Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.HP.640 N 3rd St.HPC039-002735-121-08-002 HPC039-001 640 N. Third Street Historic Lot Split & Landmark Designation I (k � 4� 4A��� bLAA- CASE NUMBER PARCEL ID # CASE NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PLANNER CASE TYPE OWNER/APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED BY HPC039-00 2735-121-08002 Daggs Residence Historic Lot Split & Landmark Designatio 640 N. Third Fred Jarman Historic Lot Split, Landmark Designation Jim Daggs Charles Cunnife Architects 5/23/01 HPC Reso. 24-2001 Approved 8/1 /02 J. Lindt �Oi SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION AGREEMENT FOR THE DAGGS HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT THIS SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION AGREEMENT (hereinafter "Agreement") is made and entered into this �7"' day of usA-, 2006 by and between JAMES K. DAGGS and ELLEN G. DAGGS (hereinafter col ctively "Owners") and, by THE CITY OF ASPEN, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (hereinafter "City"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Owners own that certain real property (the "Property") located at 640 N. Third Street, Aspen, CO 81611, Parcel ID 2735-121-08-002, City and Townsite of Aspen, State of Colorado; and WHEREAS, on December 12, 2005, the City Council of the City of Aspen granted approval for subdivision exemption for a lot split on the Property pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code creating a Subdivision Exemption Plat for a Historic Landmark Lot Split (hereinafter "Plat"), where said Plat indicates a lot line running east west resulting in a 5,707 square foot Lot A and a 6,000 square foot Lot B; and WHEREAS, the approval of the historic landmark lot split was conditioned upon Owners complying with certain requirements outlined in Ordinance No. 47 Series of 2005, including entering into a Subdivision Exemption Agreement for the Property; and WHEREAS, Owners have submitted to the City for approval, execution and recordation a plat for the Property (the "Plat') and the City agrees to approve, execute and record the Plat (Owners pay all applicable recordation fees) on the agreement of the Owners to the matters described herein; and WHEREAS, the City has imposed conditions and requirements in connection with its approval, execution, and acceptance of the Plat, which matters are necessary to protect, promote and enhance the public health, safety and welfare, and the Owners are prepared to enter into a Subdivision Exemption Agreement incorporating such conditions and requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and the approval, execution, and acceptance of the Plat for recordation by the City, it is agreed as follows: 1. Acceptance of Plat. Upon execution of this Agreement by all parties hereto, and upon approval of the final plat by the Engineering Department and the Community Development Director, the City agrees to approve and execute the final plat for subdivision exemption for the historic landmark lot split submitted herewith, which conforms to the requirements of Chapter 26.480 and all other applicable requirements of the Aspen Land Use Code. Said Plat and this Agreement shall be recorded (Owners pay p + III 527631 I I I I I Page: 1 of 5 JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R�26.00 8/18DZ006 11.03A 0.00 all applicable recordation fees) in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days of December 12, 2005 (the day Ordinance No. _, Series of 200_ was approved). An extension of the deadline to file the Plat and Agreement has been granted by the City of Aspen Community Development Director. The deadline is August 10, 2006. 2. Encroachments into Public Rights -of -Way. There are none. 3. Meter Boxes. Each structure on Property has and shall maintain separate and individual meter boxes. 4. Tree Removal. To the extent required and in accordance with the tree removal process, the Owners shall obtain approval from the City of Aspen Parks Department for the removal of any tree(s). 5. Subdivision. No further subdivision of the Property may occur without receipt of applicable and required approvals pursuant to Chapter 26.480 of the Aspen Land Use Code (hereinafter "Code") and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.470 of the Code, unless the Code is amended in a manner that otherwise allows for further subdivision. Similarly, no additional dwelling units may be constructed on the Property without receipt of applicable and required approvals. These restrictions shall be noted on the Plat. 6. Development Potential. The subdivision exemption lot split results in two (2) lots of Lot A being 5,707 square feet and Lot B being 6,000 square feet. The maximum combined development potential shall not exceed three (3) units, pursuant to Section 26.480.030(A)(2)(g) of the Code. With regard to floor area (FAR) the maximum allowable FAR floor area that can be developed on Lot A is 2,542 square feet plus a bonus of 500 square feet granted by the City of Aspen Historical Preservation Commission (HPC) and the maximum allowable FAR floor area that can be developed on Lot B is 1,700 square feet. All of the restrictions and limitations described in this section (6) shall be noted on the Plat. 7. Future Development. Any future development on or redevelopment of the lots created through the subdivision exemption lot split as shown on the Plat, shall be required to mitigate for its impacts pursuant to Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS), as may be required. Any new development or redevelopment of the Property will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district unless a variance(s) have been approved by an entity having the authority to do so. The Property is designated as an historic landmark and must receive HPC approval for all future development (except development limited to the interior of a building(s) in accordance with Chapter 26.415 of the Code. All restrictions and limitations described in this paragraph seven (7) shall be noted on the Plat. 527531 Page: 08/18/2606 51:010 JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 26.00 D 0.00 8. Employee Housing Mitigation. Paragraph seven hereof notwithstanding, Owners shall have no obligation to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Chapter 26.470.070(B) of the Code unless Owners seek modifications of the approvals granted by Ordinance 47, Series of 2005. 9. Survey Monument. The survey monuments shall be preserved, as required by the City of Aspen Engineering Department. 10. Street Trees. As a result of any future development, the Owners may be required to plant or maintain street trees as required by the City of Aspen Parks Department. 11. Improvement Districts. Owners agree to join any future improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing street improvements (including sidewalk, curb, gutters or paving) or burying of overhead utility lines, provided such improvement districts are proposed for a physical area which includes the Property. 12. Fees and Reimbursements. Owners agree to reimburse the City of their respective and proportionate share of the cost associated with any improvements which directly benefit the Property should the City elect to construct such improvements without the formation of a special assessment district. In addition, Owners agree to pay any applicable fees required by the Code if and when fees are due. 13. Material Representations. All material representations made by the Owners on record, whether in public hearings or in documentation presented before City Council, shall be binding upon the Owners. 14. Enforcement. In the event the City determines that the Owners are not in substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement or of the Final Plat, the City may serve a notice of noncompliance and request that the deficiencies be corrected within a period of forty-five (45) days. In the event the Owners believe that they are in compliance or that the noncompliance is insubstantial, the Owners may request a hearing before the City Council to determine whether the alleged noncompliance exists or where any amendment, variance, or extension of time to comply should be granted. On request, the City shall conduct a hearing according to its standard procedures and take such action as it deems appropriate. The City shall be entitled to all remedies at equity and at law to enjoin, correct and/or receive damages for any noncompliance with this Agreement. 15. Notices. Notice to the parties shall be sent in writing by U.S. Certified Mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid. Such notices shall be deemed received, if not sooner received, three (3) days after the date of the mail of the same. To the Owner: 715 W. Main Street Ste. 101 Aspen, CO 81611 527631 08�/18/2006 11 :01A I C � 3RNIE K VOS CAUDILL PITKaN COUNTY CO R 26.00 D 0.00 To the City: City Attorney City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 16. Binding Effect. The provisions of this Agreement shall run with and constitute a burden on the land and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Owners, their successors and assigns, and to the City and its successors and assigns. 17. Amendment. This Agreement may be altered or amended only by written instrument executed by all parties hereto, with the same formality as this Agreement was executed. 18. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining provision hereof. In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this Subdivision Exemption Agreement the day and year first written above. ,C a s K. Daggs �Q Ellen G. Daggs ff gg i 3 i APPROVED: JRN CE K V^S CPUDILL PrrKi!:= "'OO j"r' CO R z_.johfi" rcester, City Attorney 1-527631 ;: Page: 4 o4 g I 08/18/2006 11:01A 25.10 D 0.00 THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ATTEST: A Municipal o 06 V;V0010 By: AV A44000 By' elen land yor Kathryn Koch, ity Clerk STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing was sworn and subscribed to before me this 1-1— day of u P , 2006, by James K. and Ellen G. Daggs. Witness my hand and oft My commission expires: STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF PITKIN The foregoing was sworn and subscribed to before me this day of 2006, by Helen K. Klanderud and Kathryn Koch, as Mayor and City Clerk, resfectively, of the City of Aspen, a Municipal Corporation. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires:64 I.L Public OF C� �2­763 a � 5 pp! yi3 3 i til �� t 1 Page . v �f @801�31.-.O-ZG 11 :011 0.30 1f4 ii ii� UNT t C cr-U01t� � •00 © gMIC VOS SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION AGREEMENT FOR THE DAGGS HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT THIS SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION AGREEMENT (hereinafter "Agreement") is made and entered into this 14" day of f , 2006 by and between JAMES K. DAGGS and ELLEN G. DAGGS (hereinafter col ectively "Owners") and, by THE CITY OF ASPEN, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (hereinafter "City"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Owners own that certain real property (the "Property") located at 640 N. Third Street, Aspen, CO 81611, Parcel ID 2735-121-08-002, City and Townsite of Aspen, State of Colorado; and WHEREAS, on December 12, 2005, the City Council of the City of Aspen granted approval for subdivision exemption for a lot split on the Property pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code creating a Subdivision Exemption Plat for a Historic Landmark Lot Split (hereinafter "Plat"), where said Plat indicates a lot line running east west resulting in a 5,707 square foot Lot A and a 6,000 square foot Lot B; and WHEREAS, the approval of the historic landmark lot split was conditioned upon Owners complying with certain requirements outlined in Ordinance No. 47 Series of 2005, including entering into a Subdivision Exemption Agreement for the Property; and WHEREAS, Owners have submitted to the City for approval, execution and recordation a plat for the Property (the "Plat") and the City agrees to approve, execute and record the Plat (Owners pay all applicable recordation fees) on the agreement of the Owners to the matters described herein; and WHEREAS, the City has imposed conditions and requirements in connection with its approval, execution, and acceptance of the Plat, which matters are necessary to protect, promote and enhance the public health, safety and welfare, and the Owners are prepared to enter into a Subdivision Exemption Agreement incorporating such conditions and requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and the approval, execution, and acceptance of the Plat for recordation by the City, it is agreed as follows: 1. Acceptance of Plat. Upon execution of this Agreement by all parties hereto, and upon approval of the final plat by the Engineering Department and the Community Development Director, the City agrees to approve and execute the final plat for subdivision exemption for the historic landmark lot split submitted herewith, which conforms to the requirements of Chapter 26.480 and all other applicable requirements of the Aspen Land Use Code. Said Plat and this Agreement shall be recorded (Owners pay all applicable recordation fees) in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days of December 12, 2005 (the day Ordinance No. _% Series of 200r was approved). An extension of the deadline to file the Plat and Agreement has been granted by the City of Aspen Community Development Director. The deadline is August 10, 2006. 2. Encroachments into Public Rights -of -Way. There are none. 3. Meter Boxes. Each structure on Property has and shall maintain separate and individual meter boxes. 4. Tree Removal. To the extent required and in accordance with the tree removal process, the Owners shall obtain approval from the City of Aspen Parks Department for the removal of any tree(s). 5. Subdivision. No further subdivision of the Property may occur without receipt of applicable and required approvals pursuant to Chapter 26.480 of the Aspen Land Use Code (hereinafter "Code") and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.470 of the Code, unless the Code is amended in a manner that otherwise allows for further subdivision. Similarly, no additional dwelling units may be constructed on the Property without receipt of applicable and required approvals. These restrictions shall be noted on the Plat. 6. Development Potential. The subdivision exemption lot split results in two (2) lots of Lot A being 5,707 square feet and Lot B being 6,000 square feet. The maximum combined development potential shall not exceed three (3) units, pursuant to Section 26.480.030(A)(2)(g) of the Code. With regard to floor area (FAR) the maximum allowable FAR floor area that can be developed on Lot A is 2,542 square feet plus a bonus of 500 square feet granted by the City of Aspen Historical Preservation Commission (HPC) and the maximum allowable FAR floor area that can be developed on Lot B is 1,700 square feet. All of the restrictions and limitations described in this section (6) shall be noted on the Plat. 7. Future Development. Any future development on or redevelopment of the lots created through the subdivision exemption lot split as shown on the Plat, shall be required to mitigate for its impacts pursuant to Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS), as may be required. Any new development or redevelopment of the Property will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district unless a variance(s) have been approved by an entity having the authority to do so. The Property is designated as an historic landmark and must receive HPC approval for all future development (except development limited to the interior of a building(s) in accordance with Chapter 26.415 of the Code. All restrictions and limitations described in this paragraph seven (7) shall be noted on the Plat. 8. Employee Housing Mitigation. Paragraph seven hereof notwithstanding, Owners shall have no obligation to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Chapter 26.470.070(B) of the Code unless Owners seek modifications of the approvals granted by Ordinance 47, Series of 2005. 9. Survey Monument. The survey monuments shall be preserved, as required by the City of Aspen Engineering Department. 10. Street Trees. As a result of any future development, the Owners may be required to plant or maintain street trees as required by the City of Aspen Parks Department. 11. Improvement Districts. Owners agree to join any future improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing street improvements (including sidewalk, curb, gutters or paving) or burying of overhead utility lines, provided such improvement districts are proposed for a physical area which includes the Property. 12. Fees and Reimbursements. Owners agree to reimburse the City of their respective and proportionate share of the cost associated with any improvements which directly benefit the Property should the City elect to construct such improvements without the formation of a special assessment district. In addition, Owners agree to pay any applicable fees required by the Code if and when fees are due. 13. Material Representations. All material representations made by the Owners on record, whether in public hearings or in documentation presented before City Council, shall be binding upon the Owners. 14. Enforcement. In the event the City determines that the Owners are not in substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement or of the Final Plat, the City may serve a notice of noncompliance and request that the deficiencies be corrected within a period of forty-five (45) days. In the event the Owners believe that they are in compliance or that the noncompliance is insubstantial, the Owners may request a hearing before the City Council to determine whether the alleged noncompliance exists or where any amendment, variance, or extension of time to comply should be granted. On request, the City shall conduct a hearing according to its standard procedures and take such action as it deems appropriate. The City shall be entitled to all remedies at equity and at law to enjoin, correct and/or receive damages for any noncompliance with this Agreement. 15. Notices. Notice to the parties shall be sent in writing by U.S. Certified Mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid. Such notices shall be deemed received, if not sooner received, three (3) days after the date of the mail of the same. To the Owner: 715 W. Main Street Ste. 101 Aspen, CO 81611 To the City: City Attorney City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 16. Binding Effect. The provisions of this Agreement shall run with and constitute a burden on the land and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Owners, their successors and assigns, and to the City and its successors and assigns. 17. Amendment. This Agreement may be altered or amended only by written instrument executed by all parties hereto, with the same formality as this Agreement was executed. 18. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining provision hereof. In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this Subdivision Exemption Agreement the day and year first written above. OWNER: % %C es K. Daggs Ellen G. Daggs APPROVED: John Worcester, City Attorney THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ATTEST: A Municipal Corporation By: Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) LIM Kathryn Koch, City Clerk The foregoing was sworn and subscribed to before me this l day of �S* , 2006, by James K. and Ellen G. Daggs. Witness my hand and My commission expiry STATE OF COLORADO ) )SS. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing was sworn and subscribed to before me this day of , 2006, by Helen K. Klanderud and Kathryn Koch, as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Aspen, a Municipal Corporation. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public LAW OFFICES OF OATES, KNEZEVICH &s GARDENSWARTZ, P.C. PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 533 E. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN ,COLORADO,81611 LEONARD M.OATES RICHARD A KNEZEVICH TED D. GARDENSWARTZ DAVID B. KELLY OF COUNSEL: JOHN T. KELLY MARIA MORROW ANNE MARIE MCPHEE August 7, 2006 Sara Adams Preservation Planner City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Historic Exemption Plat — 640 North Third Subdivision Exemption Plat Dear Sara: TELEPHONE (970) 920-1700 FACSIMILE (970) 920-1121 Imo@okglaw.com VI.A HAND DELIVERY Following up my telephone message to you, which you returned to me, also by message on this date, I am sending this letter to request a few day extension from August 10, 2006 in connection with the delivery for execution by the City and recordation of the above Plat. By way of background you are advised that the original mylars of the Historic Lot Split Exemption Plat were delivered to me by Aspen Survey Engineering, Inc. only today. Upon receipt I immediately delivered the same to Pitkin County Title, Inc. for the title certificate, which I expect back this afternoon or tomorrow morning. The Plat then requires the agreement and approval for subordination by the Lender, which is located in Denver. Upon receipt of the Plat back from Pitkin County Title, Inc., which would be today or tomorrow, I will immediately send via Federal Express the Plat to Denver for execution. In the meantime I was advised by Jim Daggs that he and his wife will be available tomorrow to execute both the Plat and the Subdivision Exemption Agreement. I will deliver the letter to you immediately upon receipt by me. Since I have been involved in this process earlier in the Summer I have been pushing the surveyor to get this completed. This was the earliest I could get it completed. I have enclosed herewith a blueline copy of the final Plat which is being circulated for signature. Very Truly Yours, OATES, KNEZEVICH & GARDENSWARTZ, P.C. l By--Rlvak Leonard M. Oates LMO/bab C:\LMO Data & Forms\Data\Clients\Daggs\Ltr to Adams 8.7.06.doc .a" S-23-06: 3:42PM;JAMES DAGGS i ■ i ■ ■ g- e4ekJraG�a%ccouiizCzrzG VIA FACSIMILE 920-5439 Mr. Chris Bendon, Community Development Director City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 ;970 920 4801 t# 1/ 1 RE: Subdivision Exemption Agreement 640 N Third Street Lots 4, 5, and 6 (less the southerly 3.2 feet of Lot 6 Block 102, Ilallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Bendon: Pursuant to Ordinance No. 47 of the Aspen City Council approving a subdivision exemption for a historic landmark lot split at 640 N. Third Street referenced above, which was approved December 12, 2005, a subdivision exemption plat and subdivision exemption agreement approved by the Community Development Department is required to be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City Council. I have requested Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. to prepare the subdivision exemption plat but they may not be able to complete the plat before June 101h. Therefore, I hereby respectfully request an extension of 60 days to complete the required subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement. If you have any questions about the subdivision exemption plat, please contact me or John Horworth at Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc.. Very truly yours, 02AZ*4 V'% 4, es K. Daggs Cc: Leonard Oates APPROVED MAY'2 4 2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ukit(;Rki CITY OFASPEN 7�5 r'%%Xd 9/ffw, �GeEeG cum 70I p��iP�, 1Q.6,,W, N16V 9 �c DAGGS HHSTORHC LANDMARK LOT SPLHT OF LOTS 4,5 AND 6, BLOCK 102, HALLAMS ADDITION ADJACENT TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, EXCEPT THE SOUTH 3.2 FEET OF SAID LOT 6. I•-1o• CITY OF ASPEN 0 10 20 COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO CONTAINING: 0.269 ACRES /- (11�707 SO. FT. •/-) PARCEL ID NO. 2735-121-08-002 PLAT NOTES THIS PLAT OF THE DAGGS HISTORIC LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION PLAT BAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WII TH CTY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NUMBER 47 SERIES OF 2005), AND HSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSI( ON RE So LUTION NUMBER 43 ( SERIES OF 2002). THE LANDS AFFECTED BY THIS PLAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SAID APPROVALS! AND BY ALL APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN. NO FURTHER SUBDIVISION OF THESE LOTS MAY BE GRANTED NOR WILL ADDITIONAL UNITS BE BUILT WITHOUT RECEIPT OF SUBDIVISION APPROVALS AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOCATIONS AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE ASPEN LAND USE CODE IN EFFECT AT THE TINE OF SUCH DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT ON THESE LOTS WILL CONFORM TO THE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF R-6 ZONE DISTRICT UNLESS VARIANCES TO THESE REQUREMENTS ARE GRANTED BY THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESAVATION COMMISSION HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. LOT A SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA OF 2,542 SO, FT 1 CALCULATED PURSUANT TO THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE ASPEN LAND USE CODE. LOT B SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA OF 1,700 SO, FT CALCULATED PURSUANT TO THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE AShN LAND USE CODE. P E A R lL. COURT 50.00 R O.W BASIS OF BEARINGS EAST 250.00' YELLO9 184 ^ 0 OW 9018 BLOCK I ® I HALLAM'$ ADDITION VICINITY MAP 1'-400 LNG TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ON ANY DEFECT ON THIS PLAT WITHIN THREE YEARS f DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION DEFECT IN THIS PLAT BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN DATE OF THE CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. THE IS VOID IF NOT WET STAMPED WITH THE SEAL OF THE 7A I o I— z E a LU w 0 0 w NO.5 RE -BA 0.18' SOUT 0.11' WEST OF CORNER YELLOW 9184 0.20' SOUTH 0.35 WEST OF CORNER TBM 7878.81 IlmIJI�I;w"Mrit FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED TITLE INFORMATION BY: PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. NO. PCT 14927PR DATED: SEPTEMBER 14, 2000 HALLAM'S ADDITION IS AN UNRECORDED SUBDIVISION LOT POSITION IS BASED ON THE WILLITS MAP OF THE CITY OF ASPEN 1896 FENCE UTILITIES WINDOW WELL ELEVATION BASED ON CITY GPS MONUMENT NO. 7 EL-7929.71 MANHOLE SITE UNDER CONSTRUCTION 8/06 SUBDHVH S HON . 1116%, 111110 OWNERS CERTIFICATE KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT JAMES K. DAGGS AND ELLEN G. DAGGS ARE THE RECORD OWNERS OF: LOTS 4,5 AND 6, BLOCK 102 HALLAMS A6DITION, ADJACENT TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, EXCEPT THE SOUTH 3.2 FEET OF SAID LOT 6. DOES HEREBY SUBDIVIDE AND REPLAT THIS REAL PROPERTY UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE DAGGS HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION. EXECUTED THIS _ DAY OF , 2006 JAMES K. DAGGS, AS OWNER ELLEN G. DAGGS, AS OWNER STATE OF COLORADO 1 )66 COUNTY OF PITKIN ) THE FORGOING OWNER S CERTIFICATE WAS ACKNOWLEDGE BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF 2006 BY JAMES K. DAGGS AND ELLEN G. DAGGS AS OWNERS. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: NOTARY PUBLIC CONSENT OF MORTAGEE THE UNDERSIGNED HOLDER OF A DEED OF TRUST RECORDED AS RECEPTION NO, OF THE RECORDS OF PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO) HEREBY CONSENT TO THIS PLAT AND SUBORDINATES ITS LIEN HERETO. MATRIX CAPITAL BANK BY: NAME: JOHN J. MERCHANT, TITLE: VICE PRESIDENT STATE OF COLORADO) ee COUNTY OF DENVER 1 THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF 2006 BY JOHN J. MERCHANT, AS VICE PRESIDENT OF MATRIX CAPITAL BANK. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: NOTARY PUBLIC SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE 1, JOHN M. HOWORTH, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT A SURVEY WAS PERFORMED UNDER MY DIRECTION AND SUPERVISION OF THE HEREON DESCRIBED PROPERTY. THE LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OF THE BOUNDARY LINES, BUILDING ENVELOPES AND EASEMENTS SHOWN ON THE TITLE COMMITMENT NOTED HEREON ARE ACCURATELY SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. THE CONTROL PRESION IS GREATER THAN 1:10,000 AND ACCURACY TO 0001 OF AN ACRE AND THAT THE SURVEY WAS DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH C.R.S. 1973 TITLE 38, ARTICLE 51 AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME. SIGNED THIS _ DAY OF , 2006 JOHN M. HOWORTH, PLS 25947 TITLE CERTIFICATE THE UNDER OED, A DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENI EE OF A CORPORATE LE INSURER tt REGISTERED TO DO BUSS��RRESS IN PITKIN COUNTYI COLORADO DOES HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE PERSONS LISTED AS OWNER OF THIS PLAT DOES HEREBY HOLD FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO THE WITHIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY , FREE AND CLEAR OF ALL LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES EXCEPT THOSE LISTED ON THE OWNERS CERTIFICATE. ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE THE FACTS STATED ON THIS PLAT ARE TRUE1, IS CERTIFICATE IS NOT TO BE CON UED AS AN 1ABSTRACT I UN DER ANDOAGREED TTHATIPITKINOCOUNTYA EOLFINC. N6TITLE1THERAND IT ASSUMES NOR WILL BE CHARGED WITH ANY FINICAL OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY WHATSOEVER BASED ON ANY STATEMENT CONTAINED HEREIN. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 SIGNED: BY: STATE OF COLORADO 1 )ee COUNTY OF PITKIN ) THE FOREGOING TITLE CERTIFICATE WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF 2006, BY AS OF PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. WITNESS MY HAD AND OFFICIAL SEAL MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOTARY PUBLIC CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL THIS PLAT OF THE DAGGS HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN ON THIS 14 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2005 AS ORDINANCE NO. 47 SERIES OF 2005 AND RECORDED AS RECEPTION NO. OF THE REAL ESTATE RECORDS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. SIGNED THIS _ DAY OF , 2006. ATTEST: HELEN KLANDERUD, MAYOR KATHRYN S. KOCH, CITY CLERK CITY ENGINEER'S APPROVAL THIS PLAT OF THE DAGGS HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE ASPEN CITY ENGINEER, THIS _ DAY OF , 2006. CITY ENGINEER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL THIS PLAT OF THE DAGGS HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, THIS _ DAY OF , 2006. DIRECTOR, CLERK AND RECORDERS ACCEPTANCE THIS PLAT OF THE DAGGS HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION WAS ACCEPTED FOR RECORDING IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO AT _O'CLOCK —M. ON THIS _ DAY OF , 2006. CLERK AND RECORDER, ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS) II` 210 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PHONE/FAX (970) 925-3816 DATE JOB 6/06 29348AA RiDlar-- SKYL14µ-S- gALv, µ7-rA -. F L W S Res �x ►NSu4�r�.f� /z>Ao� s �Xt-11 [SIT t-r �p o�i4 4t c41-0 c r- - R�Ps4t2 � R�Pht ►JT b lElen woov, L.Ar- si rn roc. 4 7-9,kA L-G E.0 t SH -t NCB Lf-r S (Dt N Gt ' - --- $,-. _ - --# r.^t-y. mot+ 4 cm( , i i i RRu4. CutVE�-s- �- __ �� 1 _ _"; Chi— . Y� Cart G E'r� f:. i !►L sla/o� � t�l tT �t Ep 3- 1gtc �G �-idU5r - p PRopoSF-h lsbo** Coi.p GLS M Pt hGr- wr NtEW c c Z r-,c = n f S `MT m4yk, R'MR+ AaP l•ir Eyc g LAP si.flt,N 4 4 rXIAA V i e�-F- Z,) 7EL r-,V of G", tl&rp-7"'�I PL nh �TP►L Rooter N4 'Prt NTEr� wp,iiA, 5i7YAg * RM L 4 PAR s01NC,fLe: 31PtN4 IORRy R E 15 E D WEST ELEVATION OF AIDDIT I.ON REV f C-5E V r- LA-KP- AVENUE" F-LZNV,AM ON R EV 15 FiD- CAOM FO 5 FE W E LE-vATI ON S7SE5T P516/40 �E i=�� FIXED y w �► Dow Pk.a - wiNPOW * P- 5)F104LIE To izapto� rn 1'M�ti=t.5 �Xr�t6�T H- t{�Vi�i�D 5�8fo1 • � r r � `S'�^�tF'� ���F�i� fX/ti•1.-4c�tYA`r , i .��',�.'"�,-''"1�-^ .- _� - 1-- - • �� � �I � - STLt�f I M. r ME = .++1 h\A IN �-SVff L� F �D �•1 y J- amZ_�:Wi Z?-Nlc;)F-p wol q o f=14 IIPPr,-#z Lr--YE-L-.. - RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN APPLICATION FOR A HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT AND GRANTING APPROVAL FOR CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, ON -SITE RELOCATION, AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 640 N. THIRD STREET, LOTS 4, 5, AND 6 (LESS THE SOUTHERLY 3.2 FEET OF LOT 6), BLOCK 102, HALLAM'S ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION #24, SERIES OF 2001 Parcel ID: 2735-121-08-002 WHEREAS, the applicants, Jim and Gae Daggs, represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects, have requested Historic Landmark Designation, Conceptual Development, Variances, Partial Demolition, On -site relocation, and Historic Landmark Lot Split approval for the property located at 640 N. Third Street, Lots 4, 5, and 6 (less the southerly 3.2 feet of Lot 6), Block 102, Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. The property is listed on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures; and WHEREAS, Any structure or site that meets two (2) or more of the following standards may be designated as "H," Historic Overlay District, and/or historic landmark. 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. 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. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. D. Neighborhood character. The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. E. Community character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location, and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance; and MECHARLES CUNNIFFE _ _._NITECTS ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS Charles L. CunniHe, AIA Principal Janver C. Derrington, AIA Principal April 2, 2002 Amy Guthrie Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen 130 S. Mill Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Daggs Residence 640 N. Third Street Aspen, Colorado Dear Amy: Thank you for your letter of March 21, 2002, alerting Jim and me about the approaching deadline for HPC final development review submittal. In our telephone conference today, you indicated that if we chose to request an extension of the deadline up to six months, it would be'considered at the April 24 regular HPC meeting. While it would be possible for us to have an application for final review submitted by May 23, Jim would prefer to have more time to consider his options in the light of pending ordinances that the city is considering regarding the infill program, etc. He has also been monitoring the current local real estate market and feels it would be prudent to wait awhile longer before deciding his best course of action for developing his property. We therefore respectfully request that you recommend a six month extension of the deadline for final review submittal to the HPC at the April 24 meeting. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Jan ;er C. Derrington, Al Pri cipal/Senior Projec Architect 610 EAST HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.5590 fax: 970.925-5076 info@cunniffe.com www.cunniffe.com ASPEN -� STEAMBOAT -0- TELLURIDE -0- VAIL -} WHITEFISH WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant necessary variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this Section exceed those variations allowed under Section 26.520.040(B)(2), for detached accessory dwelling units, and 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and WHEREAS, 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. 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 (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; and WHEREAS, No approval for on -site relocation shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all of the following standards are met: A. 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. B. 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. C. 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 WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated May 23, 2001, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended approval of the project; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 23, 2001, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards, and to be consistent with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote of 4 to 2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC grants approval for Conceptual Development, Variances, Partial Demolition, and On -site relocation and recommends Council approval of Historic Landmark Designation and a Historic Landmark Lot Split for the property located at 640 N. Third Street, Lots 4, 5, and 6 (less the southerly 3.2 feet of Lot 6), Block 102, Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. The HPC hereby grants a 5 foot rear yard setback variance and 500 square foot floor area bonus. 2. The HPC hereby grants a waiver from the maximum footprint requirement for ADU bonuses. 3. Eliminate the flanking windows on the upper floor, south fagade of the historic house. Eliminate the shed dormers over the front gable unless it is found, during construction, that they are part of the original framing. 4. The scale and material of the deck columns is to be restudied. 5. For final review, there will be significant discussion about the material palette. 6. Further information will be required about the character of the landscaping in the areas in front of the old house. The applicant should be clear about whether the proposed planters are raised planter boxes or just flower beds (preferred), and what the detailing of the lightwell at the front of the house will be. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 23rd day of May, 2001. Approved as to Form: �a'A --L I - David Hoefer, AssistanV City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzan a Reid, Ch r ATTEST: 4 A, X�. 5 � Kathy StricklAd,�Chief Deputy Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 640 N. Third Street- Extension of conceptual approval DATE: Apri124, 2002 SUMMARY: This project received conceptual development approval on May 23, 2001. Section 26.415.010.C.2.b.1 of the Land Use Code provides that an application for final development review shall be filed within one year of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Unless HPC grants an extension, failure to file the final development application shall make the approval null and void. This application was submitted under the old HPC ordinance, and those regulations will be used for final review. The old ordinance allowed HPC to grant one year extensions of the conceptual development plan, and did not limit how many extensions could be approved. It also did not provide criteria for the HPC's determination, however, the Board has typically avoided allowing the conceptual approval to -continue to be valid if there has been a major change in the program, such as the adoption of our new design guidelines in 2000. The guidelines were in place and were used in the evaluation of the 640 N. Third Street project. The major program change that has occurred since this application was submitted is the new historic preservation ordinance, which staff does not believe includes any provisions that would change the outcome of this review. It should be noted however that in the new ordinance HPC did set a policy that only one six month extension of conceptual approval will be allowed for any project. The owner of 640 N. Third Street requests a six month extension, until November 23, 2002. In the attached letter, it is explained that the delay in bringing forward a final application is due to concerns about the real estate market and a desire to monitor the outcome of other code amendments that the City is currently contemplating, to see what new development options they may include for this site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that HPC's interests are not served by requiring a final application to be submitted now, and recommends that a one-time extension be granted. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution #_, Series of 2002, granting a six month extension of conceptual approval for 640 N. Third Street." Exhibits: Resolution # Series of 2002 A. Conceptual approval- resolution and drawings Nil I a-01� MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 640 N. Third Street, Landmark Designation — Second Reading of Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2001 DATE: July 9, 2001 SUMMARY: The subject site contains a 19t" century residence and is currently listed on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures." The owners are in the review process to remove and replace some inappropriate additions and alterations that have been made to the house over the last several decades. Staff, HPC, and P&Z recommend landmark designation for the property, as well as Council approval of a $2,000 landmark grant. APPLICANT: Jim and Gae Daggs, represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects. PARCEL ID: 2735-121-08-002 ADDRESS: 640 N. Third Street, Lots 4, 5, and 6 (less the southerly 3.2 feet of Lot 6), Block 102, Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen. LANDMARK DESIGNATION Any structure or site that meets two (2) or more of the following standards may be designated as "H," Historic Overlay District, and/or historic landmark. It is not the intention of the Historic Preservation Commission to landmark insignificant structures or sites. HPC will focus on those structures, which are unique or have some special value to the community, as put forth in the standards. 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: Staff and the applicant are unaware of any historical significance in connection with this site with respect to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. 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: The original house has numerous features that are typical of 19t" century residences in Aspen, such as a decorative front porch, front gable/ porch relationship, and simple plan. The form of this building is somewhat unique in that the front gable is 1 '/z stories and the cross gable is 2 stories tall. Staff finds this standard is met. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Staff Finding: The original designer is unknown, therefore this standard is not met. D. Neighborhood character. The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Staff Finding: The property is located in Aspen's historic West End neighborhood, along Lake Avenue. There are numerous 19t" century homes in the immediately surrounding area and this building is one of four in a row. Staff finds this standard is met. E. Community character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location, and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Staff Finding: The house is representative of the modest scale, style, and character of homes constructed in the late 1800's, which is Aspen's primary period of historic significance. Staff finds this standard is met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff, HPC, and P&Z recommend Council approve landmark designation for 640 N. Third Street finding that review standards B, D and E are met. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2001, landmark designation of 640 N. Third Street, Lots 4, 5, and 6 (less the southerly 3.2 feet of Lot 6), Block 102, Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, on Second Reading." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: Exhibits: Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2001 A. Staff memo dated July 9, 2001 B. As -built drawings of house MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development irector Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 640 N. Third Street- Historic Landmark Designation - Public Hearing DATE: June 5, 2001 SUMMARY: The subject site contains a 19th century residence and is currently listed on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures." The owners are in the review process to remove and replace some inappropriate additions and alterations that have been made to the house over the last several decades. Staff and HPC recommend landmark designation for the property. APPLICANT: Jim and Gae Daggs, represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects. PARCEL ID: 2735-121-08-002 ADDRESS: 640 N. Third Street, Lots 4, 5, and 6 (less the southerly 3.2 feet of Lot 6), Block 102, Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential) CURRENT LAND USE: 11,707 sq. ft. lot containing a single -story residence, garage, and caretaker apartment. LANDMARK DESIGNATION Any structure or site that meets two (2) or more of the following standards may be designated as "H," Historic Overlay District, and/or historic landmark. It is not the intention of the Historic Preservation Commission to landmark insignificant structures or sites. HPC will focus on those structures which are unique or have some special value to the community, as put forth in the standards. 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: Staff and the applicant are unaware of any historical significance in connection with this site with respect to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. 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: The original house has numerous features that are typical of 19th century residences in Aspen, such as a decorative front porch, front gable/ porch relationship, and simple plan. The form of this building is somewhat unique in that the front gable is 1 t/2 stories and the cross gable is 2 stories tall. Staff finds this standard is met. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Staff Finding: The original designer is unknown, therefore this standard is not met. D. Neighborhood character. The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Staff Finding: The property is located in Aspen's historic West End neighborhood, along Lake Avenue. There are numerous 19th century homes in the immediately surrounding area and this building is one of four in a row. Staff finds this standard is met. E. Community character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location, and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Staff Finding: The house is representative of the modest scale, style, and character of homes constructed in the late 1800's, which is Aspen's primary period of historic significance. Staff finds this standard is met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff and HPC recommend that P&Z recommend Council approval of Historic Landmark Designation for 640 N. Third Street finding that review standards B, D and E are met. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to approve Resolution #, Series of 2001." Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated June 5, 2001 B. As -built drawings of house RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 640 NORTH THIRD STREET, LOTS 4, 5, AND 6 (LESS THE SOUTHERLY 3.2 FEET OF LOT 6), BLOCK 102, HALLAM'S ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID #2735-121-08-002 RESOLUTION NO.aU, SERIES OF 2001 WHEREAS, the applicants, Jim and Gae Daggs, represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects, have requested Historic Landmark Designation for the property located at 640 N. Third Street, Lots 4, 5, and 6 (less the southerly 3.2 feet of Lot 6), Block 102, Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. The property is listed on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.420.020, requests for landmark designation shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval by the Community Development Director, by the HPC, and by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing, and then approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved at a public hearing by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found favorably for the application, and recommended approval of landmark designation; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission reviewed and recommended approval of landmark designation by a vote of 4-2 on May 23, 2001; and WHEREAS, all applications for Historic Landmark Designation shall meet two or more of the following Standards for Designation of Section 26.420.010 in order for P&Z to grant approval, namely: A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. B. Architectural Importance. The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type (based on building form or use), or specimen. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. D. Neighborhood Character. The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. E. Community Character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 5, 2001, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission considered the recommendation made by the Community Development Director and HPC, took and considered public testimony and recommended, by a vote of _ to _, that City Council approve landmark designation finding that standards B, D, and E are met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends Council approve landmark designation for 640 N. Third Street, Lots 4, 5, and 6 (less the southerly 3.2 feet of Lot 6), Block 102, Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on June 5, 2001. APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Robert Blaich, Chair r� L � � ! ;_wsr ��: �� K y � - �.. ,w �. ..�._ �� - County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060(E) Applicant to the City of Aspen, MY) Y) , being or representing an certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the2,iG day of J(A0e, , 200 1 (which is 13 days prior to the public hearing date of Jhl q 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the 22 day of LAWL 2001, to the 0 day of Vtt , 200_L. (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. Signature q Signed before e this ! � day of 200_L. by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. My Commission expires: Notary Public luI u 1 ►tt i �I TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director_; FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 640 N. Third Street- Historic Landmark Designation, Conceptual Development, Variances, Partial Demolition, On -site relocation, and Historic Landmark Lot Split- Public Hearing DATE: May 23, 2001 SUMMARY: The project involves demolishing additions to the historic structure, relocating it and an existing outbuilding on site and building a new addition. The northerly portion of the property is to be split off for future development. APPLICANT: Jim and Gae Daggs, represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects. PARCEL ID: 2735-121-08-00) ADDRESS: 640 N. Third Street, Lots 4, 5, and 6 (less the southerly 3.2 feet of Lot 6), Block 102, Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential) CURRENT LAND USE: 11,707 sq. ft. lot containing a single -story residence, garage, and caretaker apartment. . LANDMARK DESIGNATION Any structure or site that meets two (2) or more of the following standards may be designated as "H," Historic Overlay District, and/or historic landmark. It is not the intention of the Historic Preservation Commission to landmark insignificant structures or sites. HPC will focus on those structures which are unique or have some special value to the community, as put forth in the standards. 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. Staff and the applicant are unaware of any historical significance in connection with this site with respect to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Staff fmds 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: The original house has numerous features that are typical of 19`h century residences in Aspen; such as a decorative front porch, front gable/ porch relationship; and simple plan. The form of this building is somewhat unique in that the front gable is 1 '/2 stories and the cross gable is 2 stories tall. Staff fords this standard is met. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Staff Finding: The original designer is unknown, therefore this standard is not met. D. Neighborhood character. The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Staff Finding: The property is located in Aspen's historic West End neighborhood, along Lake Avenue. There are numerous 19r' century homes in the immediately surrounding area and this building is one of four in a row. Staff finds this standard'is met. E. Community character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location, and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Staff Finding: The house is representative of the modest scale, style, and character of homes constructed in the late 1800's, which is Aspen's primary period of historic significance. Staff finds this standard is met. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds that all of the following standards (Section 26.415.010.C.5) are met: a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, massing and volume with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or is adjacent to an historic landmark For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant necessary variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this Section exceed those variations allowed under Section 26.520.040(B)(2), for detached accessory dwelling units, and Staff Finding: The project is a historic landmark lot split and involves demolishing portions of the existing house, relocating it and the carriage house on the site and building a new basement and addition. This house was remodeled in the past and has additions which have affected its integrity as a historic resource. Some of the exterior materials have been replaced. Staff views the project as an opportunity to retrieve the original character of the structure and to improve its relationship to the other remaining historic buildings along Lake Avenue. At the last meeting, the board had concerns with the roof over the dining room and how it tied into other parts of the building, the clerestory window right at the back of the tallest gable on the old house, and the modifications to the second floor window on the south side of the old house. For this meeting, the architect has reworked the dining room area to resolve the issues with the roof forms. Staff finds that this effort is successful. The second floor window is unchanged from previous reviews. During the last two meetings on this project, staff has brought up numerous issues, including the fact that the rear portions of the original building are proposed to be demolished, new doors and windows are proposed to be added to the old portion of the house, there is a lack of physical separation between the new and old construction, there is significant hardscape and non-traditional landscaping around three sides of the house, the allocation of floor area for the project is unbalanced, with more (2,981 square feet) given to the historic house site than to the new lot (1,761 square feet), and there is inconsistency between the architecture of the historic house and the new addition. While staff understands that the board may not share all of these concerns, or feel that the issues are mitigated somewhat by the physical characteristics of the site, we maintain these reservations about the proposal. If the HPC determines that the review standards and design guidelines are met by the proposal, on a conceptual level, staff requests that a small number of remaining items be fully addressed. First, it has been stated by staff and HPC several times that we would like to see a restoration of the house to the extent that it is possible. The applicant is asking for a floor area bonus, which should be based on an outstanding preservation effort. Staff is strongly opposed to the addition of the flanking windows on the upper floor, south fagade. Staff would also propose the elimination of the shed dormers over the front gable unless it is found, during construction, that they are part of the original framing. In regard to the addition, staff suggests that there be significant discussion about the material palette for final review. The corrugated metal that is proposed to be used as a wall material and used for the somewhat massive columns for the decks is not in character with the fairly "high style" Victorian homes in this neighborhood. While contemporary materials like this have been used in other instances, they are generally used sparingly and are applied as a way to distinguish a very simple addition as new construction. There are enough other indicators that this is an addition to the building so as not to require a major departure in materials. Staff proposes there be further discussion as to the appropriateness of the angled deck forms and the columns mentioned above. Finally, at a later date there should be additional information about the character of the landscaping in the areas in front of the old house. The applicant should be clear about whether the proposed planters are raised planter boxes or just flower beds (preferred), and what the detailing of the lightwell at the front of the house will be. The applicant has requested the 500 square foot HPC bonus and also a rear yard setback variance. The setback variance appears to be appropriate because it creates more room to allow for a detached garage. The FAR bonus should be tied to addressing the issues stated above to the board's satisfaction. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development, and Staff Finding: The subject property is fairly large (11,707 square feet) and would allow for a single family house of 3,822 square feet. By creating two detached homes on the site and transferring some of the FAR to a new structure, the historic house can be better preserved and the structures on the site can be consistent with the size of homes that have historically existed in that neighborhood. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels, and Staff Finding: The project can enhance the historic significance of the home by removing some inappropriate alterations that have occurred over the years. d The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Staff Finding: Staff has indicated a concern that the project as currently designed does not enhance the architectural character and integrity of the house to the extent possible in such a major rehabilitation project. It may brought into compliance with this standard with modifications mentioned above. 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. Staff Finding: For the most part, the areas proposed to be demolished are recent construction and do not contribute to the historic character of the building. Staff has concerns that the proposal does include demolition of the rear portion of the original house. 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 (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. Staff Finding: Sanborne maps do not exist for this part of town, however the Willit's map and 1893 Bird's Eye View of Aspen suggest that the proposal involves demolishing historic areas at the back of the original house. This is inappropriate because the size and form of the historic structure will not be correctly represented by the project. The areas to be removed step down to a one story height and could be used as the one story break between the old and new construction. ON -SITE RELOCATION No approval for on -site relocation shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all of the following standards are met: A. 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. Staff Finding: The house is to be moved 8.5 feet to the east (towards Lake Avenue) and 7.5 feet to the south. Since it is one of a set of historic structures, a neighborhood plan has been provided to show the relationship created between the adjacent structures and the subject home in its new location. Staff finds that the new location of the house is compatible with the adjacent structure. B. 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. Staff Finding: Said report shall be a condition of approval. C. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security approved by UPC 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. Staff Finding: The relocation plan and letter of credit shall be conditions of approval. HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT In order to conduct an Historic Landmark Lot Split, the applicant shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Land Use Code: Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), and Section 26.72.010(G). 26.480.030(A)(2) SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, LOT SPLIT The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following conditions are met: a) The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969, and Staff Finding: The property was created as part of Hallam's Addition to the City of Aspen in 1888. b) No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.040(A) (1) (c). Staff Finding: This proposal will create two lots. Lot A, which will contain the historic building, is to be 5,707 square feet, which is allowable because the minimium lot size for lots created through approval of an Historic Landmark Lot Split is 3,000 square feet. If more than 50% of the existing house is being demolished by this application, the ADU that is proposed for Lot A is mandatory, otherwise it is voluntary. Lot B, the new lot, will be 6,000 square feet and is in conformance with the zone district. An ADU or cash -in -lieu payment will be required for development of the site. The lot split will not result in any additional density. Two detached houses is a use by right on a property of this size. c) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.040(C)(1)(a); and Staff Finding: The land has not been subdivided previously. d) A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. Staff Finding: The subdivision plat shall be a condition of approval. It must be reviewed by the Planning and Engineering Departments for approval and recordation within 180 days of fmal land use action. e) Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Staff Finding: The subdivision exemption agreement shall be a condition of approval. In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. Staff Finding: No dwelling units will be demolished as part of this proposal. g) Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. Staff Finding: The applicants intend to construct a single family house on Lot A. Lot B will be redeveloped by another party and may contain either a single family house, a duplex, or two detached homes if the necessary approvals are gained. The maximum build out will be three units. 26.480.030(A)(4) 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 shall be a minimum of 9,000 square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or a minimum of 13,000 square feet and be located in the R-15A zone district. Staff Finding: The subject parcel is 11,707 square feet and is located in the R-6 zone district. b) The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. Staff Finding: The maximum floor area for a duplex on the fathering parcel is 4,242 square feet. The applicant plans to allot 2,481 square feet, plus the 500 square foot bonus to Lot A, the historic house. Lot B is to be given 1,761 square feet. These square footages must be noted on the plat. Bonus FAR for "Accessory Dwelling Units" and garages may also be applied. c) The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. Staff Finding: The applicant has requested a floor area bonus and setback variance for the redevelopment of the historic house. No variances may be awarded to the new lot, Lot B. 26.470.070(C) GMQS EXEMPTION, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT The construction of each new single-family dwelling on a lot created through review and approval of an Historic Landmark Lot Split shall be exempt from the scoring and competition procedures. The exemption is to be approved by the Community Development Director, but is not to be deducted from the respective annual development allotments or from the development ceilings. Staff Finding: Currently, there are no standards for reviewing exemption requests; the exemption is by right for historic landmark lot splits. VARIANCE FOR THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT In order to receive a floor area waiver for the ADU, it must be in a separate structure, at least 10 feet away from the primary building, and must be contained in a building with a footprint no greater than 625 square feet. The applicant is attempting to reuse an existing building which is slightly over the maximum footprint requirement. After discussing the situation with the Planning Director, it was determined that the HPC could be asked to vary the standard and allow the ADU bonus if the variance criteria were met. The relevant code language is as follows: "Accessory Dwelling. An Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be calculated and attributed to the allowable floor area for a parcel with the same inclusions and exclusions for calculating Floor Area as defined in this Section, unless eligible for an exemption as described below. Detached ADU Floor Area Bonus. Fifty (50) percent of the net livable square footage of an ADU which is detached from the primary residence by a distance of no less than ten (10) feet and which is housed in a structure with a footprint of no more than 625 square feet shall be excluded from the calculation of Floor Area Mandatory Occupancy ADU Floor Area Bonus. Fifty (50) percent of the net livable square footage of an Accessory Dwelling Unit deed restricted to Mandatory Occupancy shall be excluded from the calculation of Floor Area. This mandatory occupancy restricted requires the ADU be continuously occupied by a local working residents, as defined by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, for lease periods of six months or greater. The owner shall retain the right to select a qualified renter. Combined FAA Bonuses. If an ADU is eligible for both of the Floor Area bonuses described above, one hundred (100) percent of the net livable square footage of the ADU shall be excluded from the calculation of Floor Area. " The intention of setting a maximum building footprint of 625 square feet was to create buildings which are truly secondary in size to the primary residence. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the HPC must make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; Staff Finding: The AACP promotes creating affordable housing within existing neighborhoods in the form of "Accessory Dwelling Units." In order to have the whole apartment exempted from floor area, the unit must be detached, which provides privacy for the resident, and will have to be deed.restricted to mandatory occupancy. 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and Staff Finding: The variance applies to an existing building, which is approximately 35 square feet larger than the allowed building footprint. Staff finds that the plan to reuse, rather than demolish and rebuild the outbuilding is reasonable. 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or Staff Finding: The building pre -dates the "Accessory Dwelling Unit" regulations. b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district; and Staff Finding: All parcels in the zone district have the right to construct an "Accessory Dwelling Unit," therefore the applicant is receiving no special privelege. RECOMMENDATION: If the HPC finds that the review standards and design guidelines are met, staff recommends that HPC grant approval for Conceptual Development, Variances, Partial Demolition, and On -site relocation and recommend Council approval of Historic Landmark Designation and a Historic Landmark Lot Split with the following conditions: 1. The HPC hereby grants a 5 foot rear yard setback variance and 500 square foot floor area bonus. 2. The HPC hereby grants a waiver from the maximum footprint requirement for ADU bonuses. 3. Eliminate the flanking windows on the upper floor, south fagade of the historic house. Eliminate the shed dormers over the front gable unless it is found, during construction, that they are part of the original framing. 4. �d�he`co`liimfis ���;,;�,� - •�rP ��P �c� �'��'�„� • 5. For final review, there will be significant discussion about the material palette. 6. Further information will be required about the character of the landscaping in the areas in front of the old house. The applicant should be clear about whether the proposed planters are raised planter boxes or just flower beds (preferred), and what the detailing of the lightwell at the front of the house will be. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to adopt Resolution #?A, Series of 2001, finding that the review standards and design guidelines have been met." Exhibits: _ Zi A. Staff memo dated April 25, 2001 B. Application RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN APPLICATION FOR A HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT AND GRANTING APPROVAL FOR CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, ON -SITE RELOCATION, AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 640 N. THIRD STREET, LOTS 4, 5, AND 6 (LESS THE SOUTHERLY 3.2 FEET OF LOT 6), BLOCK 102, HALLAM'S ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2735-121-08-002 WHEREAS, the applicants, Jim and Gae Daggs, represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects, have requested Historic Landmark Designation, Conceptual Development, Variances, Partial Demolition, On -site relocation, and Historic Landmark Lot Split approval for the property located at 640 N. Third Street, Lots 4, 5, and 6 (less the southerly 3.2 feet of Lot 6), Block 102, Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. The property is listed on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures; and WHEREAS, Any structure or site that meets two (2) or more of the following standards may be designated as "H," Historic Overlay District, and/or historic landmark. 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. 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. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. D. Neighborhood character. The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. E. Community character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location, and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance; and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant necessary variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this Section exceed those variations allowed under Section 26.520.040(B)(2), for detached accessory dwelling units, and 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and VVMREAS, 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. 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 (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; and WHEREAS, No approval for on -site relocation shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all of the following standards are met: A. 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. B. 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. C. 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 WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated May 23, 2001, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended approval of the project; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 23, 2001, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards, and to be consistent with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote of to _ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC grants approval for Conceptual Development, Variances, Partial Demolition, and On -site relocation and recommends Council approval of Historic Landmark Designation and a Historic Landmark Lot Split for the property located at 640 N. Third Street, Lots 4, 5, and 6 (less the southerly 3.2 feet of Lot 6), Block 102, Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. The HPC hereby grants a 5 foot rear yard setback variance and 500 square foot floor area bonus. 2. The HPC hereby grants a waiver from the maximum footprint requirement for ADU bonuses. 3. Eliminate the flanking windows on the upper floor, south fagade of the historic house. Eliminate the shed dormers over the front gable unless it is found, during construction, that they are part of the original framing. 4. Modify the angled deck forms to be more in keeping with the orthogonal plan of the house and the columns to be more appropriate to the scale of the house. 5. For final review, there will be significant discussion about the material palette. 6. Further information will be required about the character of the landscaping in the areas in front of the old house. The applicant should be clear about whether the proposed planters are raised planter boxes or just flower beds (preferred), and what the detailing of the lightwell at the front of the house will be. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 23rd day of May, 2001. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk CHARLES CUN. _ . _:E ARCHITECTS ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS Charles L CunniNe, AIA Principal Janver C. Derrington, AIA Principal May 9, 2001 Amy Guthrie Historic Planning Officer City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Daggs Residence Historic Landmark Development Historic Lot Split 640 North Third Street Aspen, Colorado Dear Amy, In response to the comments and suggestions of the HPC members at our last public hearing on April 25, we are submitting revised floor plans and elevations for consideration at the continued hearing on May 23. Since more than one HPC member stated that we are very close to an acceptable design for the addition and modifications to the historic residence, we believe our latest revisions will satisfy the criteria for conceptual approval. We have reconfigured the roof of the upper level of the addition to the two-story historic element to a gable over the new dining room with a ridge skylight instead of the higher transom glass that. was objectionable. The new gas log fireplace on the west side of the living `room is now more contemporary with a window over the mantle of a built-in metal firebox and an exposed metal flue penetrates through a shed roof. This shed roof configuration is reminiscent of the roof form of the original residence which was compromised by the additions in the 1960's and, 1970's. The siding material for this element and lower level walls of the new "connecting link" is now vertical corrugated galvanized metal which provides a distinct contrast to the horizontal lap siding of the historic house. We believe this satisfies the intent of the historic guidelines while allowing the floor plan to be functional for a livable present day residence. It also creates an interesting foil for the shingle clad westerly element with the barrel vault roof as well as the historic residence two-story element to the east. The addition is set back from the historic facade sufficiently to discretely subordinate and will not detract from the street presence on Lake Avenue. The proposed door and transom on the north side of the historic residence is needed for a functional floor plan as well as providing light to a dark space, and was mentioned as being acceptable at the last hearing. We have retained the proposed windows flanking the single historic window on the south facade at the upper level. This is needed for light and ventilation for the living room required by current building code standards. We will be glad to study the configuration of the windows and trim during the final approval phase to make the array compatible with the Victorian style and acceptable to the HPC. 610 EAST HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925,5590 fox: 970.925-506 info@cunniffe.com ww`N.cunniffe.com J .' ASPEN ® STEAMBOAT -31 TELLURIDE } VAI6 -� Guthrie Daggs Historic Lot Split May 9, 2001 Page 2 With regard to the "hardscape" of the site plan, we have softened it considerably with flagstone for the patios and stepping -stones along the north side to contrast with the more formal concrete walkway around the garage to the rear entry area. This is envisioned to be stamped, colored concrete in a random squared pattern. We have added planters at the base of the historic house which will have appropriate ornamental bushes, perennial flowers, etc. We do not believe it appropriate to move the existing fence on Lake Avenue, as one neighbor has suggested. In conclusion, we believe we have addressed the concerns of the HPC in an appropriate manner to satisfy the spirit and intent of the Historic Preservation Guidelines and respectfully request approval of this conceptual submission. Ja er C. Derrington, AIA �fincipal/Senior Project A Enclosures F Jim Daggs 640 N. Third Street Aspen, CO 81611 ASPENPITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RE: Status of 640 N. Third Street HPC approvals Dear Jim; I am writing inform you that the Conceptual approval HPC granted for project on May 23, 2001, is going to expire soon. The Aspen Municipal Code, Section 26.415.010(C)(2)(b)(1), states that "An application for final development review shall be filed within one (1) year of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Unless a written request for extension is filed with Community Development prior to the expiration of the one (1) year and is granted by HPC, the failure to file an application for a final development plan shall render null and void the approval of the conceptual development plan previously granted by the HPC." There are no standards provided in the code for-HPC to use in deciding whether or not to grant an extension of the approval.. Although your project will be reviewed according to the historic preservation ordinance that was in place, at the time you submitted an application, you should know that the Commission's policy as established in the new ordinance states that "The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a .Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date." The Municipal Code does not establish a specific time frame in which you need to act on the HPC's recommendation that Council approve the Historic Landmark Lot Split application, although it would be advisable to complete that process, if it is still something you wish to do, within a reasonable timeframe. Please let me know if you have any questions. I can be reached at 920-5096. Sincerel ; ----Z LY "Amy three Asoe Historic Preservation Officer Cc: Janver Derrington, Charles Cunniffe Architects 130 S; CTH GALENA STREET - ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 • PHONE 970.920.5090 FAx 970.9205439 Printed - Rtrvded Paper MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 640 N. Third Street- Historic Landmark Designation, Conceptual Development, Variances, Partial Demolition On -site relocation, and Historic Landmark Lot Split- Public Hearing DATE: April 25, 2001 SUMMARY: The project involves demolishing additions to the historic structure, relocating it and an existing outbuilding on site and building a new addition. The northerly portion of the property is to be split off for future development. APPLICANT: Jim and Gae Daggs, represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects. PARCEL ID: 2735-121-08-002 ADDRESS: 640 N. Third Street, Lots 4, 5, and 6 (less the southerly 3.2 feet of Lot 6), Block 102, Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential) CURRENT LAND USE: 11,707 sq. ft. lot containing a single -story residence, garage, and caretaker apartment LANDMARK DESIGNATION Any structure or site that meets two (2) or more of the following standards may be designated as "H," Historic Overlay District, and/or historic landmark. It is not the intention of the Historic Preservation Commission to landmark insignificant structures or sites. HPC will focus on those structures which are unique or have some special value to the community, as put forth in the standards. 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: Staff and the applicant are unaware of any historical significance in connection with this site with respect to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Staff finds this criterion 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: The original house has numerous features that are typical of 19t' century residences in Aspen, such as a decorative front porch, front gable/ porch relationship, and simple plan. The form of this building is somewhat unique in that the front gable is 1 '/2 stories and the cross gable is 2 stories tall. Staff finds this standard is met. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Staff Finding: The original designer is unknown, therefore this standard is not met. D. Neighborhood character. The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Staff Finding: The property is located in Aspen's historic West End neighborhood, along Lake Avenue. There are numerous 19' century homes in the immediately surrounding area and this building is one of four in a row. Staff finds this standard is met. E. Community character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location, and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Staff Finding: The house is representative of the modest scale, style, and character of homes constructed in the late 1800's, which is Aspen's primary period of historic significance. Staff finds this standard is met. 2 SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds that all of the following standards (Section 26.415.010.C.5) are met: a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, massing and volume with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or is adjacent to an historic landmark. For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site covered by up to five (S) percent, HPC may grant necessary variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this Section exceed those variations allowed under Section 26.520.040(B)(2), for detached accessory dwelling units, and Staff Finding: The project is a historic landmark lot split and involves demolishing portions of the existing house, relocating it and the carriage house on the site and building a new basement and addition. A rear yard setback variance for the garage and a 500 square foot floor area bonus are requested. The house was remodeled in the past and has additions which have affected its integrity as a historic resource. Some of the exterior materials have been replaced. Staff views this project as an opportunity to retrieve the original character of the structure and to improve its relationship to the other remaining historic buildings along Lake Avenue. The architect has provided "as -built" drawings of the house as well as plans and elevations which represent the historic design of the building. Using the available maps of the property, staff agrees that the house is correctly represented on sheets H2.1, H2.2, and H3.1. Note that because of the previous remodels, certain walls of the historic house will need to be reconstructed to restore the building. At the February 141h meeting, the HPC reviewed the project and gave the following direction to the applicant: 1. Restudy the demolition plan to retain all original portions of the historic house. 2. Focus on restoration opportunities for the historic house. 3. Restudy the addition to create more separation between it and the historic structure. Lower plate and ridge heights. 0 4. Relocate and reduce the size of the lightwell proposed on the south side of the front porch. 5. Eliminate the deck at the northeast corner of the house. 6. Recalculate the floor area for the project. 7. Provide a neighborhood plan showing the house in its proposed new location. A new plan has been submitted, and the architect has responded in writing to the HPC comments. A previous owner of the home has been contacted, and photos of the house from the 1950's are included in the packet. The Planning Staff has reviewed the new information, and appreciates the thorough documentation of the history of the house. However, the design for the new project does not seem to be making progress. specifically, the rear portions of the original building are still proposed to be demolished, new doors and windows are proposed to be added to the old portion of the house, and there is no h sical separation the new and old construction. to continues to be concerned with the amount of hardscape around three sides of the house, citing this guideline: Private Yard 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic structures. • The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod, and not covered with paving, for example. The architect asserts that retaining the rear portion of the house is not feasible and that it prohibits the owners from accommodating their program on the site. One of staff s concerns is that the allocation of floor area for the project is unbalanced, with more (2,981 square feet) given to the historic house site than to the new lot (1,761 square feet.) This is the opposite of the intent of the lot split program, which aimed to reduce the pressure on historic structures and transfer most of the floor area into a new building. Regardless, it is t e staff s opinion that to tru y restore the original structure, and to move towards a project that merits bonuses and variances, the rear portion of the building must be retained. It provides an ideal transition piece to the new addition and is part of the history of the building. The second point, to look for other restoration opportunities for the house, is not being met by the request to add flanking windows to the single window on the south side, upper floor. The HPC previously stated that this would not be appropriate. Also, staff would not recommend putting shutters back on the house. The shutters and the asphalt siding that appear in the 1950's pictures were probably installed sometime in the early part of the 201h century and were not original to the structure. As direction on the windows, the guidelines state: 3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. • Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character -defining facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening. This is especially important on primary facades where the historic ratio of solid -to -void is a character -defining feature. • Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls. • Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it to receive a larger window on primary facades. 3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a facade. • Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character -defining facade will negatively affect the integrity of a structure. Probably the most important issue that is not resolved by the proposed design is a physical break between the old house and new addition. The previous direction was to re uce t e eig t o t e a rtion, which has been accomplished by using a section of flat roof, barrel vaults, etc. The addition lands right on the back of that portion of the old house proposed to be retained. Although the addition is more narrow than the old house, staff feels that there must be a "slot" between the two elements so that they are viewed as two distinct masses. The architecture of the addition has also become less compatible with the historic house. Although the guidelines encourage contemporary so utio-E, these are to be contemporary interpretations of the features and characteristics of the old structure. The proposed addition does not appear to draw any references in its design from the original house. Staff finds the following guidelines are still not in by the proj ect. New Additions 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. • A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. • An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. • An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. • An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. • An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. • A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all 5 techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. • An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. • A 1-story connector is preferred. • The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. • The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. • Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. • Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. • For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. • The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. 10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic building. • If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar. • Eave lines on the addition should be similar to those of the historic building or structure. One of the issues mentioned on February 14" was that because of a misinterpretation of the floor area bonus for "Accessory Dwelling Units," the project was over the allowed square footage. The requirement is that in order to have the whole unit exempted, it must be in a separate structure, at least 10 feet away from the primary building, and must be contained in a building with a footprint no greater than 625 square feet. The applicant is attempting to reuse an existing building that has a footprint of approximately 700 square feet. After discussing the situation with the Planning Director, it was determined that the 0 HPC could be asked to vary the standard and allow the ADU bonus if the variance criteria were met. These criteria are discussed later in the memo. The applicant has requested the 500 square foot HPC bonus and also a rear yard setback variance. The merits of the HPC bonus will be better judged once the proposa as een amended to comply with the design guidelines. The setback variance appears to be appropriate because it creates more room to allow for a detached garage. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development, and Staff Finding: The subject property is fairly large (11,707 square feet) and would allow for a single family house of 3,822 square feet. By creating two detached homes on the site and transferring some of the FAR to a new structure, the historic house can be better preserved and the structures on the site can be consistent with the size of homes that have historically existed in that neighborhood. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels, and Staff Finding: The project can enhance the historic significance of the home by removing some inappropriate alterations that have occurred over the years. d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Staff Finding: The project as currently designed does not enhance the architectural character and integrity of the house to the extent possible in such a major rehabilitation project. The addition must be redesigned to be more of a distinctly separate mass and the house should be more accurately restored. 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. Staff Finding: For the most part, the areas proposed to be demolished are recent construction and do not contribute to the historic character of the building. Staff has 7 concerns that the proposal does include demolition of the rear portion of the original house, which must be restudied. 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 (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. Staff Finding: Sanborne maps do not exist for this part of town, however the Willit's map and 1893 Bird's Eye View of Aspen suggest that the proposal involves demolishing historic areas at the back of the original house. This is inappropriate because the size and form of the historic structure will not be correctly represented by the project. The areas to be removed step down to a one story height and could be used as the one story break between the old and new construction. ON -SITE RELOCATION No approval for on -site relocation shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all of the following standards are met: A. 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. Staff Finding: The house is to be moved 8.5 feet to the east (towards Lake Avenue) and 7.5 feet to the south. Since it is one of a set of historic structures, a neighborhood plan has been provided to show the relationship created between the adjacent structures and the subject home in its new location. Staff finds that the new location of the house is compatible with the adjacent structure. B. 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. Staff Finding: Said report shall be a condition of approval. C. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security approved by HPC with the engineering department, to 8 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. Staff Finding: The relocation plan and letter of credit shall be conditions of approval. HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT In order to conduct an Historic Landmark Lot Split, the applicant shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Land Use Code: Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), and Section 26.72.010(G). 26.480.030(A)(2) SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, LOT SPLIT The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following conditions are met: a) The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969; and Staff Finding: The property was created as part of Hallam's Addition to the City of Aspen in 1888. b) No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.040(A) (1) (c). Staff Finding: This proposal will create two. lots. Lot A, which will contain the historic building, is to be 5,707 square feet, which is allowable because the minimium lot size for lots created through approval of an Historic Landmark Lot Split is 3,000 square feet. If more than 50% of the existing house is being demolished by this application, the ADU that is proposed for Lot A is mandatory, otherwise it is voluntary. Lot B, the new lot, will be 6,000 square feet and is in conformance with the zone district. An ADU or cash -in -lieu payment will be required for development of the site. The lot split will not result in any additional density. Two detached houses is a use by right on a property of this size. 0 c) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.040(C)(1)(a); and Staff Finding: The land has not been subdivided previously. d) A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. Staff Finding: The subdivision plat shall be a condition of approval. It must be reviewed by the Planning and Engineering Departments for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use action. e) Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Staff Finding: The subdivision exemption agreement shall be a condition of approval. In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. Staff Finding: No dwelling units will be demolished as part of this proposal. g) Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. Staff Finding: The applicants intend to construct a single family house on Lot A. Lot B will be redeveloped by another party and may contain either a single family house, a duplex, or 10 two detached homes if the necessary approvals are gained. The maximum build out will be three units. 26.480.030(A)(4) 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 shall be a minimum of 9,000 square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or a minimum of 13,000 square feet and be located in the R-1 SA zone district. Staff Finding: The subject parcel is 11,707 square feet and is located in the R-6 zone district. b) The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. Staff Finding: The maximum floor area for a duplex on the fathering parcel is 4,242 square feet. The applicant plans to allot 2,481 square feet, plus the 500 square foot bonus to Lot A, the historic house. Lot B is to be given 1,761 square feet. These square footages must be noted on the plat. Bonus FAR for "Accessory Dwelling Units" and garages may also be applied. c) The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. Staff Finding: The applicant has requested a floor area bonus and setback variance for the redevelopment of the historic house. No variances may be awarded to the new lot, Lot B. 26.470.070(C) GMQS EXEMPTION, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT The construction of each new single-family dwelling on a lot created through review and approval of an Historic Landmark Lot Split shall be exempt from the scoring and competition procedures. The exemption is to be approved by the Community Development Director, but is not to be deducted from the respective annual development allotments or from the development ceilings. 11 Staff Finding: Currently, there are no standards for reviewing exemption requests; the exemption is by right for historic landmark lot splits. VARIANCE FOR THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT As discussed earlier, the existing outbuilding has a footprint larger than the maximum allowed for the ``Accessory Dwelling Unit" to be fully exempted from FAR. The applicant wishes to reuse this structure for cost savings. The relevant code language is as follows: "Accessory Dwelling. An Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be calculated and attributed to the allowable floor area for a parcel with the same inclusions and exclusions for calculating Floor Area as defined in this Section, unless eligible for an exemption as described below. Detached ADU Floor Area Bonus. Fifty (50) percent of the net livable square footage of an ADU which is detached from the primary residence by a distance of no less than ten (10) feet and which is housed in a structure with a footprint of no more than 625 square feet shall be excluded from the calculation of Floor Area Mandatory Occupancy ADU Floor Area Bonus. Fifty (50) percent of the net livable square footage of an Accessory Dwelling Unit deed restricted to Mandatory Occupancy shall be excluded from the calculation of Floor Area. This mandatory occupancy restricted requires the ADU be continuously occupied by a local working residents, as defined by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, for lease periods of six months or greater. The owner shall retain the right to select a qualified renter. Combined FAR Bonuses. If an ADU is eligible for both of the Floor Area bonuses described above, one hundred (100) percent of the net livable square footage of the ADU shall be excluded from the calculation of Floor Area. " The intention of setting a maximum building footprint of 625 square feet was to create buildings which are truly secondary in size to the primary residence. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the HPC must make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; Staff Finding: The AACP promotes creating affordable housing within existing neighborhoods in the form of "Accessory Dwelling Units." In order to have the whole apartment exempted 12 from floor area, the unit must be detached, which provides privacy for the resident, and will have to be deed restricted to mandatory occupancy. 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and Staff Finding: The variance applies to an existing building, which is approximately 75 square feet larger. than the allowed building footprint. Staff finds that the plan to reuse, rather than demolish and rebuild the outbuilding is reasonable. 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or Staff Finding: The building pre -dates the "Accessory Dwelling Unit" regulations. b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district; and Staff Finding: All parcels in the zone district have the right to construct an "Accessory Dwelling Unit," therefore the applicant is receiving no special privelege. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC continue the 640 N. Third Street review with the same direction provided on February 14, 2001. The project is not in compliance with the guidelines and must be restudied. 13 RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to continue the 640 N. Third Street application for Historic Landmark Designation, Conceptual Development, Variances, Partial Demolition On -site relocation, and Historic Landmark Lot Split to a date certain." Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated April 25, 2001 B. Application kovSei 31 � pcJ2a/ 14 - � • - �- � ,fir r Was WN N\AIH �SV�L- `lto I M LLW, � y 0 u; rt,;, L OFFE� lit -lot i 9 - F-P, �-:-v i Z�� jE-7- C�� RcmcipsP col q OFi4 PhtNTr-P WOOO FOr9eGIA *-rrzIAA �R�t4f�fEC GtALY• Sf+. M ETP•t- ¢�3►t�tf`if�j Gt=.I:>^m 5t+f? 4LE 51r7gNGn OxA'-V. tROt4 cmP¢RUA- CULVEICT C %-P-r-- re p.tL.C. of "0 PIT H REV15�p S�PJ�o I 10 oF14 RIPCAS— �W-YL-IrAW " GAl-%/, NAST'A" FLLM N L` W ag*MILg _ '3t.1 FtiR " �r19+.�t��tes.G� RAF SY9T'E'N� { t . RF—P*4 9L * R¢ip.1061l ►JT b.X►Gr WOOD' LAY' 1F,i r n N4 4 7-9 'AA f u = 10 ZI/11 /01 5 /8/o t m�l� R�f't.h�� wJ NEW C Gq►rM w, anr�►r�sut,�+ � RMR.+RaP.MtjT " crT LA-p sipt rJ 4 4 ?TRIM LA c�RRu4. 4Ai-%/, -5++ , VI L.T1�L Roc�� ►.►Gr ',act N7E0 WD, F:AOJC4A,, 5iA,AAg * TA t ,4A N�Rr.4R►o �ru�zA- -E DP *+41N Ge�.� 51ptrJG� =oRRo Co . 4 At-y, ! Rwf l =d- • V`/JC.ON G. F I L 4., RE I5E[) WE5T ELEVATION OF AlDDITI,Of� "= I o' Rev I 5EV tP�T EL.�V�rt'i oN (LA-KL AvENUF-) R EV 15 F`)- m FO 517-E W ELEVATION O ( -0E)7FEV-7 ---l� f' 6/9/0 If (2 L4- AGE EXiy FIXED ►y W P. DOWf�" • 4 W!N �dW �► $21- 5 of r-4 I.F- 16Y rcl REpco^� gt-VtheD 5/8/01 l3 oPI4 CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITE 610 E HYMAN ASPEN CO 81611 TEL 970.925.5590 EXECUTIVE FAX 970.925 •5076 ARCHITECTURAL FAX 970.925.4557 W W W..CUNNIFFE.COM April 6, 2001 Amy Guthrie Historic Planning Officer City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Daggs Residence Historic Landmark Development Historic Lot Split 640 North Third Street Aspen, Colorado CHARLES L. CUNNHW, AIA PRINCIPAL/CEO JANVER C. DERRINGTON. AIA PRINCIPAL Dear Amy, Since the first HPC public hearing, we have obtained more specific information about the "historic resource" that the commission is concerned about preserving. Longtime Aspen resident Carol Craig was the owner of the house with her husband Bob, from 1955 to 1964. A photo that she provided to us is attached as Exhibit J. As you can see, the roof was simply tarpaper, and it had composition siding, which is a bit easier to see in the photo marked Exhibit K. From the Exhibit J photo, it is evident that the West entry to the kitchen was the most used and the formal entry to the East was rarely used, according to Carol. Also the living room window to the East was the same size it is now, only a double hung sash instead of fixed, as you can see in the Exhibit L photo. Carol also stated that the dormers on the front gable were already there in 1955. We assume they were part of the original house. The shed roof over the kitchen was extended to the west to create a breakfast nook, laundry and storage in 1962. The Craig's also enlarged the living room to the North and added a bath in the upper level with a dormer to the West. All of these additions can be seen in the Exhibit M photo. The entire house was re -roofed with cedar shingles and wood lap siding, much as it appears today. A skylight was added in the shed roof over the kitchen/breakfast area. From what Carol has told me, the house that they moved into in 1955 was dark and poorly insulated. Nothing is known about the configuration or exterior materials prior to the time they started living there. It is evident that the additions they made, and those of subsequent owners after they sold it in 1964, have greatly enhanced its appearance, not to mention livability. However, it is still lacking by today's standards. In Exhibit H, pages 4 and 5, we have graphically shown the chronology of the various additions from 1962 to 1972. The Daggs bought the house in 1978 and it has remained essentially the same to date, other than normal maintenance and repair. ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS ASPEN • CARBONDALE • TELLURIDE • VAIL Daggs Residence Historic Lot Split Page 2 The dilemma we are faced with is how far to go with the restoration of the "historic resource?" Surely the HPC doesn't want to see tarpaper roof and composition siding. Also, in the 1965 additions, the roof was converted to a "cold roof" system with eave and ridge vents to improve the ice -damming problem. Should that be taken off, and if so, what material should replace it? As to the livability of the original house in the context of a new addition, it does not lend itself to being used in a manner that is compatible with today's lifestyle. That is why we are proposing the demolition of the western portion, which includes the original kitchen, laundry, bath and closet, along with the various additions, so that the two-story element remains, as well as the original living room and entry. By converting the living room to a stairwell, the "entry" can become a more functional element of the remodeled residence. We are restoring the double hung window with the shutters on the West wall of the stairway/original living room, which is the way it was in 1955. To make the new stairway more functional, we are requesting a door with transom to be added to the North wall. Carol has told me there was no window there, simply because of the heating problem in those days. We also request a new window on the west side of the two story historic element at the upper level, north end, for more natural light in the new living room. It will not be visible from Lake Avenue. The proposed addition to the West has been reconfigured so that the roof is no higher than the original two story element, and is set back so that it is subordinate to the historic street elevation. It is now being designed as a distinctly contemporary structure with completely different materials, massing, etc., as depicted in the revised concept drawings in Exhibit H, pages 7 through 14. In Exhibit I, we have responded to all of the specific suggestions of City Staff in their memorandum dated February 14, 2001. The applicant has requested adding a gas fireplace in the new living room and substituting an elevator for the back stairway, which required changing the fenestration significantly on the South and West elevations of the addition. We believe the revisions we have made will make the addition complimentary, but definitely different from the restored portion of the original house. We are also proposing to revise the 60's windows on the west (street) elevation of the Carriage House to more traditional double hung wood windows. Even though the entire original house is not being restored, the spirit of the "Miner Victorian" era is preserved in this proposed redevelopment and its presence on the Lake Avenue streetscape maintains the historic context of the neighborhood. In light of the above, we respectfully request that the HPC directive to retain all original portions of the historic house be modified to accept this proposed redevelopment. Sincerely, C. Derrington, AIA ,al/Senior Project Ai CHARLES CUNNWFE ARCHITE__ 610 E HYMAN ASPEN CO 81611 TEL 970.925 • 5590 EXECUTIVE FAX 970. 925 • 5076 ARCHITECTURAL FAX 970. 925 •4557 W W W..CUNNIFFE.COM April 6, 2001 Amy Guthrie Historic Planning Officer City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Daggs Residence Historic Landmark Development Historic Lot Split 640 North Third Street Aspen, Colorado C CHARLES L. CUNNN7E, AIA PRINCIPAL/CEO JANVER C. DERRINGTON, AIA PRINCIPAL Applicant's Response to City Staffs Comments and Recommendations Relevant to Previous Submission Dear Amy, 1. Restudy the demolition plan to retain all portions of the original house. Response: As stated in our letter, the original house's presence in the historic context of the Lake Avenue streetscape is the most important element of this proposal. The entry, living room and two-story element are the significant features that will be restored. The shed -roofed element on the back was not visible from Labe Avenue and restoring it would not add to the historic character of the neighborhood. It also would not lend itself to incorporation into a livable residence by today's standards. 2. Focus on restoration opportunities for the house. Response: The house as it appeared in 1955 (See Exhibit J) had tar paper roll roofing and composition siding, which are not very compatible with the nicely restored siding, trim and decorative elements of neighboring historic Victorian residences. We request that the present painted wood siding and trim and cedar shingles be preserved instead to maintain the neighborhood character. We propose to re -introduce shutters on the Lake Avenue fagade similar to those depicted in the 1955 photo (Exhibit L). The existing raised deck will be demolished, along with the various additions to the house, and an at -grade patio will replace it as recommended. Exhibit I ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS Page 1 of 3 ASPEN • CARBONDALE • TELLURIDE • VAIL 3. Restudy the addition to create more separation between it and the historic structure. Lower plate and ridge heights. Response: The existing two-story element of the historic structure is only 25 ft. high at the ridge in a land use zone that allows 25 ft. at the mid -point of a pitched roof. Thus, it is well below the allowed height and it would be impractical to lower the plate height of the addition in a livable residence. We have lowered the ridge of the addition to be no higher that the historic structure. We have also created a more distinctly contemporary character for the addition to distinguish it from the historic elements. The addition is narrower than the two-story element and the closeness to the Altemus residence to the south further reduces its visibility from Lake Avenue. There will be a new residence on Lot B to the north, which will provide a similar visual screening, as well as landscaping. The requirement for separation of the ADU from the main house by 10 ft. makes it unfeasible to create a further separation of the addition from the historic portion as recommended. We believe the proposed solution satisfies the intent and spirit of the historic preservation guidelines. 4. Relocate and reduce the size of the light well proposed on the south side of the front porch. Response: The light well is sized to create the light and egress required by UBC for the basement living area. It is set behind the front (street facing) facade of the historic structure, in accordance with current Residential Design Standards and is not visible from Lake Avenue. We have deleted the guardrail and placed a planter around the light well at grade, which is compatible with the historic structure and satisfies the safety requirements of UBC. 5. Eliminate the deck at the northwest corner of the house. Response: As stated above, we have deleted the deck and substituted an at -grade patio in that area of the yard. The existing fence along Lake Avenue will remain to provide privacy. 6. Recalculate the floor area of the project. Response: We have reduced the footprint of the garage/ADU by revising the entry area from enclosed space tq an open porch/breezeway. After consulting with the City Planning Director, we are requesting a variance from the 625 sq. ft. "footprint" restriction on the existing Carriage House ADU, so that the structure can be preserved. We have recalculated the ADU for net livable floor area and the FAR for the entire proposed redevelopment as depicted in revised Exhibit H, page 14. The proposed FAR for Lot A is now 2,481 sq. ft. and Lot B is now 1,761 sq. ft. 7. Provide a neighborhood plan showing the house in its proposed new location. Response: Please refer to Exhibit D, page 2, which we have added to our proposal. You will see from it and the revised site plan shown in Exhibit D, page 1, that the proposed relocation of the historic structure is actually further away from the Altemus residence by 3.5 ft. than the existing structure with its additions. Also, the proposed relocation of the existing garage/ADU structure will be no closer to the Third Street property line than in its present location, only about 4 ft. further to the South. Exhibit I Page 2 of 3 Other Related Issues: We request that the HPC reconsider the staff's suggestion to not allow the addition of two fixed windows flanking the existing double hung window on the south fagade, upper level of the two- story historic element. This is needed for required light and ventilation of the new Living Room by current UBC standards. We propose to also add a window on the west side of the two-story element on the north end of the new Living Room. Similarly, the proposed new door and transom on the north facade of the historic living room, now converted to a stairwell, is needed for proper functioning of the reconfigured residence space plan. It also provides more natural light into what was a poorly lit room, as Carol Craig noted. At the suggestion of City Staff, we are also proposing to revise the 60's windows of the west (street) elevation on the Carriage House to more traditional double hung wood windows. All other representations and requests made in our previous submission, dated December 11, 2000, remain substantially unchanged. Exhibit I Page 3 of 3 ail 4 rr- �. EXHIBIT i I �I 111 lill�lil I I Illlil�llll �'�.I II I I lid RIBIT K EXHIBIT L I EXHIBIT m 1 \ 1 I 1 I I 1 1 l 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I l_ I NORTH sT ---all 1 1 1 1 I a N tA ,''99•p00 IZE.V 15E r W W O TCC SITE PLAN - PROPOSED LOT SPLIT 1'' = 20' W W LQ N0 U o Z - mm U m I,' m � rn ~ W N LD ~ m Z - � V Z ao — � u zm�o 0 Zo' W U a2 - J W J - Qt< m N D ' m O >- H O � ULjo oNo ip u�9 a N O DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED SITE PLAN JOB NO. 0009 DATE 3-20-01 SHEET NO. Pi 0 . 1 SHEET F ,7COPMUiT CFMLES CUNNIFFE ARCHFi M HISTORIC MAIN LEVEL PLAN 1" = 10' 00 00 ,III i H-� U J W m Z 0 O Q LL U d2 1 n •�•m 6 H N U O zz N O o O <N= W 0 W U DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 HISTORIC MAIN LEVEL PIAN JOB NO. W09 DATE 3-20-00 SHEET NO. H2.1 SHEET OF '.iCOMCW OUW6 CUMNWH AKHfHCiS 1�1 - H Fol HISTORIC UPPER LEVEL PLAN 1" = 10, U� q C4N � J Z R ♦ FD O V ZZ ;� p U O O z Z " a o U a � J� N 9 6 m N �W U W p N O p DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 1 LEVEL PLAN 1 JOB NO. 0009 DATE 3-20-W SHEET NO. IH2.2 1 SHEET OF '.2,ODPMGHT MWM QINNIR{ ARWITEM 'KrZ�( <<'J�© NORTH ELEVATION (APPROX. 1" = 10, 0 SOUTH ELEVATION (APPROX. 1" = 10, � WEST ELEVATION (APPROX. EAST ELEVATION (APPROX. 00 xx� C4 N m w Z m o O 3 U O O Z - z m a U c� N J a� v~i O DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 HISTORIC HOUSE ELEVATIONS JOB NO. 0009 DATE 3-20-00 SHEET NO. H3.1 SHEET CE ©COvraar a L5 MNWE ARC ¢cis EXISTING MAIN LEVEL PLAN 1" = 10, Rr--\/Ij->ep r--xHI a 14 g4- * Legend _. FIRST ADDITION 1962 SECOND ADDITION 1965 THIRD ADDITION 1967 FOURTH ADDITION 1972 U Z • U V C4 � �$ N Of Ql ~ O^f f- - � N �O W • Q . Q Z �p O U m a z O 3 v a Z < W m a o V Ln W N Q m <� O °o N s DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 EXISTING MAIN LEVEL PLAN JOB NO. 0009 DATE 3-20 01 SHEET NO. E2.1 SHEET OF JCOv x CW 0MB WNrmff ARMUM EXISTING 1" = lot UPPER LEVEL PLAN Legend FIRST ADDITION 1962 mSECOND ADDITION 1965 n ■y Z Q . U C tAcd cV n O � H - W W ��g Z o Z z ' p O 3 U O 1 O ui W� U m y Z N Q Z NQ O W U a r s DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 EXISTING UPPER LEVEL PLAN FOB NO. 0009 DATE 3-20 Ot SHEET NO. E2.2 SHEET OF QCOPG@R atAWB a MfFE ARDIMCrs NORTH ELEVATION 101 SOUTH ELEVATION 1" = 10' WEST ELEVATION 1" = 10' EAST ELEVATION 1" = 10' c o$ 14 Ze M � V C4 M Q Q� n � W � H W � ~ M ~ 0 � M s ° A o 0 " z o. — 0 U W� LV > H < m J < N O 0 o > J O z W W U o N o N 0 s DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 EXISnNG HOI, ELEVATIONS JOB NO. 0009 DATE 3-20-00 SHEET NO. E3.1 SHEET OF !C)mrnuarr awes CUNMFFE AROii7EL',5 Lr--VEL FL.-Ai*.J RN�N� �-�- � t4 t; �AGG� RESIC )eINc F-X Y & of t4 t- Off'" LN n r - �Of�GJt! r MI r ` r 1 o J_ _ N\A i t� I +=-to t pw s '-A-Gt6JS - 9ra-SIDF-N cr-- Offt I ti 10 fiz L�Y�L Pt-�N - R�Yl��D R�.\i t SED t P I -r +4 o� 14 `"'1�T-T PRo seD R�ne�leLoPM��r Re/ tip e:cti i err l o op L+ Ht5~t!Pg4G 4-4 u5 r$zcpo4,ar> A-r tp(rlot-j v�C,M 14oug&� -. ~ PRO prl>5 t:) N T C,:�-..��P&*T ION - 1PM`+ C->e1[I a./I.9 70,1 R�ltGi�D 3/23�C� i s �XFtI�I3S�T h� rz of i4 %:ZvY-aoi.0 RooqmA;k!.f *. R n-116P V� Naw c c� suT���su�►� R�MR.+ REI' 4Ir FW A LAMP 51 P, N CT # roLlm �RRu4 • GtM.V, 9�-F, M r—TA . Rm ► i.t4 'rot NTEf� WA l4��iGtA� yi►� TR t l" , �� PhR f+►�N�4t.t �l DINC9 :4— , W/Ck+ C.. Ft w REW5ED WEST EL -EVATIION OF AID DITON zv c t Al LLv AVENL F. REVISF,t:� F-LEVATI ON ei: L�lp'77 ON N r- F-X,Gr FI oR&p � WINDrQW f ;R. ��FlNcril.L� ReStpt!�� GF— ��r� R=,",/L �C i4 i F-.7 t'i ° ' �j c� i$ UPPER LEVEL FAR INFORMATION N.T.S. MAIN LEVEL FAR INFORMATION N.T.S. g v16F-o E>c+41P>tT ' I l FAr, INFORMATION - EXISTING DEVELOPNJLNT LL (A) SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE O FIRST FLOOR /.96/ SO. FT. SECOND FLOOR 648 SO. FT. T . TOTAL 2.609 50. Fr 2 F— Cn (B) AD.U. @ GARAGE _ FIRST FLOOR MECH✓STORAGE 76 SO. FT. SECOND FLOOR LIVING SPACE 657 50. FT. LLJ X TOTAL 733 SO. FT. (C) GARAGE / STORAGE TOTAL AREA 630 SO. FT. FAR AREA 630 SO. FT. „ -375 SO. FT. (EXEMPT) g w TOTAL 255 SO. FT. $ $ $ TOTAL EXISTING FAR C4 g (A) 2,609 SO. FT. Q T BJ 733 SO. FT. W (C) 255 SO. FT. � 3597 SO. FT.ro LL m o TOTAL FAR ALLOWED FOR ORIGINAL PROPERTY: 4,242 SQ. FT. u J U z 3„ FAR INFORMATION - HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT C4 FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR 1.044 SO. FT. 599 SO. FT. Q M z TOTAL _ 1,643 SO. FT. U W — s FAR INFORMATION - PROPOSED LOT A DEVELOPMENT (A) SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE FIRST FLOOR 1,419 SO. FT. SECOND FLOOR 1,095 SO. FT. W U LOWER LEVEL (2374 x J15) 273 SO. FT. .� TOTAL 2787 SO. FT. NW co (B) A.D.U. a GARAGE � j FIRST FLOOR STOR./ MECH. 79 SO. FT. LV SECOND FLOOR LIVING SPACE 647 SO. FT. p NET LIVABLE 652 SO. FT. (EXEMPT) JO 74 SO. FT. Ln 0 U TOTAL U U �LU (C) GARAGE TOTAL AREA 495 SO. FT. -375 SO. FT. (EXEMPT) TOTAL 120 SO. FT. TOTAL FAR (A) (B) (C) FAR ALOCATED TO LOT A HISTORIC BONUS TOTAL FAR ALOCATED TO LOT A REMAINING FAR ALOCATED TO LOT B TOTAL FAR FOR BOTH LOTS TOTAL FAR ALOCATED TO LOT A TOTAL FAR ALOCATED TO LOT B 2,787 SO. FT. 74 SO. FT. 120 SO. FT. 2,981 SO. FT. 2.981 SO. FT. -500 SO. FT. 2.481 SO. FT. 4,242 SO. FT. -2,481 SO. FT. 1,761 SO. FT. FAR INFORMATION JOB NO. 0009 °ATE 20-rn SHEET NO. FAR SHEET OF ^icoerwx _� a.em� warrzcs TO: THRU: W-t IG LVA MEMORANDUM Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 640 N. Third Street- Historic Landmark Designation, Conceptual Development, Variances, Partial Demolition On -site relocation, and Historic Landmark Lot Split- Public Hearing DATE: February 14, 2001 SUMMARY: The project involves demolishing existing additions to the historic structure, relocating it on site and building a new addition, and separating off the northerly portion of the property for future redevelopment. APPLICANT: Jim and Gae Daggs, represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects. PARCEL ID: 273 5-121-08-002 ADDRESS: 640 N. Third Street, Lots 4, 5, and 6 (less the southerly 3.2 feet of Lot 6), Block 102, Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential) CURRENT LAND USE: 11,707 sq. ft. lot containing a single -story residence, garage, and caretaker apartment REVIEW PROCESS: The HPC will review the project according to the standards for Historic Landmark Designation, Conceptual Development, Variances, Partial Demolition On -site relocation, and Historic Landmark Lot Split and make: 1. A Decision as to whether the standards are met for Conceptual Development, Variances, Partial Demolition, and On -site relocation; and 2. A Recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for Landmark Designation; and 3. A Recommendation to City Council for Historic Landmark Lot Split. LANDMARK DESIGNATION Any structure or site that meets two (2) or more of the following standards may be designated as "H," Historic Overlay District, and/or historic landmark. It is not the intention of the Historic Preservation Commission to landmark insignificant structures or sites. HPC will focus on those structures which are unique or have some special value to the community, as put forth in the standards. 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: Staff and the applicant are unaware of any historical significance in connection with this site with respect to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Staff finds this criterion 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: The original house has numerous features that are typical of 19`'' century residences in Aspen, such as a decorative front porch, front gable/ porch relationship, and simple plan. The form of this building is somewhat unique in that the front gable is 1 1/2 stories and the cross gable is 2 stories tall. Staff finds this criteria is met. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Staff Finding: The original designer is unknown, therefore this standard is not met. D. Neighborhood character. The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Staff Finding: The property is located in Aspen's historic West End neighborhood, along Lake Avenue. There are numerous 19`h century homes in the immediately surrounding area and this building is one of four in a row. Staff finds this criteria is met. E. Community character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location, and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Staff Finding: The house is representative of the modest scale, style, and character of homes constructed in the late 1800's, which is Aspen's primary period of historic significance. Staff finds this criteria is met. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds that all of the following standards (Section 26.415.010.C.5) are met: a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, massing and volume with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or is adjacent to an historic landmark. For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant necessary variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this Section exceed those variations allowed under Section 26.520.040(B)(2), for detached accessory dwelling units, and Staff Finding: The project is a historic landmark lot split and involves demolishing portions of the existing house, relocating it and the carriage house on the site and building a new basement and addition. A rear yard setback variance for the garage and a 500 square foot floor area bonus are requested. The house was remodeled in the past and has additions which have affected its integrity as a historic resource. Some of the exterior materials have been replaced. Staff views this project as an opportunity to retrieve the original character of the structure and to improve its relationship to the other remaining historic buildings along Lake Avenue. The architect has provided "as -built" drawings of the house as well as plans and elevations which attempt to represent the historic design of the building. Using the available maps of the property, staff agrees that the house is correctly represented on sheets H2.1, H2.2, and H3.1. Note that because of the previous remodels, certain walls of the historic house will need to be reconstructed as part of this project. The applicant indicates that the proposal is to strip back to the original structure and make a new addition. It appears though that the new plans do not maintain the portions of the historic building that are labeled as "kitchen" and "bath" on sheet H2.1. Staff has concerns with the decision to retain only part of the original house, to be discussed further under the "Partial Demolition" review standards. In regard to other alterations to the historic house, staff encourages the applicant to avoid adding any new elements which would not have been there historically and to look for more opportunities to restore the structure. For instance on the south elevation of the two story gable, the double hung window on the upper floor should be maintained (without the addition of new windows flanking it) and the first floor window should be replaced with a double hung window (instead of the inappropriate casement windows which currently exist.) The dormers on the front gable should be investigated to determine if they are original and the window in the street -facing gable end should be restored to a double hung. Staff would recommend against adding an exterior door on the north side of the entry piece, and would recommend against building a deck that wraps around the front of the house, citing the following guideline. Private Yard 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic structures. • The front vard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod, and not covered with paving, for example. It appears that many of the exterior materials, including the siding, are not historic. During the demolition and discovery phase, the applicant should look for any indication of the character of the original siding and evidence of earlier trim detail, comerboards, etc. The proposed addition is problematic in that it is only slightly narrower than the historic house and is four feet taller. It is in conflict with two of the design guidelines: 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. • An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. • A 1-story connector is preferred. • The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. • The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. There is no subordinate connecting element between the old and new construction and the plate height on the second floor of the addition is a full 10 feet. Staff finds that the addition must be restudied so that the original scale and form of the historic building can still be perceived and the addition is a clearly distinct mass. The basement floor plan will also have to be examined, because the very large stepped lightwell with a railing in the front corner of the house will create a significant visual impact on the historic resource, and is in conflict with the design guidelines: 9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below -grade living space. • In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design Standards). • The size of a lightwell should be minimized. • A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will be considered on a case -by -case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded by a simple fence or rail. Along with the areas recommended for restudy above, the applicant must examine their floor are a calculations. It appears that the intention is to take a bonus for the entire "Accessory Dwelling Unit," which is possible when an ADU is fully detached from the principal residence and is deed restricted to mandatory occupancy. However, there is an additional provision that to take these exemptions, the footprint of the garage structure can be no larger than 625 square feet and the existing garage has a footprint of over 700 square feet. Furthermore, the ADU bonus is only applied to the "net livable" area of the unit, so certain elements such as the staircase will count in floor area. The result is that the project as designed is roughly 400 square feet over allowable FAR. The applicant has requested the 500 square foot HPC bonus and also a rear yard setback variance. The merits of the HPC bonus will be better judged once the proposal has been amended to comply with the design guidelines and dimensional requirements. The setback variance appears to be appropriate because it creates more room to allow for a detached garage. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development, and Staff Finding: The subject property is fairly large (11,707 square feet) and would allow for a single family house of 3,822 square feet. By creating two detached homes on the site and transferring some of the FAR to a new structure, the historic house will be better preserved and the structures on the site will be consistent with the size of homes that have historically existed in that neighborhood. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels, and Staff Finding: The project will enhance the historic significance of the home by removing some inappropriate alterations that have occurred over the years. d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Staff Finding: The project as currently designed does not enhance the architectural character and integrity of the house to the extent possible in such a major rehabilitation project. The addition must be redesigned to be more of a distinctly separate mass and the house should be more accurately restored. 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. Staff Finding: For the most part, the areas proposed to be demolished are recent construction and do not contribute to the historic character of the building. Staff has concerns that the proposal does include demolition of the rear portion of the original house, which should be restudied. 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 (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. Staff Finding: Sanborne maps do not exist for this part of town, however the Willit's map and 1893 Bird's Eye View of Aspen suggest that the proposal involves demolishing historic areas at the back of the original house. This is inappropriate because the size and form of the historic structure will not be correctly represented by the project. The areas to be removed step down to a one story height and could be used as the one story break between the old and new construction. ON -SITE RELOCATION No approval for on -site relocation shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all of the following standards are met: A. 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. Staff Finding: The house is to be moved 8.5 feet to the east (towards Lake Avenue) and 7.5 feet to the south. Since it is one of a set of historic structures. a neighborhood plan should be provided to show the relationship created between the adjacent structures and the subject home in its new location. B. 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. Staff Finding: Said report shall be a condition of approval. C. 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. Staff Finding: The relocation plan and letter of credit shall be conditions of approval. HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT In order to conduct an Historic Landmark Lot Split, the applicant shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Land Use Code: Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), and Section 26.72.010(G). 26.480.030(A)(2) SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONs, LOT SPLIT The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following conditions are met: a) The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969; and Staff Finding: The property was created as part of Hallam's Addition to the City of Aspen in 1888. b) No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.040(A)(1)(c). Staff Finding: This proposal will create two lots. Lot A, which will contain the historic building, is to be 5,707 square feet, which is allowable because the minimium lot size for lots created through approval of an Historic Landmark Lot Split is 3,000 square feet. If more than 50% of the existing house is being demolished by this application, the ADU that is proposed for Lot A is mandatory, otherwise it is voluntary. Lot B, the new lot, will be 6,000 square feet and is in conformance with the zone district. An ADU or cash -in -lieu payment will be required for development of the site. The lot split will not result in any additional density. Two detached houses is a use by right on a property of this size. c) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.040(C)(1)(a); and Staff Finding: The land has not been subdivided previously. d) A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. Staff Finding: The subdivision plat shall be a condition of approval. It must be reviewed by the Planning and Engineering Departments for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use action. e) Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Staff Finding: The subdivision exemption agreement shall be a condition of approval. f) In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. Staff Finding: No dwelling units will be demolished as part of this proposal. g) Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. Staff Finding: The applicants intend to construct a single family house on Lot A. Lot B will be redeveloped by another party and may contain either a single family house, a duplex, or two detached homes if the necessary approvals are gained. The maximum build out will be three units. 26.480.030(A)(4) 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 shall be a minimum of 9,000 square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or a minimum of 13,000 square feet and be located in the R-15A zone district. Staff Finding: The subject parcel is 11,707 square feet and is located in the R-6 zone district. b) The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. Staff Finding: The maximum floor area for a duplex on the fathering parcel is 4,242 square feet. The applicant plans to allot 2,302 square feet, plus the 500 square foot bonus to Lot A, the historic house. Lot B is to be given 1,940 square feet. These square footages must be noted on the plat. Bonus FAR for "Accessory Dwelling Units" and garages may also be applied. c) The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. Staff Finding: The applicant has requested a floor area bonus and setback variance for the redevelopment of the historic house. No variances may be awarded to the new lot, Lot B. 26.470.070(C) GMQS EXEMPTION, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT The construction of each new single-family dwelling on a lot created through review and approval of an Historic Landmark Lot Split shall be exempt from the scoring and competition procedures. The exemption is to be approved by the Community Development Director, but is not to be deducted from the respective annual development allotments or from the development ceilings. Staff Finding: Currently, there are no standards for reviewing exemption requests; the exemption is by right for historic landmark lot splits. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC continue the 640 N. Third Street review with the following direction: l . Restudy the demolition plan to retain all original portions of the historic house. 2. Focus on restoration opportunities for the historic house. 3. Restudy the addition to create more separation between it and the historic structure. Lower plate and ridge heights. 4. Relocate and reduce the size of the lightwell proposed on the south side of the front porch. 5. Eliminate the deck at the northeast corner of the house. 6. Recalculate the floor area for the project. 7. Provide a neighborhood plan showing the house in its proposed new location. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to continue the 640 N. Third Street application for Historic Landmark Designation, Conceptual Development, Variances, Partial Demolition On -site relocation, and Historic Landmark Lot Split to a date certain." Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated February 14, 2001 B. Application CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 520 E. HYMAN SUITE 301 ASPEN, CO 81611 PHONE (970) 925-5590 FAX (970) 925-5076 ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERICRS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL DATE: TO: CK4 8M COMPANY: f� P ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: FROM: J a vlv" DUT, PROJECT: 9 JOB #: QO REGARDING: is �- o N r —rk il- 8 s -k , ?�r7 F am", co WE ARE SENDING: *ttached VIA e following items: ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Computer Disc(s) ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of Letter ❑ Change order Other DESCRIPTION: 4r +0(�G L'ot-15f " r -;W k. Des a TRANSMITTED AS: ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval *r your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit_ copies for distribution ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ Review & Comment ❑ Prints returned ❑ Prints returned after loan to us ❑ For bids due _19 REMARKS: ` O Co p I eg a 5 BY: 44"Alk COPY: File ❑ Other re1ue474" --�- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,y L I I C 7 2 S _-AC /----I t- (,-- 6- 'z;, L) 1 1- - `1 CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 610 E HYMAN ASPEN CO 81611 TEL 970.925 • 5590 EXECUTIVE FAX 970.925.5076 ARCHITECTURAL FAX 970 •925 •4557 W W W.CUNNIFFE.COM December 14, 2000 Fred Jarman HPC Planning Coordinator City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Daggs Residence Historic Landmark Designation & Historic Lot Split 640 North Third Street Aspen, CO Dear Fred, CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, AIA PRINCIPAL/CEO JANVER C. DERRINGTON, AIA PRINCIPAL We are submitting herewith the Application for Conceptual HPC Review for the referenced project. The subject property contains a residence that was originally built in 1889 and is listed on the Inventory of Historic Resources by the City of Aspen. Thus, it is eligible for the Historic Lot Split provisions of the Aspen Land Use Code. The Historic Residence has had several additions, primarily in the late 1960's and early 1970's, which have compromised its integrity. The Applicant intends to demolish the non -historic portions of the current structure and relocate the historic portion of the residence about 8.5 ft. to the East and 7.5 ft. to the South after constructing a full basement on the South half of the property. They will then construct a new addition to the West, as depicted in the attached drawings. The existing carriage house structure, which was built in the early 1960's and contains a 1-bedroom apartment above a 2-car garage, will also be relocated and reused to fulfill the current ALUC requirements for an Accessory Dwelling Unit and Secondary Mass. Since the property is fronted on both the East and West by City Streets (Lake Avenue and Third Street, respectively) the Applicant proposes to utilize the Third Street end of the property as an alley for the purpose of allocating setbacks. The FTC is requested to grant a variance of 5 ft. so that the Carriage House is 5 ft. from the "rear yard" property line. This is in accordance with the recommendation of Amy Guthrie and is essentially identical to the existing location of the Carriage House in relationship to the street. This allows the Historic House to be very nearly in line with the street facade of the neighboring Historic Residence to the South and preserve the historic character of Lake Avenue. It also complies with the Residential Design Standards of the ALUC. The existing fence, gate and stone pathway from Lake Avenue to the front entrance of the Historic Residence will be restored and maintained. ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS ASPEN • CARBONDALE • TELLURIDE • VAIL Daggs Historic Landmark Designation Page 2 By implementing these measures, a lot split can be made so that the South half of the property, to be labeled parcel A, will contain the Historic Resource with about 5,707 sq. ft. and the North half of the property, to be labeled Parcel B, will have 6,000 sq. ft. It will then be developable as a second single family residence, duplex or two detached residences. The FAR that is available for a duplex on the existing property will be divided between the two subdivided parcels as set forth on the attached FAR Information Sheet. The Applicant is also requesting that HPC grant the 500 sq. ft. bonus to Parcel A as a consideration for Historic Landmark Designation of the Historic Resource in compliance with all of the standards set forth in the ALUC. In conclusion, the Applicant respectfully requests that the Historic Planning Staff of the City of Aspen forward this Application to the HI'C with a recommendation for approval at the Conceptual Phase. We will be glad to answer any questions or provide additional documentation that you may require. Sincerely, Janj r C. DerringtontAIA Prtf�cipal/Senior Project Architect CITY OF ASPEN PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Fred Jarman DATE: November 6, 2000 PROJECT: Daggs Property Historic Redevelopment REPRESENTATIVE: Janver Darrington, Charles Cunniffe Architects (925-5590) OWNER: Jim Daggs LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 4, 5, and 6 (less the southerly 320 feet of lot 6� Block 102, Hallam's Addition. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Daggs Residence: Landmark Designation, Historic Landmark Lot Split, HPC Significant Development Conceptual and final. Partial Demolition, Relocation, 5' rear yard variance, and 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus. DESCRIPTION: Jim Daggs is requesting a HPC Significant Application to include a Landmark Designation, Historic Landmark Lot Split, Partial Demolition, Relocation, 5' rear yard variance, and 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus. The subject lot is approximately 11,700 sq. ft. zoned R-6 and located at 640 North Third St. The property contains two structures — main residence which is on the City of Aspen's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structure and a non-contributing caretaker unit above a two - car garage. He is requesting to landmark the property and then split the property into Lot "A" to contain the resource and having 5,707 sq. ft. and Lot "B" as having 6,000 square feet. The applicant wished to slightly relocate and significantly remodel the main house while promoting the historical significance of the resource. He would then subsequently sell off lot "B"; there are no development plans for that lot at the present time. The applicant is asking for a 500 sq. ft. bonus to be applied to the historic resource as an important part of the partial demolition of the non -historical portion of the house and remodel addition. The Process shall include the following steps: Step 1: The applicant will be required to have a public hearing before the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) to conduct 1) the landmark designation, 2) historic landmark lot split, and 3) request for partial demolition and 500 sq. ft. bonus and 5' rear yard variance. This all would be part of a Significant Conceptual Review. The HPC review of the lot split must include a draft plat, and information about how the floor area will be allocated. In order to receive the 500 square foot Floor Area Ratio (FAR) bonus, the applicant needs to justify that they are making an outstanding preservation effort. The draft lot split plat must also include exact FAR distribution. Step 2: The applicant shall be required to have a public hearing before the Planning & Zoning Commission (P & Z) for the landmark designation; Step 3: The applicant shall be required to have a public hearing before City Council for the 1) landmark designation and 2) historic landmark lot split. Step 4: The applicant will be required to return to HPC for the Significant Final Review to be conducted in a public hearing before the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) for 1) the landmark designation, 2) historic landmark lot split, and 3) request for partial demolition and 500 sq. ft. bonus and 5' rear yard variance. Land Use Code Section(s) Applicant is required to address: 26.420.10 Historic Designation Standards 26.415.010(D) Historic landmark lot split 26.480.030(A)(2) Exemptions for Lot Split 26.480.030(A)(4) Exemptions for Historic Landmark Lot Split 26.480.040(B) Exempt Subdivisions Procedures 26.470.070(C) GMQS Exemption for Historic Landmark Lot Split 26.415.010(E) Demolition, Partial Demolition, and On -site Relocation 26.480.060(B) Application Submission Contents Review by: Staff for completeness, Referral agencies for recommendations. Planning Director for a recommendation to Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council. Public Hearing: Yes, Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council Referral Agencies: Engineering, housing, building, Zoning Officer Planning Fees: Planning Deposit ($2,310) Referral Agency Fees: Engineering, Minor ($170) Total Deposit: $2,480 (additional hours are billed at a rate of $195 /hour) To apply, submit the following information: l . Proof of ownership. 2. Signed fee agreement. 3. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative(s) authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 4. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 5. Total deposit for review of the application 6. 1 Copy of the complete application packet and maps to be submitted for review. Once it is deemed complete, the planner will request the following copies be made and submitted to the planning office. HPC = 10; P&Z = 10; CC = 8; Referral Agencies = 1/ea; Planning Staff = 2 7. An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. 8. Draft Plat including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. Contact Engineering Department if more specifics are needed. 920.5080. 9. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. Please refer to the review standards in the application. Process: Planner reviews case for completeness and sends to Engineering for referral comments. Case planner contacts applicant and sets up a site visit. Staff reviews application to determine if it meets standards of review. Case planner makes a recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial to the Community Development Director. Noticing: Content of notice. Every notice shall include the name and address of the applicant, the type of development application sought, date, time and place of the hearing, the address and legal description of the subject property if applicable, a summary of the development application under consideration, and identification of the decision -making body conducting the hearing and such other information as may be required to fully apprise the public of the nature of the application. Manner of notice. Every notice shall be given in one or more of the following manners, as specified in this Title for each type of development: a. Publication of notice. Publication of notice shall be provided by the applicant or the Community Development Department at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing through publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen. b. Posting of notice. Posting of notice shall be made by the applicant, who shall obtain a copy of the form from the Community Development Department. The notice shall be posted at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing, by posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the property subject to the development application. The sign shall be made of suitable, waterproof materials, shall be not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and shall be composed of letters not less than one inch in height. C. Mailing of notice. Mailing of notice shall be made by the applicant, who shall obtain a copy of the notice from the Community Development Department. The mailing shall contain that information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2). At least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be sent by first class, postage prepaid U.S. mail, or hand delivered, to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application, and at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be sent by first class, postage pre -paid U.S. mail or hand delivery to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi - governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual represez:tations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and J a" mac., � 6ia c- (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CJTY an application for I-_ . . . (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). (<(rv1tW 't`Qj- MMAICz+r«/'ro-W' 'a1 �. toI 11'iir>N'aNQ15tgKi j r,;*_VeUPPA 8 r4+- 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 45 (Series of 1999) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $-'Z.f4W which is for hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments .shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN By: Julie Ann Woods Community Development Director g:\support\forms\agrpayas.doc 12/27/99 APPLICANT By. �- l Date: Zi�aL� Mailing Address: 1+,4-0 N . Third S-f ; �� I CO E71(PI I ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name Gr- 4iev+or e, Lod-- Sph ua_topm eA�- 2. Project location 6 N - -r'hird4t, Aspgjn, cO ' �� 5 �d ISO I e55 +4 6ou-I-k - 3.2 , o L.u+(P l < t 'S Ad.d i fides (indicate street address -lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning 9 - (a 4. Lot size l (,-107 'I-�_ 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number a C,J�acS G40 N. T Wrcl 5-I ., A-5pd v►, Co 8f (c 11 _ R70_)_9 Z 5-2183 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number bia7-Id5 GU h r i A t c h 1 +CC 5 , (010 E . 41A wrav► "e" , f,9PW ) cc a! (d l _ 9 -10 9 Z5' G,51 0 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Special Review 8040 Greenline Stream Margin Subdivision GMQS allotment View Plane Lot Split/Lot Line Adjustment Conceptual SPA X Final SPA �C Conceptual PUD Final PUD �C Text/Map Amend. GMQS exemption Condominiumization Conceptual HPC Final HPC Minor HPC Relocation HPC Historic Landmark Demo/Partial Demo Design Review Appeal Committee 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) SI YWQ, FSMi ej;fJa &&. wifl!A'L 5a5. .3nJ 3 b ed r»owt5 l uy a ddfWkdJ 1- bm4ry ewe a+v w Soo Sar _ -� a b m v a a AV ra!�Q 668.8 5c,,. 9. Description of development application P1S4-orcG Lod' epii % I�v►�nnarlLl7�si�Ha-%iv� , 4Fr, CpVICto-IMa1 awd it+a. 0 10. Have you completed and attached the following? %4 Attachment 1- Land use application form Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form 7C Response to Attachment 3 �C Response to Attachments 4 and 5 14 "ric R ew e btvr- 10Pi"em : ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant: J Z5r4d6 � sae'DR,�55 Address: 6¢0 t4, Third S-ti; Ads V1 , CO Zone district: —Ce Lot size: ( ? D7 �� �747 -SPl i Existing FAR: Allowable FAR: Z 2 a evx Proposed FAR. - Existing net leasable (commercial): Proposed net leasable (commercial): NfIA Existing % of site coverage: s 6 170 Proposed % of site coverage: e Existing % of open space: N1A Proposed % of open space: Existing maximum height: Principal bldg: 22,0 .'*Accesory bldg: 1 �5, O Proposed max. height: Principal bldq:25,0 ,)JEAccessorybidg:S.1,0 .�jE• Proposed % of demolition: Existing number of bedrooms: Proposed number of bedrooms: Existing on -site parking spaces: On -site parking spaces required: +M�,ur 4-o lawer`/,5 Poiv% V t/2 porn pi roo respc-6&1,- Setbacks Existing: Minimum required: *vLci �h*roposed :�� Front: jMa4+• ?riu6Pe1) Front: ID4-(Pnk6/Vai P-1u'�i►il)Front: 1 . i�'tNci�at Dui irt� Rear: 5ro }• ara�/AD4)Rear: 5 a{�1ADu Rear: S C�•ara�yf�EDN Combined Combined p Combined 10 7 -+(Primi�al) Front/rear:23, (o - Front/rear: SO -1't • Front/rear:765.P.P4.t�ccss r�) Side: 7-7 Side: 5 �'-i-• Side: a Side: 41,E-5fi-. Side: 1O Side:• Combined Combined Combined Sides: 49, P; - Sides: I Sides: Existing nonconformities or encroachments: 7,3 -4. tv.n C&A ULAtl 5d"ti'4ASic6. �►a,r..l e-.� 9A k ( - In i S w ', l I be Yt k t i i 4-t' b" RtAc a +z'e► Lo f 5p 1 i Variations requested: 5 r'&,& 8f-t4, pie bae< . (,,"LWC.L .k.ert. i5 rw -a IIeH l - 500 Vn . P-+- t-'tl C, ?.�o V, u.5 (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.ft., site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-o, R-15, RN1F, CC, and O zone districts) ATTACHMENT 3 GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS All development applications must include the following information (Section 26.304.030): 1. Contained within a letter signed by the applicant, the applicant's name, address and telephone number, and the name, address, and telephone number of any representative auorized to act on behalf of the applicant. Sf-¢. Z oc,WA �}" �XI��6iT ,N , 2. The street address, legal description, and parcel identification number ofithe e�rop��ty Cp op �s�ds-,"A t e1gp�nt. 3. A disclosure of ownership of the parcel proposed for development, consisting of a current certificate from a Title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the i ner's g t to appl r the Development Application. s� eExh11 fIs. 4. An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. s 5. A site plan depicting the proposed layout and the project's physical relationship to the lad n its urroundi 9 C5 V a-(�-�c g }�- EEC 61 i �i I I- P I 6. A site improvement survey certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the State of Colorado, showing the current status of the parcel including the current topography and vegetation. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Director if the project 5e,01,ea*';?cd no ettq -F-:Xwarrant bit Ey document.) 7. A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to 5 `aeav op en ai f+ &7XWw + 8. Additional materials, documentation, or reports as deemed necessary by th�e 2 orb{ n� ity De�vlopment Director. ATTACHMENT 4 SPECIFIC SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: CONCEPTUAL REVIEW All applications for conceptual review must include the following information: 1. A site plan and a survey showing property boundaries and predominant existing s 5cinasleLCI hs -fi C aj Ex�i+ V J g 2. The conceptual selection of major building materials to be used in the proposed Jevelop eT� �,+ �C a�+c.-c�'a. — h r e.(3 3. If applicable, a statement of the effect of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structure and/or the character of the n%borhood. � a 4. Scale drawings of all elevations of any proposed structures, including a roof plan. CL G t &Nc Z i;+ 1 ��'�jes iS -1M ro &V l4� 5. Without adding excessive costs to the applicant, a visual description of the neighborhood context through at least one of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, model , or str etscape elevations. , T6 bV, Fr�5�aF>"6rc.C_ kt-a r-" �_: �<�'1 PIT A James- & Gae Daggs 640 North Third Street Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925-2183 October 25, 2000 Fred Jarman HPC Planning Coordinator City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Fred, We are hereby notifying you that we have authorized Charles Cunniffe Architects to represent us in all matters pertaining to the Governmental Agency Review Process for our project. The primary person to contact is: Janver Derrington, AIA Charles Cunniffe Architects 610 E. Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925-5590 Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, James Daggs - - aa- f.-Y H 10 rT' l m-9+ COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A 1. Effective Date: September 14, 2000 at 8:00 AM Case No. PCT14927PR 2. Policy or Policies to be issued. - (a) ALTA Owner's Policy -Form 1992 Amount$ 0.00 Premium$ 0.00 Proposed Insured: Rate: (b) ALTA Loan Policy -Form 1992 Amount$ 0.00 Premium$ 0.00 Proposed Insured: Rate: Tax Certificate: $10.00 3. Title to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: JAMES K. DAGGS AND GAY DAGGS 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is situated in the County of PITKIN State of COLORADO and is described as follows: LOTS 4, 5 AND 6, BLOCK 102, HALLAMS ADDITION, adjacent to the City and Townsite of Aspen, EXCEPT the South 3.2 feet of said Lot 6. -Farrel l.D. # 2135 - ►ZI - 0 8 — 002 PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS ASPEN, CO. 81611 970-925-1766 970-925-6527 FAX AUTHORIZED AGENT Schedule A-PG.1 This Commitment is invalid unless the Insuring Provisions and Schedules A and B are attached. SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1 REQUIREMENTS The following are the requirements to be complied with: ITEM (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. ITEM (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record to -wit: THIS COMMITMENT IS FURNISHED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, IT IS NOT A CONTRACT TO ISSUE TITLE INSURANCE AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS SUCH. IN THE EVENT A PROPOSED INSURED IS NAMED THE COMPANY HEREBY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND/OR EXCEPTIONS AS DEEMED NECESSARY. THE RECIPIENT OF THIS INFORMATIONAL REPORT HEREBY AGREES THAT THE COMPANY HAS ISSUED THIS REPORT BY THEIR REQUEST AND ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS ACCURATE AND CORRECT, THE COMPANY SHALL NOT BE CHARGED WITH ANY FINANCIAL LIABILITY SHOULD THAT PROVE TO BE INCORRECT AND THE COMPANY IS NOT OBLIGATED TO ISSUE ANY POLICIES OF TITLE INSURANCE. �.xH101T 3 a.; + SCHEDULE B SECTION 2 EXCEPTIONS The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessment, charge or lien imposed for water or sewer service or for any other special taxing district. 7. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted and right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States as reserved in United States Patent recorded June 8, 1888 in Book 55 at Page 2. 8. Deed of Trust from : JAMES K. DAGGS and GAY DAGGS To the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin For the use of : WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK Original Amount :"Ovamw Dated April 15, 1999 Recorded April21, 1999 Reception No : 430105 9. Deed of Trust from : JAMES K. DAGGS and GAY DAGGS To the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin For the use of : ALPINE BANK - ASPEN Original Amount Dated March 5, 1997 Recorded : March 19, 1997 Reception No. : 402637 The above Deed of Trust was subordinated November 10, 1997 as Reception No. 410424. 10. Deed of Trust from : JAMES K. DAGGS and GAY DAGGS To the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin For the use of : ALPINE BANK Original Amount Dated : January 20, 2000 Recorded : January 31, 2000 Reception No : 439982 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DISCLOSURES The Owner's Policy to be issued, if any shall contain the following items in addition to the ones set forth above: (1) The Deed of Trust, if any, required under Schedule B-Section 1. (2) Water rights, claims or title to water. (NOTE: THIS EXCEPTION WILL APPEAR ON THE OWNER'S AND MORTGAGE POLICY TO BE ISSUED HEREUNDER) Pursuant to Insurance Regulation 89-2; NOTE: Each title entity shall notify in writing every prospective insured in an owner's title insurance policy for a single family residence (including a condominim or townhouse unit) (i) of that title entity's general requirements for the deletion of an exception or exclusion to coverage relating to unfiled mechanics or materialmens liens, except when said coverage or insurance is extended to the insured under the terms of the policy. A satisfactory affidavit and agreement indemnifying the Company against unfiled mechanics' and/or Materialmen's Liens executed by the persons indicated in the attached copy of said affidavit must be furnished to the Company. Upon receipt of these items and any others requirements to be specified by the Company upon request, Pre-printed Item Number 4 may be deleted from the Owner's policy when issued. Please contact the Company for further information. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing contained in this Paragraph shall be deemed to impose any requirement upon any title insurer to provide mechanics or materialmens lien coverage. NOTE: If the Company conducts the owners or loan closing under circumstances where it is responsible for the recording or filing of legal documents from said transaction, the Company will be deemed to have provided "Gap Coverage". Pursuant to Senate Bill 91-14 (CRS 10-11-122); (a) The Subject Real Property may be located in a Special Taxing District; (b) A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction may be obtained form the County treasurer of the County Treasurer's Authorized Agent; (c) Information regarding Special Districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. NOTE: A tax Certificate will be ordered from the County Treasurer by the Company and the costs thereof charged to the proposed insured unless written instruction to the contrary are received by the company prior to the issuance of the Title Policy anticipated by this Commitment. This commitment is invalid unless Schedule B-Section 2 the Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No. PCT14927PR A and B are attached. r A w. t i. r...., -- Aspen Boundary Rivers & Ponds Text One Hundred Scale Road Names Road Network istoric Inventory Inventoried ME Landmarked ED Historic Districts N Wjj�E S �Xt4 1 F31'T r- 1 o -�- '5 HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM State Site Number: Local Site Number: 640.NT Photo Information: Roll 1, Frames 9, 15 & 16; ASP-P-1 & 3 Township 10 South Range 85 West Section 12 USGS Quad Name Aspen Year. 1960 X 7.5' 15' Building or Structure Name: Julia R. Haves House Full Street Address: 640 North Third Street Legal Description: Lots 5 & 6, Block 102 Hallam's Addition to the City of Aspen City Aspen County Pitkin Historic District or Neighborhood Name: West End Owner: Private/State/Federal Owner's Mailing Address: ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Private Building Type: Resdiential Architectural Style: Vernacular Gable Structure Dimensions: L: x W: = Square Feet: Number of Stories: 1 Original / 2-Story addition Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): Irregular Landscaping or Special Setting Features: Mature cottonwoods south and east lot lines; large north side vard Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material and Function (map number / name): New garage with residential 2nd story For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in the description as appropriate: Roof: Cross gabled with shed extension and shed dormers; wood shingles Walls: Wood lap siding Foundation / Basement: Not determined Chimney(s): Large, brick at northeast - not oriqinal Windows: Replacement fixed glass and contemporary sliding glass, casements general types, non -historic Doors: Not original wood panel, sliding glass doors (east) Porches: Southeast entrance non -original porch, large contemporary deck General Architectural Description: Typical gable ended structure with numerous gable and shed additions, obscurinq original massing and aracter. "A44 13IT� -40 3 Page 2 of 2 State Site Number Local Site Number 640.NT FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Current Use: Residential Architect: Unknown Original Use: Residential Builder: Unknown Intermediate Use: Residential Construction Date: 1889 _ Actual _ Estimate X Assessor Based.On: MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS Minor Moderate Major Describe Modifications and Date: changes; dates unknown X Moved Date Numerous material and architectural tions and Date: Many late 20th Century additions; dates unknown NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA _ Is listed on National Register; State Register _ Is eligible for National Register; State Register Meets National Register Criteria: A _ B C _ D _ E _ Map KeV Local Rating and Landmarks Designation I Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register A Contributing: Resource has maintained historic or architectural integrity. 0 Supporting: Original integrity lost due to alterations, however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort. Locally Designated Landmark Justify Assessment: Integrity has been compromised due to substan— tial modifications. Associated Contexts and Historical Information: The significance of this residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived in it, nor of its architecture, although this structure is representative of Aspen's Mining Era. It is of historical importance by illustrating the family/home environment and life style(s) of the average citizen of Aspen which was then dominated by the silver mining industry._ Other Recording Information Specific References to the Structure/Building: Pitkin County Court— house Records; Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps Archaeological Potential: N (Y or N) Justify: t0441- 3r F Recorded By: Devon Reese, Intern Date: August 1990 Affiliation: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee - City of Aspen Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer/Planner �XH�131T GT December 11, 2000 Fred Jarman FTC Planning Coordinator City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Daggs Residence Historic Landmark Designation & Historic Lot Split 640 North Third Street Aspen, CO Applicant's Response to Relevant Sections of Aspen Land Use Code Standards Section 26.420.010 Standards for Designation: Any structure or site which meets two (2) or more of the following standards may be designated as "H", Historic Overlay District, and/or Historic Landmark. It is not the intent of the Historic Preservation Commission to landmark insignificant structures or sites. FTC will focus on those that are unique or have special value to the community. Standard D. Neighborhood Character. The structure or site is a significant component of a historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: The subject residence and most of the neighboring residences in the West End of Aspen between Lake Avenue and Third Street have been inventoried as having historic significance. This residence, which was built in 1889, is an important component of this historic neighborhood and its presence, particularly on the Lake Avenue streetscape, is vital to the preservation of the historic character of this area. Standard E. Community Character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location, and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: This structure is similar in size and architectural character to the neighboring historic residences and the historic portion that will be preserved and restored is representative of Aspen's mining area. Page 2 Section 26.415.010 (D) Historic Landmark Lot Split: 1. The development of all lots created pursuant to Section 26.480.030 (A) (5) shall be reviewed by the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission and the City Council. Response: The Applicant is hereby submitting all required documentation for review by HPC and City Council as outlined in the Aspen Land Use Code. Section 26.480.030 (A) (Z) Exemptions for Lot Split: The following development shall be exempted from the terms of this Chapter. A. General Exemptions. 2. 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 sub -divided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969. Response: This land upon which the subject residence is situated is part of Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, which was established in the year 1888. It has remained under single ownership to the present day. 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 26.100.050 (A) (2) (C). Response: This application stipulates that two (2) lots are being created by this lot split. Lot A will contain the Historic Structure, along with the proposed addition and the existing carriage house, which contains a caretaker unit above a two (2) car garage. The lot size of 5,707-sq. ft. will be slightly under the minimum lot area of 6,000-sq. ft. for a single-family residence in the R-6 zone. However, the ALUC allows for Historically Designated landmark structures to be located on a minimum lot size of 3,000-sq. ft. and this will meet that requirement. The area of Lot B will be 6,000-sq. ft. The caretaker unit meets the ALUC requirements for an A.D.U. and is proposed to be used for that purpose. c. The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions o this Chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.470.040 (C) (1) (a). F-x+i��r G 30 7 Page 3 Response: There have been no previous applications for subdivision exemption or a lot split exemption pertaining to this property. d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this Chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this Title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for there lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this Chapter and growth management allocation to Chapter 26.470. Response: Applicant intends to file and record a subdivision plat subsequent to the Final Approval by HPC and City Council with the appropriate language pertaining to restrictions on further subdivision of this property. e. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Response: It is the intent of the Applicant to meet the requirement of this provision. f. In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. Response: As represented elsewhere in this application, only the non -historic additions to the Historic Residence will be demolished subsequent to the Final Approval by HPC and City Council for Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Lot Split. No demolition or relocation will occur prior to that time. g. Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units , which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. Response: It is the intent of the Applicant to relocate the Historic Residence on Lot A to accommodate a proposed new addition and the relocation of the existing Carriage House to be utilized as an A.D.U. This will satisfy the R-6 zone requirements for a single-family residence on this lot. Lot B will be designated for future development of one (1) single-family residence, one (1) duplex or two (2) detached residences, subject to the regulations of the Aspen Land Use Code. Page 4 r-X41PIT 67 4 A�-7 Section 26.480.030 (4) Exemptions for Historic Landmark Lot Split: 3. 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 26.72.0101 (G) of this code, and the following standards: Response: This application includes the request for Historic Landmark Designation of the existing Historic Residence in conjunction with the incentives that would apply to the Historic Landmark Lot Split. It is the intent of the Applicant to comply with all of the applicable requirements of the ALUC. a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of nine thousand (9,000) square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or a minimum of thirteen thousand (13,000) square feet and be located in the R-15A zone district. Response: The original parcel contains eleven thousand seven hundred and seven (11,707) square feet and is located in the R-6 zone district. b. The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. Response: The total allowable FAR for a duplex on the original parcel is four thousand two hundred forty two square (4,242) feet. The proposed development on Lot A will have two thousand three hundred and two (2302) square feet. Of FAR - For Lot B, the proposed FAR is one thousand nine hundred forty (1940) square feet. The total for both lots will not exceed the maximum allowable, except for bonus FAR allowed by the ALUC for Historic Landmark Residences and ADU's. c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. Response: The proposed development of Lot A will meet all dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district, with variances and bonuses for the Historic Residence subsequent to Final Approval by HPC and City Council. Lot B will be subject to the ALUC regulations pursuant to a future application for development. Section 26.480.040 (B) Exempt Subdivision Procedures for Review: 1. Steps Required: One - a Public hearing before City Council. Response: It is the intent of the Applicant to pursue all steps and requirements for review, as pertain to this Application, and obtain approval. Page 5 2. Notice Requirements: None, except for a lot split, which shall require publication, mailing and posting (see 26.304.060 (E) (a), (b) and (c). Response: it is the intent of the Applicant to pursue all steps and requirements for review, as pertain to this Application, and obtain approval. 3. Standards of Review: Section 26.480.050. Response: These standards will be met by this Application. 4. City Council Action: Ordinance approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving application for subdivision exemption. Response: It is the intent of the Applicant to pursue all steps and requirements for review, as pertain to this application, and obtain approval. Section 26.470.070 Exemptions from Growth Management Competition: The following types of development are exempt from the growth management competition and scoring provision of this Title. Some types of exempt residential and tourist accommodations development are deducted from the pool of annual development allotments and Aspen Metro Area development ceilings; others are not. This Section describes the types of development that are exempt from growth management competition and scoring; conditions and standards, if any, for exemption; and the decision making body responsible for reviewing applications for exemption. C. 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 pursuant to Section 26.470.050 or from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. Exemption review is by the Community Development Director. This exemption shall only apply if the standards of Section 26.470.070 (B) (1) or (2), as applicable, are met. Response: The requirements of Section 26470.070 (B) will be met by compliance with Standard 1 (a), providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) pursuant to Section 26.250. Section 26.415.010 (E) Demolition, Partial Demolition and On -Site Relocation of Historic Structures: 5. Standards for Review of Partial Demolition: No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the FTC fords 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. �x► 8.71T 6r o- 7 Page 6 Response: As stated before, only the non -historic additions are to be demolished. They do not contribute to the historic significance and are unusable in the proposed redevelopment of the property in the context of a historic lot split. Also, the historic residence is in need of restoration and repair to bring it up to current building code and land use standards. 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 (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. Response: (1) The partial demolition will not impact the historic portion of the structure in an adverse manner. Some of the windows on the East facade are the result of non - historic remodeling that was done in the late 60's and early 70's. It is the intent of the Applicant to replace these with more historically correct windows that will restore the character of the Lake Avenue streetscape to be more compatible with the neighboring residences. (2) The proposed addition will be entirely behind the historic residence from the Lake Avenue side of the property and will be compatible in mass and scale. Materials will be selected that compliment, but do not imitate the historic portion of the restored residence. 8. Standards for review of on -site relocation. No approval for on -site relocation shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission fords that the standards of Section 26.415.020 (D) (2), (3) and (4) have been met. If the structure that is to be relocated does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel, only standard 26.415.020 (D) (2) must be met. Response: These sections are not found in the ALUC. However, it is the intent of the Applicant to satisfy any concerns of the HPC regarding the on -site relocation of the Historic Residence. A licensed house mover has inspected the existing structure and determined that it is feasible to safely relocate the structure on -site to set it on a new foundation. 9. Standards for review of temporary relocation. No approval for temporary relocation shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds that the standards of Section 26.415.020 (D) (3) and (4) have been met. 7&�7 Page 7 Response: These sections are not found in the ALUC. As stated above, it is the intent of the Applicant to satisfy any concerns of the HPC regarding the temporary relocation of the Historic Residence pursuant to its relocation on -site over a new foundation. A licensed homemover has inspected the existing structure and determined that it is feasible to safely relocate the structure temporarily to another area of the site and then move it to its final on -site location. 0 2 3 9184 4 I LOT B (6A00 50. FTJ \ S0. FT FAR ALOCATIDN — — — — — — — — \ — — — — — — —I — 1000 OUTLINE OF EXISTING HOUSE—� CONCRETE ONCREEWALKWAY r I � I I _ I i� Eol 2-CAR GARAGE MECH. �1 I LOT A , \ A D. U. C5.707 SO. FTJ7y��" AR PKING , �OCAT161 ,-V l\ 02 S0. 2 FT i PROPOSED LOT SPLIT � xti, SIT D ■ 95 9,V T it IIIII� z I I I ILLJ I I Q i ��i�ii I T \97 EXISTING FENCE TO BE RESTORED W U �N$ T U �Mp C4 V] M ] M m N Ql A N Ol F- W ~ ~ � M _r O ao p O Z W m a � U� W < o = O _ �i OO owe Wo a U O N O G �O V01 ry s DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED SITE PLAN JOB NO. 0009 DATE 1114-M SHEET NO. Pi . 1 SHEET OF .i CUPMGff CFLMM CUNNIFEE ARC}IfI M PEARL COURT et.DD• Wtx wrsmM ! "a 01111.00 901iv ti O DEPOSIT CERTIFICATE mMITm Tlut oAr W ,t/r to "I • m mumrr•1 IAr iSO= HA1M At _ IeM AS =W"W M .SMS LAr M M r-W O WLDN WIN MCTIM 71641-NM GLOW wism SaTOSI. OnANT MSMt MAIM is T r IO Swim, YM AL UK oA M CERTIFICATION I. CAVI0 W. 111i10R. A MtTmlO LAW OMMMM IN HE ETAS 00 OF CNARA. IEEI/V CMTIFY Mr MIS RAT GIs M M W MW A FIELD MSiIYRY FEEN N MY SIVIIIIYISION IN ORCYEEIR IOMI AID It ME AID CORN= TO THE iT a MM r Alm 61EF. TNI6 COMFICAT94H If VOID IMJM ar STNM ON M 01111111101, ALAMRINr. Sie THIS _ DAY or 1000. 4MMr A a•ASrS r 1w M OSMSw ASV IM AM IN =M !Y M1M1 MIN* MW WNW TOM MMS .W1M A PMIT MoIA>• M Ae1Av. u r �, seW � ASWHm ASDD M Aw WW M TMS MW M MMMM• M 1• TM WW MIN 111111 Ana I IM clawww m rrt Ma IQ ww Tax - �I I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 ► ► ► 11 1 I l 1 l 11 w w F— iif�:orT fl�: LINES OF VIEW LTW_lm LEGEND 6 NOTES m mr 0 PO MOM YMAOff MOM WITH CAW At MM T 1 VIM M MIL IL SWW CDDTRAL MOM ACCr Is '6W Pr DD WIT COMPM TO rOMMM LIMB fd- am WBIcic -1I- Wit pow 0 urILITY UK IMLLASi•t ADDITION IS M IAMMOMM amrlVISIGN LOT NOITIDD It MADD am Irm WILLAT'a IIIF OF TK CITYall,AVONfm 7♦IDDeA7 1: =6"MO INm% tg NOS M Tat y �^f 4�•I•`�_ aAANee INK TMIE NW MMO M P N OM1 FFMM MW TMS MIL oA1frIO7 Simmons �_� Aar. IMPROVEMENT SURVEY JIM DA= LOTS 4 S AND 6 LESS THE SOUTHERLY 3.20 FEET OF LOT 6 BLOCK Y'102, HALLAS ADDITION }0 THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ASiLTMo MU - 11,7W M.FT. •!- MWAM WY ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS. INC. It* t. oumA Pau MPDD, aLe. also HM"AY Will etl-SBIS J.6 a.. 28M ORLMema IO, an u EXISTING MAIN LEVEL PLAN J n 0 0 b V po tee � MII S Nm T W �J � W W Z 0 ao wU0 Z 0 0 J zmE2o Zo U �/1 � J - M 52 J J N 0 5 J p2 U �� Z a UW � O N O O DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 1 LEVEL PLAN 1 JOB NO. 0009 DATE 11-14-M SHEET NO. E2.1 SHEET OF ©mrrwon QihUB CvNNfffE nROINIU 5 -exist.tlgn EXISTING UPPER LEVEL PLAN 1" = 10' 00 [NO 04 N 01 N � u� n �y W � Q � N � Z Z agog 0 W C � O V ZZ s � > U F- ��o � O �O N vOi O N s DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 1 LEVEL PLAN DATE 11 14-00 SHEET NO. E2.2 SHEET OF gn ©COFYOG T owes CILMM A"ITEM EAST ELEVATION 1" = 10' SOUTH ELEVATION 1" = 10' NORTH ELEVATION 1" = 10' WEST ELEVATION 1�p rA-0m M o0 U M M V+ N Qa1 Ql a � H J w � O M oo 0 o W J ZoN zm� ln♦ w � N Qm Q N sZ o DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 EXISTING HOUSE ELEVATIONS JOB NO. 0009 DATE 11-10-00 SHEET NO. E3.1 SHEET OF ( CGFRRKiR CHARM NNMFFE ARCHrrF 5 f v+1 ?> rr t+ -r-r 6414 SOUTH ELEVATION 1" = 10, NORTH ELEVATION 1" = 10, EAST ELEVATION 1" = 10, WEST ELEVATION 1" = 10, 00 U $ C4 N � F i N tI9 i0 O ao 0 ;o u 30 O p Z W E2 s �a� U Ed - N W Q m J Q ~ N o 5 Q O = f z Wo U O �D N C N DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 1 ELEVATIONS 1 JOB NO. 0009 DATE 1110-00 SHEET NO. E3.2 SHEET OF C COMMCHT 01W.U5 CLNNIFIT MOMEM HISTORIC MAIN LEVEL PLAN r--XF"NT 114 J M � N �D U a v] V] $ M T Ot q N m J T ~ � W M Zo � Z Woo o 0 W WmRa V °` J M' no W J < N F- " C4 Z 0 Z � � o V O N O p N s DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 1 LEVEL PLAN 1 JOB NO. 0009 DATE 11-14-00 SHEET NO. H2.1 SHEET OF storic.dgn ©oortacM awns OM*n ANX11M fXf , IT r'r.' &-� l+ HISTORICAL UPPER LEVEL PLAN U M � T n N N C Ol - D Z :n Q U Z uU O U p Z zm�o U Z5 J W J a N ~ Q m o s z 0 > o U°o W O N O o DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 HISTORIC UPPER LEVEL PLAN DATE 11 14-00 1 SHEET NO. H2.21 SHEET OF -historic.dgn 11/13/2000 05:24:49 PM ©COMMOff CHARM NNNUE ARCHITECTS EAST ELEVATION(APPROX. 1" = 10' SOUTH ELEVATION (APPROX.' 1" = 10' a :t4i t51r - 70+& NORTH ELEVATION (APPROX. 1" = 10' WEST ELEVATION (APPROX. 1" = 10' 00 00 U� v�f M M N � N n Z Woo z S W m a o V 3� 0- W a N o 3 > Q Uo�z° O N O DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 HISTORIC HOUSE ELEVATIONS JOB NO. 0009 DATE 11-14-M SHEET NO. H3.1 SHEET OF I Agn OCOM99 (}WM CUM41FFE ARCHITEM r LOWER LEVEL PLAN 1" = 10, W N � N T y� n - ND 14 Z 0 0 Z W E2 W m a o W F <m < ZD O S DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 1 LOWER LEVEL PLAN 1 JOB NO. 0009 DATE 11-14-00 SHEET NO. P2.1 SHEET OF b.dgn 11/13/2000 04:24:09 Oc OWMC I C AFM NNNIFFE ARQ1FRCl5 01 MAIN LEVEL PLAN 1" = 10, U $ M�� U C4 N cID m N N LQ Ol J ~ a H , J - M V1 � Z �0 �o d Z 0 O Z�a� V �24 v J W N V) N m o 0 c U O N O C DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL PLAN JOB NO. 0009 DATE 1114-00 SHEET NO. P2.2 SHEET OF n ©COPMOff OWLS NNNIFFF PRQQI M UPPER LEVEL PLAN 1" = 10' t-"A- 0(5. � H 10 m �- l4- 0 0 M KITCHEN DINING� L ROOM O N M $ N � � n ui O� WW n � F Ol � W W�� Q - M • 0 N �D Q � M V �/�% > O �� � U Z o 0 _ z o zm�o DECK U � _ ♦Lw N • Q lG J F z O 3 U W w � � N DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N.THIRD ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 1 UPPER LEVEL PLAN 1 JOB NO. 0009 DATE 11-14-00 SHEET NO. P2.3 SHEET OF p:\0009\0009a23—b.dgn Dec. 20, 2000 It: ©COMUC T ai-MB QINMFFE ARCHMQ5 ROOF PLAN 1" = 10, of M N N T n J W m H a M V 1 �O Z 0 < o W zmRo Z p U d2 V1 � J • M N Y.1 0 6 m W � i U O 5 v~i O W O N O O DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 1 ROOF PLAN 1 JOB NO, 0009 DATE 1114-00 SHEET NO. P24 ' SHEET OF n C,C0F'MCH7 CHA 0 CIJNMFFE AAQ/REM EXISTING CEDAR SHAKE — ROOF TO BE REPLACED WITH CEDAR SHINGLES ORIGINAL WOOD LAP SIDING & TRIM (RESTORED AND F RUSTING CORRU( METAL ROOFING WOOD FASCIA & TRIM (PAINTED) VERTICAL R. S. C RUSTIC CEDAR . (STANDARD) ORIGINAL WOOD i SIDING & TRIM (RESTORED & F PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION OF ADDITION ill = 101 iT 4+ t2 o-rt4 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION (LAKE AVENUE) 1" = 101 PROPOSED COMPOSITE WEST ELEVATION (THIRD STREET) Y' N Ot � n W � Ed N W V _r � U Z 0 Ov o g z � W - Z p a o - U d -1 � LO N 6 m < N O s o Z o 0 W � � N DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EAST AND WEST ELEVATIONS JOB NO. 0009 DATE 1114-00 SHEET NO. P3.1 SHEET OF dgn (C'COPMGH1 OQ&f5 ONNIFFE ARCHM05 ax bIT term,--4 EXISTING CEDAR SHAKE ROOF TO BE REPLACED WITH CEDAR SHINGLES ORIGINAL WOOD LAP SIDING & TRIM (RESTORED AND PAINTED) ORIGINAL WOOD LAP SIDING & TRIM (RESTORED & PAINTED) RUSTING CORRUGATED METAL ROOFING WOOD FASCIA & TRIM (PAINTED) I I I ii ICI HISTORIC RESIDENCE PROPOSED ADDITION PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 1" = 10, VERTICAL R. S. CHANNEL - RUSTIC CEDAR SIDING (STANDARD) VERTICAL R. S. CHANNEL - RUSTIC CEDAR SIDING (STANDARD) ORIGINAL WOOD LAP SIDING & TRIM (RESTORED & PAINTED) EX'G CARRIAGE HOUSE WOOD FASCIA & TRIM (PAINTED) RUSTING CORRUGATED METAL ROOFING ;�- EXISTING CEDAR SHAKE ROOF TO BE REPLACED WITH CEDAR SHINGLES PROPOSED ADDITION PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 1" = 10, HISTORIC RESIDENCE 00 ugl u U N Of W - D 0 0 Z z 0 � S Zo — N m a � W O C N O " N S DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED NORTH LAND SOUTH ELEVATION JOB NO. 0009 DATE 1114-00 SHEET NO. P3.2 SHEET OF C ComnOR Ownu OJWFFF ARCHRE a UPPER LEVEL FAR INFORMATION N.T.S. MAIN LEVEL FAR INFORMATION N.T.S. F),.. .. JFORMATION - EXISTING UE! ' PMEENNT (A) SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE SECOND FLOOR 6289 SO. FT. FIRST FLOOR •1965.7 SO. FT. . TOTAL 2594.6 SO. FT. I (8) A.D.U.y GARAGE FIRST FLOOR MECH./STORAGE 759 SO. FT, SECOND FLOOR LIVING SPACE -663.0 SO. FT. TOTAL 7389 50. FT. (C) GARAGE TOTAL AREA 6299 SO. FT. FAR AREA 6299 SO. FT. -250.0 SO. FT. (EXEMPT) 3799 SO. FT. j $ -125.0 SO. FT. (25012) -FT-. W TOTAL 2549 SO. T` y U TOTAL EXISTING FAH 04 (A) 2594.6 SO. FT. Q $ a (8) 774.3 50. FT. (C) •2549 SO. FT. s 3623.8 SO. FT. Z TOTAL FAR ALLOWED FOR g ORIGINAL PROPERTY: 4,242 SQ. FT. j o y z U FAR INFORMATION - HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT Ln J `�$< SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR 6289 SO. FT. •960L SO. FT. C4 Q S z o TOTAL 15895 S0. FT. W 1 - U r s FAR INFORMATION - PROPOSED LOT A DEVELOPMENT (A) SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOI( 1418.6 SO. FT. 1020.3 SO. FT. W U LOWER LEVEL (2277.7 x .07448) •169.6 SO. FT. B- TOTAL 26085 50. FT. W v~i (B) A.D.U. GARAGE (j SECOND FLOOR LIVING SPACE 663.0 SO. FT. W FIRST FLOOR LIVING SPACE 137.0 SO. FT. C O -800.0 SO. FT. (EXEMPT) J TOTAL 0.0 SO. FT. V ZOO U U Z (C) GARAGE �2 _ TOTAL AREA 568.8 SO. FT. Q -375.00 SO. FT. (EXEMPT) TOTAL 193.8 SO. FT. TOTAL FAR _ (A) 26085 SO. FT. FAR INFORMATION (B) 0.0 SO. FT. (C) •193.8 SO. FT. 2802.3 SO. FT. 108 NO. OOD9 I DATE 10-2D-M FAR ALOCATED TC LOT A 2802.3 SO. FT. SHEET NO. HISTORIC BONUS -500.0 SO. FT. TOTAL FAR At OCATED TO LOT A 12302.3 SO. FT. REMAINING FAR ALOCATED TO LOT B FAR TOTAL FAR FOR BOTH LOTS 4242.0 SO. FT. TOTAL FAR ALOCATED TO LOT A -2302.3 SO. FT. TOTAL FAR ALOCATED TO LOT B 1 19397 SO. FT. sHEEr of ar.dan 11/06/2000 02:1 6 is 0 PEARL COURT 50.00' WIDE BASIS OF BEARINGS EAST 250.00' YEL CAP 9018 DEPOSIT CERTIFICATE DEPOSITED THIS _DAY OF 2000 IN BOOK OF THE COUNTY•S LAND SURVEY PLATS AT PAGE AS RECEPTION NO. .THIS LAND SURVEY PLAT COMPLIES WITH SECTION 38-51-102 COLORADO REVISED STATUES. SECTION 12 COUNTY CLERK TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST 6th PM CERTIFICATION I. DAVID W. MCBRIDE, A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO. HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED FROM A FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED UNDER MY SUPERVISION IN DECEMBER 1999 AND IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. THIS CERTIFICATION IS VOID UNLESS WET STAMPED ON AN ORIGINAL BLUEPRINT. SIGNED THIS Lim DAY OF • • <: c,Isrf�Fo :p a DAVID W. McBRIO RLS 1612fEf 1�1 •. a7 ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL T BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS PLAT WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVERED SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT, MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS PLAT BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. I 22" ALUM CAP BANNER TRANSFORMER 20632 N 90°00'00"E 115.00' 5 R 9" 04- 56 6 \\ Y9184EL AP�455 I / 1 . O 12 I \ I \ SET SPIKE I \ T.B.M. - 100.0' 7" I \ \� 1 N 100 I \ I 8 \ i � � I 8" \� I m � I w 8" O 12' w a: U_ 16 U • 36.1' - _ _ate a •' ''•'� •.•' •.•' •. • ` °D • •: : ` COflCRETE I VIEWAY ; ` : ` :' • •: �_ r c 0 ✓l c 12, • ', ', ,• • • • • 12 .,8'' • u 3.8' 0 16.3' \ ---------------------- 8.0' N 8.0' \ 1 1/2 STORY WOOD FRAME HOUSE �' \ N \ GRAVEL 2 STORY GARAGE \ � N \ N O \ DRIVEWAY N `� 0 8.5' \ M 0 8 '° 16.3' N ^ \ 8.6' _ — 0 24.6' 12' \ II 12Q 17- \ \ 3 � i 00'00' 4 .7' YEL CAP 1 9184 7 CD I I I I IIII I 32" I I I I I , ► I I I I I I I I I , I ► I I I I I I I I II I Ln I I I II 28 • I I IIIY I III I III III 2 > g- I I I I \ 1 I I I d Lol 1 III I I I I o 1 I I I d 1 111 0 3 1 I II co I 1 o I I I 11 III I 1 Ln I I I \ 1 III I 1 1 _III I 1 I I I \ \ I I I I \ I 1 \ sTE i \ \ I 1 \ \ \ \ 31 \ \ \ \\ 110r) ` L I GHTT \ \ 1 11 \\ \ 1 1 1 YEL CAP .! 9184 \ \ \ 9 1 11 I 1 � 8 10' 9' SCALE I INCH - 10 FEET 0 5 10 15 20 CONTOUR INTERVAL IS I FOOT LINES OF VIEW HUNTER CREEK VALLEY IDANCE PASS BELL MTN. LEGEND & NOTES FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT REBAR WITH CAP AS NOTED 9 SPIKE OR P-K NAIL SURVEY CONTROL POSTED ADDRESS IS "640' FENCES DO NOT CONFORM TO PROPERTY LINES $ WOOD FENCE X WIRE FENCE ❑ UTILITY BOX HALLAM*$ ADDITION IS AN UNRECORDED SUBDIVISION LOT POSITION IS BASED ON THE WILLET'S MAP OF THE CITY OF ASPEN 1896 ELEVATION DATUM IS ARBITRARY BASED ON SET STEEL SPIKE T.B.M. - 100.0' AS SHOWN. CONTOUR INTERVAL IS I FOOT DECIDUOUS TREE CONIFER TREE TITLE INFORMATION WAS FURNISHED BY: PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. COMMITMENT NUMBER: PCT-14927PR DATED: SEPT.14, 2000 IMPROVEMENT SURVEY JI M DA GGS LUIJ 4 5 ANU b Ltbb It-itSUUIHtKLY 3.20 FL'OF LOT 6, BLOCK 102, HALLAM'S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO RECORD AREA - 11,707 SO.FT. �/- PREPARED BY ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS. INC. 210 S. GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLO. 81611 PHONE/FAX (970) 925-3816 job no. 29348 DECEMBER 19, 2000 0 0 • 0 r it PEARL COURT 50.00' WIDE BASIS OF BEARINGS EAST 250.00' YEL CAP 9184 YEL CAP 9018 DEPOSIT CERTIFICATE DEPOSITED THIS _ DAY OF ,2000 IN BOOK OF THE COUNTY'S LAND SURVEY PLATS AT PAGE AS RECEPTION NO. .THIS LAND SURVEY PLAT COMPLIES WITH SECTION 38-51-102 COLORADO REVISED STATUES. SECTION 12 COUNTY CLERK TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST 6th PM CERTIFICATION I. DAVID W. MCBRIDE, A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO. HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED FROM A FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED UNDER MY SUPERVISION IN DECEMBER 1999 AND IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEP-1-0 f► EDGE`,;,�PD BELIEF. THIS CERTIFICATION IS VOID UN00 YN OJ AN ORIGINAL BLUEPRINT. �retsr�4 0 SIGNED THIS I& DAY OF 2bW • IBA '' DAVID W. McBRID RLS 1612 " -co, ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS PLAT WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVERED SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT, MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS PLAT BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. SET SPIKE T.B.N. - 100.0' II I I I I z w 3 w 'a a 0 0 0 w I I I /I ly STREEI L I GHT 1 1 _1 1 11 w 0 3z 0 0 n SCALE I INCH - 10 FEET 0 5 10 15 20 CONTOUR INTERVAL IS I FOOT LINES OF VIEW HUNTER CREEK VALLEY B)ANCE PASS BELL MTN. LEGEND & NOTES • FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT REBAR WITH CAP AS NOTED 9 SPIKE OR P-I( NAIL SURVEY CONTROL POSTED ADDRESS IS '640' FENCES DO NOT CONFORM TO PROPERTY LINES -� WOOD FENCE X WIRE FENCE ❑ UTILITY BOX HALLAM'S ADDITION IS AN UNRECORDED SUBDIVISION LOT POSITION IS BASED ON THE WILLET'S MAP OF THE CITY OF ASPEN 1896 ELEVATION DATUM IS ARBITRARY BASED ON SET STEEL SPIKE T.B.M. - 100.0' AS SHOWN. CONTOUR INTERVAL IS I FOOT CA DECIDUOUS TREE CONIFER TREE Int TITLE INFORMATION WAS FURNISHED BY: PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. COMMITMENT NUMBER: PCT-14927PR DATED: SEPT.14, 2000 r �,s IMPROVEMENT SURVEY JIM DAGGS ` LOTS 4 5 AND 6 LESS THE SOUTHERLY 3.20 FILET OF LOT 6, BLOCK 102, HALLAM'S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO RECORD AREA - 11,707 SO.FT. -/ PREPARED BY ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS, INC. 210 S. GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLO. 81611 PHONE/FAX (970) 925-3816 job no. 29348 DECEMBER 19, 2000 0 0 0 . • 0 0 0 r r r SITE PLAN - PROPOSED LOT SPLIT 1" = 10' EXISTING FENCE TO BE RESTORED am 11n rn IN * M o ® �E` NT Ci1 ON J ~ * �j W W M L LL iF Lj.M r- 0 z 0 �D OU Z00 W 0 Z p W m q--J W M ui O J L I Q F ¢ W 0 J 0 _ V tr0 N N Q U �- Z 1.-�r- �00 �O �V �� � �O V zU o Z 't Cu �CL SITE PLAN JOB NO. 0009 DATE 12-20-00 SHEET NO. P1.1 SHEET OF iJCOPMGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHFI M oil t L------------------------------------------- EXISTING MAIN LEVEL PLAN r [ 0 TT I ■ . w g � a � N N W � F- LLJ 6� J W ~ J � J F- * M V M �_ �U * � M u _ �Qoo Z Q 0 La Z 0_ W m � El �.�_¢ CY U Q V W Iw ri M W w Q w Q Q Z Q LJ U p N u�] O N Q S V �- W �co Q 0 �0 W ~� zU V oz �W CL � �Q I NG MAIN PLANO. 0009 12 20-00 SHEET NO. E2.1 SHEET OF f CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHt1ECFS r---1 d' r LL o EXISTING UPPER LEVEL PLAN I/41 1 ® 11-011 m X Lu lD N v J � Ol M QO A d LL if � O M U c, C4``� Lo cv STT � N W Ol J x WLLJ L1-1 J M N cii � Z � Q 0 Q 0 Q 0 z wm� ad r \ � J W dF J 1 ' W < ¢ Y1 d O •.,� z Ln04 = J O W fl W W O N O p � LAN S U �- �00 W o �o W ~Z � o oI V U oz W �CL Q Q �10Q EXISTING UPPER LEVEL PLAN JOB NO. 0009 DATE 12-20-00 SHEET NO. E2.2 SHEET OF ©COPYRIGHF CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHffECFS EAST ELEVATION 1/411 = 11-011 SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1' - O 11 NORTH ELEVATION 1/411 = 11-011 WEST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-011 U m CN n m m � U n N Gl J Lu W F J tl] W C �1 U d' vS �D �W O 0 Z Q U Z p zm� U �ceJ J W W * W >�¢� C-4 w .J Z 0 3 j od W W \J _ V N lf1 � p N S LLJ U r r L'' 11 J ® O ~ Z �0 f� co V oZ 'd' W CL � Q EXISTING HOUSE ELEVATIONS JOB NO. 0009 DATE 12-20-00 SHEET NO. E3.1 SHEET OF ,COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHFTECTS GII Ilii Ir'll MINE • -_.___._._=ill SOUTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION 1/411 c 11-011 EAST ELEVATION 1/4" a 1'-011 WEST ELEVATION I/4" c 1'-011 i� Ol I� in Lo O� N p m pad n XX� Q LL � O � O M C4 Lri N T N J Lil F W m * � at M O O ;. � Z Z oo�o z a/� ce J Q U W V �W.. N O W W W U o 0 0LA 0 U Lu �co o =o W ~� C o o0 V U Z NTW 15 LD Q EXISTING GARAGE /ADU ELEVATIONS JOB NO. 0009 DATE 12-20-00 SHEET NO. E3.2 SHEET OF ©COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHff M on HISTORIC MAIN LEVEL PLAN 1/411 - 11 _0 11 i v M M Il LLn LA U w � o �p C Obi I -nl N 1 � N N LLJ 01 J ay w J W ~ J M ~ * M FW 7 � * * W M O cD Z oo0o U Z 0 Z m rse C. ce cOy J U ¢ C! W F— r 4 9E cc O 3 Ln J_ > i F Ln O J Z 1 r � U Q W W \J N O Q V � to N a V 00 w C W ~� F- 0 u V V Z oLLJ Q Q Q HISTORIC MAIN LEVEL PLAN JOB NO. 0009 DATE 12-20-00 ©COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHUCIS HISTORIC UPPER LEVEL PLAN 11411 a 11-011 f a, v J Lo � � �p U14 jj7Nll .-ft. � o M�� U /•� / ``r 00 N Oi N J � J W ~ J M LLJ M �_ 14 OU a pp M RN Z _ � u Q 0 Z o Q o Z Z W m U ��¢ fY J W W * M iF W O J Z Q O O fl U oNoo ZE Le, N s U W (/)00 o O�o =o � �o V oI V Z �C Q Q V ISTORIC UPPER EVEL PLAN JOB NO. DATE 12-2 12-20-00 QCONRTCHI CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS EAST ELEVATION (APPROX. 1/411 a 11-011 SOUTH ELEVATION (APPROX. 1/411 a 11-011 NORTH ELEVATION (APPROX. 1/411 a 11-011 WEST ELEVATION (APPROX. 1/411 m 11-011 W X W r^ V h I,, a)h O) lD " J to � M V "o h W � M O � U C4 Lo N h � N J Li..i W F- J In F M ~ R � � O * co n Z � O U 9 Q U 0 Op La Z p Z m W o c, VaWj. � j V —I W * M dF 0 L2F Q W O 3 Ov Iy o W W d O Llf C4 O N oT U �- �u �00 o o W ~� �o o0 U V Z �W d" (Z d 0 Q HISTORIC HOUSE ELEVATIONS JOB NO. 0009 DATE 12-20-00 SHEET NO. H3.1 SHEET OF (c COFMGHF CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHHECFS n d' T H O 00 vo Fy_ W 2 X w LOWER LEVEL PLAN /411 = 11-011 "o N I S 00 rn n N � tJ W M � �_ + R3 * M u Z � O U o 0 Z 0o°� uZo, zm��d � J U J W W dF LLj 3 Ln 0 O W W W v O za N L', O p N S V W 0 ~ o �o =0 WF_ ;5 04 �o v zv U oz W a. d Q PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL PLAN JOB NO. 0009 DATE 12-20-00 Cc�COPYRICHF CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHfFECFB a MAIN LEVEL PLAN 1/411 a 11-011 ■. W 2 X W 1 ^ & ^ N v ILf M � * o Ln 04 Lo D B N n � � w 61 J * W LU c M * In u F O U � OO p u? z ❑ Z m ce o ii U � J W w F .J tl W � � ¢ W O 04 Z � L.J 0 J ce O W W W O �D in N o U W 0 o 95o W ~� �o o0 V V oZ �CL Q g Q PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL PLAN JOB NO. 0009 DATE 12-20-00 ©COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS r--1 d" T U O O T u o W 2 x W UPPER LEVEL PLAN 1/4" J M INf] � en X ¢ X j� LL 2 Z 9F *¢ er O % T Lo T Mp p V 01 I h m � I p S N Ol N J J W J L] W ~ LLJ c M 00 W UO Z O L W U Z L w c cLnU U w � M W Lj J¢EnLn oQ W W W U p N Ln p N S LLJ V , ^ W LLJ Q �O �o UQ � =o Iv J ((r,, V O O V Z "tW ,5 Q `D Q PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL PLAN -1 JOB NO. 0009 DATE 12-20-00 ©COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS W Z X w I I 1 I d' N N Ln El k I I F Fl� I I I I I I I I I I � I I I I I I N � I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I _______________________________________________________________- I I I I N I � I I I 1 I I I I I ROOF PLAN I/411 - 11-Oil r" Lo""oCQ 0, l" Lo Lo xO W `r � O VI n Lo rn N r,N 01 J E- �, w F- J �] LW ~ M ~ 7 � �r C � � M O O �i o U � ap w O 0 0 � U Z p zm�C. U J Q ua W * M 3F w 1 .� W Q W O 3 * i Otn O ufl u+ C o o � o ^o fir/ 'L LAN V W U) o o =o W F- ;s F-o Un o0 V U Z oLU 'IT Q Q Q PROPOSED ROOF PLAN JOB NO. 0009 DATE 12-20-00 ©COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHffECFS EXISTING CEDAR SHAKE ROOF TO BE REPLACED WITH CEDAR SHINGLES ORIGINAL WOOD LAP SIDING & TRIM (RESTORED AND P� RUSTING CORRUGATE MWETAL ROOFING WOOD FASCIA & TRIM (PAINTED) VERTICAL R. S. CHANNE RUSTIC CEDAR SIDING (STANDARD) ORIGINAL WOOD LAP SIDING & TRIM (RESTORED & PAINT E PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION OF ADDITION PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION (LAKE AVENUE) PROPOSED COMPOSITE WEST ELEVATION (THIRD STREET) ■E W X W L lt) -T M Ln �p U T � N T � O �j phi n N 04 T � J W W � � � J � W W - J lA W * Lu 7 S !_ 3F � m 'I3 r q Q �¢oo 2 O Q Q Z m ceIn CWy J cO.. U w H 05 O � L o ne O `y W w t0 Lr] N o LLJ u r- cfi � W Q �C _C) ~ W �o v� V o 0 U oz W Q �Q F ST EVATIONS 9 0-00 (cXOPMGHf CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHn ECfS EXISTING CEDAf ROOF TO BE R. WITH CEDAR St ORIGINAL WOOD I & TRIM (RESTOI ORIGINAL WOOD LAP SIDING & TRIM (RESTORED & PAIN - PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION Wnnn cAC'111A o VERTICAL R. S. CHANNEL - RUSTIC CEDAR SIDING (STANDARD) Emmmil mamlimmi 11111111 PROPOSED ADDITION WOOD FASCIA & TRIM (PAINTED) 0 RUSTING CORRUGATED METAL ROOFING EXISTING CEDAR SHAKE ROOF TO BE REPLACED WITH CEDAR SHINGLES HISTORIC RESIDENCE � M W 2 x W Ln n ` M co Lo M t0 C4 .QA p� h a, d N J 1 W i M LLJ fn a0 �\ * * M O d vi Z O o 0 0W O o Z O Z ui z W m � oc J W * cmLLJ 1 A .� Q L , F W N 04 Q z O Z W fl W u�f N O S V r- LLJ cn ~ � O = 0 V.1 ~ L� O U CDO { , oz W CL Q Q �Q E ORTH VATIONS 9 0-00 cCOWYRIGHF CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHFIECFS UPPER LEVEL FAR INFORMATION N.T.S. MAIN LEVEL FAR INFORMATION N.T.S. FAR INFORMATION - EXISTING DEVELOPMENT r H (A) SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE O SECOND FLOOR 628.9 SO. FT. FIRST FLOOR -1965.7 SO. FT. TOTAL 2594.6 SO. FT. H m (B) A.D.U. @ GARAGE FIRST FLOOR MECH./STORAGE 75.9 SO. FT. _ X SECOND FLOOR LIVING SPACE +665.0 SO. FT. W TOTAL 738.9 SO. FT. (C) GARAGE TOTAL AREA 629.9 SO. FT. FAR AREA 629.9 SO. FT. -250.0 SO. FT. (EXEMPT) ~ � ° " 379.9 SO. FT. -125.0 SO. FT. (25012) TOTAL 254.9 SO. FT. To U O `"tp M TOTAL EXISTING FAR N (A) 2594.6 SO. FT. , w (B) 774.3 SO. FT. °' w Ln (C) +254.9 SO. FT. N 3623.8 SO. FT. �_ o M TOTAL FAR ALLOWED FOR J o ORIGINAL PROPERTY: 4,242 SQ. FT. Z Q zm�o o o U c�¢ J� FAR INFORMATION - HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT V W Fw L2 ..J ¢ fA ¢ LL 4 3 SECOND FLOOR 628.9 SO. FT. J o 0 FIRST FLOOR +960.6 SO. FT. Q Z c w TOTAL 1589.5 SO. FT. W o U � g u'f o a N a FAR INFORMATION - PROPOSED LOT A DEVELOPMENT (A) SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE FIRST FLOOR 1418.6 SO. FT. SECOND FLOOR 1020.3 SO. FT. W LOWER LEVEL (2277.7 x .07448) +169.6 SO. FT. U TOTAL 2608.5 SO. FT. v~i 00 LLB ce (B) A.D.U. @ GARAGE (j p SECOND FLOOR LIVING SPACE 665.0 SO. FT. LV Z FIRST FLOOR LIVING SPACE 137.0 SO. FT. = O -800.0 SO. FT. (EXEMPT) 0 TOTAL 0.0 SO. FT. v Oz U V oz W It (C) GARAGE Q CL � Q TOTAL AREA 568.8 SO. FT. -375.00 SO. FT. (EXEMPT) TOTAL 195.8 SO. FT. TOTAL FAR (A) 2608.5 SO. FT. (B) 0.0 SO. FT. (C) +195.8 SO. FT. 2802.3 50. FT. FAR ALOCATED TO LOT A 2802.3 SO. FT. HISTORIC BONUS -500.0 SO. FT. TOTAL FAR ALOCATED TO LOT A 12302Z 50. FT. REMAINING FAR ALOCATED TO LOT B TOTAL FAR FOR. BOTH LOTS 4242.0 SO. FT. TOTAL FAR ALOCATED TO LOT A-2302.3 SO. FT. TOTAL FAR ALOCATED TO LOT B 1 1939.7 SO. FT. FAR INFORMATION JOB NO. 0009 DATE 12 20-00 OcCOPIRICHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHLIECIS