The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20000726ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION July 26,2000 REGULAR MEETING, 5:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS SITE VISITS - NOON- Meet at the first site. If you cannot attend, be sure to visit the properties on your own before the meeting. 129 W. Francis 232 E. Hallam 303 S. Cleveland 5:00 I. Roll call II. Public Comments III. Commission member comments and project monitoring IV. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) V. NEW BUSINESS 5:05 A. 3 c 520 E. Hyman Aire. - Minor Development - Public Hearing 5:15 B. 232 E. Hallam Street - Variance Request, Public Hearing VI. OLD BUSINESS 5:30 - A. 30 129 W. Francis Street - Final - Public Hearing VII. WORKSESSIONS 6:00 A. 303 S. Cleveland Street - Request to remove from inventory - Public Hearing - (continued from June 219. Worksession to be held instead. 6:30 B. 432 E. Hyman Avenue - Aspen Drug C. Annual HPC awards 7:30 VIII. ADJOURN LOJECT MONITORING 3-Â·82- nnÂ« 14- Susan Dodington 240 Lake Avenue- Greenberg 930 King - No Problem Joe's 121 5th & North - Ernie Frywald 330 Gillespie Ave. Suzannah Reid 117 N. 6th St. - Coulter 414 N. First- POLE 240 Lake Ave. 312 S. Galena 78 and Main 330 Lake Avenue Jeffrey Halferty 414 N. First- POLE 920 W. Hallam- Guthrie 101-105 E. Hallam 212 W. Hopkins Ave. 312 S. Galena -eidi Friedland 232 E. Hallam St.- Pace 117 N. 6th St. - Coulter 7a and Main Lisa Markalunas 939 E. Cooper- Langley (work stopped) 240 Lake Avenue- Greenberg 214 E. Bleeker- Brumder 330 Gillespie Ave. 5 10 4 E Ntt - Christie Kienast 735 W. Bleeker- Bone 426 N. Second 330 Lake Ave. 330 Gillespie Ave. Mary Hirsch 930 King 114 Neale Avenue (not active) 920 W. Hallam 400 W. Smuggler Street - Dodge residence 419 E. Hyman Paragon Bldg. 'lbert Sanchez 312 S. Galena 333 W. Bleeker Street 501 W. Main Christiania Lodge 330 Lake Ave. 121 5th & North - Ernie Frywald Rally Dupps 419 E. Hyman - Paragon 501 W. Main Street - Christiania Lodge 520 W. Main Ullr . ' 19, dJ - Frol,-.4, Melanie Roschko V .Uot 5 041 49 CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: 4 W. Hallam (Poppie's), expires April 26,2000 .29 W. Francis, Lot B (Vickery), expires August 12,2000 735 W. Bleeker old house expires Oct. 14, 2000 302 E. Hopkins- September 22,2000 HPC Legal Procedures (Submit affidavit of notice for PH - conceptual) Swear In Staff presentation Applicant presentation Board Questions and Clarifications PH opened and closed Board Comments Applicant Comments Motion Resolutions 2000 330 Lake Ave. January 12,2000 2. 333 W. Bleeker St. January 12,2000 3. 221 E. Main Street January 12,2000 4. 312 S. Galena January 26,2000 5. 501 W. Main St. Christiana Lodge Feb. 9,2000 6. 130 S. Galena Street, City Hall Feb. 9,2000 7. 520 W. Main Street Ullr - Minor Feb. 9,2000 8. 110 W. Main Street Hotel Aspen Conceptual Feb. 9,2000 9. 417 E. Hyman Ave. Paragon Feb. 9,2000 10. 330 Lake Avenue Feb. 23,2000 11. 213 W. Bleeker - Landmark Designation Conceptual March 22,2000 12. 7~h & Main Affordable Housing March 8,2000 13. 333 W. Bleeker Street March 8,2000 14. Aspen Grove Cemetery - fence April 12,2000 15. 834 W. Hallam St. - extension of conceptual April 12,2000 16. 920 W. Hallam Lot A - April 12, 2000 17. 920 W. Hallam Lot B - April 12, 2000 18. 213 W. Bleeker Final - April 26,2999 19. 240 Lake Avenue Parking Variance - April 26,2000 20. 505 N. Eighth Street - Fence Variance - April 26,2000 21. 943 Unit C E. Cooper variance parking - April 26,2000 22. 819 E. Hopkins Ave. partial Demolition - May 10, 2000 23. 330 Gillespie Ave. - Minor Development - May 10,2000 24. 110 W. Main Street, Hotel Aspen Conceptual - May 24,2000 25. 221 E. Main Street, Explore Booksellers - Final - May 24,2000 .945 E. Cooper Ave. Unit D - Variance Parking - May 24,2000 . 609 W. Bleeker - Conceptual - May 24,2000 -8. 1006 E. Cooper Avenue - Landmark Designaiton - June 14, 2000 29. 129 W Francis Strreet - Extension of Conceptual approval - June 14,2000 30. 609 W. Bleeker Street - Final Approval - June 14,2000 31. 424 E. Cooper Avenue - Minor Development - June 14, 2000 32. 330 Lake Avenue - Outstanding issues from final - June 21,2000 33. 419 E. Hyman Ave. - Paragon - Minor Development and variances - July 12,2000 34. 620 W. Bleeker Street, Aspen Historical Society - Minor Development - July 12,2000 35. 406 W. Smuggler Street - Minor Development - July 12,2000 ACTION: Minor Review S-2-0 E . *Vn - All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or development involving a historic landmark must meet allfour Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. Standard 1: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Standard 2: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Standard 3: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Standard 4: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. EXHIBII:Z~ ' . _ 64 1 94- 2,49 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods. Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson. Deputy Planning Director.~*0 FROM: Fred Jarman. Planner 5~0' RE: Worldlink Caid- Minor Review, Public Hearing DATE: July 26.2000 ' . exsittng window specs. window 16- 16" adjuslment. I 7- \ 1 99.5 ....*rf 1332 1 ~ slide down 1 4 window 1 ------ = 1 33Â£. Â·544 Front view of Caft with arrow pointing to window Sketch showing what the proposed window ' proposed to be remodeled. remodel willlook like. SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to make minor exterior alterations to 520 East Hyman Avenue, which is located in the Historic Overlay Zone District. APPLICANT: Christian Hedberg and James Guest. Owners /Representatives. LOCATION: 520 East Hyman Avenue. City and Townsite of Aspen. STAFF COMMENTS Staff feels discussion about this modification should include three recommendations. First. in order to maintain continuity between the two street facing windows. if the applicant wishes to construct a vertically sliding double hung window scheme. the applicant must also do the same to the opposite window to maintain this continuity. Second. staff recommends an alternative to the first recommendation to allow the applicant to modify the one proposed window and place a matching temporary horizontal mutton in the exact location on the opposite window to indicate a simulated divided light (double hung design.) Included as part of this second recommendation. the applicant shall 0 also be required to replace the original window upon termination of their lease or change in use which necessitated the window modification. Third, staff recommends an alternative to the proposed vertically sliding window scheme whereby the applicant construct a "easement window" which will swing open in full. Staff feels this suggested alternative would allow the applicant to achieve the "walk-up service" window function while maintaining a uniform front faGade. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the review standards are met and recommends that the proposal for 520 East Hyman Avenue be approved with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant agrees upon this approval to replace the proposed modified window with the original existing window upon tennination of lease or change of use; 2. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HI'C staff; 3. 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; and 4. All representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation commission shall be adhered to and ~~c~sidered.conditions of appreval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions UPEW< co 1 42 4 RECOMMENDED MOTION 4- "I move to approve Resolution No. - Series 2000 ofthe Aspen Historic Preservation Commission approving an application by the Worldlink Cafd for minor development for exterior alterations to 520 East Hyman Avenue, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado." EXHIBITS A. Findings for a Minor Development B. Application C. Resolution No. , Series of 2000 0 2 Exhibit A MINOR DEVELOPMENT No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds that all of the following standards (Section 26.415.010.B.4) are met: a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, massing and volume with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or is adjacent to an historic landmark. For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, the Historic Preservation Commission may grant necessary variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this Section exceed those variations allowed under Section 26.520.040(B)(2), for detached accessory dwelling units. Response: The project involves one minor alteration to the property, which affects one street facing storefront window. The building, originally constructed in 1987, has a front faGade, which includes two large windows with kick plates. The applicant wishes to replace the existing lower portion of the left window with a vertical sliding window intended to serve as an outside walk up service window for the Cafd. Staff feels that even though the building has no historic value, its faGa(le contains elements of an historical nature. Staff indicates that the two street facing windows should match in design. Changing only one window will create a mismatched storefront design detracting from the existing uniform design. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The proposed changes will not affect the character of the neighborhood. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: There are no historical structures located on the parcel and no historic structures abut the property. Therefore, the project does not impact the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. 3 d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: This structure is not an historic structure; however it contains elements of an historic design nature regarding the front street facing favade with respect to uniform display window design on the street elevation. Staff feels the proposed development is a minor impact to the architectural character of the Cafd front in that it might create an inconsistent window design not only with its opposite window but also with the adjacent two businesses, which contain the same window design. However, staff also feels this modification would not detract from pedestrian interest along the street. Additionally, the headers and sills will not change as a result of the window modification. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any ofthe following alternatives: > Approve the application as submitted. > Approve the application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. > Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) > Deny approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. 4 E 4,-64 23 World Link Caf6 520 E. Hyman Ave. Phone 970 544 0001 Fax 970 544 0006 To Whom It May Concern: Building change order for front left hand window. My understanding is that the building 520E.Hyman Ave. is only 13 years old and is not in a historical building, however is in the historical area of the city. We are proposing a building change only to the window, which is currently a solid double glazed window. We have a 5 year lease on the sight and would like to remove this window and replace it with a downward sliding window that will be in the same design and taste of the building. This will be replaced with the original window on the completion of the leases. The propose for this is to have a walk up service counter so the customer will not be affected with the congestion inside the building. This will not affect the side walk and traffic flow of people. Please see the attached diagram ofthe sight and building change. Kind regards World Link Caft Christian Hedberg Co owner 0 World Link Cafe 520 e.Hyman ave Aspen co. Building change order Front window left hand side take out ar with sliding down window. exsiting window specs. window adjustment. 16" 16" 1 1. 1 17' 0 99-5"' slide down Qi' window 1--- 0 County of Pitkin } 11 -4/4, ks) 1 AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS.[ 1 - TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION State of Colorado } '~ SECTION 26.304.060 (E) 1, 610/<5Â·r// /144: (524 f# . 9,2-67 2.*97-/4,â€¢,Â«being orrepresentingan Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the following manner: 1>BÂ¥-mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by EME&-29Â§1age,prepaid U.S. Mail to all ownersofpropeundred(300)feet of the subject prope~13.Migatuu on the attached list. on the - day of 9 (which is _ sprior to the public hearing date of 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the C 7 day of 1 0 . 19*= (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph o f the posted sign is attached hereto. t /18 -/ / - - Signamre 2 k~tnE ~7 Signed before me this /7 <- day A -- -IP.:,I/'-9,/- 4 +99_by v / 7 te 4 9 1200 D . - -=~~ 1- , C k#is T~ A.,1 6.-,2 Ve-D 4 44 gr; . 4,: WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL , My commission expires: )1-0/-2â‚¬2>i 1-- ,Â¢7-~ f 1- O.Ofâ‚¬24 m er .....O 118 -/ 44 A#Â£470 13*YA 1 IA Ng#4> Pl#lic'ssignature* - ~7' 1 emoâ‚¬. \ 1&. 3130 E -Al *,N gr, 31,/7â‚¬3~~4. *"b're ~T':' =2Â£05:f, + 1-2 - -- --- Li- 2 4/fle~7 -*'- +-46164=if-3/3 -+4~2.~59*4- '.. 'R Exhibit C RESOLUTION NO. -, (SERIES OF 2000) RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT TO REMODEL 520 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID# 2737-182-15-004 WHEREAS, the applicant, Christian Hedberg, requests minor HPC approval for exterior alterations to 520 East Hyman Avenue, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is located in the Historic Overlay Zone District; and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a property listed on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.415.010.B.4 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and WHEREAS, Fred Jarman, in his staff report dated July 26, 2000, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found favorably for the application, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on July 26, 2000, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards, and approved the application with conditions by a vote of_to _. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That minor development for the property located 520 East Hyman Avenue, Lot _, Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, as presented at the July 26,2000 meeting, be approved with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant agrees upon this approval to replace the proposed modified window with the original existing window upon termination of lease or change of use; 2. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff; 3. 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; 4. All representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 26th day of July, 2000. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney 0 Approved as to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 0 0 1. M i 1 Â»743 < >4. K~ Atele i 4 . 44 4 14 :'* 1 4 , 2,9 2 : 4 r .- 4 it t 9 th, 124 i PUBUC NOTICE l b P - 9 P 1 ~ DATE -- L[ TIME - râ€¢; ...14 , . PURPOSE--- 1 3 L 2% A C PLACE - ~ ~ Â¥ 1. / ... t ':11 2 2 1 W L.1 *,11 ' f ./ ./ 1 11,1/442 EXHIBIT,-~ . 1 -4160 [73 7 2.1 Â·- 710':.2/ : I. -22 --96, -LA.~~~411 &&-6~7~~~~ ;4*~4â‚¬24**444,z~_ .91 1 1 - - .3- 1 1- I -I , . S- --7-; A 'm r 5%* ..re , 4 . 69 , . 10./ --1.- di 5 i 5 ..~B--- .4 1@~t 1 i . . . 1 i *s :,0 .'.14 2-Â»9~'.4.7.-2 .. EXHIBIT -6=:22 6 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE CRITERIA DRAC may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards if the variance is found to be: In greater compliance with the goals of the AACP, or A more effective method of addressing the standard in question, or Clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. , LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT r-EXHIBI= JULIA MARSHALL MT DALY ENTERPRISES LLC 11 9-1 , 1 44 Z/1 )320 W AL-- lÂ»LAOIL-/ PI#Wld,F 66'Mwmlf) D,H$*f AÂ¥0 1 Co londo 14Â«*Â· Fleisof#4 240Â£ 054 +-Â· PÂ¢Eola.4 l't Â©f *t'u.~ fir Â« ?4,2/40+ st- 74 k JA// PAEâ‚¬, râ‚¬j ik& 1 Â·R Â·f,0. 1-4nymdijaj. All wiMAvout p r#6\0045. 1#klr 1 f, -1 0 6/sin UmburÂ¥r rlmmiuz~ County of Pitkin } 11*04 1 AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. ~ TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION State of Colorado } L..W SECTION 26304.060 (E) I, f) % AN T U Met<Â»pE.k , being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the following manner: Â»y mailing o f notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class, postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property with three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the day of , 199_ (which is _ days prior to the public hearing date of 430/ By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously 1,000 from the [D~~ day of d U l.00'h~ . +99-. (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph o f the posted sign is attached hereto. n . Â»f. Signature PUBLIC NOTICE Signed before me this /1*& day DATE kn TIME_ ' PLACE__.... Â·16TE.R. C.IT'sk#1, 2-11Â·r HAU- WITNESS MY 1108@riA~UbWL SEAL PURPOSE My commission e.11IWinber 5 ~ u.'.'-ht,IF A.-1:' 'U ' :B. 4ri, '.4,1.. - Nota~~~05:7 . ,/~277Â£2~~~ Al. #. 1 .' NCTU>ablic's Signaturd~A /09 4 . . - 1 21 Il-- '9\ . r, , 5 'j 1 % 111 f 1/1- ICÂ»~*ATION C~Â»ITACT n* - P14Tk~ rl 44~0 .r i ' 4â€¢1 '%Â£0 r., t,iU iv,-n,â€¢4â€¢,eâ€¢A ..â„¢Ce f... 0, 1.,8(, .fr=m My Comm-on Exple' Novemb= 42001 EXHIBI . 1 . .. 4 - 1 .~ '. Â»1, .K? T .11 ah. - 7. 12 4 :* It 9 I /*. P Ir 4 pÂ» ... p. -1.1 . 4 . I fi I. I '4â‚¬ + *bit . 0. 9 . *044 1 11/ I Pace - 232 E. Hallam . . + 0 . 1.Â¥ 4. , 1 7.: , 16 141~ L: ~Trail i It: 4 _- . ry 4, y .79, . 0 hi" I : 91.Â¥ I . . -- - . '1 - -*t k East Hallam ..r.. . , .. Clark's Market r I . /.4 - -. .-4 - . 1 - .: ~Trail -9/- ..D : / . f Proposed -/0/.A Trail Easement ~ ~" Â».. ..2 - V ... . 2 1 90 W . 1 I ..' â‚¬-8) ~~~71 MEMORANDUM [lau TO: Design Review Appeal Committee THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce 0hlson, Deputy Directorâ€¢JAO FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner RE: 232 East Hallam - Variance from the Fence Residential Design Standard for a 6-foot Fence and a Berm in the Front Yard Setback DATE: July 26,2000 APPLICANT: 28 31,1-1.11:.;17 1 1, 1, M 7~ 4, - a. 1 I. 1; 11Â» /1 11,4:, 1 ~*fi . Linda M. Pace /////1:,/2-~~t////16yTiv',4 i'0; ,,Â·&"'8 0 0-!Â®'ful REPRESENTATIVE: -.91 1 11" 1 Mt. Daly Enterprises, LLC 11 1 f : I LOCATION: I.*hk"-1. 1 1 ,1 I f 622 1,1 1 P 1 232 East Hallam 1/16. , I '1~110 1 ~ LAND USE: . '.7.J:.44. 2 1- - Single Family Residence . , *Â«'.#000,--00,4....... ZONING: One request is build a 2 foot, 8 inch berm in the front yard R-6 setback. Trees would be planted on the berm. 4..â€¢ Â«5', t~ c LOT SIZE: . , 4,1 19,555 ..:i- 4 .1 1 ., 3 4/,4*Â·' t. 1 4 /54':, +121*t f. FAR: ZI y. 1 71:fÂ£316&:26%*"811:Tr .. 4,500 square feet A U.* 1: SUMMARY: /apt, The applicant is requesting k variances from the fence and berm .. Residential Design Standards. In .il:,4,6 uS:FZ;64; - . addition, the Applicant will need to *W'*2..... - obtain an encroachment license from the City to build the fence in The second request is to build a 6-foot fence in the front the right-of-way, but this issue is yard setback. The partially constructed fence would be not the subject of this hearing. completed to the street to shield the property from the trail. '11(11~ . 4 REVIEW PROCEDURE The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance is found to be: A) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, B) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, C) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. STAFF COMMENTS: Linda M. Pace ("Applicant"), represented by Mt. Daly Enterprises LLC, is requesting approval for variances from the fence Residential Design Standards for a fence and berm at an existing residence at 232 East Hallam. Land Use Code Section 26.410.040(A)(3) Site Design states that where fences or dense landscaping exist or are proposed, it is intended that they be used to define the boundaries ofprivate property without eliminating the visibility ofthe house and front yard from the street. The fence subsection standard states that fences, hedgerows, and planter boxes shall not be more than forty-two inches (42") high, measured from natural grade, in all areas forward of the front facade of the house. Man-made berms are prohibited in the front yard setback. One proposal is to construct a 6-foot fence along the east end of the property forward of the front facade ofthe house. The fence would extend an additional 30 feet from the property line to the street in the public right-of-way. The picture on page 1 shows that the fence is partially constructed. A separate application to the City Engineering Office is required for approval of the fence to be located in the public right-of-way. According the application, the reason for the request is to define the boundaries of the Pace' s private property 4- 1/ C -&/I from the existing public 4 tti 1 trail, shown on page 1. Igeâ‚¬A.I,% ' >'Â·4,; ~ ,~ '.'' ?' â€¢'./...4.0 ,' Â· ,Â· Some "incidences" have Illilvi :*47 ..3'rl Â·Â·9 occurred on the east end of U Al Â·-,03: A-*' *314 .40 such as people camping on ~ 1 ,â€¢ 1. f .E i ' 1 11 'p-t '* ti4*~ the corner of her parcel. In exchange for approval Vib#I - r. '.1 2/i& I. 0 1 - of the higher fence, the I ' '64&,6,1&.' ~~ i I ul'llit:06' .4 41 . .:4 4 ?l Â¢ . Applicant will convey to -i' 11â€¢*1Â¥ .. the City of Aspen a permanent trail easement 0 ... ..X ,... 4 62 crossing the corner her .~2741~ . 4. .1. 34. -7 property. Staff supports this request for a 6-foot fence finding that it meets the intent of the standard, which is to define the boundary of the property without screening the historic landmark from the street. Staff also believes it complies with the Aspen Area Community Plan, Action No. 78: Improve Pedestrian Infrastructure. This action specifically calls for improving the east-west pedestrian travel conditions through the West End through the addition of a walkway that is detached from the street or that provides some separation between people and moving traffic. This trail provides an important connection from the West End to the Post Office, grocery store, Rio Grande recreation areas and more, even though it is not identified as a planned trail on the AACP's Open Space and Trails map. This picture shows the continuation of the trail behind the Applicant' s property. The trail encroaches on this, the southwest corner, of the Applicant' s property. Staff recommends a condition of approval be that the Applicant shall convey the trail easement to the City of Aspen within 30 days of this approval. If the easement is not conveyed to the City, this approval shall be null and void and the portion of the fence forward of the front facade of the house shall be removed immediately at the owner' s expense. The second request is to construct a 2-foot, 8-inch berm in the front yard setback planted with trees and shrubs. The Applicant constructed a berm in front of the house that encroaches onto the public right-of-way. Parks Department Forester Stephen Ellsperman has required the Applicant to remove this berm. The application states the berm would establish privacy for the EPFFFEEE@E[ residence, as well as to tie Yes. "together the front of the house so that the front porch becomes even more important to the street." The Land Use Code illustration to the right explicitly prohibits man made berms in the front yard setback as shown in the No. illustration to the right. Although the proposed berm would be smaller than the one shown in the illustration, it would have the same effect, which is to screen the historic landmark from the street. Staff recommends denial of this request finding that the proposed berm does not meet any of the variance review criteria. In addition, the berm would directly conflict with the intent of the site design standards. which states that where fences or dense landscaping exist or are proposed, it is intended that they be used to define the boundaries of private property without eliminating the visibility of the house and front yard from the street. In sum, Staff recommends approval of the fence variance and denial of the berm variance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the Residential Design Standard variance for a 6-foot fence, finding that it is in greater compliance with the AACP because the permanent trail easement, and denial of the variance for a berm, finding that none of the review standards are met and it directly conflicts with the intent of the site design standards, for a property located 232 East Hallam. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE STATED IN THE POSITIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. _, Series of 2000, approving the fence and berm Residential Design Standard variances for a single family residence at 232 East Hallam." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and StaffFindings Exhibit B -- Development Application EXHIBIT A 981 KING STREET REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS SECTION 26.410 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards at a public hearing ifthe variance is found to be: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Section 26.410.040(A) SITE DESIGN. The intent Of these design standards is to encourage residential buildings that address the street in a manner which creates a consistent 'facade line" and defines the public and semi- public realms. In addition, where fences or dense landscaping exist, or are proposed, it is intended that they be used to define the boundaries ofprivate property without eliminating the visibility of the house and front yardfrom the street. Section 26.410.040(A)(3) SITE DESIGN - Fences. Fences, hedgerows, and planter boxes shall not be more than forty-two inches (42'5 high, measured from natural grade, in all areas forward ofthe front facade Of the house. Man- made berms are prohibited in the front yard setback In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staffmakes the following findings: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, StaffFinding: Staffbelieves the variance for a 6-foot fence meets the intent of the site design standard, which is to define the boundary of the property without screening the historic landmark from the street. Staff also believes it complies with the Aspen Area Community Plan, Action No. 78: Improve Pedestrian Infrastructure. This action specifically calls for improving the east- west pedestrian travel conditions through the West End through the addition of a walkway that is detached from the street or that provides some separation between people and moving traffic. This trail provides an important connection from the West End to the Post Office, grocery store, Rio Grande recreation areas and more. However, Staff does not believe the variance for a berm meets this review criteria, and directly conflicts with the intent of the standard. The standard specifically prohibits landscaping in the front yard setback which reduces the visibility of a house and front yard from the street. b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; Or, Staff Finding: Staff does not believe the proposed fence or berm provides any element which more effectively addresses the site design standard. Staff does not believe this criteria is met. c) clearly necessary for reasons offairness related to unusual site speciJic constraints. Staff Finding: Staff does not believe any unusual site specific constraints exist on this lot that would warrant granting the requested variances. No natural hazards such as steep slopes, avalanche areas, flood planes, rock falls areas, etc. threaten this site. A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE APPROVING VARIANCES OF THE FENCE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD FOR A PARCEL LOCATED AT 232 EAST HALLAM, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. Parcel ID # 2737-073-14-050 Resolution No.3~1 , Series of 2000 WHEREAS the applicant, Linda M. Pace, represented by Mt. Daly Enterprises LLC, has requested variances from the fence Residential Design Standards for a 6-foot fence forward of the front facade of a house, and a berm in the front yard setback, Land Use Code Section 26.410.040(A)(3), for the property located at 232 East Hallam; and, WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following criteria in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, and WHEREAS The Planning Staff, in a report dated July 26, 2000, recommended approval of the variance for a 6-foot fence forward of the front facade of the house, and denial of the variance for a berm in the front yard setback; and, WHEREAS a public hearing, which was legally noticed, was held at a regular meeting of the Design Review Appeal Committee on July 26,2000, at which the Committee considered and approved the variance for a 6-foot fence forward of the front facade of the house and a berm in the front yard setback, by a vote of_ to _ C_-_3Â· NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Design Review Appeal Committee: That the Residential Design Standard variance for a 6-foot fence forward the front facade of the house and a berm in the front yard setback, Section 26.410.040, is approved for a historic landmark at 232 East Hallam, Aspen, Colorado, with the following condition: 1. Prior to any additional work on the fence andAN on the subject property: a. The Applicant shall grant a permanent and non-revocable trail easement to the City of Aspen for the existing trail across the property located at 232 East Hallam within 30 days of this public hearing. If the trail easement is not conveyed to the City of Aspen within this time frame, this approval shall be rendered null and void and the portion of the fence forward of the front facade ofthe house shall be removed immediately at the owner's expense. b. The existing berm in the right-of-way shall be removed within 14 days of this public hearing. 2. Prior to the construction of the proposed fence in the public right-of-way, the Applicant shall apply for apply for an encroachgn},license from the City Engineer's Office ' 3.4Â£47 Â£-Â·~'/SceÂ·- 0<t:zi U411 1 APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE at its regular meeting on the 26th day of July, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE: City Attorney Chair ATTEST: 0 City Clerk C:\home\nicki\Active Cases\Pace Res Design Standards Variances.doc F.rl= 1.-I_4 P' 11Â·im't 9:1 9 f :Â·0 ' 1 31{jl .1 1*Â·D SCAPE ARC HITECT Post Office Bcx 1537 UQLIA'M~RSHALL 23400 Two Rivers Rd #43 14 ":4! ' 9 '' ,4 , 1 MT DALY ENTERPRISES LLC Basalt Colorado 8 1621 0 1 !..4 01 , i# ,.,.I 'j Tel 970 927 3138 Fax 970 927 8487 1 - w Â·Â·' Â· 0 Â· ' i: I mtdaly@sooris neÂ· 1, f // i '9 I ''' .Â£ July 6,2000 Ms. Amy Guthrie Historic Preservation Director City of Aspen Dear Amy and the Historic Preservation Committee, Please find enclosed an application requesting a variance for a berm and fence at the Pace Residence located at 232 East Hallam Street in Aspen. The request for a 6' high fence tocated in the right-of-way at the southeast corner of the property stems from Linda Pace's offer to convey to the City of Aspen a permanent trail easement crossing the corner of her property. The fence will extend approximately 30' from the front property line to the street. The posts that are currently located in the field designate the length of the fence. This trail has existed for many years and is an important link to the post office and Clark's Market from Monarch and Hallam Streets and the West End. Its benefit is well appreciated. Unfortunately for Linda, the proximity of her house to this trail has brought about some unfortunate incidences such as her finding people camping in the trees at the corner of her lawn. The proposed fence will establish a clear boundary and provide protection for her property while allowing the trail to be improved so that this becomes an even mcre used and safer way to descend down the hill. While the easement for the trail brings about a unique situation, the historical aspects of the residence underlies the request for a variance for a berm on Linda's property within the front yard setback. Throughout the years. Linda has had various requests for improvements to her property brought before the Historic Preservation Committee. Linda has followed and established with HPC what improvements can happen and the nature of those imorcvements. With a former HPC. Linda's request for a fence from the wrought iron fence across me front or ner property was denied. Since the house is located where the head lights of the cars coming down Moncrch street shine directly into the yard and house, some type of screening is imperaTive. In the review of the house prior to the most recent renovation, HPC requested that the new addition not be visible from the street, thus emphasizing the historical cscect of the manscrd roof portion of the +dwelling. The berm accomplishes many things. In conjunction with the fence, the berm establishes privacy for a person who is helping the City have permanent access to the post office area. The berm. with the accompanying planting of trees and shajbs, fuifills HPCrs request for screening. The berm reinforces HPC's earlier decision to emphasize the historic aspects of the house by being a vegetative solution which does not compete I . 0 with the wrought iron fence. The vegetation ties together the front of the house so that the front porch becomes even more important to the street. The berm itself, at 2'-8" is less high than the allowable 3'-6" tall fence. The term is currently encrocching on the street but will be pulled back so that it remains on private property. I hcve spoken to Stephen Ellspermcn from the Pcrks Department and he has no objection to the berm. He hes been reviewing our plans and observing tree Drotection and tree mitigction for the duration of this project. I appreciate your time in looking ccrefully ct this request. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, L.J- uliÂ» C , 19~260,~ Julia Marshall 0 0 I - p k ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name Pate. R,-sid/.ne, 2. Project location 137. Favt Allam q-ir.,2Â·, AspBn G\Oracli For \,gal 0\26cription 9,Â£6 @-Har.h *1 Sh,Â£61- (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning Ru 4. Lot size \9,555.6 sq. ft 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number Linda M Â· Pac-8,- 915.1109 13% Paqi l--1 6Â£ Ilam Strke-+ 1 ASpen Colorado E 1 6 l ( 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number Mt. fllut En,4-<rpak.5 L LC P.6. 80% Â£505-1, ~2>ciscdt Co\Arada â‚¬All 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD 4 Mjnor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review Lot Split/Lot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) 1 8 incll-0 'Famil M Â©wf.lfint f apt>atintately 4,500. 51.41-. 5 borl Â¥ oozh 5 Pft vidus Appoods : variantl, Fequats 9ranted al' Firwl 824 re V i AN a YU cipproval on GL,4/ RE . 9. Description of development application A Pe\(645,> n I s r>que< 1-ing Q 1,1- 94 d lugh turvy 1 0~6 0- Co f-5 htljh *247 0,2. \r\ 9rovxt rel 561. boek. Tnt applicafton 6 40< a Varl'end ~r b wh R.egclentia.l 015/1 41 Stardard 9 " 10. Have you completed and attached the following? 4 Attachment 1- Land use application form 4- Response to Attachment 2 Response to Attachment 3 7-03-2000 3:16PM FROM HONDO PARTNERS 2102125474 P. 2 02/11/1995 01:18 9709204496 ASPEN PAGE 01 r â€¢,urn ,-UNLU YAAM 1 14,1,2, 2 1 652 1 ~e,4 /41 P .4 06/29/00 THU 15:40 FAA 070â€¢278487 LIFEIN â€¢ARNEN .1 04 Z r DagNITEB coM=uwrr, Dtvuon,m*t DEr.lrâ„¢*mI Agmpent :brhymeal ofCâ€¢yorAS'a DeÂ¥ I . -AD,NE,00â€¢ F- CrrY OF ASPEN C:*.i.~r Crr) "*1 1-1'nd Â£ M. Fae 6 (hweigmED,r A'M.:CAND AGREE AS FOUOWS: - - APPLICANT has gubmimd to Cirr = ppligdoa :br Ch=U~~;ar &424 i Yarl,ne-1 4.r _~se+tâ€¢u:k THE PROJECT). 2, APPUCANT undâ€¢r=:mod, med Iggt,$ 0,s Cky of As,00 Ordoll:cv No â€¢5 (Sâ€¢rie Of 4999} umbi,Â£1.1 a tâ€¢ =,cm- 6% Lâ€¢â€¢i V= appO=I- 1,4 mc izyin- of alI Foc#,102 kes h * condition pr-deng , , . ,Sl .. 3. APPUCA,r -4 CITY 4,9 d= 5,4- er 4, im =11&, or sce,- onhe peoposed proj-4 ir 0 - go-*13 2 11:11 emâ€¢ 0 =ccm# 0,0 n.11 min of "le caa 6,â€¢,ived in "93=6* mâ€¢ applica~- AFPLICANT =d CITY B,raer 00,2 61â€¢z i: b in *d amvs: of * p,Ses thz: APPUCANT m.kâ€¢ pa,ens of. initial 5.5.,111 1.4 - (551&&'gp pcm,St .ddhir,Ma com tw b. bilhod :D APPLIC.~rt aa â€¢ mon:hI, b.,6. AFFLICA,rrip- ddloo-i 00- mqzz:ru. MÂ»-bl: &,â€¢rh=**1:6*Kip,MIA APPLICA>rr *reeth flit 0/ tâ€¢=014 0, 8100*; 3,9-r cah liq,Mity ad will alle ./MI.â€¢41 Pemâ€¢=â€¢ up,m -ification by *w CITY *en B gy arâ€¢ -me = M- are t=urlud CTTY *mem g â€¢,111 be Demra- *rousl: 12:e gr-,r corging ofr=-r~ 1. Oâ€¢11 -08 m pe=#P~LECANT*5 appl=* 4. CITY #d APPLICANT Fwlhu .cm. *mr k h wal.tec:mble Sm: CrrY .,0 m Implem plwaling or Fix= *witna~*m h:Z==mon m *e Pla:mm; C-m=i= afor City Cm-1 m â€¢mable TaÂ¢ M==ins Commi~100 .War Ck, Coe=N A m.1= 1,0111, :equired &60 ler Frojecl m /*=6:. .04â€¢ss c=,ent bilth,g, - P.idia Ul Figr 00 duchice. 5. 'rboeÂ¢bwe. AFFLICANT wer-â€¢ 11= im ' - ofee CIrÂ¥7; 97,2=r â€¢f h rish, ,:, cglice 0,11 8=; plic,r , D ZI/0//3/&1:W/1 Of *M,tic*oca co;ap!â€¢t==m. Ani.ICANT skill p., Sn imaill deimil in ** --â€¢rs 641 0.00 -bleD 61*r_ 1,5 hod= af C=am-*, D...109.- g=frtima and d.:wal r.=ded .em *Cumi en ini&.1 6600*k APPI.MANT *n p., addidem, m-hly WIZinp m Crrf to rrimbual :ht CITY for * p,ocu.11; of & appils=on mes;ionad Soâ€¢e, *lud#1 900 .pe...1 mitâ€¢- Such p.,adk p.,tre= mh,11 b. m- Ikem 30 de, of 0- bmi:%5 d- APPLICANT Ult:*r,U:,mi lm fhil~e Io my Nugh acen,Â¢8 00= :hau be 90=1â€¢ ar m=pamies ofproeezing. a.4 ia= c- â€¢ill bulâ€¢ims pe=.im bâ€¢ 0â€¢ueâ€¢ -il *H - 4 crrY 0/ ASPEN AnucANT 41Â£-4,-4.1- ay: 2â‚¬22.4- 7Â»0. 1- muiâ€¢ -4 wo- P' Commenâ€¢, De,rubmmt *mmr 4.= JOU 3~ :4700 99 5 N. fna /97 hyÂ£.VEL<Â£ SKY, An-tuplU TA 73205 fum#-y..4.c 12/27~99 02/06/1995 22:49 9709204496 ASPEN PAGE 03 I --- - 9.2 LINDA M. PACE 232 East Hallam Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925-2709 June 28,2000 To Whom It May Concern: This letter authorizes Julia Marshall or other representatives of Mt. Daly Enterprises, as designated by Julia Marshall, to represent me in the following matters: 1) Apply for a variance from the Historic Preservation Commission or the Design Review Appeals Board with respect to the fence at 232 East Hailam. 2) Obtain an encroachment license from the Engineering Department of the City of Aspen with respect to landscaping at 232 East Hallam. All documents related to these matters should be directed to: Julia Marshall Mt. Daly Enterprises 23400 Two Rivers Rd. Suite 43 P. 0. BOX 1537 Basalt, CO 81612 (970) 927-3138 Sincerely, Unda M. Pace FROM : ALPINE SURVEYS INC PHONE NO. : 9709252688 JUN. 27 2000 05:09PM Pl SURVErofâ‚¬b CERn FICATE l, JAMED Ft 1245-SE Fc, HEFEDT C.EN'Irr THÂ»Jr ON hAAY 5, 1 196 I MAGE A VISUAL INÂ©rECT'ION AND A FIELD 'bURVErl[) L.CLâ‚¬m 1-1-IE [PRVEWÂ©r, FENE,mt} ADDITIONAL. T-rUZEâ‚¬) ANID ar.Fra#IN LANDS,OVE FEATUM.55 Of: THE MOF='EXIN- SHCWN 1--EF<EON. KID CHAINGES WEME KEND EXIErT- AS SHOWN ANP NOTED 1-Itile~1. AL f IN E fUMA/ETS, 1~NO, err: JANIED F REDEFA, c)â‚¬rf-g L. 5.1 1 214 SURVE-YON95 C EKTIFICATE 1, JAVIC?D F. 1UDER, 1--IE3<EIS,r CE,<TIFY THÂ« ON Arle.1L.4,2030 I k/IADE A VIâ‚¬x.*L I he#"EZ]-1ON OF TNE FACDFEK-rr S-lagNI 1-4 EKEON AND FOUND KIC) CHANIGE:b EXCEFT,NED eHOWN AMID k]OTIO H EgEON. AL-rINE tagymre, INC, mr-* ul,4AE?E> ft SEDEK., DAIES- Â· L.5. 1 [040 - - ~1 - -it: NOTE, PITKIN CCUNPr- TI11.2, INC. CAD E NO. FET-3906 rA WKâ‚¬) ObED IN THE PREF5%<0â‚¬1-04 OF TI-lie, SUA/Er: LEGAL DESCAIFT 1011 : DEGIMMING AT TFIE 5. W. CZE>KNES CF LOT Pl, DLOCK 71, 061 G I NAL ASEN TOWNSITE ; THENCE M 14- 50'Â·41" Â£ 166.12. FEIT ALONG THE V'/E5TEALT LINE OF 5/\ID LOT M AMD THE- EXTENSION TMERIOF, THEMCE 3 78~29'co"E GG. 06 FEET, 111-IliNCE 5 22Â°*5 'aD'E NG. 17 FEET, 7HENCE .5 12Â°51 'CO"W 75 01 FEET TO TME MORTM UNG OF MALLA 11 Â·STREET EXTENDE-12, THEMCE M 75Â°01' J) " W 159.65 FEET AL.Orl<3 .51/ D HZ:gTH LI MEL -RE) THE. POI N T Cf: bECE, 1 N TY I NG, COM-1>Al N I MS 19, 012 SQ. FT. MOKE OF~ LESS, /P PACE DESCIZIPnow #-) FOR NANOM AT 927-8437 FAX . . 9.3 FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY ---' J.re -6 - -31*Ah~cle - ' 2 20// 3 6 , Fidelity National Tide Insurance Company 17911 Von Kannan Avenue, Suite 300 Irvine, CA 926 14-6253 mull 4/.1 g..1 ter Commitment for Title Insurance Mdâ€¢Ii) National lille Insu-ce Compaq AS-Comp.. 1 , COMMITMENT FOR TmE INSURANCE FIDELITY NATIONALTITLE INSURANCE COMPANY,*Corporation, herein called the Company,for valuable consideration, herebycommits toissue its policyorpolides oftitle insurance, asioentified in Schedule A. in favor of the proposed insured named in ScheduleA, as owner ormortgagee of the esta orinterest coveredherebyin the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiumsand chargestherefore; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and 8 and to the Cohditions and Stipulations hereof. This Commitment sha# be effective only when the identity of the pmposed Inwred and the amount of the policy or polides committed for have been inferted in khedule A hereof by the Company, either atthe time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. This Commitment is preliminaryto theissuanceof such policy orpoliciesof title insuranceandailliabilityand ob#gations hereunder sha# cease and terminate fix (63 monchs after the effective date hereof or when the policy or polides committed for shall issue. whichever first OCCUr5, provided that the failure to issue luch policy or policies isnot the fault ofthe Company. This Commitmeneshal/notbevalidorbirdinguncilcountersigned byan authorized o#ker or agent. (NWFNESSWHEREOF,theO,npanyhas cau,eÂ¢#45 Commitment tobe*,dantÂ¢0*Â«4Â«*R)* *s~ikil~~ when counWhign*idbyanauthorked officeroragetuof theCompany, altiA*:ords,Bwfth_its-By**02*r#02-1.*r="Â»4, Commitment is effective as of the date shown in Schedule A a: tffective Date." -, -1,Â»- '2=ke A.-Cl"/Id. 81*11 0-MetityNâ€¢tic,Ia,77#eD,guranceCompeny Wo.M#-1700 M.- ar#Ji PUR;a Â¥(SEAL~ .acÂ¢5 f- 11'U./42 ATTEST (Al,Wal'.4 l-64 0(KeÂ¢..1*a*"-2 Auth~bff 51Â¢nacure ..0-7 . ADRM 27-045 0/94) ALTA COMMITMENT. 1900 Valid Only If Schedule A and B are Attached n U- .-... , 7 - . 1 ,.. . /0.'ll"locilithelitle'lltert,).Th/"00'.0--1.1*4.11'llâ€¢..d ... 6 $ 4.4 . COMMITMENT FOR TrrLE INSURANCE i SCHEDULE A 1. Effective Date: March 20,2000 at 8:30 AM Case No. PCT4906PR 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: (a) ALTA Ownets Policy-Form 1992 AmountS 0.00 i Premium$ 0.0Â¢ Proposed Insured: Rate: i 1 1 (b) ALTA Loan Poky-Form 1992 Amount$ 0.00 ! Premium$ 0.00 Proposed Insured: Rate: 1 1 1 I Tax Cerbncatl $10.00 3. TItle to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land~described or referred to in this Commitment il at the effective date hereof vested in: LINDA MARIE PACE 4 The land referred to in this Commitment is situated in the County of PITKIN State of COLORADO and is described as follows: See Attached Exhibit "A" ee Â·'r,k I- 1 MT}<1N COUNTY Tn'LE. INC. Sdhedule A-PG.1 601 E HOPKINS T#is Commitment is invalid ASPEN. Ca 81611 uriless the Insuring 970-923-1766 Phovisions and Schedules 970-925-6527 FAX A pnd 8 are attached. AUTHORIZED AGENT I 2@ . . 8.i,4 . V,t. EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION A Vactof land comprising all of Lots R & S, Block 71, in the City and Townsite of Aspen and aportion of vacated Hallams Street according to the Willifs Map recorded December 6,1949 in Plat Book 2 at Page 37 as Reception No. 97096, and a portion of unplatted Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., the entire parcel being more fully described as follows: Beginning at the Soum West Comer of Lot M, Block 71, City of Aspen; thence N 14Â°50'49 E 163.12 feet thence S 78'23'00- E 66.08 feet mence S 22Â°58'00" E 116.19 feet thence S 12'59'00" W 75.09 leet to the Northerly line of Hallarn Street thence N 75Â°09'11" W 139.65 feetto the point of beginning. -:SAA<~3,4-u_lote~--.7E- =.Â·--55.<n..U i.Â· -Â·;24*0Â·'4~242144idb@64..2.:, 6*94igf-1J#*.,kÂ·ikitk~s-P--~=-~- ,- - -- ...6--0.- 1 973 f=Er Â»."ail.*i~ ....2.0~ /73. . . U,CÂ·; Â· 'lkie SCHEDULE B -ISECHON 1 REQUIREMENTS The following are the requirements to be complied with: ITEM (a) Payment to or Tor me account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. ITEM (b) Proper Instrument(s) crea#ng the estate of interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record to-wit THIS COMMITMENT IS FURNISHED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, IT IS NOT A CONTRACT TO ISSUE TrTUE INSURANCE AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS SUCH. IN THE EVENT A PROPOSED INSURED IS NAMED THE COMPANY HEREBY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND/OR EXCEPTIONS AS DEEMED 14ECESSARY. THE RECIPIENT OF THIS INFORMATIONAL REPORT HEREBY AGREES THAT THE COMPANY HAS ISSUED THIS REPORT BY THEIR REQUEST AND ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS ACCURATE AND CORRECT, THE COMPANY SHAL. NOT BE CHARGED WITH ANY FINANCIAL LIABILITY SHOULD THAT PROVE TO BE INCORRECT AND THE COMPANY IS NOT OBUGATED TO ISSUE ANY POLICIES OF TITLE INSURANCE. --Â·-: --:- Â·,rÂ·. 32 1:.Â·i...l...4-= - a..Â«.-0- Â· -ZPU,-529.11-Â·1 ..74)- ..~-21....46Ateklff.1<~c-/ , -1--l:-f-=.3.- . 60-Â· .. ... .439 - ..; â€¢ W._:* SCHEDULE B SECTION 2 EXCEMIONS The policy or policies to be issued will contain excepkns to the following unless the Same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parlies in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements. or claims of easeinents. not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepandes. conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the prenises would disdose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien. for services. labor, or material heretofore or hereafter f.unished. Imposed by law and riot shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances. adverse claims or other matters, If any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment 6. Taxes due arld payable: and any tax, special assessment charge or lien imposei for water or sewer service or for any omer special Wxing district 7. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to e)tract or remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted as reserved in United States Patent recorded in Book 55 at Page 2. 8. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deed hum the City of Aspen reorded in Book 59 at Page 329 providing as follows: -That no Xe shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining daim or possession held under exis#rig laws" 9. Encroachments and ail matters as disclosed by Survay of Alpine Surveys dated August 16,1983. ... .1-u....: 4 L.-2 %41?Ty@-t =.t.- 1 Â»t-Â·lÂ·_-2 ~f;*~~.-,1-Â·-:.-Â·io-~~~45+~.4*â‚¬t~--Â·i-~1,:t:ili~tifM. i.f-ly---j...Et:-I. i. - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DISCLOSURES The Owner's Policy to be issued, if any shall contain Ae rollowing items in addition to the ones set forth above: (1) The Oeed of Trust, if any. required under Schedule B-Section 1. (2) Water rights. daims or title to water. (NOTE THIS EXCEPTION WILL APPEAR ON â„¢E OWNERS AND MORTGAGE POLiCY TO BE ISSUED HEREUNDER) Pursuant to Insurance Regulabon 89-2: NOTE: Each title entity shall notify in wriOng every prospective insured in an owner's title insurance policy for a single family residence (including a condominim or 4ownhouge unit) (i) of that title= eritity's general requirements for the deletion of an exception or exclusion to coverage relating to unmed mechanics or materialmens liens. except when said coverage or insurance is extended to the i,sured under the terms of the policy. A saesfactory amdavit and agreement indemnifying the Company against unfiled mechanics' and/or Materialmen's Uens executed by the persons indicated in the attached copy of said amdavit must be furnished to the Company. Upon receipt of these Items and any others requirements to be specined by the Company upon request. Pre-printed Item Number 4 may be deleted from the Ownefs policy when issued. Please contact the Company for further information. NoN,itt~standing the foregoing, nothing contained in this Paragraph shall be deemed to impose any requirement upon any title insurer to provide mechanics or materialmens lien coverage. NOTE W the Company conducts the owners or loan closing under circumstances where it is responsible for the recording ornling of legal documents from said transaction, the Company will be deemed to have provided "Gap Coverage". Pursuant to Senate Bm 91-14 (CRS 10.11-122); (a) The Subject Real Property may be located in a Special Taxing District (b) A Certincate of Taxes Due listing each ta,dng jurisdiction may be obtained form tle County tmasurer of the County Treasurefs Authorized Agent (c) inforrnation regarding Specia! Districts and the boundaries of such districts may ie obtained from the Board - U 4 - l of cour,4 Commissioners, the County Crerk and Recorderi or me County Asses:ion - - .1 - 5. i NOTE: A tax Certificate will be ordered from the County Treasurer by the Company and the costs thereof charged to the proposed insured unless written instruction to the contrary are received by the company prior to the issuance of the Title Policy anticipated by this Commitment This commitment is invalid unless Schedule B.Section 2 the Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No. PCT-3906PR A and B are attached. 0 4. UY-~ ' CONDmONS AND STIFULATIONS .D 1. Theterm"mortgage",whenused herein,shallindudedeed of trust, trustdeed, orothersecurity instrument. 2 If the proposed Insured hai or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien, e,cumbrance. advene daim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof. and shall fail to dilidose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability forany loss ordamageresulting fromanyactof reliancehereon tothe extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disdosesuch knowledge totheCompany,oriftheCompany otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect,lien, encumbrance. advene daim orother matter,the Company at its option mayamend Schedule Bof this Commitment accordingly. but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previouily incurred punuant to paragraph 3 of these ConditionÂ¢ and Stipulations. 3. Uability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual !055 incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to crimply with the requirements hereof. or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create theestate of interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment In no event shallsuch liabilit, exceed the amount stated in khedule A for the policy or policies committed for and luci liability i; subject to the insuring provisions, exclusion from coverage, and the Conditions and Stipulations of the form of policy or policies committed for In favor of the proposed Imured which are hereby Incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commimlent except as expressly modified herein. 1 4. Any claim of loss ordamage, whetheror notbased on negligence, and which ar sesoutofthestatusoftile title to the estateor interestorthe lien ofthe insured mortgage covered hereby orany action assertingsuchdaim, shall be restricted to the provisions and Conditions and Stipulations of the Commitment. , ' 4,8 '18 C K,4 Â§ .,7, 014 :1 KN & $ 40 I. 0 s' '' 4 29 1,) 1 1 - 62; 2-20/724/ , Tr-' f - . _..- ..*.~ 02%01 . It I /4 ... t)% 07 1 / i 3,--1 & 4.04.64 0// 13 W . ''4 /6 3 , 0 6. , , 0/' s * f--0. 1 4 Ne/1 19 .5 21 e f 13 -- --- 0 4 .#S eâ€ž, .5 . w 13 40' #40 V Q Gondola - - - = -- - - - - -- - - 4 9 3 Silver Queen _ _ -_ 2';i' 64.- Â£ 0 5 - 16 602 . 2 2/ 4 01.. 4 9% 4 + 2 #L . 9 = 4 0 2 7 1 44 4 4 u'03 * ; ,9 - u 8 Â· '4 7+IrLFI 0 q C O 1, 50*-' 2 g r <-7 3 -3- Â» b / -- . r I 6-lcy Â¢ & 84 440 B , #@ Lte .5 0 , .4/; 4 -~ N 41 S 11 & * ... k * 8, 23 ID D 100 2 , * f *S Ut 4 A ./ 4.K . Da t - # '94,4 * 4*t>/ Â·63 /*. #5 - 21 6, 4 9 0 9 04 . N 1- dj'-3 4 4 C' M 0 4 42 07 7-8 642 4 4 1 e 4 z51.-Â·Â·--Â£12!2Z2L_-~-_~. e j 4 9,2 . R -1 u, *meo<~Ct'<* Fl/v,r Dr #14, \/--- c n-- - -3.fit \..3;z *4 4 .10 Afb 5 fo.er < Q b asfie Creek Dr JO imptoH 1 05 "I'li e '1 , 11 1,- . 49/7 4 mt ~ ovmetery 1-11 . Â· ~*P ~~i J C # C M :;,F .r 9.ts:'.1.*rf.4 4, , e . 8 7.2'Â· 1 Â·Â· *4 5 10 9, t.,-. .8.---4, 0 9* U ~ -6 / .: . oâ€¢ Â·. -9 e.0 castle Creek ~37 4Â¥f ( \ . .. ... i ,-f t.- 2 e ..'... "- plin 00.1 Or - 1 i V ' eopiwim*IN'â€¢,-14*Â» 09? 1 -4, F 14 92> 9,+ . .6 â€¢'GPOO'lop'01'lf WWA 2' ..1 e & e ~ 0 * 9122:-Â·:Â·:4Â·, ' v I M.'.- I + 4 1--4 Mirolt M W k *t #A#AJ# -~ ;~;~j~~,~::~~:~~~~ ~~ .. 0 0, M Y N Zi 4 ki. Ut 0- - .42[ J 4 0 28@1./..Â·-,/Ii'.Â·, ul '84;NH 0 6. 7 7- 2 0 -MUÂ·)}!INÂ·~'r;~ . 1 %:t'. k D t. .1 1 1 44/ 3*1*AkÂ®' 4 Pleâ€¢mo 4 4 / i k O.> B Y., I.) f 0 3 - --- O C 0 0 r C .:4\ *4 & '.1 '101::.,11 4 92> 0 :.'.,4-0.N Â¤ -1- 1.' N 0.8 N ..1- 2 / \22Â»19. 8 j Â·74 f0 oo E a 4\\- -/1/ a 3Â¥-r '.6 4 . 42.w:44*96,8Â·:Â·#49:2 j''41?9 ;Fit-BS'f-:..I#**Rd#*34 ' 1 '. -01..,3..U,2,26:%12,9;*(t,Â¥21~P-1 ~44i :. '1 1 - --- ..0 .V= . ~g-i''..4,;1246#'FHPM.i 1: .ily- .1,715>14&*kietti. 1 17:11: .. ~ ~~' '11 J r J 49Â¢, 4. f. 4. AM 11/4 e ACTION: Significant Development (FINAL) SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) Significant development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet a#four ofthe development review standards in order for HPC to grant approval: Standard 1: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Standard 2: the proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Standard 3: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Standard 4: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereoÂ£ iiI -1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 129 W. Francis Street- Final DATE: July 26,2000 SIJMMARY: The applicant requests final approval for '1Tnit B," the new house on this historic landmark lot split ptoject. HPC granted approval for the project in 1995, and it was the first to use the lot split process as a means to preserve a historic resource. The original house, the Mathews House, was built in 1888. APPLICANT: Jake Vickery, architect and owner. LOCATION: 129 W. Francis Street, Lot B, Vickery Historic Lot Split Block 56, City and Townsite ofAspen. FINAL REVIEW PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to 5%, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section 1 1--09& iloi 1- /4 0 exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to section 5-510(13)(2). Response: Minutes and drawings from the May 24, 1995 meeting, when the project received conceptual approval, are attached for HPC's reference. The main focus of the discussion at that time was in regard to the concept of the lot split. No conditions were specifically placed on the design of the new house and the HPC accepted the demolition of the outbuilding currently sitting on that lot as a necessary part of the project. (Note that the HPC inspected the building and found that it was not particularly old construction.) Work on the historic house on the property has been completed and was given an HPC award. The applicant has submitted plans for final review of the new house, including specifications for materials. The plans are not identical to those reviewed at conceptual, but maintain the same basic massing and many other features originally proposed. A streetscape elevation, showing the new house in context with the historic building to the east, has been requested for the HPC meeting. Staff has some minor concerns with the design that must be worked out for final approval to be granted. The conceptual design appears to have had a somewhat simpler, less overtly historical character. In particular, elements like glazing in the gable ends and asymmetrical window placement identified the building as "new." 0 The plans for final review are slightly less successful in that regard, so staff finds that it is particularly important to select materials that help make the distinction. In particular, there are concerns with the use of an octagonal shaped roof shingle, octagonal shingles in the gable ends, and turned balusters and posts. In regard to the roof material, the historic structure used a traditional square shingle and the new house should not depart from that with a more decorative design. The drawings show diamond shaped shingles in the gable ends, but an octagonal or "fishscale" shingle is indicated on a cut sheet. Staff finds that this replicates the historic house. As for the front porch and balusters, even on the historic house, where the original front porch was missing and a new one was constructed, the porch columns are squared and have very little detail. Staff recommends that the materials be simplified, and be approved with the monitors. Two other standard conditions of approval are relevant to this project. The applicant must receive approval for a landscape plan when one is developed and must submit cut sheets showing proposed light fixtures. The landscape plan must avoid adding trees or other vegetation that would block views of the historic resource. 0 2 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character ofthe neighborhood ofthe parcel proposed for development. Response: The parcel is surrounded by inventoried properties, historic landmarks and National Register structures. The applicant has made a very strong effort to respect the existing context and has successfully renovated the historic structure on the site. The new house will be a positive contribution to the character of the area. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The development does not affect the historic significance of the Mathews house, a 19th century miner's cottage. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereoÂ£ Response: Staffhas recommended simplification ofproposed materials so that this standard will be met. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any ofthe following alternatives: 1) Approve the Development application as submitted. 2) Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (specific recommendations should be offered) 4) Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. Recommendation: Staffrecommends HPC grant Final approval with the following conditions: 3 1. The applicant must work with staff and monitor to choose alternative materials for the roof, shingles in the gable ends, porch posts, and balusters in order to avoid creating a historic appearance on the new house. 2. Cut sheets of all proposed exterior lighting fixtures must be submitted for approval by staff and monitor prior to purchase and installation. 3. A landscape plan must be reviewed by staff and monitor prior to installation. No trees or other vegetation that blocks views of the historic house will be approved. 4. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 5. 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. 6. All representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. Exhibits: Resolution No. , Series of 2000 A. Staff memo dated July 26,2000. B. Final application. C. Conceptual approval and minutes. 4 0 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR 129 W. FRANCIS STREET, LOT B, VICKERY HISTORIC LOT SPLIT, BLOCK 56, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel Identification No. 2735-124-79-002 RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 2000 WHEREAS, the applicant, Jake Vickery, has requested final approval for the property at 129 W. Francis Street, Lot B, Vickery Historic Lot Split, Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen. The project involves building a new house on a landmark lot; and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.415.010.C.5 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the 0 parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.09003)(2). 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the 0 architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer, in her staff report dated July 26, 2000, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found favorably for the application, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on July 26, 2000, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards, and approved the application with conditions by a vote of_ to _. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the review standards are met and HPC grants final approval for 129 W. Francis Street, Lot B, Vickery Historic Lot Split, Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen, as presented at the July 26,2000 meeting, as follows: 1. The applicant must work with staff and monitor to choose alternative materials for the roof, shingles in the gable ends, porch posts, and balusters in order to avoid creating a historic appearance on the new house. 2. Cut sheets of all proposed exterior lighting fixtures must be submitted for approval by staff and monitor prior to purchase and installation. 3. A landscape plan must be reviewed by staff and monitor prior to installation. No trees or other vegetation that blocks views of the historic house will be approved. 4. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 5. 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. 6. All representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 26th day of July, 2000. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney 0 Approved as to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 0 0 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPUCATION FORM 1. project name 1 09 \9Â£4:ri- 20,64 c,i 6 2. Project location U AS>Fâ‚¬k!. - LoT & 1 V CAÂ¢613(1 14 477ac, wr (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) '6'pu T~ 3. Present zoning ~6 4. Lot size 5,â‚¬-90 0 5. Applicanfs name, address and phone number -5kke q logazy a F7OÂ· 160< 12.360: prer>g-N 91614 929-384Â·90 6. Representative:s name, address, and phone number SA,Â¥v- Ae * 9 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use - Conceptual SPA Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA - ~ Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin Finai PUD Relocation HPC 0 - - Subdivision Text/Map Amend. Hisroric Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review Lct Split/Lot Line - Appeal Committee - Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sa. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous aporovals granted to the property) 1,01- 19:> 6O1Lr?,CM-r VA<~41\YE- *><~ Fo e AJOM- HlÂ«TOILIC swâ‚¬P 9. Description of development application 1-1#1 U) izes.1 c>em <LE 10. Have you completed and attached the following? "v Attachment 1- Land use application form 0 \, Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form 74,/ Response to Attachment 3 h Response to Attachments 4 and 5 89Â·lub A B Â· . - ATTACHMENT 2 . DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant '~r W VIG<ZK~'ll Address: 1,2 9 WtÂ«r._ r'[24*6 5 Zone district le- 00 Lot size: 5(26 6 41 Existing FAR -O- ~ Allowable FAR: ST) 2,0 Proposed FAR: 2,1 22) Existing net leasable (commerciaj): - Wk - Proposed net leasable (commercial): 1 I - Existing % of site coverage: â‚¬41} 2. 62â‚¬73 - â‚¬' 76 - Prcposed % of site coverage: / ALL" 1 0- 32-1 44 9 - 19,7~ 0~/8 - Existing % of open space: - M /* - - P=ccsed % of open space: Existing maximum heigh[ Ppincioal bite 96 . cesc:rv bldc: 10/A - Prcccsed max. height: Princical bidc: 8 5 Accesscrv bida: U /144 P=cosed % of demoliticn: '240 CP Van /A)')Rl,)0}MrrOAM@ Existing number of becirccms: 0 P=ccsed number of becrccms: 4 Existing cn-site parking spaces: 0 Cn-site parking spaces required: .5 Settacks Exisiing: Minimum fec~uired: Prooosed: 1 FrcnE - Front: ) O Front I A Rear: - Rear: 1 S ' - Rear: 1 1 ' Comoined Combined 1 Combined â€ž - I Frcr:Vrear: - Front/rear:'%0 Frant/rear. -7(/ Sice: - S ide: â‚¬ I Side: 6 S ide: - Side: 4, : Side: 1 '- 31 " 3~r Combined Combined , ,0, B Combined 1 .02' 11 S ides: - 1 Sides: 1 8 Â·-1 Sides: | ~5>1 , Existing nonconformities or encrcachments: 27 94*60 IS Ok) 244:12- 'FESB L.2 14â‚¬ Variations requested: A Atdâ‚¬ (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sql. site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations underthe cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O zone districts) yll i ATTACHMENTS 01 56Â·Ali.AL:et ,Â·~.Â£ 20 .4.=0, I .- SPECIFIC SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: FINAL REVIEW All applications for final review muit include the following information: *yl. An accurate representation of all major building materials, such as samples - ~ and photographs, to be used for the proposed development -4 2 Finalized drawings of the proposal at 1/4"=1'0 scale. 3. A statement of the effect of the details of the proposed development on the odginal design of the historic structure (if applicable) and character of the - neighborhood. 4. A statement of how the final development plan conforms to the representations made during the conceptual review and responds to any conditions placed thereon. f#14 826 Fo960 86.91,05)861 2â‚¬ le en 11*5 liBBS)*,0 AÂ·G i' LOT OF HN 42475 ato t''T 91'bll PPO-fl- 229 0tpS,l) PUP N\â‚¬Krr Cdy)*50*A S fo UN12%464) N A 26141N0j Al<)12 NO \4412,4 Alve.eq #0~ i 19406 4,rED, AlÂ£, fÂ»FÂ»â‚¬C> Yi'frum.XES#livl Is,LÂ¢ Af'Jir, tl@TP+L9 Â· ,bd2â‚¬ -PE,619811 VE 01: #190:TOP[ CAL. NOUS L FRAc ** 91,1 4 W'rul UPPAq-E>O Pell 402*24 0?19111*WMM 90*41Â»13Â£)4, 92 1 2,9 W*Â©T r*Not i 1/ 5/ 00 1 M *:P'21 Â»5 -2647-: %22 7 2 40?9 4 379-121 Â»*OF <GANâ‚¬21 97112) 191 2 l.4> U.*E L x 8 94*Ftâ‚¬ UFF*2- Â£ 24 6 69, PLAF) 6 k#023 C.<Il- 987 N â‚¬ DES -r#l WU 1966(4 , 1 XE . ll":rl CAL -r'~ A1 2% U Horprzeyj7"26 13[ 4 112' Ft) NN [ nj j 94-40 &907 98APED 2~8 OJE12- '2 X1O Vf#7704L Al I NPAUS< W9013), 66413) -FP+2 t)1 v c DED Dâ‚¬M'14 f,AL1 4 1 is . ** Sep -**r KI Adlf Â¥ 00% A)84 = 47h al) W EGUP N INDOMI i:19 DONT fÂ£-4 Uc (6 /- A.0,00. Stfl Ati LES . CS>,Fll->v J . 11 Ornamental Red-w~ood $-Ln-gles ~0*~ Â° 05/- Mad River Woodworks supplies 16-inch shingles trimmed to a perfect 5 or 6 inches, to produce a repeating, uniform pattern throughout. For reasons of both beauty and durability, we offer redwood shingles; also, experts in the field actually prefer redwood. Its time-tested longevity is proven by the many fine Victorian homes well over 100 years old in our area. _~ Sawtooth cut Diagonal / M..XMX. XMFixiMIXX-X-... Arrow V.-- Round r - Hexagon Diamond V Fish Scale Halfcove Square % Redwood- - 6--TRÂ£400 - Pickets 34"x21/2"x36" 34"x31/2"x36" PlOOI I P P 105 2 Picket Fences are a way to create yoi your home. .. A Kt . I bal .it ' . I . *V@6.4. ' 2 05 51? . /~~ C.kt, f, %442-~ --~~~~~....*1 #A 4, n 1 ' '. 2 J , $ MI.':ar . --6 . 'f /5 07*1 01 ..P :41 2 14,4 gif ~02.fl~*Â»4 ,)2-7*341 14**** . .9#. I .-4 4 . z '2 4 ..11,r, - /514-/&40*4*-7,Â©62*02 494*''RA~, fi- -' 1/*rete ~**4 344"724 1,~Â»d E wr ,/ 4 .*tri, .7/Â»â„¢.- ... e i t.04~* /(t~Â¥4****r?" 46..ut.<<f-*42 29***p:,4 17*:9*****41*~, - 9,1\76*** 9. '.r'. A . 714 Â¥f'. 4/2 , dp... 2% . 4 9 1.677*/..1.~*97 *p will.lu.........im*/ 1,11,1.1'AU . f '4- 4, A ..1.-1, 4 - r 44,3449 44,9.,9.,4,, %1 4, h 4 awfc. . .1, , r - , 4 4 W . ...1. â€ž I.In; '~' A J . .,f Â» 7 4 .*h p illi'##40 'm,F,=ANIP--g.163*40* f Â»4 1,0 '19. 4 4 e..4â€¢ry.:..11&461ERIf. . 4 49#war mr- -- I. 0.6'dk/'7Bil.he.; Â»-t$. *41&~'.. 1 - "4 e W##11 1 . -** .:Fe*457~4## 7,4, I I d r : **&,31*7~~/P~f*'~~~7 , 4 I. - -I - 4xili'~'~~ t. 1 e I , I / d~*~ I * e.' ....4,-â€¢â€¢ ..r ' 1 9 4 I ' Al&'23"et, . ~ t.f>ENâ€¢,9 , 6 :..S .1.: 59 164- fAANCE I , Porch Posts 72 loloo Gabl y '14 ,Â· .'Â·Â· Â· , "4 v Â·~ q.Â·-!7.Â·-..... i: p Â· 'Â·I : 1'..C:4 ': - Â· ...t Â· 4 7/ I Â· , :1'.44 1 ./ :1*.99 . . . 4. Â· ':061Â© 9 . - le... 1 . 1 Art... . ........8 . ,Â·,4 1 Â·Â· '27.1 .. ir. Put the final feeling of tb I .,f I . ' , #51 A/B/C #52 AJB/C #53 A/B/C #54 A/B/C #55 A/B/C All Porch Posts turned from solid 6"x6" clear heart cedar. Finished size is 514 " x51/2 ". Specify A for 8% B for 9% and C for 10'. Posts over 10' can be ordered. Call fordetails. Shipped motor freightonly. auq# shipinents of 8' posts can be sent UPS. Add $17.50 shipping per post. Solid 8 " x8" available. 20 . 1 apl \1*4-~ Newel Posts )x. 35" ff)4Â· , '# Â· 1 -4-- Â·f iccording ,.. I ,.. tch. 1!It 1 .1 ..if~711 11Â£. 4 , I b. 4* 1,M' i ! 1 Â¥kÂ·:*:Â· Â·,11,1111'1, . 10"111 EÂ°Â·- Iqi pupiL trt' 9% E-f-> ..1 1 i '11 lili ~1 J ...... 1 9 ! . 1 1.' .or. *34 t' 1 1 :; :348.f & f r,%. , k...t S O-â€¢~ i )4''I, 1 djustingor cut- ki.. t - t :. ot Shown) 1 >ign. Sides f I 14 1- 1 ". Vary by A f.t JPS Shiaoing. ..... Cra~. GE 42 R .#Il:, . 1~45 0, Â·,k?.~â‚¬; Â·Â· ' FRz 1. 42 4,71 . .- 15.27..<Â· . %% .94*3 Er,-t; .2 4 - #41 A/B #42 A/B #43 A/B teart cedar - specify A for ilh "x51h ". Newels can be End Supplement 291/0/0.- /9466 /ailable. 19 23912 Headers Balusters 4 - -. #108 1 L~#104 --=95.. #127 26-3/4 " x 9" r, - "/2 - .1 3 ~ _.1 I. 1 6 - 1 t- --ti 24 #128 36-1/2" X 8-1/2" . EN[72.16 E 4Â»Â£ UN-5-Â£294 ---404 #129 42"x 6-1/8" j 1 1/ Al. --7..I Add the fink. our Balusters. , Corbels lillial . 9 â€¢ - Â· 4 72. , 1 44 :4]32, . ... .1 ' -A l >4 I r .4/9 1 / 3- #34 A/B + r '6/ ,//p 16". . . V. A F #33 A/B k W.-- #32 AIB 1 #31 AIB 7 1 I p 4 . -I,Â· ,# *Â· - Â·.4 4., .rÂ·>Â¢ .6/ B 1 . 4 1 1 '2 * .:7 .4&1=266.~*&~1 1 41 ..... 1 - /:1 5/ I '# -rvillia I \2 ~20. 1 , 4.1. t 1 :; 1,19 z I'l/'.-.0-1/0.I- 93 -MR-11 1, Wl' ' 1,1 All turned Balusters are made from solid 3"x3" clear heart cedar. Specify A for 32" post. Specify B for 36" post. Finished size is 21/i " x 21/2"Â· Anthon) Â© Copyrip 18 t Â¢ 4920 43 (2â‚¬27 .31*jely 42 ' 49-D' 4 0â‚¬.14 7 0 01 95 dan Lool (1 N r 3â‚¬ O h-h b I -*C~13132:'f#94 30-44 93, Â«39214 Â¢ 05 Nt = -1>44 041030- -. I-------- 1 1 ....; ./ i . * COO , 11 -58 C.C =1 , 1 X . 91 62 0.4 2 /1 -3~ *027*/â€¢sÂ·o | 41 - 11 -8-9 3 1 = 7< L Fe D i 14 a ri 0(221 92 7-94 + 9 61 = 91 ' X + 9 +7 5 1 -14 4 913 046 1 71 971 3 4 41094 &9 13 03Â¥ â‚¬PS N WEid 3403(71; Esl 00~-319 - r- 1 =4 - 3 --- b.4,44 1 AL _ _. _ / 1 --4- - --I-Â·-r-% -EETEZZZJL In A 9977--1-Â©9~ 7â‚¬p-32-~i _ _~ 0 - / C/,h - - LIÂ·e42*r - . --- \ PFF}Â·21*ic- 20rt=P A ' 41 .7 0.. 2>~. L:j==~4 + Â«- 1 4 IFfJl . 447474 111,119;; ~'r 2 1'.!It Â· ./ / 1- '11/ 1 ,-- I 0-~' 'SPE'64. a.1",4 tri IF====41 02 11' g il --1 1~1 0,7, 111 ~ 1 0 1 1 1 - - 5 'b'Â·1: 1, P :11}.9 . - 1 [ 1 i Â«Uzzz) -T'â‚¬2 ~ 1 I I +16 Â«9*0 -131 1 1 j 1 ! 1 1 ! It 1 1 1 1 1 *44 4,GUE-44 ----Â».,--4*1* peÂ»45\93 0 -7/2 fe-~*-------- - "------- -1 11 2%%6 .40 - / 26 %% 6<2-L 2 -ll v]41 2- 1/, /14- _~ ~~ / 4 - 7 N f J :*a ce*â€ž -Â·9 .r-. I.__- 1,1:::YA.4:b. 32+7 2-7 /V 02<461' *% 1Â» Uf * 0 0 ''4 1. r>X X '%>, <,1 1, r ./0111 1 1Â· PVÂ« Nk | c v ?V>dyx %1 / 'UN ./ 34 LIPFUL E-wi liDa / Â· - r-- E- -1 - 1 . 131 1, 711 ' 11 - !11 223 .~Il F ~ fl [7'I /4 1 =i -' 1 0 'lili/4 111 !, 111 0 11! 9 1 Â· I ' 4 ~ i; ~ '1 4 :' 5~Ill w '' ~Mi i t,j . . i~'~Â¢.i'~ '_t - ' D ?Przo--34:5Â£ Vi--3- "/ Il' -1 11'- 1' 0 1' 1 1--- 922 E-91 M illi~11' r~-'1 11 1 + 65+46- 168 L Â·,9Â·7- C 161+41- r -frL SNV 1 1--- 1 â‚¬Ljo/6-..1 0 _ - W 1 1 1 \ 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 i li 1 1 11 1 ---2,/uriliguMB/'.Ealld=M:LY~L~.Y**El=La.2-/-7EAkiviffillieeffeflit ---. 11= - ---- r 1 L # C - 4 Ill h - 1 4 111 $ 1 i < - 1Â»l # 1 11- lit 1 1 Fic-I Â»37% --,Ed= ~4. 43 d _~Lj bl - C ~ ~ - ----/ ------- ---------- - - 01%9 4 rli- 1% - _ -% 14 1 ; ==l ; Sh 1 11 , - - -11 lilli -11 f Trl-t-ff_f - - --- 2 -753* 1 .\ r -- --#4 a 1 1 1 i. - FE' " '#'Ifi b h i 1=lit 11 1 lu.dll j 1 _LU.Â¥3--r-til-1-Tzr=- = ==i=- 1 ===1 1 1 9 + 1 Â· 4 -=4 1 c 0 4==iIi I hi~% 11 F u f =7 1=. 44 1 ,==E== - 7 1 9 3 - - .1 4 3 - B ---- ---- . ~.t.---11 jk -11 1 nifiITT-1-I-1-f-I-~ ~ i 1 01 4 - Ntt ------ - : 4. 1 1 -- li ai _ - 1 i ------------ {9 - - - ---- 1 t-- f ' r -1 11.-44,7-4- - ~ (-9 - . 44.1 1 1 I .1 ---- - - I.i- Ilipl 4-"Li== - 1.-9- 1 1 , I. -Â«=ft ~-it -1111-11Tlilil --- , j , 0 ... 1,-J:+ ; \ --* 1 i :f i ; 1 1 , 1 11 1 j.l li ~~ ~ ; ~ i- ' ST? CAL. i ! 1 k< i Â»4 le Lf N eu, ~ 1:<167- .JOI.J. 1 , 1 Tr-=21.- =1 - 1 ' Or w 154/ . /1 1 04*Uâ‚¬ f , Apt 1 (0%22 0357.4 15 2141 ~ 13;20- 'g.- 1 2 -6 ----4_-1 -4--~ Ot=j_~ 1 1 -1 1 /-4 j 'i 1 f ! It'Â·T -.-rEl -L Â« 11 1.1 -3- - ---1 -- - - --1 1.-- 1 ~1) -t 1 4- --6 1 ! . 1 1/ 1 OF \\ 1 i i i 4 1 J.L.rl Cr 4 1,4 1 ~ , ERAÂ·i 1 11 Iii 1 , 1 1 1 ' r:004 A- / 1 4-1 i -1 11 1 ' -11- * ~9 ACIA* l' i ! fr fLA'lÂ·.0 1 1 1.-4- MEDL ISM HEST 10*#12% i . 7/ (2 0 -4 4.1 W 1 1 1 0- 3 - -- 4-0 11 11 11-1 11 1 =4 li " Ir.,>0161 r,11 - Dr, V Jkvy ii I 11 2/ 1 N Â«FACG 1 1 | 6 0. tr. \01* 1,6/ 1 ' ,/ 122==I-- --==-B 4*1*60 ' * t--4 i i 1 : ELNT-72: eyÂ»' A- 1 i 1 - 1 1 1 1111 l 1- i ,1 1 Â«IN li 11,Â» 1 15 1 -72544 â‚¬18 - 1 . 1 11 : 11 1 ~11 4- _~ 5 6,2 L~,FL/14 EL 11 Â¥.Flup 1! 4. 1 '=iÂ·~- 11 $1 11*1 - :!h i! 1 11 4 - t- --4 <\ i--Ur. 6 il tpla G. LIP k-LI Ii' 1 1 11 .4 lilill, 1 r 1 41.lili 1 1 1 44:I:; 1: 2 1 1 #Wi/6 1 6 L.1 1 1 Ill 1 = 15< f L â€¢') N '- {9 1 ' ls:r. PCH.1/ 11 -4 1 23>j tÂ·jiN 1 1 1, ' J EE- - - L,1 VItiâ‚¬ 2.rA --adi Nâ‚¬-- E.KA i a - 9434â€¢Â· 1 *2 9:61 ' 1 - 1 1---4 1 1 Ir.-1 it -1 0 1 4 NEW. 1 C i Lf *JEL- 1 p 1 1 1 111 1 11 1 1 ---I- -- 1-%- -4- -- 1 1 i 1 1 1 11 1 1. 11 , 1 I ' 4.0,0 1 1,2-0 124. 0 . 9.9 49'.O " . . i -- .-I-'-.-I-. , 42Â·outeD %01- F,MO 12 vierr 1912"265/6 1,10,06 4,9 MOFTH Â· - 5 10 PEE'f - I,Ill'li 'i:ittill ; 1,11111 i :'11:11 1 ( X i Zillill,!jili~:lili M Il -4- 1 1---1=~'.-7- -- -RE--1 . p ~4--1 11 1 il ; I MY,i!.! :1 1 i 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 ,1 :11 . Iii 1/ .1 ~ 1-.7 i , 1 1 1 . 1 ./.1 . 11.- , 1 -1 1 : 1 / Iriti L Ii' 14Â· ill . 1 ;,1 fl, : 11 : 1 CPI 1 00 2 , 11 1,11,4 I. '' ' UZE>y**~9 6%11 0* 1 , 1 4 er>}l , dE ':1 1 lili 1 C *80'4 I..--- 1 1 1, 1 / \ 13.3, M P 3 11 :11 1! 1 dp!! I - A - --- i-- -~il. r.-r_r-----u=--* rp- ; i...! L:t_[ tidl[_4 ' : ./ I ::1:1''il li ,| '1 1 .|l~ r |;|I! 1 I ':; 1 :Pi'!ilip. ~li!11|1 1~H ! 0 1 110 111 :1 1:jil: 11 11 Il lill i J I i 11 11! 411 0) P- i 1 1, t. Â£ It Z - li 1. 11 1 11 11 I- '1 4 4 f *f lilli 1 11 1,--1 1 r.--1.1 7-4 3 I - -- UffE 11-,ILLOOM 'LA'.1 15.9 WE*T lewshILI.6 N OFTH -4 FER----12217- O 1 6 lo fte.r . \00.0 pu< 4- 1 3 1 10,4,4 i ' 1 11 E--Â»0 1 ' 1 1- -31Â·tn.- -t 1 1 1 'SLO ---'k- 11/ . I. | 14. WELL A i I 1 I 1 1 T \'2 ' ts /YE T I - 4/ ... T DEL+ A,Ho | 1 21 57Â£'vawÂ»~7 1 ' 123.:st. _-- . _ _=_- ~ ~ fl.Jsf ~ ~616 9/AU'Â£- 1042IQI-, 4 ' 1 ~Th 11 1 1 4 , Â·, 11 1 11 Â»f/*At 60 N 2 1 6 !1 , AL,Er ! 1 + Al 1* 3 pr. v-e--Li- 11' X.i~ - . 1-Ceâ‚¬ / 1 1 ad.Â»- 6464 ' ' USÂ» 1 1 k - - - I 11001 11-011 1 '1 11 1 1 1 IT. WE,uL 1 4$ - - ----1 ---- ------4 'S .S si-re AN P t.00* . A- A /4 59 v./eer- prz,Â»4016 1 9Â·00<jIFJ . NÂ« 24 - 5 10 15EET ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995 Chairperson Linda Smisek opened the public hearing. Amy: This is a 10,500 sqft. lot and the historic house is in the center of the lot. This application also involves the P&Z. They would like to relocate the historic house and propose to do a lot split creating a 4,500 and 6,000 sqft. lot. This is a code amendment that would only be allowed for historic landmarks because you are creating a non conforming lot you usually have to have two 6,000 sqft. lots and part of the idea is then less FAR would be directed to the historic house and the 6,000 sqft. lot could be developed as a normal 6,000 sqft. lot. The code amendment is not under your purview but if you have comments P&Z needs to take them into consideration. Even without the code amendment you would be able to do two separate structures on this property. You can do that on 9,000 sqft. or larger. The difference here is that ownership can be attached to two separate people. The total FAR for the lot is being held to the duplex FAR which is 4,170 sqft. If these were two legal lots the total FAR would be about 6,000 sqft. and that is not what is being proposed under the code amendment, they are restricting it to what the duplex would be to the original site which is good. I am recommending HPC support the landmark designation as it meets standard B, E, F. CONCEPTUAL Amy: We are being asked to review an addition to the historic structure and a construction of an entirely new house. I find the two designs compatible and sympathetic to the neighborhood and the historic resource. I am interested in the resolution of the front corner of the house. The house is essentially in its original form. There is a front door that has been closed and you can see bead board that was the roof of the porch inside a closet. The proposal shows replacing the porch and building on top of the addition and it would really involve removing the roof. The applicant is adding a minimal amount of space. The total addition to the historic house is 587 sqft. and they are asking for a FAR bonus of 500 sqft. so that they can add on. Katherine Lee: What would the total FAR be on that lot? Amy: 1450 plus the 500 bonus which is 1950 sqft. That does not include the garage at 500 sqft. There are three outbuildings on the property, barn, shed and a garage stall. The barn will be turned and made into a garage stall. I feel that is an interesting solution. One of the trees is proposed to be relocated. The house has a FAR of about 2900 sqft. which is small than what is usually allowed on a 6,000 sqft. lot. The applicant has revised the plans slightly and added an octagonal element to address the street. 3 EQUilpilr- O ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995 Katherine Lee: What is the size of the second house? Amy: $2,900. sqft. The project meets all the neighborhood character guidelines. They are asking for a side yard setback and it is on the interior. They are also asking for site coverage variances of 5% on each lot. They want to keep the open space and I support that. Also if you put an ADU above grade you get the cottage infill variance of 5%. If they don't get the variance the ADU will go into the basement and Staff supports that. They are asking for parking variance of 5 spaces. I recommended tabling because I did not have the new design to review. The issue of the porch may not be resolved until a little demolition occurs. Les: I am worried about someone coming in and saying my house is not historic take it off the inventory. Amy: That occurs when there is a lot split but we are designating this from the start. Greg Prickrell, architect presenting for Jake Vickery: One of the ADU's is required and one was suggested. Melanie: Visually the interior setback is on 2 1/2 feet. Someone could go and put a fence up and then you have 2 1/2 feet to the fence. Is there a way that you could get five feet. Amy: Not unless we demolish part of the historic building. They have created a 45 foot frontage. Greg: You are not supposed to create non conforming lots. Melanie: We are creating a squeeze in the past in allowing houses to get close. Can't we build in a variance of a couple of feet. I am opposed to only seeing 2 1/2 feet to the lot line. Amy: We could put in a condition of approval that no fence can be built. Susan: It seems to me that is destroying the character of the neighborhood by squashing the houses together and loosing the side yards. Roger: If another developer comes in and buys the property what is the maximum square he can put in with the two buildings? Amy: He can build a duplex or two detached buildings or stay with one building and add on. Roger: If it is a duplex 4170 sqft. is the max and one per unit. If the lot split is allowed what is the maximum square footage allowed? 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995 Amy: 4,170 sqft. plus 500 sqft. bonus from HPC. Roger: By doing the loc split you will have 500 sqft. In your opinion with the neighborhood does the lot split offer a better project? Amy: Yes, in my opinion. There used to be another house there and this is re-establishing the neighborhood pattern. Jakets wife Della presented their history of living in Aspen. Greg Prickrell: The due diligence on the property terminates June 15th. We would like to know if HPC feels this project is viable. We have done a thorough investigation of the project. We desire to landmark and we have broken down the massing into smaller scale modules creating smaller ownership modules which preserves the small scale of the neighborhood. We want to reduce the historical forms to basics with the topology of a cross gable miners cottage. Each historic part has to be evaluation for the extent and nature of its historical value and contribution or detraction to the character as a whole. There also has to be architectural integrity. We want to put the new development on the adjacent parcel. We want to add new accessory functions to accommodate today's need to the cottage. We are asking for the 500+sqft. bonus for two bedrooms above grade. Lot A will have the historic cottage on it and we will utilize the outbuilding as part of the two car garage with new construction. To the rear of the cottage we are doing a second floor for a master bedroom. We are proposing an ADU above the garage. On lot B, 129 W. Francis the ADU will be below grade. QUESTIONS Roger: Why should we encourage the code amendment? Amy: It is another incentive for landmarks, that you could do a lot split even though it is less than 6,000 sqft. and have separate ownership. It does not result in more FAR. Katherine Lee, neighbor: There is a garage right across the alley and I do not feel there is enough turning radius where you have turned the shed. Greg: I will check it. Roger: I want to be clear on the code amendment? Amy: It will include how the FAR will be distributed for each area. 5 /A ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995 Martha: If the person sold the house could they get more FAR. Amy: There would be no more FAR available. Melanie: The other lot could come before us and ask for a FAR bonus. Amy: Yes they could but only if you found it compatible. You could also state in this approval that that would not be allowed. Greg: We are getting 250 sqft. reduction for doing the cottage infill. If we were not doing the ADU we wouldn't need it. Les: They could do the same thing with a PUD. Roger: I would rather hear public comments before our comments. Linda: We can change the agenda to reflect your concern. Martha: I am concerned about the bulk of the project. Roger: By making it a landmark we can control the bulk and making findings that the bulk is not compatible with the historic structure. ~~â€ž PUBLIC QUESTIONS & COMMENTS Brenda Bigelow: I live on the corner next to house B and I am here representing the landlord. I feel much better knowing if it is designated the board has more control of the size. Roger: They could have asked for a setback and moved the house closer to you and instead they moved it in. Katherine Lee: The old house is moving east. Do you have to have the ADU on the new house? Amy: They are creating a new unit so they have to build an ADU for this property. Katherine Lee: Which is the more desirable of the two as it creates more mass. Amy: Only one creates mass as it is above grade the other is below grade. Martha: Except for cars and the impact to the neighborhood. Those are considerations that should be discussed. 0 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995 Melanie: It is a two bedroom ADU so the possibility exists that two more cars will be there. Amy: There is an income restriction but I do not know how many people can live in one. They are small. Della, owner: We are doing the ADU on our house for income to an employee. Roger: Are the new elevations sufficient information for Staff to not have to table and we could grant conceptual? Amy: I do not have any design issues with the project. I am more concerned with the restoration aspects of the historic building. Della: Jake is really concerned about the restoration himself. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Martha: My concern is the second story to the historic house. I am not comfortable with the design and feel it detracts. Roger: With the information so far I would encourage the code amendment. I would also recommend that conceptual be approved with conditions. The concern of the neighbor can be addressed by moving the house forward and thus having enough turning radius. All the design aspect are fine. We need to address the tree removal and make sure that it can live. To address Martha's comments if the trees are left alone you will hardly see the addition. The impact would be greater if the trees were not there. I would demand restoration of the original right porch. I would also put the window well someplace else possibly on the west side. Landscaping between the house should be addressed in the motion. Susan: I am also concerned about the second story and do not like the height from the front view of the old house. I certainly wouldn't want to see the trees moved. If there was another house on the property it had to be a small house. I hate to see the sideyards disappearing. Amy: I totally agree with you but I would make the argument that having a number of smaller structures is better than having a structure with four times the mass added on which really disrupts the rhythm. Linda: I am in agreement with Roger on the front porch. When I site visited it looked to me that someone in past history might have taken on a border and that entrance was for that use and I feel it has a lot of significance to the time and to the house. I highly recommend that be restored and the lightwell moved further 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995 back to give the ADU in the basement some space. I feel comfortable with the massing and scale. I am a little concerned about how satisfied a new owner will be with the new house plan and what we will be up against. I feel Jake has done a good job with coming up with new ideas and introducing a new concept for historic preservation and restoration. Les: I feel it is a good plan and it will work. I have difficulty recommending the code amendment until I see it. I am not concerned about a new buyer as they will have to work with us. Final will not be easy as everyone has considerations such as the tower. If there is not a worksession before final I don't want the applicant coming in and saying we got conceptual now we need final. We are granting conceptual with a lot of considerations. Amy: There is an existing addition and it shows up on the 1904 map and has the original windows and doors. There is a back porch and we have debated whether it should be retained. It will not be visible from the street but Linda made a good point recognizing the boarding unit. We little by little are not going to have examples of the evolution of an historic house. There has to be some way to indicate that there was a one story element there. Katherine Lee: I have been here 14 years and the entire back has been changed so many times that I couldn't begin to tell you how many. What are the side yard setback requirements? Amy: In R6 you have to have 5 feet on each side with a combined total of 15. Katherine Lee: Is the new one 5 feet? Greg: It is at 5 and 10. Chairman Linda Smisek closedÂ·the public hearing. MOTION: Roger moved to recommend landmark designation to Lot C, D and E and the East 1/2 of Lot B, Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Roger moved to grant conceptual approval as submitted to include partial demolition of the rear addition as show by the removal of the model at this meeting and that we grant the interior sideyard setbacks and site coverage 5% variances on lot A and B as requested with the following conditions for conceptual approval: 1) A worksession with a monitor will be held before final. 2) No moving of tree or trees on the front side of the property. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995 3) That the restoration of the right porch occur to as close as possible to the original. 4) No fence of any kind either structural or landscape between the interior division of the two properties if in fact they are divided. 5) Study the rear garage access to determine if there is sufficient space to enter and exit a garage on the alley. If the study shows that the rearyard setback variance is applicable then we will grant 2 feet on the rear and 3 on the alley side. 6) That we grant the 500 sqft. FAR bonus to Lot A. 7) We waive the 5 parking spaces. Motion second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. 130 S. GALENA - CITY HALL - MINOR Amy: We approved a lightwell in the back of city hall so that we ,can build a basement. The basement will contain city council meeting room and the Sister City meeting room. What is being proposed on the south side is to cut the wall back and light would drift down to the sister city room. There is a sidewalk and traditionally you bring light into a lightwell and if you cut into the sidewalk and relocate it you will put people right into where the roof dumps snow off. I do not find this a compatible solution ' as it does not respect the rhythm of the windows. Possibly this could be a trade off of the basement as one of the rooms does not have natural light. Someone has suggested a lightwell with block glass across it and that would be my recommendation. Les: This is a landmark building and I do not like what is going on. I went to Breckenridge and they just finished their city hall and it has no windows in the room and they did it on purpose. The lighting was designed well and I talked with members of their council and they indicated that their meetings actually work better. They do not need the natural light for a city council meeting with people distracting them from the outside etc. Cris Caruso, Engineer: Council likes the feeling of the light shining in the room. Council said if I could provide natural light to that room they would consider having the present sister city room moved to the basement with the council chambers otherwise they are against it. If that doesn't occur we can use the space as storage space or office space. It gets difficult working a full week without natural light. 9 . f. 4. -lit . 0 . . I y /7 . r ' I. - 9,1 q 'b. r Â· ' c .:5 47.- . I . .. - 1 . 2 0. . L. 4 '. r.k t,12.,9 0 .1 1 â‚¬ , 01:thÂ«. , 0Â¢7.1:AP. , . . , b },h. .0 1.- 1 :#1.t't i ,â€¢ Â· i /1 1 1 . ) 1 1 . I 1, '' 0 1 1 1 .. , 9 1 r,1 ? f. 9 i.Tâ€¢ 4 1 4 . . ./ . I. I. 1 . t-7- -- -- --1-- A- r - -- - - - -0- --IT 1 1 / 1 1 6-2- 1 1 1 11 1 C .6 , 111- 1 111 1.1. - lili -7- 1 -t~ ' -- -~....1- , - . -IJEJ- + 16' 11 - - .di I k.- 1 j t---T--7 -1 1 -F-Â¢ .1 k Â· . 0 Ilt 6 \ 1// 1 \ \ 1 ' ' 1\ 1 1 Â· | r*-- --T- --~' 0-- - ---Â· -4- 1.+ . 1 1 1 1% . .1, 1 L i , -...F I . J 1.'. 1 -0 -4 / . / 1 lul 1- 1 /4- Â· 1- 1. IO 0 . r '-.-.-'.' r -- T--- ' f . 0 Nt; . , / ' 1 \ 11,51..., 1 Â·Â· -----#---- ! 1 11 Ii, , 1 . . 1 1 1 1 \l/ \1 / 1 1 ./11 -- I- I.*I \11/ t \ /1\\ 1 1 0<. 11 -I . 1 10. 1 .1 /1 j '. 1 7 1 - -4 ---4, A-* ir _ - M -1- . 1 1 . : 1 . L_= 4 r --- ...r ---I-----1 . 1 1 41 ~ 1 - 1. P.. .. , .. 1 /- 1 1 1. 12_ _ a _ L I */ L 1 . 1. 1.- 1 f.- â€¢ -.-Â· 4 & 1 129.' - \Th LÂ· a. I.~-er -ENA 1 -- - p- ----- 5% 37 1 ' 1 1 :~W Â·Â· I~ o 1.Â§Â§m ~ 1 1 1 1 I m.Â»c+H ma Â· , 1 -. . P.6-1 . ---- I .. 1 . i e. 1 1 1 - 1 4 1 1 , ! P. -11 1 1 -1 1 - . 1 .: , EN:22 - . i i . 1 Itt, 1 - t : 0-40. L 11 ~ f __tZI~CEfF_ -'-- ' ' .. 1 1 AM'k====H i 1 -ikERBEEZE _dkg242. - ..â‚¬54/ 1 1 1 '-11 ! i 1 1 1 6'. r t / 2 1 1 - 1 1 / , i .E!!L : Dir; 0 11 - (,9 1 - -72Â« -!LUSELEEL - j. L .1 eor .. . 1 ,Â·l i _~~~,r-m <4 1 1 -41\4 .1 1: 1 i 1 . : 00 . 12.ZiC 2.4,;12*;~ 1 1 1 /1 1 A- c--_ i .1 e .0 :l , t2EE .- 4 . 1 - 17[PrÂ».. _.- Â· . 1 ... JURE I 4 1 1 If , i . 1 1 .t_L i F*,See-De-â‚¬37 - - ---I--Il- 1 1 i . 1 t . 1 1 1 . . .. 1-- - 0---- /412/0,10 Â¥660Â¤0 M-"4 1 - UPPEe Bare. 1;LU] . 1 '11, Fâ‚¬MJC?9 fla:%1*E) PEEURINAÂ¢Â¢f 3 0-r 376) 'N C . *602 FLAN6 123 WESr FRANCIS ..cÂ· Â· â€¢-au-. -i JAKE VIclcERY ARCHMECTS. + ..- .w rf MAY 8.1995 ' ..".9.3 31(.41116-â€ž=3" 2 7..........i re . -'....C~ le. - ,<11 /1199, 'j*,fkp I, 4 "14 I 8 4 3 4 -- . N:. M. * . fle; 0 . , -' d k ~7 1 91 i le Â£ :2. - + 2 &3.W*3 -19 - , .:.111.1 1 1 1 I -.-# - I-.- 29,3 3. 7.<U~ ' --lf -* p . - .1 1 -6 - . I . -**Iz ilmIC -6 1 1 i -LI . ' -0.44 1 ,~4:>luisE 9. fr- .1-IM- 1- C Elite,ZE.5 41 1- I r----h.-1 . *1 1 - 1 k r 0 Â·--IF'734 . rÂ·Â· =f-r 1 0 1 ..1 - A 0- 1 1 III 1 .. . . 1. , - 1 L liallf . ... 2>leg~ ' '' A L ... I-" ~ RimrÂ·w - -_ ~ â€¢ I -'11 321.1 0 " 1 . i.1- 1. 1 I ~--Il-Il Â· Fq'r....... . * 1 4[,2.1 1 . 8- 1 ajo-40 I =t=*:rm; 2- 004!il}11-- .. 0 -Il .7 Am*il 111 -lt' Â·â‚¬41Â· 1 :!11 I EEM . M rfÂ· t 3 i , ,-1 F Â· r - 1---1 1 %RE i . UTT-17 3 Ljt W1161 - =trEE!*= _IL -â‚¬1 -1//848_ -a Er-- 32== .. .--/ - . -9.kli) \- 61; -1 11= ...HZ-/5/35651<feute '61/\U I . 4 1 0 .1*ki-R I t .0 ' MY#*k 03 .- ./ 0 , Â· .. . . - 1 , t. . .44, f.; I Â¢ 4> I ..24-~~ . -- Al.Â» 4 ? . 1 . 1 0 1 1 1 1, il - 1. 1 i . It 1 1 1 1 1 li : 1 1 il ! -4.2- + pr. m 40 â€¢ *1u c. 0 * I : li ! 93 1 i F r/2, h.. 1 1 44[ _-6 'li 4112 - 11 1 1 III Â· ; J {Â»'Cul 0=r/ ; T- LL->Â»f f t *042 FÂ»,1 IL.>r /Mee:A - Â· 1 /---4 - 1 . 1- 1 1 i 1 liE 01,4.0- 1 1 -1 r ! 1-' 1 Â· . 1 :1\ 4 - it:- 3 1 1 : 1 - 0*- - 66, 11 1 m li i 1-i i -I- 6- 1 1 .1 1 - .1 :1 1- 1 It. I i . 1 i . i i & U#*FNT FLapp 74/1 . 1 'J.. fealcis 9 FRO FO9â‚¬D Beunflumq . 820 85*4 -"Wr- 13/ CM 41 11 . 123 WESr FRANCIS 4 - JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 25 e MAY 8.1995 ' 14-2~&&~, .**Zi*:Mn':82206542 ' .. - Gatitifie"imi~ -aip= ~- 11-