HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20140827 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
August 27,2014
CITY COUNCIL MEETING ROOM
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
12:00 SITE VISITS: None
5:00 INTRODUCTION
A. Roll call
B. Approval of minutes-July 23rd and August 6th
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-none
I. Submit public notice for agenda items
OLD BUSINESS
5:15 A. 135 E. Cooper Avenue- Minor Development, CONTINUED PUBLIC
HEARING
NEW BUSINESS
6:00 A. 549 Race Alley and Lot 4 of Fox Crossing Subdivision- Final Major
Development and Setback Variance,PUBLIC HEARING
WORKSESSION
6:45 A. 223 E. Hallam
7:15 ADJOURN
P1
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.
P2
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
8/20/2014
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION P4
MINUTES OF July 23, 2014
Chairperson, Jay Maytin called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance were Sallie Golden, John Whipple, Patrick
Sagal and Jim DeFrancia. Absent were Nora Berko and Willis Pember.
Staff present:
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
Justin Barker, Planner
Linda Manning, City Clerk
Patrick said he would like City Council to look into changing the rules so
that they can have the opportunity for review after final approval. Things
are being changed between conceptual and final and an elected body should'
be able to look at them if they wanted to. Historical vegetation should be
looked at. Flat roofs should also be looked at. In the past 3 years UPC and
put flat roofs on Main Street which does not go toward the intent of the Main
Street plan.
Amy said call-up used to be at final but it was changed because council and
others felt it was too late to express an opinion about the project so it was
moved to conceptual and that seems to be working well.
Jay suggested an early November retreat for HPC to discuss issues.
Disclosure:
John will recuse himself on 601 W. Hallam
Amy said the City of Aspen received the HPC commission award. Sara was
present to receive the award. Jay congratulated the Community
Development department and the UPC for receiving the award.
601 W. HALLAM— Conceptual Major Development and Residential
Design Standard Variances, Public Hearing
Debbie confirmed that the public notice is appropriate and the applicant can
proceed.
Justin said the property is on the corner of 5th Street and Hallam Street. In
1991 this property was delisted. During the hearing the applicant voluntarily
1
P5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF July 23, 2014
agreed to grant HPC mandatory review of any future redevelopment on the
subject parcel in terms of mass and scale. Basically this means UPC has
conceptual review on this property but no final review. The applicant is
proposing to demolish the house that is currently on the property and to
build a new two story single family home. As part of that they are
requesting Residential Design Standard variances. In terms of mass and
scale staff finds that this is a very successful project. They have done a good
job breaking down the masses of the building through pitched roofs and
connecting element. The pitched roofs do match those in the neighborhood.
The scale of the doors and windows match the historic properties around the
area. Staff finds this proposal completely compliant with mass and scale.
Residential Design Standards
Justin said the first one deals with the street facing fagade with the living
area. The guideline says the width of the living area on the first floor shall
be at least five feet greater than the width of the garage or carport. This is
on the side that faces Hallam Street. The proposal has the garage at 23 feet
in width and the living area 14 feet and it is 9 feet narrower than the garage.
Another one is the front fagade of the garage. The guideline says the front
fagade of the garage or the front most supporting column of the carport shall
be setback at least ten feet further from the street than the front most wall of
the house. This again is on the Hallam Street side. The garage is about 2 V2
feet in front of the living area instead of being behind it. Staff feels there the
opportunity to meet these standards given the scrape and replace of the
property. The lot is 60 feet wide and 100 feet deep. Staff has provided a
few suggestions as to how this standard can be more closely met.
Justin said the last variance needed is for a street oriented entrance and
principle window. Looking at the neighborhood there is no real pattern as to
which side the front door faces and in fact the door on the property right now
faces 5' Street. Staff can accept either side for the door. Overall staff is
recommending continuation of the application in order to restudy the garage.
Jay said Hallam Street is a longer block line and the address is Hallam
Street.
Alan Richman represented the applicant Steve Whipple owner of the
property. We are here for a mass and scale review and the other is
residential design standard variances. The covenant gave clear definition to
what we are supposed to be compatible with in terms of mass and scale.
2
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION P6
MINUTES OF July 23, 2014
Mass means the residence needs to use appropriate roof pitches and not be
designed as an interrupted box. The scale addresses window and door
dimensions and consistency with the other buildings on the block. The roofs
are compatible with the surrounding buildings. We used one and two story
elements to break down the mass. Two of the residential design standards
relate to the garage and the third deals with the entry to the house. We do
have unusual factors on this property and site specific constraints. We
believe the design is appropriate for the site.
Alan stated the factors they are dealing with and one is that there is no alley
in place behind this property. The alley is behind the Wheeler Stallard
House which is not open and contributes to the park like features around the
Wheeler Stallard museum. If we were to try and have parking back there the
impacts would be quite significant. Since we have no alley we only have
two locations where we can put the garage, 5' Street or Hallam Street. The
Engineering Department did not want the driveway on 5ffi Street. They also
preferred that we not cross the irrigation ditch with a driveway so we placed
the driveway on Hallam Street and that is where the garage is located.
There are other pre-existing driveways on Hallam. The second factor is
where do you enter the house. The code states that Hallam is the longer
block line and that would be the front of the house. We believe that 5th
Street is the right place for the entry and there are three reasons why we
believe that. The primary purpose is to promote pedestrian friendly
environments and contribute to the neighborhood streetscape. We totally
agree with that principle. One way to achieve that is that you don't put your
garage and your entry porch on the same side of the house. That would be
the classic suburban design. If the garage is on Hallam then the porch
belongs on 5th 5' Street is the heavily traveled street. The porch on 5'
street would interact with pedestrians. For those reason we would ask you to
vary the standard and have the porch on 5' Street. Alan said in the design
the Parks Dept. wanted us to step back from the drip line of the large
cottonwood trees_ There is no alley on this property and it is a corner lot and
there are large trees on the site.
Steve Whipple passed around a model of the house. The garage door
doesn't have to be a garage door. We have fabricated a door on the garage
door to make it look like a living space which will require a lift system. We
feel our design is better than having two doors next to each other. I have
done two houses on 5' Street and both have the front doors on 5' Street.
The linking element reduces the scale of the building and breaks the fagade
3
P7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF July 23, 2014
up. The garage is a little forward and if it is moved back the mass starts to
compress and loose the separation element.
Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing.
Kelly Murphy, Executive Director of the Aspen Historical Society
Mr. Whipple has been working with us as a good neighbor to get our input
to what we thought and what our needs are. We have seen the drawings and
model and we are pleased. The driveway entrance off of Hallam is where
our driveway entrance is and our parking lot. That is the industrial side of
the property. We have a lot of weddings and very particular brides. From
our standpoint it would be better to have vehicles and garages on the back
side where we have our own coming and going activity as well.
Chairperson, Jay Maytin closed the public comments.
Jay identified the three issues:
Width of Hallam Street facade compared to the 5th Street facade being nine
feet shorter. The width of the garage to the width of the house.
The garage setback being in front of the smaller facade.
The entrance on Hallam as compared to 5' Street.
Jim said he has no problem having the entrance on 5th Street. The garage
may have the appearance of disproportion to the house itself. Maybe it
should be pulled back instead of pushed forward.
Sallie also agreed that the front entry should be on 5' Street especially after
we have heard from the museum representative. I think I like the garage
being a garage. The fake garage is strange looking. I have no problems with
the entire project but feel P&Z should be looking at the design standards no
US.
Patrick agreed that the entry should be on 5th Street. The design is pulling
the house as far back toward the corner to leave more green space to the east
and north because of the trees. The design that was suggested by staff is a
good design because it is a dual purpose if the door is functional then people
parking in the driveway wouldn't have to walk around to the front door but
rather walk right into the garage and connector. There might be potential
moving it five feet to the west since there is a five foot setback and there is
4
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION P8
MINUTES OF July 23, 2014
ten feet of space between the lot line and garage but I don't favor that
because it makes the house wider and more massive.
Jay said staff received a letter from Richard Greenberg. He doesn't
understand why the Engineering Department would recommend against one
more driveway crossing the ditch. The vacated alley could easily be
reopened. The majority of homes are constructed on an north/south axis.
The elimination of parking spaces on West Hallam due to the siting of the
two car garage will further exacerbate parking issues. - - - -
Jay said he agrees with Sallie that the garage should be a garage and not
confuse another entrance. A lot of corner homes have their address
east/west street but yet the front door is on the numbered street. The
argument stands strong why the entrance should be on 5' Street. I agree
that the garage can sit in front of the house to protect the trees. The garage
in front of the fagade makes for the view to the Stallard house behind it. The
shed roof eave of the garage makes the garage doors look smaller.
MOTION; Jay moved to approve 601 W. Hallam as presented in the packet
and to grant the 3 variances requested. Motion second by Jim. Roll call
vote: Jay, yes; Sallie, yes Jim, yes; Patrick, yes. Motion carried 4-0.
Amy pointed out that when they submit for a building permit they could
submit for different materials such as glass garage doors etc. because HPC
was limited to the shape of this project and the footprint and location of the
garage and entry door.
417 & 421 W. Hallam Street- Correction to Historic Designation,
conceptual Major Development, Demolition and Variances, Continued
Public Hearing
Sara said the subject project is a duplex property where half the duplex is
designated historic. There is a proposal to designate the entire property. In
staff's opinion the applicant has addressed all of HPC's concerns. We really
appreciate the applicant working with staff and the HPC. We feel this is a
great project and staff is recommending approval. The applicant did ad a
front door and front porch to the historic resource. They actually reworked
the entire floor plan to make the front entrance through the historic resource.
The connector has been lengthened from 8 feet to ten feet and now meets
our design guidelines and also pushes the two story mass further back on the
5
P9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF July 23, 2014
property. The overall height of the addition has been reduced. The
applicant proposes two options for the mass of the construction. One would
be one single gable which is simple and elegant. The guidelines ask for
breaking up two story masses into modules which would be option two.
Staff is supportive of both designs. IIPC can decide which works best with
the guidelines. The applicant is meeting the parking requirement and they
have an on-site parking space and a garage parking space. They are also
requesting demolition of the non-historic additions. They are also
requesting relocation of the historic home. They will pick up the home and
dig a basement. They are also requesting the 500 square foot FAR bonus. In
addition to adding the front porch and restoring the front door they will be
doing some window restoration and possibly some roof restoration that will
have to be verified in the field. There might be some siding replacement
also. Setback variance are also being requested. There is a new variance
needed for the front porch. All the variances are appropriate and meet the
review criteria. The applicant measured off using the 1904 Sanborn
dimensions. With the amended designation and restoration it will increase
the integrity score.
Patrick asked if all the FAR would be used. Sara said the 500 square feet is
going to be used.
Patrick said the guidelines say the windows should be similar to the rest of
the historic neighborhood. With no windows how does that fit in with the
character.
Sara said the intent of the guidelines is meant to be the simplicity of the
design and having no windows helps the addition to recede and it is an
exciting design for the property. HPC needs to apply the guidelines and see
what they are comfortable with.
Sallie said a simple design might override windows and pitched roof.
Sara said it is all about finding the balance and focusing on the purpose and
intent which is to highlight the historic resource.
Derek Skalko of 1 Friday Design Collaborative and Jake Bittner of Thomas
Pheasant presented for the owners, David and Marcia Kaplan.
6
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION P10
MINUTES OF July 23, 2014
Jake said they are going to talk about four issues. They have reintroduced
the historic porch and placed a door facing Hallam Street under the porch.
Secondly they have revised the interior program. They have also increased
the link element to the full ten feet which establishes the mining cabin as the
prominent structure on the property and in doing so we reduced the mass of
the addition and lowered the pitch of the roof. We scaled off the Sanborn
map and the door is perfectly centered. The new volume is very distinctly
separated.
Jake presented a power point identifying all the changes.
Jay pointed out that the historic house will be lifted and re-sited.
Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. There were no public
comments. The public hearing was closed.
Jay identified the issues:
500 square foot bonus
Rear yard setback
Combined yard setback
Front setback
Patrick said he prefers the broken roof line which better meets with the
guidelines option B. It helps create less mass and scale.
John said he is in favor of the variances and likes option A. The continuous
roof line is a backdrop to what you are showcasing in the front. John
thanked the applicant for presenting an outstanding project.
Sallie said she can approve all the variances and setbacks. Sallie
commended the applicant for sticking with the HPC and she can't think of a
better design for this property. The little house in front is very small and if
they tried to do something more than what is there now it would look too
gimmick. There is no way to put windows or a roof without competing.
Sallie said she prefers option A.
Jim said he supports the bonus and all the variances and setbacks
recommended by staff and he likes option A.
7
P 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF July 23, 2014
Jay said this design really tells the story. Jay thanked the owners and
architects for sticking with historic preservation. It is amazing how you can
make your program work with a one story addition on the front. Jay said he
supports the bonus and setbacks and variances. Jay also said he supports
option A.
MOTION: Jay moved to approve 427/421 W. Hallam resolution as written;
second by John.
Sallie said the one story is totally in align with the guidelines. It is very well
balanced.
Roll call vote: Jim, yes; John, yes; Sallie, yes; Patrick, no; Jay, yes; Motion
carried 4-1.
MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Patrick. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
8
P12
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 2014
Vice-chair, Willis Pember, called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance were John Whipple, Patrick Sagal and Jim
DeFrancia. Absent were Nora Berko, Sallie Golden and Jay Maytin.
Staff present:
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
Sara Adams, Senior Planner
MOTION: Jim moved to approve the minutes of July 9, 2014 second by'
Willis. All in favor, motion carried.
Patrick congratulated the staff and commission for the HPC award. The
purpose and intent of the commission is to inform the preservation of
Aspen's character as an historic mining town, early ski resort.and cultural
center. UPC needs to look closely at that when we are making decisions. It
seems that we are ignoring the guideline that have to do with flat roofs.
Disclosure: Jim said he is working with Michael Hoffman jointly on a
project and consider himself un-conflicted and can be objective.
Willis said he is working with Mitch Haas but it has nothing to do with what
is being represented tonight. Willis said he can be objective in his decision.
712 W. Francis Street— Continue public hearing to September 24, 2014
Debbie Quinn said she reviewed the notices and the posted public notice on
the property remains on the property and this matter is appropriate to open
and continue.
Affidavit of notice — Exhibit I
Motion: Willis made the motion to continue the public hearing on 712 W.
Francis until September 24, 2014; second by Jim. All in favor, motion
carried.
1
P13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 2014
120 Red Mountain Road —Final Major Development, Public Hearing
Debbie Quinn said she reviewed the affidavit and the notice has been
appropriately provided and the applicant can proceed.
Affidavit of notice —Exhibit I
Amy said this is final review for 120 Red Mountain. This is a voluntary
designation of a property that is tucked away off of Red Mountain Rd. It is
an authentic fairly unaltered representative of the 60's and 70's residential
construction here in Aspen. It was designed in two phases by Aspen
Modern noted architects Ellen Harland who did the original design and Rob
Roy made some modifications to it. The new property owner voluntarily
designated this house historic and it was accepted by city council and there
were a couple of TDR's created and sent away from the site. HPC approved
a new garage addition to the house. It has a garage now that will be turned
into a bedroom and the new garage will be lightly linked to the house with a
connector. Other than that the existing building will remain as is. There is a
small bathroom addition and repairs and maintenance to the structure. For
final we are talking about landscaping, lighting and materials and the details
of the restoration. Staff recommends approval but a few things need to be
visited during the building permit review process. The existing windows in
the house will be replaced but we need to be absolutely sure that we are
replicating the existing openings and not changing configurations. The only
exception is where the existing garage is being turned into a bedroom. We
need to see more information about any new lighting. We recommend that
the two fixtures from the 60 era be reused. The landscape plan is minimal
with re-vegetation with grass and some low plants. If large trees or shrubs
are being planted we need to know about it and if they impact the historic
house. The roof is tar and gravel and will be replaced and we would like to
see something of that same character.
Kim Raymond, architect presented
Kim said they are altering the driveway in order to get into the garage. A
walkway will be added to the existing patio. All the landscaping is at grade
and will be re-vegetated natural and some grass right in front of the house.
Flower gardens and low shrubs will be planted next to the house. No trees
will be added. We are trying not to lose any of the existing trees. Shrubs
will also be planted where the garage doors are being taken out. On the roof
we will keep the fascia and it is our plan to keep the flat roof on both aspects
2
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION P14
MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 2014
which include the studio room. We will do the tar and gravel roof and it will
be insulated. We will be leaving the one light that is existing by the front
door and since the garage doesn't have garage doors anymore we will take
the other light and will use it somewhere else where it is appropriate. The
rest of the lighting will be down lights and small. The existing windows are
wood frame and a 1 Y2 inch frame. The trim goes into the window but not on
the face of the building and we will keep the same detail on the restoration.
The existing house has board and batten siding and the new garage will have
horizontal siding and there will also be wainscoting.
Willis asked that the pendant on the balcony in the back of the house on the
deck be kept.
Kim said they will retain the pendant.
John asked what kind of siding will be on the bathroom addition.
Kim said it will be horizontal siding so that it can identify that the addition is
new.
Vice-chair, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public
comments. The public hearing was closed.
Willis identified the issues:
Replace the windows
Capturing the original trim
Lights
Landscape
Roof tar and gravel
Garage fascia
Willis said he likes the approach that is being taken on the existing
windows. Keeping the pendant is a good thing to do. I would encourage the
developer to hire a landscape architect as it is difficult to understand the
plans and there is concern with construction activity.
Kim said the existing driveway will be our staging area and we will back our
way out with vegetation.
3
P15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 2014
Willis said the garage fascia should be left alone and cleaned up as it is more
in character with the 60's.
Patrick agreed with Willis.
MOTION: Jim moved to approve Resolution#23 for final approval for 120
Red Mountain Red with the conditions delineated in the staff
recommendation and an additional condition of preserving the balcony
pendant and retention of the garage fascia. We approve the link roof height
and that the roof fabric appear to be tar and gravel like EPTM. Motion
second by John. Roll call vote: Jim, yes; John, yes; Patrick, yes; Willis,
yes. Motion carried 4-0.
229 West Smuggler/426 N. Second— Conceptual Major Development,
On-Site Relocation and Variances, Public Hearing
Debbie Quinn said the posting is in order and Melissa Mabe attested that the
posting is still up. Debbie said with that confirmation the applicant can
proceed.
Amy said this is a duplex on a corner site next to Triangle Park. The lot is
9,000 square feet. There is a large Victorian home on the property built
1888 and in the 1980's an addition was made that is accessed facing Second
Street. The new property owner would like to make modifications and
detach the homes so that there are two free standing homes. On the non-
historic home they would like to remove the connection to the historic house
and clean up the hole left behind and create a one story link to anew garage
on the alley. They are supposed to have four parking spots and they are
providing two which is acceptable. There is a setback variance requested on
the east side of the garage where it comes too close to the property line but it
is otherwise conforming. With regard to the Victorian staff is appreciative
of the idea of detaching the two homes from each other but there is concern
that the new proposal to the Victorian house is in a location that has never
been touched before. The Victorian is to be picked up and moved forward
five feet and westward five feet. We don't have a problem with the forward
movement because it does create separation and that could be beneficial.
Staff is not supporting moving the house westward. The reason to do that is
to slide an addition alongside the house that we do not support. The little
one story piece alongside the Victorian is the proposed new construction and
it is touching a side of the house that is currently pristine. We would prefer
4
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION P16
MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 2014
that they continue to work with the hole behind the house. The front porch
has been changed slightly and we have some historic photos that can be used
for the restoration. There is a dormer on the west side of the roof that will
go away. They would also like to do a better rendition of the historic
windows. There is a cold roof on the house that will be removed and a thin
roof profile would be a great improvement to the building. On the other
hand there is a proposed new gable end on the back side of the house that
doesn't exist there now and a skylight that doesn't balance out with the
restoration they are proposing. We think it is not a net gain. Staff
recommends a restudy and continuation. We feel the new construction
should probably go in the back of the house even if all the homes touch each
other.
Don Ruggles, architect and Melissa Mabe presented.
Don said the owner Mr. and Mrs. Dahler have a commitment to restore the
historic asset to the absolute very best quality they can. They own both
properties. They need to add a little bit of square footage to make this work
for them. We are trying to make the addition of its time but still have a
sense that it respects the main body of the historical asset. It will have a zinc
roof. The owner would like a dormer on the back side to replace the
skylight. We can certainly work with staff and find a different shape for the
dormer. We feel the dormer is an important ad to make the square footage
work for us and getting rid of the 1960's sky light.
Melissa said there is a basement in both houses. The basement in the
Victorian will be a little larger and a better basement.
Willis asked what the drive is to separate the two houses.
Don said where the two houses join is in need of cleaning up etc. There is a
porch that doesn't fit, ice buildup etc. If it is separated we can clean it up
and get better sun and we are letting the yard come into the rear. It will
create a cleaner expression to the historical asset. There might be an
ownership issue down the road having separate owners.
Mr. Dahler said the addition was done in 1972 and it was classified as a
duplex. In 1979 it was converted to a two unit condominium.
5
P 1 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 2014
Vice-chair, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public
comments. The public hearing was closed.
Patrick asked if the addition was looked at being placed behind the house.
Don said we looked at a number,of options. We are willing to work with
staff on that matter and find the right balance.
Mr. Dahler said this plan gives us a private yard in the back as part of the
scheme. I'm surprised people don't live in their Victorians. The gable
allows for a master suite on the second floor.
Don said they are supportive of all the guidelines.
Melissa said there are many precedence in Aspen that have a much greater
impact on the Victorians that have passed through this board. We have
really pared down the addition as minimal as we could.
John asked about the siding on the addition.
Melissa said the addition is designed to be very clean and succinct and the
form is respectful of the asset but it feels different and of its time.
John said staff brings up some valid points and you have more land to play
with.
Melissa said we are trying to preserve the openness on the corner by not
proposing an addition on that side so the link to Triangle Park is as strong as
ever. With the dormer we were trying to let the two buildings communicate
and provide David with an upstairs that he can use. I feel we have been very
sympathetic to the historic asset. We can try to make it a little smaller.
Vice-chair Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public
comments. The public hearing was closed.
Willis identified the issues:
On-site relocation
Setback variances
Residential design standards are off the table
Mass and scale of the addition
6
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION P 1 8
MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 2014
Willis said the strategy is sound for this project and it meets the intent but
not the letter of the guidelines. I understand staff s concern about the
amount of disturbance to the original fabric on the historic building. The
addition is very small. If the Victorian is movable so is that linkage and
volume. For us to pass this tonight we would have to believe this is the best
ultimate solution to this problem and you have some latitude to work with
that would get staff on board. The section in the guidelines on linkages say
ten feet long and no wider than 6 feet. That serves the purpose of
minimizing the intrusion into the original fabric. Relocation, demolition,
setback variances are all manageable for this commission.
Jim said the fundamental approach is very sound and attractive. I
particularly like the fact that they are not trying to do a lot of stuff below
grade and it keeps the historic structure quite distinctive. There is probably
room for a little refinement.
Patrick said he agrees with Willis and Jim. It is a good start and the design
is coming close. I would recommend getting together with staff and flush
out the details.
Amy pointed out that we want to see some other concepts as to where the
office can go. What is your tolerance to moving the house a little further or
perhaps putting a little more construction on top of the garage.
John said he likes the delicateness of the addition in the back and
subordinate to the front. Adding more square footage doesn't seem like that
is necessarily the program the applicant wants to achieve because you are
going to be living in the historic resource. There is a lot of good in this
project and a restudy is always beneficial.
MOTION: Jim moved to continue 229 West Smuggler/426 N. Second
public hearing and conceptual development to September 10, 2014. Staff
and applicant to re-visit and refine the placement of the addition to the
Victorian and review the new position of the Victorian; second by Willis.
All in favor, motion carried.
John said the consensus of the addition of the dormer on the back is possibly
altering the historic fabric a little bit too much and maybe there is a way to
achieve a less dramatic transformation of the roof line.
7
P 1 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 2014
Willis said the more minimal alteration to the historic property the better.
28 Smuggler Grove Road - Conceptual Major Development, Floor area
bonus, Setback variances, parking waiver, demolition of non-historic
additions, relocation, residential design standards variances. Continued
public hearing.
Sara said there are some requested setback variance; 500 square foot FAR
bonus; a technical residential design standard variance; relocation of the
historic resource; partial demolition of the non-historic addition and a
variance from the required width of a parking space. On July 9t'', the last
meeting BPC requested a restudy of the new single family home that is
proposed for the site. This property has a landmark that was moved at some
point to this location in 1976. In 1987 the entire area was annexed into the
city and the property was added to the inventory in 2008. The proposal is to
pick up the historic home and move it on the site and to construct a new
single family home that is detached on the site. There were concerns voiced
by the neighbors regarding the parking situation. There was a request for a
waiver of one parking space and they are required to have four on-site
parking spaces and they were proposing three. The applicant has looked at
the plan and has moved some things round and now they are proposing four
parking spaces on-site and one space is four inches off the required width.
Because of the four inches they would need a parking waiver from that
standard but they do have four on-site parking spaces. Staff confirmed with
Engineering that they are approved for two curb cuts for this property. On
July 91 it was suggested that the applicant look at reducing the width of the
addition behind the historic resource a little more to be a little more
subservient to the width of the historic resource. They could research this
and bring it back for final. Staff raised concerns with the second story deck
that is located between the historic home and the new residence. We are
recommending that be removed for final review. There is space at the rear
of the historic resource and to have the deck extended back there. We are
supportive of the re-design and they are pulling architectural features from
the historic resource and they are not imitating the landmark. They have
gable roofs and forms reminiscent of what you see on the historic resource.
Staff is concerned with the roof top planter box that seems to add un-
necessary mass to the front fagade and we recommend that be relocated for
final review. Staff is supportive of the demolition and relocation. Staff
8
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION P20
MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 2014
finds that the amount of restoration and preservation proposed does warrant
the 500 square foot bonus. The re-design of the new single family home
meets the design guidelines and this is a project worthy of the bonus. The
review criteria A-F are met. A site visit occurred today to review the width
of the road and understand how the existing conditions are situated. The
applicant is requesting front yard setback variances for the historic home and
an east side-yard setback variance for the historic home. For the new home
a front yard setback variance and a west side yard setback variance are being
requested. The property is zoned such that it needs a 25 foot setback
variance in the front. This property is more wide than it is deep which in our
opinion having a historic resource on the property and trying to meet the
setback variances does not work in terms of meeting the guidelines. We
think that the solution they have proposed meets the review criteria for
granting a variance. Having a rear addition to the historic resource supports
the preservation as opposed to a side addition to the historic resource.
Having a detached single family home that absorbs most of the floor area on
the property that is available is supportive of preservation rather than having
everything attached to the side of the historic resource. Staff finds that the
review criteria are met for the variances that are being requested. The
residential design standard variance is a technical variance and has to do
with building orientation and site plan and whether or not the historic
resource is angled to the side and we feel the site plan is appropriate because
both houses are parallel. The parking variance is needed just for the width.
Staff is recommending approval with conditions.
Exhibit I—Michael Hoffman, attorney sent a letter representing four
neighbors who are opposed to the setback variances and that they also feel
there is too much development on the site.
Patrick asked staff what the allowable square footage is and what is the
applicant requesting.
Sara said they are reaching close to their maximum. The historic home
required front yard setback is 25 feet and they are proposing 7 feet. They
are also meeting the 10 foot distance between the two buildings. This zone
district requires ten feet on either side of the buildings. They are proposing
8'2" on the historic home and on the west side five feet instead of ten feet.
Patrick said the planter is on the new house. It is to separate so that there
isn't a deck on top of the garage.
9
P21 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 2014
Sara said the planter adds mass that is unnecessary.
Sara Upton and Brian Rubenstein from Rowland Broughton Architects
presented.
Sara Upton said the original massing is the historical resource with a two
story massing behind and a linking element. The new house has a gable
form that also possesses a rhythm that relates to the historic resource next
door. We were instructed to look for common elements that could be shared
between the new and the historic house.
Sara Upton said the historic house is a three bedroom with a bedroom
upstairs in the addition and two bedrooms in the basement with a linking
element on the first floor attaching to the addition.
Sara Upton said the new house is a four bedroom house with two bedrooms
on the main level, two in the basement and the upper level is the area for the
living spaces. There is a deck off the back of the house. There is a gable
roof and a 134 square foot roof deck that is separated from the remainder of
the flat roof by a planter box. The roof deck and the flat roof are in the same
plane. If we remove the planter box we are effectively removing the roof
deck because it is the planter box that creates the separation and keeps us
from having a larger roof deck than is allowable. Regarding the FAR we are
maxed out and have 24 square feet remaining. The total FAR proposed is
1855 square feet for the historic house and the new house is 2247 square
feet. We have increased the linking element to ten feet and shrunk the width
of the two story addition behind the resource by 10 1/4 inches. With regard to
the planter box it.is approximately 25 feet back from the front fagade of the
house. It is very hard to perceive the planter box from street level. The only
place you would have a great vision of it would be from a second story of
the neighbor's house. We could restudy the planter box but the end result
would be getting rid of the roof deck because we need to have a physical
separation in the roof deck and the flat roof area. We felt this was a
respectful way to create those boundaries.
Sara Upton said we are requesting the front setback variance because if we
are to restore the historic resource and place it completely within the
setbacks with the ten foot linking element that only leaves us with 2 feet to
spare in between the setbacks so it makes it difficult to take advantage of the
10
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION P 2 2
MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 2014
allowable floor area. The second item for the request of the variance is the
lot itself which is shallow. It is 91 feet wide and 76 feet deep. The third is
that the historic resource front gable volume is much longer than you
typically see anywhere else in town. If restoration and preservation of the
resource is our number one goal then we need to do that in a way to keep it
visible and allows us to have a connector link behind it so that any additional
development does not dwarf the resource. While we are requesting front
and side yard setback variances 85% of our development is taking place
within the setback and that does include the ten foot separation in between
the building. By moving the window well off the east wall and into the
courtyard where the linking element is we are managing to fit a parking
space. HPC made comments about the deck on the historic house that is
maybe not appropriate between the two houses. The deck is 46 feet back
from the historic resource so we don't feel it is in a position of prominence.
The setback encroachments are also being requested because HPC requested
that the two porches on the houses be aligned to create the street front
rhythm.
Vice-chair Willis Pember opened the public hearing.
Steve Hawk, 23 Smuggler Grove said he is representing several of the
neighbors. We do appreciate that the applicant has updated the plan to
include minimum parking and we wouldn't object to the width variance
either. The applicant said HPC is making us do this and do that. The site is
20% smaller than any other site on the road and it has always been a shallow
lot. They bought an expensive piece of property that just doesn't contain
the magnitude of what they want to do and that is the cause of the setback
variances. Another solution is don't put a program on the back of the
historical site and then you wouldn't have a setback variance problem. It is
an economic decision not an aesthetic decision. We have supported other
redevelopments over the past 25 years. The developers have the right to
make a profit but not to the detriment of the other neighbors. All the lot
owners are against the significant setback and the scale of the improvements.
We did a redevelopment and had a four foot encroachment of a corner of our
structure into the setback. When we asked we weren't allowed to put any
living space into the existing encroachment. 73 Smuggler was granted an
encroachment since the annexation. Based on the noise and activity I can't
image 7 feet from the property line. It is very clear where the property line
is and everyone has to drive by it. We need better planning and involve the
neighbors that are impacted. Just because someone owns the ground it is not
11
P23 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 2014
the city's responsibility to make it possible for developers to make a huge
profit. If approved we feel this project will be the "Aspen Art Museum" of
Smuggle Grove.
Marty Ames, 23 Smuggler Grove
Marty said he has been studying historic preservation rules to understand it
better. HPC has to make tough decisions and some might not be appreciated
by the neighbors to save and preserve the real valuable properties and
structures. On the other side this is not a contributing structure, it was
moved here to this lot from somewhere. It is a sweet old house and we
watched it be renovated four times. How do you differentiate what
concessions you give to the very valuable resources vs the non-contributing
resources and how do you make those decisions. I am opposed to the
setback. Our street is an easement and not a city street. It is 40 feet wide
instead of 60 feet wide. It is hard for me to imagine this property being ten
foot closer than it is now. It is already in the setback. It is also hard to
imagine one of the structures being 7 feet from the property line. I would
ask the UPC to consider the front setback variances of that magnitude and
perhaps suggest that the rear setback of ten feet doesn't have to be ten feet.
A previous proposal was to encroach five feet on the back. It would be
more respectful to the neighborhood and neighbors to have the setback
further back on the front.
Exhibit I—Mike Hoffman's letter
Vice-chair, Willis Pember closed the public hearing.
Sara Upton said with the HPC guidelines we are bounded by a ten foot
utility easement then that does not leave a lot of depth to create an addition
behind the house.
??????We consider two feet as a hardship. We have a shallow lot with a
connector. We think the historic resource is worth preserving. It would be
difficult to do any kind of addition without a front setback. The house is
already situated at 16 feet from the lot line. The new house is moving east
and it will be ten feet further from the Hawks. We have taken measurements
in this area and it is very normal to see from one house across the street to
another to be 70 feet. If we don't bring the historic house forward it will
have no prominence. We don't want to build a large appendage on the side
12
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION P24
MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 2014
of the historic house. We are pleading for the setback variances and they are
important to historic house.
Willis identified the issues:
Reduce the width of the addition
Remove the planter
Narrow the addition in the back of the historic property
Variance regarding setbacks
Willis said all variances are not created equal. The rules for historic
properties are different. We need to determine whether the site plan is
contributing to the character of the historic property. We are here to respect
the historic resource. On the site plan on the historic footprint there is at
least five feet in the rear of the property that is not utilized for architecture.
You can build right up to that ten foot utility easement. The applicant
should explore that. I applaud connecting the porches but there doesn't need
to be a stairwell, it could be a porch talking to a porch. There is an
opportunity to adjust and tune this in a way to have a better site plan. The
project is very close and we appreciate the input from the neighbors.
Patrick agreed that the project needs continued. I agree with staff that the
width of the second story addition behind the historic home should be
reduced further. The second story side deck on the historic home could be
moved around to the back. On the new home the roof top planter if it was
removed would only take away a deck that was 9x12 and that wouldn't be a
hardship and it would also take away the staircase. The front of the new
home could be looked at. There is also three feet in the back of the historic
home that could be looked at to pull the house back. The historic house
should also be more prominent.
John agreed with staff's comments and the commissions comments. There
maybe some way to get into that three feet in the back of the house. Maybe
the porch could encroach over the utility easement. Moving it back will not
do a disservice to the historic structure.
Willis said the FAR is fine and the bonus is achievable and it is just the
matter of fine tuning it. You need to bring back something that resonates
more with the neighborhood and the board.
13
P25 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 2014
Jim said what was presented today is quite commendable. Some issues
raised here today will fine tune the project.
MOTION: Jim made the motion to continue Conceptual Development and
the public hearing for 28 Smuggler Grove Road to September 10' to allow
the applicant and staff to make some minor adjustments and bring it back to
the board. Motion second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried.
MOTION: Jim moved to adjourn; second by Willis. Roll call vote: Jim;
yes, Patrick, yes; John, yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 4-0.
Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
14
P2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 135 E. Cooper Avenue-Minor Development, Continued Public Hearing
DATE: August 27, 2014
SUMMARY: The subject property is listed
on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark
Sites and Structures, as well as the National
Register of Historic Places. The site contains
the 1888 Dixon-Markle house, which itself is -
virtually unaltered on the exterior. A more
modified 19th century outbuilding is located
along the alley.
In 2003, HPC approved Major Development
review that entailed moving the house slightly
to the north and east of the original location,
constructing an addition along the west side
of the house, and constructing a new garage
along the alley. The project included a 500
square foot floor area bonus and setback
variances to accommodate existing and newly
created conditions. The project won a
Preservation Honor award upon completion
in 2005. a - < ' •,
The applicant is requesting Minor
_ 1 ;tiAlAllll .. . t
Development review to increase the size of
the connector between the old and new
construction, and to add a skylight to the
historic outbuilding. The modest amount of =
square footage involved in the project ,
qualifies this as Minor Development.
HPC reviewed the proposal on January 22,
2014. Staff recommended denial, finding that
the proposal did not meet the design
-_
guidelines. HPC had numerous concerns (see -
attached minutes) and continued the hearing ,,,,®nnri un�rrrni ie�arr f ` .,-
so that the applicant could restudy. _
P27
Three options have been submitted for HPC review. Staff continues to find that the work
negatively impacts the historic resources.
APPLICANT: Chris Pat Aspen LLC, represented by Haas Land Planning and Zone 4
Architects.
PARCEL ID: 2735-131-04-003.
ADDRESS: 135 E. Cooper Avenue, Lots H and I, and the easterly 5 feet of Lot G,Block 70, City
and Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: RMF,Residential Multi-Family.
MINOR DEVELOPMENT
The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows Staff reviews the submittal
materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design
guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections This report is transmitted to the
HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The
HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the
hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue
the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or
deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and
the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. Tile HPC decision
shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred(300)feet
of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316.
Staff Response: When the renovation of this house was reviewed in 2003, the applicant
requested a two story connector, which the board did not support. The connector was revised to
one story, which was approved as part of the HPC's Conceptual review decision in September
2003.
In the subsequent years, staff has had numerous conversations with the property owner about
functional concerns with the layout of the house. The owner would like a central staircase
accommodated in the connector. HPC held a worksession on this topic in 2012 and one public
hearing in January 2014.
The design guidelines that relate to this project have not changed since 2003. At the time this
project was proposed, there were many options that were possible for adding onto the house. The
floor plan was not dictated by HPC. The addition could have been one story instead of two,
bedrooms could have been grouped closer together, etc.
2
P28
Minimizing the size and height of the connector was an important issue to the HPC at the time
that Major Development was approved. It has been difficult to find a way to alter the connector
while maintaining the success of the existing project.
HPC has received three new options to discuss. Option 1 keeps the connector footprint in the
same position as it is now, with a second story added and a stair placed to the south. Option 2
leaves the connector footprint in the current position on the ground level, but adds a new
hallway/stair landing at the second floor, forward of and cantilevered above the existing
connector location. A stair is added on the south side of the corridors. Option 3 moves the
connector footprint forward of the current location, stacks a hallway/stair landing on top and adds
a stair on the south side.
Each option creates new impacts on the historic resource by removing historic materials, filling
in the current sense of openness between the new and old construction, and introducing an
sizable architectural element that is a contrasting material to the Victorian immediately next to it.
The connector currently has no visibility from the Aspen Street view of the property, but will
become apparent in the proposed options and pops above or on top of the Victorian roof.
Currently, there is a deck on top of the connector. That deck can be accessed from a door on the
east wall of the addition. Entry into the Victorian isn't possible however because there is a
historic window on that end of the deck. One compromise that might be possible in this situation
would be to allow that window to be replaced with a door, so that the two volumes of the house
are connected, even if the path is open to the elements. To staff's recollection, this was
previously not amenable to HPC, however we can support this as a reasonable modification that
still meets the design guidelines and is not inconsistent with alterations that have recently been
allowed as part of connecting new construction to a historic building. A similar condition was
approved for the project at 202 N. Monarch, the"Blue Vic."
An interior remodel that improves the layout of the home remains an option for the owner as
well.
The property is at the maximum floor area, including a 500 square foot bonus previously
awarded for outstanding preservation effort. No alterations to this project are possible unless the
applicant pennanently frees up some floor area. It has been suggested this will be accomplished
by de-commissioning the existing finished attic space in the historic house. In order to remove
that space from floor area calculations, the Zoning Officer will have to find that access to the
attic is inconvenient and the area is uninhabitable, which will require removal of an existing stair
and likely removal of all finishes in the space, for instance taking the flooring down to plywood.
Further review by Zoning would be needed prior to building permit.
The other request that is in front of HPC is a skylight on the outbuilding to create additional
natural light. This request was previously turned down by HPC because it is an out of character
element that does not meet guideline 7.3. A proposal for a more traditional window location
could be presented for HPC review.
3
P29
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
• approve the application,
• approve the application with conditions,
• disapprove the application, or
• continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the proposal be denied, finding that the
guidelines are not met.
Staff would support converting the window on the west side of the Victorian to a door to allow
an open to the air passage between the old and new construction. Review of the specific design
for this modification could be approved by staff and monitor.
Staff recommends the skylight on the outbuilding be denied, finding that the design guidelines
are not met. Review of the specific design for a window to be added to the outbuilding could be
approved by staff and monitor.
Exhibit:
Resolution# , Series of 2014
A. Design Guidelines
B. January 22, 2014 minutes
C. Application
"Exhibit A,Relevant Design Guidelines, 135 E. Cooper Avenue-Minor Review"
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.
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.
4
P30
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.
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.
10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic
building.
❑ If the roof of the historic building is symrnetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition
should be similar.
❑ Eave lines on the addition should be similar to those of the historic building or structure.
5
P31
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION(HPC)
APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMENT FOR 135 E. COOPER AVENUE, LOTS H
AND I,AND THE EASTERLY 5 FEET OF LOT G,BLOCK 70,CITY AND TOWNSITE
OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION# , SERIES OF 2014
PARCEL ID: 2735-131-04-003.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Chris Pat Aspen LLC, represented by Zone 4 Architects, requested
Minor Development approval for 135 E. Cooper Avenue, Lots H and I, and the easterly 5 feet of
Lot G,Block 70, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is a designated landmark; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Minor 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 design guidelines per Section 26.415.070.0 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 dated August 27, 2014, performed an analysis of
the application and recommended that the review standards and design guidelines were not met
for the project as proposed, but could be met with an alternative design; and
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 27, 2014, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application, found the application was not consistent with the
applicable review standards and guidelines, but could be met with an alternative design, as
described in the conditions below, by a vote of_to
NOW,THEREFORE, BE.IT RESOLVED:
That HPC approves Minor Development for the property located at 135 E. Cooper Avenue, Lots
H and 1, and the easterly 5 feet of Lot G,Block 70, City and Townsite of Aspen as follows:
The applicant may convert the window on the west side of the Victorian to a door to allow an
open to the air passage between the old and new construction. Review of the specific design for
this modification will be conducted by staff and monitor.
The applicant may add a window to the outbuilding. Review of the specific design will be
conducted by staff and monitor.
HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2014
135 E. Cooper
Page 1 of 2
P32
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 27th day of August,
2014.
Jay Maytin, Chair
Approved as to Form:
Debbie Quinn,Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2014
135 E. Cooper
Page 2 of 2
P33
Haas Land Planning, LLC
Memo
To: Ms. Amy Guthrie and the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
From: Christy Ferer, Owner of 135 East Cooper Avenue
Thru: Mitch Haas, Haas.Land Planning, LLC
Date: August 14, 2014
Re: Upcoming HPC Hearing for 135 East Cooper Avenue
Christy Ferer owns the property located at 135 East Cooper Avenue, at the
southwest corner of South Aspen Street and East Cooper Avenue, immediately
across the street from the Limelight Lodge. The 2004 renovation of her residence
was commended by the HPC with an award for outstanding preservation.
However, as previously explained, the home itself has proven very challenging for
family use. The original HPC review and approval resulted in the need to have two
staircases inside the house: one that provides access to the master bedroom located
above the addition, and another providing access to the other bedrooms on the
second floor of the historic portion of the house. Christy, family and friends have
been unhappy with the two staircases for nearly ten years, which is why she has tried
repeatedly to present more functional alternative designs and solutions for a single
staircase to unify the living spaces.
The current situation causes a physically divided family and great inconvenience for
parents being available to children as the staircases isolate the master bedroom from
the rest of the bedrooms. In essence, occupants of the children's bedrooms and the
master bedroom cannot get to one another without descending a flight of stairs,
crossing through the living room and kitchen areas, and ascending another flight of
stairs, yet the two second floor areas are less than ten feet apart. This situation is
potentially unsafe and does not allow the household to function normally. An incident
with an ill five-year-old boy served as the catalyst for the applicant's efforts to resolve
the functionality issue. Similarly, as the applicant continues to grow older the
proliferation of stairs for circulation is becoming increasingly problematic.
420 EAST MAIN STREET,SUITE 10-B•ASPEN,CO 81611• (970)925-7819•mitch @hlpaspen.com
P34
The 2004 decision to require two sets of staircases was based on the fact that a
single stair would have required consuming an additional five (5) feet of exterior wall
on the west and most visually obscured side of the historic Victorian home.
However, there is a large evergreen tree blocking the view of that wall and current
linking element from the street and the tree continues to gets larger. Furthermore,
that wall sits behind a historic, wrap-around front porch that further obscures one's
ability to see it.
Between the historic wrap-around front porch (which Ms. Ferer fully restored at her
option, i.e., voluntarily) and the aforementioned tree that continues to grow, any
expansion of the linking element along.the Victorian wall is and will become even
more obscured from view. Additionally, the neighborhood has changed enormously
with very permissive, unsympathetic structures (i.e., the Limelight Lodge
redevelopment and the Dancing Bear residences to name just two) overshadowing
this house that the applicant worked so hard to restore. In comparison, the proposed
corrective remodel seems like a small and reasonable request.
As part of the Purpose and Intent of Historic Preservation in Aspen, as outlined in
Chapter 26.415 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the following is stated;
The City does not intend by the historic preservation program to
preserve every old building, but instead to draw a reasonable balance
between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the
City's cultural, historic, and architectural heritage. [Emphasis added.]
While the remodel was awarded a commendation from the HPC, it fails to meet the
Purpose and Intent of the City's Historic Preservation program inasmuch as the
resulting home fails to "draw a reasonable balance between private property rights
and the public interest in preserving the City's cultural, historic, and architectural
heritage." While the applicant initially agreed to restore the property per the original
approvals, there was a lack of awareness of the practical reality of what that design
decision entailed. Although it was initially felt that the solution would work, it quickly
became apparent that there were severe impacts to the livability of the project, and
the applicant has now been trapped for the last ten years in a dysfunctional scenario.
The three design alternatives provided with this application propose solutions that we
believe will at last achieve the reasonable balance of the private property rights to
enjoy the use of a property in a manner that functions adequately for its intended
purpose while meeting the City's desire to preserve its cultural, historic, and
architectural heritage. Furthermore all of the proposed design solutions will serve the
purpose of better delineating the recent addition from the historic resource, by
creating a connection that is clearly of a more modern time.
As a planning consultant who has been involved with many historic preservation
efforts in the City, I have consistently highlighted the benefits of historic designation to
my clients and counseled anyone willing to listen that they should welcome
Page 2
P35
designation of their properties. However, historic designation should not handcuff a
property owner to a building plan that does not function in a manner that can be
considered reasonable and typical. If a reasonable balance between the private
property owner's rights and the City's preservation interests cannot be achieved, it
becomes far more difficult to confidently advise other property owners to voluntarily
designate their homes.
The applicant has previously brought in several potential design solutions to fix this
problem, and all have been met with resistance from the HPC due to the degree of
disturbance to the historic resource. Taking that into consideration, we are
submitting the attached designs, which notably minimize the degree of disturbance to
what is functionally necessary. Unfortunately, it is impossible to make the design of
the home and addition work together without some minor alterations to the resource.
Furthermore, the proposed changes will barely be visible from Cooper Avenue.
It should be noted that outstanding historic preservation efforts clearly distinguish the
old from the new. This home, as it now stands, does not do this. As viewed from
both South Aspen Street and Cooper Avenue, it is difficult to tell where the historic
structure ends and the new construction begins; they are simply too similar in design,
color, massing and scale. The proposed linking element will greatly help to improve
the distinction between old and new from both streets, thereby enhancing the
historic preservation effort on this award-winning property. None of the three
currently proposed design alternatives are ideal for the property owner, but we are
trying to strike a balance between the applicant's property rights and the City's
interest in protecting historic properties.
We feel our proposed solutions will create a sensitive, barely visible and
sympathetically designed link where glass will be used to create as transparent of a
link between the old and the new as is practicable. At the same time, the change will
allow a single staircase to unite the family living inside this house. At last, harmony
between form and function will be achieved through the reasonable balancing of
interests.
We thank you for your consideration.
Page 3
P36
- - - - ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 22 2014
Sallie said because of the architectural integrity of this house anything fixed
on the window could be uglier than what is there now.
Jay said he had a hard time figuring out the windows.
Nora asked about the proposed north window.
Willis said his only concern is the north windows. Maybe staff and monitor
can address the north window. Sallie agreed.
Kate said we are open to suggestions on the north window. We are not
architects.
Jay said all the APCHA properties should be identified that have an historic
overlay on them.
MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #4 for 947 E. Cooper
approving the French doors installed on the south deck; approve the already
installed upper south and west windows; applicant to submit revisions to the
proposed ground floor north windows to be reviewed and approved by staff
and monitor and moving the three windows from north to east is approved as
shown in the drawing. Motion second by Sallie.
Roll call vote: Sallie, yes; Nora, yes; Willis, yes; Patrick,yes; Jay, yes.
Motion carried 5-0.
135 E. Cooper—Minor, Development—Public Hearing
Dylan Johns, Zone4architects
Mitch Haas, Haas Planning
Amy said this is a landmark property and on the National Register. There is
an 1888 Victorian on the site and an out building along the alley that is about
the same vintage. In 2003 the house was allowed to be picked up and
moved slightly closer to the corner and there was an addition made to the
west side with a one-story link between the new and old and some
construction to the out building and garage on the alley. The application is
to increase the size of the connector because it is causing circulation
problems with the living spaces. Staff finds that changing the connector to a
two story.connector does not meet the guidelines. When this was approved
5
P37
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
.MINUTES_OF JANUARY 22, 2014
by HPC they allowed the new and old to be closer together than the ten foot
distance that is required. By turning this into a two story element and a
much larger connecting element it is really taking away from the success of
the project and not complying with the guidelines. They are at the max for
FAR and might have to alter the attic. The proposal diminishes the
distinction between new and old and it covers up four historic windows in
the large section of the west facing wall of the Victorian house. A skylight
is also being requested on the historic carriage house on the alley. The
skylight would be on the west facing slope and it would not be very visible.
Our recommendation has always been to use traditional windows to bring in
natural light in instead of incompatible skylights placed on a roof of an
historic building. Staff is recommending denial of the project.
Dylan Johns, Zone 4 architects
Mitch Haas, Haas Planning
Mitch said the historic house sits on the corner and the addition done in 2003
is to the side of the house, on the west side. The connecting element is 7 feet
instead of 10 feet. In 2003 the house got an award for the preservation
efforts. The biggest problem with the house is the function and flow of the
house. You have two two-story houses with a one-story connecting element.
If you are upstairs in the master bedroom of the new addition you have to go
down the stairs and across the house and back up the stairs to get to the other
bedrooms. The house is often used as a rental house by the owner. The
owner has tried different ways to make this work so it can function well so
that the form will follow the function. In 2012 there was a work session and
it was discussed making the linking element a two-story glass box. It is hard
to tell if the existing link is historic or added on. The proposal now is
similar to what was presented at the work session. The linking element
provides a hallway to get from one side of the house to the other. The
guidelines encourage owners to rehabilitate their historic homes and to
coincide with historic preservation. At the same time the guidelines are not
intended to result in dysfunctional homes where the livability of the home
gets compromised and the form doesn't follow the function. The guidelines
seek to balance the concerns with providing a product at the end of the day
that someone can be happy with and live with and provides incentives as a
way to get there. Guideline 10.7 talks about linking elements and it says
one-story elements are preferred but it doesn't say a one-story is required. I
would say the existing connector is not proportional. It is small and makes it
confusing as to what is old.and new on this building. The proposed
6
P38
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 22, 2014
connector sits below the eave lines and made to be fully transparent. We
feel guideline 10.3 and 10.4 are met. The length of the connector will still
be 7 feet and it has been pulled forward to have some space in front of the
stairway and open up the floor plan. We could pull the front curtain wall
back three feet and in doing so preserve another window on the ground
floor. The accessory dwelling unit is lived in and it is.dark inside and the
windows on the outbuilding are small. The skylight would be a better
solution than proposing punching in new windows in the side of the
building. If windows are preferable we could do that. On the west fagade it
is blistering and we could put a window there because it needs repaired.
Dylan Johns said they met with the zoning officer to determine the floor area
calculations.
Jay said destroying historic fabrics is a concern of this board. This project as
proposed would remove 4'original windows and a considerable amount of a
wall. Jay asked how you justify removing the historic fabric.
Mitch said part of it is the lack of visibility. There is no other way to do the
connector. The function of the house is not there.
Willis asked why it is dysfunctional. Is it because the master bedroom
occupants have to go down stairs to visit the regular bedrooms.
Mitch said there is no flow to get to the living space. None of the stairs can
stack and there are three sets of stairs in this house and they don't stack with
one another. It is the intent to stack everything in one central corridor. The
central stair will give us the ability to eliminate two sets of stairs. The
dysfunction is mainly the lower level.
Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. There were no public
comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed.
Jay identified the issues.
Jay said the house has been built there for 11 years and it has been
functioning. The flow should not enter as part of the decision. We need as
a board to focus on our guidelines. The two-story linking element is an issue
and the destruction of the historic fabric.
7
P39
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 22 2014
Sallie said everyone was opposed to the skylight in the cabin at the work
session. The connector is a nice design and it is transparent but it is not
applicable to our charge as a commission and it doesn't fit the guidelines.
Nora said she is opposed to the skylight and the applicant needs to figure out
a way not to destroy three windows and the.wall of the Victorian. This
building is on the National Register and won an HPC award. The wall of the
house should not be disrupted and I echo staff s concerns in her memo.
Willis agreed with Nora that the existing fabric needs to be unaltered and the
connector should be transparent. The roof should be glass.
Patrick said he agrees with staff's memo that guideline 10.3, 10.7, 10,8,
10.9, 10.10, 10.11 and 10.14 are not met and the skylight is not appropriate.
We are happy to do something as long as the historic fabric is not destroyed.
Staff noted that there are other options such as interior remodels to address
the concerns of the layout of the living space.
Jay said it is not appropriate to destroy any more historic fabric. From what
I understand you can't do this project without destroying three historic
windows and part of the historic house. I would be interested to see if there
is a solution that the applicant can come up with to solve their flow problems
and not touch the house. If there was ten feet between the house and
addition you could have probably fit the glass box in there without touching
the historic fabric. The linking element has some positive things to it.
Sallie said the siding should be repaired on the shed.
Mitch said hopefully we can continue this and look at other options and if I
can get success convincing my client that she should leave the stairs where
they are and work with the connecting link. We would probably come back
with a window rather than a skylight.
Nora also suggested an internal remodel so that you are not touching the
historic resource.
Dylan Johns said the eave line is rather low.
Mitch said an obvious solution would be a smaller link. Could we keep
walls and windows inside a linking element with some kind of condition or
8
P40
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 22, 2014
agreement that those are still under HPC purview. They would still be
retrievable.
Willis said if your preserve the interior surfaces and the windows and made
it more transparent so that you could see in and see the historic fabric that
would work for me.
Nora asked what Willis suggestion would do to the integrity of the historic
resource and the integrity of the board.
Amy said HPC traditionally does not review interiors and it would be
difficult to monitor the inside of a building.
Sallie said we would be setting a precedent. I have seen a lot of houses like
this. I like the idea of taking away the connector and putting in a glass
connector but making it one-story. It doesn't solve getting from the master
bedroom to the other bedrooms.
Sallie said HPC has a problem with people being able to walk across their
connector or putting a hot tub on top of their connector.
MOTION: Jays moved to continue 135 E. Cooper to April 91, second by
Sallie. All in favor, motion carried.
Patrick said he would rather they come back with a new proposal.
MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Sallie. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 7.30 p.m.
Work Session —Main Street cross walk lighting
No- minutes
C )
Kathleen J. 3(trickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
9
P42
A* N.�w
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 549 Race Alley, Lot 5, Fox Crossing Subdivision and Lot 4, Fox Crossing
Subdivision- Final Major Development, Relocation, Setback Variance- PUBLIC
HEARING
DATE: August 27, 2014
SUMMARY: 549 Race Alley is a `
6,016 square foot lot that contains a
Victorian home in very unaltered,
but also very deteriorated, condition. 1
According to Planning Office files, _$
the house has been vacant for
approximately 50 years, possibly
longer. _
This Victorian was one of the few
buildings on the property that was }. ,
assembled to develop the Fox s
Crossing Subdivision beginning � � �-
approximately 10 years ago. r, -
Construction of new homes on the
vacant lots in the subdivision tookj3
priority, and the economic downturn - —' `
left the developer unable to complete
an approved restoration and remodel
of this house. Staff required stabilization and protection efforts be undertaken in 2006, due to
concerns with "demolition by neglect." The building was studied and documented by a wood
scientist who specializes in historic structures. A temporary roof was built spanning overtop of the
house, along with other measures to secure the building. Preservation staff and the Chief Building
Official have visited the house several times over the last few years.
The property is under contract to a buyer who wishes to lift the Victorian, set it on a new basement,
rehabilitate the building and construct an addition. HPC granted Conceptual approval for the
project on December 13, 2013. Final review is requested, along with a setback variance related to a
porch on the proposed addition.
The applicant also requests an amendment to the temporary relocation plan that was approved in
December.
1
P43
APPLICANT: Lot 5: Race Alley LLC, represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects. Lot 4: Fox
Crossing Properties,LLC,represented by Neiley and Alder Attorneys.
PARCEL ID: Lot 4: 2737-073-92-004, Lot 5: 2737-073-92-005.
ADDRESS: 549 Race Alley, Lot 5, Fox Crossing Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado and Lot 4,Fox Crossing Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R-6.
FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
Major Development is a two-step process requiring HPC approval 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.".
Victorian structure F
The Victorian house is in very poor repair and
will require special effort to restore the original _ � -
features.
Several years ago, a wood scientist completed
an assessment of this building, making
recominendations that need to be 1
accommodated in a preservation plan that will
be reviewed by staff prior to building permit
submittal. All materials on this home, except
for the existing roofing, need to be restored to
the greatest extent possible. Determinations of
what materials cannot be salvaged will be
made with staff, in the field, during
construction. The application does not
indicate an intention to replace any elements, -
such as windows or doors. This will need to —'
be clarified. Most features, including original =-r"
screen doors, porch columns, etc, as seen at 4.
z F�
right, are existing. Some features are missing 4 a `
or very deteriorated, such as the original -
w.
chimney. All of these elements will need to be
addressed in greater detail prior to permit.
P44
The application does include requests to
replace two existing material treatments;
the foundation and the roof. The existing
building has a "skirt" of vertical boards at
the foundation level, covering the floor --
structure, as seen at the right. ,b
r _
A
1`
r,{
i7 kv
The house will be set on a new concrete
foundation. The architect proposes that the : t
exposed foundation be board formed concrete, to
replicate the concept of the existing foundation f
treatment without having wood installed at the ? y
ground level. The image to the right shows what
that option would look like. Staff finds that this is �zt
a creative way to reflect the original design,
,however we recommend the historic material be
re-used and/or replicated. The board formed - 3 s
concrete may introduce a modern character to the r 1A
F
base of the building, which is not desirable.
The original roof material was wood shingle, which was covered early in the 20th century with a
colored asphalt. The applicant would like to propose a composite shingle roof, which is a
cementitious product which is used somewhat frequently in new construction. Staff recommends
against this product on the historic resource. HPC has only allowed it on new construction, such
as the new affordable housing structures at the 518 W. Main Street project.
This property has a unique condition in that there is no street at the front of the house. Street
access is at the rear of the property. .As a result, it is understood that a primary entrance into the
home will be located there. However, direct entry into the Victorian is an important issue. The
house has three doors located under the original porches. At least one door at the front porch
must be fully functional and operable,not blocked by interior modifications.
3
P45
New Addition
The form of the new addition is the same as it was at Conceptual approval, except that a porch
overhang has been increased along the south elevation, sheltering the path to the new entry door.
The overhang appears to require a setback variance, addressed below.
In general, staff finds that the addition meets the Final design guidelines, with the exception of
the windows. There is some inconsistency in the character of the windows,which contrasts with
the uniform layout of the windows in the Victorian. The new addition has some "traditional"
windows with mullions, some modern windows which are placed at the corners, some that are
inset from the corners, and some that are horizontally oriented. Staff recommends a restudy of
this topic,to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor prior to building permit.
Lighting
Staff finds that the proposed lighting meets the design guidelines. Appropriate fixtures for the
historic resource is always a challenging topic. We have no photographs that indicate what early
lights on homes looked like. Early in the 20th century, simple"jelly jar" lights seem to have been
typical. The fixture proposed for this Victorian is a good interpretation of that traditional light,
but will not meet current lighting code because the bulb is fully exposed to view. HPC could
make an exception on a historic basis, or the applicant may be able to modify the fixture by
frosting the glass, etc.
Landscape
Staff has numerous concerns with the landscape plan immediately surrounding the Victorian.
Frequently, applicants are asking to defer the landscape plan until later in construction. Staff
does not recommend continuing this project due to the plan that has been shown, but we
recommend revisions prior to any installation. HPC is primarily concerned with walls, fences,
hardscape, trees and large shrubs, not gardens per se. There are two landscape options in the
packet. Staff recommends HPC require that the front pathway lead directly onto the front porch
of the Victorian and not into the sideyard. Staff recommends all trees and shrubs be specifically
identified and that these elements not be allowed to block views of the Victorian.
We have a concern with what appears to be a re-grading of the site. Although the Victorian will
retain a similar relationship to grade as it has now (i.e. 2 steps up to the front porch), it appears
the grade of the entire site is being raised as much as two feet from the existing condition,
necessitating retaining walls that do not exist now. A full explanation of this issue needs to be
provided at Final review. The retaining walls and fence as proposed are out of character with the
rural and informal nature of this site. All stone used at the front of the property should be native,
such as sandstone, or possibly concrete,which is at least neutral in character and color.
4
P46
RELOCATION
The intent of this Chapter is to preserve designated,historic properties in their original locations
as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical relationship to their
surroundings as well as their association with events and people with ties to particular site.
However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a property may be appropriate as it
provides an alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that
make it significant.
The following standards apply for relocating a historic property as per Section 26.415.090.0 of
the Municipal Code:
C. Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties
Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it
meets any one of the following standards:
1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation
will not affect the character of the historic district; or
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on
which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic
district or property; or
3.The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method
given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move
will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was
originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of
adjacent designated properties; and
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of 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.
Staff Response: At Conceptual, HPC approved temporary relocation of the Victorian onto the lot
to the north of the subject site (onto Lot 4) while the new basement for this project is excavated.
HPC also approved relocation of a 1960s era cabin that sits directly behind the Victorian, to the
south of the site (onto Lot 6), where it will eventually be renovated along with an identical
structure. That relocation plan actually required both log cabins, the one that is currently on Lot 6
and the one that is to be moved onto Lot 6)to be temporarily lifted so they could both fit on the site.
Staff suggested a larger than typical amount of money be posted to ensure that the log cabins would
be properly protected and put on pennanent foundations as soon as possible.
The applicant wishes to amend the plan so that both the Victorian and one log cabin move onto Lot
4 temporarily. The log cabin on Lot 6 remains where it is for now. Staff supports this plan and
believes that the standard insurance of $30,000 per relocated building will be acceptable. The
5
P47
property owner responsible for the log cabin wishes to roll some existing funds the City has on hold
into this purpose,which can be addressed at a staff level.
SETBACK VARIANCE
In granting a variance,the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district;
and/or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic
district.
Staff Response: This area of the R-6 zone district has a greater sideyard setback requirement
than the West End, where most R-6 lots are located. The minimum sideyard here is 10' on each
side, 20' combined.
At Conceptual, HPC granted a north sideyard setback reduction of 5', and a combined sideyard
setback reduction of 5'. The applicant requests the south sideyard and combined sideyard be
reduced by another l'6' to accommodate a porch overhang. Staff does not find that this meets a
preservation purpose and does not recommend the variance be granted. The applicant can work
with the Zoning Officer to determine whether the setback exceptions that are available for all
projects can in any way accommodate their goal without a variance.
The HPC may:
a approve the application,
a approve the application with conditions,
a disapprove the application, or
a continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff reconunends that HPC approve the application with the
following conditions:
1. Provide a preservation plan detailing the proposed treatment of all existing and missing
materials and features, for review and approval by staff,prior to building permit.
2. Replicate the vertical wood treatment at the foundation of the Victorian.
3. Use wood or asphalt shingles as the roof material on the Victorian. All flashing and any
gutters shall be galvanized, or lead coated copper.
4. Maintain at least one of the front doors on the Victorian porch as fully functional and
operable.
5. Restudy the window design on the new addition, for review and approval by staff and
monitor.
6
P48
6. Determine if the proposed sconce for the Victorian can be modified to meet the lighting
code.
7. Clarify the proposed alteration to natural grade on the site at the HPC meeting. Maintain
existing grade as closely as possible.
8. Provide a restudy of the landscape plan for review and approval by staff and monitor prior
to installation.
9. The revised relocation plan is approved. A security of$30,000 for the Victorian and the
log cabin will be required at building permit, along with information about the bracing
and protection of the structures while they are stored.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Guidelines
B. Application
Exhibit A, Final Guidelines,549 Race Alley
1.2 A new replacement fence should use materials that appear similar to that of the
original.
❑ Any fence which is visible from a public right-of-way must be built of wood or wrought iron.
Wire fences also may be considered.
❑ A wood picket fence is an appropriate replacement in most locations. A simple wire or metal
fence, similar to traditional "wrought iron," also maybe considered.
❑ Chain link is prohibited and solid "stockade" fences are only allowed in side and rear yards.
1.3 A new replacement fence should have a "transparent" quality allowing views into the
yard from the street.
❑ A fence that defines a front yard is usually low to the ground and "transparent" in nature.
❑ On residential properties, a fence which is located forward of the front building facade may
not be taller than 42" from natural grade. (For additional information, see the City of Aspen's
"Residential Design Standards".)
❑ A privacy fence may be used in back yards and along alleys, but not forward of the front
facade of a building.
❑ Note that using no fencing at all is often the best approach.
7
P49
❑ Contemporary interpretations of traditional fences should be compatible with the historic
context.
1.4 New fence components should be similar in scale with those seen traditionally.
❑ Fence columns or piers should be proportionall to the fence segment.
1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a
rehabilitation project.
❑ This includes.a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding
along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in the
"private" spaces beyond.
❑ Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering
walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree.
❑ Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style.
Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles.
1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic
structures.
❑ The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod,
and not covered with paving, for example.
1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and
shrubs.
❑ Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of
damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department.
❑ If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a
large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project.
1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs.
❑ Retaining historic planting beds, landscape features and walkways is encouraged.
1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context
of the site.
❑ Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact
of mature growth.
❑ Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent.
8
P50
❑ Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials.
1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are
inappropriate.
❑ Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer than
the mature canopy size.
❑ Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural features or
block views to the building.
❑ It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard.
1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting.
❑ Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on
walks and entries,rather than up into trees and onto facade planes.
2.1 Preserve original building materials.
❑ Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place.
❑ Only remove siding which is deteriorated and must be replaced.
❑ Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices,pediments,
steps and foundations, should be preserved.
❑ Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired. Reconstruction
may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity.
2.2 Protect wood features from deterioration.
❑ Provide proper drainage and ventilation to minimize rot.
❑ Maintain protective coatings to retard drying and ultraviolet damage.
2.3 Plan repainting carefully.
❑ Always prepare a good substrate. Prior to painting, remove damaged or deteriorated paint
only to the next intact layer, using the gentlest means possible.
❑ Use compatible paints. Some latex paints will not bond well to earlier oil-based paints
without a primer coat.
2.4 Brick or stone that was not painted historically should not be painted.
❑ Masonry naturally has a water-protective layer, or patina, to protect it from the elements.
9
P51
2.5 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing-in, consolidating
or otherwise reinforcing the material.
❑ Avoid the removal of damaged materials that can be repaired.
❑ Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins
may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be used.
2.7 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials
on primary surfaces.
❑ If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then the replacement material must
be wood as well. It should match the original in size,the amount of exposed lap and finish.
❑ Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only
those should be replaced,not the entire wall.
2.8 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for primary building materials.
❑ In some instances, substitute materials may be used for replacing architectural details, but
doing so is not encouraged. If it is necessary to use a new material, such as a fiberglass
column, the style and detail should precisely match that of the historic model.
❑ Primary building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced with
synthetic materials.
❑ Synthetic materials include: aluminum, vinyl siding and panelized brick.
❑ EIFS (synthetic stucco) is not an appropriate replacement for real stucco.
3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window.
❑ Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions,
sills,heads,jambs,moldings, operation and groupings of windows.
❑ Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them, whenever conditions permit.
❑ Preserve the original glass, when feasible.
3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy conservation rather than to replace a historic
window.
❑ Install a storm window on the interior, when feasible. This will allow the character of the
original window to be seen from the public way.
10
P52
❑ If a storm window is to be installed on the exterior, match the sash design and material of the
original window. It should fit tightly within the window opening without the need for sub-
frames or panning around the perimeter.
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.
4.3 When a historic door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic
appearance.
❑ For additional information see Chapter 14: General Guidelines "On-Going Maintenance of
Historic Properties".
4.6 If energy conservation and heat loss are concerns, consider using a storm door
instead of replacing a historic entry door.
❑ Generally, wood storm doors are most appropriate when the original door is wood.
❑ If a storm door is to be installed, match the frame design, character and color of the original
door.
5.1 Preserve an original porch.
❑ Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions and
spacing of balusters when replacing missing ones.
❑ Unless used historically on the property, wrought iron, especially the "licorice stick" style that
emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, is inappropriate.
❑ Expanding the size of a historic porch is inappropriate.
6.1 Preserve significant architectural features.
❑ Repair only those features that are deteriorated.
11
P53
❑ Patch, piece-in, splice, consolidate or otherwise upgrade the existing material, using
recognized preservation methods whenever possible.
❑ Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins
may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be used.
❑ Removing a damaged feature when it can be repaired is inappropriate.
6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods
that minimize damage to the original material.
❑ Document its location so it may be repositioned accurately. Always devise methods of
replacing the disassembled material in its original configuration.
6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced.
• Match the original in composition, scale, and finish when replacing materials or features.
• If the original detail was made of wood , for example, then the replacement material should
be wood, when feasible. It should match the original in size and finish, which traditionally .
was a smooth painted finish.
6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features should be based on original
designs.
❑ The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a
misrepresentation of the building's heritage.
❑ When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence,
develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and
maintains similar scale,proportion and material.
6.5 Do not guess at "historic" designs for replacement parts.
❑ Where "scars" on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other
physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in
character to related buildings.
• Using overly ornate materials on a building for which there is no documentation is
inappropriate.
• It is acceptable to use salvaged materials from other buildings only if they are similar in style
and detailing to other features on the building where they are to be installed.
6.6 Replacement of missing elements may be included in repair activities.
12
P54
❑ Replace only those portions that are beyond repair.
❑ Replacement elements should be based on documented evidence.
❑ Use the same kind of material as the original when feasible.
❑ A substitute material may be acceptable if the form and design of the substitute itself conveys
the visual appearance of the original material. For example, a fiberglass cornice may be
considered at the top of a building.
7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional.
7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to
those used traditionally.
❑ Replacement materials should be similar to those used historically on comparably styled
buildings.
❑ If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and
have a matte, non-reflective finish.
❑ Flashing should be in scale with the roof material.
❑ If copper flashing is to be used, it should be treated to establish a matte,non-reflective finish.
7.10 If it is to be used, a metal roof should be applied and detailed in a manner that is
compatible and does not detract from the historic appearance of the building.
❑ A metal roof material should have an earth tone and have a matte,non-reflective finish.
❑ A metal roof with a lead-like patina also is an acceptable alternative.
❑ Seams should be of a low profile.
❑ A roof assembly with a high profile seam or thick edge is inappropriate.
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.
13
P55
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.
10.11 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.
14
P56
❑ 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.
14.8 Minimize the visual impact of light spill from a building.
❑ Prevent glare onto adjacent properties by using shielded and focused light sources that direct
light onto the ground. The use of downlights, with the bulb fully enclosed within the shade,
or step lights which direct light only on to walkways,is strongly encouraged.
❑ Lighting shall be carefully located so as not to shine into residential living space, on or off the
property or into public rights-of-way.
14.10 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing-in,
consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the material.
❑ Avoid the removal of damaged materials that can be repaired.
❑ Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins
may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be used.
14.11 Plan repainting carefully.
❑ Note that frequent repainting of trim materials may cause a buildup of paint layers that
obscures architectural details. When this occurs, consider stripping paint layers to retrieve
details. However, if stripping is necessary, use the gentlest means possible, being careful not
to damage architectural details and finishes.
❑ Remember good preparation is key to successful repainting but also the buildup of old paint
is an important historic record of the building. The removal of old paint, by the gentlest
means possible, should be undertaken only if necessary to the success of the repainting.
Remember that old paint is of very good quality and is enviable in today's painting world.
❑ Old paint may contain lead. Precautions should be taken when sanding or scraping is
necessary.
14.12 Provide a weather-protective finish to wood surfaces.
• The rustic bare-wood look is not a part of the heritage of the historic districts or individual
landmark properties.
• Painted surfaces are most appropriate. Stains may be accepted in combination with materials
that give a well-finished appearance. Use water seal to preserve the porch deck.
• Rustic finishes will not be approved.
15
P57
14.13 Leave natural masonry colors unpainted where feasible.
❑ Where the natural colors of building materials exist, such as with stone or brick, they should
be left unpainted.
❑ For other parts of the building that require painting, select colors that will complement those
of the natural materials.
❑ If an existing building is already painted, consider applying new colors that simulate the
original brick color.
❑ It is also appropriate to strip the paint from a masonry building to expose the natural color of
the stone or brick.
14.14 Minimize the visual impacts of service areas as seen from the street.
❑ When it is feasible, screen service areas from view, especially those associated with
commercial and multifamily developments.
❑ This includes locations for trash containers and loading docks.
❑ Service areas should be accessed off of the alley, if one exists.
14.16 Locate standpipes, meters and other service equipment such that they will not
damage historic facade materials.
❑ Cutting channels into historic facade materials damages the historic building fabric and is
inappropriate. Do not locate equipment on the front facade.
❑ If a channel must be cut, either locate it on a secondary facade, or place it low on the wall.
16
P58
MEMORANDUM.
TO: Amy Simon, City of Aspen Historic Preservation
FROM: Richard Y. Neiley, Jr.;Neiley Law firm
RE: Fox Crossing Properties, LLC—Relocation of Line Cabin from Lot 6 to
Temporary Storage on Lot 4, Fox Crossing PUD
DATE: July 29, 2014
We represent Fox Crossing Properties, LLC, the owner of Lots 4, 5 and 6 Fox Crossing
Subdivision.
As set out in HPC Resolution No. 35, Series of 2013, Fox Crossing Properties, LLC
proposes to temporarily relocate the Victorian house and a "line shack" currently located on
Lot 5, which is under contract to be sold for the redevelopment of the Victorian house. The
contract purchaser of Lot 5, John Morton, will take responsibility for the relocation of the
Victorian house. Our client will be responsible for the relocation of the line shack.
The Victorian house on Lot 5 will be temporarily relocated as part of the approved
redevelopment plan for that lot while a new foundation is constructed on Lot 5. Fox Crossing
Properties, LLC has agreed the Victorian house may temporarily be located on Lot 4 during
construction of the foundation.
The line shack located on Lot 5 must be relocated temporarily so that the redevelopment
of that lot can occur. This line shack will ultimately be moved to Lot 6 once that lot is
redeveloped, with the approval of HPC and City staff. Under Resolution No. 35, the HPC
determined that the financial security for the relocation of the line .shack would be
"approximately three times the standard requirement of $30,000.00 per building." The
Resolution goes on to say "The exact dollar amount and the wording of the performance
requirements, will be reviewed by HPC staff and City Attorney staff, and approved by HPC at
Final review."
Resolution No. 35 anticipated that it might be necessary to move both of the line shacks,
the one located on Lot 5, as well as the one located on Lot 6. This will not be necessary for the
redevelopment of Lot 5. Only the line shack currently located on Lot 5 will be temporarily
relocated to Lot 4. The line shack located on Lot 6 will not be removed at this time and will
continue to be occupied.
Per Resolution No. 35, the specific plans related to the relocation of the line shack must
be provided at the time of building permit application for the relocation. Resolution No. 35
states: "The owner of Lot 6 must also provide a relocation plan detailing how and where the
cabins will be stored and protected during construction as part of a building permit application
1
P59
for the relocation work . . . ." Thus, the detailed proposal for relocation of the line shack is not
required to be submitted to the City until building permit application.
Finally, Resolution No. 35 recognizes that Fox Crossing Properties, LLC will have a
period of up to three (3) years from the date of the issuance of the relocation permit for the line
shack within which to initiate the "approved redevelopment plan (HPC Resolution No. 5, Series
of 2009)."
The.procedure for obtaining approval to relocate the line shack and the timeframe within
which that must be accomplished and the redevelopment initiated have already been established
by the HPC under Resolution No. 35, Section 7. Fox Crossing Properties, LLC is in agreement
with the procedures and timeframe. It is not, however, in agreement with the amount of financial
security requested.
The City of Aspen is currently holding three (3) separate funds to insure performance of
the infrastructure obligations associated with the development of the Fox Crossing Subdivision.
These are:
• The $100,000.00 deposit received by the City at the time of initial Subdivision
approval, which was to be used for either the City's development of the Aley/Spruce Park, or
should the money not be spent on that park, for the development of the Fox Meadow Park within
Fox Crossing PUD (the fund was not used for Aley/Spruce Park and the Fox Meadow Park is
completed but the City still holds this fund);
• $18,600.00, representing the balance of the $186,750.00 fund deposited under the
June 16, 2005 Subdivision Agreement for Fox Crossing Subdivision; and
• $186,750.00 deposited in connection with the Insubstantial Amendment of
Subdivision Agreement for Fox Crossing Subdivision dated March 27, 2012.
All of the infrastructure requirements under the Subdivision Agreement and the
Insubstantial Amendment for Fox Crossing Subdivision have been completed and accepted by
the City with the exception of a short section of the paved trail between the Fox Meadow Park
and Race Street. This section of the trail has been constructed as a temporary connection with a
crusher fines surface on Lot 4. The final location as depicted on the Plat is along the south side
of Lot 3. However, Lot 3 is owned by a third party, who is currently developing a single-family
residence. Until the residence is completed, it is not possible to complete the extension of the
trail on Lot 3. This is a matter out of the control of Fox Crossing Properties, LLC. The owner of
Lot 3 is processing a redevelopment permit for that property, which has already been improved
with a foundation.
The cost of completing.construction of the trail is estimated by the City to be $15,000.00
with which Fox Crossing Properties, LLC agrees.
At the present time, the City of Aspen is holding over $300,000.00 of Fox Crossing
Properties' money and our client proposes that a portion of this fund be used as financial security
2
P60
for the relocation of the Lot 5 line shack. We have met with Assistant City Attorney Debbie
Quinn to discuss this proposal and will follow up with her and Trish Aragon to confirm that this
proposal is acceptable to the City. We hope to have this fully agreed and documented in advance
of the August 27, 2014 HPC meeting.
We believe that requiring a deposit of $90,000.00 in connection with the relocation of
one line shack is excessive and punitive. The subdivision approvals did not impose on the
property owner a specific timeframe within which the redevelopment of the line shacks was to be
accomplished. Fox Crossing Properties, LLC is not the original developer, but acquired the
property in a partially-developed state and completed all required subdivision improvements as
expeditiously as reasonably possible. The line shacks have been occupied during this time and
are properly maintained and not deteriorating.
The downturn in the real estate market in 2008 created significant challenges for this
project. Nonetheless, Fox Crossing Properties, LLC has, in good faith, fulfilled its obligations
and has now found a purchaser willing to undertake the daunting task of redeveloping the
Victorian house on Lot 5.
While we acknowledge that a reasonable degree of financial security may be appropriate
in connection with the temporary relocation of the line shack, we see no reason why Fox
Crossing Properties should be treated any differently than any other property owner. However,
in recognition of the desire of the HPC staff to encourage the final redevelopment of the line
shacks, Fox Crossing Properties would consent to financial security of $45,000.00, or one and
one-half times the amount typically required of other property owners.
We have obtained a bid for the relocation of the line shack from Lot 5 to Lot 4 of
approximately $14,000 which will be paid at the time of relocation. The line shack will be
placed on level blocks on Lot 4 and will require no more maintenance than presently is necessary
in its current location. We believe that financial security of$45,000.00 is more than adequate to
insure that the process to move the line shack to a permanent location on Lot 6 is initiated within
the timeframe established by HPC. Fox Crossing Properties, LLC has not yet determined the
final re-development plan for Lot 6 but that planning is currently underway.
With respect to using a portion of the Completion Fund as security in connection with the
temporary relocation of the line shack, we have proposed to the City Attorney a Second
Insubstantial Amendment to the Subdivision Agreement recognizing that the existing fund may
be used to the extent required by the HPC for financial security for the temporary relocation of
the line shack. Since the Completion Fund is intended as security for the ultimate performance
of the subdivision improvements, it is appropriate that the amount of that fund bear a reasonable
relationship to the cost of outstanding work to be performed. We believe that the Second
Insubstantial Amendment to the Subdivision Agreement can be accomplished in advance of the
August 27, 2014, HPC meeting.
Submitted herewith is a plan depicting the existing conditions on Lot 5 and the proposed
relocation of the structures to Lot 4.
3
Janice K. Vos Caudill , Pitkin County, CO
P61
INSUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT OF SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
FOR FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION
This Insubstantial Amendment of Subdivision Agreement for Fox Crossing Subdivision (this
"Insubstantial Amendment") is made and entered into the 27th day of March, 2012, by and between the
City of Aspen, Colorado, a municipal corporation (the "City"), and Fox Crossing Properties, LLC, a
Colorado limited liability company ("FCP"), for the purposes recited herein.
RECITALS
A. The City and Walnut Property, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, entered into that
certain Subdivision Agreement for Fox Crossing Subdivision (the "Original Agreement") on June 16,
2005. The Original Agreement was recorded in the real property records of Pitkin County, Colorado on
June 20,2005,at Reception No. 511411.
B. The Original Agreement applies to Fox Crossing Subdivision (the "Subdivision") as defined and
described in the Fox Crossing Subdivision and Vacation Plat (the "Plat"), recorded in the real property
records of Pitkin County, Colorado on June 20, 2005, in Plat Book 74 at Pages 17 through 22, at
Reception No. 511410. All references to "Lots" in this Insubstantial Amendment refer to lots within the
Subdivision as defined by the Plat.
C. The City currently holds $186,750.00 (the "Completion Fund") as security for the completion of
the performance required by Article V of the Original Agreement. The Completion Fund is held by the
City at a commercial bank or savings institution as readily available, liquid funds.
D. FCP is the successor of Walnut Property, LLC, in the Original Agreement because, among other
things, it is the owner of Fox Crossing Meadow, and Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 12, all as described and
defined in the Plat. FCP is also the owner of Unit A, Fox Crossing Lot 10 Condominium.
E. Article V of the Original Agreement included a list of"Subdivision Improvements" which were
required to be completed prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy("C-O")with respect to the
Subdivision.
F. The City has required that the remaining Subdivision Improvements be completed, as described in
Section 5 of the body of this Insubstantial Amendment.
G. FCP has agreed to complete construction of the remaining Subdivision Improvements,pursuant to
the terms and conditions of this Insubstantial Amendment.
H. The City and FCP wish to modify the Original Agreement to reflect the terms and conditions set
forth in this Insubstantial Amendment.
Insubstantial Amendment of Subdivision Agreement for Fox Crossing Subdivision
Noe 1
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
—__ P62
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby confessed and acknowledged, the City and FCP hereby amend the Original Agreement as
follows:
1. Insubstantial Amendment Controls. The provisions of this Insubstantial Amendment shall
supersede and take precedence over any part, or parts, of the Original Agreement which are in conflict
with the covenants found herein. All tenns used herein but not defined in this document shall have the
meaning ascribed to them in the Original Agreement.
2. Recitals Correct. The parties represent and affirm that the Recitals of this Insubstantial
Amendment, as set forth above, accurately reflect the facts as stated therein.
3. Additional Deposit to Completion Fund. Within three (3) business days of the execution
of this Insubstantial Amendment by the City and FCP, FCP shall pay to the City the sum of$186,750 (the
"Additional Escrow Deposit")to held by the City as part of the Completion Fund,subject to the terms and
conditions of Article V of the Original Agreement, as modified by this Insubstantial Amendment. No
portion of the Additional Escrow Deposit shall be released to FCP until the Subdivision Improvements
described in Section 5, below,have been accepted by the City as provided in said Section 5.
4. Modifications of Subsection 3.6 (2) of Original Agreement. FCP shall convey Fox
Crossing Meadow (the "Park") to the City on the earlier of (a) five (5) or fewer (at FCP's discretion)
business days following the date on which the City Engineer, Parks Department and Water Department
have each provided written acceptance of the Subdivision Improvements required in the Park and (b)
September 16, 2012.
5. Modifications of Article V of Original Agreement. The Subdivision Improvements
described in Subsections (2), (3), and (4) of Article V of the Original Agreement remain unsatisfied and
will be completed by FCP pursuant to the provisions of this Section 5. The plans and specifications for
said Subdivision Improvements were submitted by FCP's predecessor in Fox Crossing Meadow and
accepted by the City; said Subdivision Improvements will be constructed as described in those plans and
specifications unless a change or changes are agreed upon in writing by the City and FCP. The estimated
costs set forth in Article V of the Original Agreement have no relevance or applicability to the unsatisfied
Subdivision Improvements described below.
(a) Subsection (2) of Article V of the Original Agreement (construction of a six-foot wide
trail) is modified as follows: Concurrent with construction of Fox Crossing Meadow as provided
in Subsection 5.(b), below, the trail and associated drainage improvements shall be constructed as
required by Subsection (2) of Article V of the Original Agreement and pursuant to City Engineer
and Parks Department standards. In the event the surface of the trail is materially damaged
following its initial acceptance by the City as a result of construction of residences on Lots 3 or 4,
FCP shall, as a condition of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the relevant lot or lots,
either repair the surface of the trail to the original"as built" condition,or cause those repairs to be
made by the owner of the relevant lot or lots.
(b) Subsection (3)of Article V of the Original Agreement(installation and landscaping of Fox
Insubstantial Amendment of Subdivision Agreement for Fox Crossing Subdivision
Page 2
3,nice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
P6g _.
Crossing Meadow) is modified as follows: FCP shall complete the required improvements in
accordance with plans and specifications already approved by the City as soon as is practicable,
but in no event later than September 15,2012.
(c) Subsection (4) of Article V of the Original Agreement(installation of a sidewalk adjacent
to Lone Pine Road) is modified as follows: FCP shall complete the sidewalk as required in the
Original Agreement concurrent with its construction of Fox Crossing Meadow, as provided in
Subsection 5.(b), above.
(d) The "water loop" required by Article V, Subsection 5 of the Original Agreement has been
constructed and accepted by the City. However, it is unclear if all necessary easements for
maintenance, repair and replacement of the water loop by the City have been executed and
recorded in the real property records of Pitkin County. On or before September 15, 2012, FCP
shall deliver to the City easements duly executed and recorded in the real property records of the
County which satisfy the reasonable requirements of the City's Water Department in regard to the
water loop.
The City will inspect and, if appropriate, accept each of the Subdivision Improvements described in
Subsections 5(a), (b), (c) and (d), immediately above, within ten (10) business days of the date FCP
submits a written request for such inspection to the City. E-mail requests shall be permitted if directed to
both the City's Community Development Director and the City Engineer.
The Completion Fund has been and will continue to be administered according to those provisions of
Article V of the Original Agreement which relate to a "letter of credit or bond"; provided, however, that
the City will release moneys from the Completion Fund against invoices from the person doing the work
required to complete the Subdivision Improvements. The remaining balance of the Completion Fund
shall be paid or released to FCP within five (5) business days of the date all of the Subdivision
Improvements described in Subsections 5.(a), (b), (c) and (d), immediately above, have received written
acceptance by the City Engineer,Parks Department and Water Department.
6. Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. The City shall issue a final, unconditional C-O for
the residence located on Lot 7 immediately upon its receipt of the Additional Escrow Deposit described in
Section 3, above. No other C-Os will be issued for any material improvements located within the
Subdivision until such time as all of the Subdivision Improvements described in Subsections 5.(a),(b),(c)
and (d), above, have received written acceptance by the City Engineer, Parks Department and Water
Department.
7. Acknowledgment by Contract Purchasers. FCP represents and warrants that (a) it has
entered into contracts for the sale of Lots 7 and 8, and Unit A, Lot 10 Condominium, to the third persons
whose names appear on the pages labeled"Acknowledgment of Amendment of Subdivision Agreement",
which follow this Agreement; (b) that all such third persons have seen and received a copy of this
Insubstantial Amendment in the form finally agreed upon by the City and FCP; (c) each such third person
has signed a counterpart of said Acknowledgment of Amendment of Subdivision Agreement; and (d) it
has not entered into any other contracts for the sale of lots within the Subdivision.
8. Miscellaneous. Except as provided herein, the terms and conditions of the Original
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. This Insubstantial Amendment may be executed in
Insubstantial Amendment of Subdivision Agreement for Fox Crossing Subdivision
Page 3
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
P64
i
i
counterparts,each of which shall constitute an original, and all of which shall constitute one and the same
instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Insubstantial Amendment as of the date
Insubstantial above written.
CITY OF ASPEN, APPROVED AS TO FORM:
a Colorado municipal corporation
By James R. True I
is Be d n City Attorney
Commu i Development Director
i
FOX CROSSING PROPERTIES,LLC
A Colorado limited lia ility company j
I
i
By:
Pi c
M ••�TAq��
y.�
STATE F ORADD }
s
County f tkin i
� ill Jehn��'
` w1 ti was acknowledged before me this 3 day ofd,2012,by Chris i
r �) Edon,a pment Director of the City of Aspen,Colorado.
I
Witnes11�1� 1�OR&#IiAi �
IMy commission expires: I
Notary Public
STATE OF }
} ss.
County of }
I
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2—day of A4m%+,2012,by Pierre
Wildman as Manager of Fox Crossing Properties,LLC,a Colorado limited liability company.
Witness my hand and official seal.
See ��c,- ems Ac1�no�1es71 eM��
My commission expires: i
I
Notary Public
Insubstantial Amendment of Subdivision Agreement for Fox Crossing Subdivision
Page 4
crushed stone path (public trail)
r_iLempoJary cod tru-q pt fend_ 33
��r I
LOT 4
POSSIBLE TEMP LOCATION
l Y POSSIBLE TEMP LOCATION CABIN(LINE SHACK 2) `
HISTORIC HOUSE I I
I
11 �
TEA9PCRARY CONmanON TRAILER 0
FCM118"R NOTE N89' 00
MAD PKM .
W/WANIM
r
1 z i ��
8 I `°
> �
LM o,
',CD Gu c` i 15.68sgfL+� — 3_' W3
OD
j HISTORIC HOUSE j11
r i (SEE NOTE) LLI W
0 1 �
7 0 N °�' ° 2
F g
M
1, CABIN(LINE SHACK 2) n C°
o TO BE RELOCATED
° O I
(SEE NOTE) N (°
ff N I rj
FJ�B
st m rates \ `ao w 0'
ti 0'E 1230 I°
wa s F-'*E"E
Lo
_s�a�ew
to
a
P66 .:
TO: Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Nora Berko and Howie Mallory
August 20, 2014
Dear Historic Preservation Commission,
It is our pleasure to meet with you to discuss the subject property, 223 East
Hallam Street, Parcels C and D.
Nora's family has owned this property since 1957. Nora grew up in the Victorian
home, on Parcels E and F. The structure on Parcels C and D is the Ferenc Berko
Studio, home to her father's darkroom and portrait studio. The Studio was built in
1963 and designed by Ted Mularz.
Currently, the property is inhabited by four of the six Berko grandchildren the
Berko Studio still houses the Berko Archive and photo collection.
Attached, please find the current site plan and as-builts of the Berko Studio.
As a family, the Berko/Mallorys are interested in how we might continue to live as
multiple generations on Parcels C and D and are thereby exploring Aspen
Modern designation for the Berko Studio.
Please note that the Victorian home on Parcels E and F is not part of this
discussion as it will soon be a separate parcel belonging to Nora's sister.
We look forward to a collaborative discussion on August 27tH
Respectfully,
Nora Berko
Howie Mallory
IDAY
��OM10N�MENY N0 6 � ..,..nrm•ros�as.r
I
I
EAST HALLAM STREET
------- 74.38' R.O.W.
P
J9ggi, BACK OF CURB
SS9JJ•F ,,alJ� '2 Q
4—
U3 0
,660 ''[�ygI'OL N 75'09'11"W 210.00' NE• _ o U
\'Y1 � P' o¢ BASIS OF BEARINGS 09°a CIN MR B p�ON�°L ++
.(75'09'11"W 120.00P`' c�,ZpNjPL U U
g0t8 I T I (90.00') N �--,
c cn
co
2 ; 5
I v o W
C I V//
I I w o
C)
3 F :PARCEL I$� 2737 - 073 - 16 - 003 I -
I 4OL I Q
EMSTINO LOT-223 EAST HALLAM C) o
�^
�L},E &F,BLOCK 72 u ° E I
I I�,OL 12,000SQ
I
I P I x w
I l I W cy)
I I I o.
of �ZF ±E N
C1t'1 MONUMEN V
HOUSE
,0• —"'J I BRICK
3g°F I PAVERS I
I I
o I - — E
GONjCURS I I \\ I rc
ON
E
. I I I \ I o
GRAVEL I ---�/ I GRAVEL
PARKING PARKING
—'—I— —(S 75'0911"LL
ALLEY BLOCK 72 P
20.69'R.O.W., UNPAVED
7
P
O
Existina Complete Site Plan -223 East.Hallam
A1.01 SCALE:118"=1'-0' - -
i
%MAY.
7 I
I I sa
r------------1-------1--- ---+� _
r----------- — r-------- ------------ r--
I O Q
I I
�.,A
Z3 (-) .2.
� cn �a
I I U O LLJ
Il I I I C:
--- O
I - N a)
L------ O p
U) U
O
LL
L
� � I
1 Existin Lower Leve! Floor Plan : Studio Residence 2 Existing Main Level Floor Plan : Studio Residence 3 Existin Roof Plan :.Studio Residence _
A1.03 SCALE:3/1fi'=1'-0" - A1.63
SCALE:3116"=1'-0" Al"03 SCALE:3116'=1'-0" N
_ (0
x W
W CY)
N
N
xM WI_
EI
m tell-1-11
rt 4 �-.�:7 wsX '•o>f `h, rt i. . ---UK .a.-
faE ee l� �
•�+� ;� v- --cz �'° 3 -rte .• - `�'
F
_ gS € t Faaita�r
03: - -gm
LOe� evel law h1 t[JQ h [e7c( 4t
.5b`6 NE- „5���Ezpao i s
��,�N`o ��{alramI7�ck ��
3 S EfA
'� 'F3 mss' � �'�r�'•°•�.���a I'_--� � �^'-" �r �. - -
- .� -_�""�°.��•�--�:=::ate'.h'.�.. °•� �:° "�'. ��x a��'h��, '���-�,.r�,A�aax-,� � �- x �* � _ -
C �f iJiii i' i-iA R Mai i Lettel : vt :i.� ;1�
�} Existin FHK Lower Leve; : Studio Resicerlca � -
A1.03
SCALE:3/16'=T-T A1.03 SCALE:3/16"=1'-0" _
act
Q
H
g
D
m
A
b
7 II
] II
II
] II
II
S it
,p II
0 I
� II
II
D L ----
CD 1� ----
< II
u
—n II
0 II
w II
0- II
(D I
II
I
'TI II
0 II
II
�- II
� II
CD II
II
O II ----
I I—i TTI
� 1111111
C 1111111
0- I L 1111
it
II
L----
P�
x'16
0
I
m UI�
�k
�
II
II
m
U1
Sly a
T,£
A—
O
1��11L
(D
I
II
nl
----
CD
m
<
I
�
II
�
r*
II
II
II
m
II
(n
`
I
II
IL___.
O
II
II �
o
u ti
C
II �
u ,
u
II
u
IL---.
O
II
I
II
II
II
II
II
II
F
y
0
x'16
�Qu I
I I
y
�y
Rn
3
113,
alp
9
SHEET d....1p11— 213 EAST HALL STUDIO RESIDENCE STUDY
A dale Issued JUNE.2D/3
20() RA.I..TITLE EXISTING ELEVATIONS-F STOP RESIDENCE:
STUDIO RESIDENCE
I
I
m UI�
I
I
�
II
II
�
m
m
°P
Sly a
T,£
A—
O
1��11L
(D
>X
Ir---
m UI�
II
�
II
II
�
m
m
u
I r----
b Z
1111111
O
1��11L
(D
�
II
nl
I I
CD
<
I
�
II
0 u
� II
II
2 II
fy II
m
�
II
II
�
m
m
u
I r----
1
II
70
I
II
(D
ti
C)
II
O
C
II
�
II
Ir
�
II
C1.
I I
II
(n
II
CD
II
IL___.
O
�----
U
C
�
O
I
D
M
R
0
A"16
Is
I r---
II
_ II
II
II
II
II
II
II
Ir--- I
II I
II I
II
II
fl
II F, L-I
II L-1
I� '
II
II
II
L
I I
I —__
i
I
ti
�O
A}'
fl§
" F Stop" Residence Lot Study"
Existing & Proposed Conditions - HPC Worksession
223 East Hallam Street , West End District . City of Aspen
3. 3
wp��11�11
I ,
jpIj9��
� {NR1
y
1
ti
n�
y
�rn W�
yy
Nf0
SAM
A
" F Stop" Residence Lot Study"
Existing & Proposed Conditions - HPC Worksession
223 East Hallam Street , West End District . City of Aspen
3. 3
C�'T.�i•�
I I
I
I
ti
of
y
�rn W�
yy
Nf0
" F Stop" Residence Lot Study"
Existing & Proposed Conditions - HPC Worksession
223 East Hallam Street , West End District . City of Aspen
3. 3
EXHIBIT
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CO-
ADDRESS OFF PROPERTY: Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 20
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
1,4 J K,�',�'�/ (name,please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
a er or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
pp
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 12-day of �
20�� to and including the date and time
�1G��
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
ent 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, PDs that create more
than one lot, and new Planned Developments 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 1J day
of Nun0-A- , 20 N`k , by C����5 L- Cdrr�
Y.p(�� WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
TO NI ROSE: My commission expires: O 9A as IS
°< SViERSKY
Notary Public
CGriG ilRIP812015
ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
• COPY OF THE PUBLICATION
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
• LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY MAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. X24-65.5-103.3
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 549 RACE ALLEY, LOT 5, FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION, FINAL MAJOR
DEVELOPMENT AND SETBACK VARIANCE, AND LOT 4, FOX CROSSING
SUBDIVISION,RELOCATION REVIEW ONLY
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, August 27,
2014, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission,
Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by
John Morton, 6346 Mercer Street, Houston, TX, 77005, affecting the property located at 549 Race
Alley, Lot 5, Fox Crossing Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. The applicant
proposes to lift the Victorian house, construct a basement, restore the house and build an
addition. HPC will conduct final design review and is asked to grant a south sideyard setback
variance for a porch roof. The applicant also requests the option to temporarily move an existing
log cabin sitting on Lot 5 onto the adjacent Lot 4. The owner of Lot 4, Fox Crossing Properties
LLC, 3000-F Danville Blvd., #500, Alamo, CA 94507-1572, is a participant in the application.
For further information, contact Amy Simon at the City of Aspen Community Development
Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970)429.2758 or amy.simon @cityofaspen.com.
s/Jay Maytin,Chair
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on August 7, 2014
,Y.
0
y- 1
T „
F.
�� s
art. -s! — •
'i
PUBLIC NOTICE
Date: PUBLIC NOTICE
The per of Lot 4, Fox
Time: rt Properties LLC, N,W-F Dann ,,e
Place; Blvd #500, Alamo, CA
94507-'572. 6 4 partr�pa
Purpose: application. For lunr-f
HPC w;H Wn va:' Frs ► rtiv?f ,-: • informatiwi confact Aspen
Planning Dept Avis,9704 c�-�7
tt R' t iii
1127 VINE STREET CORP 565 RACE STREET LLC 81611 PROPERTIES LLC
PO BOX 1730 67 BAL BAY DR 590 N MILL ST
VERO BEACH,FL32961 SURFSIDE, FL33154 ASPEN,CO81611
941 VINE LLC ASPEN CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO 1 RE
534 SPRUCE ST STUDIES 0235 HIGH SCHOOL RD
ASPEN,CO81611 100 PUPPY SMITH ST ASPEN,CO81611
ATTN KATIE SCHWOERER
ASPEN,CO81611
AUGELLO MICHAEL&GLADYS M AUSTER-STEIN M LEAH BAEHR LYNNE
782 HOLLAND HILLS RD PO BOX 7963 1132 VINE ST
BASALT,CO81621 ASPEN,CO81612 ASPEN,CO81611
BAKER JAMES A SR BELL MARTIN W 1/3 BERKMAN KATHY K&ANDREW E
1052 VINE ST 5217 18TH AVE NE 3706 SUNSET BLVD
ASPEN,CO81611 SEATTLE,WA98105 HOUSTON,TX77005
BERNARD SUSAN BETTIO JACK A BITTNER SHIRLEY MARIE
PO BOX 8908 2985 ROUTE 547 123 VINE ST
ASPEN,CO81612 MANCHESTER, NJ550334049 ASPEN,CO81611
BOLTON LANCE BOOKBINDER FISHDANCE&DELANEY LLC BROOKES EDWARD ALAN REV LIV TRUST
PO BOX 2762 164 LITTLE PARK RD PO BOX 5764
ASPEN,CO81612 GRAND JUNCTION,CO81503 PLAYA DEL REY, CA90296
BUNEVICH PETER&BRIGITTE BURROWS ARTHUR&COLLEEN COLLINS B5 RTIN JORGE&RROSALBA FAMILY TRUST
5301 CRACKER BARREL 410 N MILL ST#B-11
COLORADO SPRINGS,CO80917 ASPEN,CO81611 LAGUNA BEACH,CA92651
BUSCH JON LOWELL BYRUM PATRICIA B REV TRUST CARDAMONE JAMES M&MICHELE W
548 RACE ST 2428 BITTING RD 140 PITKIN MESA DR
ASPEN,CO81611 WINSTON SALEM,NC27104 ASPEN,00816111075
CARDER FAMILY LLC CASTLE AND CONUNDRUM LLC CHAPMAN HARVEY G JR&RUTH J
1100 S RACE ST 814 W BLEEKER ST#C1 717 KUPULAU DR
DENVER,CO80210 ASPEN,CO81611 KIHEI,H196753-9349
CITY OF ASPEN CLEAVER CHRISTIN CLARK COATES M A TRUST 11/05
ATTN FINANCE DEPT 512 SPRUCE ST PO BOX 25277
130 S GALENA ST ASPEN,CO81611 OKLAHOMA CITY,OK73125
ASPEN,CO81611
COATES MARY ANN TRUST CROWLEY ELAINE C DELISE DONALD LEE
12664 VAL VERDE DR 1124 VINE ST PO BOX 345
OKLAHOMA CITY,OK73142 ASPEN,CO81611-1550 WOODY CREEK,CO81656
DOWELL RONALD R ELLIS CHRISTOPHER&AUDREY ERSPAMER JOHN
DOWELL MARSHA S PO BOX 8386 534 SPRUCE ST#1
2241 N 163RD DR ASPEN,CO81612 ASPEN,CO81611
GOODYEAR,AZ853951804
FABER JOHN A FOX CROSSING 2 AH LLC FOX CROSSING AH LLC
2809 LOFTVIEW SQ PO BOX 4068 PO BOX 4068
ATLANTA,GA303394931 ASPEN,CO81612 ASPEN,CO81612
FOX CROSSING PROPERTIES LLC FOXY LLC FREI MURIEL J REV TRUST
3000-F DANVILLE BLVD#500 15280 ADDISON RD#301 PO BOX 2171
ALAMO,CA945071572 ADDISON,TX75001 ASPEN,CO81612
GAGLIANO MICHAEL A GD ASPEN PARTNERSHIP GENDELS STACEY A
2240 E ATHENS AVE 6250 N RIVER RD#11-100 542 MAIN ST#200
ORANGE,CA92867 ROSEMONT, IL60018 NEW ROCHELLE, NY108017270
GEREB BARRY GETTES MARK GREENWOOD GRETCHEN
931 VINE ST 35 W 1 10S ST#213 210 S GALENA ST#30
ASPEN,CO81611 NEW YORK, NY10026 ASPEN,00816111957
HAJENGA STAN HARRIS DAVID G REV TRUST 50% HAUENSTEIN WARD&ELIZABETH
192 RIVER RIDGE DR 533 SPRUCE ST 535 SPRUCE ST
GLENWOOD SPRINGS,CO81601 ASPEN,CO81611 ASPEN,CO81611
HEGARTY THOMAS HUANG YANG HUNTER CREEK 1045 PARTNERSHIP
PO BOX 1478 949 VINE ST#949 A MINNESOTA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
ASPEN,CO81612 ASPEN,CO81611 4428 YORK AVE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MN55410
HUNTER CREEK LLC HUNTER CREEK REALTY LLC HYDE ARTHUR C JR
350 NORTH LASALLE ST#800 30 WILLETT POND DR PO BOX T
CHICAGO, IL60654 WESTWOOD,MA02090 ASPEN,CO81612
ILICH MARK JABLIN ROBERT C&VARDA JKB INVESTMENT COMPANY LLC
1132 VINE ST 7894 DUNVAGEN CT 31200 NORTHWESTERN HWY
ASPEN,CO81611 BOCA RATON, FL33496 FARMINGTON, MI48334
KAHNWELER DAVID REV TRUST KANTER MARC E KAUFMAN STEPHEN M TRUST
6250 N RIVER RD#1100 3980 SE OLD ST LUCIE BLVD 5120 WOODWAY#6002
DES PLAINES, IL60018 STUART,FL34996 HOUSTON,TX77056
KERR MICHAEL KRIS LIVING TRUST KLEPPINGER KENT KLUG WARREN E&KATHLEEN M
1006 LAUREN LN 1047 VINE ST 100 N 8TH ST#3
BASALT,CO81621 ASPEN,CO81611 ASPEN,CO81611
LAI RICHARD TSENG-YU AND LARSON WENDY L LEONARD LINDA SCHIERSE
4574 FAIRWAY DR 71 WAPITI WY 2665 JUILLIARD ST
LOS ALAMOS, NM87544 BASALT, CO81621 BOULDER,CO80305
LEVIN RONALD LEWIN JOHN R JR LOEWENBERG 2007 TRUST
230 N DEERE PK DR 906 VINE ST 225 N COLUMBUS DR#100
HIGHLAND PARK, IL60035 ASPEN,CO81611 CHICAGO, IL60601
LOWENSTEIN ADAM& LU RONG Q LUU CAM THU
MUSSON ELIZABETH FAM TRST 949 VINE ST#949 PO BOX 5399
835 FLORA VISTA DR ASPEN,CO81611 SNOWMASS VILLAGE,CO81615
SANTA BARBARA,CA93109
LUU TONY MACK EDWARD E TRUST MALTER MARC[A REV TRUST
PO BOX 795 321 N CLARK ST#1000 1754 W SURF ST
ASPEN,CO81612 CHICAGO, IL60654 CHICAGO, IL60657
MANIE MICHAEL B MANNING SARAH E MCDONAGH THOMAS G
PO BOX 11373 PO BOX 10665 542 MAIN ST#200
ASPEN,CO81612 ASPEN,CO81612 NEW ROCHELLE, NY108017270
MCF 2008 TRUST MCGUIRE MARY MENDELSON MEL I&ROBERTA L
3535 MILITARY TRAIL#101 37 HOOK ST 1 LMU DRIVE STE 8145
JUPITER, FL33458 SOUTHBRIDGE, MA01550 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
LOS ANGELES,CA90045
MINERS MOUNTAIN HOUSE LLC MLT PROPERTIES LLC MOORE THOMAS P&TERRY L 2/3
5107 HIGHPOINT DR 309 AABC#G 802 KESTRIL CT
TOLEDO,OH43615 ASPEN,CO81611 BASALT,CO81621
MORDECAI BRIAN MUSSO PAMELA LYONS NEWELL GEORGE S
1126 VINE ST MUSSO RICHARD L PO BOX 2179
ASPEN,CO81611 319 LOCUST ST BOULDER,CO80306
DENVER,CO80220
NUGENT KATHRYN M LIVING TRUST OHAGAN KEVIN M&KATHRYN G PARKER STEPHEN&WYCOFF ANN
501 VIA CASITAS APT 106 25 TOWANA RD 1010 VINE ST#1010
GREENBRAE, CA94904 RICHMOND,VA232263124 ASPEN,CO81611
PAULSON WILLIAM T PETTUS KRISTINA&WYATT PORTER SUZANNE T&BARRY G
1043 VINE ST 1600 RANDY DR 480 E JETER RD
ASPEN,CO816113271 GRAHAM,TX76450 ARGYLE,TX76226
POUTOUS MARCIA PRIMIANI MARC S PRYMAK WILLIAM
534 SPRUCE ST#1 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD#600 1530 W 10TH AVE
ASPEN,CO81611 LOS ANGELES,CA90025 BROOMFIELD,CO80020
RAM PROPERTIES LLC RAUCHENBERGER CARL TRUST REPPLINGER WILLIAM M
PO BOX 7107 11644 WEMBLEY DR 1125 VINE ST
WILMINGTON, DE19803 HUNTLEY, IL601426310 ASPEN,CO81611
RESTAINO-BECKER TRUST 7/27/2007 RICHARD JAMES&NANCY RIDLING JERRY&MURIEL REV TRUST
72 ALDER AVE 328 WAYFIND LN 1110 STONYBROOK DR
SAN ANSELMO,CA94960 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI48302 NAPA,CA94558
ROSENFIELD ANITA ROSIN RICHARD&DRITA ROTHCHILD JOHN H TRUST 50%
250 RAINTRAIL RD PO BOX 2416 ROTHCHILD SUSAN BERNS TRST 50%
SEDONA,AZ86351 BIRMINGHAM,M148012 5 ISLAND AVE#11J
MIAMI BEACH, FL331391327
SANDERS RICHARD ALLEN SANDS FAMILY TRUST SARNO JOHN J JR 2001 REV TRUST
2041 BROOK HIGHLAND RIDGE 3426 SERRA RD 6 EUSTIS ST
BIRMINGHAM,AL35242 MALIBU,CA90265 STONEHAM, MA02180
SCHREIBER RON SHERMAN YONEKO SUZUKI SHOSTAC DAVID
3101 S OCEAN DR#2308 1001 VINE ST SHOSTAC ALEXES
HOLLYWOOD, FL330192837 ASPEN,CO81611 2509 AIKEN AVE
LOS ANGELES,CA90052
SKADRON STEVEN J SMITH NANCY ROSS SPEER CHRISTINE REV TRUST
1022 VINE ST 315 J WILLRICH CIR PO BOX 2734
ASPEN,CO81611-3272 FOREST HILL,MD21050 BONITA SPRINGS, FL34133
STANLEY NANCY C STITT KENDRA LEIGH IRREV TRUST TASSE JEFF
8918 BURTON WY#4 1450 SILVER KING DR 37 HOOK ST
BEVERLY HILLS,CA90211 ASPEN,CO81611 SOUTHBRIDGE, MA01550
TOWNSEND R JAMES VAUGHAN PATRICK WALLE GABRIELE
722 WILLIAMS DR 908 VINE ST 1121 VINE ST
HASTINGS, MN550334049 ASPEN,CO81611 ASPEN,CO81611
WARLOP ELIZABETH F WEIL JONAS WENZEL KAREN M
21 3RD ST 8311 E VIA DE VENTURA#1108 1125 VINE ST
BROOKLYN, NY11231-4805 SCOTTSDALE,AZ852586608 ASPEN,CO81611
WICHMANN VICTORIA WIENER WILLIAM B JR ZUPANCIS ROBERT L
PO BOX 4388 333 TEXAS ST#2290 PO BOX 9609
ASPEN,CO81612 SHREVEPORT,LA71101 ASPEN,CO81612