Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.HP.515 Gillespie St.HPC045-01- 515 W. Gillespie Final HPC - W- 1 0.--&.. 1 *X 1-(P-- 5-1. H P C 1 - ~Ill--I--~--'-I~.~ 1 CASE NUMBER HPC045-01 PARCEL ID # 2735-121-11007 CASE NAME 515 Gillespie St. Final HPC PROJECT ADDRESS 515 Gillespie PLANNER Fred Jarman CASE TYPE Final HPC OWNER/APPLICANT Neil and Pamela Beck REPRESENTATIVE Randall Bone DATE OF FINAL ACTION 8/8/01 CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION HPC Reso. #34-2001 ADMIN ACTION Approved BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED 4/3/02 BY J. Lindt .. PARCEL ID:~2735-121-11007 -~ DATikcv[): ~7/10/01 #COPIES:I CASE NO|HPC045-01 1 CASE NAME:~515 Gillespie St. Final HPC ~ PLNR:Mij~ectu~*VUGIR 4 PROJ ADDR:1515 Gillespie CASE TYP:kinal HPC i STEPS:~- --" OWN/APP: Neil and Pamela Bect. ADRI C/S/Z: 1 PHN:] REP:~Randall Bone At)R:~117 Aspen Business C C/S/Z:~Aspen/CO/81611 PHN~920-9911 FEES DUE:|Paid at Conceptual FEES RCVD:|Paid at Conceptual 1 STAT: r-ZI REFERRALS 1 BY (' DUel i MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED 1 1 4-41 1 1 m. *-- I-Wm. DATE OF FINAL AC'I~ IfF/,O / 4 CITY COUNCIL: REMARKSI pz: /-1PO *?050. id34-22> C CLOSED: FWip- BY:13-,_t_;21 BOA: DRAC: PLAT SUBMITD: ~ PLAT (BK,PG):| ADMIN: , ipph-ued / *Du Myteep 04 63 62 {61 eUM.now . 01 07 1 0 2 Ibb~ Il 7 ne'. 10'.al hi / [ 'K 12 hi 711/2 ... --1 * T.O. PLATE 11 2 1 T.O. PLATE El-EV. 108'-O• 4 iy-Ekw \06.-4. / 06 no· Inflo- . - 7 mix *»40' VERY. re. 50-0 ~ _ [®j~L-1 4 1 4 BATTEN SPINS -1 NETAL FLASHINS- i -- -52 _ _,0- HAk©RAAL PER CODE r----7 . 1 --0- ~- LIGHT PIELL BEYOND 1 TO. CONG. O GARAGE 1 1 1 1 1 19 EiV. Mal'-O. | r-FOUNDATION BEYOND 11 }1 11 1 11 : 11 1 11 11 0 11 1 1 6---__11_____-9- -1 + T.0.625. L - --- -El---------- ---- 13 S-EV. 10'-00 SARASE NORTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" Sent By: consortium; 970 925 6797; Jan-7-02 9:09PM; Page 3 Sent By: consortium; 970 925 6797; Jan-7-02 12:07PM; Page 2/2 -HEB WthICDO ' h:f Nir. s Ot. 01 . 01 STAND INS SEAM METAL ROOFINS 1 - 12 --- 13 - . 12 .- / ~ B.O. HEADER Be ELEV. IOB'-7" - . 1 -- VERT. AD. SIDINS - - - - - 2=11 C AD. DECK -\\ E- BEYOND -1 f Elli £ T.O. F.F.@ LOINER \ -7 7 ELEV. 100'-O " 0 I Ill -" 1:Il Ill < .. Sent By: consortium; 970 925 6797; Jan-7-02 9:09PM; Page 2 1 0 9 2 '92 6 a m 4 N p . 2 4 /1 9 4 hlu 8 -0- 3 0 -0- i + b i' Jlll[1-ililii~tiiiiiiji ~ 11 ¢ i )i /@\ A 0/ . \ C f .1'j 1 14 3 1 /2/ 11 1 / 1-0 . W~ /2/ 11 11 y.r'f 11 . 1 G /-1 / i V j 1 A 1 7/ 11 7< 4 /== 4, / /4 iiijiitl111111.£11 4 V )-/ - t- -'-1 -\IL /% g Z f @f q 5 E 0 F 0,2 r Ullt METAL ROOFINS HORIZ. AD. SIDINS .»ilr RO. .. RESOLUTION NO. 34, SERIES OF 2001 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING FINAL REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 515 WEST GILLESPIE AVENUE, LOTS 4,5, AND 6, BLOCK 99, HALLAM ADDITION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2735-121-11-007 WHEREAS, the applicant, Randall Bone, requested Final Review approval for a property located at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, Lots 4,5, and 6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen: WHEREAS, the property is currently listed as a Landmark on the City of Aspen' s Inventory of Historical Sites and Structures; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department determined the application for Final Review met the applicable review standards, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing, which was legally noticed and held at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on June 13, 2001, at which time the HPC considered and approved Conceptual Review which included relocation, partial demolition, and a 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus to meet the review standards as part of Conceptual Review, and further recommended City Council approve the request for Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split with conditions by a vote of three to one (3 to 1); and WHEREAS, at a public hearing, which was legally noticed and held at a regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 5, 2001, at which time the Planning and Zoning Commission considered and found the application to meet the review standards and recommended City Council approve the request for Historic Landmark Designation, with conditions, by a unanimous vote of four to zero (4 to 0); and WHEREAS, at a public hearing, which was legally noticed and held at a regular meeting of the City of Aspen City Council on July 23, 2001, at which time the City Council considered and found the application to meet the review standards and approved the Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split, with conditions, by a unanimous vote of five to zero (5 to 0); and WHEREAS, at a public hearing, which was legally noticed and held at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on August 8,2001, at which time the HPC considered and found the application for Final Review to meet the review standards, and approved the request for Final Review, with conditions by a vote of three to one (3 to 1). 1111 lili lillilllili 111 lillillilli 02/08/2002 11 :52¢: 463767 Page: 1 of 5 S.LVIA DAVIS PI-KIll COUNTY CO R 25.00 D 0.00 .. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the requests for Final Review Approval for a project at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, is approved by Aspen Historic Preservation Commission with the following conditions: 1. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district and residential design standards with the potential exception for variances to be approved by the HPC; 2. That Lots "A" and "B" are designated historic landmarks and must receive HPC approval for all development in accordance with Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code, as well at Section 26.410, the "Residential Design Standards;" 3. That the applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR for each newly created lot, taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided into two parcels, Lot "A" receiving 4,639 square feet of lot area and Lot "B" receiving 4,571 square feet of lot area. Provided it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on Lot "A" will be 1,753 s.f. (including a 500 square foot floor area bonus) and 2,840 square feet of floor area on Lot "B." The information specific to exact allocated FAR as indicated above for both lots as verified by the City Zoning Officer, shall be included on the plat, as a plat note; 4. That the HPC herein and pursuant to this Resolution, grants the applicant approval to allocate the FAR to be split between the two newly created lots (including the 500 sq. ft. bonus) to be 4,093 sq. ft. in total. The applicant shall appropriate this FAR in the following manner: Lot "A" as having 1,753 sq. ft. and Lot "B" as having 2,840 sq. ft. prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements, etc.). 5. That the applicant shall record a final plat indicating the approvals in this resolution as they have been represented to the Historic Preservation Commission. In addition, if the westerly lot line dispute between the Collins and the owners of the property known as lot a of the Beck Lot Split of Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, has not been resolved prior to the recording of said plat, the applicant shall record a plat showing both lines in dispute and a note on the plat indicating the two lot lines in question and that once the dispute is resolved, the applicant shall file a new plat indicating the resulting resolution; 463767 Page: 2 of 5 IlillI 11111111111111111111111 02/08/2002 11:526 S.LFIA DAVIS FI-KIt\ CC.N-Y CO R 25.00 D 0.00 6. That the applicant shall submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the historic house are to be removed as part of the renovation; 7. That the applicant shall submit a preservation plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating how the existing materials, which are to be retained, will be restored. The requirement is to retain/repair all original materials and replicate only those that are determined by HPC staff and monitor to be beyond salvage; 8. That no elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist outside of approval granted by the HPC and no existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor; 9. That the HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures; 10. That there shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor; 11. That the preservation plan described above, as well as the conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction; 12. That 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; 13. That the General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit; 14. That 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; 15. That, in the event the chimneys located on the roof of the historic structure, are to be dismantled during the relocation as represented in this application, the applicant agrees that all brick restorations as part of the reassembly shall be reviewed by Staff and Monitor; and 16. That the applicant agrees that any restoration has to comply to the UCBC 1997 version; 463767 ill'1111111111111111Im'1111 lilli ill lilli lili lill 02/08/2002 11 :52# Page: 3 of 5 SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 25.00 D 0.00 4 .. 17. The applicant shall enter into a common water service agreement with the City Water Department for the newly relocated house; 18. The applicant, prior to the application of building permits, shall be required to post a bond of $30,000 or other financial security approved by the HPC with the engineering department to ensure safe relocation of the structure. In addition, that the Applicant shall work with Staff and Monitor to determine adequate protection of existing building elements such as windows and doors prior to the relocation of the house; 19. The Applicant shall enter into a "Ditch Relocation Agreement" with the City of Aspen and that said agreement be a recorded document with the Pitkin County Clerk and recorder's Office thereby representing a burden running with the land which shall also be recorded on the Plat and Subdivision Exemption Agreement; E 20. That the Applicant shall meet with the Staff and Monitor to review the proposed finish for the metal siding on the south elevation; and 21. That Susannah Reid and Teresa Melville are to be the Monitors for this project. Section 2: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 8th day of August, 2001. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 11111111111111111111111111 lill i 11 463767 Page: 4 of 5 02/08/2002 11:52A S.LVIA DAVIS Pi-KIN COUN-Y CO R 25.00 D 0.00 .. ATT¤T: W 171/ I¢athy Strfekland, Deputy~Gilf€ierk 1 111 11 1 1111111 lili lili lili 02/08/2002 11:52K 463767 Page: 5 of 5 SILVIA DAVIS FI'KIA -:UN-Y CO R 25.00 D 0.00 . 7 0 -¥112 87 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Community Development Deputy Directo?JAO FROM: Fred Jarman, Planner F.3. RE: 515 West Gillespie Street - Final Review / PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 8,2001 w~ -, dip#1218..iIL.t). GILLESPIE AVE S 1,1 J' 0 . 11 1 1... i :1 |1:*p.. I ... - i 1 . , .1 . 1 .6/IMIER'i/ARig; I fl'.9 -; 1 . LUIL\- -9 FIA 4 2 4 - 11"IN'y.43Wl... PEARL CT ,. . 41·,t' ·5 4 - 1 EN'/2111%%4. . ---lar brem 3 'la ~At, Cil. ~ W 71$0/1 -1---14 DRTH ST I /1 i .=,=i...1.--r'*11 -.EVE ''.: 1. i .twil#=pr...pll· .= IL.Z..-' 10-1. 1 1-· " !'/t ill'. 4.f. am 11 i j . 29 #7..1 --1 . ..2. 11 1 1] 11 ?11:/1 4.. . .1 £ iHhhiligGb=P' '~h 1 1 21 / ¥4&99• / 4//T- , IIi 5/rh /:% 244.1/ t- SUMMARY OF REQUEST - The applicant is requesting Final Review for a proposed development for a property located at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, City and Townsite of Aspen. APPLICANT: Pamela & neil Beck, represented by Randall Bone ZONING: R-6 FATHERING PARCEL: 9,210 sq. ft. BACKGROUND The subject property currently contains a two-story residence that is listed as a landmark on the City' s Inventory of Historical Sites and Structures. The house was built in approximately 1887 and was originally located at 100 West Hopkins Avenue. It is approximately 1,856 square feet in size. The lot also contains a non-contributing garage that is not listed on the inventory. [Please Note: In order for Commissioners to vote on this Final Review who did not attend the Conceptual Review, Staff has attached the Staff Memorandum, Approved Plans, and minutes of the public hearing for Conceptual Review.-] 515 Gillespie Final Review 1 .. RECENTLY APPROVED LAND USE REQUESTS The Applicant has recently received the following land use approvals as part of this project: 1) Conceptual Approval from the HPC on June 13, 2001 approving Partial Demolition, Relocation, 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus, and recommendation of approval to City Council for landmarking and a historic landmark lot split; 2) Recommendation of approval to City Council from the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 5,2001 for landmarking ofthe property; and 3) Approval from the City Council on July 23, 2001 for Landmark status and a Historic Landmark Lot Split which allocated a FAR of 1,753 sq. ft. to Lot A and 2,840 sq. ft. to Lot B.. STAFF COMMENTS As a result of the aforementioned approvals already granted to the Applicant, the Applicant is requesting Final Review before HPC for this project. As required by Final Review requirements, the Applicant has submitted the following changes from the design which received approval during Conceptual Approval. During the public hearing, Staff will present the drawings approved at Conceptual and show the precise changes presented for this Final Review. These changes are outlined below. CONCEPTUAL REVIEW APPROVAL The Applicant received Conceptual Approval from the HPC for relocation, partial demolition, and a 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus. This Final Review development plan submitted by the Applicant conforms to representations made and to conditions placed upon the proposal during the conceptual review. The Applicant has further responded to the direction provided by the HPC during Conceptual Review approval by providing refined elevations. The changes from the representations made by the Applicant during the Conceptual Review include the following: 1) The south facing deck is slightly larger with BBQ; 2) South facing elevation entry vestibule has been moved 5" to the west; 3) Proposed window on the second floor of the south elevation has been removed; 4) South elevation materials have been reversed from wood to metal and vice versa; 5) More windows on the south elevation are operable; 6) Garage stairs have been moved to the west side from the east side; 7) Garage roof has been reversed and slightly cut back; 8) Garage location has moved eastward along the east side setback; and 9) Garage north and west windows and door elevations have been changed slightly. DITCH RELOCATION Currently there is an irrigation ditch running from 5th Street, across the neighboring Collin's property and onto and across the Beck property running in a northeasterly direction. The Applicant received approval from the Parks and Water Departments to conduct the relocation / removal as requested pursuant to a letter provided by the Parks 515 Gillespie Final Review 2 .. Department. The Applicant has also entered into a "Ditch Relocation Agreement" as required by the conditions of this resolution and the City of Aspen Water Department. BOUNDARY DISPUTE An adjacent neighboring property owner to the west of the subject property, a Mr. And Mrs. Collins, questioned the accuracy of the lot line separating the two properties. This has remained an outstanding issue regarding this proposed development. Despite this alleged boundary dispute, the applicant has proposed a development plan that would not be affected at all should the questionable lot line be decided in favor of the Collins. More importantly, and upon additional conference with the City Attorneys, the City of Aspen has no legal authority to hold this development proposal from moving forward to any City Board for land use approvals if the proposal is in no way reliant on the disputed property line. In this case, and as stated above, despite the alleged boundary dispute, the applicant has proposed a development plan that would not be affected at all should the questionable lot line be decided in favor of the Collins. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the HPC approve the request for Final Review for 515 West Gillespie Avenue, with the conditions set forth on the resolution. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to approve Resolution No, 3% Series 2001, approving the request for Final Review for 515 West Gillespie Avenue, with the conditions stated in the resolution." REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS EXHIBIT A - FINAL REVIEW STANDARDS EXHIBIT B - HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES EXHIBIT C - MINUTES AND STAFF MEMORANDUM FROM CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL EXHIBIT D - APPLICATION & DRAWINGS (0\\\ 1/ Ch j 515 Gillespie Final Review 3 .. RESOLUTION No. 34{ , SERIES OF 2001 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING FINAL REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 515 WEST GILLESPIE AVENUE, LOTS 4,5, AND 6, BLOCK 99, HALLAM ADDITION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2735-121-11-007 WHEREAS, the applicant, Randall Bone, requested Final Review approval for a property located at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, Lots 4,5, and 6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen: WHEREAS, the property is currently listed as a Landmark on the City of Aspen's Inventory ofHistorical Sites and Structures; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department determined the application for Final Review met the applicable review standards, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing, which was legally noticed and held at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on June 13, 2001, at which time the HPC considered and approved Conceptual Review which included relocation, partial demolition, and a 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus to meet the review standards as part of Conceptual Review, and further recommended City Council approve the request for Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split with conditions by a vote of three to one (3 to 1); and WHEREAS, at a public hearing, which was legally noticed and held at a regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 5, 2001, at which time the Planning and Zoning Commission considered and found the application to meet the review standards and recommended City Council approve the request for Historic Landmark Designation, with conditions, by a unanimous vote of four to zero (4 to 0); and WHEREAS, at a public hearing, which was legally noticed and held at a regular meeting of the City of Aspen City Council on July 23, 2001, at which time the City Council considered and found the application to meet the review standards and approved the Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split, with conditions, by a unanimous vote of five to zero (5 to 0); and WHEREAS, at a public hearing, which was legally noticed and held at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on August 8,2001, at which time the HPC considered and found the application for Final Review to meet the review 515 Gillespie Final Review 4 .. standards, and approved the request for Final Review, with conditions by a vote of to L to j. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the requests for Final Review Approval for a project at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, is approved by Aspen Historic Preservation Commission with the following conditions: 1. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district and residential design standards with the potential exception for variances to be approved by the HPC; 2. That Lots "A" and "B" are designated historic landmarks and must receive HPC approval for all development in accordance with Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code, as well at Section 26.410, the "Residential Design Standards;" 3. That the applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR for each newly created lot, taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided into two parcels, Lot "A" receiving 4,639 square feet of lot area and Lot "B" receiving 4,571 square feet of lot area. Provided it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on Lot "A" will be 1,753 s.f. (including a 500 square foot floor area bonus) and 2,840 square feet of floor area on Lot "B." The information specific to exact allocated FAR as indicated above for both lots as verified by the City Zoning Officer, shall be included on the plat, as a plat note; 4. That the HPC herein and pursuant to this Resolution, grants the applicant approval to allocate the FAR to be split between the two newly created lots (including the 500 sq. ft. bonus) to be 4,093 sq. ft. in total. The applicant shall appropriate this FAR in the following manner: Lot "A" as having 1,753 sq. ft. and Lot "B" as having 2,840 sq. ft. prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements, etc.). 5. That the applicant shall record a final plat indicating the approvals in this resolution as they have been represented to the Historic Preservation Commission. In addition, if the westerly lot line dispute between the Collins and the owners of the property known as lot a of the Beck Lot Split of Lots 4,5, and 6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, has not been resolved prior to the recording of said plat, the applicant shall record a plat showing both lines in dispute and a note on the plat indicating the two lot lines in question and that once the dispute is resolved, the applicant shall file a new plat indicating the resulting resolution; 515 Gillespie Final Review 5 .. 6. That the applicant shall submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the historic house are to be removed as part of the renovation; 7. That the applicant shall submit a preservation plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating how the existing materials, which are to be retained, will be restored. The requirement is to retain/repair all original materials and replicate only those that are determined by HPC staff and monitor to be beyond salvage; 8. That no elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist outside of approval granted by the HPC and no existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor; 9. That the HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures; 10. That there shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor; 11. That the preservation plan described above, as well as the conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction; 12. That 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; 13. That the General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit; 14. That 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; 15. That, in the event the chimneys located on the roof of the historic structure, are to be dismantled during the relocation as represented in this application, the applicant agrees that all brick restorations as part of the reassembly shall be reviewed by Staff and Monitor; and 16. That the applicant agrees that any restoration has to comply to the UCBC 1997 version; 515 Gillespie Final Review 6 .. 17. The applicant shall enter into a common water service agreement with the City Water Department for the newly relocated house; ~ ~.~r he applicant, prior to the application of building permits, shall be required to post a - bond of $30,000 or other financial security approved by the HPC with the engineering department to ensure safe relocation of the structure; C g,lutwL ~Al J k. LA o tivi., f . 4 Awl C. -1-4-1 1 & ul 6, p ,; 6 2 ' 19. The Applicant shall enter into a "Ditch Relocation Adreement" with the City of~ Aspen and that said agreement be a recorded document with the Pitkin County Clerk 31 and recorder' s Office thereby representing a burden running with the land which shall also be recorded on the Plat and Subdivision Exemption Agreement; and 949. Flat (/1 4,1* 1 )4*© I Section 2: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement el of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any Xry'~ 4 reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion , shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the \ 09. validity of the remaining portions thereof. Utj' APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 8th day of August, 2001. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 515 Gillespie Final Review 7 .. EXHIBIT A FINAL REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 26.415.010(5), Review Standards, no approval for any development involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds that all of the following standards are met: m 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) squarefeet, or exceed the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, Historic Preservation Commission may grant necessary variances after making a jinding 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, Section 26.520.040(B)(2), for detached accessory dwelling units, and A jloor area bonus will only be awarded to projects, which in the opinion of the HPC make an "outstanding preservation effort." Examples to be considered would include the retention of historic outbuildings or the creation of breezeway or connector elements between the historic resource and new construction. Lots, which are larger than 9,000 square feet, and properties, which receive approval for a "historic landmark lot split", may also be consideredfor the bonus. No development application which includes a request for an FAR bonus may be submitted until the applicant has met with the Historic Preservation Commission in a work session to discuss whether or not the proposal might qualify for thefloor area bonus, and Staff Finding: The proposed development involves the historic structure on the lot, which is not in a historic district or located adjacent to parcels containing historic and landmarks. However, Staff finds the proposed relocation and partial demolition do not detract from the historic integrity of the residence. More importantly, the proposed additions in the rear of the residence more clearly show the evolution of this residence rather than the current addition, which obscures the viewer's understanding of the historic elements of the house. This project, in no way extends into any front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extends into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, exceeds the allowed 515 Gillespie Final Review 8 .. floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceeds the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent. In fact, the project has been designed such that no variances have been requested except for the 500 square foot FAR bonus. Even with the FAR bonus applied to this project, the maximum FAR allowed on Lot A pursuant to the Land Use Code is 2,858 square feet. The Applicant received Conceptual Approval from the HPC on June 13,2001, which included, among other things, a FAR bonus of 500 square feet. This project is located on a lot larger than 9,000 square feet in the R-6 zone district and has received approval from the City Council for a historic landmark lot split, which are three examples of why the Commission grants the FAR bonus. Staff finds this standard to be met. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development, and Staff Finding: The proposed development involves relocating a historic landmark to another location on the same lot as a result of a lot split and making minor additions to the rear of the structure. The house is currently located on a lot that situated between two houses that are not on the City's Inventory. In fact, it is this very house that lends a historic character to this street frontage adding to the character of the neighborhood rather than detracting from it. Neither of the adjacent properties (to the east and west of the subject property are considered by the City as historic properties and are not on the City's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. Moreover, the street's historic fabric was reestablished when the house was originally relocated there in the early 1970s further establishing historic character to this street. 515 Gillespie will continue to considerably enhance this street as well as the west end neighborhood as an outstanding example of homes built during that period oftime. Staff finds this standard to be met. 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 adjacentparcels; and Staff Finding: The proposed development does not detract from the historic significance of the structure. Staff finds this standard to be met. 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. 515 Gillespie Final Review 9 .. Staff Finding: Many owners of historic homes in Aspen have "added on" to their home in the quest for better "livability." This project actually reduces the square footage in this house. This project seeks to increase the size of a bedroom on the second story and redesign a rear entry. The current small rear entry (while built approximately in the 1930s) is not an original part of the structure; however, it looks and feels like it was part of the original structure. For preservation purists, this is less than desirable as it "mimics" the original rather that being slightly divorced from the original in design and style, which better indicates a structure evolution over time. Buildings are certainly dynamic structures whose evolution over time should be apparent rather than continually obscured by additions or changes that look exactly like the old so that the new and old are indecipherable. This project is a good example of minor additions that indicate a departure from the old so not to confuse the viewer. Moreover, the proposed modifications do not, in any way, detract from the architectural elements that make this residence unique. These elements include the "clipped gables," unenclosed front porch with classically detailed turned posts, the "T" shaped roof form, bay windows with original details, or the fact that this residence is two stories which is uncommon. The proposed modifications are so minor that all these elements remain uncompromised so that the original form of the structure is maintained. Staff finds this standard to be met. 515 Gillespie Final Review 10 .. EXHIBIT B HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES 1. Building Additions Many historic buildings in Aspen experienced additions over time as the need for more space occurred. In some cases, owners added a wing onto a primary structure for use as a new bedroom, or to expand a kitchen. Typically the addition was subordinate in scale and character to the main building. This tradition of adding onto buildings should continue. It is important, however, that a new addition be designed in such a manner that it preserves the historic character of the original structure. It is important, that new additions do not detract from the character o f the building or obscure significant features There are a few basic principles for new additions that are prescribed by Aspen's Historic Preservation Guidelines. In general they include minimizing negative effects that may occur to the historic building fabric, the addition should not affect the perceived character of the building, and keep the size of the addition small in relation to the main structure. Specifically, the guidelines indicate: 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. Staff finds that the proposed new addition does not reflect the exact character of the historic house but is not too inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building. Further, the addition does not attempt to portray an earlier period than that of the primary building or imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. The proposed addition is made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. In addition, the addition maintains changes in setbacks, materials, and architectural style from the historic building, that help define a change from old to new construction. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. Staff finds that the two roofs proposed are appropriate because they are shed roofs. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. With the exception of the metal roof materials, the new materials are similar to the original materials. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic building. 515 Gillespie Final Review 11 .. Staff finds that the rooftop shed dormer is subordinate in scale and not seen from the street so that it does not detract from the historic nature of the house as it is seen from the street. However, it appears to be a large cut into the form of the roof and significantly changes the "read" of the south elevation. Yet is not street facing so that the historic appearance is not severely adulterated. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 2. Building Relocation / Foundations Generally, removing a structure from the parcel with which it is historically recorded will compromise its integrity. However, there may be cases when relocation will not substantially affect the integrity of a property and its rehabilitation can be assured as a result. In this particular case, the house was originally located at 100 West Hopkins Avenue and was subsequently relocated to its current location in 1971. This application calls for demolishing the non-historic basement which serves as the current basement The Historic Preservation Guidelines contain language referring to protecting the resource prior to and during relocation. Specifically, wood panels should be mounted on the exterior of the building to protect existing openings and particularly historic glass. Further, special care should be taken to keep from damaging door and window frames and sashes in the process of covering the openings. The guidelines specifically indicate: 515 Gillespie Final Review 12 EXA'* 0 .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Fred Jarman, Planner RE: 515 West Gillespie Street - Significant Conceptual Review / PUBLIC HEARING (Continued from May 23rd, 2001) DATE: June 13, 2001 t.,4 J GILLESPIE AVE .1 5 'i /,~ ' 2...U . 1.-1 91 0@ ~t43 __EFE »t·~~ Fl=ip*#v,-,EN„-/ 3,114*P 1 90 Sk, . tt [*Ed 19** la :79·t bill:diviget KL. - -_- 7-~1 *3 .29 W=*9 PEARL CT " 1 +9 r . bi~ 0.~ rely i*.-9.= 197)9 ST -X c. 4 I /9/ - ..'.0/. r.77 733-% 2- ».9= Z . I - 0( -':I 'lin' Ati••-ir-- - *i j li~ 1 11 1 11:..... .....a-il 7--1~ 1 Mi - ---44* I ' il ki~= - = wi,1 :. 1, 16'.: - l,>1-/ 1 :*,49 /~~-h_- Il'.1,1.¥6. ' 2;ij".b*/34*U - 3 NORTH ST SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting Conceptual Review for the following land use approvals for a property located at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, City and Townsite of Aspen. 1. Historic Landmark Designation 2. Historic Landmark Lot Split 3. Partial Demolition 4. Relocation 5. 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus BACKGROUND The subject property currently contains a two-story residence (pictured on front) that is listed on the City's Inventory of Historical Sites and Structures and is situated on a 9,210 square foot lot. The house was built in approximately 1887 and was originally located at 100 West Hopkins Avenue. It is approximately 1,681 square feet in size and is used as a single-family dwelling located in the R-6 Zone District. The lot also contains a non- contributing garage that is not listed on the inventory. 1 .. STAFF COMMENTS The applicant requests a historic landmark lot split that would result in two lots; Lot "A" having 4,639 square feet and Lot "B" having 4,571 square feet. Further, the applicant allocates specific FAR to each newly created lot using the allowable duplex FAR for the fathering parcel. The duplex FAR allowed for the fathering parcel is 4,093 square feet which is subsequently split between the two newly created lots: 1,593 sq. ft. to Lot A (which includes a 500 FAR sq. ft. bonus) and 2,840 sq. ft. to Lot B. The applicant has also formally requested for the FAR bonus of 500 sq. ft., which may be awarded by the HPC if a project is considered as having significant merit. PROPOSAL MODIFICATIONS The development proposal currently before the Historic Preservation Commission has included several changes from the last continued public hearing held on May 23rd, 2001 as a result of a necessary correction to the floor area calculation allocated to each lot. Specifically, these changes include the following: 1) A straight lot split resulting in two lots; Lot "A" having 4,639 square feet and Lot "B" having 4,571 square feet. The FAR is subsequently split between the two newly created lots: 1,753 sq. ft. to Lot A (which includes a 500 FAR sq. ft. bonus) and 2,840 sq. ft. to Lot B. 2) The Applicant has moved and redesigned the garage on the rear of Lot A off the alley to the east side of the lot away from the Collins' property and provided an additional parking space. The garage redesign includes a stairway on the east faGacle of the garage providing access down to the mechanical room. 3) No changes have been made to the historic resource since the last set of drawings. The current proposal in attached to this memorandum. HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT To date, the applicant has worked with the HPC in the form of a site visit, a Worksession, and four previous public hearings related to this request for conceptual approval. The applicant has adjusted the lot sizes so that they have become smaller than 6,000 square feet, thereby eliminating the ability to request the Conditional Use request to place two single-family dwellings on a 6,000 sq. ft. However, both Lot A and Lot B will remain under the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission for any future development proposals. LOT SPLITS PURSUANT TO THE AACP Lot splits were originally designed as a mechanism to control sprawling growth and place residential development where residential development should go. The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) specifically supports the notion of the lot split. Lot splits are one of the many density incentives and prescribed in the action plan of the AACP as a practice of infill and redevelopment. Increasing density in appropriate places, especially in a residential townsite such as Aspen, can achieve positive results such as providing 2 .. more incentives to build in town rather than sprawl down valley, make more efficient use of existing City infrastructure / utilities, and foster a disincentive to use the automobile due to the close proximity to the downtown core and free mass transit just to name a few. Specifically, this action plan calls for possible amendments to the Code: "to allow and encourage greater residential densities within the original Aspen town site; allow easier subdivision of properties in the historic town site and allow for infill development." - page 40 and 49,2000 AACP Also, as listed as Action Plan number 52, the AACP calls for: " a review of the existing Historic Preservation program to see how well it is working and to maintain and add innovative ways to make preservation work in Aspen, such as the lot split, property tax relief, and to study the impacts of the FAR bonus." - Page 56,2000 AACP Finally,the AACP "encourages returning to higher density development within the city limits where appropriate. " (page 39) Staff finds that this site and project promotes this appropriate type of increased density. FAR BONUS REQUEST The Applicant is requesting a 500 sq. ft. Floor Area Bonus to be placed on Lot A with the relocated historic structure. According to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, historic resources are finite and cannot be replaced, making them precious commodities and defining elements of a town's evolution. Historic resources are, in fact, slices in time, preserved to be appreciated and to help a community understand its past. This project is a strong example of how a valuable resource can be maintained and preserved with the evolution of a community. The recently adopted Historic Preservation Design Guidelines discuss specific examples / reasons that the HPC would award a project with a FAR Bonus. These include, but are not limited to: > When the parcel is larger than 9,000 square feet. > When it is used to create a historic landmark lot split. > When the project shows an outstanding effort to preserve or restore the historic structure. -Page 2,Historic Preservation Design Guidelines In addressing the examples stated above, Staff finds that the subject lot is larger than 9,000 square feet and the applicant is proposing a historic landmark designation in order to conduct a historic landmark lot split. Moreover, Staff strongly believes that this proj ect demonstrates an outstanding preservation effort for several important reasons. 3 .. First, the applicant is proposing to relocate the resource onto a portion of the lot that will continue to promote the prominence of the resource. Second, some of redevelopment proposals for historic resources, which make their way to the HPC, have included rather large additions that obscure and mute the importance of the resource. The most recent of these HPC cases that received Final Approval and a 500 square foot FAR bonus was that of the "513 West Smuggler" project designed by Harry Teague. In that case, a very large and contemporary addition was approved less than a month ago before the HPC and granted a 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus. In this light regarding the size and style of that addition, the applicant has taken a very sensitive approach to the historic resource and is not requesting to place a large addition onto the resource as typically seen with many other "additions" which have occurred to some of Aspen's historic resources in the past. As a result ofthis approach, the applicant is proposing a very modest single-story addition to replace a non-historic addition at the very back of the house which meets all of the historic preservation design guidelines regarding additions. Lastly, the applicant is proposing very minor modifications to the rear fagade on the second story, which are consistent with the HPC's direction over the course of the last public hearings and work session. More importantly, these slight modifications to the house will take place on the rear of the fa~ade thereby unseen from the street. It is for all these reasons that Staff strongly believes this project merits a 500 square foot FAR bonus. DITCH RELOCATION Currently there is an irrigation ditch running from 5th Street, across the Collin' s property and onto and across the Beck property running in a northeasterly direction. The Applicant has requested the ability to relocate the ditch in order to relocate the Beck house on that portion of the lot. The proposed relocation will redirect the ditch to the south behind the relocated house then northward to Gillespie Avenue where it currently runs now. The Applicant received approval form the Parks Department to conduct the relocation / removal as requested pursuant to a letter provided by the Parks Department. The Applicant shall enter into a "Ditch Relocation Agreement" as required by the conditions of this resolution approving this Conceptual Development. BOUNDARY DISPUTE During this proposed project, an adjacent neighboring property owner to the west of the Beck's property, a Mr. And Mrs. Collins, questioned the accuracy of the lot line separating the two properties. This has remained an outstanding issue regarding this proposed development. Despite the potential alleged boundary dispute, the applicant has proposed a development plan that would not be affected at all should the questionable lot line be decided in favor ofthe Collins. More importantly, upon additional conference with the City Attorneys, the City of Aspen has no legal authority to hold this development proposal from moving forward to any 4 .. City Board for land use approvals if the proposal is in no way reliant on the disputed property line. In this case, and as stated above, despite the potential boundary dispute, the applicant has proposed a development plan that would not be affected at all should the questionable lot line be decided in favor of the Collins. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the HPC approve the requests for 1) partial demolition, 2) relocation 3) the 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus, and 4) recommends City Council approve the Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split for 515 West Gillespie Avenue, with the following conditions: 1. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause; 2. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that any development of Lot "B" shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing; 3. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; 4. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district and residential design standards with the potential exception for variances to be approved by the HPC; 5. That Lots "A" and "B" are designated historic landmarks and must receive HPC approval for all development in accordance with Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code, as well at Section 26.410, the "Residential Design Standards;" 6. That the applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR for each newly created lot, taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided into two parcels, Lot "A" receiving 4,639 square feet of lot area and Lot "B" receiving 4,571 square feet of lot area. Provided it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on Lot "A" will be 1,753 s.£ (including a 500 square foot floor area bonus) and 2,840 square feet of floor area on Lot "B." The information specific to exact allocated FAR as 5 .. indicated above for both lots as verified by the City Zoning Officer, shall be included on the plat, as a plat note; 7. That the applicant shall provide the Subdivision Exemption Agreement that includes the elements outlined in Section 26.480.030(A)(2) of the Aspen Municipal Code, and shall meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section 26.480.070(E). (The Community development department can provide an example ofthis agreement to the applicant); 8. That the applicant agrees that prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either lot, the applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement (if applicable) and pay the applicable recording fees; 9. That the HPC herein and pursuant to this Resolution, grants the applicant approval to allocate the FAR to be split between the two newly created lots (including the 500 sq. ft. bonus) to be 4,093 sq. ft. in total. The applicant shall appropriate this FAR in the following manner: Lot "A" as having 1,753 sq. ft. and Lot "B" as having 2,840 sq. ft. prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements, etc.). Further, these lot sizes and floor areas shall be indicated on the final plat that is recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and recorder's Office; 10. All information regarding possible future development on newly created Lot B of this lot split shall be removed from the site plan prior to review of the historic lot split by City Council. Only the existing structures, proposed lot lines, and existing vegetation shall be represented; and 11. That the applicant shall record a final plat indicating the approvals in this resolution as they have been represented to the Historic Preservation Commission. In addition, if the westerly lot line dispute between the Collins and the owners of the property known as lot a of the Beck Lot Split of Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, has not been resolved prior to the recording of said plat, the applicant shall record a plat showing both lines in dispute and a note on the plat indicating the two lot lines in question and that once the dispute is resolved, the applicant shall file a new plat indicating the resulting resolution; 12. That the applicant shall submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the historic house are to be removed as part of the renovation; 13. That the applicant shall submit a preservation plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating how the existing materials, which are to be retained, will be restored. The requirement is to retain/repair all original materials and 6 .. replicate only those that are determined by HPC staff and monitor to be beyond salvage; 14. That no elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist outside of approval granted by the HPC and no existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor; 15. That the HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures; 16. That there shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor; 17. That the preservation plan described above, as well as the conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction; 18. That 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; 19. That the General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit; 20. That 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; 21. That, in the event the chimneys located on the roof of the historic structure, are to be dismantled during the relocation as represented in this application, the applicant agrees that all brick restorations as part of the reassembly shall be reviewed by Staff and Monitor; and 22. That the applicant agrees that any restoration has to comply to the UCBC 1997 version; 23. That the applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during demolition. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction as a requirement of the City of Aspen Streets Department; 7 .. 24. That the HPC grants a 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus to be allocated to Lot A with the historic house (for a maximum floor area of 1,753 square feet). Lot B will then maintain the balance of the remaining FAR to be 2,840 square feet; 25. That the applicant shall enter into a common water service agreement with the City Water Department for the newly relocated house; 26. That the applicant, prior to Final Review before the HPC, provide the Community Development Department and HPC with a signed agreement regarding the relocation of the Si Johnson Ditch and any tree relocation / mitigation issues with the City of Aspen Parks Department; 27. That the applicant shall comply with the Universal Conservation Building Code (UCBC); 28. Bill Baily, a local house mover, originally moved the house to its current location in 1971 from 100 West Hopkins Street. He has recently restudied the house and found that the house can be moved without any damage to the structure. However, The applicant, as a condition of approval, and prior to the application of building permits, shall be required to post a bond of $30,000 or other financial security approved by the HPC with the engineering department to ensure safe relocation of the structure; 29. That the Applicant be required to enter into a "Ditch Relocation Agreement" with the City of Aspen and that said agreement be a recorded document with the Pitkin County Clerk and recorder' s O ffice thereby representing a burden running with the land. The Applicant should contact the Phil Overynder at the Water Department for a copy of this agreement. Specifically, the Ditch Relocation Agreement should reference the plans that are approved and provide for an easement a minimum of 10 feet in width which shall also be recorded on the Plat and Subdivision Exemption Agreement; and 30. That the Applicant shall enter into a "Ditch Relocation Agreement" with the City of Aspen and said agreement shall indicate that the City of Aspen, at it's sole discretion, has the option of moving the ditch off the property at a future date and would have no obligation to compensate the landowner(s) in any way. Said agreement shall specifically state that the landowners have no water rights in the ditch nor is any license being granted for use of water from the ditch. Finally, said agreement shall state that the landowners agree to comply with all City water policies including the policy that the City of Aspen is the exclusive water provider for all use of water within the City limits (i.e. no use of ditch water without the issuance of a raw water license agreement from the City). 8 .. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to approve Resolution No, 2, Series 2001, approving the requests for 1) partial demolition, 2) relocation 3) the 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus and 4) recommends City Council approve the Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split for 515 West Gillespie Avenue, with the conditions stated herein." REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS EXHIBIT A - HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION EXHIBIT B - HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT EXHIBIT C - PARTIAL DEMOLITION EXHIBIT D - RELOCATION EXHIBIT E -HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES EXHIBIT F - RESOLUTION No. 2, SERIES OF 2001 EXHIBIT J - APPLICATION & DRAWINGS 9 .. EXHIBIT A HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION STANDARDS EXHIBIT A HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION STANDARDS Any structure or site that meets two (2) or more of the following standards may be designated as an historic landmark. A. Historical importance. The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Staff Finding In general, this structure is indicative of an upper middle class lifestyle during the last 1800's silver mining era. It is expressive of the materials, methods, and style of the period. Specifically, neither Staff nor the Applicant has any knowledge of any specific significant historical events or persons associated with this structure. In any event, it should not be dismissed that the Beck Family, who are the current owners, are also the same family that originally built the structure in 1887 (by Neil Beck's grandfather) and the family has continuously resided in the house until this time. While the Beck Family may not be considered as "significant persons" in the context of the City of Aspen and would not qualify as meeting this standard, Staff is aware that there are not too many unique situations such as this in Aspen. Staff finds this standard is not met. B. Architectural importance. Based on the building form, use, or specimen, the structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct, or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type. Staff Finding Staff finds that the 515 Gillespie structure, built in approximately 1887, originally located at 100 West Hopkins and subsequently moved in 1971 to its current location, is an excellent 114 year old example of Aspen's traditional Victorian Era architecture from before the turn of the century. Even though the house has been relocated, it has maintained its original form with the exception of a very minor single story shed detail on the rear of the house not seen from the street. A specific defining element of this architecture style includes a distinct roof form called the gable-end. This house style typically has a rectangular "T" shape plan with a gable roof with the ridge running perpendicular to the street as well as a cross gable form 10 .. running parallel to the street. Most houses of this architectural type, as this house does, have a porch on the gabled end and a smaller roof is attached to the shelter porch. In Aspen, many ofthese porches have been closed r- -74*9: pEN:r:=- ·. F· -------··-- house that compromises the architectural integrity 1 + Gl·_-- and the original form. This house has not enclosed l~~~ ~~ ~ r~~ the porch element that continues to be one of its ft,1-~~*i- 6.114,1.1 -=F. 4 1 88.411~- - A:0 , defining features along with classic turned posts. rri I. 4~fi h~ - -* (Please refer to the photo to the right). Most FJ•*0 - houses o f this era specific to Aspen also tend to be 7 . - '1 r.- . 1 wood sided and are 1 to 1 14 stories; however this , ./ is an example of one which has 2 stories which is uncommon. View of front porch and turned posts. Another interesting feature includes a small "hip" or "clipped gable" element on the gable roof ends as shown in the photo below. After examining other houses in the neighborhood and throughout the west end, there were virtually no other examples of this interesting architectural treatment. 5£ ***~ ** ~ ;~ ~lii ,~*, It is because of all the aforementioned 2 F1. Ill 1~.4- 1 · reasons and defining architectural '. 4 3.t-,2:' . m 4 J '-- 541,1 - ·1 52~64*' ·:·: ..· 22 : elements, that this structure, which is indicative of an upper middle class r .2. 11 , lifestyle during the last 1 800's silver 13 4 .. 2 ' -10* , 1--1; i 0~ i'k - U . 7.~~~~~ . 1 mining era and is expressive o f the .i7 . - P. :f.:LM.*#: Nk: 44: materials, methods, and style of the r·, period, that Staff finds this criterion to 1 - Ifill be met. 9 lit- . i-2- r=le-=-1- , - Photo showing "clipped gable" roof forms as well as bay window details C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Staff Finding Neither Staff nor the Applicant has any information regarding the architect who designed this home; therefore, Staff finds that this criterion is not met. 11 7 '* E .. D. Neighborhood character. The structure or site is a significant component of a historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is importantfor the maintenance Of that neighborhood character. Staff Finding The structure is located in and is considered a very important historic element of the historic West End of Aspen that gains its character from the prominence of historic homes such as the subject home at 515 Gillespie Avenue. It is immediately located among other houses on the same half block fronting Gillespie Avenue that are more contemporary in nature that make this structure even more prominent as an important and historically distinct neighborhood structure. (See photos below) . *.·?.,M ..'' . .i - ~SALS-£4W#. 4... .Arl....... .. · ·· 4 7-1=-Rks-Flk &?t:~.. 2:-=125-:..4.1,#1"'Ir~ -3~- 9 J === P. 2~§2:1-- t-L» Residence to the east. Residence to the west. In the blocks that surround 515 Gillespie, one finds a wide variety of house styles, ages, sizes, and so on. The preservation effort sought by the Applicant through this application will continue to allow this structure to add considerable value not only to the specific block but also to the traditional west end neighborhood. When viewed in context of the surrounding blocks, there are ten houses currently listed on Aspen's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures; three of those structures maintain landmark status. This structure at 515 Gillespie Ave. is clearly a neighborhood-defining element that is complementary of the other three landmarked houses. Moreover, it is one of the better examples of Aspen's historic past due to its uncompromised form and detailing which is an asset to Aspen's historic West End. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Communitv character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location, and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Staff Finding: In a similar perspective of neighborhood character, Staff finds that the 515 Gillespie single-family home is a critical site for preservation as it is already established as a home on the inventory and is an important and defining historical element in Aspen's Historic 12 .. west end neighborhood as it relates to and adds to community character. The City of Aspen takes great pride in the fact that it has been able to preserve a great deal of its past so that future generations will be able to actually see the evolution of this small mountain town into what it is today. This structure is an important and original slice of time showcasing an example of an upper middle class lifestyle during the last 1800's silver mining era and is expressive of the materials, methods, and style of the period. This structure and site is important because of its relationship to the existing neighborhood and other similar homes in terms of size, location, and architecture. Given that this unique two-story Victorian Era gable-end home is in excellent condition and remains as an excellent example of Aspen's 19th century Late Victorian Age homes, it is a "city wide" resource that should not be lost to demolition but rather preserved as a historic structure. Essentially, there are a few homes in Aspen that have remained fairly true to original form with little modification to them. This house is one of the few that has maintained a true original form and design in its architectural elements defining its period of origination. So this house can be considered among the handful of very strong examples of Aspen' s historic past. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 13 .. EXHIBIT B HISTORICAL LANDMARK LOT SPLIT In order to conduct a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the applicant shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Land Use Code: SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, LOT SPLIT The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following conditions are met: a) The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969; and Staff Finding: The lot (encompassing lots 4,5, and 6) has not been previously subdivided since March 24,1969. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b) No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.040(A)(1)(c). Staff Finding: Two lots are created as a result of the lot split - Lots A and B. An Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), cash-in-lieu payment, or deed restriction on any new residence will be required for a proposed house on Lot B. An ADU or cash-in-lieu payment will be required on Lot A if more than 50% of the existing single-family house is demolished. The applicant may also choose to voluntarily provide an ADU on Lot A. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.040(C)(1)(a); and Staff Finding: Staff finds that the lot in question was not the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or "lot split" exemption. Staff finds this criterion to be met. d) A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the ojfice of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further 14 .. subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the applicant agrees that the filing of the subdivision plat, that meets the terms of this chapter, conforms to the requirements of this title, and responds precisely to the condition in the Resolution drafted herein, shall be submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation. This shall be a condition of this approval. Staff finds this criterion to be met. e) Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council wit! be required for a showing Of good cause. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the applicant agrees that the plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall meet the timing requirements for recordation. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days, following approval by the City Council, shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site, which is eligible for a lot split, the dwe![ing need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the existing dwelling will not be demolished; rather, the applicant intends to relocate the historic single-family structure from Lot "B" onto Lot "A" subject to the proper application process and review by the Historic Preservation Commission pursuant to Section 26.415. Staff finds this criterion to be met. g) Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a singledamily home. Staff Finding: The applicant intends to move the historic single-family structure from Lot "B" onto Lot '41 A A." As a result of this application, the owner of Lot B only has the ability to construct a single-family house. This scenario results in a total build out of two single-family 15 .. houses. The total build out shall not exceed three units and therefore Staff finds this criterion to be met. SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT The split of a lot that is a designated historic landmark for the development of one new single-family dwelling. The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of section 26.88.030(A)(2), section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), section 26.72.010(G) of this Code, and the following standards: a) The original parcel shaH be a minimum of 9,000 square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or a minimum of 13,000 square feet and be located in the R-15A zone district. Staff Finding: The fathering / original parcel is 9,210 sq. ft in size and is located in the R-6 zone district. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b) The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parceL Tlie total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. Staff Finding: The duplex FAR which would have been allowed for the fathering parcel is 4,093 square feet (not including the 500 square feet FAR bonus.) The applicant has formally requested the FAR bonus award from the Historic Preservation Commission to allocate appropriate FAR to Lot A which would contain the relocated historic structure. The FAR to be split between the two newly created lots (including the 500 sq. ft. bonus) is 4,593 sq. ft. in total. The applicant wishes to appropriate this FAR in the following manner: Lot "A" as having 1,753 sq. ft. and Lot "B" as having 2,840 sq. ft. Further, these lot sizes and floor areas shall be indicated on the plat as a condition of approval once requested. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c) The proposed development meets al[ dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. Staff Finding: The proposed / newly created Lot A will contain the historic structure moved from Lot B. The applicant is requesting a historic landmark designation for that structure. Any future development shall meet all dimensional requirements of the underlying R-6 zone district. Additionally, the applicant understands that HPC bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. The applicant intends to return to the HPC upon submitting an application for any further development on the newly created lots. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 16 .. GMQS EXEMPTION, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT The construction of each new single-family dwelling on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to Section 26.480.030(E). This exemption shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotments established pursuant to Section 26.470.050 or from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. Exemption review is by the Community Development Director. This exemption shall only apply if the standards of Section 26.470.070(B)(1) or (2), as applicable, are met. Staff Finding: Staff finds that this exemption for the construction of each new single-family dwelling on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotments established pursuant to Section 26.470.050 or from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings. Any development of Lot "B" shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.470.060(B)(1) of the Municipal Code and shall be reflected in a plat note. 17 .. EXHIBIT C PARTIAL DEMOLITION No partial demolition of any structure included on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen shall be permitted unless the Historic Preservation Commission in accordance with the standards set forth in this Chapter approves the partial demolition. The applicant shall be required to address the following Standards for review of partial demolition. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all of the following standards are met: a) The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel, and Staff Finding The applicant has included a partial demolition plan as indicated on the site plan. The applicant is requesting approval to 1) demolish a small non-historic shed addition on the rear of the historic house, 2) demolish the non-historic subgrade level and stairs, and 2) demolish a non-historic separate detached garage currently existing at the rear of the site. This demolition will eliminate non-historic portions /additions of the house. It should be noted that the existing siding on the house is not historic siding original to the structure. Staff finds that the partial demolition of the rear shed addition and subgrade level and stairwell does not detract from the historic structure and the detached garage on the rear of the lot does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b) The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: (1) Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions, and Staff Finding The applicant intends to remove only non-historic elements from the existing structure. In addition, the addition to be demolished is located in the rear of the house and not seen from the street and as a result, The house, in large part, will maintain its historic significance as defined by the Late Victorian Age in which it was built. Staff finds this criterion to be met. (2) Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions that are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. 18 .. Staff Finding The three portions of the existing home will not significantly interfere with the architectural character or integrity of the home. The existing non-historic addition to the rear of the house is not easily distinguished from the historic portion of the house. The applicant intends to replace this addition with a new addition that will be somewhat distinct and more easily distinguished from the historic structure. Again, this partial demolition and reconstruction of a new addition will occur in the rear of the historic structure and not viewed from the street. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 19 .. EXHIBIT D RELOCATION No on-site relocation of any structure included on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen shall be permitted unless the on-site relocation is approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. The applicant shall be required to address the following Standards for review of off-site relocation. No approval for off-site relocation shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all of the following standards are met: a) The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property, and Staff Finding As stated earlier, the house was built in 1887, originally located at 100 West Hopkins Street, and moved to its current location in 1971. Currently, the house is usable as a residence in its present location. The applicant intends to move the house as a result of the ability to conduct a historic landmark lot split provided the City Council grants landmark status to the property. b) The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity Of the structure and the historic integrity Of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation, and Staff Finding The new location of the historic home to Lot A will continue to maintain the front (or north facing) facade and its relationship to the street. In addition, the location will also promote exposure of the western fagade as a result of the angled position of the new adjacent house. There will be no loss of exposure of the east fagade of the house as a result of the move. Even though this fagade may be considered architecturally insignificant, it may be even more promoted as a result of the new development on Lot B. Staff finds that the move will not diminish the historic integrity of the house. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c) The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation, and Staff Finding Bill Baily, a local house mover, originally moved the house to its current location in 1971 from 100 West Hopkins Street. He has recently restudied the house and found that the house can be moved without any damage to the structure. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 20 .. d) A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security approved by HPC with the engineering department, to insure the safe relocation, preservation, and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation, and Staff Finding The applicant, as a condition of approval, and prior to the application of building permits, shall be required to post a bond or other financial security approved by the HPC with the engineering department to ensure safe relocation of the structure. Staff finds that this will be included as a condition of approval. e) The receiving site is compatible in nature to the structure or structures proposed to be moved, the character Of the receiving site's neighborhood is consistent with the architectural integrity of the structure, and the relocation of the historic structure would not diminish the integrity or character of the receiving site's neighborhood. An acceptance letter from the property owner of the receiving site shall be submitted. Staff Finding For all practical matters, the historic house will be relocated on the same lot where it currently sits. (The house will move approximately 40 feet to the west.) As a result of the lot split, the house actually changes lot locations; however, the nature and character of the lot does not drastically differ from current conditions. The receiver site is compatible in nature with the sending site and the neighborhood will not suffer from the movement of this structure. Moreover, the Aspen Area Community Plan calls for increased residential density. Staff finds that the lot split continues to be an incentive to promote this density increase while maintaining the historic lot sizes and relationships of dwellings. The receiver site will accommodate the house in accordance with all zoning provisions and the associated dimensional requirements. No letter of acceptance is required because both lots are owned by Mr. Bone. 21 .. EXHIBIT E HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES 1. Lot Splits The City provides several incentives for residential property owners to divide the square footage that could be built on a landmark parcel into two separate houses in order to reduce the size of both buildings, to reduce the size of an addition made to a historic house and to reinforce the original character of many of Aspen's neighborhoods, which had small houses on 3,000 square foot lots. This section of the Historic Preservations Guidelines deal almost entirely with new development on lots that result from an historic landmark lot split. There are no development plans proposed with this current application; Staff will perform an analysis of any new development proposal on the newly created lot with using the elements in these guidelines as major tools. 2. Building Additions Many historic buildings in Aspen experienced additions over time as the need for more space occurred. In some cases, owners added a wing onto a primary structure for use as a new bedroom, or to expand a kitchen. Typically the addition was subordinate in scale and character to the main building. This tradition of adding onto buildings should continue. It is important, however, that a new addition be designed in such a manner that it preserves the historic character of the original structure. It is important, that new additions do not detract from the character of the building or obscure significant features There are a few basic principles for new additions that are prescribed by Aspen's Historic Preservation Guidelines. In general they include minimizing negative effects that may occur to the historic building fabric, the addition should not affect the perceived character of the building, and keep the size of the addition small in relation to the main structure. Specifically, the guidelines indicate: 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. Staff finds that the proposed new addition does not reflect the exact character of the historic house but is not too inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building. Further, the addition does not attempt to portray an earlier period than that of the primary building or imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 10.4 Design a Ilew addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. The proposed addition is made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. In addition, the addition maintains changes in setbacks, materials, and architectural style from the historic building, that help define a change from old to new construction. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 22 .. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. Staff finds that the two roofs proposed are appropriate because they are shed roofs. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. With the exception of the metal roof materials, the new materials are similar to the original materials. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic building. Staff finds that the rooftop shed dormer is subordinate in scale and not seen from the street so that it does not detract from the historic nature of the house as it is seen from the street. However, it appears to be a large cut into the form of the roof and significantly changes the "read" of the south elevation. Yet is not street facing so that the historic appearance is not severely adulterated. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 3. Building Relocation / Foundations Generally, removing a structure from the parcel with which it is historically recorded will compromise its integrity. However, there may be cases when relocation will not substantially affect the integrity of a property and its rehabilitation can be assured as a result. In this particular case, the house was originally located at 100 West Hopkins Avenue and was subsequently relocated to its current location in 1971. This application calls for demolishing the non-historic basement which serves as the current basement The Historic Preservation Guidelines contain language referring to protecting the resource prior to and during relocation. Specifically, wood panels should be mounted on the exterior of the building to protect existing openings and particularly historic glass. Further, special care should be taken to keep from damaging door and window frames and sashes in the process of covering the openings. The guidelines specifically indicate: 23 .. EXHIBIT F RESOLUTION NO. 2, SERIES OF 2001 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING A PARTIAL DEMOLITION, RELOCATION, A 500 SQ. FT. FAR BONUS, AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 515 WEST GILLESPIE AVENUE, LOTS 4,5, AND 6, BLOCK 99, HALLAM ADDITION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2735-121-11-007 WHEREAS, the applicant, Pamela and Neil Beck, represented by Randall Bone, requested the following land use approvals for a property located at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, Lots 4,5, and 6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen: 1. Historic Landmark Designation 2. Historic Landmark Lot Split 3. Partial Demolition 4. Relocation 5. 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus WHEREAS, the property is currently listed in the City of Aspen's Inventory of Historical Sites and Structures; and WHEREAS, this application for a Historic Landmark Designation, Historic Landmark Lot Split meets all of the Development Review Standards of Section 26.420.010, Section 26.480.030(A)(2), and Section 26.480.030(A)(4) in order for HPC to grant approval; WHEREAS, in a staff report dated June 13th, 2001, the Community Development Department determined the application for a historic landmark designation and historic landmark lot split met the applicable review standards indicated above, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing, which was legally noticed and held at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on June 13th, 2001, at which time the HPC considered and found the application to meet the review standards, and approved the Partial Demolition, Relocation, 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus, and recommended City Council approve the request for Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split with conditions by a vote of three to one (3 to 1). 24 .. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the requests for Conceptual Approval specifically including a 1) partial demolition, 2) relocation, and 3) 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus, and a recommendation to City Council to approve the Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split for 515 West Gillespie Avenue, is approved by Aspen Historic Preservation Commission with the following conditions: 1. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause; 2. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that any development of Lot "B" shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing; 3. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; 4. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district and residential design standards with the potential exception for variances to be approved by the HPC; 5. That Lots "A" and "B" are designated historic landmarks and must receive HPC approval for all development in accordance with Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code, as well at Section 26.410, the "Residential Design Standards;" 6. That the applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR for each newly created lot, taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided into two parcels, Lot "A" receiving 4,639 square feet of lot area and Lot "B" receiving 4,571 square feet of lot area. Provided it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on Lot "A" will be 1,753 s.f. (including a 500 square foot floor area bonus) and 2,840 square feet of floor area on Lot "B." The information specific to exact allocated FAR as 25 .. indicated above for both lots as verified by the City Zoning Officer, shall be included on the plat, as a plat note; 7. That the applicant shall provide the Subdivision Exemption Agreement that includes the elements outlined in Section 26.480.030(A)(2) of the Aspen Municipal Code, and shall meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section 26.480.070(E). (The Community development department can provide an example of this agreement to the applicant); 8. That the applicant agrees that prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either lot, the applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement (if applicable) and pay the applicable recording fees; 9. That the HPC herein and pursuant to this Resolution, grants the applicant approval to allocate the FAR to be split between the two newly created lots (including the 500 sq. ft. bonus) to be 4,093 sq. ft. in total. The applicant shall appropriate this FAR in the following manner: Lot "A" as having 1,753 sq. ft. and Lot "B" as having 2,840 sq. ft. prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements, etc.). Further, these lot sizes and floor areas shall be indicated on the final plat that is recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and recorder's Office; 10. All information regarding possible future development on newly created Lot B of this lot split shall be removed from the site plan prior to review of the historic lot split by City Council. Only the existing structures, proposed lot lines, and existing vegetation shall be represented; and 11. That the applicant shall record a final plat indicating the approvals in this resolution as they have been represented to the Historic Preservation Commission. In addition, if the westerly lot line dispute between the Collins and the owners of the property known as lot a of the Beck Lot Split of Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, has not been resolved prior to the recording of said plat, the applicant shall record a plat showing both lines in dispute and a note on the plat indicating the two lot lines in question and that once the dispute is resolved, the applicant shall file a new plat indicating the resulting resolution; 12. That the applicant shall submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the historic house are to be removed as part of the renovation; 13. That the applicant shall submit a preservation plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating how the existing materials, which are to be retained, will be restored. The requirement is to retain/repair all original materials and 26 .. replicate only those that are determined by HPC staff and monitor to be beyond salvage; 14. That no elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist outside of approval granted by the HPC and no existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor; 15. That the HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures; 16. That there shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor; 17. That the preservation plan described above, as ·well as the conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction; 18. That 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; 19. That the General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit; 20. That 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; 21. That, in the event the chimneys located on the roof of the historic structure, are to be dismantled during the relocation as represented in this application, the applicant agrees that all brick restorations as part of the reassembly shall be reviewed by Staff and Monitor; and 22. That the applicant agrees that any restoration has to comply to the UCBC 1997 version; 23. That the applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during demolition. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction as a requirement of the City of Aspen Streets Department; 27 .. 24. That the HPC grants a 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus to be allocated to Lot A with the historic house (for a maximum floor area of 1,753 square feet). Lot B will then maintain the balance of the remaining FAR to be 2,840 square feet; 25. That the applicant shall enter into a common water service agreement with the City Water Department for the newly relocated house; 26. That the applicant, prior to Final Review before the HPC, provide the Community Development Department and HPC with a signed agreement regarding the relocation of the Si Johnson Ditch and any tree relocation / mitigation issues with the City of Aspen Parks Department; 27. That the applicant shall comply with the Universal Conservation Building Code (UCBC); and c-- -3 ~ 28.,AJill Baily, a local house mover, originally moved the house to its current -- location in 1971 from 100 West Hopkins Street. He has recently restudied the house and found that the house can be moved without any damage to the structure. However, The applicant, as a condition of approval, and prior to the application of building permits, shall be required to post a bond of $30,000 or other financial security approved by the HPC with the engineering department to ensure safe relocation of the structure; 29. That the Applicant be required to enter into a "Ditch Relocation Agreement" with the City of Aspen and that said agreement be a recorded document with the Pitkin County Clerk and recorder's Office thereby representing a burden running with the land. The Applicant should contact the Phil Overynder at the Water Department for a copy of this agreement. Specifically, the Ditch Relocation Agreement should reference the plans that are approved and provide for an easement a minimum of 10 feet in width which shall also be recorded on the Plat and Subdivision Exemption Agreement; and 30. That the Applicant shall enter into a "Ditch Relocation Agreement" with the City of Aspen and said agreement shall indicate that the City of Aspen, at it's sole discretion, has the option of moving the ditch off the property at a future date and would have no obligation to compensate the landowner(s) in any way. Said agreement shall specifically state that the landowners have no water rights in the ditch nor is any license being granted for use of water from the ditch. Finally, said agreement shall state that the landowners agree to comply with all City water policies including the policy that the City of Aspen is the exclusive water provider for all use of water within the City limits (i.e. no use of ditch water without the issuance of a raw water license agreement from the City). 28 .. Section 2: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 13th day of June, 2001. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk C:\My Documents\Current Cases\HPC\515 W Gillespie\5 15WGillespie Conceptual Memo.doc 29 2314,4, f c ASPEN HISTORIC ~SERVATION COMMISSI~MINUTES OF, June 13, 2001 Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Gilbert Sanchez, Jeffrey Halferty, Susan Dodington, Lisa Markalunas, Rally Dupps and Melanie Roschko present. MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve the minutes of May 9, 2001 as amended; second by Rally. All in favor, motion carried. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Lisa brought up a concern on the Hunt project and it appears that damage has occurred to the cottonwood trees in front ofthe historic house. Jeffrey inquired about the remedial plan on the Schelling project. Stephen Kanipe, building official met with the attorney Doug Allen and reviewed sketches from the architect which were rejected with a list ofrequirements. A survey will be required. The neighbor to the west has been addressed as far as back filling. Amy has two monitoring issues on 330 Lake Ave. and 329 Park Ave. that will be discussed at the end of the meeting. PARAGON BUILDING - 419 HYMAN Disclosure: Rally will step down 735 W. Bleeker and 515 Gillespie St. Je ffrey will step down for 935 E. Cooper Gilbert will be stepping down for 515 Gilespie and 935 E. Cooper MOTION: Melanie moved to continue 735 W. Bleeker until June 27, 200; second by Susan. All infavor, motion carried. Melanie, Susan, Lisa, Suzannah, Gilbert, jeffrey 515 GILLESPIE STREET - LANDMARK DESIGNATION - CONCEPTUAL - LOT SPLIT - ETC. PUBLIC HEARING City Planner, Fred Jarman presented. This is a request for landmark designation, lot split, partial demolition, relocation and the 500 square foot bonus. 1 ASPEN HISTO~ PRESERVATION COMMIS~N MINUTES OF, June 13, 2001 The difference in square footage is 160 square feet which was removed and relocated in the garage on Lot A. Nothing to the house changed. On the garage they added the square footage on the grade level and added a stairway on the Eastside which accesses a door to the mechanical space. Fred presented drawings. Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland swore in Randall Bone, owner. Randall said the 160 square feet was an opportunity to make the mechanical and storage space under the garage more accessible and possibly at some point have a sufficient size that would work for an ADU. Lisa asked about the Lilac bush and Randall said he would relocate it if need be. Susan relayed that any historic glass should be protected. Fred said by code you can have an eave that extends over the setback by 18 inches. Melanie had concerns with the extension and Randall said they are still four feet from the property line. Suzannah opened the public hearing. Charles and Jan Collins were sworn in. He feels the 500 square foot bonus should be attributed to the historic house lot A not B and according to his calculations it is allotted to B. Suzannah said no it specifically applies to lot A. Charles said in the R6 zone you are permitted 44% FAR of the lot size and this is 62% and in addition when we talk about character o f the historic resource the house next door will be 2/3 again as big as the present one. Suzannah said that is what is allowed by the land use code regardless of the historic house. Charles said the west faGade stands on its own and if it moves 8 feet further west to the adj acent property it will be significantly blocked by trees which will be effect by that appearance. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC~ESERVATION COMMISSI~MINUTES OF, June 13, 2001 Ditch Comment: Charles said the Parks Dept. gave approval for the ditch relocate in which he feels is a significant change in the character o f that particular site. Since this came on board the trees have been moved on the site and that has made a significant change on the site. What is proposed is a detrimental change and will have a negative impact. Jan Collins said she spent time on the guidelines and she has concerns with the roo f design o f the addition. According to the guidelines that is not something that you do. There is also a new window and that is not allowed in the guidelines. The house was moved there on a truck and is not as old as the ditch. It is the last ofthe Si Johnson ditch. The ditch serves the music festival in the tent and the wild flower garden. The house sits behind the ditch and is part of the front fa~ade of the home. This is part of the ambiance o f the west end. The gradient proposed will not carry the water and will have to go up hill. Jan is opposed to the new ditch relocation. Suzannah closed the public hearing. Melanie recused herself. Amy said originally Randall came here with a three house scenario and clearly he has pulled back from that as it would not be appropriate for this neighborhood. The two houses proposed is something anyone can do on a 9,000 square foot lot. He is not accruing any other development rights than anyone else. Commissioner comments Jeffrey stated that he appreciates the neighbors concerns and the applicant has taken a lot of what they have said and applied them to the proposal. Jeffrey stated he is a big proponent of the lot split and it is an excellent way to aid and downsize the potential additions that can go onto historic resources. Bailey moved the house their in 1971 and it had a different context and a different relationship to the street that it was on and to the neighborhood. The relocation of the historic ditch has not been privatized by putting it internally on the lot. It is changing course to allow the applicants right to build the allowable square footage that he is allowed by our land use code. The straight lot lines is an excellent way to solve some of the issues. 3 ASPEN HISTOI~ PRESERVATION COMMIS~N MINUTES OF, June 13, 2001 The shed dormer is the most appropriate dormer and the materials are acceptable. The new window penetrations are OK as long as the detailing is different and more contemporary. At the junction where the historic corner board meet the new material that there be a detail in line that can be reviewed by staff and monitor. The new proposal has accommodated a lot of the Collin's concerns. Lisa disagreed with Jeffrey's comments. She is opposed to moving the house to what she feels is an inferior location which has major impacts on the prominence o f the house and impacts on the west fagade. She feels more could have been done and this is not an exemplary project warranting the 500 square foot bonus. Impacts on the streetscape, landscaping and the ditch are tremendous even before the property has been constructed. She also feels there are conflicts with out guidelines. There is also concern about the relative sizes of the structures compared to one another. Another concern is the impact on the neighborhood character. Susan was gratified that the addition is small. She is mostly concern about the ditch and would hate to see it not work and the water cut off to the music tent. She said moving the historic house isn't making it an outstanding project but keeping the addition small might apply. Suzannah said she is always in favor of a lot split because it is better for the neighborhood. To have two small houses as opposed to an historic house with one very large and challenging addition to it. That is the motivation behind the lot split. In this case the addition to the historic building is very small compared to the existing building we are going one step further. She feels this is an outstanding effort. She shares the concern about the ditch and in every project have tried to keep the ditches in their original orientation as much as possible. We do have to allow some flexibility when it is on private property. She would prefer to see the ditch run up between the Collin's and this house and cross the front. Clearly there are slop and functionality issues to that. That is something that we should direct the applicant to address for final. It is more appropriately appropriately routed in front than around the back. The only concern of the addition is the proposed change to the second window on the upstairs, eliminating that takes away from the aesthetic of the back o f the house that exits now. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC~ESERVATION COMMISSI~MINUTES OF, June 13, 2001 Fred said the numerous city staff walked the street and the grade was a question that came out and it was determined that it could be relocated. One thought was maybe the ditch should run down 5th street and do it's function there. Randall said the ditch moved to the back because the grades wouldn't work going through the front. There was concern if it backed up that it would go into peoples houses. It is a legal obligation that the city has to deliver water to the tent. MOTION: jeffrey made the motion to approve conceptual review for 515 W. Gillespie Ave. and that HPC approves J)request for partial demolition, 2) relocation, 3)the 500 square foot FAR bonus, 4) recommends City Council approve the Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split for 515 West Gillespie Ave. withthefollowing conditions: 1. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days offinal approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing Of good cause; 2. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that any development of Lot "B" shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing; 3. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time Of application; 4. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat ntoe stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district and residential 5 ASPEN HISTOI~ PRESERVATION COMMIS~N MINUTES OF, June 13, 2001 design standards with the potential exceptionfor variances to be approved by the HPC; 3. That Lots "A " and "B" are designated historic landmarks and must receive HPC approval for all development in accordance with Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code, as well as Section 26.410, the "Residential Design Standards, " 6. That the applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Ojficer the total allowable FAR- for each newly created lot, taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided into two parcels, Lot "A " receiving 4,639 square feet of lot area and Lot "B" receiving 4,571 squarefeet of lot area. Providing it is found by the Zoning Ojficer that no lot area reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on Lot "A" will be 1,753 squarefeet (Including a 500 squarefootfloor area bonus) and 2,840 square feet offloor area on Lot "B". The information specific to exact allocated FAR as indicated above for both lots as verified by the City Zoning O#icer, shall be included on the plat, as a plat note; 7. That the applicant shall provide the Subdivision Exemption Agreement that includes the elements outlined in Section 26.480.030(A)(2) of the Aspen Municipal Code, and shall meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section 26.480.070(E). (The Community Development Department can provide an example Of this agreement to the applicant); 8. That the applicant agrees that prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either lot, the applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement (if applicable) and pay the applicable recording fees; 9. That the HPC herein and pursuant to this Resolution, grants the applicant approval to allocate the FAR to be split between the two newly created lots (including the 500 square feet bonus) to be 4,093 square feet in total. The applicant shall appropriate this FAR in the following manner; Lot "A "as having 1,753 square feet 6 ASPEN HISTORIC ~SERVATION COMMISSIC~MINUTES OF, June 13, 2001 and Lot "B" as having 2,840 square feet prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e. slopes, access easements, etc.) Further, these lot sizes and floor areas shall be indicated on the final plat that is recorded in the Pitkin County and Clerk and Recorder's Office; 10. All information regarding possible future development on newly created Lot B of this lot split shall be removed from the site plan prior to review ofthe historic lot split by City Council. Only the existing structures, proposed lot lines, and existing vegetation shall be represented; and 11. That the applicant shall record a final plat indicating the approvals in this resolution as they have been represented to the Historic Preservation Commission. In addition, if the westerly lot line dispute between the Collins and the owners of the property known as lot A ofthe Beck Lot Split of Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, has not been resolved prior to the recording of said plat, the applicant shall record a plat showing both lines in dispute and a note on the plat indicating the two lot lines in question and that once the dispute is resolved, the applicant shall file a new plat indicating the resulting resolution; 12. That the applicant shall submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the historic house are to be removed as part of the renovation; 13. That the applicant shall submit a preservation plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating how the existing materials, which are to be retained, will be restored. The requirement is to retain/repair all original materials and replicate only those that are determined by HPC staff and monitor to be beyond salvage; 14. That no elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist outside of approval granted by the HPC and no existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor.1 7 ASPEN HISTO~PRESERVATION COMMIS~N MINUTES OF, June 13, 2001 15. That the HPC sta# and monitor must approve the type and location ofallexteriorlighting fixtures; 16. That there shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 17. That the preservation plan described above, as well as the conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet ofthe building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction; 18. That 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. 19. That the General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit; 20. That 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; 21. That, in the event the chimneys located on the roof of the historic structure, are to be dismantled during the relocation as represented in this application, the applicant agrees that all brick restorations as part of the reassembly shall be reviewed by Staff and Monitor; and 22. That the applicant agrees that any restoration has to comply to the UCBC 1997 version; 8 ASPEN HISTORIC~ESERVATION COMMISSI~MINUTES OF, June 13, 2001 23. That the applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during demolition. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction as a requirement of the City ofAspen Streets Department; 24. That the HPC grants a 500 sq.. Ft. FAR bonus to be allocated to Lot A with the historic house (for a maxim floor area of 1,753 square feet). Lot B will then maintain the balance of the remaining FAR to be 2,840 square feet. 25. That the applicant shall enter into a common water service agreement with the City Water Department for the newly relocated house; 26. That the applicant, prior to Final Review before the HPC, provide the Community 'Development Department and HPC with a signed agreement regarding the relocation of the Si Johnson Ditch and any tree relocation/ mitigation issues with the City of Aspen Parks Department; That the applicant confirm for final from the City Engineer confirmation of the information provided here. 27. That the applicant shall comply with the Universal Conservation Building Code (UCBC); and 28. Bill Baily, a local house mover, originally moved the house to its current location in 1 97 1 from 100 West Hopkins Street. He has recently restudied the house and found that the house can be moved without any damage to the structure. However, The applicant, as a condition of approval, and prior to the application of building permits, shall be required to post a bond of#30,000 or other financial security approved by the HPC with the Engineering Department to ensure safe relocation of the structure. 29. The large window on the south elevation needs to be restudied(smaller or deletion). 9 ASPEN HISTOR~PRESERVATION COMMIS~N MINUTES OF, June 13, 2001 Motion second by Susan. Yes vote: Susan, Suzannah, jeffrey. No vote: Lisa Motion carried 3-1. 10 ..r 0. 0, . - $ W A"'1 4 0 3 1 , 62 8~ '0£1 v,~ SILLESPIE ST. 4 90. d 11/1, 1.00 1 48 _4PL -. NOTE: SITE PLAN TO BE VERIFIED W r- 30" COTTONWOOD NEM SITE IMPROVEMENT SURVEY 10'-O" FRONT YARD 14" COTTONWOOD 3 SETBACK ~ NER LOCATION FOR 1411 1 96.54 . 56.41' COTTONROOD -' - - - - - - - -- -- - - - -- ---~ DISPUTE <~ '~-O" 0, ~611 6077-ONAC>~77 1 ./1 ,5 , I k ' 0 COLLINS 0 1 LOT LINE 4 00 0 J ////f EXISTING =1-1 PITCH LOCATION ~ 1 1 11./ 1 / 7 - -w- / 1 82/1582 5'-O" SIDE YARD _1_---~ 1 . ,-, 1 1 SETBACK I U L .'~p . | / ~/ PITCH LOCATION 14" COTTONMOOD (MOVED) NX- ~ A '1 E ~ ~ 32-9- 4// 40-1 01'L~ BE DEMOLISHED \ i ~ - // :1 1 EXISTINS SUBGRADE ~ ~ | FOUNDATION TO -1 M 3 LU 0 0 39 1,1 1 1 20 CD O / 14" SPRUCE U) i /77 111-4-1 0 z : mull (MOVED) CL EXISTINS SUBeRADE 1/-- 1 1 EXTERIOR STAIRS 10" ASPEN «1 - --- -- ~ TO BE DEMOLISHED ~ i I ~L PREVIOUS HOUSE ~ tt IO" ASPEN '1 L_--1 1 ~ DEMOLISH NON-HISTORIG 1.-79...ACT Al L SHED ADDITION PRIOR ' TO MOVING HISTORIC ~ /\ 1101 ON GRAINE ' O' ' l REVISED ~ PITCH LOCATION 5'-0" SIDE YARD EXISTING _f . SETBACK ~ 3 7 PITCH LOCATION , ~ ~ 4 1 - SNOMMELT Re (2 - ~.~ PATHWAY -- ti C~ 1 LOT 'A 1 1 7 --- m 1 ~ 4 HISTORIC, LOT l % ~ NER LOT 1 i LOT 'B' 12" COTTONMOOD t-4 ~ ~ 46309 S.F. I 1 1 1 1 4571 5.7. APPLE TREE -- SNOMMELT STONE FAVERS- |REMOVE SM. 1 1 1 Z. 1 0 O.- LINE OF | 0 | -~ - -7 --7 / ASPEN TREES FOUNDATION 77«21 1 1 1(011.... BELOIN . 0 .I -O e. 00 =le 1 1 1 1--J I f + 1 i F c a. fo= CO-I / -11 ~| ~--ROOF ABOVE 1 0 * 6 .® 1 9 1 / 1 -g 1 1 1/ 1 : 22 0 11 IF 1 =H' 1 1 2 -4-2 1 f . LOCATION HOUSE /l 1 1 1 J f \ ' li__ 11 2 ' 1 DEMOLISH EXISTING j 1 NON-HISTORIC eARAGE PROGRESS: 12-11-2000 1 1 2-2- t--1 --_2 27 / - 1 1 CONCEPTUAL HPC: 04-25-01 CONCEPTUAL HPC: 05-23-01 5'-0" REAR YARD -/1 4-4 FIANL HPC: 08-07-01 SETBACK ; - - ~ CONCEPTUAL HPC: 06-13-01 5'-6"Xle'-O"l/ - L DRIVE PARKINe SPACE A Rev. Date: ALLEY Construction issue date: Drawing Title: SITE PLAN Sheet#: File name: BONE-A10.dwg NORTH g~h SITE PLAN 49/ 1/8 11 = 11-011 Ad- .0 4 . 0 *-4- -- 1 9 . . NOI1VAON3k:I 3ldS31-liD 91.9 -- 03/\&393&; Sl-Helk; lm, '013233H1 l}IDIVAdOO DNIOnloNI 'Sl-HDIM C]3/\Bas)ZJ HaH.LO 11¥ ON¥ ABolnlviS M¥1 NOrt,NOO 11¥ NI¥1311 11VHS S1031IHOhlv MALLBOSNOO -91031IHONV INAI.LBOSNOOJO NOISSIrtdad N31.LIBM BOIB, 3HllnOH.LIM aald00 110 03Sn 38 AVIN NOI.LVIhIO:INI SIH.1. dO .LIVd ON '9103.LIHOBV VInllyOSNOS AO AlhladOWd 3H1 SI .LNEINAOOCI SIHI NO CBNIV1NOO 1NBINI NOIS30 I W NOLL¥,WhIO=INI aH-1 -9103.LIHOBV EnllyOSNOO 0001 0 I27.66' wn!130 ~sjoel!4OJ (0 L 6) Mon Jul 09 13: 41: 08 2001 ..... 1 1 1 ; 1 ~ BATH EXHAUST VENT TO DRAIN EXISTING ' ASPHALT SHINGLE ASPHALT SHINSLE ' ROOFINe EXISTINe METAL ROOF GUTTER ROOFING METAL DOWNSPOUT ' ND. TRIM T.O. PLATE @ UPPER EXISTINe El-EV. 115'-11" STANDINS SEAM ASPHALT SHINeLE NER METAL ROOF METAL ROOFING ROOFINe NOTE: PORCH 12 ROOF TO BE RESTORED 75 i T.O. F.F. @ UPPER ~ £ T.O. F.F. @ UPPER i ~7--ELEv. IIO'-7" - - - - - - <' ELEV. 110'--7' i B.O. HEADER METAL DOINNSPOUT -Ekv. 1051-1" \ HISTORIC DBL. HUNG KINDOW METAL FLUE PV OAP HISTORIC BAY METAL SUARDRAIL METAL SUARDRAIL MINDOR 4 TRIM BEYOND BEYOND VERT. ME). SIDING ~ _-_ MECH. VENT [r== = =11 FiD. DECK BEYOND) r E T.O. F.F. @LOWER i T.O. F.F. @ LOP€R 1 T.O. F.F. @ LOPNER - --- MS LEV. 100'-0" EE@V. loo'-O" 7 ELEV. 100'-O" w Q ESRESS MINDOIN CO 21 1 J | | | Ifi -~ | HORIZ. Pe SIDINe / ~ METAL ESRESS 8 TO MATCH EXISTINe LADDER LO LO SUBeRADE SUBGRADE MALL SUBGRADE MALL FOUNDATION | BEYOND ~ | | | BEYOND 1 i \\ 11 1 MALL 1 1 11 1 1 5 1 METAL FLASHING 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T.O. CONC. NORTH ELEVATION //33 EAST ELEVATION **737*7728" EXISTING 1: 43 t.?ff r , 1 EXITING BRICK CHIMNE¥ FLUE 19%%3,40*,1 FEW¢1 1 NEK PORMER MU METAL FLASHINe BRICK EXISTINe STANDING CHUMNEY taliwit ASPHALT SHINeLE NEM PORMIER PV SEAM METAL ' i , ROOFING 12 VERT. Pe. SIDINS pked# ROOFING IN··~:LbeA 1 EXISTING HISTORIC ' LI?**3 1 DOUBLE HUNe I 1 METAL GUARDRAIL F ..wae 1 ASPHALT SHINGLE MINDOW HISTORIC - EXITING .- - 1:(r?~- - 13?6'09,·~FA-~' ROOFINS B.O. BEAM @ PORMER 1 04%~9? 1 NER DOOR ¢ . 91£46196 1 C> O EXISTING DOUBLE HUNe ELEV. 1 IR'-4 3/4' -»1 F„44 2.E 4¥¥1 2:0 TRANSOM HORIZ. PNP. MINDOWS , EXISTING i.. 124#.Pmfl I g SIDINS ~ HORIZ. PNP SIDINe ..0 -- NEPN PORMER N VE#MN ... VERT. Pe. SIDINe ' 1 | 1 T.O. PLATE @ UPPER i T.o. PLATE @ UPPER O ll'W:I £ F - EXISTINS PNP. - ELEV. 115'-11" 7 ELEV. 115'-11" LINE OF . ~ , CLAPBOARD SIDING GUARDRAIL , ' ~ 1 METAL FLASHING -TYPICAL FOR ENTIRE 1:. BUILDING EXHAUST VENT :- METAL SIPING METAL CHIMNE¥ 12 1 =. - 1 FLUE 4 GAP EXISTING 1. I. ASPHALT SHINGLE 11.,ZE ROOFING 4.® i T.O. F.F. @UPPER T.O. F.F. @ UPPER 6 g In. EXISTINS | ~r--Eav. 110'-7" HISTORIC AD. . ELEV. 110'-7" DETAILINS T.O. PLATE @ ROOF N MIP. SIDINe C, STANDINe BEAM - 1 METAL ROOFING ELEV. 109'-8 3/8" (EXISTINe) 0 1 EXISTINe METAL FLOWER BOX METAL DOWNSPOUT HISTORIC AD. TRIM , VERT. PNP. SIDINS METAL F.P. IPROGRESS: 12-11-2000 ACCESS DOOR 013. PECKING ~ | NEW MINPOR | |CONCEPTUAL HPC: 04-25-01 | METAL - - -6 VERT. Pe. SIDINS -_____ METAL FLOINER BOX FINAL HPC: 08-07-2001 | EXISTING METAL SUARPRAIL HISTORIC BA¥ »ID. PECKING METAL SIDINe ~ ~ CONCEPTUAL HPC: 05-23-01 1 1 / ~ BEYOND ADIN. BEYOND i ~ ~CONCEPTUAL HPC: 06-13-01 ~ 1 01 I GOING. STEP VERT. PNP. SIDING GUARDRAL aRADE 11 SRAPE ~ T.O. F.F. @ LOPER T.O. F.F.@LOWER | ELEV loo'-O" ELEV. 100'-OIl 0---1 SUBSRADE I ~~ SUBGRADE /0011 111 lilli 9 1 1 1 LIGHT MELL -4 1 1 ~ _ - _ < 1--3 | HORIZ. MO SIDINS- l~ ~Rev. ~Date: TO MATCH EXISTINe EXISTINS HORIZ. BEYOND 11 1 1 NOT 2&~0 1 1 r 1 lilli lilli 4-1-1 1 1 4 - PNP. SIDING 1 111111 Construction issue date: 111111111 /11 Drawing Title: METAL GUARD)1~AIL ELEVATIONS ~ -~ ~ | HTMELL METAL FLASHINS *<< = ~-- - - fyiienameBONE-Aii-dwg ~__ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - EGRESS KINDOIN Sheet #: T.O. CONS. _~ LE. CONG. Ll___L__________ -19-4- -miv. eq,-10' L__1______________--21 ELEV. aq'-10" SOUTH ELEVATION (Th INEST ELEVATION EFUZE-=1'25~ 0 0 - 0 9 NOI1¥AON32:I =1 3ldS3110 9I.9 Vbl0103'N3dSV DE]A5*3S3hl S.LHDIB 1-™ '013213H.L 1HDINAdOO DNIanloNI 'S.LHDIhi 03Ah13S3h1 HEIH10 -1-Tv ONV Ahdolnlvls MV-1 NOWIr,00 11¥ Nlvlakl 1-1VHS S.£03-LIHOBV,NAI.LBOSNOO 'slo31:HONV,InlihiOSNOO =IO NOISSIINGEd Nal.LIMAA hIOIBd 3HllnOH.LIM 031doo BO 03Sn 38 Avvy NOI.LvkltiO=INI SIH-L =to lavd ON '91031IHOW¥ •InllaOSNOO 30 AlbladOkld 3H1 SI 1N3Iln000 SIH.1 NO 03 NlvlNOO 1N31NI NOIS30 ONV NOI-1-vnBO=INI 3HL -S10311HOBV AnllBOSNOO 0001 0 edier #le, r Suoo Mon Jul 09 13: 42: 01 2001 4 .. ... I , Mon Jul 09 13: 41: 48 2001 24'-7" 0 11 iii w ~ i g B 70 XMl Ok ron Ex 2id 1 8~¥ O I > 3)3 ~% 6" Z rTI \ r 1 10 0 Fre C 1 3-1 f 11 00 00 lili lili lili € lili 111 lili 0 11. lili lili lili 1 (Plul) 11 lili 11 1 )0 1- 0----------- Fn \21/7 EL c 11 11 k -10 b 11 170 0 I I ~~ #I~ ~~ Mzz- 5~,-~ rim '412 0 [It 12 ~.1 Al 0 010 Ill g 1% 0 = 0 14 0 all / (D x I 1 111 -0 m 61 ' r 11 1 111 > 8 Z 11 11 hi IL------------- 3 ~ 11 6 6" . L r m 1 -1 I M 0 X 0 3 §2 1 a < Ill FO 410 010 r~ 6 9 ~ a %12 r' fil 01 -1 OlD rn -11 2 10 ELE 41@ g = 01 1 ki 616 6> OK B - Z Z 0 6~ 8 0 0 h I > k) k) 70 11, U,70 0 23 30 ---1 rr- -1 11 9-h U) 0 90 0* 7 2___ 14) Ul 11 -70 1 90 it> ----- ----7 m - F~ 2 2--- _ -_ -11 4 11 1 6 11 1 4 ---1 - 0 111 11 1 0 11 1 =Z 11 1 -1 I I 11 21 3101 r[1 1- 11 1 -1 1 REEEEEESEEESEEEiEEM m Il 11 1 -1 kj 11 I oil Z 11 1 11 1 -1--3 m 3 k = =Mt ~ 9 v 0 Z 0 -1 b AO 11 4 0 -1 -0 1 014 ~ »l ---1 46 -1 0 <O V r 0 00 r £ iiI 00 I iii a ~C~g 1 1 ~e =~ 83~ RI* III O &O rn B -0 3[ly -1 031 Z Z ZP 4 8 z b z OF 6* g.flm 113 O10 0 z Ill £ I iiI , *E 1492\ 3 r 0 2 0> J> 0 M w 4----- L__ CD 11 1@0 1/ 1 F 0 11 11 1 11 3> 11 0 0 ----- 6 m m 1 -> 11 1 9 11 - 1 -- -F Il 1 > 11 1 - Glili 191 0 CD -- - 11 -1 0 DO 1 Z \ \ 11 0 11 - 1 \ /11 11 ~-1 _____ - Lilk-- - --- 51-6 consortium P 2 E+39%*E,[%87.2'ir,,a~;4,4f,6' .~r SJ~~{*51*>Aft)%1 E****+Y**fC**31 0 0 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 515 GILLESPIE ST. E E ME- (970) 925.6797 fax: (970) 925 6797 ~ P.O.B. 3662, aspen colorado 81612 e-mail: rally@aspeninfo. com © 2000 CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS-THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. NO PART OF ™IS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ROOF ABV ROOF 5BTERLU~5 MALLS BELOW NOIJVA313 -LGEM 39 NOI-LVAE-13 H1n06 39 eRADE AE-13 METAL SUARDRAll Eavhle eNIGIS 'CM 'lhIZIA bOI 'AE-13 ~ NOAF1193.~1'*O eNIHGV-61 -I¥13JN SNIJ-Hell -1*3 VERT. PNP. SIDING 2xe IND. OMPEZV-31409 eul SONIA/\VMCI 39¥bl¥9 ®80 'Ae 810-80 OdH 1¥Nld 0-93-40 OdH 1¥nldBONOO 4 12- 0 . 0 - 74b 0.-.' . RENOVATION F.A.R. CALCULATIONS F.A.R. CALCULATIONS eARASE FAR: eROSS S.F. = 381 S.F. MALL HEIGHT = 8'-O. LOT SIZE CALCULATIONS: TOTAL NALL LENGTH = 80'-2 ORIGINAL LOT SIZE = 45361 S.F. TOTAL SUBGRADE MALL AREA= 80'-2" x 8'-O" = 641 S.F. COLLINS' LOT LINE DISPUTE = - 329 S.F. EXPOSED MALL AREA = 154 S.F. REMAINING LOT SIZE = q210 S.F. (REMAININS AFTER LOT LINE DISPUTE) % OF EXPOSED TO TOTAL AREA = 1561 S.F. / 654 S.F. 000) = 24 % LOT A SIZE = 4634 S.F. - - 9210 S.F. SUBeRADE F.A.R. = 24 % (381 S.F.) = 611 S.F. LOT B SIZE = 4571 S.F. - eARAGE S.F. = 881 S.F. GARAGE EXEMPTION = eSl S.F. - 250 S.F. = 131 3.F. /2=66 S.F. LOT SPLIT F.A.R. CALCULATIONS: eARASE FAR = F S.F. + 66 S.F. = 37 S.F. REMAININS LOT SIZE = ¢1210 S.F. SUBeRADE FAR: BASE ALLOWED FAR = 4080 SP. GROSS S.F. = 6130 S.F. LOT SIZE OVER 4000 S.F. = 4210 S.F. - 4000 S.F. = 210 S.F. MALL HEIGHT = q'-o" OTHER ALLOWED FAR = 210 S.F. / 100 *6=13 S.F. TOTAL MALL LENSTH = 141'-10" TOTAL ALLOINED FAR = 4080 S.F. + 13 S.F. = 40<19 S.F. TOTAL SUBeRAPE MALL AREA= 141'-10" * 40" = 1277 S.F. ABV. GRADE MALL = 5'-0" + 5'-10" = 10'-10" EXPOSED MALL AREA = 10'-10" * 6'-0" = 65 S.F. FAR TOTALS FOR EACH LOT: % OF EXPOSED TO TOTAL AREA = 65 S.F. / 1271 9.F. (100) = 5% LOTS FAR = 2840 5.F. SUBeRADE F.A.R. = 5% (430 S.F.) = 4-1 S.F. LOT A FAR = 40513 S.F. - 2840 S.F. = 1253 S.F. LOT A HPG BONUS = 500 S.F. ABOVE GRADE FAR: LOT A FAR FV BONUS = 1258 S.F. + 500 S.F. = 1-753 S.F. MAIN LEVEL DEMO FAR = 127 S.F. NER MAIN LEVEL FAR = 150 5.F. - 127 S.F. = 23 S.F. TOTAL NEM MAIN LEVEL FAR = 885 S.F. + 23 S.F. = 408 S.F. LOT A = LOT N HISTORIC HOUSE NEM UPPER LEVEL FAR = IN S.F. LOT B = NEM LOT TOTAL NEW UPPER LEVEL FAR = 606 S.F. + Il S.F. = 623 S.F. AS BUILT FORCHES ¢ DECKS: 6 U.1 PORCHES = EXEMPT- DECKS = 60 3.F. (LOWEIK) + loS.F (NEK UPPER) = ISO S.F. 218 DECK EXEMPTION = 15% (4112 S.F) = 617 S.F. > ISO S.F. (EXEMPT) 20 a. 0 TOTALS: SARAGE FAR = 157 S.F. LU -1 -1 SUBeRADE LEVEL = 47 S.F. CD MAIN LEVEL = ¢108 S.F. Lf') UPPER LEVEL = 623 S.F. LO PORCHES $ DECKS = O S.F. TOTAL F.A.R. = 47 S.F. + 157 S.F. + 408 S.F. + 623 5.F. = 1735 S.F. | UNUSED F.A.R. = I-135 S.F. < I-153 S.F. ALLOWABLE /21 F.A.R. CALCULATIONS 4327 MINDOM PROJECTION- ABOVE 7-- 1 % ----4 liT-1 11»--111 4 4 . ..4 4 13~--- U 4 HISTORIC j 1 METAL BAY -NOM. SUARDRAILA A T.O. FIN. FLOOR HISTORIC kNI:"1. )p PORCH \ · rial 9 ELEV. 100-0" , 59%2123'j. , I i DESK--~| #imbl L -0- 1 -2 4 E// OFF IDE - 361'.-42 ANDOW 4. . E 4 .. ./ I. 4 BEDROOM 11 - 11 nail $4**11 PROJECTION -7 + 006 ESRESS -- - LleHT RELL ABOVE i LADDER LT. MELL UE..0. TUB 0- 1 Mmn IL- CERTIFIED PNP. ~ o BELOR n i BURNING F.P. - 9*41 - - - 4 BEDROOM AREA= -2 4 HISTORIC ~ EXISTING / LISHT AREA REQUIRED= I4.1 S.F. FLUE ABV. ~ .», '.:7*4&*259#: INE LISHT AREA PROVIDED= 15.0 S.F. 4 . CEL · BAY »IPA. 12 DININe Id E-Flf \ 46% EE: 1- BATH - 33 BATH -ARMOIRE HISTORIC '2£&24 m ~ . - FL---20 1 U MINPOINS ~ 2.9 : .·: 1=J 1==119 ~3 -3 - Z Z 0 - BUILT-IN I ~Y* 1, f~~~ 47 TUE 1 1 - 6205 - -, I 8 Ohio 10 R. 0 7 6/8" to ===.0 555\ /Av-£01 VENT LOCATION PANTRY-*~1_ ff\1 ~- CAM. ABV N> -FOR 1.,1~ 1 1.1 R .10• - L : Flk Rotil- L-======= -~ STAIR ~----- ~F m STAIR '~ STAIR 1 DOOR 7 1 0331 \ ------ lael - U _ PVh, ~ 848 ... \ . 1 .49 r . I C L. , 5'-0" | | STAIRS _./72= • 6 - LISHT MELL ~L MINE RACK STAIRS ':' U ABV -,PR MECH r ; · BELOM 7 27" ~44\ ABV. 0-01 ~~ NER MINDOW ~ 2 0 ~ PANTRY ~ LAUND.x; - 1321, i £ LOt/4 6 0 POPOER \ 11 MALL 1 - _ C> - ACCESS ~4/ / p \' 27· 4,= -1 ~ r 0 . TILE MOOD C= LT. MELL - ESRESS BEDROOM - LADDER * , 11 1 LADDER faial ~- ABV. ~ BELOW A NEM MINDOW DRAFNER EXCAVATE / CABS. -- FREEZER - DORN 4.0" / 1 FROM LOINER L --- ~~ PROGRESS: 12-11-2000 1 31 CONCEPTUAL HPC: 04-25-2001 LEVEL FOR 8" GONG.NALL KITCHEN ~ -1.1 BEDROOM AREA= 1-15 S.F. PLAYROOM \1 92 LIGHT AREA REQUIRED= It.5 S.F. MECH 4////- FV 2" RISID ~ CONCEPTUAL HPC: 05-23-2001 4 r_ LIGHT AREA PROVIDED= 17.5 S.F. INSUL. CONCEPTUAL HPC: 06-13-2001 raail / LINE OF ADDITION METAL,1 / 1 1 -hu CABS. - 4 Ola CHANGE FINAL HPC: 08-07-2001 SUARDRAIL ~ 1 0>w | <| BELOM k T.0. GONG. *-' ABOVE T ELEV. 89'-IO" NEK AINDOW / PLEXIeLASS - SINK ~ 1 MALL ~9_42 r COLUMN VENTILATION _.~ HOOD ABOVE 1:4 7 1 POP-UP TV LIVINe , 1-El - NER AINPOKI Rev. Date: CLOS.~1 Construction LOCATION -10 ~ ~ 0 STRUCTURAL FOR eAS Bea. ~ issue date: MUD RM. 1-061 Drawing Title: FLOAER BOX - PLANS & FAR CALC. - LEVEL ABOVE DECK ri, J---441]0«41 \ 3 1 BENCH 9 nON File name: BONE-A21.dwg 2-2 12 RISERS 0 8" NER ANDORS Sheet #: / -- - FOR SOUTH ELEVATION T L SAS LOS APPLIANCE A 2. NORTH ' NORTH L OUTDOOR 1 0 LOMER LEVEL PLAN 6 6 MAIN LEVEL PLAN HATCH A2.1 1/411 = 11-011 A2.1 1/4" = 1'-0" ..... NOI1VAON3B 19 L 191.9 00 'N3dSV il: rallv a.snenin o uedse 'c -4 1 1 , Mon Jul 09 13: 41: 38 2001 D . .. I 0 I 111 99 $ i >Z > ro UZ -00 I E 702 Z rn rn am#2 8~ @6 Z -1 ze qm - /2 45 F aff Trr 02 5 UO Brn-,0 &91 9 0 19 &20 10 B z -0 <.. <,FEArpf--44>21-2--- 7 7'XE- -2~ -4- -7 1 0 0 I -\~- 94119<3 1 1. I O Z> , k i _ U - 43 -Ell€- \ , NIKI Bill l. f A -1 ~ 3 clols \mic X mit Ul 4 Imm 3=10-9 0 ~ 101 U O ' 12~ 413 - IN 1 1 0 11 j --12 -- ~ ~== L 1 0 6 bx*#2 - )*- --)-/\ al ----- 1 -------- 11 -3--71 lt:' / Lu \ Iii 1 70 0 1 - I %-1 \01 / 2 1 §2 0 11 2 1§1 & 11 1 2 \ 1 / El g / &91 ru \ 1 0 <0 W . 1 , 4 ~ -1 -3 po El:g ~--- I 1 IT -1 1/1 11 9 A 11 1 1 1/. 1 @D, 00 *·-] ttdo i 12'A// 1 1 ' Iw L--4-- - ---------~ m -1 -1 > lim ~BE g 823 00 lg# OlD E ~ 0 lilli 2 70 < 00 m 0 I 0 .. .=1 8--- e - Fdj 7 0 0 ------ - Cl:€ j - ·Pullsl><a-_-_- 1 r- acto-is A ---- 6,036 - - -1-1-1-11 It -11 - 1- %----1-1-12 ®NUSIXE 1 0 mao-\6 l i l i l l I l l 1 ------- 17 lillil ~ |I: ~i~ ~ If ~-4 io- 31- it p-x =3 c~~p_-_-_-Uk -0- 1-1- -1-1--1, 1 .-/1 111 1 11. 1 IL- - -----/1 l ill i 1 111111111111'll <iiiiiiiiiii'»111'i'111 -\\ 1 E-- 1/--1--14 ~1~1~ In~al 111 1 alll lei-94-4 1 1-3- /lili Ix lilli 111«41 I I I ' 1 1 :11 rn 1 I I 1 1 I=_ I-It /lili .1IIIII . ----/1 1 1 1 1 11#1111 11 / -/I lillI 11/ 1 1 11 1 -1-1 -1 1 -/1 lillil 1 1 1 7- 1111111 /- 1223%= 3-1 p 112-2 J' 11 1 11 . .. 9 2.2 ~ 11 0 3 &: @§8 9 consortium 4 i . I R zzo O 0 m m -- f 515 GILLESPIE ST. RENOVATION -0 -0 -0 <.902:*.·.0.4:4 U.·..d 02,2 3§941?*/ «/240 t,·17:23412.213:43 *2*83 >34 r r N ·-j=tim:.mi}*,®d*¥¢*4¥24>Zi-/"*-:*i-:-*-i' %*g@4*g:pb:/ 1.1 1c*er,Ul.*' 1632 M j 515 GILLESPIE ST. 2 @ ~ ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 0 8 41 P.O.B. 3662, aspen colorado 81612 2EE (970) 925.6797 fax:(970) 925 6797 ~ e-mail: rally@aspeninfo. com © 2000 CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS- THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED livataBVng HINON HlbION TO BE REST N¥1=1 2003 NV-Ic! 13AE!1 hIZI=Icin TUB DECK ~- HISTORIC MON. bACOM=1 ~NI~ '0'1 ~ ~ DASHED LINE M. BATH BENCH 10 OdH 1¥nld33 00 eNI=!003 7¥13ht IM Ec:IO-IS El:€ GEH1O1O ANOO-IVG 13Aal bladaln eNI=IOO'bl ly-LEH INVES GNIGN¥16 PORMER MALL ASPHALTRS~~NE~NL~ ~ ' M0129 ~ M0139 ~' -072-g EXISTING | || < I BLOFE EXISTING SN¥ld LOOZ-20-90 0 H 000Z- L 1.-ZI :SSEHO , i.* . TE~NE POST N]- . . I . 0 - . '41, H 1 4 A Ge-60 GILLESPIE A V E. r 'i r--1 i ; it W ! 1 0 e ..-4, 2.00>EET· REIbAR f GAE L.6. 104 0181 ) EAST 77 83'\ 0 1 ./ ./ 4 \ ' .0 0 / O C ©.601 7- .,4 1-14 '\ 1 ' 4 I O i i O 0 ..., r 04/41 0.5,1 1 1 , // : 3 /' If , / g F'#3| ~/ A-- - -61 5 0 4 2 - 431 Rt.' - *0010 DECK W 0 /00, ~1 -- -3-9 2*- _21 1/ / / ~ / / /\ I J /1*\1111 1/1 9/ P / // 1 1 1-: 1 , 1 1 U. , Ao. 4 / h €5- 01 / / V. 11// / / DE 1 1 - TWO STORY //// T--1 / / / HOUEE // / /~ //A \ i 2% e It \ // \\ , 1 \ i 1 \- 4\7 + L ,+6 1 \ CDtp /f \.4 0 / L i -~_- A / 1 06 OH 07· ,' 1 1 0 / / -4 - . AN r -1 /1 1 C »/ / u P// 00\ ////// \11 i 'll l'. \ /\40 / / , . In O 1 -4 94' 08 OH © OL N . . 9210.15 SQ. FT. C.-- 4 0 2- ' . , '1~ - N 1 f.7 0 1 111111 1 1 1 1 1 .. . 1 1 N O 5 10 20 30 40 50 FT 01 O, 1 K I 5CALE : 1" = ID' -5.09~5075-025 "L 52\55 CF BEARING : FOUND MONUMENTS, 5.E. CDR . OF BLK .18 (cl Tr 0. B O. H 1 1 MONUMENT) TO TH E N.E. COK . BLK. 98 ( REMAR 4 I /6114.4 7/) | 645 L e ll£34) 1 i I 1 SURVEYOK'S CERTIFICATE : 0 to ill illk 0 4 1 HEKEET CERTIFT THAT THIS MAP ACCUMTELY DEFICTS A 5URVEy MADE UNDER Mr SUrEEVISION IN /V'KIL, Ilal, OF LOTS 4,5, 4 € HALLAM)'5 9< OLL 1-1 9. 6 -//////0/0 APPITION -ID THE CITT OF /SPEN, COLORADD, AND 7HAT ON (5 NOV 19, . 00 0\ 4. / M 4 4 /GARAGE;// 4 13 A VISUAL INSPECTION NAS MADE. NO CHANGES WERE fOUND. I r. 1 1 1< 1\1\37/l iri tlj,\\\ 0¢ e -0.#4 60 5 00 C, ' .t 00 e ©. . 6 < .1 EOSE OF AVFHENT . jill i l. A-« 1 /1 .... 10- ALANE SURVEYS, INE DY· L.,S~ €·.· r 31 0 1 8 4.2,0, L /14 4 1 0--6-BOAT-- C' f. p.e 15 · :751 264. i ES '·¥EED,+ i. Or /1 L.S. 1164 a 0160 N 82~32' 10" M ADUND: REEAR 1 GAF NOTE5 L.9. 3132 'i'FOUND REDAR 4 OV, L.5. 2376 ALLEY ' 2.' FOUND REgiAR f (AF, L.9. G,&8 -5EE /\5FEN TITLE CORfOWIOIN OK]DER No. 403417- C U OTHER PlATTERS THAT HAY AFFECT FROTRTr A CP. 9 A 5 -- ASP L M AP= AFFLE 6*/ - CD-rTONWOOD W = le, C L LO \A/' 59= 5 VKUCE . 5w- voy t'» NOTICE According to Colorado law you must commence any legal action based Job No 81- 15-4 upon any detect in this survey within three years after you first discover such defect. Alpine Surveys, Inc. Surveyed ReY\SIonS NO V '99 UPDATE- Title UFFATE SURVEY Client BECK L Drafted 7 11 EK AUG 'DO T FLU S In no event may any action based upon any defect In this survey be commenced more than ten years from the date of the certification shown hereon. Post Office Box 1730 4.00.01 AltrAED LOTS 4,5, 4 4 BLOCK 11 Aspen, Colorado 81611 303 925 2688 HALLAFI'5 ADDITION CITT OF /\SFEN, COLORADO '4¢g . .1. ' ._I# .-_ 2/ . b,a. i *//1.... ~ 46 4 329.4 SQ. FT.A 05+5»©'12*436. 1 , '94 'A:,1 . 0 . 7% . . 8