.3. # 4-Ii.%~.i.ilij.=-# 4 ...'..8.:14:-ba.,rild..... t. 'kt-4.4. i.~ttfÂ·@Â· 1 2~ - 6 43(VI.f Â·jr '1: 2 f ELEC U \- v. 4. CO 4&10 PROPERTY OWNER & APPLICANT CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR' S APPROÂ¥*6Â·2 2 y , Vf/ONAL 0/ Â· . 4.\,Â· ..4-1.... Milf/;/f Â· C.:tunri ~Ae, WIL 10 / f 1 +1~1 -Â· 711* UPEN IRTS NE) IECREATION (IRER P.41.6. 44l aÂ»* 11~Â¥Ill/ C ..... 2.7,Â·#'folf'.tu...li .i:.1 ~ L CITY OF ASPEN - â€¢Ptâ€¢2â€¢0 50' 2,9'#1, 1'. Cl" CE u"'W"VI.4/7. 1. . *5-'FA : ~ it ~Â· Â· = - ' 130 4. GALENA ST. 't\ ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 042.)710#le .- li! ~ I & 2 2.,,... . V FLACING DIRECTQI 1 Z 1 01 . 9 SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE ft.Â· ~C T'.M L - TIE UNDER,111*ED *Tâ€¢TEâ€¢ n~T nE â€¢DOPUYÂ¥ *6&94,0 Im~N IN , 1.6. -1 . r : f 00-0 44-2 - -4 -- Ime *al* m.0--0 -*441/-0-M FIELD .Â¥10.19. .9.. 01 â„¢.7 W. -..44-*% I ..44 00.ANÂ¥ LI= 9.uCTD.=2*/9,44"Ney/7*/U - 'W 1Â» F #ELD MOENCE I INO- TO~ ENG*#,41 *~i~ 'llill,~ Al MDVA. LIT 4 TRLEMAN NE JOHIORIÂ®OD U"*Eâ€¢GROUND UTILIDE* /1111 - 8-5-00~ 4//1/'10***/RKÂ», /4/' I<ziMIENT. f ' OF nECOID -1 1/,UED 10 91)E DIVE'IDI IM UCE/Il-1 1,1. D-VEÂ¥ 1.. I ; i . I, 1 /lip 2..g-p*.Â·. A/&.431AZ<.1.-, . ... 2+ ~i .t ~' ' ~ ~' ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 4 1, R AIAi ' , COI.E.*AL PROJECT VOID UNLE:5 WET :TAMPED WITH â„¢E DEAL OF THE D-VEVOI,-*ELOY. A-ti -Â£;,1 ~ Xlvi 1 7. 2. '*. EASE-ENTS SIC- I N STEWART T I TLE OF AS,01. INC. Ti n.EACÂ»-1 nENT 2 .2 9 .. A X Â· > - IENERAL PUILIC UTILITY EAIDER ORDER NUI,BER 000833904 A,O DATED - AAE'Â·â€¢HO- WEREÂ©,11. IND SURVEY I PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH,~p,hAW). MITLE..38. 2~ Â·-j. Â·'Â· - -P DAVID W. M.BRIDE F - * - h ORANTED TO nE CITY OF ASPEN /) .,tricti s, 9 AMENDED FROâ€¢ TIME To TIME,d>> U L,/6-*LI ' L' T ..001[ 339. PA* Doe r - -ALLEY - 7Â« 1 2 1.9 : 6 . i s I GNED TH 1 5 ZLM>AY OF .71/1/Â£ . ~93Â·,â€¢~4*544>--*'*~ ~ , 1, Â·i r 2. ..:3 au ,~ ..,tul 1 .1.â€¢,L 1 ,[IZE:~ ,(.50Â£ -52';57 if~ 16129 CONNECTION e .. ~ . 1 1 ... P~. -ZI.- egy 0- 2~787 *'. _ ~ . ~ ~~ ~ , RLS 16129 Â·.NEZE ,.,0 , AN .ili - p - .... 61 t' \1~ CLERK AND RECORDER 2422234 --- 2 1' K~F 42â€¢' ~- e E-t tb . Â· 1 1 --1 g ex RECORD I NG I N THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND RECORUEE .OF F I TKil COUNTY i l 1l THIS ASPEN ARTS AND RECREAT ION CENTER REZONI NG MAL_Â¥*5 ACCEP-TED TOTZ 4 AT O'CLOCK w THIS -ag DAY OF ..2.fiL_. 1993 1 N PLAT F 8,!a, solooL PÂ· - 6~ mooill AT PAGE-* 3 As RECEPTION NUMBER. 42 Â» 0 1 ZONING P'UBL~I C J . \Y Â· 0- 4 40 1. 7 Lolâ€¢ 4â€¢21 5 31' 752(Â·Vfx Â£ 1 .... 1 L / CLERK AND RECORDER 1 CORRESPOND I NG PUD AGREEMENT F I LED IN BOOK - AT PA.E - E. t.-ve':Al .Â· / BARN 4. 1 4 3 1-0 2 -2 '~ -1-~ L 1 / LEGEND AND NOTES % rÂ·Â·- ';.-St'Lor: i /1/- t -- I Â·4 2 .1.:. J t. i i .1 : 4- -e -r $ 2 . FOUND SURVEY IONUWFNT â€¢ 5 REBAR WITH No CAP OR AS NOTED -.3/ CITY -1. f 0 ~ COR 36 1,Â·.~ BAS!3 oF BEAUNGS COUND ROUNDHEADS CL oF ASPEN STREET N 14-50Â· 49-E; MORZ. CHTL Er noRD. 22.3 78 / ,41~ . 42 1 - C * 4.1. - 1 L ' ' 22:4 i N 1 / :ji:' 441 f./ I. ..:1/ 2 - '-,;& 4 -1 ' 5:-,.* ~ ATA AS SHOWN - Ft,E '"D** W . . , 1 lAszsÂ·.i 2 TO 4 FEET OF SNOW AND ICE COVERED PROPERTY AT TIWE OF SURVEY k O x/30.36 1 - . i.- . i ' ..11 1 1- ...1,1 -,-,-, . ; -~ . 1. ..= - 9 : 2 2 .. -0 . -g--h ~, -1 7 2 SE GLIDDEN LEGAL DESCRIPTION IN TITLE Co-11â„¢ENT DOES NOT 1Â»CLUDE VACATED Rt- i HOUSE ADMEN STREET OR ANY PORTION OF T}gE ALLEY -1,1 ILOCK /t. IN â‚¬2+ k â€ž Â· r Â·- -tot.ff'i--2Â·.il -4 Â·Â·i--Â¢61 / 4 1 i A f i ,> : -',-.4- 4 I *. 41 1 9 1 M. OFFICUA W . O. CiTY.'4.,a .4. 4-â€¢ Fl'./M*ly Â· 60GATIâ€¢ImÂ· I.ni ./= 0E~L#' H<la *Tum -E -ill :lf ; 1 7-Il- - Â»-1 531-33-= .illyi}41.-tf 1-2-1-ig.* 1Â· -11"3 .24- ...i. i E 1 1 p ....An". 1.4 09. 000 4.#1*0-4- 5-Â» - k 1 OILIYUA!~ al 1Â¥0 1~Til W *7~*lll*ll Il f.,.i ril--37.Â»4Â·914#21Â·.,-~;03:-Â·1&14.Â·fi; 14 1 ..1 I. <W...~ -Â«-#-*-~ily 7 . 1 1 1 i a P -7 _--1- P# L , 1 :11 . . 2. - ; 1 1. ~ - 0,-. -: 4,~,7,1-:i - ]7 - b -4-*)- 7 / 4Ul'.1 Â· ~''~ 1 i L NICEL EXCE/19 IN n TLE , BET ,-* 11,16 *18Â¥EÂ¥ 9,/*1"10 V P LIA 1 r EAST# . . ..c... r. 11* cir,. .84* lillil.k -- ... . , 6 e O IET INOPERâ„¢ COR- 10.4 lill, lp.,W lp ~6*- '~P- .10*1 *01~*- . 8,01%%Â¥ MIECISION 0*NAI** 4Â¥1~10Â·4~~~ J.-4.itf -*4*g I i . , st. 5 , 1"IE"I,- i ,Â£ ~ , / 0-1 17/'Ir IU â€¢1 tyF Pâ€¢ IN :r - : f .i .F..7*.4 ' f 'Â¢*24? f..7.1 - . . ...,-Al,4 ..1 1 1 2 Â·Â·Â·# 1 . 184/61:131_ .ips.* 1 / . ' ..- *I. .... i:9 . .~e. - ' J~~ ~ :- i.#4 * 4 24#LI mi I I :.I: '* + I I I . : 1 1/ )~1 ~ ~~~~~~~.~~~~~ AIP" - LAND USE TABLE . -Â· Â·.-iÂ·N i.....9 19-tr.oiÂ·.4 ....1, 2'k .1 0 .1~ i" . . 4 7..4'tit-- .5:31-*ti 1 ".t , . - ..Â·2ft I~~ - 1711 3 ~9- Â·~ ~ 6.:---- C -5 A. Illtia/ DIâ€¢â„¢U MIWIEâ€¢ WILDI-01 19 Flir Â£ A l, 1 'ty ecid~ *1*1. 6 ;4 245: 1 $11'*3 11 C -' -4; . . .4-1 0,- .'.1. 9 . *. 1-1-0 -1-Â¢11*UIDI-Â¥1--04*10Â¥ i iÂ·1:~.~: 0 *1Â£ '=-413 1.2- 4 -4: 1':0 1.1 0=0-- L |' IM... r /1 1 .. AUNia. LeT /10â„¢, 80 FEEr r J , i f F , , , 4 j f 3 -4 -6 -: r lifl - MI f 1 ' 117-7,4 ' 1, - 4 -gur AREA: 8.9-nut; i.1;y.1 :--v 'Â· 145 .--:-t; 1 1 1. INTERNAL FLOOR AREA RATIO D.75:t : 1 ..6 3 ; 9 . - : 2 L:.- :3.- 't J. WIHIWIN PERCENT OPEN 3/ACE: No REOUntilENT - ' 1 K. OFFSTREET FARKING SPACES: 33 SPACES . . I ~ f PREPARED BY - y-%49 EflITâ„¢B Iyal-bING IZE) ;i I . 4, OR)GPUL DR}CK â€¢0100' 14.000 30.FT. ASPEN SURVEY ENG I NEERS, INC. CLASIROOh ADDN It.240 SO.FT kk P.O. BOX 2505 ~ ' '2T' - Gâ„¢.DSâ€¢T.OFF. AltÂ»(. to.560 50}.FT. $ FouND RolneHEADI .. / Ntt-50*49-E TOO.0 ACCoRD 1 - To ... Abe LAâ€¢ YOW ... CO~â‚¬NCE ...... ACTION 2 210 5. GALEN,A ITREE&_- - i 1 1 35.800 30.FT < CL ASPEN STREET gAMED UND* Alf' DEFECT IN â„¢I: PLAT Â¥1â„¢!K 71,mEIZ YEA;I AFTER YOU PHONE./PÂ» (3033' 925-33B 16 :â€ž. NE COR BLK 72 6 --- k ~ BASIS OF BEARINGS - FIRST blxxÂ»'EREt> 3UDI DEFECT. 1/ NO /%8:T. M. ANÂ¥ ACT;ON USED CITY KNOMENT -- -/Ey 6-331-1993 3 ' VICINITY MAP ASPEN, COLO.. 6161 r JU ACCEP : _Â· 70-, i M ANÂ·f DEFECr i M THI s ~LAT ~E Cowâ€¢ENC=) â€¢10~E TMâ€¢.N T~M YEA. JOt NO 230~0. FEE. 27.- 1093 : 3/2,2.1.- :Ir- ...... - Â· ' Â·Â·.' i~.*a ' ' .......:- CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Amy Guthrie DATE: 10.17.02 PROJECT: 216 E. Hallam Street REPRESENTATIVE: Stan Clauson OWNER: Camilla Auger TYPE OF APPLICATION: Historic Landmark Lot Split Major Development, On-Site Relocation, Variances DESCRIPTION: Ihe lot, Which is 6,000 square feet in size, is to be split into two parcels. The existing 19~h century house will be moved onto the western 3,000 square feet of the property, and a new 3,000 square foot lot will be created on the east. The amount of floor area that will be allocated to each new property will be established in the lot split The maximum FAR is be based on what would be allowed for a single family house on the fathering parcel, 3,240 square feet The applicant may detennine how that square footage is to be divided between the lots, bearing in mind that one of HPC's goals is to have the project result in a limited, appropriately scaled amount of addition to the historic structure, and to transfer most of the development into a structure to be built on the new parcel The applicant may not place more FAR on either new parcel than would typically be allowed for a lot that size in the R-6 zone district Olot including an HPC FAR bonus). A 500 square foot FAR bonus can be requested from the HPC and is applied to the total allowable FAR to be allocated between the new parcels. In order to meet the standards for a floor area bonus the owner must prove that some outstanding preservation action is being taken. Usually, the owner must hold a worksession with HI?C prior to a formal hearing in order to discuss the merits of the bonus, however given the board's familiarity with this project, that requirement will be waived. If any setback variances are needed as a result ofthe new lot line, those can be reviewed and approved by HPC at the Conceptual review. PROCESS: Step 1: Public hearing at HPC for Historic Landmark Lot Split, Conceptual Review, On-site Relocation, and Variances Step 2: First reading ofa lot split ordinance at Council Step 3: Public hearing at HPC for Final Review Step 4: Public Hearing and second reading ofa lot split ordinance at Council. Land Use Code Section(s) Historic Landmark Lot Splitâ„¢ Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.470.070(C), and Section 26.415.110(A) Major Development* 26.415.070(D) On-Site Relocation* 26.415.090 Variances* Section 26.415.110(]3) and (E) Review by: *Historic Preservation Commission, *Planning and Zoning Commission, iCity Council Public Hearing: Yes, for Steps 1,3, and 4, the Applicant must post property and mail notice at least 15 days prior to hearing to land owners within three hundred (300) feet ofthe property subject to the development appUcation. Applicant willneed toprovide proof Of posting and mailing with a affidavit at the public hearing. Referral Agencies: none Total Fees: $1,205.00 deposit fee To apply, submit 20 copies of a complete application on the forms provided by the Community Development Department, an application fee, and a signed fee agreement.