Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20130612 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 12, 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-204 S. Galena G. Staff comments H. Certificates of No Negative Effect issued I. Submit public notice for agenda items OLD BUSINESS 5:30 A• 208 E. Main, Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Special Review and Variances- CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING NEW BUSINESS 6:20 A. 507 Gillespie, Substantial Amendment to Major Development Approval and Variance-PUBLIC HEARING WORKESSION 7:00 A. 201 E. Hyman 7:30 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 Jay Maytin 518 W. Main-Fornell Red Butte Cemetery 320 Lake 435 W. Main-AJCC 400 E.Hyman(Tom Thumb) 204 S. Galena 920 W.Hallam 28 Smuggler Grove Lift One Nora Berko 1102 Waters 332 W. Main 28 Smuggler Grove 1006 E. Cooper 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) 305 S. Mill (Above the Salt) Jane Hills 114 Neale Willis Pember Aspen Core 514 E. Hyman Patrick Segal 204 S. Galena 623 E. Hopkins 612 W. Main Holden Marolt derrick M:\city\planning\hpc project monitoring\PROJECT MONITORING.doc 6/3/2013 Pi 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 March 20, 2013 DATE: June 12, 2013 SUMMARY: 208 E. Main Street is a 3,000 square foot lot that is the location of Salon Tulio. The owner has recently 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 most of a non-historic addition to the miner's cottage and replacement with a new residential unit. The shed will be set 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 March 201h and continued the hearings for restudy. Minutes area attached. In particular, members have been concerned with the proximity and height of the new construction relative to the historic cabin, the size of the connector to the cabin, setback variances along the west lot line, and an enclosed staircase to a rooftop deck. At the last meeting, it appeared that the project needed to be revised in order to comply with some Building Code requirements; and zoning calculations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The project has been amended to address all of the issues that have been discussed. 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 P2 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.Conceptual Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC o f a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval f upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the Development Plan shall be binding envelope of the structures) andlor additions) 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. Based on feedback at the last hearing, the applicant has revised the project in several ways. All of the construction that currently sits on the west property line will remain in place, but the addition provides a 3' setback. At the last meeting, there was discussion about the need to provide an accessible pathway from the salon to a new trash enclosure along the alley. The plan was to use an existing door along the east facade of the miner's cottage, but there were conflicts between the new path and some lightwells that are desired for the basement. The project is revised so that the accessible path will now branch off of the front sidewalk and hug the east property line, allowing adequate space for the lightwells. A decision has been made to move the shed along the alley to the west, and the trash enclosure to the east. This allows a more direct route to the trash, creating more privacy for the residence. It also allows some simplification of the staircase in the unit. The applicant has eliminated the proposal to enclose the stair all the way to the roof. The stair to the deck is open to the air. The deck size appears to comply with the maximum that is allowed for a residence of this size. It is far back on the properly and enclosed with a glass rail, so visibility from Main Street will be minimal. 2 P3 There is a narrow connector between the new unit and the shed, as requested by HPC. An existing lean-to on the west side of the shed will be removed, taking the building back to its original size. The project lacks some of the sensitivity to the historic resources that HPC typically seeks. The transition between the old and new construction is somewhat abrupt, with new two story construction placed very close to the one story historic buildings. The roof form on the new construction is flat, contrasting with the pitched roofs on the smaller buildings. On the other hand, the applicant has not proposed to move the miner's cottage forward to create more building area. Moving the building forward in the historic district would be very disruptive to the character of the block. The flat roof allows the new addition to be under the maximum height limit, and only about 3'6" taller than the miner's cottage. With the setback from the street, it will be difficult to see the addition from the front of the building. The project includes setback variance requests, which have changed over the course of the review. The sideyard setback requirement is 5'. The request is to reduce the sideyards on the east by 2' for the addition and on the west by 1'6" for the addition, to reduce the east sideyard by 1'4" for the lightwells, and to reduce the west sideyard by 3'6" for the shed. The rear yard setback requirement is also 5'. The request is to reduce the rear setback for the shed by 4'3"'. The wildlife proof trash enclosure is permitted to sit at the rear lot line. 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. Staff Response: Staff and HPC have previously stated that, 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 complied with this condition. Lightwells are permitted in the side setbacks if they are required by code and no larger than the minimum. The proposed lightwells are not all required egress and they are all slightly oversized. They have no visual impact from the street, will not directly affect the adjacent property, and do improve livability and use of the basement areas. 3 P4 The shed currently sits on the east and rear property lines. The building is proposed to be moved directly west and placed in a similar position. Ideally a greater sideyard would be provided since this is a new condition, however HPC has indicated an interest in seeing this outbuilding preserved, and distancing it from the new construction. Staff recommends that HPC grant the variance requests. 1 ON-SITE RELOCATION The shed is to be moved westward and placed on a new foundation. The following standards apply for relocating a historic property as per Section 26.415.090.0 of the Municipal Code: C. Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the, historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for qpproval 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. It will continue to sit directly on the alley and is not being rotated. The applicant will need to provide assurance that the building will be relocated safely to preserve the structure. 4 P5 UTILITY,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 VARIANCE/CASH-IN-LIEU WAIVER There is no on-site parking now. The new residential unit requires one parking space. 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. 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. 5 P6 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 a adverse approved t onon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district. Staff Response: A parking space that meets code requirements must be 8 '/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. 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. 6 P7 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation, Special Review and Variances with the following conditions: 1. The following setback variances are granted: a reduction of the sideyard on the east by 2' for the addition and on the west by 1'6" for the addition, a reduction of the east sideyard by 1'4" for the lightwells, a reduction of the west sideyard by 3'6" for the shed and a reduction of the rear setback for the shed by 4'3". 2. 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. 3. HPC approves the proposed utility/trash recycling area with the condition that there a wildlife-proof enclosure as approved by the Environmental Health Department. 4. One required on-site parking space and cash-in-lieu fees are waived as a preservation benefit. 5. 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: Resolution#_, Series of 2013 A. Relevant design guidelines B. February 13th minutes, March 20th minutes C. March 20th proposal D. Revised application 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. 7 P8 ❑ 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. • 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. inconsistent with the historic character of the ❑ A new addition that creates an appearance 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. 8 P9 ❑ 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 P10 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION SITE MISSION( HPC) GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT,ON SPECIAL REVIEW AND VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 208 E. MAIN STREET,LOT 2,MAIN STREET VICTORIANS HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EN COLORADO D TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, CIT AND TOWNSITE OF ASP RESOLUTION #_, SERIES OF 2013 PARCEL ID: 42737-073-20-012 WHEREAS, Michael Giordano, represented by Sara Upton, has requested Conceptual Major Development, On-site Relocation, Special Review and Variances for 208 E. Main Street, Lot 2 of the Main Street Victorians Historic Landmark Lot Split Subdivision Exemption, Block 73, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the property is a designated landmark and is located in the Main Street Historic District; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, in order to approve Relocation, the Historic Preservation Commission must find that the review standards at Section 26.415.090.C, Relocation of a Designated Property, are met; and WHEREAS, in order to approve Setback Variances, the Historic Preservation Commission must find that the review standards at Section 26.415.110.C.La, Variances, are met; and WHEREAS, in order to approve a reduced utility/trash/recycling area, the Historic Preservation Commission must find that the review standards at Section 26.515.040, Special Review, are met; and 208 E. Main Street HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2013 Page 1 of 3 P11 WHEREAS, in order to approve a parking waiver, the Historic Preservation Commission must find that the review standards at Section 26.515.040, Special Review, are met as well as the standards at 26.415.110.C; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report to HPC dated June 12, 2013, performed an analysis of the application and recommended that HPC support the application with conditions; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting on June 12, 2013, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and granted approval, with conditions, by a vote of to NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants Conceptual Major Development, On-site Relocation, Special Review and Variances for the property located at 208 E. Main Street with the following conditions: 1. The following setback variances are granted: a reduction of the sideyard on the east by 2' for the addition and on the west by 1'6" for the addition, a reduction of the east sideyard by 1'4" for the lightwells, a reduction of the west sideyard by 3'6" for the shed and a reduction of the rear setback for the shed by 4'3". 2. 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. 3. HPC approves the proposed utility/trash recycling area with the condition that there a wildlife-proof enclosure as approved by the Environmental Health Department. 4. One required on-site parking space and cash-in-lieu fees are waived as a preservation benefit. 5. 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 a regular meeting on the 12th day of June,2013. Jamie Brewster McCleod,Acting Chair 208 E. Main Street HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2013 Page 2 of 3 P12 Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn,Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 208 E. Main Street HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2013 Page 3 of 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 13 2013 MOTION: Ann moved to continue 110 W. Main until March 13th; second by Patrick. Jay thanked the applicant for bringing the roof down on the residential. Jay pointed out that we are preserving the streetscape on the Main Street side. The idea of the cafe is great. On the parking I think it is strange having two different kinds of parking on one street. I feel the project is great and wish there weren't so many unanswered questions. Sallie said this looks like it will be continued and we need the answers resolved at the next meeting. On the Bleeker Street side there is too much mass and it should be stepped back a little. The parking plan is a good resolution. Motion carried 4-1. Jay voted no. 208 E. Main Street, Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Special Review and Variances —Public hearing Debbie said the photograph and addresses are not attached to the public notice. Michael Giordano, owner said he did the publication and will bring them in tomorrow for the record. The board agreed to continue without the addresses and photographs. Exhibit I - affidavit of public notice Exhibit II— 5 new elevations Amy said 208 E. Main Street is a 3,000 square foot lot that was part of an historic lot split. It is a landmarked building in the historic district and there is a Victorian miner's cottage on the front of the property with a small addition in the back and a shed on the alley. The proposal is to demolish a portion of the non-historic addition at the back of the property, excavate a basement and lift the shed and place it on the new basement and build a new residential unit at the back of the site. There just is not a lot of room to work with on this lot. The applicant has the right to a 1,500 square foot residential unit and that is what they are trying to achieve. The design guidelines say that an addition to a gabled roof building should not be a flat roof and that is 5 P14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION _MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 132 2013 what is on the table. In this particular situation staff can get behind the flat roof because it does a lot to limit the profile of the new construction popping up above the historic building. It will have some presence on the alley. At this point a gabled roof would not benefit anything but the flat roof does conflict with the guidelines. The new construction does not have the separation from the historic resource. The guidelines call for a connector to separate new from old and that isn't happening. The new and old are basically touching each other both the historic house and shed. Staff is concerned that they are crowded. The applicant is requesting to pick up the shed and put it back down in the approximate location. Staff has no concerns with that. The setback variances along the west side of the property there is already an encroachment by the existing construction and that will be made worse by the two story element. The new elevation has a jog which reducers the setback somewhat but HPC still is being asked to grant a portion of it allowing the new project to come very close to the lot line which shares the adjacent Victorian home. Regarding the utility and trash the normal length is 15 feet parallel to the alley. In this case it has been rotated. The Environmental Health Dept. is OK with the plan here. You are asking to grant an exception but it has the endorsement of the Health Dept. The applicant is requesting not to pay the cash in lieu. There is no room for parking. Staff is recommending continuance. There is a deck proposed on top of the addition which has an enclosed staircase. Staff is concerned about the relationship of the stair to the historic house. The minimum setback is five feet. UPC has the power to waive the entire setback but then you create another set of problems. Amy said more than half the property is occupied by one story historic resources. This is a mixed use zone district and incentives are important and I would recommend HPC waive the fee. Sarah Upton represented the applicant. It is essentially a zero lot line condition. Sarah talked about the proposed stair. Possibly we could do a stair enclosure with a high percentage of a glass enclosure. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public comment section of the agenda item. Exhibit III— letter from Jake Vickery read by Della Pegolotti Fire protection and maintenance issues exist and the lot split was approved by HPC. Jake owns the structure next door and is opposed to the variance. 6 P15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 13, 2 13 Mary Hayes lives at 209 E. Bleeker and her concern is the trash. Amy said this will be an improvement and they are being asked to build a wild proof container surrounding the trash bins etc. Chairperson, Ann Mullins closed the public comment section of the agenda item. Ann identified the issues: Side yard variance west side Separation of the shed to the historic building Flat roof Enclosed stair case and deck Utility and trash which has been approved by the Environmental Health Dept. Parking variance and fee waiver. Jay said he supports the cash-in-lieu on the parking and you wouldn't be able to see a connector. I do not support the roof deck enclosure but support the side yard setback. The property is extremely constrictive and I feel this is a good solution and it accentuates the historic house in the front and saves the little cool shed in the back. Patrick said he appreciates saving the historic resource. Possibly the shed could be moved off site and move the addition back so that there could be a connector. The two story needs restudied. Sallie said she agrees with everything Jay mentioned. Sallie said she is in favor of incentives and supports the cash-in -lieu waiver. Willis said he is in favor of the on-site relocation of the shed. Regarding the separation it seems a little crowded in the back. There will be a lot of issues to resolve with the separation and what the Fire Department requires. Jamie said the new addition is a two story addition all the way around which is somewhat of a concern. Typically the addition is somewhat subordinate. I would not increase the variance on the west side and keep the three feet. Ann said she feels there is too much crammed on this lot. The cabin is jammed into the house and I don't feel you need a connector. The cabin 7 P16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 13, 2 13 needs some more breathing room. The flat roof is fine. I am in favor of waiving the cash-in-lieu. Overall it is too large on the site. Amy said you could sacrifice the shed and create the breathing room. There is an issue when you are on the lot line how the spaces are going to be maintained. Motion: Patrick moved to continue 110 W. Main Street to March 20`h per staff's recommendation. Restudy of the staircase, deck, west wall two story as and the stepping down into the historic resource. Restudy the massing in its relationship to the shed. Restudy the west side yard setback. Motion second by Jamie. Jay asked the board if they are willing to have the applicant demolish the shed. Willis said it is a great little shed. Michael said they embraced the shed and we didn't' cantilever over the shed. The connector to the shed is basically a doorway. Vote: Jamie, yes; Willis, yes; Patrick, yes; Ann, yes; Sallie, yes; Jay, no. Motion carried 5-1. 204 S. Galena, Substantial Amendment to Major Development— Public Hearing Justin Barker, planner Exhibit I— elevations Justin said this project received final approval in December which allowed for the demolition of the existing building and replacing it with a new commercial building that will occupy the entire lot and a portion of the second story. The original proposal did not propose an increase in the net leasable. Over the past few months there have been more specific tenants that have stepped forward and so the program has increased in size. It is adding about 5,000 square feet of retail space in the basement as well as 1,700 square feet addition to the restaurant on the second floor which will be achieved by moving the west wall of the restaurant toward Galena Street and also adding some restrooms to the restaurant. The only exterior changes are on the second story of the restaurant. There is an elevator overrun. The firewall is not necessary. One of the conditions from final is that there 9 P17 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 20 2013 Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 .m. Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Jay Maytin, Jamie McLeod Sallie Golden, Patrick Saga] and Jane Hills. Willis Pember was absent., Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Justin Barker, Planner MOTION: Jamie moved to approve the minutes of Februa by Ann. All in favor, motion carried, r3' 13tH , second MOTION: Jane moved to approve the minutes of February to Ann. All in favor, motion carried. ' 0 , second by 208 E. Main Street— Conceptual Major Development, Demolitio Special Review and Variances— Continued Public Hearing n, Amy said this is a continued public hearing and conceptual review for addition at the back of the mines cottage. You are being asked to anew on-site relocation, special review for reconfiguration of the trash enclosure Setback variances are on the table and a request to waive the parking u . requirements. We are looking at the preservation of the mine 's cotta e t has a lean-too on the back. An existing non-historic addition is a ll hat being retained with a residential cube at the back that is slightly P rtlally historic shed. Staff is not supporting the enclosure on the roof. eked to the There are a couple of building code issues that are not res There is an egress problem from one of the bedrooms. A raved right now. from the side of the salon back to the alley and could be shown at final. On the setbacks the board wanted a minimum of three feet on either side o the cube. We do support the revised trash area and it is an improvement ov what is there now and we support the waiver of one parking s ace a er cash in lieu fees. Staff is recommending conceptual approval. P nd the Sarah Upton represented the applicant. Sarah went over the changes and the shed has shifted to the west about feet in order to have access to the alley. The connector piece is a little three different in shape. e 1 P18 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 20, 2013 The stair is along the east side of the property. In doing so that pushes the bedroom and egress window over to the west. The stair enclosure is important to the client because the site is very tight and they would like access to some outdoor space. The enclosure allows for better access, better use of the roof top. On the new construction on the upper level it steps back three feet. The issue with the ramp is that it has to go to the trash area. Jamie said the coat closet is proposed to be filled in to complete the corner. The next level is set back three feet and the roof terrace is at the same level as the second floor. Jamie asked about the window well for the salon. We might be able to do a light well under the ramp to allow light in to the basement. We are maxed out at net livable even though we are under the FAR. The ramp falls under the IBC which is more restrictive. We would also need a variance. Sarah said we are taking space away from the salon to allow the residence to come in. Jay suggested a sloped stair cover rather than from the front to the back. Sallie asked if the wrap around stair was incorporated how much lower would the enclosure be. Sarah said it has been incorporated and it is as low as it can be at 7 feet. We are willing to look at options such as Jay's suggestion. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public comment portion of the agenda item. Rich Pierce said he and his Mother are neighbors to the east. Our biggest concern is if it moves to the east and how it will affect our property line. We are supportive of the project in general. We want to make sure the construction people are mindful of our property. Exhibit I letter Jake Vickery one of the owners of the property on the west. Our property is like the twin of this miner's building. The revised plans improve a lot of things. We are hung up on the 0 lot line on our side of the lot split line. 2 P19 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 20 2013 There are a lot of functional concerns, roof drainage, fire acces drainage. We need to do something s, egress, site That space needs to be shared by both sides andta minimum between them. which means each side would contribute three feet. We are ooinxt eet something similar to what the Tulio s are doin g g o do g� y having i t on the property line it pushes the burden onto our property. You could move the lower wall in three feet which would create the space. Photograph Exhibit II Chairperson, Ann Mullins closed the public comment section of the e agenda Ann identified the issues: Connector Staircase enclosure, covered or not covered 3 foot setback as opposed to the one foot requested Ramp Trash Parking Waiver Patrick said this is one of the premier properties on Main Street and anything we can do to enhance that I would be in favor of. I feel the three foot setback should be respected due to safety and fire concerns. My main concern is the glass issue on top of the roof. I also feel the staircase should not be enclosed. Regarding guideline 10.9 I am OK with the deck as long it is invisible from Main Street. gas Jamie said she is ok with the shed reduction of two feet. Trash and utility plan is ok as long as it is approved by Environmental Health. I am in favor of the cash-in-lieu. My two concerns are the ramp and the li htwel or fact that we have no drawing as to what you want and what the Building he Dept. wants which would affect the neighbor to the east. I am not in favor g of increasing the setback and filling in the corner. Lets not put a burden on the neighbor next door. The roof top enclosure is proposed as lass and n on not feel that is appropriate when lights are on etc. at night. I am in favor l f do the roof deck but just not in favor of the enclosure. I am also in fav of waiving the parking spaces but still getting the cash-in-lieu, or of Nora said she is in favor of keeping the three foot setback and the roof deck g should not be enclosed. My concern is height creep and the hei ht block is really low. I would like to see the cash and respect the setbacks. 3 P20 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 20, 2013 Jane said she agrees on the setbacks and they are an issue. The only outstanding issue for me other than the set back is looking for an option for the stair enclosure. There are many creative solutions that could make it better for the community. I am in favor of waiving the parking and agree with the trash enclosure. Sallie said she supports the shed and supports waiving the cash-in-lieu and the parking waiver. I feel the light-well can be worked out. The west side variance should remain the same. On the roof top I understand why you want it enclosed as it is the only "yard" you have to use. The design needs worked on to get the board on your side. In the West end there are enclosures that are a lot smaller. .Jay said the enclosure is the sticking point. The new design is a great improvement. The ramp can't go anywhere else so it shouldn't be a sticking point. The shed is OK. It is a great improvement from the last meeting. Ann said she feels the parking and cash-in-lieu should be waved. Michael thanked the neighbors for their comments. The ramp just came from the last meeting. We tried to make the cabin stand alone and we have no other livable outdoor space other than the roof top. The stairway is a huge concern going up three levels. If I didn't need the enclosure I wouldn't ask you for one. We are under 28 feet and if I were to put the gable up there the entire mass on the block would be 28 feet. I'm not attached to the glass and we can change the materials. The only other way to get there is an outside stairway on the east side of the building. The salon is a big part of the project and I need every bit of space to make this work. It is a tight space. I need to bedrooms for my kids and one for us and a kitchen and living room. I need volume either on the interior or exterior. Jay pointed-out that the enclosure is under the height limit of around 27 feet. Through materials we might want to look at our thought process again. Sallie said no one is opposed to putting something up on the roof. Patrick said if he had a gabled roof there would be more space and you could have a loft. 4 P21 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 20 2013 Ann pointed out that we are also looking at the surroundings and str elevations around the property. eet MOTION: Ann made the motion to approve resoluti by Staff. on #7 as recommended The east entry to the commercial space to provide a ramp towards the as well, where an accessible route to the alley trash enclosure is neede as Eliminate the enclosure for the roof access stair. d' Provide a $15,000 letter of credit. Entirely respect a 3' setback along the west lot line with all construction. new 3' east sideyard reduction for new lightwells. 3'2" east sideyard setback reduction for an existing entry into the sal 5' rear yard setback reduction for the shed. on. 2' west sideyard setback reduction for an addition to the Victorian. Trash OK as approved by Environmental Health Dept. One required on-site parking space and cash-in-lieu fees waived. Jane said the applicant could build a more massive project. I they come back one more time to study the roof and stair. This s would roe uggest deserve that opportunity. P ct Jay said they are preserving the shed. Motion second by Nora. Jay said he would support the motion of the west setback was taken o The applicant embraced the shed and we should a ut. they also brought the plate height down. pprove this project and Jane said she would like to see this continued rather than killin g the development project. It is an ongoing business here in Aspen. Nora withdrew her second. Motion second by Patrick. Patrick, yes; Jay, no; Jane, no; Nora, no; Sallie, no; Jamie, no Ann Motion fails. , yes. MOTION: Jay moved to eliminate #2, change #4 to a 2 foot setback on west and keep everything else in the resolution. Motion second by Jane.the 5 P22 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 20, 2013 Vote: Jamie, no; Sallie, yes; Nora, yes; Jane, yes; Jay, yes; Patrick,no; Ann, no. MOTION: Jamie made the motion to continue the application until June 12th and look and the enclosure and setbacks and look at them properly. The ramp and lightwell need to work together. They also need to study the airlock. Motion second by Ann. Ann said we are basically talking about the enclosure and the setback on the west side and the ramp. Sallie said the applicant needs to know what the building department wants. Jamie asked the board how they feel about the construction on the west side. Ann said the enclosure'needs to go away or be radically changed. Jane said she has no problem with the second level. The first level should remain with the 3 feet. Jay is ok with what was presented. Patrick agreed with staff eliminate the enclosure and respect the three foot setback. Sallie said the issues should be restudied so the applicant can move forward. Patrick, no; Jay, no; Ann, yes; Jamie, yes; Sallie, yes; Jane, yes; Nora, yes. Motion carried 5-2. 314 Gillespie— Minor Development— Public Hearing Debbie said the public notice is in order and the applicant can proceed. Exhibit I. Amy said this is a landmark house with an addition to the back that extends to the north. The work proposed is in that area. There is a floor level change that is a safety issue that causes some head height issues with the proposed dormers. There was a discussion as to whether the dormer should 6 P23 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 507 Gillespie Street- Substantial Amendment to Approved Development Order- Public Hearing DATE: June 12, 2013 SUMMARY: 507 Gillespie Street is a vacant lot, Lot B, that was the product of a historic landmark lot split in 2003. The historic landmark is located on Lot A and is pictured below. In 2007, the property received a Certificate of Appropriateness for the development of a single family residence and a detached garage with a subgrade ADU (HPC Resolutions #10 of 2007 and #35 of 2007). The vested rights were extended by City Council in 2010 for an additional 3 years via Resolution 88, Series of 2010. The vested rights are set to expire on September 9, .2013. Due to the vested rights, the project is subject to the Land Use Code in place when the project was first submitted. The property has changed hands and the new owners are interested in amending the Certificate of Appropriateness by changing the roof forms, materials and architectural details. The overall mass and site plan remain largely the same as the 2007 approval. The applicant proposes to reduce the amount of floor area proposed for the site by about 500 square feet with the intention to create 2 Transferrable Development Rights (TDRs). The applicant is also requesting a west side yard setback variance for a roof overhang. . ,. Image 1:515 Gillespie St.The historic landmark prior to the construction of a contemporary rear addition. Image 2:Map of subject property. Lot A is at left and Lot B is at right. The Music Tent parking lot is across the street. 1 P24 Staff finds that the project meets the applicable HPC design guidelines and recommends [approval with conditions. Staff finds that theview deneria for a setback variance are not met and recommends APPLICANT: John Rowland and Sarah Broughton, 1001 E. Cooper Ave., #8, Aspen Colorado. PARCEL ID: 2735-121-11-007 ADDRESS: 507 Gillespie St., Lot B of the Beck Historic Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6, Medium Density Residential. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT-SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at Historic the hearing to determine the projects conformance with the City Aspen conditions Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, app rove with or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. The 2007 approved fr ont elevation, designed by CCY, is shown below (left) compared to the current proposal (right). Note: the drawings are not scaled. The applicant has provided the 2007 approved elevations and floor plans in the application for your review. The Staff memo only addresses the areas where the project has changed. For example the subgrade ADU, which received an ADU Design Standard variance for its location beneath the garage, is not subject to this substantial amendment because it is not proposed to be changed. r Image 3:2007 approved front elevation Image 4:Proposed front elevation 2 P25 Site Plan/Landscape: The landscape for the 2007 project was a condition of approval that was never finalized by the Staff and monitor. The applicant proposes a simple landscape in the front yard with lilac bushes and a planter bed. There are some plantings proposed in the right of way that are subject to approval by the Parks Department. The interior landscape, between the main house and the garage, is not visible to the public which allows greater flexibility for a contemporary landscape. A fire feature is proposed in the side yard setback of the interior landscape. The feature is not allowed to exceed 30" above or below natural or finished grade (whichever is more restrictive). The Parks Department is not supportive of the proposed perennial bed in the right of way. Parks will be planting new street trees after the existing Cottonwood dies, and the perennial bed will be an obstruction. The Si Johnson Ditch runs through the front yard and along the west property line and is proposed to be maintained in accordance with Guideline 1.17. Any planting or construction (the fence) within the ditch easement requires Utilities Department approval. A wooden fence is proposed behind the front fagade of the house. The horizontal wood slats are compatible with the design of the residence and the historic context. 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic structures. ❑ The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod, and not covered with paving, for example. 1.17 Maintain historic irrigation ditches as an integral component of the streetscape. The character of an irrigation ditch should be maintained. • It is inappropriate to use an irrigation ditch as a planting bed, or to fill it with another material. • Ditches cannot by culverted except where crossed by a walkway or driveway, and a culvert must be approved by the Parks Department. Height: The applicant proposes to reduce the height of the 2007 approval by about 1 ft. Staff finds that this is an appropriate amendment that brings the new building within 4 ft. of the historic landmark at 515 Gillespie and meets Guideline 11.4 below. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. ❑ The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure. ❑ The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch. Roof Forms/.Massing: The applicant proposes to simplifies the roof forms. The cross gable is removed from the front elevation and is replaced with a flat roof rectangular module that reduces the height of the residence and simplifies the massing. Guideline 11.6 below states that flat roofs should only be used in areas where it is appropriate. Staff finds that the flat roof is appropriate: it is located on the opposite side of the lot away from the landmark, it is a secondary roof form behind the more prominent street facing gable, and it provides a lower height for the building. 3 P26 A flat roof front porch was originally approved in 2007, however the depth of the overhang has changed. Staff recommends that the roof overhang of the front porch be reduced on the east sides to better relate to the historic front porch at 515 and to better meet Guidelines 11.2 and 11.6. The applicant proposes to simplify the roof forms by using a more traditional gable roof for the garage/ADU. 1dential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by g a front porch.The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry.A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. ❑ In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street; nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to the street. 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. ❑ They should not overwhelm the original in scale. 11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. ❑ Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. ❑ Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. ❑ On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context. ❑ Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames. Materials: The material palette has been reduced from the 2007 approval. Wood siding and a metal roof are proposed, and metal accents and fascia are included throughout the fa9ade. Staff finds that the proposed materials are compatible with the adjacent landmark and are consistent with Guidelines 1.1.7 and 11.8 below. Staff would like more information on the material or color of the vent ducts that are visible on the front elevation. The applicant is bringing material samples to the meeting. Solar panels are proposed for the east half of the gable of the main residence and the south portion of the gable of the garage/ADU. In the past, new buildings on historic landmark lot split lots have successfully implemented solar panels without distracting from the landmark or historic context(for example, 202 and 204 N. Monarch formerly the Blue Vic). Staff is supportive of the proposed solar panels,with the condition that they are flush with the roof pitch) and recommends that Staff and Monitor review the configuration and number of panels. The eave overhang requires an 18"east side yard setback variance that,unfortunately,was not included in the application or the public notice.The applicant will need to reapply to HPC for a setback variance if desired. Staff's comments are related to the design of the porch and its compatibility with the adjacent landmark and are not related to the required variance. 4 P27 11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used traditionally. ❑ Roof materials should have a matte, non-reflective finish. 11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. ❑ Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are encouraged. ❑ Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged. Fenestration/Architectural Details: The applicant proposes more traditional punched openings on the front elevation. The front entry includes a transom above the front door which references typical 19th century entries. A strong metal fascia detail is proposed throughout the residence and the garage. Staff is supportive of this element as it adds interest to the clean and simple forms and massing. A large metal clad chimney is proposed toward the middle of the property on the east elevation, away from the historic landmark. Staff finds that Guideline 11.9 is met. 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. ❑ These include windows, doors and porches. L - Overall, details should be modest in character. SETBACK VARIANCE: The applicant requests a west sideyard setback variance of up to 18" for a roof to cover the side walkway. Additional variances are needed for eave overhangs throughout the design,,however, they were not included in the public notice and therefore cannot be discussed by HPC at this time. The applicant may decide to pursue these variances at which time new public notice and a new hearing will be conducted by HPC. The criteria for granting setback variances, per Section 26.415.110.B 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. Staff Response: Staff is not supportive of the requested setback variance. The property is a vacant lot with ample opportunity to meet dimensional requirements, furthermore and the covered walkway does not enhance the adjacent historic landmark and is not similar to the character of the historic landmark. Staff finds that the criteria are not met. 5 P28 DECISION MAKING OPTIONS: 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 approve the Substantial Amendment to Resolution #10 and #35, Series of 2007 for the property located at 507 Gillespie Street with the following conditions: 1. Landscape: a. All planting in the right of way is subject to Parks Department review and approval. b. Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements. c. The perennial bed located in the right of way is not approved. d. An encroachment license is required prior to building permit issuance for the lightwell that is located within the ditch easement on the west elevation. e. All planting and construction in the ditch easement is subject to Utilities Department review and approval. 2. Height: A height of about 23 ft. 4 in. is approved as presented. 3. Roof Forms/Massing: a. The roof overhang of the east side of the front porch shall be reduced a minimum of 18" for review and approval by Staff and monitor. 4. Materials: a. The materials are approved as presented. b. The solar panels shall match the pitch of the roof they are located. The configuration and number of panels shall be approved by Staff and monitor. 5. Setback Variance: a. The west side yard setback variance is denied. 6. All approvals and conditions granted during Conceptual (Resolution#10, Series of 2007) and Final (Resolution #35 Series of 2007) Review are valid, with the exception of the approvals specified herein. 7. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board. Resolution#_, Series of 2013. Exhibits: A. Design Guidelines B. HPC Resolution#10, Series of 2007 (Conceptual Approval) C. HPC Resolution#35, Series of 2007 (Final Approval) D. Application 6 P29 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOT B OF THE BECK HISTORIC LOT SPLIT, 507 GILLESPIE STREET, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO._, SERIES OF 2013 PARCEL ID:'2735-121-11-007 WHEREAS, the applicant, John Rowland and Sarah Broughton, requested a Substantial Amendment to HPC Resolution#10, Series of 2007 and HPC Resolution#35, Series of 2007, for Major Development for 507 Gillespie Street, Lot B of the Beck Historic Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;"and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on March 28, 2007, the HPC considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and approved Resolution #10 of 2007 granting Conceptual Approval for Major Development and Variances by a vote of 3 — 0; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on August 22, 2007 the HPC considered the application, .found the application was consistent with the review standards and the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and approved Resolution #35 of 2007 granting Final Approval for Major Development by a vote of 3 -0; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 25, 2010 the Aspen City Council considered an application for a 3 year extension of vested rights and approved Resolution#88 of 2010 granting an extension of vested rights to September 9, 2013; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070.E.2 of the Municipal Code states that " all changes to approved plans that materially modify the location, size, shape, materials, design, detailing or appearance of the building elements as originally depicted must be approved by the HPC as a substantial amendment; and WHEREAS, 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; and 507 Gillespie—Substantial Amendment HPC Resolution#_, 2013 Pagel of 3 P30 WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated June 12, 2013, performed an analysis of the en application based on the standards, found that the review recommended the val, and found the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines were met, and approval, review standards for a setback variance were not met and recommended denial; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on June 12, 2013, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote of NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED: HPC grants approval for a Substantial Amendment to Resolution #10, Series of 2007 and Resolution#35, Series of 2007 for the property located at 507 Gillespie Street with the following conditions: 1. Landscape: a. All planting in the right of way is subject to Parks Department review and approval. b. Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements. c. The perennial bed located in the right of way is not approved. d. An encroachment license is required prior to building permit issuance for the lightwell that is located within the ditch easement on the west elevation. e. All planting and construction in the ditch easement is subject to Utilities Department review and approval. 2. Height: A height of about 23 ft. 4 in. is approved as presented. 3. Roof Forms/Massing: a. The roof overhang of the east side of the front porch shall be reduced a minimum of 18" for review and approval by Staff and monitor. 4. Materials: a. The materials are approved as presented. b. The solar panels shall match the pitch of the roof they are located. The configuration and number of panels shall be approved by Staff and monitor. 5. Setback Variance: a. The west side yard setback variance is denied. 6. All approvals and conditions granted during Conceptual (Resolution#10, Series of 2007) and Final (Resolution #35 Series of 2007) Review are valid, with the exception of the approvals specified herein. 7. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board. 507 Gillespie—Substantial Amendment HPC Resolution#_, 2013 Page 2 of 3 P31 APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 12", day of June 2013. Jamie Brewster McLeod, Vice Chair Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Exhibit A: Approved elevations and site plan Exhibit B: 2006 Land Use Code—Section 26.575.020. Calculations and.Measurements 507 Gillespie—Substantial Amendment HPC Resolution#_, 2013 Page 3 of 3 P32 Exhibit A: Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for 507 Gillespie 1.4 New fence components should be similar in scale with those seen traditionally. ❑ Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment. 1.5 A side yard fence which extends between two homes should be set back from the street-facing facade. ❑ This setback should be significant enough to provide a sense of open space between homes. 1.6 Replacement or new fencing between side yards and along the alley should be compatible with the historic context. ❑ Aside yard fence is usually taller than taller than tfront yardtfnces (up to less transparent. A t), but shou d side yard fence may reach heights incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible visual impacts. ❑ Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give the appearance of a solid plank fence when seen head on. ❑ Also consider using lattice, or other transparent detailing, on the upper portions of the fence. 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. roceedin ❑ This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in the "private" spaces beyond. ❑ Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree. ❑ Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style. Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles. 1.16 Preserve historically significant landscape designs and features. ❑ This includes the arrangement of trees, shrubs, plant beds, irrigation ditches and sidewalks in the public right-of-way. 1.17 Maintain historic irrigation ditches as an integral component of the streetscape. The character of an irrigation ditch should be maintained. ❑ It is inappropriate to use an irrigation ditch as a planting bed, or to fill it with another material. ❑ Ditches cannot by culverted except where crossed by a walkway or driveway, and a culvert must be approved by the Parks Department. 11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street. ❑ The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the site. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. 7 P33 ❑ The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry. ❑ A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. ❑ In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street; nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to the street. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. ❑ Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. ❑ The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure. ❑ The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch. 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. ❑ They should not overwhelm the original in scale. 11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. ❑ Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. ❑ Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. ❑ On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context. ❑ Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames. 11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used traditionally. ❑ Roof materials should have a matte, non-reflective finish. 11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. ❑ Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are encouraged. ❑ Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged. 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. ❑ These include windows, doors and porches. ❑ Overall, details should be modest in character. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. ❑ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. ❑ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged on historic sites. 8 P34 r RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSIO TUAL ) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOC C LOT B OF THE BECK HISTORIC ITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 10,SERIES OF 2007 PARCEL ID: 2735-121-11-007. WHEREAS,the applicant, Randall and Alison Bone, represented by Karen Wood and Rich Carr of CCY Architects, request Major Development (Conceptual) and rSplit, Cfty and Towns e located at 507 Gillespie Street,Lot B of the Beck H istoric Landmark Lot of Aspen,Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code statocated or improved r structure a shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, historic property or district until plans or sufficient information o dane with the procedures submitt designated roved 1n to the Community Development Director and app established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the hearing moust review the applicatio ins a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a Section conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation 1Desie Code Section per The HPC 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other pP may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain y PP additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny;and staff roval of setback variances, the HPC must review the application, a WHEREAS, for app P er Section 26.415.110.0 of analysis report and the evidence resented at a hearing to determine, p the Municipal Code,that the setback variance: district; and/or a. is similar to the pattern, features and character of historic ficanceyorrarchitectural character b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the or historic district; and of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property for royal of a variance from the ADU Design Standards, per section 26. WHEREAS, PP resented 520.050, the HPC must review the application, a staff of the lMuno pal Code, that thepvariation at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.520.08Q.D meet the criteria: which the 1. The proposed ADU or Carriage House is designed in otes then pure se of the e zone purpose of the ADU and Carriage House program, p district in which it is proposed, and promotes the unit's general livability. 537081 04/27/2007 11:26 JRNICE K VOS CRVOILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 16.00 D 0.00 P35 2. The proposed ADU or Carriage House is designed to be compatible with, and subordinate in character to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site configuration, landscaping, privacy,and historical significance of the property. 3. The proposed ADU or Carriage House is designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of the neighborhood considering all dimensions, density, designated view planes, operating characteristics; traffic, availability of on-street parking, availability of transit services, and walking proximity to employment and recreational Opportunities; and WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated March 28th, 2007, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards for setback variances and the ADU design standard variances were not met, and recommended HPC not approve the requested variances; and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met for Conceptual Review, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on March 28, 2007, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was inconsistent with the review standards for the setback variances, and was consistent with the special review criteria for granting a variance from the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines"and approved the application by a vote of 3 to 0. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED; That HPC hereby recommends approval for Major Development (Conceptual), and denies the applicant's request for variances from setback requirements and ADU Design Standards, for the property located at 507 Gillespie Street, Lot B of the Beck Historic Landmark Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, as proposed with the following conditions; 1. A variance from the ADU design standards is granted for the subgrade detached affordable dwelling unit. 2. The development will conform to all sideyard setback requirements as stated in the Municipal Code. 3. The lightwells located off the two bedrooms will be reduced to the minimum 9 square feet required by IRC for egress. 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 28th day of March 2007. [signatures on following page] 537081 page: 2 of 3 04/27/2007 11:25 JRNICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 18.00 D 0.00 P36 Approved as to Form: True,City Attorney Approved as to content: HIS OR C PR ATION COMMISSION Michael Hoffman,Vice Chair ATTEST: Kathy Stric and, Chief Deputy Clerk 537 @81 Page: 3 of 3 4/27 JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 16.00 D2 71:26 0.00 P37 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT(FINAL)FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 507 GILLESPIE STREET,LOT B OF THE BECK HISTORIC LOT SPLIT,CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO.35,SERIES OF 2007 PARCEL ID: 2735-121-11-007. WHEREAS, the applicant, Randall and Alison Bone, represented by Karen Wood and Rich Carr of CCY Architects, request Major Development (Conceptual) and Variances for the property located at 507 Gillespie Street, Lot B of the Beck Historic Landmark Lot Split, City and To sit e of Aspen,Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;"and WHEREAS, for Final 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.4.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, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated August 22nd, 2007, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met for Final Review, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on August 22, 2007, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote of 3 to 0. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby recommends approval for Major Development (Final) for the property located at 507 Gillespie Street, Lot B of the Beck Historic Landmark Lot Split, City and Trty I e of Aspen, Colorado, as proposed with the following conditions; 1. The heights of the primary and accessory buildings approved at Conceptual Review remain in place. RECEPTION#: 542977, 10/11/2007 at 10:36:92 AM, 1 OF 3, R $16.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County CO P38 2. The window well on the east elevation will be located within the building envelope and shall not encroach into the setback. 3. The window wells on the east and west elevation are not permitted to have foundations or tie back into the primary building. 4. Stone samples and mockups will be required and reviewed by Staff and monitor. 5. The applicant will restudy the landscape plan further after a review and recommendation from the Streets and Engineering departments,to be approved by Staff and monitor. 6. The applicant will restudy the fence and make it more transparent for review by staff and monitor. 7. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor,or the full board. 8. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the information is available. 9. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 10. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance,the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such-notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes,pertaining to the following described property: 507 Gillespie Street. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required P39 under Section 26.304,070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 22th day of August 2007. Approved as to Form: im True, City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION J ffre Halferty,Chairman AT S kathy Strickland,Chief Deputy Clerk`"— P40 RECEIVED ATTACHMENT 2 -Historic Preservation Land Use Application APR 4 2013. CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT: Location: TJO (Indicate street address,lot&block number or metes and bounds description of property) Parcel ID (REQurRED) Z 3 S 12- 1 11 D D APPLICANT: Name: c.10(/1 K �l VR) Address: 7i� - !mil Vl S LA►�A(� v6k) Phone#: `G(� ( (� Fax#: f' -mail: J i.av k RFAddress:PRESENTATIVE: Fax#: E-mail: TYPE OF APPLICATION: lease check aal that apply): ❑ Historic Designation Relocation(tempora]on ❑ or off-site) ❑ Certificate of No Negative Effect ❑- Demolition(total. ❑ Certificate of Appropriateness demolition) ❑ -Minor Historic Development ❑ Historic Landmark i -Major Historic Development ❑ -Conceptual Historic Development ❑ -Final Historic Development Substantial Amendment , EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings,uses, revious a rovals,etc.) F I o fi. �c PG Nv� rte►- �U�if how� PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings,uses,modifications, etc.) Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements,Updated.May 29,2007 P4T W N rowland+broughton o �T ID architecture and urban design o CD -0 a�a MEMORANDUM s�; U 0 C j O CD D Project: 507 Gillespie � Q O O 00 Subject: Substantial Amendment Date: 2 April 2013 0 0 °co To: Amy Guthrie @ N r From: John Rowland I N y HT Q W J Cc- O OC C W A c p O A =90 . 6— W O n J O O W Project Description: 3 - T � 507 Gillespie is Lot B, a vacant lot created in 2001 as part of a two lot subdivision known as the Beck Historic w Landmark Lot Split. It is located at 507 West Gillespie Avenue in a R-6 residential zone district. The lot was first m created in 2001 with 4,572SF of land area but was adjusted to 5,086SF through a lot line adjustment recorded in .M of 2011. As part of both the Lot Split in 2001 and the Lot Line Adjustment in 2011, the lot has right by W zoning for a maximum allowable floor area of 2,840SF. In 2007, HPC granted approval for a single-family residence and detached garage with ADU below(HPC Resolution No. 35 of 2007). The vested rights for the 2007 approvals have been extended until 9 September 2013 (City Council Resolution No. 88 of 2010). Lot B is a typical flat narrow lot in the West End Neighborhood. The historic house for which this lot split occurred is to the west. The lot is across the street from the music tent parking lot. This application is asking for a Substantial Amendment to the Certificate of Appropriateness for a Major Development. This memo outlines the differences between the 2007 approval and the proposed modifications. The proposed single-family house is traditional with modern detailing. The house design is respectful and subservient to the historic house to the west and takes design cues from the historic minors cabins found in the neighborhood. The house is being planned to be 500SF less than the allowable floor area (2,340SF instead of 2,840SF). 26.412 Residential Design Standards All of the design standards outlined in this section of the Land Use Code have been met. 26.415.070.E.2 Amendment to Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development The proposed single-family house has been modified from the existing approval in the following manner. Chapter 11, New Buildings on Historic Landmark Lot Splits guidelines have been adhered to and the proposed house is compatible in scale, site relationship and style to the historic resource. 1. Site Plan—The proposed house has a smaller footprint and less floor area (500SF). 2. Front Elevation (North Elevation)—The front porch with front door is in the same location. There is a gable form facing the street also in the same location relative to the front door and the neighboring historic structure. The proposed gable volume (overall height) is V-5" less tall the approval. 3. Massing—The proposed house massing is less large than the approval. The proposed house has has one gable running north-south and a flat volume to the west that is significantly shorter. The approved Page 1 of 2 P42 rowland+broughton architecture and urban design house has two gables at the same ridge height, creating a much•larger mass to the street and in relationship to the historic structure. 4. Fenestration—The proposed house has punched openings facing the street, which is a historic vocabulary seen throughout the neighborhood. The approved house fenestration has banded windows and non-traditional reverse dormer on the front elevation. 5. Materials -The proposed house gable volume will be clad in painted horizontal clapboard siding in varying heights. The flat volume will be clad in vertical painted siding. The siding will have modern detailing conveying stylistic trends of today. The approved house had similar wood siding. Please see the attached drawing outlining the front elevation of the approved house next to the historic resource compared to the proposed house in this application next to the historic resource. Page 2of2 . t-rtKin Zf i Green edge L�. willo Y y �a L Aspen Institute l�'a 'U Flushooapv \ t Rd, oari� 3 Ac-ilien \/lush H�i(am I� w Festivail Tent �6ke � ? Giilesple Rio U.irancle [?earl Env(rohiT191tcal Trail ,, �. D N NO th fit. Ct. SLLIC:iIL'S{, \` Ur C \ a ` Sl17Uc ef S v � � � � PUPPY� S, s? c We t Ent! : Francis St. Bleeper St. H o Hallam St Jei Main S `St, mill ct. t0 kips 507 W. GILLESPIE STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 w , P44 ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: X101 4�1"W pl x Applicant: )OHN "Vb4V + ��1Lldf-� C �1HT6 Location: 50~1 C04 t Pl ld.. "**I Zone District: F- 10 Lot Size: 'Flo t1 Sr Lot Area: 1;'1 0110 S F (far the purposes of calculating Floor Area,Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark,easements,and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: Proposed: -fir Number of residential units: Existing.-_ / Proposed: Z Number of bedrooms: Existing: _ / Proposed: 5' Proposed%of demolition(Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: Allowable: 23 D Proposed: �3z3 Principal bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: fir' l°'X 13 Proposed: 23'~�" ''� Pei+rf Ir-reef Access. bldg. height: Existing: µ„ Allowable: Proposed: On-Site parking: Existing:_____ _Required:_ Proposed: � % Site coverage: Existing ....... ,Require& 40 k*1 ti Proposed.• %Open Space: Existing: Required: Proposed: Front Setback: Existing: Required: /0 t Proposed: gyp! Rear Setback: Existing: Required. pit Proposed: f I Combined F/R: Existing: Required: Proposed: 16 Side Setback: Existing: Required. Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: Required: t Proposed: �1 � t Combined Sides: Existing: Required: Proposed: f'0 r Distance Between Existing Required: Proposed: Buildings Existing non-conformities or encroachments: Variations requested: d'/Gkf tt%G((/t' alp- l ti Lil lj I IfI AL Li PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 507 W. GILLESPIE STREET- SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, June 12, 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. HPC will consider an application submitted by owners John Rowland and Sarah Broughton, 234 E. Hopkins Ave., Aspen, CO 81611. The applicant requests a Substantial Amendment to a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development granted in 2007 to develop the vacant lot with a new residence and Accessory Dwelling Unit. A west side yard setback of 18"is requested for a roof over a patio. The property is legally described as Lot B of the Beck Historic Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, PID # 2735-121-11-007. For further information, contact Sara Adams at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429-2778, sara.adams@cityofaspen.com. s/Jamie Brewster McLeod Vice-Chair,Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on May 20, 2013 ---------------------------------- City of Aspen Account SxHlarr AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE / REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE COD '/�.--J ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: f2 Q 5: n-) , 2013 STATE.OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I' � �G (name, lease print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of As p personally ) certify that 1 have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26 30 060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: 4�ublication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice e 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 matera.ls, 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 o-w,ners 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 i e survey map or ther regulation, or otherwise,the requirement 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 (1'5) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice" was a6 owledged before me this 2�day of ��-�� � 20 j�,,by � G RE 507 W.GILLESPtE STREET•SUBSTAN- Tt pR1ATENESS FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT WITNESS My IUD AND OFFICIAL SEAL ublic hearing NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a P 2013 at a m at 5:00 p.m.before the Aspen , q I will be held on Wednesday,June 1 'm Cospen ` meeting to bag My commission expires: Historic Preservatro 130 S.Galena St...ASPan. Chambers Hall, Iication sub mdted by HPC will consider an aPP gqwners John Rowlandsa�0Sarah 861rou9hhe appli- 1 E.Hopkins Ave.•Asp TT cant requests a Substantial Amendment to a Cer- 1 tificate of Appropnateness foi„avacani lot withna public granted m 2007 to develop Dwelling Unit. A Notary new residence and Accessory ded lot a west side yard..,he grope 8,js legallysted for a and roof over a patio as Lot B of the Beak PID p 2735/121��t-007.For To Its of Aspen Sara Adams aa,tment further mformabon, Development Dep _ . of Aspen Commundy 970 429-2778,sa- 130 S.Galena otaspenecomO�( ) ra.adams®city V a Chain,AsPan Historic Preservation COmmis- ,cn ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on May 23, OBLICATION 20131919*9PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENT AGENGIES NOTIED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTICICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED 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: 501 Gj I wyo1 Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 12 i.me , 201 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkiin ) ' 1, �44N T ,,,,,I"Vqmp 4 S ����'y (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= day of FEVA-An , 20 a, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A pho ograph 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, SPAs or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially Planned Areas, 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. A�eA 4qy4?��� Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowled g before me this U day of 20 11, by�,, , WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL ALYSON CECILIA DISH My Ac xpires: 4 -t NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID it 20134023851 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 17 2017 No ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPY OF THE PUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. X24-65.5-103.3 Y.a �J .� �' •�IIC'ItiiNl` �� f,(�Tp tc� y�•• ���4 'f}��,� � r "• Y�•' r''t' � �IS gyp! —•.�..__L_` `�� `�` . ,.� ,• .fir � � •s �-`� lip '417 WIN, 1 � mom �•• , •-• J I I -T► Easy Peel&Labels i A Bend al line to I i Use Averye Template 51600 j Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeT" AVERY® 51600. I J 1 515 GILLESPIE LLC 600 NORTH STREET LLC PO BOX 10129 1427 CLARKVIEW ROAD#500 603 NORTH LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 BALTIMORE, MD 21209 PO BOX 8769 ASPEN,CO 81612 AMERY SALADIN ASPEN FAMILY INVESTMENTS LLC ASPEN INSTITUTE INC 619 N FOURTH ST 8404 VISTA LN ASPEN,CO 81611 PRESCOTT,AZ 86305 1000 N THIRD ST ASPEN, CO 81611 CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH COLLINS CHARLES&JANICE S DURAND LOYAL III DR&BERNICE 536 W NORTH ST 531 W GILLESPIE ST BLACK ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 415 PEARL CT ASPEN,CO 816111256 EBRAHIMI FRANCESCA ELLIOTT ELYSE A TRUST 619 N FOURTH ST 610 NORTH ST FALENDER STEVEN& DEBRA ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 603 W GILLESPIE ST ASPEN, CO 81611 FELDER RICHARD& DEBORAH LIV TRUST FRAZER WILLIAM R&JANE Z TRST GOLDSMITH JOHN& BARBARA L 11498 E CAROL WAY 433 W GILLESPIE 733 25TH ST SCOTTSDALE,AZ 85259-2620 ASPEN, CO 81611 SANTA MONICA,CA 90402-3143 KOLBE EMILY E C/O HOOTENANNY LLC LEWIS ADAM J TRUST MONTENEGRO GRACE LLC 205 S MILL ST#226 500 S DIXIE HWY#201 444 MADISON AVE 4TH FL ASPEN, CO 81611 CORAL GABLES, FL 33146 NEW YORK, NY 10022 MUSIC ASSOCIATES OF ASPEN INC NITZE WILLIAM A 225 MUSIC SCHOOL RD 1537 28TH ST NW NORTH 4TH STREET ASSOC ASPEN,CO 81611 PO BOX 7943 WASHINGTON, DC 20007 ASPEN,CO 81612 ODOM JOHN A JR FAM TRUST 50% ODOM LORRIE FURMAN QPRT 50% PETERSON JAMES D&HENSLEY R RICHARDS ANN K 11490 W 38TH AVE PO BOX 1714 1537 28TH ST NW WHEATRIDGE,CO 80033 ASPEN, CO 81612 WASHINGTON, DC 20007 . SALTER JAMES SMALL ALBERT H JR 500 NORTH ST 7311 ARROWOOD RD STUNDA STEVEN R ASPEN, CO 81611 BETHESDA, MD 20817 602 N 4TH ST ASPEN,CO 81611-1212 UHLFELDER NAOMI VANDERAA GILBERT T III 111 EMERSON ST#1841 C/O HOOTENANNY LLC WEST NORTH ASPEN LLC DENVER, CO 802183792 205 S MILL ST#226 4049 PENNSYIVANIA AVE#400 ASPEN,CO 81611 KANSAS CITY, MO 64111 I€tlquettes fadles A)peter i ® i Sens de Repliez la hachure afln de www.avery.com Utilisez le gabarit AVERY®5160 i rhnre:omant r6v6ler le rebord Pop-up- 7.tn1_rn_eveDv I