HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20080924ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
September 24, 2008
5:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT: Noon -Please meet at the site - 210 E. Francis St.
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes - September 10, 2008
III. Public Comments
IV. Commission member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
VI. Project Monitoring
VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #21)
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. Lift I -Conceptual Review (cont'd from 9/10) 45 min.
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. 135 W. Hopkins Ave. -Substantial amendment (30 min.)
X. Other
A. 233 Gilbert Ave., aka Skiers Chalet Lodge, Ordinance #48
negotiation
B. 210 W. Francis Street, Ordinance #48 negotiation (45 min.)
XI Adjourn 7:05 p.m.
~~ii
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Saza Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan COWOP (Conceptual)- Public Heazing
continued from September 10, 2008
DATE: September 24, 2008
At the time of packet submittal, the Task Force was in an intensive mazathon meeting to discuss
possible locations for the museum in Willoughby Park, among other site planning issues. Staff
will email a memo to HPC as soon as possible along with a site plan, drawings and renderings
for discussion on Wednesday.
An additional Lift One heazing has been added to the HPC agenda during the regular meeting on
October 8, 2008.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan COWOP (Conceptual)- Public Hearing
continued from August 27, 2008 and September 10, 2008
DATE: September 24, 2008
PROCESS: City Council initiated the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan COWOP review
through the adoption of Resolution No. 13, Series of 2008. A 27-member Lift One Master Plan
Task Force was established. This group has met every Thursday since April 10`h and is expected
to make a final recommendation by the end of September. The Task Force established and
unanimously adopted seven goals, two of which relate to historic preservation: Respect Aspen's
history.• integrate the balance of architecture and design through the relationships, mass and
scale of historic and proposed structures; and Showcase and promote Aspen's ski history and
traditions.
The project before HPC involves several adjacent properties in the Lift 1 neighborhood, the
original base area for Aspen Mountain.
Two of the affected properties, Willoughby Pazk and Lift 1 Park, aze owned by the
City. Both are landmark designated.
^ The Boat Tow and Lift 1 tower, which are located on Willoughby Park, are listed
on the National Register of Historic Places.
• Skier's Chalet Steakhouse is privately owned. It is a designated landmark.
Two outbuildings and a ticket office (partially collapsed) are located on
Willoughby Park and the Deep Powder cabins are temporarily stored there.
The Skier's Chalet Lodge is subject to Ordinance #48 review.
HPC has purview over the development of these resources. Although the entire area
encompassed in the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan is not designated, HPC is asked to
comment on the site plan as one whole entity and how the proposed development affects the
historic structures, objects and sense of place.
This is the third public hearing scheduled for Lift One. Since the last HPC discussion, a POMA
lift pazallel to the historic Lift 1 has been introduced to the project to operate as a "people"
mover. Major aspects of the project that result from this addition aze the following:
• Relocation of the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse
Location of the Deep Powder Cabins further up the mountain as part of the Aspen
Ski Co. operation
1
PREVIOUS APPROVALS: HPC granted Major Development Conceptual approval for the
subject property on August 9, 2006 by a three to zero vote that included the following:
• relocating and designating the Skier's Chalet Lodge (233 Gilbert Street, currently listed
on Ordinance #48)
• restoring the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse, ticket booth/office and deteriorated outbuilding
located near the eastern property line
• constmcting an addition and elevator to the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse
• adaptive use of the Deep Powder cabins by permanently incorporating them into
Willoughby Park.
During the meetings in 2006, HPC focused largely on the proposed location of the Skier's Chalet
Lodge in relationship to Deane Street, maintaining the open, passive and public nature of
Willoughby Park, and the relationship of historic Lift 1 to the ski hill. HPC was concerned with
overcrowding the park with buildings that resembled a "petting zoo" of historic artifacts.
APPLICANT: The master plan includes lands owned or managed by four entities -the City of
Aspen, Aspen Land Fund II (Centurion Partners), Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge -Aspen, and
the Aspen Skiing Company.
ADDRESS/Parcel ID: Willoughby Park (PID# 2735-131-16-851) is located at the comer of
Dean and South Aspen Streets and is described as Lots I-14, Block 7 and Lots 1-3, Block 8, Eames
Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. Skier's Chalet Steakhouse (PID# 2735-
131-21-001) is located at 710 S. Aspen Street and is described as Lots 12, 13, and 14, Block 8,
Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. Lifr 1 Park (PID# 2735-131-19-
851) is bounded by Gilbert Street and Hill Street and is described as Lots 3, 4 (partial), I1 (partial)
and 12 of Block 9, Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC will: relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by t/:e HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approvah of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to tJ:e location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant.
2
HISTORY OF THE SITE:
This area is significant as Aspen's original ski base and the core of any skier's experience in the
early days of the resort. A center of activity, this was the origination point of the ski lifts, the
location of most of the lodging available in Aspen, and the site of national and international ski
races that made Aspen world famous starting with the U.S. World Alpine Championship in 1941.
The Boat Tow, modeled after those used at Kitzbuhl, Austria, was constructed on Aspen
Mountain in 1937. It was replaced in 1947 with Lift 1, at the time the longest chairlift in the
world. The Boat Tow was a pair of wooden toboggans that were hauled up Aspen Mountain
with steel cables, connected to a Model A Ford engine (see page 5 for images.) The only
remaining pieces of this lift are the two toboggans, one which sits in Willoughby Park (and has
been recently evaluated for preservation needs by a wood scientist) and one which is in the
possession of the Aspen Historical Society.
Lift 1 operated until it was replaced in 1972 by Lift lA, located further uphill. Most of the
towers and equipment associated with Lift 1 were removed. In 1974 Willoughby Park and the
remnants of the Boat Tow and Lift 1 became the fifth property to be designated a landmazk in
Aspen, demonstrating the community's recognition of their significant historic value. The Boat
Tow was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1990.
Although a lift had existed in the Little Nell area since 1956, the perceived base of Aspen
Mountain was shifred from Aspen Street to the Little Nell area after the construction of the
gondola in 1986.
The apparent motivation for constructing Chalet Style buildings in Aspen after World War II,
exemplified in the architecture of the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse and the Skiers Chalet Lodge, is
discussed in a white paper written by the Community Development Department. Quoting from
that paper:
"Comparisons to European ski resorts were (evident in the town's azchitecture and) also
evident in advertising. Sun Valley's brochures boasted of Austrian ski instructors and
appealed to elite visitors who traveled both by train and plane. The Aspen Chamber of
Commerce's advertising throughout the 1950's and 1960's had this character as well. In
a brochure promoting lodging and accommodations, the Norway Lodge notes `the
intimacy and charm of an old world inn, at Aspen's No. 1 chairlift.' In the same brochure
the Skier's Chalet and Steak House and Edelweiss also emphasize their `chalet'
accommodations. In a multi-page pamphlet, entitled `Aspen, Wonderful Ski Town,'
created by the Chamber, there are several passages that emphasize Aspen as an
international resort with a European flavor. `In fact,' the brochure states on the opening
page, `Aspen knows few rivals. No European resort today can advertise a larger, more
elaborate, more luxurious ski village right at the foot of the slopes."'
The Skiers Chalet brochure states that the lodge was "started by Howazd and Jean Awrey who
came to Aspen in 1947 to ski. Howard and Jean operated the Sundeck Restaurant on top of
Aspen Mountain from 1949-1952. The Awreys also owned and operated a small restaurant at the
base of the old #1 chairlift. This restaurant burned to the ground on Washington's Birthday in
3
1952. It was rebuilt into a restaurant and lodging facility: The Skiers Chalet (Steakhouse.)
Because #1 Chairlift was on the property, the Skiers Chalet has historic designation as the
beginnings of the North American ski industry. It's twin, The Skiers Chalet Lodge, was built in
1965 and has been at the center of many activities connected with the world-class ski events held
on Aspen Mountain.
Like some other lodge buildings of the period, such as the Mountain Chalet, Skiers Chalet
Steakhouse acquired the Chalet character that is appreciated today over a period of a few years,
as the owner was able to expand the structure and the style became more and more important. By
1965, the owner built the main lodge described above at 233 Gilbert Street (Skiers Chalet
Lodge.) This second building was designed with a pure understanding of the style, and because
of this is azguably one of the most significant examples of the Chalet architecture in Aspen.
The properties affected by this application maintain a great deal of historic chazacter because
their setting is very intact. Some erosion of context has occurred in Willoughby Park with the
demolition of the Holland House and Norway Lodge. The Lift 1 Pazk and Skier's Chalet
building remain largely unaltered in their original locations.
Willoughby Park has been the intended location of a ski museum for at least 15 years. The
specifics of the use and the dimensional limits for development will be determined through a the
COWOP review.
HISTORIC RESOURCES:
Historic Lift 1: In all of the iterations that have been presented to HPC, one of the new lodge
buildings is proposed to wrap around the historic Lift 1. Placing new buildings near the Lift,
blocking its direct connection to the ski hill and adding paving in close proximity relegates the
historic resource to an in•elevant artifact that at one time drew skiers to Aspen as the longest
chairlift in the world. Because it is no longer functional, the preservation of Lift 1 relies on
maintaining its integrity and authenticity through its direct connection to the ski hill and its
surrounding passive and relaxed environment. On August 27`h, HPC members indicated that the
visual connection, and the ability to ski back to the base of Lift 1 are high priorities for them in
this project. There were several comments made about the importance of being able to stand at
the chair and look up the historic lift line. In response to HPC, the applicant proposes a POMA
lift to run parallel to the historic Lift 1. Staff finds that this idea would reconnect the historic lift
to the mountain and allow a more interactive and animated experience of the historic lift. The
POMA would go over a one story land bridge that links the east and west sections of the Lift One
Lodge. The physical and visual impact of the POMA on the historic Lift 1 needs to be studied
and addressed by the Commission before it is approved. This is an exciting concept, but the
placement of the POMA and towers should not detract from the historic Lift 1.
Natural greenery, grading and an overall casual informality aze traditional and authentic
characteristics of the Lift 1 azea and the general attitude of the town during this era. Relaxed
green space rather than paving and formal landscaping aze important, historic features of this area
that help convey the overall philosophy and sentiment of the burgeoning ski industry back in the
late 1940s and SOs. The "sense of place" philosophy does not discourage development of a site,
rather it defines sentiment around a space and encourages the preservation of that sentiment in
4
conjunction with new development. Staff is concerned about the erosion of green space created
by a turnaround in the northwest corner of Willoughby Park that serves as a drop off point.
Along the west side of the property, meandering paths, steps, etc. add design elements that could
interfere with an authentic interpretation of the site.
During HPC's last two meetings, there was some support for "thinning" and removing existing
vegetation that was not in place during the heyday of skiing in this neighborhood. Commission
member Mullins recommended an assessment with the goal of retaining particularly healthy,
noteworthy trees. Members commented that landscaping established over the last years should
not be a driver of the project if it doesn't have some inherent value of its own. There was no
discussion that encouraged adding new trees on the site.
Skier's Chalet Steakhouse: The applicant proposes to relocate the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse
down hill. This change is a result of the redesign of the lodge footprint to allow the POMA pass
through. The new plan shows part of the new lodge and all of Skier's Chalet Steakhouse in the
Aspen Street right of way. Staff understands that the lodge owners are concerned with
maintaining the same amount of program. The criteria for granting relocation are listed below:
RELOCATION
The following standards apply for relocating a historic property as per Section 26.415.090.0 of
the Municipal Code:
C. Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties
Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it
meets any one of the following standards:
1. It is considered anon-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation
will not affect the character of the historic district; or
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on
which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic
district or property; or
3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method
given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move
will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was
originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of
adjacent designated properties; and
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the followine criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of
withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair
and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the
necessary financial security.
Staff Response: The site context of the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse has been, and is proposed to
be, significantly altered with the demolition of the Holland House, potential construction of Lift
One Lodge and the alteration of South Aspen Street. Nevertheless, Staff finds that the
relationship of the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse to the original Lift/ ticket booth and its relationship
5
to the mountain/ South Aspen Street aze key components in retaining a piece of authenticity in
the Lift 1 azea. Moving the historic Steakhouse down the mountain may create a closer physical
relationship between the Skier's Chalet Lodge, Lift and Ticket Office and it may facilitate a
reduction in the height of the Lift One Lodge by allowing a lazger footprint; however the
relocation will further erode the integrity and authenticity of the site, pazticulazly by placing
structures outside of traditional property lines. The Steakhouse is a prominent free-standing
building as viewed from the bottom of South Aspen Street looking up towazd the mountain.
Staff finds that relocation is not an acceptable preservation method and recommends denial of
relocation of the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse.
Skier's Chalet Lodge: The applicant proposes to relocate the Skier's Chalet Lodge down the hill
toward Deane Street and convert it to a museum. The proposed location is similaz to that
approved by HPC in 2006, except it is shifted over towazd the east property line. A generous
front yard setback of about 30' is proposed in front of the museum. Staff prefers to have the
Skier's Chalet Lodge remain in its original location; however, we understand the necessity for
relocating the Lodge in conjunction with the rest of the Lift One project. Staff recommends that
HPC discuss the proposed front yazd setback and its impact on the intended experience and
program of the Pazk.
A proposal was introduced by a Task Force member that relocates the Skier's Chalet Lodge in
line with the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse. Staff finds that this location blocks the Steakhouse
when viewed from Aspen Street and creates an imbalance of historic structures on one side of the
Pazk. Furthermore, complicated grading issues exist in this location that would require the first
floor of the Lodge to be a garden level. Staff is not in favor of this location.
The applicant intends to designate the Skier's Chalet Lodge after it is relocated. The 90 day
negotiation period has begun for Ordinance #48 review of this structure. Staff finds that there aze
no major conflicts with the proposal and the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and is
extremely pleased that the applicant is interested in pursuing landmark designation.
Ski Club Building:
A few months ago, Staff and HPC discussed the dangerous condition of the Ski Club building
after the roof collapsed and the possibility of demolition. The southeast corner of the Ski Club
building has been identified as the original ticket office. Staff and the City need direction from
HPC as to the importance of the entire Ski Club building versus the original ticket office. The
Master Plan incorporates the original ticket office into the schemes; however there was
discussion with HPC that they may consider the entire building to be significant. With winter
quickly approaching, the City needs to remedy the unsafe condition of this building, which may
include demolition of the non-contributing sections. During one of the HPC heazings,
Commission member Nora Berko felt that it was expanded from the original ticket booth size
within the 1950's, a recollection that is supported by the 1955 photograph provided on the
following page.
Based on existing walls and materials, Staff recommends that the width of the building illustrated
in the 1955 photograph should be preserved. There appeazs to be a more recent addition to the
north (rear) of the building that staff recommends is removed. Upon closer inspection, what
appeazs to be the 1955 reaz wall is intact within the existing building. The roof collapsed and
6
needs to be replaced and windows are broken, but the exterior walls appear intact and the
window openings, many of which are shown in the photograph, remain.
Deep Powder:
The Deep Powder cabins, circa 1957, aze proposed to be reused on the mountain as part of the
Aspen Ski Company's program. These building are temporarily stored on Willoughby Pazk until
a permanent location is approved. Staff is in favor of incorporating them on the mountain as a
ticket office or warming but for example, and we want to confirm that they will be designated as
landmarks or protected after they are permanently located.
Outbuildings: Two outbuildings exist on the site (on the east property line and adjacent to the
Lift tower) that aze extremely deteriorated. The applicant proposes to retain the outbuildings on
the site as part of the story of the site.
Lodge Outbuilding: A small chalet style structure is located behind the Skier's Chalet Lodge.
Staff finds that it is appropriate to move this ancillary building with the Lodge to preserve its
association.
Boat Tow: Staff is concerned about the condition of the Boat Tow and its current location that
exposes it to the elements. Part of the discussion in 2006 focused on incorporating the Boat
Tow into the museum building to decrease the rate of decay and deterioration. Staff recommends
clarification regazding this issue.
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE
OVERALL PROJECT:
SENSE OF PLACE: At the August 27`h meeting,
HPC viewed several project schemes that
included a reconfiguration of South Aspen Street
and its relationship to the ski hill and the original
townsite grid. When the Aspen townsite was laid,
it followed traditional Roman city building
philosophy by placing a grid overtop the natural
topography. The steep, straight ascent of South
Aspen. Street is an essential part of the original
townsite in the western section of town. Devoting
entire streets to "green" pedestrian areas is not
true to the history of the neighborhood, and the
treatment of Aspen, Gilbert, Juan, and Deane
Streets should be carefully considered. HPC has not supported a meandering vehicular route up
Aspen Street. The possible exception to these comments is at least the west portion of Gilbert
Street, which was part of the ski hill, not an open street as seen in the 1955 photograph on page
7. Among other things, this picture reinforces the lack of vegetation in the azea, and manner in
which town and the ski hill blended
together. The location of the original lift
certainly did spare skiers of having to
walk up Aspen Street. Staff recommends
that the project maintain the existing
straight configuration of Aspen Street and
its connection to the grid. We do not feel
that redesigning the street is necessary to
make this neighborhood special.
8
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC continue the application for Conceptual
approval to October 8, 2008. Staff recommends that HPC continue to provide cleaz guidance on
the following issues:
^ Idea of adding a POMA lift adjacent to the historic Lift 1
• Relocation of Skier's Chalet Steakhouse
Relocation of Skier's Chalet Lodge and ancillary building
^ Size of ticket booth
Deep Powder Cabins location on the ski hill
• Overall site plan
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Application
Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines-
1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context
of the site.
^ Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact
of mature growth.
^ Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent.
^ Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials.
1.16 Preserve historically signifcant landscape designs and features.
^ This includes the arrangement of trees, shrubs, plant beds, irrigation ditches and sidewalks in
the public right-of--way.
8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved.
^ When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These
include its primary and roof materials, roof form, windows, doors and azchitectural details.
^ If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional.
8.2 If an existing secondary structure is beyond repair, then replacing it is encouraged.
^ An exact reconstruction of the secondary structure may not be necessary in these cases.
^ The replacement should be compatible with the overall character of the historic primary
structure, while accommodating new uses.
8.5 Avoid moving a historic secondary structure from its original location.
^ A secondary structure may only be repositioned on its original site to preserve its historic
integrity.
9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
^ In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a
historic district.
^ It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative.
^ Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements.
^ A relocated building must be cazefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and
materials.
^ Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new
foundation, utilities, and to restore the house.
^ The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new
construction.
^ In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved.
9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the
boundaries of its historic parcel.
^ If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the lots.
Both lots shall remain landmazked properties.
9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
^ It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback.
^ It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in
front of it.
9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic
elevation above grade.
^ Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it
substantially above the ground level is inappropriate.
^ Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances
the resource.
10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right.
^ Such an addition is usually similar in character to the original building in terms of materials,
finishes and design.
10.2 Amore recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
14.1 These standards should not prevent or inhibit compliance with accessibility laws.
^ All new construction should comply completely with the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). Owners of historic properties should comply to the fullest extent possible, while also
preserving the integrity of the chazacter-defining features of their buildings. Special
provisions for historic buildings exist in the law that allow some alternatives in meeting the
ADA standards.
14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact.
^ Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts
are not permitted.
^ If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it.
14.22 Driveways leading to parking areas should be -ocated to the side or rear of a
primary structure.
^ Locating drives away from the primary facade will maintain the visual importance the
structure has along a block.
14.23 Parking areas should not be visually obtrusive.
^ Large pazking areas should be screened from view from the street.
^ Divide lazge parking lots with planting areas. (Lazge parking azeas are those with more than
five cazs.)
^ Consider using a fence, hedge or other appropriate landscape feature.
^ Automobile headlight illumination from parking areas should be screened from adjacent lots
and the street.
14.24 Large parking areas, especially those for commercial and multifamily uses, should
not be visually obtrusive.
^ Locate parking areas to the reaz of the property, when physical conditions permit.
^ An alley should serve as the primary access to parking, when physical conditions permit.
^ Pazking should not be located in the front yard, except in the driveway, if it exists.
10
I1
~~ P1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
RE: 135 West Hopkins, Major Development Review- Substantial Amendment to an
approved development order- public hearing
DATE: September 24, 2008
SUMMARY: The subject property is a one and a half story late Victorian style wood frame
Miner's Cottage located on the corner of West Hopkins Avenue and South First Street. A
detached non-historic residence sits at the reaz of the property bordering South First Street and
the alley. The historic cottage has undergone various significant alterations since the home was
built in the 1880s.
HPC granted approval for onsite relocation, rehabilitation and an addition to the existing
Victorian residence. HPC also granted demolition approval for the structure along the alley and
Conceptual approval for a new two story single family residence. A 330 squaze foot FAR Bonus
was awarded for rehabilitation, and a waiver of two pazking spaces and variances from the
Residential Design Standazds regarding Street Oriented Entrance and Secondary Mass were
granted. Dimensional setback variances were granted for both the historic home and addition,
and the new detached residence along the alley.
The applicant requests approval to change the roof form of the new house from the approved
mansard style roof to a gable roof form. The approved roof form does not meet height
requirements in the R-6 zone district and the applicant prefers to change the roof style rather than
drop the plate height of the approved mansard style roof. The Land Use Code measures gable
roofs with a slope of 8:12 or greater to a point 1/3 of the distance up from the eave point to the
ridge. According to Code, a mansard roof is considered a flat roof with a slope of less than 3:12
and is measured from finished or natural grade, whichever is more restrictive, to the top or ridge
of the mansard roof. Therefore, changing the roof form from a mansard to a gable roof allows an
overall higher roof volume and higher interior plate height.
The applicant requests HPC approval to change a door to a window in the new addition facing
Hopkins Avenue. One of the conditions of approval during Final Review included staff and
monitor review of the railing on the new house that faces First Street. The applicant prefers to
resolve this issue during the Substantial Amendment review.
APPLICANT: John Key, represented by Gretchen Greenwood of Gretchen Greenwood and
Associates, Inc.
i
P2
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-59-112.
ADDRESS: 135 W. Hopkins Avenue, Lot A and the west 22 '/~ feet of Lot B, Block 60, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R-6, Residential
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT- SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT
The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at
the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions
or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to
approve or deny. (Ord. No. I-2002 § 7 (part), 2002).
Roof change to New house at rear: During the major development heazings, HPC discussed at
length the relationship of the new building to the historic resource. At about 5,200 squaze feet,
the lot is too small to qualify fora ]ot split, so the two residences are in close proximity. ,The
historic resource has an unusual mansazd style roof with a 12:12 pitch that leads up to a flat roof
that not typically found on Aspen's Victorian heritage. The applicant originally proposed a
similaz style mansard roof to mimic the historic resource. As mentioned previously, the
approved roof height did not meet dimensional requirements because of the method for
measuring different roof types in the Land Use Code and needed to be restudied.
Staff finds that the proposal to change to an 8:12 gable roof form simplifies the roof forms on the
new house and meets Guidelines 11.5 and 11.6. The proposed pitch does not relate to the steep
slopes approved for the historic resource (12:12) and addition (12:12), but Staff finds that the
8:12 slope will not adversely impact the historic resource.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
• They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally on the block.
• Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs aze appropriate for primary roof forms
^ Flat roofs should be used only in azeas where it is appropriate to the context
^ On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the
context.
• Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street
aze discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
Door to Window change to addition to historic home (facing Hopkins): HPC approved double
doors in the addition to the historic home facing Hopkins Avenue. The applicant has converted
the use of this room to a kitchen and placed acounter/sink in front of the glass doors. During
permit review, Staff raised a concern that the counter/sink would be visible through the glass
doors from Hopkins. The architect revised the drawings to change the doors to windows and
2
P3
added a solid wall where the interior counter is located. The approved plans included a bump out
of the doors with glazing on all three sides to mimic the bay window in the historic home. Staff
is in favor of the change from doors to windows, but recommends that the proportions of the
windows be revised to better reflect the historic home and meet Guideline 11.9. Staff also
recommends that the new window be flush with the plane of the addition and not be bumped out
to remain subordinate to the historic resource.
11.9 Use building components that aze similar in size and shape to those of the historic
property.
^ These include windows, doors and porches.
^ Overall, details should be modest in character.
Railine on New House facing First Street: The applicant originally proposed horizontal cable
rails with a wood cap for the deck of the New House. During Final Review, HPC determined
that the railing be restudied to relate to the historic resource as a condition of approval for Staff
and monitor. HPC was concerned with the weightiness and contemporary character of the cable
railing. Staff finds that the metal railing proposed in the packet with vertical rails and horizontal
wood posts is more appropriate for the new house.
DECISION MAHING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
• approve the application,
• approve the application with conditions,
• disapprove the application, or
• continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant the Substantial Amendment to
Resolution No. 38, Series of 2007, for the property located at 135 West Hopkins Avenue, Lot A
and the west 22 % feet of Lot B, Block 60, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, with the
following conditions:
1. All approvals and conditions granted during Conceptual (Resolution 22, Series of 2006)
and Final (Resolution 38, Series of 2007) Review are valid, with the exception of the
approvals specified herein.
2. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being
reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board.
Resolution #_ Series of 2008.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B, HPC Minutes from June 28, 2006
C, HPC Minutes from August 9, 2006
D. Application
3
P4
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 135 West Hopkins Avenue, Substantial
Amendment"
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the
parcel.
Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that aze similaz in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
^ They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally on the block.
Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs aze appropriate for primary roof forms
^ Flat roofs should be used only in azeas where it is appropriate to the context
• On a residential structure, eave depths should be similaz to those seen traditionally in the
context.
^ Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street
aze discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic
property.
• These include windows, doors and porches.
• Overall, details should be modest in character.
11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
• This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
^ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history
are especially discouraged on historic sites.
4
P5
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 135 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE, LOT A AND THE
WEST 22 %: FEET OF LOT B, BLOCK 60, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2008
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-59-112.
WHEREAS, the applicant, John Key, represented by Gretchen Greenwood of Gretchen
Greenwood and Associates, Inc., requested a Substantial Amendment to HPC Resolution #22,
Series of 2006 and HPC Resolution #38, Series of 2007, for Major Development for 135 West
Hopkins Avenue, Lot A and the west 22'/2 feet of Lot B, Block 60, 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, at their regulaz meeting on August 9, 2006, the HPC considered the application,
found the application was consistent with the review standazds and the City of Aspen Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines, and approved Resolution #22, Series of 2006, granting
Conceptual Approval for Major Development, Relocation, Demolition and Variances by a vote
of4-0; and
WHEREAS, at their regulaz meeting on October 24, 2007 the HPC considered the application,
found the application was consistent with the review standards and the City of Aspen Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines, and approved Resolution #38, Series of 2007, granting Final
Approval for Major Development by a vote of 6 - 0; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070.E.2 of the Municipal Code states that " al] changes to approved
plans that materially modify the location, size, shape, materials, design, detailing or appeazance
of the building elements as originally depicted must be approved by the HPC as a substantial
amendment; and
WHEREAS, the HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence
presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines, The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or
continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve
or deny. (Ord. No. 1-2002 § 7 (part), 2002); and
P6
WHEREAS, Saza Adams, in her staff report dated September 24, 2008, performed an analysis of
the application based on the standards, found that the review standazds and the "City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines were met, and recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, at their regulaz meeting on September 24, 2008, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review
standazds and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the
application by a vote of _ to _
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
HPC grants approval for a Substantial Amendment to Resolution #22, Series of 2006 and
Resolution #38, Series of 2008 for the property located at 135 West Hopkins Avenue, Lot A and
the west 22'/z feet of Lot B, Block 60, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following
conditions:
1. All approvals and conditions granted during Conceptual (Resolution 22, Series of 2006)
and Final (Resolution 38, Series of 2007) Review aze valid, with the exception of the
approvals specified herein.
2. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being
reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 24`" day of September,
2008.
Michael Hoffman, Vice Chair
Approved as to Form:
Jim True, City Attorney
Approved as to content:
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P7
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 135 West Hopkins Avenue, Substantial
Amendment"
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the
parcel.
^ Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that aze similaz in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
• They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally on the block.
• Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs aze appropriate for primary roof forms
• Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context
• On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the
context.
• Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street
aze discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic
property.
^ These include windows, doors and porches.
• Overall, details should be modest in chazacter.
11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
^ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
• Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history
are especially discouraged on historic sites.
4
P8
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 28, 2006
~,,., WII.LOUGHBY PARK/LIFT 1 PARK/SKIER'S CHALET STEAKHOUSE -MAJOR
DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) ................................................................................. 1
DEMOLITION AND VARIANCES .................................................................................. 1
205 S. MII,L STREET, BRUNELLESCHI'S -MINOR REVIEW AND COMMERCIAL
DESIGN REVIEW -PUBLIC HEARING ........................................................................ 1
423 N. SECOND STREET -MINOR REVIEW -PUBLIC HEARING ......................:... 5
135 W. HOPKINS -CONCEPTUAL -RELOCATION - DEMOLTTION -
VARIANCES -PUBLIC HEARING .............................................................................. 10
WORKSESSION-NO MINIUTES ................................................................................ IS
430 W. MAIN-134 W. HOPKINS ................................................................................. 15
16
P9
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 28, 2006
,,.... Michael amended his motion to #8. The vent as proposed is denied but
~.... staff and monitor are authorized to review new plans for the vent. Jason
amended his second.
Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Derek, yes; Alison, yes; Michael, yes; Jeffrey,
yes. Motion carried 5-0.
For clarification the vent as proposed has been denied but staff and
monitor can review other alternatives.
135 W. HOPKINS -CONCEPTUAL -RELOCATION -
DEMOLITION -VARIANCES -PUBLIC HEARING
Derek recused himself.
Affidavit of posting -Exhibit I
E-mail from Thomas & Judy Poll -Exhibit II
Sara relayed that the subject property is 1 1/2 story Victorian style wood
frame cottage on the corner of W. Hopkins and S. First St. There is a
detached non-historic residence that sits at the rear of the property. The
building has undergone various alterations. The owner had appeared
w.. before HPC for a review of a large addition to the rear of the structure but
upon learning that the lot allows for two residences the applicant is re-
submitting anew application for two single family homes on this non-
conforming parcel. The application is for on-site relocation of an historic
structure; rehabilitation of the historic structure; 500 square foot FAR
bonus. An addition is proposed to the Victoria house. Demolition of the
structure along the alley and then there are variances from the Residential
Design Standards requested and a waiver of two on-site parking spaces.
Key features of the historic house. What is.left of the integrity of the
historic house is that it is in its original location and the bay window
seems to be historic. The house is located on a comer. To the east is the
2 %z story Holiday house. And to the south the three story Cottonwood
Condominiums.
Staff feels the rehab will greatly increase the properties integrity scoring;
however, the proposal includes moving the building up to the property
line which will adversely affect the score but staff finds that the proposed
rehab out ways the adverse effect.
10
P10
,...~ Design Guideline Review -The new detached rear structure height is
~.... contextually appropriate considering adjacent to the back of the lot is the
3 story Cottonwood condominiums. Staff is concerned that the ridge line
of the roof as seen on the north elevation expands across the lot and
creates a lazge mass behind the historic building as seen from Hopkins
Ave. Staff recommends that the North elevation be broken up into
smaller modules to appear closer in scale to the historic house as stated in
section 11.3 of the design guidelines.
The primary entrance of the new house is appropriate oriented to First
Street but it lacks the recommended porch element for residences. The
one-story mass with the deck on top is sensitive in scale and height along
First Street.
New addition to the historic house.
Staff finds that the size and scale is sensitive to the historic home and the
_ proposed gable roof is slightly lower in height. Due to site constraints
staff recommends that the side addition is appropriate for this site even
though HPC usually recommends it be at the rear.
~,... Staff is concerned with the length of the proposed addition which is
comprised of a master bedroom and a one car garage. Staff recommends
that the length be shortened to create a more defined separation between
the historic home and the proposed new addition as seen from First
Street.
Historic home:
The applicant proposes to add a new foundation and lift the house up two
feet. The structure will maintain its historic orientation to Hopkins but it
will be moved up to the property line. Staff finds that the relocation is
appropriate, moving the development to the rear of the lot. Staff
recommends that staff and monitor assess the intended height of the
home and the foundation during the relocation phase of the building
because documentation doesn't exist as to how high the foundation was
historically. Raising the house two feet seems to be a significant height
and may have a significant adverse impact on the historic property.
The Light-wells seem to be oversized for the required egress. There is a
proposed skylight in the historic home and in the light of applying for a
.. 500 square foot bonus staff does not recommend the skylight.
it
P11
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION CO1I~IlVIISSION
MINUTES OF JANE 28. 20(!6
~.- Demolition -Staff finds that the out buildings do not contribute to the
significance of the pazcel and the demolition will be inconsequential to
the preservation of the azea.
Residential Design Standazds - Staff is in favor of demolition. The
project requires a variance from the secondary mass and the street
oriented entrance requirements for the new detached house. Staff is in
favor of the variances.
Street oriented entrance - A variance for the street entrance is necessary
for the new detached house. The primary entrance is located on First
Street and staff agrees that it should not face Hopkins Ave. We also
recommend that a front porch element be added. Staff also supports the
FAR bonus of 500 square feet. Staff also recommends that HPC waive
the two additional required parking spaces. Staff is concerned with the 0
foot west side yard setback of the new detached house and recommends
that the HPC move the detached house back from the lot line so that it
does not compete with the historic house along First Street. Staff also
recommends continuation to restudy the roof form of-the detached house
as seen from Hopkins Ave. and the other issues that were mentioned.
Gretchen Greenwood, architect
Gretchen said she worked on the -first application in 2001. They went
through the entire process and received approval and it came to a halt the
day before Gretchen submitted for a building permit. The owner decided
to go back through the process for the two units. The application has
simplified for the past five years.
We have two buildings -one new building and one old one with no
relationship between the two. The simpler the building is to the rear the
better for the Victorian building. The concept has always been to
maintain a simple structure to the back. In reality if we lift the front
building up it will only be 18 inches. The building will then be 23.2
inches above grade. The site slopes from 102 to 106 at the south eastern
comer which makes it a challenge in terms of being able to access both
properties off the alley. We will be traveling under the living room to get
to the garage for the Victorian. The new building is access off the alley.
It is off the property line about three feet. Gretchen said she has five feet
off her alley and there is good fuming radius. We need to lift the
Victorian up to get the relationship of the alley. When we start to
excavate out we will be looking at what the real conditions of the
12
P12
ASPEN ffiSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
NIIMJTES OF JUNE 28. 2006
elevation is and exactly how high we need to lift it. We would like to get
~. it up at least 18 inches. There is a lot of height around this building. The
rear building height to the mid point is 25 feet and the total would be
around 28.6 and the Cottonwood Condominiums are at 34 feet. We have
a little over ten feet between the two buildings and we will be able to
some significant plantings. We will be able to define a back drop to the
Victorian building. Gretchen said she is not sure they can reduce the
length of the proposed addition but they would look into it. In terms of
the porch element she would do something very clean and not detailed.
Michael asked Amy if the physical condition of the building has
remained the same through her tenure as a preservation planner, Amy
said nothing has been done to the building. Do we have a demolition by
neglect issue here? Amy said there was an application pursued and now
an application for two detached buildings which is what we would prefer.
It has taken longer than everyone would like but it seems that a resolution
is at hand. This property is a legal non-conformity and two building are
allowed.
_ Gretchen stated that the HPC process is very long. It took her two years
~... to get through the first plan. The lot size is about 5,200 square feet.
Chairperson, Jeffrey Haiferty opened the public hearing.
John Kelly, attorney stated he represents the Vaughn family who awn a
small house a half block down. He is here to get the information for his
client. Gretchen went over the plan explaining that they aze using less
square footage in this design. John said he is not opposing the
application; he is here to educate himself.
Jessie Boyce, owner of the property across the street 134 1/2. We are
looking forward to the improvement of the site. Jessie pointed out that
skylights have come up twice this evening and that they have skylights
and they do help the electricity off.
Sara said she received an e-mail from the Pool's stated that they aze
pleased for the renovation of the property and cleanirig up the area. They
would like to make sure they comply with the zoning regulations
13
P13
ASPEN ffiSTORIC PRESERVATION CONIlVIISSION
NIINUTES OF JUNE 28, 2006
,... Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing portion of the
.~ meeting.
Commissioner comments:
Michael stated that he feels the bonus should be recognized by
maintaining the structure. He feels there is too much mass on the site and
agrees with staff that the garage and bedroom addition needs shortened.
He also supports the waiver of the two parking spaces.
Amy said possibly the garage could be shortened. Gretchen said she
might be able to shorten it by a couple of feet.
Jason said he appreciates the preservation efforts. It will be nice to see
this building rejuvenated. The separation of the two buildings is
necessary. Sara said she checked with the building dept. and they
confirmed that two feet could be lopped off the back of the garage.
Jason is also concerned about the ridge line of the new house that runs
east and west and recommended breaking that up somewhat. T'he light
well is one continuous element and possibly it could be broken up. He
pointed out that the long light well seems like a trough and accentuates
,.._ the overall length.
~.
Alison said the project is going in a better direction. She applauded the
architect for-her work. The demolition of the back piece and creating the
two home sites and preserving the front portion are acceptable. The new
house is a good back drop and transition to the higher building that is
across the alley. The new house almost protects the historic structure.
Alison recommended a restudy of the porch element on the west
elevation. The length of the garage doesn't bother her as much as the
other commissioners. Regarding the historic home she is in favor of staff
and monitor handling the issue of raising the house. She understands
why they need to do it because of the slope of the grade.
Gretchen pointed out that the light wells on each house are servicing two
bedrooms; two on the new home and two on the historic home. Instead
of having a lot of light wells she chose to have one.
Jeffrey feels that the addition is fine and it meets guideline 11.3. He
echoed some of staff's concerns about the roof and modulating it more,
possible with reduction of plate heights and dormers. The elevation of
... the new foundation as the building is moved closer to the north will
14
p14
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 28. 2006
,,... appear like it is growing out of the ground due to the relationsMp of the
•...~ grade. HPC ran into that same issue with the Conner cabins. He is in
total agreement with the light wells and they are set back off the historic
fagade. Possibly they could be broken up into two light wells.
Demolition is OK. Regarding the FAR bonus Michael made a good
point about letting the resource fall into the ground but for the architect to
restore the building back to its original detailing justifies the additional
square footage. The setbacks and parking variances are also acceptable.
Amy summarized: Relocation, demolition, variances are all supportive
by the board. The skylight is not approved. Restudy the mass and scale
of the addition, secondary mass. Porch on the new structure helps define
the structure.
Michael said he is less concerned about breaking up the light well than if
it were on the street. Jason said his concern is the light well's
relationship to the historic resource and if it were broken up it would not'
seem so massive.
:i~fOTION.• Michael moved to continue Conceptual Development and the
.,.., public hearing on 135 W. Hopkins Ave until July 2tih,2006,• second by
Alison. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Alison, yes; Michaet, yes; JefjS-ey,
yes. Motion carried 4-D.
WORKSESSION - NO MINIUTES
430 W. MAIN - 234 W. HOPKINS
MOTION.• Michaet moved to adjourn; second by Alison. Al! in favor,
m~ carried. Meeting adjourned at 8: 00 p. m.
~.~_,___
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
15
P15
ASPEN FIISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST 9. 2006
WILLOUGHBY PARK/LIFT 1 PARK/ SKIER'S CHALET STEAKHOUSE -
CONCEPTUAL, RELOCATION, DEMOLTTION AND VARIANCES .......................... 1
135 W. HOPKINS -CONCEPTUAL -DEMOLITION -VARIANCES FAR BONUS. 7
11
P16
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST 9. 2006
135 W. HOPHINS -CONCEPTUAL -DEMOLITION -VARIANCES
FAR BONUS
Saza relayed that mass and scale of the new detached house in relationship to
the historic home was requested at the last meeting for restudy. The
architect reduced the mass of the detached house. She also dropped the
height of the roof and reduced the initial request of a 500 square foot bonus
to 330 square feet.
HPC had also requested a restudy of the first story porch element of the new
detached house. The applicant proposed a definitive covered porch element.
HPC requested that they increase the west yard setback of the new detached
house. The applicant moved the principal fagade back from the west
property line to comply with the 5 foot requirement, and placed the porch
projecting into the west yard setback.
HPC also recommended breaking up the light wells. The light well along
the north elevation of the detached house is reduced to 2 light wells. The size
of the light well located toward the reaz of the historic home remains the
same size.
HPC also requested that the length of the garage on the new addition be
shortened to create more distance between the two buildings. The applicant
has reduced the garage length and reduced the width of the north fagade of
the new detached residence.
Sara brought up two points that HPC should discuss.
Staff feels this project could receive conceptual approval conditioned on
HPC approving the new roof form on the house. What is proposed is a
mansard roof form that is similaz to the historic home but there is a conflict
with our guidelines 11.5 and 11.6. Guideline 11.5 states use building forms
that are similar to the historic property. And 11.6 says use roof forms that
are traditionally seen on the block. A mansazd roof form is not traditionally
seen in the neighborhood yet it is similar to what is on the historic property.
Sara also pointed out that on the one-story deck element that is part of the
new detached structure there is a roof form that has an angled slope
skylights. Staff finds they add complexity to the elevation as seen from
P17
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST 9. 2006
Hopkins Street. You can see it directly behind the historic home. Staff
suggests that the roof form be simplified or take out the skylights or carry
the angle across the east elevation. With the new proposed porch on the
detached structure a variance is needed. The standards state that six feet is
needed and they have approximately 5 '/~ feet. Staff is opposed to the
variance.
Staff also recommends that the steep slope of the roof on the porch needs
restudied and how it relates in general.
On the historic house the new light well size remains the same and doesn't
comply with guidelines 9.7. Lights wells need to be minimized.
330 square feet is being requested for an FAR bonus. The bonus is
requested for rehab measures. Two parking spaces are needed for on-site
parking. They are providing two and need a waiver for two. Staff also finds
that the setback variances are appropriate for the site.
Doors are proposed as new cuts in the historic house. In light of asking for
an FAR bonus staff is opposed to the new cuts.
Gretchen Greenwood, architect. The designed changed quite a bit to reduce
the height of it. It changed from a mansard roof to a flat roof. The architect
said she would prefer a gable roof.
On the rear building she is proposing a skylight above the living room which
might have a slight slope but the details have not been drawn up. The slope
would be for drainage.
On the Victorian building a skylight is proposed for over the stairs but staff
doesn't want to see that happen. The building inside is dreadfully dark.
They can't use the windows up above on the west elevation. She is
proposing to put a skylight in the flat portion of the roof that is never going
to be seen by anyone. She realizes it is taking away historic materials but in
the scheme of things it is a reasonable request to add the light into the center
of this structure. She is not sure how extensive the detailing will be because
there are drainage issues. The building has been reduced in size.
The new house is set back considerably from the old house. The skylights
over the master bath will never be seen.
P18
ASPEN ffiSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST 9. 2006
Entry to both garages are off the alley. We are going to be lifting the
building up 18 inches potentially because the building has definitely sunk.
Bringing down the height was a good solution and we would like to go
forward as soon as possible.
Clarifications:
Sarah asked if the light well in the historic resource is new. Gretchen said it
is new and she could make it smaller to allow for plantings. She is OK with
creating one light well in an L shape.
Michael inquired about the egress with the light well. Gretchen said she
only needs three feet.
Vice-chair, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. There were no
public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Board comments:
Sarah Said the new addition to the historic resource fits within our guidelines
and is sympathetic to the historic resource. Some of the fenestration issues
can be dealt with at final. Sarah's main issue is the front porch of the new
structure. It is out of character and out of place. The stone pillars on either
side are very heavy. She also pointed out that the applicant did a great job in
reducing the scale which has made a great difference.
Jason pointed out that the separation between the buildings is better now.
His concern on the historic resource is the western windows in the upper
gable. Possibly there is a way to accommodate the framing in order to get
light in. He is opposed to the skylight on the historic building. If you can
accommodate skylights in the frame of the roof accordingly that would be
his preference. He is also in agreement with other conunissioner comments
regarding the porch on the new house. He is also not in favor of penetrating
the historic resource with the door. Jason is in favor of the bonus and
demolition of our outbuildings and the relocation of the new historic home.
He appreciates the skylight changes on the new building. At final possibly a
restudy could occur on the north and west corner of the new building.
Alison stated she is in favor of the variances, demolition and FAR bonus and
they are within our guidelines. Alison agreed with Gretchen that she liked
the gabled roof going the entire length but appreciates the mansard roof in
P19
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST 9. 2006
order to bring down the size. The mansard roof is similar to the historic
resource but maybe not to the neighborhood but it kind of makes this historic
resource different. The front porch of the structure needs restudied.
Connecting the two light wells in an L shape is acceptable because two
rooms are being served.
Michael relayed that he is in favor of the resolution drafted by staff with the
elimination of condition #4. He also doesn't support the skylights on the
exisfing historic structure.
Alison said she is willing to discuss the skylights on the historic structure at
fmal because they will not be visible.
MOTION.• Sarah moved to approve Resolution #22 for 135 W. Hopkins as
stated in staff's memo with the following amendments.
1. Eliminate #4and deal with that condition at final.
2. Eliminate #S and deal with that at final.
3. Add condition #16 -restudy the front porch of the addition, mass and
scale.
4. Add to condition #7 -make an L shape light well.
Motion second by Alison.
Amended motion: Sarah moved to include conditions 4 and 5 back in.
Alison amended her second. All in favor, motion carried 4-0.
Jason, yes; Alison, yes; Michael, yes; Sarah, yes.
MOTION: Alison moved to adjourn; second by Michael. Ald in favor,
motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
to
P20
ATTACHMENT 2 -Historic Preservation Land Use Application
PROJECT:
THE CITY OF ASPEN
Name:
I Location:
~, Go . ~ I (.e I ~
(Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property)
Pazcel ID # (REQuazED) 2~ 3S • 1 z~ • 59 • u?~
APPr.r('ANT'
Name: JpI}~$
Address: '1~(pZLP '[7vgS~T "~p ~AU,A-5 fiX.. ~SZZ`~
Phone #: Z/'~ -•750. 1383 Fax#: E-mail:
REPRESENTATIVE'
Name: 2~rGrt~ii ,~
Address: pSZb ~ . 8 ~ l I
Phnnr #• / 25 • ~-/S~DZ Fax#: ~Z S• 7N9D E-mail:
I ~~ (`ee~
C 6 /1r`
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please crieck all that appl
^ Historic Designation ^ Relocation (temporary, on
^ Certificate of No Negative Effect ^ or off-site)
^ Certificate of Appropriateness ^ Demolition (total
^ -Minor Historic Development demolition)
^ -Major Historic Development ^ Historic Landmazk Lot
^
-Conceptual Historic Development Split
^ -Final Historic Development
-Substantial Amendment
EXIST IIN11G CONDTTIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
-I-t I s'r~ 1G •~-~,u.~-rte ~s~.o
-T~
°ry.l ~nS~•¢ ~ A'PSS -1'"b 'G:5 ~i2n,.o~.151-1~0
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
51 ~'l~i'1-6n1T/d~l- ~ A~nAt~SV57/Vl,fi rr 'P~ G' L1A 1(n~ ~wr' C1r ~fzc.t~
~A.L~
Aspen Historic Preservation
Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007
P21
Project:
Applicant:
Project
Location:
Zone
District:
Lot sip:
Lot Area:
Dimensional Requirements Form
(Item #10 on the suhmittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.)
NS
35 WEsT f~P/C/N5
R~
a
(For the purposes of calculating FIoor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas withir
the high water mazk, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot
Area in the Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing: /1//f} Proposed: /V~~
Number of residential units: Existing: o~ Proposed: o~
Number of bedrooms: Existing: $ Proposed: 'j
Proposed % of demolition: s~o ON fJ1'S?A~'!G ~D/~?G
DIhIENSIONS: (write n/a where no requirement exists in the wne district)
F1oorArea: Exisring:a3~ Allowable:,3,3/~O Proposed: 33`~Z
Hei t
bG ~ frb/Y)F Existing: 0?.7 ~ D Allowable: a5 ~D a Proposed.• ~('E/I7A/N f}`> ~~X/~~N~
jlreiv ~fdnE Existing: N/A Allowable: ~S~O~Proposed: ~S=p~'
On-Site parking: Existing: ~ Required:_~Proposed: `l. ~` VA~//3N<e
Site coverage; Existing: N /~ Required: N/fl• Proposed: /V
Open Space: Existing: // f} Required: N/~ Proposed: /V A
Front Setback: t u t n i
Existing: 7' (O Required: /D -O Proposed: D "O ~~
Rear Setback: Existing: D ~~ a Required: oIO ' O ~~Proposed: a ~ D ~~
Combined FronUReaz:
u
Indicate N, S, E, W Existing: 7 ~ D Required
Side Setback: ~ Existing: o?o~-//~ Required
Side Setback: Existing: o~ ~/p~ Required
Combined Sides: Existing: aZS ~,$ aRequired
Distance between Existing: e~"! ~ $ t~Required
buildings:
t a ~ a
.~ "D Proposed: o? -D
i n i r
,'S' D Proposed:.3 'D
/~'O ~ Proposed: ~ /O r
i d t
/~ '~ Proposed: .3 -O ~~
u t a
-~ 'D Proposed: S _D
Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued:
Elf [snNG A~ • B~.D~ ENteoN</~5 /N au.e y PY a s a ",, 'Tb BE ,~/jwy~
Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed):
~ bN htTE PRI2KIN(n VAr2~ANct;: ~ pA>2~tNCr ~PR[,e5
P22
GRETCHEN GREENWOOD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
ARCHITECTURE INTERIOR DESIGN PLANNING
August 29, 2008
Ms. Sara Adams and Ms. Amy Guthrie
Historic Preservation Officers
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Sara and Amy:
In the spirit of resolving the "gambrel roof height issue" , I will assume that since we,
including HPC worked on this roof extensively, and we originally gave HPC a lower roof as
asked (although there was some dissent on the commission about leaving it as a gable roof),
this amendment will be supported by staff. Plese note that among the approved conditions,
it does not state that the approved HPC design needs to have the Zoning Department sign
off on the design as a condition of approval. After a long and lengthy process, John
Key should have some assurance that the roof and building design as approved by the HPC
would be able to be approved as is during the Building Department stage.
While we are not interested in prolonging the construction schedule any further, we
analyzed the situation and our only solution as proposed in this application for the new
residence only, is to lower the top plate height 12" and change the roof from a 10/12 pitch
gambrel roof line to a 8/12 pitch gable roof line at the back of the new residence. In reality,
now with these proposed changes, the roof eave and middle flat roof is a foot lower at the
back of the new residence. We would all appreciate staff support here, as we are also very
excited about the upcoming process of restoring the Victorian and building the new
residence. The building department has been working with us as well to try and let us begin
the project this fall. WE ARE SO CLOSE!!!
As you have seen already, we have involved yourself, Ann, and the Building
Department in discussions about every aspect of the project as issues arise, whether from
the owner or technical issues that are coming forth due to the further development of the
details. I feel that we have a great working team and great beginnings to this much needed
construction project.
Honestly had we known that we differed on the gambrel roof definition with respect to
height, we would never have proposed it. We do feel that our definition of a gambrel roof
meets the intended height restrictions, but arguing that point seems pointless, when this
solution may work for all just as well, and allow us to continue without more delay.
Anyway, here we are, an oversight by all that we feel can easily be rectified by the solution
that we are proposing in this amendment.
We will be at HPC on the 24th of September, once again in the spirit of creating an even
better project.
Sincerely,
Gretchen Greenwood. Architect
520 WALNUT STREET • ASPEN, COLSRADO 87871 • fE~970/925-4502 • FAX: 970/925-7490 • ggreenwood®ggaaspen.com
P23
HOPKINS HOUSE
135 WEST HOPKINS STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 816 I I
Zone District: R - 6
Legal Description: Lot fettered "A" and the west twenty-
two and one-half (22- I /2') feet of lot
lettered "B m Block numbered sixty (60)
m half and to the City and Townsite of
Aspen, Pitwn County, Colorado.
Job Address: 135 West Hopwns 5t.
Aspen, Colorado 8 16 1 1
Parcel Identification # 2735- 124-59- 112
Lot Size: 5,250 Sq. Ft.
SETBACK VARIANCES REQUESTED:
Historic Home and Pr~osed Addition:
I 0 foot front yard setback variance for oid home and addition
2 foot east side yard setback variance for the old home and addition
5 foot west side yard setback variance for the old home and addition
7 foot combined side yard setback variance for both
Proposed New Detached Home:
8 foot rear yard setback variance for the new home
2 foot east yard setback variance for the new home
5 foot west yard setback variance for the new home
7 foot combined side yard setback variance for the new home
ON SITE PARKING VARIANCE: 2 PARKING SPACES
FAR BONUS: GRANTED AT CONCEPTUAL: 320 SQ.FT. FINAL APPLICATION IS
REQUESTING THE 320 SQ.FT. FAR BONUS AS GRANT)=D AT CONCEPTUAL
P24
SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT
AUGUST 29, 2008
1. Applicant's Name: John Key
4626 Dorset Road
Dallas, Texas 752299
214-750-1838
Included in this application is a letter signed by the applicant that Gretchen
Greenwood is authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.
2. Street Address: 135 West Hopkins St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Legal Description: Lot lettered "A" and the west twenty-two and
one-half (22-1/2) feet of lot lettered "B" in block
numbered sixty (60) in half and to the City and
Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado.
3. A disclosure of ownership is attached to this application.
4. An 8-1/2" vicinity map is attached locating the subject parcel within the City
of Aspen.
5. The HPC approved Site plan is attached, however, no changes to the site are
proposed as part of this amendment.
6. A site improvement survey certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in
the State of Colorado is attached.
A written description of the proposal and how the proposed development
complies with the HPC review criteria.
The HPC approved 10/12 sloped gambrel style roof on the new house was
revised to a 8/12 sloped gable roof and the plate was dropped 12" with no
change to window locations or sizes. The ridge height of the new gable is the
same height as the HPC approved gambrel roof. This roof change was
limited to the area between drawing grids 1&3 and N & L.
The flat roof located on the new house between grids 5 & 3 and L & N was
lowered 15".
8. No additional materials are submitted and not applicable to this proposed
amendment.
P25
9. Completed Land Use Application Form, signed Fee Agreements and fee is
included in this application.
10. The Dimensional Requirement Form as approved by HPC is included but is
not applicable to this proposed amendment. There are no dimensional
changes proposed in this application. The approved height of the HPC
project remains the same.
16. Material representations are not included in this application. There are no
material changes that are applicable to this proposed amendment.
23. The approved Site Plan (See Item #6 above) is submitted for information
only, and is not applicable to this proposed amendment.
24. Revised scaled plan and elevation drawings are submitted and applicable to
this proposed amendment.
25. Photographs and other Ezhibits to Illustrate Proposed Changes. We are
including the HPC Approved Elevations, Site Plan and Roof plan for
reference.
36. The approved Lighting Plan is not submitted and is not applicable to this
proposed amendment.
P26
., ~ ,,~ '
LEGEND
PERKING LOf6
.a:.
COUNTY BUSES .. ~±i ,.Ea_y,~~I~H?F. ,j~`,
~. $KI LIFT A/_ _ ---~ - -t:~i,, ~'a ear: F~`
.f~ Cf7CSS 071NTRY ~` •.~~., ~_- _ .-.-~.~'
-: .
i i ~ jt-/
--, -3C
C- _- . ~.i- NQRTH
JL UCI_II
~'~ f~ ~ ~ "1 r ~' ' ~:
i
RV-41M 5'I C[' 1
r
}CII~!i! fl~ll iJ~lill-~,,
T{.n-If iT Vi
yC~a~C ~1 ~C ~ ~ ~C~ .,~_,--, a.a.~,
~CC~ ~I (1 i= t. Fi I ~~ I~ I~ ~~ ~.::f~
aC~~ uC CIJ~I ~~ _t~ I, ~_ ~I ~,,;_ ~ ~-4~}
• -,_ ~,
~35~•~'TD{'V-~~.15 ~C Ci l I ~C I I ~i i 1 i ~C ~ ~ _ --
~,«,u «.~
r.=w,l .
~CGUCCl1~Cr,.-,
i ~~~i.
i aL ~i CCU Q~ C) ' ~~ ~-
I ~• ~~ I_i ~L I
°` ~ ~- ~ ~~
UFT 1A ....AA I L~ UIC
I~ y
x
-.~ ~~ a
~Z~~
wax ,`-_~
tasPEN hICJ,MTAINj .-
I ~ I
_J i ~ CiC
/,~
I
~; i ! 1
~~ ~~ r~~
L
~l
~~ ~ 11
( ~l,J ~
~I
~ Ji IG!'k q_tgt2 V Rtpil I
IG L~EJI.1'b1liJEai l
II
rs
I( ~ _ I ..
~CWI_!_I ,~;,E
~! C'=- -
Q vu.
(-\_. ~=~
I~ ;~ '
_1! .%j
-!: +•
L '
',~,~.
_tl
'41 ~ -~
,,.; .
http://aspensnowmass.com/images/general/pages/azoundtown/map_aspen.gif 12/12/2003
w
p27
~+~"
S
"fl
zO
'~ --i
b {
C
t
Y f~
1~ \
b
G'
~;
;,,,
tug
~~
.?,
P7
Aw
~a
v~
ma
3m
~~
r
2~
3, m..
{
ro
n ~ ~ 1
V V
D %
~ D
A t"
D N
G
' D
70
¶
~
D
~
M D
r
~ ~
v
~
o
v
m ,('
11 ~t
_._.__~~
__----
~" _ $'~~
s
m . - ,
m ~~~~
~ ~~~-~~
/-L- ~ ~ ~
~ ~`~~1
~ ~ s~ ~~
~ o~ ~
tl
!I~
r
r ~
4-
O
n e
.~
V/
bl l
N~
L~~
~loj~
I
~~1
~-i51
O~~y
O' ~
Y ~11
'~ C l~ ll
~'i~= '.
~ ~ ~\
I ,I r~+
l ~~\\`
1 sl '^d y
~ 3 3
I ~~e
9
91 ~~~~~ ~~°'
n'~.~. ~~ ~Ss s
o-bi Ol I O ~ Q
O p- ~ ~
~T
y
_~ ~r,
~ 0.,v
t
0~ '
r
'til
t
lil S
T ~~ ~_
~. 61 ~
:~
y ill l
l
1 1
~'..-t
_~ •I
~'. ~1
I ~
L` 1 y2~
~i i
LL, t
~~ {q1,
91
~-
~~ P 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 210 W. Francis Street; Ordinance #48 negotiation process
DATE: September 24, 2008
PROCESS: In July 2007, Aspen City Council adopted an emergency ordinance,
Ordinance #30, Series of 2007. That ordinance prohibited any exterior alterations, land
use applications, or building permits affecting all non-landmarked buildings constructed
at least 30 years ago, unless it was determined that no potential historic resource was
negatively affected. The purpose of the Ordinance was to protect Aspen's significant
azchitectural heritage; not only Victorians, but more modem structures as well.
Ordinance #30 was in place for 5 months, during which time Council held numerous
meetings to discuss the effect of the new regulations and potential amendments. In particular,
Council wished to see the applicability of the Ordinance nan•owed down dramatically from
all properties over 30 years of age to a specific list researched by staff and found to
potentially qualify for landmark designation. In December 2007, Ordinance #48, Series of
2007 was adopted to replace Ordinance #30.
Ordinance #48 creates a formal list of potential historic resources in Aspen that may have
historical, azchitectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance.
Detrimental development or demolition actions affecting these properties will be limited
while the City undertakes an evaluation of the historic preservation program via the HP
Task Force.
210 W. Francis Street is identified on the List of Potential Historic Resources as part of
Ordinance #48. Owners of property listed on Ordinance #48 can still move forward with
proposed projects if they:
A. Submit the plans and seek staff determination that the work is exempt from delay
under Ordinance #48 (routine maintenance work for example); or
B. Submit plans and seek staff determination that the work, while not exempt from
Ordinance #48, can move forward by.voluntarily complying with Staff or HPC
review (depending on the scope of work) of the project, or
C. Refuse the option for HPC review and submit plans with the intention of
triggering a 90 day delay period, during which time City Staff and Council will
negotiate for appropriate preservation of the property. If the negotiation does not
result in an agreement to landmark designate the property, the building permits
will be processed as requested.
P2
The owner of 210 W. Francis Street, Joan Tobin, has submitted an application for
demolition permit. It is staffs understanding, however, that Mrs. Tobin is receptive to a
discussion of potential landmazk incentives, if the incentives address her goals to
preserve the property value for the long term.
During the 90 day negotiation period, meetings are scheduled with the Historic
Preservation Commission and the City Council. HPC review is not a public hearing and
the acceptance of comments from the public or property owners are at the discretion of
the Commission. The Commission is asked to make a recommendation to City Council
as to the value of preserving the property. At this point Council review is scheduled for
October 14a' and October 27a'. They can choose to extend the negotiation for an
additional 30 days. Council will use the information information and recommendations
received from HPC and Staff to determine what benefits they aze willing to offer the
property owner in exchange for landmazk designation.
APPLICANT: Joan Tobin, owner, represented by Kim Raymond, azchitect.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-17-005.
ADDRESS: 210 W. Francis Street, Lots P and Q, Block 48, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R-6, Medium Density Residential.
2
DISCUSSION: 210 W. Francis Street was built in 1965 for Charles and Gwendolyn
McHazry. It is a Pan Abode log kit house. Examples of Pan Abode homes built in Aspen
in the 1950' and 60's aze shown below.
P3
P4
The building permit for the McHarry's indicates that they lived in Monterey, California,
therefore staff assumes that this Pan Abode was built, like many others, as a vacation
home. Staff has been able to determine that Chazles McHarry has passed away and
Gwendolyn is quite elderly, but we have located their daughter. We anticipate speaking
directly to her in the next few days and will report any additional eazly history of the
building to HPC.
Building permit records indicate that the house that exists today at 210 W. Francis was all
constructed in 1965, withsome minor alterations and additions over the yeazs. In 1968, a
reaz porch was enclosed with glass. In 1982, the carport was converted to a playroom.
According to Assessor's records, in 1985 the windows were replaced, skylights were
added, the reaz porch was more fully enclosed, the Pan Abode was painted, a bay window
was added, the fence was built, and a new fireplace was constructed.
As built drawings aze attached to this packet, as is Staff's integrity assessment. We fmd
that the house merits 83 out of 100 points, which exceeds the threshold for designation.
The applicant mentions numerous concerns with energy efficiency of the current
building. The Pan Abode system does present challenges in terms of how best to insulate
the wall system, however improvements, particulazly to the roof and floor, aze feasible as
we have seen on several projects in town.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS: City Council will discuss whether they should negotiate
with the property .owners regazding the proposed changes through existing benefits
available to historic landmazks and/or other means. The Pan Abode is 1,968 square feet
of FAR, and the lot is allowed a maximum of 3,240 square feet. It would be difficult to
expand the existing house above grade, since the footprint occupies much of the ]ot and
there aze some lazge trees on the site. There could perhaps be some flexibility to add on
to the back of the building, which would likely require setback variances and would
impact the integrity of the 1965 structure.
A basement was appazently contemplated in 1992, but not built. This could be
constructed within the HPC guidelines.
Benefits that might be appropriate given the current status of the property include:
Impact Fee Exemption: If an addition, above or below grade, were constructed, Impact
Fees for new bedrooms would be waived.
Pazks Dedication Fee: $4,429 per bedroom waived
TDM/AirQuality Fee: $498 per bedroom waived.
Variances: There is limited azea for the building to be expanded above grade. HPC
could grant setback vaziances to create some flexibility, particularly in the reaz corner of
the site. If the property is not designated, a hazdship must be proven before any setback
variances can be granted. Waivers for on-site parking can also be granted.
4
P5
Transferrable Develoument Rights (TDRI: Designated landmark properties aze eligible
to establish and sell TDR certificates in increments of 250 square feet of unbuilt floor
area from the designated property. These certificates aze sold on the free mazket to non-
historic sites within the City, for as much as $1,000 per squaze foot (or $250,000 per
TDR) according to a recent sale. 210 W. Francis, if designated, could sell up to 5 TDR's.
FAR Bonus: Designated landmazk properties are eligible fora 500 squaze foot floor azea
bonus. The bonus cannot be sold as TDR's, but it could be applied towards any above or
below grade expansion, leaving the remaining unused development rights available as
TDR's.
Increased Density: A pazcel of this size is allowed a single fami]y house. If landmarked,
a duplex is permitted, as is a Historic Landmark Lot Split. Both of these incentives
would be hazd to make use of given the lazge footprint of this one story house.
Other alternatives: During the negotiation process, Council has latitude to establish an
incentive package that moves beyond what is currently available. The Tobin family owns
the 6,000 squaze foot lot to the west of the subject site. Staff suggests that there be some
consideration of moving the preservation incentives that are difficult to achieve at 210 W.
Francis (FAR bonus, increased density, historic landmark lot split, etc.) to that parcel.
Further discussion of the mechanism to do that is needed, however it might balance the
limitations created by preserving the Pan Abode intact. For the boazd's information, 212
W. Francis contains a modest home built in the mid-1950's. Staff did not include that
structure on Ordinance #58 because we did not feel that it was directly associated with
the azchitectural styles that have been primarily discussed as potential historic resources.
It appears to be a simple frame building.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: HPC is asked to provide Council with an assessment
of the historic value of the property and the benefit of negotiating to achieve preservation.
Staff finds that 210 W. Francis is a good example of Pan Abodes, a building type that
was once considerably more common in Aspen than it is today. We believe that it is
appropriate for .Council to negotiate with the owner to attempt to achieve landmazk
designation.
Exhibits:
A.) Integrity Assessment
B.) Records
C.) Drawings of 210 W. Francis
5
P6
INTEGRTTYASSESSMENT- 210 W. Francis
Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance.
• LOCATION Location is the place where the historic property was constructed
or the place where the historic event occurred.
5 -The structure is in its original location.
3 -The structure has been moved within the original site but still maintains
the original alignment and proximity to the street.
0 -The structure has been moved to a location that is dissimilaz to its original
site.
STAFF RESPONSE: 5 POINTS. THE BUILDING HAS NOT BEEN MOVED.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5) = 5
DESIGN Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan,
space, structure, and style of a property.
BUILDING FORM
10 -The original plan form, based on authenticating documentation, is still
intact.
6 -The plan form has been altered, but the addition would meet the design
guidelines.
0 -Alterations and/or additions to the building aze such that the original form
of the structure is obscured.
STAFF RESPONSE: 10 POINTS. THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING I5
NOT ALTERED IN ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY. THE ONLY ADDITIONS
ARE MINOR EXTERIOR STORAGE CLOSETS.
P7
ROOF FORM
10 -The original roof form is unaltered.
6 -Additions have been made that alter roof form that would meet the
current design guidelines.
0 -Alterations to the roof have been made that obscure its original form.
STAFF RESPONSE: IO POINTS.. THE ORIGINAL ROOF FORM IS li
UNALTERED. SKYLIGHTS ARE A REVERSIBLE ALTERATION.
SCALE
5 -The original scale and proportions of the building aze intact.
3 -The building has been expanded but the scale of the original portion is
intact and the addition would meet the design guidelines.
0 -The scale of the building has been negatively affected by additions or
alterations.
STAFF RESPONSE: 5 POINTS. THE SMALL SCALE OF THE HOUSE IS
UNALTERED,
DOORS AND WINDOWS
10-The original door and window pattern are intact,
8- Some of the doors and windows aze new but the original openings are
intact.
4- More than 50% of the doors or windows have been added and/or the
original opening sizes have been altered.
0- Most of the original door and window openings have been altered.
STAFF RESPONSE: 4 POINTS. IT APPEARS THAT MOST OF THE
ORIGINAL WINDOW AND DOOR OPENINGS ARE INTACT, EXCEPT
FOR THE ENLARGED OPENINGS ON THE FRONT FACADE.
P8
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES/SPARE QUALITY OF THE DESIGN
10-The form and features that define the Rustic style aze intact. There is an
overall sense of simplicity. Window and door openings and decorative
features aze. spaze.
5- There aze minor alterations to the form and features that define the Rustic
style.
0- There have been major alterations to the form and features that define the
Rustic style.
STAFF RESPONSE: 10 POINTS. STAFF DOES NOT FIND THAT ANY
ALTERATIONS HAVE ADDED FEATURES INCONGRUENT WITH THE
RUSTIC STYLE OR PAN ABODE DESIGN.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 45) = 39
• SETTING Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.
5- The physical surroundings aze similaz to that found when the structure was
originally constructed.
3-There are minor modifications to the physical surroundings.
0- The physical surroundings detract from the historic character of the
building.
STAFF RESPONSE: 5 POINTS. THE SITE DOES HAVE SOME HEAVY
VEGETATION, HOWEVER EVEN THE 1965 BUILDING PERMIT
MENTIONS BOARD OF ADN5TMENT VARIANCES GRANTED TO WORK
AROUND EXISTING TREES.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5) = 5
• MATERIALS Materials are the physical elements that were combined or
deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or
configuration to form a historic property.
EXTERIOR SURFACES
P9
15-The original exterior wall materials (log, wood siding, and stone) and the
decorative trim materials aze intact
10- There have been minor changes to the original combination of exterior
wall materials and the decorative trim materials, but the changes have
been made in a manner that conforms with the design guidelines.
5- There have been major changes to the original combination of exterior
wall materials and the decorative trim materials.
0- All exterior materials have been removed or replaced.
STAFF RESPONSE: 15 POINTS. STAFF DOES NOT FIND THAT ANY
ALTERATIONS HAVE ADDED MATERIALS INCONGRUENT WITH THE
RUSTIC STYLE OR PAN ABODE DESIGN.
DOORS AND WINDOWS
10-A]1 or most of the original doors and windows units are intact.
5- Some of the original door and window units have been replaced but the
new units would meet the design guidelines.
0- Most of the original door and window units have been replaced with units
that would not meet design guidelines.
STAFF RESPONSE: 2 POINTS. ALL OF THE WINDOWS HAVE BEEN
REPLACED, HOWEVER THE WINDOW UNITS WOULD APPEAR TO
MEET THE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 25) =17
• WORKMANSHIP Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a
particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
DETAILING AND ORNAMENTATION/HAND-BUILT CHARACTER OR
IMITATION OF HAND-BUILT CHARACTER
15-The original detailing is intact. The building is built from locally available
materials and exhibits evidence of handwork, or is attempting to do so if mass
produced.
10-There have been some alterations of loss of the original detailing or
handwork chazacter.
5- Detailing is discernible such that it contributes to an understanding of its
stylistic category.
0- New detailing has been added that confuses the chazacter of the original
structure.
9
P10
0- The detailing is gone.
STAFF RESPONSE: 15 POINTS. STAFF DOES NOT FIND THAT ANY
ALTERATIONS HAVE ADDED DETAILS INCONGRUENT WITH THE
RUSTIC STYLE OR PAN ABODE DESIGN.
FINISHES & COLOR SCHEME
5- The natural finishes and color scheme that define the Rustic style are
intact
3- There have been minor alterations to the natural finishes and color scheme
that define the Rustic style.
2- There have been substantial alterations to the natural finishes and color
scheme that define the Rustic style.
STAFF RESPONSE: 2 POINTS. THE PAN ABODE HAS BEEN PAINTED.
THIS IS A REVERSIBLE ALTERATION.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 20)=17
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS=100
MINIMUM THRESHOLD FOR DESIGNATION= 75 POINTS
Note: Each azea of the integrity analysis includes a description of the circumstances that
might be found and a point assignment. However the reviewer may choose another
number within the point range to more accurately reflect the specific property.
TOTAL INTEGRITY SCORE FOR 210 W. FRANCIS= 83
10
2 Opp DO _ _
March. 1 ,,..1.6
Estimated Cost $..........,_: ~.........'.........`-:........ Date Niled ................. .S ~ ~.....
// ~ 1 t ~ yg~~ n ~,j, .............
Building Fee E.:...f..... w.1+. 1 ~ ti~l 1~ a f~`7x Sa~ :7J 1• ~6Jt (:p ~`.
II Q.. .U.~'... ~S~d'z']ra~~. 6v ~°v' •^t vi
APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT
TO THEBUILDING INSPECTOR, CITY OF ASPEN, PIT%IN COUNTY, COLORADO
Permission is hereby requested to perform and do the work, repairs construction alteration or development described as follows:
Location by Street No. and' Lot and Block No. ~. Francis St. Iats P & Q ffiock 1~8
Zoning Class$ication: RtasidP^'fd n7 Sub Div
Name and address of owner ~'~-tales P. MCA*ry'~ Boy '79~ , MCh red ^~ d Y~ 932
Name and address of contractor, or builder Richard Wri~ht., ~Pnz ~~~,Snen, Cctl erg
Name and address of architec Owner
Type Constructio T 8c G Plank ~~
Intended use and purpos Residence
Number living units eTe No.
of
Heighr 1~,.1-Z 1 Width ;;(] I Length g Sq. Feet®~7
Distance from lot lines N-_~~ S- 221 E- lq~ W- 7g R.O.W.
Distance from finished grade to bottom of footing U7'"
Size of footings 8n x 2O" Thickness and Type of Foundation Walls Aleck t3~
Size and Type of 1st story walls Ll„ P1alile
Size and Type of 2nd story walls
Style and pitch of roof Ga~18 21ye7.2.
Joists, floor supports and rafters: (Give size, distance apart, and materials:) -
First Floor ~ T~'i
Second Floor
Floor supports 4'x0 40" U.l:.
Roof Material Built n~ Tar and Gravel
Additional particulars and remarks: (If above data is inapplicable, describe in detail here the work or construction contemplated. )
Draw plot plan on reverse side.
Phis ap-~!cation is made with tfie specife undenUnding fiat any Perini[ inucd is eub'))e~at to susyension er revocation fo[ failum to comply wirh the terms and condidovs of
the Uniform Bwlding Code, the Zoving regu4tion and aII other cond;tion t upon which said Yermit u iuved; m Sor vvavthoriud deviation from the cerma of the application or the
laws of Colorado.
Dated and signed this ....................Zjr..................day of..........March..............................................., 19..6.5...
(Applicant)
Capacity :................................................................................ ...............
BUILDING PERMIT (Agent, Owner, Contractor; etc.)
The above and foregoing application for a Building Permit is hereby approved, subject to compliance ivith the following conditions:
1!9~P/9.Y~'~ C'C9.vr~~f~~Z ~~ srf~rc- r ~ ~_,oJc,rr p/~s/~s) ro ~ui~o io'~wl
flllta fNSTfilD(]F f5
Dated this.........
BUILDING PERMIT
.1
...day of..//..... ..~........!.1^~~:~.!/ ................................. 14~.a,.s....
~~ Building Inspector.
7 t_..
The above and foregoing application or a rmt is ere ems an rejected fo= the following reasons:
~Qb Com.PleLtl•7~••i1
.~ ~ Dated this..........o~.G4fi. ...........................day of........~..lA.f~!`~.............................................., I9. ~.
_...
Building Inspector.
ooz$. ,200 A H PG
P12
210 WEST FRANCIS STREET
Parcel ID # 2735 124 17 005
Introduction
The house located at 210 West Francis Street does not meet the criteria
established by the City of Aspen for designation as a Historic Resource
by it's architectural characteristics, age or historic significance in the
community. For the reasons enumerated below, we would like to see
this house taken off of the list of Historic Resources indefinitely.
Additionally, with regard to the policies of the City of Aspen concerning
energy efficiency and resource conservation, indeed, given that the City is
a leader in the "green" construction industry; the very nature and
construction of this building suggest that it be taken down at the time of
any substantial remodeling or redevelopment to make way for a properly
constructed house consistent with the current energy codes.
Architectural Characteristics
From an architectural standpoint, this building has been altered over the
years to such an extent that it has lost the architectural integrity and
character of the original kit house. In fact the authenticity of it being a
true Pan Abode is questionable. The changes to the building are listed
below:
• 100% of the fenestration on the front facade has been changed.
The windows typical of a kit house with rectangular panes and
very thin mullions were replaced with large windows consisting of
a fixed window flanked by two casement windows.
• 100 % of the original roof has been covered with the addition of a
cold roof. This altered the very thin profile of the fascia board,
nearly doubling the width. (Exhibit A, Al)
• Ten (10) skylights have been added to the roof, which range in
size from 18" square to 48" square. The two largest skylights
break the eave line, and can clearly be seen in the view plane from
West Francis Street. (Exhibit B) Kit houses did not have skylights.
• The single, solid wood entry door was replaced with a wood and
glass double French door with no mullions. (Exhibit C, C1).
P13
• The remaining original metal single pane windows have all been
replaced with wood double pane windows, save one in one of the
bathrooms. (Exhibit D)
• The garage was remodeled into a bedroom in 1982, filling in the
garage door opening with stick framing and a modern window.
• The large masonry fireplace in the living room and the large stone
chimney outside were added in 1985. The original wood stove
and metal flue were removed at that time.
• A stick built storage unit 20 lineal feet and 4 feet high was added
to the west side of the building prior. to 1985, hiding that portion
of the kit house exterior.
• In 1992 a library was added to the east side of the house behind
the kitchen; effectively filling in the area of the back porch. Stick
framing with machine made, fake log siding was used to try to
match the original "log" building. Wood windows were used
which are different than the original metal-framed ones. The sill
and interior finish does not match the walls with the Pan Abode
logs.
Taken altogether, the changes to the windows, doors, and roof,
the elimination of the garage and the outside storage obscuring
the walls, the skylights, and the addition of the library and stone
fireplace: when added up show that over 70 percent of the house
has been altered from the original kit construction. Stated
another way, only 30% of the original house remains.
The view plane from Francis Street has been obstructed by the
construction in 1985 of a 5 foot tall picket fence, which surrounds
the property. Not only is this fence another component that is
out of character with a kit house, but also it hides approximately
45 % of the front facade from the view plane of West Francis
Street. (Exhibit E)
Historic Significance
Historic Resource Designation per the Aspen Municipal Code, Section
26.415.030.
P14
The criteria for a house to be historically designated range from the
architectural integrity of the building, the age of the structure, the
American West iconography, and the role of the people that actually
inhabited the space.
The home at 210 West Francis was originally constructed in 1965: no-
where near the 100 year mark that has been the standard age for historic
designation here or nationally. In fact the tax records of the City of
Aspen declare that this building was "effectively built in 1981". In other
words, the numerous and significant remodels in 1982, 1985 and 1992,
by definition, establish that this building is less than 30 years old.
The recent interest of the Historic Preservation Commission to save
architecture from the 20~' Century is also to be considered. The
fact that this house is from a kit, does not establish it as historically
important. A kit house almost identical to the original house built at
210 West Francis can be purchased online today. (Exhibit F)
The house cannot be linked to an event or trend that made a significant
contribution to local, state, regional or national history. Building
department records, city assessor's records of previous owners and the
oral testimony of neighbors that have lived nearby for generations verify
that this house was never the home of any one person or family that
made a significant contribution to local, state, regional or national
history.
In particular, a member of the Griffith family, who built the house across
the street in the early 1950's and lived most of the time in it, could
remember no one hying at 210 West Francis who was historically
significant to the growth of the ski industry, the construction industry in
Aspen; or any other aspect of Aspen history, including The Aspen
Institute, or any of the other cultural or commercial institutions.
There is no identified or documented evidence of events or people that
have been associated with 210 West Francis that made a contribution to
Aspen's growth from mining town to famous ski resort. Nor has there
been any connection to the development of The Aspen Idea of Body, Mind
and Spirit with the house or anyone that ever lived there.
Finally, this house does not represent the technical or aesthetic
achievements of a regionally or locally recognized architect, designer,
craftsman or even an important or significant design philosophy.
P15
Energy Efficiency
A core sample of the roof was taken from the building to determine the
exact assembly and R value. The roof consists of the typical 1 5/8 inch
wood decking over purlins with 1%z -2 inches of Fesco board (a type of
insulating material_used at the time of construction) with a tar finish. To
this was added the 1%z inch sleepers, creating an air space for
unconditioned air to circulate over the roof below, with %Z inch plywood
and asphalt shingles. The R-value of this assembly is approximately 8:
which is seriously sub-standard. The standard today is a min;mum of
R42. (Exhibit G)
The solid wood walls of the kit house construction are 2 7/8 inches thick,
with no additional insulation. The R-value of the walls is 3.
The floor is over a crawl space having no insulation, through which the
forced air heat is circulated. This results in a very inefficient heating
system, as the "hot" air is not very hot when it reaches the interior rooms
requiring the system to work overtime. The energy bills paid by the
owners demonstrate a tremendous waste.
In addition to the installation of better windows, the owners are very
interested in adding some insulation to the floor to save energy. As far
as saving this building as historic, from an energy standpoint, is
ridiculous. Trying to retrofit a house of this sort will. not only be a huge
expense, but it will further detract from the character of the original
building; as most of it will be buried inside of new framing.
Summarv
The house found at 210 West Francis no longer provides a good, intact
example of the kit style house in any form. Nor does the present house
represent the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized
designer, craftsman or design philosophy. As explained above, the
architectural integrity of the building has been completely lost through
renovations and additions. In summary: I00 % of the roof, 99.4 % of the
windows, the entry door, the addition of the masonry fireplace and
outside chimney, the skylights, and the stick frame additions, eliminating
the garage door as well as the five foot fence which impedes the view of
the facade from the street.
With the evidence showing a building lacking architectural integrity, a
building that is completely contrary to the energy conservation policies of
the City of Aspen and a building that holds no historic relevance to the
P16
city of Aspen or otherwise, we believe that the building located at 210
West Francis Street should not be placed on the list for Historic
Designation; now or ever.
The property file has been carefully researched, the contractors (Marty
Schlumberger and John Olson) who made the changes to the house for
the present owner starting in 1985 have reviewed their files and have
analyzed the house in depth. Kim Raymond assisted them, from an
architectural view in this analysis, of the impact of those changes as well
as an overall analysis of the structure as it now stands. Jeff Dickinson of
Biospaces architecture and planning did the energy calculations of the
existing house. (Exhibit H)
In all aspects, 210 West Francis appears no longer to qualify as a good
example of the pan-abodes that were built in Aspen post World War II.
We strongly urge you to remove this building from your list of
Historic resources.
Mar 13 OS 08:27e Biospeoas,lnc
~~I
March 12, 20os
Kim Raymond
ISim Raymond Arrdilfects
16l Swinging Hridge Lassa
Basalt, CO 61621
FAX927-6264
RE: Tobin Resid~tcq Drawing set dated ?123108
9TJ 9630114 p.i
At your request we have evaluated the Tobin Residence in Aspen far compliance with the Aspea/P'itkin End
Conseavation Code. The tuiiding has been analyzed sttilizing a UA comparison methodology to determine if
the wrront struchue meets the requirements of APECC ~ the 2006IECG IAC Code,
Riutiog Conditions: AspedPitkin Code: 20061F:CC/1RC:
Wells R-0 Walls Rig Walls RI9
Windows U-0.SS -U-1.27 Windows U-0.40 Windows U-0.35
Skylights U - 0.89 Skylights U - 0.60 Skylights U-D-60
Roof-R-6 Roof-A-38 Roof R 49
Floor-R-0 Floor-R-30 Flooti R-30
Overall Heat Loss Overall Heat Loss Overall Heat Loss
for snrfaeac for surfaces: for surfaces:
113928 BTUNr F 296.BOS BTU/hr F 270b BTU/hr F
Using either mefhodalogy $ is apparent that the building is significantly worse thaw the either of the
requirements and would not meet code today by nearly a factor of Erna (3.63). See attached spreadsheet.
Sincerely,
Jeff ~ on
President
Biospaces, Inc. •0504 Crvslal Ciucle • CaiEOnda7e, Colomde B16J3 • Phone/Fax (910) %3-0114 • mwil: biospace@cofaet
3
w ti
m m
-. ra ~ m
a~~ a m 0 A
<
m n
4
o0 o
N
e
$
p
O~ 0 e~ 0 0
D3
S O _
c
O 9 9
~~
n w T N d O V O
P17
P18`°i~w°o
~ Q A ~
W ~ (7 n
W N m y
~ ~ 91
.j
AnC~°
~ n
O ~
O
N
W
~ ~'o ~~~~ vc -i
m m ~y
v o
~ _
~ an,~-
'4 ~ n
~ O O ~ j O
N
C Q N 3~ tll 9 0
D c~ ro 6 m v Q
O' O Q Q O J
N
~ ~ ~ ] ~
~ pi
~
3
N
fP
m y
x N -+ N
m O N V d
O
~
O
a
~p 0
0
A O
c o ~ m ~
3 m
~ j
Q ~
~ p
j W
J C
C R~ O N~ O O
D N m~ N O W m m
N C
v
~
ooo.~ o c
p
OD -+ Ot N W
~6 OI Vi V O W
C
_. D
W ~P V~ ~O C11 fr 1J
W N W N~ O O
A W A W W O O N
3 ~ D
~ ~
(D m` N m
N
~L T O Ut (O t0
O O OJ A O A O
N ~ N
g ma
m _ . ~
O N ~ ~
(Y 01 W O1 ~ ~
~ O N O O f 9 0
O C ~
_~ m O
x ~ O N N
~ O N O p C]
(7 m 0I A O (T O O
a~
N
~ Of W r N
n ~ ~, ~ m M
O W O .~ ~
W OI W Ol O V O
m D
N ~.
~ m Cn c0
O W A O~ O
~ ~
O
N N O+
O ' N , N ~
y O O O O O O (~
~D C `
ni y (~
3
N o 0 0 ~ p
~ 61 N (WT O GO71 O m
m ~o
n N ~ Dv
V O W
n T W N (D O V O w
'R
4 1
} i . ~"'
~~~
..~"
.~" r+'~-
~~~ ~
~~
.~ ~ ~~
.:M~+'r`
ter"
.rM~~
+~ 1
_ ~~r ~r
~+~~
' ~_~ ~~~
~~
~, -~ ~~
~~
~, ~~. r
~ ~~ ~~
~ .~^,~r •
,~
...•-- - , ..r
,~ .r
.~ "'~ ~ ~
~~. "~
~~_y~- i
~1r r
~ ., '~ ~~ ^
l a ._~
~~ '
.~
Pan Abode
zed
P,4N ABODE
CEDAR HOMES~~i
www.panabodehomes.com
nfERAM SOEp TMBER WA45
AS SNOtVN ARE AVAGAR:C AS
AN (d•GRADE. xs fNAA1E0
NTFR'NR t4Al(5 ARE STAPDARp.
3112/08 10:17 AM
~Y-s
P21
EAGLE'S NEST
N0.418 / 364 / 298
DRAWN AS CLASSIC TIMBER
PLAN NO. =TOTAL SO. FT.
gY.~tL/-~$L~
`U ~~~1 i (,~~
.. ... __ _..._u_ ___ •_~_.~__~..,...~..o:,..,._ n...~..ec /Flnn.nl.nc IvlR6l OdAid00-tr-] i....
PANABODE CEDAR HOMES COPYRIGHTC=2007
t
i
i
~ ~~1W.I :;lb
}8b ~Z~ X09 - (f~,' . _ .
..-~"'"~tl05 3"1'dC1N06Hd0
(tlltsl S ~I ~~~~7 :,,a (may ~~~'~, „'~ ,.•'~?:'••' t-
~'+' p4Z
,tin
m
Z
m
Zr
O
-i
m
a
4F~
c€~
€5x
~6
'p~ ~ ~ e A D
~
~ 3 ~ ~ g ~ A
> m~ e ~ ~
m
9 ~ ~
$ ~ ~ p 7
~N • N
m s^ m
"~ 1
€~£r
mg ~ N
Z
~~ g X
~ ~R,.~„
' fl
°
3 g$a3
3~
s yy~°~ ¢s~~
~~~~ v
m
o ~G~sa ~ ..~ ~
~
Z ~
ti
a+ 60~
^
ga
~~i~
G...
F
qq
33
n vEZF~ y
~~~
Ggg~
A~
9 P
ti FFFF
g
~~
B
~ [g ~a~ ~
F
~
74 s 3~ = Z
-•
G 3~
z $
S
}
.
1
p
x
~ JO
D
q
dF~ ~
d
~~
~ ,
y ayy
p
04A ~ ~ P
~~
~
~ til ~ ~I.y`.
m
~
~~
~g ~~~
~~
~ O p m
~
[ [
s ~
~ g
~~'~
sa" ~~
9
--~ 3
"
D ~_
~
I o~
om
. _-I D:? C
'l, 7 ~"P'I ^~T
~O
~D,~
O
pm 3y~
m J A S
~~~~
n m
warm
m > ~' A
NO m O
~ A
Y
1+ Z
q ~-
~
~83 ~p~a ~ ~ ~E~g ~d
9
~
~ ~ ~
~~
e
~3
~
pp
geY 3~
~F
E ~j
$R b~ x@a
f~~~u
K
y
R^yy~
~ ~g A~ ~
S
$
R
'A
•q~ 2 R
~
~ q
9
4p
G~
R~ A
~
~ ~£
~ ~Fq
.~i
~
~ e 3a
~~ :~
~
~~
~ ~ ~
3
~ R xx
~
3 555555
F ~g
G p
F
R
p x
m ~ ~ ~
Vf f'1
~
-I T m
m ~ m
~ -
l
~
-
i
b ~~nO
AO
wT ~'bNN9C
~
N EA Qyy
SA VIVO
m
>
Y p
i1 p
vZ'
~ Z gi
Yg
H
y
~
x ~O. a
a ZG'1 1P -I
~
r M
O~
~
N N o~
Nr
C
~ mS
p
M
20$ O~ N
TH
Ll V
~'~ ~ c
~
77
rv° ~
~ r~z
(~ ~ S Ya
6 N
A
~ i
A 01 !'1 f1
~ (
~
l
- 2 p
Na YVHim
~~~
• m~m
R H (1 O
~
W
-1
A
~
Y T -
I T
(
j
N
N V. y
Vm H
O (Zl
~y
TOBIN RESIDENCE DEMOLITION __ KzM 2nv_MONO nacH3TECTS __.
ASPEN
210 WEST FRANCIS STREET 9~ WH~P~$SEPiE'
,
e~meB~~a~YJMPAYMONOPPCHITECTS.COM
O
07
~~
i W
s~
O
N
Noy su3uon i~e4"-$~8a~re~liV~o~"w°
II918 (IJ'N3d5Y N3dStl '.133211S SIONb21d 1S3M OTZ
L 31N5'SNINdON LMd Sib
sll3uH~8ti atJ~wAVa viii _ NOI.LI~OW3a 3~N34IS32f NI901
nn:r?y
,.a H CO dAA_0
s-v `r~' ~
,~,1 S
+.~ 9 v1 ~~
t ~~~gtl~~.yflfln --1 "'~ ~Q y
~ ffd~H ~ '<i ZQ
t ~ f pp S'S
~o I ~ .I ~ a ~ a ~ ~~~Yg~y~IpY~~e
,~ ~ O O~ ~ 8e~~~Y4e~~~ 4~e,
- LL o Q ~~~1~~~~gg~~ g~°
~~ ~ ~s~etif~~i§d~3k~~
...,.,,~, ,,.,< e. >.. >..,,
~,
~.
s
~~.
I
,~~
¢§ p _
p 2 "~F~S~'~E t~~~~ i~
88 '~ fi
(]
_ _ __ _ _ _ mil' ~.{`~ i1 ~4Y
__ _ _ _ _ ~`~ `• ~ f _
{~, m_
N 1
(+;
~~ TOBIN RESIDENCE DEMOLITION
o~ 210 WEST FRANCIS STREET, ASPEN
o~
3
a
KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS __.,_
9]5 EAST HOPgNS, SUITE
/SPEtN,1CO 816g1Z15 Z25
Pmill/kIT@kIMPpYMpNpAPCHIRCTS CUM
O
~~
V