Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.HP.312 E Hyman Ave.0015.2019.AHPCCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITYOFASPEN CASE NUMBER 0015.2019.AHPC PROJECT ADDRESS 312 E HYMAN AVE PARCELID 273512464006 PLANNER SARAH YOON CASE DESCRIPTION FLOOR AREA BONUS, SETBACK VARIATIONS REPRESENTATIVE DOUG RAGER DATE OF FINAL 10/9/2019 ACTION CLOSED BY LILLY CULVER Permit type 1ahpc Aspen Historic Land U- Permit # 10015.2019.AHPC Address 1312 E HYMAN AVE Apt/Suite City ASPEN S tate CO Zip 81611 Permit Information Blaster permit Project Description Routing queue Faslul 5 Status I pending MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, FLOOR AREA BONUS, SETBACK VARIATIONS PI D 273512464006 Submitted DOUG RAG ER 504-450-4352 Clock Running Days Submitted via Applied 0410212019 Approved Issued ClosedlFinal Expires 0312712020_ Owner Last name I AST HYMAN AVENUE, LLC First name MARK HUNT � 2001 N HALSTEAD ST 304 Phone (312j 8501680 Address CHICAGO IL 60614 Applicant Owner is applicant? Contractor is applicant? Last name PF2EAST HYMAN AVENUE.. First name I MARK HUNT 2001 N HALSTEAD ST 304 Phone (312) 850-1680 Cust # 30033 Address CHICAGO IL 60614 Email Lender Last name First name Phone ( 1 - Address `��av�ack�on -� y�SY� 49�ob o r&�(CA5 4 Ilk CITY OF ASPEN Land Use Application Determination of Completeness March 28, 2019 Dear City of Aspen Land Use Review Applicant, ��5 a019.flNQc, We have received your land use application for 312 W. Hyman Avenue and reviewed it for completeness. YYour Land Use Application is complete: Other submission items may be requested throughout the review process as deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. Please contact me at 920-5144 if you have any questions. Thank You, 1�s C)--\- Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner City of Aspen, Community Development Department For Office Use Only: Qualifying Applications: Mineral Rights Notice Required New PD_ Yes_ No_ Subdivision, or PD (creating more than 1 additional lot)_ GMQS Allotments Residential Affordable Housing Yes_ No_ Commercial E.P.F. Lodging 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 1 P: 970.920.5000 1 F: 970.920.5197 1 cityofaspen.com Sarah Yoon From: Doug Rager <ragerarchitect@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 8:56 AM To: Sarah Yoon Subject: 312 W, Hyman Hi Sarah, I think Henry Lambert has sent a note to Amy this morning, but not sure if he copied you. We are withdrawing our application for 312 W. Hyman. Thank you for your help. Doug Rager 1 ffi,Effi E, � '44, He said he hopes they can adhere to Mr. Moyer's comments about fenestration and venting. The proposed resolution from staff is something he can adhere to. Ms. Greenwood pointed out that the board is being a little redundant, but we do make a good impact on the community when we analyze these thoroughly and give the applicant's professional recommendations. She does think the project is in a good place, but she wants to comment about the pipes. The building department does require us to label every single pipe, so she suggested the applicant do that before they come back for final with the board. Throughout the process, please keep Ms. Simon informed on what you are finding. Other than that, she feels the windows on the rear need to be restudied. She also recommended restudy of the flat roof underneath the facia on the new addition because the building, in detail, should correspond to the historic resource. We're all in agreement with staff's comments. Ms. Sanzone said she agrees with Mr. Moyer's comments and that they probably seem like details, but they are really important details. She said where the fence is shown, it would intrude on where you would want to put the utilities, ideally. MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to approve resolution #10,,.Mr. Kendrick seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms Greenwood, yes; Ms. Sanzone, yes. 7-0, motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: 312 W Hyman Sarah Yoon Ms. Yoon said this is a conceptual design review and was alsopart of the site visit today. This is in the R6 zone district on a 6000 square foot lot. The applicant is requesting majordevelopment and setback variations. This is a city owned property and was designated in 2006 as an Aspen Modern landmark. At the time, there was a threat for demolition. This has been listed for sale and the applicant is currently under contract. This landmark is an excellent example of the chalet style architecture. Some of the characteristics include the large singular roof forms, shallow pitched roof, deep overhangs, very simple footprints and a continuous balcony. Some of the more noticeable details are in the decorative geometric motifs. There was very little development surrounding the property when it was built. There are a lot of large trees on the site and they now have neighbors on either side. The applicant has been in communication_ with the parks department regarding removing two trees on the alley. The driveway access off of Hyman and the two garage doors are considered significant features. Engineering has allowed for another driveway from the alley. Because of the constraints, it's important that the applicant work with staff and relevant departments to develop the site. The current proposal does meet the minimum 5-foot setbacks, but not the 15-foot combined. The applicant is requesting a setback variation and HPC does grant these if they meet listed criteria, which are listed on screen. The resource cannot be relocated or moved due to existing encroachments. Staff would support a setback variation in accordance with design. Going into the design proposal for the addition, staff focused the memo on guidelines 10.6 and 10.12. There must be design compatibility and the design must not destroy or obscure historic features or materials. The proposed addition has two levels and a flat roof. There is no connecting element that we typically see on other projects. The location of the addition to the rear of the property is very appropriate to the site. Staff does Want to see a sensitive transition between the old and the new. A two-story transition might meet the guidelines in this case. The material choices for the addition, don't meet with the historic landmark, so staff is recommending further study of the F9 5 material and form to relate back to the landmark. This is a wonderful resource and a very challenging site. Staff recommends restudy of the transition from old to new to something more sensitive to the historic materials. Staff is also recommending restudy of guideline 10.6 regarding visual compatibility and recommending working closely with other relevant city departments. Ms. Thompson clarified that the shed at the back is not historic and Ms. Yoon agreed. Ms. Greenwood said she noticed that the drywell was proposed for 20 feet down and she thought they couldn't be more than 15 feet. Ms. Simon said that was a discussion about putting in a drywell under a basement, but in the yard, there is not a limit or specified depth. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Doug Rager of Doug Rager Architect Mr. Rager said this has been a process of discovery for his clients and the floor plan was actually drawn by them. We didn't make any effort on materials or fenestration because we are just trying to come to grips with what is possible first. They are convinced that they need all the square footage they can get to make their program work. If they can't have this kind of connection, which was presented, they will not purchase the property. He suggested that the board not consider the fenestration or materials at this point. He wanted to turn in the application without these things and consider this more of a work session because it's not a typical project. It's under contract and want to buy it, but they won't without the connector. They are in love with the house and do this type of restoration work in New Orleans. He hasn't been able to do much about the concerns and comments at this point. He showed the back of the house on screen. They had a second -floor link centered under the ridge, which was using the window as the link connection. Mr. Moyer said the box on the back is not higher than the peak of the resource, but on the corner, he wanted to know how high it is above the facia. Mr. Rager said the plate height is S foot and we did a 9- foot plate height on the addition because our: roof frame will be thicker. Mr. Moyer said he is curious why there is no connector. Mr. Rager said a link connector won't allow them to develop enough square footage to make the program work. They started with the garage and feel it is inadequate and too low, so they wanted to put it off the alley. The only location to clear the trees is as shown, which comes around the east side of the building. Mr. Moyer pointed out that Mr. Rager didn't submit a north west view. Ms. Sanzone asked if in working with the civil engineer, they discussed doing the drywells underneath the proposed addition and Mr. Rager said he did. It's unbelievable that we need a 20 ft hole to put the storm water in. He said it doesn't work where it's at under the drip line and it's cross hatched on the plan where it seems like the best spot. Mr. Moyer asked if they want to take a straw vote regarding a project that has no connector. Ms. Greenwood said they should save that for discussion and go through the public hearing process. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. Ms. Greenwood said that since Mr. Rager mentioned a work session, maybe this is a good opportunity to work this from the board side. We have the expertise; knowledge, and we care. Mr. Halferty said this is a tough site. He said he worked on this project and did the affordable housing downstairs. He understands the client's request for adding as much square footage as they can with all of the challenges they have brought to it. He appreciates Mr. Rager doing the massing study. Right now, he agrees with staff's memo and thinks there are a lot of missing pieces. It's a product of its own time, but it's a stacked container meet a chalet type of architecture. This is the hardest part regarding the trees and setbacks, angles; it's all extremely tough. He agrees with staff's comments and appreciates the client's wants and with some modifications, he could maybe support, but not as is now. Mr. Moyer said that to him, this is a little like the Connors cabins, which were restored nicely. This is not a project you can add onto; you must have a connector. He agrees completely with staff's comments and said it's a difficult project. Ms. Greenwood said that a connecting link is required in following the design guidelines. A lot of time is put into helping the applicants understand the design guidelines and this project doesn't seem to meet any of that. She said she doesn't think this is a difficult building to add onto, but they wouldn't follow the traditional alignment of the chalet and make th and the street and use the connector element to m for this house. The design guidelines state that you Idtion follow a more linear pattern with the alley this transition. This would be more appropriate hree elements. We care about form and not so much about materials at this point. In this case it's a box a box form doesn't belong on this site with this very interesting and unique chalet, which is a gem for the City of Aspen. Right now, the addition overwhelms the cuteness. It's really special and it's going to need more conceptual thinking on your part to get it to be an addition which works with the form. She can't support the project at this time. I hope we can give you some direction, but it's more than a tweak on this addition. You need to rethink it and -meet the guidelines for the City of Aspen because they do work. Ms. Simon said she wanted to clarify and make sure, that everyone understands that a connector is not required by the guidelines unless your addition is taller than the resource, but that is not the case here. You do have purview_over how the addition attaches and over the historic materials. She wants to make sure that no one is expecting to see that classic hallway connector because it is not required and they have not violated a requirement. Ms. Berko said she totally supports the staff memo and comments by the board so far. She said it's a jewel of a building and thanked the City for taking it on and designating it. We've got to be able to see the whole thing. Whether you do a:below grade connector or whether it's where the shed is could be two ideas. Maybe there is something that can work where the garage is and more horizontal to the alley. It just has to be preserved; that is what this board has been assigned to do, to not erode the historic resource. Thank you to staff for the memo. Ms. Thompson said she agrees with everything that has been said so far. When it comes to massing the roof of the chalet, it really does need to be respected because it's a very special element. Mr. Blaich said there are two garages, but only one being utilized. We want to maintain the fagade and if it's not going to be converted back into a garage, he questions the width of the driveway, which is pretty imposing in this neighborhood. Otherwise, he is supportive of staff and other comments that have been made. 7 Mr. Kendrick said he doesn't need to rehash as it's an extremely difficult site. For him, there is too much of a departure right now and agrees with staff. Ms. Sanzone said she agrees with almost everything she has heard. Mr. Rager said that even he agrees with staff and said this is a tough one because this is what the applicants think they need and want and asked me to come to you. I got my answer, so I think we will leave it on the books for now. I suspect they will not go forward with the purchase and I've been trying to lecture them that this wouldn't fly, but here we are now. He said it's all good and thanked the board and staff for their time. MOTION: Mr. Kendrick motioned to continue this to May 8th, Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion carried. HPC Awards: Ms. Simon ran through the projects which are up for awards this year and showed them on screen. Board discussion. MOTION: Mr. Kendrick motioned to adjourn, Mr. Halferty seconded at 7:08 p.m. All in favor, motion carried. Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk 1) CITY OF ASPEN Memorandum TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner THROUGH: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer MEETING DATE: April 24, 2019 RE: 312 West Hyman Street - Conceptual Major Development Review, and Setback Variations,. PUBLIC HEARING. APPLICANT /OWNER: SUMMARY: The applicants are Henry The applicant has requested a Conceptual Major Development Lambert & Carey Bond, contract review for the construction of a new addition to the rear of the purchasers. The City of Aspen historic landmark. Setback variations are proposed. owns the property. REPRESENTATIVE: Doug Rager, Architect LOCATION: 312 West Hyman Legal Description: Lots P and Q, Block 46, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. Parcel Identification Number: PID# 2735-124-64-006 CURRENT ZONING & USE R-6 - Medium -Density Residential Single-family home PROPOSED USE: No change STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends continuation of this project to restudy the issues identified on page 7 of this memo. R•,., t 5. Site Locator Map - 312 West Hyman Avenue Page 1 of 7 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 1 P: 970.920.5197 1 cityofaspen.com ►�i CITY OF ASPEN BACKGROUND: 312 West Hyman is a designated Aspen Modern landmark on a 6,000 sf lot in the R-6 zone district. This property contains a Chalet style building that was completed in 1954 and locally designated in 2006. The historic orientation of the resource is angled to face Aspen Mountain and there are several large trees surrounding this property. This property is an excellent example of Chalet style architecture associated with early ski areas in the United States. Some common architectural features include a large singular roof form with a low slope and deep overhangs, rectangular footprint with few deviations, limited number of horizontal windows, and a continuous balcony that runs along the length of the primary facade. Often the exterior of these structures will have decorative elements in the shape of hearts or edelweiss motifs, as is the case at 312 West Hyman. The property was purchased by the City of Aspen and designated historic out of concern at the time that the structure was proposed to be demolished by the owner. After several years of using the site for housing, the City decided to list the property for sale and is currently under contract with the applicant for this proposal. REQUEST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals: • Major Development (Section 26.415.070.D) for a new addition towards the rear of the historic residence. The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is the final review authority. • Setback Variations (Section 26.415.110.C) for the proposed new addition. The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is the final review authority. This project is subject to Call-up Notice to City Council. PROJECT SUMMARY: 312 West Hyman is a single-family residence and no change is proposed for the use of this property at this time. The applicant plans to maintain the historic resource in its current location and configuration with the construction of a two story addition attached to the rear of the historic landmark. This addition includes a new garage accessed from the alley. The total above grade floor area of the proposed addition does not exceed the floor area of the historic resource and a basement level is not proposed. The proposal includes a request for combined side yard setback variations for the proposed addition. No floor area bonus is asked of HPC. The architect has indicated that the architectural design which has been submitted is somewhat preliminary calling it a massing study that will need further development, but the client states that the Page 2 of 7 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 1 P: 970.920.5197 1 cityofaspen.com /3 Ij CITY OFASPEN plan is the only way they wish to proceed. Staff understands the site constraints and accepts the general location of the building envelope. Input from HPC is needed to identify parameters to move towards an approval. Figure 1 - Existing South Elevation Figure 2 - Proposed South Elevation (along West Hyman Avenue) (along West Hyman Avenue) STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant proposes no changes to the front or sides of the house. The historic relationship between the building and site, including the existing driveway from West Hyman Avenue and the garage doors, will remain because they are considered historically significant features that are integral to the overall design of the chalet. The unique orientation of the existing footprint and the large trees at the front and rear of the lot create site constrictions for new development. The Parks Department has indicated that two of the five trees that line the alley can be removed. The remaining tree driplines still affect placement of the addition. Although building area is limited, staff is concerned that the proposed addition does not meet the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines which address preserving the integrity of the rear fagade of the historic resource, and the guidelines aimed -at achieving design compatibility between the historic resource and the new addition. Staff recommends restudy. The following points go into more detail regarding the proposal for HPC discussion: 1. Historic Landmark - Alterations: The applicant proposes to butt the two story addition against the rear of the historic house, retaining a portion of the rear wall on the ground level within the new interior and penetrating the upper wall of the historic building for access between the addition and the historic house. An important thing to note here is, HPC currently does not have purview over interiors, therefore, future preservation of any elements of the enclosed rear wall cannot be ensured if this design were to be approved. The existing materials at the rear of the resource are in good condition and the guidelines call for original building material to be Page 3 of 7 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 i P: 970.920.5197 1 cityofaspen.com CITY OF ASPEN protected and preserved. The proposed addition appears to remove two existing windows on the rear of the historic building. Design Guideline 3.2 requires the preservation of original windows and openings. While an expansion to the rear of the house can be accommodated, staff is concerned of the irreversible alteration to this facade. The location and extent of attachment should be restudied. + /�tR MJ ' �•. M'. CR1? ♦Jt/•.�. A/r.b\ �'tt. t.�'M.• t4(t �� rf \ 1 rr,' Tl - t t.� Jlwrr.. tin a.ast 1 i i 1 wrt •�>< tfAa •:1MYI1. � f J 1m i T 6#2-. y.. cctwrJ•�. + �;+.a. t..r+a �t I i-7 ,I GROUND LEVEL PLAN UPPER LEVEL PLAN Figure 3 - Proposed Floor Plans (historic -yellow, proposed addition -red) Staff finds the proposal compromises the integrity of the historic resource by too extensively altering and covering significant features of the rear facade. The proposed design does not meet the Design Guidelines; therefore, staff recommends restudy of the transition between the historic house and addition. 2. New Addition - Form/Materials/Fenestration: The proposed addition does not exceed the historic resource in floor area or overall height. The addition is connected to the historic house on both levels and a garage is located towards the east side of the property with access from the alley. Engineering has agreed to allow two driveway accessed to this property because the driveway and garage from Hyman Avenue is considered a historic feature of the chalet that must Page 4 of 7 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 1 P: 970,920.5197 1 cityofaspen.cow �;��!+P CITY OF ASPEN be preserved. The front most facade of the proposed addition is recessed by approximately 21' from the front most wall of the historic resource. Form: The overall massing for the proposed addition is rectilinear with a chamfered corner and deck towards the east. The applicant proposes a flat roof for the entire addition which keeps it below the tallest point of the historic building; however, the flat roof form does not relate to the roof form on the historic resource (Design Guideline 1o.11). The current design immediately transitions from a low gable roof form to a flat roof form and lacks visual continuity because of its proximity. The form of the addition does not relate to any forms found on the historic house and staff recommends further study. Materials: The materials selected for the new addition consists of vertical siding, an exposed stone base foundation that is proud of the building, and no decorative detailing. The application and selection of materials could better relate to the historic resource, particularly the stone, which is foreign to the home. Staff recommends further study. Fenestration: The fenestration choices on the proposed addition are mostly vertical windows with no mullions to break up the glass. The dimension of the proposed openings and their arrangement do not relate to the fenestration on the historic resource. Staff recommends further study. The Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for new additions focus on striking an appropriate balance between preservation and new construction. The proposed addition is recessed and secondary to the historic house when viewed from the primary front elevation and the overall scale is appropriate, but a more sensitive transition that minimizes impact to the rear of the resource is needed. For visual compatibility, Design Guideline 10.6 must be met. Staff recommends further study of form, materials and fenestration to achieve visual compatibility between the new addition and the historic landmark. Staff also recommends additional evaluation of options to fully utilize the two stall historic garage at the front of the property in order to devote the addition to living space. The rear garage creates some conflicts with the remaining trees and slides up along the east side of the resource in order to accommodate the length of a car. 3. Setback Variations: The applicant is maintaining at least a 5' side yard setback for both the east and west sides of the property, but a 15' combined side yard setback is required for a 6,000sf lot in the R-6 zone district. HPC may grant setback variations if one of the two criteria is met (Section 26.415.110.C): In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: Page 5 of 7 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 1 P: 970.920.5197 1 cityofaspen.com ��'/�*s CITY OF ASPEN a) is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or h) 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 lot contains a building with a unique footprint that needs to be maintained, along with a number of large trees that need to be preserved. The proposed addition is oriented to follow the orientation of the historic resource which is appropriate, but the proposed addition as designed creates adverse impacts on the resource. Staff could support some setback variations for the addition, given site constraints. In this case, the historic resource cannot be re -sited due to trees and the historic significance of the building placement. Figure 4 - Proposed Site Plan Staff does not yet find that the variations meet the criteria for approval because the design of the addition creates impacts on the historic resource that must be restudied. The historic house has some existing side setback encroachments that can be memorialized with the granting of variations. Page 6 of 7 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 1 P: 970.920.5197 1 cityofaspen.com 1, r AN► �1 CITY OFASPEN REFERRAL COMMENTS: The application was referred out to other City departments who have requirements that will significantly affect the permit review. The following is a summary of comments received. See Exhibit C for more details. Engineering Department: 1. Drywell system needs to be io' from foundation and property line, variances may be needed. No excavation is permitted in the ROW. (Additional questions regarding the construction of the drywell system in comments.) 2. Concrete driveway can only extend to property line, and driveway surface in ROW must match the alley. 3. Project needs to comply with urban runoff (URMP) standards, and structure needs to be treated for water quality capture volume (WQCV). Parks Department: 1. Verify ownership of trees along the east side of the property. Approval letters from neighbors may be required for their removal. 2. Drywell needs to maintain 15' offset from the trunks of the spruce trees along the alley. 3. Dome storm grates on north side of the building needs to be located 15' from tree trunk. 4. Building needs to respect the 15' distance from tree trunk. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission continue the application for further restudy of the following. A resolution approving the proposal is attached, should HPC find that action to be appropriate. I.) Restudy the transition between the new addition and the historic building to limit the extent that the rear wall and windows are altered or removed. 2.) Restudy the design of the new addition to achieve visual compatibility with the historic building by relating to two of the three characteristics: form, material and fenestration. 3.) Work closely with relevant City Departments on the design of the stormwater system, and to determine an appropriate location for a drywell on this property. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution #_, Series of 2019 Exhibit A.i - Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria /Staff Findings Exhibit A.2 - Setback Variation Review Criteria /Staff Findings Exhibit B - Referral Comments Exhibit C - Application Page 7 of 7 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 1 P: 970.920.5197 1 cityofaspen.com RESOLUTION #_, SERIES OF 2019 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND SETBACK VARIATIONS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 312 WEST HYMAN, LOTS P AND Q, BLOCK 46, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2735-124-64-Oo6 WHEREAS, the applicant, Henry Lambert & Cary Bond, contract purchasers, represented by Doug Rager Architect, has requested HPC approval for Major Development and Setback Variation for the property located at 312 West Hyman, Lots P and Q, Block 46, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for 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, for approval of Setback Variations, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110.C, Setback Variations; and WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards and recommended continuation of Conceptual Major Development and Setback Variations with conditions; and WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on April 24, 2019. HPC 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 _. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development and Setback Variations for 312 West Hyman, Lot P and Q, Block 46, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO as follows: Section 1: Conceptual Major Development Review and Setback Variations HPC Resolution #_, Series of 2019 Page 1 of 2 HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development and Setback Variations as proposed with the with the following conditions: Section 2: Material Representations All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 3: Existing Litigation This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the — day of , 2019. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Gretchen Greenwood, Chair ATTEST: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk HPC Resolution #_, Series of 2019 Page 2of2 �I FA-0 �. CITY OF ASPEN Exhibit A.1 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria Staff Findings NOTE: Staff responses begin on page 5 of this exhibit, following the list of applicable guidelines. 26.415.070.1) Major Development. No building, structure or landscape shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or a property located within a Historic 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. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development order. 3. Conceptual.Development Plan Review b) The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major development projects are as follows: 1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.06o.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. 2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be 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 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. 3) 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. 4) A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council, and call-up. No applications for Final Development Plan shall be accepted by the City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes action as described in said section Page 1 of 6 ►�� 1�►O�► CITY OF ASPEN Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Review Criteria for 312 West Hyman The applicant is requesting a Conceptual Major Development reivew for constructing a new above grade addition. The proposed design must meet applicable Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Chapter 1: Site Planning & Landscape Design MET NOT MET 1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not part of the original development of the site, 1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. 1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces. 1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. • • 1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. Chapter 3: Rehabilitation - Windows MET NOT MET 3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. •Elam Chapter lo: New Construction - Building Additions MET NOT MET 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. • 10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the predominant structure as viewed from the street. 10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. • 1o.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. 1o.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. 1o.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building. • 10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. • Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines: 1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not part of the original development of the site. • Do not introduce new curb cuts on streets. • Non -historic driveways accessed from the street should be removed if they can be relocated to the alley. 1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. Page 2 of 6 M CITY OF ASPEN • If an alley exists at the site, the new driveway must be located off it. • Tracks, gravel, light grey concrete with minimal seams, or similar materials are appropriate for driveways on Aspen Victorian properties. 1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces. • Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk to a semi-public walkway, to a semi private entry feature, to private spaces. 1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. • When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at least a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal. • Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site, reduce the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the ground. Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should have minimal visual impact when viewed from the public right of way. • Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements. 1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. • Retaining historic planting beds and landscape features is encouraged. • Protect historically significant vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Removal of damaged, aged, or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. • If a significant tree must be removed, replace it with the same or similar species in coordination with the Parks Department. • The removal of non -historic planting schemes is encouraged. • Consider restoring the original landscape if information is available, including original plant materials. 3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. • Enclosing a historic window is inappropriate. • Do not change the size of an original window opening. 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 must be compatible with the historic character of the primary building. • An addition must be subordinate, deferential, modest, and secondary in comparison to the architectural character of the primary building. • An addition that imitates the primary building's historic style is not allowed. For example, a new faux Victorian detailed addition is inappropriate on an Aspen Victorian home. • An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. • Proposals on corner lots require particular attention to creating compatibility. Page 3 of 6 AA INS CITY OF ASPEN 10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the predominant structure as viewed from the street. • The historic resource must be visually dominant on the site and must be distinguishable against the addition. • The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than l00% of the above grade floor area of the original historic resource. All other above grade development must be completely detached. HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following are met: o The proposed addition is all one story o The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic resource o The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource o The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as existed historically o The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant setback from the street o There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic conditions that aren't being changed o The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or o The property is affected by non -preservation related site specific constraints such as trees that must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc. 10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. • An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be visually compatible with historic features. • A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or a modern interpretation of a historic style are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from historic construction to new construction. • Do not reference historic styles that have no basis in Aspen. • Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials, and fenestration. An addition must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. • Note that on a corner lot, departing from the form of the historic resource may not be allowed. • There is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old portions of a development. Some resources of particularly high significance or integrity may not be the right instance for a contrasting addition. 10.8 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. lo.lo Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially 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 primary building is inappropriate. • Additions to the side of a primary building are handled on a case -by -case basis and are approved based on site specific constraints that restrict rear additions. Page 4 of 6 CITY OFASPEN • Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. iom Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building. • A simple roof form that does not compete with the historic building is appropriate. • On Aspen Victorian properties, a flat roof may only be used on an addition to a gable roofed structure if the addition is entirely one story in height, or if the flat roofed areas are limited, but the addition is primarily a pitched roof. 10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. • Loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices, and eavelines must be avoided. Staff Finding. The applicable sections of the design guidelines are as follows: site planning, windows, and new additions. Design Guideline ,T.2 is related to the preservation of historic windows. As part of the proposal, the location of the new addition will require the removal of two windows along the rear of the historic resource. This Design Guideline requires the preservation' of the position, number and arrangement of the historic windows in a building wall and staff finds that enclosing or removing historic fenestration is generally inappropriate. Some flexibility maybe allowed on a rear wall, but the addition should avoid the rear windows to a greater extent. Design Guideline 7o.3 is about design compatibility of the new addition by ensuring it is modest and subordinate to the historic resource. Again, new additions must not cover historically significant features, nor imitate the historic resource to the point where it cannot be distinguished as an addition. The proposed addition does not imitate or mimic the chalet; however, the addition covers historic features on two floors and the architectural language of the new addition abruptly shifts into a modern form without an appropriate transition. Staff finds that the proposed addition does not achieve design compatibility for these reasons. Design Guideline 70.6 focuses on the need for anew addition to be recognized as a product of its own time, yet achieve a strong sense of connection to the historic landmark. In order to promote this connection, the new addition must comply with two of the three aspects by strongly relating to the historic landmark, • form, materials, and fenestration. Staff finds the proposed addition departs from all three characteristics. The form of the proposed addition is rectilinear with a flat roof, whereas the historic resource has a large singular roof with a distinct low slopping pitch and deep overhangs. The material choice of vertical siding may relate to the chalet, but a significant stone foundation introduces anew material to the house. The proposed fenestration on the addition is narrow and vertical and does not relate to any dimensions found on the historic resource. As a near intact example of Chalet Page 5of6 A �r CITY OF ASPEN architecture in Aspen, this resource has a high level of integrity, therefore, a highly contrasting addition maybe inappropriate. Staff finds that the proposed addition needs restudy to achieve compatibility, Design Guideline ian calls for compatible roof forms that are simple, The proposed roof form on the new addition is a flat roof. The addition is towards the rear of the property; therefore, only a portion is apparent from the front facade, but the massing that can be seen from the southeast appears out of character, Staff finds that the proposed roof does not achieve visual compatibility, A pitched roof is preferred, but this will increase the importance of a carefully placed attachment point to the back of the resources so that the addition tucks below the historic eave, Design Guideline 10.72 concerns the destruction or obstruction of historically significant features, The proposed addition is a two story mass that is directly attached to the historic resource, This design covers a large portion of the rear wall and requires the destruction or removal of historically significant building material, such as windows and siding, The plans indicate that a section of the ground floor rear wall of the chalet will remain intact, however, once the wall is internalized, this feature will no longer be under the purview of HPC, Staff understands the physical constraints on this property limits the area available for an addition. The Design Guidelines do not require a 70'long, one story connector for this design since the addition is not taller than the resource, however, an appropriate transition between the historic resource and the proposed addition must be achieved. A two story transition might meet the guidelines if it was more narrow and located away from the historic windows. Staff recommends further study of this transition, The preservation of original building materials is not met with the proposed design. There have been no changes made to the original footprint of this historic resource, but the proposed new addition will alter the overall building footprint by encapsulating the exterior rear wall into the interior of the new addition and obscuring the northeast corner of the chalet. This design will require the demolition and removal of historic building materials on the rear of the resource, which must be minimized. The proposed addition will directly attach to the rear wall of the historic resource and cover approximately 78 feet of the 25 feet long rear wall, The rear wall consists of masonry on the ground level and wood siding on the upper level. This material palette is continuous throughout the entire landmark and identified as a character defining feature, The covering of this facade will obscure the original material from view. Staff finds the proposed design does not meet this guideline and recommends restudy. In summary, staff recommends restudy of the connection and new addition to achieve visual compatibility with the historic building and preserve the integrity of the historic resource, Page 6of6 h. Ad i CITY OF ASPEN Exhibit A.2 Setback Variation Criteria Staff Findings Review Criteria for 312 West Hyman As a historically designated property, HPC may grant dimensional variations of the Land Use Code to allow for development in the side, rear and front setbbacks. The applicant is requesting Setback Variations for the proposed new addtion. Summary of Review Criteria for Setback Variation Request 26.415.110.0 - Variances. Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what would be requried by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards. 2. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: DOES NOT MET NOT MET APPLY a.) Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or • b.) Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural • character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. 26.415.110.C: Variances: Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what would be required by the underlying zonings dimensional standards. 7. The HPC maygrant variances of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow.• a) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks; h) Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings; C) Up to five percent (5/) additional site coverage; d) Less public amenity than required for the on -site relocation of commercial historic properties. 2. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a) Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or h) 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 Finding: The lot has a unique building configuration that needs to be maintained, along with a number of large trees that need to be preserved. The proposed addition is oriented to follow the existing orientation of the historic resource which is appropriate; however, the proposed addition itself creates an adverse impact on the resource. Staff does not support the proposed addition and recommends restudy including the proposed variations. Page 1 of 1 �Gt = Ch (vopsnJ)svoj JOJ ION) AIDO Maleaa c veld a6evleip +g 6ulpeig § V RE - 3D�cic.U!`�r �N�m o a'ad` $ an y uew�fH M ZlE m "*� r 9 a � KMSI jM! '� ytYtH � " w S S nY I M H -------- __ tCiu..r Qa �u s mP,v+ _ ------r--- ---- ups„ ' 9 Y\ _ Nl_ ...+ L/ i/ / it i/ / i �,�v �g o E`Fe z ` •� o x e 9a _ s s by V9 a st 'fie a a �g HH1 Da°tea / ' l From: David Radeck To: Sarah Yoon; Ben Carlsen Subject: RE: HPC Referral Project: 312 W. Hyman Date: Friday, April 12, 2019 3:59:28 PM Attachments: imaae001.Dng imaQe012xng imaae013.png imaae014.Dna imaae015.Dnq HI Sarah, Parks comments have not been addressed by the applicant's architect but please let them know that: 1. Aspen trees along east side of property needed to be vetted to prove that they are not shared ownership trees. If it determined that they are co -owned with the neighbor, please have the applicant submit a letter from neighbor giving approval of the removals. 2. Drywell in alley needs to maintain the 15'offset from the trunks of the spruce along the alley. This may be accomplished by rotating the drywell into the driveway. 3. Dome storm grates on North side of building need to be located at 15' from trunk of trees. 4. Building needs to respect the IS' from trunk of trees. CITY OF ASPEN David Radeck Project Technician Parks Department 585 Cemetery Lane Aspen, CO 81611 p: 970.429.2025 f: 970.920.5128 www.cityofaspen.comtq C) . To apply for a Tree Removal/Dripline Excavation Permit, register here: https://www.surveVmonkeV.com/r/SFNewUser Tree Removal/Dripline Excavation Permit Online Permit Application: h_tips.//cityofasl2en.force.com/apli an portal/s/login/? sta rtU R L=%2 Fa ppl ica ntporta I%2 Fs%2 F&ec=302 If you need assistance for the online portal, please contact customer support: sfsupport(@cityofaspen.com or call 970-920-5065 EXHIBIT EXT gAFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 1.2 V/- 14 l Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: z 920/1 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) L (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant o the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: y Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the day of , 20 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (3 0) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, PDs that create more than one lot, and new Planned Developments are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. 5� Signaturc The fore in "Affidavit of Notice" was a owlvd e4efore me this *'day of l , 20 0, by NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: 312 West Hyman Avenue Public Hearing: Wednesday, April 24th 2019; 4:30 PM Meeting Location: City Hall, City Council Chambers 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611 Project Location: 312 W. Hyman Avenue, PID# 2735-124-64-006. Legally described as Lots P and Q, Block 46, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. Description: The applicant is requesting Conceptu- al Major Development approval for constructing a new addition, and approval for setback variation for the proposed addition. Land Use Reviews: Conceptual Major Develop- ment and Setback Variation. Decision Making Body: HistoricPreservation Commission (HPC). Applicant: Henry Lambert & Carey Bond, 320 Julia Street, IA 130 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL y M commission ex ires: l� Notary Public New Orleans, 7o ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Sarah Yoon at the City of As penGalena Stm.,uAspen CO, 970.9 0.5144 esarah.yo y Development De, 130 �KEPUBLICATION MARIA RENEE ESPINOZA NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID 2018402802g MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 10, 2022 Qcityofaspen.com. PH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) Published in the Aspen Times on April 4, 2019� 0000403797 _ !E OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL e APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 AFFIDAVIT REQUIRED BY I t61ASPEN tUSE CODE ADDRESS 1 ' ' ■Aspen, Qfr' SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING I)ATE: It I STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. . Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the2� day of (L , 20�; to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. �," Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, PDs that create more than one lot, and new Planned Developments are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signatur The foregoing " ffidavit of Notic " was cknowledged before me this L day Of , 20 , by MARIAVERONICAVARGAS E otary Public — State of Colorado Notary ID 20014021313 Commission 5xpiras Jan 21- 2022 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFI My commissi lie - EAL ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPY OF THE PUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 VAUGHAN CAPITAL PTNRS LP MULLINS MARGARET ANN PO BOX 390 216 W HYMAN AVE HEBRON, IL 60034 ASPEN, CO 81611 CROWLEY SUE MITCHELL REV TRUST TRAN LAN D 6000 RIVERSIDE DR #A366 PO BOX 2705 DUBLIN, OH 43017 ASPEN, CO 81612 SWISS CHALET/KITZBUHEL PARTNERSHIP SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC 1286 SNOWBUNNY LN 232 W HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CITY OF ASPEN SHERWIN ENTERPRISES LLC 130 S GALENA ST 1714 VISTA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 DURHAM, NC 27701 GREENASPEN LLC REYNOLDS FRANK R IV 30 ISLAND DR PO BOX 2725 KEY BISCAYNE, FL 33149 ASPEN, CO 81612 CHERNY ANDREA J 301 WEST HYMAN AVE #5 ASPEN, CO 81611 FCB LLC PO BOX 6622 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615-6622 EDGEWATER PROPERTIES LLC 18081 BURT ST OMAHA, NE 68022 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC 232 W HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 DHM FAMILY TRST 2288 PEACHTREE RD, NW #12 ATLANTA, GA 30309 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC 232 W HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 CITY OF ASPEN 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 BEHRENDT H MICHAEL TRUST 334 W HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY 530 E MAIN ST #301 ASPEN, CO 81611 BEHRENDT H MICHAEL TRUST 334 W HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 AJAX APARTMENTS CONDO ASSOC COMMON AREA 301 W HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN A CONDO ASSOC COMMON AREA 308 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN HOUSE LLC 17595 HARVARD AVE # C511 IRVINE, CA 92614 BOND RICHARD CAREY 320 JULIA ST NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 235 W HOPKINS B LLC 250 S OCEAN BLVD # 14A BOCA RATON, FL 33432 BDDC TRUST 2100 ROSS AVE #550 DALLAS, TX 75201 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC 232 W HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 CONNOR WILLIAM E II TRUST 990 S ROCK BLVD #F RENO, NV 89502 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC 232 W HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ALLAN ANDREW S 154 MARION ST DENVER, CO 80218 GROSVENOR DENIS 209 CAMINO DE LA MERCED # C TAOS, NM 875716922 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC 232 W HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 JLR QPRT TRUST 355 MARQUESA DR CORAL GABLES, FL 33156 HECHT MATTHEW C 301 W HYMAN AVE #3 ASPEN, CO 81611 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC 232 W HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 GOSS CHESTER A IV PO BOX 9642 ASPEN, CO 81612 FOSTER LOT 2 LLC 625 E HYMAN AVE #201 ASPEN, CO 81611 MAYER KEVIN 222 W HOPKINS AVE #2 ASPEN, CO 81611 UNDERWOOD AMOS 301 W HYMAN #6 ASPEN, CO 81611 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC 232 W HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 SHADOW MOUNTAIN DUPLEX CONDO ASSO NORTON CAPITAL PARTNERS LLLP COMMON AREA 130 N MAIN ST W HOPKINS AVE CHAGRIN FALLS, OH 44022 ASPEN, CO 81611 SAND KATHERINE M UTOPIA LIVING ASPEN LLC PO BOX 51 225 GEORGINA AVE ASPEN, CO 81612 SANTA MONICA, CA 90402 LAMBERT HENRY M GROVER FREDRICK W & PAULA J 320 JULIA ST 399 MARSHALL HEIGHTS DR NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 WEXFORD, PA 15090 ASPEN HIDEAWAYS LLC MARTEN RANDOLPH 49 SW FLAGGER AVE #201 129 MARTEN ST STUART, FL 34994 MONDOVI, WI 54755 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC KASPAR THERESA D 232 W HYMAN AVE PO BOX 1637 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 KENDIG ROBERT & SUE GILDENHORN MICHAEL S 5008 BALTON RD BETHESDA, MD 20816 NANOOK RIDGE LLC 324 W HOPKINS AVE #B ASPEN, CO 81611 HOLTZMAN L BART & PATRICIA G 9741 LITZSINGER RD SAINT LOUIS, MO 63124 LITTLE CLOUD HOMEOWNERS ASSOC 201 N MILL ST ASPEN, CO 81611 CITY OF ASPEN RESSEL THOMAS G 301 W HYMAN AVE #7 ASPEN, CO 816111625 MARTIN SCOTT M MCCARTY DANIEL L ASPENNEST LLC PO BOX 51 PO BOX 4051 1050 WALNUT ST # 210 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 BOULDER, CO 80302 BDDC TRUST CITY OF ASPEN EGBERT STEPHEN E 2100 ROSS AVE #550 130 S GALENA ST 301 W HYMAN AVE #1 DALLAS, TX 75201 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC MORGAN DONALD FRANKEL KATHY TRUST 232 W HYMAN AVE 2288 PEACHTREE RD, NW #12 280 GULF SHORE BLVD N ASPEN, CO 81611 ATLANTA, GA 30309 NAPLES, FL 34102 NEWTON BARBARA WEST ASPEN MOUNTAIN CONDO ASSOC CITY OF ASPEN PO BOX 9410 333 S SECOND ST 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC GUNN ROBERT W FAMILY TRST MARTIN SCOTT M 232 W HYMAN AVE 409 OCEAN AVE PO BOX 51 ASPEN, CO 81611 MARBLEHEAD, MA 01945 ASPEN, CO 81611 MILLER BRITT C WEST SIDE CONDO ASSOC GARET CONDO ASSOC PO BOX 9822 234 W HOPKINS AVE 400 E MAIN ST #2 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC SAND KATHERINE M WINER CAROL G 232 W HYMAN AVE PO BOX 51 6740 SELKIRK DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 BETHESDA , MD 20817 LAND USE APPUCAiI ON Project Name and Address: .� v y`• ifi�1�I,f-'Q �l. , Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) �/� :�j �f 1 ?/� Description: Existing and Proposed Conditions F)�-CFO�- Review: Administrative or Board Review Required Land Use Review(s): Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) required fields: CA15- aoa ,- AHV"> R27 0 OFASP Wet Leasable square footage � Lodge Pillows Free Market dwelling units Affordable Housing dwelling units Essential Public Facility square footage Have you included the following? FEES DUE: $ Pre -Application Conference Summary Signed Fee Agreement A Compliance form All items listed in checklist on PreApplication Conference Summary November 2017of .- 1 • 1 920 5091 Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen ("City") and \ � Please type or print in all caps Address of Property: �� � � �yl �1. Property Owner Nameei� c1 Representative Name (if different from Property owner) Billing Name and Address - Send Bills to: Oc,IAcc-,7r. 0 )30 Contact info for billing: e-mail: h on • ��'►''1 Phone: understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2017, review fees for Land Use applications and 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. $. flat fee for 6� $. flat fee for 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 no -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 and 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. $ !q 50 deposit for L hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. $ deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. City of Aspen: Jessica Garrow, AICP Community Development Director City Use: Fees Due: $ Received $ Case # Signature: y JJL,,:�&J E�'� PRINT Dame: Title: November 2017 City of Aspen 1 130 S. Galena St. 1 (970) 920 5090 OJ IMENSS ONAL REQWAIM ENTS FORM Complete only h vc,)q .lured hV the PreAppfiaDitl bn chedffls'� Project and Location �%`ktt Applicant: I Zone District: �l�' Gross Lot Area: Met Lot Area: "Please refer to section 26.575.020 for information on how to calculate Net Lot Area Please mill out all relevant dUrriensions Single Family and Duplex Residential Multi -family Residential Existing Allowed Proposed Existing Allowed Proposed 1) Floor Area (square feet) ` Z� Number of Units 2 Maximum Height i; i f�,51 LI 2) Parcel Density (see 26.710.090.C.10) 3) Front Setback ` ` l Q �J) 3) FAR (Floor Area Ratio) 4) Rear Setback ` I II 1 t (1' �` 4) Floor Area (square feet) s 4) Maximum Height ide Setbacks - lG(i 1�1 `� 5) Front Setback 7Site age t�p- 2 ? raw 6) Rear Setback stance between buildings ` ( 7) Side Setbacks demolitionD' Proposed % of demolition Commercial G� e l Lodge Proposed Use(s) Additional Use(s) Existing Allowed Proposed Existing Allowed Proposed 1) FAR (Floor Area Ratio) 2) Floor Area (square feet) 3) Maximum Height 4) Off -Street Parking Spaces 5) Second Tier (square feet) 6) Pedestrian Amenity (square feet) Proposed % of demolition E-idsdi—my noni-conformities or encroachments: Variations requested: 1) FAR (Floor Area Ratio) 2) Floor Area (square feet) 3) Maximum Height 4) Free Market Residential(square feet) 4) Front setback 5) Rearsetback 6) Side setbacks 7) Off -Street Parking Spaces 8) Pedestrian Amenity (square feet) Proposed % of demolition Henry M. Lambert 320 Julia Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Memo March 25, 2019 To: Ms. Gretchen Greenwood Mr. Jeffrey Halferty Ms. Nora Berko Mr. Willis Pember Mr. Roger Moyer Mr. Scott Kendrick Mr. Richard Lai Ms. Sheri Sanzone Historic Preservation Commission City of Aspen Re: 312 W. Hyman Avenue SUMMARY: The 312 W. Hyman plan aims to create a more desirable home in which to live. The exterior of the Swiss Chalet is preserved and the interior will be totally renovated. An addition is attached to a section of the rear of the chalet. A usable new garage is included in the addition. CHALLENGE: The challenge is to 'fit' the addition between the original house and the 'drip lines' of the large spruce trees located on the rear property. Construction is not permitted under these trees by the parks department. Zoning requires only a 10 foot rear yard. However construction must occur 15 feet from the rear property line to avoid the 'drip lines' of the remaining three large spruce trees. ATTACHMENT TO THE REAR OF THE CHATEAU: 1. Approximately 24 feet between the house and the "drip line'. Attachment to the immediate rear of the chalet is necessary to utilize this limited area for construction for bed rooms, the master bed room, halls, bath rooms, and a garage. A connector denies sufficient area needed. In meetings we believed the direct attachment was possible otherwise we would not have executed a purchase agreement. The addition needs to be directly attached to have 24 feet available for construction. The attachment does not cover the entire chalet rear wall. 2. The REAR WALL remains preserved and exposed for "historians" and others to observe. First. The chalet rear wall is 25 feet. Only 18 feet will be inside the addition. About 7'9" of the chalet of the rear wall is not covered by the addition. It remains outside the house for all to see. Second. The attachment may not disturb the chalet rear wall any more than a connector would. Because only 1 doorway on each floor at the stairwell in the chalet will be cut, more of the original chalet interior is maintained. 3. Attachment must be at both first and second floor. The two level addition means only one stair is needed for the entire house. A one story addition would require two stairs, one in the old and one in the new. A one level attachment requiring two stairs has an owner when leaving his kitchen or living room descend to the first floor in the chalet, then ascend to the Master Bedroom on the second stair in the addition. Inconvenient and is a waste of area. Because of the limited floor area allowed there must only be one stair. 4. Garage is located in the east yard, the only possible area. In the 1950's, the chalet was place beautifully but oddly at an angle to all four property lines. (Beautifully because it is faces directly toward Ajax Mountain, and oddly for it is different from all neighbors.) a. The survey shows that the east yard at the property rear is the only location large enough for a garage. The garage provides a parking space that is 20 Meet long and about 9 % feet wide inside at its narrowest point. The garage entrance barely avoids the "drip lines" satisfying the parks department. Mr. Ian Gray of the parks department informed us on February 21, 2019 that the department position is that "permitting the removal of trees # 2 and #3 should allow ample access from the alley for a driveway and space to build an addition on to the rear of the existing building". Trees #1, 4, and 5 remain. b. The garage section does not touch the chalet. The entire east side of the chalet remains exposed and accessible. The first floor of the garage extends only 9 feet from the rear of the chalet toward Hyman Avenue. However the second floor containing the master BR is more distant from W. Hyman allowing the chalet's east side to be more visible. This garage fagade is in itself architecturally exciting with the potential design for the Master BR doors and gallery recessed toward the rear of the property. (Note: the one existing legal non -conforming garage on the front of the house is preserved as a second smaller operating garage. It suffers from the existing 6' height garage door and limited width constrained by concrete walls.) 5. Roof of historic chalet is preserved in its entirety. The entire roof is retained outside as it was built. This was our goal from the beginning. At the attachment level only it is accomplished by placing one roof over the other. Therefore, the entire roof detail is also preserved for future generations to see and study. 6. Size, Square Footage. We anticipate the size of the chalet and addition will comply with the 3,240 sq. ft. as allowed plus garage exemption for the alley garage only. CONCLUSION: The east, south, west sides, and 8 feet of the north side are preserved as built. Since our plan only calls for two doorways from the stair well located in the chateau, much of the interior original fabric is maintained. VISIBILITY: Without a connector, mainly only the eastside of the addition will be observable. Being attached allows the chalet to restrict the additions visibility. DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS: One might suggest selling development rights. This is not the best preservation technique, nor is it our personal business. It would continue its small and non-competitive footprint in the Aspen housing market. Nothing insures preservation more than being wanted and desirable. Being small and unwanted and vacant is the greatest threat to a buildings survival. Laws and rules are not as effective as being improved, and lived in. The Swiss Chalet is not a museum. Nationally historic preservation of architecture means renovation, restoration, and adaptive reuse. Historic preservation occurs when buildings are proven useful as well as important. 308 and 312 W. HOPKINS AVENUE: With architect Doug Rager we recently used similar strategy a block away by renovating 308 and 312 W. Hopkins Avenue. Originally built as two "A frame' singles they had been structurally bastardized, then turned into three 'tenements' each with illegal partitions, and hot plates without kitchens. Some called the buildings ugly. One suggested demolishing both to build a duplex. But in a city of blocks of stone mini mansions, these valuable single family homes provide unique architecture, beauty, history, and diversification to the neighborhood. We are proud of their outcome. That is our goal for the Swiss Chalet. This plan is the only way we wish to proceed. It protects the past and assures the Swiss Chalet's preservation for generations. If you do not agree we will step aside allowing others to preserve this wonderful exhibit of Aspen's history. Thank you for your service. Sincerely,! Henry M. Lambe and R. Carey Bond Cc: Ms. Amy Simon Mr. Doug Rager Written Description of the Schematic Design Addition Proposal for 312 W. Hyman, Aspen, CO The 312 W. Hyman lot has a limited area for a building addition for expansion of floor area. Our study has been primarily concerned with establishing exactly how much area is available at the rear, North side of the lot for an addition & to determine if it is possible to accommodate the proposed development program on the site. Existing trees. We have reviewed the existing trees on the lot, first with City Forester Ian Gray & more recently with David Radeck, Project Technician with the Parks Department. David has made a site visit & he has reviewed the determination with Ben Carlsen, the Open Space & Natural Resource Manager. The most important trees, impacting any North side addition, are five very large conifer trees set in a row on the North property line. The surveyor has numbered the trees 1 through 5 with number 1 located at the West end of the North property line. The large trees effectively set the rear setback dimension at I5' measured from face of each trunk, Pup from the ground. Ian Gray granted & David has reconfirmed that trees number 2 and number 3 can be removed altogether for a new Garage driveway access from the alley. Tree number 1 is 40' diameter, therefore the NW corner of the proposed addition is set into the extended limbs a bit. David said that he would review a very specific limb removal plan but he did not make any promises. All other trees on the lot are very healthy & huge & are to be preserved. Existing Orientation. The existing Chalet has an angled orientation to the property lines & an angled orientation to W. Hyman. The angle is about 22 degrees & is an axial alignment with the Aspen Mountain view. The adjacent neighboring house to the West also has the angled Aspen Mountain view orientation. The Chalet orientation is historic & "does provide a sense of interest and promote interaction between buildings and passersby". The South street -facing elevation & the East & West side elevations of the Chalet are to remain as existing. The South front yard, East & West sideyard landscaping is to be preserved. There are a few existing non -conforming East sideyard & driveway encroachments on the survey that must be resolved. Existing Garage. The existing Chalet appears to have a two -car Garage accessed from W. Hyman. However, the West bay door is fixed & the West bay is mostly walled off. Regardless, both bays have an existing very low door clearance of about 6' high. The existing Garage is not functional for housing a normal sized car. The existing Garage floor area counts 100% because there is an alley which could be utilized for Garage access. This scheme converts the existing Wast bay to living space & leaves the East bay as a Garage for a small electric city car & bikes. The existing South Chalet exterior is not changed. The design program for the project includes the addition of a new single -car Garage accessed from the alley. New Garage. The proposed new single -car Garage is small but is sized for a normal car. The orientation of the proposed Garage addition repeats the same skewed to the property line angle as the existing Chalet footprint. The skewed angle is about the only way to fit a new Garage length into the rear yard area available for development. The skewed angle aligns well with the gap created by the approved removal of large conifers number two & number three. The proposed new Garage length does extend past the existing Chalet North wall however. This Garage location was reviewed informally with Amy Simon & she said that extending any addition South of the existing North wall was too intimidating to the Chalet. The proposed location shown is the only available area of sufficient length for a new Garage & it is the area that aligns best for a new driveway connection with the alley. 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures A new addition is proposed on the North, rear alley side of the lot. 26.415.070.D. The design proposal requires a Certificate of appropriateness for major development because it includes the expansion of the building increasing the floor area by more than two hundred and fifty (250) square feet. (6) Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter MAIO, Residential design standards or a written request for a variance from any standard that is not being met. 26.410.030. Single-family & duplex standards b) Intent. This standard seeks to reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk of buildings on a property as viewed from all sides. The view of the Chalet from W. Hyman is very little changed with this scheme. Only a narrow slot view of the addition is possible along the East sideyard & the addition is set well back to the North & is screened with existing mature trees. The view of the proposed addition from the adjacent East property does not really exist as the existing neighboring structure walls itself off to the West. The ground level floor elevation of the adjacent property to the West is approximately 6' higher than the ground level floor elevation of the Chalet which helps greatly to minimize the overall perceived mass & bulk of the proposed addition to the Chalet. The proposed addition West elevation is angled, articulated, & not very large. The view of the addition from the alley & from the residences on the North side of the alley, is probably the most impactful. The North facade of the proposed addition is stepped, breaking up large wall planes. The addition will also remain heavily screened by the remaining three large conifers. Building forms of the proposed addition are necessarily small & "similar in scale to those seen in historic Aspen residential buildings" because there is little space available for anything larger. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: The proposed addition does not satisfy the standard. A variance from this standard is requested. (1) Maximum Sidewall Depth. The proposed addition is not completely separate from the existing Chalet. (2) Off -set with One -Story Ground Level Connector. The proposed addition does not provide a portion of its mass as a subordinate one-story, ground floor connecting element. The connecting element is set back about 8' from the West sidewall but is not set back on the East side of the building. The connecting element includes an enclosed second floor link. The design program for this scheme includes an open plan Living, Dining, Kitchen, & Stairway located at the upper level of the existing Chalet. The existing Chalet upper level would have direct link access to a Master Bedroom suite in the upper level of the proposed addition. The upper level link connection is important for the proposed scheme to function well. The Chalet ground level plan includes the single East bay existing Garage, East & West existing entries, Stairway, & Guest Bedrooms & Bathrooms. The ground level addition plan includes the new single -car Garage, a small Family Room & perhaps a small Guest Room or Mechanical & Laundry rooms. (3) Increased Side Setbacks at Rear and Step Down. The proposed addition scheme does not have increased side setbacks at the rear of the building. The proposed addition is two stories, it does not step down to one story in the rear. 2. Building Orientation (Flexible). The street -facing orientation & configuration is historic & there are no changes proposed. C. Garages. a) Applicability. This standard is required for all lots that have vehicular access from an alley or private street. b) Intent. Properties with alleys shall utilize the alley as an opportunity to place the garage in a location that is subordinate to the principal building, further highlighting the primary building from the street. This standard is important for any property where an alley is available, which is most common in the Infill Area. The proposed new Garage location generally meets the Intent. c) Standard. A lot that has access from an alley or private street shall be required to access parking, garages and carports, from the alley or private street. Where alley access is available, no parking or vehicular access shall be allowed forward of the front facade. The scheme proposes Garage access to the existing Garage from W. Hyman & access to a new Garage from the alley. A variance from this standard is requested. The proposed new Garage generally meets the requirements for Garage dimensions & Garage door design. D. Entry Features. Entry features are historic & no changes are proposed. There is no existing street facing entry door. There are existing entry doors on both the East & West elevations & these doors would be remain. The West Entry door appears to be a later non -historic replacement. E. Fenestration and Materials. Historic house fenestration & materials to remain unchanged. The proposed new addition is illustrated with vertical siding & a low stone veneer base. Windows are suggested but materials & fenestration have not been extensively studied. Fenestration & materials will receive more attention if progress is made on the variances required for the massing of the proposed addition. 26.415.110 Historic Preservation -Benefits C. Variances. Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards. 1. The HPC may grant variances of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow: a) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks; b) Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings. A variance is requested for the West sideyard of the proposed addition. The R-6 zoning requires a total sideyard of 15' with a 5' minimum. Request is for 5' sideyards at both the East & West for a 10' total sideyard. A variance is requested the proposed addition which does not meet the minimum distance requirement between buildings. F. Floor area bonus. A floor area bonus is not requested. 26.710.040 Medium Density Residential (R-6) The existing historic Chalet & the proposed addition generally meet the requirement of R-6 zoning except for the sideyard variance requested above & the existing East side encroachments shown on the survey. 312 West Hyman Written description addressing the Historic Guidelines 1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district. The historic development pattern of the block is varied. The orientation of the existing Chalet & the neighboring home to the West is unusual. The proposed addition is at the rear of the lot. 1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches. Propose a new drive connection to the alley with grading that works well. No negative impacts to a not very historic alley. 1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not part of the original development of the site. No plan to remove existing historic driveway. 1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. New driveway at alley has minimal visual impact. 1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces. Propose no changes to the historic hierarchy of spaces. 1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential projects. There is no front entry, no changes are proposed. 1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site. South, West, & most of the East sides of the existing Chalet retain positive open space. 1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. Preliminary stormwater plan is provided. 1.9 Landscape development on AspenModern landmarks shall be addressed on a case by case basis. N/A 1.10 Built-in furnishings, such as water features, fire pits, grills, and hot tubs, that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. Not proposed. 1.11 Through 1.13 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. Trees are very significant at 312 W. Hyman & we have much discussed & have general agreements with City Parks & Forestry on landmark trees including defined disturbance limits & removal possibilities. 1.14 through 1.20 Fences, N/A 1.21 Preserve original retaining walls. There is an original tie retaining wall on the West property line that is failing. Have discussed the wall with city Engineering & with the neighbor. The wall will be replaced, probably with a stepped wall to be designed. 1.23 Re -grading the site in a manner that changes historic grade is generally not allowed and will be reviewed on a case by case basis. No changes are proposed. 1.24 and 1.25 Preserve historically significant landscapes with few or no alterations. Significant landscapes & trees to be preserved. 1.26 Preserve the historic circulation system.W. Hyman side to remain unchanged. 1.27 Preserve and maintain significant landscaping on site. Yes, will do. 2.1 Preserve original building materials. Yes, will do. 2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically. Chalet is mainly stucco over masonry & wood siding & trim, including decorative trim. Existing finish is what would have existed historically & refinish to be same. 2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. There should not be much replacement required. 2.4 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for original building materials. Existing decking & exterior stair treads are Trex. 2.5 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate. Never. 2.6 Remove layers that cover the original material. N/A 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. Existing windows to be preserved. 3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. No changes proposed. 3.3 Through 3.6 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. Yes, have reviewed existing windows & all can remain unchanged with a bit of repair only. 3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy conservation rather than replace a historic window. Yes 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. East ground level door is historic & to be preserved. 4.2 through 4.5 West ground level door is non -historic replacement &"a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the building" is proposed. No new doors proposed. 4.6 If energy conservation and heat loss are concerns, use a storm door instead of replacing a historic entry door. Yes. 4.7 Preserve historic hardware. Yes. 5.1 Preserve an original porch or balcony. Yes, South deck & railing is important feature. 5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details. Never. 5.3 Enclosing a porch or balcony is not appropriate. Never. 5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the original in form, character and detail. Reconstruction should not be required. 5.5 If new steps are to be added, construct them out of the same primary materials used on the original, and design them to be in scale with the porch or balcony. Existing roof overhang drains onto the east exterior stair & some repair may be required. 5.6 Avoid adding handrails or guardrails where they did not exist historically, particularly where visible from the street. N/A integrity of the original design intent, such as crisp edges,, rather than to retain heavily deteriorated material. 6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that minimize damage to the original material. • Document its location so it may he repositioned accurately. ,Alvvay+s devise methods of replacing the disassembled rriaterial in its original configuration_ Broken balusters within this radiry we,,e ca,,etuffy reph ated. 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features . Significant features can be easily preserved. 6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced. Yes. 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required to be based on original designs. Yes. 6.5 Do not guess at "historic" designs for replacement parts. Don't have to guess, house is basically original & there are some great old photos for reference. 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. Yes, the existing roof is a significant feature. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. The exposed beams & rafter eave details are a significant feature. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. None planned. 7.4 New vents should be minimized, carefully, placed and painted a dark color. Yes. 7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional. Yes, Chalet has a brick chimney. 7.6 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and character. N/A 7.7 Preserve original roof materials. Yes. 7.8 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to the original. Yes. 7.9 Avoid using conjectural features on a roof. N/A 7.10 Design gutters so that their visibility on the structure is minimized to the extent possible. Chalet may need a gutter over the exterior stair. 8.1 Secondary Structures N/A 9.1 Developing a basement by underpinning and excavating while the historic structure remains in place may help to preserve the historic fabric. A basement by underpinning has been discussed but is not proposed at this time. 9.2 Through 9.8 N/A 10.1-10.2 N/A 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. Proposed addition does maintain the ability to interpret the historic character of the Chalet. 10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the predominant structure as viewed from the street. Proposed addition allows Chalet to continue to be the focus of the property from the street. 10.5 On a corner lot, no portion of an addition to a one story historic resource may be more than one story tall, directly behind that resource, unless completely detached above grade by a distance of at least 10 feet. N/A 10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. Proposed addition design is a massing study that will need further development. 10.7 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments on the street. Historic alignments are preserved but proposed addition does not have a relationship with the street. 10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. Proposed addition is necessarily small with given site constraints & scale is similar to the Chalet. 10.9 If the addition is taller than a historic building, set it back from significant fagades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. Requesting variance from Design Guidelines for connector link because of site constraints. 10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Yes, have met this criteria. 10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building. Flat roof for addition is proposed. 10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. - Loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices, and eavelines must be avoided. Proposed addition does not destroy or obscure important architectural features. 10.13 Through 10.15 N/A 11.1 through 11.5 New building N/A 11.6 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time. • Consider these three aspects of a new building; form, materials, and fenestration. A project must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Proposed addition is a massing study & needs more development with regard to 11.6 11.7 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. Yes. 12.2 Original light fixtures must be maintained. When there is evidence as to the appearance of original fixtures that are no longer present, a replication is appropriate. Will do. 12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character. Not planning changes to exterior lighting at this time. 12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash storage. Not planning any changes at this time. 12.5 12.6 through 12.9 N/A W w > J > �-- p J 0 W O o- U) o 00 :- L�\ � O ry n J co J W0 _ fco O - Q� T-Z 0-0 Q� O Qv cl� O Q n J � > w Z n X Z Y � U � W 0 N z X W 2. Building Orientation (Flexible). The street -facing orientation & configuration is historic & there are no changes proposed. C. Garages. a) Applicability. This standard is required for all lots that have vehicular access from an alley or private street. b) Intent. Properties with alleys shall utilize the alley as an opportunity to place the garage in a location that is subordinate to the principal building, further highlighting the primary building from the street. This standard, is important for any property where an alley is available, which is most common in the Infill Area. The proposed new Garage location generally meets the Intent. c) Standard. A lot that has access from an alley or private street shall be required to access parking, garages and carports from the alley or private street. Where alley access is available, no parking or vehicular access shall be allowed forward of the front facade. The scheme proposes Garage access to the existing Garage from W. Hyman & access to a new Garage from the alley. A variance from this standard is requested. The proposed new Garage generally meets the requirements for Garage dimensions & Garage door design. D. Entry Features. Entry features are historic & no changes are proposed. There is no existing street facing entry door. There are existing entry doors on both the East & West elevations & these doors would be remain. The West Entry door appears to be a later non -historic replacement. E. Fenestration and Materials. Historic house fenestration & materials to remain unchanged. The proposed new addition is illustrated with vertical siding & a low stone veneer base. Windows are suggested but materials & fenestration have not been extensively studied. Fenestration & materials will receive more attention if progress is made on the variances required for the massing of the proposed addition. 26.415. 110 Historic Preservation -Benefits C. Variances. Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards. 1. The HPC may grant variances of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow: a) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks; b) Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings. A variance is requested for the West sideyard of the proposed addition. The R-6 zoning requires a total sideyard of 15' with a 5' minimum. Request is for 5' sideyards at both the East & West for a 10' total sideyard. A variance is requested the proposed addition which does not meet the minimum distance requirement between buildings. F. Floor area bonus. A floor area bonus is not requested. 26.710.040 Medium Density Residential (R-6) The existing historic Chalet & the proposed addition generally meet the requirement of R-6 zoning except for the sideyard variance requested above & the existing East side encroachments shown on the survey. I H U- n LL 0 Cn Oo O d' W W J L LJ Q zW I— n CO X IY W n f -- LL a� LL 00 U) � N II � W II > —I W W> J zry c� 0 Z !ryn �n� V v_J X W L~L C� CO 00 r= II z_ CO X J 0 I— LL 0 Cn N ti W > W ry W a. D LL 0 Cl) O co d' I I 0 W Cn CL O n O z Cn X W F- �- LL LL 0 C) U) Cn O cfl LO II 11 W LL z C<� � J (D ti > > -� W J 1 W C)0J � = W (j) cj� C 0 CD 0 D O n H LL a Cn O N C'7 11 0 U) O n O (y n.. O z Cn X W N 0;Ao�1 CITY OF ASPEN March 28, 2019 Jessica Garrow Community Development Department 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 312 W. Hyman Avenue Dear Ms. Garrow: I was asked by Scott Miller, Assistant City Manager, to provide an opinion regarding the ownership of property located at 312 West Hyman Ave. The legal description of the property is Lots P and Q, Block 46, City and Townsite of Aspen. The City of Aspen has entered a contract for the sale of my property and it is my understanding that proposed buyer, with the consent of the City, has filed a land use application regarding the property. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado. I have reviewed the documents associated with the acquisition and ownership of the subject property. It is my opinion that the property described above is owned in fee simple by the City of Aspen. If I can provide any further information, please advise. Thank you. Sincerely, James R. True City Attorney Homeowner Association All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by the property owner or Attorney representing the property owner. Name: Property Owner ("I'T Email: Phone No.: k e4 A n1 A Address of Property: . (subject of application) I certify as follows: (pick one) This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant. ❑ This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. ❑ This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. I understand this policy and I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I understand that this docume t is a WblIc document. Owner signature: klzL date: o� � A Owner printed name: )I . N� or, Attorney signature: Attorney printed name: date: Henry M. Lambert 320 Julia Street New Orleans, LA 70130 (504) 522-2021 Mobile: (504) 450-4352 Re: 312 W.Hyman'Avenue, Aspen, C* This letter confirms that the undersigned is the applicant for the property located at 312 W. Hyman Avenue. My office address and phone numbers are in the heading of this letter. It also confirms that the following architect is authorized to act on behalf of the applicant on all matters before the Historic Preservation Office, City of Aspen. Mr. Doug Rager Architect 1780 Snowmass Creek Road Snowmass CO 81654 Office: (970) 927-1780 Mobile: (970) 948 - 1022 Sincerely, 4ry M. L;ia'ert HISTDRIC OVERVIEW Chalet Circa 1946-1960s, Aesidential and Commercial This style is remernmiscent of alpine architecture In Europe and was populai, for early American ski. resrjrt tmvns, including Aspen. Large balconies and shallow roofs ,Nits` wide eaves are identifying features.. Wood trim, often reflected ajai -s.LIW cutol-af design, especially on, balustrades and gable ornamierAs. Stucco w1as often. con--ibin.ed withi Yvood siding. Occasionally, -lie r-nountain scenes were painted on the stticco. lf� style prin-,arily used for hotels and residences. Ch aracteri sties: Lame, sinmular mof 'mri-ni, generally low in, slope Deep m�erhan�gs w All, the stm cllture of the roDf expressed on the underside. Eaves and rakes decorated with cutouts and fretwork bargeboards. ContinUOLIS PORCh or balcrjiRy running the length of the primary side. Decorativeelernents such as balustrades with CLJI OLIt shapes (hearts, edlelweiss, snowflakes, nature therm'). Rect;angul:ar footprint. ! S� -GUnd floor with rni nimal openings and tucco gr wood lintels. Slider and casement horizontally pt,oportioned and see sparingly. • Dec.,,�rallve shutters or flow erboxes. • Colors are restricted to white for the stucco base and diafk brown wood malls, eaves, and', balustrades, Bright colors are USed sparingly for accents an.0 decorative elements. i6uramv, Ch,rVeS!yle at-72 W HI3Ct1la!)COI 'IS tFUCf&d00 1956. IS • •111 1 • F � im IN COUNrf This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com VAUGHAN CAPITAL PTNRS LP MULLINS MARGARET ANN AJAX APARTMENTS CONDO ASSOC PO BOX 390 216 W HYMAN AVE COMMON AREA HEBRON, IL 60034 ASPEN, CO 81611 301 W HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 CROWLEY SUE MITCHELL REV TRUST TRAN LAN D ASPEN A CONDO ASSOC 6000 RIVERSIDE DR #A366 PO BOX 2705 COMMON AREA DUBLIN, OH 43017 ASPEN, CO 81612 308 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 SWISS CHALET/KITZBUHEL PARTNERSHIP SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC ASPEN HOUSE LLC 1286 SNOWBUNNY LN 232 W HYMAN AVE 17595 HARVARD AVE # C511 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 IRVINE, CA 92614 CITY OF ASPEN SHERWIN ENTERPRISES LLC BOND RICHARD CAREY 130 S GALENA ST 1714 VISTA ST 320 JULIA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 DURHAM, NC 27701 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 GREENASPEN LLC REYNOLDS FRANK R IV 235 W HOPKINS B LLC 30 ISLAND DR PO BOX 2725 250 S OCEAN BLVD # 14A KEY BISCAYNE, FL 33149 ASPEN, CO 81612 BOCA RATON, FL 33432 CHERNY ANDREA J SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC BDDC TRUST 301 WEST HYMAN AVE #5 232 W HYMAN AVE 2100 ROSS AVE #550 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS, TX 75201 FCB LLC CITY OF ASPEN SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC PO BOX 6622 130 S GALENA ST 232 W HYMAN AVE SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615-6622 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 EDGEWATER PROPERTIES LLC BEHRENDT H MICHAEL TRUST CONNOR WILLIAM E 11 TRUST 18081 BURT ST 334 W HYMAN AVE 990 S ROCK BLVD #F OMAHA, NE 68022 ASPEN, CO 81611 RENO, NV 89502 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC PITKIN COUNTY SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC 232 W HYMAN AVE 530 E MAIN ST #301 232 W HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 DHM FAMILY TRST BEHRENDT H MICHAEL TRUST ALLAN ANDREW S 2288 PEACHTREE RD, NW #12 334 W HYMAN AVE 154 MARION ST ATLANTA, GA 30309 ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80218 GROSVENOR DENIS SHADOW MOUNTAIN DUPLEX CONDO ASSO NORTON CAPITAL PARTNERS LLLP 209 CAMINO DE LA MERCED # C COMMON AREA 130 N MAIN ST TAOS, NM 875716922 W HOPKINS AVE CHAGRIN FALLS, OH 44022 ASPEN, CO 81611 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC SAND KATHERINE M UTOPIA LIVING ASPEN LLC 232 W HYMAN AVE PO BOX 51 225 GEORGINA AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 SANTA MONICA, CA 90402 JLR QPRT TRUST LAMBERT HENRY M GROVER FREDRICK W & PAULA J 355 MARQUESA DR 320 JULIA ST 399 MARSHALL HEIGHTS DR CORAL GABLES, FL 33156 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 WEXFORD, PA 15090 HECHT MATTHEW C ASPEN HIDEAWAYS LLC MARTEN RANDOLPH 301 W HYMAN AVE #3 49 SW FLAGGER AVE #201 129 MARTEN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 STUART, FL 34994 MONDOVI, WI 54755 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC KASPAR THERESA D 232 W HYMAN AVE 232 W HYMAN AVE PO BOX 1637 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 GOSS CHESTER A IV KENDIG ROBERT & SUE CITY OF ASPEN PO BOX 9642 PO BOX 4649 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 FOSTER LOT 2 LLC GILDENHORN MICHAEL S SHADOWVIEW CONDO ASSOC 625 E HYMAN AVE #201 5008 BALTON RD 320 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 BETHESDA, MD 20816 ASPEN, CO 81611 MAYER KEVIN NANOOK RIDGE LLC SHADOW MOUNTAIN LODGE CONDO ASSOC 222 W HOPKINS AVE #2 324 W HOPKINS AVE #B COMMON AREA ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 UNDERWOOD AMOS HOLTZMAN L BART & PATRICIA G BRAFMAN STUART & LOTTA BEA TRST 301 W HYMAN #6 9741 LITZSINGER RD 5630 WISCONSIN AVE #401 ASPEN, CO 81611 SAINT LOUIS, MO 63124 CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC LITTLE CLOUD HOMEOWNERS ASSOC RESSEL THOMAS G 232 W HYMAN AVE 201 N MILL ST 301 W HYMAN AVE #7 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 816111625 MARTIN SCOTT M MCCARTY DANIEL L ASPENNEST LLC PO BOX 51 PO BOX 4051 1050 WALNUT ST # 210 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 BOULDER, CO 80302 BDDC TRUST CITY OF ASPEN EGBERT STEPHEN E 2100 ROSS AVE #550 130 S GALENA ST 301 W HYMAN AVE #1 DALLAS, TX 75201 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC MORGAN DONALD FRANKEL KATHY TRUST 232 W HYMAN AVE 2288 PEACHTREE RD, NW #12 280 GULF SHORE BLVD N ASPEN, CO 81611 ATLANTA, GA 30309 NAPLES, FL 34102 NEWTON BARBARA WEST ASPEN MOUNTAIN CONDO ASSOC CITY OF ASPEN PO BOX 9410 333 S SECOND ST 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC GUNN ROBERT W FAMILY TRST MARTIN SCOTT M 232 W HYMAN AVE 409 OCEAN AVE PO BOX 51 ASPEN, CO 81611 MARBLEHEAD, MA 01945 ASPEN, CO 81611 MILLER BRITT C WEST SIDE CONDO ASSOC GARET CONDO ASSOC PO BOX 9822 234 W HOPKINS AVE 400 E MAIN ST #2 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC SAND KATHERINE M WINER CAROL G 232 W HYMAN AVE PO BOX 51 6740 SELKIRK DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 BETHESDA , MD 20817 0 v o o Y v a o c o o U 3 m o °U c °m _0c c ° c owco ` a -c LLr om n co m i Z)Ua @n Lj- J Ll Z W � Y. ``^^ vJ C O T •M 0) O 14 J Z, (Q O of" w O @ N O N a) c c 0LLf -, O t + Q O C i # V C � t LL U' O C . E a U c a) U _ C tJ� r f 0) o CALL 00 Fftl �y Ar j r C a �_ coAP - Q c w ° U) _ m r��11s N o i�•1 2 y a b ►j CITY OF ASPEN M�CF/�Fn PRE APPHGA TON CONFERENCE SUMMARV°�TY �RFCIV PLANNER: Amy Simon, amy.simon _cityofaspen.com©p ,r DATE: March 6, 2019 PROJECT LOCATION: 312 W. Hyman Avenue REQUEST: Major Development, Floor Area Bonus, Setback Variations REPRESENTATIVE: Doug Rager. douqdou. rcraagerarchitect.com DESCRIPTION: 312 W. Hyman Avenue is a 6,000 square foot lot located in the R-6 zone district. The property is landmarked designated and contains a Chalet style single family home which is relatively unaltered since its construction in 1956. The applicant, who is under contract to purchase the property, proposes a rear addition to the house. The addition may contain living space and a single car garage. Garage access from the alley will require removal of trees and has been preliminarily vetted with the Parks Department. For the addition to proceed, HPC approval for Major Development, Floor area Bonus and Setback Variations are anticipated. Major Development is a two step process, requiring the approval of Conceptual Design and a Final Design. Conceptual Design review will consider mass, scale and site plan. At this meeting, HPC may also consider any setback variations or benefits, if requested by the applicant. Following Conceptual, HPC will inform City Council of their decision, allowing them the opportunity to "Call -Up" aspects of the approval. This is a standard practice for all significant projects. Final Design review will consider landscape, lighting and materials. HPC will use the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and the Land Use Code Sections that are applicable to this project to assist with their determinations. RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS: Section Number Section Title 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.415.070.D Historic Preservation — Major Development 26.415.110 Historic Preservation — Benefits 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.710.040 Medium Density Residential (R-6) For your convenience — links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below: Land Use Application Cli driPlinP.q �GVo("?,e,nd h)�f- Land Use Code Historic Preservation Design Staff for completeness and recommendations HPC for decisions 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 816n-i975 j P: 9%0.920.5000 I F: 970.920.5197 1 cityofaspen.com City Council for notice of the HPC Conceptual decision. Council has the authority to remand the decision back to HPC for further consideration. Public Hearing: Yes. NeighborhoodOutreach: No. Referrals: Staff will seek referral comments from the Building Department, Zoning, Engineering and Parks regarding any relevant code requirements or considerations. There will be no Development Review Committee meeting or referral fees. Planning Fees: $1,950 for 6 billable hours of staff time. (Additional/ lesser hours will be billed/ refunded at a rate of $325 per hour.) Referral Agencies Fee: $0. TotalDeposit: $19950. APPLICATION CHECKLIST: Below is a list of submittal requirements for HPC Conceptual and Final reviews. At each review step, please submit one paper copy of the application to the City of Aspen Community Development Department for an initial determination of completeness. Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement. (Pre -application Conference Summary (this document). ❑ e"Sfreet address and legal ` description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, 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. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. ❑ HOA Compliance form (Attached). List of adjacent property owners for both properties within 300' for public hearing. An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. mite improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. written description of the proposal (scope of work) and written explanation of how the proposed development and any requests for variations or benefits complies with the review standards and design guidelines relevant to the application. A proposed site plan. 11� 0---Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all elevations. 0-- Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated p 9 g historic property including photographs and other exhibits, as needed, to accurately depict location and extent of proposed work. For Conceptual, the following items will need to be submitted in addition to the items listed above: 7aphics identifying preliminary selection of primary exterior building materials. preliminary stormwater design. For Final Review, the following items will need to be submitted in addition to the items listed above: ❑ Drawings of the street facing facades must be provided at %" scale. ❑ Final selection of all exterior materials, and samples or clearly illustrated photographs. Samples are preferred for the presentation to HPC. ❑ A lighting plan and landscape plan, including any visible stormwater mitigation features. Oncethe copy deemed completebystaff, following items willthen need to be submitted: 0"'I digital PDF copy of the complete application packet. EJII 12 sets of all graphics printed at 11 x17. Total deposit for review of the application. 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. South Perspective Southeast Perspective East Perspective Northeast Perspective li�!I fi li! `- 1 -4 _ POV(15- \RCftrr�CT � C �tiM�N BUILDING PERSPECTIVES ,� � CO�ordo, A.9.01 1795N wMA55 REEi e. SNoWMASS, o. Sb54 (970) 9z7-17SO -ram /f�� � 3/27/2019 *� 6 I OZ/LZ/� °OQ iD-�De� �N �S� ���/��� psL�- Lz6 (aL6) 17�i S •o� 'SS�wMoNs '4� >I 21� SS�wMoNS pSL1 ZO (Q��L�IO�) SI�IOIZ�d1��Z� �NIN\,Vw14 Z1z,- a BUILDING ELEVATIONS �S�N GO�.ore0, A.3.01 l7�Sn SNoWMA55 CR��I RP, SNOWMA55,CO. �ib54 (970) 927 17�5' -('E/f�� � 3/27/2019 6IOZ/LZ/� ZOOZ 'OQ��L1D`1D �N���� x��/-�� QS�L1--Lz6 (OL6) -b��JS� 'o� �t WWMoNs *-�) - 'Q� >i� �� SS'�WMoNs pS�Li xvZd dOMI N\-VW114 j „o-,� _ „94::�Idos NV-ld -4002i y — / CITY OF ASPEN ��\--\- IMPROVEMENT & TOP®GRAPHIC / GPS MoNuMENr #7 - SURVEY PLAT ock 3wl\)O�(T LOTS P & Q - BLOCK 46, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN / — — 'IF',. SECTION 12 TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6TH PM COUNTY OF PITKIN/ STATE OF COLORADO / \ `A9 •. j•� •(Z0909jvI' FOUND NO. 5 REBAR ' f C' ; ^q0 I� •� _r:: :. y ` i ' ,.rX`LE _ �,` / . •�.�__..•,..s...... ... ...». .�.z - ..i / / / / / / / L o O � z 1, ENCRoaCtLMTNt 79o1- — / R.R.-TIE WILL 0.137± ACZES 5976+ SQ.FT. ti •h I t'i t t l 901.361, / 10 / • / FIiLGSYONE 2 - sryorzr i t T9p1.33 firz14ME �fOZ(SE rJ5 PATIO 312 {VEST HYFLAN AVENUE Jtl�t`r tlj/tJ�l///J1t / % / - GARAGE I ' / / w A FROA, 79DI.31 i 13.4' oT ' ,.,..,rRETE APRON Q ^ C `s. qc,< c / L PPEK t`CIPA� BSFTgAC -7902— 4 IIIC r \ ND NO. 5 EVAR �r �2 13d"�� - - 414 !� \ \ l •y t LEGEND 41= cum ® ELECTRICAL METER 'y `-- PgRogD9Y 3 A/glLb ® GAS METER M O rELEPHONEPEDESTAL Al N A ELECTRIC PEDESTAL )9 0 CArVPEDESrAL \ 7q 1 /yam t'p WATER SHUTOFF w WATER LINE C ss 5EWER LINE �yo3 T T — TELEPHONE LINE c GAS LINE EX-U'c UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINE CTV CATY LINE GRAVEL' • 'DRIVEWAY CITYOFAsPEN GPI N NME NI'#66 _ _. ......... Arlo 7 � �L� � i ••—.. \ S86Y9'S1'E 818.Z0'(TTE) :qL'g ttat � rr — \ 4r \ \ \ Z. SITE BENCH MAIM j t _ SEr FOUND NO.5 REBAR 4 / \ — J9'`'�y.1�f 1.1/4"ORANGE PLASMIC CAP — / ! l • -- PROP CORNER TWC PLS38215 \ / 6 ELEVATION,7900.84 / — \ / 8 7 / W / o / / �' o r til it 16 ;TEPs �'y r i J l f ti ZONING: CRY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE: R-6 SETBACKS FRONT YARD: PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS: 10 FEET ACCESSORY BUILDINGS: 15 FEET r ''. ♦t —� ♦IFA om • at% �t t��� tjt! f�tt ♦trr♦♦ �'tt� twit '�i♦i ♦ ��� rrrti t�rrr♦rr ♦r♦�ittt ♦>rr tt� r_ It t 1�t �t ttt • '''�/Ir '=�;t t♦ I/t1 tt � l/it 1Tt t ��� . t i�r' fir♦ L,'� �dt r •t � t '<i%' t Wm �� •t,♦j :fit `/l �l ♦ ♦fit Ott � VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1" - 500' PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: REAR YARD: PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS: 10 FEET LOTS P AND Q BLOCK 46, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. PRINCIPAL BUILDING USED SOLELY AS GARAGE 5 FEET ACCESSORY BUILDINGS: 5 FEET COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO SIDE YARD: SURVEY NOTES: MINIMUM: 5 FEET 10 FEET, PLUS 1 FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL 1. BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS A BEARING OF N75.09'11'W BETWEEN A FOUND NO. 5 REBARS AS 300 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LOT AREA, TO A SHOWN HEREON. MAXIMUM OF 15 FEET OF TOTAL SIDE YARD / N APPARENT' ENCROACHMENT WOOD RETAINING / Q j ` b scALE: 1" = 8' aPPARENr ENCROACHMENT DRIVEWAY e, WOOD REMAINING / / OUND NO. 5 REBAR 76 .. .)9 • . - -60.0 Sg• g l 2. DATE OF FIELD SURVEY: JANUARY 15, 2019 AND JANUARY 25, 2019. AT THE TIME OF THE FIELD SURVEY THERE WAS 4"+ OF SNOW ON THE GROUND. 3. LINEAR UNITS USED TO PERFORM THIS SURVEY WERE U.S. SURVEY FEET. 4. THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON THE OFFICIAL MAP OF THE CITY OF ASPEN DATED DECEMBER 18, 1959 AS RECEPTION NO. 109043, THE PLAT OF RESUBDNIDED LOTS K L M, N, Q BLOCK 46 RECORDED JANUARY 15, 1982 IN PLAT BOOK 12 AT PAGE 54 AND CORNERS FOUND IN PLACE AS SHOWN HEREON. 5. THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE SEARCH BY TRUE NORTH COLORADO, LLC, FOR ALL INFORMATION REGARDING EASEMENT, RIGHTS -OF -WAY AND/OR TITLE OF RECORD, TRUE NORTH COLORADO, LLC. RELIED UPON TITLE COMMITMENT NO. 18003943 ISSUED BY ATTORNEYS TITLE INSURANCE AGENCY OF ASPEN, LLC, EFFECTIVE DATE JANUARY 2Z 2019. 6. BEARINGS AND DISTANCES SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON FIELD MEASUREMENTS. BEARINGS AND DISTANCES SHOWN IN PARENTHESIS ARE OF RECORD SHOWN ON THE OFFICIAL MAP OF THE CITY OF ASPEN DATED NOVEMBER 16, 1959. 7. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LIES WITHIN FLOOD ZONE X WHICH ARE AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 500-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN) ACCORDING TO FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP COMMUNITY PANEL NO. 08097CO203C WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF JUNE 4, 1987. 8. THERE ARE NO NATURAL HAZARDS THAT EXIST ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. 9. NATURAL SLOPES ARE BETWEEN 0% TO 15% OVER THE ENTIRE SITE 10. BASED ON 1958 CITY OF ASPEN TOPOGRAPHY THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE MANIPULATED FROM HISTORIC GRADE SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION j RODNEY P. KISER HEREBY CERTIFY TO HENRY LAMBERT & CAREY BOND THAT THIS IS AN 'IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT' AS DEFINED BY C.RS.38-51-102(9) AND THAT IT IS A MONUMENTED LAND SURVEY PERFORMED UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND RESPONSIBLE CHARGE SHOWING THE LOCATION OF ALL STRUCTURES, VISIBLE UTILITIES, FENCES, HEDGES, OR WALLS SITUATED ON THE DESCRIBED PARCEL AND WITHIN FIVE FEET OF ALL BOUNDARIES OF SUCH PARCEL, ANY CONFLICTING BOUNDARY EVIDENCE OR VISIBLE ENCROACHMENTS, AND ALL EASEMENTS, UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, AND TUNNELS DESCRIBED IN THE ATTORNEYS TITLE INSURANCE AGENCY OF ASPEN, LLC COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE COMMITMENT NO. 18003943, OR OTHER SOURCES AS SPECIFIED ON THE IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT. LINEAR ERROR OF CLOSURE IS LEES THAN 1:15,000. RODNEY P. KISER LICENSED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR COLORADO REGISTRATION NO. 38215 M 1 SE CORNER M 'BLOCK 46 FOUND REBAR 61.112" ALUMINUM CAP M CNOSTAMPLNGJ TRUE NORTH COLORADO A LAND SURVEYING AND MAPPING COMPANY HENRY LAMBERT & CAREY BOND IMPROVEMENT & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PLAT LOTS P & Q - BLOCK 46 CITY OF ASPEN COUNTY OF PITKIN - STATE OF COLORADO TRUE NORTH COLORADO LLC. FpO0 L;OFyS A LAND SURVEYING AND MAPPING COMPANY YOr� P. .Fo PO BOX 614 - 529 S. WILD HORSE DRIVE NEW CASTLE, COLORADO 81647 •¢ 38215 9 s � (970) 984-0474 2 www.truenorthcolorado.com PROJECT NO: 2019-115 D �KN SHEET DATE: FEBRUARY 1, 2019 SURVEYED 1 OF 1 LDV f c - f , � 902 - r s -- :' WQCWDETENTION DRYWELL SYSTEM RIM: TOD_. t it (SEE DETAIL) - F 12 LF TRENCH DRAIN WITH HEAT TAPE � '• -I- f �\ ' ' RIM: 7901.0& CT TO STORM t� _ DRAIN AIN e1 � '' r• r1:. ......-. .......... ___ as _ N w PR. SURFACE -.01% o EX SURFACE 7900N. JE a m $ m M1 e At 1+00 Profile: Drive (West Side), Sta:1+00 to Sta:1+ 3z5 I+33 Scale: Vert.=2', Horiz.=5' m PR. SURFACE 3.19% 400% - - 0 - a SURFACE 79W �[ IX r 79DO NOTES: 1. PRECAST MANHOLE SECTIONS SHALL MEET ASTM C478 AND BE H-20 LOAD RATED. 2. THE EDGE OF THE DRYWELL SHALL BE INSTALLED AT LEAST 4-FEET AWAY FROM ANY FOUNDATION WALL. 3. BACKFILL EXCAVATION AROUND THE STRUCTURE WITH COMPACTED V4" CRUSHED WASHED SCREENED STONE TO THE TOP OF THE DRYWELL AND WITH STRUCTURAL CLASS 2 ABC TO 12' BELOW FINISH GRADE.COMPACT BACKFILL TO 95% STANDARD PROCTOR. 4. PERFORATED SECTION TO BE INSTALLED 4 FT. MINIMUM INTO PERVIOUS ALLUVIUM. ENGINEER TO BE CONTACTED IMMEDIATELY IF GROUNDWATER OR BEDROCK IS ENCOUNTERED. 5. THE SQUARE FRAME & LID SHALL BE POSITIONED TO ALIGN WITH THE PAVER PATTERN. 6. INLET AND OUTLET PIPES SHOULD ENTER DRYWELL AWAY FROM THE DRYWELL STEPS. Profile: Drive (East Side), Sta:1+00 to Sta:1+25 Scale: Vert.=21, Horiz.=5' FILTER FABRIC INTERCONNECT DRYWELL THE FOUNDATION) (THE SIDE OPPOSITE BARRELS WITH 8'0 SCHAD PVC DRYWELL #1 (WEST) DRYWELL #2 (EAST) EXPOSED SQUARE TOD 24' SO. LIGHTWEIGHT COMPOSITE MANHOLE FRAME &GRATE (H-20) — �, s _ n COVER (H-20) WITH SLIGHTLY DISCOLORED PAVERS ADHERED TO THE COVER. INFLOW INFLOW FROM - FROM UNOERDRAIN - 24 UNDERDRAIN 30 MIL PVC LINER - (THE 3 SIDES NEAR �. FOUNDATION) PLAN VIEW ATTACH THE HEAT TAPE TO THE TOP LADDER RUNG•TYP. 2'PRECAST CONE — SECTION PRECAST CONCRETE— SECTION(S) 8' THICK PRECAST CONCRETE LID :, SECTION WITH RUST RESISTANT ACCESS HATCH WITH LIFTING HANDLES. PLACE MIRAH FILTERWEAVE 500 (OR EQUAL) FILTER FABRIC AROUND, UNDER AND OVER CRUSHED STONE PRECAST PERFORATED RISER - SECTION W/ 1 `D PERCDLATIGN HOLES 1-1/2'D CRUSHED WASHED SCREENED - STONE AROUND THE PERIMETER AND V BELOW THE DRYWELL (STORAGE) 8`0 SCHAD PVC TO OTHER DRYWELL BARREL 12' ABOVE GRAVEL BASE (ORYWELL BARREL SECTIONS ARE IDENTICAL) LID: SEE PLAN VIEW RIM: PER PLAN & SLOPE TO DRIVEWAY SURFACE MATCH THE FINISH GRADE. ((TBD) " ...-.. 4'h1Ql . " LINE THE BLDG SIDE OF THE DRYWELL GRAVELS " WITH 30 MIL PVC AND :: BACKFILL BETWEEN THE INFLOW STORM/ DRYWELL AND THE ' UNDERDRNN FOUNDATION WITH PIPE SYSTEM COMPACTED ONSITE •` MATERIAL (SEE PLAN VIEW) - - = Bo STEEL PERFORATED PIPE COVERED WITH A NYRAFl FILTER SOCK 3> - Civil Engineering Surveying & Beyond Inc./ 923 Cooper Avenue Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 tele: 970.945.5252 fax: 970.384.2833 Engineer or Surveyor Seat RELI Client Information: Aspen, Colorado 816ll ############ rAd-h-, MN-1h IN o s' 1D Scale:l ° = 5' Know what's below. Call before you dig. N9006 FILE U41E WOV/Detention Drytvell System Desigvilf Scale: N.T.S Draft r. BUN Daft: 3/131N9 Revision C. i 61oziLzi� sNoliVnlla ONIQlIng South Perspective Southeast Perspective East Perspective ,./� Northeast Perspective -�7lZ vVE5-T tt%MA\N BUILDING PERSPECTIVES CONT'D �S��N �.o�.or�eo A.9.O2 179V SNoWMASS CREE14 Rd, SNoWMASS- , CO. Slbl3 (970) 9Z7-1796 -M:L/fix , 3/27/2019 61OZ/LZ/E �0'6'V solotld Ixaluo �� f • ..rev h' .. r _ T `pOp LL Q0U) it>a W � W of o F- / / / •� W i Z_ .� T ., i W / / / I � � � Q � m W z co / � , ; V 0 A, W W v 4 / L- O O :�;ZF / i U 0 179"0 5NOWMA55 GREFI< RP. 5NoWMA'55/ CO. 816E ;4 (970) 927-1W(0 IEL/f4%x 3iz wE5-r +tyMA\N �S�'EN� GOLORF�pO F- O "" w UW W W .J ¢co Qco � *U �olSQ co OwW F- w > W�� = Z00 `J O � Z 0 ? Z W W Z , Z = cd W 0. ir0;�;� a U'SO� Qtupy� 0 , f W / / N TRU-E NORT$ 06 /Y mLU U Z OUz Z� cl) Q / , / , m SITE &LANDSCAPE PLAN A.1.O I 3/27/2019 61 OZ/LZ/� 'OQ��1O`lO� �N �S� x��/�� OSLI-LZ(D (OL(D) -bsc)�S *0� 'S9VWAAO s 44zJ >� v� SSVwMONs QSLI 10*Z4V NVId IlAal NIVWW D N\-Vw114 �-G:9M Z1 � I Fvi Me 5 WiV Mao .. 9 J 0 0 NV-1d"1DAD-1 C]Nnobo W81LS—,E6 nRl/.zl ii—,I�z