Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20140806 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING August 6,2014 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ROOM 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO 12:00 SITE VISIT: Please meet at 28 Smuggler Grove 5:00 INTRODUCTION A. Roll call B. Approval of minutes- July 9, 2014 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-222 W. Hopkins, 414 E. Cooper I. Submit public notice for agenda items NEW BUSINESS A. 712 W. Francis Street- Temporary On-site Relocation, CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO SEPTEMBER 24 5:10 B. 120 Red Mountain Road- Final Major Development, PUBLIC HEARING 5:40 C. 229 West Smuggler/426 N. Second- Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation and Variances, PUBLIC HEARING OLD BUSINESS 6:50 A. 28 Smuggler Grove Road- Conceptual Major Development, Floor Area bonus, Setback variances, Parking waiver, Demolition of non-historic additions, Relocation, Residential Design Standards variance, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING WORKSESSIONS A. None 7:20 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 monitoring\PROJECT MONITORING.doc 7/31/2014 P1 R t MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 120 Red Mountain Road—Final Major Development, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 6, 2014 SUMMARY: 120 Red Mountain Road is an approximately 31,000 square foot lot that x contains a single family home. Located along Hunter Creek, the house was built in 1962, i designed b Ellen Harland an MIT trained g Y architect who worked in Fritz Benedict's office and her own practice for approximately 20 years. w The house was in the original family ownership until this year. It was remodeled once, with a 1972 addition designed by Rob Roy, another ,�• Y AspenModern recognized architect. Otherwise, the exterior and interior are very original. The new owner volunteered for AspenModern landmark designation of this excellent example of a Modern Chalet. In May, HPC conducted Conceptual review of a proposed remodel of the house and recommended in favor of designation, and the award of two TDRs as incentives. Council officially landmarked the property in June. The applicant now requests Final design review to convert the existing garage to living space, construct a small bump out onto an existing deck for a new bathroom, and construct a new two car garage with a bedroom above it, linked to the original house by a connector hallway. Staff recommends approval with conditions. APPLICANT: Red Mountain Riverfront, LLC, represented by Kim Raymond Architects. PARCEL ID: 2737-072-00-028 ADDRESS: 120 Red Mountain Road ZONING: R-15A HPC Review 08.06.2014 120 Red Mountain Road Page 1 of 6 P2 FINAL • OR DEVELOPMENT Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Final review focuses on landscape plan, lighting, fenestration, and selection of new materials. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A." With regard to the new additions to the house, staff finds that the material palette is appropriate and sufficiently distinct from the historic house. With regard to the historic house, staff recommends several conditions to ensure that the existing character of the building is maintained. First, staff recommends that the architect provide a more complete explanation of any window and door changes proposed. Staff can support replacement of the original windows and doors, but they must match the original and must maintain the existing opening sizes. The only exception is where the existing garage doors are being replaced with new windows. Staff recommends that all the original light fixtures on the house, which includes a sconce on the front and a pendent on the rear deck, must be retained. Staff recommends that if the existing roof must be replaced, it should be tar and gravel style to match the existing. Detailed information on new windows, specs for all exterior lights, and specs for all landscaping in the front of the house must be provided for review by staff and monitor. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant Final approval with the following conditions: 1. Detailed information on new windows, specs for all exterior lights, and specs for all landscaping in the front of the house must be provided for review by staff and monitor. All new doors and windows must match the original and must maintain the existing opening sizes. 2. Retain and reuse the original exterior light fixtures on the historic house. HPC Review 08.06.2014 120 Red Mountain Road Page 2 of 6 P3 3. The roof on the historic house must be tar and gravel style, as existing. 4. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. - - - - - - - No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 120 Red Mountain Road. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - EXHIBITS: Exhibit A: Design Guidelines Exhibit B: Application HPC Review 08.06.2014 120 Red Mountain Road Page 3 of 6 P4 "Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines for 120 Red Mountain Road,Final Review" 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic structures. ❑ The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod, and not covered with paving, for example. 1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. ❑ Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. ❑ If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project. 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site. ❑ Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact of mature growth. ❑ Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent. ❑ Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials. 1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting. ❑ Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes. 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. HPC Review 08.06.2014 120 Red Mountain Road Page 4 of 6 P5 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. 4.5 When replacing a door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the house. ❑ A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement. ❑ A historic door from a similar building also may be considered. ❑ Simple paneled doors were typical. ❑ Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. 7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to those used traditionally. ❑ Replacement materials should be similar to those used historically on comparably styled buildings. ❑ If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. ❑ Flashing should be in scale with the roof material. ❑ If copper flashing is to be used, it should be treated to establish a matte, non- reflective finish. 7.10 If it is to be used, a metal roof should be applied and detailed in a manner that is compatible and does not detract from the historic appearance of the building. ❑ A metal roof material should have an earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. ❑ A metal roof with a lead-like patina also is an acceptable alternative. ❑ Seams should be of a low profile. HPC Review 08.06.2014 120 Red Mountain Road Page 5 of 6 P6 ❑ A roof assembly with a high profile seam or thick edge is inappropriate. 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. 14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that used traditionally. ❑ The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be approved by the HPC. ❑ All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence. 14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting. ❑ Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be permitted. • Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures. • Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night. ❑ Do not wash an entire building facade in light. ❑ Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls of buildings. ❑ Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area. HPC Review 08.06.2014 120 Red Mountain Road Page 6 of 6 P7 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ASPENMODERN HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 120 RED MOUNTAIN ROAD, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND APPROVING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND STREAM MARGIN REVIEW RESOLUTION #_, SERIES OF 2014 PARCEL ID: 2737-072-00-028 WHEREAS, the applicant, Red Mountain Riverfront, LLC, represented by Kim Raymond Architects has requested approval for Final Major Development for the property located at 120 Red Mountain Road, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Final Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.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, Amy Simon, in her staff report to HPC dated August 6, 2014, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards and recommended in favor of the Final design review with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on August 6, 2014, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, including the staff recommendation and public comments, and found the project to be consistent with the review criteria, with conditions, by a vote of_ to NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves Final Major Development for 120 Red Mountain Road with the following conditions: 1. Detailed information on new windows, specs for all exterior lights, and specs for all landscaping in the front of the house must be provided for review by staff and monitor. All new doors and windows must match the original and must maintain the existing opening sizes. P8 2. Retain and reuse the original exterior light fixtures on the historic house. 3. The roof on the historic house must be tar and gravel style, as existing. 4. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes,pertaining to the following described property: 120 Red Mountain Road. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. P9 APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 6th day of August, 2014. Willis Pember, Vice Chair Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P10 June 25, 2014 Amy Simon City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Residence at 120 Red Mountain Road Summary Letter Aspen, Colorado Parcel ID: 2737-072-00-028 Dear Amy, Thank you for ail of your time and knowledge regarding this property and the process required for it's development. We are requesting the approval of certain incentives offered by the Historic Preservation Commission in exchange for the voluntary Landmark Designation, as outlined in the AspenModern Program. The following information will address the Sections of the Land Use Application Manual and the Land Use Code as outlined in your letter from the pre-application conference summary dated 1.23.14. This beautifully pr eser veu historic property is located at the base of Red Mountain on the banks of Hunter Creek River. RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS _SECTION 26.304—Application_ 1. Please see attached letter of authorization from Red Mountain Riverfront, LL C, a Colorado limited liability corporation, granting Kim Raymond Architects, Inc authority to act on their behalf throughout this process. 2. Please see the attached Vicinity Map with a legal description and directions to the property. 3. Attached, please find the Disclosure of Ownership in the form of the Title Insurance conveying the property to Red Mountain Riverfront, LLC. 4. See number 2 above. P11 5. Please see attached Site Plan depicting the proposed changes to the existing landscape. Section 26.415.070 Development Involving Designated Properties (Major) Section 25.415.070 D.4®Final Development Plan Review a) 1. Please see above for all general application information 2. %" scale drawings are included of all elevations with the the building materials noted. 3. The building materials on the existing structure that will remain or be renovated are shown in attached photos. 4. The building materials on the existing Chalet shall be maintained and repaired as required. The existing wood siding is Board and Batten. The wood siding on the proposed addition will be 6" horizontal cedar that is butt jointed. The wood siding will be in line with the chalet style, mountain house, but the difference in size, direction and more modern detail will show that this is new construction. For added interest and for maintenance considerations, we are adding a steel wainscot to the lower section of the walls at the new garage and link elements. At the link, the upper section of wall will be windows. The link is designed to be as transparent as possible; with the steel at the lower section to protect the walls from snow. The railing at the back is original; a steel grate in a wood frame. We are proposing keeping this railing, making sure it is attached securely; then adding either glass panels to make it meet code or some small piece of steel to the existing grate to make it meet code. The deck railing at the new addition will be glass panels with a steel frame. Existing tar and gravel to be replaced with standing searn. The new roof will also be standing seam. The detail at the fascia will be maintained on the existing roof and the fascia detail will be smaller on the new roof. Thank you for your time and consideration on this project. We look forward to working with the HPC and City Council again on another Historic renovation. Sincerely, —� Kim R ond, Prin ipal Kim Raymond Architects, Inc AL wr Ab It Y s w r m i r , M w y OL IV y Y vx. ` to ., > � � t ,...ar._....Nb>«z:3 ,n:,•i •ummwv �. ' � { 3� '�! \ i'� x �E#r �.M4?'' a xv z S llr AW ILI ly i' A " u r . jM��dj *F �,�v,tt � + a � i ��� �""ate..'..�� '�•'� � 4 m � , , e w. P15 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 229 W. Smugger/426 N. Second—Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation and Variances, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 6, 2014 CW SUMMARY: 229 W. T; i Smuggler/426 N. Second is a . duplex on a historic landmark lot. 229 W. Smuggler is a Victorian : �* era home, built in 1888 and 426 ; � N. Second was added in the yre"P 1980s Both units are in the same ownership. The applicant would like to physically F, separate the homes and add a shared garage along the alley. A small expansion to each unit is planned. HPC is asked to review Conceptual design, the relocation of the Victorian, and setback variances. Although the application mentions the possible need for Residential Design Standards Variances and a parking waiver, they have been determined unnecessary for this project. APPLICANT: 229 W. Smuggler LLC and 426 N. Second LLC,represented by Haas Land Planning and Ruggles, Mabe,Terrell Architecture. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-17-031 and -032. ADDRESS: 229 W. Smuggler and 426 N. Second Street, Units A and B, Second and Smuggler Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6. HPC Review 08.06.2014 229 W. Smuggler Pagel of 8 P16 CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list of the relevant HPC design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A." 229 W. Smuggler, aka Unit B, is the historic resource on this site. There are several older photographs of the site available at the Aspen Historical Society, such as the 1963 photo on the following page. The historic building is relatively intact in form and materials. Changes that have occurred include construction of a cold roof, addition of a small dormer on the west, replacement of original windows and modification of the front porch railing. The applicant proposes to reverse all of these alterations. With regard to Unit A, the non-historic residence, the changes proposed in this application are to detach from Unit B, repair the opening left from the disconnection, and build a link on the back of the unit, leading to a new 2 car garage that will be shared by A and B. Staff has no concerns with any of this proposal as it does not affect historic fabric, and addresses on-site parking for this property in an appropriate manner. Staff does have concerns with the project as it affects the historic residence. The applicant proposes to move the building forward 5' and west 5'. Relocation criteria are cited below. It is generally HPC's goal to leave historic buildings in their original location. The effort to physically separate from Unit B has merit, therefore staff can support the move forward, towards Smuggler. We do not support the move westward as it appears to be a change that could be avoided. Staff does not support the construction of a new addition that latches onto the east side of the Victorian, destroying original fabric HPC Review 08.06.2014 229 W. Smuggler Page 2 of 8 P17 that is currently intact. We do not support the positioning of an addition on'the side of the house at all, since the design guidelines direct new construction to occur at the rear of the site. The side addition affects the perception of the original width of the home and seems to create a new entry that competes with the original front porch. Staff supports placing new construction generally in the area where the duplex units connect now, where alterations to the Victorian have already occurred. Though the two units may N a a = F w �< x < n s continue to connect, rather than be totally separate, at least the new connection would be one story in height. While the project does include restoration of some changes that have been made to the house, the restoration work needs to be based on more careful examination of historic evidence, such as the original porch railing design shown in the historic photo. Offsetting the value of the proposed restoration, the application proposes many new alterations that are not supported by staff, such as the creation of a new gable roof form on the rear of the house, addition of a street facing skylight, and replacement of the front door with an inappropriate modern door. The placement of a large lightwell adjacent to the front porch is also of concern. Staff recommends restudy of all of these issues. HPC Review 08.06.2014 229 W. Smuggler Page 3 of 8 P18 ON-SITE RELOCATION 26.415.090.0. 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; 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 finds that the forward relocation of the house meets Criterion 4 above, in that the move helps to distance the historic resource from the new construction. As part of a building permit review, the applicant will be required to submit the standard assurances that relocation will proceed with care. SETBACK VARIANCES The applicant requests a sideyard setback reduction of 5' for the new garage, and a 5' reduction of the minimum distance between buildings. In this case the separation is adequate above grade, but not below grade. HPC Review 08.06.2014 229 W. Smuggler Page 4 of 8 P19 In granting a variance,the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Staff Response: HPC has the authority to consider setback variances if they allow for better placement of the new construction relative to the historic building. In many instances, a historic preservation project in Aspen includes the repositioning of a historic structure on a lot in order to physically distance it from new construction. Staff Response: Staff finds that the requested setback variances may help to place the new construction appropriately, however we find that the site plan requires restudy in general. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS There are aspects of the project that do not comply with the Residential Design Standards either in the existing or proposed condition, for instance, the front doors of both units should face Smuggler Avenue. All non-conformities can be maintained since these areas of the buildings are not part of the new scope of work. Staff finds that no Residential Design Standards variances are necessary. -------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC continue the project for restudy of the placement of the addition to the Victorian, restudy of the new positioning of the Victorian, and restudy of alterations proposed to the historic resource. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A: Design Guidelines Exhibit B: Application HPC Review 08.06.2014 229 W. Smuggler Page 5 of 8 P20 Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines for 229 W. Smuggler, Conceptual review 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. ❑ Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street. ❑ Retain and repair roof detailing. 7.2 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. 7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional. 7.7 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and character. ❑ A new dormer should fit within the existing wall plane. It should be lower than the ridgeline and set in from the eave. It should also be in proportion with the building. ❑ The mass and scale of a dormer addition must be subordinate to the scale of the historic building. 8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure. ❑ Traditionally, a garage was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structure is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. ❑ In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. ❑ It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. ❑ Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. ❑ A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. ❑ Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. ❑ The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. ❑ In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. HPC Review 08.06.2014 229 W. Smuggler Page 6 of 8 P21 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. 9.6 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. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. ❑ 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. HPC Review 08.06.2014 229 W. Smuggler Page 7 of 8 P22 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. ❑ An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.8 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. 14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. • Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts are not permitted. • If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it. 14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene. HPC Review 08.06.2014 229 W. Smuggler Page 8 of 8 0 P23 • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner RE: 28 Smuggler Grove Rd.- Conceptual Major Development Review, Setback Variances, FAR Bonus, RDS Variance, Relocation, Demolition, Parking Reduction PUBLIC HEARING continued from July 9,2014. DATE: August 6, 2014 SUMMARY: 28 Smuggler Grove Road is a circa 1880s miner's cabin located in the Smuggler Mountain neighborhood off of Midland Avenue. The applicant requests approval to relocate the building on the lot, demolish a non-historic addition and construct a new addition to the historic resource. A new single family residence is requested on the lot. Conceptual Major Development, Setback Variances, a Residential Design Standard Variance, FAR Bonus, and reduction of 1 parking space are requested for the project. UPDATE: The project was continued on July 9, 2014 for a redesign of the new single family home to better relate to the historic home. Neighbors attended the meeting and voiced concerns about the parking situation and the front yard setback. A revised design for the new home was presented on the July 9th meeting and is included in the revised application for review on August 6th. The applicant has addressed the parking concerns by meeting the parking requirement _ onsite- Staff has-confirmed with-the Engineering-Department that 2_curb-cuts-are-permitted_for the property. Staff recommends approval with conditions. 'C BACKGROUND: The property was designated a historic landmark in 2008. The subject residence was moved to the Jukati Subdivision, specifically 28 ---_ Smuggler Grove Road, in 1976. Because - the subdivision was not annexed into the City until 1987, the City did not propose landmark designation during the previous historic inventory surveys. The floor . LA plan of this building is atypical to traditional miner's cabins in Aspen. Staff does not know where the home was originally sited; however during the designation hearing in 2008, Staff found a similar shaped building on the 1904 Sanborne Map (Exhibit B) that may be Figure 1: 28 Smuggler Grove current condition 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. 8/6/14 Page 1 of 10 P24 the subject residence in its original location. APPLICANT: Pagewood LLC, represented by Sara Upton and Brian Rubenstein of Rowland and Broughton Architecture and Urban Design. PARCEL ID: 2737-181-23-002. ADDRESS: 28 Smuggler Grove Rd., Jukati Subdivision, Lot 2, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO. ZONING: R-15A CONCEPTUAL OR 1 DEMOLITION Staff Response: Site plan: The applicant proposes 2 detached single family residences on the 7,378 sf lot. The landmark status of the property permits 2 detached residences in the R-15A zone district. Non- landmark parcels are required to have 30,000 sf of lot area for 2 detached residences. Similar to other lots located outside the original townsite, this lot is wider than it is deep, and it does not have alley access. The front porches of the residences align, and the front most wall of the historic home is closest to the street which places the historic home in a prominent location. Staff is supportive of the proposed site plan and finds that it meets the following key features of a new building on landmark property as described in the Design Guidelines, and Guidelines 11.1 and 11.2: Traditionally, a typical building had its primary entrance oriented to the street. This helped establish a "pedestrian-friendly" quality. Locating the entrance of a new building in a manner that is similar to those seen traditionally is therefore preferred. 11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street. ❑ The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the site. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. ❑ The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry. ❑ A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. ❑ In some cases,the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street; nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to the street. Mass/Scale/Height: Historic House: The applicant proposes a rear addition to the historic home that includes a one story connector piece and a two story addition. The connector piece is 10' long, which meets Guideline 10.7. 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. 8/6/14 Page 2 of 10 P25 Staff finds that the proposed height of the addition is appropriate and meets the guidelines below. The width of the addition is slightly reduced from the original submittal with the addition and the historic home at the same width. Staff recommends that the width of the addition be further reduced to minimize the impact of the addition on the historic resource. Staff is concerned about the second story side deck located between the two houses and its impact on the massing behind the historic home. Staff recommends that the second story deck be expanded to the rear of the parcel and that the side deck be removed for review during Final Review. The roof form and overall style of the addition are simple, relate to the historic home and meet the guidelines below. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. ❑ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. ❑ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. ❑ An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.7 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. 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. ❑ They should not overwhelm the original in scale. New House: The applicant has redesigned the new house to better relate_ to the historic home. The gable roof form (Guideline 11.6), front porch (Guideline 11.4), and the proposed setbacks 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. 8/6/14 Page 3 of 10 P26 for two story elements (Guideline 11.3) reference and compliment the historic home and meet the Design Guidelines. Staff finds that the proposed style does not imitate the historic home and is clearly a product of its own time. Staff is concerned that the rooftop planter box adds unnecessary mass to the front fagade and recommends that the applicant relocate the rooftop planter box for discussion during Final Review. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. ❑ Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. ❑ The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure. ❑ The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch. 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. ❑ They should not overwhelm the original in scale. 11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. ❑ Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. ❑ Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. ❑ On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context. ❑ Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames. 11.10 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. 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, b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. 8/6/14 Page 4 of 10 P27 c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which it is located and b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Staff Response: The applicant proposes to demolish non-historic additions at the rear of the historic resource. Staff has very limited definitive information about 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. There is a non-historic addition at the rear of the historic home. Staff is supportive of its removal and finds that review criteria(d) and the second set of review criteria(a—c) are met. 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; 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. 8/6/14 Page 5 of 10 P28 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. Staff Response: The home is not in its original location. Staff supports the relocation of the historic home on the property and finds that it is an acceptable preservation method given the integrity of the building. Relocating the home will enable the landmark to have a more traditional relationship to grade: when the landmark was moved in 1976 and placed on a basement it was raised a few feet above grade. Further, relocation creates room on the property for a new separate single family residence that will absorb most of the development pressure from the historic resource.Staff finds that review criterion 4 is met. Staff recommends that HPC adopt a condition of approval for Final Review that a letter from a house mover demonstrating that the home can be relocated be included in the final design application. BONUS,VARIANCES: FAR DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES, PARKING WAIVER 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: The applicant requests the 500 square feet FAR bonus. The proposed FAR for the historic home is about 1,883 sf; and the proposed FAR for the new residence is about 2,195 sf(these numbers do not include deck overage). Staff has very limited information about the historic resource. At present, it is not clear exactly where the house was moved from—the 1904 Sanborne Map and the 1974 historic inventory map suggests that it was moved from the corner of Monarch and Deane Streets. The Building permit 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. 8/6/14 Page 6 of 10 P29 file indicates that it was moved in 1976. Based on the style of the structure, and some inspection of framing back in 2003, its construction date can be placed sometime in the late 1800's. The overall form of this house seems to be preserved. A modest one story addition has been constructed along the back, affecting the integrity of the rear wall, however, the plan form is otherwise intact. During the designation hearing the property scored 63 points out of 100 for integrity. There is limited information available which makes the preservation or restoration of the historic resource challenging— especially since the floor plan is atypical of Aspen miner's cabins. The applicant is willing to replace the casement windows with traditional double hung windows in the front gable end and along the side elevations. Staff and the applicant conducted a site visit to examine the residence. The front porch appears to have been replaced when the house was moved. Many original window openings also appear to exist, although the sash have been replaced and details and dimensions area altered. The exterior siding is new and the eave details and shingles in the gable end are new. The applicant is also contacting the historical society and spoke with Bill Bailey (the original house mover in 1976) to gain any information about alterations to the home. The applicant proposes to replace the siding, windows, front porch, and store a historic relationship to grade. Staff finds that the review criteria a—f are met and recommends that HPC grant the 500 sf FAR bonus. 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. 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 variances are requested: 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. 8/6/14 Page 7 of 10 P30 Historic Home: Front yard setback variance: 25' required, and 7'1"proposed East sideyard setback variance: 10' required, and 8'2"proposed New Home: Front yard setback variance: 25' required, and 17'4"proposed West sideyard setback variance: 10' required, and 5' proposed Staff Response: Staff is supportive of the proposed variances which create more space between the buildings by reducing the sideyard setbacks. Staff finds that criteria 2.b is met in that creating more space between the buildings supports the historic preservation of the landmark and mitigates an adverse impact to the historic home. 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 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 - P g ---- -�- the context in which the +r development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In '� 4 evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the rC reviewing board may f J f=cam, consider the relationship of the ro osed development P P P with adjacent structures, the immediate ' neighborhood setting or a $ IN, broader vicinity as the j, t board feels is necessary to Af- determine if the exception is warranted; or b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Following is the requested variances, underlined area is not met in the proposal: 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. 8/6/14 Page 8 of 10 P31 26.410.040.A.1 Building orientation. The front facades of all principal structures shall be parallel to the street. On corner lots, both street-facing facades must be parallel to the intersecting streets. On curvilinear streets, the front facade of all structures shall be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the are of the street. Parcels as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.4 shall be exempt from this requirement. Staff Response: Smuggler Grove Road begins to curve at the western part of the subject property. The historic home is slightly off the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the street. The new home and the historic home are parallel to each other and are mostly parallel to the street. Staff finds that the intent of the Design Standard is met and that both criteria listed above for a variance are met: the neighborhood in large part does not meet this standard; and the size and shape of the lot in relationship to the road created a site specific constraint. 26.415.110.D. Parking. Parking reductions are permitted for designated historic properties on sites unable to contain the number of on-site parking spaces required by the underlying zoning. Commercial designated historic properties may receive waivers of payment-in-lieu fees for parking reductions. In addition to the review criteria listed in Chapter 26.515, the parking reduction and waiver of payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district. If -the project requires review by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Community Development Director has authorized consolidation pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.13, the Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the special review application. A. A special review for establishing, varying or waiving off-street parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on-street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to. mass transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. 2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. 3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. 8/6/14 Page 9 of 10 P32 Staff Response: In response to neighbor comments, the applicant has fit all of the required parking spaces onsite — 2 spaces per residence. The parking spaces for the historic home are proposed to be stacked; however one space is only 8'2 3/8" wide which does not meet the parking space width requirement of 8'6". Staff is supportive of a variance from this requirement. The parking spaces is less than 4" shy of the required width and maintaining space between the historic home and the new home mitigates an adverse impact on the historic home. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. The following conditions are conditions for review and approval during Final Review: a. The connector piece is 10' long. b. The width of the second story addition behind the historic home is further reduced c. The second story side deck on the historic home is removed. d. The rooftop planter on the new home is removed. 2. Demolition of non-historic'additions is approved. 3. Relocation of the historic home is approved with the following conditions: a. A letter demonstrating that the home can be relocated is in the Final Review application. b. A bond or letter of credit, or other form approved by the City Attorney, shall be submitted for $30,000 prior to issuance of a building permit for the relocation of the home. 4. The 500 sf FAR Bonus is granted. 5. The following variances are granted as shown on Exhibit A: a. Historic Home: Front yard setback variance: 25' required, and 7'1"proposed; East sideyard setback variance: 10' required, and 8'2"proposed b. New Home: Front yard setback variance: 25' required, and 17'4"proposed; West sideyard setback variance: 10' required, and 5' proposed 6. A Residential Design Standard Variance is granted for building orientation, Section 26.410.040.A.1, as shown on Exhibit A. 7. A variance from the parking space width requirement, where 8'6" is required and 8'2" is provided, is granted as shown on Exhibit A. 8. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty(30) days prior to the expiration date. EXHIBITS' Exhibit A: Relevant design guidelines Exhibit B: 1904 Sanborne Map (provided on 7/9/14) Exhibit C: Minutes from 7/9/14 HPC meeting Exhibit D: Application—revised for 8/6/14 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. 8/6/14 Page 10 of 10 P33 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), RELOCATION, DEMOLITION, FAR BONUS, AND VARIANCE APPROVALS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 28 SMUGGLER GROVE RD.,JUKATI SUBDIVISION, LOT 2, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION #_, SERIES OF 2014 PARCEL ID: 2737-181-23-002 WHEREAS, the applicant, Pagewood LLC, represented by Sara Upton and Brian Rubenstein of Rowland and Broughton Architecture and Urban Design, requested HPC Major Development (Conceptual), Relocation, Demolition, FAR Bonus, and Variances approval for the property located at 28 Smuggler Grove Rd., Jukati Subdivision, Lot 2, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; and WHEREAS, 28 Smuggler Grove Road is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures; 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 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 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2014 Page 1 of 5 P34 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 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: 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2014 Page 2 of 5 P35 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 finding 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; and WHEREAS, the HPC may grant a waiver from the Parking Standards upon a finding that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district, and based upon the following review criteria: 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on-street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. 2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. 3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking; and WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report to HPC dated August 6, 2014, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards and recommended approval of the project with conditions; and 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2014 Page 3 of 5 P36 WHEREAS, at a special meeting on August 6, 2014, continued from July 9, 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 following conditions are conditions for review and approval during Final Review: a. The connector piece is 10' long. b. The width of the second story addition behind the historic home is further reduced c. The second story side deck on the historic home is removed. d. The rooftop planter on the new home is removed. 2. Demolition of non-historic additions is approved. 3. Relocation of the historic home is approved with the following conditions: a. A letter demonstrating that the home can be relocated is in the Final Review application. b. A bond or letter of credit, or other form approved by the City Attorney, shall be submitted for $30,000 prior to issuance of a building permit for the relocation of the home. 4. The 500 sf FAR Bonus is granted. 5. The following variances are granted as shown on Exhibit A: a. Historic Home: Front yard setback variance: 25' required, and 7'1"proposed; East sideyard setback variance: 10' required, and 8'2"proposed b. New Home: Front yard setback variance: 25' required, and 17'4" proposed; West sideyard setback variance: 10' required, and 5' proposed 6. A Residential Design Standard Variance is granted for building orientation, Section 26.410.040.A.1, as shown on Exhibit A. 7. A variance from the parking space width requirement, where 8'6" is required and 8'2" is provided, is granted as shown on Exhibit A. 8. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. [signatures on the following page] 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2014 Page 4 of 5 P37 APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 6`t' day of August, 2014. Jay Maytin, Chair Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Exhibit A: Conceptually approved site plan and elevations. 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2014 Page 5 of 5 P38 Exhibit A—Relevant Design Guidelines 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. P39 ❑ 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. P40 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. P41 ❑ 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. P42 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. P43 ❑ 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. Building Orientation 11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building,to the street. ❑ The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the site. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. ❑ The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry. ❑ A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. ❑ In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street; nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to the street. 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. P44 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. 11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used traditionally. ❑ Roof materials should have a matte, non-reflective finish. Materials 11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. ❑ Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are encouraged. ❑ Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged. Architectural Details 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. ❑ These include windows, doors and porches. ❑ Overall, details should be modest in character. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. ❑ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. ❑ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged on historic sites. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION P45 MINUTES OF JULY 9, 2014 sight there are only a few protective view planes in the city and none of them are near this area. By bringing the garage down to 12'9" is something that should be celebrated and not discouraged. The design is a great way to preserve the Victor Lundy home and preserving the primary facades of it and the landscape. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #20, 2014 and strike out part of condition #4; second by John. Roll call vote: Patrick, yes; John, yes; Willis, no; Sallie, yes; Jay, yes. Motion carried 4-1. 28 Smuggler Grove Road — Conceptual Major Development, floor area bonus, setback variances, parking waiver, demolition of non-historic additions, relocation, residential design standard variance, public hearing Exhibit I—Affidavit of posting Sara Adams said overall we are recommending continuation of the project. The project is for two detached single family homes. 28 Smuggler Grove was designated in 2008. We feel there should be a 10 foot connector between the homes instead of the 9 '/2 foot that is proposed. A ten foot connector is necessary in order to push a two story addition far enough behind the one story historic home to have it subservient. We all recommend that the applicant look at reducing the width of the addition to help it be subservient to the landmark. The proposed new home needs a common thread between the new proposed architecture and the historic home. The applicant is requesting demolition approval to the non-historic addition to the rear of the home which we are supportive of. They are also requesting relocation of the historic home and we are supportive of that. They are also requesting a 500 square foot FAR bonus. There are some changes that need to occur in order to get the bonus. The front porch was removed and could be reconstructed. They are also requesting setback variances and staff is supportive of those variances. The size and shape of the lot make it difficult to gain a 25 foot setback. They are also requesting a waiver of one parking space. Because there are two single family homes they are required to have two parking spaces per home. Right now there is no on-site parking and there is no alley access. They are proposing three parking spaces and request the waiver of one and staff is supportive of that. John Rowland, Sarah Upton, Brian Rubenstein presented. 10 P 4 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 9, 2014 Sarah said the clients vision is to separate all of the allowable square footage into two modest homes that could fit onto the site. We will preserve the historic structure and remove the addition on the back. It sits squarely in the center of the lot and our intent is to push it over to the east and provide enough breathing room in between the two structures. The historic resource houses the living room, office and entry area. The linking element is comprised of a dining room. The addition includes a kitchen and a stair to get to the addition on the back. Sarah said the new house has a garage and parking for one additional car. It has a front porch and a master suite that encompasses the rear of the house. The setback on the sides are ten feet for each side and our request is that we be allowed to use the five foot utility easement that exists on either side of the lot as our setbacks and we will push the window wells up to the utility easement. In reality the mass of the building is 7'9" back from the property line. The area where we are requesting a side set variance on the historic is the corner of the house and the window well to get natural light into the basement. On the driveways we discussed with Engineering that typically only one curb cut is allowed and if we were to have one shared driveway for this entire lot the cars would be forced to park in between the new and old home and would create a parking lot effect that would detract from any prominence given to the historic resource. Engineering has said they will allow two separate curb cuts. The new house has a basement with two guest suites and a family room, powder room and laundry. On the mail level there is the master suite, garage, entry and guest suite. Upstairs there is the kitchen dining area with views to Smuggler and a back deck and a living room. John Rowland presented new elevations - Exhibit II John said the floor plans have not changed with the exception of a stair. Sarah said the rationale for the setbacks are that the lot is very shallow and our intention is to provide as much prominence to the historic resource as possible. We are requesting a variance 7.8 back to the property line where 25 is required. The resource has a very long front gable element that is uncommon and we want to give it prominence to view as you come down Smuggler Grove Road. We are also requesting a front variance on the new house but it is modest. 25 feet is required and we are providing 17 feet. We are changing the proportion of the two story mass in back of the historic 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION P47 MINUTES OF JULY 9, 2014 house. Most of the changes can be seen in the roof plan and elevations. The stair to the roof deck has been moved to the west side. The decks have been reduced in size 15% of the allowable. Our intent is to restore the historic house to its original condition as much as possible. We will look at the windows and determine what was there. The chimney has been removed from the two story addition. Almost every house on Smuggler has gable ends so we feel this house fits into the neighborhood. The existing condition this property currently generates is five on-street parking spots. Our goal is to alleviate some of that but not to the detriment of the historic house. It is our intent to retain the large tree. Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. Michael Hoffman, attorney Michael said he represents Tom and Diane Whitehead, Steve Hach and Marty Ames. Letter— Exhibit III Michael said the neighbors do not object to the preservation of the resource and they don't object to the re-development of the property. They have objections to the parking and setback variances requested. There are two subdivision on either side of this street, East Meadow and Jukati and they were established in the late 60's. The street was deeded to the owners of the parcels as a private right-of-way. The driving surface is extremely narrow, around 17 feet in width. If everyone parked on the street we would be left with a one lane road. Even the loss of one off-street parking space has an impact and we ask that you not grant that waiver. The other concern are the setbacks. This property was in the county and annexed into the city in 1987. At that time it was zoned RI 5A and it is a sub-urban zone district. The front setback requirement is 25 feet and the city has consistently enforced that setback requirement. It would be a violation of that fabric to allow this setback variance request. Steve Hach said he lives across the street and there have been 6 renovations and we have not protested any of them. We realize things change. When you have the two structures and maintain the tree there will be no visibility between the two properties because the tree is too large. It will look like one structure to the lot line. The majority of us park our vehicles on our own property. 12 P48 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 9, 2014 Marty Ames said the street is very deceptive. The fences on the north side were pulled back to allow for parking on our properties. The deeded easement is for 8 lots that share the egress and ingress. The blue spruce tree will impede the view of the historic structure. Mr.Buff, said he owns 43A next door to Marty Ames and he will be doing the snow plowing. We do have a parking issue and the street is narrow. The house has been a rental and has had a lot of traffic. In the winter the street gets really crowded. Letter from Richard Conant— 55 Smuggler Grove— Exhibit IV Sara Adams entered the letter. Mr. Conant is strongly opposed to the project and in reality it is a lot split. Chairperson Jay Maytin closed the public comments. Michael Smith, owner Michael pointed out that 73 Smuggler Grove in 1972 was granted variances to that house for front setbacks. Setbacks are not precedent on Smuggle Grove. John Rowland said we might be able to move the two houses closer and then the connection would be less than ten feet. We acted to what we though was a good plan. The street is a quirkily and fun street and good vibe. Jay identified the issues: Setback Parking New plans Jay said staff has not had a chance to review the plan and it is his recommendation to continue the hearing. Patrick suggested the owners go to the city and request no parking on that street and that might be something to consider. John said the changes are good and the neighborhood is going in the right direction. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION P49 MINUTES OF JULY 9, 2014 Willis said the setback and parking and the two things the public cares about. Michael said this might be a good opportunity for the City, neighbors and applicant to sit down and figure out the parking. Willis suggested John Rowland show plans of the implications with parking two cars on each property and what does that do to the resource etc. MOTION: Jay moved to continue 28 Smuggler Grove Road until August 6th; second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn, second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 14 P50 213z j,I p 4 1830 b :1,,--51,ste'00, rowland+broughton MEMORANDUM Project: 21374.00 Jukati Subject: Continuance Hearing — Description of changes Date: 31 July 2014 To: Sara Adams From: Rowland Broughton Architecture, Sara Upton Cc: Dear Sara, Please find attached our documents required for the submittal of a Major Development/ Conceptual Review, Continued Public Hearing, for the property located at 28 Smuggler Grove in Aspen, CO. As stated in our conceptual description, dated May 13, our client's goal is to create two modest family homes on the lot where an existing historic home has been relocated, and condominiumize them. The historic house would be shifted to the east side of the lot This will allow the historic resource to receive maximum exposure, because the lot to the east has a large rock outcropping that will make it an unlikely candidate for redevelopment The proposed addition to the historic house consists of a two story mass attached to a linking element behind the existing miner's cabin. Based on the staff memo and comments made during the public hearing, the following changes have been made to the design of the historic house and addition: • The historic house is being moved forward on the lot in order to align the porches of both of the houses. (Front setback variance required from 25' to 7,-1 3/8") • The addition has been reduced in width to further minimize the impact of the massing in relation to the historic resource. • The connector has been increased from 9'-6" to 10'-0". • The house has been shifted slightly to the west in order to accommodate additional space to include a second parking space on the property. This will eliminate the need for a parking space variance, instead, a variance will be necessary for the proposed width, which helps to maintain the distance between the two houses. • The addition of the second parking space incurred the need to move the window well on the east side of the historic resource to the south side within the area created by the connector. • The chimney on the south side of the addition has been removed. • The window arrangement on the north elevation has been updated. • Overall, there has been a slight reduction in FAR for this house. Page 1 of 4 P51 rowland+broughton i ::I i' ,'J'F%3r'do,;ign/ nl o rI Cc,;ic;r The new house would be located on the west side of the lot. Based on the staff memo and comments made during the public hearing, the following changes have been made to the design of the new house: • The redesign focused on defining the relationship between the two houses with a gabled roof design. • The front elevation will highlight the gabled forms and express the comparable massing relationship where the gables of each house are offset from the east and are just left of center of the overall mass (RE: A4.1s). • The stair volume gable will be framed with a steel C-channel, a design element that will also be used on historic addition to further define the relationship between the two houses. • The design incorporates street facing windows that are more closely aligned with a historic proportion. • A smaller green roof and roof deck will be maintained. We are seeking a square footage bonus for this project (26.415.110.F). The square footage will be shared between the two homes in order to more successfully provide for a three bedroom program for each house. Please review our summary of the project's compliance with the Historic Preservation Guidelines for further clarification. We are requesting front setback variances for this project (26.415.110.C). The R1 5-A zoning establishes a 25' front yard setback, which creates a hardship for this 76' deep lot. The front of the historic resource is located 7'-1 3/8" back from the front property line. This location serves to establish a streetscape with the two adjacent building front facades, and allows for visibility of the historic portion of the house. The new house is located 17'-4" from the front property line in order to give prominence to the historic resource. We are also requesting side setback variances for this project in order to allow as much space as possible between the historic resource and the new house. We propose to use the 5' easements on each side of the lot as setback lines and give the additional space to the separation between the houses. In most cases, the encroachment into the side setbacks is for light well placement. Compliance with Residential Design Standards (26.410.040): • Both houses are oriented with their front facades parallel to the street. • No fences are proposed for the project at this time. • The project is exempt from the secondary mass requirement. • The new house garage is accessed from Smuggler Grove, which is a private road. • The new house garage door is a single bay width. • Both homes possess street-facing front doors and principal windows. • The front door of the existing historic house is more than 10' back from the front facade due to the unusually long, unique mass that is at the front of the house. • Both houses are designed with front porches with a minimum of 50 square feet, and are open on two sides. Page 2 of 4 P52 rowland+broughton • Both homes possess first story street-facing elements. • No street-facing windows span the area between nine and twelve feet above the finished first floor. • No light wells are on the front fagade of the house. • Materials have been applied in a way that represents their true characteristics on both buildings, and their application is consistent along the perimeter of the houses. • This project is exempt from inflection. Compliance with Historic Preservation Guidelines: The following is a basic summary of conceptual topics relative to the scope of the project. A more detailed description will be addressed at the Final Review. Chapter 1: Streetscape and Lot Features As this project seeks to design for two residences on one lot, the intention is to maximize the opportunity to retain any historical significant elements. While the existing fence is not likely original, any proposed fencing will be designed to be compatible with the historic resource. Chapter 2: Historic Building Materials All efforts will be made to preserve the historic resource and take the greatest care of any original material. Any repair or replacement will strive to maintain the existing historic aesthetic or upgrade the structure using similar materials that best match the original. Chapter 3: Windows All historic windows and their corresponding placement will be preserved. Any repair or replacement will match the original design of the historic resource. Chapter 4: Doors All historic doors will be preserved and any repair or replacement will match the original design of the historic resource. Chapter 5: Porches The original porch will be preserved and upgraded to meet the historic aesthetic and for current code compliance, should it be necessary. The new residence will have a RDS compliant porch added to the front to compliment the streetscape shared by the two buildings. Chapter 6: Architectural Details Architectural details native to the historic resource will be preserved and, where necessary, repaired or replaced to maintain the original aesthetic. Chapter 7: Roofs The historic resource will be preserved and maintained, which will include the roof and eave depth. Historic roofing materials will be used during any repairs, replacement or additions. Any items that will impact the visual interest of the roofline will be minimized. The addition to the historic resource will be set back to preserve the autonomy of the original cabin and highlight the structure at the streetscape. Page 3 of 4 P53 rowland+broughton r i:r,c,two u k ni i-;inr 1 nlc-; . uu,i,.:. Chapter 8: Secondary Structures There are no existing historic secondary structures on the lot. Chapter 9: Building Relocation and Foundations The historic resource was relocated once and the current relocation will put the historic resource to the front of the lot, parallel to the road giving it better exposure to the streetscape. The greatest care will be taken when moving the historic resource and its restoration will be a priority. All lightwells will be on the side of the houses and when possible, to the rear of the property. Chapter 10: Building Additions The design intent is to restore the miner's cabin to its original size and shape, while removing the addition to the cabin that was added in the 1970's. The new addition will be set back from the cabin and be designed with shape, mass and materiality that will not detract from the character of the historic resource, including a linking element to separate the new from the original. Chapter 11: New Buildings on Landmarked Properties The new residence will be sited to be parallel with the street alongside the historic resource. It will, however, be set back from the front of the cabin to allow for a greater streetscape exposure for the preserved structure. The design will incorporate a front porch and be scaled appropriately so that it does not overwhelm the historic resource. Flat roofs will be used to minimize the overall scale of the mass. Project Objectives: • Take advantage of Snyder Park setting • Orient houses to views of Smuggler and Aspen Mountain • Locate two houses on a wide, shallow lot in order to create a streetscape • Create off-street parking solutions • Utilize two curb cuts in order to allow for maximum visibility for the historic resource • Request side setback variances to increase the distance between the two houses • Request front setback variances to allow for the existing condition of the historic resource in conjunction with a compliant linking element Site Constraints:Unusual lot size, wide and shallow • Historic resource has a front bay that is longer than most Victorian era miners' cabins We look forward to receiving your feedback at the HPC hearing on June 25. Best regards, Sara Boulet Upton Senior Project Manager Rowland + Broughton Architecture Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT l AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE RQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060(E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE i ADDRE OF PROPERTY: 121a Fg,,k 1 A` . ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: IE1 " Lo ,2014 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County oil Pitkin ) I= ltd ___ _.._.__..___.._.._......__.._......m...._ (name, please print) being or tepresenting 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. r 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 2Z day of� Ly _._._• 20 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of'the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. t t ailin n notice. B the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community .�_ =' g �.f y g y 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 c ay of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. N ighborhood 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 u copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) E. Alihera1 Eslwe Owner Voliee. 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. Tile names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum. Subdivisions, SPAS or PIIDs that create more than one lot, new Planned tlnit Developments. and new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this Notice requirement. _kg& 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 Tine, or whenever the text ofthis `I-itle 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 charge shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning neap 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 cknowv lodged before me this day WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL JENNIFER M. WRIGHT tti=ty core nissian expires: NOTARY PUBLIC :STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY tp#26134643266 tarn bl is MY Cis ,,,ExWr+es July 15,2417 J� ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: *COPY OF THE PUBLICATIOA' •PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN) • LIST OF THE OfVNERS AND GOT ERNUENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED B}x'AI AIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF..VI ERAL E:STAE OtCNF,,RS.IVOTICF. AS"'REQC!IREDB:YC..R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 712 W. FRANCIS,TEMPORARY RELOCATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday,August 6, 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. HPC will consider an application submitted by 712 W. Francis LLC, c/o Forum Phi Architects, 715 W. Main Street, Suite 204, Aspen, CO 81611, related to their property located at 712 W. Francis Street, legally described as the east half of Lot P and all of Lot Q, Block 15, City and Townsite of Aspen, Parcel ID #2735-124-08-004. The applicant requests approval to excavate a basement under the existing Victorian home. The home will be left in place, not moved during the excavation process; however this is termed "temporary relocation" for the purposes of historic preservation review. For further information, contact Amy Simon at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970)429-2758, amy.simon@cityofaspen.com. s/Jav Maytin Chair,Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on July 17,2014 City of Aspen Account 624 WEST FRANCIS LLC AULD ROBERT H&CAROL C BECKLEY JOHN W&MARY ANN P 0133 PROSPECTOR RD#4102 B 730 W SMUGGLER AVE 16818 FALLS RD ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 UPPERCO,MD 21155 BERG AMY MARGERUM BLANK NANCY L BOSKO DANIEL A 622 W SMUGGLER ST 375 PARK AVE RM 3800 PO BOX 9171 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK,NY 10152 ASPEN, CO 81612 BOURKE MICHAEL&JANINE BOWEN-STANLEY PAMELA BOYE CAROL 716 FRANCIS ST 2934 112 N BEVERLY GLEN CIR#482 7 TEPEE ST ASPEN, CO 81611 LOS ANGELES,CA 90077 HAMPTON BAYS,NY 119461736 COOK ROBERT C&MARSHA N CRITERION HOLDING CO LLC CROSSROADS CHURCH OF ASPEN 621 W FRANCIS ST 790 W HALLAM ST #10 726 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 816111157 ASPEN, CO 81611 DEMPSEY 1996 REV TRUST DEVONSHIRE CORPORATION FARRELL EMILY 2180 SAND HILL RD ST#345 6100 N PENNSYLVANIA 790 W HALLAM ST MENLO PARK, CA 94025 OKLAHOMA CITY,OK 73112 ASPEN, CO 81611 GARCIA STEPHANIE L GIANNULLI MOSSIMO GOLD RUSH LLC 4211 W 21ST AVE 1 10960 WILSHIRE BLVD,5TH FL 204 PARK AVE#1 K DENVER, CO 80212 LOS ANGELES,CA 90024 BASALT, CO 81621 GORDMAN LINDA K GRUTA LIVING TRUST HALLAM SIX LLC 10777 N 60TH ST 2353 BROOKSHIRE LN 4430 ARAPAHO STE 110 OMAHA,NE 68152 LOS ANGELES, CA 90077-1340 BOULDER,CO 80303 HEATH SHANTA K HERMAN LLOYD HERNANDEZ CECIL M&NOELLE C 790 W HALLAM ST#9 320 N 7TH ST PO BOX 1045 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 JONES STEPHEN M TRUST V JOY WILLIAM N KAFRISSEN ARTHUR&CAROLE 807 LAS CIMAS PKWY#370 PO BOX 778 310 N 6TH ST AUSTIN,TX 78746 NEW YORK,NY 10013 ASPEN, CO 81611 LOWREY E JAMES JR MATKIN SALOISE MICROPLAS MGMT CO 5704 LONGMONT LN PO BOX 8644 790 W HALLAM#10 HOUSTON,TX 77057 ASPEN,CO 81612-8644 ASPEN,CO 81611 MILLER ANN F NEW WEISMAN FAMILY LP NIEBUR DEWAYNE E&JO ANN E 715 W SMUGGLER ST 1566 RISING GLEN RD 721 W FRANCIS ASPEN,CO 81611 LOS ANGELES,CA 900691226 ASPEN, CO 81611 OK SMUGGLER LLC PARELMAN ALLEN G REV TRUST PDT PARTNERS LLC C/O KELLI CUPP 734 W SMUGGLER 601 E HYMAN AVE 735 W SMUGGLER ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 PENINSULA LLC PORTER HOUSE STAKE LLC RITCHIE ROBERT 700 W FRANCIS ST 1111 RACE ST 701 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER,CO 80206 ASPEN, CO 81611 ROHATYN NICOLAS STEIT SHAMBAN AVA T L EXEMPT TRUST SHANE STEVEN DAVID&CLARE EVERT GREENBERG-ROHATYN JEANNE 790 RANCH LN 117 S MONARCH ST MAIN LEVEL 12 E 94TH ST PACIFIC PALISADES,CA 90272 ASPEN,CO 81611 NEW YORK,NY 10128 SIMMONS W JUNE TRUST 55% SMUGGLER LLC TIERNEY JANE LOWREY BIXBY NEENA B 45% C/O SHELLY B DON 20 OAK MEADOW RD 4128 RHODES AVE 1044 OLIVE ST LINCOLN,MA 01773 STUDIO CITY, CA 91604 DENVER,CO 80220 WAGAR RICH WARE NINA COULTER LIV TRUST WATERS SOMERSET PO BOX 9063 13021 KING ARTHUR SPUR 131 MILLBROOK SCHOOL RD ASPEN, CO 81612 SAINT LOUSI,MO 68146 MILLBROOK, NY 12545 WEINGART JAMES B&PATRICIA L WEST HALLAM STREET LLC WILKE LIVING TRUST 55 GREENTREE 210 AABC STE MM 626 W FRANCIS CHAGRIN FALLS,OH 44022 ASPEN,CO 816113513 ASPEN, CO 81611 f i I F f�W tr yc m r �y e .. - s'�� *.�< - # �t�c' •gat ' �"` ...�+'� ` 7T •• ®s` s �s � �. of �Wq 11 j � �L w 4�� � -mow a � °r y ..n��.�1r J i'✓.re r a 11 , k W x s 41 t u, � tta � t AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE TDRESS OF PROP�RTY: ( '� R " C=t S S4 R , Aspen, CO SCgEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: � Q , 2014 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I �/"L Q�e� L 1 C` ��� �� .� i✓� (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: y 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 Bearing. 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 summa7y, 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. Rezonblg 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. e The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 0 day of 201I by�001y'V6 uc Ilk,[1 I'D PUBLIC NOTICE IRe712-W.FRANCM,TEMPORARY RELOCATION WITNESS My HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday,August 6,2014,at a meet- ing to begin at 5:00 p.m.before the Asppen ambers, Preservation Commission,in Council chambers, My commission expires: IC) � z I� City Hall,130 S.Galena St.,Aspen. HPC will con- F sider an application submitted by 712 W.Francis LLC,c/o Forum Phi Architects,715 W.Main Street, Suite 204,Aspen,CO 81611,related to their prop- .}�, E ►'1 erty located at 712 W.Francis Street,legally de Notary Public scribed as the east half of Lot P and all of Lot Q, Block 15,City and Townsite of Aspen,Parcel ID #2735-124-08-004. The applicant requests approv- al to excavate a basement under the existing Vic torian home. The home will be left in place,not NOTARY PUBLIC moved during the excavation process;however STATE OF COLORADO this is termed"temporary relocation' for the pur NOTARY ID 20054038739 poses of historic preservation review. For further MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCTOBER 30,2017 information,contact Amy Simon at the City of As- ENTS AS APPLICABLE: pen Community Development Department,130 S. Galena St.,Aspen,CO,(970)429-2758,amy.si- )N mon@ciityofaspen.com. STED NOTICE (SIGN) ,Aspm"ISIXIM P'mmtim CO"0" 0 GOVERNIMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED Published in the Aspen Times on July 18,2014 • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 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 ay of { , 2014, by Vl �� � ..._.�_ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL KRISTIN PRIDE NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: '7 STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID#20064029379 My Commission Expires July 30,2014 �Kotk Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPYOFTHEPUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 i i 110 VALHALLA LLC ASPEN PITKIN EMP HSG INC SAAR HUNTER CURTIS 25% 9201 WILSHIRE BLVD#305 CIO MICHAEL VERNON CPA PO BOX R BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 100 ELK RUN DR STE 103 ASPEN, CO 81612 BASALT, CO 81621 BEKLIK ROYA BIELINSKI BRIDDGET BONDS MICHAEL STEPHEN & ELAINE PO BOX 7640 620 INDEPENDENCE PL JOHNSON ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 310 INDEPENDENCE PL ASPEN,CO 81611 BOUGHTON WILLIAM REID BRUNSWOLD KIRK W BUESCH THOMAS A BOUGHTON JACQUELINE LEE LANE TAMMIE A 206 INDEPENDENCE PL 102 INDEPENDENCE PL 413 INDEPENDENCE PL ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 CALLWINNIE LLC CITY OF ASPEN DECAMPO RICHARD L&SUSAN K 1606 CLEMSON CIR ATTN FINANCE DEPT 309 INDEPENDENCE PL LA JOLLA, CA 92037 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 I FRANKLIN DAVID MICHAEL&MICHELLE GOSHORN MARCA L HAGGERTY BEATRICE M 207 INDEPENDENCE PL 516 INDEPENDENCE PL 308 INDEPENDENCE CT ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 HALL JO-ANN HARRISON TRENTON A HIPP CHRISTINE A 103 INDEPENDENCE PL PO BOX 11165 621 INDEPENDENCE PL ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 HOLMSTEDT MONIKA IRELAND MICHAEL C JACKSON LAURI A PO BOX 1141 515 INDEPENDENCE PLACE 619 INDEPENDENCE PL ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 KIRCH MARK A LASKO ELIZABETH LUTZ CATHERINE 412 INDEPENDENCE PL 618 INDEPENDENCE PL 311 INDEPENCE PL ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 816113204 ASPEN, CO 81611 MADSEN DIANNE G&TIMOTHY T MITCHELL MARIAN RUBEY TRST 25% PITKIN COUNTY 104 INDEPENDENCE PL CIO HARDING&CARBONE 530 E MAIN ST#302 ASPEN,CO 81611 3903 BELLAIRE BLVD ASPEN, CO 81611 HOUSTON,TX 77025 POLVER RACHEL RUBEY CATHERINE B&ROBERT B RUBEY ROBERT NEAL TRST 25% PO BOX 10475 8.333%EA 9 GREENWAY PLAZA#1000 ASPEN,CO 81612 BERING KAREN RUBEY 8.333% HOUSTON, TX 77046 2106 MATHEWS AUSTIN,TX 78703 i i SLADDIN MICHAEL D STARODOJ ROBERT F&PAULA A WEDUM JOHN R 311 INDEPENDENCE PL PO BOX 1121 101 INDEPENDENCE PL l ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 WILLIAMS STEVE WILLOUGHBY PONDS TRUST 620 INDEPENDENCE PL 180 N WACKER DR#001 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60606 PUBLIC Cate : Wed., Aug. 5, 2014 Time : 5.00 p.m, Place .* 130 S. Galena Street, Council Chambers, Aspen Purpose : HPC will consider an application by Red Mountain _Rive rfront LI-C 0133 ro Pector Rd. , Ste. 410213, Aspen, CO, 51511 ,, affecting this_propert Applicant requests Final design - --- _ P roval_fo_r_ ar�_a ition o the existing home. For further information contact As Plannip-g Dept. -_at 970-4 - 4 �, d ? © PUBLIC NOTICE Date: 2.A% Tim 5m:« Place: 33e +mStreet . < cmm;c6m:s Aspen. \ Purpose: eec m: s w 6 n 9 ^. Rf ;vw eR m.LLCr ? ««! ,f f r i S op e% «< t . » AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: k0QLA , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: , 20JL STATE OF COLORADO ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I Z (name, please print) being or representing an plicant 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 , 20 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, suminanzed 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 aniendnnent. 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 'n 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. i The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 1(i day of )uA LN _) 2011 ,by o1 V_ , PUBLIC NOTICE RE:120 RED MOUNTAIN ROAD.FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday,August 6,2014,at a - meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m,before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission,in Council My commission expires: 1Cl L` 70 1� Chambers,City Hall,130 S.Galena St.,Aspen. ` HPC will consider an application submitted by Red - Mountain Riverfront,LLC,0133 Prospector Road, t Suite 4102B,Aspen,CO,81611,represented by Kim Raymond Architects. The applicant is re- questing Final design approval for an addition to the existing home at 120 Red Mountain Road,Par- Notary Public cel ID:2737-072-00-028,City and Townsite of As- pen,Colorado.For further information,contact Amy Simon at the City of Aspen Community Develop- ment Department,130 S.Galena St.,Aspen,CO, S�,,,��LES (970)429-2758,amy.simon@cityofaspen.com. SHIL a/Jayy Maytin LORADO CheM,Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 054038739 Published in the Aspen Times on July 17,2 014 4ENTS AS APPLICABLE: S OCTOBER 30,2057 (10377572) • Uyrr, ur 1merubt lugtION • 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. x'24-65.5-103.3 EXHIBIT AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY- r),20�0 �. SAM UG a le�'4� �f. �W' ,Aspen, CO SCHE ULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: WadneS A-L,, V s+ ( ,201-Y STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, Y4 cl f n (name,please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Col ado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. X Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was osted at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing on the Z J $day of , 20A, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A ph ograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAS or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. 6;4 J�G ture The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this G "lday of 20 t 4- , by J , WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL BARBARA J. D'AUTRECHY NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID 8 20074042687 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 11.2017 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: 229 WEST SMUGGLER/426 N. SECOND- CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, ON-SITE RELOCATION AND VARIANCES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, August 6, 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. HPC will consider an application submitted by 229 W. Smuggler LLC and 426 N. Second LLC, 3509 Crescent Avenue, Dallas, TX, 75205,represented by Ruggles, Mabe, Terrel Architecture and Haas Land Planning, and affecting the property located at 229 W. Smuggler/426 N. Second, Units A and B, Second and Smuggler Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, Parcel ID #2735-124-17-031 and -032. The applicant is requesting approval to move the existing Victorian house approximately 5' towards Smuggler Avenue, physically separating it from the other residence that exists on this site. A new detached two car garage is proposed to be built along the alley. The applicant requests an east side yard setback variance of 5'for the garage, a reduction of the required distance between buildings on the lot, and a waiver of two on-site parking spaces. For further information, contact Amy Simon at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429-2758, amy.simon@cityofaspen.com. s/Jay Maytin Chair,Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on July 17, 2014 City of Aspen Account 212 WEST FRANCIS LLC 301 LAKE AVENUE LLC 310 WEST FRANCIS LLC 255 13TH AVE SOUTH#202 2385 NW EXECUTIVE CENTER DR#440 310 W FRANCIS ST NAPLES, FL 34102 BOCA RATON, FL 33431 ASPEN, CO 81611 322 SMUGGLER LLC ALLEN ASPEN RESIDENCE TRUST ARGON LLC 6120 SO YALE AVE#813 4545 POST OAK PL#101 533 E HOPKINS AVE 3RD FL TULSA, OK 74136 HOUSTON,TX 77027 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN RIVER RENDEZVOUS LLC ASPEN VALENTINE LLC BARNHART PAUL F JR 186 VAIL LN C/O GERSCHEL&CO 2121 SAGE RD#333 NORTH SALEM, NY 10560 600 MADISON AVE SUITE#1601 HOUSTON, TX 77056 NEW YORK, NY 10022 BRUNDIGE CHELSEA C CITY OF ASPEN CMML PROPERTIES LLC 1755 SNOWMASS CREEK RD 130 S GALENA ST 120 E 56TH ST#320 SNOWMASS, CO 81654 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10022 CONOVER CATHRINE M COTSEN 1985 TRUST FRANCIS AND SECOND ST LLC 1010 WISCONSIN AVE NW STE#550 12100 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 905 4545 POST OAK PLACE DR#144 WASHINGTON, DC 20007 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 HOUSTON, TX 77026 FULLERTON TRUST GREENBERG ASPEN LP 50% GREENBERG RONALD K TRUSTEE 50% 306 W FRANCIS ST #3 BRENTMOOR 230 S BEMISTON AVE#101 ASPEN, CO 81611 ST LOUIS, MO 63105 ST LOUIS, MO 631051907 HANSON LUCY C KINNEY STEPHEN J &SUSAN M LAKE 206 LLC 1775 FIR ST 136 E MICHIGAN AVE#1201 PO BOX 3337 PORT TOWNSEND,WA 98368 KALAMAZOO, MI 49007 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 LAND TRUST LEWIS JONATHAN D REV TRUST MCMAHAN FAMILY TRUST 1650 TYSONS BLVD#900 414 N FIRST ST 201 OCEAN AVE 1606P MCLEAN,VA 22102 ASPEN, CO 81611 SANTA MONICA, CA 90402 MCMANUS JAMES R MOORE DIANE PEARLSTONE ESTHER S 430 GRAND BAY DR#301 303 W FRANCIS PO BOX 8750 KEY BISCAYNE, FL 33149 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 PHILLIPPE THOMAS E JR&SUSAN MARIE SAX JOEL SCHERMER LLOYD G & BETTY A 225 W SMUGGLER ST 303 W FRANCIS ST 210 LAKE AVE ASPEN, CO 81611-1356 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-1347 SCHIFF DAVID T SIERRA ADVISORS LP SMUGGLER 326 LLC 1177 AVE OF THE AMERICAS 42ND FL 333 LITTLE JOHN LN 10671 CHALON RD NEW YORK, NY 10036 HOUSTON,TX 77024 LOS ANGELES, CA 90077 VICENZI GEORGE A TRUST PO BOX 2238 ASPEN, CO 81612 r OF 1v ��tot. lk t 1 L AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: G N Aspen, CO gTnED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:, 201E STATE OF COLORADO ) County of Pitkin ) ss. a � being or representing an Applicant to the City of As en Colorado, hereby a lease print) certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 1 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manher: Publication of notice: By the ublicatio paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Asp nsat least fifteen (15) Official t 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 and including the date and time of the public hearing ,. A photograph of the posted notice (sigz) 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 _=z , r�?ad.Z3-mailga11 owners of property wig wee hundred (300) feet of the r 23�7'66,,Yr bJect to <the development application. The names and addresses of 0W, ,ers shad be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they ' ' R�° "` ` •-than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy o the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Appli summarize cant attests that neighborhood outreach d 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 »zethod o a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. �zd (continued 077 next page) the certified m ailing of notice, return receipt Mineral Estate Clymer Notice. By 30 da s rior to the to affected mineral estate owners by n least thirty lion of de development- scheduled on the app date scheduled for the initial public hearing and addresses of mineral estate owners shall SPAs or PUDs�that The names At a minimum-, subdivisions, Specially tax records of Pitkin County ate more than one lot, new Planned Unit D ent oPments, and new Sp Y create uirem Planned Areas, are subject to this notice req 'i or text a7nend�nent. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any • Rezoning art of a general revision of this way to be changed or amended incidental to or asp whether such revision be Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, regulation, or made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a ma oano heresufficient legal otherwise, the requirement of an accurate of names and addresses of owners of description of, and the notice to and listing change shall be waived. However, the real property in the area of the proposed zonin map shall be available for publicsinsricto the public planning proposed hearing g agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) day prior on such amendments. Signature f Notice" was aclalOwledged before me this 1 cl day The foregoing Affidavit o L � C ` �� T-- of , 2011 ,by_�—� PUBLIC NOTICE HAND OFFICIAL SEAL RE-229 WEST SMUGGLER/426 N.SECOND-CON t�NESS ly HE`D �D CEPTUAL MAJOR CAT AND VARIANCES SITE RELO- W 111 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday,Au use t As1 n a meet- be My commission expires: ing to begin at 5:00 p.m..before the Aspen Historic ,mission,in City Hallt130 S.Gal St.,Aspen. HPChwillb on- �it 1QS Sider an application submitted by 229 W•Smug ���V1 IQ c enue,Dallas,TX,75205,represen edCby Rugg es, Notary Public Mabe,Terrel Architecture ertd located at 29 W• ; Wing,and affecting the P Units A and B,Second BONNIE L. SHILE72n17 Smuggler/426 N.Second, NOTARY PUBLIC AspenmCololrado,Parcel�D #2735-124-17-03 1 and STATE OF COLOD applicant is requesting approval t0 NOTARY ID 200547 -032. The apP. myCOMMlS"EXPIRESOCTOBE , move the existing Victorian house pseparat [ENTS AS APPLICABLE: 5'towards Smuggler Avenue,physically ing it from the other residence that exists on this site. A new detached two car garage is proposed to be built along the alley. The applicant requega- ON NOTICE (SIGN) rrage,sa reduction on off thevrequi variance be NTAL AGENCIES NOTICED tween buildings on the lot,and a waiver of two GOVERNME -es For further on-sit t Parkin s act the City of Aspen fCommuni- �I ty Development Department,130 S.Galena St.,As, [ON of MINERAL EST`4 E OWNERS NOTICE �I p n CO ( 970 ) 429 - 2758 , amy.slmonC cityofaspen.com. Chaiir,Aspen Historic Preservation Commission '24-65.5-103.3 Published in the Aspen Times on July 18,2014 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 %ay of , 20 , by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL FNOTiARY RISTIN PRIDE NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: -7L,-tJ)if TE OF COLORADO ID#20064029379 - '? mission Expires July 30,2014 1140tk Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPYOF THE PUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ES TAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. X24-65.5-103.3 E7D ASPEN OFFICE GARFIELD &HECHT, P.C. 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen,Colorado 81611 Telephone(970)925-1936 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Facsimile(970)925-3008 Since 1975 www.garfieldhecht.com E. Michael Hoffman E-mail: mhoffmanAzarreldhecht com Phone: (970) 544-3442 August 5, 2014 Historic Preservation Commission c/o Sara Adams, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Application of Pagewood LLC for Conceptual Major Development Review, Setback Variances, FAR Bonus, RDS Variance, Demolition, and Parking Reduction at 28 Smuggler Road (the "Subject Property"). Dear Ms. Adams and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission: As you may remember, we represent Stephen C. Hach and Martha E. Ames, the owners of a duplex unit located at 23 Smuggler Grove Road, and Tom and Diane Whitehead, the members of the limited liability company which owns an undivided one-half interest in 43 Smuggler Grove Road. Our clients are referred to in this letter collectively as the "Neighbors." The Neighbors' properties are located across Smuggler Grove Road from the Subject Property. At the hearing conducted on July 9, 2014, we reported to the Commission that the right-of-way which serves the Smuggler Grove neighborhood is very narrow and that it was important that each lot, including the Subject Property, be required to provide the two spaces required by Code. For that reason, we asked that the applicant withdraw its request for a variance from the City's parking requirement. The applicant has now complied with our request. We appreciate the applicant's response. However, the parking variance was not the only part of the application with which the neighbors took issue. The requests for front- and sideyard setback variances were and remain a problem. Most acute is the applicant's request to relocate the historic resource just eight feet from the front property boundary when a 25-foot setback is required. In addition, the applicant asks to locate the new residence approximately eight feet within the R-15A front setback requirement, and to encroach on the east and west sideyard setbacks by approximately two feet and five feet, respectively. Ms. Sara Adams and the Historic Preservation Commission August 5, 2014 Page 2 The applicant has provided a number of graphical images which clearly reflect the density of development within the Smuggler Grove neighborhood, including this one. –low ---–---–------- p - - ------- ---- -------------- fi- - –------------- -------------- -- -------------------– --—-–--------–------–-- ------- t ----- ----- �:,''=-=----==. -- -=� In this graphic, five motor vehicles are shown adjacent to the Hach-Ames residence. Directly across the 40-foot wide right-of-way is the applicant's proposed development for the Subject Property. The total distance between the Hach-Ames front door and the front door on the relocated historic resource and proposed new building appears to be about 75 feet. In the West End and most other areas of Aspen that distance would be substantially greater. Because the right-of-way in the Smuggler Grove neighborhood is so narrow, enforcement of the front yard setback requirement is essential to the maintenance of privacy. The front yard setback requirement is also important in establishing the character and desirability of the neighborhood. While it may appear that existing development on the block has not conformed to the 25-foot front yard setback standard, that impression is not based in fact. As discussed at the last meeting, the two subdivisions which make up Smuggler Grove were annexed to the City of Aspen in 1987. Since that time all new development on the block has conformed to 25 foot front yard setback standard, with the exception of 73 Smuggler Grove, which exists at the far eastern end of the two subdivisions. All other development in the neighborhood was built before annexation in 1987. Ms. Sara Adams and the Historic Preservation Commission August 5, 2014 Page 3 Several variances were granted to 73 Smuggler Grove in 2002 after two rather contentious meetings of the City's Board of Adjustment. The variances were granted because that lot is subject to a sewer easement which bisects the property. The first exhibit included with the Board of Adjustment's 2002 approval resolution clearly indicates the location of the easement and the limitations it imposes on development of that lot. °R �� ,IJiAUnRB IvE `\ � Ila i .^ r \ f1 _ f ' 1 1 f �` 1^--•— t p8ya 1 F, i\ p ` fi a \ � C V � 1 -.r Fr In addition, 73 Smuggler Grove is a very narrow lot. As shown in the illustration above, while the sewer line bisects the lot diagonally, the 25 foot setback line bisects the lot horizontally. Without the setbacks granted by the Board of Adjustment in 2002, 73 Smuggler Grove would be essentially undevelopable.I The same is not true of the Subject Property. As shown by the exhibit on the top of the next page, taken from the owner's current application, there are few constraints on the amount of development which can be placed on the Subject Property. In fact, the applicant has requested "program" which fills the entire site. 'Copies of the Board of Adjustment approval resolution and the minutes of its meetings of August 15,2002,and September 5,2002, are included with this letter as Exhibits A,B and C,respectively. Ms. Sara Adams and the Historic Preservation Commission August 5, 2014 Page 4 r � - --- _ - — -- _ I -- 1 , 1 Tom- I 1 ! 1 M The neighbors believe that the applicant seeks to put too much development on the site. The primary manifestations of that problem are the requested front- and sideyard setback variances. To receive approval for the front- and sideyard setback variances requested here, the application must meet requirements found in several sections of the City's Land Use Code. The Historic Preservation provisions of the Code require that the HPC, in granting a variance . . . 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 City of Aspen Land Use Code 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.2 2 Code, §26.415.110.C.2. Ms. Sara Adams and the Historic Preservation Commission August 5, 2014 Page 5 The setback variances requested here are not similar in pattern, features or character of the historic property or district. The property itself is not historic. The structure was moved to the site in 1976. There is no historic district. Neither do the two front setback variance requests "enhance or mitigate an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property." Relocating the historic structure to the front yard setback line would not diminish its historic significance or architectural character. Neither would it make it more difficult to interpret the structure as historic when viewing the property from the right-of-way. These variances are sought so that the lot can be filled with more "program" than is permitted by R-15A zoning or is warranted by the development characteristics of the surrounding area. Chapter 26.314 of the Code also applies to the current application. "If the application for a variance is part of a consolidated application process authorized by the Community Development Director . . . the Historic Preservation Commission may review the application for a variance using the standards and procedures set forth in this Chapter.i3 Section 26.314.040.A. sets forth the decision-making standards applicable to this request. Those standards, shown in italics, and the neighbors'responses to each standard, in regular type, are shown immediately below. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision-making body shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: L The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of this Title and the Municipal Code; and The Neighbors do not believe the requested variances and the accompanying density are consistent with the aspirations described in the Aspen Area Community Plan. This objection is only intensified by the reality that both of the new residences are likely to be sold to second home owners who will not be present in the neighborhood for long stretches throughout the year. 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and No variances are required in this case. Reasonable use of the property can be accomplished if both the historic structure and the proposed new structure are located within the setback requirements which apply to this single lot. 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the Board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: 3 Code, §26.314.020. Emphasis supplied. Ms. Sara Adams_ and the Historic Preservation Commission August 5, 2014 Page 6 a) There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or b) Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the terms of this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone district. A literal interpretation of the Code, including the Historic Preservation section of the Code, does not "deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and . . . cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience." Rather than suffering a hardship, this property owner is seeking a special privilege not enjoyed by other owners in the neighborhood. Since the area was annexed to the City, each of the neighbors has been required to conform to the applicable setback standard. This owner must also be required to meet the setback requirements. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, E. Michael Hoffman 4 The owner of 73 Smuggler Grove was granted a variance because without the variance its lot was essentially unbuildable. A variance request related to the proposed redevelopment of Lot 1, East Meadow Subdivision, was recently approved by the Planning&Zoning Commission. The approval was to move development further back on the lot than would be required by R-15A zoning. A variance was required because the condition represents a breach of the Residential Design Guidelines. Exhibit A RESOLUTION NO. 03 Series of 2002 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING A VARIANCE WITH CONDITIONS IN CASE NUMBER 02-Q3 RELATING TO PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF ASPEN WITH AN ADDRESS OF 73 SMUGGLER GROVE, LOT 5, EAST MEADOW SUBDIVISION. WHEREAS, Mike Seguin made application, dated July 11, 2002 to the Board of Adjustment for a variance. from the dimensional requirements of Chapter 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, this matter came on for hearing- before the Board of Adjustment on August 15, 2002 and September 5, 2002 where full deliberations and consideration of the evidence and testimony was presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: u Section 1. Findings of Fact. m N a The Board of Adjustment makes the following findings of fact: N com .. N 1. A development application for a variance was initiated cr) o.N by: Mike Seguin on July 11, 2002 for property with a street a m address of 73 Smuggler Grove, Aspen, Colorado. m m 2. Notice of the proposed variance has been provided to surrounding property owners in accordance with Section 26- 304-060 (E) (3) (c)of the Aspen Municipal Code. Evidence of such notice is on file with the City Clerk. O ~� 3. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and Chapter 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code. 4 ti 4. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that r.¢ will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure. 5. The literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms of Chapter 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining that the applicant's rights would be deprived absent a variance, the Board considered certain special conditions and circum- stances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same none district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant. Section 2. Variance Granted. The Board of Adjustment does hereby grant the applicant the following variance from the terms of Chapter 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code by a 5 to 0 vote: A fifteen (15) foot front yard setback variance for a principal building, a twenty (20) foot front yard setback variance for an accessory building and a five (5) foot setback variance for the south side yard for the construction of a single family dwelling unit and a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit and garage. Section 3. Conditions Upon which Variance is Granted The variance granted by Section 2, above, is specifically conditioned upon and subject to the following conditions: a 1. The development shall be as represented at the a m September 5, 2002 meeting and per the attached plans N am m submitted for said meeting. n n c 2. The floor area for 73 Smuggler Grove shall be limited N to 3007 square feet as represented in' the September 5, cr a m m 2002 meeting. m roved 3 . The a re � . pp plans quire variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410 of the ,,.". Aspen Municipal Code. Z' 4. Unless vested as part of' a development plan pursuant to Section 26.308.010 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the variance granted herein shall automatically expire after twelve (12) months from the date of approval �o unless development has been commenced as evidenced by ...��Z the issuance of a building permit, or an extension �r Y F a _r.a W.° N granted by the Board in which case the variance shall expire at the end of the extension. 5. Applicant shall, prior to filing an , application for a building permit, cause to be recorded with the Clerk and Recorder's Office of Pitkin County a copy of this resolution. APPROVED AS TO FORM 1 Ci Attorney INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Board of Adjustment of the City of Aspen on the 5th day of September 2002 Chairperson I, ' the undersigned duly appointed and acting Deputy City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the Board of Adjustment of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated. ' puty City dlerk m 7i mm m N wam o �m aN Q� a u �w> M�z u �Y a a r Via ' IVF ARDMORE .0,R kill lmm425-Alnun We a 00 to a 0"1 AI.Zl 1111111d S 9,9 ZOLELtP .o-,1 ,4/1 Ca?•Y1otl9�l�OGb� of KelflJ.r-2! St ! �+4���• �r-•---------- ....•� 01 Ri['l +�.` 1 c mwna---sod z od — �„ f••r3�1 T�Od kOt1�+70i j �~ _ ���>�� rl t Ti�iJ H9i"i S t I ,C Wk k J.N014W S �tiZt1'id S'N1a-Ill1G '� r'�4. ursadoa►d ssa::lav i =Nee 2a O.L i r — �U�/ iG TOY 9AOal }I3T9011A'.S' 3P117 dad I.o-;t f -'" 1 y� 1 t + � `���121a 'T3nYalA Z,YH �h013!d'9f1YFi2,BAD �+ 1 I if si002i A2iolG = t-��• , / 1 � I GVC7bI CI3�l�3fRl7 sdxt� .ul'un xlod --�' •1 t .f�-.1 } // .D',1 " " � i�• f C�LN�^Q/�td1.11.ZLi6 — 04Y QL 40 1 -7f SNOLLv7o7 17YX3-tk IKaQ�( 2119 xv-7d a.UG, 'ZION :^ LOT -- a�as 310E RtvL 1 ` N D 3-db1HO10a:ddV {� ��10o1i r -_ "! C3IWW 29 01 3NP7 I t va-io-g amwtw :NOBV_A I / ^ Od wcmod I4 E �A-rsre 'pW a7J n2_ >,•C3�t 2iorl t�lofl`dOO'i lyl�/ � � .5-.I^ 'I 1 � ��� , MY/u W rla,r 29Y1rYIP �. j a ! mm J,1 lilt 1 ab (h2nO�J ,� i 1 / 1 as 111111111 IM 111111111111111111 73702 P0g/21 2002 10:101 r�- - i �SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 51.00 D 0.00 . l \ ►l i o_ rn i r O z i - _1 u I ( i - Lr--- 11 P 702 7 of to F ..10121/2002 10:10E. ' I �SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 61.00 D 0.00 Ulu I i � I I •. i b � b g� Qua b a � a 473702 t �SILVIA DAMS PITKIN COUNTY CO ��� 1 10/21/2002 10:1 O rn ( ❑ ! u rn ( ! �u ! _ m ! l 702 Pagt: 9 of 10 rZ_ ` 0/21/ SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 51.00 0 0.0 10 :101 0 Uzi tp 1 lw O rn = z O rn � l J I 1• I . GARA,5E. 625 S.F. a REDUCTION = 625 S.F. in� - 250 S.F. 9"15 - 125 = 250 S.F. AVU: 625 S.F. i z��r n i N� m � r clseaQ �N 0 a+ 8 LOMR: 10% 1215 S.F. s 122 S.F. MAIN, 1215 S.F. UPPER: 1087 S.F. F.A.R. CALCULATION5 FOR SIN15L1= FAMILY R-15Ai LOT SIZE: 6211,S.F. TOTAL ALLOYYABLE F.A.R.: 32gq S.F. F.A.R. CALCULATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT5: 6ARAC7E FAR: b75 5.F. HOUSE FAR: 2426 S.F. TOTAL FARE 32gq 5,F CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 15 2002 CASE #02-03: 73 SMUGGLER GROVE, LOT 5, EAST MEADOW SUBDIVISION—MIKE SEGUIN... .........................................................................2 MINUTES ...................... .................................. .................. .................................. ..:6 J 13 1 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 15 2002 Charles Paterson opened the City Of Aspen Board Of Adjustment special meeting at 4:00 p.m. with Mark Hesselschwerdt, Howard DeLuca, Jim Iglehart, Rick Head, and Greg Hughes present. Bill Murphy was excused. Staff in attendance: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Ohlson and Scott Woodford, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Lothian introduced the new alternate member, Greg Hughes. Joyce Ohlson introduced herself, the deputy director and Scott Woodford the new city planner. PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #02-03: 73 SMUGGLER GROVE LOT 5 EAST MEADOW SUBDIVISION--NUKE SEGUIN Charles Paterson opened the public hearing for Case #02-03, 73 Smuggler Grove. David Hoefer stated that public notice was provided; the board had jurisdiction to proceed. Paterson said that the applicant requested a 15-foot front yard setback variance for a principal building, 20-foot front yard setback variance for an accessory building, a 5-foot setback variance for the south side yard and a 5-foot rear yard setback variance for the principal building for the construction of a single family dwelling unit and a detached accessory dwelling unit and garage. Scott Woodford stated that the staff recommendation was for denial because it did not meet review standards 2 and 3. Woodford said if the board moved for approval then a condition on the sewer line should be added outlined in the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District letter from Tom Bracewell dated August 14, 2002. The re-location of the sewer line or a cured in place liner in the sewer where it exists could be solutions to address the sewer line easement issue. Rally Dupps, Consortium Architects, explained this property was at the end of Smuggler Grove Road with a legal non-conforming duplex. There were a number of utility easements on the property, power poles and lines overhead and the'16- foot wide sewer easement, the trunk line for the neighborhood. The city/county line was the back of the lot. Part of the residence and a deck was built on the sewer easement. Dupps proposed a re-development of the property keeping the sewer easement in place; the easement would be difficult to move and incumbent on his client to pay for it plus the impact on the neighbors. Dupps said the proposed residence was a footprint of 1215 square foot to fit in the triangle with some variances. They requested a 10-foot front yard setback, a 5-foot rear yard setback and 5-foot side yard setback. Also proposed was a separate detached garage with an ADU above it. Dupps provided elevations and drawings of the proposed re-development. Dupps said the zoning was R-15, medium density; the FAR for a single-family residence was 329 square feet less than what was allowed for a duplex. Mike Seguin stated that he spoke to many of the neighbors and they CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF AD,TUSTMENT August 15 2002 were in favor of getting cars off the street since the street was a dead end with a bottleneck of cars. Charles Paterson asked how the proposed garage was accessed. Dupps replied that that there was access from Smuggler Grove Road across the sewer easement. Dupps said that the first review standard was met but standards 2 and 3 were not; he distributed the written rebuttal describing how the re- development would not be built on the sewer easement as was the existing duplex. Dupps said that the existing was a legally non-conforming duplex but the re- development would bring the property into further compliance with parking on site. Dupps said that he disagreed with the staff report that said that they had reasonable use of the parcel because the allowable building envelope was 794 square feet for the south portion and 237 square feet for the north. Dupps utilized maps and drawings to illustrate the bisection of the property by the sewer easement and the property line easements; this lot was 6200 square feet. Dupps said that the third standard would cause hardship and the lot was unique. Dupps referred to Tom Bracewell's letter from ACSD, which entailed moving the sewer line. Howard DeLuca asked for something in writing about the sewer line. Seguin answered that he spoke to Chuck Roth when he first bought the property and he was told that the sewer line could not be moved. David Hoefer asked if Mr. Seguin bought the g property with full knowledge that there was a sewer-easement across the middle of the property. Seguin replied that yes, he bought with full knowledge that easement ran across the property; he said that he thought that something like this could be done across the pipe. Seguin said that was available but with a 700 square foot pad on one side and two hundred square feet on the other side, that was basically unbuildable. Hoefer noted for the record that currently the property was usable,without any variances. Joyce Ohlson clarified if the variance were approved then the sanitation district would like to see the line put in place, which would be at the applicants expense. Dupps said that the neighbors homes had parking in front, which this property did not and was handicapped because the lot was surrounded by private roads and private property therefore the city setback requirements caused unreasonable and unintended results for this property.' Photos were used for illustrative purposes. Steve Hock, public, stated that he lived at 23 Smuggler Grove; he said that he was not against anything would get cars off the street. Hock said that he wasn't opposed to a re-development and the front yard was really a side yard. Hock asked for clarification if the unit above the garage was an ADU, office or an artist studio. Dupps said that they wanted a usable space and had not defined it yet. DeLuca asked if it was called an ADU to gain square footage. Ohlson stated that if an ADU would be required on site then this would be restricted as such, but this 3 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 15 2002 needed to go a step further at the staff level after setbacks were established at the Board of Adjustment. Dupps stated that they were not going through any exemption for the space above the garage but taking square footage from the lower building and placing it above the garage. Al Beyer, public, stated that he lived at 024 Ardmore Drive and this was a challenging site. Beyer said that he was going to be critical with his comments and submitted a letter stating these concerns. Beyer said that the very,minimum necessary to give you reasonable use was what should be stated and this re- development was the very maximum of what could be requested today. Beyer said that there were no hardships and a 10-foot setback should remain at Ardmore Drive because of the elevation of 4 feet above this property; he voiced concern for the structural ability of Ardmore Drive with the light wells 5 feet from Ardmore with a depth of 8 feet; he questioned enough room for Holy Cross to bury the utility lines in that 5 foot easement. Beyer said there were two small existing apartments to an upgrade of one big house and potentially one small apartment. Beyer said that the lot was purchased at a discounted price relative to the market because of the existing conditions and now was for sale with a request for variances under the guise of a hardship. Dan Sadowsky, public, 43 Smuggler Grove, stated that the issues were a substandard street or a glorified driveway, very problematic parking and a safety problem, rental properties having more cars. Sadowsky said the design was ok and have heard various price lags on moving the sewer and how it would affect the neighborhood. Sadowsky said taking the vehicles off the street would be a relief for the neighborhood. Evan Gull, public, said that he lived at 25 Ardmore Court. Gull said that in trying to determine what reasonable use was that the maximum FAR was not reasonable without pushing the setbacks in every direction. DeLuca stated that there was difficulty in the lot with the front yard setback being imposed on the side yard and there was a hardship with the way the lots were laid out on that block but the sewer easement was a gray area. DeLuca said they were asking for a setback on every side of the lot and within 5-feet of Ardmore, which should be maintained at 10-feet. DeLuca said the FAR was 3200 square feet and with the basement there was actually 4200 square feet, the mass and height encroaching on the street was a problem and he said this was not a minimum variance. 4 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 15 2002 Jim Iglehart asked if each lot was looked at for setbacks when it was annexed into the city. Joyce Ohlson responded that it was probably annexed as is. Mark Hesselschwerdt said that Rally did well putting the maximum FAR on this site, it was quite a work of architecture. Hesselschwerdt said they were going from 2 bedrooms and a studio to 4 bedrooms and an ADU; he said this was appropriate on some variances but by going for the maximum variances was missing the mark for a salable item that they bought at a discount because of the inherent problems. Rick Head said that he joined Mark in that the density will not be reduced by this development; he said that if all the setbacks were backed out and the easements there was only a postage stamp size for development left. Head stated this lot was tough to develop and saw no point in moving the sewer line; he said that he was in favor of granting the variance. Jim Iglehart echoed Rick. Iglehart said that the utility line problem would be addressed between Holy Cross and the owner. Iglehart asked what the minimum setback was that this board would approve. David Hoefer stated that for a legal point of clarification, if the board felt that they were requesting too much, then the applicant could have the opportunity to re-design and come back with something else and ask for less. Hoefer noted that the board was voting on what was proposed. DeLuca restated that the front yard setback was ridiculous but the getting rid of the other setbacks was not granting a minimal variance. .DeLuca suggested reducing the size of the house by 500 square feet, changing the front yard setback to a side yard setback, which would be a minimum variance instead of the proposed maximum FAR, mass and size encroaching onto the street (Ardmore); he said that just gives a slightly smaller building envelope. DeLuca stated there were still encroachments but instead of 4200 square feet, it could`be 3500 square feet. DeLuca stated that he was not willing to grant the proposed variances. Greg Hughes said that the redevelopment would be a nice addition to improve the neighborhood. DeLuca stated that the Board of Adjustment was supposed to grant the minimum variance and not just because something looks nice should the variance be granted. DeLuca said that right now he would be able to build 1200* square feet and he was asking for 4200 square feet, somewhere in between would be better. Iglehart said that he respected what Howard said but the applicant would have to come back and take his chances again. DeLuca provided several scenarios for re-design with variances. Iglehart said that he did not want them to have to keep coming back. Hesselschwerdt stated that the criteria denoted the minimum 5 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 15, 2002 not the maximum variance; the applicant ignored that. DeLuca stressed that the house had to be shrunk down in size to fit into the minimum variances. Iglehart asked if this board was the only way to get a building envelope changed. Ohlson replied that the underlying zone district dictated the setbacks; she said that the real question was the one that Howard brought up of the minimum setback to reasonably develop and use the property. Paterson said that the board was split and 4 positive votes were needed to grant the approval. Paterson stated that Howard's point was valid with the difficulty on Ardmore Court with the 5-foot setback and road stability unless a concrete wall was built. Paterson suggested tabling and continuing for a smaller redesign; he said that he felt that the re-development was necessary with practical difficulty without moving the sewer. Paterson said that Mark and Howard's concerns were very legitimate and would like to see a change. The front yard could be treated like a side yard and the house should be designed in a smaller scale with more setbacks on the Ardmore side. Paterson stated that Al Beyer's comments were also very good. MOTION: Rick Head moved to continue Case#02-03 to September 5, 2002 so the applicant,Mike Seguin can revise the plan with the stated revisions from this meeting. Mark Hesselschwerdt seconded. All in favor, APPROVED 5-0. Dupps said that there would be changes to the side yard setbacks on the Ardmore side to 10 feet and to minimize the all around setback variance requests. MINUTES MOTION: Rick Head moved to approve the minutes from June 13 and 27, 2002 for Case#02-02, Gary and Kathleen Albert, 725 West Smuggler. Mark Hesselschwerdt seconded. APPROVED 5-0. MOTION: Rick Head moved to adjourn at 5:25; seconded by Jim Iglehart. APPROVED 5-0. ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 6 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 5, 2002 MINUTES .................................. ................ ........................ ..............................2 CASE #02-03: 73 SMUGGLER GROVE, LOT 5, EAST MEADOW SUBDIVISION—MIKE SEGUIN............................................................................2 1 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Se tember 5 2002 Charles Paterson opened the City Of Aspen Board Of Adjustment continued meeting at 4:00 p.m. with Mark Hesselschwerdt, Greg Hughes, Rick Head, and Howard DeLuca present. Jim Iglehart and Bill Murphy were excused. Staff in attendance: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer, Scott Woodword, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. MINUTES MOTION: Rick Head moved to approve the minutes of August 15, 2002; seconded by Mark Hesselschwerdt. APPROVED 4-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #02-03: 73 SMUGGLER GROVE, LOT 5, EAST MEADOW SUBDIVISION—MIKE SEGUIN Charles Paterson opened the continued public hearing for Case #02-03, 73 Smuggler Grove: David Hoefer stated that public notice was provided at the August 15'h meeting. Paterson said that the applicant requested a 15-foot front yard setback variance for a principal building, 20-foot front yard setback variance for an accessory building, a 5-foot setback variance for the south side yard and a 5-foot rear yard setback variance for the principal building for the construction.of a single family dwelling unit and a detached accessory dwelling unit and garage. Scott Woodword said that the applicants have made some strides but staff still recommends denial of the new plan. Rally Dupps, Consortium Architects, said that they took to heart the board and public comments with a revised site plan, elevations and revised proposal included in the packet. Dupps utilized drawings to illustrate the changes on the variances for the front and side yard setbacks. The architecture was revised with different roof pitches with more ins and outs to create more visual interest. Dupps said that 432 square feet was removed from the building. Dupps said this re-design was more in the spirit a board of adjustment to grant variances; they were no longer seeking the maximum FAR or variances. Mr. Hawk, public, stated that he did not oppose the re-development but that there was still 4500 square feet of structure, which wasn't small. Charles Paterson read the letter from Ruth Brown that stated no objections to front and side yard setbacks with the current scheme, which was greatly improved. 2 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 5, 2002 Rick Head noted that the garage was reconfigured and a shed was added but.it looked like the square footage was removed from the house. Sarah Oates said that the revised proposal was 359, which would count as FAR. Head asked how the electrical easement was resolved. Dupps replied that would be worked out with Holy Cross. Howard DeLuca asked staff if the front yard were a side yard instead of a front yard what would the setback be. Sarah Oates replied that it was 10 feet. Mark Hesselschwerdt said that he was disappointed with the roof on the garage because it made that a little more monolithic but made sense if time will be spent on the second floor above the garage. Hesselschwerdt said that the criteria for an ADU were subordinate to the main house. Hesselschwerdt said the review standards will probably be a problem and the,main house was going to be a huge monolithic structure, the front door won't work for the city criteria; minimum variances still haven't been addressed and.he said that he was disappointed that more consideration wasn't given to making the main house smaller. Greg Hughes asked Mr. Hawks his objection. Hawks said it was quite a bit of square footage for the neighborhood. Hawks said the house was about 4500 square feet of structure even though some of it doesn't apply to the FAR. Dupps said there was one-story structure facing 73 Smuggler Grove, the height of the roof was pretty low, below the maximum height limit. Dupps said that they were giving up FAR with a large number of one-story elements on the front. Dupps disagreed with the maximum square footage and that the house was in compliance and was a smaller residence than all of the other houses in the neighborhood. David Hoefer asked if these plans were finalized so the board could put a condition if they decided to approve the variances that it would be subject to these plans. Hesselschwerdt stated that if these variances were granted they would be for this proposal. Sarah Oates said that for the record that the application did not meet certain residential design standards and the applicant needed to go to P&Z for variances even if this plan was approved by the board tonight. David Hoefer asked if the square footage was on the plan. Oates replied that the FAR was 3007 square feet. Dupps noted that due to site constraints the garage had to be side loaded and a one- story element. Oates responded that was correct about the garage but this doesn't 3 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Se tember 5 2002 qualify for a one story because of the deck element and a variance would be needed. Further approvals were required. DeLuca said that part of his judgment depended on these drawings and not what another board determined as the correct square footage and design. DeLuca said that he liked what was done and was more pleasing to the eye; it accommodated what was talked about at the last meeting. DeLuca noted that the lot runs the wrong way; he liked the entry and that he was in favor of the drawings. DeLuca stated that he also liked the porches. Head said that he was in agreement with Howard. Head stated that the approval was subject to plan as presented with 3007 square foot FAR with the design. Hesselschwerdt said that they were trying to come up with a marketable property and the 5-foot setback on the south was still tough; he said that not going to max height with limited approval to the plans was better with the 3 levels of FAR at 835 for the upstairs, the main is 1083 and then the basement. Hesselschwerdt said that this would be contingent on these plans to make it work. Greg Hughes said that it would be a nice addition and they have come to terms with what they have in the new plan. Charles Paterson said there was a practical difficulty with the lot and that he could consider the variances with conditions agreed to with the assessment agreed upon. MOTION: Rick Head moved to approve A fifteen (15) foot front yard setback variance for a principal building, a twenty (20) foot front yard setback variance for an accessory building and a five (5) foot setback variance for the south side yard for the construction of a single family dwelling unit and a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit and garage for Mike Seguin at 73 Smuggler Grove, Lot 5, East Meadow Subdivision be limited to 3007 square feet as represented in the September 5, 2002 meeting. The approved plans require variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410 of the Aspen Municipal Code. Mark Hesselschwerdt seconded. Roll call vote: DeLuca, yes; Hughes, yes; Hesselschwerdt, yes; Head, yes; Paterson, yes. APROVED 5-0 Adjourned 0 P.M. ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 4 EXHIB Steve Hach From: lynne carlson <sibuvillage @mac.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 6:12 AM To: Steve Hach Subject: new letter, found a typo in the other one To: Historical Preservation Commission Fr: Lynne & Eric Carlson 63 Smuggler Grove Please consider two important points when deciding on the structure(s) being built by my neighbor. First, there is the issue of the narrowness of our road and the difficulty we sometimes have getting to our home. We happen to live near the end of Smuggler Grove and can have difficulty accessing our house. Cars are lined up on the right hand side of the road, one after the other, which results in significantly narrowing our small private road. Add a big snow storm or a landscaping truck to that scenario and the road can be impassable. Additionally, this cluster of cars results in no place for anyone to turn around at the end of our street so they pull into my private drive. That said, please consider a development of my neighbor's property which would require, as I have, significant parking and/or garages within their lot. Secondly,the setbacks and scale of the structure(s) should be in adherence with existing city codes. Please feel free to contact us to discuss this issue further and thank you for considering the unique issues of our small street. i