The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20131009 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 9, 2013 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ROOM 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO Site Visits: Please visit 549 Race Alley on your own 5:00 INTRODUCTION A. Roll call B. Approval of minutes- Sept. 11, 2013 and Sept. 25, 2013 C. Public Comments D. Commission member comments E. Disclosure of conflict of interest(actual and apparent) F. Project Monitoring-204 S. Galena G. Staff comments H. Certificates of No Negative Effect issued I. Submit public notice for agenda items OLD BUSINESS 5:30 A. 610 E.Hyman Avenue-Extension of Conceptual Approval 5:35 B. 206 Lake Avenue- Minor Development and Hallam Lake Bluff Review, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING NEW BUSINESS 6:15 A. 549 Race Alley- Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Setback Variance, Parking Waiver and Floor Area Bonus, PUBLIC HEARING WORKESSIONS A. None 7:25 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.Sleeker 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 10/1/2013 EXHIBI I 204 S . GALENA HPC FINAL APPROVAL DRAWINGS DECEMBER 2012 0 o a o � ° � o o C7G� —---------------.......... --————-—-- ------ -------------------- F- LLJ <: LU LL z Ul LL] Lil nawee 10 ui ------------- -i II1 II .......... 0 04 &_!,� I�TING ROOF PLAN ,PROPOSED SECOND_F LOOR PLAN HPC FINAL APPROVAL DRAWINGS DECEMBER 2012 r . A711i (~j F 2 `J EXISTING WEST ELEVATION ��EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION w IL Z Z 8 L) U LU LU Of J Q 2 U Qo Q o Q I t — I w LU 22'� 1 _._.-.-._. _- -.y.._._._._T. ..p-O F- NQ 4 '--'wo• - _.I _�_._. -.l r .,aua.aacaw now. Q co I v o N I PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 1 I � PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION �°-� i I i gTina' HPC A3.1 1 FINAL APPROVAL DRAWINGS i DECEMBER 2012 1 U m I H U � Q � 4 EXISTING EAST ELEVATION 2 EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION Z z 8 v J Q U I I I 1 f- i IY a d I 1 1 ------. "9 w J g$ -----_.-.-_.----_ --------q --- ——.----•- .1-------------- -- I I I M N I I I I i I 1 I I 1 i � f• I. � � V I i Imal Ion, ---------- - ----------------------EAST ELEVATION PROPOSED SOUTH E - i bIEET rvn HPC A3.2 FINAL APPROVAL DRAWINGS DECEMBER 2012 Loan VAMA U) F- oo 2 Lu F— C) < UJI LL lee 4e LL '; z z gr F I Z) 40 —0 SPACE C 1. RACE D cr uj Q. STORAGE AREA z Zo 16 —E-STAIR STAIR 6. T T (D 6. PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL EXTERIOR LIGHTING PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL EXTERIOR LIGHTING HPC EL 2.1 FINAL APPROVAL DRAWINGS DECEMBER 2012 204 S . GALENA HPC SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT DRAWINGS FEBRUARY 2013 ICE ' No =---4� I - II I � II I II O. _ t lill W I III I i i t i i i , j i W III I � I ! tL ILL li l I I I I ..t_.�.._..._,._�.._.._ — .._.._ O ' Z � 8 rtESrgalyt► [ low, i NCI �i� I �J.._.._..---- 1 t ----'—.._..__..- I I I --•—�#- --��CCC...YYY 2 G I III ! i i t I III i t i i e W II! i i t i i W C, b Lu pl I g I --- --=--- J Q rn w 0 °N -- y L ----------------- I.._.._..`/ N I I I I I i I EXISTING ROOF PLAN PLAN ��PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLANSECOND FLOOR PLAN ,re..ra. ,re�•r.v s�rra HPC A2.3 4 SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT DRAWING�'�G FEBRUARY 20I? U — w I U Q R 4 EXISTING WEST ELEVATION 3 EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION U- ,. — Z z s C U U 2 U s . •—•---•—•—.3_. ._.�.-�i_ ._" ---•-- ------x.0:9 ------------------ -------- ----- ---- ————— — $ x v 0 N uw,uv. ISSUE ei 2 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION b�o� HPC A3.1 SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT DRAWINGS FEBRUARY 201' cr ,��I�TING SOUTH ELEVATION u- U. ui CD ,,�POSED EAST ELEVATION POSED SOUTH ELEVATION HPC SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT DRAWINGS A3.2 FEBRUARY 2013 i I i i 204 S . GALENA HPC PERMIT DRAWINGS JULY 2013 ,IS i i i awu.ar �a i ® a i , nv ------------ LL I V• 1 � a it I 4 ,.• I I i O Z I O' I' I uNl 3 j ; xES.nurt�wr 1 i � I Q i I W 1 —rn.*ca�nwnau. I 1 i ; 1 q I i 1 i F- I w l a w As�wtway.er z 0 ••I I \•,,I EG A$t STORAGE N wr.w }1 I I i- rte-c ti PERMIT .- I I ; ��.��•---•- ;® � DRAWINGS K, JULY 2013 '°"� ZONMG I I I $ ncnaou�+sr- ,' I I I �--ar�s..oelweve�a F H - - ----- _. ._._. W LL rlpG�wst cax.od r..v. r.. uuer.vd.M� I Mdrnw �";°"�o,y rw�wa r.M w,v� Z _ U y 2 WEST ELEVATION In Lu Q i F 9 N41 , _.—. —— _-. LLI Q z w J _ AN' I _ 0 $ -— _ ,a.mcw� s,anwr I I I _ q ,l,POCMbe MWIt+6M�0 _0.,4! ' I I 11[BhU is I I I I O NRTH ELEVATION " PERMIi A3.1 DRAWINGS JULY 2013 , Q �� o� Q Q o� ��3 o D ----------I----------- ---------- --- ----------------- ---------- ----------- IT ------- - WON Z.—------- - i7-'-------�--j--------r------------- li LL BAST ELEVATION z D < (D T ---------- -- --------------------- ...................... cm -'It 1 " o 7 ---------- - -------------- - nn - ------------- SOUTH�ELEVATION PERMIT DRAWINGS JULY 2013 0 o Q o o Q o0 0 o 0 0 o c o q ICE I �i i I I yl�pf D10y90 SPACE A I I ,F _ I ESTAN STAIR 1 RESTAURNET V Ile w � 0". � ..-..__.. _ ------ ._.- �� SPACED - j 8 I u F ° LL If I El Q w Lu 00 0 00 0�. � � ob o 0 0 00 z N 1 2 3 4 6 7 i 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 Q �1 SECOND LEVEL EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN n MAIN LEVEL EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN w c9 g 5"i EP STAR-S rn —!we`re 'xrxx>. ♦ � __ --_ - _ 04 N , 0 —__ PERMIT , -- - ___. JULY 2013 a I olz Jam. EEE7RIIIRE7EE7EEN _ �• =71Cfi�'� j.i �u�6.C.R•lSDawwr �W I � _ _._._ .__._....�m—�•••.- tZECENEl3 FIXTURE A HXTURE FKTLM C ra. a me 204 S . GALENA II HPC INSUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT DRAWINGS i AUGUST 2013 i i U Hill - I - z � , U U HOPKINS ELEVATION-DESIRED APPROVAL L _ o - w - - w w Lu _ I J - _ In -I IL.�...» �.. .. .�...-rte I 11 1 1[7 HPC INSUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT HPC e 2 GALENA ELEVATION-CURRENT APPROVAL DRAWINGS __ - AUGUST 2013 I 204 S . GALENA I HPC TENANT PERMIT DRAWINGS AUGUST 2013 `7/ �� tUCNU UtNt HN NVIt� PLANTERS REMOVED I I I \ , , O—ww,n:e,Kn♦ •.v.•,mr a,ur a,amx+,.'•»F,wcwx uca ---�/ r;,. FUME SPREAD AND SMOKE DEVELOPED RATINGS FOR INTERIOR FINISHES O` l I � M,ROwln tdB,ruxq° at,»[Fwcm»m mwaa C_! I (��. ��•� � � /r 3 I I � ,r�wc�me.wm�i.we`�.�ui?MUe ; �/p � �. -� dNi4bi- `I'➢�'t 9sCVL,mufMrl[nNM.v�/o.<wfC VJS,wx . .. U can �- __ �Ml fe<IEM,fKO OYICL[161w» -------- lob r•e»a.um,v»Neuvc,w�unv _ D�. , ,? a PARTITION SCHEDULE LEGEND, EY(It(i 6=i[ 1 4 _ &CE1LENG DATA lgc( (y° ;( r , n�mr 'O -. _^ r'••.'.ti - ��Fres,•opr I � I_ 11 DOOR iilO �r EXTENDED 49 . _ •w. WALL I I W _— li � •(w �^` gip, ,p� � I I ^. .nu.o.w or»wrn.. Lip � 5 KEYED NOTES I r [::1741 �+�� i•;i 'r '�II .I;,it _ � p,�»o� .>,,...,.,«I..,ew„ro i I i I y II f'll I I II - L. .Q � .rnrsax+rart•xmwwm D -... . ,..-- —,'�— :_- -r-._...: r ._ ',r � .__�" � �s,•Fa,ewe..aa.a,.,..aFe m.u... ��d=�� 3 9 EXTENDED /i% -, — p,.aF».•..» «o a.».,. i;� 3 ' 4 t. ...1 i .. WALL - ' .f �` .• ill- ! I 1 j1 t_. e I ,..1.-.11�: I S ' ��`wro�10�.0»"...::ro,...o_'n'•.eFm°i�`�w.. a x, - -- - --- .1.4.1.1 E. r, #--_ - --- _ -- 4 `. E w I� � � II® • I E �,r�'rve j E 7 '-----— --_--- '`r - - cc - 1 1—---'-�•J WAL � i I e m TENANT PERMIT �F�gtilAN:WPEFi IEVEL_A DRAWINGS g AUGUST 2013 °e 4 d = 3 WALL DETAIL A-4 555 NEW WOOD DOOR SIDING EXTENDED TENANT W ALL LIGHTING [z ArcTPA*W6a rA $leoeF o�x �' ,�►�$---- U /I..L VJ l -- G%O3 0.01 OMQ n , LL uirn"wnaE ELEVATIONS EXTERIOR DINING 2ND FLOOR C 2 °CL• O Z ni■ores �� saa so n TENANT PERMIT W5I rANGEMENnNC DRAWINGS .5wa.. AUGUST 2013 555 TENANT z LIGHTING 0 ------------ -- ------ U : U - �EXTERIOR DINING WOOD 00.2 "' SIDING O LL ego eu� ELEVATIONS H 2ND FLOOR O z Ae roTSn V923 OIRA TENANT PERMIT0e"T.rRac. DRAWINGS AUGUST 2013 ` `-/ - - | � | | | El El [] DAVID E rc | | . | | | | | . / URKE KITCHEN '\LENA STREET ,COLORADO 81611 ! it 204 S . GALENA HPC PERMIT CHANGE ORDER DRAWINGS SEPTEMBER 2013 ^„ I M. it e ct www nxK,m..mm ----•- , I. i1 I j U u PLANTERS I ¢ w REMOVED - jl EXTENDED NEW I L) w d ,; - -_ _--._.._ _- -_ �.__ 1 - _.. ___ __. _._ +._ w is Oe i ; 1 I 2 II i i 1 I D 8 O= I 1 U 1 I co J � Kff. Q I i L) EXTENDED I s WALL I I _ _ _ I F N I w- I T w Z vv.1 w -- - ------- ��y ----- �� M < N . .----------- --- ^. C6 I - ^ \� oTNR N I r w a r '- LSSVE DATE: PERMIT CHANGE -------------- -u ORDER DRAWINGS I M SEPTEMBER 2013 - SECOND LEVEL PLAN ^ ^ ® LOWERED Oq q,3 p REDUCED E.7 OF CHANGE TO REDUCED Q WINDOW _ EAVE DEPTH HEAD JEAVE DEPTH SIDING gym•",• I I .�.�ew+an«sr ws i I .TT �pn .uvc - �..QLPdIbO�tNYN/}� f I • L 1 —_ _~V pwr.ellllillA1 I M� – n s,Gaw L) UPPER LEVEL LOBBY WEST ELEVATION w I 5 ve•r = O — / I I W Q —_ w d . .W,w ,eripB W•IArI. on M Mroe,Pa'.rtxrw... I ewoe,P+ m � r.OS NVM• !M_Y.CS.r.O+ CQRM M.I.MY : ta.lY.o>rwb I .ve.. ��q .�VAMIN z rOA�MM RwW m 2 WEST ELEVATION `J w EXTENDED Y1° NEW DOOR WALL Q Q Oj 4 LOWERED O 2.1 Q O U 7 1CQ1/ CHANGETC REDUCED VENEER- HEADDOW ----•t —°-- -- SIDING EAVE DEPTH I ------------- ELEVLOBBYWESTELEV � Q z Z w h In r I wu� I I �. _ _ I rw rvn.uvloee+ SwE.w,., wwro,e – ao xre tio`i, &_a,F=RT,R NOH ELEVATION 3 ELEV LOBBY EAST ELEV PERMIT CHANGE ORDER DRAWINGS A3.1 SEPTEMBER 9013 ........... O E.7 O 1 O O O O .ro.�awry_ I i I I I i I i u�me.com i I i i I I i. , ,..LL•a...a..,,.s..•.o. _ - _ i j ee�weww.sev� < Q s I ! � LL 71WALL 2 EJ1STEt.EVATION z g s+v.ro U REDUCED U ;EAVE DEPTH TENDED UPDATED O ^ , WALL FINISH /1 O = �J ews.+ww. --- I ---------------------�----- L___ _ ------ of //J H V!V Q 2 1 W e .—.—._.—.—.—.—.—.— y J CD wnw ; ____ __---.---.�.—.—.—.—._.—.—.—.ti SOUTH ELEVATION * " 'a PERMIT CHANGE ORDER DRAWINGS A$.2 SEPTEMBER 2013 M� Y. 'r •y F r� j POO • rf• • T Arm 0 . . ICI ;1 i I i e j� of .� P1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon,Historic Preservation Officer RE: 610 E. Hyman Avenue- Extension of Conceptual Major Development approval DATE: October 9, 2013 SUMMARY: 610 E. Hyman Avenue received HPC Conceptual approval for a remodel on October 24, 2012. The applicant proceeded to City Council to finalize a voluntary AspenModern designation of the property, which was approved on January 14, 2013. All applicants have one year from the date of Conceptual to submit a Final review application. The applicant is not prepared to submit for Final within the next two weeks. A six month extension of the HPC approval is requested. Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.3 of the Municipal Code states: Unless otherwise specified in the resolution granting conceptual development plan approval, 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 Community Development Director may grant an extension of this limitation if the delay has been caused by the application requiring additional reviews or similar delays that could not have been reasonably predicted by the applicant. 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant a 6 month extension of Conceptual approval to allow the applicant to further develop the proposal. The new deadline to submit a final application would be April 22, 2014. Attachments: HPC Resolution # , Series of 2013 A. Letter requesting extension, dated September 19,2013 P2 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING A SIX MONTH EXTENSION OF THE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL FOR A PROJECT AT 610 E. HYMAN AVENUE,LOT M,BLOCK 99, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION #_, SERIES OF 2013 PARCEL ID: 2737-182-12-004 WHEREAS, on September 19, 2013, 610 E. Hyman LLC, owner of 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, requested a six month extension of the Conceptual design approval granted by the Historic Preservation Commission through Resolution #27, Series of 2012. According to Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.3, of the Municipal Code, 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; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.3, of the Municipal Code allows the Historic Preservation Commission, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, to 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; and WHEREAS,Amy Simon, in her staff report to HPC dated October 9, 2013, recommended that a one-time extension be granted; and WHEREAS,at their regular meeting on October 9, 2013, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the request and granted a six month extension to the deadline to submit a final development application. The vote of the members was_to_. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby extends the deadline to file a final development application related to Resolution#27, Series of 2012 to April 22, 2014. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 9th day of October, 2013. Jay Maytin, Chair Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 610 E. Hyman Avenue HPC Resolution# , Series of 2013 P3 Amy Guthrie From: Janver Derrington <janverd @Cunniffe.com> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 4:30 PM To: Amy Guthrie Cc: Charles Cunniffe Subject: 610 E. Hyman; HPC Final Review for Aspen Modern Historic Designation Amy, Thank you for your email reminding us that the Conceptual HPC Approval will expire on October 24, 2013. It appears that we will not have the required documentation ready to submit in time to get on the HPC agenda for Final Review before_the expiration date. Therefore, we are requesting that this project be granted a one-time 6 month extension. Please let us know if any further documentation is needed to confirm this extension request. Thank you, Janver Derrington, AIA 1ngi 'i; K>..; ty r iles C unni`ie Ar chi i eicti 610 Eoi,i H.yirc,n Avenue Asp:: ::c'c ad 61()11 970.925, 590 (,,. 97".925,57 janverd @cunniffe.com www.cunniffe.com :'x+`,A RI C Arm IN C)' A..C1 i 0 V\I.:S1 201 . .',.5 s.(lt_..- Y.I_..A��.. 1 P5 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner THRU: Amy Guthrie,Historic Preservation Officer RE: 206 Lake Ave. - Minor Development and Hallam Lake Bluff Review continued public hearing from August 28, 2013 DATE: October 9, 2013 SUMMARY: 206 Lake Avenue, aka the Newberry House or the Shaw House, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is a locally designated landmark. It is located at the corner of Lake Avenue and Smuggler Street, across from Triangle Park and above Hallam Lake. The property was constructed circa 1886 in the Queen Anne Shingle Style. It is one of the more significant residential structures in Aspen not just for its architectural style, but also for its association with a number of important people including Judge Robert Shaw, and T.G. Lyster who helped organize the First National Bank of Aspen. HPC continued the public hearing on August 28, 2013 for the applicant to restudy the proposed changes to the historic home, to provide more information regarding the reconstruction of the foundation, and to revise the requested variances for Hallam Lake Bluff Review. The applicant has revised the application including the following: 1. Omitted the proposed addition to the historic home. The garage is proposed within the existing footprint. A mechanical system is proposed to utilize the existing historic carriage door as the garage door. 2. The proposed driveway is in the same location as presented in the Aug. 28 application. application. 3. Window and door changes are proposed to the east and north elevations. 4. A cedar shingle roof is proposed instead of the metal roof. 5. Omitted the proposed reconstruction of the front porch. 6. A letter from structural engineers KL&A is included in the application that provides detailed information about the necessity of replacing the foundation. 7. The elements within the Hallam Lake Bluff area that required a variance from the 15 feet setback have been removed with the exception of 2 steps that are necessary for a grade change on the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant Minor Development approval with conditions and Hallam Lake Bluff review approval with conditions as specified herein. 1 206 Lake Ave. HPC Minor Development/Hallam Bluff Staff Memo 10/09/2013 P6 APPLICANT: Lake 206 LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-88-005. ADDRESS: 206 Lake Avenue, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. ZONE DISTRICT: R-6 Medium Density Residential Zone District. MINOR DEVELOPMENT The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300)feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26316 Staff Response: 206 Lake Avenue has been altered over time. It appears from historic photographs that the front porch was originally enclosed with screens. The historic inventory form indicates that the porch was opened around 1991 and new posts, frieze and balustrade were added. A two story addition was added to the east elevation. A 1919 photograph, included in the application, shows that the carriage house was incorporated into the main house, which is a unique feature to this property that was included in the National Register nomination as noteworthy. Garage: Staff appreciates the applicant working with the existing footprint of the home and returning the original carriage entrance to its original, but modern day, function. The proposed mechanical system (included in your packet) is mounted on the outside of the garage in a track similar to the existing wooden track. The existing track will have to be replaced, but Staff finds that this is an appropriate trade-off considering the benefit of turning the Staff is supportive of the proposal. Windows/doors/deck at East and North Elevation: The applicant proposes to change window configurations on the east elevation. One new door is proposed on the first level to access a new deck that overlooks Hallam Lake. The windows and door on the East Elevation are in a non- historic addition and do not detract from the historic resource. The windows proposed on the North Elevation are in the historic portion of the house,which Staff does not support. 2 206 Lake Ave. HPC Minor Development/Hallam Bluff Staff Memo 10/09/2013 P7 The applicant has reduced the size of the proposed deck along the east elevation to not intrude on the Hallam Lake Bluff 15' setback. The proposed new door accesses the deck. The applicant requests that staff and monitor review and approve the details of the new deck. Staff is supportive of the new door and the new deck, which are both located �� 3 in/attached to the non-historic addition. "YS xx applicant Site plan/landscape. Th e proposes an on grade stone patio, fire r pit, hot tub. Perennials are proposed along the fence at the front of the g fence is The existing property. proposed to remain in its current location and the historic concrete step ` located at the front of the walk in the » '{ City right of way is to remain. The t." . . applicant proposes to remove some excess concrete along the walk. Staff is supportive of the fire pit (which is not visible from the street due to large plantings), the perennials, and the on grade patio. Staff recommends that the details of the landscape plan, including a material sample for the stone patio,be reviewed and approved by Staff and monitor. Front door: The applicant proposes to replace the existing front door, which according to historic photographs is not original. A photograph from 1980 shows a wood door with an oval window and the current door has a square window. Consistent with the Staff recommendation on August 28th, Staff recommends that the applicant propose a more simple paneled door for review by Staff and Monitor. Foundation: The applicant proposes to pick up the historic home and to rebuild the foundation and dig a basement. A small lightwell is proposed along the east elevation(facing Hallam Lake). The applicant submitted a detailed letter from structural engineers KL&A indicating that the foundation has moved over time and would benefit from replacement. The letter states: "The Professional judgment of KL&A and the team is that the new foundation is best installed by a process of temporarily lifting the existing house up just far enough to separate it from the existing foundations that will be removed. This is a process that is commonly executed, and we do not see any issues with being able to safely lift this house." To ensure the longevity of the home, Staff is supportive of the in-kind replacement of the brick foundation. Bill Bailey indicates that the historic home can be picked up while the foundation is replaced. Staff included conditions of approval that are consistent with the Design Guidelines below. A lightwell is required for egress from the new basement. The property is significantly over.the allowable floor area. The conversion of living space to a garage frees up approximately 250 square feet of Floor Area, which is proposed to be applied to the new basement Floor Area. It is 3 206 Lake Ave. HPC Minor Development/Hallam Bluff Staff Memo 10/09/2013 P8 the minimum size (3' x 3') and it is located on a non-street facing fagade. There is a slight intrusion into the Hallam Lake Bluff setback, but it will not be visible from the Lake. Staff is supportive of the lightwell. Further discussion of the intrusion into the Hallam Lake setback is addressed below. The lightwell will be about 8" — 12" above grade and will be clad in brick to match the new foundation. A grate is proposed for the lightwell. 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. • In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. • It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. ❑ Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. • A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. • Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation,utilities, and to restore the house. • The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. • In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. ❑ On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. ❑ Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. ❑ Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. ❑ Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. Materials: The applicant proposes to replace the existing asphalt shingle roof with a cedar shingle roof. Staff finds that the Guideline below is met. 7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to those used traditionally. ❑ Replacement materials should be similar to those used historically on comparably styled buildings. ❑ If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a.matte,non-reflective finish. 4 206 Lake Ave. HPC Minor Development/Hallam Bluff Staff Memo 10/09/2013 P9 HALLAM LAKE BLUFF REVIEW AND SPECIAL REVIEW FOR TOP OF SLOPE DETERMINATION: 26.435.060.0. Hallam Lake Bluff review standards. No development shall be permitted within the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development meets all of the requirements listed in Exhibit B. Staff Response: Staff finds that review criterion 2.a, that a site specific constraint is present to allow development above grade within the 15 foot setback, is not met. Staff and the Engineering Department recommend that HPC grant Hallam Lake Bluff with the condition that all development within the 15 foot setback is at grade. Comments from the Parks Department and the Engineering Department are included as Exhibit C and D. 26.435.040.E Special Review. The applicant requests an alternate top of slope that better reflects the current condition of the property. The adopted top of slope is below in green. The applicant requests that the new top of slope be located at the top of the existing retaining wall along the rear property line. The Engineering Department has conducted a site visit and finds that proposed top of slope is appropriate. The review criteria to determine a new top of slope are addressed in Exhibit B. Staff recommends approval of the alternate top of slope. Suggested discussion points • West Elevation: o Garage is incorporated into the house. o .Existing door remains and is mechanized. • East Elevation(existing two story addition to the historic home): o New windows. o New doors. o Site improvements: decks patios, fire pit,hot tub • Front and Rear Elevations: o New front and rear doors-for Staff and Monitor approval o New windows in rear elevation(in historic elevation) • Roof: o Wood shingles • Pick up the home to replace foundation. o Add basement and lightwell. • Hallam Lake Bluff Review Standards 5 206 Lake Ave. HPC Minor Development/Hallam Bluff Staff Memo 10/09/2013 NO • Existing steps/ small portion of lightwell within the 15 foot setback from top of slope require a variance from standards. • Establish a new top of slope. The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application,or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Minor Development approval and Hallam Lake Bluff Review approval for the property located at 206 Lake Avenue, with the following conditions: 1. The proposed windows on the rear elevation are not approved. 2. The following items require approval by Staff and Monitor prior to purchase and installation: a. The proposed door style is not approved. A paneled door shall be submitted for Staff and Monitor review and approval. b. The color and style of the brick foundation shall be reviewed and approved by Staff and Monitor. c. The lighwell shall be clad with the same brick material as the foundation. d. The details of the deck shall be submitted for Staff and Monitor review and approval. e. The details of the landscape plan, including material samples for the.patios, shall be submitted for Staff and Monitor review and approval. 3. The following items are approved: a. The proposed windows and doors along the east elevation are approved as shown in Exhibit A. b. The proposed deck, fire pit and patios along the east elevation are approved as shown in Exhibit A. 4. Relocation: Temporarily relocating the historic home to construct a new foundation is approved with the following conditions to be completed prior to building permit issuance: a. The applicant submits a letter from a structural engineer demonstrating that the foundation requires replacement. b. Provide a$30,000 letter of credit or cashier's check to insure the safe relocation of the house. c. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. d. The applicant shall include documentation of the existing elevation of the home and the relationship of the foundation to grade in the building permit application. 5. Hallam Lake Bluff Review and Alternate Top of Slope: 6 206 Lake Ave. HPC Minor Development/Hallam Bluff Staff Memo 10/09/2013 Pi 1 a. The Applicant shall record a site improvement plat that meets the requirements of Land Use Code section 26.435.040 F.,Building permit submittal requirements prior to submittal of a building permit. As approved by the Commission, the plat will delineate a 15 feet setback from the top of slope as the building envelope for any development in lieu of a minimum rear yard setback. All other setbacks are subject to the requirements of the underlying zone district. b. A lighting plan shall meet Hallam Lake Bluff review standards and Land Use Code requirements for review by Staff and Monitor. c. All improvements within the, 15 foot setback from the newly established top of slope shall be at the existing grade. d. All features, with the exception of the lightwell, shall be developed at grade or shall be moveable(i.e. a moveable grill, chairs, tables, lounge, fire pit) 6. Parks: a. Tree Protection: i. A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site and their represented drip lines. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the bldg permit set. As referenced in Chapter 13.20 ii. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee(920-5120)before any construction activities are to commence. As referenced in Chapter 13.20 iii. Any access across or through the area of protection is prohibited at all times iv. The Parks Department recognizes that the large cottonwood trees located within the City ROW are significant in size and character to the West End Neighborhood. It is important that these trees like any others are.protected .per City Code 13.20. b. Tree Permit i. If a tree(s)is requested for removal,the applicant will be required to receive an approved tree removal permit per City Code 13.20, this includes impacts under the drip line of the tree. Parks is requiring that the tree permit be approved prior to approval of the demo and/or building permits. If a permit is necessary, contact the City Forester at 920-5120. Mitigation for removals will be paid on site or cash in lieu, off site planting on Triangle Park is not an approved method of mitigation,per City Code 13.20. Parks will approve a final landscape plan during the review of the tree removal permit based on the landscape estimates and site specific constraints. This in no way guarantees approval for removal of the trees being identified on the conceptual site plan. Approval for removal will be accomplished through the tree removal permit process. 7 206 Lake Ave. HPC Minor Development/Hallam Bluff Staff Memo 10/09/2013 P12 ii. The permit should include the trees which will have impacts from excavation and building under the drip line of the trees. The site plan shows several trees proposed to remain with significant impacts adjacent to or around the trees. The permit shall include a detail of the impacts, which include but are not limited too; depth of excavation, distance from trunks,height of impacts, etc. Approval of the tree permit is contingent on review and approval of the drip line impacts. 1. Driveway installation; the plans shall include detailed information and measures for tree protection. Parks recommends consulting with the City Forester prior to submitting plans for permit. The on- site consultation will provide the detailed measures required for protection and development of the driveway. 2. Removal of the two entry walkways;both walkways are located under existing drip lines. The walkways will require demolition by hand and the use of large equipment is prohibited. Plans shall detail how this will be accomplished. 7. Engineering: a. The basement addition will likely require a form of temporary or permanent earth retention. The horizontal extent of the earth retention system cannot go beyond the existing foundation. The earth retention system and the new foundation shall be constrained to the existing foundation footprint. b. The applicant shall locate the driveway at least 50 ft. away from the intersection of Smuggler and Lake. c. The URMP and Engineering Design Standards must be met. 8. There shall be no deviations from the approved plan without first being reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. 9. The conditions of approval are required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 10. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. 11. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance,the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the 8 206 Lake Ave. HPC Minor Development/Hallam Bluff Staff Memo 10/09/2013 P1-3 City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) dears, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes,pertaining to the following described property: 206 Lake Avenue,Lot 20 of`the Shaw and WPW Ventures Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Exhibits: Resolution# , Series of 2013 A. Relevant Design Guidelines B. `Hallam Lake Bluff Review Standards r C. Comments from the Parks Department D. Comments from the Engineering Department . E. Application dated 8/28/13 [provided on 8/28/10] F. Minutes from August 28th HPC meeting G. Revised Application dated 9/25/13 �. 1 l Y �� C�S 9 206 Lake Ave. HPC Minor Development/Hallam Bluff Staff Memo 10/09/2013 P14 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMENT, ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW TOP OF SLOPE,AND HALLAM LAKE BLUFF REVIEW OF' EVROPERTY LOCATED AT 206 LAKE AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 20 OF THE SHAW AND WPW JOINT VENTURE SUBDIVISION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION# SERIES OF 2013 PARCEL IDs: 27".494-88-005 WHEREAS, the applicant, Lake 206 LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, submitted an application requesting Minor Development review and Hallam Lake Bluff Review of the property located at 612 West Main Street, legally described as Lots O and P, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, 206 Lake Avenue is included in AspenVictorian and listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; and WHEREAS, 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, pursuant to Section 26.304.060.B.1 of the Municipal .Code, the Community Development Director determines that a consolidated review is permitted and authorizes HPC to conduct Hallam Lake Bluff Review; and WHEREAS, 206 Lake Avenue is located within the Hallam Lake Bluff area as described in Section 26.43 5.01 O.D of the Municipal Codes; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 9, 2013, continued from August 28, 2013, the Historic Preservation Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing, took public comment, considered the application, the staff memo, staff recommendation, and public .comments, and found that the application for Minor Development and Hallam Lake Bluff Review met the review standards with conditions, and the. "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines,"by a vote of NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED: Staff recommends that HPC grant Minor Development approval and Hallam Lake Bluff Review approval for the property located at 206 Lake Avenue, with the following conditions: 1. The proposed windows on the rear elevation are not approved. 2. The following items require approval by Staff and Monitor prior to purchase and installation: 206 Lake Ave.—Minor Development and Hallam Lake Bluff Review HPC Resolution# ,Series of 2013 P15 a. The proposed door style is not approved. A paneled door shall be submitted for Staff and Monitor review and approval. b. The color and style of the brick foundation shall be reviewed and approved by Staff and Monitor. c. The lighwell shall be clad with the same brick material as the foundation. d. The details of the deck shall be submitted for Staff and Monitor review and approval. e. The details of the landscape plan, including material samples for the patios, shall be submitted for Staff and Monitor review and approval. 3. The following items are approved: a. The proposed windows and doors along the east elevation are approved as shown in Exhibit A. b. The proposed deck, fire pit and patios along the east elevation are approved as shown in Exhibit A. 4. Relocation: Temporarily relocating the historic home to construct a new foundation is approved with the following conditions to be completed prior to.building permit issuance: a. The applicant submits a letter from a structural engineer demonstrating that the foundation requires replacement. b. Provide a$30,000 letter of credit, cashier's check, or other form acceptable to the City Attorney to insure the safe relocation of the house. c. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. d. The applicant shall include documentation of the existing elevation of the home and the relationship of the foundation to grade in the building permit application. 5. Hallam Lake Bluff Review and Alternate Top of Slope: a. The Applicant shall record a site improvement plat that meets the requirements of Land Use Code section 26.435.040 F., Building permit submittal requirements prior to submittal of a building permit. As approved by the Commission; the plat will delineate a 15 feet setback from the top of slope as the building envelope for any development in lieu of a minimum rear yard setback. All other setbacks are subject to the requirements of the underlying zone district. b: A lighting plan shall meet Hallam Lake Bluff review standards and Land Use Code requirements for review by Staff and Monitor. c. All improvements within the 15 foot setback from the newly established top of slope shall be at the existing grade. d. All features, with the exception of the lightwell, shall be developed at grade or shall be moveable (i.e. a moveable grill, chairs, tables, lounge, fire pit) 6. Parks: a. Tree Protection: i. A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site and their represented drip lines. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the bldg permit set. As referenced in Chapter 13.20 206 Lake Ave.—Minor Development and Hallam Lake Bluff Review HPC Resolution# , Series of 2013 P16 ii. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120)before any construction activities are to commence. As referenced in Chapter 13.20 iii. Any access across or through the area of protection is prohibited at all times iv. The Parks Department recognizes that the large cottonwood trees located within the City ROW are significant in size and character to the West End Neighborhood. It is important that these trees like any others are protected per City Code 13-;20. b. Tree Permit i. If a tree(s) is requested for removal, the applicant will be required to receive an approved tree removal permit per City Code 13.20, this includes impacts under the drip line of the tree. Parks is requiring that the tree permit be approved prior to approval of the demo and/or building permits. If a permit is necessary, contact the City Forester at 920-5120. Mitigation for removals will be paid on site or cash in lieu, off site planting on Triangle Park is not an approved method of mitigation,per City Code 13.20. Parks will approve a final landscape plan during the review of the tree removal permit based on the landscape estimates and_ site specific constraints. This in no way guarantees approval for removal of the trees being identified on the conceptual site plan. Approval for removal will be accomplished through the tree removal permit process. ii. The permit should include the trees which will have impacts from excavation and building under the drip line of the trees. The site plan shows several trees proposed to remain with significant impacts adjacent to or around the trees. The permit shall include a detail of the impacts, which include but are not limited too; depth of excavation, distance from trunks, height of impacts, etc. Approval of the tree permit is contingent on review and approval of the drip line impacts. 1. Driveway installation; the.plans shall include detailed information and measures for tree protection. Parks recommends consulting with the City Forester prior to submitting plans for permit. The on-site consultation will provide the detailed measures required for protection and development of the driveway. 2. Removal of the two entry walkways; both walkways are located under existing drip lines. The walkways will require demolition by hand and the use of large equipment is prohibited. Plans shall detail how this will be accomplished. 7. Engineering: a. The basement addition will likely require a form of temporary or permanent earth retention. `The horizontal extent of the earth retention system cannot go beyond 206 Lake Ave.—Minor Development and Hallam Lake Bluff Review HPC Resolution# Series of 2013 P17 the existing foundation. The earth retention system and the new foundation shall be constrained to the existing foundation footprint. b. The applicant shall locate the driveway at least 50 ft. away from the intersection of Smuggler and Lake. c. The URMP and Engineering Design Standards must be met. 8. There shall be no deviations from the approved plan without first being reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. 9. The conditions of approval are required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 10. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. 11. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (1 4) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance,the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68; Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 206 Lake Avenue,Lot 20 of the Shaw and WPW Ventures Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin,State of Colorado. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order-from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. 206 Lake Ave.—Minor Development and Hallam Lake Bluff Review HPC Resolution# Series of 2013 P18 APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 9th day of October, 2013- Jay Maytin, Chair Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Exhibit A: Site.plan and elevations illustrating approval. 206 Lake Ave.—Minor Development and Hallam Lake Bluff Review HPC Resolution# Series of 2013 - - - - P19 Exhibit A—Relevant Design Guidelines for 206 Lake Ave. 1.1 Preserve original fences. ❑ Replace only those portions that are deteriorated beyond repair. Replacement elements should match the existing fence. 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. ❑ This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in the "private" spaces beyond. ❑ Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkways are discouraged,except where it is needed to avoid a tree. ❑ Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style. Concrete,wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles. 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic structures. ❑ The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod, and not covered with paving,for example. 1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. ❑ Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. ❑ If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project. 1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs. ❑ Retaining historic planting beds,landscape features and walkways is encouraged. 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site. ❑ Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact of mature growth. ❑ Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent. ❑ Do not cover grassy areas with gravel,rock or paving materials. 1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic. structures are inappropriate. ❑ Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer than the mature canopy size. • Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural features or block views to the building. • It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard. 1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting. ❑ Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on walks and entries,rather than up into trees and onto facade planes. 1.16 Preserve historically significant landscape designs and features. ❑ This includes the arrangement of trees, shrubs, plant beds, irrigation ditches and sidewalks in the public right-of-way. 2.1 Preserve original building materials. ❑ Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. P20 • Only remove siding which is deteriorated and must be replaced. • Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved. • Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. ❑ Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. 4.3 When a historic door is damaged,repair it and maintain its general historic appearance. ❑ For additional information see Chapter 14: General Guidelines "On-Going Maintenance of Historic Properties". 4.4 If a new screen door is used,it should be in character with the primary door. ❑ Match the frame design and color of the primary door. ❑ If the entrance door is constructed of wood, the frame of the screen door should also be wood. 4:5 When replacing a door,use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the house. ❑ A replica of the original,if evidence exists,is the preferred replacement. ❑ A historic door from a similar building also may be considered. ❑ Simple paneled doors were typical. ❑ Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. 5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and detail. ❑ Use materials that appear similar to the original. ❑ While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted appropriately, alternative materials may be considered. ❑ Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have been used on the house or others like it. • When constructing a new porch,its depth should be in scale with the building. • The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork. • The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those used historically as well. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. ❑ Flat skylights that are flush with the roof plane may be considered only in an obscure location on a historic structure. Locating a skylight or a solar panel on a front roof plane is not allowed. ❑ A skylight or solar panel should not interrupt the plane of a historic roof. It should be positioned below the ridgeline. 7.9 New or.replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to those used traditionally. • Replacement materials should be similar to those used historically on comparably styled buildings. • If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a matte,non-reflective finish. • Flashing should be in scale with the roof material. P21 ❑ If copper flashing is to be used, it should be treated to establish a matte, non-reflective finish. 7.10 If it is to be used, a metal roof should be applied and detailed in a manner that is compatible and does not detract from the historic appearance of the building. ❑ A metal roof material should have an earth tone and have a matte,non-reflective finish. ❑ A metal roof with a lead-like patina also is an acceptable alternative. ❑ Seams should be of a low profile. ❑ A roof assembly with a.high profile seam or thick edge is inappropriate. 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. ❑ It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. ❑ It may not, for example,be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. ❑ On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. ❑ Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be-similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation,locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. ❑ Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. ❑ Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. ❑ A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. ❑ An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. ❑ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. ❑ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. ❑ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. ❑ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.5 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street. ❑ Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at . approximately the same height. An addition should not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured. P22 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. ❑ An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a"connector" to link it to the historic building. ❑ A 1-story connector is preferred. ❑ The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. ❑ The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character.to remain prominent. • Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. • Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. • Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. ❑ Typically, gable,hip and shed roofs are appropriate. ❑ Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. ❑ For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. ❑ The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. P23 Exhibit B-HALLAM LAKE BLUFF REVIEW AND TOP OF SLOPE DETERMINATION: 26.435.060.0. Hallam Lake Bluff review standards. No development shall be permitted within the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development meets all of the following requirements: 1. No development, excavation or fill, other than native vegetation planting, shall take place below the top of slope. Staff Response: The application does not represent any changes below the proposed top of slope. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 2. All development within the fifteen-foot setback from the top 'of slope shall be at grade. Any proposed development not at grade within the fifteen-foot setback shall not be approved unless the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the following conditions can be met: a. A unique condition exists on the site where strict adherence to the top-of-slope setback will create an unworkable design problem. b. Any intrusion into the top-of-slope setback or height limit is minimized to the greatest extent possible. c. Other parts of the structure or development on the site are located outside the top-of-slope setback line or height limit to the greatest extent possible. d. Landscape treatment is increased to screen the structure or development in the setback from all adjoining properties. Staff Response: The applicant has revised the application to remove all new intrusions into the setback. Two existing at-grade steps are proposed to remain. A small corner of the proposed lightwell, which will be about 8" — 12" above grade, is located within the 15 foot setback. The lightwell is located on the edge of the setback line, adjacent to the non-historic addition so that it does not detract from the historic resource. A movable or at-grade fire pit is proposed within the 15 foot setback. Moveable tables, grill, chairs and lounges are also proposed. A small portion of the existing house sits within the 15 foot setback. The Parks Department does not recommend any additional screening on the site, as the existing conditions are adequate. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 3. All development outside the fifteen-foot setback from top of slope shall not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five-degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Community Development Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.104.100 and the method of calculating height set forth at Section 26.575.020. Staff Response: The proposed new improvements meet this requirement. 4. A landscape plan shall be submitted with all development applications. Such plan shall include native vegetative screening of no less than fifty percent (50%) of the development as viewed from the rear (slope) of the parcel. All vegetative screening P24 shall be maintained in perpetuity and shall be replaced with the same or comparable material should it die. Staff Response: The Parks Deparment does not recommend any additional screening for the property. The existing condition of the slope includes a manmade cut that was created when Elizabeth Paepcke owned the adjacent property to provide a trail to adjacent properties. This bench and large retaining wall screen the subject property without needing too much additional vegetation. 5. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the nature preserve or located down the slope and shall be in compliance with Section 26.575.150. Staff Response: The applicant represents that all lighting requirements will be met. Staff has added a condition of approval that Staff and monitor review and approve a lighting plan prior to building permit issuance. 6. No fill material or debris shall be placed on the face of the slope. Historic drainage patterns and rates must be maintained. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained down the slope. Staff Response: The applicant represents that the hot tub will not be drained down the slope. The project will be required to meet all applicable stormwater management requirements. 7. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect or engineer shall be submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope and pertinent elevations above sea level. Staff Response: Site sections were included in the August 28, 2013 application. 26.435.040.E. Special review. An application requesting a variance from the stream margin review standards or an appeal of the Stream Margin Map's top of slope determination, shall be processed as a special review in accordance with common development review procedure set forth in Chapter 26.304. The special review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been published, posted and mailed, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. ** Staff note: The HPC is authorized to conduct Special Review to determine an alternate top of slope. Futhermore, the top of slope for 206 Lake is related to the Hallam Lake Bluff review not a Stream Margin review. A special review from the stream margin review determination may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following review criteria: 1. An authorized survey from a Colorado professionally licensed surveyor shows a different determination in regards to the top of slope and 100-year flood plain than the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed in the City Engineering Department; and P25 Staff Response:. A surveyor has identified an alternative top of slope compared,to the Stream Margin Map. The proposed alternative has been field verified by the Engineering department as an appropriate alternative. Staff finds this criterion met. 2. The proposed development meets the stream margin review standard(s) upon which the Community Development Director had based the finding of denial. Staff Response: The proposed development meets the Hallam Lake Bluff review standards with the conditions specified in the Staff memo. P26 Memorandum Date: August 14, 2013 To: Sara Adams, City of Aspen Planning From: Brian Flynn, Parks Department Re: 206 Lake Ave ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A) Tree Protection: 1) A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site and their represented drip lines.A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the bldg permit set.As referenced in Chapter 13.20 2) No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site.This fence must be inspected by the city forester-or his/her designee (920- 5120) before any construction activities are to commence. As referenced in Chapter 13.20 3) Any access across or through the area of protection is prohibited at all times 4) The Parks Department recognizes that the large cottonwood trees located within the City ROW are significant in size and character to the West End Neighborhood. It is important that these trees like any others are protected per City Code 13.20. B) Tree Permit: 1) If a tree(s) is requested for removal, the applicant will be required to receive an approved tree removal permit per City Code 13.20,this includes impacts under the drip line of the tree. Parks is requiring that the tree permit be approved prior to approval of the demo and/or building permits. If a permit is necessary, contact the City Forester at 920-5120. Mitigation for removals will be paid on site or cash in lieu, off site planting on Triangle Park is not an approved method of mitigation,per City Code 13.20. Parks will approve a final landscape plan during the review of the tree removal permit based on the landscape estimates and site specific constraints. P27 This in no way guarantees approval for removal of the trees being identified on the conceptual site plan. Approval for removal will be accomplished through the tree removal permit process. 2) The permit should include the trees which will have impacts from excavation and building under the drip line of the trees. The site plan shows several trees proposed to remain with significant impacts adjacent to or around the trees. The permit shall include a detail of the impacts,which include but are not limited too; depth of excavation, distance from trunks,height of impacts, etc. Approval of the tree permit is contingent on review and approval of the drip line impacts. 1. Driveway installation; the plans shall include detailed information and measures for tree protection. Parks recommends consulting with the City Forester prior to submitting plans for permit. The on-site consultation will provide the detailed measures required for protection and development of the driveway. 2. Removal of the two entry walkways; both walkways are located under existing drip lines. The walkways will require demolition by hand and the use of large equipment is prohibited. Plans shall detail how this will be accomplished. P28 Exhibit D: Engineering Department Comments 1. The basement addition will likely require a form of temporary or permanent earth retention. The horizontal extent of the earth retention system cannot go beyond the existing foundation. In other words, the earth retention system and the new foundation shall be constrained to the existing foundation footprint. 2. It is my understanding of the code that no structure is allowed within the 15' setback. The new above grade structures (patio/steps) should not be constructed. 3. The applicant shall locate the driveway at least 50 ft away from the intersection of Smuggler and Lake. 4. The URMP and Engineering Design Standards must be met. P29 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION F0 MINUTES OF AUGUST 28 2013 . Jay inted out that th a licant embraced o c ments. MOTI N: Patrick *,oved approve resol ion#2 as writte, by sta and that incl des the F bonus nd the setba varianc . Moti second Jay. Roll call v e: Pat ck, yes; Jo es; lis, yes; Jan e ; Nora, yes; Sallie, yes. J s. 7-0. 206 Lake Avenue—Minor Development and Hallam Lake Bluff Review Debbie said the affidavit of posting is in order and the applicant can proceed. Amy said there was a site visit at NOON. This is a one-step review in terms of the architectural changes to the house. There is also a Hallam Lake review involved because it overhangs the ACES property. It is also on the National Register which is an honor. The house is a large example of Victorian architecture that survived in Aspen and has not had many changes. It is an important property. There are a few proposed changes to the house that we feel are not in keeping with the history of the building and it is moving further away from its original integrity with the proposed changes. Skylights are proposed.in a non-historic addition on the side of the house. Alterations to a garage or carriage house feature are proposed and alterations to the front porch and the proposed new metal roof. Amy said we don't have a Sanborn map to show you and not a lot of photographs. Nora has provided us with some pictures from the 50"s. In 1980 when the inventory was done the house looks intact with few alterations to the porch and the house. Currently there is no on-site parking on the site,just the head in parking at the intersection of the two streets in the front. The applicant would like an on-site garage which would come off the Triangle Park end of the property. There may be a way to accommodate that with a free standing one stall garage or uncovered parking or a car port. The option proposed is to reuse the original carriage house opening that was actually within the enclosed home. It was not a detached structure. The existing door slides open to get whatever was needed from the house. There is a request to convert that back into a garage but it is not deep enough to use as a garage at this point so the proposal is to pull the wall out and enlarge the house and demolish that facade and changing the original doors. Staff is not in support of that. We feel that is too much of an impact on the building for 3 P30 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 28. 2013 the sake of creating a garage when there are other options. Tied into this issue the house is approximately 1,000 square feet over the floor area and they can maintain that and take advantage of a garage square footage bonus which is basically everyone gets one garage stall free in any residential development. If they built a free standing structure they could also get one free stall which we would be more inclined to support. Staff recommends denial of the garage. There is work proposed for the front porch. The porch that you see today is not original. Staff would be in support of a restoration. The house had a screened in porch and that could be restored. What is being proposed is a compilation of porch features from other buildings in town and staff does not recommend something being imported and then the character of the building changes. Staff is also recommending denial of the porch changes. The application includes a metal shingle roof. Typically a house like this would have wood shingles historically. Now we allow wood or asphalt shingles. Staff does not support the metal shingle roof. Skylights are proposed in the roof on the east side. Staff also recommends denial of the skylights because they are not a feature that you would see on a roof of a house like this and they are a negative impact. Amy said there are some things that could be recommended to be approved. The applicant proposes to replace the front and back door of the house. The existing door is not original and the proposed door is not accurate or appropriate door to use. We suggest another door that staff and monitor could approve. If lifting of the house is approved the exact foundation should be used when it is put back. Staff is in favor of the door and windows on the east elevation that overlook the lake. Staff also supports the deck and fire pit to the extent that they meet the Hallam Lake Review. The applicant proposes to pick the house up and make a better foundation for it. We need more history on the foundation as there is a brick veneer that is applied around the house. Staff and.monitor can review that work. There is some concern about the size of this house being lifted even though it will only be a few feet. Amy said the Hallam Lake Bluff standard needs discussed. There is a 15 foot protective zone and everything needs to be flush with grade. Staff supports that standard. The house is over the floor area and when it is lifted for the foundation there has been discussion as to .whether a full basement should be built. if they excavate a basement which then needs light wells, they don't have the floor 4 P31 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 28, 2013 area and there is a way the Community Development Director can review it for building safety and possibly allow those. We don't want it implied if you accept this new foundation that you are granting some floor area. That is totally a separate discussion. We would also need a structural engineer report before the program can move forward. Jane said it would be important to know if there was any survey on the Hallam Lake bluff and if a soils report was done. Amy said the City did go out and map the sites and created a proposed top of slope. Amy said for the process we would determine how many square feet are being added. I think the cut off is 250 square feet which is about right where they are. Amy also said this can be continued if you determine something is missing. Amy said if they are increasing the floor area with a basement they don't have the right to without further discussion. Sallie said the Building Department requires some kind of egress which will increase the square footage.. Amy said the Community Development can grant the square footage when it is required to meet building code. There needs to be discussion as to whether this is a self-created building code compliance or how it would be reviewed. HPC would review the light wells. Sallie asked what information can we rely on whether the building can be moved or not. Amy said there will be a report from KLNA with their suggestions and a report from Bill Bailey the house mover. In this case the house is going straight up and back down. Patrick said if the garage isn't going to be attached then there might not be a need to move the house. Willis said the plans do not indicate light wells but the text does. 5 P32 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 28,2013 Stan Clauson & Associates Greg Tankersley, architects Stan said the Pole house or Jonathan Lewis house has a walkway that continues with intervening ownership between Hallam Lake, ACES and our subject property. The walkway connects to the Lewis's other ownership property also on Lake Avenue. It creates an unusual situation due to the walkway between our property and Hallam Lake which is different from any other situation along Lake Avenue. This is a 12,000 square foot parcel located in the West End zoned R-6. It has 5,900 existing floor area. The original house circa 1886 has numerous additions and it is not on the national historic registration. The house was constructed prior to the Hallam Lake ESA. The house encroaches into that setback and is characterized as Queen Ann. Some of the proposed changes conform to the Queen Ann description in the preservation guidelines. The carriage door opens into an internal carriage facility. Stan presented photos of the house etc. The proposed project adaptively reuses the space in the existing house to re-establish the attached garage and we believe that is a much better solution than having it detached which would take up considerably more area and use the lawn and not add to the historic integrity of the house but detract from it. The driveway would be re- established in its historic location and the foundation would be replaced. The foundation consists of many different kinds of foundation material and in order to stabilize the entire house for the future replacing the foundation is a good thing to do. Yes, it would create a subgrade space. Subgrade space does not count in floor area. Unless the subgrade space was open by window wells or some sort of walkout there is no additional floor area by creating that subgrade. If, however the building department believes that there must be some egress then that would be a discussion with the Community Development director and ultimately staff and monitors to determine where an egress might be appropriate. There is replacement of doors and windows as discussed. The skylights are not visible from the street. The front porch could be improved and being able to use the patio and deck in the rear would be screened by vegetation. There would be landscape improvements. There is an existing porch on the north elevation and the skylights are proposed on the east roof. The garage would be 230 square feet. The proposed deck is lower than 30 inches which meets the zoning requirements but would slightly encroach on the Hallam Lake area. 6 P33 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 28, 2013 Greg Tankersley, architect Greg said the owners are from Los Angeles and they have small children and they want a larger house and intend to spend more time here. There is nothing inside the house that is original. The intent is to renovate the interior. The structural engineer said the foundation needs addressed as it will continue to settle. We would put a full basement in. They do not want any bedrooms in the basement and that is why there are no window wells. There might be a half bath down there for the exercise room. There is no place to park a car on the site. There are spots in front but they are technically public parking. We looked at doing a freestanding garage but because of the triangle side yard it cannot site square to the site. On the west elevation we would incorporate the carriage door for a pair of cars. On the existing porch the porch used to be screened in and it didn't have the turned columns. The railing and gingerbread is substandard. We want to upgrade the porch and look at Queen Ann detailing. The existing front door is not original and that would be changed. Greg said there is an existing porch on the back of the house and we are proposing to take the roof around and integrate it on the porch. The skylights are proposed on the east roof and some changes to windows and doors. On the materials where we are adding on we would duplicate the wood siding that is there. Windows and doors would be duplicated. On the roof we desire a permanent roof of metal shingle and not an asphalt shingle. Stan said behind the door is a spa arrangement and then circulation space for the house itself. The spa would be removed and with the small addition of 230 square feet we would use that for the garage. This is the least obstructive to the property. The driveway would open up some of the views to the house. Greg said it would be a single car driveway even though there would be a two bay garage. Stan said the deck would step down to be below 30 inches and be very well screened from Hallam Lake. We have a minor incursion into the 15 foot setback of Hallam Lake of an element that is no higher than 30 inches. We are requesting that HPC allow the setback into the 15 foot space because the construction of the house occurred prior to the ESA and it is a unique condition. The window wells would provide a means of egress if provided. The First Street fagade would be improved. P34 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 28, 2013 Questions and clarifications: Patrick said when he walked around today the brickwork on the foundation showed no cracking in the brick or mortar or shifting. We need to agree or disagree on the garage if it is detrimental to the house itself. Greg said there are a lot of different foundations under the house and they are doing some major internal renovations which constitute a new solid foundation. John said there are a lot of structural walls being moved in the interior of the house and have you looked at possibly extending the existing driveway and using the same door instead of making it a double door and going into the mud room area. Greg said you could but you would lose a lot of interior use of the space. You couldn't use the existing door because it isn't big enough to pull a car through. Willis asked about the tree removal program. Stan said there are 3, 4 inch evergreens slated to be removed that are out in the city right-of-way. Jane said she is perplexed why the driveway was abandoned. Stan said he suspects the driveway was abandoned at the time the carriage function was abandoned and that would have been in the 80's. All the properties along Lake Ave. have driveway entrances because there is no parking. Stan said there have been discussions with City Engineering about the curb cut and it meets their specified distance. We have also discussed this with Parks regarding the tree removal. Sallie asked how the chimney will be protected when the house is lifted. Greg said typically they will go under the house with steel beams and lift the entire thing up. We are reusing the existing fireplace. 8 P35 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 28, 2013 Amy pointed out that usually the chimney is dismantled and put back up. Amy said Sara confirmed that this building is on the National Register of Historic Places. Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public comment section of the agenda item. Lisa Markalunas said she is a life long resident of Aspen. This is a jewel in the West End and as a child spent many hours inside and outside of this property. The idea of lifting 5,900 square feet is a concern. I'm concerned that they might use a life safety issue that they are basically creating by the basement and would request light wells. I would encourage you not to alter the cottonwoods as there are five of them and some of the newer pine trees could be removed. With regard to the skylights and roofing putting a metal roof on.a designated property is not appropriate. I would be concerned that the skylights are visible from Hallam Lake. This is the most unaltered property and a piece of our history and heritage. The porch detail because it makes it more Queen Ann isn't necessarily appropriate. Stan Johnson, 322 W. Smuggler Stan said he owns one of the houses that Greg built. Greg does a terrific job at what he does as an architect. Whatever they do with this house they will do a wonderful job and make it a special place. The most important thing with the project is the garage. Our garage is on the alley and we drive Lake Avenue all the time. The cars will all be parked out front and this house and the neighbors deserve a solution to the garage. I think the least obtrusive would be the side entrance to the house that would accommodate two cars. Chairperson, Jay Maytin closed the public comment section of the agenda item. Nora said she supports staff s resolution. The integrity of this house has to be preserved. I thought our charge was not to change facades on Nationally Registered homes. Hallam Lake needs protected. The trees on the west side are not historic and possibly the garage can go there. I would also like to see this continued. 9 P36 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 28,2013 Sallie said she is empathetic for your client. It is great to restore the doors. I cannot support pulling the garage,out. The porch should be restored to what it looked like originally. The front door should be restudied and the metal roof is not appropriate on this house but I would support wood shingles. The 15 foot setback from Hallam Lake is very important. Jane also said she is empathizes for the client. What is tough for me is that it is our charge to maintain the integrity of the historic home. There are a lot of confusing elements as to what it was and what we have proof of today. I feel this should be continued so we can make this an amazing project. Regarding the skylights I can't endorse that. Regarding the garage to pop it out and re-create a new situation I would not agree on. On the porches I agree with Sallie to look at what was there originally. The porch should be renovated to what existed. Willis agreed with the comments said by the commissioners. We support restoration based on photo documentation. On the Hallam Lake setback I am ok with it. I also appreciate the history of the walkway connecting the two properties. I have just been through a basement that was uninhabitable and the Building Dept. requested egress wells and Dennis Murray said any basement space is defined as inhabitable space how you use it or intend to use it. We need to see a little more study on the basement issue. You are going to be hit with light wells. I also feel the metal roof is not appropriate. The house is gorgeous and I have always liked it the way it is. Amy said the new section in the code in calculations says the Community Development director has the ability to waive some dimensional requirement for a life safety issue where there is no other reasonable option. I do not know if this is a situation where he would use that authority or not.. John also said he emphasizes with the applicant. My feelings lie with the rest of the commission. What the Lewis's did with the pathway is more intrusive than what is being proposed for Hallam Lake and I differ to some degree on the deck space and setback. If it is toned back a little it might not be a detriment to the property. Patrick agreed with the continuation. I also feel no skylights and no garage addition as planned and no metal shingle roof. I feel the deck should be flush like the Lewis's were made to do. I personally don't feel we should 10 P37 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION _MINUTES OF AUGUST 28, 2013 approve a basement since it is 1,000 square feet over already. Possibly do a single car garage as far away from the house as possible near the street. Jay said he feels this is a major project. I don't agree with continuation. Unanimously everyone said the garage is not acceptable. What is acceptable is the window change. The guidelines clearly dictate what this commission should do., Stan said we agree a garage is essential to this property and we will discuss the issue. We will also come back having discussed the issue of the basement with the Building Department and determine if in fact a window well is required. If it is required we will work with the Community Development department to determine a specific proposal for the absolute minimum amount of window well needed. We do believe that the foundation is an important aspect of this work. Willis said the sliding door is about 12 inches away from being certifiable for a single car width. Potentially you could have one through that opening without messing with the fagade. The second car could have a single car garage that is located off to the side. These are just concepts. I would hate to see you cram two cars into the fagade and you are ruining the single door panel. Sallie said if they get a basement we can dictate where the light well can go. Jane said she is really excited about the project and this is a great opportunity. Our job is to make sure we work together. MOTION: Willis moved to continue 206 Lake Ave. until October 9t'', second by Jane. Motion carried 5-1. Jay, no; Willis, yes, Jane, yes; Sallie, yes; Patrick, yes; John yes. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Kathleen Strickland, Chief Del2uty Clerk V 11 P STAN OEAtJSON ASSOCIATES it`ac e landscape architecture. planning. resort design 412 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 t.970/925-2323 f.970/92o-1628 info @scaplanning.com www.scaptanning.com 25 September 2013 RECEIVED Ms.Sara Adams, AICP Senior Planner SEP 2 5 2013 City of Aspen Community Development CITY OF ASPEN 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 CMUM DEVELOPMENT Re: Supplemental Submission /206 Lake Avenue, Aspen Dear Sara: On behalf of our client, please find enclosed twelve (12) sets of revised architectural drawings which incorporate modifications in response to comments received at the 28 August Historic Preservation Commission meeting. The Applicant proposes reestablishing the use of the historic carriage house by incorporating a 250 SF garage entirely within the footprint of the existing house. The repurposing of the area currently occupied by an indoor spa enables the Applicant to utilize 250 SF of floor area elsewhere in the house. The Applicant proposes utilizing the additional floor area to provide for an egress window in a new, entirely subgrade, basement. Proposed new deck space in the rear yard has been modified so that the deck is located entirely outside of the Hallam Lake Bluff setback. On grade patio space is still proposed in the rear yard, as permitted by the Land Use Code. Taken with the other existing decks, the revised deck space still meets the 15%deck space allowance free from floor area calculation. Responding to HPC's request for additional information on the replacement of the existing foundation, a letter prepared by KL&A, Inc., structural engineers and builders, has been provided,which contains additional information concerning the need for and an approach to the reconstruction of the existing foundation. In addition to replacing a low-performing foundation, lifting of the house will be necessary to provide for the foundation upgrades that are required by the reestablishment of parking within the footprint of the house. Skylights are no longer requested to be provided. Similarly, the front porch balustrade and railing, as well as other decorative features of the porch which were replaced in approximately 1980, are not proposed to be modified. More specifically, we enclose the following information: • Sheet 1 -First floor plan-existing; • Sheet 2-Second floor plan-existing; • Sheet 3-Attic plan -existing; • Sheet 4-Roof plan; • Sheet 5-Basement plan-proposed A window well located on a non-street fapade will provide for adequate means of egress for the new exempt basement space. µ P 3 9 � Sara Adams, AICP Supplemental Submission /206 Lake Avenue 25 September 2013 2 c.: - • Sheet 6-First floor plan-proposed The 250 SF exempt garage space,located entirely within the existing footprint of the house,reestablishes a historic use of the house and does not modify the existing western facade. The garage space will be accessed from the existing carriage door. Information has been included on the mechanical equipment proposed to be added to the existing carriage door to enable the door to be opened and closed remotely. • Sheet 7-Second Floor plan- proposed Sheet 7 provides for modification to the floor plan of the 2nd floor. • Sheet 8-Attic plan-proposed Sheet 8 shows the remodel to the existing floor plan. • Sheet 9-North and East Elevation - existing Sheet 10-North and East Elevations-proposed Sheet 10 shows the replacement of the existing roofing materials with new cedar shingles. Information on the proposed roofing material has been included. Additionally, new windows will replace existing windows that will match the existing type. Sheet 11 -South and West Elevation-proposed The South and West elevations are virtually unchanged from existing conditions with the exception of new cedar shingles. • Conceptual Site Plan-The site plan has been modified to show a conceptual rear deck that is situated entirely outside of the Hallam Lake Bluff setback. The deck is a conceptual condition and the Applicant requests that the final design of the deck be reviewed by the assigned monitor, following approval. Patio space has been provided for within the setback, as permitted by code. The site plan also provides for the location of the driveway, which has not changed from the initial submission. We look forward to presenting these materials at the 9 October HPC meeting and continuing to work with the assigned monitors on various post approval items, such as the design for a new front door as well as final design for the deck in the rear yard. Please call me with any questions. Very truly yours, Patrick S. Rawley, AICP, ASLA Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. Enclosure Cc: Andrew Hauptman Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA Don Carpenter P40 Sara Adams From: Olivia Siegel <osiegel @aspennature.org> Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 3:18 PM To: Sara Adams Cc: Chris Lane Subject: 206 lake Sara: Thank you for your thorough communication on the 206 Lake development proposal. We really appreciate your time and energy! Below is commentary from Chris Lane for inclusion in the packet for the 10/9/13 HPC meeting. Please let me know if it is customary to submit comments as a pdf on letterhead, and I will happily resend. Thank you! Historic Preservation Commission: Aspen Center for Environmental Studies (ACES) would like to thank HPC and City of Aspen staff for ensuring that the 206 Lake Ave development follows the Hallam Lake Bluff Review. ACES hopes that HPC and City staff will continue to apply the Bluff Review to its fullest, as this Review protects the Hallam Lake Nature Preserve, and the integrity of the experience of this unique parcel, for thousands of visitors a year. ACES understands that any comments related to the foundation work construction management plan should be brought to the Engineering Department. Sincerely, Chris R. Lane i P41 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 549 Race Alley- Conceptual Major Development, Relocation and Variances, Public Hearing DATE: October 9, 2013 SUMMARY: 549 Race Alley is a 6,016 s uare foot lot that contains a q r ti z v s 1 Victorian home in very unaltered, but also very deteriorated, condition. According to Planning Office files the house has been vacant for 4g approximately 50 years, possibly longer, This Victorian was one of the few ''� buildings on the property that was � .F assembled to develop the Fox • 4 Crossing Subdivision beginning approximately 10 years ago. f {y Construction of new homes on the _; t vacant lots in the subdivision took priority, and the economic downturn �+ p �•. . left the developer unable to complete an approved restoration and remodel ' of this house. Staff required stabilization and protection efforts be undertaken for this house in 2006, due to concerns with "demolition by neglect." (Note that staff did attempt, unsuccessfully, to address the neglect issue with the long-time previous owner of this house. See attached family history.) The building was studied and documented by a wood scientist who specializes in historic structures. A temporary roof was built spanning overtop of the house. Other measures were taken to secure the building. Preservation staff and the Chief Building Official have visited the house several times over the last few years. The property is under contract to a buyer who wishes to lift the house, set it on a new basement, rehabilitate the building and construct an addition. Currently, there is a 1950s era log cabin, which is also a designated historic structure, sitting at the rear on the subject property. The log cabin, which is one of a pair, is intended to be moved to the south, onto Lot 6 of the Fox Crossing Subdivision, where the two log cabins will rehabbed as part of a separately approved HPC project. There is currently no timeframe for that work to move forward. While the public notice for 1 P42 tonight's hearing acknowledged the relocation of the log cabin on the subject parcel over to Lot 6, it became apparent during the preparation of the staff review that the log cabin which is already on Lot 6 will have to be picked up now as well, and both cabins secured and "mothballed," for some period of time. Additional public notice is needed to inform the public that the second cabin will be moving. There has also been a clarification made that, during excavation for the basement under the Victorian, the house is to be moved to the north, and temporarily set partially onto Lot 4 of the subdivision, a vacant parcel. Additional public notice is also needed on that topic. Lots 4 and 6 are currently owned by one party. That party needs to become a co-applicant in the relocation aspect of this review, and will be responsible for the providing financial security and protection for the log cabins while they await development. The potential buyer for the Victorian has asked to initiate the design review phase, so that they are not overly delayed in the process. Staff has agreed to this, however the project must be continued to correct the notices and to ensure that the adjacent property owner is prepared to address the obligations involved with relocating historic structures. HPC is asked to initiate discussion of conceptual design, a floor area bonus, sideyard setback variances and a parking variance. APPLICANT: Race Alley LLC,represented by.Charles Cunniffe Architects. PARCEL ID: 2737-073-92-005. ADDRESS: 549 Race Alley, Lot 5, Fox Crossing Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6. CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application 2 P43 including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. The relevant design guidelines are attached as "Exhibit A." The applicant has provided site plans, floor plans, elevations and perspective views describing the proposed project. The Victorian house is proposed to be shifted approximately 5' directly northward on the site. The applicant proposes to make a small addition on the north side of the historic house, to extend the kitchen space. A connector element is to attach to the east side of the kitchen addition and historic house, leading to a new two story addition. A basement is proposed under the entire structure. There are a few challenging aspects of the property that affect how the new house is designed. First, the original front facades of the historic structures in the Fox Crossing Subdivision face south, and were once accessed on that side from Walnut Street. In the subdivision layout, they have no street access from the south and now face a park and pedestrian path. Race Alley, at the back of the buildings, is the vehicular access, and the building addresses are Race Alley. This confuses the entry into the homes. The 549 Race Alley site slopes so that the Victorian is on the low end of the property and the addition is on the high end, which has the potential to aggravate the height change between the two parts of the house. r As mentioned, the project does include the one story connector element between "new and old" that is a standard requirement in a preservation project like this. The proposed connector is almost twice as long as normally required. There is no deck space proposed on top of it, eliminating.a typical HPC concern with eroding the buffer behind the old structure. The addition has a similar footprint to the Victorian house, in terms of length and width. Staff finds the plan form of the project to be generally successful However, we do not recommend that the small addition on the side of the Victorian be approved. A view of the north fagade is seen at right. The proposed kitchen extension will overframe the area where a door opening can be seen. The connector element will also affect the east facing gable end of this section of the house. Based on guidelines 10.3 and 10.10, we do not support demolishing this original wall of the 3 P44 house and infilling this corner to extend the kitchen. This can be accommodated in the new construction. Regarding the proposed elevations of the project, staff raised a concern with the architect that the addition read a bit like a two story version of the miner's cottage, overwhelming the original building. Simplification of roof forms was suggested. A restudy dated 10-1-2013 is provided in the packet. In the restudy, a gable was removed from the west fagade of the addition. This is the elevation that is viewed from the front of the historic house. Removing the gable was an effective change that simplifies that fagade and eliminates what was the tallest ridgeline in the project. No changes were made to the south or east facades. A dormer was added to the north fagade. Staff still recommends some restudy of the addition, particularly the open gable roof that is over an upper floor deck. A revision could be made here to reduce the mass of the new construction. RELOCATION The intent of this Chapter is to preserve designated historic properties in their original locations as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical relationship to their surroundings as well as their association with events and people with ties to particular site. However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a property may be appropriate as it provides an alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that make it significant. The following standards apply for relocating a historic property as per Section 26.415.090.0 of the Municipal Code: C. Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of t he followinp, criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 4 P45 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. Staff Response: The proposal includes permanently moving the Victorian approximately 5' north of its current location. Because the historic setting of the property has changed greatly, maintaining the Victorian in its exact original location may not be critical. At the same time, keeping it in place and having the addition offset, rather than aligned directly behind the Victorian, might be preferable and should be considered. There is information in the application regarding the temporary relocation of the Victorian and the log cabins. Since the proposal has not been properly noticed and the owner of those lots is not officially participating in the application yet, HPC should not discuss this part of the project on October 9th FAR BONUS In selected circumstances,the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. Staff Response: The allowable floor area for the project is 2,772 square feet, per the Subdivision approval. The applicant is requesting a 500 square foot floor area bonus, which would be applied to the remodel, along with 2,022 square feet of the base allowable floor area. The remaining 750 square feet of base allowable floor area is proposed to be converted into 3 TDRs and sold, if approved by City Council. The applicant held a worksession with HPC over the summer, which is a requirement of any floor area bonus request. The Victorian house is in very poor repair.and will require special effort to. restore the original features. The wood report written for this house should guide the work. There will certainly be some elements that are beyond repair. Staff is generally, supportive of the applicant's bonus request, given that they are inheriting a long overdue restoration problem. The majority of the exterior materials will need to be preserved and this should be a clear requirement of any floor area bonus. 5 P46 SETBACK VARIANCES In granting a variance,the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Staff Response: This area of the R-6 zone district has a greater sideyard setback requirement than the West End, where most R-6 lots are located. The minimum sideyard here is 10' on each side, 20' combined. The proposal encroaches into the north sideyard, and does not meet the combined requirements. Staff finds that setback variances in this case can help mitigate adverse impacts on the historic structure. We have however raised the possibility of a slight shift in the site plan, for further discussion. PARKING VARIANCE Properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures may provide fewer on- site parking spaces than required if the standard below, found at Section 26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code, is met. 1. The parking reduction and waiver of payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district. Staff Response: The applicant is required to provide two on-site spaces. One space is proposed in the garage. The second space is proposed to be waived. It does appear possible to provide the second space, uncovered, in the south sideyard. More information as to the need for a variance is requested. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The project does not comply with Residential Design Standards related to "Street-Oriented Entrance." Street oriented entrance and principal window. All single-family homes and duplexes, except as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.13A shall have a street-oriented entrance and a street facing principal window. a) The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten(10) feet back from the front- most wall of the building. b) A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6) feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one (1) story in height. 6 P47 All Residential Design Standard Variances, Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410.020(D)(2) must: a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or, b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Staff Response: In HPC's view, the front of the house is the front of the original building. Since this fagade does not face a street now, application of the Residential Design Standards is challenging. The location of the original front door and the design of the original front porch should not be changed to meet these guidelines for new construction. Staff recommends a waiver. The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC continue the public hearing on this project to November 13`h. The purpose of the continuance is to eliminate the kitchen expansion on the north side of the house, restudy leaving the Victorian in its existing location, and restudy the roof over the upper floor deck on the new addition. Public notice regarding relocation must be completed and the owner of Lots 4 and 6 must join the application. Exhibits: A. Relevant Guidelines B. Application C. Article from "The Quiet Years." 7 P48 Exhibit A, Conceptual Guidelines, 549 Race Alley . 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. 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. ❑ In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. ❑ It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. • Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. • A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. • Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. • The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. ❑ In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. ❑ It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. . ❑ It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. 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. 8 P49 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. 9 P50G�l L°l� ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Application PROJECT: Name: iJ Location: 511 91NIGIMA u 1 P&AT o1= J L44e, 2ZVOS I K1 FLAT Wvl�- 7+ AT 1-7. (Indicate street address,lot&block number or metes and bounds description of property) Parcel ID# (REQUIRED) 273-7 07 59 2-00s APPLICANT: Name: J 0 h M09- Address: -1-7005 Phone#: lqq . -7[t_71+ Fax#: E-mail: j tJM D dTA 2002- REPRESENTATIVE: Name: NN{ '� C .7 Address: &I Q F `NMAT� N E,�- . Phone#: - 5S 0 Fax#: Q25 - 5®7 E-mail: I<lArerlN 0 0Ann TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ❑ Historic Designation ❑ Relocation(temporary, on ❑ Certificate of No Negative Effect ❑ or off-site) q ❑ Certificate of Appropriateness El demolition) (total demolition) ❑ -Minor Historic Development Q_ Historic Landmark Lot Split _ -Major Historic Development ❑ ❑ -Conceptual Historic Development ❑ -Final Historic Development (Y? -Substantial Amendment NEXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings,uses,previous approvals, etc.) Q V I 'ill PV-k RDMIF2, ItA �i ,Pf l °fla .�- "s�raj �al'`i 41 M �1 vJ PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings,uses,modifications, etc.) ZI 5ip 0F�- WT-. U+I 1 ty } i t?qNFA11VC`1 f`C - STEW vNIED 2013 4Z 1?f7 I1G mAspei� Mw,c A 'N Land Use Application Requireents, UNITY DEVELOPMENT 2h� 2`'q rr ,y, � i�'awr. r. w d' ,�,�•_ � 'S ,r y q --V_i 549 Race Alley Victorian and Cabin Relocation Plan HPC Conceptual Review October P52 Cabin # 1 (south cabin) Cabin #2 (north cabin) RELOCATION EXHIBIT B All utilities to both cabins will be disconnected prior to the moving. A clean and level area will be provided where the cabins will be moved. Cabin #1 will be moved to the south remaining on Lot 6. Cabin #2 will be moved off of Lot 5 to the south onto Lot 6. Both cabins will be positioned next to each other on Lot 6 until construction starts. The cabin porches on the west side will be braced to stay in place during the moving. STORED AND PROTECTED While being stored all bearing points will transfer down to solid cribbing, or be shored with structural lumber. While being stored both cabins will remain water tight. Cabins will be checked periodically until construction begins for water tightness and pests. Existing roofs of both cabins will remain in place. Victorian RELOCATION EXHIBIT C The construction trailer and materials will be removed from Lot 4. The Victorian will be moved to the north-east from Lot 5 onto Lot 4 while the foundation is being installed for Lot 5. 2 X 10 microlams will be attached to all studs, and OSB sheathing will be installed on the corners for shear bracing during moving. The house will be stored on cribbing and bracing until it moves back onto the new foundation. STORED AND PROTECTED The Victorian has been kept in a protected condition while construction at Fox Crossing has progressed. The inside bearing walls are shored down to solid blocking at the floor. This shoring will remain in place until the Victorian is rolled back onto the new foundation. The roof has a separate installed sheathing and roof protection above the existing roof that has been in place for the eesure water tightness integrity. This(roll roofing) was replaced t protection will stay in place during the moving and storing of the house. The wood P53 bracing holding the roof up will be altered to stay in place. Care will be taken to maintain and keep all architectural elements on the Victorian exterior and catalogue their locations in the event of their removal during this process. Eric Rewinkel Blue River Construction Management 3275 County Road 100, Suite 100 Carbondale, CO 81623 Historic Preservation license #5763 The Cabin #I and Cabin #2 relocation plan is for the assumed final location when both cabins are rehabilitated. This final development will happen when the sale of Lot 6 and final approvals are in place. The temporary location for the cabin is as shown in the following attachment. (EXHiBiTA) P54 crushed stone path(public trol) �..naaraty CAnslru�lra'S1<— � . LOT 4 I o o FOUND REenR N 9' '0 ,. - wiswarm 123.02' = I le LOT 8 m ,^ LOT 5 J ��°Lsezroas 0 C�l _ L- 6015. � � w Q 68 O Oq U1 Q W HISTORIC HOUSE o UZ o O ` CABIN(LINE SHACK 2) - el I TO BE RELOCATED o O TRAILEEAASSEM ra es / "�cw"B —� I 211.0 � IJ 31.2' O 6 corcre1e grovel rive g 3 II J� FOX CROSSING MEADOW CABIN(LINE SHACK 1) wW Z 010 o Pvo O a gmvel drive 0 � / LOT6 — DIAGRAM OF POSSIBLE TEMPORARY CABIN RELOCATION THE PURPSOSE OF THIS MAP IS TO PROVIDE A SKETCH THAT CAN BE USED TO DEMONSTRATE POSSIBLE RELOCATION SITES FOR LINE SHACK 2 HIRED GUN SURVEYING LTD. P.O.BOX 9 SNOWMASS,COLORADO 81654 [970)923-2794 I EXHIBIT A I P55 NB9•23 0 ''NI 1 i - �'�i LOT 5 i 6 I � _ I In / � I o, 0 HOUSE IC - 1 I , El - LOT 6* HOUSE K7, - V U_ - 21.eT 21.81 -- -- _85.41' _ b5.41' n � EXHIBIT B P56 DIAGRAM OF POSSIBLE HOUSE LOCATION FOR EXCAVATION THE PURPSOSE OF THIS KIAP IS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE HISTORIC HOUSE COULD BE MOVED TEMPORARILY TO PROVIDE ACCESS FOR FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT INTERFERING WITH THE PUBLICTRAIL i Ex] crushed stone path (public trail) - temoorary��fru tic fence � �` _ r� LCT4 t - i �4 - r 9i-1rrRFltll 123.02' a S LOT B - U � - O J E - v + LOT 5 V LL*133X* I• n V - 2 6(11 SM eq.ft.+!- 'I J �'C% ; HISTORIC HOUSE W W - a �0 / u a - // T CABIN O E RENOCATED 2) o Y\ C PEOESTRAhl - TFMLEA5EME7 gt m rates \ 12 no' / FOtl13 Reis L-W Ft CN I.sV 1 - FOX CR09SING MEADOtY LOTS _ HIRED GUN SURVEYING LTD. - P.O.BOX 9 - SNOWMASS COLORADO 81654 (950)923-2794 _ EXHIBIT C - P57 s _OT 4 I L - _ - I � 1 - - :- - - LOT a w - 7 ---•-- - �- - / _ N �..-..- I - I� I LOLAnON i I _ • FO%GROi-S��v'i!EAOON 1 I 1 I I _ This site plan shows the existing location of the _ victorian house with the proposed shift in location. O SOT 5 HOUSE J SITE PLAN EXHIGIT D E XHIB � AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE DRES�jOF PROP RTY. `l CL CO— Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: . .mss c*- Ct 20i3 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. . County of Pitkin ) I Z m Hc1' J:k4-i*r1 (name,please print) being or representing Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 j (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 and was continuously visible from the_day of , 20_,to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Adading of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing; notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty(60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (Continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment: Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before the this ay of 20L-� by M PUBLIC NOTICE RE:549 RACE ALLEY,LOT FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION,CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVEL- V LSS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL OPMENT,RELOCATION,SETBACK VARIANCE, PARKING WAIVER AND FLOOR AREA BONUS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday,October 9,2013,at a My commission expires: �)J meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m.before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission,Council Cham- bers,City Hall,130 S.Galena St..Aspen,to con- /� J cider an application submitted by John Morton, 6346 Mercer Street,Houston,TX,77005,affecting the property located at 549 Race Alley,Lot 5,Fox Crossing Subdivision,City and Townsite of Aspen, No}a'�r PubllC Colorado.The applicant proposes to lift the Victori- ""J an house,construct a basement,restore the house and build an addition. HPC will conduct design re- view and is asked to grant Sideyard setback vari- ances,waiver of one parking space and a floor ar- ea bonus. The applicant also requests approval to move a log cabin that is located on the subject property to an adjacent lot. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the City of Aspen Commu- nity Development Department,130 S.Galena St., Aspen,CO,(970)429.2758 or amy.guthrie@cityo- faspen.com. s/JavMavtin Chair 'ACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: _ Aspen Historic Preservation Commission ,ATION Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on Septem- d ber 19.2013, [9553623] E POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) * LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENT AGENGIES NOTIED BY NIA IL * APPLICANT CERTICICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 1 r rA. t st+ �„'�'d _ ,,gam, ,��i!� °� . _. ..�ss�.�,•-, vr'<. ° '�+ •• '�` �'� �++�ice'• . - ! •- �Aj .�• 14 7 Y. r�q._-. 11� ..r �i • • • I_ R { , • ,..7"�-"° l 1.�'r�;�T I i • Ao vo ! • +fir .L.'- ��,,r. � ' :.•�'�''+ �? ..✓' r` * 1 , *a ,e. %dry.�s �l ♦��- ,.,:). IF iom lit r 44 T lip '.F �'v''�.f '• 4., ',tr. j t. i. .. i ~ r.. r ^ � '� h a .° - �Y :.,,I r.� �„+�; `�. 4` r. ��, 0` ' ..•r'�r r \� a=�f�."�_.:..L:, .dbA ��,4.'IL'•11i�� iSII AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 5 qq RA20, A ULY , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: CC1bPjV4-7_ 61 , 20 I?j STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) 1, 4kKstjL\j005 (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: !/" Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. x 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 2r- day of Sp( ( , 20j_?>, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. (C I PM) Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (SfNt'out aN FRI '11 2-0) O/A Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty(30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAS or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Si ature The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this j day of 20 l31 by arer. 0ao&S �0 ` pUB! WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL z� My commission expires: OiZ A(v o'10 TONI ROSE swr:RSKY Notary Public MY COM*Sw,Eras SMJ5 ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPY OF THE PUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. X24-65.5-103.3 1025 HUNTER CREEK LLC 1127 VINE STREET CORP 565 RACE STREET LLC 21121 TELEGRAPH RD PO BOX 1730 67 BAL BAY DR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48033 VERO BEACH, FL 32961 SURFSIDE, FL 33154 ASPEN CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO 1 RE AUGELLO MICHAEL&GLADYS M STUDIES 0235 HIGH SCHOOL RD 782 HOLLAND HILLS RD 100 PUPPY SMITH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 BASALT, CO 81621 ATTN KATIE SCHWOERER ASPEN, CO 81611 AUSTER-STEIN M LEAH BAEHR LYNNE BAKER JAMES A SR PO BOX 7963 1132 VINE ST 1052 VINE ST ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BELL MARTIN W 1/3 BERKMAN KATHY K&ANDREW E BERNARD SUSAN 5217 18TH AVE NE 3706 SUNSET BLVD PO BOX 8908 SEATTLE,WA 98105 HOUSTON, TX 77005 ASPEN, CO 81612 BETTIO JACK A BITTNER SHIRLEY MARIE BOLTON LANCE 2985 ROUTE 547 123 VINE ST PO BOX 2762 MANCHESTER, NJ 08759 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 BOOKBINDER FISHDANCE &DELANEY BROOKES EDWARD ALAN REV LIV BUNEVICH PETER&BRIGITTE LLC TRUST 5301 CRACKER BARREL 164 LITTLE PARK RD PO BOX 5764 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80917 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81503 PLAYA DEL REY, CA 90296 BURROWS ARTHUR&COLLEEN BURTIN JORGE&ROSALBA FAMILY BUSCH JON LOWELL COLLINS TRUST 548 RACE ST 410 N MILL ST#B-11 2543 MONACO DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 BYRUM PATRICIA B REV TRUST CARDAMONE JAMES M&MICHELE W CARDER FAMILY LLC 1244 ARBOR RD 0104 VAGNEUR LN 1100 S RACE ST BOX 536 BASALT, CO 81621 DENVER, CO 80210 WINSTON SALEM, NC 27104 CENTENNIAL ASPEN II LP CHAPMAN HARVEY G JR&RUTH J CITY OF ASPEN 2320 POMONA AVE 717 KUPULAU DR ATTN FINANCE DEPT MARTINEZ, CA 94553 KIHEI, HI 96753-9349 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 CLEAVER CHRISTIN CLARK COATES M A TRUST 11/05 COATES MARY ANN TRUST 512 SPRUCE ST PO BOX 25277 12664 VAL VERDE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73125 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73142 CROWLEY ELAINE C DELISE DONALD LEE DOWELL RONALD R 1124 VINE ST PO BOX 345 DOWELL MARSHA S ASPEN, CO 81611-1550 WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 35 WEST BIGHORN COURT SEDONA,AZ 86351 ELLIS CHRISTOPHER&AUDREY ERSPAMER JOHN FABER JOHN A PO BOX 8386 534 SPRUCE ST#1 2809 LOFTVIEW SQ ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ATLANTA, GA 303394931 FITZGERALD JACKSON FAMILY TRUST FOX CROSSING AH LLC FOX CROSSING LOT 11 LLC 30% PO BOX 4068 601 E HOPKINS AVE#202 35 WINDSHIP AVE ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 SAN ANSELMO, CA 94960 FOX CROSSING PROPERTIES LLC FOXY LLC FREI MURIEL J REV TRUST 3000-F DANVILLE BLVD#500 15280 ADDISON RD#301 PO BOX 2171 ALAMO, CA 945071572 ADDISON,TX 75001 ASPEN, CO 81612 GAGLIANO MICHAEL A GD ASPEN PARTNERSHIP GENDELS STACEY A 2240 E ATHENS AVE 6250 N RIVER RD#11-100 542 MAIN ST#200 ORANGE, CA 92867 ROSEMONT, IL 60018 NEW ROCHELLE, NY 108017270 GEREB BARRY GREENWALD ALAN GREENWOOD GRETCHEN 931 VINE ST 500 E 77TH ST APT 1708 210 S GALENA ST#30 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10162-0017 ASPEN, CO 816111957 HAJENGA STAN HARRIS DAVID G REV TRUST 50% HAUENSTEIN WARD&ELIZABETH 192 RIVER RIDGE DR 533 SPRUCE ST 535 SPRUCE ST GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 HUNTER CREEK 1045 PARTNERSHIP HEGARTY THOMAS A MINNESOTA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP HUNTER CREEK LLC PO BOX 1475 350 NORTH LASALLE ST#800 ASPEN, CO 81612 4428 YORK AVE SOUTH CHICAGO, IL 60654 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55410 HUNTER CREEK REALTY LLC HYDE ARTHUR C JR ILICH MARK 30 WILLETT POND DR PO BOX T 1132 VINE ST WESTWOOD, MA 02090 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 JABLIN ROBERT C&VARDA KAHNWELER DAVID REV TRUST KANTER MARC E 7894 DUNVAGEN CT 6250 N RIVER RD#1100 3980 SE OLD ST LUCIE BLVD BOCA RATON, FL 33496 DES PLAINES, IL 60018 STUART, FL 34996 KAUFMAN STEPHEN M TRUST KERR MICHAEL KRIS LIVING TRUST KLEPPINGER KENT 5120 WOODWAY#6002 1006 LAUREN LN 1047 VINE ST HOUSTON,TX 77056 BASALT, CO 81621 ASPEN, CO 81611 KLUG WARREN E&KATHLEEN M LAI RICHARD TSENG-YU AND LARSON WENDY L 100 N 8TH ST#3 4574 FAIRWAY DR 71 WAPITI WY ASPEN, CO 81611 LOS ALAMOS, NM 87544 BASALT, CO 81621 LEONARD LINDA SCHIERSE LEVIN RONALD LEWIN JOHN R JR 2665 JUILLIARD ST 230 N DEERE PK DR 906 VINE ST BOULDER, CO 80305 HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035 ASPEN, CO 81611 LOEWENBERG 2007 TRUST LOWENSTEIN ADAM&FAM TRST LUU CAM THU MUSSON ELIZABETH 225 N COLUMBUS DR#100 835 FLORA VISTA ELIZABETH PO BOX 5399 CHICAGO, IL 60601 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93109 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 LUU TONY MACK EDWARD E TRUST MALTER MARCI A REV TRUST PO BOX 795 321 N CLARK ST#1000 1754 W SURF ST ASPEN, CO 81612 CHICAGO, IL 60654 CHICAGO, IL 60657 MANIE MICHAEL B MANNING SARAH E MCDONAGH THOMAS G PO BOX 11373 PO BOX 10665 542 MAIN ST#200 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 NEW ROCHELLE, NY 108017270 MCF 2008 TRUST MCGUIRE MARY MENDELSON MEL 1 3535 MILITARY TRAIL#101 37 HOOK ST 1 LMU DRIVE STE 8145 JUPITER, FL 33458 SOUTHBRIDGE, MA 01550 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING LOS ANGELES, CA 90045 MINERS MOUNTAIN HOUSE LLC MLT PROPERTIES LLC MOORE THOMAS P&TERRY L 2/3 5107 HIGHPOINT DR 309 AABC#G 802 KESTRIL CT TOLEDO, OH 43615 ASPEN, CO 81611 BASALT, CO 81621 MORDECAI BRIAN MULTIN STEVEN J REVOCABLE TRUST MUSSO PAMELA LYONS 1126 VINE ST NO 1 COLORADO MUSSO RICHARD L ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 10509 319 LOCUST ST ASPEN, CO 81612 DENVER, CO 80220 NCM ACQUISITIONS LLC NEWELL GEORGE S NUGENT KATHRYN M LIVING TRUST 3736 BEE CAVES RD#1 - 180 PO BOX 2179 501 VIA CASITAS APT 106 AUSTIN,TX 78746 BOULDER, CO 80306 GREENBRAE, CA 94904 OHAGAN KEVIN M&KATHRYN G PARKER STEPHEN&WYCOFF ANN PAULSON WILLIAM T 6225 WAKEFALLS DR 1010 VINE ST#1010 1043 VINE ST WAKE FOREST, NC 27587-6261 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 816113271 PETTUS KRISTINA&WYATT PORTER SUZANNE T&BARRY G POUTOUS MARCIA 1600 RANDY DR 480 E JETER RD 534 SPRUCE ST#1 GRAHAM,TX 76450 ARGYLE,TX 76226 ASPEN, CO 81611 PRIMIANI MARC S PRYMAK WILLIAM RAM PROPERTIES LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD#600 1530 W 10TH AVE PO BOX 7107 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 BROOMFIELD, CO 80020 WILMINGTON, DE 19803 RAUCHENBERGER CARL TRUST REPPLINGER WILLIAM M RESTAINO-BECKER TRUST 7/27/2007 11644 WEMBLEY DR 1125 VINE ST 72 ALDER AVE HUNTLEY, IL 601426310 ASPEN, CO 81611 SAN ANSELMO, CA 94960 RIDLING JERRY B& MURIEL M ROSENFIELD ANITA ROSIN RICHARD&DRITA 1110 STONYBROOK DR 250 RAINTRAIL RD PO BOX 2416 NAPA, CA 94558 SEDONA,AZ 86351 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48012 ROTHCHILD JOHN H TRUST 50% SANDERS RICHARD ALLEN SANDS FAMILY TRUST ROTHCHILD SUSAN BERNS TRST 50% 2041 BROOK HIGHLAND RIDGE 3426 SERRA RD 5 ISLAND AVE#11J BIRMINGHAM,AL 35242 MALIBU, CA 90265 MIAMI BEACH, FL 331391327 SARNO JOHN J JR 2001 REV TRUST SHERMAN FAMILY TRUST 70% SHERMAN YONEKO SUZUKI 6 EUSTIS ST 38 MILLER AV PMB#109 1001 VINE ST STONEHAM, MA 02180 MILL VALLEY, CA 94941 ASPEN, CO 81611 SHOSTAC DAVID SKADRON STEVEN J SMITH NANCY ROSS SHOSTAC ALEXES 1022 VINE ST 315 J WILLRICH CIR 2509 AIKEN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611-3272 FOREST HILL, MD 21050 LOS ANGELES, CA 90052 SPEER CHRISTINE REV TRUST STANLEY NANCY C STITT KENDRA LEIGH IRREV TRUST PO BOX 2734 8918 BURTON WY#4 1450 SILVER KING DR BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34133 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211 ASPEN, CO 81611 TASSE JEFF THIEMER FRED TOWNSEND R JAMES 37 HOOK ST 1051 VINE ST 1112 VINE ST SOUTHBRIDGE, MA 01550 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 TRAN HONG HUONG VAUGHAN PATRICK WALKER ROBERT J 814 W BLEEKER ST#C1 908 VINE ST 3917 CANTERBURY RD ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BALTIMORE, MD 212181704 WALLE GABRIELE WARLOP ELIZABETH F WEIL JONAS PO BOX 1588 21 3RD ST 12826 WETHERSFIELD RD ASPEN, CO 81612 BROOKLYN, NY 11231-4805 SCOTTSDALE,AZ 85259 WENZEL KAREN M WICHMANN VICTORIA WIENER WILLIAM B JR 1125 VINE ST PO BOX 4388 333 TEXAS ST#2290 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 SHREVEPORT, LA 71101 ZUPANCIS ROBERT L PO BOX 9609 ASPEN, CO 81612 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 549 RACE ALLEY, LOT 5, FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION, CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT,RELOCATION, SETBACK VARIANCE, PARKING WAIVER AND FLOOR AREA BONUS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, October 9, 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 John Morton, 6346 Mercer Street, Houston, TX, 77005, affecting the property located at 549 Race Alley, Lot 5, Fox Crossing Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. The applicant proposes to lift the Victorian house, construct a basement, restore the house and build an addition. HPC will conduct design review and is asked to grant sideyard setback variances, waiver of one parking space and a floor area bonus. The applicant also requests approval to move a log cabin that is located on the subject property to an adjacent lot. 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 September 19, 2013 ----------------------------------------------------------------- City of Aspen Account