HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20130911 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 11,2013
CITY COUNCIL MEETING ROOM
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
Site Visits: Please visit 624 W. Francis and 223 E. Hallam on your own
5:00 INTRODUCTION
A. Roll call
B. Approval of minutes—5--)
C. Public Comments
D. Commission member comments
E. Disclosure of conflict of interest(actual and apparent)
F. Project Monitoring
G. Staff comments
H. Certificates of No Negative Effect issued
I. Submit public notice for agenda items
OLD BUSINESS
A. None
NEW BUSINESS
5.10 A. 602 E: Hyman Avenue- Amendment to Conceptual Major Development
and Conceptual Commercial Design Review, PUBLIC HEARING
5:50 B. 624 W. Francis Street, UNIT B - AspenModern negotiation for
Voluntary Landmark Designation and Minor Development Review
WORKESSION
6:30 A.
7:00 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.Bleeker-Kribs
Jay Maytin 518 W. Main-Fornell
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 Aspen Core
605 W.Bleeker
114 Neale
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.doc
9/3/2013
A
Pi
A .
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner
RE: 602 E. Hyman Avenue — Substantial Amendment to Conceptual
Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design Review
(HPC Resolution#5, Series of 2013)
DATE: Sept. 11,2013
SUMMARY: 602 E. Hyman Avenue, at the corner of Hyman and Hunter Streets, was
constructed in at least four phases, starting in 1960. The initial use was a one story,
concrete block commercial/retail space. Additions/alterations occurred in 1964, 1966 and
1968. The property was designated a historic landmark through the AspenModern
program in May via City Council Ordinance# 10, Series of 2013.
HPC granted Conceptual Commercial Design. and Conceptual Major Development
approvals for a small addition along the alley and minor exterior changes on February 27,
2013 through - the adoption of
Resolution #5, Series of 2013.1 In }
addition to addressing some of the . .
conceptual conditions of approval, the
applicant requests an amendment to
the Conceptual design approvals priorSo„
to submitting a Final design review `1
application. The request includes the
following: a larger garage, a second
story atop the approved addition on r
the alley, removal of an approved
deck and stairs, changes to the
rooftop. Window and door changes
associated with the deck and site plan
amendments, and new landscaping at the corner are also proposed; however Staff
recommends addressing these issues during Final Review when fenestration, materials,
etc. are typically discussed.
BACKGROUND:
A substantial portion of the existing structure was designed and/or remodeled by Ellie
Brickham during the 1966 modifications. Ellie Brickham is Aspen's first known female
1 HPC Resolution#5,Series of 2013 also granted approval of a parking waiver and a variance for the
Trash/Utility/Recycle area in addition to recommending landmark designation of the property to Council.
602 E.Hyman
Amendment to HPC Reso#5,Series of 2013
Sept. 11,2013
Page 1 of 9
P2
architect, arriving in town in 1951. Ms. Brickham was a close family friend to the
owners of 602 E. Hyman in the 1960s, and designed their family home on McSkimming
Road. She also designed the recently landmarked building immediately to the east, the
offices of Charles Cunniffe Architects.
Staff recommends that HPC approve the amendment with conditions.
APPLICANT: EB Building Aspen, LLC, represented by Vann Associates and Zone 4
Architects.
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-12-003.
ADDRESS: 602 E Hyman Avenue, Lot K&L, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen,
CO.
ZONING: C-1, Commercial.
ANIENDINIENT TO CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEN7ELOPNIENT
A list of the relevant HPC design guidelines is attached as"Exhibit A."
The City has an adopted set of guidelines, "Commercial, Lodging and Historic District
Design Objectives"which are in addition to the HPC design guidelines. Development on
this site is affected by the chapter that addresses what is known as the "Commercial
Character Area." All of the Conceptual level guidelines address setback and height
issues that are not generally applicable to a remodel, as opposed to a completely new
building. Staff finds that no additional review for Commercial Design is needed at this
time. The following discussion addresses the Conceptual Major Development review
criteria for changes to a landmark.
The application clearly outlines differences between the approved changes (in yellow)
and the proposed changes (in green). Proposed changes are discussed below starting with
the conceptual conditions of approval that the applicant has included in this amendment.
CONCEPTUAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
5. For Final HPC review, restudy the new deck and stairs on the south fagade of the
building.
Staff Response: The deck and stairs referenced above (and the associated exterior door
on the second level) have been removed. The exterior stair that accesses the lower level
has been relocated to the interior of the building. (Refer to sheets A300, 301 and 304).
Staff finds that this condition is met.
602'E.Hyman
Amendment to HPC Reso#5,Series of 2013
Sept. 11,2013
Page 2 of 9
P3
6. For Final HPC review, restudy the proposed rogftop monitors.
Staff Response: The rooftop monitors refer to the pop-ups on the roof that increased the
interior floor to ceiling heights. The conceptual Staff memo explained that "Because of
low ceiling heights on the upper floor (7'8"), roof pop ups with clerestory windows on
the sides are proposed. These "monitors" are over 4' tall. Although the proposal is
below the height limit, the height gf these.features may be excessive and will be visible
from many locations. The applicant should restudy the monitors. " The applicant has
been able to reduce the height of these features by about 1 foot by reducing window sizes
and roof structure heights. (Refer to sheet A304). Guideline 7.3 addresses rooftop pop-
ups. Staff finds that, considering the short floor to ceiling heights, the reduced height of
the pop-ups meets Guideline 7.3 by minimizing the height was much as possible. Staff
finds that this condition is met.
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, For Final HPC review, lower the proposed hot tub to the main roof deck.
Staff Response: "The hot tub was originally proposed atop one of the rooftop monitors
pop-ups. The applicant proposes to relocate the hot tub to a new enlarged roof deck
behind one of the roof pop-ups. The roof deck is about 1 foot above the roof membrane
to provide space for sound deadening materials, and the hot tub is on top of the roof. A
glass railing is proposed around the roof deck. (Refer to sheet A302) All of the rooftop
features are shown to be below the 28 ft. height limit. Staff finds that this condition is
met.
RECONFIGURED SECOND FLOOR.ADDITION: The most significant change from the
conceptual approval is the proposal for an expanded second floor atop the conceptually
approved rear addition. A rendering of the approved rear addition, which included a one
car garage on the first floor and circulation on the second floor, is found on sheet A306 of
the application. 'The new amendment includes a one car garage, small maintenance room,
circulation and commercial space on the second floor. Also, a new mechanical area is
proposed on the roof of the amended two story addition.
The revised plans add mass to the rear of the building, but on the other hand create a
more organized design for the addition. The new mass clearly reads as a product of its
own time. This property is challenging in that there are very minor changes since it was
designed and there is limited space for an addition. The applicant originally considered a
602 E. Hyman
Amendment to HPC Reso 45, Series of 2013
Sept. 11,2013
Page 3 of 9
P4
third floor, but decided to pursue AspenModem and to focus on a rear addition instead.
During conceptual review Staff raised concerns about the connection between the new
and old architecture that were not echoed by HPC. The discussion from the February
Staff memo is below and minutes from the February HPC meeting are attached.
Finally, staff is concerned with the fact that the proposed rear addition entirely
destroys a fagade of the Brickham designed addition. This is a difficult issue
because the proposed addition is placed in the appropriate location, at the back
of the structure, and the rear fagade is typically consider secondary, or less
"sacred" than the street facing facades. That said, the landmark designation is
tied to Ellie Brickham's work, and the addition removes a facade that represents
her work. At the 610 E. Hyman project, which had some similar issues, a
courtyard between the back of the original building and the start of the new
construction preserves some of the original facade. Staff recommends restudy
that in some manner moves the addition more entirely towards the northwest or
north east corner, creates a more minimal attachment between the new and old
construction, or otherwise protects or exposes views to more of the Brickham
alley fagade. The guideline in question is:
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.
HPC approved the rear addition during Conceptual Review in February and the proposed
amendment does not change the amount of the original building that is destroyed.
Considering these facts and that there is a valid Conceptual approval for a rear addition,
Staff is supportive of the new massing and design of the proposed addition. The
proposed mass and form responds to Ellie's design and distinguishes itself as a new
addition. Typically a connecting element is strongly recommended for a two story
addition, but the jogs in the historic building and the addition as viewed from Hunter
Street create the perception of a linking element. Staff is supportive of the proposed
addition and finds that the guidelines below are met. Staff recommends that screening of
the mechanical equipment be reviewed during Final Review.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character
of the primary building is maintained.
• A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of
the primary building is inappropriate.
• An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also
is inappropriate.
• An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's
historic style should be avoided.
• An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
Amendment to HPC Reso#5,Series of 2013 '
Sept. 11,2013
Page 4 of 9
P5
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
❑ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
❑ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in
material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all
techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new
construction.
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
❑ An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is
preferred.
10.8 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.
DECK CHANGES: The applicant proposes to remove the approved second story deck on
the southeastern portion of the building and to retain and to enlarge the deck on the
southwest portion of the building. Staff is supportive of removing the southeastern deck.
A new stair is proposed to access the southwestern deck. Staff is uncertain as to the date
of the existing deck, The staircase to the ground was added recently. Staff
is supportive of the stair replacement and recommends that HPC not approve an increase
to the southwestern deck size. Increasing the deck will obscure more of the historic
building on a primary street facing facade which is in conflict with Guideline 10.10
above.
LANDING/STAIR: The applicant proposes a small landing, handrail and steps from an
existing door on the west elevation to meet Building Code requirements. Staff is
supportive of the request.
COURTYARD/SITE DESIGN CHANGES: The applicant proposes built-in planters with
benches in the southwest courtyard (the courtyard at the corner of Hunter and Hyman
Streets). The planters are represented on the site plan, but little detail about the height,
etc is provided. The applicant represents that detailed landscape plans for both
courtyards will be provided for discussion at Final Review. Staff is not opposed to
602 E.Hyman
Amendment to HPC Reso#5,Series of 2013
Sept. 11,2013
Page 5 of 9
P6
creating a useable space in the corner courtyard, but recommends that more information
be presented for review and discussion during Final Review when, landscaping is
typically addressed.
WINDOW/DOOR CHANGES: The applicant proposes door and window changes that are
associated with reworking the second floor decks, first level patio, and addition.
Windows and door changes are addressed at Final Review; however the applicant has
included these changes in the application for clarity. Staff recommends that HPC address
these issues during Final Review.
IJA
it F
X +
. rF
Photograph dated 1975 at left.Photograph taken prior to 1967
- at right
� aZ
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that HPC grant an amendment to HPC
Resolution#5, Series of 2013 with the following conditions:
1. The elevations attached as Exhibit A to the Resolution are hereby conceptually
approved. The window and door changes and the landscape changes are subject
to review and approval during Major Development and Commercial Design Final
Reviews.
2. The increased size of the southwestern deck is not approved.
3. The following conditions of approval that are part of HPC Resolution 95, Series
of 2013 are satisfied:
a. Condition#5: "For Final HPC review, restudy the new deck and stairs on
the south fagade of the building."
b. Condition #6: "For Final HPC review, restudy the proposed rooftop
monitors."
c. Condition #7: "For Final HPC review, lower the proposed hot tub to the
main roof deck."
4. The applicant shall submit a design for screening the mechanical equipment for
review and approval during Final Major Development review.
602 E.Hyman
Amendment to HPC Reso#5, Series of 2013
Sept. 11,2013
Page 6 of 9
P7
5. The applicant shall submit more detailed information regarding the proposed
planter boxes and landscaping for review and approval during Major
Development and Commerical Design Final Reviews
6. Conditions#1 to 4 and 48 of HPC Resolution#5, Series of 2013 remain valid.
7. The Commercial Space represented on the second floor and illustrated in Exhibit
A to the Resolution is not permitted to be used as residential space without a Land .
Use approval to convert the use.
EXMsiTS
Exhibit A: Design Guidelines
Exhibit B: HPC meeting minutes, February 27, 2013
Exhibit C: HPC Resolution#5, Series of 2013
Exhibit D: Application
602 E.Hyman
Amendment to HPC Reso#5,Series of 2013
Sept. 11,2013
Page 7 of 9
P8
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AMENDING HPC RESOLUTION 45, SERIES OF 2013 FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 602 E. HYMAN AVENUE,LOTS K AND L,BLOCK 99, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION # , SERIES OF 2013
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-12-003
WHEREAS, the applicant, EB Building Aspen, LLC, represented by Vann Associates and Zone
4 Architects has requested an amendment to the Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual
Commercial Design Review approval granted by the adoption of HPC Resolution 45, Series of .
2013 for the property located at 602 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot K&L, Block 99, City and Townsite
of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, the property is a designated landmark pursuant to City Council Ordinance #10,
Series of 2013 adopted on May 13, 2013; 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, for Conceptual Commercial Design 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 Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Objectives and Guidelines per
Section 26.412.040 of the Municipal Code. 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, at their regular meeting on February 27, 2013, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, including the staff
recommendation, and public comments, and found the project to be consistent with the review
criteria, with conditions, and approved HPC Resolution #5, Series of 2013 by a vote of 4 to 1;
and
602 E. Hyman Avenue - amendment to HPC Reso 45, Series of 2013
HPC Resolution# Series of 2013
P9
WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report to HPC dated September 11, 2013, perfonned an
analysis of the application based on the standards and recommended that HPC approve the
amendment with conditions; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on September 11, 2013, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, including the staff
recommendation, and public comments, and found the project to be consistent with the review
criteria, with conditions, by a vote of
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby grants an amendment to HPC Resolution #4, Series of 2013 for the property
located at 602 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot K&L, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado
with the following conditions: - - - - - - - - -
1. The elevations attached as Exhibit A to the Resolution are hereby conceptually approved.
The window and door changes and the landscape changes are subject to review and
approval during Major Development and Commercial Design Final Reviews.
2. The increased size of the southwestern deck is not approved.
3. The following conditions of approval that are part of HPC Resolution 45, Series of 2013
are satisfied:
a. Condition #5: "For Final HPC review, restudy the new deck and stairs on the
south facade of the building."
b. Condition #6: "For Final HPC review, restudy the proposed rooftop monitors."
c. Condition #7: "For Final HPC review, lower the proposed hot tub to the main roof
deck."
4. The applicant shall submit a design for screening the mechanical equipment for review
and approval during Final Major Development review.
5. The applicant shall submit more detailed information regarding the proposed planter
boxes and landscaping for review and approval during Major Development and
Commerical Design Final Reviews
6. Conditions #1 to 4 and#8 of HPC Resolution #5, Series of 2013 remain valid.
7. The Commercial Space represented on the second floor and illustrated in Exhibit A to the
Resolution is not permitted to be used as residential space without a Land Use approval
to convert the use.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 11th day of September,
2013.
Jay Maytin, Chair
Approved as to Form:
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
602 E. Hyman Avenue—amendment to HPC Reso #5, Series of 2013
HPC Resolution# , Series of 2013
P10
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
Exhibit A: Approved amended elevations and plans.
602 L. Hyman.Avenue- amendment to HPC Reso 95, Series of 2013
HPC Resolution# Series of 2013
P11
"Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines for 602 E. Hyman , Conceptual
Review"
7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof.
• Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and
orientation of the roof as seen from the street.
• Retain and repair roof detailing.
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.
7.6 When planning a rooftop addition, preserve the overall appearance of the
original roof.
❑ An addition should not interrupt the original ridgeline.
See also: Chapter 10, Guidelines for Building Additions
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character
of the primary building is maintained.
• A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of
the primary building is inappropriate.
• An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also
is inappropriate.
❑ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's
historic style should be avoided.
❑ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
❑ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
❑ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in
material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all
techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new
construction.
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
❑ An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is
preferred.
602 E.Hyman
Amendment to HPC Reso#5,Series of 2013
Sept. 11,2013
Page 8 of 9
P12
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.
602 E.Hyman
Amendment to HPC Reso#5,Series of 2013
Sept. 11,2013
Page 9 of 9
P13
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ,
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27, 2013
Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Willis Pember, Jamie McLeod, Patrick Sagal
and Sallie Golden. Absent were Nora Berko, Jane Hills and Jay Maytin.
Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney y
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Justin Barker, Planner
Debbie commented that the affidavit of posting is in order and the applicant
can proceed- Exhibit L
514 E. Hyman — Final Major Development— Commerci.,esign
Standards ''
de
Sallie cused herself, :>''
Justin B er said this property was recently designate`c a landmark Aspen
Modern pro rty. Conceptual approval was grant, to restore, renovate and
add a third florP`Tesidential addition. After final' ubmission the property
was sold and the!� w owner wishes to change he program. They would like
to replace the reside&& l with all commercigl7' There are very few
architectural changes proposed. There was a residential door on the front
and that would change to be,more cons dent with the original design. With
the changes in the program new variances are needed for on-site parking and
HPC needs to review the utility'Ir'asK/recycling plan. The front plaza is a
raised area and that is proposed the removed. Staff feels that should be re-
created to be consistent with th_ original design. Staff feels this is a good
preservation effort. A few c ' nges ha,>e.�been made on the roof with the
elevator overrun being sli ly moved weft on the building. Solar panels are
proposed for the top. Th mechanicals as drawn will not be visible from the
street. Staff would li o see a detailed restoration plan as to how the
sandstone will be c ed and repaired. Staff has`no issues with the
proposed lightin n. All trash services will be onsite and the landuse
code requires t area to be 15 x 10 and the applicant is,proposing
something sli ly larger but the width is under the requirement.
Environmen. Health is fine with the changes and suggests a��wildlife proof
door/fence More on-site parking requirements have been creatThere is
no area o site for the parking. The applicant has chosen to go with,their
cash out' ption for the parking but they are also asking for a waiver for their
preservation incentive. Staff is recommending the waiver due to the lack of
1
P14
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27, 2013
should be no wal on the east. Possibly have some more benches facing
south. The form o e third floor windows following the original is a,
design.
Willis said he also agrees wi staffs recommendation..- Th6 handrail is not
appropriate anymore. Molny di o extensions for lgifdscape. The original
plaza did come out to the property e and "claim-e'd" the space. This can be
handled by two monitors and staff. A/F
MOTION: Patrick moved to approv®,-�esolut1 - 44 with the seven
conditions and that the lineal lightt�iti�g strip of the it be reviewed by staff
and monitor. 42 should say p r to the building perm There should be
two.monitors and staff. ,ton second by Jamie. Motion-- rried 4-0.
Patrick, Jamie, Anna "0 illis.
Willis and Ann e the monitors.
602 E. Hyman — AspenModern Negotiation for Voluntary Landmark
Designation, Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual
Commercial Design Review, Parking Waiver, Special Review for
Utility/Trash/Recycling Area
Debbie commented that the affidavit of posting is in order and the applicant
can proceed- Exhibit I.
Amy said the project is an Aspen Modern discussion. The same family
owned the property from the mid 1960's until very recently. They have
offered to voluntarily designate the building. It was a one story block
building built in 1960 and in 1964 a large display window was added. In
1966 there was an addition added running from east to west which has Ellie
Brickham name on it. In 1968 the second story was added. Staff feels three
of the criteria are met. Ellie Brickam was the first woman architect in Aspen
and regarding the criteria it scored 17 out of 20. It doesn't have many
alterations. Staff supports designation. The applicant is only asking for a
parking waiver and are not asking for anything beyond the normal. The
addition on the alley displaces three of the four parking spaces on the alley
that they need to have. They are asking that HPC waive the parking fee
which is $30,000 per space. Regarding the conceptual design right now it
has commercial space in the basement and on the main floor. The upper
floor has two residential units. The entire upper floor will become
4
P15
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27, 2013
residential and leave the commercial space in place. There will be an
addition in the back which is mainly circulation and elevator stairs and one
enclosed parking space for the residential unit. There isn't quite enough
public amenity space on the site now but they are improving the situation
and a variance is needed. There is a roof overhang on the west side upper
floor and staff would like to see that removed. It doesn't appear to be
original. HPC does not typically review color but the black and white color
is important to that period. There is currently a second floor deck on the
corner of Hyman and Hunter and it has a stair case built to the ground. They
propose to remove the stair and bring the deck a little more to its original
configuration. This creates the need on the other side of the building for a
new deck and a new access to the second floor and staff doesn't'support that
because it never existed before and it diminished the vertical nature of that
facade. There are some roof monitors proposed on top of the building and
they would like to bring in some more light and the monitors are over 4 feet
tall and we would like to see that brought down in height. We also do not
support the hot tub. The addition covers a large portion of the alley fagade
and we would like to see a restudy as to how the old and new attach to each
other. Maybe a lighter connection or a hallway rather than have the two
collide with each other. Regarding the trash area they have proposed a
design that the Environmental Health seems adequate with. Staff
recommends continuation because of the design and roof monitors and how
.the addition connects to the historic building.
Sunny Vann— Vann and Associates represented the applicant
Dillon Johns, architect
Sunny said the history of the project is interesting. The applicant had
admired the building and had been a guest in the residential unit. He
offered the owner to buy it and they accepted. At the same time the city was
in the process of reducing the height in the CC zone district. We put an
application together and submitted it the day before the regulations went into
effect. The project got approval from P&Z for the commercial design. After
closing of the property the owner decided he could fulfill his needs by just
remodeling the second floor. This would be less time consuming and less
expensive and less impact on a building he liked. The third floor application
was withdrawn. He couldn't do what he wanted without designation and the
owner has no problem with the preservation of the building. The project is
under the FAR and under the maximum height. The public amenity space
will increase and as a result we will have a project that is far more
5
P16
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27, 2013
ambitious. The applicant is requesting a modest addition to the rear of the
building and modifications that would enhance the livability of the units.
The parking reduction results because of an ADA accessible space in the
back. The owner is requesting a parking waiver. This will be a desired
example of the AspenModern movement. The unit is 1600 square feet and
net livable will be 2300 square feet. We have obtained a TDR to
accommodate the expanded unit upstairs. The floor area is a little larger due
to the circulation elements but is less than the 3,000 square feet that the zone
area allows.
Dillon Johns said currently there is an interior court yard between the walls
of this building and Charles Cunniff's building next door. This part of town
has a significant grade change and we need to address the ADA access. We
also do not want to impact the three trees along Hunter St. It is the owner's
intention to preserve those trees. The trash area might have a few changes to
the width. We have lost some parking by the nature of the ADA ramp.
There are no changes to the lower level except an egress that is required.
The elevator and stair join the existing north wall of the building. On the
ground floor we are adding the elevator, stair and garage. There is some
modification to the existing wall to accommodate the elevator and stair. The
existing unit runs along half of the building and there is some commercial
storage there. The existing deck has been pulled back. There will be a stair
on the interior of the east elevation. On the west side not a lot of change.
The desire is to keep the white and black color scheme.
Dillon did a power point on the proposed changes.
Jamie said the south stair will be moved from the west side to the east side.
Sunny said there is a wrought iron fence around the courtyard and that area
will be cleaned up. We could leave the stair where it is and meet our egress
requirements but we have to include the stair in the courtyard below it
because we need to get to the basement. The stairs do not stack. The
current floor area is 5351 sq.ft. of the overall building and the proposed is
6184 square feet including the addition. The allowable floor area is $15,000
square feet. We are adding 883 square feet mostly for the stair tower and
elevator.
6
P17
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27, 2013
Amy said with moving the stair from one side to the other the wrought iron
fence might be a Francis Whitaker fence. If it is his the fence should
probably stay there.
Patrick asked about what is proposed on the roof.
Sunny said the roof contains a hot tub and mechanical equipment.
Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. There were no public
comments. The public comment section of the agenda item was closed.
Issues:
Designation
Restoration issues
Design issues
Ann commented that the board members agreed that the building should be
restored and designated.
Patrick said he likes the stairs on the new design on the east. The hot tub
should be lowered.
Sunny said they can lower the hot tub and we can come up with a better
arrangement for the transformer. We can evaluate the fence for final.
Jamie said she is fine with the addition in the back as it is minimal. At final
we need to look at what the pop ups look like and the fenestration of them.
For final you need to look at the public space vs. the private space. This is a
great project and we appreciate saving the building. I am OK with cash and
lieu but I don't know how much should be waived.
Willis said he is fine with the waiver and cash-in-lieu. This is one of the
finest buildings in downtown. The huge trees destroy the architecture and it
would free up space. It would be great if you could preserve as much as
possible that is there.
Ann said the building is terrific and I am glad that it is not going to three
stories. I support waiving the parking and the cash-in-lieu. You are
underutilizing the square footage and you are under the height requirement.
I feel we should move forward.
,
7
PI8
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 272 2013
Sallie said this is a great project and she supports not having to pay the cash-
in-lieu. They should get some benefit for saving the building. The addition
is in the best place. I would suggest studying the pop ups for final and
define what is original and what is new.
MOTION: Patrick moved to approve resolution 46 with conditions:
Restudy the stairs on the south and restudy the roof monitors. Approve the
waiver of cash-in-lieu and we recommend to council designation of the
property. The hot tub to be lowered. Motion second by Jamie.
Friendly amendment
Willis made the amendment to maximumize restoration and minimize the
connection to the north elevation, second by Ann. Amendment died.
Vote on Motion: Ann, yes; Sallie, yes; Patrick, yes; Willis, no. Motion
carried 4-1.
MOTION: Jamie moved to adjourn, second by Sallie. All in favor, motion
carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
G�
Kathlee rickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
8
P19
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ASPENMODERN
HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 602 E.
HYMAN AVENUE,LOTS K AND L, BLOCK 99, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, AND APPROVING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT,
CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW, PARKING WAIVER
AND SPECIAL REVIEW FOR UTILITY/TRASH/RECYCLING AREA
RESOLUTION 115, SERIES OF 2013
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-12-003
WHEREAS, the applicant, EB Building Aspen, LLC, represented by Vann Associates and Zone
4 Architects. has requested that the property located at 602 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot K&L, Block
99, City and Townsite of' Aspen, Colorado be considered for voluntary historic designation
through the AspenModern negotiation as described at Section 26.415.025 and Section
26.415.030 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the applicant also requested approval for Conceptual Major Development,
Conceptual Commercial Design Review, a Parking waiver, and a reduction in the required
utility/trash/reeycling area; 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, for Conceptual Commercial Design 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 Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Objectives and Guidelines per
Section 26.412.040 of the Municipal Code. 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, HPC may grant reductions to the Utility/Trash/Recycling area based on the review
standards of Section 26.575.060; and
RECEPTION#: 597708, 03/14/2013 at
10:36:37 AM,
1 OF 3, R $21.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION 602 E. I fyman Avenue—AspenModern
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO HPC Resolution#5,Series of 2013
P20
WHEREAS, HPC may grant parking variances based on the review standards of Section
26.415.110.0 and Section 26.515.040; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report to HPC dated-February 27, 2013, performed an
analysis of the application based on the standards. The staff recommendation was that the
property should be designated a landmark as it meets the criteria for designation and the integrity
score qualifies as the "best" category of historic resources. Staff recommended that the design
review be continued for restudy of some aspects of the proposal; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on February 27, 2013, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, including the staff
recommendation, and public comments, and found the project to be consistent with the review
criteria, with conditions, by a vote of 4 to 1.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby,finds that the property located at 602 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot K&L, Block 99,
City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado meets the designation criteria of Land Use Code Section
26.415.025 and 030. HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual
Commercial Design Review, Parking Waiver and Special Review for Utility/Trash/Recycling
Area with the following conditions:
1. HPC finds that 602 East Hyman Avenue meets designation criteria a, c, and e, listed in
§26.415.030.0.1
2. HPC finds that 602 East Hyman Avenue is a"best" example of Modern architecture.
3. HPC hereby accepts the proposed utility/trash/recycling area, with the condition that it be
designed to allow the dumpster to be turned parallel to the alley for emptying. The
applicant must identify options that would also allow the dumpster and recycle bins to be
attached to the fence to prevent wildlife from knocking them over
4. HPC hereby waives the on-site parking requirement and cash-in-lieu fee for three parking
spaces required by the redevelopment application.
5. For Final HPC review, restudy the new deck and stairs on the south fagade of the
building.
6. For Final HPC review, restudy the proposed rooftop monitors.
7. For Final HPC review, lower the proposed hot tub to the main roof deck.
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.
602 E. Hyman Avenue—AspenModern
HPC Resolution 45,Series of 2013
P21
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 27th day of February,
2013.
A
Ann Mullins,Chair
Approved as to Form:
Deb ie Quinn,Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
Kathy Str ckland,Chief Deputy Clerk
602 E. Hyman Avenue—AspenModern
HPC Resolution#5,Series of 2013
Z 0
i
I
ARCHITECTS
LLc
EB BUILDING ASPEN REMODEL
° Existing Deck Area 09-06-2013 Deck Memo
Deck:
Deck Stair: 173.1
sq.ft.
Total: 43.6
° New Deck Area: sq.ft.
216.7 sq ft
Deck:
Deck Stair: 165.5 s q ft.
Total: 60.4
• Net Deck&Stair Area sq ft.
• The stair h gain from existin 225.8 sq.ft.
as been relocated g design to the
Public amen' rated to the west Proposed
° The°nl r Y aspect of this outdoor Street 9.2 sq ft
Y reason the de utdoor corner s )side of the
was sacrificed f expands to pace. deck in order to 0
° red for the additional the south is to ca pen up the
By completely re Public amenity space capture some of the
aesthetic of the Hunter g the deck we p below Previous deck
stair and Street/H are customizin when the stair moved. area that
° guardrail that currentl Yman Avenue g the design h e
There is no Y exists. corner, rather than the more appealin
° Currentl monumental architectural existin 9 to overall
y that area of the element(including g "store-bought"deck
small tree that w Proposed new deck t(inc g windows
°
small
The new deck would be removed. increase to )that the new deck from would screen.
to the nort h side m the existing Y the existing
(Hyman Ave)+�4'-g deck on the west side
6 (Hunter Street +
X'S'n Deck Pers ) /3' It
ective from H
man Ave /Hunter Street Corner
Z:0a"LZ4 ProjecW606 East ny'lan�AgencY�HPC_Amended concept¢a'Q013_09-
09 Deck Memo.docx
112
Pro osed New Deck, Pers ective from H man Ave. /Hunter Street Corner
;r
r
Pro Posed New Deck Perspective from Hunter Street
\ r
I
Z.\Data\_Z4 Projects\606 East Hyman\Agency\HPG Amended conceptuaR2013-09-09 Deck Memo.docx
2/2
EXHIB
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE COD
ADD SS OF PROPERTY•
Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
STATE OF COLORADO )
County of Pitkin ) ss.
12
CA, CA
being or representing (name, please print)
b 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 co
g py 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 letiers not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15) days prior hearing
to the public hearin
and was continuously visible from the—day of
and including the date and time of the public hearing. , 20—> to
notice ("sign) is attached hereto. a Photograph of the posted
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 heating. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(Continued on next page)
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26304.060(E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
a Aspen,CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
k.
5c�rcwt� t t ,20 13
STATE OF COLORADO )
County of Pitkin )
QS being or re resen (tee,please print)
S p twig 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 Y&W posted at least fifteen(15)days prior to the public hearing
on the ,day of AAMOT , 2013, 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 Piticin 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 o
a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
NEEL-
Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested,to affected mineral estate owners by at least
date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development.
The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current
tax records of Pitkin County, At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAS or PUDs that
create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially
Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement.
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any
way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this
Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be
made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or
otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal
description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of
real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the
Proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning
agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on such amendments.
The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this,9-3 day
of 20 J 7 by
)2
.�pRY pV6 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
JOHN A. My CO expires:
FORSTER o
N�.A QPp
rF WC
C
My Comm.Exp.0310312015
ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
• COPYOFTHEPUBLICATION
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGA9
• LIST I THE DA�NER,SAyD GOVERNMENTAL AGEdVCIESNOTICED
BYMAIL r
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MME EST,gE OW yE NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C JES. §24--65.5-103.3
i
1 I
I �
� a
oil
1 ®
icl4 • F � 35, t�
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND I T
SE CODE
ADDRESS PROPERTY-
�-�' ,Aspen, CO
SCHED 'L PI?BLIC HEARING DATE:
STATE OF COLORADO )
County of Pitkin ) ss.
being or rep (maitre,please print)
resenting 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 ul the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
Paper or a paper of general circulation Ili the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public heating. A cOPT Of1he publication is attached hereto,
Posting of Notice: By posting of notice, which forth 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
Ineilnt. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior-to the public heariu
on the_ day of 20_ to and including the date and time
o ' ie public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sigh) is attached hereto.
LllQihllg Of riOtiCP.- By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Sectio
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. ,4
cope;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 capv of the
neighborhood Outreach silmmail'; inchlding the method of public notification and
a cops'Of aill'documentati011 that was presented to the public is attached hereto.
(ronlinited on ilPYt page
1llirreral Estate avuer Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty(30) days prior to the
date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development.
The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current
tax records of Pitkin County. At a ❑rinimrnnn, Subdivisions, SPAS or PUDs that
create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially
Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement.
Re.onirrg or text amendment- Whenever the official zorurrg 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 th nn
e text of this Title is to be aended, whether such revision
made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation. or
otherwise, the requirement of all 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 un the planning
agency during all business hours f41it fen 1 d
on such amendments. ( nor o the public hearing
re
The�ieo'lg 6"Affidavit of N20ot�ice,"was a iowledgo by e befo�re me this /Pty
-
- _
=lr)200140SO01,L. LSON = WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
BLIC
ORADO My commission expires: J/�j�20
�03pQ���f 0l�1g$J�' �r I
Not Public
A TTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
• COPY OF THE PLBLICATION
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN)
• LIST OF THE OWNERS AND
BYMAIL GO11 ERN111ENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
ASREQI..rIREDBYrR. §24_6.5.,5_I0;,;
RE: 602 E. HYMAN AVENUE PUBLIC NOTICE— AMENDMENT TO CONCEPTUAL MAJOR
DEVELOPMENT AND CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 11,
2013, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission,
Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by EB
Building Aspen, LLC, 1601 Elm Street, Suite 4000, Dallas, TX, 75201, related to the property
located at 602 E Hyman Avenue, Lot K&L, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO. The
applicant proposes an amendment to Conceptual design approval granted by the Historic
Preservation Commission through Resolution #5, Series of 2013. The project involves an
interior remodel, an addition at the rear of the building, and minor alterations to other facades
and outdoor spaces on the property. For further information,
Aspen Community D contact Amy Guthrie at the City of
evelopment Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2758 or
amy.guthrie@cityofaspen.com.
s/Jay Maytin,Chair
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on August 22, 2013
City of Aspen Account
Easy Peel®Labels
Use Avery,*Template 51600 j edPaper- Bend along line to
expose pop-up fdgem j AVERY0 51600
204 SOUTH GALENA STREET LLC
SHERMAN&HOWARD LLC 308 HUNTER LLC
201 N MILL ST#201 490 WILLIAMS ST 4 SKIERS LP 1108 ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80218 AS VILLE, N 72
NASHVILLE,TN 372201412
514 AH LLC
514 E HYMAN AVE 517 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC
517 E HOPKINS AVE 520 EAST COOPER PTNRS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611 402 MIDLAND PARK
ASPEN, CO 81611
530 HOPKINS LLC 610 EAST HYMAN LLC
5301/2 E HOPKINS C/O CHARLES CUNNIFFE 630 EAST HYMAN LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611 610 E HYMAN AVE 532 E HOPKINS AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
633 SPRING II LLC 635 E HOPKINS LLC ALPINE BANK ASPEN
418E COOPER AVE#207
ASPEN, CO 81611 532 E HOPKINS ATTN ERIN WIENCEK
ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 10000
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602
ASPEN ART MUSEUM
590 N MILL ST 8 HOPKINS AVE ASPEN BLOCK 99 LLC
532 E H ASPEN CORE VENTURES LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611 418 E COOPER AVE#207
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN PLAZA LLC
PO BOX 1709 AUSTIN LAWRENCE CONNER LLC
C/O STEVE MARCUS 532 E HOPKINS AVE AVP PROPERTIES LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,, CO 630E CO 8 AVE#25
81611
BASS CAHN 601 LLC BATTLE GERALD LIVING TRUST
PO BOX 4060 HIXON BURT LIVING TRUST BAUM ROBERT E
ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2847 PO BOX 1518
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 STOCKBRIDGE, MA 01262
BERN FAMILY ASPEN PROPERTY LLC
65 FIRST NECK LN BG SPRING LLC BIG HOPKINS LLC
SOUTHAMPTON, NY 11968 300 S SPRING ST#202 421 N BEVERLY C #300
ASPEN, CO 81611 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210
BISCHOFF JOHN C BOOGIES BUILDING OF ASPEN LLC
502 S VIA GOLONDRINA C/O LEONARD WEINGLASS BORGIOTTI CLAUDIO
TUCSON,AZ 85716-5843 534 E COOPER AVE 10509 HUNTING CREST LN
ASPEN, CO 81611 VIENNA, VA 22192
BPOE ASPEN LODGE#224 CHATEAU ASPEN CONDO ASSOC CHATEAU ASPEN UNIT 21-A LLC
210 GALENA #21
ASPEN, CO 81611 11 630 E COOPER AVE 421 ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CTR
ASPEN, CO 81611 STE G
ASPEN, CO 816113551
taq e#t+es faClIes a peler i
Utilisez le aabarit AVERY®51600
i Sens de ia.-_>I«Ja4athure afirt de'I �
.ti�.,.e...e..+ r6v6ler le rebord Pop-upr w i
Easy Peel®Labels I
Use Avery®Template 51600 j Feed Pa �r.. Bend along line to 11 Pe r expose Pop-up Edge*m a AVERY@ 51600
CICUREL CARP CITY OF ASPEN
2615 N LAKEWOOD ATTN FINANCE DEPT CJAR LLC
CHICAGO, IL 60614 130 S GALENA ST 2514 LAKE MEAD DR
ASPEN, CO 81611 LAFAYETTE, CO 80026
COOPER STREET DEVELOPMENT LLC
C/O PYRAMID PROPERTY ADVISORS COX JAMES E LIVING TRUST
418 E COOPER AVE#207 3284 SURMONT DR 051 JUDITH L REV LIV TRUST
8051
ASPEN, CO 81611 LAFAYETTE, CA 94549 JUDITH
N
COMMERCE TOWNSHIP, MI 48382
EDGETTE JAMES J&PATRICIA ERGAS VENESSA BLAIR&CLAUDE
19900 BEACH RD STE 801 EXELCEDAR INC 20%
PO BOX 4316
JUPITER ISLAND, FL 33469
ASPEN, CO 81612 534 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
FERRY JAMES H III FITZGERALD FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LTD
BOX 166 C/O PITKIN COUNTY DRY GOODS LLC FURNGULF LLP
GLENCOE, IL 600220166 520 E COOPER 616 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
GELD LLC
C/O LOWELL MEYER GOFEN ETHEL CARO TRUSTEE
PO BOX 1247 455 CITY FRONT PLAZA GONE WEST LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612-1247 CHICAGO, IL 60611 401 W CENTER
SEARCY,AR 721451406
GOODING SEAN A 80%&RICHARD L
20% GROSFELD ASPEN PROP PART LLC HIMAN LLC
C/O PARAGON RANCH INC 10880 WILSHIRE BLVD#2222 PO BOX 6159
620 E HYMAN AVE#1 E LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 SWANBOURNE WA 6010
ASPEN, CO 81611 AUSTRALIA,
HOPKINS DEV LLC
345 PARK AVE 33RD FLR HORSEFINS LLC HUNTER PLAZA ASSOCIATES LLP
NEW YORK, NY 10154 601 E HOPKINS AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611 602E COOPER#202
ASPEN, CO 81611
JARDEN CORPORATION JENNE LLP JOSHUA&CO REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS
2381 EXECUTIVE CENTER DR
BOCA RATON, FL 33431 1510 WINDSOR RD LLC
AUSTIN, TX 77402 300 S HUNTER ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
JOYCE EDWARD LCT LP
1310 RITCHIE CT TENNESSEE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LUCKYSTAR LLC
CHICAGO, IL 60610 PO BOX 101444 PO BOX 7755
NASHVILLE,TN 37224-1444 ASPEN, CO 81612
M CUBED HOLDINGS LLC MALLARD ENTERPRISES LP
ASPEN, CO BOX 9667 8 1612 317 SIDNEY BAKER S#400 MARTELL BARBARA
8 KERRVILLE, TX 78028 702 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
Utilisez le gabarit AVERYO 51600
Sens de
' rhzvnQM0n+ reveler le rebord pop-ups !
Easy Peel®Labels
Use Avery®Template 51600 j
Feed Paper- Bend along line to i
expose#pop-up pdgel j AVERY0 51600
1
MATTHEWS ZACHARY MCMURRAY WILLIAM&HELEN
PO BOX 10582 29 MIDDLE HEAD RD MORRIS ROBERT P
ASPEN, CO 81612 MOSMAN NSW 2088 600 E HOPKINS AVE STE 304
AUSTRALIA, ASPEN, CO 81611
MYSKO ASPEN HOLDINGS NATTERER HELEN
615 E HOPKINS AVE 67 BAYPOINT CRIES NIELSON COL STEVE&CAROL D
ASPEN, CO 81611 OTTAWA ONTARIO 501 S FAIRFAX
CANADA K2G6R1, ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
NONNIE LLC
PO BOX 565 OBERHOLTZER JORDAN OLITSKY TAMAR&STEPHEN
ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 10582
ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 514
GWYNEDD VALLEY, PA 19437
P&L PROPERTIES LLC PITKIN CENTER CONDO OWNERS
101 S 3RD ST#360 ASSOC
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501 517 W NORTH ST 534KE HYMAN AVE BANK 80%
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
QTIP MARITAL TRUST 1/2
40 E 80TH ST#PH 26A REUSS LIGHT LLC
NEW YORK, NY 10075 PO BOX 5000 REVOLUTION PARTNERS LLC
SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 PO BOX 1247
ASPEN, CO 81612
ROTHBLUM PHILIP 1/2
40 E 80TH ST#PH 26A RUST TRUST
NEW YORK, NY H 26A 9401 WILSHIRE BLVD#760 RUTLEDGE REYNIE
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 51 COUNTRY CLUB CIR
SEARCY,AR 72143
SCHNITZER KENNETH L&LISA L
2100 MCKINNEY AVE#1760 SEVEN CONTINENTS LLC
DALLAS,TX 75201 601 E HYMAN AVE SHUMATE MARK
ASPEN, CO 81611 BLDG 421 G ABC
ASPEN, CO 81611
SILVER DIP EQUITY VENTURE LLC
2100 MCKINNEY STE 1760 SJA ASSOCIATES LLC N TRUST
E T COMP CYN RD
STERLI TRUS
DALLAS, TX 75201 418 E COOPER AVE#207 2091 STERLING
ASPEN, CO 81611 LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
STEWART TITLE CO
PO BOX SUITE 300 OFFICE LLC
HOUSTONN,, 300 S SPRING UITE 300 OFFICE LLC
TX 77001 ING ST#301
ASPEN, CO 81611 567 SAN NICOLAS DR PENTHOUSE
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
TENNESSEE THREE TENNESSEE THREE RENTALS
PO BOX 101444 C/O J H COBLE THOMPSON ROSS&LYNETTE
NASHVILLE,TN 37224-1444 5033 OLD HICKORY BLVD 1502 GREYSTONE DR
NASHVILLE,TN 37218-4020 CARBONDALE, CO 81623
ftiqUettes#aches A pdet i A
Utilisez le aabarit AVERY®51600 ,
i Sens Replle�a�#r;1tlraaftRde ,.
r6v6ler le rebord Pop.upim
Easy Peel®labels I
Use AveryO Template 51600 } Bend along line to i
A Tied Paper r•rr expose Pop-up Edgers+ j AVER`®51600
TOMKINS FAMILY TRUST
520 E COOPER AVE#209 TREUER CHRISTIN L
ASPEN, CO 81611 5455 LANDMARKL PL#814 VICTORIAN SQUARE LLC
GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 801111955 418 E COOPER AVE#207
ASPEN, CO 81611
WAVO PROPERTIES LP
512 1/2 E GRAND AVE#200 WEIDEL LAWRENCE W
DES MOINES, IA 50309-1942 PO BOX 1007 WF SWEARINGEN LLC
MONROE, GA 30655 380 FOREST HILL RD
MACON, GA 31210
WISE JOSEPH
1320 HODGES ST WM SNOWMASS LLC WOLF LAWRENCE G TRUSTEE
RALEIGH, NC 27604-1414 500 FIFTH AVE#2440
NEW YORK, NY 10110 22750 WOODWARD AVE#204
FERNDALE, MI 48220
WOODS FRANK J III
51027 HWY 6& WRIGHT CHRISTOPHER N
24 STE 100 YERAMIAN CHARLES REV TRUST
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 13 BRAMLEY RD
LONDON W10 6SP UK, PO BOX 12347
ASPEN, CO 81612
Utillsez le gabarit AVERY®516019 i
i Senses Repl�tilr#a#I�Cllur@�� i
i rhamaman} rdveler le rebord pop.uDTm
- L
P22
i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 624 W. Francis Street, UNIT B - AspenModern negotiation for Voluntary
Landmark Designation and Minor Development Review,PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: September 11,2013
SUMMARY: 624 W. Francis Street is one
unit in a duplex that was built in 1964.
The subject property recently sold and the
new owners have applied for voluntary " ` Y
landmark designation through the
AspenModern program. Only Unit B of
this condominiumized property is being
reviewed for designation. The unit "'•f"`' 'j
represents the modern chalet style of Aspen e` '
architecture and is identified as a potential `4
historic resource on the AspenModern map. _t
HPC is asked to make a recommendation to
City. Council on the property's "` V
qualifications for landmarking. As a voluntary AspenModern designation, the application
includes negotiation of special preservation incentives and HPC's comments to Council are
needed.
The new owner plans a remodel and HPC will conduct design review of proposed alterations as a
Minor development.
APPLICANT: 624 W.Francis LLC,represented by Kim Raymond Architects.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-09-012.
ADDRESS: 624 W. Francis Street, Unit B, Starri Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen,
CO.
ZONING: R-6
1
P23
DESIGNATION HISTORIc
AspenModern Criteria.
To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures
as an example of AspenModern, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of
buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The
quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated according to criteria described below.
When designating a historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district
must meet at least two of the criteria a-d, and criterion e described below:
a. The property is related to an event, pattern, or trend that has made a contribution to
local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific event,
pattern or trend is identified and documented in an adopted context paper;
b. The property is related to people who have made.a contribution to local, state,
regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific people are identified
and documented in an adopted context paper;
C. The property represents a physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics
of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic
achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman, or design philosophy that is deemed
important and the specific physical design, designer, or philosophy is documented in an
adopted context paper;'
d. The property possesses such singular significance to the City, as documented by the
opinions of persons educated or experienced in the fields of history, architecture, landscape
architecture, archaeology or a related field, that the property's potential demolition or major
alteration would substantially diminish the character and sense of place in the city as
perceived by members of the community, and
e. The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location,
setting,design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City Council shall
adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices which shall be used by
the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criterion.
Staff Response:
There is relatively little documentation of the subject building. The original building permit is
attached as Exhibit B. Only minor additional permits, including a very modest expansion on the
west side of the house, are on record. Following is an explanation of the Modern Chalet style,
from the paper"Aspen's Twentieth Century Architecture: Modernism 1945-1975.
2
P24
Modern Cltrrlet
A distinctive postwar housing type in Aspen is locally termed a modern chalet. With its —
moderately pitched gable roof oriented to the,front, it recalls traditional chalets associated
with ski country, but in its expansive glass and minimal decoration, it also seems classically
modernist, as if the architect and client liked the .chalet idea for Aspen's emerging ski
identity, but updated it and made it modern to fit the community's avant-garde tastes.
Characteristically, modern chalets Have low-to-moderately pitched roofs based on a 3:12
ratio; broad fagades organized in rectilinear solid or glass panels; overhanging eaves,
frequently with exposed roof beams; glass often extending to the eaves; minimal decoration;
and sometimes stone or brick piers. The symmetrical modern chalets generally have a
tripartite organization: a large central glazed area flanked by wood or masonry piers.
Predominantly built between the late 1950s and late 1960s, these compact buildings were
custom-designed for clients as well as erected by speculative builders. They have a
rectangular footprint and fit well on the gridded streets of the older West End and Shadow
Mountain neighborhoods. For the most part, their sizable. window walls are oriented to
Aspen Mountain.
Although some modern chalets,such as 500 E.Durant Street, served commercial purposes, most
extant examples are residential. They encompass a range of options, from single family to
duplexes and' even quadriplexes. While evoking such contemporaneous hybrid modernist
homes as Eichler- in California, Honn in Oklahoma, Keck in Chicago, and Koch (Tech
Built) in the east, when compared side-by-side, the Aspen modern chalets not only look
different, but arise out of different circumstances. Eichler and the others were meeting the
postwar demand for suburban Homes that fit the American dream of home ownership, up-to-
date while still affordable. Pie Aspen real estate market was geared toward affluent vacation
home owners who might be attracted to Aspen for a variety of reasons—the culture of the
Aspen Institute, the skiing of Aspen Mountain, the charm of an authentic western town, or the
cachet of owning property in such a desirable place.
Many ofAspen's modern chalets were built in the West End, close to the Aspen Institute and its
intellectual and cultural offerings. Urban lots in this established neighborhood fitted the
compact modern chalets well, yet they still offered mountain views. The modern chalets.
added to the West End's rich building mix, including Victorian cottages and Second Empire
and Queen Anne mansions as well as postwar traditional gabled chalets and classic flat-roofed
modernist houses. Often two- and multiple family structures, they also represent a shift in
Aspen's evolution as a vacation destination serving both winter and summer tourists.
625 Gillespie Avenue, designed. by Benedict.
City of Aspen files.
3
P25
b2 1957, Benedict designed two free-standing
separate lots, at 625 & 615 Gillespie Ave `' early modern chalets side-by-side on(de structures had a hor izorttal base 2f board-and- batten lisped
windows defining a the ground floor and ) Identical, the one- story
SZdl72g pZf72CtZlated b
zrpl�e7"gabled section below the 10W-Pitched in the yo vertical
and straightfo7-14,ard they were topped bd 7"oof. Simple
y overha7zging
eaves and an extensive roof that encompassed a carport. u M
Five other Vest end modern chalets date `~
1965 and show the rang front 196_7 to � �-
oe gf�variations within this �t - ,
vacation house (see 7°i 17t. simple
g ) Many "'Oder" chalets have
glass to the eaves crud
flanking brick piers. .Projecting
balconies cantilevered
across the f
three-
dimensional rectilinear' 7"OZZt injecting tl2rG'e
base that hover ust above the
ground are
j �` - --
also COnnnon Characteristics.
Staff finds that historic designation criteria a and
(designed by Fritz Benedict)has been designated. are-met. To date, one modern chalet
identified as eligible structures located within the core of town. T
grated Seven, including the subject house, have been
family examples that could be considered in the future.
architecture is a hybrid of other more commo here are additional multi-
mountain environment. While some mode This particular style of postwar
n architectural approaches, adjusted to this
as 624 W. Francis, were owner or contractor chalets
interpretations. It issimportant ny designed,
Preservation opportunities for this small collection of As en s fined, others, such
to carefully consider
Aspen structures.
The second component of designation is scoring the physical integrity
score sheet is attached as Exhibit C.
AspenModem, with 19 out of 20 points. This is a classic y °f the building. Staff's
Staff scored the building as a "Best" example of
few alterations. Staff finds that designation assic example of the style, with relatively
gnation criterion e is met.
4
P26
ment Director shall. confer with the Hi or building
The Community Develop the Propose land application
at a public meeting, regarding P p Provided notice of this
Commission, The property owner shall be
permit and the nature of the Property.
meeting• scoring sheets
using context papers and integrity
The Historic Preservation Commission,shall provide Council with an assessment of the
fWhen an
or the property under considerat ion,
conformance with the designation criteria of Section 26.415 h 0' , owner,
property s confo uested by property
the designation, and any development that is concurrently
benefits that are not included in Section 26.415.110 are re pro
ram, as stated at
HpC shall also evaluate how d for the historic preservation p g
proposed, meets the policy objectives
ose and Intent. As an additional measure of the appropriateness« ood,
Section 26.415.010, Pure resources, referencing the scoring
d benefits, HPC shall determine whether the subject property is a g
of designation and
of Aspen's ZOth century historic
better, or best" example Aspen's
Council.
sheets and matrix adopted by City
process for this application, and the
Staff Response: applicant is that the review p
A fundamental request of the aPP licant wishes to receive a permit for the landmarked
building permit, be expedited. The app
project on or
about Nov. lst, an estimation of the issue date for a non-landmark review.
ted review time, referral comments and1ew e related calculations
City Council, notHPC,
As a result of the accelera and will be finalized by the HPC rev
incentives are still developing are appropriate.
makes the determination as to which incentives. the As enModern negotiation
The incentives that have been requested of City Council as part of p
are:
typically include plan check fees,
Waiver of permit review fees. Permit review fees are related to they aluation of the work an
the amount of square footage affected. Review f fee taplfees, stormwater mitigation fees, etc.
code review fees, engineering fees, zoning
energy 'cant has not fully defined what their re derwas�bya staff pp1lcant and the
At this time, the apph request. The calculation is underway
dollar value for the waiver
Building Department.
Permits are subject to impact fees which include These fees are
act fees. Building miti ation.
Waiver of imp ement fees and affordable housing g
transportation demand manag landmarks automatically receive a
increases in floor area. All existing ro ect is being
calculated based on any e fees d this case or not.
arks and TD
M fees. The dollar value associated with this p J
fee waiver for p determine whether to waive calculated so that Council may
P27
The project does not trigger demolition, therefore no affordable housing Mitigation is
landmark or not. The City cannot waive one of the impact fees, School Lands fees
are collected on behalf of the school district. g required,
since they
Expedited review. The building department has a procedure for the queuing
of
special considerations. Council can direct the building department to expedite the
requested, in front of all projects in queue except Affordable g Permits with
Permit as
Facilities. Housing and Essential Public
Tree removal. The applicant requests that the City contract to remove
of the yard and an aspen tree that is too close to the house. A waiver of mitigation center
requested. Staff has asked for a referral comment and calculation from Parks. The exist'
dense• trees at the front of this house do obscure the buildin a g ion is also
issues. g and may me
y present maintenance
Floor area bonus: The application does not request a floor area bonus
area for Unit B, plus the existing floor area for the adjacent Unit A, is below the maximum
and the proposed floor
allowed for the property. However, the subject project at Unit B appears to be exceeding
the allowed floor area (their presumed hinit according to condo does). T ximum
%z of
intended to reduce any rights for Unit A. The applicant will clarify the calculation at the
The application is not
review. HPC
MINOR DEVELOPMENT
The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. St
materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the de
aff reviews the submittal
guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the
with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue he HPC
disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. Th
review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence resented approve,
e HPC will
determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation p at the hearing to
Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue Design
application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or de
the
the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate o ny. If
Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision
.f Appropriateness and the
final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300 shall be
subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Cha p 16.ter 26.3 feet of the
Staff Response:
The application proposes the following changes to the existing building.
South (front): expand the basement level out under the deck, alter the railing, widen t
the western end, replace doors and windows on the front facade, construct a fence. he deck on
West: add a closet at the entry door, which is halfway down the west side of the house.
P28
add a bay window projection on the southeast corner of the house.
East enclose the
North rear): extend the house approximately 6' towards the alley on both floors,
Patio-
existing carport, and add a trellis over a rear patio.
the proposed alterations on the west, east and no
oes. Materials no these the
areas tare
Staff supports p P
and the bay window at the kitchen; are very minor expanse
h the existing. Staff recommends a slight differentiation of the wall material.
proposed to matt guidelines
extension of the rear of the house removes that original facade, however the gu
The placement for expansions. The extension is relatively small
direct that this is the appropriate p
atel 6' . Staff suggests the possibility of a roofline that
This would ber for ethe 1purpose of
(approximately ) original roof over the addition.
rather than just extending the veal form.
distinguishing the new addition from the original
Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
n
should be made distinguishable from the historic building,while also remaining
ompatible with these earlier features. a subtle change in material
in setbacks of the additi nand morehcurrentstyles arse all techniques that may be
rentiation between histo ,
d to help define a change from old to new construction.
at the rear of the duplex. The carport is not original.
The applicant wishes to enclose the carport ort for both Unit B (the subject property) and Unit A.
The applicant proposes to enclose the c c roceed
P to building permit for this work. A slight
Unit A, which will not be designated,
of the length of the carports for storage is menin floor area through this th st
expansion part of the
floor area exemption for one garag e stall, so the mcreas
project is very small. Staff has no concerns with this work.
A trellis is proposed over a rear patio. It will not affect any
historic construction. Again,the rear
of the site is the most appropriate area for alterations that do not diminish the historic character
of the building as enjoyed by the public.
concerns with the proposal as it affects the cteristic of he modern chalet its
staff does have charm
Alterations in this area should be very prev ously been expanded towards the east to allow a
the front balcony. This balcony has previously proposes to widen the deck now on its
staircase down the side of the house. The app p p suggests the possibility e
balance. The deck was designed to only be as wide as the main mass of the
western end, for balm
house. Staff does not support the extension to the west. h this $g
n the east expansion to glass to distinguish this existing theo ginaltwidth oagaine
changing the railing o appear to b
original deck railing,
and maybe help to make the deck a p squared pickets to a solid
The applicant also proposes to change recommends t e Tailing
original rail be maintained.
material with an open rail on top. staff
P29
Staff does not support expanding the basement under the deck.
generous projection from the building facade is characteristic of modern
that projection, especially on the front, detracts from t `9 balcony with a relatively
chalets. Diminishing
he integrity of the original design.
Staff can support the replacement of the fr
the original rough o ont window system so long as the glazing maintains
pening and matches the design
P0 ssible. The front windows were replaced on the adjacent duplex was retained, but the head height ac the doors existing windows as closely e
Staff finds that this alteration can be accomplished in a p m a similar manner. The
was increased slightly . improve function.
windows must be reviewed. n appropriate manner. Cut sheets for the
The applicant mentions a proposed fence, but no design is provided
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends
this property and encourage Council to grant fee waive s aC su
they find a ro date. A pport the voluntary designation of
pp p motion and vote on this topic requesstedso thatthe landm the extent that
can proceed to Council. The public hearing is scheduled for Oct. 14
the applicant's expectation for expedited review. k application
th Staff would like to meet
Staff recommends that HPC continue the Minor review to Se temb
alterations are acceptable. Further refinement of materials and floo
to ensure that this is a successful AspenModern p er 25t1i, a$er indicating which
project. r area calculations are needed
E— HIBITS:
Resolution# , Series of 2013
Exhibit A: Relevant design
Exhibit B: guidelines
Exhibit C: Application
Original building permit
Exhibit D: Integrity Score Sheet
Exhibit E: Condominium Plat
Exhibit F: Existing floor plans
Exhibit G: Proposed floor plans
Exhibit H: Proposed elevations
P 3 0 guidelines
Exhibit A,Relevant design g
fence should use materials that appear similar to that of the
1.2 Anew replacement fen ht iron.
original.
ublicriglit-of--way must be built of wood or wroug
❑ Any fence which is visible from a p le wire or metal
Wire fences also maybe considered.
picket fence is an appropriate replacement in most locations. A situp
❑ A wood p be considered.
fence, similar to traditional "wrought iron," also may allowing views into the
prohibited and solid ,stockade" fences are only allowed
Inside and rear yards.
❑ Chain link is prohi
1.3 Anew replacement fence should have a "transparent quality 11 arent" in nature.
yard from the street. and is usually low to the ground and transp facade may
❑ A fence that defines a front y
residential properties, a fence which is located forward, va ion, see the Cigty of Aspen's
❑ not e taller t a P grade. For addition
not be taller than 4211 St Standards".) � ( le s but not forward of the front
"Residential Design ards and along alleys,,
❑ A privacy fence may be used in back y
facade of a building. at all is often the best approach.
❑ Note that using no fencing compatible with the historic
Contemporary interpretations of traditional fences should be comp
context.
1.4 New fence components should be similar in scale he fence those ten traditionally,
❑ Fence columns or piers should be proportional to
ow include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions,
3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window.
❑ Features important to the charoa erat on and groupings of windows.
sills,heads,jambs,moldings, p them,whenever conditions permit.
❑ Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing
glass,
❑ Preserve the original when feasible.number and arrangement of historic windows in a building
3.2 Preserve the position,
wall. ening in a key character-defining
facade is inappropriate, as is
Li Enclosing a historic window op eciall important on primary facades where the
adding
a new window opening. This is esp y feature.
stallin new windows may be considered on rear walls.
historic ratio of solid-to-void g a character-defining window or door or increase it to
❑ Greater flexibility in final install
ening to accommodate a smaller
❑ Do not reduce an origin
receive p facades.
receive a larger window on primary enings to solid wall on a facade.
amount of glass in a character-defining facade will negatively
3.3 Preserve the historic tie° of window op
❑ Significantly
affect the integrity of a structure.
,4 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. and position of
3 double-hung, then the replacement window shothe. numberdoublpe-hung, or
❑ If the original is
at a minimum, appear to be so. Match the replacement also in facades.
glass panes. articularly important on key character-defining
❑ Matching the original design is p ear similar to the original.
3.5 In a replacement window,use materials that app
P31
❑ Using the same material as the original is preferred, especially on character-defining facades.
However, a substitute material may be considered if the appearance of the window
components will match those of the original in dimension, profile and finish.
6.1 Preserve significant architectural features.
❑ Repair only those features that are deteriorated.
❑ Patch, piece-in, splice, consolidate or otherwise upgrade the existing material, using
recognized preservation methods whenever possible.
❑ Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins
may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be used.
❑ Removing a damaged feature when it can be repaired is inappropriate.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
❑ A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
• An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
• An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style
should be avoided.
• An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
❑ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining
visually compatible with these earlier features.
❑ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or
a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be
considered to help define a change from old to new construction.
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
❑ An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred.
10.8 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.
IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT
STARRI CONDOMINIUMS
0
VC,
ALLEY
f CON 0 REBAN 10'
NO CAT'
S89'39'11"E 90:00,
F UNDNAlL A BEARING OF N 14°5049'F BETWEEN A FOUND REBAR AND RPC
BASIS OF BEARING COt PAO LS 901S AT I HE S,W.PROPS RTY CORNE AND A FOUND REBAR
LOT L LOT M LOT N LOT 0 AND NO CAP FOUND AT THE NA11 PROPE R TY CORNER AND SHOWN
HEREO N
ELEC i R12 AND L C F nveL LOT P
A7L'iNS I DRIVEiI/A
EASEIAE'," C O E.
a;
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
STARRI CONDOMINIUM UNIT B
FATIO STARRI CONDOMINIUMS,ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN
AUGUSI 13,198
I IN PLAT BOOK 11 AT PAGE riJ AS RECEPTION NO,234810
C> AND AS DEFINED AND DESCRIBED 114 THE CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION FOR
SIARRI CONDOMINIUMS RECORE ED AUGUST 13,1981 IN BOOK 4
i: PAGE 391 AS RECEPTION NO.23'4)
CON, I A
809 AND FIRST AMENDMENT THERETO
PA 171, RECORDED MAY 11,2001 AS FCEPTI'6N NO 454418 AND SECOND
AMENDMENT THERETO RECORDED DECEMBER 4,2001 AS RECEPTION P40
461439.
crTyOF ASPEN,COUNWOF PITKINLSIATE OF COLORADO.
111 rl C I j lb, // / �� f 811�T i %—x-I x0
C5
CD I
UNITA UNIT B
L Legend
F_
626
624'/ roll—Ifi-rd
2'7'L 2.7 1 j ELECTRIC METER 71 TELL—•.oNE R:SER
'ONC VVA-E R M F TE R CABLE RIUF l,i U1'AALK 26 7 GAS METER SEWER IoANH,-;,,r
G E HE
ELECTRiC IRANSI")RVER
FENCE-LINE D111 L 0 P
DE-C V I C E
0 1!TYP -
GCE
GENERA:rOMMON ELEMENT
L C E
UiTTED COMMON ELENIENI
E
WV1
I.C E,
C E Notes
INFORMATION FURNISI IED BY PIT KIN COUNTY TITLE COMPANY,CASE NO.PCT238O9W2 DATED
NW3 1 VW k.W JULY 23,2013,WA-1 USED IN THE PREPARATION OF TEIIS SURVEY
FCJt r REBAR AND
RPC LS#9f 18
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED,ALL UTILITY EASEMENTS,AS WELL AS ALL PUBLIC AN
U C 0 PI
RIGHTS OF WAY ARE DEDICATED TO THE PERPETUAL USE OF ALL UTILM'COMPANIFS PRIVATE
E
OR THE
G F
PURPOSE OF INSTALLING,CONSTRUCTING,REPLACING,REPAIRING AND MANqTAhGIN
UNDI.RGROONO U111-113EF AND DRAINAGE FACII[TIES,INCLUDING BUI NOT LIMITED TO WATER"
IV LEO):
ELECTRIC,GAS,TELEPHONE AND TELEVISION LINES,TOGETI IER WITH THE REST IT OF INGRESS AN
D
EGRESS FOR SUCH INSTALLATION,CONSTRUCTION,REPLACEMENT,REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE
MAILED)'. A AS
WELL AS THE RIGHT 10 1 RIM INTERFERING TREES AND BRUSH. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE IT riti!Y
COMPANIES EXERCISE THE PI(:H IS HEREIN GRANTED AS SO TO INTERFERE VVT IN THE USE OF Nif
RIGII IT OF WAY FOR ROADWAY PURPOSES EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT REASONABLY NECESSARY To
ENUOY THE GRANT HEREBY MADE
E H APA�'A LEGAL D ANDIOSSE__I
INVALID OC 'T POSSESSION
R T S T D I-PREPARED I-''NV 'G L -U SURVEYOR ON LESS if
'TO ALI HO ED H
'FGA
I',R.CARM111CH EL
I, ANC T A,,U I
It, L',W E BY
N C T
Y.", AN WITHOUT A SIGNATURE AND
0 U TH
RS T
I)(" N 1-1
,T . W LF, Y D ALL THE,
INET TA AIR D VIEWED A PRELIMINARY AND INFORMATION
S
"NO", T�
N IFR _1.IE' TO CHANGE
WEST FRANCIS STREET SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
'L STEVEN A.YELTON,HEREBY CERTIFY l'HAI I AM A PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR
LICENSED UNDER TIE LAWS OF THE STATE OF COLORADO;THATTIFIS PLATIS TRUE,
CORRECT AND COMPLETE AS LAID OUT AND SHOWN HEREON;THAT THIS PLAT-WAS
CLERK AND RECORDER'S ACCEPTANCE MADE By ME FROM AN ACCURATE SURVEY OF THE REAL PROPERTY PERFORMED BY
ME
]HIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT WAS ACCEPTED FOR FILING OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION IN AUGUST 12,2013 THE LOCATION AND
IN THf OFFICE OF THE CI ERIK AND RF-ORDFk OF THE COUNTY OF DIMENSIONS OF ALL.BIALDINGS,IMPROVEMENT-,,EASEMENTS,RIGHTS OF WAY[1,
PIIKJN,STATE O�COLORADO,AT—O'CLOCK,_-EL I Hl�,__DAY Ci� EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TO ME AND ENCROACHMENTS BY OR ON THE REAL PROPERTY ARE
IN PLAT BOOK A T PAGE RECEPTION NUMBER ....... ACCURATELY S HOWN,ANN rHAI THIS PLAT my.Fis IN E R EQUIREM E N I S O F At,'
Im PROVEM ENT SURVEY PLAT AS SET FORTH IN C.R.S.¢36-51-102(9).
CLERK RECOROCk
STEVEN A.YELTON PLS. 33645
DATE
NOIICE3 A Y
I— lost c-unonla an lalal alt—,based upon
P 'L'ya�,,�';gdj.
any defect "three. aftei you first dis'aYe''.'hd.fe't HIRED GUN SURVEYING LTD.
lt'�he e—ut piay any action based upon a"Y"'e"'in this Survey be corn'"oulcil inore DATE SURVF.YiDi 08/12/2013
an tel-yea,I5 fircal UY,,dat,of the ei-fil—tun 1hd hL,a.n P.O. BOX 9 DARN DRAFT' 08,113/2013 DATA FILE AME:020815?
SNOWMASS, COLORADO 81654 REVISED DRAWN BY TY
(970)923-2794
EXHIBIT
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE C/'– )
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304
.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PR OXERTY:
Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
, 201_;�,
STATE OF COLORADO )
County of Pitkin ) ss.
I,
be or representing (name, please print)
b an Ap licant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that 1 have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
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 Ieast fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing
and was continuously visible from the—day of
and including the date and time of the public hearing. 20_, to
g.
notice (sign) is attached hereto, b A photograph of the posted
Mailing ofnotice. 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(3 00) feet e 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
CO
py of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(Continued on next page)
i
Rezoning or text amendment: Whenever the official zoning district map is in
y way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
ally
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title enais to be ctment of a new land use such
revision be made by repeal of this Title, and ma or other
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey p
sufficient legal description of, and the notice area ofdthe listing ropos d changes hall be
addresses of owners of real property m'lima shall be available for public
waived. However,the proposed zoning p
ins ect. in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
p on such amendments.
prior to the public hearing
Signature
' " was acknowledged befo e me this��day
The for going "Affidavit of Notice t
of , 2013 by
BLIC N ICE T
RE:624 W.FRANCIS STREET,UNIT B-AS- �� 1V1 1 t7-L"3-LPL AND OFFICIAL SEAL
EGO
TARY^LOANDMARK DESIGNAT ON AND MINOR f11`!L
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing ' `y commission expires'
will be held on Wednesday,September 11,2013, Jvj
at a meeting to begin at 5:Oo p.m,before the As-
pen Historic Preservati SCommisSon,Council
nnto
Chambers,City Hall,
consider an application,submitted b Mark Fried-
land,Manager of 624 .FrancisLL
CO 61610133 Pros-
pector Road,Ste.B,Aspen, public
the property located at 624 W.Francis Street,Unit Notary
B.Starri Condominiums.City and Townsite of As-
pen,CO.The applicant proposes voluntary land-
mark designation and minor exterior alterations to
one unit in a duplex. HPC will conduct design re-
view, HPC will make a recommendation to o oun-
cil regarding landmark designation,and p p
incentives for preservation,including a floor area
bonus.possible fee waivers,and expedited permit
review. For further information,contact AWX_Q '
go at the Department'130 S.Galen St., CO3(970)
429.2758 or amy.guthrie®cityofaspeacom. ATTACH
s/JayMaysin Chair NT5 AS APPLICABLE:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission ;LIGATION
Published in the Aspen Times Weekly nn Au�g9f
22,2013 ]9469974] /w"
n rnvly� 11 �_ TIC POSTED NOTICE
NT AGENGIES NOTIED
*
LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNNIE
BY MAIL MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE
* APPLICANT CERTC R S. §240-65.05 10E
AS REQjqRED BY
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060(E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
2013
STATE OF COLORADO
County of Pitkin ) ss.
I,�fh'L-UL--'f tJ �'�'C-�'Z.���� �-�►ut 12��f�t�t�f� (name please
'
being or representing an Apphcant to the City of Aspen, Colorado hereb Print)
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 I. day of_Stet' , 20ja_, 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
n
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 notcation and
a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty(30)days prior to the
date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development.
The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current
tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that
create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially
Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement.
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in an y
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.
Signa
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this 11 day
20 x 3 by
�c K.TE c-zs
77 NORRIT
' WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
t401'A11` '1 ELI
r , commission expires:
SAT 0( (J)LORADO
N Public
ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
• COPY OF THE PUBLICATION
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN)
• LIST OF THE 0WNERSAND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BYMAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
x >
R
IN
swamiw
NOTICE IN
Date: Se
Wednesday, �.�.._.,��
Y pt. 1 1 2u1
Time: 5:00 PUBLIC NOTICE p.m
Date:
Place:Aspen City Hall. i;U Time: ` ,,,
Galena
R Street P ,
lace „ r H
Purpose:
HPC will review voluntary Landmark Purpose,
Designation, Minor Design, and
preservation incentives for 624 W.
Francis, Unit B. Starri
Condominiums. Applicant is Mark
i
Friedland. Manager of 624 W
Fr, �F
f' Francis LLC, 0133 Prospector Road F
Ste. B. Aspen. CO 81611.
For further information contact Aspen
Planning Dept. at 970-429-2758
f
iii
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 624 W. FRANCIS STREET, UNIT B - ASPENMODERN NEGOTIATION FOR
VOLUNTARY LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 11,
2013, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission,
Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by
Mark Friedland, Manager of 624 W. Francis LLC, 0133 Prospector Road, Ste. B, Aspen, CO
81611, affecting the property located at 624 W. Francis Street, Unit B, Starri Condominiums, City
and Townsite of Aspen, CO. The applicant proposes voluntary landmark designation and minor
exterior alterations to one unit in a duplex. HPC will conduct design review. HPC will make a
recommendation to Council regarding landmark designation, and proposed incentives for
preservation,including a floor area bonus, possible fee waivers, and-expedited permit review.
For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the City of Aspen Community Development
Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970)429.2758 or amy.guthrie @cityofaspen.com.
s/Jay Maytin, Chair
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on August 22, 2013
City of Aspen Account
s
ZONE DISTRICT R_6
ALLOWNABLE FAR: 4050 5F FOR A DUPLEX OR 2 EXHIB`�
DWELLING DET.4GH�
UNITS ON ,h g0O0 5F LOT
626
624
LONER LEVEL EXISTING FAR 596 SF
F psd
MAIN LEVEL EXISTING FAR 10 1 8 5F LOWER LEVEL EXISTING FAR 5q6 S °
MAIN LEVEL EXISTING FAR 983 5F E
CARPORT EXEMPT 2 12 SF
STORAGE 55 SF
CARPORT EXEMPT 21 .2 5F E
5TORA6E 5 3 SF x
TOTAL EXI5TIN(5 FAR 1 667 5F
TOTAL EXI5TING FAR 16032 5F `)
U
LOWER LEVEL PROPOSED -NO CHANGE z
LOWER LEVEL PROPOSED FAR 846 SF U_ v0
MAIN LEVEL PROPOSED - NO CHANGE 265 NEW
MAIN LEVEL PROPOSED FAR 1 .201 1 SF w a
• GARAGE PROPOSED 3 q -1 2 18 NEW Q
MINUS EXEMPT 2 50 - 147 SF /2 - 7 3 SF FAR GAR'a`C'E PROPOSED 3 q 7 d'
MINUS EXEMPT 2 50 . 14 7 SF /2 - N
STORAGE - NO GRANGE 53 5F �
STORAGE. - NO CHANGE 53 5F 7 3 SF FAR
TOTAL PROP05ED FAR 1 -7405F
TOTAL PROP05ED FAR 21 -135F
TOTAL PROP05ED FAR FOR BOTH UNITS 3 9 13
5F 9/11/13
EXISTING
TOTAL EXP05ED BASEMENT WALL AREA 5 1 '7 5F
TOTAL BASEMENT PERIMETER AREA 8 1 -7 5F
5 1 7/8 1 7 -0.63 PRO�i? FAR CALCS
TOTAL EXPOSED BA5EMENT WALL AREA 6gg5f
TOTAL BASEMENT PERIMETER AREA q q 3
FACTOR 0.63 X q46 SF EXISTING -Sq6 5F
FAR LOWER LEVEL FACTOR 0.70 X 264 5F PROP05ED
FAR LOWER LEVEL 885 5F
HP-2
�c
cal
v i
CI
C N
U
r
I ,u Y
u �G
� I Ili a u �
Y
i n �
i1 ® ® u U
Q
`N
C ON
L �N
IN
y
I ;
' I 3
I I I II
! I I
k .... ��
_.... —
_ (C
_.
I
I i —
ill I
Mn T•ER
I
BF HRv_JN ''
5'-OftA'E
I `� 6�wJM aE=ROJK
L0.11,
,F-1
uj
O
v
to I
I I
uj
,.- sae=rae
p
� 1I \
,�_� _ ,e..
uj
-
.M1"RY
:
1 i— ro ur1 cn
it I
T-6" „!I \
i
I
—!�—� I I FAM!LYROGN I i
._. UAT[ ISSUE
LIIky RG.`M DIVINE k00M I /I/{/JIt � ! ao; 'C[Mti l'VFtust
F_HM
^-4Y E-i
—— — C1
F —
r3ATHRCO:�
— — —!
! III Scale: kJ NOTGU
..
a
I
MAIN LEVEL PLAN LOWER LEVEL
L
FLAN
I ' .: . ' _
SCALE i i :A_L 1 0 A-0 1
o
LL
c
EE
d i4 r W
I
0
Y
I.
y
V
I:
I.
I
77T u
Ln
s
€ I II
I ZQE
L.^----
-
� I. .
_I F
te, I
e—
I Rai. EE II l
.....-.€
!
WY L�Q c+
YE 3 L o�
.
O
SIDEWALK ELEVATION O n�M N v
LJ .CALF 114 1-0.
--- -- W
BACK YARD ELEVATION ELEVATION = o
JCA_E IA 1 C'. scALe 1/1 1.r V7 U
U Z
Z w a
Il'.y I p N V€
a_r
I ---
P tt r t'
�!I-..-..
L I
---._...
� u arrlEh.
sic.He(LCW c
wo
UATE ISSUE
........
` _ en'lV a_r
s.
Q
! ! Scale. AS NCTEU
a
ENTRY BREEZEWAY ELEVATION „F O
SCALE 1l4"
02
W
■
i�
i
■ �111 1
� 11
MESON ■t■■■ ►
IIII iiii i � � ll � � � � llllllllllll ' iiiilii ill II II11
�o
Aa
a _ �
W :¢
� a
l •
- a
� F •t
t t
€ S.
��} T
3 3
E
N � }
J
# E
2 ^ f
? S ?
## gg
c:
>
x:
f
E ,
`
- ,.. .. ..e .SSE ».,:. .. ,, .�• <.
r
A
k
nor-
� 1
,ai =i F
t{ _
AN
y ,-1•r� .- aee.,,,,i- �p,t�1.^
P ;}" i" t:-5 ��; i}!' i "'�"�C'S'� i�'1 ;^�i,JRi��Sr,* • a •rr i• Rj,;..
f Id