HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20140723 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
July 23,2014
CITY COUNCIL MEETING ROOM
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISITS: Please visit the sites on your own.
5:00 INTRODUCTION
A. Roll call
B. Approval of minutes
C. Public Comments
D. Commission member comments
E. Disclosure of conflict of interest(actual and apparent)
F. Project Monitoring
G. Staff comments
H. Certificates of No Negative Effect issued
I. Submit public notice for agenda items
NEW BUSINESS
5:10 A. 601 W. Hallam- Conceptual Major Development and Residential Design
Standard Variances, PUBLIC HEARING
OLD BUSINESS
6:20 A. 417 and 421 W. Hallam Street Correction to Historic Designation,
Conceptual Major Development, Demolition and Variances, CONTINUED
PUBLIC HEARING
WORKSESSIONS
A. None
7:10 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)
Applicant rebuttal (5 minutes)
Chairperson identifies the issues to be discussed(5 minutes)
HPC discussion(15 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.
Jay Maytin 435 W.Main-AJCC
204 S.Galena
233 W.Hallam
507 Gillespie
1102 Waters
420 E.Cooper
420 E.Hyman
Lift One
400 E.Hyman
Nora Berko 332 W.Main
1102 Waters
1006 E.Cooper
602 E.Hyman
Sallie Golden 206 Lake
114 Neale
534 E.Hyman
517 E.Hyman(Little Annie's)
212 Lake
Hotel Aspen
400 E.Hyman
Willis Pember 204 S.Galena
Aspen Core
514 E.Hyman
624 W.Francis
407 E.Hyman
Patrick Segal 204 S.Galena
623 E.Hopkins
701 N.Third
612 W.Main
624 W.Francis
206 Lake
605 W.Bleeker
Holden Marolt derrick
212 Lake
John Whipple Aspen Core
208 E.Main
201 E.Hyman
420 E.Cooper
602 E.Hyman
Hotel Aspen
Jim DeFrancia 420 E.Cooper
420 E.Hyman
407 E.Hyman
M:\city\planning\hpc project monitoringTROJECT MONITORING.doc
7/15/2014
A. to
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
THRU: Amy Simon,Historic Preservation Officer
FROM: Justin Barker, City Planner
RE: 601 W. Hallam St. — Mass and Scale Review, Residential Design Standard
Variances—Public Hearing
DATE: July 23, 2014
SUMMARY: 601 West Hallam Street
is located on the corner of Fifth Street •r., "
and Hallam Street in Aspen's West End
h
neighborhood. The reason for HPC's
purview over this property is unusual.
In 1991, HPC adopted Resolution No. 5, T
Series of 1991, which delisted 601 West
Hallam from the historic inventory.
During the delisting hearing, the
applicant voluntarily agreed to grant
• f
HPC "mandatory review of any future
redevelopment on the subject parcel in
terms of mass and scale." HPC
Resolution No. 5, Series of 1991 and the -
recorded covenant are included in the
application package. Basically, HPC is authorized to review and approve the project on a
Conceptual level,but the project will not return for Final HPC review.
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing residence and replace it with a 3,200 square foot
two story single family home. The project conforms to the dimensional requirements of the R-6
zone district. HPC is asked to grant Residential Design Standard variances for the proposed
project.
Staff recommends that HPC continue the application for a restudy of the garage to comply with
all Residential Design Standards.
APPLICANT: 601 W. Hallam, LLC, 121 S. Galena St. #203, Aspen, CO, 81611, represented by
Alan Richman Planning Services.
ADDRESS: 601 W. Hallam Street,Lots H and I,Block 23, City and Townsite of Aspen.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-31-002.
1
ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential).
DESIGN GUIDELINE REVIEW
HPC's purview is limited to mass and scale which is defined in the recorded covenants as
follows:
Mass: "any new building will be designed so that it is not one big uninterrupted box
structure and will use appropriately pitched roof forms for residential buildings as
opposed to flat roofs"
Scale: "window and door dimensions and building scale shall be consistent with the
scale of other buildings on the block"
Mass: The proposed design has the house broken down into two masses, connected by a linking
element. Both masses contain partial two story and one story elements. Several pitched roofs
break down the massing and accentuate different spaces throughout the building. Relevant
Design Guidelines for new development on historic properties are listed below to help guide
HPC's decision even though this is a unique situation since the property is not designated a
landmark. Staff finds that these guidelines are generally met.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
❑ They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
❑ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
The majority of roof forms in the neighborhood are traditional gables and sheds. The applicant
has proposed only pitched roofs for this project which generally match the pitch of the other
homes throughout the neighborhood. Design Guideline 11.6 is listed below for general guidance.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
❑ Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms.
❑ Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context.
❑ On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the
context.
❑ Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are
discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
Scale: 601 West Hallam Street is the only other building located on the block that contains the
Wheeler/Stallard Museum. There is a mix of residential development along Hallam and Fifth
Streets that includes a few designated 19th century landmarks, as indicated with purple hatching
on the map on the next page. HPC is required to review the scale of the proposed new
development in relation to the surrounding context, which includes both one and two story
Victorians.
2
L`�
tit ` IL
The proposed design locates the one-story elements of the building on the street-facing facades to
reduce the visual impact and create a more pedestrian-scale appearance. As mentioned before,
the mass of the building is broken down into smaller modules by several pitched roofs. The
proposed height is more than two feet lower than what is allowed by zoning. The applicant has
chosen to incorporate windows and doors that are more vertical in nature, which is similar to
historic buildings. Overall, staff finds that the scale of the proposed project is consistent with the
scale of other buildings within the vicinity. Relevant Design Guidelines are listed below, even
though this property is not a designated landmark.
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the
parcel.
❑ Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
❑ The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure.
❑ The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
❑ They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
The applicant requests three(3)Residential Design Standards variances for the new project.
26.410.020.D.2 Variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410.040.
Projects which do not meet Section 26.410.020.D above may be granted variances by the
Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, if the project is
3
subject to the requirements of Section 26.415. An applicant who desires a variance from the
Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate, and the deciding board shall find that the
variance, if granted, would:
a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in
which the development is proposed and the 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 deems is necessary to
determine if the exception is warranted; or
b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints.
The Residential Design Standards were adopted to preserve residential neighborhood scale and
character and to promote pedestrian friendly environments through positive streetscape design
that emphasizes public to private space transitions. Interesting architecture and lively spaces that
contribute to the neighborhood streetscape are primary goals for residential development. The
form based Standards are prescriptive and apply to all new residential development. Variances
are approved when one of the criterion above are met. The three requested variances are listed
below:
1.) 26.410.040.C.2.a. For all residential uses that have access only from a public street,the
following standards shall apply:
On the street facing facade(s),the width of the living area on the first floor shall be at
least five(5) feet greater than the width of the garage or carport..
Staff Response: On the Hallam Street facing facade, the proposed width of the garage is about
23 feet, and the proposed width of the living area is about 14 feet. With this project being new
construction on a lot with prototypical dimensions, staff believes that there is opportunity to meet
the Standard. There is sufficient lot width to accommodate the Standard, particularly since a two-
car garage is not a requirement for the property. Some suggestions include reducing the garage to
one bay or designing one of the bays to appear more like living space.
2.) 26.410.040.C.2.b. The front facade of the garage or the front-most supporting column of
a carport shall be set back at least ten(10) feet further from the street than the front-most
wall of the house.
Staff Response: Also on the Hallam Street facing facade, the proposed garage is located in front
of the front-most wall of the house by about 2 '/2 feet. Again, with this project being new
construction on a lot with prototypical dimensions, staff believes that there is opportunity to meet
the Standard. One suggestion includes moving the garage further south to more closely meet the
intent of the standard. This would most likely require relocation of the stairwells to maintain a
compliant linking element.
4
3.) 26.410.040.D.1. Street Oriented entrance and principal window. All single family
homes and duplexes, except as outlined in Section 26.410.010.B.4 shall have a street-
oriented entrance and a street facing principal window. Multi-family units shall have at
least one street-oriented entrance for every four (4) units, and front units must have a
street facing principal window.
On corner lots, entries and principal window should face whichever street has a
greater block length. This standard shall be satisfied if all of the following conditions are
met:
a. The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten feet (10') back from the
front most wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight feet(8'.)
b. A covered entry porch of fifty or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six feet
(6'), shall be part of the front fagade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more
than one story in height.
c. A street-facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of
windows face the street.
Staff Response: This is a corner lot, located at the southwest intersection between Fifth Street
and Hallam Street. According to the Standard, the entry and principal window should face the
street with the longest block length, which in this case is Hallam Street (Fifth— 220', Hallam—
270'). However, many of the other corner lots within the neighborhood face the streets with the
shorter block length, which is all of the north-south oriented streets such as Fifth Street. For
example, the current house on the property has the entrance facing Fifth Street, while the
property directly north across Hallam Street has the entrance facing Hallam Street. Staff believes
a case could be made for the entry and principal window facing either street, and HPC should
discuss which would be more appropriate.
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 application for a restudy of
the garage to comply with all Residential Design Standards.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Guidelines
B. Resolution No. 5, Series of 1991
C. Application
5
Exhibit A
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
26.410.040.C.2.a. On the street facing facade(s), the width of the living area on the first floor shall be at
least five(5) feet greater than the width of the garage or carport.
26.410.040.C.2.b. The front facade of the garage or the front-most supporting column of a carport shall
be set back at least ten(10) feet further from the street than the front-most wall of the house.
26.410.040.D.1. Street oriented entrance and principal window. All single-family homes and duplexes,
except as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.13.4 shall have a street-oriented entrance and a street facing
principal window. Multi-family units shall have at least one (1) street-oriented entrance for every four
(4) units and front units must have a street facing a principal window. On corner lots, entries and
principal windows should face whichever street has a greater block length.
HPC GUIDELINES
Building Orientation
11.1 Orient the primary entrance of anew building to the street.
❑ The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of
the site.
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a
front porch.
❑ The front porch should be"functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry.
❑ A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
❑ In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street; nonetheless, the
entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to the street.
Mass and Scale
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel.
❑ Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on
the original site.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
❑ The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure.
❑ The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch.
Building&Roof Forms
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
❑ They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
❑ Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms.
❑ Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context.
❑ On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context.
❑ Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are
discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
Architectural Details
11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
❑ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
❑ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are
especially discouraged on historic sites.
6
EXHIBIT B
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 5
(SERIES OF 1991)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DELET-
ING THE STRUCTURE AT 601 WEST HALLAM FROM THE INVENTORY OF
HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES.
WHEREAS, George Vicenzi ("applicant") , owner of the premises
at 601 West Hallam, Aspen, Colorado, has submitted a petition to
the Historic Preservation Committee seeking deletion of the
structure situated thereon from the Inventory of Historic Sites
and Structures; and
WHEREAS, public hearings on the deletion petition were duly
noticed and conducted on May 8 and June 26, 1991, before the
Historic Preservation Committee; and
WHEREAS, based upon the facts and circumstances presented
before the Historic Preservation Committee it has been determined
that: (1) the structure under consideration is not original to
the site; (2) that only a minor portion of the subject structure
retains historic significance; (3) that partial demolition of the
subject structure pursuant to a previously issued demolition
permit has resulted in the removal or destruction of previously
existing historic materials and/or features associated with the
structure; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Committee finds that the
structure at 601 West Hallam no longer has historic value; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has voluntarily offered to execute a
covenant burdening his parcel sa as to allow the Historic Preser-
vation Committee to exercise mandatory review of any future
redevelopment on the subject parcel in terms of mass and scale;
and
WHEREAS, the applicant has further voluntarily offered to
utilize his best efforts to retain existing trees on the subject
parcel in the event of future redevelopment and to execute an
appropriate covenant reflecting same; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has voluntarily offered to provide
the Historic Preservation Committee with advance notification of
any future plans to demolish the subject structure and to under-
take certain repairs thereof in the near future.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMITTEE FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS:
1. The structure at 601 West Hallam, Aspen, Colorado, be
and is hereby deleted from the Inventory of Historic Sites and
structures subject to the following conditions:
a. The applicant shall execute and record with the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within ninety (90) days of the"
date of this Resolution a deed restriction in a form satisfactory
to the City Attorney burdening the property at 601 West Hallam as
follows:
i. The Historic Preservation Committee shall
have binding review and approval authority
over redevelopment on the subject parcel in
terms of mass and scale. For purposes of
y 2
review, "mass" shall mean that any future
structure shall be designed to avoid an '$un-
interrupted box-type structure" and will use
appropriately pitched roof forms for residen-
tial buildings as opposed to flat roofs.
"Scale" shall mean that window and door di-
mensions and building scale shall be consis-
tent with the scale of other buildings on the
block. Such review of mass and scale shall
not be allowed to reduce floor area ratio and
height for the building as otherwise allowed
by the applicable zoning at the time of the
building permit application.
ii. The applicant will use his best efforts to
retain to the extent possible all existing
trees situated on the subject parcel that
shield it from the Wheeler-Stallard House.
The applicant- shall provide reasonable ad-
vance notice to the Historic Preservation
Committee of his plans to demolish the exist-
ing structure so as to allow for a possible
relocation of the structure. Any inability
to relocate the structure shall not prevent
or forestall demolition at a time deemed
appropriate by the applicant.
3
b. That the applicant shall place the original siding
back on the structure and install a double-hung window in place
of the removed bay window within one-hundred twenty (120) days
from the date of this Resolution.
2 . The Historic Preservation Committee finds that the
removal of the 601 West Hallam street from the Inventory of
Historic Sites and Structures is based solely on facts and
circumstances unique to the case before it and that the decision
to delete the structure as provided for herein shall have no
precedential value or Effect in regard to any future petition to
remove a structure from the inventory.
RESOLVED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this -day of
1991.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMITTEE 41
By:
C airp son
ATTEST:
secretarr
jc72 .1
4
MEMORANDUM y
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner
RE: 417/421 W. Hallam Avenue — Correction to Landmark Designation, Setback
Variances, FAR Bonus, Conceptual Major Development Review, Relocation,
Demolition PUBLIC HEARING continued from March 26, 2014 and May 28,
2014
DATE: July 23, 2014
SUMMARY: The subject property is a duplex — half of which is designated a historic
landmark. When the property was designated in 1992, there was a clerical error that listed the
wrong half of the duplex as historic. In addition, almost all designated properties affect an entire
site, not just a single unit. This applicant seeks to correct the error. In addition the applicant is
interested in converting the duplex into a single family residence and requests approval to
demolish non-historic additions, pick up the house to dig a basement, and to construct a large
addition. Variances including setback variances, the 500 square feet FAR Bonus and Residential
Design Standard variances are requested. On October 23, 2013 HPC conducted a worksession
regarding this property.
APPLICANT: David and Marcia Kaplan, represented by Derek Skalko of 1Friday Design
Collaborative and Jake Bittner of Thomas Pheasant.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-33-007 and 2735-124-33-008.
ADDRESS: 417 and 421 W. Hallam Avenue, Units A and B of the Hallam Street
Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO.
ZONING: R-6
UPDATE: HPC continued the public hearing on May 28, 2014 with direction for the applicant
to add a front door and possibly a front porch to the historic resource. Staff supports the changes
and recommends approval with conditions. Revisions to the May proposal are addressed in the
memo below:
MAJOR CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT9 RELOCATION AND DEMOLITION
Staff Response: The following discussion addresses the changes to the project.
• Addition of a front door and front porch to the historic resource. The applicant has
redesigned the floor plan to place the front door and main entrance in the historic
417/421 W.Hallam St.
Conceptual HPC Review
July 23,2014
Page I of 9
resource and has added a front porch that matches the dimensions on the 1904
Sanborn Map.
Staff Response: Staff thanks the applicant for reworking the floor plan to highlight the historic
resource as the entrance and active living space within the project. Staff finds that Guideline 4.1
and 5.4 are met.
4.1 Preserve historically significant doors.
❑ Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These may include the
door, door frame, screen door,threshold, glass panes, paneling,hardware, detailing,transoms
and flanking sidelights.
❑ Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances.
❑ If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that
the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic
position.
❑ If the secondary entrance is sealed shut, the original entrance on the primary facade must
remain operable.
5.4 The use of a porch on a residential building in a single-family context is strongly
encouraged.
Li This also applies to large, multifamily structures. There should be at least one primary
entrance and should be identified with a porch or entry element.
• The connector has been lengthened to 101.(from 8').
Staff Response: Staff finds that Design Guideline 10.7 is met. A 10' connector pushes the two
story mass away from the historic resource to minimize adverse impacts to the landmark.
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.
• The pitch and the overall height of the new addition has been reduced which lowers
the ridge height 4.5' and shortens the mass by about 2'.
Staff Response: The further reduction of height and mass of the new construction strengthens
the overall project and promotes the preservation and prominence of the landmark. Staff finds
that Guideline 10.8 is met.
417/421 W.Hallam St.
Conceptual HPC Review
July 23,2014
Page 2 of 9
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.
• The applicant proposes 2 options for the mass of the new construction. The first
option is an uninterrupted ridge line for the 2 story mass. The second option
(labelled as Option B in the application), which responds to Staff and a few HPC
member's concerns, breaks up the ridge line and pushes some of the mass toward
the rear of the property.
Staff response: The original proposal with one long ridge line is simple and elegant; however,
Staff finds that Option B better meets the principles for new additions listed in the Design
Guidelines (see below) by breaking up the 2 story mass into modules. Staff is supportive of both
designs, and finds that Option B is more appropriate considering the undulation in wall plane of
the addition.
Basic principles for new additions:.
The addition should not affect the perceived character of the building...The
overall design of the additional must be in keeping with the design character of
the historic structure as well. At the same time, it should be distinguishable from
the historic portion, such that the evolution of the building can be understood.
This may be accomplished in a subtle way, with a jog in the wall planes or by
using a trimboard to define the connection.
• The applicant meets the parking requirement onsite with 1 garage parking space
and 1 onsite parking space.
Demolition:_
26.415.100.4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear
evidence presented by the property owners, parties of interest and members of the
general public to determine if the standards for demolition approval have been met.
Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any
one of the following criteria:
a) The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to
public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a
timely manner,
417/421 W.Hallam St.
Conceptual HPC Review
July 23,2014
Page 3 of 9
b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in
Aspen or
d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has
historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic
District in which it is located and
b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the
integrity of the Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic
relationship to adjacent designated properties and
c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation
needs of the area.
Staff Response: Staff is supportive of the demolition of the non-historic additions as proposed.
Staff finds that the 19th century rear lean-to addition to the residence that is shown on the
Sanborne map has been altered beyond repair. The sheds along the alley are represented as
being recent additions.
Relocation:
26.415.090.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 noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation
will not affect the character of the historic district; or
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on
which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic
District or property; or
3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method
given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move
will not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District in which it was
originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of
adjacent designated properties; and
Additionally,for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of
withstanding the physical impacts of relocation;
417/421 W.Hallam St.
Conceptual HPC Review
July 23,2014
Page 4 of 9
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and
preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the
necessary financial security.
Staff Response: Staff is supportive of the proposal to pick up the home and dig a basement as
long as the landmark is placed back in its original location. The applicant must provide a letter
from an engineer or licensed home mover stating that the landmark can successfully be picked
up and moved.
BONUS,VARIANCES: FAR DESIGN
STANDARD VARIANCES
26.415.110.F. Floor area bonus.
1. In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional
square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic
properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that:
a) The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines;
b) The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is
incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic
building;
c) The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance;
d) The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the
historic building's form, materials or openings;
e) The construction materials are of the highest quality;
f) An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building;
g) The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or
h) Notable historic site and landscape features are retained.
Staff Response: Staff finds that the proposed revisions to the new construction (adding a longer
connector piece and lowering the height) and the proposed reconstruction and preservation of the
historic resource (adding front porch, window restoration, roof restoration, siding replacement,
etc.) meet the criteria a,b,c,d,e, and f. Staff is supportive of the 500 sf FAR bonus request.
26.415.110.0. Variances. Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving
designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of
the historic property or district than what would be required by the underlying zoning's
dimensional standards.
417/421 W.Hallam St.
Conceptual HPC Review
July 23,2014
Page 5 of 9
1. The HPC may grant variances of the Land Use Code for designated properties to
allow:
a) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks;
b) Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between
buildings;
c) Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage;
d) Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial
historic properties.
2. 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.
The following setback variances are requested. A new variance is needed for the front porch:
o 3 ft. rear yard setback variance for the garage where 5 ft. is required and 2 ft. is
provided
o a combined setback variance of about 5 ft. 11 in. where about 10 ft. 4 in. is
provided and 16 ft. 3 in. is required
o a 8ft. 2 in. setback variance where 1 ft. 10 in is provided and 10 ft. is required for
living space and 5 ft. is require for garage.
o a 5 ft. 6 in. setback variance where about 4 ft. 6 in. is provided and 10 ft. is
required for the front porch on the historic resource.
Staff Response: Staff finds that the review criteria for granting a variance (below) are met: the
requested variances mitigate an adverse impact to the historic character of the property and
push the new construction away from the landmark. The front yard variance is needed for the
restoration of the front porch as directed by Staff and HPC.
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.
26.410.020.D.2. Residential Design Standards. Variances from the Residential Design
Standards, Section 26.410.040, which do not meet this Section may be granted by the
Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Historic Preservation
Commission, if the project is subject to the requirements of Chapter 26.415. An applicant
who desires to consolidate other requisite land use review by the Historic Preservation
Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission may elect
to have the variance application decided by the board or commission reviewing the other
land use application. An applicant who desires a variance from the Residential Design
417/421 W.Hallam St.
Conceptual HPC Review
July 23,2014
Page 6 of 9
Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variance, if granted
would:
a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context
in which the development is proposed and the 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.
Following are the requested variances, underlined area are not met in the proposal:
A.2 Build-to lines. On parcels or lots of less than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet at
least sixty percent (60%) of the front facade shall be within five (5) feet of the minimum
front yard setback line. On corner sites, this standard shall be met on the frontage with
the longest block length. Porches may be used to meet the sixty percent(60%) standard.
D.1 Street oriented entrance and principal window. ' All single-family homes and
duplexes, except as outlined in. Subsection 26.410.01 0.13.4 shall have a street-oriented
entrance and a street facing principal window. Multi-family units shall have at least one (1)
street-oriented entrance for every four (4) units and front units must have a street facing a
principal window.
On corner lots, entries and principal windows should face whichever street has a greater
block length. This standard shall be satisfied if all of the following conditions are met:
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.
• Some of the Residential Design Standard variances previously requested are no
longer needed for the project (related to the connector length and the front door
location). The RDS variances needed for the revision are addressed below.
Staff Response: The front porch is proposed to match the dimensions on the 1904 Sanborn
Map, which shows a depth of 5'5"not the required 6'. Staff is supportive of the variance for the
front porch considering it restores a historic element on the landmark. Staff is supportive of a
variance from the build to lines requirement: the proposal to push the new construction to the
rear of the parcel supports historic preservation, highlights the landmark and mitigates an adverse
impact on the landmark. Staff finds that the review criteria are met and recommends approval of
the variances.
417/421 W.Hallam St.
Conceptual HPC Review
July 23,2014
Page 7 of 9
OR
26.415.030.B. Aspen Victorian
1. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark
Sites and Structures as an example of Aspen Victorian, an individual building, site,
structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a
demonstrated quality of significance. The quality of significance of properties shall be
evaluated according to the criteria described below. When designating a historic district,
the majority of the contributing resources in the district shall meet the criteria described
below:
a) The property or district is deemed significant for its antiquity, in that it contains
structures which can be documented as built during the 19th century, and
b) The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location,
setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City
Council shall adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices
which shall be used by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply
this criterion.
Staff Response: Staff finds that criteria a and b are both met. The requested landmark
designation corrects a clerical error that occurred in 1992 when the property was originally
designated — the wrong half of the duplex was listed as historic. The property is shown on the
1893 aerial map and the 1904 Sanborne map. It represents a typical residential miner's cottage.
The form of the home is largely intact however there have been many alterations: the front porch
was removed, the hipped roof was replaced with standing seam metal and the flat top of the roof
changed to a ridge. Non-historic additions were added including a side addition for an entry
deck. The windows were changed on the front elevation and a non-historic bay window was
added. The property appears to be in its original location. The proposed restoration of the
landmark will increase the integrity score (which, based on current condition, is 55 points out of
100 points).
Staff recommends that HPC recommend Council designate the entire property as historic
(including both units).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant Conceptual Major
Development, Demolition, Relocation,the 500 sf FAR Bonus, setback variances, and Residential
Design Standard Variances for the property located at 417 and 421 W. Hallam Street, Units A
and B of the Hallam Street Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, with the following
conditions:
1. The site plan, mass and scale are conceptually approved as shown in Exhibit A.
2. Conditions of approval for Final Review:
417/421 W.Hallam St.
Conceptual UPC Review
July 23,2014
Page 8 of 9
a. Continue to refine the restoration plan for the Victorian, specifically the details of
the front porch.
b. Specify the foundation profile, material, and style for the historic home for review
at Final Review.
3. Relocation of the historic home is approved with the following conditions.
a. Provide a letter from a structural engineer demonstrating that the building is able
to moved.
b. At building permit, provide a $30,000 letter of credit or cashier's check to insure
the safe relocation of the house, as well as a plan for protection of the building
from a housemover or structural engineer.
4. Demolition of the non-historic additions and the non-historic shed is approved.
5. A 500 square feet FAR Bonus is approved.
6. Residential Design Standard variances for the historic home related to front porch and
build to lines, Land Use Code Sections 26.410.040.D.Lb and A.2, are approved.
7. The following setback variances, shown on Exhibit A, are granted.
a. 5 ft. rear yard setback variance where 10 ft. is required and 5 ft. is provided
b. a combined setback variance of about 6 ft. 3 in. where 10 ft. is provided and 16 ft.
3 in. is required
c. a 811. 2 in. setback variance where 1 ft. 10 in is provided and 10 ft. is required for
living space and 5 ft. is require for garage.
d. a 4 ft. 5 in. setback variance where 5 ft. 5 in. is provided and 10 ft. is required for
the front porch on the historic resource.
8. HPC recommends that City Council amend the landmark designation to include the entire
parcel.
9. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an
application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the
Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for
a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written
request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
EXHIBITS'
Exhibit A: Relevant design guidelines
Exhibit B: Application [provided March 26, 2014]
Exhibit C: Integrity Score Sheet
Exhibit D: Minutes from HPC meeting on March 26, 2014 [provided May 28, 2014]
Exhibit E: Minutes from HPC meeting on May 28, 2014
Exhibit F: Updated application, July 23, 2014
417/421 W. Hallam St.
Conceptual HPC Review
July 23,2014
Page 9 of 9
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL),RELOCATION,
DEMOLITION,FAR BONUS,AND VARIANCE APPROVAL AND RECOMMENDING
AN AMENDMENT TO THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 417 AND 421 WEST HALLAM STREET,UNITS A AND B OF THE
HALLAM STREET CONDOMINIUMS, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,COUNTY
OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
RESOLUTION#_, SERIES OF 2014
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-33-007 AND 2735-124-33-008
WHEREAS, the applicant, David and Marcia Kaplan, represented by 1 Friday Design
Collaborative and Thomas Pheasant, requested- HPC Major Development (Conceptual),
Relocation, Demolition, FAR Bonus, and Variance approval for the property located at 417 and
421 West Hallam Street, Units A and B of the Hallam Street Condominium, City and Townsite
of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the Unit B of the Hallam Street Condominiums is listed on the Aspen Inventory of
Historic Landmark Sites and Structures; and
WHEREAS, Community Development Department and the applicant are pursuing an
amendment to the landmark designation legal description to correct the clerical error that
designates the non-historic half of the duplex which is under City Council's authority; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application,
a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section
26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC
may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain
additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, in order to approve Relocation, according to Section 26.415.090.C, Relocation of a
Designated Property, it must be determined that:
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
417/421 W. Hallam Street
HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2014
Page 1 of 5
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which
it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or
property; or
3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given
the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not
adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or
diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated
properties; and
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding
the physical impacts of relocation; and
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and
preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary
financial security; and
WHEREAS, in order to approve Demolition, according to Section 26.415.080.A.4, Demolition
of Designated Historic Properties, it must be determined that:
a. The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public
safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely
manner,
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen
or
d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in
which it is located and
b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of
the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent
designated properties and
c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs
of the area; and
WHEREAS,the HPC may approve setback variances according to Section 26.415.110.C.La,
Variances. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district;
and/or
417/421 W. Hallam Street
HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2014
Page 2 of 5
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic
district; and
WHEREAS, in selected circumstances,pursuant to Section 26.415.110.F,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.
WHEREAS, the HPC may grant a variance from the Residential Design Standards upon a find
that:
a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in
which the development is proposed and the 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.
WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report to HPC dated July 23, 2014, performed an analysis
of the application based on the standards and recommended approval of the project with
conditions; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on July 23, 2014, continued from May 28, 2014 and March
26, 2014, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, the staff memo and
public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and approved the
project by a vote of
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby grants Conceptual Major Development approval, Waivers, Variances, and the
500 square feet FAR Bonus with the following conditions:
1. The site plan, mass and scale are conceptually approved as shown in Exhibit A.
417/421 W. Hallam Street
HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2014
Page 3 of 5
2. Conditions of approval for Final Review:
a. Continue to refine the restoration plan for the Victorian, specifically the details of
the front porch.
b. Specify the foundation profile, material, and style for the historic home for review
at Final Review.
3. Relocation of the historic home is approved with the following conditions.
a. Provide a letter from a structural engineer demonstrating that the building is able
to moved.
b. At building permit, provide a $30,000 letter of credit or cashier's check to insure
the safe relocation of the house, as well as a plan for protection of the building
from a housemover or structural engineer.
4. Demolition of the non-historic additions and the non-historic shed is approved.
5. A 500 square feet FAR Bonus is approved.
6. Residential Design Standard variances for the historic home related to front porch and
build to lines, Land Use Code Sections 26.410.040.D.Lb and A.2, are approved.
7. The following setback variances summarized below and shown on Exhibit A are granted.
a. 3 ft. rear yard setback variance for the garage where 5 ft. is required and 2 ft. is
provided
b. a combined setback variance of about 5 ft. 11 in. where about 10 ft. 4 in. is
provided and 16 ft. 3 in. is required
c. a 8ft. 2 in. setback variance where 1 ft. 10 in is provided and 10 ft. is required for
living space and 5 ft. is require for garage.
d. a 5 ft. 6 in. setback variance where about 4 ft. 6 in. is provided and 10 ft. is
required for the front porch on the historic resource.
8. HPC recommends that City Council amend the landmark designation to include the entire
parcel.
9. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an
application within this time period shall render null and, void the approval of the
Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for
a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written
request for extension is received no less than thirty(30) days prior to the expiration date.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 23rd day of July,2014.
Jay Maytin, Chair
Approved as to Form:
Debbie Quinn,Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
417/421 W. Hallam Street
HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2014
Page 4 of 5
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
Exhibit A: conceptually approved site plan and elevations.
417/421 W. Hallam Street
HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2014
Page 5 of 5
Exhibit A—Relevant Design Guidelines
2.7 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing
materials on primary surfaces.
❑ If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then the replacement
material must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, the amount of
exposed lap and finish.
❑ Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then
only those should be replaced, not the entire wall.
2.8 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for primary building materials.
❑ In some instances, substitute materials may be used for replacing architectural
details, but doing so is not encouraged. If it is necessary to use a new material, such
as a fiberglass column, the style and detail should precisely match that of the historic
model.
• Primary building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced
with synthetic materials.
• Synthetic materials include: aluminum, vinyl siding and panelized brick.
❑ EIFS (synthetic stucco) is not an appropriate replacement for real stucco.
3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window.
• Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash,
muntins/mullions, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation and groupings of
windows.
• Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them, whenever conditions permit.
❑ Preserve the original glass, when feasible.
3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a
building wall.
❑ Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character-defining facade is
inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening. This is especially important on
primary facades where the historic ratio of solid-to-void is a character-defining
feature.
❑ Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls.
❑ Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or
increase it to receive a larger window on primary facades.
Replacement Windows
3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a facade.
❑ Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character-defining facade will
negatively affect the integrity of a structure.
3.4 Match a replacement window to the original in its design.
❑ If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window should also be double-
hung, or at a minimum, appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number
and position of glass panes.
❑ Matching the original design is particularly important on key character-defining
facades.
3.5 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original.
❑ Using the same material as the original is preferred, especially on character-defining
facades. However, a substitute material may be considered if the appearance of the
window components will match those of the original in dimension, profile and
finish.
3.6 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening.
❑ Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to
receive a larger window is inappropriate.
❑ Consider reopening and restoring an original window opening where altered.
3.7 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that
of the original window.
❑ A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window's casing, the sash
steps back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These
increments, which individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are
important details. They distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane
of the wall.
4.1 Preserve historically significant doors.
❑ Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These may
include the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling,
hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights.
❑ Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary
entrances.
❑ If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be
reversible so that the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the
door in place, in its historic position.
❑ If the secondary entrance is sealed shut, the original entrance on the primary facade
must remain operable.
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.
5.4 The use of a porch on a residential building in a single-family context is
strongly encouraged.
❑ This also applies to large, multifamily structures. There should be at least one
primary entrance and should be identified with a porch or entry element.
Porch Replacement
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.
7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof.
❑ Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and
orientation of the roof as seen from the street.
❑ Retain and repair roof detailing.
7.2 Preserve the original eave depth.
❑ The shadows created by traditional overhangs contribute to one's perception of the
building's historic scale and therefore, these overhangs should be preserved.
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.
9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
❑ In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than
those in a historic district.
❑ It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative.
❑ Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any
improvements.
❑ A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural
details and materials.
• Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and
provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house.
• The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the
guidelines for new construction.
• In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not
approved.
9.2 Moving an existing building that contributes to the character of a historic
district should be avoided.
❑ The significance of a building and the character of its setting will be considered.
❑ In general, relocating a contributing building in a district requires greater sensitivity
than moving an individually-listed structure because the relative positioning of it
reflects patterns of development, including spacing of side yards and front setbacks,
that relate to other historic structures in the area.
9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within
the boundaries of its historic parcel.
❑ If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one
of the lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties.
9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
❑ It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback.
❑ It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new
building in front of it.
9.5 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.
9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space.
❑ In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential
Design Standards).
❑ The size of a lightwell should be minimized.
❑ A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations
and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it
should be surrounded by a simple fence or rail.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character
of the primary building is maintained.
❑ A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of
the primary building is inappropriate.
❑ An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building
also is inappropriate.
❑ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's
historic style should be avoided.
❑ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
❑ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
❑ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in
material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all
techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new
construction.
10.5 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic
alignments that may exist on the street.
❑ Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at
approximately the same height. An addition should not be placed in a location
where these relationships would be altered or obscured.
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
❑ An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is
preferred.
10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it
back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the
historic building.
❑ A 1-story connector is preferred.
• The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the
primary building.
• The connector also should be proportional to the primary building.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to
minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original
proportions and character to remain prominent.
❑ Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
• Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which
will not alter the exterior mass of a building.
• Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions
and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary
structures is recommended.
10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building.
• Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
• Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with
sloped roofs.
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.
INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT- 19TH CENTURY MINER'S COTTAGE
Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance.
• LOCATION Location is the place where the historic property was constructed
or the place where the historic event occurred.
5- The structure is in its original location.
4- The structure has been moved within the original site but still maintains
the original alignment and proximity to the street.
3- The structure has been moved to another site, still within the historic
Aspen townsite.
0- The structure has been moved to a location which is dissimilar to the
original site.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5)=5. Structure is in its original location
• DESIGN Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan,
space, structure, and style of a property.
BUILDING FORM
10-The original plan form, based on Sanborne maps or other authenticating
documentation, is unaltered and there are no recent additions.
8- The structure has been expanded but the original plan form is intact and
the addition(s)would meet the design guidelines.
6- The plan form has been more altered, but the addition would meet the
design guidelines.
4- The structure has been expanded in a less desirable manner, but if the
addition were removed, at least 50% of the building's original walls would
remain.
2- The structure has been expanded and the addition overwhelms the original
structure , destroying more than 50% of the building's original walls.
0- Two historic structures have been linked together and the original
character of the individual structures is significantly affected.
4 — structure has been altered but if removed building form could be
restored.
ROOF FORM
10-The original roof form and the original porch roof, if one existed, are
unaltered.
8- The original main roof is intact but the porch roof, if one existed, has been
altered.
1
6- Dormers have been added to the structure or additions have been made
that alter the roof form, but the changes would meet the design guidelines.
2- Alterations to the roof have been made in a less sensitive manner, not in
conformance with the design guidelines.
0- Less than 50% of the original roof form remains.
4—the roof has been altered and replaced with standing seam.
SCALE
5- The original one story scale of the building, and its character as a small
cottage is intact.
4- The building has been expanded, but the ability to perceive the original
size of the 3 or 4 room home, is preserved.
3- The building has been expanded and the scale of the original portion is
discernible.
0- The scale of the building has been negatively affected by a large addition,
whose features do not reflect the scale or proportions of the historic
structure.
4—building has been expanded but scale is intact.
FRONT PORCH
10-The front porch is not enclosed and original decorative woodwork
remains, or if there was no porch historically, none has been added.
8- The front porch is enclosed but maintains an open character and some
original materials.
6- The front porch is not original, but has been built in an accurate manner,
per the design guidelines.
2- The front porch has been enclosed and most original materials are gone.
0- The front porch is completely gone or replaced with a porch which would
not meet the design guidelines.
0 -front porch is removed.
DOORS AND WINDOWS
10-The typical door and window pattern on the original house is intact- two
doors off the front porch, large double hung windows in gable ends, and
- - - tall,narrow double hung windows placed "sparsely" on building walls.
8- Less than 50% of the door and window openings on the original building
are new and the original door and window openings are intact.
2- More than 50% of the door and window openings on the original building
are new and/or some of the original opening sizes have been altered.
0- Most or all of the original door and window openings have been altered.
2 - doors and windows are altered.
2
SIMPLICITY OF DESIGN
5- The overall sense of "modesty" in design and detailing on the original
structure is intact.
0- New, non-historic trim and other decoration have been added to the
building and have altered its character.
4—the simple detailing is largely intact.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 50) = 18
• SETTING Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.
PROXIMITY TO SIMILAR STRUCTURES
5- The structure is one of a set (at least three) of buildings from the same
period in the immediate area.
3- The building is part of a neighborhood that has numerous remaining
buildings from the same period.
0- The building is an isolated example from the period.
HISTORIC LANDSCAPE FEATURES
5- A number of elements of the original landscape are in place, including
historic fences, walkways, plant materials and trees, and ditches.
3- Few or no elements of the original landscape are present, but the current
landscape supports the historic character of the home.
0- The current landscape significantly obscures views of the structure.
TOTAL POINTS(maximum of 10) =8 building is close to other
landmarks.
• MATERIALS Materials are the physical elements that were combined or
deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or
configuration to form a historic property.
EXTERIOR WOODWORK
10-Most of the original woodwork, including clapboard siding, decorative
shingles in gable ends, trim, fascia boards, etc. remain.
6- Original siding has been replaced, but trim and other elements remain.
6- Original siding is intact but trim or other elements have been replaced.
0- All exterior materials have been removed and replaced.
DOORS AND WINDOWS
10-All or most of the original door and window units are intact.
3
8- Some window and door units have been replaced, but with generally
accurate reconstructions of the originals.
6- Most of the original windows have been replaced, but with generally
accurate reconstructions of the originals.
0- Windows and/or doors units have been replaced with inappropriate
patterns or styles.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 20) = 12—alterations have occurred, but
some original elements remain.
• WORKMANSHIP Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a
particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
DETAILING AND ORNAMENTATION
5- The original detailing is intact.
3- Detailing is discernible such that it contributes to an understanding of its
stylistic category.
0- New detailing has been added that confuses the character of the original
structure.
0- The detailing is gone.
FINISHES
5- All exterior woodwork is painted and masonry unpainted.
4- All exterior woodwork is painted and masonry is painted.
3- Wood surfaces are stained or modern in appearance but masonry is
unpainted.
2- Wood surfaces are stained or modern in appearance and the masonry is
painted.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 10) = 8—detailing and finishes are
accurate.
• ASSOCIATION Association is the direct link between an important historic
event or person and a historic property.
5- The property would be generally recognizable to a person who lived in
Aspen in the 19th century.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5) = 4—the alterations to the front favade
may confuse a person, but the roof form and scale are intact and relate to
the 191h century.
4
• BONUS POINTS
UNIQUE EXAMPLE
5-The design of the building is unique or one of a small group among the
miner's cottages. (i.e.lt has Italianate or Second Empire detailing.)
OUTBUILDINGS
5-There are outbuildings on the property that were built during the same
period as the house.
MASONRY
5-Original brick chimneys and/or a stone foundation remains.
PATINA/CHARACTER
5-The materials have been allowed to acquire the character of age and are
obviously weathered.
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS= 100 (and up to 20 bonus points)
MINIMUM THRESHOLD FOR DESIGNATION= 50 POINTS
Note: Each area of the integrity analysis includes a description of the circumstances
that might be found and a point assignment. However the reviewer may choose
another number within the point range to more accurately reflect the specific
property.
Total of 55 points.
5
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MAY 28 2014
Charles Cunniffe, Cunniffe architects
Charles said they restudied the windows and agreed internally that a more
respective rhythm of windows on the second floor would be good. We have
brought a sample of the brick that will be used.
Willis commented that the second floor window head material is now brick.
Charles said we were going to run the glass down and now it is brick which
will be reviewed onsite.
Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. There were no public
comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed.
MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #16 second by John.
Patrick commented that he finds the glass on the first floor and the glass
railing to be out of character with the neighborhood and with the historic
mining character of Aspen and would request that City Council review that.
Jay said the building has come a long way and fits in nicely.
Roll call vote: Sallie, yes; Willis, yes; John, yes; Patrick, no; Jay, yes.
Motion carried 4-1.
Jay and Jim are the monitors.
MOTION: Jay moved to approve the minutes of May 14" second by John.
All in favor, motion carried.
417 & 421 W. Hallam — Correction to Historic Designation, Conceptual
Major Development, Demolition and Variances, cont'd public hearing
Derek Skalko, architect
Jake Bittner of Thomas Pheasant
Sara this was heard by HPC on March 26th and continued to tonight. HPC is
being asked to address a correction to a landmark designation. The property
is a duplex and they designated the wrong unit which we think was a clerical
error. The entire parcel will be designated. Conceptual review, setback
5
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2014
variances and the 500 square foot FAR bonus is being requested. Relocation
is picking up the house and digging a basement and then putting it back in its
original location. There is also the proposal for the demolition of the non-
historic unit.
HPC directed the applicant to pursue exploratory demolition to shed some
light on the lack of a front door on the front fayade. There have been
changes to the front fagade. There was a bay window added. Staff and
Derek looked at the area and there was evidence of a front door being in the
location of the east double hung. Staff recommendation on the March 26'
hearing saying that the project did not meet the design guidelines regarding
mass, height, scale and length of the connector piece and lack of a primary
entrance on the historic home. We raised concerns that the FAR bonus
criteria were not met and setback variances were not met. Also the
residential design criteria were not met.
The applicant has studied the connector piece and added four feet to the
length so it is now 8 feet and ten feet is the minimum. If HPC approves the
eight feet they would need a variance. The height of the east west gable has
been reduced.
Staff does not feel the changes go far enough to meet the design guidelines.
We are concerned about that there really isn't a preservation aspect to the
proposal especially asking for the FAR bonus. They are proposing to
restore/reconstruct the siding which is great and to restore the roof form
which will be field verified. We feel the project does not go far enough
compared to other projects that HPC has recently reviewed where you
granted the 500 square foot bonus. We think that there are opportunities on
this property for the applicant to pursue to achieve the bonus. The applicant
does not want to pursue the path of adding a front door into the historic
home. There was a front door in the general location of the front porch in
the 1904 Sanborn map. The door in the current location is on the side of the
house. This is a tough house to review because we don't have good
documentation. We have two maps one shows no front porch and then a few
years later there is a front porch that appears. There was a front door in the
location of the double hung and there is evidence in the framing. We also
know that there was a door somewhere when this was originally built. This
house was not connected to anything when it was originally built so there
was a way to get in. The photograph that was represented is not to be used
as a means to allowing a front door to be on the side. We are not sure that
6
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2014
the photograph is of this house. In the past we have required project to
actually use the historic home as the primary entrance." We want the historic
home to be the focus of the property. When you remove a front door and
remove that interface on the property you are no longer highlighting the
historic home. HPC has a tough job. You have to find the balance between
the incentives that are offered in the code and also preservation of the
historic property. We don't feel there is a preservation aspect that is strong
enough to support all the incentives that they are requesting.
Sara pointed out the level of preservation that HPC is required to review and
approve to get the FAR bonus. An example is the Blue Vic 202 N. Monarch
and they completely restored the front porch in order to get the bonus. 135
W. Hopkins is another example of the front porch being rebuilt and 320 W.
Hallam. They had to remove a dormer which changed the interior layout of
one of their rooms because there was evidence that the dormer was added.
We do not find that the proposed work meets the bonus review criteria A-H.
If the proposed project is approved the next step is to go to council to
remedy the designation issue. We do not think that it will meet the criteria
for landmark designation. We are concerned that the lack of preservation
and the integrity of the site will be in jeopardy and we will be
recommending a de-listing. The property barely meets the review criteria
right now for integrity but we see the potential that the integrity score could
be increased with the restoration of the front door on the front fagade and
restoring the siding which they are proposing.
Sara said if it is de-listed the FAR bonus would be off the table and their
variances would be reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission.
Jay said staff is saying if this gets approved it is not worth listing for the
reasons mentioned above. Can the city correct the designation without the
owner's consent.
Jim said the listing itself was in error and the city could fix it. In 1992 it was
listed and there was an error as to which side of the property was listed. The
whole property should have been listed.
Jay commented that the Victorian on the property will be protected and we
will change the clerical error as a landmark.
7
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2014
Sara said if this is conceptually approved we don't think it meets the
designating criteria because the integrity score would be lowered so much
that it wouldn't qualify for designation in our opinion.
Sallie said Sara said if we approve what has been presented to us she feels
strongly that she will recommend that it be delisted. She can recommend that
on any property.
Derek Skalko, architect
Jake Bittner of Thomas Pheasant
Marcia Kaplan, owner
Derek said the addition was done in the 1970's or early 80's. We are
proposing to remove the addition in its entirety. We feel this is a huge step
forward in getting the scores to raise the scale of preservation. The historic
house is 1888 situated on the Sanborn map with no porch. By 1904 there
was a porch added or some indication of that. On the west side we will
repair the historic siding. We will also remove the bay window that is not
historic. We also agreed to flatten the roof if we find evidence of that. The
mass is allocated to the rear of the building. Derek did a power point on
how the project has changed. We have further pushed the massing away
from the structure. The primary east/west gable entity of this property now
situates itself 85 feet from West Hallam which is significant. The separation
between buildings is 8 feet so we have from the alley the ability to
physically use the alley for construction purposes. It would allow for
drainage engineering. Anytime I have gone to a 0 lot line you physically
can't build to a 0 lot line anymore. The height of the addition came down
and lightwells are no longer encroaching. We believe in the direction we are
going. Regarding the demotion we did not rip out the entire wall due to
tenant occupancy. What we found was inconclusive and there was no
definitive results. J.D. Black did the demolition and said there is no ceil
plate, no trimmers and nothing that says that you have X. With the penny
nails found and wood alteration did not occur in the 70's it probably
occurred pre 1930's. The wood was aged consistently from both sides. If
something was shifted or moved in history it was done a long time ago. We
just want to do a project that is great for the property and addresses a great
deal of historic preservation and is a win win for everyone.
8
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2014
Jake said the restoration we are representing is a viable restoration. This is
a unique building and we feel it is a worthwhile thing to preserve. From the
street view the massing is complimentary and very simple.
Marcia Kaplan said when they came to buy they looked for something that
had historical significance. We liked the idea that there was something on
this property that existed from 1880. Jake has done work for us on our
Maryland house. We wanted to construct something that reflected us. We
were trying to capitalize the view of Shadow Mountain which is only visible
from the second story. We put the living space on the second floor. The
simple historic structure would be our bedroom. We wouldn't want the
project de-listed. We want the historic nature of it.
Willis said there seems to be a disagreement about the outcome of the
investigative demolition.
Jay asked why the front door wasn't put on the historic structure and what is
the unwillingness to do so?
Derek said after the conclusion everything is inconclusive and there are no
photographs found. We are all guessing and this is very gray. That has to
be understood here. We are all trying to do the best that we can. We can't
absolutely verify 417 W. Hallam.
Jake said he has worked in a lot of historic towns and if you are going to
weight that there is lots of evidence that this house had a side door. There is
no support for the front door/porch.
Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. There were no public
comments. The public hearing was closed.
Issues:
Connector not ten feet.
5 foot rear yard setback variance when ten is required.
4.2 setback variance for the living space
500 square foot FAR bonus
Front door
Demolition and relocation
Mass and scale height of the addition
9
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2014
Patrick said there is lots of potential for this project. I agree with staff and
their assessment. Hopefully the applicant will make the historic area the
primary part of the residence. Possibly a fake front door could be put on the
front.
John said he loves the delicate nature of the design. The house is an
anomaly and I do not want to see the house delisted. There needs to be some
kind of compromise whether it be the addition of the front door. I
understand their desire to use the second floor views and if it was my home I
would want my bedroom their also. There are a lot of constraints on this
particular property. Possibly it could be an entry that was never used.
Pulling back the non-historic portion and show casing the small cottage is
worthy of consideration for a lot of the things you are asking for. Everyone
is stuck on the front entry. The scale is very subordinate and it speaks nicely
to the resource and I wish there was concrete evidence to show what was
going on.
Willis said he generally agrees with John. There is a fundamental
disagreement on the excavation. I would hope the applicant would put the
front door on in order to proceed. . . . . . . .
Amy said if you have a front door it should be functional.
Sara pointed out that in the 1904 map there is an entrance and a front porch.
Design guideline 4.1 talks about the primary entrance.
John said there is not enough evidence to solidify one way or another. The
function door would be good but maybe the use of it is something to discuss.
Sara said they feel there needs to be at least an entrance.
Willis said if there was as front porch there would be a front door. Mr.
Black could argue any side of the equation. I would side with Sara that there
is evidence and hopefully the applicant can make that work.
Sallie said she has to listen to staff if it is important to them then it is
important to us. I understand why the applicant wants the historic house the
bedroom. If you look at our guidelines what you are doing is turning the
historic house into the back of the house and the addition the main part of
the house. The guidelines want the life of the house to be where the life of
10
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2014
the house would have originally been. Somehow the historic structure needs
to look like it is the most important house. Maybe the historic house can be
moved forward.
Willis said someone needs to stand up for the quality of the design. It all
boils down to the front porch, front door issue. The design is good and it has
come a long way.
Patrick said he heard that mass and scale is also a major issue.
Sallie said the issue is how do you make the historic resource special.
Jay said he is concerned with the long roof line and flat walls and increased
mass. I feel that wall should be broken up with architectural style to make it
not look so big. I understand why you took the direction you did because
you can argue that there is not enough evidence to say where the door was,
but common sense says that that building had a door in it and the exploratory
demolition did show evidence that there was a door there. The long
sidewalk makes the focal point away from the historic resource. There is
great potential for this property but the historic resource need to be
prominent on this property. I feel this should be continued for more work
and the sentiment of the board is not to approve the project as proposed.
Derek said in regards to the exploratory demolition that we did I gave you
four physical examples of what is tangibly in existence in the house as it
stands today. I would like specific examples pertaining directly to what was
observed that made it definitive evidence.
Sara said HPC can do a site visit.
Jay said the Sanborn map of 1904 indicates a definite porch.
John said he feels this project could be great. I am having hard time trying
to figure out what the facts are. I do not want to see this delisted. With the
unit demolished and the new building pulled away you would see the
historic structure.
Jim True said the applicant could apply for de-listing, HPC can and council
can using the criteria set forth.
11
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MAY 28, 201
Sallie said our charge is to whether or not preserve an historic resource.
Marcia Kaplan asked if they added a porch and front door that front door
does not go into a living space. Will that solve this problem?
Jay said you can do whatever you want inside that house but you should
enter from that part of the house. The entrance to be in the historic structure.
Willis said the Lake Avenue project had two front doors.
Amy said demolition was somewhat limited due to the tenant in the space. I
would like to suggest we strip more either from the inside or outside and
everyone needs to feel good about the decision of the door etc.
Jake said he is hearing if we put a door and porch it is still a no go.
Amy said.there needs to be a functional entrance into the building and the
landscape should read that that is the primary way to the house. That
doesn't mean you can't have another door or patio and maybe you don't use
it exactly that way but it has to read and function that way.
Jim said in this type of hearing you make your decision based on evidence to
support your position. There is evidence on the record to support the
suggestion that there was a porch and front door. It does not have to be a
definitive absolute determination, no it does not. This is not that type of
standard of proof.
Sallie said there is enough support that you don't have to use that as your
front door. There are other cases that we have approved that it looks like a
front door and driving by the street you would think it was a front door but
there are other ways to get into your house.
Patrick said if Valerie Yaw designs the landscape so that it looks like the
main entrance and you put a door there how you use it is up to you. A lot of
people never use their front door because they come in through the garage.
Valerie said the site plan responds that new construction would associate
with new construction and the path would follow the new home. I strongly
disagree from an historic preservation stand point that a fake sidewalk to the
bedroom with a site path to the front door is a bad idea. It is a disservice to
12
ASPEN
HISTORIC PRESER VATIO N COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MAY 28 2014 le would use
the historic resource when you are not authentic to how people
the space.
of promoting fake anything. I am trying to honor the map.
Sallie she is n p
is the door where there was evidence of a door and that
Jay said he wan
should be the entrance to the building. porch and the
s 1880 showing no
Willis pointed out that there are There a e two pieces of evidence that we
Sanborn map showing a
porch.
can base our arguments on.
Sallie said why
would you put a porch on if the front door wasn't there.
John said he would prefer to see a slight recreation of the design.
hat does "original" condition in terms of preservation mean.
Willis asked w
of significance is 1880's to 19 hundred.u argument has
Sara said the period g ro Plate. O g
s that e' know, 1904 there
needs to decide where or not a front re porch
ertain things because
to do with the front o 1880hs map doesn't help us with the entrance b
was a front porch. The
it just shows the footprint. refer no
be faux if you put a front door on it. Iwould prefer
you
Sallie said it would yo
could get
front porch be there. With the design team y
want. �a second by
MOTION.
Patrick moved to continue the application to July 23
Jay. All in favor, motion carried• in favor, motion
MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn,
second by Patrick. All
carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 P-m.
Lit
�LZtC.t � �--_�
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
13
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: _
to( W - , Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
, 20
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
I -2 - �j�.�•--� (naive, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the7 City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing
on the _ day of , 20 , to and including the date and time
of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sio z) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
p0paid"T IR.; 3pail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach,
summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as
required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the
neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and
a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
i
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 anaendnient. 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.
Signa e
The fore oing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged be ore me this 3 day
of , 20(Lf, by
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE:601 W.HALLAM STREET-CONCEPTUAL T
MOR
DESIGN STANNDARDVARIANC SNTIAL WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on Wednesday,July 23,2014,at a
meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m.before the Aspen M conuil1SSlon eX ueS.6 (
Historic Preservation Commission,in Council > p
Chambers,City Hall,130 S.Galena St.,Aspen to
consider an application submitted by 601 W.Hal-
lam,LLC(121 S.Galena St.#203,Aspen,CO,
61611),represented by Alan Richman Planning
Services,related to their property located at 601 W.
Hallam Street,Lots H and I,Block 23,City and
Townsite of Aspen, CO, Parcel ID 'Notary Pu 11C
#2735-124-31-002. The applicant proposes to de-
molish the existing building and construct a new
single-family home. The applicant requests Can- KAREN REED PATTERSON
ceptual Development approval and Residential De-
sign NOTARY PUBLIC
Standard Variances.This will be a one-step
hearing with only Conceptual Development review $T14TE OF CQLQF��Q
of mass and scale required.For further information,
contact Justin Barker at the City of Aspen Commu- NQYI�RY ID#19864U�2767
nity Development Department,130 S.Galena St., CACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
Aspen,CO,(970)429-2797,lustin.barkerUcityo- My Commission E*res February 15,2016
faspen.com LICATION
s/Jay Maytin
Chair,Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
'THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
Published in the Aspen Times on July 3,2014 j
(1 033W65) ERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY MAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
(0 o l I�AAVk , Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
S u�A z� , 2011
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin Q )
I, i!�- LAN" (name,please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on the day of 5 lam, , 20�, to and including the date and time
of the pu lic hearing. photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
4A k 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.
Signature
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this day
of �,,7 �l , 2014, by {k1.Avx
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
EMILY ESSIG
Notary Public My commission expires: , 201-]
State of Colorado
Notary ID 20094002055 `
"ommission Expires Feb 11, 2017 t
Notary Public
ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
• COPYOFTHEPUBLICATION
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN)
• LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BYMAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 601 W. HALLAM STREET -CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, July 23, 2014, at
a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, in Council
Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen to consider an application submitted by 601 W.
Hallam, LLC (121 S. Galena St. #203, Aspen, CO, 81611), represented by Alan Richman Planning
Services, related to their property located at 601 W. Hallam Street, Lots H and I, Block 23, City and
Townsite of Aspen, CO, Parcel ID #2735-124-31-002. The applicant proposes to demolish the
existing building and construct a new single-family home. The applicant requests Conceptual
Development approval and Residential Design Standard Variances. This will be a one-step hearing
with only Conceptual Development review of mass and scale required. For further information,
contact Justin Barker at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena
St.,Aspen, CO, (970) 429-2797,justin.barker@cityofaspen.com
s/Jay Maytin
Chair,Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on July 3, 2014
City of Aspen Account
d
tit t � 4t
e `
co
IL
Easy Peel®Labels i A Bend along line to Q �Y�5160®
Use Avery®Template 51600 j Feed Paper expose Pop-up Edge7m 1
323 N FIFTH ST LLC 501 WEST HALLAM LLC 602 WEST HALLAM LLC
555 KATIE PARK LN PO BOX 3389 17130 AVE LE RIVAGE
SNOWMASS, CO 81654 VAIL, CO 81658 BOCA RATON, FL 33496
605 W BLEEKER LLC ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY BAILEY RYAN TANNER MCKENZIE TRST
101 S MILL ST#200 620 W BLEEKER ST 50%
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BAKER& HOSTETLER LLP
303 E 17TH AVE#1100
DENVER, CO 80203
BLAICH ROBERT I TRUST CITY OF ASPEN COLLETT JOHN&VIRGINIA C
319 N FOURTH ST 130 S GALENA ST 1111 METROPOLITAN AVE#700
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHARLOTTE, NC 28204
COOK ROBERT C& MARSHA N FELD ANNE S FERGUS ELIZABETH DAWSON
621 W FRANCIS ST 1700 PACIFIC AVE#4100 PO BOX 1515
ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS,TX 75201 ASPEN, CO 81612
GARCIA STEPHANIE L GLENN SALLY RAE HALLAM SIX LLC
4211 W 21 STAVE 1 504 W HALLAM AVE 4430 ARAPAHO STE 110
DENVER, CO 80212 ASPEN, CO 81611 BOULDER, CO 80303
HENRY KRISTEN HERNANDEZ CECIL M&NOELLE C HILLMAN TATNALL L REV TRUST
525 W HALLAM ST PO BOX 1045 504 W BLEEKER ST
ASPEN, CO 81611-1246 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611
KAFRISSEN ARTHUR&CAROLE KEY R BRILL& ELIZABETH R LEVINE THEODORE A TRUST
310 N 6TH ST 715 W MAIN#304 425 E 58TH ST#25H
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10022
LORD KAREN &COURTNEY MAGGOS LAURA P MCCAUSLAND LINDA REV TRUST
631 W BLEEKER 317 NORTH 4TH ST 609 W FRANCIS ST
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
MINERS CABIN LLC MOSS CHARLES B JR MUSSELMAN JAMES&JULIANNE
403 ALEXANDER RD 1530 BROADWAY 8401 N CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY#400
LENOIR CITY,TN 37772 NEW YORK, NY 10036 DALLAS,TX 75225
NATIONWIDE THEATRES CORP NEWMAN DIANNE R REV TRUST P& L PROPERTIES LLC
120 N ROBERTSON BLVD 1320 OAK KNOLL DR 101 S 3RD ST#360
LOS ANGELES, CA 90048 AKRON, OH 44333-2232 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501
ttiquettes faciles a peter A Repliez a la hachure afin de; www.avery.com
chargement
p' p
Utilisez le gabarit AVERY®51600 i Sens de reveler le rebord Po u TM ' 1-800-GO-AVERY '
� � 1
Easy Peel®Labels i ♦ Bend along line to AVERY® 51600
Use Avery®Template 51600 Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTM j 1
PARFET DONALD R&ANNE V PDT PARTNERS LLC SCHWARTZ RACHEL KUKES&MARK
11000 RIDGEWOOD LN 601 E HYMAN AVE 1061 COUNTRY CLUB RD
RICHLAND, MI 49083 ASPEN, CO 81611 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 483042603
SHAFROTH ASPEN HOUSE LLC SHELBY LLC SWANSON LUCIA TRUST
3367 SUNSHINE CANYON DR 1201 WILLIAMS ST#6 425 E 58TH ST#25H
BOULDER, CO 80302 DENVER, CO 80218 NEW YORK, NY 10022
VES TRUST 50% WARE NINA COULTER LIV TRUST WOGAN WENDY
SWEENEY JOHN F TRUST 50% 13021 KING ARTHUR SPUR 533 W FRANCIS
1260 IVANHOE ST SAINT LOUSI, MO 68146 ASPEN, CO 81611
DENVER, CO 80220
ttiquettes faciles a peter ; Repliez a la hachure afin de; www.avery.com
Utilisez le abarit AVERY®5160® Sens de reveler le rebord Po u TM ' 1-800-GO-AVERY '
9 All chargement p" p j 1
Linda Manning
From: Justin Barker
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 2:09 PM
To: Linda Manning
Subject: FW: 601 west hallam street
Linda, here is the message that was sent to me that Jay read at the meeting.Also, did you find out what Reso#this will
be?Thanks!
Justin Barker
AICP I LEED Green Assoc I CNU-A
Planner I City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970.429.2797
F 970.920.5439
www.aspenpitkin.com
Notice and Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply
to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the information or opinions
contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable,the
information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and
upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not
create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance.
-----Original Message-----
From: richard greenberg [mailto:remcaprealty @gmail.com]
Sent: Monday,July 21, 2014 1:53 PM
To:Justin Barker
Subject: 601 west hallam street
Dear Mr. Barker:
Thank you for taking the time to meet with my wife and I regarding the planned construction project across the street
from our home at 602 West Hallam Street(titled in the name of 602 West Hallam LLC., of which i am managing
member).
Your time and insight into the planning process were certainly appreciated.
We are happy that a new home will be built across from ours, however I have some concerns about the project as it is
currently is presented.
I hope you will be able to address our concerns at the meeting Wednesday night that I am unfortunately unable to
attend.
1
Since our meeting I have performed an informal survey of the homes form Bleeker to St. Francis and from 6th to 3rd (the
main area of the storm ditches) and have made the following observations which i believe are relevant to the above
referenced application.
1. Every alleyway and nearly 50 percent of the homes in this survey area have permanent walkways or driveways over
the ditch. I am at a loss for why the engineering department suddenly would recommend against one more driveway
crossing the ditch.
Piping the ditch under a single driveway is neither cost prohibitive nor unusual in the area.
2.The vast majority of homes in the survey area have garages in the alleyways; of those that do not, less than 10
percent have garages on the east-west streets---90 per cent of the garages are on the numbered streets.
3. the vacated alleyway between the subject site and the Ruth Whyte Park is populated by scrub trees and bushes and
could easily be reopened with the relocation of certain utility boxes to allow the garages to have access to an alleyway.
4.The majority of homes in this area are constructed on a north south axis as envisioned in the numbering system;
hence 601 west Hallam should face north as 602 west Hallam faces south (as does every other house in the vicinity of
5th and Hallam).
5.The elimination of parking spaces on west Hallam street due to the siting of a 2 car garage here will further
exacerbate parking issues during the summer music tent season and during special events held at the historical society.
In short I believe the city would be better served by having the project reworked and moving the garages to a recreated
alleyway(best option for all); or alternatively reworking the project putting the garages on 5th street,where they more
properly belong
Thank you for your help and kind consideration in this matter.
I can be reached at 925 1431 or on my cell at 201 513 0131.
602 West Hallam, LLC.
Richard S Greenberg
Managing Member
2
9 1 �
LAW OFFICES OF f /
PAUL J. TADDUNE, P.C.
PAUL J.TADDUNE AFFILIATED OFFICE
323 WEST MAIN STREET,SUITE 301 FOWLER,SCHIMBERG&FLANAGAN,P.C.
ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 1640 GRANT STREET,SUITE 300
TELEPHONE (970)925-9190 DENVER,COLORADO 80203
TELEFAX (970)925-9199 TELEPHONE (303)298-8603
INTERNET:taddune @compuserve.com TELEFAX (303)298-8748
July 21, 2014
HAND DELIVERED
Mayor Steve Skadron
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Members of the City Council
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Appeal of Historic Preservation Commission Decision Made July 9, 2014,
Including Objection to Conduct of Hearing and Site Inspection Without Notice to
Affected Property Owners
Lundy Residence - 301 Lake Avenue, Aspen, Colorado
Dear Mayor Skadron and Members of the City Council:
This letter is being submitted on behalf of the Block Family Trust, owner of 309-311
West North Street, as an appeal pursuant to Section 26.208.010 and Section 26.316.020 (B) of
the Aspen Land Use Code regarding a decision by the Historic Preservation Commission to grant
variances (Section 26.208.010 subparagraphs A, E, F; G, I and O) for the Lundy residence at 301
Lake Avenue in Aspen. The appeal is intended to preserve all rights of the Block Family Trust
pending the completion of the AspenModern historic designation negotiation process.
The basis for this appeal is as follows:
1. In granting a variance for a new box garage, encroachment into the side yard setback
between the historic Herbert Bayer Bauhaus home located at 309-311 West North Street and the
rear yard setback, the HPC violated or failed to comply with the standards set forth in Section
C.2 of Section 26.415.110 of the Aspen Land Use Code that provides as follows:
"In granting a variance the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a) is
similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district
Mayor Steve Skadron
Members of the Aspen City Council
July 21, 2014
Page 2
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." (Emphasis added.)
Rather, the HPC approved a general resolution granting variances of a box garage and other
proposed improvements along the alley that will obscure the existing facade of the Lundy house
and that will have an adverse impact on the historic Herbert Bayer Bauhaus home owned by the
Block Family Trust. The Lundy house currently does not have a garage and the proposed box
like structure will not enhance or mitigate an adverse impact to the historic significance of the
Lundy property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. The HPC ignored
the request of the Block Family Trust to disallow the requested variances to the extent that they
failed to harmonize the new structure with the Block Family Trust's historically designated
Herbert Bayer home. As one HPC member observed, accommodating the Blocks' home would
be a minor concession in light of the proposed increase in square feet and concessions requested
by the new owners of the Lundy home.
2. At some time in the past, the HPC conducted a meeting pursuant to Section
26.304.020 and 26.415.025 of the Aspen Land Use Code without providing written notice to the
adjacent property owners as required by Section 26.415.030, subsection (D). Subsection(B) of
Section 26.220.060 provides that"all meetings and hearings of the Commission shall be open to
the public." This is particularly significant because although the HPC and developer met on site
at the Lundy house property, they did not view the Block property in order to evaluate firsthand
what Dr. and Mrs. Block perceive as a negative impact upon their historic property. Under the
circumstances presented, the meeting between the applicant and the HPC appears to have been of
such nature that the impact to the Block house was not presented and the City Council should
substitute itself for the HPC or appoint substitute HPC members that could review the matter de
novo. Dr. and Mrs. Block invite the members of the City Council to visit their property for the
purpose of further evaluating this appeal.
3. On July 9, the HPC purported to conduct a public hearing. However,the Chairman
of the HPC intimidated many of those present, did not let people speak on matters of their own
choice and limited all discussion to not more than 2 minutes. On the other hand, the Historic
Preservation officer spoke at length in support of the project and the applicant was allowed to
speak and offer testimony without any time restriction. No reasonable opportunity was allowed
to refute statements made by the applicant or otherwise discuss the application in an attempt to
achieve a result that would harmonize the proposed redevelopment of the Lundy house and the
Block home. The HPC Chairman preordained subjects on which the public could speak and
intimated that anyone who did not abide by his rules would be told to leave and escorted out of
the hearing room. Many people in the audience decided to leave before being provided an
Mayor Steve Skadron
Members of the Aspen City Council
July 21, 2014
Page 3
opportunity to speak because of a feeling that their comments under the circumstances would
have been futile. As such, the Blocks were denied their rights to due process.
In accordance with Section 26.316.030(B) the filing of a notice of appeal shall stay any
proceedings in furtherance of the action of the appeal, unless the Community Development
Director certifies in writing to the person of the decision making body authorized to hear the
appeal that a stay poses imminent peril to life or property, in which case the appeal shall not stay
further proceedings.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this request.
Very truly yours,
PAUL J. TADDUNE, P.C.
- S
Paul J. Taddune
PJT:nwe
cc: Community Development Department,Attn.: Amy imon
HPC c/o Kathy Strickland, Secretary to the HPC��
Derek Skalko
Mitch Haas
Dr. and Mrs.Martin Block
EXHIB
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: CnLb�4( ( W � yam. s� - ,Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
,20
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
(name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of.Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, whi6k was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was .composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing
on the _ day of , 20_, to and including the date and time
of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
_the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
FW02.1913TTA9 g. ail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
BUq Y � su ct to the development application. The names and addresses of
OJOa o own rs shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
sizei t ore than six 60 da s rior to the date of the ublic hearin A 3azs,;p� �6`�, a sixty ( ) Y P P g•
ners and governmental agencies so iaoticed is attached hereto.
Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach,
summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as
required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the
neighborhood outreach summary, including the Method of public notification and
a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto.
(continued 071 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 Axeas, 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.
Signat4 e
ng"Affidavit of Notice"was aclmowledged be ore me this3day
f 20 r_cct,�
_(L�,by
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE-SM W.HALLAM STREET-CONCEPTUAL
FIA�DEVELOPMENT AND RESIDENTIAL WITNESS My HAND AND OFFICL�L SEAL
DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on Wednesday,July 23,2014.at a
meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m.before the Aspen I.Ay cominission expires
mmission,in Council
H=c P'eserva',�on3C"'
C .. City a 0 S.Galena St.,Aspen to
consider ai�application submitted by 601 W.Hal-
lam,LLC(121 S.Galena St.#203,Aspen,CO,
81611),represented by Alan Richman Planning
Services,related to their propel located at 601 W. "Al
Hallam Street,Lots H and 1, lock 23,City and tary Public
Townsite of Aspen, CO, Parcel ID No
#2735-124-31-002. The applicant proposes to de-
molish the existing building and construct a new
single-family home. The applicant requests Con- KAREN REED PATTERSON
ceptual Development approval and Residential De-
sign Standard Variances.This will be a one-step NOTARY PUBLIC
hearing with only Conceptual Development rev�ew STATE OF COLORADO
of mass and scale required.For further information,
contact Justin Barker at the City of Aspen Commu- NOTARY ID#19964002767
nity Development Department,130 S.Galena St.,
Aspen,CO,(970)429-2797,justin.barker@cityo- FACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: my comnlis"Expires Febrwry 15.2016
faspen.com LICATION
s/Jay Mayfin
Chair,Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 'THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
Published in the Aspen Times on July 3,2014
(I 03&%W) ERS AND GO VERATMENTAL A GENCIES NO TICED
BY3WL
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OFMINERAL ESTAE OWNERSNOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
(0 0 l 'WAAVk , Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
y -I Z" 2011
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, i�c LA"` (name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on the day of 'S , 20�, to and including the date and time
of the pu lic hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach,
summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as
required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the
neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and
a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto.
(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.
Ac—
Signature
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this day
of 1)k4 , 2014, by fk 1,A%A
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
EMILY ESSIG
Notary Public My commission expires: 1 Zoo
State of Colorado
Notary ID 20094002055 `
"ommission Expires Feb 11, 2017 1
M Notary Public
ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
•
COPY OF THE PUBLICATION
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN)
• LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BYMAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 601 W. HALLAM STREET-CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, July 23, 2014, at
a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, in Council
Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen to consider an application submitted by 601 W.
Hallam, LLC (121 S. Galena St. #203, Aspen, CO, 81611), represented by Alan Richman Planning
Services, related to their property located at 601 W. Hallam Street, Lots H and I, Block 23, City and
Townsite of Aspen, CO, Parcel ID 92735-124-31-002. The applicant proposes to demolish the
existing building and construct a new single-family home. The applicant requests Conceptual
Development approval and Residential Design Standard Variances. This will be a one-step hearing
with only Conceptual Development review of mass and scale required. For further information,
contact Justin Barker at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena
St., Aspen, CO, (970)429-2797,justin.barker @cityofaspen.com
s/Jav Maytin
Chair,Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on July 3, 2014
City of Aspen Account
�jay\ �� � �,��:� '�� ���• m� i s
9 g
IV-
POW
Mb
o 00
vo
Easy Peel®Labels i ♦ Bend along line to ARYL 510®
Use Avery®Template 51600 j feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTm j 1,
323 N FIFTH ST LLC 501 WEST HALLAM LLC 602 WEST HALLAM LLC
555 KATIE PARK LN PO BOX 3389 17130 AVE LE RIVAGE
SNOWMASS, CO 81654 VAIL, CO 81658 BOCA RATON, FL 33496
605 W BLEEKER LLC ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY BAILEY RYAN TANNER MCKENZIE TRST
101 S MILL ST#200 620 W BLEEKER ST 50%
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BAKER&HOSTETLER LLP
303 E 17TH AVE#1100
DENVER, CO 80203
BLAICH ROBERT I TRUST CITY OF ASPEN COLLETT JOHN&VIRGINIA C
319 N FOURTH ST 130 S GALENA ST 1111 METROPOLITAN AVE#700
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHARLOTTE, NC 28204
COOK ROBERT C&MARSHA N FELD ANNE S FERGUS ELIZABETH DAWSON
621 W FRANCIS ST 1700 PACIFIC AVE#4100 PO BOX 1515
ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS,TX 75201 ASPEN, CO 81612
GARCIA STEPHANIE L GLENN SALLY RAE HALLAM SIX LLC
4211 W 21 STAVE 1 504 W HALLAM AVE 4430 ARAPAHO STE 110
DENVER, CO 80212 ASPEN, CO 81611 BOULDER, CO 80303
HENRY KRISTEN HERNANDEZ CECIL M& NOELLE C HILLMAN TATNALL L REV TRUST
525 W HALLAM ST PO BOX 1045 504 W BLEEKER ST
ASPEN, CO 81611-1246 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611
KAFRISSEN ARTHUR&CAROLE KEY R BRILL& ELIZABETH R LEVINE THEODORE A TRUST
310 N 6TH ST 715 W MAIN#304 425 E 58TH ST#25H
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10022
LORD KAREN &COURTNEY MAGGOS LAURA P MCCAUSLAND LINDA REV TRUST
631 W BLEEKER 317 NORTH 4TH ST 609 W FRANCIS ST
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
MINERS CABIN LLC MOSS CHARLES B JR MUSSELMAN JAMES&JULIANNE
403 ALEXANDER RD 1530 BROADWAY 8401 N CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY#400
LENOIR CITY,TN 37772 NEW YORK, NY 10036 DALLAS,TX 75225
NATIONWIDE THEATRES CORP NEWMAN DIANNE R REV TRUST P& L PROPERTIES LLC
120 N ROBERTSON BLVD 1320 OAK KNOLL DR 101 S 3RD ST#360
LOS ANGELES, CA 90048 AKRON, OH 44333-2232 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501
ttiquettes faciles a peter Repliez a la hachure afin de www.avery.com
Utilisez le gabarit AVERY®5160® chSens de
ent reveler le rebord Pop-upTM ' 1-800-GO-AVERY '
J g J 1
Easy Peel®Labels i A I along line to Q AVERY® 51600
Use Avery®Template 51600 j Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTM j 1
PARFET DONALD R&ANNE V PDT PARTNERS LLC SCHWARTZ RACHEL KUKES&MARK
11000 RIDGEWOOD LN 601 E HYMAN AVE 1061 COUNTRY CLUB RD
RICHLAND, MI 49083 ASPEN, CO 81611 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 483042603
SHAFROTH ASPEN HOUSE LLC SHELBY LLC SWANSON LUCIA TRUST
3367 SUNSHINE CANYON DR 1201 WILLIAMS ST#6 425 E 58TH ST#25H
BOULDER, CO 80302 DENVER, CO 80218 NEW YORK, NY 10022
VIES TRUST 50% WARE NINA COULTER LIV TRUST WOGAN WENDY
SWEENEY JOHN F TRUST 50% 13021 KING ARTHUR SPUR 533 W FRANCIS
1260 IVANHOE ST SAINT LOUSI, MO 68146 ASPEN, CO 81611
DENVER, CO 80220
ttiquettes faciles a peter A Repliez a la hachure afin de i www.avery.com
Utilisez le gabarit AVERY®51600 j chargement reveler le rebord Pop-upTM 1-800-GO-AVERY i