Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20130220 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 2013 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ROOM 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO Please visit the sites on your own 5:00 INTRODUCTION A. Roll call B. Approval of minutes C. Public Comments D. Commission member comments E: Disclosure of conflict of interest(actual and apparent) F. Project Monitoring G. Staff comments H. Certificates of No Negative Effect issued I. Submit public notice for agenda items OLD BUSINESS A. None NEW BUSINESS 5.10 A. 701 N. Third Street- Conceptual Major Development, Setback Variance- PUBLIC HEARING OTHER BUSINESS 6.10 A. Summary of National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Conference- Ann Mullins 6:25 B. Summary of Raleigh-Durham HPC review process- Jane Hills 6.40 C. Recent presentation on new construction in Aspen's historic districts at statewide preservation conference- Amy Guthrie 7:00 ADJOURN TYPICAL PROCEEDING- 1 HOUR, 10 MINUTES FOR MAJOR AGENDA ITEM Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) Staff presentation(5 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Applicant presentation(20 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) (5 minutes) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed (5 minutes) HPC discussion(15 minutes) Applicant rebuttal (comments) (5 minutes) Motion(5 minutes) *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 217 E. Bleeker-Kribs 205 S. Spring-Hills Fox Crossing Red Butte Cemetery Boomerang 604 W. Main Lift One 316 E. Hopkins AspenCore 623 E. Hopkins Jay Maytin 518 W. Main-Fornell Red Butte Cemetery 320 Lake 435 W. Main-AJCC 920 W. Hallam 28 Smuggler Grove Lift One 400 E. Hyman(Tom Thumb) 204 S. Galena Nora Berko 1102 Waters 332 W. Main 28 Smuggler Grove Jamie Brewster McLeod 518 W. Main-Fornell 205 S. Spring-Hills 302 E. Hopkins-Hillstone Restaurants 1102 Waters Sallie Golden 400 E. Hyman(Tom Thumb) Jane Hills 320 W.Hallam Street Willis Pember 508 E. Cooper Hotel Jerome 202/208 E. Main AspenCore Patrick Segal 623 E. Hopkins 204 S. Galena M:\city\planning\hpc project monitoring\PROJECT MONITORING.doc 2/15/2013 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 701 N. Third Street- Conceptual Major Development and Setback Variance, Public Hearing DATE: February 20, 2013 SUMMARY: 701 N. Third Street is a landmark - designated 5,000 square foot lot that contains a remodeled Victorian era home. The property owner requests HPC _.. �:. u,. , approval to add a second floor to an existing one story I r addition. A portion of the proposed addition would require a rear yard setback variance. . i APPLICANT: G. Steve Whipple, 701 North Third Street, LLC,represented by Alan Richman Planning Services. ,, ADDRESS: 701 N. Third Street, the south half of Lot 7 and all of Lot 8, Block 100, Hallam Lake Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen. PARCEL ID: 2735-121-11-005. ZONING: R-6. CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT 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 1 the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. The relevant design guidelines are attached as "Exhibit A." There are numerous aspects of the existing structure that do not meet current HPC guidelines or Residential Design Standards. To the extent that these features are not being changed, they do not need to be brought into compliance retroactively. It appears that this home would have originally had the features typical of most cross gabled Aspen miner's cottage, represented in the photo to the right; a house on Main Street. According to HPC records, by 1980, the subject house had been modified with a wrap .,. , around porch and a rear addition. By the early NWR 1990s, the open porch was enclosed. See photos of 701 N. Third, below. : . The proposal before HPC is a second floor master bedroom addition along the western end of the property. No historic construction will be directly affected. No restoration work on the historic resource is proposed. HPC held a worksession to discuss this project in fall 2012. The board expressed interest in seeing this remodel unify and clarify some of the existing alterations to the original house. The proposal involves an addition of approximately 790 square feet, which will take the property near the maximum floor area of 2,960 square feet. The addition would sit on top of existing 2 construction that already encroaches into the required rear yard setback, along the north lot line. A variance is requested in order to extend the encroachment to the second floor level. The owner is not requesting a floor area bonus, which is typically an opportunity for HPC to require restoration work. Staff and HPC can only encourage actions such as removal of the street facing skylights, and recreation of the front porch. This neighborhood is an enclave of long-term residents and homes which are generally below the allowed height and square footage. Numerous letters have been received, expressing concern with the impact of the project. Except for the setback variance, the project is within the allowed dimensional requirements, and is actually lower than the allowed height. The upper floor plate height of 7' is sympathetic to the context. It appears that the project may affect the success of the solar panels located on the property to the north, another landmarked site. Land use regulations do not protect solar access or viewplanes from private property, however any accommodation of the neighbors' concerns, and the use of the solar panels is recommended. In general, HPC guidelines allow for a two story addition to be constructed at the rear of a miner's cottage. In this case, the project is not starting from scratch, but working around the placement and character of some existing construction. In terms of the location of the addition, staff recommends that HPC firmly require the 10' separation between the new and old construction, as addressed by this guideline: 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 I-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. The proposal includes new deck space which is closer to the south facing gable end of the miner's cottage than the current condition. HPC has had on-going discussions about whether or not connectors should be allowed to be used as an upper floor deck. This tends to erode the breathing room that the connector is intended to produce, especially when features such as the outdoor fireplace shown in this plan, hot tubs and furnishings appear. Staff recommends the project be restudied so that no deck area is within 10' of the any part of the remaining miner's cottage. The shape of the addition is generally consistent with the historic resource, however staff does not support the extension of the addition into the rear setback. 3 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. The applicant requests a 5.8' reduction in the rear yard for the master bedroom. The setback from the property line will be 4.2,' rather than the 10' that is required. Staff does not find that the variance meets the review criteria. The variance does not directly benefit the historic resource and appears to have a negative impact on the property directly to the north, which is also a designated landmark. The property to the north was recently remodeled as well and received a south setback reduction of 2', but only for a lightwell. In order to justify a setback variance, some direct benefit to the integrity and character of the historic resource, or the adjoining properties should be demonstrated. As part of a massing restudy, staff recommends revision of the paired dormers on the south fagade, which have very deep eaves compared to the miner's cottage. Reduction to one of these dormers might be more appropriate to the cross gable on the old house. The guidelines state: 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. While materials, doors and windows are topics for Final review, staff would reinforce HPC's suggesting to simplify the architectural character of the building. Adding new references, such as the arched top, rather than orthogonal, windows and cable railings, may not be achieving that goal. 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 that HPC continue the project for restudy. 4 Exhibits: A. Relevant Guidelines B. Public comments C. Application Exhibit A 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. 10.6 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. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. ❑ Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. ❑ Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. ❑ Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. ❑ 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. 5 Amy Guthrie From: eva kaus <ekaus3 @hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 4:51 PM To: Amy Guthrie Subject: addition 701 N. 3rd Street Dear Ms. Guthrie and members of the Historical Preservation Committee: We have had the chance to read the eloquent letter by Randy and Bernice Durand about the proposed addition on 701 N. 3rd Street. We would like you to know that we are in full agreement with the views expressed in the Ietter.The area around Pearl Court is very dear to many of us in Aspen. Sincerely, Peter and Eva Kaus 434 Pearl Court Aspen i Dear Amy and members of the HPC, We have owned our house at 401 Pearl Ct since 1975 and have treasured the special character of our one-block long street for every summer since that time. We write to oppose in the strongest possible terms the proposed addition to house across the street from us, at 701 N.Third St. It is an unbelievably bad design with no respect for existing houses or sightlines, and would essentially destroy the character of our street and that of its immediate neighborhood. As noted in detail by our neighbors, the Curtis', Petersons, and Durands, it should be possible to do an addition to the house which is in keeping with the HPC guidelines and the special character of the neighborhood, and we encourage you and the HPC to keep that in mind as you examine this addition and any further proposals for that house. Yours sincerely, David and Aronelle S. Pines February 14, 2013 Amy Guthrie, HPC Officer Historic Preservation Committee Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: HPC application for 701 North Third Street Dear Amy and HPC, 406 Pearl Court has been our home for the past 24 years. We love our neighborhood and our house, which was a remodel design by Augie Reno around 1986 and seems to fit in well with the smaller scale of the other homes along our street and along the 700 block of North Third Street. We appreciate the thoughtful way in which Carol Craig, our neighbor at North Third and Gillespie recently added to her historic residence, an addition which kept with the scale of other homes in our neighborhood. We are writing this letter as we will be out of town and unable to attend the HPC meeting on February 20. After reviewing the application and drawings for the proposed addition to the historic residence at 701 North Third Street, we firmly oppose the height and mass of the proposed addition as being too tall, too large, and out of character with other homes in our neighborhood. After reading the HPC guidelines for additions to historic structures, we feel the proposed addition does not comply with many important sections of those guidelines. The following are examples from the guidelines with which this proposal does not comply: " Typically the addition was subordinate in scale and character to the main building." "The height of the addition was usually lower than the main structure." "Design and 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." "Keeping the size of the addition small, in relation to the main structure, also will help minimize its visual impacts." " In historic districts, one also should consider the effect the addition may have on the character of the area, as seen from the public right-of-way." " The maximum potential floor area in the land use code is not guaranteed if it cannot be appropriately accommodated on the site." "Additional floor area may be placed under the building in a basement to minimize the impacts of the exterior mass." We also ask the HPC to recognize that Pearl Court is not similar to an alley, as suggested on page 2 of the application, but is a uniquely quaint and wonderful one-block- long street in the West End of Aspen and a favorite place for neighbors and parents with small children to safely walk. An addition such as the one proposed would have negative visual impacts on our neighborhood, impacts that would also set an undesirable precedent for future development and could forever change its wonderful character. These visual impacts cannot be screened by existing mature vegetation, as suggested in the application. The proposed 790 square-foot master bedroom addition by itself is 1/3 larger than the original historic structure. The height of the proposed addition is 25 feet compared to the historic structure which has a roof height of 19.5 feet and is more comparable to other roof heights in the Pearl Court and North Third neighborhood. The HPC could ask the applicant to consider reducing the overall mass of the project by locating the proposed 790 square-foot master suite on the ground floor in the existing space occupied by the two smaller bedrooms and baths and that space could be relocated in a basement area. An example of this was done effectively by the Carol Craig with the historic addition next door which has set a good precedent for such projects. We thank you for your service to our community and hope the HPC will use its guidelines and authority to encourage the applicant to return for review with a plan for a more appropriately sized and located historic addition which will accomplish the needs of the applicant for a larger master bedroom and which will also preserve the wonderful character and scale of our neighborhood. Sincerely, James and Hensley Peterson PO Box 1714 Aspen, CO 81612 Amy Guthrie From: Jim Curtis <jcurtis @sopris.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 6:39 PM To: Amy Guthrie Subject: HPC Review- House at 701 North 3rd Street Amy, As you know, I live across the street from the house at 701 North 3rd Street(North 3rd & Pearl Court).The neighbors have somewhat volunteered me to speak w/you to see if your Staff Comments have been issued for the HPC Meeting on the 20th. If so, could you email me a copy. Speaking for myself, I'm fine with an addition on the house (fully understandable).The proposed addition just looks a bit too high & bulky as designed compared to the neighborhood both as the neighborhood is today& how it will probably change in the future. And, I fully expect the neighborhood to change overtime with my one-story home eventually being removed &a two story structure being build.And, maybe the same thing will happen to the Pines house next door at 401 Pearl Court,who knows. However, I feel this addition just needs a lighter, softer touch. I think the adjacent two-story house owned by James& Hensley Peterson at 406 Pearl Court is a very attractive two-house & I think Carol Craig did an excellent job w/ her renovation. I would encourage HPC to take its"cue or comparison"to the Peterson house next door at 401 Pearl Court.Also, If you think it would help,) would be willing to organize a meeting with the neighbors&the architect and/or owner to discuss the addition. In summary, I'm fine with some form of an addition, the proposed addition looks too high &bulky to me,just needs a bit of a lighter, softer touch! Thanks, Jim Curtis 411 Pearl Court 970-319-0442 cell 1 Loyal and Bernice Durand 415 Pearl Court Aspen, CO 81611-1256 (970) 925-7321 February 14, 2013 Amy Guthrie Historic Preservation Officer Historical Preservation Committee_ City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Ms. Guthrie and Members of the HPC: We (Loyal and Bernice Durand) live at 415 Pearl Court, across Pearl Court from the proposed addition to an historic miner's house at 701 North 3rd Street. We bought our lot in 1964 and built our house in 1971, living in it summers and renting it out during the academic year for 30 years. After we had both retired, we moved here full time at the end of 2010. We are writing to strongly object to the excessive mass and scale of the addition proposed by the 701 N. 3rd Street LLC, Steve Whipple, manager, not to the concept of an addition per se. The proposed height of the addition, 25', is particularly out of scale with the existing historic house and the surrounding houses on Pearl Court and 3rd St., all 20' or less in height and much less massive as seen from either street. This is evident in the east and south elevations of the proposed addition and historic house, in which the large gabled windows on the south side and extra 5' in height are especially obtrusive. Pearl Court is a quiet residential street. There are permanent residents next door to the historic house at 406 Pearl Court (James and Hensley Peterson), across Pearl Court at 415 (Durands) and 411 (Jim and Yan Curtis), and long time owners/part time residents (David and Suzy Pines) and long term renters at 401. The last house facing Pearl Court, at the west end of the street at 434 Pearl Court, is a small house owned by Peter and Eva Kaus, again long time owners and part time residents. We note that 401 and 411 are Pan-Abodes which were considered a few years ago for historic status. Immediately adjacent to 701 N. 3rd to the north is the historic Craig house at 707 N. 3rd Street, a house of the same scale as the existing house at 701 N.3rd, and far smaller than the proposed addition to the latter, which would tower over it as seen from Gillespie St. or 3rd St. (We noticed that the applicants did not include a view from Gillespie St., perhaps because it would argue against the present plan for the addition.) Those responsible for the design and application for review of the proposed addition seem to have no concept of the neighborhood, and refer to Pearl Court more than once as essentially an alley from which the addition would not be viewed, though they also regard the Pearl Court side as the front of the house for some purposes such as calculating side yards. Pearl Court is unusual in that it is only one block long, fitted in between North Street and Gillespie toward their east ends where their divergence became too great. This was the result of the use of true north as the reference direction in the survey of Hallam's addition (Gillespie runs true east-west), while the original townsite survey through North St. had used magnetic north, forgetting the magnetic declination. As already noted, Pearl Court is residential, with two houses directly and ours obliquely facing the proposed addition, to be built on top of an existing older addition. The street is used all year by walkers avoiding the rather hazardous offset intersection of N. 3rd St. with Gillespie St., Lake St., and Roaring Fork Dr. One block from the Music parking lot, Pearl is especially busy in summer with many concert goers and others using the street. Until the previous owners of 701 N. 3rd began to neglect it, the gardens at the corner with Pearl were a much-photographed attraction in summer. It is simply not true that the house and addition will not be viewed from the south. Nor is it the case that the addition will be shielded from view by the existing trees; those on the south side are tall, slender aspens which do not even shield the existing (party) deck on the old addition, as we have seen many times. We do not object in principle to an attractive addition in keeping with the neighborhood and compatible in height and scale with the existing historic house, the historic Craig house next door, and the houses on Pearl Court, but strongly urge the Historic Preservation Committee to require a reduction in height of the proposed addition to the — 20' typical of the neighborhood, and a reduction in visual impact and mass, before any addition is approved. Sincerely, Loyal and Bernice Durand 2 February 11, 2013 Amy Guthrie Historic Presevation Officer Historic Preservation Committee City of Aspen 130 Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Amy and Historic Preservation Committee: Concerning the proposed addition at 701 N. Third Street, we feel the proposed addition is not in scale with the surrounding neighborhood nor does it comply with many of the existing HPC guidelines. The height and mass of the proposed addition will negatively effect the immediate neighbors on Pearl Ct. and Gillespie St. by altering view planes and shading. We recently renovated our property at 707 N. Third St. and made significant concessions to the HPC office in order to move forward with the project. All of the new FAR added during this project is below grade with the exception of a single story one car garage. The mass of the "new"portion of the above ground remodel remains very much in accord with the HPC guidelines that requires additions to be smaller or subordinate to the original historic structure. The finished product is of similar scale to properties adjacent to our property. In recognition of our efforts the HPC honored the project with an award for the positive outcome. The project at 701 N. Third St., however, will achieve exactly the opposite effect if approved as currently envisioned. All of the new FAR is above ground and will create a new roofline in excess of 25 feet. The new addition is taller and larger in mass than the original historic home . The height and mass suggested are completely out of character for this particular neighborhood where most of the homes are smaller in stature than many other neighborhoods around Aspen. We installed a 6 panel thermal solar system on the roof of the remodeled addition at 707 N. Third St. which supplements space heating in the whole house. This was encouraged by the city at the time of construction and was a$27,000.00 expense. We bring this to your attention because the shading from the proposed addition at 701 N. Third will significantly reduce our solar gain during the winter months. Actual impacts will require analysis by a qualified person. Although the applicant claims the new addition will only be visible from Pearl Ct., in reality the proposed addition will be visible from Third St as one approaches from south to north. It will be visible from Gillespie St. and from N.Third St. from the north as the new roofline is higher than the roofline of the 707 N. Third St. neighbor. It will be visible from Fourth St. as one approaches from the south. As for Pearl Ct. every house on the south side of the street is much lower in height. We hope you will take these concerns into consideration as you review this application. Thank You for your consideration of these points. This is a very special corner of Aspen and the West End. We feel strongly that any future development or redevelopment of properties in this area be closely scrutinized for compliance with the HPC guidelines. The impacts of poor decisions today will not only have negative impacts in the short term but sets a precedent for accepting poor designs in the future. Sincerely, Carol, Jennifer and Michael Craig d 2 CENTER OF N. 3RD STREET 5'6" EYE LEVEL �mol � �'rrp�C� PROPOSED ADDITION El u LL1 J11 litU 11_ T- = FM :fl Am LM EXISTING HISTORIC EXISTING STRUCTURE STRUCTURE D PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 3 /16 = 1'-0" EXHIBI AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CO ADDRESS OF PROPERTY- 'X0\ Nt-,.N (�- � ,Aspen, CO SCHEDUL D PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Yy\o -Lv ,20 01 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) 1, k-\, h"` p` `^iO" (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) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. J 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 wa posted at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing on the q day of np^^ , 20_s3_, 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. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public 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 business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. �g� Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this)-0 day of , 201'5 , by c,h YY� a.-"� WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL EMILY ESSIG My commission expires: Notary Public State of Colorado Notary ID 20094002055 My Commission Expires Feb 11, 2017 Notary Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPY OF THE PUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 E F } fl �. 4 ao i� PUBLI � NOTICE Gate: Wed., Feb. 20, 2013 5 Time: 5:00 p.m. � Council Chambers, City Place.� l b _ _ -_ y �j Hall,13Q S. Galena,._Aspen. Purpose: `b HPC,will conduct Conceptual review_ of an application_Submitted by 701 North Third Street, LLC, owner this w� property. The project is construction of a new addition.at the rear of the `-, existing house. HPC is asked to -- consider a 5,8' rear yard setback . reduction along the north lot line. _...... g -' For further information contact Aspen Planning Dept, at 970-429-2758, A , �' fill �..r • ;2 sy iW' M ✓: 5 :. F Easy Peel®Labels i ♦ Bend along line to i AVERY0 51600 Use AveryO Template 51600 Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTM 1 335 LAKE AVE LLC AMERY SALADIN AML INVESTMENT II LLC 715 W MAIN ST#101 619 N FOURTH ST 430 PARKSON RD ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 HENDERSON, NV 89015 ASPEN FAMILY INVESTMENTS LLC BART QUAL PER RES TRST BELL 26 LLC 8401 VISTA LN 909 POYDRAS ST 20TH FL PO BOX 1860 PRESCOTT,AZ 86305 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70112 BENTONVILLE,AR 72712 BERGER BRUCE C 2011 QPRT#1 50% CHATFIELD CROSSINGS INC CRAIG CAROL G BERGER BARBARA 2011 QPRT#1 50% C/O DWORMAN DARRYL PO BOX 18 600 E HOPKINS AVE#202 65 W 55TH ST STE 4A WOODY CREEK,CO 81656 ASPEN,CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10019 CURTIS JAMES L REV TRUST DURAND LOYAL III DR&BERNICE E A ALTEMUS PARTNERSHIP LLLP 300 E HYMAN AVE BLACK PO BOX 5000 ASPEN, CO 81611 415 PEARL CT ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 816111256 EBRAHIMI FRANCESCA EFH HOLDINGS LP FAUQUET LLC 619 N FOURTH ST PO BOX 8770 1033 SKOKIE BLVD#600 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 NORTHBROOK, IL 60062 FRAZER WILLIAM R&JANE Z TRST GILLESPIE LLC HUNT ELLEN 12.8066% 433 W GILLESPIE 191 N WACKER DR#1800 PO BOX 8770 ASPEN,CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60606 ASPEN, CO 81612 KOLBE EMILY E LEYDECKER SUZANNE LYNNE LUBAR SHELDON B& MARIANNE S C/O HOOTENANNY LLC 710 N THIRD ST UNIT A 700 N WATER ST#1200 205 S MILL ST#226 ASPEN,CO 81611 MILWAUKEE,WI 53202-4206 ASPEN,CO 81611 MONTENEGRO GRACE LLC MUSIC ASSOCIATES OF ASPEN INC MUSTANG HOLDINGS LLC 444 MADISON AVE 4TH FL 225 MUSIC SCHOOL RD 3131 S VAUGHN WY#301 NEW YORK, NY 10022 ASPEN,CO 81611 AURORA, CO 80014 NITZE WILLIAM A NORTH 4TH STREET ASSOC OAK LODGE LLC 87.1934% 1537 28TH ST NW PO BOX 7943 C/O WILLIAM 0 HUNT WASHINGTON, DC 20007 ASPEN,CO 81612 PO BOX 7951 ASPEN, CO 81612 ODOM JOHN A JR FAM TRUST 50% PETERSON JAMES D&HENSLEY R PINES DAVID&ARONELLE S TRST ODOM LORRIE FURMAN QPRT 50% PO BOX 1714 PO BOX 576 11490 W 38TH AVE ASPEN, CO 81612 TESUQUE, NM 87574 WHEATRIDGE, CO 80033 ttiquettes faciles a peter Repliez a la hachure afin de www.avery.com Sens de Utilisez le gabarit AVERY@ 51600 j chargement reveler le rebord Pop-upmc 1-800-GO-AVERY j i Easy Peel®Labels i ♦ Bend along line to i Q AVERYS 51600 Use Avery®Template 51600 Feed Paper expose Pop-up Edge"' 1 RICHARDS ANN K RIVERSIDE AVENUE LLC SALTER KATHLEEN ANNE ELDREDGE 1537 28TH ST NW 410 LAKE AVE 500 NORTH ST WASHINGTON, DC 20007 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 STUNDA STEVEN R UHLFELDER NAOMI VANDERAA GILBERT T III 602 N 4TH ST 111 EMERSON ST#1841 C/O HOOTENANNY LLC ASPEN, CO 81611-1212 DENVER, CO 802183792 205 S MILL ST#226 ASPEN, CO 81611 WESNER BLAINE F&ALEXA WOOD DUCK REALTY CORP 900 LIVE OAK CIR 645 FIFTH AVE 8TH FL AUSTIN,TX 78746 NEW YORK, NY 10022 Etiquettes faciles a peter A Repliez a la hachure afin de ; www.avery.com Utilisez le gabarit AVERY®516011 j chSens de ent reveler le rebord Pop-up'Ac 1-800-GO-AVERY i PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 701 N. THIRD STREET- CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND SETBACK VARIANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, February 20, 2013, at a special 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 G. Steve Whipple, 701 North Third Street, LLC, owner of the property located at 701 N. Third Street, the south half of Lot 7 and all of Lot 8, Block 100, City and Townsite of Aspen, PID #2735-121-11-005. The applicant proposes to construct an upper floor addition at the back of the existing Victorian house. The new upper floor is to-be set directly above the existing construction, which encroaches into the setback along the north lot line, therefore the applicant requests a 5.8' rear yard setback reduction. 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 @cityofaspen.com. s/Ann Mullins Chair,Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on January 31, 2013 City of Aspen Account