Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20130320 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 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 5.10 A. 208 E. Main Street, Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Special Review and Variances- CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING NEW BUSINESS 6:00 A. 314 Gillespie, Minor Development- PUBLIC HEARING 6:30 B. 114 Neale Avenue, Conceptual Major Development and Variances- PUBLIC HEARING WORKESSION A. None 7:40 ADJOURN TYPICAL PROCEEDING- 1 HOUR, 10 MINUTES FOR MAJOR AGENDA ITEM,NEW BUSINESS 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 3/15/2013 7q* MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 208 E. Main Street- Conceptual Major Development, On-site Relocation, Special Review And Variances, Public hearing continued from February 13, 2013 DATE: March 20, 2013 SUMMARY: 208 E. Main Street is a 3,000 square foot lot that is the location of Salon Tulio. The owner has just finalized a historic landmark lot split, approved by HPC and Council, which separated the subject property from the 3,000 square foot lot to the west. There are two existing buildings on the site; a Victorian era miner's cottage and a shed along the alley. The proposed development is removal of a non-historic addition to the miner's cottage and replacement with a new residential unit. The shed will be placed on a new basement and connected to the residence. The buildable area is limited. The proposal includes setback variances and a parking waiver request, along with a reduction of the required on-site utility/trash/recycling area. HPC reviewed the project on February 13th and, at staff's recommendation, continued the hearing for restudy. In particular, members were concerned with the proximity and height of the new construction relative to the historic cabin, and the size of the connector to the cabin. A setback variance along the west lot line and an enclosed staircase to a rooftop deck were also concerns. Minutes from February 13th, and revised drawings are attached. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the proposal with conditions. APPLICANT: Michael Giordano, represented by Sara Upton. ADDRESS AND PARCEL ID: 208 E. Main Street, Lot 2, Main Street Victorians Historic Landmark Lot Split, Block 73, City and Townsite of Aspen, PID#2737-073-20-012. ZONING: MU, Mixed Use. 1 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 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 part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A." The property is eligible to create a free market residential unit of up to 1,500 square feet of floor area. For the most part, the basement level is exempt from floor area. Based on feedback at the last hearing, the applicant has revised the project in several ways. The new second story addition has been pulled 2' further away from the west lot line to provide a 3' setback. There is however a small area of new construction on the ground floor of the addition that is 1' from the property line. The area functions as an entry closet. The connector between the new an old construction has been revised to create a notch in the wall planes along the east and west fagades. An existing semi-historic, previously remodeled lean-to on the west side of the shed will be retained instead of demolished. An existing airlock/exit on the east side of the historic house is proposed to be reconstructed, and ramps added for accessibility. Finally, the access stair to the roof deck has been moved from west to east, and the stair enclosure has been revised. Staff finds that the setback, connector and shed preservation issues have been improved since the last meeting. With regard to the airlock and ramps, the proposal needs to be revised to provide a ramp towards the alley as well, where an accessible route to the alley trash enclosure is needed for the salon. 2 The enclosed staircase to the roof deck continues to be a concern. While this feature is located approximately 60' back on the property, the modeling provided in the packet indicates that the enclosure will be visible as the tallest feature on the property from viewpoints within the historic district. While the flat roof for the residence appears to be acceptable to the board, it is only slightly taller than the miner's cottage and not visible from the street. Materials are a Final review issue, however the proposed use of glass as a wall and roof surface for this element is uncharacteristic of the area. There are some other alternatives that might allow for an open air staircase that meets Building Code requirements. The following guideline is not met by the stair enclosure: 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. There are two potential code issues that may need further review before the proposed project could receive a building permit. First, the project includes a new egress window within 1' of the west property line. The building code does not allow openings within 3' of a property line. While HPC does not review the interior layout, the project is tight on space and a revision could significantly affect the proposal. Second, in the Mixed Use zone district, there is a required ratio between commercial and residential space that is intended to avoid residential uses becoming too dominant in size. The total free-market residential net livable area(which includes the basement of this addition) can be no greater than 150% the total floor area of the commercial use. The only commercial floor area for this project is above grade because there are no lightwells in the commercial basement. The applicant must verify that this limitation is being achieved. HPC's concern is primarily exterior appearance of the construction. The applicant is simply alerted that these topics must be addressed. ON-SITE RELOCATION The shed is to be lifted in order to construct a new basement below it. It is moved slightly westward to allow a pathway for the commercial space to access the alley. This is a Building Code requirement. 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: 3 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. 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: The shed on the site does not appear on the 1904 Sanborne Fire Insurance Map of the property. The applicant has provided an analysis of the history of the building, which dates its construction to approximately the 1930s. Staff finds the proposed relocation to be appropriate and without negative impact to the shed. The applicant will need to provide assurance that the building will be relocated safely to preserve the structure. SETBACK VARIANCES The new construction encroaches into the west and rear setbacks. Lightwells and an accessible ramp encroach into the east sideyard setback. The criteria for granting setback variances, per Section 26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code are as follows. 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. 4 Staff Response: For the new construction, the setback requirements should be respected to the greatest extent possible. At a minimum, a 3' distance from all lot lines is needed. The applicant has restudied and addressed this condition, except for a small area on the ground plane, where a new closet area approximately 4 square feet in'size proposed to extend within 1' of the setback. Staff recommends the applicant study this area since the board indicated that a 3' setback is expected. Uritxn',TRASH,AND RECYCLE AREA 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, however the proposed space has been designed to meet requirements that the Environmental Health Department has indicated are scaled to this site. 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 Staff Response: The designated area is adequately sized. Staff supports approval of this design. Environmental Health recommends a wildlife-proof enclosure since the neighborhood has a lot of bear activity. PARKING VARIAN CE/CAS H-I N-LI E U WAIVER Properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures may provide fewer on- site parking spaces than required, and/or receive a cash-in-lieu fee waiver if the standards below, found at Section 26.515.040 of the Municipal Code are met. 5 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 also find that the review standards of Section 26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code are met. They require that: 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: There is no on-site parking now. The new residential unit requires one parking space. A parking space that meets code requirements must be 8 1/2' wide and 18' long. The parking cannot physically fit on the property. A residential unit that is occupied as a primary residence is permitted to receive on-street parking permits, whether cars are accommodated on the private property or not. Staff finds that the City has a system in place for the applicant to request neighborhood parking permits. The site is located in the core of the City, on the bus route. When parking cannot be accommodated on-site, a cash-in-lieu payment is generally required in order to fund public parking facilities or other mobility enhancements. The fee per parking space is $30,000. The applicant requests this fee be waived as a preservation benefit. If not for the presence of the shed, the parking could be provided on the site. HPC should be aware that the Parking Department, which would be impacted by the fee waiver, has expressed that funds are needed for the repair of the existing parking garage and other projects. Parking Department would prefer the fee be required. HPC discussed this issue earlier, as part of a plan to convert some of the existing commercial space to residential. This project is a distinct proposal, however HPC previously determined that on-site parking can be waived, but the fee should be paid. Staff recommends the fee waiver in recognition of the fact that approximately half of the ground plane of this property is required open yard or historic structures. The HPC incentives are intended to offset the impacts that preservation may have on development options. 6 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 grant Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation, Setback Variances, Special Review And Parking Variances with the following conditions: 1. For Final, revise the east entry to the commercial space to provide a ramp towards the alley as well, where an accessible route to the alley trash enclosure is needed. 2. Eliminate the enclosure for the roof access stair. 3. Provide a $15,000 letter of credit or cashier's check to insure the safe relocation of the shed, as well as a plan for protection of the building from a housemover or structural engineer. 4. Entirely respect a 3' setback along the west lot line with all new construction. 5. The following setback variances are granted: a 3' east sideyard setback reduction for new lightwells, a 3'2" east sideyard setback reduction for an existing side entry into the salon, up to a 5' east sideyard reduction and a 5' rear yard setback reduction for the shed and proposed new basement below it, and a 3' west sideyard setback reduction for an addition to the Victorian structure and basement below it. 6. HPC approves the proposed utility/trash recycling area with the condition that there a wildlife-proof enclosure as approved by the Environmental Health Department. 7. One required on-site parking space and cash-in-lieu fees are waived as a preservation benefit. Exhibits: A. Relevant design guidelines B. February 13th proposal C. February 13th minutes D. Revised application 7 Exhibit A, Relevant Design Guidelines 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. 8.5 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. 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. 9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space. ❑ In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design Standards). ❑ The size of a lightwell should be minimized. 8 ❑ A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded by a simple fence or rail. 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. 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. 9 r �JY � i a `/ 1 7 4 — +/ M Mol RA EXHIBIT i ilo - / 3— EXHIBIT Margaret A.Pearce Richard B.Pearce Bernard D.Pearce 216 E Main St. March 20, 2013 Aspen,CO 81611 Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Dear Sir or Madam: We would like to present the following concerns/questions to the Commission regarding the 208 E. Main Street- Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Special Review And Variances These concerns and questions fall into three main categories: 1. The space between the proposed development located on the respective properties, and the associated actual setback distances (structures, walkways, window wells). 2. Additional safety concerns created by a decrease in the above 3. How construction activity will be controlled during the construction process More specifically, we are concerned that there is already very little distance between the structures and other improvements on the respective properties. We hope that the proposed modifications will not decrease this distance even further. We are also concerned that the setbacks themselves appear to be decreasing significantly— from 5 feet to 2 feet or less, if we understand associated documents correctly. We have concerns that this could affect future property values or future modification allowances. As far as safety issues go, we wonder how this might also be affected by structures on the respective properties being closer together. Finally, we hope that all the parties involved in the actual construction will be respectful of our property(structures, garden, etc)during the process. Thank you again for your time and consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Margaret A. Pearce Richard B. Pearce Bernard D. Pearce MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 314 Gillespie- Minor Development, Public Hearing DATE: March 20, 2013 SUMMARY: The applicant requests minor changes to a landmarked home in the West End. The proposal is to extend a second floor bathroom area in an existing non-historic part of the house. APPLICANT: Bruce Berger Qualified Personal Trust#1, represented by Menendez Architects. PARCEL ID: 2735-121-19-002 ADDRESS: 314 Gillespie, the Westerly Tract of C.F. Murphy Exemption Plat, City of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6 MINOR DEVELOPMENT The procedure for a Minor Development Review 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. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300)feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316. Staff finding: The proposal is to extend an existing non-historic second floor addition by 8'6" towards the rear of the property. Materials and detailing are to match the existing construction. The addition is proposed in order to eliminate a problematic change in floor level that currently exists between a bedroom and bathroom. The addition includes shed dormers in order to create adequate head height. The property will remain under the maximum allowable floor area by approximately 400 square feet. 1 Staff finds that the proposal is not in conflict with any of the design guidelines, except on the north elevation, where it replicates the historic part of the building with the ornate detailing of the fascia and gable end. This condition exists on the north fagade now, but with the proposed remodel, staff recommends a condition of approval for a simpler treatment in order to help distinguish new from old construction. Currently, it is difficult to discern where the old house ends and the new begins. If the proposed addition were more significant, a change in ridgeline, materials, or some other characteristic of the new construction might be appropriate. In this case, those actions would overcomplicate the project. The revision to architectural detailing is needed in order to meet guidelines 10.3 and 10.4, below. 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 the project be approved, with a simplified detail for the north facing fascia and gable end, to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor prior to building permit application. Exhibits: Resolution# , Series of 2013 A. Relevant HPC design guidelines B. Application Exhibit A: Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for 314 Gillespie, Minor Development 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. 2 ❑ 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. 10.8 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. 10.11 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. 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMENT FOR 314 GILLESPIE, THE WESTERLY TRACT OF C.F. MURPHY EXEMPTION PLAT, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION #_, SERIES OF 2013 PARCEL ID: 2735-121-19-002 WHEREAS, the applicant, Bruce Berger Qualified Personal Trust #1, represented by Menendez Architects, requested Minor Development approval for 314 Gillespie, the Westerly Tract of C.F. Murphy Exemption Plat, City of Aspen, Colorado. The property is a designated landmark; 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 Minor 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 26.415.070.0 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, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated March 20, 2013, performed an analysis of the application and recommended that the review standards, the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines"were met, with conditions; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 20, 2013, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the applicable review standards, with conditions, and approved the application by a vote of_to_ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves Minor Development for the property located at 314 Gillespie, Westerly Tract of C.F. Murphy Exemption Plat, City of Aspen, Colorado with the following condition: 1. Provide a simplified detail for the north fascia and gable end, to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor, prior to building permit application. HPC Resolution No. _, Series of 2013 314 Gillespie Page 1 of 2 APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 20th day of March, 2013. Ann Mullins, Chair Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn,Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk HPC Resolution No. Series of 2013 314 Gillespie Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: I-Sl4 C7 1 LLE 6 P l£ SHEET ,Aspen,CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: RECEIVED M aac�►►_?�� ,20 t5 MAR 4 2013 STATE OF COLORADO ) CITY OF ASPEN ) ss. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT County of Pitkin ) I, 1-U lb M EA4E .1 CE_Z (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. 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 on the geday of t'tA+D CA , 20 Vjt, 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. ti,t&_ 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, SPAs or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. t, 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. Sign The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this of 20_a,by LL""!- rM ,e—A1- WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL RICHARD J. MENDOZA _ R NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: STATE OF COLORADO MY Commission Expires o6/Oa/201b No c ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPY OF THE PUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGA9 • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. X24-65.5-103.3 1 .V Wr• ' PUBLIC NOTICE Date: MarT'-T'Lo I:, Time: 5:00 P rrn Place:130 S.Galena Street.City_ Hall..Council Chambers Purpose: HPC will consider a proposal for a minor second floor addition at the_ back of this house.The applicant is Bruce Berger Qualified Personal Trust#1. 314 U fC pie Street,Aspen. CO.81611. For further information contact Planning Dept.at 970-429 i. s i E:, a 13. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer FROM: Justin Barker, City Planner RE: 114 Neale Avenue- Conceptual Major Development and Variances, Public Hearing DATE: March 20, 2013 SUMMARY: 114 Neale Avenue is a landmark designated 6,001 square foot lot that contains a historic Victorian miner's cottage and a non-historic ' contemporary rear addition. The property was created as a result of a y Historic Landmark Lot Split in 1998. The applicant requests HPC approval to remodel and expand the rear addition, adding a garage and a x subgrade living space. The proposed subgrade walls are located in the front yard setback and require variance approval. Additionally, the proposed expansion causes the project to exceed the allowable floor area of 1,345 square feet. The applicant is requesting HPC approve a 500 square foot floor area bonus. APPLICANT: DWS Family Trust, 3 Remington Lane, Houston TX 77005, represented by Forum Phi Architecture. ADDRESS: 114 Neale Ave, Lot 1, 114 Neale/17 Queen Historic Lot Split Subdivision. PARCEL ID: 2737-073-83-001. ZONING: R-15A (Moderate Density Residential). 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 1 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 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." Overall, staff is in support of the project. The proposal is clearly intended as secondary to the historic building and is generally compliant with the applicable guidelines. The subject property was created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split approved by City Council in 1998. The historic structure was originally located down the hill and relocated on the newly created 6,001 square foot lot. The Council ordinance specified a maximum allowable floor area of 1,345 square feet (plus the potential for a 500 square foot floor area bonus if granted by HPC) for the property. A modern addition was constructed to the rear of the cottage. In 2007, HPC granted Final Major Development approval for the construction of a garage on the south side of the property and expansion of the modern addition. The approved project was never developed. Massing and Proportions Most of the proposed development will barely be visible from the street. The most visible change will be the remodel of the existing one-story addition to the north. The proposed remodel simplifies the mass and further separates it from the historic building. The other changes are either subgrade or set back significantly from the street and screened by a mature tree line. These include construction of a subgrade living space, expansion of both floors of the existing addition to the south and expansion of the existing lower level to the south for a two- car garage. Typically, additions should be set back from the primary facade a minimum of 10 feet. The proposed garage is located less than 10 feet from the Neale Street facade. However, since the garage is mostly located below grade, it does not compete with the historic facade and does not alter the original proportions. Requiring the full 10 foot setback would eliminate one of the garage parking spaces or force the rear addition living space to be impractical in size. The main floor 2 additions are simple geometric forms, angled from the historic structure and aligned parallel to the east property line. Staff finds the proposed additions are acceptable and compliant with the following guidelines: 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 in 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 in 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. 10.8 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. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. ❑ For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. ❑ The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. The proposed subgrade living space walls will align with the existing historic house foundations in the front yard. These are located within the front yard setback by about 6' and require variance approval from HPC. 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. 3 The historic building was placed within the setback when it was relocated and the proposed construction does not increase the non-conformity. Staff supports the requested front yard variance for subgrade construction. On the north side of the building is a proposed lightwell for the subgrade and lower levels. The residential design guidelines require all lightwells on the street-facing fagade(s) of a building shall be entirely recessed behind the front-most wall of the building. Staff recommends restudying the location of the lightwell, particularly looking at the recessed area between the historic building and the proposed addition. The total floor area being added is 708 square feet. The first 330 square feet of that is within the allowable floor area; the remaining 378 square feet is requested in a 500 square foot bonus. The majority of the bonus necessary for the proposal (336 square feet) can be attributed to the space on top of the garage being used as a "green roof' deck expansion from the existing main level deck. The review criteria for HPC in determining approval for floor area bonus is Land Use Code Section 26.415.110.F. Floor area bonus: 1. 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. 2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices. Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood of being awarded additional floor area. The proposal would almost be within the allowable floor area if the deck is not included, but the applicant is choosing to make functional use of the space that would otherwise be a garage roof. Staff recommends approving a 378 square foot floor area bonus for this proposal, which would be the minimum amount required to complete the proposal. Height and Scale The historic building has gable roofs, while the proposed additions have low-sloped shed roofs. The relevant guidelines state: 4 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. 10.9 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. The use of flatter roofs allow the additions to be lower than the historic building and diminish the effect of the additions. The proposed roof type also distinguishes the separation between the historic building and the additions. Even though the roof forms are different than the historic building, staff finds the proposed roofs allow the historic building to maintain prominence and are acceptable. 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 approval with the following conditions: 1. HPC grant a front yard variance of 6 feet for the subgrade space. 2. Applicant must restudy the location of the north lightwell. 3. HPC grant a 378 square foot floor area bonus. 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: A. Relevant Guidelines B. Application Exhibit A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 26.410.040.D.4. Lightwells. All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street-facing facade(s) of a building shall be entirely recessed behind the front-most wall of the building. 5 HPC GUIDELINES New Additions 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. ❑ A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. ❑ An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also in 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 in 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. 10.7 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. 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. 6 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) AND VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 114 NEALE AVENUE, LOT 1, 114 NEALE/17 QUEEN HISTORIC LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION # , SERIES OF 2013 PARCEL ID: 2737-073-83-001 WHEREAS, the applicant, DWS Family Trust, represented by Forum Phi Architecture, requested HPC Major Development (Conceptual) and Variance approval for the property located at 114 Neale Avenue, Lot 1, 114 Neale/17 Queen Historic Lot Split Subdivision; 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, the HPC may approve setback variances according to Section 26.415.110.C.La, 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, Justin Barker, in his staff report to HPC dated March 20, 2013, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on March 20, 2013, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of_to_ 114 Neale Ave. HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2013 Page 1 of 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants HPC Major Development (Conceptual) and Variance approval for the property located at 117 Neale Avenue with the following conditions: 1. HPC grant a front yard variance of 6 feet for the subgrade space. 2. Applicant must restudy the location of the north lightwell. 3. HPC grant a 378 square foot floor area bonus. 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. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 20th day of March, 2013. Ann Mullins, Chair Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 114 Neale Ave. HPC Resolution#_,Series of 2013 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBI AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CO ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 11L+ V eo-� AV_Q- ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: MArc►r, 20+1k VJCA 67)_ 'g.04e ,20_a STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) 1, — "'�` �� (name,please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that 1 have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: y 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. 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 the_day of 20 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) 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. Signature The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this day of 2013 by hk IC NOTICE RE:114 NEPLE AVENUE- -- - WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL MAJOR DE;.-EWPMENT AND VARIANCES �Y Pv8 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing „+°P°O•••, will be held on Wednesday,March 20,2013,at a•• '•�� ' i meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m.before the Aspen • I ��� ' Historic Preservation Commission, Council ONNI L • My commission expires: Chambers.City Hall,130 S.Galena St.,Aspen to BONNIE G • consider an application submitted by DWS Family 11AC�i.iTl ER Trust,3 Remington Lane,Houston,TX,Neale re-tlTeG T71�- o � late,to their property located n 114 Neale Ave- • N nue,Lot 1,114 Neale/17 Queen Historic Lot Split, City and Town site of Aspen,CO, Parcel ID °.• ••° #2737-073-83-001. The applicant proposes to par- ° ••••° Notary Public tially demolish a non-historic addition at the back of O the existing Victorian house and replace it with a new addition. The applicant requests a front yard �nh�X $ 1013012013 setback variance to maintain the existing place- Ct v VIJt7 ment of the house and to expand the basement. The applicant also requests a 500 square foot floor area bonus. For further information,contact Amy Guthrie at the City of Aspen Community Develop- ment Department,130 S.Galena St.,Aspen,CO, (970)429-2758,amy.guthrie @ciryofaspen.com slain Mullins ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: Chair,Aspen Historic Preservation Commission City of Aspen Account OF THE PUBLICATION 28,2013•(89418;pen Times Weekly on February GRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENT AGENGIES NOTIED L ANT CERTICICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REOUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: T mcVla�uE , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 1-�C' y 20 , 2011 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) 1, S-CEPNJ W I L��b1J (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: 6c,�, Publication of police: 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. &V 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 on the cS_ day of 20 13, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Scv 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. $I- 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) sr,,✓ Mineral Estate Chi,ner 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, SPAS or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. sa. 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. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this `�� day of f mr<cd 20J , by STr- ya&l N1 lvIt SLen,-, WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL TWDALAY Mycommissio expires: WARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO -^-- -- NOTARY ID 1999400�21ROY�, MYCOMMI55ION EXPIRES Notary Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: •COPY OF THE PUBLICATION *PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED B Y MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. X24-65.5-103.3 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 114 NEALE AVENUE- CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND VARIANCES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, March 20, 2013, 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 to consider an application submitted by DWS Family Trust, 3 Remington Lane, Houston, TX, 77005, related to their property located at 114 Neale Avenue, Lot 1, 114 Neale/17 Queen Historic Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, Parcel ID #2737-073-83-001. The applicant proposes to partially demolish a non-historic addition at the back of the existing Victorian house and replace it with a new addition. The applicant requests a front yard setback variance to maintain the existing placement of the house and to expand the basement. The applicant also requests a 500 square foot floor area bonus. 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 February 28, 2013 City of Aspen Account BEATON GLENN K BLEEKER STREET REV TRUST BRIEN ALICE 936 KING ST 32 TULIP ST 110 NEALE AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 SUMMIT, NJ 07901 ASPEN, CO 81611 CITY OF ASPEN DECRAY MARCELLA TRUST 50% FUENTE DAVID&SHEILA ATTN FINANCE DEPT DECRAY MARCELLA PROPERTY TRUST 701 TERN POINT CIR 130 S GALENA ST 50% BOCA RATON, FL 33431 ASPEN, CO 81611 30 COMMONWEALTH AVE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94118 GIRVIN LINDA A GREENWOOD WILLIAM S GUPTA BENJAMIN K REV LIV TRST 2010 414 N MILL ST PO BOX 4778 9017 GREENSBORO LN ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 LAS VEGAS, NV 89134 HATANAKA HOWARD I ISAAC THOMAS D REV TRST KAPPELI ERNST 980 KING ST 975 KING ST PO BOX 1962 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 KASABACH JACQUELYN A LANG DONALD W LAWRENCE FAMILY TRUST PO BOX 4166 PO BOX 4166 8560 RUETTE MONTE CARLO ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 LA JOLLA, CA 92037 LIPSEY WILLIAM S LOEWENSTERN CAROL TRUST MAPLE CHARLES A&BRYCE M 955 KING ST 910 GIBSON AVE 927 GIBSON AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 MARZIALE ANTONIO MEADOWS JEAN R&STANLEY H MICKEY JAMES&MARLENE 5134 TANGLE LN 538 HILLSIDE DR 931 GIBSON AVE HOUSTON,TX 77056 HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035 ASPEN, CO 81611 MORRIS JAMES/BYARD ANNE TRUST MORSE JAMES A TRUST PARRY SUSAN LYNN 860 GIBSON AVE 800 E ELLIS RD PO BOX 2529 ASPEN, CO 81611 NORTON SHORES, MI 49441-5622 ASPEN, CO 81612 RIVER HOUSE LLC SHOAF JEFFREY S SKOKOS THEODORE C&SHANNON B 28 W GRAND AVE PO BOX 3123 PO BOX 17330 MONTVALE, NJ 07645 ASPEN, CO 81612 LITTLE ROCK,AR 72222 SNOW ORCHID LLC VARE DARLENE DESEDLE TRUST WEISMAN FAMILY LP 1125 SAN MATEO DR 1024 19TH ST#7 2708 IRVING AVE SOUTH MENLO PARK, CA 94025 SANTA MONICA, CA 90403 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55406 s Al y Yf All ' ..4 \ i \ i `O Its a I I N11, ��\ \ `s IN a , i, ` Mr- o 5 e � f f y 4 I i a 1, PUBLIC NOTICE " r I' Date • Wed > March 20 2013 Time . 5°00 p m Puce : CoLan1-;il Chambers City { Hall..130 S. Galena, Aspen Purpose : HPC will conduct Conceptual review of an application by the owner of this property, DWS Family Trust, 3 t Remington Lane,Hou ston,TX. 77005, ho proposes removal of non-historic ;d d.tions at the hack of the existing o )cA Fm. to be. replaced with new _;{.,i tn,J .t��,on, including a 500 sq. ft. r'C)111_.1! aT)d a frcof-)t setback variance. For further information contact Aspen b s Planr tnr_ De t, at 970-420-2758. A Y. r,,a. l+' yay�" ;.� ■K Y•Ir• ' tY �. '?"'� s atu.+Yet''`Y � r'.�y��l�`�'� 6s�rt _. c «l",�N�r� ;. .ter _ E �•�` � v_., .,;. v „` ��.ytaaf� rt.�- ''�14f'^• .t .r !,K, r �'R i • ti, IF. ',f i1„*�t"'+F•„y„ --�*�,• y�,� s.w� ,, r: � �K:. k.. ! .! •• ' 'S r v ` Ap _ �` -+"ifi�w°' '� _ ,��� � .� -+yam _ ` ••"Z,Y� ��' ��1 �{r �'SV� �1�� �•►�fd �.�' 4w - '+SST . 3,yy� 1'7 ,. Y. .+'J- �. •�'� R ��.� �i�`+6 i 4' r;'R"x;��``ss�i11',;R•iCf '• r,�,; - - ,�•�' fry � t-..: � -. YY,I f ���t•. 1 .a r .^,• �.r!a �'�► "' � ,L _ - -- ” �-� ,ate 4L ♦ Ste.Nit, low r.. !r . rte