Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20130828 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 28,2013 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ROOM 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO Please meet at 206 Lake Avenue for a site visit at noon 5:00 INTRODUCTION A. Roll call B. Approval of minutes C. Public Comments D. Commission member comments E. Disclosure of.conflict of interest(actual and apparent) F. Project Monitoring G. Staff comments H. Certificates of No Negative Effect issued I. Submit public notice for agenda items OLD BUSINESS 5:10 A. 233 W. Hallam- Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Partial Demolition, Floor Area Bonus, Residential Design Standards Variances and Setback Variances, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. NEW BUSINESS 5:40 A. 206 Lake Avenue-Minor Development and Hallam Lake Bluff Review 6:50 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. 217 E. Sleeker-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 205 S. Spring-Hills 1102 Waters 332 W.Main 28 Smuggler Grove 1006 E. Cooper Sallie Golden 400 E.Hyman (Tom-Thumb) 305 S.Mill (Above the Salt) 517 E. Hyman(Little Annie's) Jane Hills 114 Neale Aspen Core 605 W.Bleeker Willis Pember 204 S. Galena Aspen Core 514 E. Hyman Patrick Segal 204 S. Galena 623 E. Hopkins 612 W.Main Holden Marolt derrick 701 N. Third M:\city\planning\hpc project monitoring\PROJECT MONITORING.doe 8/23/2013 P1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 233 W. Hallam Street- Conceptual Major Development, On-site relocation, Demolition, FAR Bonus, Variances,public hearing continued from May 22, 2013, June 26, 2013, and July 24, 2013 DATE: August 28, 2013 SUMMARY: The subject property is a 9,700 square feet lot that contains a heavily altered 1886 historic landmark with a large non-historic addition. The property is located on the corner of Hallam and Second Streets. The applicant proposes to remove the non-historic addition, to restore the landmark including relocation to its original location, and to construct a new detached single family residence and garage. The applicant requests Conceptual Major Development review, Relocation, Demolition, a 500 square feet FAR Bonus, Residential Design Standard Variances and a Setback Variance. HPC continued the hearing on May 22°d and June 261h with direction to restudy the mass, scale, height and style of the proposed new building. The project was .continued on July 24th due to a lack of a quorum. Since June 26th the applicant has restudied the mass and incorporated many of HPC's suggestions into the design. Minutes from both meetings are attached as Exhibits. Staff is supportive of the proposed changes and recommends approval. Staff recommends that HPC grant conceptual Major Development approval, a setback variance toY restore the historic location of the landmark, and a 500 square feet FAR Bonus with conditions. APPLICANT: Solomon and Elizabeth Kumin, represented by DHR Architecture and Haas Land Planning. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-35-001 ADDRESS: 233 West Hallam Street, Lots A, B and C, and the West 6.64 feet of Lot d, Block 50, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6, Medium Density Residential, Historic Landmark MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) The Staff memo addresses the outstanding issues that HPC identified during the June 26th hearing. The previous Staff memo dated June 26, 2013 is attached as an exhibit. 1 P2 Muss/Scale: The applicant reduced the height of the connecting element along N. Second.Street to break up the mass of the new residence. A comparison of the two proposals is below. Staff finds that the lower height successfully reduces the perceived mass of the building and creates two building modules that are similar to historic development patterns with a larger mass toward the front of the property(Hallam) and a smaller mass at the rear. f , �. --- _., Figure 1: June 26`h(top)compared to the current Aug.28`h proposal(bottom)for N.Second Street elevation. The proposed height of the new residence is the same as previously proposed—about 21 feet to the 1/3 point of the roofline. The historic home has a height of about 25 feet to the apex as compared to the new residence which as a proposed height of 30 feet 7 inches to the apex (the land use code measures to the 1/3 point for this type of roof). The front gable module proposed for the new residence is similar in proportion to the historic home, which helps the two buildings relate to one another. Overall,the proposed architecture is simplified-and more supportive of the historic home as shown below. 2 P3 . .... �. r ........ ... i ��1 Y• 4\ ... ..... ( it L 1, ; ' _ `n KA . .,.,u. r. r1p 51 2i v r� Figure 2: June 26"'proposal(top)compared to current Aug.28"'proposal for the Hallam St.elevation. The applicant has detached the garage from the new residence and changed the roof form from a mansard roof to a gable. Detaching the garage lessens the perception that the historic home is being overwhelmed with new construction. The pergolas have been removed from the proposal. Staff finds that the proposed changes are consistent with the Design Guidelines on the next page and recommends approval as specified in the draft Resolution. 3 P4 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. 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. ON-SITE RELOCATION The intent of this Chapter is to preserve designated historic properties in their original locations as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical relationship to their surroundings as well as their association with events and people with ties to particular site. However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a property may be appropriate as it provides an alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that make it significant. The following standards apply for relocating a historic property as per Section 26.415.090.0 of the Municipal Code: C. Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 4 P5 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It,has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and. 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. E'x�:3 ..:fit-.4 tt'l.:Y ?-W ?l9sIT 1S>.. ?.�� ' x F n Staff Response: The applicant proposes to return they historic landmark to its original location according to L historic Sanborne Fire Insurance Maps. Staff is supportive 3 x,) ! E "" - p pp o��-�-- of the proposed relocation and the restoration of the relationship between the other landmarks in the block. Staff finds that criterion 4 of the first section and criteria 1 – ( 3 of the second section above are met. Staff requests more information about the type, profile and material of the foundation wall to meet Guideline 9.5. Staff __.._L — i—_-may W 3'e�-w-17?.'v✓`c9 me�:z7-?(i r:.�ri0•d ?F.3T-�' r Yv also recommends that the applicant provide proof from a `JA" contractor or engineer that the building is sound enough to Figure 3: 1904 Sanborne Fire Insurance Map be relocated to meet Guideline 9.1. 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. ❑ In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. ❑ It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. • Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. • A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. • Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. • The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. .❑ In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 5 P6 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. ❑ On modest structures;a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. a Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. DEMOLITION It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of properties designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures will be allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property owners,. parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, C. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and C. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Staff Response: The applicant proposes to remove a non-historic addition that was added in the 1950s. Staff is supportive of removing the non-historic additions to the landmark and finds that the review criteria are met. 6 P7 FAR BONUS In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; £ An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. Staff Response: According to a letter from the property owner in 1992, the historic home was completely remodeled in 1956/57 and the only historic material that remains is the framing. Staff applauds the proposed effort to restore the historic home. The applicant has amended their application to restore the historic dormers. Staff finds that criteria a, b, c, d, and e are met. SETBACK VARIANCES In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Staff Response: The applicant proposes a 7 feet side yard setback, where 10 feet is required. According to the Sanbome Map (provided on the previous page), the applicant proposes to restore the original location of the historic home. Staff is supportive of the setback variance and finds that criterion b is met in that the variance enhances the historic significance of the property and adjoining historic landmarks along Hallam Street. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 26.410.040.D.1.b. A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6') feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one (1) story in height. 7 P8 26.410.040.D.2.First story element. All residential buildings shall have a first story street-facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall width and the depth of which is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first story element is projecting from. Assuming that the first story element includes interior living space,the height of the first story element shall not exceed ten (10) feet, as measured to the plate height. A first story element may be a porch or living space. Accessible space (whether it is a deck, porch or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first story element; however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front facade shall not be precluded. All Residential Design Standard Variances,, Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410.020(D)(2)must: a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of. the proposed development with adjacent structures; the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or, b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Staff Response: The applicant proposes to restore the landmark to its original condition. Staff is supportive of the Residential Design Standard Variances for the historic home. 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 H eet FAR Bonus Conceptual vari ancesfor 2 Development 3 W aproal, Relocation, Demolition, a 500 square f Hallam Street with the following conditions: 1. The site plan, mass and scale is conceptually approved as shown in Exhibit A. 2. Conditions of approval for Final Review: a. Continue to refine the restoration plan for the Victorian, particularly window' proportions. b. Specify the foundation profile, material, and style for the historic home for review at Final Review. 8 P9 c. Restudy the lightwell on the west side of the Victorian to either recess it further from the street, break it up into smaller lightwells, or detail in a way that minimizes the visual impact of the feature. d. Provide floor plans to demonstrate that Hallam is the primary entrance point into both homes for review during Final Review. 3. Relocation of the historic home is approved with the following conditions.. a. Provide a letter from a structural engineer demonstrating that the building is able to moved. b. At building permit, provide a $30,000 letter of credit or cashier's check to insure the safe relocation of the house, as well as a plan for protection of the building from a housemover or structural engineer. 4. Demolition of the non-historic additions is approved. 5. A 500 square feet FAR Bonus is approved. 6. An east sideyard setback variance of 3 feet is approved, where 7 feet is provided and 10 feet is required. 7. Residential Design Standard variances for the historic home related to front porch and first story element, Land Use Code Sections 26.410.040.D.Lb and D.2, are approved. 8. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application, within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty(30) days prior to the expiration date. Exhibits: A. Relevant HPC Guidelines B. Application [provided May 22, 2013] C. May 22, 2013 HPC meeting minutes D. June 26, 2013 HPC meeting minutes E. Updated drawings dated August 28, 2013 9 P10 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, ON-SITE RELOCATION, DEMOLITION,FLOOR AREA BONUS AND VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 233 WEST HALLAM STREET,LOTS A,B AND C,AND THE WEST 6.64 FEET OF LOT D,BLOCK 50, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION #_, SERIES OF 2013 PARCEL ID: #2735-124-35-001 WHEREAS, Solomon and Elizabeth Kumin, represented by DHR Architecture and Haas Land Planning, have requested Conceptual Major Development, On-site Relocation, Demolition, Floor Area Bonus and Variances for their property at 233 West Hallam Street, Lots A, B and C, and the West 6.64 feet of Lot d,Block 50, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS,the property is a designated landmark; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for 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 Demolish structures, or portions of structures on a designated property, the application shall meet the requirements of Section 26.415.080.A.4, Demolition of Designated Historic Properties or Properties within a Historic District; and WHEREAS,the HPC may grant up to five hundred(500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects complying with Section 26.415.110.F,Floor Area Bonus; and, WHEREAS, in order to receive approval for setback variances, the application shall meet the eq irem-In. S of Section 26.415.1 10 C La Variances; and ll�li 1.111 V111V11 J V1 ---t.vil 233 W. Hallam HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2013 Page 1 of 3 P11 WHEREAS,the HPC may approve variances to the Residential Design Standard Variances according to Section 26.410.020.D.2; and WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report to HPC dated August 28, 2013, performed an analysis of the application, found that the review criteria are met and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting on August 28, 2013 continued from May 22, 2013 and June 26, 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: HPC hereby grants Conceptual Major Development, On-site Relocation, Demolition, Floor Area Bonus and Variances for the property located at 233 W. Hallam Street with the following conditions: 1. The site plan,mass and scale is conceptually approved as shown in Exhibit A. 2. Conditions of approval for Final Review: a. Continue to refine the restoration plan for the Victorian, particularly window proportions. b. Specify the foundation profile, material, and style for the historic home for review at Final Review. c. Restudy the lightwell on the west side of the Victorian to either recess it further from the street, break it up into smaller lightwells, or detail in a way that minimizes the visual impact of the feature. d. Provide floor plans to demonstrate that Hallam is the primary entrance point into both homes for review during Final Review. 3. Relocation of the historic home is approved with the following conditions. a. Provide a letter from a structural engineer demonstrating that the building is able to moved. b. At building permit, provide a $30,000 letter of credit or cashier's check to insure the safe relocation of the house, as well as a plan for protection of the building from a housemover or structural engineer. 4. Demolition of the non-historic additions is approved. 5. A 500 square feet FAR Bonus is approved. 6. An east sideyard setback variance of 3 feet is approved, where 7 feet is provided and 10 feet is required. 7. Residential Design Standard variances for the historic home related to front porch and first story element, Land Use Code Sections 26.410.040.D.1.b and D.2, are approved. 8. 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 233 W. Hallam HPC Resolution#—, Series of 2013 Page 2 of 3 P12 . 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 28th day of August, 2013. Jay Maytin, Chair Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Exhibit A: conceptual approval. 233 W. Hallam HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2013 Page 3 of 3 P13 Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines, Conceptual Review 8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure. ❑ Traditionally, a garage was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structure is reviewed on a case- by-case basis. 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. ❑ In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual"landmark structures than those in a historic district. ❑ It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. ❑ Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. ❑ A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. ❑ Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. ❑ The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. ❑ In general,moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel. ❑ If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties. 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. ❑ It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. ❑ It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. ❑ On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. ❑ Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. ❑ Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. ❑ Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. 10 P14 11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street. ❑ The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the site. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. ❑ The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry. ❑ A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. ❑ In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street; nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to the street. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. ❑ Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. ❑ The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure. ❑ The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch. 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. ❑ They should not overwhelm the original in scale. 11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. ❑ Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. ❑ Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. o On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context. ❑ Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames. 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. ❑ These include windows, doors and porches. ❑ Overall, details should be modest in character. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. ❑ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. ❑ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged on historic sites. 11 ® P15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2013 Commissioner, Jay Maytin called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Sallie Golden,Patrick Sagal and Jane Hills and Willis Pember. Jamie McLeod and Ann Mullins were absent. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Sara Adams, Senior Planner Justin Barker, planner MOTION: Nora moved to approve the minutes of 4/10/13 second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. Willis disclosed that he has worked with Allen Richman and Neil Karbank but is not involved with this agenda item 604 W. Main 233 W. Hallam — Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Partial Demolition, Floor Area Bonus, Residential Design Standards Variances and Setback_Variances, Public Hearing Affidavit of Posting—Exhibit I Sara said the project is located on the corner of Hallam and Second Streets. The applicant is requesting relocation of the historic resource. Staff is recommending continuance to restudy the size of the new residence. We are ok with the proposed relocation of the resource and the partial demolition of the non-historic resource. The relocation puts the house back in its original location. They need a side yard setback variance of 3 feet and staff supports that because they are doing a restoration of the historic house. Staff is concerned about the mass of the new residence and the fact that the entrance is off Second Street. Nothing is attached to the historic resource which is great. The new development is in an L shape and overshadows the preservation of the historic home. They are requesting the 500 square foot bonus. Staff is recommending two dormers be added to the side elevation and restudy the window proportion on the historic home. The proposed new home does not meet the design guidelines. Staff feels the FAR bonus is 1 P16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2013 not earned at this point but there is plenty they can do to get there. They need two residential design standards for the historic home basically because it doesn't have a front porch. We wouldn't want them to put a porch on just to meet the design standards. We are in favor of those variances. Mitch Hass, Haas Planning Don Ruggels, DHR Architecture Mitch said the house will move to the original site and be restored as a standalone structure. We appreciate how well focused staff's memo was as it helps with what we are addressing. The lot is over 9,000 square feet. Our attempt is to put all of the new development within a new structure rather than adding onto the historic resource. This property sits next to two other historic houses that are almost identical. We refer these houses to the three sisters. We will pick up the house and move it to its original location as a standalone building. The amount of work that will go into this restoration is extensive and we feel warrants the FAR bonus. We are fine with working with staff and making the recommended changes. Our goal is to provide an outstanding preservation effort for this house that the city can be proud of The bulk and mass on the new structure the house is in the R6 zone and it will be taller than the historic house. This house will also have more square footage. The separation between the buildings is 7 feet between the three of them. The new house is 21 feet away from the historic structure. What you would see is three historic structures next to each other and a 21 foot separation and then the addition. Don said this town has a tremendous maturity due to historic preservation and it is an honor to work here on a house in the West End. Mr. Kumin, the owner has a great sensitivity of historic preservation and the charge is to do whatever we can to honor the three sister buildings. We will work with this to create a proper sequence of the three buildings. They have a family of three children and an extended family that travels with them quite frequently. We have certain requirement that are needed. On the existing geometry of the three sisters have a basic roof form with a gable. We took that form and reversed it and used a hip dormer. The rhythm of the trees is really important in the design. There are two fir trees on the corner. The gable end is slightly wider and higher than the historic houses. Because the trees are very vertical we wanted the windows to also be vertical. The shape opens its arms and embraces the three sisters: We have met with the arborist and the existing trees will be protected. We will work with the 2 P17 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 22 2013 committee on all the details as we want the building to resonate as a building of its own time. We also looked at a porch but the trellis idea is like the trees with a filtering light. We can also look at a porch if the board feels that is important. This is on a corner site and we wanted to relieve parking on Hallam and have the entrance on Second Street. With the entrance on Second Street it creates less pressure with sidewalks and parking. Nora asked about the chimneys. Don said there is a mechanical room below the garage which reflects one chimney. Nora said her concern is that the size of the addition is about 28% bigger than the historic resource. Is there a way to quiet down the size. I feel the historic resource is getting lost and it is behind trees. Don said he is glad to take one chimney off if that would be preferable to the committee. We are always looking for balance and symmetry. One balances out the other. Patrick said because of the trellises the site would be opened up more if the garage was attached to the structure then the east side would have two non- covered areas. Opening it up more to the south would be preferable. Don said we originally had it attached but according to the residential design standards on secondary mass you would have to have some kind of connector Sara said there are different ways to design secondary mass to meet the residential design standards that does not require a linking element or a trellis like this. There are lots of ways to do it. Mitch said guideline 11.3 doesn't necessarily apply to all properties. Here we want the relationship with the other two sister houses that are not on the same site. The houses are 7 to 8 feet apart. We hear loud and clear that we have to address the overall mass and scale. There is 21 feet separation east to west and 20 plus feet separation north to south. 3 P18 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2013 Jane said it appears that the applicant is willing to accommodate and work with staff s wishes in order to be able to accomplish the goals. The historic resource is our most important part of the application. Commissioner, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. Jane Wells: I am the middle historic house of the three sisters. I am concerned about the relationship of the three sisters. The 7 feet separation stated by staff is based on the Sanborn information. We have come to the conclusion about what the historic distance was. The relationship of the three is based as being identical but actually I measured-the space between - - - - the first and seconds and it is 8.4 feet. I also have concern about the two heritage pine trees that have to be removed and the massiveness of the proposed structure. Peter Fornell: I commend the developer for restoring the historic asset. If you don't have ten feet between the buildings you will have to have a one hour fire wall along the east elevation of the building. Alex Hill, 214 W. Bleeker— I own one of the sisters. I like the design. My observation is that the scale diminishes the quality of the three historic buildings. Sara said she received a letter from Philip and Susan West— Exhibit II — They are pleased that the historic structure is being restored. The concern is the size of the new house and they are opposed to the 500 square foot bonus. A very large home in that location will detract from the character of our block and the neighborhood. Nora pointed out that our charge is to protect the size and scale of the neighborhood and we don't have a lot of opportunity to that anymore and here is a place we could. - - - - - - -- -- - Jane said she would like to see this continued and I'm excited to see the next phase. We have a great opportunity to restore the asset. Tree mitigation with the City of Aspen is a continued issue. Willis commented that the guidelines are derived from Victorian typology and 19t' century: T am a little concerned about the inconsistency in the presentation with regard of talking of its time. The west elevation has 4 P19 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 22 2013 brought a lot of commentary with the long bar and relentless ridgeline. Maybe look at a more fractured volume. I see Williamsburg here and 18" century architecture. It looks a little too neoclassical. We don't want to replicate architecture and we don't want Williamsburg. Sallie suggested studying the distances between the houses to whatever is correct. Also check on the firewall statement by Peter Fornell. You need to look at mass and scale. I appreciate the separation between the garage and the house. Commissioner, Jay Maytin closed the public comment section of the agenda item. Jay asked the applicant to provide the accurate measurement between all three sisters. The mass and scale of the garage and new house needs some work. Pulling the house back so that the site line is correct is important and also moving the second floor mass from the same corner, the northwest corner of the property. The representation of the light wells and dormers are appropriate. I am ok with the residential design standards for the porches. We also need to know if the large pine trees are going to be removed and we need something from the Parks department with regard to the trees. The main reason for continuation to me is the trellis. I also have an issue with the large skylight and light pollution. Don said he is open to addressing what each commissioner brought up. I will work on the mass and we will look at the skylight more closely. I am not sure what the board likes, the trellis or porch? Jay said we need a definitive statement whether you want the trellis or the porch. Patrick said in this case the trellis is considered-mass. - - - - Willis said he doesn't feel light pollution is in our purview and the skylight doesn't bother him. Jay said the skylight is fenestration for final review. MOTION: Jay moved to continue 233 W. Hallam until June 26th, second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. 5 P20 a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION M COMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 26.1-2013 Commissioner, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 P.M. al. Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Jane Hills and Pat Sag al. Maytin was seated at 5:10 and Sallie Golden was seated at 5:30 p.m. MOTION: Patrick moved to approve the minutes of May 22°d, second by Jane. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. Disclosure: Willis said he worked with Neil on other projects but is not involved with 430 W. Main and will remain seated.for the agenda item. 233 W. Hallam — Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Partial Demolition, Floor Area Bonus, Residential Design Standards Variances and Setback Variances, cont'd public hearing Mitch Haas, Haas Planning Melissa Mabe-Sabanosh, DHR architecture Amy said this is a 9,700 square foot lot in the west end that has a Victorian house on it that is heavily remodeled and moved from its original location. The proposal is to strip the building back to its core and move it to where it used to be and it will be restored back to its original state. There will be no additions made to the historic house. The remaining eq side strr and wraps for a detached second unit and that unit runs along t around the alley with a two car garage and covered spa es. direction revisions the tonight were sent to you yesterday. We are happy w amendments that were made in breaking up the building so that it relates more to the historic structure. There is a light well proposed on the Victorian that is large and it should be moved back or broken into smaller ones. One concern is the door that faces the side street that has a lot of prominence and a much wider sidewalk coming into an entry h the er and we want to make sure that we have floor required l abyhhe design guidelines. For and new house face Hallam which final we would also like to see the buildings be free standing.roof which proposed be g two car garage had a gabled roof and now has a mansard the used to hide mechanical equipment but it is not a typical roof f n the are West End and competes with the uniqueness of the Victorian h ouse suggesting H*pC award a Sicia and setback reduction so the house can go back where it used to be. We are also suggesting waiving some residential 1 P21 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 2013 design standards. A letter of credit for $30,000 is needed because the house is going to be picked up and moved. This is a suggested resolution for tonight and you also have the option to continue. They are also asking for a 500 square foot bonus. Mitch Haas, Haas planning Melissa Mabe-Sabanosh, DHR architects Mitch said from the beginning it was our intent to hear concerns and respond. We want everyone to be proud of the project at the end of the day. We are confident that we can address all the issues before final. We are fine restudying everything. We have worked to break down the mass and scale of the building and to break up the ridge heights. We removed skylights and taken out a lot of the pergola and made a traditional front porch. We don't feel the building competes with the historic building. There is also no covered roof over the entry walkway. New elevations Exhibit I Melissa said the entry moved to Hallam Street. What used to be the entry is a sunny corridor that feeds to a courtyard on Second Street. The height of the roof form was lowered 2.5 feet and the center form was lowered another 2 feet. Nora asked what the height is now. Melissa said the ridge height is 30 feet 7 %2 inches. Amy said the applicant received Sara's memo last week and then met with me Friday morning and then you received the revisions yesterday. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Commissioner Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment portion of the agenda item was closed. Jay said this commission has had issues with going to final without conceptual being completed. Restudying roof forms has created issues in the past. Patrick said page A3.1 shows the two options. The gabled roof is more historic and there is also a chimney. 2 P22 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 2013 Melissa said the chimney is there to hide venting etc. and it is not a fireplace. Willis said this is a big improvement over the last meeting. Willis said he is concerned about guideline 11.10. The entrance off Hallam is going in the right direction. The concern is granting an approval with conditions that we don't know what are going to look like at the end. Conceptual is mass and scale and we should not be surprised if things come back looking different as long as they are in the overall geometry that describes mass and scale. Jay asked if the chimney by code has to be that high over the ridge line. Willis said it depends what it is exhausting through it. Jay said he feels the chimney on the garage is too high. The front entrance now feels more like the front entrance. The west fagade is massive and the gable in the middle makes it huge and massive.Mst side of the garage and better. Another concern is the trellises around the ea the window over the front door seems quite large and mimicking in comparison to the Victorian. Because of guideline 11.10 possibly set the new building back on the front lot line to make it more submissive to the historic house. Patrick also agreed that setting it back would separate it and make it submissive. Nora said there is some movement toward a resolution. There is a wonderful opportunity with this corner lot. I am not comfortable passing something with 9 conditions. Mass and scale is still an issue. It is much larger than the historic resource. I do not see the addition being submissive to the historic resource. It overwhelms the property. A 30 foot high building next to a 19 foot high building is a concern. There is a lot of program in the new house. Jane said she spent an hour on that street this morning and there has been he well lot of changes on that street and the applicant has ande heard th Dare ready to make applicant also has to achieve their goals as Y the changes that we feel are appropriate. The design guidelines are confusing to an applicant. I feel it is of the appropriate scale on a 9,000 square foot lot and the chimney will not be obvious. The lot has a lot of trees and I support staff's recommendations. 3 P23 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 2013 Sallie said if we made everyone who had a one story house only be limited on their empty lot to have one story it would be impossible in certain situations. I do feel it needs some more work in keeping the proportions. The design is too busy and there is too much ornamentation with the windows and trellis. I don't understand the trellis and the gable roof. Those are simple Victorian houses next to it. The separation of the garage is good. Patrick said his concern is with the massing along Second Street. Willis pointed out that the building has to be similar in scale with the historic building no subservient. It is similar. The guidelines are weighted toward formal resemblance. It doesn't mean they can't be abstract. The three sisters all have a truncated central core. Everyone is on the same page with the trellis, it just needs to be minimized. Jay pointed out that the project has requested a 500 square foot bonus. I can't grant conceptual and a bonus when there are so many things to be answered to what the project is going to look like. Patrick said his concern is the massing along Second Street and possibly it could be pulled back and the roof line lowered on Hallam. Jane asked the board if they really think the new construction is trying to mimic the historic house with mass and scale (11.10 guideline). Jay said from the Hallam Street side it is mimicking the building next to it. When people drive by it will be difficult to distinguish the old from new. Willis said the design is not distracting enough. The guidelines are asking you to be abstract., Melissa commented that guideline 11.9 specifically says that I have to do a similar size and shape. The windows, material, roofing and stone are the things that will bring the house into our time. The materials are what help differentiate. The scale and mass is right for this neighborhood. I can get rid of the pergola between the garage and house. We have given you concessions on everything you have asked for. The light well can surely be separated and moved. The house is placed where it was historically. We also want the West End to be the best. Certainly we are on the same page and we can work together. I will work with Amy at length to make sure the 4 P24 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION = _ - - - - - - MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 2013 fenestration and details that you are taking about are exactly what you would like to see. We want the rhythm of the house to be in accidence with the rest of the neighborhood. Mitch pointed out that the historic house is 25 feet high and the addition is 30 feet. This is a 9,700 square foot lot. The point that nobody is remembering is that there is 7 or 9 feet from the first sister to the second sister and seven feet to the final sister and then over 20 feet until you see the new structure. The reason we didn't think we wanted to push the house off the front setback line is because of the 20 feet. We also took the height of the front portion and lowered it and eliminated the chimney. No one is going to confuse what is historic and what is not especially when we get to the fenestration etc. This corner is not going stance and we to get developed support Amy's square foot house. I feel we have come the recommendation. The historic house will be totally restored. MOTION: Patrick moved to approve resolution 422 with staff's recommendation and taking out the word gable on the ro f the garage #5. #10 approve the 500 square foot bonus. Change #4 to say remove the link. Motion second by Sallie. Willis made a friendly amendment to 95. Provide roof options..Willis retracted the amendment. Sallie said she thought one of the guidelines was to keep the houses in alignment to keep the vitality and historic pattern of the West End. Amy said if they pushed the house back they would need a residential design standard variance which creates another problem. VOTE: Patrick, yes; Jay, no; Nora, no; Jane,yes; Willis, no. Sallie, yes. Motion does not carry 3 —3. Sallie said Jay and Nora have mass and scale issues. Michelle said we can do a lot with materials t mimic the other historic houses. Michelle sa id the schedule of the board is completely full and we feel we can handle getting this project approved. Jay said he feels it will take at least two more meetings on this project. 5 P25 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 2013 MOTION: Jay moved to continue 233 W. Hallam to July 24" second by Nora. VOTE: Jane, no; Sallie, no; Nora, yes; Jay, yes; Willis, yes, Patrick, yes. Motion carried 4-2. Jane said there are many projects approved conceptually with several conditions. I feel the applicant can solve the problems. 430 W. Main—Historic landmark lot split and variances, public hearing Debbie said the affidavit of posting is in order and the applicant can proceed. Exhibit I Alan Richman Planning Services and Karbank 430 LLC Amy said this is a corner lot and the property contains a 1 1/2 Victorian house and a huge tree on the lot. There were also work sessions in the past on this house with additions and none ever came to be. Neil Karbank has purchased the property and would like to do a lot split and almost all the development rights sold away as TDR's. In this case there is a 4,000 square foot lot on. the corner that will have the heritage tree and all the development rights except for 177 square feet will be converted to TDR's to be sold to other historic homes. The interior lot is a 5,000 square foot lot with a Victorian house and all but 18 square feet will be sold as two TDR's. There is a request for a bonus on the interior lot. There is no project proposed. The bonus would be awarded to cover part of the existing building and 500 square feet would be converted to TDR's and sold. Staff is in supportive of this application especially on Main Street and preserving the openness. The new lot line would create for a need of a two foot setback reduction from the west side of the historic house to the lot line. On the Victorian house someone enclosed the front porch and then it was re-opened. There is a balustrade railing that was not there originally. If the Building Dept. would allow them to remove the railing and not have too much of a drop off we suggest as a restoration effort for the bonus that the railing go away. Alan said there was an approved lot split around 6 years ago. We basically kept the configuration of the two lots the same, a 5,000 square foot and a 4,000 square foot lot. The reason it is 4,000 square feet is because of the heritage tree. We are trying to create room on the lot to preserve the evergreen tree. This would preserve the white Victorian structure as you see 6 P27 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 206 Lake Ave. - Minor Development and Hallam Lake Bluff Review DATE: August 28, 2013 SUMMARY: 206 Lake Avenue, aka the Newberry House or the Shaw House, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is a locally designated landmark. It is located at the corner of Lake Avenue and Smuggler Street, across from Triangle Park and above Hallam Lake. The property was constructed circa 1886 in the Queen Anne Shingle Style. It is one of the more significant residential structures in Aspen not just for its architectural style, but also for its association with a number of important people including Judge Robert Shaw, and T.G. Lyster who helped organize the First National Bank of Aspen. The applicant requests Minor Development review for a small 230 square feet addition to the west elevation for a garage, a new deck on the east elevation, window and door changes to the east elevation, a metal roof with skylights, a rebuilt front porch, a new foundation. HPC is also asked to conduct Hallam Lake Bluff review for landscaping, hardscape and other site improvements within the Hallam Lake Bluff review area. Staff recommends approval of landscaping and denial of some of the site improvements within the Hallam Lake Bluff setback area that do not meet Code requirements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the foundation replacement to ensure the longevity of the historic home, and the window changes on the east elevation. Staff finds that the Design Guidelines are not met and recommends denial of the following: the new addition, the deck on the west elevation, roof replacement and skylights, front porch changes including the added gingerbread details, and some of the site improvements within the Hallam Lake Bluff area as specified herein. APPLICANT: Lake 206 LLC,represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-88-005. ADDRESS: 206 Lake Avenue, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. ZONE DISTRICT: R-6 Medium Density Residential Zone District. 1 206 Lake Ave. HPC Minor Development/Hallam Bluff Staff Memo 8/28/2013 P28 MINOR DEVELOPMENT The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300)feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26316 Staff Response: 206 Lake Avenue has been altered over time. It appears from historic photographs that the front porch was originally enclosed with screens. The historic inventory form indicates that the porch was opened around 1991 and new posts, frieze and balustrade were added. A two story addition was added to the east elevation. A 1919 photograph, included in the application, shows that the carriage house was incorporated into the main house, which is a unique feature to this property that was included in the National Register nomination as noteworthy. Addition: The applicant requests approval to bump out the east elevation, where the historic carriage house doors are located, to add a two car garage. The house is currently about 2,000 square feet over the allowable floor area. The 230 square feet proposed addition is permitted because it is a garage of which the first 250 square feet are exempt from floor area calculations. Regardless of the floor area calculations, the proposed garage alters a historic, unique and important architectural feature of this home. It is the only example of a carriage building being incorporated into the main home during the period of significance. As noted in the National Register application: "The built-in carriage house was perhaps an early forerunner of the attached automobile garages of the mid-20tH century. This house incorporated the carriage house as part of the overall house design. This most unusual feature is not seen in any other Aspen house." Staff understands the applicant's desire to have a two car garage; however, we cannot support altering a historically significant feature. Staff finds that Design Guideline 10.10 is not met. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. ❑ For example, loss or alteration of architectural'details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. 2 206 Lake Ave. HPC Minor Development/Hallam Bluff Staff Memo 8/28/2013 P29 Windows/doors/deck at East Elevation: The applicant proposes to change window configurations on the east elevation. Two doors are proposed on the first level to access a new deck that overlooks Hallam Lake. The windows and doors are in a non-historic addition and do not detract from the historic resource. Staff is supportive of the proposed changes, however portions of the new deck that is accessed from the proposed doors are subject to Hallam Lake Bluff review and are not consistent with the review criteria specified on the following pages. In order to meet the Hallam Lake Bluff review standards, the deck that the doors open on to needs to be reduced in size to not intrude into the 15 foot setback. Front Porch/ Front and Rear Door: �,, , ; -�..�+. ✓ , , ,.�� , The applicant proposes to reconstruct the front porch and to add gingerbread details. Staff recognizes that the front `- { porch was altered at some point, but '�'� the proposed changes are not based on historic photographs. All of the historic photographs that are available show the enclosed porch with screens IJR I I ,;., ' (which Staff believes is the original - �._ . ' condition). Furthermore, adding gingerbread details to a historic home that may not have had decorative '- details is in conflict with the Design Guidelines. Staff is not supportive of the front porch replacement and the proposed gingerbread details. 5.5 If porch replacement is necessary,may, tit to match the original detail. in form and ❑ Use materials that appear similar to the original. ❑ While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted appropriately, alternative materials may be considered. ❑ Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch maY be considered that is similar in character to those found on com arable buildings. Keep the style and form simple Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have been used on the house or others like it. o When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building. ❑ The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork. ❑ The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those used historically as well. The applicant proposes a new front door and a new rear door. According to historic photographs, the front door is not original. A photograph from 1980 shows a wood door with an oval window and the current door has a square window. The proposed door, with a square divided light border, is seen on other more decorative Victorians throughout town (214 E. Bleeker St., and 202 3 206 Lake Ave. HPC Minor Development/Hallam Bluff Staff Memo 8/28/2013 P30 N. Monarch are two examples). Staff is concerned that using a decorative door is inconsistent with the style of the historic home. The house is in the Queen Anne style, but it lacks the ornament and architectural details that would support the style of the proposed door. Staff finds that Guideline 4.5 is not met and is not supportive of the proposed door. Staff recommends that the applicant propose a more simple paneled door for review by Staff and Monitor. 4.5 When replacing a door,use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the house. ❑ A replica of the original,if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement. ❑ A historic door from a similar building also may be considered. • Simple paneled doors were typical. • Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. Foundation: The applicant proposes to pick up the historic home and to rebuild the foundation and dig a basement (no lightwells are o the structural assessment and structural o&he indicates that they have been retained to d home. The'application indicates that the foundation needs to be replaced. If the structural engineer determines that the foundation is unsound, then Staff is supportive of the in-kind replacement of the brick foundation. Bill Bailey indicates that the historic home can be picked up while the foundation is replaced. Staff included conditions of approval that are consistent with the Design Guidelines below. 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. than ❑ In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual la ndmark structures those in a historic district. ❑ It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. ❑ Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. • A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. • Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. • The design. of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. ❑ In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9.5 A new foundation-should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. ❑ On modest structures, a simple c cottage is discouraged ed because it would be out of foundation on a modest miner's. g g character. ❑ Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. 4 206 Lake Ave. HPC Minor Development/Hallam Bluff Staff Memo 8/28/2013 P31 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. • Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is. acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. • Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. Materials: The applicant proposes to replace the existing asphalt shingle roof with a metal shingle roof and a few skylights. Staff is not supportive of the metal shingles. Metal is not an appropriate material for this style of historic home. Appropriate materials for this style of architecture include wood or asphalt shingles. Staff finds that the proposed skylights are located on a primary roof plane and are not appropriate. Skylights are typically allowed on secondary roofs or additions, not the primary roof of a historic National Register property. Staff finds that the Guidelines below are not met. 7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to those used traditionally. ❑ Replacement materials should be similar to those used historically on comparably styled buildings. ❑ If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. ❑ Flashing should be in scale with the roof material. ❑ If copper flashing is to be used, it should be treated to establish a matte, non- reflective finish. 7.10 If it is to be used,a metal roof should be applied and detailed in a manner that is compatible and does not detract from the historic appearance of the building. • A metal roof material should have an earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. • A metal roof with a lead-like patina also is an acceptable alternative. • Seams should be of a low profile. • A roof assembly with a high profile seam or thick edge is inappropriate. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. ❑ Flat skylights that are flush with the roof plane may be considered only in an obscure location on a historic structure. Locating a skylight or a solar panel on a front roof plane is not allowed. ❑ A skylight or solar panel should not interrupt the plane of a historic roof. It should be positioned below the ridgeline. 5 206 Lake Ave. HPC Minor Development/Hallam Bluff Staff Memo 8/28/2013 P32 HALLAM LAKE BLUFF REVIEW AND SPECIAL REVIEW FOR TOP OF SLOPE DETERMINATION: 26.435.060.C. Hallam Lake Bluff review standards. No development shall be permitted within the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development meets all of the requirements listed in Exhibit B. Staff Response: Staff finds that review criterion 2.a, that a site specific constraint is present to allow development above grade within the 15 foot setback, is not met. Staff and the Engineering Department recommend that HPC grant Hallam Lake Bluff with the condition that all development within the 15 foot setback is at grade. Comments from the Parks Department and the Engineering Department are included as Exhibit C and D. 26.435.040.E Special Review. The applicant requests an alternate top of slope that better reflects the current condition of the property. The adopted top of slope is below in green. The applicant requests that the new top of slope be '' located at the top of the existing retaining wall a' along the rear property line. The Engineering Department has conducted a site visit and finds that proposed top of slope is appropriate. The review criteria to determine a new top of slope are addressed in Exhibit B. Staff recommends approval of the alternate top of slope. Suggested discussion points: • West Elevation: o 230 square feet garage addition. • East Elevation (existing two story addition to the historic home): o New windows. o New doors. • Site improvements: decks patios,fire pit,hot tub • New decks, steps,hot tub, ■ Some of the decks, steps and the hot tub intrude into the 15 foot setback from the top of slope and need a variance from the Hallam Lake review standards, which Staff does not support. • Front and Rear Elevations: o New front porch details and steps. o New front and rear doors. • Roof: o Metal shingles. o Skylights. • Pick up the home to replace foundation. 6 206 Lake Ave. HPC Minor Development/Hallam Bluff Staff Memo 8/28/2013 P33 • Hallam Lake Bluff Review Standards o Decks/steps/hot tub within the 15 foot setback from top of slope require a variance from standards. o Establish a new top of slope. The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Minor Development approval and Hallam Lake Bluff Review approval for the property located at 206 Lake Avenue, with the foliowing conditions: 1. The following items are not approved: a. Skylights in the roof. b. Garage addition. c. Front porch replacement including balusters, steps, stick and ball banding, etc. d. Metal shingle roof. 2. The following items require approval by Staff and Monitor: a. The proposed door style is not approved. A paneled door shall be submitted for Staff and Monitor review and approval. b. The color and style of the brick foundation shall be reviewed and approved by Staff and Monitor. 3. The following items are approved: a. The proposed windows and doors along the east elevation are approved as shown in Exhibit A. b. The proposed decks, fire pit and patios along the east elevation are approved with exceptions as specified in Section 6 below. 4. Relocation: Temporarily relocating the historic home to construct a new foundation is approved with the following conditions to be completed prior to building permit issuance: a. The applicant submits a letter from a structural engineer demonstrating that the foundation requires replacement. b. Provide a$30,000 letter of credit or cashier's check to insure the safe relocation of the house. c. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. d. The applicant shall include documentation of the existing elevation of the home and the relationship of the foundation to grade in the building permit application. 5. Hallam Lake Bluff Review and Alternate Top of Slope- a. The Applicant shall record a site improvement plat that meets the requirements of Land Use Code section 26.435.040 F., Building permit submittal requirements prior 7 206 Lake Ave. HPC Minor Development/Hallam Bluff Staff Memo 8/28/2013 P34 to submittal of a building permit. As approved by the Commission, the plat will delineate a 15 feet setback from the top of slope as other tbackenvelo are subect development in lieu of a minimum rear yard se h to the requirements of the underlying zone district. b. A lighting plan shall meet Hallam Lake Bluff review standards and Land Use Code requirements for review by Staff and Monitor. c. All improvements within the 15 foot setback from the newly established top of slope shall be at the existing grade.. d. The decks, steps, and hot tub that are not at grade and are within the 15 foot setback are not approved. 6. Parks: a. Tree Protection: i. A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site and their represented drip lines. A formal Dlan indicating,the location of the tree rotection will be re u. d for the bldg set. As referenced in Chapter 13.20 ii. No excavation, storage of material or vehicle traffic allowed within he-drip line of storage of equipment,foot any tree remaining on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee(920-5120)before any construction activities are to commence. As referenced in Chapter 13_ iii. Any access across or through the area of protection is prohibited at all times iv. The Parks Department recognizes that tsize and cha�act�to the West End within the City ROW are significant Neighborhood. It is important that these trees like any others are protected per City Code 13.20. b. Tree Permit applicant will be required to i. If a tree(s) is requested for removal,the app receive an approved tree removal permit ner City Code 13.20,this includes impacts under the drip line of the tree. Parks is requiring that the treemits. permit be approved prior to approval of the demo and/or building p If a permit is necessary, contact the City Forester at 920-5120. Mitigation for removals will be paid on site or cash in lieu, off site plating on Triangle Park is not an approved method of mitigation,per City Code 13.20. Parks will approve a final landscape plan during the to review e of the tree removal permit based on the landscape estimates an p constraints. This in no way guarantees approval for removal of the trees bei llgbe identified on the conceptual site.plan. Approval f rem accomplished through the tree removal permit process. ii. The permit should include the trees the which will f the trees.P The sit plan excavation and building under p line 206 Lake Ave. 8 HPC Minor Development/Hallam Bluff Staff P35 shows several trees proposed to remain with significant impacts adjacent to or around the trees. The permit shall include a detail of the impacts, which include but are not limited too; depth of excavation, distance from trunks, height of impacts, etc. Approval of the tree permit is contingent on review and approval of the drip line impacts. 1. Driveway installation; the plans shall include detailed information and measures for tree protection. Parks recommends consulting with the City Forester prior to submitting plans for permit. The on- site consultation will provide the detailed measures required for protection and development of the driveway. 2. Removal of the two entry walkways; both walkways are located under existing drip lines. The walkways will require demolition by hand and the use of large equipment is prohibited. Plans shall detail how this will be accomplished. 7. Engineering: a. The basement addition will likely require a form of temporary or permanent earth retention. The horizontal extent of the earth retention system cannot go beyond the existing foundation. The earth retention system and the new foundation shall be constrained to the existing foundation footprint. b. The applicant shall locate the driveway at least 50 ft. away from the intersection of Smuggler and Lake. c. The URMP and Engineering Design Standards must be met. 8. There shall be no deviations from the approved plan without first being reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. 9. The conditions of approval are 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 General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. 11. 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 9 206 Lake Ave. HPC Minor Development/Hallam Bluff Staff Memo 8/28/2013 P36 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 s 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: 206 Lake Avenue,Lot 20 of the Shaw and Wpw ventures Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. 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. judicial The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of of d shall not begin review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum all be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Exhibits: Resolution#____, Series of 2013 A. Relevant Design Guidelines B. Hallam Lake Bluff Review Standards C. Comments from the Parks Department D. Comments from the Engineering Department E. Application 10 206 Lake Ave. HPC Minor Development/Hallam Bluff Staff mo P37 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMENT, HALLAM LAKE BLUFF REVIEW AND SPECIAL REVIEW TO DETERMINE AN ALTERNATE TOP OF SLOPE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 206 LAKE AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 20 OF THE SHAW AND WPW VENTURES SUBDIVISION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION#_, SERIES OF 2013 PARCEL ID: 2735-124-88-005 WHEREAS, the applicant, Lake 206 LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, submitted an application requesting Minor Development review and Hallam Lake Bluff Review for the property located at 206 Lake Avenue,.legally described as Lot 20 of the Shaw and WPW Ventures Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, 260 Lake Avenue is included in AspenVictorian and listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended approval of Minor Development review with conditions, approval of Hallam Lake Bluff review with conditions, and approval of Special Review for an alternative top of slope; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on August 28, 2013;and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Commission finds that the development proposal meet either applicable review criteria and that the approval of the request is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission approves the requests with conditions; and NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC grant Minor Development approval, Special Review to establish an alternate top of slope, and Hallam Lake Bluff Review for the property located at 206 Lake Avenue, with the following conditions: 206 Lake Avenue—Minor Development and Hallam Lake Bluff HPC Resolution#,Series of 2013 P38 1. The following items are not approved: a. Skylights in the roof. b. Garage addition. C. Front porch replacement including balusters, steps, stick and ball banding, etc. d. Metal shingle roof. 2. The following items require approval by Staff and Monitor: roved. A paneled door shall be submitted for a. The proposed door style is not app Staff and Monitor review and approval. b. The color and style of the brick foundation shall be reviewed and approved by Staff and Monitor. 3. The following items are approved: long the east elevation are approved as shown a. The proposed windows and doors a in Exhibit A. ios along the east elevation are approved with b. The proposed decks, fire pit and pat exceptions as specified in Section 6 below. 4. Relocation: Temporarily relocating the historic home to construct a new foundation is approved with the following conditions to be completed prior to building permit issuance: a. The applicant submits a letter from a structural engineer demonstrating that the foundation requires replacement. b. Provide a $30,000 letter of credit or cashier's check to insure the safe relocation of the house. c. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. d. The applicant shall include documentation of the existing elevation of the home and the relationship of the foundation to grade in the building permit application. 5. Hallam Lake Bluff Review and Alternate Top of Sl_ope:. a. The Applicant shall record a site improvement plat that meets the requirements of Land Use Code section 26.435.040 F., Building permit submittal requirements prior to submittal of a building permit. As approved by the Commission, the plat will delineate a 15 feet setback from the top of slope as the building envelope for any development in lieu of a minimum rear yard setback. All other setbacks are subject to the requirements of the underlying zone district. b. A lighting plan shall meet Hallam Lake Bluff review standards and Land Use Code requirements for review by Staff and Monitor. c. All improvements within the 15 foot setback from the newly established top of slope shall be at the existing grade. d. The decks, steps, and hot tub that are not at grade and are within the 15 foot setback are not approved. 6. Parks: a. Tree Protection: i. A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site and their represented drip lines. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the bldg permit set. As referenced in Chapter 13.20 206 Lake Avenue—Minor Development and Hallam Lake Bluff HPC Resolution#,Series of 2013 P39 ii. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence.. As referenced in Chapter 13.20 iii. Any access across or through the area of protection is prohibited at all times iv. The Parks Department recognizes that the large cottonwood trees located within the City ROW are significant in size and character to the West End Neighborhood. It is important that these trees like any others are protected per City Cade 13.20. b. Tree Permit i. If a tree(s) is requested for removal, the applicant will be required to receive an approved tree removal permit per City Code 13 20, this includes impacts under the drip line of the tree. Parks is requiring that the tree permit be approved prior to approval of the demo and/or building permits. If a permit is necessary, contact the City Forester at 920-5120. Mitigation for removals will be paid on site or cash in lieu, off site planting on Triangle Park is not an approved method of mitigation,per City Code 13.20. Parks will approve a final landscape plan during the review of the tree removal permit based on the landscape estimates and site specific constraints. This in no way guarantees approval for removal of the trees being identified on the conceptual site plan. Approval for removal will be accomplished through the tree removal permit process. ii. The permit should include the trees which will have impacts from . excavation and building under the drip line of the trees. The site plan shows several trees proposed to remain with significant impacts adjacent to or around the trees. The permit shall include a detail of the impacts, which include but are not limited too; depth of excavation, distance from trunks, height of impacts, etc. Approval of the tree permit is contingent on review and approval of the drip line impacts. 1. Driveway installation; the plans shall include detailed information and measures for tree protection. Parks recommends consulting with the City Forester prior to submitting plans for permit. The on-site consultation will provide the detailed measures required for protection and development of the driveway. - - - - 2. Removal of the two entry walkways; both walkways are located under existing drip lines. The walkways will require demolition by hand and the use of large equipment is prohibited. Plans shall detail how this will be accomplished. 7. Engineering: a. The basement addition will likely require a form of temporary or permanent earth retention. The horizontal extent of the earth retention system cannot go beyond 206 Lake Avenue—Minor Development and Hallam Lake Bluff HPC Resolution#, Series of 2013 P40 the existing foundation. The earth retention system and the new foundation shall be constrained to the existing foundation footprint. b. The applicant shall locate the driveway at least 50 ft. away from the intersection of Smuggler and Lake. c. The URMP and Engineering Design Standards must be met. 8. There shall be no deviations from the approved plan without first being reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. 9. The conditions of approval are 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 General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. 11. 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: 206 Lake Avenue,Lot 20 of the Shaw and Wpw ventures Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin,State of Colorado. 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 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. 206 Lake Avenue—Minor Development and Hallam Lake Bluff HPC Resolution#,Series of 2013 P41 APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 28'h day of August, 2013. Jay Maytin, Chair Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn,Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Exhibit A: Site plan and elevations representing approval. 206 Lake Avenue—Minor Development and Hallam Lake Bluff HPC Resolution#, Series of 2013 P42 Exhibit A—Relevant Design Guidelines for 206 Lake Ave. 1.1 Preserve original fences. ❑ Replace only those portions that are deteriorated beyond repair. Replacement elements should match the existing fence. 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. ❑ This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding along a semi-public walkway, to a "semi-private porch or entry feature and ending in the "private" spaces beyond. • Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkways are discouraged,except where it is needed to avoid a tree. • Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style. Concrete,wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles. 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic structures. ained in a traditional manner, with planting material and ❑ The front yard should be maint sod.,and not covered with paving,for example. particularly landmark trees and 1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, p y shrubs. during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of ❑ Protect established vegetation damaged,aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. ❑ If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project. 1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs. ❑ Retaining historic planting beds,landscape features and walkways is encouraged. 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site. ❑ Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact of mature growth. ❑ Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent. ❑ Do not cover grassy areas with gravel,rock or paving materials. 1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are inappropriate. ❑ Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer than the mature canopy size. locati • Do not locate plants or trees in on that will obscure significant architectural features or block views to the building. • It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard. 1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting. Li Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on walks and entries,rather than up into trees and onto facade planes. 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. 2.1 Preserve original building materials. ❑ Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. P43 • Only remove siding which is deteriorated and must be replaced. • Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments,steps and foundations, should be preserved. ❑ Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. ❑ Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. 4.3 When a historic door is damaged,repair it and maintain its general historic appearance. ❑ For additional information see Chapter 14: General Guidelines "On-Going Maintenance of Historic Properties". 4.4 If a new screen door is used,it should be in character with the primary door. ❑ Match the frame design and color of the primary door. ❑ If the entrance door is constructed of wood, the frame of the screen door should also be wood. . 4.5 When replacing a door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the house. ❑ A replica of the original,if evidence exists,is the preferred replacement. ❑ A historic door from a similar building also may be considered. ❑ Simple paneled doors were typical. ❑ Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. .5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and detail. ❑ Use materials that appear similar to the original. ❑ While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted appropriately, alternative materials may be considered. ❑ Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have been used on the house or others like it. ❑ When constructing a new porch,its depth should be in scale with the building. ❑ The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork. ❑ The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those used historically as well. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. ❑ Flat skylights that are flush with the roof plane may be considered only in an obscure location on a historic structure. Locating a skylight or a solar panel on a front roof plane is not allowed. ❑ A skylight or solar panel should not interrupt the plane of a historic roof. It should be positioned below the ridgeline. 7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to those used traditionally. ❑ Replacement materials should be similar to those used historically on comparably styled buildings. ❑ If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a matte,non-reflective finish. ❑ Flashing should be in scale with the roof material. P44 ❑ If copper flashing is to be used, it should be treated to establish a matte, non-reflective finish. 7.10 If it is to be used, a metal roof should be applied and detailed in a manner that is compatible and does not detract from the historic appearance of the building. ❑ A metal roof material should have an earth tone and have a matte,non-reflective finish. ❑ A metal roof with a lead-like patina also is an acceptable alternative. ❑ Seams should be of a low profile. ❑ A roof assembly with a high profile seam or thick edge is inappropriate. 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. ❑ It should face the same direction and hthe rear of they parcel to accommodate a new building ❑ It may not,for example,be moved p in front of it. 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. ❑ On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. ❑ Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation,locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. • Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. • Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. ❑ A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. ❑ An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. ❑ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. Li An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. ❑ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. ❑ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.5 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street. ❑ Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at approximately the same height. An addition should not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured. P45 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. ❑ An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. • A 1-story connector is preferred. • The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. • The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. • Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. • Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. • Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 .feet on primary structures is recommended. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. ❑ Typically, gable,hip and shed roofs are appropriate. ❑ Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. ❑ For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. ❑ The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. P46 Exhibit B-HALLAM LAKE BLUFF REVIEW AND TOP OF SLOPE DETERMINATION: 26.435.060.C. Hallam Lake Bluff review standards. No development shall be permitted within the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development meets all of the following requirements: 1. No development, excavation or fill, other than native vegetation planting, shall take place below the top of slope. _Staff Response: The application does not represent any changes below the proposed top of slope. Staff finds that this criteria is met. 2. All development within the fifteen-foot setback from slope setbacks hall grade. Any proposed development not at grade within the fifteen-foot not be approved unless the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the following conditions can be met: e site where strict adherence to the top-of--slope a. A unique condition exists on th setback will create an unworkable design problem. b. Any intrusion into the top=of-slope setback or height limit is minimized to the greatest extent possible. c. Other parts of the structure or development on the site are located outside the top-of-slope setback line or height limit to the greatest extent possible. d. Landscape treatment is increased to screen the structure or development in the setback from all adjoining properties. Staff Response: The applicant proposes decks, steps and .a spa to be developed above grade within the 15 foot setback. The HPC 'is authorized to waive the requirement that all improvements are at grade by finding that the development meets criteria a—d above. Staff does not find that a unique condition or site ifiThe Parks Department does not small re recommend portion any existing house sits within the 15 foot setback. additional screening on the site, as the existing conditions are adequate. 3. All development outside the fifteen-foot setback from top of slope shall not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five-degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Community Development Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.104.100 and the method of calculating height set forth at Section 26.575.020. Staff Response: The proposed new improvements meet this requirement. 4. A landscape plan shall be submitted with all development applications. Such plan shall include native vegetative screening of no less than fifty percent (50%) of the development as viewed from the rear (slope) of the parcel. All vegetative screening shall be maintained in perpetuity and shall be replaced with the same or comparable material should it die. P47 Staff Response: The Parks Deparment does not recommend any additional screening for the property. The existing condition of the slope includes a manmade cut that was created when Elizabeth Paepcke owned the adjacent property to provide a trail to adjacent properties. This bench and large retaining wall screen the subject property without needing too much additional vegetation. 5. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the nature preserve or located down the slope and shall be in compliance with Section 26.575.150. Staff Response: The applicant represents that all lighting requirements will be met. Staff has added a condition of approval that Staff and monitor review and approve a lighting plan prior to building permit issuance. 6. No fill material or debris shall be placed on the face of the slope. Historic drainage patterns and rates must be maintained. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained down the slope. Staff Response: The applicant represents that the hot tub will not be drained down the slope. The project will be required to meet all applicable stormwater management requirements. 7. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect or engineer shall be submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope and pertinent elevations above sea level. Staff Response: The applicant shall submit sections of the proposed improvements within the 15 foot setback at least 24 hours prior to the HPC meeting on August 28, 2013. 26.435.040.E. Special review. An application requesting a variance from the stream margin review standards or an appeal of the Stream Margin Map's top of slope determination, shall be processed as a special review in accordance with common development review procedure set forth in Chapter 26.304. The special review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been published, posted and mailed, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. ** Staff note: The HPC is authorized to conduct Special Review to determine an alternate top of slope Futhermore the top of slope for 206 Lake is related to the Hallam Lake Bluff review not a Stream Margin review. A special review from the stream margin review determination may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following review criteria: 1. An authorized survey from a Colorado professionally licensed surveyor shows a different determination in regards to the top of slope and 100-year flood plain than the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed in the City Engineering Department; and P48 Staff Response: A surveyor has identified an alternative top of slope compared to the Stream Margin Map. The proposed alternative has been field verified by the Engineering department as an appropriate alternative. Staff finds this criterion met. 2. The proposed development meets the stream margin review standard(s) upon which the Community Development Director had based the finding of denial. Staff Response: The proposed development meets the Hallam Lake Bluff review standards with the conditions specified in the Staff memo. t 9 Memorandum Date: August 14,2013 To: Sara Adams, City of Aspen Planning From: Brian Flynn, Parks Department Re: 206 Lake Ave ------------------------------------------------------------- A) Tree Protection: 1) A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site and their represented drip lines.A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the bldg permit set As referenced in Chapter 13.20 2) No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920- 5120) before any construction activities are to commence. As referenced in Chapter 13.20 3) Any access across or through the area of protection is prohibited at all times 4) The Parks Department recognizes that the large cottonwood trees located within the City ROW are significant in size and character to the West End Neighborhood. It is important that these trees like any others are protected per City Code 13.20. B) Tree Permit: 1) If a tree(s) is requested for removal, the applicant will be required to receive an approved tree removal permit per City Code 13 20 this includes impacts under the drip line of the tree. Parks is requiring that the tree permit be approved prior to approval of the demo and/or building permits. If a permit is necessary, contact the City Forester at 920-5120. Mitigation for removals will be paid on site or cash in lieu, off site planting on Triangle Park is not an approved method of mitigation,per City Code 13.20. Parks will approve a final landscape plan during the review of the tree removal permit based on the landscape estimates and site specific constraints. P50 This in no way guarantees approval for removal of the trees being identified on the conceptual site plan. Approval for removal will be accomplished through the tree removal permit process. 2) The permit should include the trees which will have impacts from excavation and building under the drip line of the trees. The site plan shows several trees proposed to remain with significant impacts adjacent around not limited ted too• depth of shall include a detail of the impacts,which include but are m excavation, distance from trunks,height of impacts, etc. Approval of the tree permit is contingent on review and approval of the drip line impacts. 1. Driveway installation; the plans shall include detailed information and measures for tree protection. Parks recommends consulting with the City Forester prior to submitting plans for permit. The on-site consultation will provide the detailed measures required for protection and development of the driveway. 2. Removal of the two entry walkways;both walkways are located under existing drip lines. The walkways will require demolition by hand and the use of large equipment is prohibited. Plans shall detail how this will be accomplished. P51 Exhibit D: Engineering Department Comments 1. The basement addition will likely require a form of temporary or permanent earth retention. The horizontal extent of the earth retention system cannot go beyond the existing foundation. In other words, the earth retention system and the new foundation shall be constrained to the existing foundation footprint. 2. It is my understanding of the code that no structure is allowed within the 15' setback. The new above grade structures (patio/steps) should not be constructed. 3. The applicant shall locate the driveway at least 50 ft away from the intersection of Smuggler and Lake. 4. The URMP and Engineering Design,Standards must be met. EXISTING VEGETATION A o1�U FACADE OF HOUSE EXISTING FENCE , EXISTING BACK DECK LW }/} I HALLAM LAKE 7885 PROPOSED SPA BLUFF EXISTING VEGETATION ]884 Lr) I 7883 ]882 M ]881 .r O /i 7800 N I STONE PATIO 7879 /} EL.]8]9.4 787g VEGETATION BLUFF EXISTING 78]7 ® VEGETATION Q Q ® N } / 1 78)8 / }U7 7875 w Z 7874 xl � EXISTING PRIVATE WALKWAY 7873 Q ]872 h 7871 E'C0P f 0 78]0 7889 w } PROPOSED Q ]867 S D LIE ABLEPAVER GARAGE 1 I 1� 7 866 DRIVEWAY AND qy EXPANSION BA K DECK I 1 HALLAM LAKE BLUFF CROSS SECTION Q V) / SPA I L-1 SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" STONE PATIO EL.7880.9 N I FACADE OF HOUSE / O O �1\ \p0 1 FIRE PIT IT Q J fy 90F CANADA RED ]8e4 85 -- 2 CHOKECHERRY e q \ L-1 FORMAL DINING ]883 DECK AREA EL.7883.4 7881 HA LAM BLUFF EXISTING VEGETATION EL 78849 DECK HALLAM LAKE ]800 EXISTING FRONT PORCH . . BLUFF EXIST. \ VEGETATION 7879 @ �• f.' py 7 PROPOSED FIRE PIT �L �878 .. 4 2 b"1' 3 7977 Lu EXISTING PRIVATE WALKWAY '- 7876 \RO7y? L-1 7875 r qRO SETBgCK SPRING SNOW CRABAPPLE 7974 Y y } 7873 ¢I V a 7872 1 1 y ... 7871 LL) Q 7 m 78]0 1 X In��n1 Inunl 1 7069 If\ k )867 Lu v, )866 nl EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN IN CURRENT LOCATION AND k + 7865 CONFIGURATION FIZ 1� W + PTO BE REMOVED \ _\ Y3 Ip �y L-1 SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" Q Q / + EXISTING SIDEWALK O 1 P W TO BE R MOVED ENHANCED PERENNIAL EXISTING FENCE A GARDENSALONG PROPOSED DECK TO BE q� H FRONT FENCE SCREENED WITH LANDSCAPING 1 .. 7808 7887 7006 )085 I O ..._ TQ N 7884 q i GRAVEL DRIVEWAY 03 � 2 7891 .. 7880 7979 HALLAM BLUFF EXISTING I ® .... VEGETATION )e]7 PROPOSED DECK >30'HEIGHT t 9]fi W 2: PROPOSED DECK ]8]5 Y� 30"HEIGHT EXISTING PRIVATE WALKWAY 7874 m 79]3 ~ w W yw )071 h i 78]0 7869 c• 3 4! iE ]067 o s o z°' 3 HALLAM LAKE BLUFF CROSS SECTION NORTH SCALE:1'=10'-0" L-1 SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" © STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES,INC 2013 . r Lisa Markalunas 15 Williams Ranch Court,Aspen,CO Mailing: P.O.Box 8253 Aspen,CO 81612 970-925-8623 August 26,2013 Historic Preservation Commission City of Aspen 130 S.Galena Street Aspen,CO 81611 Ladies&Gentlemen: I am deeply concerned about the proposal before you on Wednesday,August 28�',to lift the nearly 6,000 square foot,Newberry/Shaw home and place a foundation and fmished basement under it. I have lived in Aspen my entire life and I cannot remember a residential property of this size and significance that has been lifted and moved for such a purpose. This is a tremendously significant historic property on the National Register and a cornerstone of the very historic neighborhood along Lake Avenue and Triangle Park in Aspen's West End. I am concerned that the potential risk to this structure is enormous and irretrievable if things don't go as planned. I would urge the Historic.Preservation Commission, should you see fit to approve this request, to get every possible assurance and financial guarantee that this work can be completed without any risk to this historically significant property. The significant alterations to the foundation and the excavation work itself cannot help but leave significant changes on the parcel and be to the detriment of its historic qualities. For those of us with a long history in Aspen, this destruction of historic setting can be witnessed at many locations in town including the property where Matsuhisa restaurant is located (the former Lena Van Loon home) at — Monarch and Main and the former Louise Berg home at the corner of Sprung and Hopkins,among others. I agree with staff's recommendation that many of the proposed alterations are highly inappropriate for a home of this significance or are not in conformance with the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. In particular, the garage addition, a metal roof, the addition of sky lights and elaborate porch detailing are not in keeping with the architectural style and historic nature of this property. I hope that the large cottonwoods, that perfectly frame the house, and streetscape that abut the North end of First Street, and that contribute to the significant view plane that this home has down First Street, will be retained in their current state and that these trees, in particular, will not be allowed to be removed, altered or damaged by movement of the historic home or the accessing of the site with the requisite heavy construction equipment. Sincerely, Lisa Markalunas EXHIBIT 3 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Aspen, CO SC DULED PUBLIC HEARINP DATE: 20 1 3 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) 1, Q K-ca S'4- 1n (name, please print) being or representing an Applicadto the City of Aspen, Coloradojh?�ereb per pally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of5 4-0(90- (.E)) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: V Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice.. By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials,which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the_day of , 20_,to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred(300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the ok,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 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. Si ature The for oin "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this# day 2013 by PUBUC NOTICE RE: 206 LAKE AVE.-MINOR HPC DEVELOPMENT AND HALLAM LAKE BLUFF REVIEW WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday,August 28,2013,at a regular meeting to begin at n p.m.before the �I I&/ Aspen Historic Preservation Commission,in My commission expires: \,j/ Council Chambers,City Hall,130 S.Galena St.. 7 Aspen. HPC will consider an application submit- ted Stan Clawson Associates on behalf n Lake 206,LLC,owner of the property located at La 206 Lake Ave,Lot 20 of the Shaw and the WPW 1� Joint Venture Subdivision,City and Townsite of Notary T7 Aspen,PID#2735-124-88-005. The applicant re- 1�otary Public quests Minor approval for a small garage addi- tion and other minor exterior changes to the historic landmark. Hallam Lake Bluff Review is also requested. For further information,con- tact Sara Adams at the City of Aspen Communi- ty Development Department,130 S.Galena St., Aspen,CO,(970)429.2778,sara.adams@cityo- faspen.com. 1Wj Martin Clw�r,Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 1 T�,�-� Published in the Aspen Times on August 8,2013. WfFVIENTS AS APPLICABLE: * [9434408] ,TION * PHOTOGRAPH 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�2 04.O ,d�SPEN LAND USE CODE � ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Pot, Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 28 August, 2013 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, Stan Clauson, 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 21st day of December, 2012, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. • Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. X 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. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 206 LAKE AVE. - MINOR HPC DEVELOPMENT AND HALLAM LAKE BLUFF REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, August 28, 2013, at a regular 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 Stan Clauson Associates on behalf of Lake 206, LLC, owner of the property located at 206 Lake Ave, Lot 20 of the Shaw and the WPW Joint Venture Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, PID #2735-124-88-005. The applicant requests Minor approval for a small garage addition and other minor exterior changes to the historic landmark. Hallam Lake Bluff Review is also requested. 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/Jay Mavtin Chair, Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on August 8,2013 City of Aspen Account The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas, and COWAPs are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signla'ITK The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this IV day of Q,ye s-t- 13,by Stan Clauson. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL PATRICK S. RAWLEY NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO My commission expires: NOTARY ID#19994012259 My Commission Expires July 26,2016 e Notary Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPYOF 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. §24-65.5-103.3 Easy Peel®Labels i ♦ Bend along line to p 1 Use Avery®Template 51600 j feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTM AVERY 5160�q 1 100 W FRANCIS LLC 210 WEST FRANCIS LLC 212 WEST FRANCIS LLC 3595 ANCHORAGE WY 25513TH AVE SOUTH#202 25513TH AVE SOUTH#202 COCONUT GROVE,FL 33133 NAPLES,FL 34102 NAPLES,FL 34102 229 WEST SMUGGLER LLC ASPEN CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASPEN VALENTINE LLC 3509 CRESCENT AVE STUDIES C/O GERSCHEL&CO DALLAS,TX 75205 100 PUPPY SMITH ST 600 MADISON AVE SUITE#1601 ASPEN,CO 81611 NEW YORK,NY 10022 BARNHART PAUL F JR BRUNDIGE CHELSEA C CITY OF ASPEN 2121 SAGE RD#333 1755 SNOWMASS CREEK RD ATTN FINANCE DEPT HOUSTON,TX 77056 SNOWMASS,CO 81654 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN,CO 81611 CONOVER CATHRINE M COTSEN 1985 TRUST FRANCIS AND SECOND ST LLC 1010 WISCONSIN AVE NW STE#550 12100 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 905 4545 POST OAK PLACE DR#144 WASHINGTON,DC 20007 LOS ANGELES,CA 90025 HOUSTON,TX 77026 GREENBERG ASPEN LP 50% GREENBERG RONALD K TRUSTEE 50% HANSON LUCY C #3 BRENTMOOR 3540 WASHINGTON 1775 FIR ST ST LOUIS,MO 63105 ST LOUIS,MO 63103 PORT TOWNSEND,WA 98368 JAMMB LLC LEWIS JONATHAN D REV TRUST LEWIS PETER B 500 S DIXIE HWY STE 201 414 N FIRST ST 32854 SORRENTO LANE CORAL GABLES,FL 33146 ASPEN,CO 81611 AVON LAKE,OH 44012-2386 LEWIS TOBY D TRUST NESSEN HERMINE F NESSEN WILLIAM A C/O KRABACHER&SANDERS 3 WELLINGTON TER 27 W 86TH ST 18930 S WOODLAND RD BROOKLINE,MA 024456739 NEW YORK,NY 10024 CLEVELAND,OH 44122 PHILLIPPE THOMAS E JR.&SUSAN RECKLING 2012 CHILDRENS TRUST SCHERMER LLOYD G&BETTY A 1/2 INT MARIE 426 N SECOND ST 210 LAKE AVE 225 W SMUGGLER ST ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611-1347 ASPEN,CO 81611-1356 SCHIFF DAVID T SHAPIRO ROBERT WINTON CHARLES&BARBARA REV 1177 AVE OF THE AMERICAS 42ND FL 3 WELLINGTON TERRACE TRUST 09/27/2011 NEW YORK,NY 10036 BROOKLINE,MA 02445 2949 AVALON AVE BERKELEY,CA 94705 ftlquettes faclles A peter A Replier a la hachure efin de C �a3!l www.averycom Utllisez le abarit AVERY®5160 Sens de riv6ler le rebord Po -u TM ! ! 1-800-GO-AVERY 9 char ement p p i 1 STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES INC landscape architecture. planning. resort design 412 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 t.970/925-2323 f.970/920-1628 info @scaplanning.com www.scaptanning.com 12 August 2013 Ms. Sara Adams City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 206 Lake Avenue / Research of Mineral Estate Owners Dear Sara: On behalf of our clients Lake 206, LLC, and in connection with the application for Hallam Lake Bluff Review and HPC Minor Development Review for the property located at 206 Lake Avenue, we have performed the public notice requirements as required by Sec. 26.304.060(E) of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. Among the requirements contained in Sec. 26.304.060(E) is the requirement to notify affected mineral estate owners by certified mailing at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the public hearing. Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. has researched the existence of mining claims or possession deeds dating to the late 19th century with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's records (the "Public Records") and using the Title Policy issued by Land Title Guarantee Company, order number Q62004493-7, issued to Lake 206, LLC. A review of the Public Records generates a patent document to Charles A. Hallam. No information has been found on any successor to this individual that can be notified. This letter is submitted to you to confirm our good-faith attempts to locate a list of mineral estate owners. Please call me with any questions. I rul ours, Signed before me this 12th day of August, 2013 by Stan Clauson. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL St n, AICP, ASLA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:—14A(. STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC. PATRICK S. RAWLEY NOTARY PUBLIC Notary Public STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID#19994012259 My Commission Expires July 26,2016 Notary Public's Signature I it I 0 62.5 125 ---! I 4 W+E Feet This map/drawingfimage is a graphical representation of the features depicted and is not a legal representation. The accuracy may change depending on the enlargement or reduction. W NCRry S % 7 Copyright 2013 Aspen/Pitkin GIS r O 232013 9:26:47 AM C IGISUampUuN131206W k.AveVidnlry.—d GREENBERG Subject Prope RONALD K TRUSTEE 50% 24 r`- :,11 ^ \ OOTSEN `. 1985 TRUST SCHIFF DAVID T LEWS - .4 PETER B LENS/ 332 326' r322—~ ' n ASPEN _ CONOVER PETE FOR ENVIRONMEN TAL TAL CAT STUDIES WC CONDOASSOC LLOYD G& -- `` BETTY A 121NT R WS _ oarrn9 Fork.,River R Sr CITY OF ASPEN �\ 420 3'15 42;. C), 1Ce SECONDAND •,�' - SMUGGLER CONDO ASSOC 229 WEST �(n� Co ! / SMUGGLER 225 2 RECKUNG,2012 31 G 2 1`CHILDRENS NESSEN CV TRUST PHILLIPPE HERMINE F 2�" Z `THOMAS E JR d N LEWIS SUSAN MARiE P (.,F R JONATHAN D 3L16 REV TRUST FRANCIS AND SECOND 212 WEST 2 ST LLC FRANCIS U'C 210 WEST - �'•2 FRANCIS .,LLC BRUNDIGE ASPENr CHELSEA C VALENTINE j 2 0 2 LLC f/ .WINTON CHARLES &BARBARA REV w F TRUST 092712011 101 LEWIS�NClS sr 2c ^ TOBYD 100 W FRANCIS JAMMS LLC LLC 98 04 0IP� Ate I �"NN C!5 Sr I PUBLIC NOTICE DATE: August 28, 2013 , TIME: 5 pm PLACE: 130 S. Galena St. Council Chambers PURPOSE: The HPC is asked to review Minor' Development anu Hallam Lake Bluff Review for a small addition and minor exterior improvements. The owner is Lake 206 LLC represented by Stan Clauson Associates. FOR FURTHER INF RM I ,CONTACT ASPEN PLANNING DEPARTME AT(970)920-5090 f, IAX CLAOSOX ASSOLiPtk3•+t l