Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20120208 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 2012 — 5 :00 P.M. CITY COUNICL MEETING ROOM 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO SITE VISIT- 4:30 — 302 E. HOPKINS AVE. MEET AT THE SITE I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes — January 25, 2012 III. Public Comments IV. Commission member comments V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) VI. Project Monitoring: VII. Staff .comments — (15 min.) VIII. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued (Next resolution will be #4 ) IX. Submit public notice for agenda items I. OLD BUSINESS A. 217 E. Bleeker — Conceptual, Major Development, On -Site Relocation, Demolition and Variances, continued Public Hearing (45 min.) II. NEW BUSINESS A. 302 E. Hopkins Ave. — Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, On -Site Relocation, Special Review and Mountain View Plane Review, Public Hearing (lhour, 30 min.) III. WORK SESSIONS A. None IV. Adjourn 7:30 p.m. • Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) Staff presentation Applicant presentation Board questions and clarifications Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed Applicant rebuttal (comments) Motion *Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met. No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes of the members of the commission then present and voting. PROJECT MONITORING- Projects in bold are currently under construction. Ann Mullins Boomerang 604 W. Main Lift One 316 E. Hopkins Brian McNellis 332 W. Main Fox Crossing 205 S. Spring Jamie Brewster McLeod 630 E. Hyman 518 W. Main Jay Maytin 920 W. Hallam 518 W. Main 28 Smuggler Grove Red Butte Cemetery Lift One 205 S. Spring Nora Berko 28 Smuggler Grove Willis Pember 508 E. Cooper M: \city \planning\hpc project monitoring\PROJECT MONITORING.doc 2/1/2012 I • • P1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 217 E. Bleeker Street- Conceptual Major Development, On -site relocation, Demolition, FAR Bonus, Variances, Continued Public Hearing DATE: February 8, 2012 SUMMARY: 217 E. Bleeker is a 4,513 square foot lot that was created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split. It is vacant except for two accessory buildings and a significant tree at the front of the site. A maximum FAR of 2,280 was established during the lot split process. The property is eligible for setback variances and a 250 square foot FAR bonus if found appropriate by HPC. The applicant requests approval to demolish a very small shed structure towards the center of the site, to remove a lean-to addition on the large alley building, and to relocate that building on the lot in order to create a building envelope for a new home. Conceptual design approval is requested along with setback variances, a Residential Design Standards Variance and the FAR bonus. HPC has held several worksessions and public hearings on the project, which has some challenges due to the size and location of the historic structure, and a large tree on the site. The applicant has provided restudied drawings to address HPC's concems. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the amended project complies with the design guidelines and meets the criteria for requested setback variances, Residential Design Standards variances, and a 250 square foot FAR bonus. APPLICANT: Karen Kribs, owner. The project architect has changed to BHH Partners, Breckenridge. PARCEL ID: 2737 - 073 -20 -013. ADDRESS: 217 E. Bleeker Street, Lot 1, East Bleeker Historic Landmark Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R -6, Medium Density Residential, Historic Landmark 1 P2 MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two -step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as F rr ^` � i ,C * y�i ,l part of their review of the Final ', , utRf!S sEi r� l sft �G �f � t y f L s .n 4 Development Plan unless agreed to by the { "� f 4.‘ i applicant �' 4 / & Staff Response: Much of the conversation at the previous HPC discussions has been l " focused on the structure along the alley, and _ 1 d L �', F i i 'i �� 1I • the best way to preserve it given the plan to t E I r i , ' build a new house on the site I HPC has been informed that the alley structure appears to have been a small house that was located close along the west side of the Victorian at 227 E. Bleeker (seen above). This is the opinion of long -time neighbors, and it is supported Demolished by the Sanborne map, which shows a building of comparable (date own) Moved to alley size alongside 227 E. Bleeker as of 1904. Furthermore, the f building along the alley has original doors and windows that z 2/1 2t9 09 w g suggest it was once a home rather than just a barn. 227 E. Bleeker The applicant wishes to remove a lean-to addition on the historic structure and to rotate it to create access for a two car garage. - There has been concern that its presence on the alley will be diminished, and that the alley structure would be surrounded by fences and new construction. Because of this concern, the site P F 6 plan was changed at the last meeting to show the alley building in the southeast, instead of the southwest comer of the lot. The 1 result is that the building is moved in almost a direct line back 73 2 P3 from where it was located in the Victorian era. It will continue to have some visibility from the street, and has significant visibility along the alley. Future development of the miner's cottage at 227 E. Bleeker is somewhat unlikely to change that circumstance because of the small amount of square footage allocated to that lot. From a site plan perspective, staff believes the positioning of' the alley building is appropriate. With regard to the design of the new house, there has been criticism from staff and HPC that the forms were too complex and out of character with the adjacent buildings. Staff finds that the attached design meets the design guidelines. There are proportions and forms that relate to the Victorian and the new structure does not overwhelm the adjacent buildings in scale. The footprint of the new house is designed to avoid any setback variances other than for the alley building and basement area, which responds to HPC concerns at the worksessions. Fenestration and materials are discussed at Final review. ON - SITE RELOCATION The intent of this Chapter is to preserve designated historic properties in their original locations as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical relationship to their surroundings as well as their association with events and people with ties to particular site. However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a property may be appropriate as it provides an alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that make it significant. The following standards apply for relocating a historic property as per Section 26.415.090.0 of the Municipal Code: • C. Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a non - contributing element of 'a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3 • P4 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. Staff Response: Based on the history of the accessory building as discussed above, staff does find that the proposed relocation is an acceptable preservation method. It has been stated that the building has been in its current location for as much as the last 90 years. Some board members may take the position that it should be preserved as is. This would make it difficult or impossible for the applicant to achieve the on -site parking they desire. Staff does find the relocation acceptable in that the building remains small and free - standing, highly visible, and similar to its Victorian era orientation. If relocation is approved, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that it can be done safely to preserve the structure. DEMOLITION It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of properties designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures will be allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner /applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. 4 P 5 Staff Response: The applicant plans to totally demolish a small shed that is clearly non - historic based on appearance and comments from the owner of 227 E. Bleeker Avenue. Staff finds that the review criteria are met. FAR BONUS In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. • Staff Response: Restoration of the accessory structure will be a substantial undertaking. There are relatively few alley buildings left in town, especially of this size. This 350 square foot building does count completely in FAR. The justification for granting a bonus would seem to hang entirely on the success of the preservation strategy for this building. The elevations indicate some window changes which may not be appropriate and should be discussed in more detail at Final, however staff finds that all of the criteria above are met and deserving of a 250 square foot FAR bonus as requested. SETBACK VARIANCES In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Staff Response: The applicant proposes to set the accessory building and basement 1' from the east property line, where 5' is required. The applicant proposes to set the accessory building and basement 4' from the alley where 10' is required. (Though the building is accessory in character, because is attached to the house below grade, staff has been informed by Zoning that it must meet the setback requirements of a primary structure.) 5 P6 Staff finds that the variance criteria are met. The structure has always been placed at the very rear of the property, albeit on the opposite side; The variances facilitate the historic structure's preservation as a free - standing building with very good visibility to the public. The project otherwise conforms to setback requirements. The structure that is benefitting from the variances is relatively small, which should mitigate impacts on the adjacent Victorian property. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The project does not comply with Residential Design Standards related to the setback of the house from the street. Build -to lines. On parcels or lots of less than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, at least sixty percent (60 %) of the front facade shall be within five (5) feet of the minimum front yard setback line. On corner sites, this standard shall be met on the frontage with the longest block length. Porches may be used to meet the sixty percent (60 %) standard. All Residential Design Standard Variances, Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410.020(D)(2) must: a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, . or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or, b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site - specific constraints. Staff Response: Staff finds that the property has a hardship related to this standard due to the location of the tree at the front of the lot. A variance is recommended. The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant Conceptual Major Development, On- site relocation, Demolition, FAR Bonus, Setback Variances and a Residential Design Standard Variance for the Build -to -Line standard as outlined in the attached resolution. 6 P7 Exhibits: Resolution #_, Series of 2012 A. Relevant HPC Guidelines B. Application Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines, Conceptual Review 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved. ❑ When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character - defining features. These include its primary and roof materials, roof form, windows, doors and architectural details. ❑ If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional. 8.2 If an existing secondary structure is beyond repair, then replacing it is encouraged. ❑ An exact reconstruction of the secondary structure may not be necessary in these cases. ❑ The replacement should be compatible with the overall character of the historic primary structure, while accommodating new uses. 8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure. ❑ Traditionally, a garage was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structure is reviewed on a case - by -case basis. 8.5 Avoid moving a historic secondary structure from its original location. ❑ A secondary structure may only be repositioned on its original site to preserve its historic integrity. See Chapter 9: Building Relocation and Foundations. - 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case - by - case basis. ❑ In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. ❑ It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. ❑ Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. ❑ A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. ❑ Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. ❑ The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. ❑ In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel: ❑ If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the lots. Both Lots shall remain landmarked properties. P8 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. ❑ It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. ❑ It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. ❑ On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. ❑ Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. ❑ Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. ❑ Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. 11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street. ❑ The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the site. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. ❑ The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry. ❑ A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. ❑ In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street; nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to the street. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. ❑ Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. ❑ The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure. ❑ The front should include a one -story element, such as a porch. 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. ❑ They should not overwhelm the original in scale. 11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. ❑ Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. ❑ Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. 8 P9 ❑ On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context. ❑ Exotic building and roof' forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A- frames. 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. ❑ These include windows, doors and porches. ❑ Overall, details should be modest in character. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. ❑ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. ❑ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged on historic sites. • 9 P10 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), RELOCATION, DEMOLITION AND VARIANCES APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 217 E. BLEEKER STREET, LOT 1, EAST BLEEKER HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION #_, SERIES OF 2012 PARCEL ID: 2737 - 073 -20 -013 WHEREAS, the applicant, Karen Kribs, represented by BHH Partners, has requested HPC Major Development (Conceptual), Relocation, Demolition and Variance approval for the property located at 217 E. Bleeker Street, Lot I, East Bleeker Historic Landmark Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS,•in order to approve Relocation, according to Section 26.415.090.C, Relocation of a Designated Property, it must be determined that: 1. It is considered a non - contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and 217 E. Bleeker Street HPC Resolution #_, Series of 2012 Page 1 of 4 P11 Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security; and WHEREAS, in order to approve Demolition, according to Section 26.415.080.A.4, Demolition of Designated Historic Properties, it must be determined that: a. The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner /applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area; and WHEREAS, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (250) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties according to Section 26.415.110.F, Floor Area Bonus and the specific Historic Landmark Lot Split Ordinance granted for this parcel. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional pattems found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained; and 217 E. Bleeker Street HPC Resolution # Series of 2012 Page 2 of 4 P12 • WHEREAS, the HPC may approve setback variances according to Section 26.415.110.C.1.a, Variances. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district; and WHEREAS, the HPC may approve variances to the Residential Design Standard Variances according to Section 26.410.020(D)(2). HPC must make a finding that a variance: a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or, b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site - specific constraints; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report to HPC dated February 8, 2012, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards had been met, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on February 8, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and recommended approval with conditions by a vote of _ to NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants HPC Major Development (Conceptual), Relocation, Demolition and Variances for the property located at 217 E. Bleeker Street with the following conditions: 1. A 250 square foot FAR bonus is approved. 2. The historic structure and basement below it may be 1' from the east property line. The historic structure and basement below it may be 1' from the rear property line. 3. Wavier of the Residential Design Standards for "Build -to- Lines" is approved. 4. Materials and fenestration will be discussed more fully at Final Review. 5. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of February 8, 2012, the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one -time extension of the 217 E. Bleeker Street HPC Resolution #_, Series of 2012 Page 3 of 4 P13 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. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 8th day of February, 2012. Ann Mullins, Chair Approved as to Form: Jim True, Special Counsel ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 217 E. Bleeker Street HPC Resolution #_, Series of 2012 Page 4 of 4 P14 • P15 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 302 E. Hopkins Avenue— Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, On -Site Relocation, Special Review and Mountain View Plane Review, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 8, 2012 SUMMARY: 302 E. Hopkins is a #' 5 ,.� • 3,000 square foot lot located in the Commercial Core Historic District. sr,... ' Q , 1c. The miner's cottage at 302 E. p yy :; .; ' � t Hopkins was constructed in 1883, 414- = which makes it one of the oldest b remaining structures in the Aspen • ti, T Townsite. Throughout its history the : k a building has been used for both commercial and residential purposes. k It is the only example of the "Carpenter Gothic" style in Aspen, defined by the steeply pitched roof �'ff...._ Y PY p and decorative trim on the front of . the building. (Carpenter Gothic is the _ a Gothic Revival style carried out in - wood rather than stone.) The building appears to be relatively unaltered, except for a small non- historic addition at the rear. Currently the building is used for offices. A potential new purchaser would like to convert the property to a restaurant, with seating and an open kitchen in the front of the building, back of house operations in a new one story addition, and the historic shed put into use as a staircase to the basement level which will contain storage and an existing apartment. The project involves demolition of the addition at the back of the house. The shed along the alley will slide westward, towards Aspen Street. Alterations planned for the historic structure are the addition of some rooftop venting for the kitchen, addition of a ramp at the entry, and possible alteration of the front door to meet ADA requirements. HPC review is being consolidated with determinations related to adequate on -site trash storage and parking, and an assessment of whether the project violates the Main Street view plane protections. HPC Review 1.25.2012 514 E. Hyman Avenue, AspenModem Page 1 of 14 P16 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant the requested approvals, with conditions. APPLICANT: Hillstone Restaurant Group, represented by Vann Associates. The application is authorized by the current property owner. PARCEL ID: 2737- 073 -29 -005. ADDRESS: 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lot K, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: CC, Commercial Core. Historic District Overlay. CONCEPTUAL, COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW/ MAJOR DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL The procedure for a Major Development Review and Commercial Design Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the design guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development and Commercial Design review is a two -step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can HPC Review 1.25.2012 514 E. Hyman Avenue, AspenModern Page 2 of 14 P17 justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the facade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. STAFF RESPONSE: For new development in the Commercial Core Historic District, the guidelines found in the 2007 Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines are the applicable information. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A." HPC must also apply their own design guidelines, relevant citations are also listed at "Exhibit A." The application packet is very clear and staff finds that the proposed addition is sensitively and thoughtfully designed to meet the guidelines. Though the architecture of the addition is in some ways a great contrast to the historic structure, the very limited architectural detailing of the new addition will likely be a quiet and subservient statement next to the decorative Victorian. The historic structure itself is essentially flat roofed at the back (the roof has a slight pitch, screened by a "false front" that faces the street.) The proposed project is less than half of the allowed height on this downtown property, and one quarter of the allowed FAR. As mentioned in the application, HPC approved a redevelopment of this site about 10 years ago. While there are some similarities between the projects, the approved addition was much taller than what is shown in this proposal and the historic shed was to be moved to the center of the site instead of maintaining its position along the alley. Staff's only concerns with the project are the ramp at the front entry, the placement of the new addition right against the west property line, and the limited breathing room between the back of the historic shed and the trash enclosure area. The proposed kitchen vent, located on the historic house, is a less than ideal visual intrusion. Staff understands there are no other options identified to provide ventilation from the kitchen. The board could discuss alternative floor plan layouts with the applicant, although a central kitchen area appears to be important to the restaurant concept. HPC Review 1.25.2012 514 E. Hyman Avenue, AspenModem Page 3of14 P18 Staff and the Hillstone Group's in -house architect, have been discussing options for the front ramp with the Building Department. The primary goal has been to achieve a ramp that does not require handrails. There has been progress and a concept for feathering the grade along the edges of the ramp to avoid any possible dangerous drop off will be shown to HPC at the meeting. With regard to the placement of the addition, clearly every foot of the ground plane is valuable for this relatively small addition and the program that is needed. Staff suggests restudy of at least a small setback of the addition on the west lot line, so that the shed is closer to the sidewalk than the new construction. We also are concerned with the back of the historic shed. More information about the trash utility area is needed. At the least, there should not be a solid wall on the west side of the trash area, which would prevent access to the shed for maintenance purposes. The application does not include a rear elevation of the project, which is needed. This will be provided at the HPC meeting. Staff supports Conceptual approval for the project with resolution of the issues noted above. ON -stir: RII0( :It u>v The intent of this Chapter is to preserve designated historic properties in their original locations as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical relationship to their surroundings as well as their association with events and people with ties to particular site. However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a property may be appropriate as it provides an alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that make it significant. The following standards apply for relocating a historic property as per Section 26.415.090.0 of the Municipal Code: C. Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a non - contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was HPC Review 1.25.2012 514 E. Hyman Avenue, AspenModem • Page 4of14 P19 originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. Staff Response: Below is the 1904 Sanborne Fire Insurance Map of the subject property, which Lot K. The map shows that all of the nearby structures along this block were historically residential in form, rather than the larger commercial block buildings associated with downtown. It is clear from this map that there is currently a small addition that is added to the back of the historic structure. The existing shed appears to be the one shown on this diagram. — i , — ,-- 80 c•4 K L M N 0 C.. >: WO 302 309.306 300 310 3/2 319 316 318 a: o Preservation of Aspen's remaining outbuilding structures is difficult in most cases, especially in the downtown setting, where space is at such a premium. The proposal to keep the structure along the alley, but to slide it towards Monarch Street, so that it isn't blocked from view by the new trash area seems to be a good solution. Staff supports the on -site relocation as an acceptable means to preserve this historic building. HPC Review 1.25.2012 514 E. Hyman Avenue, AspenModem Page 5 of 14 P20 If relocation is approved, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that it can be done safely to preserve the structure. ON-SrrI P,‘RioNc Two sections of the code are triggered by a request to reduce on -site parking downtown; Special Review and HPC's benefits critiera. Special review standards. Whenever the off -street parking requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, an application shall be processed as a special review in accordance with the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 and be evaluated according to the following standards. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. • If the project requires review by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Community Development Director has authorized consolidation pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B, the Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the special review application. A. A special review for establishing, varying or waiving off -street parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on- street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. 2. An on -site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. 3. Existing or planned on -site or off -site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. HPC must find that the review standards of Section 26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code are met. They require that: HPC Review 1.25.2012 514 E. Hyman Avenue, AspenModem Page 6 of 14 P21 1. The parking reduction and waiver of payment -in -lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district. Staff Response: The existing on -site parking is not screened from view and does little to enhance the streetscape. Underground parking is impossible on this small lot. Elevating the new construction up one floor to put parking on the ground plane is not mitigating adverse impacts on the historic structure very successfully. Staff recommends that the parking requirement be waived. The waiver is for the existing 1 space on the site and the new 0.7 spaces required by the addition. Staff recommends HPC waive the cash -in -lieu fee, which is a benefit available for historic landmarks. The fee is $25,000 per space. t: lit .rnv,Tit I, ‘N I) Rrcvci.I- AitE Obviously it is very important to provide adequate area to service the utility and waste disposal needs for this property in a manner that does not negatively affect neighbors or the functionality of the alley. The project is slightly under the minimum required area for these uses. HPC can approve a reduction. The following standards shall apply: 1. A utility, trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated along the alley meeting the minimum standards established by Section 26.575.060, Utility/trash/recycle service areas, unless otherwise established according to said Section. 2, All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property and along the alley. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. 3. Delivery service areas shall be incorporated along the alley. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. 4. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. 5. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right -of -way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall HPC Review 1.25.2012 514 E. Hyman Avenue, AspenModem Page 7 of 14 P22 Staff Response: The designated area is sized to adequately include a dumpster, recycling, etc. The applicant has verbally represented that a roll -up door will be installed to screen the view of the space. As mentioned above, staff is most concerned with potential impacts on the rear of the storage shed. A reduction in utility, trash storage area is recommended. MoINIAI,N VII NN PLANE No development shall be permitted within a mountain view plane unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided below. When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this Title, development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a Planned Unit Development so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian space and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height requirements and view plane height limitations. The Planning and Zoning Commission, after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Department, may exempt a development from being processed as a Planned Unit Development when the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the proposed development has a minimal effect on the view plane. When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re -open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane and re- redevelopment to reopen the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall exempt the development from the requirements of this Section. (Ord. No. 12, 2007, §22) Staff Response: The application indicates that the development is all below the projected angle of the view plane, which begins at a specific point on Main Street, near the Hotel Jerome, and is aimed at avoiding significant intrusions into the visibility of Aspen Mountain. The project complies with the standards. HPC Review 1.25.2012 514 E. Hyman Avenue, AspenModem Page 8 of 14 P23 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that grant Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, On -Site Relocation, Special Review and Mountain View Plane Review with the following conditions: 1. Discuss the design for the accessible ramp, the possible minor setback of the addition on the west lot line, and measures for protecting the back of the historic shed from impacts of the utility/trash area. 2. The HPC grants a parking waiver of 1.7 spaces. 3. The HPC approves the size of the utility/trash area as designed. 4. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one -time extension of the expiration date for 'a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A: Relevant Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines and HPC Guidelines Exhibit B: Application Exhibit A: 6.3 Develop an alley facade to create visual interest. • Use varied building setbacks and changesin materials to create interest and reduce perceived scale. • Balconies, court yards and decks are also appropriate. • Providing secondary public entrances isstrongly encouraged along alleys. These should be clearly intended for public use, but subordinate in detail to the primary street -side entrance. 6.6 A street facing amenity space shall meet all of the following requirements: • Abut the public sidewalk • Be level with the sidewalk • Be open to the sky • Be directly accessible to the public • Be paved or otherwise landscaped 6.8 Street facing amenity space shall contain features to promote and enhance its use. Thesemay include one or more of the following: • Street furniture HPC Review 1.25.2012 514 E. Hyman Avenue, AspenModem Page 9 of 14 P24 • Public art • Historical/interpretive marker 6.17 Front and side yard amenity space shouldbe considered in the context of a historic one story residential type building. 6.18 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk's edge. • Place as much of the facade of the buildingat the property line as possible. • Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate. • A minimum of 70% of the front facade shall be at the property line. 6.22 Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core facades. • Rectangular forms should be vertically oriented. • The facade should appear as predominantly flat, with any decorative elements and projecting or setback "articulations" appearing to be subordinate to the dominant form. 6.23 Use flat roof lines as the dominant roof form. • A flat roof, or one that gently slopes to the rear of a site, should be the dominant roof form. • Parapets on side facades should step down towards the rear of the building. • False fronts and parapets with horizontal emphasis also may be considered. Relevant HPC Guidelines 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public -to- private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. ❑ This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding along a "semi- public" walkway, to a "semi- private" porch or entry feature and ending in the "private" spaces beyond. ❑ Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree. ❑ Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style. Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles. 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic structures. ❑ The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod, and not covered with paving, for example. 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public -to- private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. ❑ This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding along a "semi- public" walkway, to a "semi- private" porch or entry feature and ending in the "private" spaces beyond. ❑ Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree. HPC Review 1.25.2012 514 E. Hyman Avenue, AspenModem Page 10 of 14 P25 ❑ Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style. Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles. 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic structures. ❑ The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod, aid not covered with paving, for example. 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved. ❑ When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character - defining features. These include its primary and roof materials, roof form, windows, doors and architectural details. ❑ If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional. 8.5 Avoid moving a historic secondary structure from its original location. ❑ A secondary structure may only be repositioned on its original site to preserve its historic integrity. 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case - by - case basis. ❑ In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. ❑ It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. ❑ Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. ❑ A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. ❑ Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. ❑ The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. ❑ In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9.2 Moving an existing building that contributes to the character of a historic district should be avoided. ❑ The significance of a building and the character of its setting will be considered. ❑ In general, relocating a contributing building in a district requires greater sensitivity than moving an individually- listed structure because the relative positioning of it reflects patterns of development, including spacing of side yards and front setbacks, that relate to other historic structures in the area. 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel. ❑ If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties. HPC Review 1.25.2012 514 E. Hyman Avenue, AspenModem Page 11 of 14 P26 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. ❑ It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. ❑ It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. ❑ On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. ❑ Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. ❑ Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. ❑ Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. ❑ 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 techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.5 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street. ❑ Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at approximately the same height. An addition should not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured. HPC Review 1.25.2012 514 E. Hyman Avenue, AspenModem Page 12 of 14 P27 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. 10.3 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 techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.5 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street. ❑ Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at approximately the same height. An addition should not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured. 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. 10.11 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. 14.1 These standards should not prevent or inhibit compliance with accessibility laws. ❑ All new construction should comply completely with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Owners of historic properties should comply to the fullest extent possible, while also preserving the integrity of the character - defining features of their buildings. Special provisions for historic buildings exist in the law that allow some alternatives in meeting the ADA standards. 14.2 Generally, a solution that is independent from the historic building and does not alter its historic characteristics is encouraged. HPC Review 1.25.2012 514 E. Hyman Avenue, AspenModern Page 13 of 14 P28 14.14 Minimize the visual impacts of service areas as seen from the street. ❑ When it is feasible, screen service areas from view, especially those associated with commercial and multifamily developments. ❑ This includes locations for trash containers and loading docks. ❑ Service areas should be accessed off of the alley, if one exists. • 14.15 Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equipment as seen from the public way. ❑ Mechanical equipment may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not create a negative visual impact. ❑ Mechanical equipment or vents on a roof must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself'. ❑ Screen ground - mounted units with fences, stone walls or hedges. ❑ A window air conditioning unit may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not create a negative visual impact. ❑ Use low - profile mechanical units on rooftops so they will not be visible from the street or alley. Also minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Use smaller satellite dishes and mount them low to the ground and away from front yards, significant building facades or highly visible roof planes. ❑ Paint telecommunications and mechanical equipment in muted colors that will minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds. HPC Review 1.25.2012 514 E. Hyman Avenue, AspenModem Page 14 of 14 EXHIBIT AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS t O S P ,1- a t /a T /h/5 , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 7" 5 4/f 7 ' 8 , atit STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, �ie� Y4e7AV (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) d ay s prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the35day of 4XY , 209'Z., to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of 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. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas, and COWAPs are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all b ess •urs for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendme '. -�as!. Sims:" e The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this j Lda of feb rlt t - Li ,204 ,Z , by (4 t \aN - , i y`=• WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL • ` �. •' . A ti Y `` 1 �'+ '; �/ My p(}�� commission expires: ' u � Q L 1 L i ', M1 � %.7 k• 1 s n Notary Public V , ''iiilli f 1'3' ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPYOFTHEPUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 .w 4114,■• y i � r \ F 4 W .- P k f' < 1 o_ a. a z ° ¢ Z ' u.. cc - t % z z at y 1_ a f7 IQ � � ?? • PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 302 E. HOPKINS AVENUE- CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, ON -SITE RELOCATION, SPECIAL REVIEW AND MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, February 8, 2012, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, in Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St, Aspen. HPC will consider an application submitted by Hilistone Restaurant Group, 147 S. Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90212, 310- 385 -0333, authorized by the property owner, MJS Properties, LLC, and affecting the property located at 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lot K, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen, PID #2737 -073- 29-005. The applicant proposes to convert the property to restaurant use. The plan includes demolition of a non - historic addition at the back of the existing Victorian house and replacement with a new one story addition. An existing outbuilding is to be relocated along the alley, towards the west. Special Review is requested to reduce the on -site utility /trash/service area and on -site parking. The application includes a request to find that the proposed development does not intrude into a Mountain View Plane. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429 -2758, amy.guthrie@ci.aspen.co.us. s /Ann Mullins Vice Chair, Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on January 19, 2012 City of Aspen Account EXHIBIT Easy Peel® Labels i • II Bend along line to 1 II Use Avery® Template 5160® l Peed Paper expose Pop-up Edge*"' I 1000 EAST HOPKINS LLC 201 E MAIN LLC 303 EAST MAIN LLLP 215 S MONARCH SUITE 104 PO BOX 345 PO BOX 8016 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 316 EAST HOPKINS LP AEP FAMILY LLLP 3.9348818% ALPINE PETROLEUM LLC RYANCO INC C/0 ANDREW V HECHT GARFIELD & 435E MAIN ST 5525 E CALLE VENTURA HECHT PC ASPEN, CO 81611 PHOENIX, AZ 85018 601 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 BENTLEYS AT THE WHEELER BERNSTEIN JEREMY M PROFIT BRINING ROBERT PO BOX 10370 SHARING PLAN 215 S MONARCH ST STE 203 ASPEN, CO 81612 610 NORTH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BROWN SHANE & KRISTINE BUSH ALAN DAVID CARLS REAL ESTATE LLC 13100 S BROADWAY 0046 HEATHER LN PO BOX 1365 LOS ANGELES, CA 90061 ASPEN, CO 81611-3342 ASPEN, CO 81612 CARVER RUTH A & MARTIN G CITY OF ASPEN CLARK FAMILY TRUST 10 BYRON LN ATTN FINANCE DEPT PO BOX 362 MUSCATINE, IA 52761 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 CLARKS ASPEN LLC COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS MEDIA CROSSLAND ANN BOND 818 SOUTH MAIN ST CO 210E HYMAN #6 BLANDING, UT 84511 PO BOX 1927 ASPEN, CO 81611 CARSON CITY, NV 89702 CRYSTAL PALACE ACOUSITIONS LLC DAVIDSON DONALD W DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED 1495 MAPLE WY STE 100 864 CEMETERY LN 215 S MONARCH #104 TROY, MI 48084 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 DUNTON KAY L TRUST ELLIES BUILDING LLC 96.830559% DESOTO LINDA JANE C/O KATIE REED MGMT 1209 MANHATTAN AVE #130 4675 AUKAI AVE 418 E COOPER AVE #207 MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 HONOLULU, HI 96816 ASPEN, CO 81611 • ELLIOTT ELYSE ANNE EXPLORE BOOKSELLERS & BISTRO R E FEDER HAROLD L & ZETTA F 300E HYMAN AVE LLC 985 CASCADE AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 300 CRESCENT CT #1000 BOULDER, CO 80302 -7550 DALLAS, TX 75201 FREDRICK LARRY D GOLDEN ARTS CONNECTION LLC GOODING RICHARD L ROBERTS JANET A DBA ASPEN INTERNATIONAL ART 4800 S HOLLY ST 215 S MONARCH ST #G101 213 S MILL ST ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 Easy Peel® Labels 1 ♦ ® Bend along line to 1 ® i Use Avery® Template 5160® j Feed Paper expose Pop Edge" j AVERS(® 5160® 1 GORDON BRIAN S GRAND SLAM HOLDINGS LLC HART GEORGE DAVID & SARAH C 26985 CRESTWOOD CIO CARL B LINNECKE CPA PC PO BOX 5491 FRANKLIN, MI 48025 215 S MONARCH ST #101 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 ASPEN, CO 81611 HECHT ANDREW V .027624071 % HOFFMAN JOHN & SHARON IFTNFS LLC 601 E HYMAN AVE 210 W 5TH ST APT 211 0115 GLEN EAGLES DR ASPEN, CO 81611 KANSAS CITY, MO 64105 -1166 ASPEN, CO 81611 JEROME PROPERTY LLC JOHNSON PETER C & SANDRA K JW VENTURES LLC 540 W MADISON ST 51 OVERLOOK DR PO BOX 8769 CHICAGO, IL 60661 ASPEN, CO 81611 -1008 ASPEN, CO 81612 KATIE REED BUILDING LLC KELLY GARY MEEKER RICHARD J AND ALLISON D 418 E COOPER AVE PO BOX 12356 0752 MEADOWOOD DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 MILL STREET PLAZA ASSOC LLC MINERS REAL ESTATE LLC MONARCH ASPEN LLC 50% C/O M &W PROPERTIES PO BOX 1365 PO BOX 1247 205 S MILL ST #301A ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 MONARCH BUILDING LLC MORRONGIELLO LYDIA A ARAGO N RANCH H INC LLC P PO BOX 126 18 SCHOOL LN PARAGO FIDDLER'S ER' 6400 S WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 LLOYD HARBOR, NY 11743 GREEWOOD SOUTH H EWOOD V V ILLLAGE, CO O 8 8011 CIR RELAG0111 NORTH & SOUTH ASPEN LLC NUNN RONALD E & SHIRLEY A OBRIEN MAUREEN 200 S ASPEN ST 741 SUNSET RD 1370 MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 BRENTWOOD, CA 94513 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 ORR ROBERT L PARK CENTRAL CONDO ASSOC PEARCE FAMILY TRUST 500 PATTERSON RD 215 S MONARCH ST STE 203 216 E MAIN ST GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 RACZAK JOSEPH S & JANET L SEDOY MICHAEL 35% SEGUIN WILLIAM L 0234 LIGHT HILL RD 35 SUTTON PL #19B PO BOX 4274 SNOW MASS, CO 81654 NEW YORK, NY 10022 ASPEN, GO 81612 SHVACHKO NATALIA 65% SSM LAND AQUISITION CO LLC TRUE JAMES R 35 SUTTON PL #19B 2121 KIRBY DR #99 PO BOX 2864 NEW YORK, NY 10022 HOUSTON, TX 77019 ASPEN, CO 81612 Etiquettes ladles a peter ; • Repliez >s la hachure afin de I www.avely.com ; N:I:mr Iv ..nr,nrif AVPRV® SIAM" ! Sens de ., r4vAlnr le mhord Poo -uoM ! 1- 800-GO -AVERY ! Easy PeeIW Labels I A al Bend along line to i a AVERY® 5160® Use Avery® Template 5160® j Feed Paper expose Pop-up Edge" J • WELLS FARGO BANK WHITMAN WENDALIN WHITMAN WENDALIN C/0 THOMSON PROPERTY TAX 210 E HYMAN AVE #101 PO BOX 472 SERVICES ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2609 CARLSBAD, CA 92018 YOUNG BARBARA A 210 E HYMAN AVE #9 ASPEN, CO 81611 Etiquettes fadles $ peter 1 • Repliez a la hachure afin de 1 www.averycom Sens de 1 Mika, In naturit OVFRV® 51(.(1® ! reveler le rebord Pon -uo'ac ! 1- 800 -GO -AVERY