Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
#landuse case.HP.701 N 3rd St.0033.2012
AO THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0033.2012.AHPC PARCEL ID NUMBERS 2737 1211 1005 PROJECTS ADDRESS 701 N THIRD ST PLANNER AMY SIMON CASE DESCRIPTION HPC CONCEPTUAL DEV AMD RES DESIGN REVIEW REPRESENTATIVE ALAN RICHMOND 920 1125 DATE OF FINAL ACTION 08/16/2013 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 11/11/13 2 7 too co'3 2012 Rf1 PC' Per Irlits- ble Edit Remd Na!Vigate Form Reports Fcnr dab Help " ..: %. lump 1 v Wing Status Fees fee = y Man ±Jos Attad nent, Routng}may Val;abon ArchAg Custmfidds Sub Pe is ;Parcels Ptytre s^pc -G2v2C12AHK Address 1701 N THM S7 vtpte I City;Tti State CC Zp 81;11 if x PmtInformaton { Routigq 'asi Applied mt 11i1E,��12 7 0 Project Stags end^g Approved 6es#bm 4RIC:,7GIa.OR PC .IlC: 1 t CE`v AMD RES HSIGN REVE't' Imed ' I Closed?`r�nal S: tied N R!CHMCNC u2G 11 :: Cry ;KUnn�^c Ga's Expi es 11i1G X818 Stetted v a � Omer r NKELS'EN RICHARC 8 r� c vu's RO RC Last name First 3URh tu, 1 / , 3 LC1v naYu�tl.i 4.�.uV y'^1H _,. Phone i '; - Address gq` J k A,pcant C Owner is applicant? [Contractor is applicant? Lcstnan HIPPL Fir�tnar�GEOR^E Phone cuq 1'2; 1 Address Lever ast ', Est:ame phone Address i i. i'. �I ..,_,... ._....... ._, -41 0 - ov I`� 0033 .2at Z-A4Fc- LAND USE APPLICATION Cp ' ```" EN APPLICANT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT n Name: '101 �o it V'^ 1 S,k L L C- �-� a� �cSr tJt� Location: (Indicate street address, lot&block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID#(REQ UIRED) �L'► �Z 10 0 REPRESENTATIVE: 1 Name: \nom c.�.w�... \R--1 �t^A/L Lt i 5�_G Address: ` X 3 A-�rt— ��- Phone#: Ll ZS PROJECT: Name: W c Address: �� 1 ka Ax QCi r-Q' Phone #: Z.a- 'kKti$ TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Conceptual PUD © Conceptual Historic Devt. ❑ Special Review ❑ Final PUD(&PUD Amendment) ❑ Final Historic Development ❑ Design Review Appeal ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ Minor Historic Devt. ❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Final SPA(&SPA Amendment) ❑ Historic Demolition ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Subdivision ❑ Historic Designation ❑ ESA-8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption(includes ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin,Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane ❑ Lot Split ❑ Temporary Use ® Other: N" ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Text/Map Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings,uses,previous approvals, etc.) PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings,uses,modifications, etc.) S'u- H ve you att ached the following? FEES DUE: S Pre-Application Conference Summary Attachment#1, Signed Fee Agreement F/I Response to Attachment#3,Dimensional Requirements Form F1 Response to Attachment#4, Submittal Requirements-Including Written Responses to Review Standards Agreement to Pay Application Fees V0 Z Anagreement between the City of Aspen ("City")and Property 701 N. Third Street LLC Phone No.: 970-920-4428 v -n Owner("I"): Email: whipples @rof.net � N Address of 701 North Third Street Billing 121 South Galena Street m ^' Property: Aspen, CO 81611 Address: Aspen, CO 81611 z (subject of (send bills here) application) I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. , Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and the payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $ 0 flat fee for $ flat fee for $ 0 flat fee for $ flat fee for For deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review, and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for non-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render an application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $_1,890 deposit for_6 hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at$315 per hour. $ 0 deposit for_0 hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at$265 per hour. City of Aspen: Property Owner: Chris Bendon Community Development Director Name: eorge S Whipp e City Use: Title: Manager, 701 N. 3`d Street LLC Fees Due:$ Received: $ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Notice of HPC approval of Conceptual Major Development and a Setback Variance for 701 N. Third Street, HPC Resolution #9, Series of 2013 MEETING DATE: May 13, 2013 BACKGROUND: On April 10, 2013, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) approved Conceptual Major Development Review and a Setback Variance for a project at 701 N. Third Street. The approval is for an approximately 800 square foot second floor, which will sit on top of an existing one story addition to the miner's cottage on the site. This particular miner's cottage has been heavily altered in the past. No restoration work is planned at this time. The new construction does not directly attach to the historic resource. HPC granted approval finding that the massing, scale, and position of the addition is sympathetic to the character of the miner's cottage. HPC granted a 5' rear yard setback variance. A recent change in setback requirements (a redefinition of which property boundary is the front yard, the side yards and the rear yard) has resulted in a portion of the existing house encroaching into the 10' required rear yard setback, where it once conformed when the affected yard was considered a sideyard, with a 5' required setback. HPC granted a variance for the upper floor addition to align with the lower floor, finding that it was compatible with the spacing of other neighboring buildings. HPC held two hearings on the project, continuing the first meeting for restudy of some aspects of the proposal. For the second meeting, Planning staff recommended approval, and HPC passed their resolution by a vote of 7-0. A copy of the approved massing is-attached as Exhibit A: The HPC Resolution and Minutes are attached as Exhibits B and C, respectively. PROCEDURE: This is not a public hearing and no staff or applicant presentation will be made at the May 13th Council meeting. If you have any questions about the project, please contact the staff planner, Amy Guthrie, 429-2758 or amy.guthrie @cityofaspen.com. Pursuant to Section 26.412.040(B), notification of this HPC approval must be placed on City Council's agenda within 30 days. City Council has the option of exercising the Call Up provisions outlined in Section 26.412.040(B) within 15 days of notification on the regular agenda. For this application, City Council may vote to Call Up the project at their May 13`" or May 28th meeting. If City Council does not exercise the Call Up provision, the HPC Resolution shall stand, and the applicant will move forward to the Final design review. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Conceptual Design Exhibit B: HPC Resolution#9, Series of 2013 Exhibit C: Draft HPC minutes from April 10, 2013 i -r I j i I I I � � l I _ CENTER OF N. 3RD ST. AT 5'-6 EYE LEVEL - l i ryj � j i - i LLIL-L - i I, _ _ lam INN SOUTH ELEVATION � . r I 4 I ( i I i i i i i j/ 07 LU WEST ELEVATION I i r -I •Irl ;� ��� ( '� r i �I ,(. r r � �(� .III i I( r rl-rl�, r �r r f i i i � I � i I I I I i I I I I I , II I I I I j j I j i I I iI I , I i I . I '< I j NORTH ELEVATION 10' ------------------------------------------- - - ---------- � I I I I ------ D. � I D W. I , I I I I BATH I I I I 8' LID I 15-0 x 9-3 I CLOS I 8-1 x 11-1 D I I I El I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I MASTER! BEDROOM 16-10 i x 4-10 t O i I I I I I I STUDY 11-10 x 9-5 I I I � � I I I II ---------------------- I I I I I I I I , DECK WINDOW SEAT DECK 10 I , I , L --------------- ---, �- ------------------------------------- � I I i I I I 0 0 L-------------------------------J PROPOSED : 787 SF LIVING 110 SF DECK NORTH PROPOSED ADDITION LEVEL Legend I I GILLESPIE ST v' I 1 — — — Drives Structures =Roads Parcel N I- - - cy 0 25 50 W E 1 o W Feet I —, S „ r L This map/drawing/image Is a graphical representation of the features depicted and is not a legal 4 I 4�639 j 7 a - e representation. The accuracy may change depending on the enlargement or reduction.Y.— Ex 405 " Copyright 2013 As ri ht en/Pitkin GIS P € ���+��#,: I x•_a✓..i; ,, s` ,°� -''°€;' >� � '� r < - x ,13' 3127f201311:24:25 AM C:\GIS\temp\March131PearIC1_N3rd5t11 x17.mxd I I j I t R 06 � 5 € X633 ate; PEARL CT I— — — — — — — — — — —I I - - - — — — 6144 I 3 F I 401 _ yr _ 415 =� 41 II a may" — — — — — — — — — — — n, � , :>d#'^. — — r I � k © 330 1 _ 6021 € 329 { I ` I r � t _ 600 320 r - 315, I i 1 501 j 1 I W NGRTH S f I I T 425.., 1401 -28 0 ' RECEPI ON#: 598770, 04/18/2013 at 09:52:07 AM, 1 OF 2, R $16.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K.Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 701 N.THIRD STREET,THE SOUTH HALF OF LOT 7 AND ALL OF LOT 8,BLOCK 100, HALLAM LAKE ADDITION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION #9, SERIES OF 2013 PARCEL ID: 2735-121-11-005 WHEREAS, the applicant, G. Steve Whipple, 701 North Third Street, LLC, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services, requested HPC Conceptual Major Development and Variance approval for the property located at 701 N. Third Street, the south half of Lot 7 and all of Lot 8, Block 100, Hallam Lake Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, the HPC may approve setback variances according to Section 26.415.110.C.La, Variances. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report to HPC dated April 10, 2013, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on April 10, 2013, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of 7 to 0. 701 N. Third Street HPC Resolution #9, Series of 2013 Page 1 of 2 NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants Conceptual Major Development and Variance approval for the property located at 701 N. Third Street with the following conditions: 1. HPC grants a rear yard setback reduction of 5.' 2. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan, The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty(30) days prior to the expiration date. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 10th day of April, 2013. Ann Mullins, Chair App oved as to Form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTES athy StridJand, Chief Deputy Clerk 701 N. Third Street HPC Resolution#9, Series of 2013 Page 2 of 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 10, 2013 Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Willis Pember, Jay Maytin, Jamie McLeod, Jane Hills and Patrick Sagal. Sallie Golden was excused. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Justin Barker, Planner MOTION: Ann moved to approve the minutes of February 27th; second by Jamie. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Nora moved to approve the minutes of March 13th second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. 701 N. Third St. — Conceptual Major Development, Setback Variances — Public Hearing Amy said this is a conceptual continued public hearing. The applicant is proposing a 790 square foot addition. No changes are proposed to the historic resource. The proposal is adding onto the garage on the west end of the property. At the last meeting HPC asked for a revision to minimize the setback variance. Pearl Court is the front. They are proposing a five foot setback. The deck was also revised. Staff recommends approval of the five foot rear yard setback on the north. Staff feels the revisions are appropriate. Nothing in the guidelines requires some particular response to the neighborhood environment. HPC's role is the relationship of the new construction and the Victorian. Staff recommends approval. Alan Richman, representative for the project. Alan said it is almost impossible to meet every single guideline. On the north property line we have a five foot setback as requested. There is a ten foot separation from the historic house. We have staggered the dormers and changed the windows under the dormer on the addition. We have also made changes to the roof form. The height measurement to the 1/3 of the roofs 20.6 and to the peak it is 24 feet. We are below all our code requirements. On the west there is a five foot variance and we have ten feet. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 10, 2013 Steve Whipple, owner said the chimney goes to a wood burning fire place and it is technically legal. Only the stack is visible and is where it was historically. We lowered the building a little more. We lost the arched windows which is a good thing. The ground around the neighbor's house is higher and we are about 8 inches different in height between the neighbor's house. We are 4 1/2 feet under what we are legally allowed. We have softened the design. The mechanical will be on the ground. Nora said the west setback is 10 1/2 feet. Alan said they-are increasing the setback that exists there today._ Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public comment portion of the agenda item. Peterson letter— Exhibit I James Peterson, neighbor. Our house is 21.6 feet high. We are impressed with the revisions made and it is a better project. Carol Craig's house is 21.6 feet high. The rest of the houses on Pearl Court are less than 20 feet high. There might be a chance to lower the height of the ridge a foot or so as seem from Pearl Court. The house might have an air conditioner installed and hopefully there will be provisions for noise from the compressor. We know the Whipple's will love living on Pearl Court. Susan and David Pine also said they would support a reduction in height, Jim Curtis said he lives at 411 Pearl Court the house directly across the street. All of the changes are appreciated by the neighborhood. Carol Craig said she would appreciate the reduction in height due to a solar panel that she has and it will be blocked. Burnice and Randy Duran, 415 Pearl court.- The-applicant has done a good job of complying with what was discussed at the last meeting. Chairperson, Ann closed the public comment portion of the agenda item. Issues: Scale, mass proportions 5' variance on north 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 10, 2013 Connector Ann commented that the letter prepared by Alan Richman and the drawings are well packaged and the board appreciates it. Steve said he had an engineer come to the site and he cannot reduce the height. Jamie said she is in favor of the five foot north setback and is fine with the existing height. Willis said the applicant went beyond with their revisions. The revisions to the side of the Petersons is commendable. Jane complimented the applicant for doing a good job. Jane also thanked the board and neighborhood for engaging to make this project better. Nora also thanked everyone. 12 inches in height would not change the Craig's issue on their solar panel in the ground. Ann also commented that we have no guidelines for protecting solar panels. The project has much improved. Steve said with the ridge line the way it is you will have more sunlight in the morning and afternoon. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #9 second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. Roll call vote: Jane, yes; Patrick, yes; Willis, yes; Jamie, yes; Ann, yes; Nora, yes. 435 E.Main Street — Final Major Development— Public Hearing Debbie said the affidavit of posting is in order and the applicant can proceed. Amy said initially there was a phase two for a social hall and more recently they decided that some of the functions could be handled in the parsonage building. At conceptual approval there was discussion about the site planning and where the parsonage building would sit. Also the front door was to face Main Street and there is a nice porch as required by the guidelines. There was a request on the long roof slope over the west living 3 • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 701 N. Third Street- Conceptual Major Development and Setback Variance, Public Hearing continued from Feb. 20th DATE: April 10, 2013 SUMMARY: 701 N. Third Street is a landmark \ C}(7� designated 5,000 square foot lot that contains a remodeled Victorian era home. The property owner requests HPC — -- approval to add a second floor to an existing one story r J I'll addition. A portion of the proposed addition requires a ' — _ rear yard setback variance. APPLICANT: G. Steve Whipple, 701 North Third Street, LLC, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services. ' ``F i ti` s ADDRESS: 701 N. Third Street, the south half of Lot 7 and all of Lot 8, Block 100, Hallam Lake Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen. PARCEL ID: 2735-121-11-005. ZONING: R-6. CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of 1 the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. The relevant design guidelines are attached as"Exhibit A." There are numerous aspects of the existing structure that do not meet current HPC guidelines or Residential Design Standards. To the extent that these features are not being changed, they do not need to be brought into compliance retroactively. It appears that this home would have w originally had the features typical of most cross gabled Aspen miner's cottage, represented in the photo to the right; a house , on Main Street. According to HPC records, by 1980, the subject house had been modified with a wrap around porch and a rear addition. By the early 1990s, the open porch was enclosed. See photos of 701 N. Third, below. ^ ` ^ i pp " 5 33ba-k5 The proposal before HPC is a second floor master bedroom addition along the western end of the property. No historic construction will be directly affected. No restoration work on the historic resource is proposed. i The proposal involves an addition of approximately 790 square feet, which will take the property near the maximum floor area of 2,960 square feet. The addition sits on top of existing construction that already encroaches into the required rear yard setback, along the north lot line. A variance is requested in order to extend the encroachment to the second floor level. i 2 The owner is not requesting a floor area bonus, which is typically an opportunity for HPC to require restoration work. Staff and HPC can only encourage actions such as removal of the street facing skylights, and recreation of the front porch. This neighborhood is an enclave of long-term residents and homes which are generally below the allowed height and square footage. Numerous letters were received at the first hearing on February 20th, expressing concern with the impact of the project. Except for the setback variance, the project is within the allowed dimensional requirements, and is actually a few feet lower than the allowed height. The upper floor plate height of 7' is sympathetic to the context. It appears that the project may affect the success of the solar panels located on the property to the north, another landmarked site. Land use regulations do not protect solar access or viewplanes from private property, however any accommodation of the neighbors' concerns, and the use of the solar panels is recommended. In general, HPC guidelines allow for a two story addition to be constructed at the rear of a miner's cottage. In this case, the project is not starting from scratch, but working around the placement and character of some existing construction. At the last meeting, HPC requested that there be no new development, including upper floor deck space, within 10' of the rear of the historic miner's cottage. The applicant was asked to eliminate a proposed masonry chimney stack on the upper floor deck, and was encouraged to provide at least a 5' rear yard setback (north) for the new construction. All of these amendments have been accomplished. The applicant has also revised some window concepts, in preparation for Final review. As stated, the proposal provides a 5' setback from the north property line, but since this is technically defined as the rear yard, 10' is required. A 5' reduction is requested. 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 finds that the variance meets the review criteria. The placement of the new construction as far behind the historic resource as possible is appropriate. The application includes modeling that demonstrates how little visibility the addition will have from Third Street. On the Pearl Court fagade, the new upper floor successfully adopts similar roof pitches and proportions related to the Victorian. Staff finds that the revised proposal meets the applicable design guidelines. 3 The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Conceptual Major Development and a setback variance with the following conditions: 1. HPC grants a rear yard setback reduction of 5.' 2. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. Exhibits: Resolution #_, Series of 2013 A. Relevant Guidelines B. February 20, 2013 minutes C. Application Exhibit A 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. • A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. • An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. ❑ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. ❑ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. ❑ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. ❑ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. ❑ An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 4 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. 5 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 701 N. THIRD STREET,THE SOUTH HALF OF LOT 7 AND ALL OF LOT 8, BLOCK 100, HALLAM LAKE ADDITION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION # , SERIES OF 2013 PARCEL ID: 2735-121-11-005 WHEREAS, the applicant, G. Steve Whipple, 701 North Third Street, LLC, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services, requested HPC Conceptual Major Development and Variance approval for the property located at 701 N. Third Street, the south half of Lot 7 and all of Lot 8, Block 100, Hallam Lake Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS,the HPC may approve setback variances according to Section 26.415.110.C.La, Variances. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report to HPC dated April 10, 2013, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on April 10, 2013, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of_to_. 701 N. Third Street HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2013 Page 1 of 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants Conceptual Major Development and Variance approval for the property located at 701 N. Third Street with the following conditions: 1. HPC grants a rear yard setback reduction of 5.' 2. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 10th day of April, 2013. Ann Mullins, Chair Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 701 N. Third Street HPC Resolution #_, Series of 2013 Page 2 of 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20, 2012 Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Willis Pember, Jay Maytin, Sallie Golden Patrick Sagal and Jane Hills. Nora Berko and Jamie McLeod were absent. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk 701 N. Third Street— Conceptual Major Development, Setback Variance— Public Hearing Debbie reviewed the public notice and the applicant can proceed. Exhibit I Amy said the property is landmarked and in the West End and is 5,000 square feet. There is an existing historic house on the lot that has had some alterations in the past. The proposal is to add on a little less than an 800 square foot addition for a second floor master bedroom toward the back of the house and that would take the property to the maximum floor area that is allowed for the site. There is also a requested setback variance. In the 1980's a wrap around porch was added and then infilled and windows were added. There were a lot of changes and some of the original character of the house has diminished. Skylights were also added. None of the alterations are proposed to be affected. This is a proposal to add a second floor on top of the existing construction. Staff is concerned about the space between the proposed second floor addition and the back of the historic house is planned to become a roof top deck. Normally this would be the area that HPC would like to see a connector or a separation or break between the new and old construction. Our recommendation is to restudy the deck area as it comes very close to the back of the historic resource. Staff recommends that the deck is minimized so that it doesn't come any closer than ten feet to the historic resource. The proposed addition sits into a setback requirement on the north property line and it is a ten foot requirement and they are proposing 4.2 feet. The applicant is requesting a 5.8 reduction in the rear yard for the master bedroom. Staff feels this should be restudied due to objections from neighbors and impacts to adjoining properties. You can only grant the variance because you feel it does something to benefit the historic resource, the neighborhood and achieve better preservation. This is a hard argument to make in this particular circumstance. Staff is recommending a restudy of the second floor addition. At final review level 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20, 2012 there are a few things such as windows that could be discussed in order to improve the historic structure. Alan Richman, Planning Services Steve Whipple, owner Steve said we have tried to keep the integrity of what is there and not disturb it. This is a corner lot of Pearl Court and Third Street. Alan Richman said this is a curious situation and how you measure the setbacks on this property. One would think that the front would be on Third Street and the entry of the house is on Third Street. Third Street is the main thoroughfare in the area. Pearl Court is a side street and it is a narrow street. It has houses on both sides of it. The only entry from Pearl Court is through the garage. The dimensional standard was changed recently and the code now says you designate the longest block frontage which is Pearl Court as the front yard measuring point to measure setbacks. That provision makes no sense for this piece of property. It is a code error. In 2008 the code said you could choose which was the front and side yard and the Craig's chose 3rd Street as the front and the common property line which is the side yard has a five foot setback. The Whipples are 4.2 from the property line. They are virtually mirror images of each other. Today's code makes us ask for the 5.8 variance and in reality it is less than one foot. We are trying to make a balance as to where the square footage can go and we feel this addition is masked away from the front side and we feel the location is appropriate. Steve Whipple said the proposed addition is 789 square feet. The ten foot space between the old and new is not deck. I am not married to the deck I was trying to hide the chimney. The addition can be 29 feet high to the peak and we are four feet under. We are a little higher than the neighboring roof by 1.4 feet. Alan said they read the neighbors letters and understand and respect their comments. This is not in the historic district and our theme has been do not harm the historic resource. We understand some of the houses on Pearl Court are one and two stories. The zoning in the area allows for a height of 25 feet. While those houses today are small there is nothing stopping any of those owner from proposing to expand their homes. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20, 2012 Steve said the Craig's have a solar collector that would be affected during the year. Jane said the applicant has done a good job looking at all the issues on Pearl Court and Third Street. The solar collector is a concern to the neighbor. Alan said on a corner property you actually have two fronts. Our property fronts on Pearl and Third and the Craig's fronts on Pearl and Gillespie. It is measured by the longest length of the property. Jay asked what the current FAR is on the property. Alan said the current is 2,170 and the allowable is 2,960 square feet. John Whipple said they are asking for 789.8 square feet which will bring us within two feet of the maximum. Sallie said they aren't tearing anything down to reach their maximum height. Patrick said there are two fireplaces on the deck but are not connected to the historic resource. Amy pointed that there is no indication that the property was moved to the site. Debbie asked for any additional photographs to be submitted as exhibits. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public comment section of the agenda item. Jim Curtis, owner of 411 Pearl Court directly south of 701. I also have permission to speak for James and Hinley Peterson who live at 406 Pearl and David and Susie Pines who live at 401 Pearl Court. We are not opposed to some form of an addition. We would very much welcome Mr. Whipple as a neighbor. We feel the proposed addition does not fully comply with the HPC guidelines. It is a little bit too tall, bulky and massive. In Chapter 10 it states that the addition should be subordinate to the main building. We would like to see a slightly lighter and softer touch. I give the owners a huge amount of credit; from Third Street you do not see much of it. The Petersons said their height is 28 feet. We suggest story polls so we can truly see the impact of this and we would like to do a site visit with the Whipple's 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20, 2012 and HPC. I would be glad to assist in any way possible with the story polls. Our objective is not to stop something, it is to make it better with the guidelines. Loyle Grand — resides diagonally across the street from the proposed addition. We are only concerned about the appearance of this from Third Street. Pearl Court is the standard walking route for people going to the music tent. With the proposed deck there is no clear separation between the two places. Clearly the addition overwhelms the existing house. With the deck railing it looks all like one structure. The height of the windows makes an obtrusion into Pearl Court and distractive to the historic structure. Guideline 10.9 states that the roof should be similar in structure and appearance and compatible with the existing roofs. Personally we would be happy to have someone living there permanently in the house. Michael Craig representing Carol Craig who lives at 707 N. Third. My Mother won an award for her house. She did a careful and quality project for the Town of Aspen and for the neighborhood. Everyone in the area could expand their house and that is allowed. All the new addition, at great expense, is sub-grade on my Mother's house. That addition is very low key and she set a standard. The supplemental solar heating was added. Any movement to the south of the setback is going to affect how many more feet of the solar panels will be blocked. We would like that variance stay at ten feet. Maybe there can be an addition that is something more in character with the neighborhood. Chairperson, Ann Mullins closed the public comment section of the agenda item. Issues: Ten foot connector and should there be activity on top of it. Setback variance Scale, massing and proportion of the addition. Jay said the front yard of this house is on Third Street and that should be preserved. The side yard which is on Pearl Court is still a prominent fagade and the applicant has to deal with that. On mass and scale on the Third Street side there isn't a lot of change. On the Pearl Court side there is quite a lot. The problem with this project is mass and scale and it is the lack of subordinance to the historic structure. A lot of the neighbors accomplished 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20, 2012 this by building sub-grade. How do you put 800 feet on this lot. I'm not sure you put it all on top. I feel the project will gain approval eventually. I just don't think it is ready right now because of the mass and scale of the back part of the house. The railing makes it look like a story and a half and the chimney is an issue. A flat two story wall is very massive. You can change mass by changing the materials. I am for solar and green and in favor of continuation to see if we can resolve the issues. Sallie also said the railing takes away from the connector. The chimney needs restudied because it takes away from the historic resource. Mass and scale of the new addition is a concern. This could be a great project but there is something not clicking with the historic resource and the mass and scale. Maybe revisit the guidelines. The addition is lacking the delicacy to the historic resource. Willis said if it looks and feels like a connector then maybe it can be a connector. It is 25 feet to the ridge and is not as tall as it could be. The addition is not tall. There has been a lot of discussion about lightness, the windows and the lines. The applicant should reflect on the statements made by the neighbors. I appreciate the spirit of subordination. The connector is doing its job. An 8 foot variance would work and that could be a compromise. Jane said the railing is very deceptive. I feel the architecture needs some work. One of the hard things is that this is a corner property. I don't think this is a big house and the drawings are deceptive. This house is like a patch work quilt. I feel it is compatible with the neighborhood. I would like to see a compromise on the setback. It is difficult for this commission when there are no guidelines for corner properties. With a little more restudy this can be a sensational project. Patrick recommended continuance and look at sub-grade and study mass and scale. Possibly the fireplace could be moved and turned into gas. I also recommend site polls and the setback should be ten feet from the house all the way around. Ann said she is reiterating most of what the board stated. On the connector I feel strongly that there should be no activity on it. It weakens its function as a connector once the top of it becomes another living space. I would support a five foot variance rather than the 4.2 which would give a little relief with 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20, 2012 the solar. I also feel the project should be restudied. Story polls are a great idea. Alan said the majority of the commission supports a five foot setback. Three members, Patrick, Jay and Sallie commented about mass and scale. It is not our direction to go sub-grade and pick the house up. If you pick it up you lose the addition entirely. Sallie said she is not in favor of sub-grade and is recommending that scale and mass be restudied. Alan said we can work with that but the applicant's plan did not include sub- grade. Ann said she would like to see a streetscape context of the block and also the vegetation plan. Steve Whipple said the addition is 8 feet above the roof. He is willing to work with the architecture. I am kinda locked in with the 25 foot height and I am at a 7 foot plate heights. Ann said she did not hear any objections to the height. We also had agreement on the five foot variance. Willis said the mass maybe ok but the scale not. It is tricky. The volume is perfectly fine. Possibly look at different dormers. Ann commented that the design needs to be a little more subordinate to the historic resource. MOTION: Patrick moved to continue 701 N. Third Street until April 10 to restudy mass and scale; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 6 ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES, INC. P.O. BOX 3613 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 970-920-112S M. March 27, 2013 Ms. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: ADDENDUM TO CONCEPTUAL HPC APPLICATION FOR 701 NORTH THIRD STREET Dear Amy, On February 20, 2013, HPC held a public hearing to consider the conceptual development plan submitted by 701 North Third Street LLC, managed by Steve and Lydia Whipple. Following the presentations and the public comments, HPC members provided the applicant with directions for certain changes to be made to the design and tabled the application to the meeting on April 10. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with a summary of the changes that the applicant has made in response to the directions we received. These changes are depicted in the attached revised set of drawings. You provided us a written summary of your notes from-the HPC meeting. Following is a point by point listing of the notes you sent to us, along with a response to each point. 1. The new addition should provide a 5'setback from the north property line. Response: The setback from the north property line has been increased to 5'. 2. Reduce the size of the second floor deck to be at least 10' away from any part of the historic house (from the roof of the historic house). Revise%liminate the chimney stack. Response: The south elevation and the floor plan show that the second floor deck has been cut back along its east-facing facade so it does not encroach at all into the 10' connector element. The south elevation also shows that the chimney stack has been reduced in height to just 36", the minimum necessary to comply with Code standards. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms. Amy Guthrie March 27, 2013 Page Two 3. Simplify the roof of the addition (removing one of the south facing dormers may be the solution on this). Though windows and materials are not reviewed until Final, you may do yourself a favor to look at the arched windows on the south elevation now. Response: Several changes have been made to the roof form depicted on the south facing elevation. Rather than having a pair of side by side dormers that are at the front of the south fagade, the design now has them staggered, with one dormer being recessed. A second related change is that the pair of arched non-orthogonal windows that were under each dormer have been removed, bringing the design into compliance with that residential design standard. A final change is that the roof on the western side of this fagade has been angled in where before it was flush against the neighboring property. This provides some additional breathing space and relief between the addition and the neighboring residence. It is also important to point out that the overall height of the addition has been brought down by about 1'. The height to the 1/3 point of the roof (the point at which the Code dictates height be measured) will be just 20' 6", well below the Code allowance of 25' to this point. The height to the peak of the roof will be just 24'. We have measured the height of the adjacent Peterson residence and determined that the height to the peak of the proposed addition is just 8" greater than the existing height to the peak of the Peterson residence. The floor area of the addition has also been reduced by a few square feet. 4. Provide a more accurate color rendering of the project. Response: The applicant is not ready to present a color rendering of the project. Instead, the applicant has eliminated the shading used to make the addition stand out visually. The addition and the existing building are both shown in white. On the proposed south elevation we have also outlined in red the extent of our original proposed addition so this revised addition can easily be compared to what was previously proposed. We look forward to your consideration of these responses and to presenting them to HPC on April 10. Please let me know if there is anything else you require. Very truly yours, ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES, INC. A_�_ _�' _ Alan Richman, AICP ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES, INC, P.O. BOX 3613 , ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 w 970-920-1125 March 27, 2013 C3 = G Ms. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: ADDENDUM TO CONCEPTUAL HPC APPLICATION FOR 701 NORTH THIRD STREET Dear Amy, On February 20, 2013, HPC held a public hearing to consider the conceptual development plan submitted by 701 North Third Street LLC, managed by Steve and Lydia Whipple. Following the presentations and the public comments, HPC members provided the applicant with directions for certain changes to be made to the design and tabled the application to the meeting on April 10. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with a summary of the changes that the applicant has made in response to the directions we received. These changes are depicted in the attached revised set of drawings. You provided us a written summary of your notes from the HPC meeting. Following is a point by point listing of the notes you sent to us, along with a response to each point. 1. The new addition should provide a 5'setback from the north property line. Response: The setback from the north property line has been increased to 5'. 2. Reduce the size of the second floor deck to be at least 10' away from any part of the historic house (from the roof of the historic house). Revise%liminate the chimney stack. Response: The south elevation and the floor plan show that the second floor deck has been cut back along its east-facing facade so it does not encroach at all into the 10' connector element. The south elevation also shows that the chimney stack has been reduced in height to just 36", the minimum necessary to comply with Code standards. Ms. Amy Guthrie March 27, 2013 Page Two 3. Simplify the roof of the addition (removing one of the south facing dormers may be the solution on this). Though windows and materials are not reviewed until Final, you may do yourself a favor to look at the arched windows on the south elevation now. Response: Several changes have been made to the roof form depicted on the south facing elevation. Rather than having a pair of side by side dormers that are at the front of the south fagade, the design now has them staggered, with one dormer being recessed. A second related change is that the pair of arched non-orthogonal windows that were under each dormer have been removed, bringing the design into compliance with that residential design standard. A final change is that the roof on the western side of this fagade has been angled in where before it was flush against the neighboring property. This provides some additional breathing space and relief between the addition and the neighboring residence. It is also important to point out that the overall height of the addition has been brought down by about 1'. The height to the 1/3 point of the roof (the point at which the Code dictates height be measured) will be just 20' 6", well below the Code allowance of 25' to this point. The height to the peak of the roof will be just 24'. We have measured the height of the adjacent Peterson residence and determined that the height to the peak of the proposed addition is just 8" greater than the existing height to the peak of the Peterson residence. The floor area of the addition has also been reduced by a few square feet. 4. Provide a more accurate color rendering of the project. Response: The applicant is not ready to present a color rendering of the project. Instead, the applicant has eliminated the shading used to make the addition stand out visually. The addition and the existing building are both shown in white. On the proposed south elevation we have also outlined in red the extent of our original proposed addition so this revised addition can easily be compared to what was previously proposed. We look forward to your consideration of these responses and to presenting them to HPC on April 10. Please let me know if there is anything else you require. Very truly yours, ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES, INC. AL '_(a Alan Richman, AICP 40 W H I P P LE & B R E W S T E R ASPEN NEW YORK 701 NORTH 3RD STREET SECOND APPLICATION FOR HPC MASS AND SCALE REVIEW 3/27/13 121 South Galena Street,Suite 203,Aspen,Colorado 81611,Phone 970-920-4428,Fax 970-9204427 20' 6" GRADE, 1/3 OF ROOF PITCH T.O. ROOF AT PREVIOUS APPLICATION PREVIOUS APPLICATION REDUCED OVERHANG BUILDING OUTLINE IN RED 24' 0"T.O. RIDGE OF ADDITION DEPTH REMOVAL OF ARCHED REMOVAL OF STAIR (NON-CONFORMING) WINDOWS& TOWER REDUCED OVERALL GLAZING REMOVAL OF OUTDOOR FIREPLACE AND / CHIMNEY ELEMENT \ j REDUCED DECK Ell IlUl ElliEl LEW — SOUTH ELEVATION COMPARISON TO PREVIOUS APPLICATION El LLII CENTER OF N. 3RD ST. AT 5'-6" EYE LEVEL low AM MEN MEIN MENE EMEN MEN! i 1 I I ISO '° ME WEST ELEVATION ...... . .... ...mwlrm�r NORTH ELEVATION i�O�I� IJu�ilf �lm �� 1171 l� — — .11111 , I �Il� lld SOUTH PERSPECTIVE FAR 717TO 40' FROM CENTER OF N. 3RD ST. AT 5'-6" EYE LEVEL i i ""Mi 80' FROM CENTER OF N. 3RD ST. AT 5'-6" EYE LEVEL i F I I I C ® . 70 DD 120' FROM CENTER OF N. 3RD ST. AT 5'-6" EYE LEVEL 10' --------- ---------------------------------------------------- - - -r-----------------------------------------------------, o I I I I D. I I D W. ' I I II------- BATH I I 8' LID i 15-0 x 9-3 i CLOS t i 11-1 x 8-1 I i 0 El a --� I I I I I I I I I I I I _ I I i I I I I I I MASTER i BED ROOM 16-10 I x 1.1-10 I I I I i I I I STUDY I I ; -- - 11-10 x 9-5 -- --- I I I I I I I I1 ---------------------- I I I I I I - I I DECK WINDOW SEAT DECK 10' I I I I I --------------- ------------------ � I I I I I I 0 0 L--------------------------------J PROPOSED : 787 SF LIVING 110 SF DECK NORTH PROPOSED ADDITION LEVEL I Legend GILLESPIE ST t i - - - Drives Structures � � Roads l,� Parcel N I� — — i� i' r 0 25 50 W�E Feet S L This map/drawing/image is a graphical representation 1 433 of the features depicted and is not a legal 639 representation. The accuracy may change 5 311 depending on the enlargement or reduction. 1 405 710 Copyright 2013 AspenlPitkin GIS i - - 3127/201311:24:25 AM CAGIS4empW arch 31PearICl_N3rdSt1107.mxd 1 1 434 406 701, J `� - - - - .�_ - --- - --- - -- - - - - - - - - 633 Z ---- - - �1 I — —— — — — — — — — — — — — — —— — — — — — — — — PEARL CT I 1 1 — — — — — — — — — — 1 I _ _ 614 , ,- - - - - - - - - - 335 , I 619 415 1 401 ' - I • I 617 ` ` 1 I 620 _ - - - - 330 J _ 602 -- 1 - 1 1 -I 329 420 - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - 600 501 � 1 wNoRTH ST 300 - I -415 411 EXHIBIT April 10,2013 Amy Guthrie and Historic Preservation Commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen,Colorado 81611 Re:Application for Historic Addition to 701 North Third Street Dear Amy and HPC, We appreciate the efforts of Mr.Whipple and Mr. Richman to more closely follow suggestions from you and the HPC and make revisions to their application for the addition to the historic residence located at 701 North Third Street. We request that the HPC correct the March 20,2013 meeting minutes where near the bottom of page 3 it is recorded,"The Petersons said their height is 28 feet".We were out of town for that meeting and prior to the meeting,we communicated to Jim Curtis,our neighbor who attended,that our house plans showed the top of our roof ridgeline to be 20 feet.After returning to town,we measured the actual height on site with Jim and found it to be 21'-6"above grade.This correction is important as the height of the proposed addition has been compared to the height of our house at 406 Pearl Court. When reading Amy's April 10,2013 Memo to the HPC,it appears the HPC may consider recommending a 5 foot setback variance instead of the 10 foot setback required by code on the north property line. If approved,this would be a generous concession to the proposed addition by allowing all of the square footage of the addition to be located on the second floor which is obviously more visible to the public.If the HPC elects to grant this variance,we request that the HPC establish a 10 foot setback on the west property line as a condition of such approval as shown on the attached site plan. Upon review of the revised plan for the addition submitted by Mr.Richman with his March 27, 2013 letter we note the highest roof line has been reduced by only one foot from 25 feet to 24 feet. We are aware that the code allows for a higher roof ridge,however,we request the WPC consider roof height of the two houses adjacent to the proposed addition,406 Pearl Court and Carol Craig's historic house.Both have roof ridge heights of 21'-6"above grade and other houses on Pearl Court have roof heights less than 20 feet.We urge the HPC to require the highest roof ridge over the master bedroom be lowered to the height of the roof ridge over the study area as shown on the attached south elevation. This slight adjustment would help make the proposed addition more compatible with adjacent houses in the neighborhood. Vame"sand Hensley Peterson PO Box 1714 Aspen,CO 81612 (two attachments included:site plan and south elevation) PF R91L+Y'�l:M:S1F.Tl 4nNEt'Rr(R/IAORMSiLYARFVl/R.tA�•l��r�!e.s^I�•.�l?-riY kx'1r d'+J1r�A6'P'- _ • Request WIN 10'-0"setback on west propertyline as a condition of approving 5'-0"setback variance.on ndrth property line ; . . - -• moo , .: T2"Fence ry ..3'�pal• { I AWN 56 Fence- ......................:'�.: :Z ti :'rr::::' ::�:: ..: : f :9: .N. ;:' • :: .'•: t4 ar.: , Foisting : :; ;s wags ; : '. ;.:.:;:•:;`r:;:; ::`.::::' Stets i:x..u:x:tti ;'!?•. i. 56"'Fens 0 Planter { s r�Fence Fxlsting `°" 61 U, �Klvlkp Flopto Walk 72" once SX' i �7t• i Exts u" Trash uO0 the Enclosure POP PEA' -SITE • i 1 1 • 1 1 ► t ►• �• 1 ► • 1 • ► .. go I® lI JIM ® R ! �/i ■A�i'� c � � t 1. it -. I = - �� ���cmea �racm co�j iso®!1 �� - � wcc _ 0-1' f J vr ;i L . :: �_� -__ _ _:_ fl�lllll 11111 114f11il lll��Ililll�llll�lli�1���1�11;I��IIli111111iIlElllilll MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 701 N. Third Street- Conceptual Major Development and Setback Variance, Public Hearing DATE: February 20, 2013 SUMMARY: 701 N. Third Street is a landmark designated 5,000 square foot lot that contains a remodeled ; Victorian era home. The property owner requests HPC ._._..--. ._._ . _.. _... s approval to add a second floor to an existing one story addition. A portion of the proposed addition would 11 Ll ,.� ..� require a rear yard setback variance. ( , z1 APPLICANT: G. Steve Whipple, 701 North Third Street, LLC,represented by Alan Richman Planning Services. " ADDRESS: 701 N. Third Street, the south half of Lot 7 and all of Lot 8, Block 100, Hallam Lake Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen. PARCEL ID: 2735-121-11-005. ZONING: R-6. CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structures) 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 1 0 the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale,massing and proportions of a proposal. The relevant design guidelines are attached as"Exhibit A." There are numerous aspects of the existing structure that do not meet current HPC guidelines or Residential Design Standards. To the extent that these features are not being changed, they do not need to be brought into compliance retroactively. It appears that this home would have originally had the features typical of most cross gabled Aspen miner's cottage, represented in the photo to the right; a house on Main Street. According to HPC records, by 1980, the subject house had been modified with a wrap around porch and a rear addition. By the early 1990s, the open porch was enclosed. See photos of 701 N. Third,below. s g ?K i The proposal before HPC is a second floor master bedroom addition along the western end of the property. No historic construction will be directly affected. No restoration work on the historic resource is proposed. HPC held a worksession to discuss this project in fall 2012. The board expressed interest in seeing this remodel unify and clarify some of the existing alterations to the original house. The proposal involves an addition of approximately 790 square feet, which will take the property near the maximum floor area of 2,960 square feet. The addition would sit on top of existing i 2 I construction that already encroaches into the required rear yard setback, along the north lot line. A variance is requested in order to extend the encroachment to the second floor level. The owner is not requesting a floor area bonus, which is typically an opportunity for HPC to require restoration work. Staff and HPC can only encourage actions such as removal of the street facing skylights, and recreation of the front porch. This neighborhood is an enclave of long-term residents and homes which are generally below the allowed height and square footage. Numerous letters have been received, expressing concern with the impact of the project. Except for the setback variance, the project is within the allowed dimensional requirements, and is actually lower than the allowed height. The upper floor plate height of 7' is sympathetic to the context. It appears that the project may affect the success of the solar panels located on the property to the north, another landmarked site. Land use regulations do not protect solar access or viewplanes from private property, however any accommodation of the neighbors' concerns, and the use of the solar panels is recommended. In general, HPC guidelines allow for a two story addition to be constructed at the rear of a miner's cottage. In this case, the project is not starting from scratch, but working around the placement and character of some existing construction. In terms of the location of the addition, staff recommends that HPC firmly require the 10' separation between the new and old construction, as addressed by this guideline: 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. ❑ A 1-story connector is preferred. ❑ The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. ❑The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. The proposal includes new deck space which is closer to the south facing gable end of the miner's cottage than the current condition. HPC has had on-going discussions about whether or not connectors should be allowed to be used as an upper floor deck. This tends to erode the breathing room that the connector is intended to produce, especially when features such as the outdoor fireplace shown in this plan, hot tubs and furnishings appear. Staff recommends the project be restudied so that no deck area is within 10' of the any part of the remaining miner's cottage. The shape of the addition is generally consistent with the historic resource, however staff does not support the extension of the addition into the rear setback. 3 In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. The applicant requests a 5.8' reduction in the rear yard for the master bedroom. The setback from the property line will be 4.2,' rather than the 10' that is required. Staff does not find that the variance meets the review criteria. The variance does not directly benefit the historic resource and appears to have a negative impact on the property directly to the north, which is also a designated landmark. The property to the north was recently remodeled as well and received a south setback reduction of 2', but only for a lightwell. In order to justify a setback variance, some direct benefit to the integrity and character of the historic resource, or the adjoining properties should be demonstrated. As part of a massing restudy, staff recommends revision of the paired dormers on the south fagade, which have very deep eaves compared to the miner's cottage. Reduction to one of these dormers might be more appropriate to the cross gable on the old house. The guidelines state: 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. While materials, doors and windows are topics for Final review, staff would reinforce HPC's suggesting to simplify the architectural character of the building. Adding new references, such as the arched top, rather than orthogonal, windows and cable railings, may not be achieving that goal. The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC continue the project for restudy. 4 Exhibits: A. Relevant Guidelines B. Public comments C. Application Exhibit A 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. ❑ A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. ❑ An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. ❑ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. ❑ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. ❑ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. ❑ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. ❑ An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.7 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. 5 Amy Guthrie From: eva kaus <ekaus3 @hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 4:51 PM To: Amy Guthrie Subject: addition 701 N. 3rd Street Dear Ms. Guthrie and members of the Historical Preservation Committee: We have had the chance to read the eloquent letter by Randy and Bernice Durand about the proposed addition on 701 N. 3rd Street. We would like you to know that we are in full agreement with the views expressed in the Ietter.The area around Pearl Court is very dear to many of us in Aspen. Sincerely, Peter and Eva Kaus 434 Pearl Court Aspen 1 Dear Amy and members of the HPC, We have owned our house at 401 Pearl Ct since 1975 and have treasured the special character of our one-block long street for every summer since that time. We write to oppose in the strongest possible terms the proposed addition to house across the street from us, at 701 N.Third St. It is an unbelievably bad design with no respect for existing houses or sightlines, and would essentially destroy the character of our street and that of its immediate neighborhood. As noted in detail by our neighbors, the Curtis', Petersons, and Durands, it should be possible to do an addition to the house which is in keeping with the HPC guidelines and the special character of the neighborhood, and we encourage you and the HPC to keep that in mind as you examine this addition and any further proposals for that house. Yours sincerely, David and Aronelle S. Pines February 14, 2013 Amy Guthrie, HPC Officer Historic Preservation Committee Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: HPC application for 701 North Third Street Dear Amy and HPC, 406 Pearl Court has been our home for the past 24 years. We love our neighborhood and our house, which was a remodel design by Augie Reno around 1986 and seems to fit in well with the smaller scale of the other homes along our street and along the 700 block of North Third Street. We appreciate the thoughtful way in which Carol Craig, our neighbor at North Third and Gillespie recently added to her historic residence, an addition which kept with the scale of other homes in our neighborhood. We are writing this letter as we will be out of town and unable to attend the HPC meeting on February 20. After reviewing the application and drawings for the proposed addition to the historic residence at 701 North Third Street, we firmly oppose the height and mass of the proposed addition as being too tall, too large, and out of character with other homes in our neighborhood. After reading the HPC guidelines for additions to historic structures, we feel the proposed addition does not comply with many important sections of those guidelines. The following are examples from the guidelines with which this proposal does not comply: " Typically the addition was subordinate in scale and character to the main building." "The height of the addition was usually lower than the main structure." "Design and 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." "Keeping the size of the addition small, in relation to the main structure, also will help minimize its visual impacts." " In historic districts, one also should consider the effect the addition may have on the character of the area, as seen from the public right-of-way." " The maximum potential floor area in the land use code is not guaranteed if it cannot be appropriately accommodated on the site." "Additional floor area may be placed under the building in a basement to minimize the impacts of the exterior mass." We also ask the HPC to recognize that Pearl Court is not similar to an alley, as suggested on page 2 of the application, but is a uniquely quaint and wonderful one-block- long street in the West End of Aspen and a favorite place for neighbors and parents with small children to safely walk. An addition such as the one proposed would have negative visual impacts on our neighborhood, impacts that would also set an undesirable precedent for future development and could forever change its wonderful character. These visual impacts cannot be screened by existing mature vegetation, as suggested in the application. The proposed 790 square-foot master bedroom addition by itself is 1/3 larger than the original historic structure. The height of the proposed addition is 25 feet compared to the historic structure which has a roof height of 19.5 feet and is more comparable to other roof heights in the Pearl Court and North Third neighborhood. The HPC could ask the applicant to consider reducing the overall mass of the project by locating the proposed 790 square-foot master suite on the ground floor in the existing space occupied by the two smaller bedrooms and baths and that space could be relocated in a basement area. An example of this was done effectively by the Carol Craig with the historic addition next door which has set a good precedent for such projects. We thank you for your service to our community and hope the HPC will use its guidelines and authority to encourage the applicant to return for review with a plan for a more appropriately sized and located historic addition which will accomplish the needs of the applicant for a larger master bedroom and which will also preserve the wonderful character and scale of our neighborhood. Sincerely, James and Hensley Peterson PO Box 1714 Aspen, CO 81612 Amy Guthrie From: Jim Curtis <jcurtis @sopris.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 6:39 PM To: Amy Guthrie Subject: HPC Review- House at 701 North 3rd Street Amy, As you know, I live across the street from the house at 701 North 3rd Street (North 3rd & Pearl Court).The neighbors have somewhat volunteered me to speak w/you to see if your Staff Comments have been issued for the HPC Meeting on the 20th. If so, could you email me a copy. Speaking for myself, I'm fine with an addition on the house (fully understandable).The proposed addition just looks a bit too high & bulky as designed compared to the neighborhood both as the neighborhood is today& how it will probably change in the future. And, I fully expect the neighborhood to change overtime with my one-story home eventually being removed & a two story structure being build.And, maybe the same thing will happen to the Pines house next door at 401 Pearl Court, who knows. However, I feel this addition just needs a lighter, softer touch. I think the adjacent two-story house owned by James& Hensley Peterson at 406 Pearl Court is a very attractive two-house & I think Carol Craig did an excellent job w/ her renovation. I would encourage HPC to take its"cue or comparison" to the Peterson house next door at 401 Pearl Court.Also, If you think it would help,l would be willing to organize a meeting with the neighbors&the architect and/or owner to discuss the addition. In summary, I'm fine with some form of an addition,the proposed addition looks too high & bulky to me,just needs a bit of a lighter, softer touch! Thanks, Jim Curtis 4.11 Pearl Court 970-319-0442 cell 1 Loyal and Bernice Durand 415 Pearl Court Aspen, CO 81611-1256 (970) 925-7321 February 14, 2013 Amy Guthrie Historic Preservation Officer Historical Preservation Committee City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Ms. Guthrie and Members of the HPC: We (Loyal and Bernice Durand) live at 415 Pearl Court, across Pearl Court from the proposed addition to an historic miner's house at 701 North 3rd Street. We bought our lot in 1964 and built our house in 1971, living in it summers and renting it out during the academic year for 30 years. After we had both retired, we moved here full time at the end of 2010. We are writing to strongly object to the excessive mass and scale of the addition proposed by the 701 N. 3rd Street LLC, Steve Whipple, manager, not to the concept of an addition per se. The proposed height of the addition, 25', is particularly out of scale with the existing historic house and the surrounding houses on Pearl Court and 3rd St., all 20' or less in height and much less massive as seen from either street. This is evident in the east and south elevations of the proposed addition and historic house, in which the large gabled windows on the south side and extra 5' in height are especially obtrusive. Pearl Court is a quiet residential street. There are permanent residents next door to the historic house at 406 Pearl Court (James and Hensley Peterson), across Pearl Court at 415 (Durands) and 411 (Jim and Yan Curtis), and long time owners/part time residents (David and Suzy Pines) and long term renters at 401. The last house facing Pearl Court, at the west end of the street at 434 Pearl Court, is a small house owned by Peter and Eva Kaus, again long time owners and part time residents. We note that 401 and 411 are Pan-Abodes which were considered a few years ago for historic status. Immediately adjacent to 701 N. 3rd to the north is the historic Craig house at 707 N. 3rd Street, a house of the same scale as the existing house at 701 N.3rd, and far smaller than the proposed addition to the latter, which would tower over it as seen from Gillespie St. or 3rd St. (We noticed that the applicants did not include a view from Gillespie St., perhaps because it would argue against the present plan for the addition.) Those responsible for the design and application for review of the proposed addition seem to have no concept of the neighborhood, and refer to Pearl Court more than once as essentially an alley from which the addition would not be viewed, though they also regard the Pearl Court side as the front of the house for some purposes such as calculating side yards. Pearl Court is unusual in that it is only one block long, fitted in between North Street and Gillespie toward their east ends where their divergence became too great. This was the result of the use of true north as the reference direction in the survey of Hallam's addition (Gillespie runs true east-west), while the original townsite survey through North St. had used magnetic north, forgetting the magnetic declination. As already noted, Pearl Court is residential, with two houses directly and ours obliquely facing the proposed addition, to be built on top of an existing older addition. The street is used all year by walkers avoiding the rather hazardous offset intersection of N. 3rd St. with Gillespie St., Lake St., and Roaring Fork Dr. One block from the Music parking lot, Pearl is especially busy in summer with many concert goers and others using the street. Until the previous owners of 701 N. 3rd began to neglect it, the gardens at the corner with Pearl were a much-photographed attraction in summer. It is simply not true that the house and addition will not be viewed from the south. Nor is it the case that the addition will be shielded from view by the existing trees; those on the south side are tall, slender aspens which do not even shield the existing (party) deck on the old addition, as we have seen many times. We do not object in principle to an attractive addition in keeping with the neighborhood and compatible in height and scale with the existing historic house, the historic Craig house next door, and the houses on Pearl Court, but strongly urge the Historic Preservation Committee to require a reduction in height of the proposed addition to the — 20' typical of the neighborhood, and a reduction in visual impact and mass, before any addition is approved. Sincerely, Loyal and Bernice Durand 2 February 11, 2013 Amy Guthrie Historic Presevation Officer Historic Preservation Committee City of Aspen 130 Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Amy and Historic Preservation Committee: Concerning the proposed addition at 701 N. Third Street, we feel the proposed addition is not in scale with the surrounding neighborhood nor does it comply with many of the existing HPC guidelines. The height and mass of the proposed addition will negatively effect the immediate neighbors on Pearl Ct. and Gillespie St. by altering view planes and shading. We recently renovated our property at 707 N. Third St. and made significant concessions to the HPC office in order to move forward with the project. All of the new FAR added during this project is below grade with the exception of a single story one car garage. The mass of the "new"portion of the above ground remodel remains very much in accord with the HPC guidelines that requires additions to be smaller or subordinate to the original historic structure. The finished product is of similar scale to properties adjacent to our property. In recognition of our efforts the HPC honored the project with an award for the positive outcome. The project at 701 N. Third St., however, will achieve exactly the opposite effect if approved as currently envisioned. All of the new FAR is above ground and will create a new roofline in excess of 25 feet. The new addition is taller and larger in mass than the original historic home . The height and mass suggested are completely out of character for this particular neighborhood where most of the homes are smaller in stature than many other neighborhoods around Aspen. We installed a 6 panel thermal solar system on the roof of the remodeled addition at 707 N. Third St. which supplements space heating in the whole house. This was encouraged by the city at the time of construction and was a$27,000.00 expense. We bring this to your attention because the shading from the proposed addition at 701 N. Third will significantly reduce our solar gain during the winter months. Actual impacts will require analysis by a qualified person. Although the applicant claims the new addition will only be visible from Pearl Ct., in reality the proposed addition will be visible from Third St as one approaches from south to north. It will be visible from Gillespie St. and from N. Third St. from the north as the new roofline is higher than the roofline of the 707 N. Third St. neighbor. It will be visible from Fourth St. as one approaches from the south. As for Pearl Ct. every house on the south side of the street is much lower in height. We hope you will take these concerns into consideration as you review this application. Thank You for your consideration of these points. This is a very special corner of Aspen and the West End. We feel strongly that any future development or redevelopment of properties in this area be closely scrutinized for compliance with the HPC guidelines. The impacts of poor decisions today will not only have negative impacts in the short term but sets a precedent for accepting poor designs in the future. Sincerely, Carol, Jennifer and Michael Craig d 2 �Q� CENTER OF N. 3RD STREET 5'6" EYE LEVEL Ullf�lll�lgl�l i�nx�iunu. _ 7i � 40' EAST OF CENTER OF N. 3RD STREET 5'6" EYE LEVEL 80' EAST OF CENTER OF N. 3RD STREET 5'6" EYE LEVEL i._ • 120' EAST OF CENTER OF N. 3RD STREET 5'6" EYE LEVEL ��J I! PROPOSED ADDITION :ffi LLU :ffi LI�IllUI-1J 111L_LI_Wl_J1_W1__ EXISTING HISTORIC EXISTING STRUCTURE STRUCTURE PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 3/16 1'-0" i i l I �i PROPOSED °' ADDITION EXISTING STRUCTURE 14+4-HMMLHL@MtHl I I I I pil [I- PROPOSED SOLAR STUDY Vol I iv Am I p lit s. IP !_l,� pl.-,g•c , _ w...�,. �e'M�� , Syr' .'t y • 1 �. �.• r Imo__ , • 1 I' + w , �I t' "t,, ', - » '.` 7t` rf Rte_ .',' ' r, 'i •♦`. 1i � ��r^� ,• •'/''-' �r � � ` � ' 1 � 9f� � '� � l � hit ri^ ��• `/� 1 - — � ie �3 ''t �' -�• �. r �,�->F j K,l. F. IF F' —�i' fit`.. 'I AK I J141 Jx e�� .d `,�,..�♦�14 •� � 71,�'r '� any, .� I , .� � ' ,,�• tv"!. ^�' I,t ,�` tai �� �1 ��1y � •`N`�� � `� I .. M,• S JW low _ :\.�,L I� _ _ L ffEll rc ° : •w •wry... i �s�►-� . wk.— IMS t Vii° ..o!��►'. _.- :� Vii` �'� `•�b .w._,...ra.._ aa+.. .- •���am 40-dor 4 � � ���"�'- ._...gar. �`i RECEIVED NOV 14 CITY OF ASPEN CN NTY MROPME 701 NORTH THIRD STREET CONCEPTUAL HPC REVIEW AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTED BY ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES P.O. BOX 3613 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 920-1125 NOVEMBER, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. Application Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. Description of Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 III. Conceptual Development Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 A. Description of Proposed Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 B. Request for Setback Variance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 C. Responses to HPC Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 IV. Residential Design Standards Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 V. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 EXHIBITS #1. Proof of Ownership of Property #2. Letter Authorizing Submission of Application #3. Pre-Application Conference Summary #4. Architectural Inventory Form DRAWINGS Vicinity Maps Proposed Site Plan Existing Conditions Drawings Architectural Elevations Showing Proposed Addition Photo-Simulations and Computer Renderings of Proposed Addition I. Application Request This is an application for conceptual development review for an addition to the residence located at 701 North Third Street. The legal description of the property is the South '/z of Lot 7 and all of Lot 8, Block 100, Hallam Addition Subdivision. The subject property's Parcel ID # is 273512111005. It is approximately 5,000 sq. ft. in size and is zoned R-6. Two vicinity maps locating the subject property within the City of Aspen have been provided. The subject property was recently purchased by 701 North Third Street LLC, for which G. Steve Whipple is the Manager ("the applicant"). Proof of the ownership of the property is provided by Exhibit #1, the Warranty Deed. A letter from the applicant authorizing Alan Richman Planning Services, Inc. to submit this application is attached as Exhibit#2. The applicant held several pre-application meetings with staff prior to the submission of this application. A pre-application conference summary was issued by the staff (see Exhibit #3, Pre-Application Conference Summary). This document indicates that the proposal is considered to be a major development requiring conceptual and final review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission pursuant to Section 26.415.070 D of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. HPC will also consider a request to vary the rear setbacks for the proposed addition to the residence. This application has been organized to respond to The City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Staff has indicated to the applicant that the relevant guidelines can be found in Chapters 1 through 7, 10 and 14 of the Guidelines. However, staff indicated that responses to Chapters 2-7 would only be necessary if work is being proposed to rehabilitate the historic structure. No such rehabilitation work is proposed and so the applicant has limited the responses to the applicable guidelines in Chapter 1, 10 and 14. Staff has also requested responses to the City's Residential Design Standards which can be found in Section 26-410 of the Land Use Code. First, however, a description of existing conditions is presented to establish the context for this application. Conceptual Development Review for 701 North Third Street Page 1 II. Description of Existing Conditions The subject property is located at the corner of Third Street and Pearl Court. Third Street is one of the major north/south corridors in the West End and so it is most likely that the improvements to the property would be viewed by the public from this side of the property. Pearl Court functions and appears more like an alley than it does as a street, and is less likely to be the place from which the improvements will be viewed by the public. In addition there are a number of mature trees and bushes located along the Pearl Court right-of-way that tends to screen the Pearl Court side of the property from view. A vicinity map and an aerial photo image have been provided showing the context in which this property is located. These images show that the property is located just south of West Gillespie Street and the Aspen Meadows property. The aerial image shows that the surrounding lots are all residential in character. The area is relatively densely developed, with many of the surrounding houses being located on lots that are similar in size to the subject property. The image also shows that lots in this portion of Aspen are oriented in both the traditional north/south direction and also in a less typical east/west direction. In fact, the subject property is oriented in an east/west direction, as is the neighboring property immediately to the north (405 W. Gillespie). A copy of the Architectural Inventory Form for the subject property has been provided to the applicant and is attached as Exhibit #4. The form states that the original residence on this lot (the Emma Carson cottage) was constructed in 1891. The Inventory describes the structure as having a typical Miner's Cottage form. There have been a number of additions to the structure since its original construction, including a large single story addition to the rear and south containing a garage and extension of the living area, a porch enclosure and other modifications. The applicant has submitted several photographs as well as architectural elevations illustrating existing conditions on the property. The photo taken from the Third Street right- of-way, looking directly at the house, shows that some, but not all, of the original form of the Miner's cottage can be discerned from this direction. The roof and gable appear to be in their original form, as does the street facing window. However, the porch has been enclosed and is part of the floor plan for the house. The roof has had skylights installed in it which help to provide necessary light for the occupants. The applicant intends to keep both of these features. The enclosed porch wraps around to the Pearl Street part of the property where it contains some of the main living spaces on the first floor, including the living and dining rooms The property is located in the R-6 zone district. Relevant dimensional requirements for this property in this zone district are shown in Table 1, on the following page. Conceptual Development Review for 701 North Third Street Page 2 TABLE 1 R-6 ZONE DISTRICT ANALYSIS FOR 701 SOUTH THIRD STREET::, Dimensional Requirement Code Standard: Existing Conditions R-6 Zone District Found on the Property Minimum lot size 6,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. Minimum lot area per 3,000 sq. ft. per dwelling 1 existing unit on a 5,000 dwelling unit unit (historic landmark). sq. ft. lot. Minimum lot width 60' 50' Minimum front yard 10' 10.9' Minimum rear yard Principal buildings = 10' 4.2' Minimum Side Yard 5'for each side yard; total 19.3' + 10.5' for a total of of 11.67' for the two yards 29.8' for the two yards Maximum site coverage No requirement (since lot Not applicable is less than 6,000 sq. ft.) Maximum height 25' Approximately 19.5' Maximum allowable floor 2,960 sq. ft. area Approx. 2,170 sq. ft. Minimum required off-street 2 spaces 1 space is in the garage parking and 1 is in the driveway The table shows that the existing conditions on the property comply with most of the zone district requirements. The existing residence has approximately 790 sq. ft. of remaining floor area to be developed and it is built to well below the allowable height of this zone. However, the lot is substandard with regard to width, meaning it is a nonconforming lot of record. The existing house protrudes into the rear yard setback (the property line opposite from Pearl Court), meaning it is a nonconforming structure. Conceptual Development Review for 701 North Third Street Page 3 III. Conceptual Development Review A. Description of Proposed Development The applicant proposes to make an addition of approximately 790 sq. ft. to the house thereby using the lot's remaining allowable floor area. A floor area bonus is not being sought. The primary purpose of the addition is to provide a master bedroom, bathroom and study for the owners of the property. As shown on the existing main level floor plan, the two existing bedrooms in the house are relatively small (approximately 145 and 135 sq. ft. respectively) and are therefore not well suited to the owners' needs. The applicant proposes to make this addition in the back (western) portion of the property, above the existing garage and kitchen area. This allows the addition to stand on its own and not be connected to or cause impacts on the form of the historic cottage. In addition, at the suggestion of the HPC during a work session held on October 10, 2012, the applicant proposes to modify the exterior materials used on the existing addition in order to simplify its several architectural themes. As was discussed during the work session, the intent is to end up with two architectural styles on the property — the original historic cottage design and the design of the additions to the cottage, rather than having the historic, prior addition and new addition, each with its own style. The applicant has provided a set of drawings and photo-simulations illustrating the proposed addition and the remodel to the existing addition. These graphic images include the following: • Proposed building elevations, showing each of the four sides of the residence; • Computer renderings of the east and south elevations of the residence; and • Photo-simulations of the south elevations of the residence. These graphic images illustrate the form, massing and scale of the proposed addition. They show that the addition will have a modern form that is distinct from the form of the historic structure. Most notably, the addition has been separated/set back from the historic portion of the residence by approximately 10', so the mass of the addition is distinct from and does not overwhelm the historic features. In fact, the computer rendering of the eastern elevation shows that the addition will not be visible from Third Street because of the way it has been set back and massed. It is only when the viewer walks around to towards Pearl Court that the addition becomes visible but in this direction the existing trees and large bushes along the right-of-way screen the addition from view (see photo simulation for a depiction of the addition with the trees shown). By comparing the existing conditions images to the proposed conditions images, the reviewer can also discern which features of the existing addition are proposed to be modified to create a more coherent overall design for the newer portions of the residence. These changes, which are most apparent on the south elevation, include Conceptual Development Review for 701 North Third Street Page 4 replacement of the garage door, removal and replacement of the railing along the roof and changes to the siding below the windows in the kitchen/dining area. B. Request for Setback Variance Table 2, below, shows how the addition will comply with the R-6 zone district standards. TABLE 2 R-6 ZONE DISTRICT COMPLIANCE FOR PROPOSED ADDITION Dimensional Requirement Code Standard: Proposed Conditions R-6 Zone District Following the Addition Minimum lot size 6,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. Minimum lot area per 3,000 sq. ft. per dwelling 1 existing unit on a 5,000 dwelling unit unit (historic landmark). sq. ft. lot. Minimum lot width 60' 50' (nonconformity) Minimum front yard 10' 10.9' Minimum rear yard Principal buildings = 10' 4.2' (variance required) Minimum Side Yard 5' for each side yard; total 19.3' + 10.5' for a total of of 11.67' for the two yards 29.8' for the two yards Maximum site coverage No requirement (since lot Not applicable is less than 6,000 sq. ft.) Maximum height 5 Approximately 22' (measured to mid-point) Maximum allowable floor 2,960 sq. ft. Approx. 2,960 sq. ft. area Minimum required off-street 2 spaces 1 space is in the garage parking I I and 1 is in the driveway This table shows that the addition will not comply with the rear setback standard. This is because the existing addition is only 4.2' from the rear property line and the new addition will align with the existing addition at the rear of the structure. Therefore, pursuant to Section 26.415.110 C, the applicant hereby requests that HPC grant a rear yard setback variance for the addition. This section requires the HPC to find that such variance: (a) Is similar to the pattem, 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 historic property or historic district. Conceptual Development Review for 701 North Third Street Page 5 i -- i The applicant believes that HPC can make both of these two findings. • First of all, the proposed variance will not only be similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property, it will actually be identical to that pattern, features and character. This is the case because the proposed variance will simply extend the existing setback above the existing structure. No further penetration into the yard is planned. • Furthermore, the variance will mitigate a potential adverse impact to the architectural character of the historic property by allowing the addition to occur to the rear of the historic structure, minimizing its visual impacts on that resource. Therefore, the applicant requests that HPC grant this variance as the sole historic preservation benefit requested for the property. C. Responses to HPC Guidelines Conceptual Development Review focuses on the height, scale, massing, site plan and proportions of a proposal. Conceptual approval by HPC is required for the development proposed by this application. The only applicable review standard for Conceptual Review is a determination of consistency with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (hereinafter "the Guidelines"). In considering whether the proposed development is consistent with the Guidelines, the following statement, which appears in the introduction to the Guidelines, must be taken into consideration: "...not every guideline will apply to each project, and some balancing of the guidelines must occur on a case-by-case basis. The HPC must determine that a significant number of relevant guidelines have been adequately met in order to approve a project proposal." Based on the extent and type of development proposed for this site, Chapters 1, 10 and 14 of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines contain the guidelines relevant to the proposed development. The responses that follow demonstrate the applicant's compliance with "a significant number of the relevant guidelines" that apply to this project. Conceptual Development Review for 701 North Third Street Page 6 a Chapter 1 — Streetscape and Lot Features Fences 1.1 Preserve Original Fences. 1.2 A new replacement fence should use materials that appear similar to that of the original. 1.3 A new replacement fence should have a "transparent'quality allowing views into the yard from the street. 1.4 New fence components should be similar in scale with those seen traditionally. 1.5 A side yard fence which extends between two homes should be set back from the street facing fagade. 1.6 Replacement or new fencing between side yards and along the alley should be compatible with the historic content. Response: The site plan shows that there are fences around the perimeter of the property. The applicant has no plans to remove or replace any of these fences, other than to repair any sections that may be damaged. Retaining Walls 1.7 Preserve original retaining walls. 1.8 Maintain the historic height of a retaining wall. Response: These guidelines are not applicable to this property as there are no original retaining walls. Walkways 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. Response: The established progression of public to private spaces will be maintained with the proposed development. The public sidewalk will continue to connect to the primary entrance of the residence along Third Street. The private yard along Third Street, wrapping around onto Pearl Court, will remain an open private yard that is separated from the public right-of-way by a low wooden fence. Conceptual Development Review for 701 North Third Street Page 7 9 Private Yard 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic structures. 1.1 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. 1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs. 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site. 1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures area inappropriate. Response: Placing the addition within the footprint of the existing structure will allow the applicant to preserve all of the mature landscaping in the yard and in the public right-of-way. Site Lighting 1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting. Response: This standard is understood by the applicant and will be addressed at Final HPC Review. Streetscape 1.16 Preserve historically significant landscape and design features. 1.17 Maintain historic irrigation ditches as an integral component of the streetscape. Response: All significant landscape designs and features in the public right-of-way will be preserved. Conceptual Development Review for 701 North Third Street Page 8 Chapter 10- Building Additions 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. 10.2 Amore recent addition that is not historically significant maybe removed. Response: The additions that have been made to this property have not achieved historic significance but they are important elements of the residence that the applicant wishes to preserve. As shown on the proposed elevations, the applicant plans to make alterations to several features on the existing addition so that the existing addition and the new addition will present a more coherent, unified image that is compatible with yet distinct from the image of the historic portion of the residence. 10.3 Design anew addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. Response: The new addition has been designed to be separated and set back from the historic portion of the building. This will preserve the distinct forms of the miner's cottage and allow its character to be discerned from that of the new addition. 10.4 Design anew addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. Response: Although the new addition is sympathetic in form to the historic cottage, particularly in its proposed gables, it is clearly distinct from the historic character of the cottage in its use of modern windows and in its overall shape and proportions. 10.5 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street. Response: No change to the building's alignment with the street is proposed. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. Response: The addition is less than 800 sq. ft. in size, so it is compatible in size with the original cottage. It has been set back from the cottage to ensure that its overall scale appears to be compatible with the cottage. 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. Response: The addition has been set back from the cottage by approximately 10'. The "connector" that links it to the historic portions of the residence occurs within the building and does not require an external connector element to be constructed. Conceptual Development Review for 701 North Third Street Page 9 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Response: The computer renderings and photo simulations show that setting the addition back from the historic portion of the residence minimizes the visual impact of the addition and allows the original proportions and character of the cottage to remain the prominent image as viewed from Third Street and from Pearl Court. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. Response: The roof form has been designed to be similar in pitch to that of the cottage, but also to have a modern appearance that is distinct from the cottage. The roof of the cottage has a 14:12 pitch as compared to the roof of the new addition, which has a 9.5:12 pitch. The gables that face Pearl Court have a 12:12 pitch. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. Response: Keeping the addition separate from the cottage will ensure that the cottage's historically significant architectural features are not obscured or destroyed. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. Response: Determinations regarding exterior materials are a topic of final review, not conceptual review. Nonetheless, the elevations demonstrate that the wood siding that will be used in the addition will be compatible with the siding used on the cottage. 10.12 When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to that of a historic building. Response: Although this is a "rooftop addition", it is not a rooftop addition to the cottage. Instead, the addition is made to the roof of a previous addition. Setting the newer addition back from the cottage will keep the mass and scale of the addition subordinate to that of the cottage. 10.13 Set a rooftop addition back from the front of the building. Response: As noted above, the addition has been set back from the cottage to preserve the form and prominence of the cottage as viewed from the street. 10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic building. Response: The roof form and slope of the addition are in character with the cottage. Please see the response to Standard 10.9 regarding the pitch of the roof and gables. Conceptual Development Review for 701 North Third Street Page 10 Chapter 14— General Guidelines Accessibility 14.1 These standards should not prevent or inhibit compliance with accessibility laws. 14.2 Generally, a solution that is independent from the historic building and does not alter its historic character is encouraged. Response: Since this is a single family residence, regulations regarding accessibility do not apply to the proposed addition. Color 14.3 Keep color schemes simple 14.4 Coordinating the entire building in one color scheme is usually more successful than working with a variety of palettes. 14.5 Develop a color scheme for the entire building front that coordinates all the fagade elements. Response: The applicant will address the color scheme as part of the final HPC submission. Lighting 14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that used traditionally. 14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting. 14.8 Minimize the visual impact of light spill from a building. Response: The applicant will address the lighting plan as part of the final HPC submission. On-Going Maintenance of Historic Properties 14.9 Use the gentlest means possible to clean the surface of materials and features. 14.10 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing-in, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the material. 14.11 Plan repainting carefully Conceptual Development Review for 701 North Third Street Page 11 14.12 Provide a weather protective finish to wood surfaces. 14.13 Leave natural masonry colors unpainted where feasible Response: The applicant will follow these guidelines in maintaining the historic cottage. Mechanical Equipment and Service Areas 14.14 Minimize the visual impacts of service areas as seen from the street. 14.15 Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equipment as seen from the public way. 14.16 Locate standpipes, meters and other service equipment such that they will not damage historic facade materials. Response: The applicant will comply with these guidelines to the extent that they apply to this small residential addition. Driveways and Parking 14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. 14.18 Garages should not dominate the street. 14.19 Use a paving material that will distinguish the driveway from the street. 14.20 Off-street driveways should be removed, if feasible. 14.21 For existing driveways that cannot be removed, provide tracks to a parking area rather than paving an entire driveway. 14.22 Driveways leading to parking areas should be located to the side or rear of a primary structure. 14.23 Parking areas should not be visually obtrusive. 14.24 Large parking areas, especially those for commercial and multi-family uses, should not be visually obtrusive. Response: There is a very short paved driveway to the garage that will not be altered by this project. The existing garage is a narrow single stall space that does not dominate the street. Its facing will be replaced so that it better conforms to the design of the addition and appears to be less obtrusive. Signs Conceptual Development Review for 701 North Third Street Page 12 14.25 Locate signs to be subordinate to the building design. 14.26 Sign materials should be similar to those used historically. 14.27 Use signs to relate to other buildings on the street and to emphasize architectural features. 14.28 Pictographic symbols are encouraged on signs. 14.29 Illuminate a sign such that it complements the overall composition of the site. Response: No signs are planned so this section is not applicable to this small residential addition. Conceptual Development Review for 701 North Third Street Page 13 IV. Residential Design Standards Review The applicant has reviewed the residential design standards and prepared the following responses to those standards. In considering these responses, the applicant would ask the staff and HPC to recognize that the existing conditions on the property make it difficult for the applicant to comply with several of the design standards. There is an existing residence on the property that consists of a historic structure that has had several additions made to it. The applicant is not proposing to tear down those additions and is instead proposing a modest addition to the upper level of the building. Bringing the building into compliance would require the applicant to tear down significant elements of the existing building which would neither be practical nor reasonable and is a standard to which the applicant does not believe it should be held. The applicant has made every effort to comply with those standards that apply to the new design. Where the applicant is unable to comply with a standard a request has been made for a variance, or the applicant has requested that the HPC determine that the standard does not apply, since no work is proposed which would alter the conditions relative to that particular standard. A. Site Design 1. Building Orientation. Response: The street facing facades (Third Street and Pearl Court) are both parallel to the street. 2. Build To Lines. Response: The existing fagade along Pearl Court (the frontage with the longest block length) is within 5' of the minimum front yard setback (it is set back by approximately 11' and the minimum front yard in the R-6 zone district is 10'). 3. Fences. Response: There are some existing fences on the property that are forward of the front fagade of the house and are more than 42" high. The applicant has no plans to change any of these fences unless required to do so by the City of Aspen. B. Building Form 1. Secondary Mass Response: The only way that the applicant would be able to comply with the secondary mass standard would be to demolish the existing rear additions to the historic structure and then to re-build that mass in a detached secondary mass. The applicant has no interest in demolishing all of the existing additions. The applicant has, however, complied Conceptual Development Review for 701 North Third Street Page 14 with the spirit of this standard by detaching the mass of the proposed addition from the mass of the historic structure. However, since the proposed addition sits on the roof of the existing addition, and the existing addition is attached to the historic structure, technically the addition is not "completely detached" from the principal building. Therefore the applicant requests a variance from this design standard. C. Parking, Garages and Carports Response: This property does not have access from an alley or private road so the design standards permit the garage to have access from the public street (in this case, from Pearl Court, which functions somewhat like an alley). Following are the applicant's responses to the design standards for this type of situation: (a) The width of the living area along Pearl Court (approximately 58') is considerably more than 5' greater than the width of the garage (approximately 11'). (b) The front fagade of the garage is not set back by more than 10' further than the front most wall of the house; however, no changes are planned to the positioning of either the garage or the front fagade. The applicant requests that HPC determine this standard does not apply since no changes are planned to the orientation of the garage. (c) The lot is not greater than 15,000 sq. ft. so this standard does not apply. (d) The floor of the garage is approximately at street level. (e) The entrance to the garage is well less than 24' in width (approximately 11' wide). (f) The garage door is and will remain a single stall door. D. Building Elements 1. Street Oriented Entrance and Principal Window Response: According to this Code section, the street-oriented entrance and principal window should be considered to be along Pearl Court, since it has the greater block length. However, there is no street entrance on this fagade. Moreover, the street entrance to this historic structure is, and should be considered to be, the fagade along Third Street. However, that facade does not fully comply with the design standards, as follows: (a) The entry door faces the street. It is not more than 10' back from the front most wall of the building (it is flush with the wall). It is less than 8' tall. (b) There is not a covered porch that is part of the front fagade. The covered porch was enclosed by a prior owner and the applicant has no plans to change this element. Conceptual Development Review for 701 North Third Street Page 15 (c) There is a street facing window to the right of the entry door and a group of street facing windows to the left of the door. 2. First Story Element. Response: The fagade along Third Street does not comply with this standard since the porch was enclosed by a prior owner. The fagade along Pearl Court also does not comply with this standard. Although there is some inflection along this facade, it does not reach to a depth of 6'. The applicant has no plans to change the form of either of these facades. 3. Windows Response: Following are the applicant's responses to the window standards: (a) The street facing windows do not span above the 9' to 12' range on either fagade of the building. (b) The applicant proposes to have two (2) non-orthogonal windows on the south fagade of the addition. These windows below the gables are better suited to the new addition than an orthogonal window because they create a clear distinction from the historic windows. Therefore, the applicant requests a variation from this standard. 4. Lightwells Response: No lightwells are planned for this property, E. Context 1. Materials Response: Although material choices will not be made until final HPC review, the applicant makes the following commitments regarding materials: (a) Exterior materials and details and will be consistently applied on all sides of the building. (b) Materials will be used in ways that are true to their characteristics. Light or non- bearing materials will not be used below heavy materials. (c) Highly reflective materials will not be used on the exterior. Any reflective metals that are applied to the exterior will be treated to reduce or eliminate reflectivity. 2. Inflection Response: This standard is not applicable since the subject property is less than 6,000 sq. ft. in size. Conceptual Development Review for 701 North Third Street Page 16 V. Conclusion We believe the above responses and the attached graphic materials provide the information you require to process this application and demonstrate that the application complies with the applicable provisions of the Aspen Land Use Code. Please do not hesitate to contact us if there is anything else you need. Conceptual Development Review for 701 North Third Street Page 17 l EXHIBITS KtchIJ 1 ION#: 591969, 09/05/2012 at ti = 02:1^•49 PM, 1 OP. . R $21.00 DF $252.50 Doc Code EXHIBIT#1 WD Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO State Documentary Fee wartanty Deed Date:September 04,2012 (Pursuant to 38-30-113 C.R.S.) THIS DEED,made on September 04,2012 by VTVIAN GEIGER KREP CK, SOLE TRUSTEE OF THE KREPACK FAMILY TRUST DATED 09/18/1997 Grantor(s).of rho f n�,.,«.,r%; J �g -C&O ka -A c*nb^f r'Ar,FORNIA for the consideration of in hand Paid, hereby sells and conveys to 701 N.THIRD ST,LLC,A COLORADO LE TIED LIABILITY COMPANY Gtana*. s), whose street address is 121 S.GALENA ST. ASPEN,CO 81611, County o fPITIGN,and State of COLORADO,the following real property in the County of Piddn,and State of Colorado,to wit: LOT 8 AND THE S112 OF LOT 7,BLOCK 100,HALAMS ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSTTE OF ASPEN. COUNTY OF PITKIN,STATE OF COLORADO also known by meet and number as:701 N THIRD ST ASPEN CO 81611 with all its appurtenances and warrants the title to the same,subject to EXCEPT GENERAL TARES AND ASSESSMENTS FOR THE YEAR 2012 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND SUBJECT TO THOSE ITEMS AS SET FORTH ON EXHIBIT"A" ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN. r(I U (a^A (V ".;e^ kA24wk VIVIAN GEIGER KREPACK,S4LE TRUSTEE OF KREPACK FAMILY TRUST DATED 09/18/1997 State of Oot t rl r,6p, ) Los ss. County of Los Atj 2(e S ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of September 04,2012 by VIVIAN GEIGER KREPACK AS SOLE TRUSTEE OF THE KREPACK FAMILY TRUST DATED 09/18/1997 S �e 'e GEC(n—( C'i rr r—[t 'rC f- t_ Notary Public My commission expires i ' 13-�( When Recorded Return to: 701 N.THIRD ST,LLC,A COLORADO LHATTED LIABILITY COMPANY 121 S.GALENA ST. ASPEN,CO 81611 land Itee Form 13082 09/2008 wd.openodt Warranty Deed Open (Photographic) Q62004698 {148780201 r ENIUBIT A Property Address: 701 N THIRD ST ASPEN CO 81611 RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED JUNE 07,1888, IN BOOK 55 AT PAGE 2. EASEMENT 5.00 FEET IN WIDTH FOR SEWER LINE PURPOSES AS SET FORTH IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED JULY 2,1962 IN BOOK 198 AT PAGE 152. EASEMENT AS GRANTED TO HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION,INC.IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED OCTOBER 8,1986 IN BOOK 520 AT PAGE 410. TERMS,CONDITIONS,PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS CONTAINED IN AGREEMENT REGARDING FENCE RECORDED NOVEMBER 17,1986 IN BOOK 522 AT PAGE 906. Form 13100 08/2008 b2eahibit_escmwo& Q62004698 {14878021} EXHIBIT#2 Ms. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION FOR HPC APPLICATION FOR 701 NORTH THIRD STREET Dear Amy, 701 North Third Street LLC is the owner of the property located at 701 North Third Street. As the manager of the LLC, I hereby authorize Alan Richman Planning Services, Inc. to submit an application for HPC review of an addition to and remodeling of the existing residence. Mr. Richman is authorized to submit this application on our behalf and to represent us in meetings with City of Aspen staff and the City's review bodies. Should you have any need to contact us during the course of your review of this application please do so by contacting Mr. Richman or you may also contact me directly. Sincerely, 701 North Third Street LLC George S. Whipple, Manager 121 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 970-920-4428 EXHIBIT #3 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Amy Guthrie, 970.429.2758 DATE: 8.3.12 PROJECT: 701 N. Third OWNER: Steve Whipple REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman DESCRIPTION: 701 N. Third is a designated landmark located in the R-6 Zone District. The property contains a Victorian era historic resource. The original front porch has been removed and an addition wraps across the front, south and rear facades of the miner's cottage. The property is a 5,000 square foot lot with an allowable FAR of approximately 2,960 square feet. Because the lot is less than 6,000 square feet in size, it is considering a non-conforming lot of record. The only allowed use is single family home, with an option for an on-site Accessory Dwelling Unit. The applicant would like to expand and/or reconfigure some of the existing non-historic construction. HPC Major Development approval is required. Design review will be according to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and the Residential Design Standards. The review is a two-step process, with a Conceptual application (mass, site plan, etc.) and a Final application (materials, landscape, lighting.) HPC can grant setback variances where this helps to preserve the historic resource, and a possible 500 square foot FAR bonus, which would generally be earned through restoration, such as recreating the original porch. The applicant may choose to sell some development rights in the form of TDRs, which can be transferred to other properties in 250 square foot increments. Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.410 Residential Design Standards 26.415.070.13 Major Development 26.415.110 Benefits 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.710 R-6 Zone District Land Use Code: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Title-26- Land-Use-Code/ HPC Design Guidelines: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Historic-Preservation/Historic- Properties/ HPC application: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/2011%20Historic%2 0Land%20Use%20App%20Form.pdf Review by: Staff for completeness, HPC for determination of approval Public Hearing: Yes, at Conceptual and Final. Referral Agencies: None. Planning Fees: $1,890 for 6 billable hours for Conceptual review (additional or less billable hours are at $315 per hour). A new deposit of the same amount is required at Final review. Referral Agency Fees: None. Total Deposit: $1,890. ❑ Proof of ownership with payment. ❑ Signed fee agreement. ❑ Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. ❑ Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. ❑ Total deposit for review of the application. ❑ 10 Copies of the complete application packet and maps. ❑ An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. ❑ Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Department if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.) ❑ A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing ❑ Copies of prior approvals. ❑ Applicants are advised that building plans will be required to meet the International Building Code as adopted by the City of Aspen, the Federal Fair Housing Act, and CRS 9.5.112. Please make sure that your application submittal addresses these building-related and accessibility regulations. You may contact the Building Department at 920-5090 for additional information. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. EXHIBIT #4 OAHP1403 Official eligibility determination Rev.9/98 (OAHP use only) Date Initials COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Determined Eligible-NR Determined Not Eligible-NR 1. Determined Eligible-SR Architectural Inventory Form Detertnined Not Eligible-SR (page 1 of 4) — Need Data Contributes to eligible NR District Noncontributing to eligible NR District I. IDENTIFICATION 1. Resource number: 5PT 116.4 2. Temporary resource number: 701 NTH (701 NT) 3. County: Pitkin 4. City: Asr)en - 5. Historic building name: 6. Current building name: 7. Building address: 701 North Third Street Asoen Colorado 81611 8. Owner name and address: Richard & Carla Carole C Finkelstein 50% 9034 Burroughs Rd Los Angeles CA 90046-1405 II. Geographic Information 9. P.M. 6 Township 10 South Range 85 West SE t/4 of SW 1/4 of SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Section 12 10. UTM reference Zone 1 3 ; 3 4 2. 4 1 2 mE 4 3 4 0 0 3 0mN 11. USGS quad name: Aspen Quadrangle Year: 1960, Photo Rev. 1987 Map scale: 7.5' X 15' Attach photo copy of appropriate map section. 12. Lot(s): South 1/2 of Lot 7 all of Lot 8 Block: 100 Addition, Hallam•s Addition Year of Addition: 13, Boundary Description and Justification: Site is comprised of the South 1/2 of Lot 7 all of Lot 8• Block 100 of • i• - Addition to the- of Asoen Assessors office Record Number: 2735-121-11-005 This description was chosen as the most specific and customary description of the site. III. Architectural Description 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Irregular 15. Dimensions in feet: Length x Width 16. Number of stories: One Story 17. Primary external wall material(s) (enter no more than two): Wood Vertical Siding 18. Roof configuration: (enter no more than one): Gable Roof 19. Primary external roof material (enter no more than one): Wood Shingle Roof 20. Special features (enter all that apply): Resource Number: 5PT.116.4 Temporary Resource Number: 701.NTH Architectural Inventory Form (page 2 of 4) 21. General architectural description: A typical Miner's Cottage form A wood frame structure with a front -gable facing the street. A shallow bay is centered on the gable containing a single double hung window, with a hipped roof and brackets supporting the sill A small double hung vent window sits in the peak, in a field of scalloped shingles. A cross gable extends to the south with two large skylights on the surface and an enclosed shed roof porch infllling the corner.- The entry door sits on a wall flush with the gable end wall and has a series of double hung windows to the south givina the impression of an enclosed porch. The double hunas have six over six muntin patterns A large single story addition to the rear and south contains a garage and a series of double hung windows it has a second level deck the guard rail creates the perimeter of the structure. This single story flat roofed volume engages the rear of the house on the west side as well, wrapping around to the north side Vertical siding wraps the entire structure. 22. Architectural style/building type: Late Victorian 23. Landscaping or special setting features: Historic Cottonwoods along Third street• picket fence typical of Victorian style, turns into taller arched top fence on Pearl Court side 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: none IV. Architectural History 25. Date of Construction: Estimate Actual 1891 Source of information: Pitkin County Assessor 26. Architect: Unknown Source of information: 27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown Source of information: 28. Original owner: Emma Carson Source of information: Pitkin County Assessor 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): Flat roof porch encircling east and south sides with square tgosts and elaborate scroll brackets window and door alterations single story rear additions dates unknown all pre 1980 Porch enclosure additional single story additions at rear siding altered second level d-ck and rail- all between 1980 and 1990 30. Original location X Moved Date of move(s): V. Historical Associations 31. Original use(s): Domestic 32. Intermediate use(s): 33. Current use(s): Domestic 34. Site type(s): Residential Neighborhood �z Resource Number: 5PT.116.4 Temporary Resource Number: 701.NTH Architectural Inventory Form (page 3 of 4) 35. Historical background: This structure is representative of Aspen's mining era character. The building has the characteristics of typical mining era structures such as: size, simple plan, and front gable / porch relationship 36. Sources of information: Pitkin County Courthouse records: Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps; 1990 and 1980 City of Aspen Survey of Historic Sites and Structures VI. Significance 37. Local landmark designation: Yes No Date of designation: Designating authority: 38. Applicable National Register Criteria: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; X C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual) Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria 39. Area(s) of significance: Architecture 40. Period of significance: Late 1800's Silver Mining Era 41. Level of significance: National State Local X 42. Statement of significance: This structure is significant for its position in the context of Aspen's mining era It describes the nature of the life of an average family or individual during that hat period as well as the construction techniques. materials available and the fashion of the time. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: Alterations have seriously compromised the integrity of the structure however, the basic form and principal window are intact and refer to the original form and pattern of the structure VII. National Register Eligibility Assessment 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Eligible Not Eligible X Need Data 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes _ No X Discuss: If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing — Noncontributing 46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it: Contributing _ Noncontributing JML Resource Number: 5PT.116.4 Temporary Resource Number: 701.NTH Architectural Inventory Form (page 4 of 4) VIII. Recording Information 47. Photograph numbers: R9: F14. 15 Negatives filed at: Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Dept. 48. Report title: City of Aspen Update of Survey of Historic Sites and Structures. 2000 49. Date(s): 6/29/2000 50. Recorder(s):Suzannah Reid and Patrick Duffield 51. Organization: Reid Architects 52. Address: 412 North Mill Street, PO Box 1303, Aspen CO 81612 53. Phone number(s): 970 920 9225 NOTE: Please attach a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad, map indicating resource location, and photographs. Colorado Historical Society - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395 DRAWINGS the 8 i s o ® LO Re \\� D \�7?ONWp D 4iG�!TSR \ HuNSEaSOL�RO U HOMESTFO MTN VIEW DR CORO cryF�e fir►DR \ REDS RD rHunter e P CrF k R SNOWBUNNY•�N O F H �4<Q� ENNf�BFNCI./RD / i �aa RIDGE q� ,L BUNNY CT M 8IERRAJ �� g RIDGE RD ` p /1) p VISTA OR \'9 tn O �� a \4p SKP° m N ASPEN MEADOWS x o HUNTER C QO M ^>> Ovky- 40.MATCHLESS DR 7.WILLIAMS RANCH DR REEK RD CTF m n O WGF' 41.SOUTH AVE '48.WILLIAMS RANCH CT C' < 42. BROWN LN 49.BRENDAN CT °° z n a 701 N. 3RD ST. 43.LUKE SHORT CTJ 50,MINERS TRAIL RD ki! WOO D KILN N 44.HAROLD ROS5CT 51.INDEPENDENCE PL y 45.COWENHOVEN CT 52.E FRANCIS ST S0 'ILL•ESPIE 46.FREE;SILVER CT 53.RECYCLE CIR !p 1 P PEARL T \ Q h ti NOR HS _ � SPE ST �F ��oo ti F R✓@ b1. -Live cw� c C ��TyRO 2 v z RgtyGIS.S,TI 7.8 0 �4s 60. �W q" l� y �4 .43A Op A Jr (? 9 y y n AlN. �S e o !q! 21.ALICE LN h �2. . m CT N a 53. !1, 9-' '�' 22.EASTVVOOD DR /Sw o z 9 (� th = e 00 W Rqy F �L� 23.ROARING FORK DR 1 2 O 24,NORTHWAY DR Hppkl Fob 40,1 25.MAYFLOWER CT [/TT�eC OU W Hy�gN SAVE E`"�IN's7� 26.SKIMMING LN C 1 0 IM q� e y �Pt 27.ALPINE CT TR I E ��� v y FF Q M!�• 28.ROBINSON RD 16.r 4 hCp. W Wes• NS 1r`Q�gNp OgE is. 1 -1 pPER'AVC 1.2 0- Q r T 37�PAR 29.LACET LN P�1pP H lDOOLITTLE 16..GROVE CT PL T�INORS _ �` ^O �. 30..MIDLAND AVE S CIR 18.TWIN RIDGE DR ENDING/- E-DVRANTI O 1?_� Q; 32.N RIVERSIDE AVE _ 20• 19.W WATER PL �G OE I�VE di w ARDMORE 33.DALE AVE AN ST �qly S _ ti q34. LAUR L LN 1B. 20.E WATER PL GI{BERT ST W�W CTs 34,KATHRYNS WY 11 <j s' " 25. ki 35.SMUGGLER GROVE RD LA vr�, w 28. 36.ARDMORE DR p SUyMI ,0 y 27. )21. G Q 37.MASCOTTE LN 14. p Q TST �O Wq yE S .< 29)30- 25. ASPEN 038.REGENT ST o y C\ti fn I.�ROVE LN -ag\OE°a WESTVIEW DR 1 ` G� ;'24. JEBONNET TRL ? ��nj EKE RD VERSCIR EY TALON F CT ui 4VANO DR N „�9 Fork R%VRr \aQ SCADE LN INAMONCT E TREES LN ACERBOWLTRL r• t 1� ae r Ac Subae lc imp r Property: DII R, " A V, 5 701 N 3rd St. Aspen, CO w! fir'.C7 1611 i t Ot 6wwA W, nj a -&m I I - '... 11 IL Al T T 010D Q FA . yl IT: ,1#. •mil rMu►p - i } a ��� ti. li c kid, 111111 ilt111 II i! i!f � i �i1�11i L i- -77 L-L Li --lof 1. o' , IFI-i tj-,- F-l[- ja - -- I I I Ill I FRI ... � � ,.k�aJj 11 . a •,�` � ,. �I 1 h I" 1' i 14 1`a - - OVA% mwi ,, • 1 _. �. �� 4S.f 1, aP�, r _ ~ r. +; p 01"d Iwo p` ' Y s` 9 1 _ I Existing Existing Existing 72 Fence 72" Fence 30" Fence _ N 3 �- Aspen, Bushes f o o o o 0 0 Tall • Tall Bushes O 30' Editing `� o °°° 56" Fence 10.5' O 19.3' Low Bushes Exish 30" 30 Post e W O�Q � E-- 701 N.THIR STREET 10"Aspen ____...-._ ..-.-.:.. - 16" ® Post Light 0 O ° ,8 oc Existing Brick Walk 18 Mai O Bm _ ---- O Low Bushes Existing i \ Wood / Stairs - 00 00000 Irrigation LL Ditch Existing Fence Low Bushes 56' Fence Existing / Planter - \ O 23"Spruce Existing-� _! --- �`.. )C �l _ `t ' Z O 72" Fence --; - - _ • EXISTING DECK Existing - _ Lew Bushes Existing Existing Flagstone Walk e — F--Existing ` PROPERTY LINE / O ng 72" Fence �-•�- 72 Fence --— O Drive _ _ "Aspen — - O - - _ EtiSti f \ Tau 72" ence O O iX' (Dao �ingJ 9-Aspen 8 Mne X x { X ) t 72" F� 30" Fence � 9epen � i • Bums 9•A_sp� 3 Aspen 9-Aspen Existi Ldw LBac Luac Lilac Lilac __ 8•pen - Trash 3 Aspen Enclosure PEARL COURT SITE PLAN NTH i 1 " = 10' 70'-3" ° BATH O STOR STOR CLOSET BATH BEDROOM BEDROOM 0 ] 10 UP y u 1 r-1 I I I I PROPOSED DN i I I I 15 RISE STAIR UP M I p. L LJ-LJ I GARAGE SITTING �' R. 2 8 LIVING FOYER I KIT HEN I I DINING EXISTING ° ° 2170.0 SF LIVING ° ° NORTH EXISTING MAIN LEVEL 3 /16 if = 1'-0" EXISTING 30'-0" 101-011 HISTORIC STRUCTURE ------------- -----------------------------------------------, I I I ' PORCH D ' I I I I I I I I h BATH CLOS 15-3 x 6-0 8-3 x 12-1 I I I I I I I W. D. I ' , I iD i I N I I _ I MASTER BEDROOM 15-2 x 14-10 STUDY DECK I 13-7 x 13-4 I 17-11 x 14-4 ---------------------- , I I CDEK - _ ........... I I I ' --------- PROPOSED : 789.8 SF LIVING EXISTING 349 SF DECKS & REAR BALCONY ❑ STRUCTURE NORTH PROPOSED ADDITION LEVEL 3 /16" = 1'-O" 1 i EXISTING uu HISTORIC EXISTING 1 STRUCTURE STRUCTURE utlllluu� FM EXISTING EAST ELEVATION 3 /16 if = 1 '-O" i i EXISTING HISTORIC EXISTING � STRUCTURE STRUCTURE u llll U U Il_ Li IMLLL] I I I -U :ffl A H = I I lffl I =-L-U---I Alul jE1E1E1E1E1E1L1E1_ Fm]LEI] 10 HEM EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0" EXISTING HISTORIC STRUCTURE EXISTING iL STRUCTURE L............ EXISTING WEST ELEVATION 3/16 if-off EXISTING HISTORIC STRUCTURE EXISTING STRUCTURE Fl 7 11 DO EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION 3/16" - - - EXISTING PROPOSED HISTORIC ADDITION � STRUCTURE Ln I J I LLUE LLL o lll EXISTING � PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION STRUCTURE 3/16 if _ if-off Wu PROPOSED ILLA fA FIT ri F-1 ADDITION 1 � E] EXISTING I STRUCTURE PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 3/16" mmow EXISTING HISTORIC STRUCTURE � PROPOSED ADDITION F1111 IM JT IF EXISTING ❑ e ❑ ❑ STRUCTURE i Lj PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION i 3/16" = 1'-0.. f !i2i AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CO ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 'X0\ no""N Q\0_" .. (V'e ,Aspen, CO SCHEDUL D PUBLIC HEARING DATE: X�'f3 _" ,20 t3 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I PK1. h"^ "nO ' (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was osted at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing on the 4 day of ��^^�"�-� , 20%3 , to and including the date and time / of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. ,nod 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 that create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas, and COWAPs 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)-o)day of 2013 , by 1 .,n 9.1 c—h Y`(- WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL EMILY ESSIG My commission expires: a�)I I-7 Notary Public State of Colorado Notary Io 20094002055 My Commission Expires Feb 11, 2017 Notary Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPY OF THE PUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 PUBLIGNOTIGE Date_: Wed Feb, 20,,201-13, Time: 5:00 P.M. Place:,Council Chambers City Ha11,1.30_S Galena, Aspen. m Purpose: 0PC._will conduct Conceptual review__. ;- of an application submitted by 701 ; '. (for.......... .. property. The project is construction Q' of a new additionat the rear of the . existing house, HPC is asked to consider a 5.8' rear yard setback reduction along the north lot lin _. For further information contact Aspen .... _. __ Planning Dept. at 970-429-2758. _. .�._ y . t' VIII4v"' TP III uII ,r a u� d Easy Peel®Labels i ♦ Bend along line to i Q AVERY® 51600 Use AveryO Template 5160® Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTM 1 335 LAKE AVE LLC AMERY SALADIN AML INVESTMENT II LLC 715 W MAIN ST#101 619 N FOURTH ST 430 PARKSON RD ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 HENDERSON, NV 89015 ASPEN FAMILY INVESTMENTS LLC BART QUAL PER RES TRST BELL 26 LLC 8401 VISTA LN 909 POYDRAS ST 20TH FL PO BOX 1860 PRESCOTT,AZ 86305 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70112 BENTONVILLE,AR 72712 BERGER BRUCE C 2011 QPRT#1 50% CHATFIELD CROSSINGS INC CRAIG CAROL G BERGER BARBARA 2011 QPRT#1 50% C/O DWORMAN DARRYL PO BOX 18 600 E HOPKINS AVE#202 65 W 55TH ST STE 4A WOODY CREEK,CO 81656 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10019 CURTIS JAMES L REV TRUST DURAND LOYAL III DR&BERNICE E A ALTEMUS PARTNERSHIP LLLP 300 E HYMAN AVE BLACK PO BOX 5000 ASPEN,CO 81611 415 PEARL CT ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 816111256 EBRAHIMI FRANCESCA EFH HOLDINGS LP FAUQUET LLC 619 N FOURTH ST PO BOX 8770 1033 SKOKIE BLVD#600 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 NORTHBROOK, IL 60062 FRAZER WILLIAM R&JANE Z TRST GILLESPIE LLC HUNT ELLEN 12.8066% 433 W GILLESPIE 191 N WACKER DR#1800 PO BOX 8770 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60606 ASPEN,CO 81612 KOLBE EMILY E LEYDECKER SUZANNE LYNNE LUBAR SHELDON B&MARIANNE S C/O HOOTENANNY LLC 710 N THIRD ST UNIT A 700 N WATER ST#1200 205 S MILL ST#226 ASPEN, CO 81611 MILWAUKEE,WI 53202-4206 ASPEN, CO 81611 MONTENEGRO GRACE LLC MUSIC ASSOCIATES OF ASPEN INC MUSTANG HOLDINGS LLC 444 MADISON AVE 4TH FL 225 MUSIC SCHOOL RD 3131 S VAUGHN WY#301 NEW YORK, NY 10022 ASPEN, CO 81611 AURORA, CO 80014 NITZE WILLIAM A NORTH 4TH STREET ASSOC OAK LODGE LLC 87.1934% 1537 28TH ST NW PO BOX 7943 C/O WILLIAM O HUNT WASHINGTON, DC 20007 ASPEN,CO 81612 PO BOX 7951 ASPEN, CO 81612 ODOM JOHN A JR FAM TRUST 50% PETERSON JAMES D&HENSLEY R PINES DAVID&ARONELLE S TRST ODOM LORRIE FURMAN QPRT 50% PO BOX 1714 PO BOX 576 11490 W 38TH AVE ASPEN, CO 81612 TESUQUE, NM 87574 WHEATRIDGE,CO 80033 ttlquettes faciles a peler A Repliez a la hachure afin de i www.avery.com Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® chargement 5160® Sens de reveler le rebord Po p" p u Mc 1-800-GO-AVERY i Easy Peel®Labels i ♦ Bend along line to AVERY® 51600 Use Avery®Template 51600 Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTM 1 RICHARDS ANN K RIVERSIDE AVENUE LLC SALTER KATHLEEN ANNE ELDREDGE 1537 28TH ST NW 410 LAKE AVE 500 NORTH ST WASHINGTON, DC 20007 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 STUNDA STEVEN R UHLFELDER NAOMI VANDERAA GILBERT T III 602 N 4TH ST 111 EMERSON ST#1841 C/O HOOTENANNY LLC ASPEN, CO 81611-1212 DENVER, CO 802183792 205 S MILL ST#226 ASPEN, CO 81611 WESNER BLAINE F&ALEXA WOOD DUCK REALTY CORP 900 LIVE OAK CIR 645 FIFTH AVE 8TH FL AUSTIN,TX 78746 NEW YORK, NY 10022 Etiquettes faciles a peter A Repliez a la hachure afin de ; www.averycom Utilisez le abarit AVERY®5160® Sens de reveler le rebord Po -u Mc ' 1-800-GO-AVERY 9 1 chargement p P 1 1 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 701 N. THIRD STREET- CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND SETBACK VARIANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, February 20, 2013, at a special meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, in Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen. HPC will consider an application submitted by G. Steve Whipple, 701 North Third Street, LLC, owner of the property located at 701 N. Third Street, the south half of Lot 7 and all of Lot 8, Block 100, City and Townsite of Aspen, PID #2735-121-11-005. The applicant proposes to construct an upper floor addition at the back of the existing Victorian house. The new upper floor is to be set directly above the existing construction, which encroaches into the setback along the north lot line, therefore the applicant requests a 5.8' rear yard setback reduction. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970)429-2758, amy.guthrie @cityofaspen.com. s/Ann Mullins Chair,Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on January 31, 2013 City of Aspen Account Y AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY- 701 N• 'wtv-d rf�eef' ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) 1 �CQ (name, please print) being or repre enting an Applicant o the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that 1 have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: V Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice,which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the_day of , 20_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (.sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governtnental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (Continued on next page) > Rezoning or text amendment: Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. _a4 S SignatureF The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 31 day of , 20/3, by SGe�r� PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 701 N.THIRD STREET-CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND SETBACK VARIANCE WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday,February 20,2013,at a special meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m.before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission,in Coun- My commission expires. tFn cil Chambers,City Hall,130 S.Galena St.,Aspen. HPC will consider an application submitted by G. Steve Whipple,701 North Third Street,LLC,own- er of the property located at 701 N.Third Street, the south halt of Lot 7 and all of Lot 8,Block 100, City and Townsite of Aspen, PID 12735-121-11-005. The applicant proposes to otary Public construct an upper floor addition at the back of the existing Victorian house. The new upper floor is to be set directly above the existing construction, which encroaches into the setback along the north lot line,therefore the applicant requests a 5.8'rear yard setback reduction. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the City of Aspen Commu- nity Development Department,130 S.Galena St., Aspen,CO,(970)429-2758,amy.guthrie@cityo- faspen.com. s/Ann Mullins Chair,Aspen Historic Preservation Commission ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: 31,2013d[88494 6]Aspen Times Weekly on January E PUBLICATION rnv OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) * LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENT AGENGIES NOTIED BY MAIL * APPLICANT CERTICICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3