The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20010214 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 14, 2001 REGULAR MEETING, 5:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS SITE VISITS - NOON - Meet at the first site. If you cannot attend, be sure to visit the properties on your own before the meeting. 620 N. Third Street 811/819 E. Hopkins Ave. 308 E. Hopkins 5:00 I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes: July 26% Sept. 13th Nov.8th, Nov. 15th Jan. 108 Please bring Sept. 13th minutes to the meeting. III. Public Comments IV. Commission member comments and project monitoring V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) VI. NEW BUSINESS :20 A. 640 N. Third St. - Conceptual HPC Review - Public Hearing&21 *cf' / 6:05 B. Christiania Lodge -501 E. Main - Conceptual HPC Review - Public Hearing Ocrn-1 14 /482,04 / 9 fi, ' VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Existing Historic Inventory Review - Cont'd Public Hearing from 1/24/2001 6:50 1. 308 E. Hopkins - Request for removal from the Inventory/9 mitic t. 7:15 2. 620 N. Third - Request for removal from the Inventory 3912 7:40 3. 811 E. Hopkins - Request for removal from the Inventory (. C -UL 8:05 4. 819 E. Hopkins - Request for removal from the Inventory .30 VIII. ADJOURN I EXHIBIT , . 2/ 4323 * MEETING DATE: L j g 1.-A j NAME OF PROJECT: 6 48 #u ' STZ,* ix 907A LLC~'~MA ~--) CLERK: )47 11 5-12/ L tl ~0- ~ STAFF: 1~h,4~ 6 ~tfir) c WITNESSES: (1) j~Di pi Â·V v F ,~~ Â¥ v '1 n 5~~~7 - m ok 44 s (1.1 & .44 (3) 3 j n_ U# 55 5 (4) MAA )A N 61 6.|C ) '-3-6 h#*25 \A-)*e# L (5) CRAvhs(u44(avt, 0\,0-0 pL hinnic) EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report ( t.Â¥ (Check If Applicable) 2 Affidavit of Notice ( 4 (Check If Applicable) 3 Board Criteria Sheet C ) (Check If Applicable) 4 5 MOTION: P I VOTE: YES NO SUZANNAH REID YES L-- NO YES NO SUSAN DODINGTON YES G- NO GILBERT SANCHEZ YES L--NO LISA MARKALUNAS YES Nol- JEFFREY HALFERTY YES L- NO YES NO YES NO MELANIE ROSCHKO YES L/NO RALLY DUPPS YES Z._ NO HPCVOTE PROJECT MONITORING uusan Dodington 240 Lake Avenue- Greenberg 930 King - No Problem Joe's 121 5th & North - Ernie Frywald 330 Gillespie Ave. 232 E. Hallam St. 7a & Main Street 213 W. Bleeker srttl-0-tt~j Suzannah Reid 414 N. First- POLE 240 Lake Ave. 312 S. Galena 76 and Main 330 Lake Avenue 620 W. Bleeker Historical Society Jeffrey Halferty 414 N. First- POLE 920 W. Hallam- Guthrie 212 W. Hopkins Ave. 312 S. Galena 620 W. Bleeker - Historical Society 213 W. Bleeker 200 E. Bleeker Lisa Markalunas 939 E. Cooper- Langley (work stopped) 240 Lake Avenue- Greenberg 214 E. Bleeker- Brumder 330 Gillespie Ave. 520 E. Hyman Ave. 200 E. Bleeker 419 E. Hyman - Paragon Gilbert Sanchez 312 S. Galena 333 W. Bleeker Street 501 W. Main Christiania Lodge 330 Lake Ave. 121 5th & North - Ernie Frywald 200 E. Bleeker Rally Dupps 419 E. Hyman - Paragon 501 W. Main Street - Christiania Lodge 129 W. Francis 435 W. Main 93 Q King Street 3-Â¥ WUAAA~1~ Melanie Roschko 232 W. Hallam 520 E. Hyman 213 W. Bleeker 0 0 CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: 834 W. Hallam (Poppie's), expires April 26,2001 ~5 W. Bleeker old house expires Oct. 14, 2000 ~502 E. Hopkins- September 22, 2001 HPC Legal Procedures (Submit affidavit of notice for PH - conceptual) Swear In Staff presentation Applicant presentation Board Questions and Clarifications PH opened and closed Board Comments Applicant Comments Motion 0 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS 37.232 E. Hallam Street - Variances PH July 26,2000 38. 129 W. Francis Street-Final July 26,2000 39.435 W. Main L'Auberge - August 9,2000 40.200 E. Bleeker Street, Aspen Community Church - August 23,2000 41. 104 S. Galena St. St. Mary's Church - August 23,2000 42. Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures - September 11- rescinded 43. Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures - September 13 - rescinded 44.123 E. Hallam - September 13,2000 45.302 E. Hopkins-Extension ofconceptual - September 13,2000 46.232 E. Hallam-Landscape Plan - August 23,2000 47.735 W. Bleeker Street Extension ofconceptual approval Sept. 27,2000 48.200 E. Bleeker Street - Aspen Community Church Final Sept. 27,2000 49. 616 W. Main Street - Minor October 11, 2000 50.203 S. Galena - Brand Bldg- Roof Top revisions Nov. 8,2000 51. 447 E. Cooper - Guido's - Minor Development Nov. 8,2000 52 513 W. Smuggler Conceptual Nov. 15, 2000 53 719 E. Hopkins Request for removal from Inventory Nov. 15, 2000 54 303 S. Cleveland Request for removal from Inventory Nov. 15,2000 55 427 E. Hyman)Baggage Claim Nov. 15, 2000 56 484 E. Cooper - Body & Bathworks Window Nov. 15, 2000 57 St. Mary's Church - 104 S. Galena - Final HPC - PH Dec. 20% 2000 58 Corbin/Burrows - 610 W. Smuggler & 505 N. Fifth Street - Landmark Lot Split. Dec. 20th, 2000 59 Executive Session - 213 W. Bleeker - Appeal of Historic Preservation Commission Stay of Demolition 2001 01 Corbin/Burrows 610 W. Smuggler & 505 N. Fifth Street January 10, 02 515 W. Gillespie- Lot Split Conceptual cont'd March 14~h 03 332 W. Main Street - Conceptual Approved January 10,2001 04 2 Williams Way - Request for removal from Inventory Jan. 24,2001 05 124 E. Cooper Ave. ~emoval from Inventory Jan. 24, 2001 r f 14- *izm:al*: L 8.*54> Fgal' 4,207ZA5rl 2-&/' - 'w--Â»7 1 7 - 06 30% E N oÂ¢ Cm s (4 (&6 nd-j_kon~ 002 t.b rinvif-07 0 6-*Â° Al , px j,J - it-mil) d.i -110 744 1% 28 0 / E.b Ill Â» J . 5 (040-/9- 7-01 34 EXHIBI1~4;12 \ 19/ / 4/ -) â€ž / m] County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060(E) t JanvÂ®r Dic<inlton , being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, pers~tally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the 31*jiy of Jahitaâ€¢~, 2001- (which is 14Â·days prior to the public hearing date of FebruÂ·,7 149 1001. 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the'2*u| day ofFebr*00 , 2001-3 to the ! 4-tky of Febr,(81 , 200 1 . (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. Signature -'0-+ / 44- - 1 Signed befor~ne this Milly of~/F#Â»PM 4 Â¥ ~ PUBLIC NOTICE 2001Â· by / DATE 2-14Â·01 .~.. . --1 TIME 5.00 PM ~~ ~--~ PLACE C TY HALL m rD-=â‚¬- 11 ~1~1 PURPOSE 4 12. ~~ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL 1 -,2.ar- 1- Â«2 1- ~ My Commission expires: ~. _ ~-, ~,0 2)3 r 9 Notary Public fy,C-Â¥\ .1410007 5*VÂ¢t}*i~Â§6/1/21'*RE#*#i#Um* PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 640 N. THIRD STREET CONCEPTUAL HPC, HISTORIC LOT SPLIT, LANDMARK DESIGNATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 pm before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Jim Daggs requesting approval for an historic lot split, landmark designation, and Conceptual HPC Design approval. The applicant is also requesting a 500 Square Foot FAR bonus and a 5 foot rear yard setback variance. The property is located at 640 N. Third Street and is legally described as Lots 4-6, Block 102, of the Hallam Addition of the City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5096, amyg@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Suzannah Reid, Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on January 27, 2001 City of Aspen Account ASPEN CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ALTEMUS E A PARTNERSHIP LLLP BART MORRIS 111 & CATHY KANTER STUDIES 620 N 3RD ST 1711 PALMER AVE 100 PUPPY SMITH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70118-6115 ASPEN, CO 81611 BELL 26 LLC BLOCK FAMILY TRUST 44.5% INT BERGER BRUCE C/O BROOKE A BLOCK QUALFD PERSONEL RES TRST 960 CHEROKEE PETERSON/KAUFMAN&PETERSON 55.5% INT 0ENVER, CO 80204 315 E HYMAN AVE STE 305 311 W NORTH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 D W RINGSBY ENTERPRISES CRAIG CAROL G CURTIS JAMES L A PARTNERSHIP PO BOX 18 300 E HYMAN AVE 1123 AURARIA PKWY. #200 WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80204 . Applic-+ 1 11 - DURAND LOYAL m DR & BERNICE / DAGGS JAMES K & GAY DEE INVESTMENTS LTD PARTNERSHIP BLACK 1 640 N 3RD ST 211 ROYAL PONCEANA WY ~~~ ASPEN, CO 81611 4314 FAWN CT RT 1 PALM BEACH, FL 33480 CROSS PLAINS, WI 53528 ...b FINKELSTEIN RICHARD & CARIA FRAZER WILLIAM R & JANE Z FAMILY EFH HOLDINGS LP CAROLE C 50% - TRUST P O BOX 8770 9034 BURROUGHS RD FRAZER WILLIAM R & JANE Z ASPEN, CO 81612 LOS ANGELES, CA 90046-1405 TRUSTEES 433 W GILLESPIE ASPEN, CO 81611 EENWAY NANCY R TRUST F/B/O HOOK BRADLEY K & PAMELA D HERNANDEZ CECIL M & NOELLE C MEADERS DUCKWORTH & MOORE 782C N KALAHEO PO BOX 1045 FIFTH AVE 300 CRESCENT COURT-STE 1000 ASPEN, CO 81612 NEW YORK, NY 10176 KAILUA, HI 96734 LUBAR SHELDON B KAUS PETER & EVA - LEWIS MEMRIE M LUBAR MARIANNE S 8401 VISTA LN 15 PECKSLAND RD 700 N WATER ST - STE 1200 PRESCOTT, AZ 86301 GREENWICH, CT 06831 MILWAUKEE, WI 53202-4206 LUNDGREN DONNA MARSHALL RONNIE Â· MIDDLETON RANDALL TRUST PO BOX 6700 320 LAKE AVE 600 JEFFERSON STE #350 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 ASPEN, CO 81611 HOUSTON, TX 77002 MUSTANG HOLDINGS LLC MUSIC ASSOCIATES OF ASPEN INC NITZE WILLIAM A C/O BROOKE PETERSON ESQUIRE 2 MUSIC SCHOOL RD 1537 28TH ST NW 315 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611-8500 WASHINGTON, DC 20007 ASPEN, CO 81611 RTH FOURTH STREET ASSOCIATES OAK LODGE LLC PERROS DIMITRI & DIANE MIKE CONVISOR C/O WILLIAM O HUNT 79 LOCUST RD OXII PO BOX 7951 WINNETKA, IL 60093 . -PEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 PEERSON JAMES D PINES DAVID & ARONELLE S Â· PHELPS MASON PETERSON HENSLEY R REVOCABLE TRUST 201 S LAKE AVE STE 408 PO BOX 1714 403 W MICHIGAN PASADENA, CA 91101 -PEN, CO 81612 URBANA, IL 61801 STARODOJ ROBERT F 50% INT STUNDA STEVEN R WEIL JONAS PO BOX 1121 515 5TH ST PO BOX 7963 ASPEN, CO 81612 ANNAPOLIS, MD 21403 ASPEN, CO 81612 WOOD DUCK RE,At-TY CORP C/O DWORMAN DARRYL 65 W 55TH ST STE 4A NEW YORK, NY 10019 â‚¬- li 2/ 4-405* 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 640 N. Third Street- Historic Landmark Designation, Conceptual Development, Variances, Partial Demolition On-site relocation, and Historic Landmark Lot Split- Public Hearing DATE: February 14,2001 SUMMARY: The project involves demolishing existing additions to the historic :structure, relocating it on site and building a new addition, and separating off the northerly portion of the property for future redevelopment. APPLICANT: Jim and Gae Daggs, represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects. PARCEL ID: 2735-121-08-002 ADDRESS: 640 N. Third Street, Lots 4,5, and 6 (less the southerly 3.2 feet of Lot 6), Block 102, Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential) CURRENT LAND USE: 11,707 sq. ft. lot containing a single-story residence, garage, and caretaker apartment REVIEW PROCESS: The HPC will review the project according to the standards for Historic Landmark Designation, Conceptual Development, Variances, Partial Demolition On-site relocation, and Historic Landmark Lot Split and make: 1. A Decision as to whether the standards are met for Conceptual Development, Variances, Partial Demolition, and On-site relocation; and 2. A Recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for Landmark Designation; and 3. A Recommendation to City Council for Historic Landmark Lot Split. LANDMARK DESIGNATION Any structure or site that meets two (2) or more of the following standards may be designated as "H," Historic Overlay District, and/or historic landmark. It is not the intention of the Historic Preservation Commission to landmark insignificant structures or sites. HPC will focus on those structures which are unique or have some special value to the community, as put forth in the standards. A. Historical importance. The structure or site is a principal or secondag structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history Of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Staff Finding: Staff and the applicant are unaware of any historical significance in connection with this site with respect to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Staff finds this criterion is not met. B. Architectural importance. Based on the building form, use, or specimen, the structure or site rejlects an architectural style that is unique, distinct, or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type. Staff Finding: The original house has numerous features that are typical of 19~~ century residences in Aspen, such as a decorative front porch, front gable/ porch relationship, and simple plan. The form of this building is somewhat unique in that the front gable is 1 M stories and the cross gable is 2 stories tall. Staff finds this criteria is met. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Staff Finding: The original designer is unknown, therefore this standard is not met. D. Neighborhood character. The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Staff Finding: The property is located in Aspen's historic West End neighborhood, along Lake Avenue. There are numerous 19th century homes in the immediately surrounding area and this building is one of four in a row. Staff finds this criteria is met. E. Community character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location, and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Staff Finding: The house is representative of the modest scale, style, and character of homes constructed in the late 1800's, which is Aspen's primary period of historic significance. Staff finds this criteria is met. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds that all ofthe following standards (Section 26.415.010.C.5) are met: a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, massing and volume with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or is adjacent to an historic landmark For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, exceed the allowed,floor area by up tolive hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant necessaly variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this Section exceed those variations allowed under Section 26.520.040(B)(2), for detached accessory dwelling units, and Staff Finding: The project is a historic landmark lot split and involves demolishing portions of the existing house, relocating it and the carriage house on the site and building a new basement and addition. A rear yard setback variance for the garage and a 500 square foot floor area bonus are requested. The house was remodeled in the past and has additions which have affected its integrity as a historic resource. Some of the exterior materials have been replaced. Staff views this project as an opportunity to retrieve the original character of the structure and to improve its relationship to the other remaining historic buildings along Lake Avenue. The architect has provided "as-built" drawings of the house as well as plans and elevations which attempt to represent the historic design of the building. Using the available maps of the property, staff agrees that the house is correctly represented on sheets H2.1, H2.2, and H3.1. Note that because of the previous remodels, certain walls of the historic house will need to be reconstructed as part ofthis project. 0 The applicant indicates that the proposal is to strip back to the original structure and make a new addition. It appears though that the new plans do not maintain the portions of the historic building that are labeled as "kitchen" and "bath" on sheet H2.1. Staff has concerns with the decision to retain only part of the original house, to be discussed further under the "Partial Demolition" review standards. In regard to other alterations to the historic house, staff encourages the applicant to avoid adding any new elements which would not have been there historically and to look for more opportunities to restore the structure. For instance on the south elevation of the two story gable, the double hung window on the upper floor should be maintained (without the addition of new windows flanking it) and the first floor window should be replaced with a double hung window (instead of the inappropriate easement windows which currently exist.) The dormers on the front gable should be investigated to determine if they are original and the window in the street-facing gable end should be restored to a double hung. Staff would recommend against adding an exterior door on the north side of the entry piece, and would recommend against building a deck that wraps around the front of the house, citing the following guideline. Private Yard 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic structures. â€¢ The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material 0 and sod, and not covered with paving, for example. It appears that many of the exterior materials, including the siding, are not historic. During the demolition and discovery phase, the applicant should look for any indication of the character of the original siding and evidence of earlier trim detail, cornerboards, etc. The proposed addition is problematic in that it is only slightly narrower than the historic house and is four feet taller. It is in conflict with two of the design guidelines: 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. â€¢ An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. â€¢ A 1-story connector is preferred. â€¢ The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. 0 â€¢ The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. There is no subordinate connecting element between the old and new construction and the plate height on the second floor of the addition is a full 10 feet. Staff finds that the addition must be restudied so that the original scale and form of the historic building can still be perceived and the addition is a clearly distinct mass. The basement floor plan will also have to be examined, because the very large stepped lightwell with a railing in the front corner of the house will create a significant visual impact on the historic resource, and is in conflict with the design guidelines: 9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space. â€¢ In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design Standards). â€¢ The size of a lightwell should be minimized. â€¢ A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded by a simple fence or rail. Along with the areas recommended for restudy above, the applicant must examine their floor are a calculations. It appears that the intention is to take a bonus for the entire "Accessory Dwelling Unit," which is possible when an ADU is fully detached from the principal residence and is deed restricted to mandatory occupancy. However, there is an additional provision that to take these exemptions, the footprint of the garage structure can be no larger than 625 square feet and the existing garage has a footprint of over 700 square feet. Furthermore, the ADU bonus is only applied to the "net livable" area of the unit, so certain elements such as the staircase will count in floor area. The result is that the project as designed is roughly 400 square feet over allowable FAR. The applicant has requested the 500 square foot HPC bonus and also a rear yard setback variance. The merits of the HPC bonus will be better judged once the proposal has been amended to comply with the design guidelines and dimensional requirements. The setback variance appears to be appropriate because it creates more room to allow for a detached garage. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposedfor development, and Staff Finding: The subject property is fairly large (11,707 square feet) and would allow for a single family house of 3,822 square feet. By creating two detached homes on the site and transferring some of the FAR to a new structure, the historic house will be better preserved and the structures on the site will be consistent with the size of homes that have historically existed in that neighborhood. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels, and 0 Staff Finding: The project will enhance the historic significance of the home by removing some inappropriate alterations that have occurred over the years. i The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Staff Finding: The project as currently designed does not enhance the architectural character and integrity of the house to the extent possible in such a major rehabilitation project. The addition must be redesigned to be more of a distinctly separate mass and the house should be more accurately restored. PARTIAL DEMOLITION No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all of the following standards are met: A. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. Staff Finding: For the most part, the areas proposed to be demolished are recent 0 construction and do not contribute to the historic character of the building. Staff has concerns that the proposal does include demolition of the rear poition of the original house, which should be restudied. B. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: (1) Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions, and (2) Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions that are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Staff Finding: Sanborne maps do not exist for this part of town, however the Willit's map and 1893 Bird's Eye View of Aspen suggest that the proposal involves demolishing historic areas at the back of the original house. This is inappropriate because the size and form of the historic structure will not be correctly represented by the project. The areas to be removed step down to a one story height and could be used as the one story break between the old and new construction. 0 ON-SITE RELOCATION No approval for on-site relocation shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all ofthe following standards are met: A. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. Staff Finding: The house is to be moved 8.5 feet to the east (towards Lake Avenue) and 7.5 feet to the south. Since it is one of a set of historic structures, a neighborhood plan should be provided to show the relationship created between the adjacent structures and the subject home in its new location. B. The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Staff Finding: Said report shall be a condition of approval. C. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security approved by HPC with the engineering department, to insure the safe relocation, preservation, and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Staff Finding: The relocation plan and letter of credit shall be conditions of approval. HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT In order to conduct an Historic Landmark Lot Split, the applicant shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Land Use Code: Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.100.050(A)(2*e), and Section 26.72.010(G). 26.480.030(A)(2) SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, LOT SPLIT The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following conditions are met: a) The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 0 Staff Finding: The property was created as part of Hallam's Addition to the City of Aspen in 1888. b) No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.040(A)(1)(c). Staff Finding: This proposal will create two lots. Lot A, which will contain the historic building, is to be 5,707 square feet, which is allowable because the minimium lot size for lots created through approval of an Historic Landmark Lot Split is 3,000 square feet. If more than 50% of the existing house is being demolished by this application, the ADU that is proposed for Lot A is mandatory, otherwise it is voluntary. Lot B, the new lot, will be 6,000 square feet and is in conformance with the zone district. An ADU or cash-in-lieu payment will be required for development ofthe site. The lot split will not result in any additional density. Two detached houses is a use by right on a property of this size. c) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.040(C)(1*a); and Staff Finding: The land has not been subdivided previously. d) A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the ojfice of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. Staff Finding: The subdivision plat shall be a condition of approval. It must be reviewed by the Planning and Engineering Departments for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use action. e) Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the ofice of the Pitkin Couno, clerk and recorder. Failure on Staff Finding: 0 The maximum floor area for a duplex on the fathering parcel is 4,242 square feet. The applicant plans to allot 2,302 square feet, plus the 500 square foot bonus to Lot A, the historic house. Lot B is to be given 1,940 square feet. These square footages must be noted on the plat. Bonus FAR for "Accessory Dwelling Units" and garages may also be applied. c) The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. Staff Finding: The applicant has requested a floor area bonus and setback variance for the redevelopment of the historic house. No variances may be awarded to the new lot, Lot B. 26.470.070(C) GMQS EXEMPTION, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT The construction of each new single-family dwelling on a lot created through review and approval of an Historic Landmark Lot Split shall be exempt from the scoring and competition procedures. The exemption is to be approved by the Community Development Director, but is not to be deducted from the respective annual development allotments or from the development ceilings. Staff Finding: 0 Currently, there are no standards for reviewing exemption requests; the exemption is by right for historic landmark lot splits. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC continue the 640 N. Third Street review with the following direction: .-.<Restudy the demolition plan to retain all original portions ofthe historic house. 2. Focus on restoration opportunities for the historic house. 3. Restudy the addition to create more separation between it and the historic structure. Lower plate and ridge heights. j'77 A f/,g >z~(c 4.vEvlgeate-ameluodiEow=thezsi=ld,f the lightwell proposed on the south side of the S ~ ~\~ 5. Eliminate the deck at the northeast corner ofthe house. front porch. ~ 6. Recalculate the floor area for the project. 7. Provide a neighborhood plan showing the house in its proposed new location. Â»L-*td 0 RECOMMENDED MoTION "I move to continue the 640 N. Third Street application for Historic Landmark Designation, Conceptual Development, Variances, Partial Demolition On-site relocation, and Historic Landmark Lot Split to a date certain." Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated February 14, 2001 B. Application i 1 1 U E . 1 i - i 1_ Â«p, r 3 1 5.0/4 '9/ + c --- L .41 /00 7 - -- a.rey 0 8 r\ Â» 6-9 7- :MNS ' t.lr :1 - i.k; IN -* 99 ..& It l , j lit t C f i \11 i 4 - 7 Al 4/k, 0.11 4=44 V tÂ·Â£/7 . 1 17 ,,417 \ 1 07 + , 4.JO~ SO./4 ,. 1, 1Â·Â·4â‚¬94. 1 1 14Â· 0 4 95 N - :.940 SE. FT. EAR ALOCATION 1 17~1 4 43 Wak. ams= \Lâ‚¬ )4/Â©, 1' 11 1-LifjA 4-: -- Â·Â· Â·.- I. ---2.- 941 1 U , h 2.-- 1 1 1. 16:14Â·. Â»p't?iff C \Â» -- % f 152 - / \ : 1 1 1 1- &-, 35+ \ +NY* i 1 11 1 #-c"* U. _/ne u- . <1 1 1 1 1 1 :, It <re... \ 1 \00 Ey!STING HOUSE - / 9/4 0 1 14\ 1.1 11 - / 1 1 1 111 & 1! h 1 1 111 Y - L A 25 # s:92 111'ALKE' Ay .Â«-3 < r.h 1 \. NE-0 orcA' Â»i *1 - ---_ 1 -1 1111 4 2 , - Aff L '42fl- \ 1 ==-1 9-4- - 1 X /0/'02.6/ 6 L.f L ",Â·1X .. 121_-2 132>-4 -... . 1 . Eli F- - ~--g~ 3 . L.===- 1 ~-X ~~4- cul-L- -------- i\ F ~ ' ~~~4-1420 494*41 \11 -/\ lili /1 0 -- ~ _2! .V ' : -31 =24 0111 V //15 1 ~>~jl Ill| 1 22 i *0 1 r- r-- EX/STING G/WEJT,J---7 lit 11 / I M 11 -21 \ 2-BE RESTCRE~* ~ t~ ~ ~i ~ ~ . L.- -.. I. 1 1, 11 0-~ 1 - i I.--1- - -- - -=t==Â£' --11'z- 4\ \\ / 1 3- &F-- -_9- --- ~' fl A-~Â· i j \ 1 1 --- -~6-Â· h ~11 ENTRY ~~ UOU_.~-Â·-1 1 ~i '11 2-242 GARAGE ''ll.. -- = \ 1 ~ YAL/V \\\\ 1 4.2 L n. -3 /1 1 1-L =i_ 1. 1 11' , ~ ly # &E'='I'E0 ~=9391 t-EXISTING STONE> PATHWAY \ r '11 % / 4/%,2.-2't=- - --1-1 1 TO LAKE AVEN JE 2---1 - - --- -b-. , ....#..#r':e~~- -7 --0 .1 \ T Â·sir, Â·.,Mi L. v.. ,â€ž I- \ 1\ t\ \ \ 1 'r\ 1/ 1/ 0>' , = (- L 11-a==Â»-41 ;IABELOP. 4.1 \ 4 tv.. ~ 16- 7A- 7.--11 r - 927 Ul - . 4 DAT /0 \98 A 62*2// - /2 1 \ 1 INn , 4171 \ ~ \ 4 1 1 :5707 St F- . :P-# 42*Nct*,Â·Â·yvt . 1 \ ' '' \ ry- =22Â¢K/NG 1~414 \ 1 267}24 13 // / - 1 *z*~:M~~~ 1 i '1 1 i . -YEE CAP . \ 1\ 1 x3*13% ' 9:'49 -4 12 918z - 4- -C ..'/ Ir Â· 6- 11-<11 ' BE F.=- YE_ - A: d.41\11/- 9/82 - i 44669 i 1 - cy,TTING FENCE 70 BE RESTORED 6 LI o k) c --rA -\ p 1- 9-7- / A (/1 , (32 + 11 d rtfd EXHIBIT --7\ David Pines, 10:15 AM 2/10/01 -0700, Letter to HPC , 3,/loo-, / X-Sender: pines@popserver.santafe.edu (Unverified) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 10:15:14 -0700 To: amyg@ci.aspen.co.us From: David Pines <pines@santafe.edu> Subject: Letter to HPC Dear Ms. Guthrie, My wife and I are unable to attend the forthcoming meeting of the HPC. We have, however, sent, by certified mail today, the letter below expressing our opposition to the 640 N. Third St. Conceptual desgnation, etc. I am sending this email to let you know that the letter is on its way, and to ask that it be read into the record as part of the HPC consideration of the matter. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Yours sincerely, David Pines P.O. Box 576, Tesuque, N, M, 87574 Ms. Suzannah Reid, Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Co 81611 Dear Chair Reid, We write, as owners since 1975 of an Aspen home (401 Pearl Ct) located directly across Third St.from the Daggs property, to oppose the historic lot split and landmark designation for the Daggs house, and the associated application by Daggs for a 500 sq.ft FAR bonus and a five foot rear yard setback variance, so that he can divide his property and put two houses on it. The Daggs house is not, nor was it ever, a house of any architectural or historical distinction. It was constructed comparatively recently and has been added onto in a variety of ways through the years. What Daggs is seeking to do has nothing to do with Aspen history-rather it represents still one more attempt to destroy the West End with yet another pair of large houses in order to make a substantial real estate profit. We have been fortunate so far that massive overbuilding on lots has Printed for Amy Guthrie <amyg@ci.aspen.co.us> 1 David Pines, 10:15 AM 2/10/01 -0700, Letter to HPC ended at the corner of Third and North. Please take whatever steps you deem necessary, beginning with a denial of his application, to ensure that such overbuilding does not continue down Third, further destroying the character of the neighborhood and the appoach to the Music Tent. Thank you and the Commission members for your attention to our request. Yours sincerely, Aronelle S. Pines David Pines 0 0 Printed for Amy Guthrie <amyg@ci.aspen.co.us> 2 0 P.O. Box 576, Tesuque, N, M, 87574 Ms. Suzannah Reid, Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Co 81611 Dear Chair Reid, We write, as owners since 1975 of an Aspen home (401 Pearl CO located directly across Third St. from the Daggs property, to oppose the historic lot split and landmark designation for the Daggs house, and the associated application by Daggs for a 500 sq. ft FAR bonus and a five foot rear yard setback variance, so that he can divide his property and put two houses on it. The Daggs house is not, nor was it ever, a house of any architectural or historical distinction. It was constructed comparatively recently and has been added onto in a variety ofways through the years. What Daggs is seeking to do has nothing to do with Aspen history--rather it represents still 0 one more attempt to destroy the West End with yet another pair of large houses in order to make a substantial real estate profit. We have been fortunate so far that massive overbuilding on lots has ended at the corner of Third and North. Please take whatever steps you deem necessary, beginning with a denial of his application, to ensure that such overbuilding does not continue down Third, further destroying the character of the neighborhood and the approach to the Music Tent. Thank you and the Commission members for your attention to our request. Yours sincerely, 1 , Up~au./ A.1- Aronelle S. Pines - _ troul t-ri 6/U D David Pines CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCII[TECTS 610 E IIYMAN ASPEN CO 81611 TEL 970 â€¢ 925 â€¢ 5590 ECUTIVE 970 â€¢ 925 â€¢ 5076 C}irrECTURAL FAX 970 â€¢ 925 â€¢ 4557 WWWCUNNIFFE.COM -8-4,8.-4.-, -. -W.'.... .-, ..... PRINCIPAL/CEO JANVER C DERRINGTON, AIA December 11 2000 PRINCIPAL Fred Jarman HPC Planning Coordinator Cigr of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Daggs Residence Historic Landmark Designation & Historic Lot Split 640 North Third Street Aspen, CO Dear Fred, We are submitting herewith the Application for Conceptual PIPC Review for the referenced project. The subject property contains a residence that was originally built in 1889 and is listed on the Inventory of Historic Resoumes by the City of Aspen. Thus, 1tlS e hgible for the Historic Lot Split provisions of the Aspen Land Use Code. The Historic Residence has had several additions, primarily in the late 1960's and early 1970's, which have compromised its integrity. The Applicant intends to demolish the non-historic portions of the current structure and relocate the historic portion of the residence about 8.5 ft. to the East and 7.5 ft. to the South after constructing a full basement on the South half of the property. They will then construct a new addition to the West, as depicted in the attached drawings. The existing carriage house structure, which was built in the early 1960's and contains a 1-bedroom apartment above a 2-car garage, will also be relocated and reused to fulfill the current ALUC requirements for an Accessory Dwelling Unit and Secondary Mass. Since the property is fronted on both the East and West by City Streets (Lake Avenue and Third Street, respectively) the Applicant proposes to utilize the Third Street end of the property as an alley for the purpose of allocating setbacks. The I-Il?Cis requested to grant a variance of 5 ft. so that the Carriage House is 5 ft. from the Â«rear yard" property line. This is in accordance with the recommendation of Amy Guthrie and is essentially identical to the existing location of the Carriage House in relationship to the street. This allows the Historic House to be very nearly inline with the street fagade of the neighboring Historic Residence to the South and preserve the historic character of Lake Avenue. It also complies with the Residential Design Standards of the ALUC. The existing fence, gate and stone pathway from Lake Avenue to the front entrance of the Historic Residence will be restored and maintained. ARCHITECIURE â€¢ PLANNING â€¢ INTERIORS ASPEN â€¢ CARBONDALE â€¢ TELLURIDE â€¢ VAIL Daggs Historic Landmmk Designation Page 2 By implementing these measures, a lot split can be made so that the South half of the property, to be labeled parcel A, will contain the Historic Resource with about 5,707 sq. ft. and the North half of the property, to be labeled Parcel B, will have 6,000 sq. ft. It will then be developable as a second single family residence, duplex or two detached residences. The FAR that is available for a duplex on the existing property will be divided between the tWO subdivided parcels as set forth on the attached FAR Information Sheet. The Applicant is also requesting that HPC grant the 500 sq. ft. bonus to Parcel A as a consideration for Historic Landmark Designation of the Historic Resource in compliance with all of the standards set forth in the ALUC In conclusion, the Applicant respectfully requests that the Historic Planning Staff of the City of Aspen forward this Application to the HPC with a recommendation for approval at the Conceptual Phase. We will be glart to answer any questions or provide additional documentation that you may require. Sincerely, 0-0574- - Jan#r C. Derrington, AIA~ *cipal/Senior Project Architect tnclosures CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Fred Jarman DATE: November 6,2000 PROJECT: Daggs Property Historic Redevelopment REPRESENTATIVE: Janver Dtrington, Charles Cunniffe Architects (925-5590) OWNER: Jim Daggs LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 4,5, and 6 (less the southerly 320 feet of lot ~ Block 102, Hallam's Addition. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Daggs Residence: Landmark Designation, Historic Landmark Lot Split, HPC Significant Development Conceptual and final, Partial Demolition, Relocation, 5' rear yard variance, and 500 sq. ft. FAR. bonus. DESCRIPTION: Jim Daggs is requesting a HPC Significant Application to include a Landmark Designation, Historic Landmark Lot Split, Partial Demolition, Relocation, 5' rear yard variance, and 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus. The subject lot is approximately 11,700 sq. ft. zoned R.-6 and located at 640 North Third St. The property contains two structures - main residence which is on the City of Aspen's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structure and a non-contributing caretaker unit above a two- car garage. He is requesting to landmark the property and then split the property into Lot "A" to contain the resource and having 5,707 sq. ft. and Lot "B" as having 6,000 square feet. The applicant wished to slightly relocate and significantly remodel the main house while promoting the historical significance of the resource. He would then subsequently sell off lot "B"; there are no development plans for that lot at the present time. The applicant is asking for a 500 sq. ft. bonus to be applied to the historic resource as an important part of the partial demolition of the non-historical portion of the house and remodel addition. The Process shall include the following steps: Step 1: The applicant will be required to have a public hearing before the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) to conduct 1) the landmark designation, 2) historic landmark lot split, and 3) request for partial demolition and 500 sq. ft. bonus and 5' rear yard variance. This all would be part of a Significant Conceptual Review. The HPC review of the lot split must include a draft plat, and information about how the floor area will be allocated. In order to receive the 500 square foot Floor Area Ratio (FAR) bonus, the applicant needs to justify that they are making an outstanding preservation effort. The draft lot split plat must also include exact FAR distribution. Step 2: The applicant shall be required to have a public hearing before the Planning & Zoning Commission (P & Z) for the landmark designation; Step 3: The applicant shall be required to have a public hearing before City Council for the 1) landmark designation and 2) historic landmark lot split. Step 4: The applicant will be required to return to HPC for the Significant Final Review to be conducted in a public hearing before the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) for 1) the landmark designation, 2) historic landmark lot split, and 3) request for partial demolition and 500 sq. ft. bonus and 5' rear yard variance. Land Use Code Section(s) Applicant is required to address: 26.420.10 Historic Designation Standards 26.415.010(D) Historic landmark lot split 26.480.030(A)(2) Exemptions for Lot Split 26.480.030(A)(4) Exemptions for Historic Landmark Lot Split 26.480.040(B) Exempt Subdivisions Procedures 26.470.070(C) GMQS Exemption for Historic Landmark Lot Split 26.415.010(E) Demolition, Partial Demolition, and On-site Relocation 26.480.060(B) Application Submission Contents Review by: Staff for completeness, Referral agencies for recommendations, Planning Director for a recommendation to Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council. Public Hearing: Yes, Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council Referral Agencies: Engineering, housing, building, Zoning Officer Planning Fees: Planning Deposit ($2,310) Referral Agency Fees: Engineering, Minor ($170) tai Deposit: $2,480 (additional hours are billed at a rate of $195 /hour) To apply, submit the following information: 1. Proofof ownership. 2. Signed fee agreement. 3. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative(s) authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 4. Street address and legal description ofthe parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners ofthe property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 5. Total deposit for review ofthe application 6. 1 Copy ofthe complete application packet and maps to be submitted for review. Once it is deemed complete, the planner will request the following copies be made and submitted to the planning office. HPC = 10; P&Z = 10; CC =8; Referral Agencies = 1/ea; Planning Staff= 2 7. An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. Draft Plat including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. Contact Engineering Department if more specifics are needed. 920.5080. 9. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. Please refer to the review standards in the application. Process: Planner reviews case for completeness and sends to Engineering for referral comments. Case planner contacts applicant and sets up a site visit. Staff reviews application to determine if it meets standards of review. Case planner makes a recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial to the Community Development Director. Noticing: Content of notice. Every notice shall include the name and address of the applicant, the type of development application sought, date, time and place of the hearing, the address and legal description of the subject property if applicable, a summary of the development application under consideration, and identification of the decision-making body conducting the hearing and such other information as may be required to fully apprise the public of the nature of the application. Manner of notice. Every notice shall be given in one or more of the following manners, as specified in this Title for each type of development: a. Publication of notice. Publication of notice shall be provided by the applicant or the Community Development Department at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing through publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen. b. Posting ofnotice. Posting of notice shall be made by the applicant, who shall obtain a copy of the form from the Community Development Department. The notice shall be posted at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing, by posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the property subject to the development application. The sign shall be made of suitable, waterproof materials, shall be not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and shall be composed of letters not less than one inch in height. c. MaiUng of notice. Mailing of notice shall be made by the applicant, who shall obtain a copy of the notice from the Community Development Department. The mailing shall contain that information described in Section 26.304.060(ID(2). At least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be sent by first class, postage prepaid U.S. mail, or hand delivered, to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application, and at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be sent by first class, postage pre-paid U.S. mail or hand delivery to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi- governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Jantâ€¢6 4, diaÂ£ Dms (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has ubmitted to CITY an application for #i,loric. 1-0.1-- epl ; .1., AMori,0,1,19#~ZA%*NÂ® &%19Â¥ZgtN;9024- (hereinafter, THE PRdJECT). Rt,VtÂ«400 1-6. tkve.lop. Al.h 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 45 (Series of 1999) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPUCANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty ofrecovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ 1,400 which is for hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments.shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPUCANT 'V ,#~EL- L/lau / PL 5 A. r- By: Julie Ann Woods Be,lic 110/0 'tr-- Community Development Director Date: 94&00 1~ zoeo Mailing Address: 640 N. Thfrd 54, k'"' Co Slell g:\support\forms\agrpayas.doc 12/27/99 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. project name Daan,6 Propâ‚¬r#-r1 1-[ietoric LotÂ·. *'1+ 4 Reclivilopme.Â·P 2. Project location 6 ** N Â· -T-'hir 1 1- A - -e.rb co j l-.c>+s. 4, 6 gÂ·~c~!(;, [ â‚¬96 +Le Goutll tr(4 3,2 X+0 0 - 'eck,02,1+allg,4*AU;tioiA (indicate street addresk;lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning g -6 4. Lot size 1 5-707 99-.A -t<L 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number Jantas Â¢ G, a e. Pa~05 640 N.Third S+., ASF", Co 8Â»11 (970 ) 925-2.182, 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number Ck@rle Conni Ft Arth; tic+e, 6 lo E . !Â·~ MBM Alre.k A*/0.9 00 81(.1 1 0170)915â‚¬510 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA X Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA X Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD >< Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. X Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption * Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review Lot Split/Lot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximatesq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) S[nalt FewÂ¢, <4 Re**,elucÂ·â€¢. wit'IA 1,595 eopÂ·Fk and a bedrooâ€¢Keupt ve a dÂ¥+aok.1 1- Bedre e.â€¢t Apart.to,vf wi'*M 800 et *. a bÂ®va 8 08rm/4 4 668.8 9, +14 9. Description of development application 1-lieloric 1-01-'Spli t, &44401,6 La.ct m Brk-Di,iq#~9Â·NoM, #+Pc Conct#414-al a.d AMal Review .per 821Â©cation,*h rÂ·hAW 11,vili Abn 6.2 4@*ni Akait DEFE opâ€¢12,1* 10. Have you completed and attached the following? X Attachment 1- Land use application form )< Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form 7< Response to Attachment 3 X Response to Attachments 4 and 5 will'll ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant: J aM*5 + Grae *DEM s Address: 640 N. Third S+T~Aâ‚¬.~vI , Co Zone district: R-e Lot size: il,-107 e.~.4+.Cro,00049'44. /6,70-7#cp $+. Lot-Split) Existing FAR: 2,7 G.4- 3FS. Allowable FAR: 4,2 4-1 CAr a duplex) Proposed FAR: 4.142 (4Â· 500 6,}, 8>k *lork Pon uÂ© Existing net leasable (commercial): 14/A Proposed net leasable (commercial): N/A Existing % of site coverage: '2690 Proposed % of site coverage: 40 '76 64Â·U-*r Lot-Split) Existing % of open space: 14/4 -. Proposed % of open space: 8/A Existing maximum height: Principal bldg: '72,0 Â·H;*Accesory bldg: 1 B. Oft * Proposed max. height: Principal bldg: 25.ON:*Accessory bldg:'2.10 0 +1-.46 Proposed % of demolition: Existing number of bedrooms: Proposed number of bedrooms: Existing on-site parking spaces: On-site parkina spaces required: * Mee,ura.J to lowk h poin t,/ 92 poin t .41 p} 44â€¢-4 rmot respic*iva'* Setbacks Existing: Minimum requiredÂ£444efllÂ·~HP'*roposed:64*+Gr Lo+-*/W) Front: /8,644-Â·0Â¥1"clpl) Front: ID U.(kn'â€¢cipi 04:l#:)@Front: 10 9.0Â¥titcip,; 841Uf~) Rear: 5,04+Â· CG,*ra~&/AD+ear: 5Â¥.hABf~/ADU) Rear: 5 2.0*ar,/Abu) Combined Combined Combined 10 4*-7 4.(PHM)pal) Front/rear:15, * +1-Â· Front/rear: 30 -~01-Â· Front/rear: 78*4-/5 44Â·(*cceâ€¢$63) Side: -7,9 Â·P+, Side: 5 Â·Ah. Side: 64Â·6 Side: 41,45*+, Side: 10 %+0 Side: 11 Â·14Â· Combined Combined Combined Sides: 49,1â‚¬ A Sides: 16 Â·Pt. Sides: 16#1Â·. Existing nonconformities or encroachments: 7,3 -1-6 6.1.0 red uirs.cl ee,l+46}clt 0mvi ed-back (41.144 will be. nkiliAU b~; RelocaÂ·hb~yLâ€¢+- Â¥11+) variations requested: 6 N; rear uard ethback #er<48,20)&/AdDLA . (61â€¢c.L *ke.0 26 no *81 es)3 500 14.*tÂ· 6Â·1444â€¢ric Bo Mul, 1=.X. R. (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.ft., site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O zone districts) < ATTACHMENT 3 GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS All development applications must include the following information (Section 26.304.030): 1. Contained within a letter signed by the applicant, the applicant's name, address and telephone number, and the name, address, and ~ telephone number of any reoresentative authorized to act an behalf of the applicant. stÂ¢. a+Jeo ld * 5%14; bit A , 2. The street address, legal description, and parcel identification number of the Drogeitv proposed-fpr development 3. A disclosure of ownership of the parcel proposed for development, consisting of a current certificate from a Title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the. property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstra~nig~hea~nuelQiesjigtt&*i;'UF*le Development Application. 0 4. An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Asp~ â€¢41-acild 8+EWI:bitc, 5. A site plan depicting the proposed layout and the projecfs physical relationship to the land and its-surrou *Ce. SÂ·tfa*ked at Gx Mg,+p. 6. A site improvement survey certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the State of Colorado, showing the current status of the parcel including the current topography and vegetation. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Director if the project is determined not to warrant p sprvey document.) See, aÂ·#guâ€¢u at â‚¬*hipil- 6. 7. A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to 4~teevYRmmt tgfilE:lit~?lit 1- F *G' I 8. Additional materials, documentation, or reports as deemed necessary by the Community Dev,lopment Director. 7-0 be dt+â€¢nwitiâ€¢.1 0 ATTACHMENT 4 SPECIFIC SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: CONCEPTUAL REVIEW All applications for conceptual review must include the following information: 1. A site plan and a survey showing property boundaries and predominant existing site characteristics 6â‚¬â€¢ 8 41Â¥kul al Exh; b;+ 12 + 2 0 2. The conceptual selection of major building materials to be used in the proposed development 9, aited,â€¢c{.4 69,)4;+ 11-Crgot/1 *e) 3. If applicable, a statement of the effect of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structure and/or the character of the ne*~*64 â€¢+ 6*kibit 6,0 4. Scale drawings of all elevations of any proposed structures, including a roof plag:.,41--Lod ategA:61+11 0,â€¢,.B.h.oirl'*) 5. Without adding excessive costs to the applicant, a visual description of the neighborhood context through at least one of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models, or streetscage elevations. . TB be ~Presâ€¢â€¢ded a.t ~u.lotic. 61Â»ee r-â€¢,0 ExHI 81-r A James & Gae Daggs 640 North Third Street Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925-2183 October 25,2000 Fred Jarman HPC Planning Coordinator Cigr of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Fred, We are hereby notÂ®ing you that we have authorized Charles Cunniffe Architects to represent us in all matters pertaining to the Governmental Agency Review Process for our project. The primary person to contact is: Janver Derrington, AIA Charles Cunniffe Architects 610 E. Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925-5590 Thank you foryour cooperation- Sincerely, //3 1 4 // 444-2%105r-- ~fames Dags Gae Daggs \ Of Ax&41 PIT 23 1 â€¢fl- . COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A 1. Effective Date: September 14, 2000 at 8:00 AM Case No. PCT14927PR 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: (a) ALTA Owner's Policy-Form 1992 Amount$ 0.00 Premium$ 0.00 Proposed Insured: Rate: (b) ALTA Loan Policy-Form 1992 Amount$ 0.00 Premium$ 0.00 Proposed Insured: ~ Rate: Tax Certificate: $10.00 3. Title to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: JAMES K. DAGGS AND GAY DAGGS 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is situated in the County of PITKIN State of COLORADO and is described as follows: LOTS 4,5 AND 6, BLOCK 102, HALLAMS ADDITION, adjacent to the City and Townsite of Aspen, EXCEPT the South 3.2 feet of said Lot 6. rarsâ‚¬1 I.D. 41: 27*9- 114-08-002- PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. Schedule A-PG. 1 601 El HOPKINS This Commitment is invalid ASPEN, CO. 81611 unless the Insuring 970-925-1766 Provisions and Schedules 970-925-6527 FAX A and B are attached. AUTHORIZED AGENT E.*meIT e' 2 04 + SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1 REQUIREMENTS The following are the requirements to be complied with: ITEM (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. ITEM (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record to-wit THIS COMMITMENT IS FURNISHED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, IT IS NOT A CONTRACT TO ISSUE TITLE INSURANCE AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS SUCH. IN THE EVENT A PROPOSED INSURED IS NAMED THE COMPANY HEREBY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND/OR EXCEPTIONS AS DEEMED NECESSARY. THE RECIPIENT OF THIS INFORMATIONAL REPORT HEREBY AGREES THAT THE COMPANY HAS ISSUED THIS REPORT BY THEIR REQUEST AND ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS ACCURATE AND CORRECT, THE COMPANY SHALL NOT BE CHARGED WITH ANY FINANCIAL LIABILITY SHOULD THAT PROVE TO BE INCORRECT AND THE COMPANY IS NOT OBLIGATED TO ISSUE ANY POLICIES OF TITLE INSURANCE. ExHI PIT 6 SCHEDULE B SECTION 2 EXCEPTIONS The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessment, charge or lien imposed for water or sewer service or for any other special taxing district. 7. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted and right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States as reserved in United States Patent recorded June 8, 1888 in Book 55 at Page 2. 8. Deed of Trust from : JAMES K. DAGGS and GAY DAGGS To the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin For the use of : WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK Original Amount :~ Dated : April 15, 1999 Recorded : April 21, 1999 Reception No : 430105 9. Deed of Trust from : JAMES K. DAGGS and GAY DAGGS To the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin For the use of : ALPINE BANK - ASPEN Original Amount ~ Dated : March 5, 1997 Recorded : March 19,1997 Reception No. Â· : 402637 The above Deed of Trust was subordinated November 10, 1997 as Reception No. 410424. 10. Deed of Trust from : JAMES K. DAGGS and GAY DAGGS To the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin For the use of : ALPINE BANK Original Amount **Ill* Dated : January 20,2000 Recorded : January 31, 2000 Reception No : 439982 Ex)+1 131 T e 1-44- ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DISCLOSURES The Owner's Policy to be issued, if any shall contain the following items in addition to the ones set forth above: (1) The Deed of Trust, if any, required under Schedule B-Section 1. (2) Water rights, claims or title to water. (NOTE: THIS EXCEPTION WILL APPEAR ON THE OWNER'S AND MORTGAGE POLICY TO BE ISSUED HEREUNDER) Pursuant to Insurance Regulation 89-2; NOTE: Each title entity shall notify in writing every prospective insured in an ownefs title insurance policy for a single family residence (including a condominim or townhouse unit) (i) of that title entity's general requirements for the deletion of an exception or exclusion to coverage relating to unfiled mechanics or materialmens liens, except when said coverage or insurance is extended to the insured under the terms of the policy. A satisfactory affidavit and agreement indemnifying the Company against unfiled mechanics' and/or Materialmen's Liens executed by the persons indicated in the attached copy of said affidavit must be furnished to the Company. Upon receipt of these items and any others requirements to be specified by the Company upon request, Pre-printed Item Number 4 may be deleted from the Owner's policy when issued. Please contact the Company for further information. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing contained in this Paragraph shall be deemed to impose any requirement upon any title insurer to provide mechanics or materialmens lien coverage. NOTE: if the Company conducts the owners or loan closing under circumstances where it is responsible for the recording or filing of legal documents from said transaction, the Company will be deemed to have provided "Gap Coverage". Pursuant to Senate Bill 91-14 (CRS 10-11-122); (a) The Subject Real Property may be located in a Special Taxing District; (b) A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction may be obtained form the County treasurer of the County Treasurer's Authorized Agent; (c) Information regarding Special Districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. NOTE: A tax Certificate will be ordered from the County Treasurer by the Company and the costs thereof charged to the proposed insured unless written instruction to the contrary are received by the company prior to the issuance of the Title Policy anticipated by this Commitment. This commitment is invalid unless Schedule B-Section 2 the Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No. PCT14927PR A and B are attached. ... r-1 Aspen Boundary vl~ ~ Rivers & Ponds *40 N. THI WD ST. Text One Hundred Scale Road Names A/ Road Network ....# Historic Inventory j Historic Districts I Inventoried I Landmarked 6Â«/-/ C N . 11-QI- - 44.1 -111 . \J '5~'- 1 . , W~ E S 5 - 63 . 20< *A -1 ExttleiT C EXHIBIT D ~ 0 CE 1 / 2 3 0 11= 0 0 1 -6 %,sw--19 1 flffl V j 4-_e- - JL J -+--- 0-1 . / 1 /% j Ve*bm, PJ \P\\\ 1 mmB rl \ 4 ~ \ $/5 Li _~_ h f:1216 \ I 441 ~ 1~~\\~ 1-41 LOT 8 1 } 2 1.940 SQ. FT. FAR ALOCANON - -1 -*lit _______________b_______-1- _n:*1 r NA < 0993 ~ EXISTING HOUSE - .\ 0\ \\11 1 OUTUNE OF N<Â° O 1 \ )/l gU ~*E Z 1-L=44- 1 \ 3040% ' i \ lill f ED NEW DECK - 0 -3 6 2/ nu . 3 -U 2- Eli . - - i><1 1115 I -i (1.,1 L/11 /f~flh~~ 0-4 e C O \ 1111 7 -2=22!i D 67 'E ! \7 VL > 1 1 \ A E EF----11 Z'.2 El NiA; u %4119% 371* - _ 1~-L ~--4- / - 7 li 14*dell [13 1 /. cir-xi -+ \ 7 \ *Za 1 1 2-CAR GARAGE WECH. ~~ - U EMME 1 11 4XESTING STOAÂ·fi~ PATAW~\ / /743&61 T=Fllth - 2 / 66 b ~TO LAKE AVENJA DAGGS RESIDENCE 'Inw. ij~_2-- \ 1. 19 18EL{w fl I LOT A 4 0~ PAT IO = ASPEN, CO 81611 48 le i /1 I 640 N. THIRD ST. 0 \ V) 1 PARKING e (5707 m FTJ 2302 SQ. FT. p r~~CAP_A ' Ld\*711 / -~ 0 PROPOSED SITE PLAN EXISTING FENCE TO BE RESTORED 7 JOB NO. 0009 DATE 11-14-00 SHEET NO. SITE PLAN - PROPOSED LOT SPLIT SHEET OF Â©COP,RIGHT CMARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS P.\0009\00098 11.dgn 11/13/2000 04 23: 48 PM THIRD STREET 4962 .., 52384 S13311HDNV 33=11NNAD 53121VHD 6 XY:I * 9EZE-9ZOOZ6 3131. SE#Le O '301)1 113 . '3AV 00Â¥31010 . +6Â£9-Â£96'0Z6 7131 . EZ9LW 03 '3 --------------- CENT-ERUNE 5959-9*0Â£6 :XY:I . 0659-926,026 1131 . SE,19 03 'SCRIVMCal . 90ZV 316 "0Ale 30Â¥111 3 >19-1 6 :XÂ¥:I . 0655--SEM)Â£6 3131 . 1[9Ly OD 'NLISV 'SAV NVPWAH 1SV3 E)<441 BIT- 8 2 3 1 .1 SCALE 16* --rÂ· 011. 1.. L r -Mas- ' .'' ,~k'~ lii'illi ~~ ~~~E#vr'- 1 -8 ~ , 11111,1 11 lilli / 1 1111 1 PEARL \ 1 tr / lilli I 1 1 6 1!11 11 COURT \ / 1 111111 LINES OF VIEW 4 < 1 . 1. 1. i lilli uar 0 22=.1 1 11 11 1 1 - too - \ 0 :6,4-4 1 S! 1111 \ 1 94...1 111111 6 \ 1 1 lilli 0 1 1 1 lili 1 7//Ar \ - 1 lili .lili I 6 r I Ill i '44. 111 1 . 1 1 11 ":2851 '.44 1 1 1 11 k ..:Â·f:Ni; 0 9'$'4" 7 '~ ' *'4-". ' '* 1 i 1 111 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 1 1= Â· 1.-" 1 1 1 +49- - p I ii' .. 1 e N F 90 1 1111 0- MIL 13 â€¢.8, 1 1 Sill I .- i.\ lin l 1 1 14[.041 1 1 \ 1 lilli i - - - F r . FT 111 1 h \ i li 6 \ | ~ ~ \ \ \=S\// LEGEND & NOTES 1 1 1.J. 61. -1 6 i \ 0 -- -- 11111- -AR â€¢Im =I ..m O -19 I /4 1*11. amEr Cm"mi / %3.As .... 3 j \.0 . \ \Pil'*1 =IT 3 ..la- \ /\\/ .Im NIT CO-TO E.mU.= A le 1,/2\\ 21.1 - \ 1/ i i .-- \ *-ILLA / -0- .1... _ - I - Â¤ UT/,117 -K T= lauar' A-irl- 18 All I Ivill,11 ' 6-lr L,T /-1,1011 1, 1,~ I 11 VILLET'~ W, / m Clly / Alf~ 1*1Â§ Emre't= 2 =1:16-,Mk'In 111/ DEPOSIT CERTIFICATE 7 ,- m - 0 - ..re U- - MAY .11.1.- n.1.m. 1..1-111 -La~ -Im,li"=. m./.=i.......,1 '11:11Â®1~, TmE, I; 1110 Il 1 C....= -. - - - - - - - - - I- CERTIFICATION IMPROVEMENT SURVEY 1. amID 1. 11-ll. A Iâ€¢Til l.- Il-me *11 ni â€¢TATI JIM DAGGS * COLmADO. Ii'NI"'PY Mu â„¢18 PUT m~ 'IN'IN. A Plial 'Im- PlmNm~ I Il I:~mÂ¥1*1011 IN I 10- â€¢â€¢ il TRI A=, calIZT m ni Im .,m..... -1-. 1,1,0 c~TIFIC,Ti- 10 VOID 01,11 -r .... AN 3.20 FtET OF LOT 6 BLOCK 102, LOTS 4 5 AND 6 LESS THE SOUTHERLY 8 HALLAM'S ADDITION to THE CITY oF *1.- THIS -aw. .... ASPEN, PITK IN COUNTY, COLORADO DAVID I. M.IRICE ./0 181'I .... AIIA - 11.707 ..FT. ./. ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS. INC. - ------- -----*- -----.-- - --*----- -------- ---- ------ - 1,0 1. 04-6 011-r ./-, 01.. 01'11 . 1 r .C.Il. NORTH m<81BIT p 1 04 5 HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM State Site Number: Local Site Number: 640.NT Photo Information: Roll 1, Frames 9, 15 & 16; ASP-P-1 & 3 Township 10 South Range 85 West Section 12 USGS Quad Name Aspen Year 1960 X 7.5' 15' Building or Structure Name: Julia R. Hayes House Full Street Address: 640 North Third Street Legal Description: Lots 5 & 6, Block 102 Hallam's Addition to the City of Aspen City Aspen County Pitkin Historic District or Neighborhood Name: West End Owner: Private/State/Federal Private Owner's Mailing Address: ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Building Type: Resdiential Architectural Style: Vernacular Gable Structure Dimensions: L: X W: = Square Feet: Number of Stories: 1 Original / 2-Story addition Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): Irregular Landscaping or Special Setting Features: Mature cottonwoods south and east lot lines; large north side yard Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material and Function (map number / name): New garage with residential 2nd story For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in the description as appropriate: Roof: Cross gabled with shed extension and shed dormers; wood shingles Walls: Wood lap siding Foundation / Basement: Not determined Chimney(s): Large, brick at northeast - not original Windows: Replacement fixed glass and contemporary sliding glass, casements general types, non-historic Doors: Not original wood panel, sliding glass doors (east) Porches: Southeast entrance non-original porch, large contemporary deck General Architectural Description: Typical gable ended structure with numerous gable and shed additions, obscuring original massing and character. E-,CHI BIT F 2 â€¢43 Page 2 of 2 State Site Number Local Site Number 640.NT FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Current Use: Residential Architect: Unknown Original Use: Residential Builder: Unknown Â· Intermediate Use: Residential Construction Date: 1889 Actual Estimate X -1.-- Assessor Based On: MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS Minor Moderate Major X Moved Date Describe-Modi fications and Date: Numerous material and architectural changes; dates unknown Additions and Date: Many late 20th Century additions; dates unknown NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA Is listed on National Register; State Register Is eligible for - National Register; State RegisterÂ· Meets National Register Criteria: A__ B C D E - Map Kev Local Rating and Landmark Designation I Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register 21 _ Contributing: Resource has maintained historic.. or architectural integrity. 0 Supporting: Original integrity lost due to alterations, however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort. Locally Designated Landmark Justify Assessment: Integrity has been compromised due to substan- tial modifications. Associated Contexts and Historical Information: The significance of this residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived in it, nor of its architecture, although this structure is rebresentative of Aspen's Mining Era. It is of historical importance by illustrating the family/home environment and life style(s) of the average citizen of Aspen which was then dominated by the silver mining industry. Other Recording Information Specific References to the Structure/Building: Pitkin County Court- house Records; Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps Arcliaeological Potential: N (Y or N) Justify: E.*1-H BIT F 9 4-8 ~ Recorded By: Devon Reese, Intern Date: August 1990 Affiliation: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee - City of Aspen Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer/Planner EXHIB/T 4 1 0-117 December 11, 2000 Fred Jarman HPC Planning Coordinator Cily Of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Daggs Residence Historic Landmark Designation & Historic Lot Split 640 North Third Street Aspen, CO Applicant's Response to Relevant Sections ofAspen Land Use Code Standards Section 26.420.010 Standards for Designation: A~y structure or site which meets two (2) or more of the following standards may be designated as Â«H", Historic Over* District, and/or Historic Landmark. It is not the intent of the Historic Preservation Commission to landmark insignificant structures or sites. HI?C will focus on those that are unique or have special value to the community. Standard D. Neighborhood Character. The structure or site is a significant component of a historically significant n borhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: The subject residence and most of the neighboring residences in the West End of Aspen between Lake Avenue and Third Street have been inventoried as having historic significance. This residence, which was built in 1889, is an important component of this historic neighborhood and its presence, particularly on the Lake Avenue streetscape, is vital to the preservation of the historic character of this area. Standard E. Community Character. The structure or site is crilical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen communily because of its relationship in terms of size, location, and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: This structure is similar in size and architectural character to the neighboring historic residences and the historic portion that will be preserved and restored is representative of Aspen's mining area. E.*1-10/7 4 2 04 7 Page 2 0 Section 26.415.010 (D) Historic Landhiark Lot Split 1. The development of all lots created pursuant to Section 26.480.030 (A) (5) shall be reviewed by the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission and the City Council. Response: The Applicant is hereby submitting all required documentation for review by HPC and City Council as outlined in the Aspen Land Use Code. Section 26.480.030 (Al (Z) Exemptions for Lot Split: The following development shall be exempted from the terms of this Chapter. A. General Exemptions. 2. Lot Split. The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single- family dwelling on a lot formed byalot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following conditions are met: a. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been sub-divided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969. Response: This land upon which the subject residence is situated is part of Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, which was established in the 0 year 1888. It has remained under single ownership to the present day. b. No more than tWO (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.050 (A) (2) (C). Response: This application stipulates that two (2) lots are being created by this lot split. Lot A will contain the Historic Structure, along with the proposed addition and the existing carriage house, which contains a caretaker unit above a two (2) car garage. The lot size of 5,707-sq. ft. will be slightly under the minimum lot area of 6,000-sq. ft. for a single-family residence in the R-6 zone. However, the ALUC allows for Historically Designgied landmark structures to be located on a minimum lot size of 3,000-sq. ft. and this will meet that requirement. The area of Lot B will be 6,000-sq. ft. The caretaker unit meets the ALUC requirements for an AD.U. and is proposed to be used for that purpose. c. The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions o this Chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.470.040 (C) (1) (a). 0 E 161/8/T â‚¬9 80+7 0 Page 3 Response: There have been no previous applications for subdivision exemption or a lot split exemption pertaining to this property. d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this Chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this Title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for there lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this Chapter and growth management allocation to Chapter 26.470. Response: Applicant intends to file and record a subdivision plat subsequent to the Final Approval by HPC and City CounciI with the appropriate language pertaining to restrictions on further subdivision of this property. e. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the Cigr Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Response: It is the intent of the Applicant to meet the requirement of this provision. 0 f. In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. Response: As represented elsewhere in this application, only the non-historic additions to the Historic Residence will be demolished subsequent to the Final Approval byHPC and CityCouncil for Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Lot Split. No demolition or relocation will occur prior to that time. g. Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which maybe composed of a duplex and a single-family home. Response: It iS the intent of the Applicant to relocate the Historic Residence on Lot A to accommodate a proposed new addition and the relocation of the existing Carriage House to be utilized as an A.D.U. This will satisâ‚¬ the R-6 zone requirements for a single-family residence on this lot. Lot B will be designated for future development of one (1) single-family residence, one (1) duplex or Mo (2) detached residences, subject to the regulations of the Aspen Land Use Code. Page 4 EXHÂ·IPIT GI 4 Â®$7 Section 26.480.030 (4) Exemptions for Historic Landmark Lot Split: 3. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The split of a lot that is a designated historic landmark for the development of one new single-famibr dwelling. The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of section 26.88.030 (A) (2), section 26.100.050 (A) (2) (e), section 26.72.0101 (G) of this code, and the following standards: Response: This application includes tile request for Historic Landmark Designation of the existing Historic Residence in conjunction with the incentives that would apply to the Historic Landmark Lot Split It is the intent of the Applicant to comply with all of the applicable requirements of the ALUC a. The original parcel shall bea minimum of nine thousand (9,000) square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or a minim,im of thirteen thousand (13,000) square feet and be located in the R-15A zone district. Response: The original parcel contains eleven thousand seven hundred and seven (11,707) square feet and is located in the R.-6 zone district. b. The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. Response: The total allowable FAR for a duplex On the original parcel is four thousand two hundred forty two square (4,242) feet. The proposed development on Lot A will have two thousand three hundred and two (2302) square feet. Of FAR- For Lot B, the proposed FAR is one thousand nine hundred forty (1940) square feet. The total for both lots will not exceed the maximum allowabk except for bonus FAR allowed by the ALUC for Historic Landmark Residences and ADU's. c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HI?C variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic struaure. Response: The proposed development of Lot A will meet all dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district, with variances and bonuses for the Historic Residence subsequent to Final Approval by HPC and Cigr Council. Lot B will be subject to the ALUC regulat * is pursuant to a future application for development Section 26.480.040 (B) Exempt Subdivision Procedures for Review: 1. Steps Required: One - a Public hearing before City Council. Response: It is the intent of the Applicant to pursue all steps and requirements for review, as pertain to this Application, and obtain approval EX 14Â·18#T 4 5 4-7 Page 5 2. Notice Requirements: None, except for a lot split, which shall require publication, mailing and posting (see 26.304.060 (E) (a), (b) and (c). Response: it is the intent of the Applicant to pursue all steps and requirements for review, as pertain to this Application, and obtain approval. 3. Standards of Review: Section 26.480.050. Response: These standards will be met by this Application 4. Citv Council Action: Ordinance approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving application for subdivision exemption. Response: It is the intent of the Applicant to pursue all steps and requirements for review, as pertain to this application, and obtain approval. Section 26.470.070 Exemptions from Growth Management Competition: The following types of development are exempt from the growth management competition and scoring provision of this Title. Some types of exempt residential and tourist accommodations development are deducted from the pool of annual development allotments and Aspen Metro Area development ceilings; others are not. This Section describes the types of development that are exempt from growth management competition and scoring; conditions and standards, if any, for exemption; and the decision making body responsible for reviewing applications for exemption. C. Historic Landmark Lot Split The construction of each new single-family dwelling on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to Section 26.480.030 (E). This exemption shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotments pursuant to Section 26.470.050 or from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. Exemption review is by the Community Development Director. This exemption shall only apply if the Standards of Section 26.470.070 (B) (1) or (2), as applicable, are met. Response: The requirements of Section 26470.070 (B) will be met by compliance with Standard 1 @, providi, an Accessog Dwelling Unit (ADU) pursuant to Section 26.250. Section 26.415.010 (E) Demolition, Partial Demolition and On-Site Relocation of Historic Structures: 5. Standards for Review of Partial Demolition: No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the III?C finds all of the following standards are met: a. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel a)<Al &/T Q 6 04 7 Page 6 Response: As stated before, onÂ¥ the non-historic additions are to be demolished. They do not contribute to the historic significance and are unusable in the proposed redevelopment of the property in the context of a historic lot split Also, the historic residence is in need of restoration and repair to bring it up to current building code and land use standards. b. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: (1) Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions, and (2) Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions that are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Response: (1) The partial demolition will not impact the historic portion of the structure in an adverse manner. Some of the windows on the East fagade are the result of non- historic remodeling that was done in the late 60's and early 70's. It is the intent of the Applicant to replace these with more historically correct windows that will restore the character of the Lake Avenue streetscape to be more compatible with the neighboring residences. (2) The proposed addition will be entirely behind the historic residence from the Lake Avenue side of the property and will be compatible in mass and scale. Materials will be selected that compliment, but do not imitate the historic portion of the restored residence. 8. Standards for review of on-site relocation. No approval for on-site relocation shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds that the standards of Section 26.415.020 (D) (2),(3) and (4) have been met. If the structure that is to be relocated does not contribute to the historic s*_ ificance of the parcel, only standard 26.415.020 (D) (2) must be met. Response: These sections are not found in the ALUC However, it is the intent of the Applicant to satisfy ally concerns of the HI?C regarding the on-site relocation of the Historic Residence. A licensed house mover has inspected the existing structure and determined that it is feasible to safely relocate the structure oIl-site to set it on a new foundation. 9. Standards for review of temporary relocation. No approval for temporary relocation shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds that the standards of Section 26.415.020 (D) (3) and (4) have been met. ax 4'BIT Gr 7 e T 7 Page 7 0 Response: These sections are not found in the ALUC As stated above, it is the intent of the Applicant to sat:istr any concerns of the HI?C regarding the temporary relocation of the Historic Residence pursuant to its relocation on-site over a new foundation. A licensed homemover has inspected the existing structure and determined that it is feasible to safely relocate the structure temporarily to another area of the site and then move it to its final on-site location. 0 E-*tw D iT tt 44313 C C IAL- CA [El [-1 1/4 1L--1-p-- PORCH Cl . I F--- LIVING E ROOM 1 0 - DINING k G % M ROOM .. .. 9 21 â€¢ 186 KITCHEN ~ 22EI Â» i W-2 9 1 rir Â°u imal 1 1 Le r,4 rn * 1 1 1 1-- ~0' 101 1 jr FOYER 1 Â§98 L -1 1 L - 1 -1 1 U 1 7 1 , > LU ' : ~ LAUNDRY ~ < ~ 2 DOMW' - 1 GARAGE- 1 > [h' 1.4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PANTSY ~I><j an- 2*w 1 4 ~~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 -"7]1 -- bEAT/7 ~I -3 1 - 0 -Al F ~b~ M AST EPA <' 41 -1 - BATH . CL 334 0 ED 0 I le 1 Z %% U 0 8 -0 21 5 - J DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. El -0 U -- --8 ASPEN, CO m611 Cl EXISTING MAIN LEVEL MAN JOB NO. 0009 DATE 11-14-00 EXISTING MAIN LEVEL PLAN SHEET NO. , 45 E211 tt 4 1 1 , 't - D SHEET OF Â© COPYRIGHT OVAES [UNNIFE ARONTECT5 P \0009\0009822_b-exist.dgn 11/13/2000 05.23:06 PM Z956 '3131 * 5Â£418 00 '30[Mn-1131 . 'BAV OCIÂ¥10100 03 0 Z6:3131 . 11919 00 'N3dSÂ¥ . 3AY 31 . ELS[9 00 '31Â¥CINOfINVI) i ZEZ 31If-IS . 5119 03 'SONVMCI3 . 602Â¥ 316 'OAN 3DV11IA SCIHÂ¥MC!3 fl A<441)'IT +1- 2 0 + ll- C 0 cu 8 %*RE 1 1 3 3 1 * 2 5%5~ BEDROOM 1- - 3 h.. Â¥ 9 & STORAGE 1 A------1 co m E 1 9 !9 0% 00-- Â«- DN J~ 11 - 2 mo GU L< Z CO LU O 0 i O 12 2 e BEDROOM -1 4% U .. U - 2 U -3 U :26 LLI DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 EXISTING UPPER LEVEL PLANI JOB NO. 0009 DATE 11-14-00 EXISTING UPPER LEVEL PLAN SHEET NO. . E212 SHEET OF Â©CopÂ¥,GHT CHAK1Â£5 CUNNIFFE AROÂ«TECA P: \0009\0009e23_b.dgn 11/13/2000 05: 29.45 PM 26 :XÂ¥3 . 46Â£9-Â£9 . ZEZ 31InS . -IS NIVW Z05 0 0699-9ZfrOZ 11 . SE+19 OD 'SONÂ¥,W]3 . SOZÂ¥ 31Â§ "a,\19 35)Â¥11:A SCIMÂ¥Mal 9010 * '3AY NYINAH 15Â¥3 00 )cÂ¥3 :31 . SE,Le OD '3(]IMn-I131 . '3AV OCVMO-100 9 0ZZ CK+11*'T H- 9,4 14 ./ /a -othz 2-12Â«Unt 1-1 8 * LU U EAST ELEVATION C-, NORTH ELEVATION E 487=-10I22 D U - El -/4-=1-1-1 LU -1 Z %~ 28 C U t 1,1 DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 SOUTH ELEVATION C-, WEST ELEVATION ~ JOB NO. 0009 ~ 1" = 10' 1" = 10' 1 DATE 11-10-00 1 SHEET NO. E3.1 SHEET OF Â©CO-(}fr CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARO1[TECT5 P: 0009\0009e31.dgn 11/10/2000 09: 04: 11 AM - 60Â£6:XÂ¥3 . 06SS-5Z60Â£6 :3131 . 11911 00 'N3dSV . FIAÂ¥ NVINAH 6026:M . t6Â£9-Â£96(}Z6 :3131 * Â£298 00 '31Â¥CINO93Â¥) . Mt ilins . 'is Z996-QU/DZ6 :XW . BEZE-WELAZ6 ~3131 . SE#L9 02) '3GIWfll-131 . '3AY OCIVAO1O0 3 0ZZ 5999-926'DZ6 :)0,& . 0669-9Z6,026 3131 . ff,19 03 'SC]~Mal . 600Â¢ 315"aA19 3DyllIA SCnlÂ¥MC!3 Soto + *414 /. 15<,+115{T tl- /a '.6 -1 -13- -[Z- Z l EmmE , 1 T.1,1 M r 3 !4 I 't HA!' j.- 6-9 9 3 .. 13.. - u U SOUTH ELEVATION C-, EAST ELEVATION A~"-=-1-3-' 81-"=1-6-' IA,~ Ill + 14 Â· L '1 4 1 2 /2-Al- Ju - 7 - Â· .."'0,~3,~*'11'6111,/1,rlil?*{-99*1%14~.~, #204%** A- - Â· =r.1.--=*e -- 4*9294#irri-~ I - i- i#,8/im lj,rl ~- I. - _7 9 - " 'Al~4' 4yg I 1 i - EaE ~=Ell=1 DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. 1 1,1.1.0.1 ASPEN, CO 81611 ~ ELEVATIONS NORTH ELEVATION C 1 WEST ELEVATION I D k--------------------- ~ JOB NO. 0009 1" = 10' 1" = 10' 1DATE 11-10-00 1 SHEET NO. E3.2 SHEET OF Â© COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS P: \0009\0009232.dgn 11/10/2000 09: 04: 21 AM - Sl)31IHONV 33=liNNAD S31MVHZ) Â£5St-OmOZ6 *Â¥3 . 0655-SZ6/OZ6 ;3131 . LBLe 00 'N3dSV 3/W NYMAH 1SÂ¥3 019 9-â‚¬96026 :XÂ¥3 . 46Â£9-â‚¬96026 :3131 . Â£2919 00 '31Â¥CINODYÂ¥0 . ZEZ 31lf IS . '15 NIVW 2956-BU/026 XVE| 0 0{ZE--BU/026 :3131 . 5Â£41-9 00 '3CIINATI31 . '3AV OCIÂ¥30100 3 9959-926,0Â£6 :rÂ¥3 . 0659-9260Â£6 :3131 . SEn9 OD 'SONVMC]3 . 90ZY 315 "aA-19 39Â¥11IA SONVMC]3 90W EXI+1 PIT !+ 60+ 14 C C â€¢ CA Cl 1 C] 1 Ir C DINING CS & 1 1% El ROOM A- 32 1 l_/VING U $55 ROOM A- KITCHEN 7- LU 1 Z LO L - i 3-Â·/ At Â« Forg~ ~ - DCN' N 4 --, 57 1.L tin > LU - MASTER 4% 3~-=u BEDROOM BATH ] -D LE U -- 21 9 -1 50 e 72 *9 Z O 1 32 6/2 U Â§819 - - - ~ ASPEN, CO 81611 DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. 13 - O 1-1 1 El 0 0 El HISTORIC MAIN LEVEL PLAN JOB NO. 0009 DATE 11-14-00 HISTORIC MAIN LEVEL PLAN SHEET NO. -/ 1" = 10' H2.1 SHEET OF Â©COPYR,aff OUUOES CUINNIFFE ARC},TECTS P \0009\0009a22_b-historic .dgn 11/13/2000 05: 23: 27 PM Â£551-0*Â£6 XÂ¥3 5 -5160Â£6 ;3131 . LWW 00 'N3dSV . 3/W NYMAH 9 Â£6:XVI * *6Â£9-Â£ 60Â£6 ~3131 * EZ98 00 '31Â¥CINOWY) * :XVH . BELE-BEL/026 :3131 * SE*LA 00 '3(111(TI-131 . 26 :)(Â¥3 . 0659-9Z60Â£6 :3131 . 5Â£,19 01 '5(]rmÂ£13 . SOZY 315 "CIA19 39VlllA SCINVM(13 SOLO BAHIBIT 14 641+ C {2 U 1 1 LU BEDROOM 7 STORAGE Z U C< F -J g 1 1 14 1. 9 C D %3 D BEDROOM DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 HISTORIC UPPER LEVEL PLAN JOB NO. 0009 DATE 11-14-00 HISTORICAL UPPER LEVEL PLAN SHEET NO. 1" = 10' H2.2 SHEET OF (Â© CO-C}T 01Â«LES CUNhmÂ·FE AROÂ«TRZT5 P: \0009\0009823_b-historic.dgn 11/13/2000 05.24.49 PM Â£5St-0/6/0Â£6 #3 . 0659-SZ6OZ6 3131 . 119t8 OD 'N) . NIAÂ¥ NMAH lSÂ¥3 019 66Â£9-Â£96/026 :XÂ¥3 . t6Â£9-Â£96OZ6 3131. Â£Z919 00'31Â¥CINO8 . ZEZ 31]ng . -15 NIVW 205 Z956-9L0DZ6 XÂ¥31 . 9EZE-BZZ/OZ6 :3131 . SE*I.9 O:) '30!Wrl-131 . 3AV OCIVMO1O0 3 0ZZ 6959-926#Z6 :)0Â¥:I . 0659-9Z6OÂ£6 :1131 . 6Â£419 03 'SC]1Â¥MCI3 . SOZY 315 "GA-18 39~11IA SCIPÂ¥MCE 6010 D SEI-lklr 1-ID mq-1Â·115 11- Â·IAÂ· 7 e+l't- C 002 d LO' 1> JlrUltilll: - L LU Z U LU EAST ELEVATION (APPROX.) NORTH ELEVATION (APPROX.) LL 1" = 10' 1" = 10' 0 D i U Mid . -71 1---- (,9 @ 4 Â¢Nâ€¢ LU 2 - 9 - 1 270 4 2 0 t< O r U ZO Z 2U ~ 66; an N 8g DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 HISTORIC HOUSE ELFÂ¢ATIONS SOUTH ELEVATION (APPROX.) WEST ELEVATION (APPROX.) JOB NO. 0009 W =10' 1" =10' DATE 11--14-00 SHEET NO. H3.1 SHEET OF Â©COn,3GHT OMUS CUNNIFFE ARCHITICTS P: \0009\0009h31.dgn 12/14/2000 02: 37: 09 PM Z5St,-0ZGOZ6 :XÂ¥3 . 0656-SZ6/DZ6 :3131 . U9LR 00 'N3dSV . -3AV NYWAH 19Â¢3 019 66Â£9-â‚¬96Â©Z6 :X'Â¢3 . 46Â£9-Â£94026 :3131 . EZ919 00'31 Â£996-914026 :)~41 . WEZE-WUDZ6 ~31=11 . SE,Le 00 'ial>Inl 5999-9Z6026 :)&4! . 0669-926026 3131 * 5Â£419 00 'SODIVMOR . GOZÂ¥ 316 "aA-19 3DÂ¥11IA SONÂ¥MCH 6010 EX++115 Ir A S o+ It â€¢ CA h W 00 /-,- -A s li li I il ~2) li 1 C. 1/ f MECHANICAL 01 L up IlL:/t E Lu 95>l -L~ft FAMILY STORAGE 22 L 14 3 - BEDROOM *2U -~L :2 6 El . 11 11 BEDROOM #3 . N 1 2 . C . I . 1 -7 Fiirv r=== 1 1 %% LW. L.W. ' Z DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 LOWER LEVEL PLAN PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL PLAN JOB NO. 0009 DATE 11-14-00 SHEET NO. P2.1 SHEET 01. Â©COPmK}IT O14LES Cl.NAFFE ARCHITECTS P: \0009\0009821_b.dgn 11/13/2000 04: 24: 09 PM S1331!HDMV 3:I:liNNAD 53-INVHD ZSSt,-0Z6/0Â£6 :XV:I . 06SS-SZ60Â£6 :3131 . 119[9 00'N NYINAH 15Â¥3 00 66Â£9-Â£96,026 :XY: . 46Â£9-â‚¬960Â£6 :3131 * Â£1919 03 '31YONO UP . REZE-BE*0263131 . SEâ€¢18 OD '3al>I 1 * '3AV OCIÂ¥30-103 3 0ZZ Â£6 :rÂ¥3 . 0669-926{)Â£6 Illl . SE,19 03 '5(nIVMC]3. 502Â¥ 316' DA18 39Â¥TltA SONVMC]3 SOLO EXHi & tr tt 90+ ll- C C LOT B -7 nu 3 2 -0" 17-0" 25 -6" 25 - 5% 1 01 -0" CA 1 1 42 -9 / PROPOSED ADDITION HISTORIC RESIDENCE . EXISTING CARRIAGE HOUSE 1 0 CONCRETE WALKWAY ~||~ NEW DECK El 0 1 6*BE 4 1%61 29 0 STUDY -ht 62 41 U %Â§%* ' V 67 -v- 4 i E g 0 --1 EL /2 L A ZATF Z . 4-- 1 i - VEST,43 e LAUNDRY ~- 1 2 .11 Â»2921_3 r=41 - BU 1 1 11 K uP Â· 1 1 > 1 1 . O 914\ 2 2 CED /--i (D +--7-'- . Â· Â· 1' ' 41 1 -, 11 L, ilÂ£ 1 1 --------E 3 1-2 1 b Q L '1> ForER I E LL - _- ( 1-11 AfASTER U il> L L 24- 4 _U i. - - E-~-1- A 4~~R'~ ~ Cl 1 V 000= p Eli 1 GARAGE - - 7.11 BATH I ~ CO MECH/ 0 STORAGE \ N- 1,-lr----,~r--â‚¬-7Â¢ 5 00 1 U 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 44 7--#e"vA--~Hll7 ~~~TF~ORM + 2 -3 -2-2.1-----2 0 0 -1.---------_--J U -1 al'loILL I L. W. Il L. W. c -* 1 0 1 ... iL@f L -'---- 1 + m 37/-011 PATIO *MN@ 9 . 1 E U BREE b **ING LOT A DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. - 0 U- 1 --3 - ASPEN, CO 81611 0 0 *- Cl PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL PLAN JOB NO. 0009 DATE 11-14-00 MAIN LEVEL PLAN SHEET NO. -/ 1" = 10' P2.2 SHEET OF Â©COFÂ®GHT CHAAES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECT5 P: \0009\0009822 b.dgn 11/13/2000 05: 19: 55 PM Â£6: . 46Â£9- Â£96026 :3131 . EZ9[9 00 '31Â¥GNOfiMÂ¥) . 0655-SZ6OÂ£6 3131 . WELE-@ZO0Z6 3131 . S 00 '3OINATELL. '3AV 26 :m . 0699-9ZGOÂ£6 :3131 . SE)W O] 'SaiÂ¥MC]3. forÂ¥ 316 ' C]Ale 39 f D~~il / . .1 Ex{-110'T H to 4 14 C 0 CE -' -ln %0 1 11 111 111 11111111 21.90 u xu- =- 1 [~j K/TCHEN Z - m LL -- "M R DINING 1 U mm U LIVING/DINING ROOM r--17 *1 3 i ROOM t I DN t 1- _, Ejubzj jILL E I A. D. U. ~~ 441 2 Z - -JL dll- - HIVING SED/?00/1/1 J~ 3 11_1 E - U /3 - *--i- 3 921~ /1/ ,[23 1 62 0 - t- 1 DECK \ 4 4 =11 1 1 . . 4 i Z g I U 2g ~-O - DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL PlAN JOB NO. 0009 DATE 11-14-00 UPPER LEVEL PLAN SHEET NO. 1" = 10' P2.3 SHEET OF Â©COPYRIGHT OIUt.ES CUNNIFFE AROÂ«TECTS p: \0009\0009823-b.Ign Dec. 20, 2000 11: 58: 36 Â£5Sk-OZ60Â£6 ;XV:1 . 065S-SZ60Â£6 ;3131 . 11919 00' 66Â£9-Â£96OZ6 m * 46Â£9-Â£94026 ~3131 . EZ9[8 00 '3-IV(]NOEI . ZEZ 3.LIAS . 15 . 9-9Z6O26 3131 . 9Â£419 01 'SOMÂ¥Mal . SOZY 316 "CA18 39Â¥11IA SaNVMC13 9010 9â‚¬ZE-92/0Â£6 ~3131 . SEN.9 OD '3011(11131 . SAY OOVMO-1003 02 2Â»HIBIT H L 1 4 ,4 W. ' Ils, E &@.2 111 1 4 1 1. 1 11111 I!I 111; 11.11,11 lili ~</242 U Â§%Â§E -1112~ 1 9 9% 1 1 2 Z Eli Mil 41\ 11 1 U ' 1' 1 -LU 1 1 1 U ' h 1.- 41 Eli | C\,1 LL 1 -7/1 4- t 1 4. l.0 ./. tyl ~ c /O:/2 10:12 , 2 1 ' 5 ---__-_____ < 342 12:/2 > Z 1 - 19 - - 1 1 L---1 | | | 1 1 1 1 U 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LLI -1 - - t23/8- ~ 2% U 8 2 DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 ~~PROPOSED_1 ~ ROOF PLAN ~ ROOF PLAN SHEET NO. 1" = 10' P2.4 Irl Â©COPY,C}IT CHARLES (UNNIHE ARO#TECTS P \0009\0009824_b .dgn 12/14/2000 02: 35: 28 PM 26 3 . 0659-5140Â£6 :3131 . 11919 00 'N3dSV . *IAV NVWAH . 46Â£9-â‚¬94026 ~3131 . Â£29LB 01 '31Â¥GNOGNYJ . ZEZ 3-LInS * '15 Z6 Xyd . 9EZE-BU/DZ6 ~3131 . 5â‚¬48 OI) '30[1nl131 * '3AV OCIVHO1O0 03 0ZZ :XY:I . 0659-926026 3131 . SE+19 03 'SONÂ¥MC13 . SOLV 316 "CIA-19 3DY1-IA 5CINVMC]3 5010 8%14-1 B iT 1+ 19 0Â¥ 14 /. @8 111 I 1 1 lili 11 111111 1!ibl':11 11:111,1 1~ill' Ili'111111[1~~': 1 1 1 11 1" ,~11 lili ! 1,0 lillill 4 EXISTING CEDAR SHAKE - ROOF TO BE REPLACED WITH CEDAR SHjNGLES 1-1 ORIGINAL WOOD LAP SIDING & TRIM (RESTORED AND PAINTED) BEE EB PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION /-n (LAKE AVENUE) c 1- 11 1 11 111111 1 1 11111111 lilli 111 RUSTING CORRUGATED lili 111 11 METAL ROOFING & 111'll 111111 1111~11 lili '111'111 1 11 ': 111111 1 ~11111 'lilli 11'11.11 1~11'1~11 I ul' 11 1 11 11 11 1 11 1 11 1 1 WOOD FASCLA & 8 T/?/u (PAINTED) DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. VERTICAL R. S. CHANNEL - ASPEN, CO 81611 RUSTIC CEDAR SIDING (STANDARD) ORIGINAL WOOD LAP 1 PROPOSED EAST 1 SIDING & TRIM -AND-WESTELEVATIONS-~ (RESTORED & PAINTED) 1JOB NO. 9999_1 EX-1_CARRIAGEHOUSE 1 DATE n-14-00 1 SHEET NO. PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION PROPOSED COMPOSITE WEST g--a OF ADDITION /--n ELEVATION (THIRD STREET) P3.1 31"-2-1-6-' r-1 Â© OOPYRIGHT CHARUS CUN,4[FE AROÂ«TECTS P: 0009\0009a31.dgn 12/14/2000 02: 36: 03 PM S13311HZ)ZIV 33:liNNAD S31ZIVHD LSGt--OZ60Â£6 Xy:1 . 0699-526026 3131 . L[919 00 'N3dSV . -3A Â¥kNAH lS'Â¢3 019 66Â£9-â‚¬960Â£6 XÂ¥3 . 46E9-Â£96026 ~3131 . Â£1919 00 '31Â¥CINORMVE) . ZEZ 3 I Z9S6-9U/026 :)(Â¥3 . BELE-9ZL/0Z6 :3131 . SEN.9 C):) '3(11*fr!131 * '3AV OCIVMO1O3 9 0ZZ 5999-926,026 XÂ¥:1 . 0659-9160Â£6 3131 . SE*:8 00 'SC]NVMC13 . 902Â¥ 319 "GA19 3DÂ¥11IA 503Â¥Mal SOLO E-KI+I DIT 4-1 le e.tlt ' WOOD FASCIA & TRIM (PAINTED) RUSTING CORRUGATED METAL ROOFING VERTICAL R. S. CHANNEL - ORIGINAL WOOD LAP RUSTIC CEDAR SIDING SIDING & TRIM :1111111111111111111111 1 (STANDARD) (RESTORED & PAINTED) EXISTING CEDAR SHAKE 00 ROOF TO BE REPLACED WITH CEDAR SH/NGLES 11111111 1 Fll Z lili OIl' 1 ',1 mmmm J*5I ORIGINAL WOOD LAP SIDING BE & TRIM (RESTORED AND PAINTED) U U 83 HISTORIC RESIDENCE PROPOSED ADDITION EX'G CARRIAGE HOUSE - 1 1- % U= 00 Z PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION % c 1 - LU 1" = 10' Z D WOOD FASC/A & U TRIM (PAINTED) - RUSTING CORRUGATED M METAL ROOFING LU VERTICAL R. S. CHANNEL - RUSTIC CEDAR SIDING R-- EXISTING CEDAR SHAKE Ck (STANDARD) 1 111 11 11 lili d 1111111111111 111 1 1 1 WITH CEDAR SHINGLES 1 1 ~ROOP- TO BE REPLACED f U & 51 8 U /- DAGGS RESIDENCE 640 N. THIRD ST. ~ ' ASPEN, CO 81611 1[Ill %%%% 8 m m ROÂ«LJ ORIGINAL WOOD LAP ~ ~ ~ 0 D-SOUTH-EZYN!91 S/DING & TRIM ~ (RESTORED & PAINTED) 1 JOB NO. 0009 1 EX'G CARRIAGE HOUSE PROPOSED ADDITION HISTORIC RESIDENCE SHEET NO. PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION P3.2 Â£2- - 1" = 10' r-1 Â©COPYRK}IT CHARLE5 CUNNIFFE ARCHÂ«TECTÂ·5 P: \0009\0009832. dgn 12/14/2000 02: 36: 32 PM - < L~ ;;171; 069 ~0,6 113~ . 53*19 00'sai,YM03 - SOZÂ¥ 115 "OA19 39Â¥11IA EGSÂ¥MC]3 90 10 :M . 5-6160 6 ~3131 . 119[9 00'N3dSÂ¥ * 03AV NWWAH Â£6 :XÂ¥3 . *6â‚¬9-â‚¬960Z6 :3131 . Â£3919 00 '3!KINOEINVI) . ZEZ 31lnS . 15 â€¢ E--BURZ6 1191 * SE,18 03 '3012In1131 . '3AV OCIV1O1O0 '3 0ZZ 8*Jpy 1-1- FAR INFORMATION - EXISTING |~PMENT f. A . // (A) SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE SECOND FLOOR 6289 SO. FT. 12 FIRST FLOOR Â·19651 SO. FT. TOTAL 25945 SO. FT. I RÂ« --4*#~ff j j~1-~fffjn~ (B) A.D.U. Â© GARAGE i//Ill\ FIRST FLOOR MECH/STORAGE 759 SO. FT. /020.3 SO. FT. ~/ / l SECOND FLOOR LIVING SPACE Â·6630 SO. FT. TOT AL 7389 SO. FT. EÂ»3424*2~E (C) GARAGE TOTAL AREA 6299 SO. FT. FAR AREA 6293 SO. FT. -250.0 SO. FT. (EXEMPT) 3799 SQ. FT. B -1250 SQ. FT. (250/2) U-1 ~~~ TOTAL 2549 SO. FT. 1 (llti z U *3! R TOTAL EXISTING FAR C (N 25945 SO. FT. f (B) 7743 SO. FT. ~ UPPER LEVEL FAR INFORMATION co +254.9 SO. FT. bd N.T.S. ~ 3623.8 SO. FT. ~ TOTAL FAR ALLOWED FOR ORIGINAL PROPERTY: 4,242 SQ. FT. &18:6 Â» l / l/ //l- / / ~ / ll/ -f- ~ ~ ~f~Alf -/ 014 fÂ» i - Â» U *62 FAR INFORMATION - HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT .MO 1[\\16 4 1 LU -1 SECOND FLOOR 628.9 So. FT. % FIRST FLOOR Â·960.6 SO. FT. - 4Â«1 /37.0 SO. FT. ~ TOTAL ~ /589.5 SO. FT. ~ Z gir U 2518 / / / 14185 SO. FT. Ill'111 11111/1 - FAR INFORMATION - PROPOSED LOT A DEVELOPMENT 7999/2 (A) SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE a FIRST FLOOR 1418.6 SO. FT. SECOND FLOOR /020-3 SO. FT. W LONER LEVEL (2277.7 x .07448) Â·169.6 SQ. FT. TOTAL 26085 SO. FT. , CO 0 (B) AD.U. Â© GARAGE a SECOND FLOOR LVING SPACE 6630 SO. FT. FIRST FLOOR UVING SPACE 137 D SO. FT. 9 -800.0 SO. FT. (EXEMPT) O ~ MAIN LEVEL FAR INFORMATION TOT AL OD SO FT. U N.T.S. U. (C) GARAGE 2 TOTAL AREA 568B SO. FT. -37500 SO. FT. (EXEMPT) TOTAL 193,8 SO. FT. 1/ l., .'.. 1 1-Â·riilli,jilli /j/il~/ i TOTAL FAR 26085 SO. FT. FAR INFORMATION (A) (B) 00 SO. FT. ~ ~f ~22777 so. FT. (C) Â·193B SO. FT. ~2802.3 SO. FT. ~ JOB NO. 0009 '11 1 lilill 1 1 FAR ALOCATED TO LOT A 28023 SQ. FT. DATE 1048-00 1 1 - 1 C ' HISTORIC BONUS -5000 SO. FT. TOTAL FAR ALOCATED TO LOT A ~23023 SO. FT.~ SHEET NO. 17////////// 111 l, REMAINING FAR ALOCATED TO LOT B FAR 1///l, TOTAL FAR FOR BOTH LOTS 42420 SO. FT. TOTAL FAR ALOCATED TO LOT A -23023 SQ. FT. ~ LOWER LEVEL FAR INFORMATION TOTAL FAR ALOCATED TO LOT B ~ 19397 SQ. FT.~ SHEET OF N. T.S. @Cor//)T O.-ES IN'FE ....rKIS P: \0009\0009far.dgn 11/06/2000 02: 16: 25 PM Ms 4(]26 900 0 0659-9260Â£6:1111. 5Â£,19 03 'SalÂ¥N,]2 ZÂ¥ 315 'Â·O,Ala 39Â¥TILA 50*MO] 5010 . 5--St60Â£6:nal . 119t9 . 9 Â£-920,6 :*31 . 5Â£,1 0 (MIHI HOON 0*9 . 46 940Â£6 :nat , [Z919 03'31 NBC)193>1 SDDVG OCT-12-2000 THU 11:20 AM FAX NO. ..ill'li...... EXHIBIT.2- 1 ifig~16 Fl 164 ( ~4 / 0~ C ( / 52/ t/ ~~9#L&~.~ ~ 69 050 . County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060(E) L MiÂ»- 45 , being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen. personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following manner: 1. By mailing ofnotice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail zo all owners ofproperty within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the altached list, on tlie ,24ly of J/Gdd/1Ky, 2001 (which is ~Olays pbor to the public hearing date of lf/Â£06( ) 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visib]e continuously from the 26~ay of JAW*IfY , 200_L to the /~ay of /~200 / . (Must be posted for at least ~ ten (10) full days befol-ethehearing date). Aphotographofthe pyst*1(5$*nis attached hereto. Signature - . i , , Signed before me tizistbilay of 30Â·t~~*4rk- PUBUC NOTICE NO VA[ AN f y DATE 2001_Â· by~ .40163/3 .1 al, SE -f . WrINESS MY HAND AND OFFICIA,N'AL....Â·:149~/ My Commission expires: 3/4)03 - Notary Public 4 C*Mgnaâ€¢#0â€¢ Cal 1,Â£/34Â«1 4-- ' aLL - A-11 *AL 10-Â»2* râ€¢= MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Community Development Deputy Director - FROM: Fred Jarman, Planner f.'S ' RE: Christiania Lodge -Conceptual Review / PUBLIC IIEARING DATE: February 14*,2001 PROJECT: CHRISTANIA LODGE - CONCEPTUAL REVIEW REQUEST: > Demolition > On-Site Relocation > Addition of 2 new lodge building buildings PUBLIC HEARING: Yes DATE: February 14th, 2001 ZONING: 1 Office Zone District k Lodge Preservation Overlay > Main Street Historic Overlay PROCESS: Conceptual Review Historic Preservation Commission Final Review Historic< Preservation Commission STAFF Approval with Conditions RECOMMENDATION: Summarg of Request The owners ofthe Christiania Lodge are requesting a Significant Development Review before the Historic Preservation Commission to conduct the following actions during a conceptual review: 1) On-site Relocation of two pan-abodes and the Callahan Cabin; 2) Demolition of a one-story dark brown structure located on the corner of 5th and Main Streets; 3) Construction oftwo new buildings; a triplex and fourplex; and 4) Remodeling the existing main lodge structure, existing duplex and fourplex located on the alley. 1 background The applicant, LLC / Austin Lawrence Partners, represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning, is requesting Conceptual Review before the HPC to 1) relocate three buildings on-site, 2) demolish a non-contributing structure, and 3) receive design approval for a proposed triplex and fourplex and an exterior remodel of the existing main lodge structure, fourplex, and duplex. The site is located at 501 West Main Street in the Office Zone District. Other applicable zoning districts include the Main Street Historic Overlay and Lodge Preservation Overlay District. The site is comprised of Lots A - I, Block 31, and contains 27,000 square feet. The site currently contains the Christiania Lodge which incorporates a main lodge building, a fourplex and duplex, two pan-abodes, the Callahan cabin, a one-story structure, a pool, mature spruce trees and lilac hedge, and an irrigation ditch (not on the property) serving cottonwood street trees along the property's Main Street frontage. The applicant has previously approached the HPC through work sessions and a site visit with potential site plan designs incorporating a variety of building designs prior to this application. The HPC was consistently concerned with earlier versions of the proposed development due to the project's massing and scale, site plan design regarding the relationship to the historic cabin, and the entire project's relationship to the historic Main Street corridor /streetscape. As a matter of process, the applicant intends to appear before the HPC through this Significant Development Review prior to continuing forward to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) request where they propose to vary the underlying zoning's dimensional requirements. Issues for Discussion This property is being reviewed by the HPC because 1) it is currently listed on Aspen's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures because it contains the Callahan Cabin and 2) the site is located in the Main Street Historic Overlay. This redevelopment of the site includes several elements that require specific attention. This section will discuss the proposed 1) relocation of three buildings on-site, 2) demolition of a non-contributing building, and 3) design approval for a proposed triplex and fourplex and an exterior remodel of the existing main lodge, fourplex, and duplex. 1) On-site Relocation The applicant proposes to relocate three structures on the site. Specifically, the applicant proposes to relocate two pan-abodes and the Callahan Cabin, from their current locations at the rear and center of the property adjacent to the alley to the Main Street frontage. The Land Use Code [the "Code"] and the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines [the "Guidelines"] contain review criteria and guiding language regarding on-site relocations that will apply to this request. 2 '-~ + *'-*-*r:E|JICJ~ The Callahan Iog cabin (shown at right), 3 ~'4â€¢ob~ built inthe 1880's, is a simple gable- 4 J..,gÂ·J,ratmrÂ·32, A</'-/~T 69&~-ymi- , roofed structure made of hand hewn Wrivit : Iig/ 4 - 02 4, lib,Bill L f .41 chinked logs with board and batten siding *62:~ 1 11Â¢f~ in the gable ends. There are paired, six :. 6. 1 4~~~~/Il/- = light easement windows along the north ilk'I--1 ET li~-e'l:.WA and south sides ofthe building. The cabin, ' according to the Architectural Inventory 1 - 4% -' Form is of the Late Victorian architectural style / building type. The cabin was -- relocated from its original location on the siteinthe 1950's. The Callahan Cabin remains as the only original structure on the site; the lodge buildings were developed around it in the 1950's and remodeled in the 1960's and the pan-abodes were constructed in 1962. The property was initially placed on the inventory because of the Callahan Cabin. This structure is believed to represent the earliest type of permanent home in Aspen. It was originally located in the center of the block, with the gable end facing the street. di ' , It was subsequently moved to its 1/3......im=/6 1. m- to the right). Other structures on the ~ ~- site, which were built in the 1950's y Â¥X - P'.â€ž9.'-I'/-'.-W' .--.9 and 1960's for the Aspenhof and then 4 #A * N. Christiania Lodges may have achieved significance, particularly .~ ---puM two excellent examples of Pan Abode & 4 3 % i i . cabins (built in 1962) along the alley. 14 t 1 aLL:.1 3 The current locations of the pan-abodes (shown below) are at the rear of the site adjacent to the alley and somewhat hidden by large spruce trees and the pool area. The Callahan Cabin is located in the center of the lot and also obscured by large spruce trees. Staff finds that relocating the Callahan Cabin and the two pan-abodes to the front of the lot on /#F: a ?Â· 41.<~~ better promote their historic 6.NE"/-/*14'=14;. >. > the Main Street frontage will significance and establish a strong presence to the Historic Main Street corridor < similar to the L'Auberge adding to the pedestrian 9 3 9 29 experience. The Guidelines TArâ€¢-11 iT1, 9 2 : .Â« (see Chapter 9 of the lill Iii It lilli it i il' - , Guidelines) indicate that relocation of historic 3 structures their original site may be possible if doing so will accommodate other 0 compatible improvements that will insure preservation. Staff supports the relocation of these three structures. 2) Demolition of the Non-Contributing Structure / Exemption From Demolition The applicant wishes to obtain an exemption#om demolition to demolish a single-story structure currently located on the corner of 5th and Main Streets. The structure is not mentioned on the Architectural Inventory Form as having any significance. In the past, the structure has been used as a lodge unit. Once demolished, the applicant proposes to replace the structure with a two-story triplex. While there are no review standards in the Code for the demolition of non-contributing structures, the HPC is the final decision making body that allows these structures to be demolished because they are located on sites that have HPC review and will evaluate this request against the conditions in the Code Section 26.415.010(ID(10)] . Please refer to Exhibit D for the specific response to these conditions. Staff finds that the structure does not add to the historic significance of the lot and therefore recommends the HPC grant the applicant approval to demolish the structure. 3) Design Review for Existing Main Lodge, Fourplex, and New Triplex and Duplex The HPC has the review authority over development on the entire site because of the significance of the Callahan Cabin. Specifically, the HPC reviews the actions proposed 0 for the historic resource as well as the design and location of new buildings so that scale, massing, materials, relationships between structures on the site and the way the entire site contributes to the surrounding properties. In this case, the proposed development includes both review of an inventoried structure as well as design review for new structures. The applicant has presented several site design scenarios to the HPC and subsequently received a considerable constructive response. This section will discuss the design ofthe new structures, the facelifts of the existing structures, and the relocation of the Callahan Cabin and the two pan-abodes as they relate to the Main Street Historic District. a. The Main Lodge Structure The applicant proposes this structure to remain as the main focus and largest structure on the site located on the corner of 4~h and Main Streets. This is the most prominent, visible, and defining structure on the site with major elevations on Main and 4~ Streets. The signature elements ofthe building's exterior are the existing chimney and a proposed conical tower. Contrary to the applicant's description of the conical tower distinguishing the site as a lodge, Staff finds that conical towers are, in fact, signature elements of the Late Victorian style or Queen Ann architectural style most prevalent in the mid-19~ century. Further, the height of the proposed conical tower from the wood fascia is approximately 18 feet tall making the structure 36 feet tall to the tower's peak. Other towers, turrets, spires, 0 4 rooftop sculptures, etc.,atop buildings along Main Street do not match the considerable size of the proposed conical tower. Staff is concerned that the applicant is proposing a confused design by incorporating major elements from distinctly different architectural styles. The Christia:nia Lodge's current architecture represents a European Chalet Style that is reflected throughout the other larger lodge buildings on the site except for the cabin and pan-abodes. Staff recommends the applicant choose a particular style and maintain that style's defining characteristics rather than attempting to create a mix, which confuses the viewer. b. Existing Duplex Redesign The proposed elevations show a large number or variety of materials including cedar shingling, horizontal and vertical wood siding with different board widths, and stone veneer that appear to make the building confusing. Staffwould like to see a simplifying of materials on the proposed redesign of the existing duplex similar to the use of materials on the main lodge structure and proposed triplex on the Main Street frontage. c. Existing Fourplex Redesign The proposed elevations show a large number or variety of materials including cedar shingling, horizontal and vertical wood siding with different board widths, and stone veneer that appear to make the building confusing. Staff would like to see a simplifying of materials on the proposed redesign of the existing fourplex similar to the use of materials on the main lodge structure and proposed triplex on the Main Street frontage. d. New Fourplex Staffis seriously concerned with the massing and scale of this structure. (Please refer to the streetscape drawings on the next page.) While the structure is set back on the site and removed somewhat from Main Street, its mere mass and scale appear to overwhelm the Callahan Cabin as well as the main lodge building. The underlying zoning allows for structures to be no taller than 25 feet. This proposed fourplex appears to be 33 feet tall to the ridge of the roof (the structure's highest point). It is clear that the applicant intends to request a Planned Unit Development process that provides the ability to vary dimensional requirements for the underlying zone district. It is in this forum that the applicant wishes to request that the height requirement be relaxed to accommodate this structure. These three structures read as one very large mass of buildings as one looks from Fourth to Fifth Streets. In addition, the structure is the tallest on the entire half block. Staffrecommends the HPC seriously consider the size of this structure and its relationship to other structures on the lot as well as across the alley towards the Boomerang Lodge. Staff recommends the HPC not approve this structure as represented in this application as part of this conceptual review for these reasons. 5 e. New Triplex Staff is encouraged by the design of the proposed triplex. This structure is a key building because it is located on the corner of 5th and Main Streets and would be very visible on both of those elevations. In addition, the relationship the triplex will have with the relocated pan-abodes and Callahan Cabin on the Main Street frontage is also very important. Specifically, the triplex intends to maintain a sensitive relationship with these smaller single-story structures that have front porches. Staff finds that inflection is achieved with this design. Further, the front porches add to the approachability of the structure, pedestrian experience, and reinforce the Main Street streetscape consistent with the adjacent pan-abodes, Callahan Cabin, and the main entrance to the main lodge building. 4) Design in the Main Street Historic District Historically, development in the Main Street Historic District began with housing built during the early mining era in Aspen followed by a few small, commercial businesses on corners in the neighborhood. Trees, typical of a residential area, dominated the early streetscape in this area. Starting in the 1940s, development of lodging occurred, either as stand-alone hotels and motels or as bed and breakfasts. While some of these more recent buildings may also be of significance, they do not establish the historic context for Main Street. The Historic Preservation Design Guidelines [the "Guidelines"] maintain a policy that: Creative solutions that are compatible with the historic mining character of the Main Street Historic District are strongly encouraged, while designs that seek to contrast with the existing context simply for the sake of being different are discouraged. This will help protect the established character of the district, while also allowing new, compatible design. The Goal for the Main Street Historic District is to preserve the primary period of significance for Main Street - the mining era in Aspen. The primary goal is to preserve this character while accommodating compatible changes. In addition, individual buildings from later periods may also be of historic significance and should be preserved. In the effort to achieve this goal, certain elements should be considered such as building width, building and roof form, materials, architectural details, windows and doors, and so forth. The applicant proposes a face-lift to three existing buildings on the site including the main lodge building, a fourplex, and a duplex. The proposed development also includes the construction of a new triplex and the relocation of the Callahan Cabin and two pan- abodes from their current locations to the front of the site to take more prominent positions on the Main Street frontage. As one walks east from the corner of 5th and Main Streets and passes in front of the redeveloped lot, the way these buildings are designed and arranged will have a profound effect on the pedestrian experience. (Please refer to 6 ARCHITECTS 119 S, SPRING ST. ASPEN, COLORADO 970-925Â·2100 970-925-2258 FAX steve@strykerbrown.com strykerbrown.com 9*8 9 / ' L ti~> 1111..0-, I al.Â·1 I 1~4,;~*41.i~ 1, -, 1911*ceÂ« / - mit li 11 . . 1 -./ 11 ..0 % 1 ~ 1-r 1 1 - ..1/911.....LE--27 ~t-*-- Â»lili mLM i 1 -r'":;-: ~ r~ 97. ~7~~ 1 1 ---- -m ~*[Â¤1*- I~Il@i]~~I]~~~ ul > ji*-@4 m~Â¤3-I@Itift@Fs@Ele * <stÂ©fea 1. It' 1 1,1 1 1 L . i. ,1 . ~ .. , ~, ... n - 1 ___ ____ __Li,i lia,EQ*ki*&gr#*,--1-- ES 1 1 1 1 1 1 9,49Â«*2.*-Â«2**Â§5 9'*Â·Â» LOG CABIN - NORTH PANABODE- PANABODE- NEW THREEPLEX- LODGE NORTH ELEVATION ELEVATION NQBT].1.~E#LE.VAIIQ.N. NORTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION BLOCK NORTH ELEVATION- BUILDINGS ON ALLEY NOT SHOWN 33~ A. 521* Jt A ./ 1 i Â·'.1:936..1:4 ~. ~ 4 '. lit* ' 02* '3IFIE 1,2 . Emai ov \ r - 811@0* 1--- - CILC=40 â‚¬Eek / CHRISTIANIA LODGE 1 ~1 IN 4 1 -97 Ul... h'=2.-*11-41 1:, b. =/.-514- r- 54#'-3Â£53<4 ,#*1â€¢'2-I..&,i;%44&-*-~ .s-~5~14434-3-fi--~-=-2=ii:*~~1187 and APARTMENTS ' ./4-- - - ASPEN, COLORADO . =64*:991Â» c -- -71 - Â· =C~~~~~-~1 /26#til~â€¢2'-~-~~-= tr-,f*i El,41 ( m 9 Â· ~ 0& 500 W. MAIN STREET ,-.:*n p z-#t--,~ ,-A\, . 1#-H 1; .524 0 0 %33 Ul-2 i ~~E'~41. 1%18*@3 ~r-:f@%4@i laIYE~- ~~~AJT 8-,111 - 1 - p,muL#tudepiftw , - 1 1 1, 2 *:12Â·5<22'2.... 79Â·28Â§- y.mm,JECT-ZEr PANABODE- PANABODE- NEW THREEPLEX- LOG CABIN - NORTH NORTHÂ·ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION LODGE NORTH ELEVATION ELEVATION NEW FOURPLEX- EXISTING FOURPLEX- EXISTING DUPLEX- 7 FEB 21]01 1 1['C APPROVAL NORTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION (BEHIND) (BEHIND) (BEHIND) BLOCK NORTH ELEVATION- BUILDINGS ON ALLEY SHOWN AS GHOSTS SITE NORT! 1 ELEVATION - PHASE 11 r = 1(N)" St Al.E FOR 24" X 36" SHEETS 1 ' = 20'-(] SCALF FOR 11" X 17" SHEETS A-3.1 the comprehensive Main Street elevation that includes all the proposed buildings as seen from the street.) The HPC is charged with determining whether this proposed development meets the goals the Guidelines are attempting to achieve; namely, to preserve this [historic Main Street] character while accommodating compatible changes. Staff Recommendation Staffrecommends the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Conceptual Review for a Significant Development Review request for 1) an On-site Relocation oftwo pan- abodes and the Callahan Cabin; 2) the Demolition of a one-story dark brown structure located on the corner of 5th and Main Streets; 3) the Construction of the new triplex; and 5) the Remodeling the existing main lodge structure, existing duplex and fourplex located on the alley with the following conditions. Staff further recommends that the proposed fourplex be redesigned before moving to Final Review before the HPC. 1. That the applicant shall submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set upon receiving Final Approval , indicating exactly what areas of the historic Callahan Cabin are to be altered as part of the renovation; 2. That the applicant shall submit a preservation plan, as part of the building permit plan set upon receiving Final Approval, indicating how the existing materials, which are to be retained, will be restored. The requirement is to retainfrepair all original materials and replicate only those that are determined by HPC staff and monitor to be beyond salvage; 3. That no elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist outside of approval granted by the HPC and no existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor; 4. That the HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures; 5. That there shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor; 6. That the preservation plan described above, as well as the conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction; 7. That the applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC Final Review Resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit 7 application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit; 8. That the General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit; 9. That all representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions; 10. That the applicant agrees that any restoration has to comply to the UCBC 1997 version; 11. That the applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during demolition. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction as a requirement of the City of Aspen Streets Department; and 12. That the applicant agrees that prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement (if applicable) and pay the applicable recording fees; 13. That the applicant will provide the Community Development Department and HPC with an agreement regarding actions taken to mitigate for any potential impacts on the site as a result of this land use request with the City of Aspen Parks Department prior to Final Review before HI'C; 14. That the applicant shall comply with the Universal Conservation Building Code; 15. The applicant shall be required, as a condition of this conceptual approval from the HPC, to conduct such an analysis / structural report by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structures proposed for relocation as part of the Final Review which shall be submitted to the Community Development Department as part of the Final Review Application; 16. The applicant shall be required to submit to the Community Development Department a relocation plan including posting a bond or other financial security approved by HPC with the engineering department, to insure the safe relocation, preservation, and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections as part of the Final Review Application; and 8 17. That the applicant does not receive approval for the proposed fourplex located on the back of the site as part of this conceptual review and shall restudy the design as it relates to scale and massing in relationship to the rest of the site. Recommended Motion "I move to approve Resolution No. approving the Conceptual Review for a Significant Development Review request for 1) an On-site Relocation oftwo pan-abodes and the Callahan Cabin; 2) the Demolition of a one-story dark brown structure located on the corner of 5th and Main Streets; 3) the Construction of the new triplex on the corner of Fifth and Main Streets; and 5) the Remodeling the existing main lodge structure, existing duplex and fourplex located on the alley with the conditions set forth in the Resolution." Review criteria and Staff Findings EXHIBIT A -ON-SITE RELOCATION EXHIBIT B - DEMOLITION EXEMPTION EXHIBIT C - NEW BUILDING ADDITIONS EXHIBIT D -DESIGN IN THE MAIN STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT EXHIBIT E -SITE LOCATION EXHIBIT F - RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES oF 2001 EXHIBIT G - ARCHITECTURAL INVENTORY FORM EXHIBIT H - APPLICATION 0 0 9 ~ibit A On-Site Relocation I and (]se Code Requirements 26.415.010(E)(8) Standards for review of on-site relocation. No approval for on-site relocation shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds that the standards of Section 26.415.020(E)(7)(b),(c), and (d) have been met. If the structure that is to be relocated does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel, only standard 26.415.020(E)(7)(2) must be met. b. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation, and Staff Finding The applicant proposes to relocate three structures on the site. Specifically, the applicant proposes to relocate two pan-abodes and the Callahan Cabin, from their current locations at the rear and center ofthe property adjacent to the alley to the 0 Main Street frontage. The Callahan log cabin, built in the 1880's, is a simple gable-roofed structure made of hand hewn chinked logs with board and batten siding in the gable ends. There are paired, six light easement windows along the north and south sides of the building. The cabin, according to the Architectural Inventory Form is of the Late Victorian architectural style / building type. The cabin was relocated from its original location on the site in the 1950's. The Callahan Cabin remains as the only original structure on the site; the lodge buildings were developed around it in the 1950's and remodeled in the 1960's and the pan-abodes were constructed in 1962. The property was initially placed on the inventory because of the Callahan Cabin. This structure is believed to represent the earliest type of permanent home in Aspen. It was originally located in the center of the block. It was subsequently moved to its current position in the 1950's. Other structures on the site, which were built in the 1950's and 1960's for the Aspenhof and then Christiania Lodges may have achieved significance, particularly two excellent examples of Pan Abode cabins (built in 1962) along the alley. The current locations ofthe pan-abodes are at the rear ofthe site adjacent to the alley and somewhat hidden by large spruce trees and the pool area. The Callahan Cabin is 0 located in the center ofthe lot and also obscured by large spruce trees. Staff finds that 10 relocating the Callahan Cabin and the two pan-abodes to the front of the lot on the Main Street frontage will better promote their historic significance and establish a strong presence to the Historic Main Street corridor similar to the L'Auberge adding to the pedestrian experience. The Guidelines (see Chapter 9 ofthe Guidelines) indicate that relocation of historic structures their original site may be possible if doing so will accommodate other compatible improvements that will insure preservation. Staff finds that the proposal meets this criterion and Staff supports the relocation ofthese three structures. c. The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation, and Staff Finding As clearly stated in the application, the applicant has not completed any analysis on the whether or not the three structures could be moved and therefore does not know if the structures are capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. The applicants shall be required, as a condition of conceptual approval from the HPC, to conduct such an analysis / structural report by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation as part of the Final Review. Staff finds that while, the applicant will conduct this required task in good faith prior to Final Review, this criterion is not currently met. d. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security approved by HPC with the engineering department, to insure the safe relocation, preservation, and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation, and Staff Finding Consistent with the response to the above criterion, the applicant has not (as part of this Conceptual Review application) submitted a relocation plan including posting a bond or other financial security approved by HPC with the engineering department, to insure the safe relocation, preservation, and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. However, the applicant shall be required as a condition of conceptual review approval, to comply with this criterion. Staff finds that while, the applicant will conduct this required task in good faith prior to Final Review, this criterion is not currently met. '' Historic Freservation Design Guidetines A part of a historic building's integrity is derived from its placement on its site and therefore, its original position is important. Preserving the original foundation is always encouraged. Generally, removing a structure from the parcel with which it is historically 11 recorded will compromise its integrity. However, there may be cases when relocation will 0 not substantially affect the integrity of a property and its rehabilitation can be assured as a result. In some cases, it may be possible to reposition a structure on its original site if doing so will accommodate other compatible improvements that will assure preservation. A related concern is the character ofthe building's foundation. Traditionally, most buildings in Aspen had simple foundation designs. Many had a wooden sill that was clad with siding. A few ofthe grander structures had stone foundations. These features should be preserved. Staff would like the HPC to pay particular attention to the following guidelines in making a determination on the relocation request for the three structures. 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. â€¢ On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. â€¢ Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. â€¢ Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. 0 â€¢ Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. 0 12 Exhibit 6 Demolition Exemption 1 -and Use Code Reguirements 26.415.010(E)(10) Exemption for structures within an "H," Historic Overlay District. The demolition of a structure located within an "H," Historic Overlay District, may be exempt from meeting the applicable standards in Section 26.415.020(B),(C),(D), (E) or (F) if the Historic Preservation Commission finds that the following conditions have been met: a. The structure is not identified on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. Staff Finding The applicant proposes to demolish the structure located on the corner of 5th and Main Streets. This structure is not mentioned on the Architectural Inventory Form. Staff finds that this criterion is met. b. The structure is considered to be non-contributing to the historic district. Staff Finding This structure is not mentioned on the Architectural Inventory Form (over the course of the last ten years) as having any significance. By it mere absence from the forms evaluating the historically significant structures on the site, Staff considers this structure to be non-contributing. Staff finds that this criterion is met. c. The structure does not contribute to the overall character of the historic districts and its demolition, partial demolition, off-site relocation, on-site relocation, or temporary relocation does not impact the character of the historic district. Staff Finding This structure is currently in a poor condition that detracts from the site and does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district. The demolition of this structure will enhance the character of the historic district. Staff finds this criterion to be met. i The demolition, partial demolition, offsite relocation, on-site relocation or temporary relocation is necessary for the redevelopment of the parcel Staff Finding This structure is a single-story building. In the past, the structure has been used as a lodge unit. Once demolished, the applicant proposes to replace the structure with a 13 two-story triplex. This redevelopment will remove a non-contributing dilapidated structure from a highly visible and prominent location along Aspen's historic Main Street corridor. This redevelopment will substantially improve the streetscape. Staff finds this criterion to be met. e. The redevelopment or new development is reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission pursuant to Section 26.415.010. Staff Finding This application is before the Historic Preservation Commission for the appropriate review. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 14 Exhibit c New Ibuilding Additions /- Ill Historic Freservation Design C juiae,ines The Guidelines indicate that preserving a historic property does not mean it must be "frozen" in time, but it does mean that, when new building occurs, it should be in a manner that reinforces the basic visual characteristics of the site. This does not imply, however, that a new building must look old. In fact, imitating historic styles is generally discouraged; historians prefer to be able to "read" the evolution ofthe street, discerning the apparent age of each building by its style and method of construction. They do so by interpreting the age of a structure, placing its style in relative chronological order. When a new building is designed to imitate a historic style, this ability to interpret the history of the street is confused. A new design should relate to the fundamental characteristics of the historic resources while also conveying the stylistic trends of today. It may do so by drawing upon basic ways of building that make up a part ofthe character of the property. Such features upon which to draw include the way in which a building is located on its site, the manner in which it relates to the street, and its basic mass, form and materials. When these design variables are arranged in a new building to be similar to those seen traditionally, visual compatibility results. It is also important that a new building in close proximity not impede one's ability to interpret the character of the historic property; therefore, a new structure should be compatible in scale, site relationship and style. Simplicity and modesty in design are encouraged. Key features of individually landmarked properties include building orientation, building alignment, mass and scale, and building form. Staff finds that the following guidelines are particularly germane to the proposed development with respect to the following features. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. â€¢ Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. â€¢ The primary plane ofthe front should not appear taller than the historic structure. â€¢ The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch. 11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. â€¢ Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are encouraged. 15 â€¢ Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged. 0 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. â€¢ These include windows, doors and porches. â€¢ Overall, details should be modest in character. 0 0 16 Exhibit D Design in the Main Street Historic District Historic Freservation Design Guidelines Development in what is now called the Main Street Historic District began with housing built during the early mining era in Aspen. Soon a few small, commercial businesses sprang up on corners in the neighborhood. Trees, typical of a residential area, dominated the early streetscape in this area. Starting in the 1940s, development of lodging occurred, either as stand-alone hotels and motels or as bed and breakfasts. While some of these more recent buildings may also be of significance, they do not establish the historic context for Main Street. Particular features associated with design in the Main Street Historic District include building width, building and roof form, materials, and architectural details, windows and doors, and streetscape features, site design and landscaping features, and so forth. The following are guidelines that should be part of the discussion with the conceptual review of this project. 12.14 Design a new building to appear similar in scale to those seen traditionally in the district during the mining era. â€¢ Generally, a new building should be one to two stories in height. 12.15 On larger structures, subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to single family residences or Victorian era commercial buildings seen traditionally on Main Street. â€¢ Other, subordinate modules may be attached to the primary building form. â€¢ Each identifiable mass should have its own entrance. 12.16 Use roofing materials that are similar in appearance to those seen historically. 12.17 Use building materials that are similar to those used historically. â€¢ When selecting materials, reflect the simple and modest character of historic materials and their placement. 17 . 646* E Site Location 2 - 4 4, T * 4 4431 . 4.'p 1~ 77 1 E yllillillihilllA 6.0 4 4~ I . :./. /./. I V# -$. 1 . C k " de I , Â· 60 *-A.1 .. k 1, T t , 1 N r .0 'il /1 E - t Boomerang Lodge i .. s 18 Exhibit r RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 2001 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING THE CONCEPTUAL REVIEW REQUEST FOR THE CHRISTIANIA LODGE FOR 1) AN ON-SITE RELOCATION OF TWO PAN- ABODES AND THE CALLAIIAN CABIN; 2) THE DEMOLITION OF A ONE- STORY DARK BROWN STRUCTURE LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF 5â„¢ AND MAIN STREETS; 3) THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW TRIPLEX; AND 5) THE REMODELING THE EXISTING MAIN LODGE STRUCTURE, EXISTING DUPLEX AND FOURPLEX LOCATED ON THE ALLEY FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 501 WEST MAIN STREET, LOTS A-I, BLOCK 31, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2735-124-49-001 WHEREAS, the applicant, LLC/ Austin Lawrence Partners, LLC, represented by Mitch Haas, is requesting Conceptual Review approval for 1) an On-site Relocation of two pan-abodes and the Callahan Cabin; 2) the Demolition of a one-story dark brown structure located on the corner of 5th and Main Streets; 3) the Construction of the new triplex; and 5) the Remodeling the existing main lodge structure, existing duplex and fourplex located on the alley for the Christiania Lodge, a property located at 501 West Main Street, Lots A-I, Block 31, City and Townsite ofAspen. WHEREAS, the property is currently listed as a Historic Landmark on the City ofAspen's Inventory of Historical Sites and Structures; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department determined the Conceptual Review application for 1) an On-site Relocation of two pan-abodes and the Callahan Cabin; 2) the Demolition of a one-story dark brown structure located on the corner of 5th and Main Streets; 3) the Construction of the new triplex; and 5) the Remodeling the existing main lodge structure, existing duplex and fourplex located on the alley for the Christiania Lodge, a property located at 501 West Main Street, Lots A-I, Block 31, City and Townsite of Aspen met the applicable review standards, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing, which was legally noticed and held at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on February 146,2001, at which time the HPC considered and found the application to meet the review standards, and approved 1) an On-site Relocation oftwo pan-abodes and the Callahan Cabin; 2) the Demolition of a one-story dark brown structure located on the corner of 5th and Main Streets; 3) the 19 Construction of the new a triplex; and 5) the Remodeling the existing main lodge structure, existing duplex and fourplex located on the alley for the Christiania Lodge, a property located at 501 West Main Street, Lots A-I, Block 31, City and Townsite of Aspen met the applicable review standards, and recommended approval with conditions by a vote of five to one U to _). WIIEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and WIIEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the the requests for 1) an On-site Relocation of two pan-abodes and the Callahan Cabin; 2) the Demolition of a one-story dark brown structure located on the corner of 5th and Main Streets; 3) the Construction of the new triplex; and 5) the Remodeling the existing main lodge structure, existing duplex and fourplex located on the alley for the Christiania Lodge, a property located at 501 West Main Street, Lots A-I, Block 31, City and Townsite of Aspen is approved with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant shall submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set upon receiving Final Approval, indicating exactly what areas of the historic Callahan Cabin are to be altered as part of the renovation; 2. That the applicant shall submit a preservation plan, as part of the building permit plan set upon receiving Final Approval, indicating how the existing materials, which are to be retained, will be restored. The requirement is to retain/repair all original materials and replicate only those that are determined by HPC staff and monitor to be beyond salvage; 3. That no elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist outside of approval granted by the HPC and no existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor; 20 4. That the HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures; 5. That there shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staffand monitor; 6. That the preservation plan described above, as well as the conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction; 7. That the applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC Final Review Resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit; 8. That the General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit; 9. That all representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation Commission shall be adhered 0 to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions; 10. That the applicant agrees that any restoration has to comply to the UCBC 1997 version; 11. That the applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during demolition. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction as a requirement of the City of Aspen Streets Department; and 12. That the applicant agrees that prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement (if applicable) and pay the applicable recording fees; 13. That the applicant will provide the Community Development Department and HPC with an agreement regarding actions taken to mitigate for any potential impacts on the site as a result of this land use request with the City of Aspen Parks Department prior to Final Review before HPC; 14. That the applicant shall comply with the Universal Conservation Building 0 21 15. The applicant shall be required, as a condition of this conceptual approval from the HPC, to conduct such an analysis / structural report by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structures proposed for relocation as part of the Final Review which shall be submitted to the Community Development Department as part of the Final Review Application; 16. The applicant shall be required to submit to the Community Development Department a relocation plan including posting a bond or other financial security approved by HPC with the engineering department, to insure the safe relocation, preservation, and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections as part of the Final Review Application; and 17. That the applicant does not receive approval for the proposed fourplex located on the back of the site as part of this conceptual review and shall restudy the design as it relates to scale and massing in relationship to the rest of the site. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Historic Preservation Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14~~ day of February, 2001. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney 22 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 23 E jk 651- 6 OAHP1403 Official eligibility determination ,-2*v. 9/98 ' (OAHP use only) Date Initials 1~ COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Determined Eligible- NR Determined Not Eligible- NR Architectural Inventory Form Determined Not Eligible- SR Determined Eligible- SR (Page 1 of 4) Need Data Contributes to eligible NR District Noncontributing to eligible NR District 1. 'IDENTIFICAnON 1. Resource number: 5PT. 114.32 2. Temporary resource number: 501.WMA 3. County: Pitkin 4. City: Aspen 5. HistoMc building name: Callahan Log Cabin 6. Current building name: Christiania LodGe 7. Building address: 501 W Main Street Aspen Colorado 81611 8. Owner name and address: 501 W Main LLC 408 AABC#202 Aspen CO 81611 11. Geographic Information 9. P.M. 6 Township 10 South Range 85 West NW 44 of NE 44 of SW W of SE 4 of Section 12 10. UTM reference ~ Zone 13;34 2 1 5 OmE 4 3 3 9 5 2 OmN 11. USGS quad name: Asoen Quadranale Year: 1960, Photo Rev. 1987 Map scale: 7.5' X 15' Attach photo copy ofappropriate map section. 12. Lot(s): Lots A-I Block: 31 Addition: Year of Addition: 13. Boundary Description and Justification: Site is comorised of Lots A-I, Block 31 of the Citv and Townsite of Asoen. Assessors office Record Number 273512449001. This descriotion was chosen as the most specific and customarv description of the site. Ill. Architectural Description 14. Building plan (footprint, shape) Rectancular Plan 15. Dimensions in feet: Length x Width 16. Number of stories: 1 17. Primary external wall material(s) (enter no more than two):Loa 18. Roof configuration: (enter no more than one): Gabled roof 19. Primary external roof material (enter no more than one):Wood Shinales /1~20. Special features (enter all that apply): None Resource Number:* ~ Â· 5PT. 114.32 Temporary Resource Number: 501.WMA Architectural Inventory Form (Page 2 of 2) 21. General architectural description: The Callahan loa cabin is a simole cable roofed structure made of hand hewn chinked loas with board and batten sidina in the cable ends. There are Daired. six light easement windows alona the north and south sides of the buildina. 22. Architectural style/building type: Late Victorian 23. Landscaping or special setting features: Larce. significant spruce trees on site. Flowing irriciation ditch. Cottonwood street trees alona the length of the block. Lilac hedae on west. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: The Callahan cabin is the remaining oriainal structure on the site, but a arouo of lodae structures developed around it in the 1950's and 60's. IV. Architectural History 25. Date of Construction: Estimate Callahan cabin: earlv 1880's Actual Main Lodae: 1950's- remodeled in 1960's. Pan Abodes- 1962. Source of information: Cabin: 1980 Inventory form. LodGe buildinas: Buildina permit file 26. Architect: Cabin: none. Main Lodae: Charles Patterson Source of information: Buildina Dermit file 27. Builder/Contractor: Cabin: Callahan Source of information: 1980 Inventory form 28. Original owner: Callahan Source of information: 1980 Inventory form 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): On cabin: Added center window facing Main St. Lodae develooment beaan on site in the 1950's. 30. Original location _ Moved X (cabin) Date of move(s): 1950's V. Historical Associations 31. Original use(s): Domestic 32. Intermediate use(s): 33. Current use(s): Domestic, Hotel 34. Site type(s): Office/Residential District Resource Number. 5PT. 114.32 Temporary Resource Number: 501.WMA Architectural Inventory Form 0 (Page 3 of 3) 35. Historical background: The pronertv was initiallv placed on the inventorv because of the Callahan cabin. This structure is believed to reoresent the earliest Noe of Dermanent home in Asoen. It was oriainallv located in the center of the block. with the cable end facing the street. Moved to current oosition in the 1950's. Other structures on the site. which were built in the 1950's and 1960's for the Aspenhof and then Christiania Lodaes mav have achieved significance. Darticularly two excellent examoles of Pan Abode cabins (built in 1962) alona the allev. There are a Dair of two story structures in the southwest corner of the oropertv which are stucco on the first floor and Pan Abode on the second. Thev have recentlv been aporoved for exterior remodelinc. The oricinal main lodae on the Drooertv was remodeled from a one story structure to two stories in 1964. Architect was Charles Patterson. 36. Sources of information: Pitkin County Courthouse records: Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps: 1990 and 1980 Citv of Aspen Sur,ev of Histonc Sites and Structures VI. Significance 37. Local landmark designation: Yes No X Date of designation: Designating authority: Asnen Citv Council 38. Applicable 1~ational Register Criteria: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our O - B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; X C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual) Does not meet any of the above National Register cMteria 39. Area(s) of significance: Architecture 40. Period of significance: Late 1800's Silver Minina Era. Early ski era 41. Level of significance: National State Local X 42. Statement of significance: The cabin is representative of the family/home environment of the averaae citizen in Asoen durina the earliest years of the silver mir'linc era. The other buildinas reoresent small lodae development in the 1950's and 60's to orovide services for skiers and other visitors. 0 Resource Number: 5PT. 114.32 ~ Temporary Resource Number: 501.WMA ' Architectural Inventory Form 0 (Page 4 of 4) 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: Cabin has had minor alterations, but most of the oriainal character and fabric is intact. Lodae buildings have been minimally altered to date. ViI. National Register Eligibility Assessment 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Eligible X Not Eligible Need Data 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes X No Discuss: Lies within a locally desianated histoMc district. If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing X Noncontributing 46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it: Contributing Noncontributing VI11. Recording Information 47. Photograph numbers: R19: F15.16 Negatives filed at: Asoen/Pitkin Communitv Develooment Dent. 48. Report title: Citv of Aspen 2000 Uodate of Survev of Historic Sites and Structures 49. Date(s): 8/2000 50. Recorder(s): Suzannah Reid and Patrick Duffield 51. Organization: Reid Architects 52. Address: 412 North Mill Street. PO Box 1303. Asnen CO 81612 ~ 53. Phone number(s): 970 920 9225 NOTE: Please attach a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad. map indicating resource location, and photographs. Colorado Historical Society - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395 0 0 527 W. Main ~i'kil- - . Il i.ill'i.Ils:lith; Ort.'-FZL-~~ll ilillil'.66:Efamelial)i j ,;ili~llir.ilililj.l f'- .1 -S=>7. l.,Wl ,-9,1/111 1 * 42 k.134/ 9 r-r.- 4 LillqQV= U lu-<9==n ~~ i ~4/* 7' XY ./F. 31 W MAIN ST .-1244 - 4 /<~LJ,Nig- 1 tilll '1 #9 u ~I l. 3.21 j \ / --1-/ 1 \ -7 /\ 1 N /-'' . 0==* ue.j:4~ -12 NE-MI~ .7:. ill 0.11/4 1 j culâ‚¬.0/1 7 7~ < Â«140. 1.r 3 77.2Â£ 09/, f. \~ VulÂ«14*42424Â»01Â» '91.-----' ~lit.*S+*,A. - - --9- ~~. ,*.. -- --. ---- - -/300Â» 1Â«0Â«49 - 1-t /4 / 12 -~ , 7 - - 3 Al. ~1- '/ 7~~ - 8\ .Fighd#Â¢82861 1 + - 4 1 tÂ·ARJ Â·â‚¬30.339 -.2344~%iÂ°1~.%: . --Â«==k-% i394%.9Â·0,~a :~a~-Â·-Â»a-Â«034--~~ -tl~~-12 /132Â¢.PRAL#R:lÂ· 1:>d . 39: Fr --4=:=42-2*ps--1 .=7.6 = V â€¢ I ./- - \ ' I J 4 . 7- ./ -64 1 7.1 U-k 7 . . 41-q- 55-,-3*--Â·-Cril .-P.-- U 11/0 ' ' -t .q , 243- -I j - .-- 16.- I - -4 ab ' ~tUr;~=~~Â· - v. Fc :F--94 ,;t; / < Â»-~ 1 - - , /1 '211,".i " - -2, Rbd 3Â·'tte:, f 1~-GOLf COL'SE 933Â«44Â»f_, 1 .... 292. ~.r ;f,~r/- foff=i<f.#22 f -Â·vowa / C .. jf- . , e * X -- -- - C i .- el Â¥ .4,1 Â»\62...4 -U .,li;. T x ./ /...1 ..\ ., - .- . 02 ,/ / SÂ·Â·2 3ust:,acker. - r/1 j \34 ' . 1 ~Â«-I ..71=VI- '- ; . -yr-- J.Â·d.. BO,rk,Rele'lt'Â· Â· \ \\ li4. . ... .' 1 .-...'.-b.'-'---': . A" 5 t 1 ~ Â·- Nia 1 0 9 a r.r - D e t.,Ard 4-, 77 t=. ' r -6-. 6 JÂ»bonhsoni Â·f ~ ~-- . / -c:IL- . 1. ' 1* (b .i'~.F- e r~ -,:Abkt' friffÂ»4Â£(33Â»2%,a&-213 *Q.en +OVen * 1 > 7 *. kki-..: *4~*47Â»~~) . . Â¢\ 1/ ... 1~ i 9.-- le'41\ 7 . %\ . _ e-t ' i , 1 . 4 h h 4.--= . Ch,141 ~Â· 3 ; I A/*74 . Â·*e ,I 2--..~ i â€¢ k ... 4 , r e Moili Gih5O*' \, \ 4 . . -,60 .. '2â‚¬772...1'ZE- -44Â»u x - 0 OV, 1 Â·alm -ne 1 lill 1\ - f 3 44,191 1 ' I - 1 . - 1 /- 0.-- .- I I I. , I 0,11. :1Â· 5--6. C.,4,;-- Ant'20':1,1.- - \ p <\ - , .I 1 ./ 2-- r -160.-Â· 2.. Â»*22!~..D-Â· . 1 , G,1-Tr- 6... : 4 \9 1 193 3, 1 1\ . I r. -- 1-7 1 &' - 4 I ../ . ... 7'Pa L .. . 0.- ." i:......Â» . . : 5 ..*90: 4% 1 < -\ 01. A Or \4 I\- 1,3/ - 27,7,0 M .. r. Â·. A - . .4 - .->M,..' 111 - 1\ ---IM - ... L 1 ----5332'J 4~; . 1 - -e h>< A - 55&:LA ' . + :C, - - - ... L Â·Water-===:u~ .11 lili , I . ,\1 X.3#14. *37*, -- 0 0 0 42......i.-,4~ ~.1 .=7 -.i ... . - %\ Â£ 3. 1 L j. - ..n r ==:7/ 1 9> 1 .4 j :11~VivÂ· ' ' i ~ L ' '0~ j -~G-.-flu- E.- 1-2.27 . .. : I ~...: r '4&4 *t ~ 1 .4.-- - -, ,/.1 . , .4*KA :f I ha - -,Afff -- :iÂ·~ -: tatgUJL * - .-/4,1 1 u - Tent ' 9 .- ... 2=> ' -4- r - AS ,<br/ ; - ~ In' : \. 1, : m %. ---- l\\\ L Ov frir--â‚¬92--1 \' Ch --d 1-' -Art~Z:r -. . 1 i,f (1111(24*A. ./5-Uph,4312-3-/)2544 ~\Â· Â©< f 4, 0 -/-4 111 1 .Â· â€¢ '. Nk ~6344*1\\~?4- 0~- lj~--f~ -- Â£ -I .'. PLA .. . - 'll ---1 -1. $,Veill ., l. 4 IÂ£F altsÂ·,7-44< i' ~ ' *V 3 1.>*c 3-95 AAIL,--il!\~22;yftr. Tlk -2 *rÂ· i- 2.EN'i)..1 E--/ i ~I.E~ -t-1. 5. t IL,41Â·ar*%82-7-h&/7 0,;Vir.%34-J~\ .i#r##2#$. .l-..Â»3;' Rtt.Er 1% 22 All Survey Sites are included within the City of Aspen limits. .Aspen Quadrangle See Sketch map for identifiCatiOn of specific location and building context Colorado-Pitkin County 1960, Photo Revised 1987 Scale: 1:24 7.5 Minute Survey 'AN GN 1 1 SCALE 1:24 SCo 1 , 1 FLE i 12. --------------Ill-li.-il-------------il----- 1'09' 213 Mt L 3 (00 0 -000 2000 3000 5000 6000 7000 rEE- 0Â©~ 20 MILS, f , 5 , 1 KILJ,METER --- CONTOUR INTERVAL 40 FEET UTM GRID AND 1987 WAGNETIC NORTH CAL DATUM OF 1929 NAriONAL Gcuu.Â·16 inxi DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET EXHIBII-- EB -I------i-t - 209 k; I I. Vits**121/- ~1 - 4-h 43 f .Â»- f " 62*-1-1 -, 1 4 1 + i _: â€¢9 â€¢,J, 1 SA A -, 'r , , ~i L 44 -Â« \,6 i. , ixi - r - - -... r . 4 *0 ' 21.2 6 . ./ 1~ -6 1 , - 1.-- h /; 1 .v,7 ----- %*6--vzd==-=n--2>-- 1,-11. . / ; - Tlf -L N/- 4 1 3.- h . L 2 1,4.- Â»,-1 ~ki 4. . . -_ 7 -V< I 1, 4:1 Atfl / - : P . h. , - \ \ -tz-,- .. - 5,Â· 019Â·t> 37 -Â· : Â· ~~'42' A 'PDO 27 /7/ .'ll < 1 'Â»1 6 1 , - + -Â· 1 - f -7 --46 0 - 4. . ' - 1 /300-9-> Ir Â· .-' 0, -pot ~~ ui : ~N - - 1 11 - /3*.. ki . , 2 2 4 i - -, 7-*I. . 1 '1 . - I -'- . - 1Â©i i#- -*. P 1 1\ liti . 1 - , 1 /\1 r - , 4 .4 X . 1 - It . ' 4-499 r--. , i /*Er- 0 :0 ' Wk y '- ... - i 1 Â· . . 1 0 40 , 8 - 1 I I.Z. k :4 . k. *k ' 3~1 '*11;'. 3%1*Sai ./ i~ i. 1 ~ 4 9' 4- .~~~~3~_ ~~ 4 63 # 4 - ./ -I -'. /; .... te + , F - 7 - :1 =31 1 - â€žSt~V-Â· ' - 11 4, ' -264* 1. , . 1, 31 ' Â·~ -,, 1 Â· L- 1 1 1 . . 1 0 #1/ I 4 1 1 DeD ; : . 4. , -.-4 - '. - I .-.. . .2.=L ; , 4. . + A .* - . . 4-1 1 L ''' - . . I --1 1 , i ' 1Â£ . 1 .0 - . i -...6.-......~ , . f - ' a . 4 I - I . - 1 -> 1 21 1 1 1. , ... ; 0 Ul , r. 1 13*,1.r --- -8 . .I ' . It 4----------- - 1 2 -r- f 1 44 - A- . 1 .4 1.. I J. i. 1 -I-~ . 1. . .4 , '4.4 -9*--* Â· 4.. t-- f -% -- ..1 I r & r ... . h './ % 1 Â£ *ir. 11 ; Â·illf%4.4. â‚¬9 1 / ,:ax : w // -AL \h'.44 $ 13 4 . .. A I , , . . 2 - ,/ABM/, le-1 = --- Ad o I j .r - 1 24,1 # 7 1#*- - -1-=--l..:. 40_ t.> .- e-ic . 9. â€¢4. I X91,-- *.I uxÂ«>S::U2250~5-y * ;94 -i f >-,L. 4- ,/ C ,.t A . / Â· -- 42 1.332 1.11 -1 ,/i l .51 t .-' P i l< 1 / \ , -1 4.g-M. 4 'Al Im 4 I .tkIE_~% 4~~~< 6 ~} .t 7 / ~Bitil'..6, . liwiliwil./9.-/IT.Tizile.ruzzmje1/med/TA# Ac ;TROP:ell/9 & b.. - -,51-1 ff \ I . I. - -.,File"/*6 21\ --4.kil *Et!:48 aÂ¥*\ -4 H \1 ~ I ris i .\ . h . W.:AN':.,0% 219 '4'110~t~liWbbrlilk#q * 0 7# g~,illilililliatairifIL.WARJV li *aills'tilladilip,Hot,14 I1. 16 jl ..1 ...1 1 8 %.'a~i I , 119â€ž.1. 0 4%2111.9 ... .4 i i 9. -i,IdÂ¥~im.I f "1=1,2/, Flgilisvilikalilk,fla . . 11 *14 2111.Ar . , 11=liâ€¢ -â€¢inD â€¢lillicillillililiilitiQi::rfili~ 91.,ZI:..,m.JA 6/ 1 16 Â£'514..1.1. 4 Il.f.*149 1 <1 1 111...m ~113[ll:i:/!1 -111 4-11'117'-11*65#*.: + '' ..1 '1Â®1. 0 11/.0.4431*Mars' P.â€¢" 4_-7.2-- -- 44 BiT,40 /7 .... 4- 64>e- 513*7~AP b / . \ 1 1.' M TE.ComisiON 2 b MEETING DATE: J- / ~, 3/3,0/ j NAME OF PROJECT: 9 1 *1 1\NA j Â» _ 211 45'~4 4 i Â« 1 r As o CLERK: Wri-9 STAFF: -fr 04 34 y m a n WITNESSES: (1) RA \ ~(~\ -- ~ 48 i (2) 502~ Aal>-- (3) w, i R. 2 AY 8% (4) ICâ‚¬ 11 1/c 0407.51 (5) 4 01<VI ~ # 0/501 01 k \ 545 77 RE~3 j S O A) EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report 6/) (Check If Applicable) 2 Affidavit of Notice (94Check If Applicable) 3 Board Criteria Sheet ( ) (Check If Applicable) 4 5 t_Â»L 4 v U ll' 47 MOTION: VOTE: YES =t NO _ SUZANNAH REID YESL/ NO YES NO L SUSAN DODINGTON YES L NO GILBERT SANCHEZ YES NO L LISA MARKALUNAS YESL' NO JEFFREY HALFERTY YES NO YES NO YES NO MELANIE ROSCHKO YES 1/ NO RALLY DUPPS YES) - NO HPCVOTE TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director ~~'~'0- Joyce Ohlson, Community Development Deputy Directol FROM: Fred Jarman, Planner ~ 3. RE: 308 East Hopkins Avenue (La Cocina) - Request for Removal from Inventory (PUBLIC HEARING) DATE: February 14, 2001 33Â» 4 \ /led *1 -f/ 4--- J - :- + --- -225 --'-'llillik- -5,0,".09/:1. , .- 4.4/\ 1 j , -* . '.... .. , M 01, ... . 6.. : tit .- I ... .F .; -â€¢~d, iylily : >421% ..4 + #.IT 1 2 , ~ .laiblia L-> 4/IN....4,/,1//.12/23b0--d. 4 + -- I - . 14 . 11 IiIU A -4 * ./3 I . -- Hit . I .. -0 1 1 /. -6 1 - Â· 1111 PROJECT: 308 East Hopkins Avenue - La Cocina REQUEST: Request for Removal from Aspen's inventory of Historic Sites and Structures PUBLIC HEARING: Yes DATE: February 14, 2001 PROCESS: Request for Removal from Inventory Historic Preservation Commission Appeal of HPC decision (if requested) City Council RECOMMENDATION: Removed from the Inventory 5ummary ofRequest Nick Lebby, owner of the La Cocina Restaurant, which is currently listed on the City of Aspen's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures [the "Inventory"], met with Community Development Staff and requested to be removed from the Inventory. Process Owners of property currently listed on the Inventory shall address the same review criteria that were originally used to designate the site, and shall be required to demonstrate that their property does not meet these review criteria in order for it to be removed. The request will follow the procedures set forth in the City of Aspen's Land Use Code Section 26.420.080 and Aspen's Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The applicant may appeal a decision by the Historic Preservation Commission to City Council according to Chapter 26.316 of the Aspen Land Use Code. Staff Comments The following review criteria must be met in order for La Cocina to be included on the inventory. 1. The inventory of historic sites and structures shall include alt structures in the City of Aspen which are at least fifty (50) years old; and Staff Finding: The original portion of the structure, which appears to maintain the Late Victorian style as seen on the eastern portion of the front fa~ade, was constructed in 1888. The original structure appears on the Bird's Eye View of Aspen map in 1893, W. C. Willits Civil Engineering map of 1896, and the Sandborne map of 1904. However, many significant additions and alterations have occurred to the west and rear of the structure over the years; most of the major additions (closed in front porch, kitchen, bathrooms, interior remodels, and large additions on the west and north sides of the structure) have occurred in the last 30 years. Therefore only a small portion of the original structure is over 50 years old. Staff finds this standard to be met. 2. AH Structures which continue to have historic value and such other structures identified by the Historic Preservation Commission as being outstanding examples of more modern architecture; Staff Finding: As the means of assessing the concept of"historic value," the Land Use Code provides that the building should be evaluated in terms of its current architectural integrity, current historic significance, and current community and neighborhood influence. Staff has based their review on the attached Architectural Inventory Form (attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit A), completed in the summer of 2000. Architectural Integrity Architectural integrity is defined in Aspen' s Historic Preservation Guidelines [the "Guidelines"I as: a measure of the wholeness or quality ofall of the historic features, which make up the building A building that has been added to and hadjeatures removed is said to have had its integrity compromised. In addition, the concept of"integrity" is discussed in the Guidelines as: A sufficient percentage of the structure must date from the period of significance. The majority of the building's structural system and its materials should date from that time and its key character-defining .features also should remain intact. These may include architectural details, such as dormers and porches, ornamental brackets and moldings and materials, as well as the overall mass and form of the building. It is these elements that allow a building or district to be recognized as a product Of its time. Staff Finding: In reviewing this structure, Staff visited the property on several occasions including an interior tour of the structure. While the original portion of the structure was constructed in 1888, many significant additions and alterations have occurred to the west and rear of the structure over the years. In fact, most of 4 -2 j~ ~ ,Â·'~45-1 ~.Â·1Â°~~i ;,eg,*t,~ the major additions (closed in d I front porch, kitchen, bathrooms, -Â« 1. interior remodels, and large r '9229 , r '' 44, 0 ... ~%*4Â»- additions on the west and north - sides of the structure) have 1 *, occurred in the last 30 years, *i leaving only a small of the original structure as seen on the /331*fp./ 1 . 013,1 li front 1*ade. I : . - Under the definition of "integrity" above, a sufficient (64.r Add.4.-,1 40 0Â£54. percentage of the structure must date from the period of significance as well as the overall mass and form of the building should be preserved in the original structure. As a result of the numerous recent additions and their relatively large size made to the structure over the last thirty years, Staff believes that this structure's integrity has been compromised. 0 1~"4~ '90 44.immpl/- j..prti This structure would have to undergo ,626- considerable rehabilitation and reconstruction .4 f:,9 to return to its original form. This standard calls for an evaluation of the structure' s 4 '! 4Â·~ . --.4 current architectural integrity rather than a 4. - 1, Idl i speculation of what could occur. The Architectural Inventory Form used in the Nl'ljo, AU.-4..045 1,0 reÂ·Â·r. structure's evaluation indicates that the "house has been significantly altered and expanded. The loss of the front porch affects ability to perceive the character of original miners cottage, and the western addition affects scale of south fagade."Staff finds that too much of the original fabric has been lost and therefore this standard is not met. Historic Significance Historic significance is discussed in the Guidelines according to the generally recognized notion that a certain amount of time must pass before the significance of a property can be evaluated. The National Register, for example, requires that a property be at least 50 years old or have extraordinary importance before it may be considered. Aspen also uses this 50-year guideline; however, structures that are more recent may be considered significant if they are found to have special architectural or historical merit. A property may achieve significance because of its 1) association with events that contributed to the broad patterns of history, the lives of significant people, or the understanding of Aspen's prehistory or history; 2) construction and design associated with distinctive characteristics of a building type, period, or construction method; 3) an example of an architect or master craftsman or an expression of particularly high artistic values; and 4) integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. The "period of significance" is discussed in the Guidelines as the time span during which a building gained architectural, historical or geographical importance. In most cases, a property is significant because it represents or is associated with a particular period in history. Frequently, this begins with its construction date and continues through the peak of early occupation. Building fabric and features that date from the period of significance typically contribute to the character of the structure or district. 1 20 + Staff Finding: The Architectural Inventory Form indicates this structure maintains a period of significance defined by . ....9 , -0.1.F - 1.---,gr the late 1800's Silver Mining Era. While the structure 1 --1- .... .1.. . I was constructed in 1888 as a residence and was typical 9 ..t 1.L-~.D~ .t - N %. of the family / home environment of the average . 11 1 7 citizen in Aspen during the silver mining era, its 1 . current use / function as a restaurant (La Cocina) does i : k not maintain any significant relationship to that former e . f.. . period of significance. Further, the structure has been completely remodeled on the interior to reflect its 14+U:.r OF- i.1404- 4,14(444 current use. As a result of the many modifications. the remaining construction and design associated with distinctive characteristics of this structure have been reduced to only a few characteristics indicative of the period of significance; such as the gable end with a decorative truss, fish scale shingles, and clapboard siding which are all mostly present on the front ftwade. The second story window is original while the bay window is not an original window. The entire west faGade (addition) is a large shed type structure extending from the north-south facing gable roof. The entire west wall is of stucco material with southwestern style art on the wall and large fixed windows. It is clear that this is not indicative of the period of significance ofthe early mining era. There appears to be several additions to the rear of the structure, which accommodate the bathrooms, kitchen, and walk-in freezer, and two-story gable with access a roof deck. 0 Staffhas no information, which would indicate that this structure is an example of the work of an architect or master craftsman or an expression of particularly high artistic values. Because ofthese additions and mixed styles, Staff finds that this standard is not met. Current community and neighborhood influence The structure is located in the Commercial Core Zone District which is an area of Aspen consisting of retail, service commercial, recreational and institutional purposes and uses to name a few. While the structure was originally constructed as a residence typical to other adjacent structures at the time; the current restaurant and the required elements that a restaurant use demands, will reduce the possibility that the structure will return to serve its original purpose as a residence. Further, the influence exuded by the structure in the immediate commercial neighborhood, is not a direct response to the few remaining historical features associated with the structure; rather, it is because it is the La Cocina, a popular Aspen restaurant. It should be noted that there are other structures on the same immediate block, which are also examples of adaptive re-use of an older structure accommodating a distinctly commercial use such as the A.G. Sheppard /Chatfield Residence, the Katie Reid Residence, and the Annie Kraft House which are all much stronger contributors to the neighborhood because of their much more defining historic characteristics than La Cocina. Staff finds this standard is not met. 0 Consultant's Recommendation Sta/TRecommendation Staff recommends the structure be removed from the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. [Upon advice from the City Attorney, the motion has been worded to remove the property from the Inventory. If the motion passes, the property will be removed from the Inventory. If the motion does not pass, the property will remain on the Inventory.I Recommended Motion "I move to remove 308 East Hopkins Avenue from the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, fmding that the structure does not meet the criteria for the Inventory." Exhibits Exhibit A: Resolution No. , Series 0 Exhibit B: 2001 Architectural Inventory Form Exhibit C: Application Exhibit A RESOLUTION NO. (~0, SERIES OF 2001 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO REMOVE THE LA CACINA RESTAURANT, LOCATED AT 308 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS M AND N, BLOCK 80, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, FROM THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES Parcel ID: 2737-073-29-007 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has conducted an evaluation of the City of Aspen "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" to identify any properties which should be removed from the inventory due to loss of integrity, to nominate any sites which should be added to the inventory, and to rate the resources using the terms "significant "', contributing," and "supporting;" and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has forwarded a recommendation to the Historic Preservation Commission; and WHEREAS, Section 26.420.080 of the Land Use Code provides guidance on evaluation of the inventory. According to that passage, the Inventory shall include all structures in the City of Aspen which are at least fifty (50) years old and which continue to have historic value, and such other structures identified by the Historic Preservation Commission as being outstanding examples of more modern architecture; and 0 WHEREAS, Section 26.420.080 of the Land Use Code also requires that all structures on the inventory be evaluated by the Historic Preservation Commission regarding their current architectural integrity, historic significance, and community and neighborhood influence and be categorized as "significant, 5, G, contributing," or -supporting;" and WHEREAS, Staff provided the Historic Preservation Commission with the Community Development Department's recommendations regarding 308 East Hopkins Avenue, a properry currently listed on the inventory; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting on February 148, 2001, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the staff recommendation, and approved this resolution by a vote of ' Â· to 2_ , to remove 308 East Hopkins Avenue from Aspen's Inventory of Sites and Structures finding that the structure does not meet the review criteria pursuant to Section 26.420.080. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the HPC finds that the standards and review criteria established in Section 26.420.080 of the Land Use Code are not met and that 308 East Hopkins Avenue, Lots M and N, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen, shall be removed from the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. 0 APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14th day of 0 February, 2001. Approved as to Form: 4 -1 1 Davtf Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Acting Vice-Chair ATTEST: 0 Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy 0 FAU- /t> 0AHP1403 Official eligibility determination Rev. 9/98 (OAHP use only) 0 Date Initials COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Determined Eligible- NR Determined Not Eligible- NR Determined Eligible- SR Architectural Inventory Determined Not Eligible- SR Form Need Data Contributes to eligible NR District (Page 1 of 3) Noncontributing to eligible NR District I. IDENTIFICATION 1. Resource number: 5PT.113.11 2. Temporary resource number: 308.EHO 3. County: Pitkin 4. City: Aspen 5. Historic building name: John Harkins House 6. Current building name: La Cocina 7. Building address: 308 E. Hopkins Avenue Aspen Colorado 81611 8. Owner name and address: La Cocina Inc. PO Box 4010 Aspen CO 81612 II. Geographic Information 9. P.M. 6 Township 10 South Range 84 West SE G of SW G of SW G Of SW G of Section 7 10. UTM reference Zone 1 3;342870mE43 39 2 5 OmN 11. USGS quad name: Aspen Quadrangle Year: 1960, Photo Rev. 1987 Map scale: 7.5' X 15' Attach photo copy of appropriate map section. 12. Lot(s): Lots M&N Block: 80 Addition: Year of Addition: 13. Boundary Description and Justification: Site is comprised of Lots M&N, Block 80 of the City and Townsite of Aspen. Assessors office Record Number 27370732900. This description was chosen as the most specific and customary description of the site. III. Architectural Description 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Rectangular Plan 15. Dimensions in feet: Length x Width 16. Number of stories: 1 17. Primary external wall material(s) (enter no more than two): Wood, Horizontal siding 18. Roof configuration: (enter no more than one): Gable Roof 19. Primary external roof material (enter no more than one): Asphalt Roof 20. Special features (enter all that apply) : Decorative shingles Resource Number: 5PT. 113.11 Temporary Resource Number: 308.EHO Architectural Inventory Form 0 (Page 2 of 4) 21. General architectural description: South fagade features original Victorian miner's cottage, with an enclosed front porch. Miner's cottage has a bay window and decorative shingles in the gable end. There is a lean-to addition on the west side of the structure, with fixed windows. West side of the addition is stucco. Building has been extended towards the alley. 22. Architectural style/building type: Late Victorian 23. Landscaping or special setting features: Courtyard on west side of building with Victorian cast iron railing. Patio seating in front of building and spruce and aspen trees. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: None IV. Architectural History 25. Date of Construction: Estimate Actual 1888 Source of information: Assessor 26. Architect: Unknown Source of information: 27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown Source of information: 28. Original owner: John Harkins Source of information: Assessor 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): Building has had numerous additions to the west and north, dates unknown. Original porch enclosed. Major interior remodeling to accommodate restaurant use. 30. Original location X Moved Date of move(s): V. Historical Associations 31. Original use(s): Domestic 32. Intermediate use(s): 33. Current use(s): Commerce and Trade, Restaurant 34. Site type(s): Commercial District 35. Historical background: Structure was built for John Harkins as a residence. 36. Sources of information: Pitkin County Courthouse records; Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps; 1990 and 1980 City of Aspen Survey of Historic Sites and Structures VI. Significance 37. Local landmark designation: Yes No X Date of designation: 0 Designating authority: Resource Number: 5PT. 113.11 Temporary Resource Number: 308.EHO Architectural Inventory Form 0 (Page 3 of 4) 38. Applicable National Register Criteria: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; X C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual) Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria 39. Area(s) of significance: Architecture 40. Period of significance: Late 1800's Silver Mining Era 41. Level of significance: National State Local X 42. Statement of significance: This house is representative of the family/home environment of the average citizen in Aspen during the silver mining era. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: House has 0 been significantly altered and expanded. Loss of front porch affects ability to perceive character of original miners cottage, and western addition affects scale of south fagade. VII. National Register Eligibility Assessment 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Eligible Not Eligible X Need Data 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes X NO Discuss: Lies within a locally designated historic district. If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing 2L Noncontributing 46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it: Contributing Noncontributing VIII. Recording Information 47. Photograph numbers: Rll, F25-26 Negatives filed at: Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Dept. 48. Report title: City of Aspen 2000 Update of Survey of Historic Sites and Structures 49. Date(s): 8/2000 50. Recorder(s): Suzannah Reid and Patrick Duffield ~|~ 51. Organization: Reid Architects 52. Address: 412 North Mill Street, PO Box 1303, Aspen CO 81612 Resource Number: 5PT. 113.11 Temporary Resource Number: 308.EHO Architectural Inventory Form , (Page 4 of 4) 53. Phone number(s): 970 920 9225 NOTE: Please attach a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad. map indicating resource location, and photographs. Colorado Historical Society - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395 r.~ E *\6: 0 C_ I . I ATTACHMEN-r 1 MINIMUM SUBMISSION CONTENTS 1. Applicant's name, address and telephone number. and / or the name. address. and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behal f o f the applicant (ifapplicable). Name: N KE LegE)9 Address: f, E.. S 0,%4 1-3 9 7- h-64)60( j c.0 Phone: 9 29-3279 7 The street address and legal description of the parcel (Lot and Block #) on which the subject property is proposed for removal from Aspen's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. Street Address: 239% E . M opki k 6 Legal Description: (Lots and Block 00) ,â€¢~vÂ£Â·,~>0'0' ~<~Dy<00-,~~ ~r~57 Please attachan 8 1/2" x 11"vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen with this application. 4. Ptease attach a written explanation of how the current property does not meet each of the review criteria for being placed on Aspen's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures listed below: Â£ > Is your structure at least fifty (50) years oid? 6 > Does your structure continue to have historic value and such other structures identified by the Historic Preservation Commission as being outstanding examples of more modern architecture? (Ifnot. why? What has changed?) z > Does your structure, in its current condition, continue to maintain architectural integrity? (Ifnot. why? What has changed?) D >Does your structure, in its current condition. continue to maintain historic significance? (Ifnot. why? What has changed?) r : , > Does your structure, in its current condition, continue to maintain community and neighborhood influence? (Ifnot. why? What has changed?) 8 2 11. 4. 11 6 i.4 ..... 1~ 4 1,1. J I . Attachment 1 Minimum Submission Contents Attachment: 4. Please attach a written explanation of how the current property does not meet each of the review criteria for being placed on Aspen's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures listed below: a. Is your structure at least fifty (50) years old? Only part of the small house is 50 years old. The front hall is not the original porch. Nor are the bathrooms, hall and kitchen. Permit 9A-76 1969 House of Lum. Remodel - Interior and exterior remodel convert upstairs to dining. bar rewiring, doors and wall remodeling. Permit 9A-204 1969 Interior stairs. exterior store room. Permit 425-72 1972 Shed addition west side 1980 - Large addition west and north side. b. Does your structure continue to have historic value and such other structures identified by the Historic Preservation Commission as being outstanding examples of more modern architecture? (If not, why? What has changed?) No. The whole of 308 E. Hopkins does not have historical value because the original structure has been altered through numerous additions and alterations. Therefore, the whole has been compromised. It is not an outstanding example of modern architecture because the additions have been of shed or lean-to design. The house has been significantly altered and expanded. Loss of the front porch affects the ability to perceive the character of the original miners cottage. The western addition grossly affects the scale of the south facade. c. Does your structure, in its current condition, continue to maintain architectural integrity? (If not, why? What has changed?) No. The structure's architectural integrity has been compromised because the additions and earlier changes were not in keeping with the Victorian era. 1. Closing in front porch 2. Replacing windows 3. Replacing exterior panelling 4. Additions that account for most of the present building. 1 t 4 Attachment continued Page 2 d. Does your structure, in its current condition, continue to maintain historic significance? (If not, why? What has changed?) No. There have been too many changes in the structure to maintain historic significance. Most everything has changed. e. Does your structure, in its current condition, continue to maintain community and neighborhood influence? (If not, why" What has changed?) Because of the building' s compromised structure, it may be perceived as being a sore thumb architecturally by the neighborhood. The only intluence and heartfelt appeal may be only because it is La Cocina, which should have nothing to do with historic significance. A new building design for lots M and N would bring more harmony - both visually and emotionally - to the whole area. 2 p .4, 47 â‚¬- Pe.,1 1 17 0 1.P 9 4 d.... it 9 7 I / - 1 4-19 6 .' 40 j 0. Al r- r , , *r * S.4 1 4, -14 . - - 4 - # 1 - A E. t. . â‚¬ 4.-4 . ' i 111 1 kl . . a , *,4.4//1/ lm:.4, . 1,2 r 1, *rif W. - 4. . r a ELI â€¢ 2 4 + i f ' :. * 'W. , I al . -0 4 I.- 4 f # 44 . liti -Fpr -. -- - f 0 -- 0 . 0 I - - . ... - 0 4,%~11.0 le.. 1 .... UA. 4, TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Directok 44 Joyce Ohlson, Community Development Deputy Direct<~r FROM: Fred Jarman, Planner <0~ RE: 620 North Third Street - Request for Removal from Inventory (PUBLIC HEARING) DATE: February 14,2001 4 *%*4 . . ~ 15;~~ i ~/2 Â·: *282*21 + . / 1. . *. ....., . f.pe 41. u ' A- ,--4 A.: 1:41'~tr.1 .7 leÂ©N . 4 ...1. I /. .0 4,~Ly= 4/52. 1 ..... t:.Iti--1214- I. 4 4. - 1 - I ... , ..1 1 . Ill I '11 1 1 ., 1 1 .iv= 1 = m %,i~ 1 I l ~ Im . Al> 1 1 - PROJECT: 620 North Third Street REQUEST: Request for Removal from Aspen's inventory of Historic Sites and Structures PUBLIC HEARING: Yes DATE: February 14, 2001 PROCESS: Request for Removal from Inventory Historic Preservation Commission Appeal of HPC decision (if requested) City Council RECOMMENDATION: Remain on the Inventory Summary ofRequest Ann Altemus, owner of the residence at 620 North Third Street, which is currently listed on the City of Aspen's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures [the "Inventory"], met with Community Development Staff and requested to be removed from the Inventory. Process Owners of property currently listed on the Inventory shall address the same review criteria that were originally used to designate the site, and shall be required to demonstrate that their property does not meet these review criteria in order for it to be removed. The request will follow the procedures set forth in the City of Aspen's Land Use Code Section 26.420.080 and Aspen's Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The applicant may appeal a decision by the Historic Preservation Commission to City Council according to Chapter 26.316 of the Aspen Land Use Code. Staff Comments The following review criteria must be met in order for 620 North Third Street to be included on the inventory. 1. The inventory of historic sites and structures shall include all structures in the City of Aspen which are at least fifty (50) years old; and Staff Finding: According to the Pitkin County Assessor's Office, the original structure was constructed in its current location in 1889 making it 112 years old. There have been several additions and modifications to the structure and on the property over the years. Specifically, there has been a shed addition to the carriage house behind the main house, some window alterations, a single story connector to the original house, and a new dormer on the house. Further review shows the original structure (on the Lake Avenue side of the lots) on the Bird's Eye View of Aspen in 1893 as well as the W. C. Willits map of 1896. The City of Aspen Building Department building permit records indicated that the substantial additions and modifications occurred between 1960 and the late 1980s. While there have been several additions to the site as well as some minor modifications to the original structure, the original structure is, in fact, 112 years old and therefore meets this criterion. 2. All Structures which continue to have historic value and such other structures identiJied by the Historic Preservation Commission as being outstanding examples of more modern architecture; Staff Finding: As the means of assessing the concept of "historic value," the Land Use Code provides that the building should be evaluated in terms of its current architectural integrity, current historic significance, and current community and neighborhood influence. Staff has based their review on the attached Architectural Inventory Form (attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit A), completed in the summer of 2000. Architectural Integrity Architectural integrity is defined in Aspen's Historic Preservation Guidelines [the "Guidelines"] as: a measure ofthe wholeness or quality ofall of the historic features, which make up the building. A building that has been added to and had features removed is said to have had its integrity compromised. In addition, the concept of"integrity" is discussed in the Guidelines as: A sufficient percentage of the structure must date from the period of significance. The majority of the building's structural system and its materials should date from that time and its key character-defining features also should remain intact. These may include architectural details, such as dormers and porches, ornamental brackets and moldings and materials, as well as the overall mass and.form of the building. It is these elements that allow a building or district to be recognized as a product Of its time. Staff Finding: The current Architectural Inventory Form describes the structure as having a period of significance of the late 1 800's Silver Mining Era. Therefore, the question is whether a sufficient percentage of the current structure remains that dates from this period of significance and does the building's structural system, materials, and character-defining features allow it to be recognized as a product of the late 1800's Silver Mining Era? 64~ -46& A In discussing architectural ~~~I Â·Â·Â·pi}Â·*f'* 26;..:v-*1 integrity, this structure is 7' significant for its position in the . - , Â·24 -7 Â·-Â·.-Â·.Â·Â·,.j... ~,~-~,~0~~i:~ context ofAspen's mining era. It : -.*-~. ~,4,22~~'*0 44 ~ 4*.:.9 describes the nature of the life of an average family or individual p-7 r Â·4; 11 -4.Â·EF: ~ during that period, as well as the E di .GM. ; construction techniques, materials - 6. . rk. 1 / , 1 â€ž 0-// ~t. Fi- ;8 .... available and the fashion of the j time. describes the historic physical integrity related to significance for this structure. Specifically. it indicates the original structure is intact and understandable in its form, pattern and detail. Additions are kept separate from the original structure; small alterations to the original are isolated, and distinctly new. According to the form, the structure is basically described as a variant of the Miner' s Cottage. The specific architectural features are described in this form as the following: Bay Window The bay window on the east elevation contains a double hung window with a center vertical muntin in the upper sash. The dormer has a similar but smaller window in a field of decorative shingles. A single double hung sits to the right, on the wall of an east facing gable extension, and a small projecting porch sits on the left. Porch and Dormer 4 -- The porch roof is supported >I , *~Â»'4 9 7 . I I . - -- by turned posts and has a -- - delicate dentil trim around . * * 9994 Â·- J -- .. the edge of the eave, it is - centered on the entry door Â· Â· and has another tall double 1 - I F.. f.hk hung to the right. The east .--= _2_ - facing gable end has a - 1.- T 4/Sill ~U 6 i.%'-1 similar shallow bay with a ~ 4 --1 1 2- - - 4:.* vil/, r,42/ 15 r.Â¥. horizontal vent window ....lÂ· ./.i@,1.- -3 -- .4 0 L . ... - above, and small eave end -- /4/ returns. A shed addition sits t - Itt 1% i f:-1 4- to the north side of the gable 74 with a single window ''i- 4/ T opening facing east. A gable dormer sits on the west side of the hipped roof with a pair of easement windows and more decorative shingles. The corbelled brick chimney sits on the short ridge of the hipped roof. The applicant indicated that the main entry was moved from the east side (Lake Avenue) to the south side where a new porch was constructed in the 1960s. The city' s building records do not contain information regarding this endeavor. It is clear that the new porch is constructed in a style closely resembling the correct period of the original structure. Roof The structure has a single story hipped roof structure with a short ridge running east- west. The main favade faces south with a center small gable dormer over a shallow bay with a hipped roof, and brackets supporting the sill. The photo on the front cover of this memorandum shows the gable and bay window. The picture above illustrates the hipped roof and the dormer with easement windows and decorative (blue) shingles on the west side of the historical structure with the corbelled brick structure on the ridge of the hipped roof. Specifically, the original structure has a typical hipped roof with lower cross gables and a dormer on the west side of the hipped roof, which are very defining features to this period of architecture. In addition, these gables and dormers have a single type and pattern typical to this period. Connector A single story flat roof connector extends to the west to connect to a large gable form. The connector has a shed roof (metal) on the south side, supported by turned posts and a series of contemporary windows and doors, which is partially shown in the photo above. The large gable (shown , in the photo to the left) is a one and <C--1 1 ~i kt e :*r.-,8 4 1 1/2 story structure with a small :vAA> -'< 0*~- ta:, ;714-t lantern on the ridge and a shed roof -_ -~-1 ~i. extending offthe south *side. A '-90I simple brick chimney sits at the f. ka *-=c=.-Â·2.~- 2 =2--t'.4 -=-2-- -- - J valley. Window openings are ------- -- -it-- "~~ minimal on the west and south sides, and decorative shingles are used in 1- l - -itt.i,214*97"Frw.w-=-, Ff , - - 41 the gable ends. - Finally, in reviewing a structure' s current historical integrity, one should consider the notion of"a measure of the wholeness" or "quality of all of the historic features", which make up the building. Staff finds that the original structure has not been significantly added to nor had so many features removed that its integrity has been ultimately compromised. Further, Staff finds that the key character-defining features such as the dormers, moldings, materials, as well as the overall mass and form of the building sufficiently remain as to define this structure as a recognizable product of its time regardless of the more recently constructed single-story element connecting the original house to the garage structure. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Historic Significance Historic significance is discussed in the Guidelines according to the generally recognized notion that a certain amount of time must pass before the significance of a property can be evaluated. The National Register, for example, requires that a property be at least 50 years old or have extraordinary importance before it may be considered. Aspen also uses this 50-year guideline; however, structures that are more recent may be considered significant if they are found to have special architectural or historical merit. A property may achieve significance because of its 1) association with events that contributed to the broad patterns of history, the lives of significant people, or the understanding of Aspen's prehistory or history; 2) construction and design associated with distinctive characteristics of a building type, period, or construction method; 3) an example of an architect or master craftsman or an expression of particularly high artistic values; and 4) integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. The "period of significance" is discussed in the Guidelines as the time span during which a building gained architectural, historical or geographical importance. In most cases, a property is significant because it represents or is associated with a particular period in history. Frequently, this begins with its construction date and continues through the peak of early occupation. Building fabric and features that date from the period of significance typically contribute to the character of the structure or district. 0 Staff Finding: This structure is representative of Aspen's mining era character. It is a variant of the Miner's Cottage, characterized by the hipped roof, short gable, window types and shallow bays as discussed above. Staffbelieves that this structure is historically significant for its position in the context of Aspen's mining era. It describes the nature of the life of an average family or individual during that period, as well as the construction techniques, materials available and the fashion of the time. Most of the houses built during this time were from designs found in pattern books, volumes ofbuilding plans that were widely available. The majority ofthe homes were wood frame, although some larger and more elaborate houses were constructed of brick. The miner's cottages generally measured twenty-eight feet by thirty feet and were divided into five main spaces: a parlor (with bay window), sitting room, kitchen, sleeping area and a porch. An outhouse and sheds for livestock also would have been located on the lot. Exterior detailing on the cottages was relatively minimal, mostly focusing on the porch and the most prominent window. In this particular case, the front faGade on Lake Avenue has an eve detailing on the lower portion of the gable that is unique to the Greek Revival architectural style typically found during 1825 to 1860 which is not found on many houses ofthis type in Aspen. Residential landscapes at this time were often utilitarian in design, with small vegetable gardens and few ornamental plantings. The larger homes had ornamental 0 plantings, often protected by iron or wood fences. The fences were low and transparent in nature to provide some definition between private yards and the public right-of-way. The planting of cottonwood rows was the dominant landscaping feature in the residential and commercial districts. Small irrigation ditches to promote growth linked the tree-plantings. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Current community and neighborhood injluence An analysis of the current community and neighborhood influence includes the discussion of this particular structure related to its context. Context is defined in the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines as "those properties and structures adjacent to, and within, the same block, as the structure being considered." On a much broader scale, this structure was originally built in 1889 and was one of the first houses to go up in the newly created Hallam's Addition, which was one ofthe first real expansions of the original townsite in 1888 that is adjacent to Hallam Lake. More specifically, the structure is located on a lot, which is fronted by both North Third Street on the garage side and Lake Avenue, which is the original structure's historic front. The structure is located between historic houses; the house to the north is listed on the City's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures and the house to the south is designated as a Historic Landmark. In addition, there are seven other structures in the immediate area, which are either on the Inventory or Landmarked properties. This original structure is a strong thread among those other structures that 0 define this particular neighborhood as being a historic enclave, which is a recognizable product of its time defined as Aspen's mining era. Staffbelieves that this structure continues to contribute to this neighborhood. 0 StaffRecommendation Staff recommends the structure should remain on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. [Upon advice from the City Attorney, the motion has been worded to remove the property from the Inventory. If the motion passes, the property will be removed from the Inventory. Ifthe motion does not pass, the property will remain on the Inventory.] Recommended Afotion "I move to remove 620 North Third Street from the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, finding that the structure does not meet the criteria for the Inventory." Exhibits Exhibit A: Resolution No. , Series Exhibit B: Application Exhibit C: 2001 Architectural Inventory Form 0 0 Exhibit A RESOLUTION NO. ~, SERIES OF 2001 OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO IE 620 NORTH THIRD STREET, SOUTH 3.2 FEET OF LOT 6 AN Le 12* 1 rl ~u i o , ai,u d, BLOCK 102, HALLAM'S ADDITION, FROM THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES Parcel ID: 2737-121-08-003 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has conducted an evaluation of the City of Aspen "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" to identify any properties which should be removed from the inventory due to loss of integrity, to nominate any sites which should be added to the inventory, and to rate the resources using the terms "significant, 5, GO contributing," and "supporting;" and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has forwarded a recommendation to the Historic Preservation Commission; and WHEREAS, Section 26.420.080 of the Land Use Code provides guidance on evaluation of the inventory. According to that passage, the Inventory shall include all structures in the City of Aspen which are at least fifty (50) years old and which continue to have historic value, and such other structures identified by the Historic Preservation Commission as being outstanding examples of more modern architecture; and WHEREAS, Section 26.420.080 of the Land Use Code also requires that all structures on the inventory be evaluated by the Historic Preservation Commission regarding their current architectural integrity, historic significance, and community and neighborhood influence and be categorized as "significant, 5, K contributing," or "supporting;" and WHEREAS, Staff provided the Historic Preservation Commission with the Community Development Department's recommendations regarding 620 North Third Street, a property currently listed on the inventory; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting on February 144, 2001, the Historic Preservation Commission considered ~j recommendation, and approved this resolution by a vote of n to Q , to remeÂ¥@ 620 North Third Street from Aspen's Inventory of Sites and Structures finding that the structure does not meet the review criteria pursuant to Section 26.420.080. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the HPC finds that the standards and review criteria established in Section 26.420.080 of the Land Use Code are not met and that 620 North Third Street, South 3.2 feet of Lot 6 an Lots 7 and 8, Block 102 of the City and Townsite of Aspen, shall be removed from the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures." .... APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14th day of 0 February, 2001. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Acting Vice-Chair ATTEST: 0 Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy 0 Extil:.1- 6 620 North Third Street Request for Removal from Aspen's Inventory ofHistoric Sites and Structures 1. The majority ofthe standing parts ofour structure have been recently added and are less than 50 years old. 2. The changes of the last 43 years which occurred while I have owned and lived in 620 North Third street are the following: We resided the garage with wood in the late 1970's and the exterior stairs were moved inside. Mrs. Cousins added the garage, a cinder block building, which faces the third street side of my lot in the 1940's. It has no historical interest or architectural integrity. Four new windows and three new doors were added between 1980 and 1986 on the first floor. We added heat, water, and a downstairs bath. An additional room on the south side was added in 1980, which has a tin roof, and a fireplace that is now a catalytic converter stove. This was never a "carriage house" and to this day has a pit in the cement floor in the living room that was used to check the undercarriage of cars. Although integrity was attempted when we re-roofed the sky light cupola and re-shingled the roof this structure has been entirely reconstructed in the last twenty years. In 1986 a connecting building between the garage and the house was added with three French doors (double pained) and two thermal windows on north side in the laundry room and pantry. We also increased our front porch sitting area. We added two wooden columns, which married the porches. This structure, which increased the living space of our house, was overseen by architect Charles Cunniffe. In the 1960's the improvements and changes to the original house included the following: The entry was moved from Lake Avenue to a new porch on the south side. The old entry became a bathroom with a thennal window. Also added on the north side in the late 1970's were a brick chimney and a fireplace. The window in the second floor Lake Avenue side bedroom was enlarged and replaced with a double pane (it was previously stain glass). Obviously new foundations were lait and essentially what remains of the "original structure" are the four windows with rotting sashes that require plastic covering in the winter and need to be replaced. 3. We have always tried to maintain the semblance ofthe original architecture (Victorian) but since so many additions and substantial modifications have been made I would be hard pressed to declare that the standing structure is "architecturally integral". (As for changes see answer number 2). 4. My structure has never had "significant" historic influence. 5. My hodgepodge block was desecrated by Mr. McCoy's two new houses on north both at the Lake and Third Street corners. In the next-door lot to the south a Victorian was moved onto a lot that was originally an unused ally. It was mansarded three times and all three structures are higher than the normal two stories in the West End. To the north of my structure is the Daggs' house, which is up for a lot split, and they are asking to add another un-historic structure. The Gillespie corner structures were previously owned by Mary Martin and largely remodeled. Both are essentially new. My structure therefore has neither specific influence nor community flavor. . .. REQUEST FOR REMOVAL FROM ASPEN'S INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES Request for Removal from the Inventorv Property owners who have property in the City of.Aspen thar is currently listed on the City of.Aspen's Inventory of Sites and Structures [the "Inventory'l shall use this form to formally request their property be removed from the Inventory. More specifically. the request will follow the same procedures set forth in the City of Aspen s Land Use Code Section 26.420.080 and Aspen s Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Initially, properties were placed on the Inventory by the Historic Preservation Commission using the review criteria in Chapter 26:420.080(D) of the Land Use Code. In order for applicants to request removal from the Inventory.they shall demonstrare that their property does nor continue to meet the following criteria. 1. All structures in the City of Aspen which are ar least fifty (50) years old: and 2. All Structures which continue to have historic value ind such other structures identified by the Historic Preservation Commission as being outstanding examples of more modem architecture: a. All structures which are not hiSIOriC lardmarks shall be evaluated by the Historic Preservation Commission regardir.2 their current architectural - integrity: b. All structures which are not historic tar.dmrks shall be evaluated by the Historic Preservation Commission recardine their current historic - significance: and c. All structures. which are not historic landmarks. shall be evaluated by the Historic Preservation Commission regarding their current community and neighborhood influence. Process The applicant shall be required to submit the informaIion requested on Attachment 1 to the City of Aspen Community Development Department to be considered for removal. The applicants shall present their findings to the Historic Preservation Commission in a public hearing. which has been noticed by the City of Aspen. Applicants may appeal a decision of the Historic Preservation Commissionto City Council pursuant to Chapter 26.316 0 f the land Use Code. U.and Use Code Section 26.420.080.and a list of clarif,Â·ing definitions have been included as attachments to this application.1 . I .... I 1, ATTACHMENT 1 MINIMUM SUBMISSION CONTENTS 1. Applicant's name. address and telephone number, and / or the name. address. and telephone number o f the representative authorized IO act On behalf of the applicant (ifapplicable). Name: /UN. batf21 - Address: Phone: 115,3114 The street address and legal description of the parcel (Lot and Block E) on which the subject property is proposed for removal from Aspen's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. Street Address: 00 U 1 3 + r tj Legal Description: CLots and Block =) - - 1 L.-036.71 eQ,lf'1-4 Blockl03~ tdoti~241vj 0:d* 3. Please amach an 81Â·7 xii"vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the v.'Ciry of.Aspen with this application. 4. Please attach a written explanation of how the current property does nor meer each of the review crizeria for being placed on Aspen's Inventory o f Historic S ites and Structures listed below: > Is your structure ar least fifty (50) years old? > Does your strucrure continue to have historic value and such other structures identified by the HisIOriC Preservation Commission as being outstanding examples of more modern architecture? (If not. why? What has changed?) ~ > Does your structure. in its current condition. continue to maintain architectural integrity? (If not. why? What has changed?) ~ > Does your structure. in its current condition. continue to maintain historic significance? (If nor. why? What has changed?) > Does your structure. in irs current condition. continue to mintain community and neighborhood in fluence? (If not, why? What has changed?) . ... ./ 1 1, ATTACHMENT 2 LAND USE CODE SECTION 26.480.080 A. Purpose and Intent. Fifty (50) years old is generally the age when a property may begin to be considered historically significant. Aspen's ski history and modemist tradition are very important parts of our local history and significant resources from these periods must be addressed or they are likely to be lost. It is nor the intention of the Hisroric Preservation Commission to include insignificant strucalres or sites on the inventory. The Historic Preservation Commission will focus on those resources. which are unique or hav e some s pecial value to the community. B. Establishment of inventory. There is hereby established an "inventory of historic sites and structures" in the City of Aspen. The inventory shall be mainmined in the office of the community development department for inspecrion by the zer.e:al oublic during - 4 regular business hours. The inventory of historic Sites and structures shall include all structures in the City of Aspen which are at least fifty (50)years old and which continue to have hiStoric value and such other structures idenrified by the Historic Preser.'ation Commission as being outstanding examples of more modern arch: Historic sites are land parcels which may or may not have structures on them. but which. primarily have significance as parks. cemeteries. archaeological resources. or similar types of landscapes. Archaeological resources are sites. which include material remains. borh above and below ground. of prehiSIOriC or historic human activity. AH properties included on the inv.ncon' will be adopted by legal description. and the Historic Preservation Commission will have the appropriate review authority over the entire property. W' nen in application is made for a lot split on an invenroried parcel. HPC shail review the application in terms of impacts on the significance of the historic resource and shail forward any appropriate conditions of approval or a recommendation for denial to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. C. Periodic evaluation of inventory. The Historic Presen'ation Commission. based on the recommendations of the Community Development Direc:or. shall have the responsibility of evaluating the inventory of historic structures at least once every five (5) years and o f holding a public hearing to solicit comments on its evaluations. The purpose of the evaluation shall be to determine those structures. which are to be removed from the inventory. any sructures that should be added to the inventorr. and tonie all structures. which remain on the inventory. D. Process. The Historic Preservation Commission evaluation process shall proceed as follows: The structures on the inventory shall be categorized as to whether or not they are historic landmarks. No further action need be taken with respect ro designated historic landmarks. All structures which are not hiSIOriC landmarks shall be evaluatedÂ· by the Historic Preservation Commission regarding their current architectural integrity. historic significance. and community and neighborhood influence and shall be categorized accordingly as follows: . 0 . .. . 1. Significant. All those resources. which are considered exceptional. excellent. or those resources individually eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. All structures or sites within the City of Aspen. which are listed on or eligible for listing On the National Register of Historic Places shall be reviewed according to the "Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation" in addition to the review standards of this Chapter. The "Secretary ofthe Inrerior' s Standards for Rehabilitation" are as follows: a. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which requires minimal alteration of the building. structure. or site and its environment. or to use the property for its originally intended purpose. b. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building. structure. site or irs environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration Of any historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible. c. 411 buildings. structures. and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Akerations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged. d. Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence or the history and development of a building. structure. or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right. and this significance shall be recognized and respec:ed. e. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a building. structure. or site shall be treated with sensitivity. f. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced. wherever possible. In the event replacement is necessary. tile new material should match the material being replaced in composition. design. color. texture. and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features. substantiated by historic. physical. or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other buildings or structures. g. The surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic building materials shall not be undertaken. h. Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archaeological resources affected by. or adjacent to, any project. L I . i. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural material, and such design is compatible with the size. scale, color, material. and character of the property, neighborhood, or environment. j. Whenever possible. new additions or alterations to structures shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future. the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. 2. Contributing. Alt those historic or architecturally significant resources that do not meet the criteria for "significant:" provided. however. these resources have maintained their historic integrity or represent unique archirectural design. 3. Supporting. All those historic resources thai have lost their original integrity. but are "retrievable" as historic structures or sires. These structures have received substantial alterations over the years but with substantial effort bould be considered "contributing" once again. 4. Non-Contributing. All those structures that are either: 2 New or non-historic construction within a historic district. and b. Historic structures with complete loss of integrity. either wirhin or outside a historic district. , I ATTACHMENT 3 DEFINITIONS & CONCEPTS (Taken from the City of Aspen's Historic Preseroation Guidelines) The City has identified approximately 300 historic resources. including buildings. structures. parks. cemeteries. and bridges. The entire group of 300 is referred to as the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures." About half of this group are designated historic landmarks. If a resource is not a landmark. it is referred to as "on the Inventory." Resources which are listed on the Inventory are rated as "significant," "conrributing," or "supporting." The rating helps everyone understand what level of historic integrity the building retains. but it does not affect the review process. Definitions: Contributing R~ource - A building. site. structure. or object adding to the significance of a hisroric district. Historic District - A significant concentration of sites. buildings. structures or objects united historically or aestherically by plan or physical development and so designated by the City. Non-contributing Resource - A building, site, structure or object that does not add to the historic significance of a property. Period of Significance - Span of time in which a property atrained the significance. Appropriate - In some cases. a stated action or design choice is classified as being "appropriate". In such cases. by choosing the design approach referred to as "appropriate," the applicant will be in compliance with the guideline. However. in other cases. there may be a design that is not expressly mentioned that also may be deemed "appropriare" by the HPC. Consider - When the term "consider" is used. a design suggestion is offered as an example of one method of how the design guideline at hand could be mer. Applicants may elect to follow the suggestion. but may also seek alternative means of meeting tile design guidelines. In other cases, the applicant is instructed to evaluate the ability to take the course recommended in the context o f the specific project. Ontext - In many cases, the applicant is instructed to relate to the context of the project area. The "context" relates to those properties and structures adjacent to, and within the same block as, the proposed project. 6 Contributing Structure - Architecturally, historically or geographically significant buildings or structures are generally considered to be "contributing" to the history of an area. 4 Imperative mood - Throughout this document, man)' of the guidelines are written in the imperative mood. The reader is often instructed to "maintain" or "preserve" an established characteriStic. For example. one guideline states: "Maintain the original proportions of a door." In such cases. the applicant shall comply. The imperative mood is used. in part. because this document is intended to sen'e an educational role as well as a regulatory one. Inappropriate - Inappropriate means impermissible. When the term "inapprop*riate" is used, the relevant design approach should not be allowed. For example. one guideline states: "A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the building is inappropriate." In this case. a design out of character with the hiSIOriC building would not be approved. Integrity - A building's "integrity" is a measure of the wholeness or quality of all of the historic features. which make up the building. A building that has been added to and had features removed is said to have had its integrity compromised. Defining Concepts: The design guidelines incorporate principles ser forth in The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties: a widely accepted set oi basic preservation design principles. This document is comparible with the SecreTary of the Interior's Standards, while expanding on how these basic preservation principles apply in Aspen. 0 The concept of historic significance What makes a property historically significant? It is generally recognized that a certain amount of time must pass before the historical significance of a property can be evaluated. The National Register. for example. requires that a property be at least 50 years old or have extraordinary importance before it may be considered. Aspen also employs the 50-year guideline: however. structures that are more recent may be considered significant if they are found to have special architectural or historical merit. A property may be significant for one or more o f the following reasons: Association with events that contributed to the broad patterns of history, the lives of significant people, or the understanding of Aspen's prehistory or hiSIOry. ' Construction and design associated with distinctive characteristics of a building type, period, or construction method. An example of an architect or master craftsman or an expression of particularly high artistic values. Integrity of location. design, setting, materials. workmanship, feeling and association. D 1. I . 4 . Period of significance Every historic building or district has a period of significance-or the time span during which it gained architectural, historical or geographical importance. In most cases, a property is significant because it represents or is associated with a particular period in history. Frequently. this begins with irS construction dam and continues through the peak of early occupation. Building fabric and features that date from the period of significance typically contribure to the character of the structure or diSIriCt. Concept of"integrity" In addition to being historically significant. a property also must have integrity-a sufficient percentage of the structure must dare from the period of significance. The majority of the building's structural system and its materials should date from thar time and its key character-defining features also should remain intact. These may include architectural details. such as dormers and porches. omamental brackets and moldings and materials. as well as the overall mass and form of the building. It is these elements that allow a building or district to be recognized as a product ofits time. 7 1 - / 11 )/ , C. '\1 J aff((i?1.3.93*~ .- 32. <.44-1 -t- L . th - 411 1111\ - X Â·Nk * .911 / . - 2-Er 'Â·''FKN~/Â·.-st Â·difiE - -Â·-4- W..Â« - -- -- ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ Â¤>Â»-12 1.- jv- /e 9/1//r 1 ZO -JAL,imr;tti,14~*Dialkil~f&t: U . ,\--li 11% h.â€¢ - r. - A 1 - r-t C.,.44Â».0~=11=1-:7-1144? Â· 21'44..:_ Â·~\ 3, 7\\ - 1 A.-44*4.f. *...3Si.*-:appApp#%,JÂ· 3Â»IN'4447,f.-2~/.-=~.-2 1,/f ' . r ' ----3*T----, d,7>444%010 - 1-.A -LYAn[' ' /. 194**3* - ., --A- ).: 9 ~.Â·Â«6~%9:Â·. + - :C - de f ~m#7+L~~flkÂ£13~EÂ·Â«1.2469443'31/~Â«. - -1 & 'I!*a >410. f k 1, I ...I.-491:i-7 Ric~a<'.~GL 741(~~-0~237â‚¬Â·,~if ~~1 -2Â«fri<<tti~Vp); .ip-- #//fo d _. 2- â‚¬..1202 0% 19 2 7.2.- Â·f i.it/" 4 7/U 1 ---mik , r .1,,/F./ / f it.r-:Â·:Cemet#ry ' wit.GOLS COURSE ~:37 ' 1-<.5 yn.Â«-0 -Â· c . .... ----2--11 *zm?(<(ff,Â»4lru foef' )1/11 '11 ------- .~:.''I )/0 + Â·'l f:Â·;44~-11.~.\ \ :!'~-1M7~4<34 /11~N.,h~k~ 40%~ ~ ; d' .,A . 4 1 ErÂ· .41 :.Y . , -, 1 2. 4. i g .9 *y,MA 6814 2 . .93Â§.lak,Â·Â· Epark-Rege(11 , " - L- J - 941\\.I ,-ay:.4-{flfâ‚¬071.ts ?444Â£ 44*~a.Xt),li~(LAQ~"fl.~:&#~~:5%3~1. ~ zi:*Un ne i -4 '. ~..., (. lugH'...16.f, t.\1Â« 1 '.A)Â§â‚¬ lA, (., ,> 1 . g \ . 1 . edk=V. --6 U'.' Â·I.Z.. \ 1,~ : Â»Â·'' L 4-_Ls- -42,719 1 1, -- - -- - 6. -. -J . p=: Â·Z - 'te:~ i 8.-5 , A .Â· . F . . .ral!% 12â€¢G ==2=tdy: -9, '- . â€¢ -.- -4- --4-.. ~- 4 k' Â· ~ 4Â»=== i V â€¢ C . E b. I o . . r , -, , 1 ,"Af'i-4 ib:RnÂ®'. 1 --01 4. ~ 0 K., AF? 4 x~~\a J -_ 7 .. 1 ..,1.. . 1 , \ / 1 -\ -Vi-f ---go .. \ O ill I '.. i P'/ rl .1 7 . â€¢ C;., . r- \L. - 1 ... -0,4'....4*,41,1.4.9 :4:,2 1 \.0../.2 3 .-- ' % i),1111,11 2- 4% -*.* -- - ~AkiÂ¢&.0 Â·f'Â· 23Â· ' 344*444 : 5 1. il . Â»=.52.-- '22Â» I J'' psf*-\ 7 I N \. ./ ... tÂ» J . I' 4 \LÂ·. .. ' lipt \ 111 -I. .... \ L -6... .- -1.07>\ III , O.--Â· . ./. I - 1---:-2 . -.- -.\ % ill.MV, ~ I v. O - -*u A /99(1. 'C \, Â·Lx~ ~ -.-75~14 .7... 2..:: 1 4... ~ .% g.-' I ' I 1,-9 0 U ' . Â·Â·. LÂ·Water.>=f , j,/or.v, i.., ,1,.., t,,0, i. , \ 1 i? li~' Â·'~~Â·~~~< ' . 1 1 % --- - 11 1 ' . I \ ' . .:â€¢49*#.N#/â€¢2 ahEM.. i :i. -: 4 Â·<-*3. Â· ~2'73Â«Â·) b . #mi 1 1., ./.<L-''<0 , I . 1-- Â«213. - - - l , 1 11 \1 111 2.-P .1 L .4- A. " ...th 11 11' .1 1. 0 ' ' Â·A J I L L h ///,18, r.,2 Â·1 1 't .:-, 1~~ Â©ru-ildrEWL#Obt:.Â·''-~1JÂ·_23' 3Â» 'a i ~iÂ«k-JAWK:r Jbti~ IfÂ«Â»741:9:4< 110,1111 'li Â·Clf' 11; )1: ctrfÂ«PyÂ«99'1Et<*.31-7 9- 04%.~-bRA~f~ ~ 4411 ,(2441? 1(11 21'ilil._ t.fl~)2.TEE: i)~ff~1:.*R<vkL, fi\Â»/// ./1 </ f \,1.: 14[..,4*i'll . . rtÂ«.1, 21.%Â»fk.4 /3.2,~ 7/2Â». r/,/2.53 /,34 227~1i*#<~ 21Â»~~,1,~11/439//,Â«... '/~/Â»'04 /1--Â»tfr~ fril,?il, 0.1 ..Â·i..\'rtf~%4~5~~â€ž1 062,9 /40, :4~4~ L#1-+42- 4\1~ ... 32 . 1. . 2.4,14Â«4.-24Â»)(11,1~. f<'{ft LAÂ·-~- Ub#=,0. s 18 ~; 0~FÂ·lf '2Â¢,tÂ·i,iff~.lit -Â»C=-,2, C ./. 'j,*, :.L' 4-- .1.7 )4 C - \ All Survey Sites are included within the City of Aspen limits, Aspen Quadrangle See Sketch map for identification of specific location and building context Colorado-Pitkin County 1960, Photo Revised 1987 Scale: 1:24 7.5 Minute Survey WAY Gi L /1 SCALE 1Â· 24 000 1 0 1 MILE 3 12' ~ 209' 1 '213 MILS ICCO C ICCO 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 "900 :.-r 20 9Â·LS d i , 1 - -T - 1 5 0 1 KILOMETER + - 1 UTM GRID AND .987 VAGNETIC NORTH CONTOUR INTERVAL 40 FEET - DECUNATION A- CENTER OF SHEET NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929 .- 1 1 ., s Vil,Â·,g;:,1.--.tai. 443' ~ 1 1 . 10â€¢ ' fiÂ·. 4,4 :. 4 I ... .... i. r. ... 4 0 Mbh, * 3:~fl.'~2- Â¥51,4 ' 1 < 14,~. ' AN.*ib*?i, .. 4 1. *k.i j 1 , '00#411 7 14 .. ' .4't.:~ 4% 3 . 9 fÂ·-24Â· 4 - ' 11 Â¥ C.. ..1///â€ž. / /1 2......~ 11, , ....1.Â·.- 0 4 .240 'f ' ,-. 1.11111 ..; \Â»,AÂ»#1-1 4 4,7/'Â· Â·4 <Â· */3. F 34111 ..1 1 ... I 0 0/1/1410, 4.11111' 17 1 . . ..ftb. 0 / 'I ... 1: % I I X4* 4Â«4.., 49... :)~4 ., . . 14/ h .â€¢.Â· Â·Â· , 0 94'47 : ' 9 I. 11*94',1. 4 - I. ta. ' * 4 / / 1 I 1 . r . 11 L 4 , 1 ..4, -; U.=,----t-/ i . ---1--: 12* t 7 '.. 42-let 2. .7. - 2- xhibil C 0AHP1403 Official eligibility determination Rev. 9/98 (OAHP use only) Date Initials 0 COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Determined Eligible- NR Determined Not Eligible- NR Determined Eligible- SR Architectural Inventory Determined Not Eligible- SR Form Need Data Contributes to eligible NR District (page 1 of 4) Noncontributing to eligible NR District I. IDENTIFICATION 1. Resource number: 5PT.116.26 2. Temporary resource number:620.NTH (620.NT) 3. County: Â· Pitkin 4. City: Aspen 5. Historic building name: 6. Current building name: 7. Building address: 620 North Third Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 8. Owner name and address: Altemus E. A. Partnership LLP 620 North Third Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 II. Geographic Information 9. P.M. 6 Township 10 South Range 85 West NE G of NW G of NE G of SE G of Section 12 10. UTM reference Zone 1 3;342450mE43 ~40 0 0 00 11. USGS quad name: Aspen Quadrangle Year: 1960, Photo Rev. 1987 Map scale: 7.5' X 15' Attach photo copy of appropriate map section. 12. Lot(s): South 3.2' of Lot 6& Lots 7&8 Block: 102 Addition: Hallam's Addition Year of Addition: 13. Boundary Description and Justification: Site is comprised of the South 3.2' of Lot 6 & Lots 7 & 8; Block 102 of the City and Townsite of Aspen. Assessors office Record Number: 2735-121-08-003 This description was chosen as the most specific and customary description of the site. III. Architectural Description 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Irregular 15. Dimensions in feet: Length x Width 16. Number of stories: One and 1/2 Story 17. Primary external wall material(s) (enter no more than two): Horizontal Wood Siding 18. Roof configuration: (enter no more than one): Hipped Roof 19. Primary external roof material Center no more than one): Asphalt Shingle Roof 20. Special features (enter all that apply): Resource Number: 5PT. 116.26 Temporary Resource Number: 620.NTH Architectural Inventory Form (page 2 of 4) v=- 21. General architectural description: A variant of the Miner's Cottage. A single story hipped roof structure with a short ridge running east-west. The main fagade faces south with a center small gable dormer over a shallow bay with a hipped roof, and brackets supporting the sill. The bay contains a double hung with a center vertical muntin in the upper sash. The dormer has a similar but smaller window in a field of decorative shingles. A single double hung sits to the right, on the wall of an east facing gable extension, and a small projecting porch sits on the left. The porch roof is supported by turned posts and has a delicate dentil trim around the edge of the eave, it is centered on the entry door and has another tall double hung to the right. The east facing gable end has a similar shallow bay with a horizontal vent window above, and small eave end returns. A shed addition sits to the north side of the gable with a single window opening facing east. A gable dormer sits on the west side of the hipped roof with a pair of easement windows and more decorative shingles. The corbelled brick chimney sits on the short ridge of the hipped roof. A single story flat roof connector extends to the west to connect to a large gable form. The connector has a shed roof (metal) on the south side, supported by turned posts and a series of contemporary windows and doors. The large gable is a one and 1/2 story structure with a small lantern on the ridge and a shed roof extending off the south side. A 0 simple brick chimney sits at the valley. Window openings are minimal on the west and south sides, and decorative shingles are used in the gable ends. 22. Architectural style/building type: Late Victorian 23. Landscaping or special setting features: Mature poplar windbreak on the north property line; historic Cottonwood in southeast corner. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: none IV. Architectural History 25. Date of Construction: Estimate Actual 1889 Source of information: Pitkin County Assessor 26. Architect: Unknown Source of information: 27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown Source of information: 28. Original owner: Anna V. Ray Source of information: Pitkin County Assessor 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): Shed addition to carriage house, Window 0 alterations, Single story connector to house, new dormer on house, all dates unknown, pre 1990 Resource Number: 5PT. 116.26 Temporary Resource Number: 620.NTH Architectural Inventory Form (page 3 of 4) 30. Original location X Moved Date of move(s): V. Historical Associations 31. Original use(s): Domestic 32. Intermediate use(s): 33. Current use(s): Domestic 34. Site type(s): Residential Neighborhood 35. Historical background: This structure is representative of Aspen's mining era character. It is a variant of the Miner's Cottage, characterized by the hipped roof, short gable, window types and shallow bays. 36. Sources of information: Pitkin County Courthouse records; Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps; 1990 and 1980 City of Aspen Survey of Historic Sites and Structures VI. Significance 37. Local landmark designation: Yes No X Date of designation: Designating authority: 38. Applicable National Register Criteria: 0 - A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; X C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual) Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria 39. Area(s) of significance: Architecture 4O. Period of significance: Late 1800' s Silver Mining Era 41. Level of significance: National State Local X 42. Statement of significance: This structure is significant for its position in the context of Aspen's mining era. It describes the nature of the life of an average family or individual during that period, as well as the construction techniques, materials available and the fashion of the time. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: Original structure is intact and 0 understandable in its form. pattern and detail. Additions are kept separate from the original structure. small alterations to the original are isolated, and distinctiv new. Resource Number: 5PT. 116.26 Temporary Resource Number: 620.NTH Architectural Inventory Form 0 (page 4 of 4) VII. National Register Eligibility Assessment 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Eligible Not Eligible X Need Data 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes No X Discuss: If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing Noncontributing 46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it: Contributing Noncontributing VIII. Recording Information 47. Photograph numbers: R9; Fl 1, 12 Negatives filed at: Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Dept. 48. Report title: Citv of Aspen Update of Survey of Historic Sites and Structures, 2000 49. Date(s): 6/29/2000 50. Recorder(s): Suzannah Reid and Patrick Duffield 51. Organization: Reid Architects 52. Address: 412 North Mill Street, PO Box 1303, Aspen CO 81612 53. Phone number(s): 970 920 9225 NOTE: Please attach a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad. map indicating resource location, and photographs. Colorado Historical Society - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395 0 'EEA ,;1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development DirectorL 1/ RE: 811/819 E. Hopkins - Request for Removal from Inyantory (PUBLIC HEARING) Site Visit: 12:00 Noon on February 14, 2000 DATE: February 14,2001 1 Ir-10- 4. \ r - f 4. â‚¬-5 7.L' 1 - t. Â¢ 0 . Â¢ t .4 f. 1 1 1, * let' 1 r-t. M. 11 31.~ > - 4 "WLS.."12 I e -- - I. .' - 819 E. Hopkins 811 E. Hopkins PROJECT: 811/819 E. Hopkins REQUEST: Request for Removal from Aspen's inventory of Historic Sites and Structures PUBLIC HEARING: Yes DATE: February 14, 2001 PROCESS: Request for Removal from Inventory Historic Preservation Commission Appeal of HPC decision (if requested) City Council RECOMMENDATION: Denial-the properties should remain on the inventory Summarv of Request John Gates is the owner of 811/819 E. Hopkins, which are currently listed in the City of Aspen's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures [the "Inventory"I. The owner previously met with Amy Guthrie, in order to discuss options and opportunities regarding this property. The owner also submitted a development scenario for these properties before the HPC in 2000. His request for approval was denied. Subsequently, the owner requested to be removed from the Inventory. Process Property owners who have property in the City of Aspen that is currently listed on the Inventory shall address the same review criteria that were used to originally place them on the Inventory. Applicants shall be required to demonstrate that their property does not meet these review criteria in order to determine that their property not remain on the Inventory. More specifically, the request will follow the same procedures set forth in the City of Aspen's Land Use Code Section 26.420.080 and Aspen's Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The applicant may appeal a decision by the Historic Preservation Commission to City Council according to Chapter 26.316 of the Aspen Land Use Code. Staff Comments As the means of assessing the concept of "historic value," the Land Use Code provides that the building should be evaluated in terms of its current architectural integrity, current historic significance, and current community and neighborhood influence. Staff has based this review on the attached Architectural Inventory Form (attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit A), completed in the summer of 2000. The following review criteria were used to place 811 E. Hopkins on the Inventory. (Because this property contains two structures of historical importance, this evaluation will also be done for 819 E. Hopkins, following this assessment): 1. All structures in the City of Aspen which are at leastfifty (50) years old; and Staff Finding: According to the Pitkin County Assessor, the structure was constructed probably in the 1880's. This structure also appears on both the 1904 Sanborn Maps and the 1893 Bird's eye view map of Aspen. This time frame would place the structure's age between 110 and 121 years old. Staff finds that the structure meets this review criterion. 2. All Structures which continue to have historic value and such other structures identiJied by the Historic Preservation Commission as being outstanding examples of more modern architecture; a. AU structures which are not historic landmarks shall be evaluated by the Historic Preservation Commission regarding their current architectural integrity; Staff Finding: Architectural integrity is defined in Aspen's Historic Preservation Guidelines [the "Guidelines'l as: a measure of the wholeness or quality of all of the historic features, which make up the building. A building that has been added to and had features removed is said to have had its integrity compromised. In addition, the concept of"integrity" is discussed in the Guidelines as: A sufficient percentage of the structure must date from the period of significance. The majority of the building's structural system and its materials should date from that time and its key character-defining features also should remain intact. These may include architectural details, such as dormers and porches, ornamental brackets and moldings and materials, as well as the overall mass and form of the building. It is these elements that allow a building or district to be recognized as a product of its time. The current inventory form describes this property as follows: The general form of the structure appears intact from the street. However, revised materials and enclosure of the porch detract from the original integrity ofthe streetfagade. Archedwindow withstained glass confuses originalhistoric details. Additionto therear allows for continued reading ofthe historic massing and street relationship, but overwhelms the original structure. This property would not be eligible for the National Register. Staff would also point out that though the addition to the rear of the original house is substantial, the design of the addition, as viewed from the street, does not read as a substantial addition. In fact, the original house's structural system remains pretty much intact, with the exception of the rear wall and the enclosure of the front porch. The Commission should evaluate whether they believe that the majority of the building's structural system and its materials date from this building's historic era, and determine if it' s character dejiningfeatures remain intact. A check of the building file indicates that the owner added the two story addition in the rear between 1988-1991. A set of undated photos is attached as Exhibit C which predates this addition. The photos below show more detail. 1.,1.42Â¥1.1 kfilf/, 1 / - - 34* 1 - 1\ t 1 . Ij . C--t-:,LS&/an..Â·I,- 3 1, 4 Â¥ 4 21:221 - 4 11 I 11, 5 1,4 1 1 4 -- i /. . - . I East-facing view from E. Hopkins street East-facing view from rear alley b. AH structures which are not historic landmarks shal be evaluated by the Historic Preservation Commission regarding their current historic significance; and Staff Finding: Historic significance is discussed in the Guidelines according to the generally recognized notion that a certain amount of time must pass before the significance of a property can be evaluated. The National Register, for example, requires that a property be at least 50 years old or have extraordinary importance before it may be considered. Aspen also uses this 50-year guideline; however, structures that are more recent may be considered significant if they are found to have special architectural or historical merit. A property may achieve significance because of its 1) association with events that contributed to the broad patterns of history, the lives of significant people, or the understanding of Aspen' s prehistory or history; 2) construction and design associated with distinctive characteristics of a building type, period, or construction method; 3) an example of an architect or master craftsman or an expression of particularly high artistic values; and/or its 4) integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. The "period of significance" is discussed in the Guidelines as the time span during which a building gained architectural, historical or geographical importance. In most cases, a property is significant because it represents or is associated with a particular period in history. Frequently, this begins with its construction date and continues through the peak of early occupation. Building fabric and features that date from the period of significance typically contribute to the character of the structure or district. The current inventory form describes this property as follows: This structure is significant for its position in the context of Aspen's mining era. It describes the nature of the life of an average family or individual during that period, as well as the construction techniques, materials available and the fashion of the time. Staff believes that though this original structure has been compromised, that it remains significant because of its distinctive characteristics of a building type. The commission needs to evaluate whether they feel this structure, with the addition, is still significant. b. All structures, which are not historic landmarks, shall be evaluated by the Historic Preservation Commission regarding their current communitv and neiHhborhood influence. Staff Finding: This structure, and 819 E. Hopkins are a pair of historic buildings surrounded by more modern two- to four-story condominiums. In fact, these two houses appear to be the only two single-family houses on the block. Staff believes these buildings are a remnant of a more traditional single-family residential area as shown in the Sanborn Maps (attached as Exhibit B). The vacant lot adjacent to 819 E. Hopkins could be developed (speculation) with a compatible, smaller-scaled house that could strengthen the context of these houses in this neighborhood. The Spruce trees on this property reinforce the history of this property, and help to break up (transition) this house to its taller neighbors. 819 E. Hopkins .* . I > - 1 *- -Â· 1 191 1-il C....~...... I â€¢44-1-41 -rfg . . I 'l -- South Side View (facing Aspen Mountain) East Side View 1. All structures in the City of Aspen which are at leastfifty (50) years old; and Staff Finding: According to the Pitkin County Assessor, the structure was constructed probably in the 1880's. This time frame would place the structure' s age between 110 and 121 years old. Staff finds that the structure meets this review criterion. 2. All Structures which continue to have historic value and such other structures identified by the Historic Preservation Commission as being outstanding examples of more modern architecture; a. All structures which are not historic landmarks shall be evaluated by the Historic Preservation Commission regarding their current architectural integrity; Staff Finding: Staff believes it is noteworthy to point out that this structure has some unique detailing that is likely original to the building (the notched trim at the eave line of the bay window). The addition to the rear was an earlier addition as this footprint appears in the 1904 Sanborn Map. The covered porch extending from the rear of the building is a later addition. Clearly, the integrity of this building is still intact, and very little has been compromised. The current inventory form describes this property as follows: The general form of the structure remains intact; a majority of the character defining features have been lost. Material changes to the exterior alter the details Of the building, but restoration is possible. The extent Of the remains of the original log cabin (if any) are not known and should be evaluated if future alterations are proposed. Staffbelieves this criterion has been met. b. All structures which are not historic landmarks shall be evaluated by the Historic Preservation Commission regarding their current historic significance; and Staff Finding: This structure remains significant due to its architectural style of construction that has remained uncompromised as well as its integrio, of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Tlds is one of Aspeâ‚¬ s few historic buildings that has not had major alterations made to it. The current inventory form describes this property as follows: This structure is signijicant for its position in the context of Aspen's mining era. It describes the nature of the life of an average family or individual during that period, as well as the construction techniques, materials available and the fashion of the time. Staff believes this criterion has been met. c. Al! structures, which are not historic landmarks, shall be evaluated by the Historic Preservation Commission regarding their current community and neighborhood influence. Staff Finding: This structure, and 811 E. Hopkins are a pair of historic buildings surrounded by more modern two- to four-story condominiums. In fact, these two houses appear to be the only two single-family houses on the block. This East End Neighborhood was the scene of much redevelopment in the 1960's, 70's and 80's, and these houses represent but a small handful of remaining historic properties. Staff believes these buildings are a remnant of a more traditional single-family residential area as shown in the Sanborn Maps (attached as Exhibit B). The vacant lot adjacent to this property could be developed with a compatible, smaller-scaled house that could strengthen the context of these houses in this multi-family residential neighborhood. The Cottonwood tree to the rear of the property reinforces the history of this property. The vacant lot and the adjacent historic home (811 E. Hopkins) make this structure fit more comfortably in the neighborhood. stan'Recommendation Staff believes that both of these buildings portray an era in Aspen's history that has almost been erased in the East End neighborhood. Staff recommends that 819 E. Hopkins remain on the Historic Inventory. The integrity of this structure is still substantially intact, and the building remains significant in terms of the construction type representative of the mining era. Though the additions to 811 E. Hopkins compromise the original structure, the view from the street still reinforces the miner's cabin character. The commission needs to evaluate whether there remains enough historic significance and integrity of this structure to keep it on the inventory. Staff recommends that if the commission feels that this building has been overly compromised and no longer maintains significance, then it should be removed from the inventory. Recommended Motion (motions are made in the affirmative). "I move to remove 811 E. Hopkins from the Inventory of Historic Structures, finding that the criteria for removal have been met." "I move to remove 819 E. Hopkins from the Inventory of Historic Structures, finding that the criteria for removal have been met." Exhibits Exhibit A: Architectural Inventory Forms Exhibit B: 1904 Sanborn Map Exhibit C: Undated Photos on file in Community Development Exhibit D: Resolution No. , Series 2001 Exhibit E: Resolution No. , Series 2001 E *Lit..1 F: ArepkcÂ·Jin h:/hpinventory/811-819 E. Hopkins.doc %04+1011- A OAHP1403 Official eligibility determination (OAHP use only) Date Initjals ~ COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Determined Eligible- NR Determined Not Eligible- NR Architectural Inventory Form Determined Sigible- SR Determined Not Eligible- SR (page 1 of 4) Need Data Contributes to eligible NR Diswid Noncontributing to eligible NR District |. IDENTIFICATION 1. Resource number: 5PT.937 2. Temporary resource number: 819.EHO (319.EH) 3. County: Pitkin 4. City: Asoen 5. Historic building name: 6. Current building name: 7. Building address: 819 E. Hopkins, Asoen Colorado 81611 8. Owner name and address: John S. Gates 811 East Hookins Ave, Aspen, Colorado 81611 11. Geographic Information 9. P.M. 6 Township 10 South Range 84 West NW 1/4 of NE 1/4 of NE 14 of NW 1/4 of Section 18 10. Uâ„¢ reference Zone 1 3;343340mE4339075mN 11. USGS quad name: Aspen Quadrangle Year: 1960, Photo Rev. 1987 Map scale: 7.5' X 15' Attach photo copy of appropriate map section, 12. Lot(s): D, E&F Block: 31 Addition: East Asoen Addition Year of Addition: 13. Boundary Description and Justification: Site is comorised of Lot D. E & F. Block 31 of the East Aspen Addition. Assessors office Record Number: 2737-182-08-003 This description was chosen as the most specific and customarv descrintion of the site. 111. Architectural Description 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): L-Shaped 15. Dimensions in feet: Length 30' x Width 20' 16. Number of stories: One story 17. Primary external wall material(s) (enter no more than two): Asbestos Sidina 18. Roof configuration: (enter no more than one): Cross Gable Roof 19. Primary external roof material (enter no more than one): Metal Roof 20. Special features (enter al! that apply): esource Number: 5PT.937 emporary Resource Number: 819.EHO Architectural Inventory Form (page 2 of 2) 1. General architectural description: A tvoical single storv wood frame Miner's Cottaqe. A aable end faces the street with a larae bay as the principal window. The bav is comprised of four double huna windows with a decorative frieze and a stone base. A cross aable runs parallel to the street with a shed roof Dorch infillinq the comer. The Dorch roof has been overframed back to the peak of the cross aable. Posts are simale and sauare in plan. no detailing is present. A tall double huna window and a door, with a transom. are located off the porch. The buildina has been resided with larae scale asbestos sidinq, and a rubble stone base has been arranged around the Derimeter of the structure. alvina the appearance of a foundation. A shed roof addition. also from the main ridae, extends to the back. with an additional higged roof addition on the rear. 22. Architectural style/building type: Late Victorian 23. Landscaping or special setting features: Verv larae Dinvon in front yard, at north west corner. Sandstone entrv walk. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: A 150 square foot shed roof livestock shed at the rear of the site. V. Architectural History 25. - te of Construction: Estimate 1880's Actual ce of information: Based on buildina tvoe Z6. Architect: Unknown Source of information: 27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown Source of information: 28. Original owner: Unknown Source of information: 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): There is some evidence that this structure was oriainally a two room log cabin which was altered to become the structure Dresent todav. It is not clear how long the loa structure Dreceded the alterations. Metal roof. sidina replacement. over-framing of roof. additions to rear. all dates unknown, pre 1980 30. Original location X Moved Date of move(s): V. Historical Associations 31. Original use(s): Domestic 32. Intermediate use(s): 33 rrent use(s): Domestic 3 e type(s): Residential Neiahborhood with Multifamilv structures Resource Number: 5PT.937 Temporary Resource Number: 819.EHO 0 Architectural Inventory Form (page 3 of 3) 35. Historical background: There is some evidence that this structure was oriainallv a two room loa cabin which was altered to become the structure Dresent todav. This structure is reoresentative of AsDen's minina era character. The buildina represent a tvoical tvoe known locally as the "Miner's Cottaae". Characterized bv the size. simple Dian, and front cable / porch relationship. 36. Sources of information: Pitkin Countv Courthouse records: Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maos; 1990 and 1980 Citv of Aspen Survev of Historic Sites and Structures, 1992 discussion with Rav Bates. VI. Significance 37. Local landmark designation: Yes No X Date of designation: Designating authority: 38. Applicable National Register Criteria: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; X C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or 0 - D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield. information important in history or prehistory. Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual) Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria 39. Area(s) of significance: - Architecture 40. Period of significance: Late 1800's Silver Minina Era 41. Level of significance: National State Local X 42. Statement of significance: This structure is significant for its position in the context of Aspen's mining era. It describes the nature of the life of an averaae familv or individual durina that Deriod. as well as the construction techniques. materials available and the fashion of the time. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: The aeneral form of the structure remains intact. a majority of the character definina features have been lost. Material chanaes to the exteMor alter the details of the buildina. but restoration is Dossible. The extent of the remains of the oriainal log cabin (if anv) are not known and should be evaluated if future alterations are proposed. VII. National Register Eligibility Assessment 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Eligible Not Eligible X Need Data 0 I. , . Resource Number: 5PT.937 Temporary Resource Number: 819.EHO Architectural Inventory Form (page 4 of 4) 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes No X Discuss: If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing Noncontributing 46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it Contributing - Noncontributing VI11. Recording Information 47. Photograph numbers: R10: F9.10 Negatives filed at: Asnen/Pitkin Community Develooment Deot. 48. Report title: Citv of Asnen Undate of Sun/ev of Historic Sites and Structures. 2000 49. Date(s): 6/29/2000 50. Recorder(s): Suzannah Reid and Patrick Duffield - 51. Organization: Reid Architects 52. Address: 412 North Mill Street. PO Box 1303. Asnen CO 81612 53. Phone number(s): 970 920 9225 NOTE: Please attach a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad. map indicating resource location, and photographs. Colorado Historical Society - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395 F - 1 FEZZ~ ; Nxiy0 -- h / i<.1. *224--0 - h-.4: 4~ .Ld...illil2ig6wl'~lphilli'ler.1-I,/1./4/ ilillit /-1- - , /4 Ir-///"/-.d'.) - -0--- ...09#-Ae>-k i:-; 7 "--MÂ»mLE--4 // 14\ . 0-341//1 - Â»12, ,/1/ \FL/A<42 V '\ \4 4,=~27 $=e== .3 fik.21 X*1 / t<~ - , Â· ~. i : Â» x th., iv--MILâ€¢ \ f 2.3/"JIII<:.IllillA 6 & 7 2 i + 1%-1 O.40 'll' Â·9 L. F 16 g Wk,t<v~((DL f '..fi - \ \ 6 -7,6* l, ..../ supidOH 3 6 K 8 - 2,- 4 NkL - , 9800 hur Â·-- L=-7 - /1' 1 / O 914Â«1-4-3 4 fÂ«-I -4Â« - / -- it. -00 5 - / 941-il,4 < 4 1 11 4 0 :_ ,-4- --4- f -3- 1 \ r 1\ 93Â§ed*Wt ~rl>444 ?h - ~ 3-= 7 L*-7 44 . J t0 0 1 - \ / .//-3/ ' 1 01 W. 1 \ - /25./ 26/ - / , 1/ . p-K*-K 1/1 Â·4Â·rE'â€¢249' 16 Â·121 \\: *R,7,93&9492.7.~Â·Mic,2)K .-9Jir#i-.1 ...U<LUC-6,1 r.- , 3.FJMTS'<,211Â£-22-:.21 --0 -._ .-Â·for- -, 1 /\ 03=- /:Â·'4:. '~Â»f -t.-7 x =14 Â· Â·' fl â€¢V... iÂ·. . ICÂ» 1~E)<2-11 ---\ -1 1.\ ~ 4, -3-tiv p , , // , .A - 141 1 1 i . %) 1 S. 2- /: 1 k 0.9.k. 21 ..21 :- JP.*0.--- . / -B ,- // - - -1 V. Â«- f.. 1 1 , r.. . 91. \ ~~P~~'~~ .â€¢-to-1. 7 A~I~ S /'-1 1 Fl:#. 6: 792 - $ . A. + 2 ._ i p E 12- I f---9.p.i,/1, 219-22-0--4- --: 5 - -/ \ 22 9%7-5Effti<:4Â»74/EED#421--:~' <. 71.- 2-3* 18~ L 0 \,a_->c '.Cr- 2 6, \ \ . 0 -I-';; r Ricd Bdttetid 1 -- ~ GOLF COURSE U :de-m/7., 1 ..1 9.All-6.. 6 - et. ' 1 \ \ C - 7 4 1 Owa 4 .lk. f Y j \ '1. 1.9 Â»ad / -1 / -' i -Â· b}'/ 1 i.' 1 Bustr,vacker. i ... â€¢Cl â€¢ O - r.x . 1- 21 9- -Lpi. .4.- ed-t---7*37",rBPjrkbi~.1 7 3%7~ TE ; - . -ti~ ~1 1 ~ * c , Shaft' h rrower 14 - P. /-- 1 \Li --li ,1 ; 2\Jot Ason :KfÂ° ~Â·... Â·,-4Â·1:-Â·=f:'Rt=ni~t. ''<BM 93?4 2,23 - x - 4 3-r-3 2' , t 1Â·; Awa,iteâ€¢. :* / Tugnel i 1 â‚¬ P gr /1 - 2=12 . *went'foven i C \~ r ~-- , J ,:unne _ .muggl *:.. / / Â· Â· Â·, -Uzz~'.'I' #'c.'-2,3 1. ' -76. - Di .. , I, I - & <t,4 42*41&$*t:i,~~~ - - /(S - / 71 5,11 1 :. \1 )4 9 1 il ~~~.172-5-2 ..2..4 Â·Â·C : '4 i_,31.Â°r"Mo,1,2Gi650* 5 .. il .. . - Â»... * .Sh,ak, *4 , Â· L U 1 \. 1 ' . 0, 0 -- ...-%./.' I ~~~ 4,2.2 N, -. i \ .. \ a 994Ek*ly 12Â·64*002Â·51 9 1 d 3 0 4 --1 //t . 4. -6/ 1 . 124 l.Â« b (4 r â€¢ 'Â»ater'=t -Â«- ---prq~~ ~ >09.2,- ". '.14'p-<--:--2*..22<te....1 Fi...:2..2-20. 141 . ' 'C '04 4,2=Â·- â€¢ -'.:>:. t. -:. 4-Â·Â·.i,'Â¤%4Â· tiÂ· -:/4,Â«23'.41. .* b~ - f 4 , \730/ -74<. - h.~-r J-Â·: ~ .'' --- --- -,1, \11,2 44 1 \ .. 11 / .. .. 1.41 42/Â«161 -/46 ' r Nick.'44Â·ft-re $ C.. 1/V I (LA:; 3*24-2 509241 /2 t.rf ---- - .... .V= trir C - - 1-:--: :; r 1\ i,- 45 % .Flff 1. ~-Eks--##--2 J Le*5s.96Â· MiR Â·Â«ij)\4.1I~1Â·1 :....\1..\J.1 \ -7 ..2 1 N - 2/2,/'2232 113,4.\ / 1 0: ;0025.121 f 17 4Â·44 k /.7 f... : : 2 ..1 2 1, _44,07-/ 4<~F<1-1~~P~~Â·,2~3.-- -U,J 1 0 1-4 24%11 \ Â«49~jmt.:Â· /' /4//4 / -> --7-=73=a-,6-\ .- CS./ .. :94'09/A:F{" C 'cf' ("'01 f ~-.C 14Â°\ *2 ~- jf 19â‚¬733Â· g~;0~ ..A A .34- 942.6.900 ..Â»4 7 1 1 . \ \ :%U.12:- ~*i, tyÂ« Lf!.GPO /-1~"*-4 Di//7-Â»~2=29%7-*I,-T 1.~11, Vii fÂ· -1 , h .....Ir- - '44{74 24//. ''/7 - 127 .* C h ' 1 44 . .- ~.l Irf-/ f n i >fÂ·n ~* , 10<917Â·~ / i 1 5.'.>,EL.Ll 1 - ,/ 7 j 1. \ 27- *il F j':40*/ 1-2 -11 *h -? 4 91'ce' \ 12.- F , \4 \Con Nix \ 4 r, .92> 7 \\U, r; / 1i.f,â‚¬~4/Â¢042. ipÂ«â‚¬1- C ~ ~ ~ All Survey Sites are included within the City of Aspen limits, Aspen Quadrangle See Sketch map for identification of specific location and building context Colorado-Pitkin County 1960, Photo Revised 1987 Scale: 1.24 7.5 Minute Survey WN I MILE SCALE 1.24 000 - ~ ~ 12' 1 2 _122 1 213 MILS 1000 2 20 MILS :1~ - 10)00 2002 3C.v 4000 5600 6000 *000 rEET -- ' 1 KILOME--22 f - i // 0\ R.~ te 43Â·. '-,rave: PitsÂ· V G. 1 3 \ . 1 ,- 0 \ \ a U,---~ I. CONTOUR iNTERVAL 40 FEET unâ€¢A GRID AND 1987 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET NA-!n>JAL GEODE- C VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929 3 26~E2KJZb#J ri I ., 1-Int Flle; .., ..:.. ....... . . . ,Â¢ 4 .0..i ,, - q .f i 'lK /, ...1 ' 4* ' ' 'liC .:~-t'Pt-fFiÂ·f,ffill~wl. f,--'Â·-'.. - . 4 ../.... '. . 3,1. 'fu>.2. . .4 41Â·1~~~~~75Â·2.~~*2*;1Â·Â·Â·Â·j.Â·. â€¢ , â‚¬7,4 /* 4/21 Alic -/7 ~11930:r:. ' '14 ' IM'111~__ 0 . I.. Â¥ i Wa .1 .......... ./ 1. ..19 I I. .-- li-W--I-- 1- I - 7 ~.41/t...W~ - - Â· Â·.- - U.W. m 1 4 <4.bitâ€¢â€¢A r Â· &r-1-~i)inr-4.-* *Wa"- : . Â£ UÂ·4.biÂ·* J IL, . , Pt. .-..Il i L . ,~5% ..7 .12 1.1 ./*TRImiliglIillul:&2~771'A 'Aff/.2 \ twolir"OM'*05921 A..1 :*: 68.a~* ' V.44<**Ift'tr / All""IN *J.<;pÂ·,99*# 7 y.-~484- -.l- -i â‚¬ 324.- , -' Â· -.ift -6 ..Pt 7-" ~ P . 41 21 1 2.8 :Fif .,t. . Â· .6- . &. . 4-' i .4 0 ? .5 ' 8,4+etr A W I OAHP1403 Official eligibility determination Rev. 9/98 (OAHP use only) Date Initials COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Determined Eligible- NR Determined Not Eligible- NR Detennined Eligible- SR Architectural Inventory Form Determined Not Eligible- SR (page 1 of 4) Need Data Contributes to eligible NR District Noncontributing to eligible NR District 1. IDENTIFICATION 1. Resource number: 5PT. 188 2. Temporary resource number: 811.EHO (811.EH) 3. County: Pitkin 4. City: Aspen 5. Historic building name: 6. Current building name: 7. Building address: 811 East Hopkins Ave, Aspen, Colorado 81611 8. Owner name and address: John S. Gates 811 East Hopkins Ave, Aspen, Colorado 81611 11. Geographic Information 9. P.M. 6 Township 10 South Range 84 West NW 1/4 of NE W of NE 1/4 of NW W of Section 18 10. UTM reference Zone 1 3;3 4 3 3 2 5 mE 4 3 3 9 _0_ _I_ _5 _mN 11. USGS quad name: Aspen Quadrangle Year: 1960. Photo Rev. 1987 Map scale: 7.5' X 15' Attach photo copy of appropriate map section. 12. Lot(s): G Block: 31 Addition: East Aspen Addition Year of Addition: 13. Boundary Description and Justification: Site is comorised of Lot C. Block 31 of the East Aspen Addition. Assessors office Record Number: 2737-182-08-002 This descrintion was chosen as the most specific and customarv descriotion of the site. 111. Architectu ral Description 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Rectangular 15. Dimensions in feet: Length x Width 16. Number of stories: One storv. with two storv rear addition 17. Primary external wall material(s) (enter no more than two): Horizontal Wood Siding. Wood Shinales 18. Roof configuration: (enter no more than one): Gable Roof 19. Primary external roof material (enter no more than one): Asphalt Roof 20. Special features (enter all that apply): . Resource Number: 5PT. 188 Temporary Resource Number: 811.EHO Architectural Inventory Form (page 2 of 2) 21. General architectural description: A tvoical wood frame Minefs Cottaae. A aable end faces the street with a stained/leaded alass fixed window. in a bav, as the principal window. A cross aable runs Darallel to the street with a shed roof. off the front aable. entrv volume infillina the comer. A two storv front aable structure sits on the ridae of the cross aable and extends to the rear of the site. Wood horizontal sidinq and corner boards on the front: ast)halt sidina on the east side and in the two storv aable end. Scalloned shinales infill the front clable end. an arched window sits adiacent to the front door. 22. Architectural style/building type: Late Victorian 23. Landscaping or special setting features: Verv large pinvon Dines in front vard. Historic lilac hedge defines front vard. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: none IV. Architectural History 25. Date of Construction: Estimate 1880's Actual Source of information: Based on buildina tvoe 26. Architect: Unknown Source of information: 27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown Source of information: 28. Original owner: Unknown Source of information: 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): New clapboard sidina, Circa 1990: Entrv door. porch enclosure, arched window . pre 1980: Two storv addition to rear, 1990. 30. Original location X Moved Date of move(s): V. Historical Associations 31. Original use(s): Domestic 32. Intermediate use(s): 33. Current use(s): Domestic 34. Site type(s): Residential Neighborhood 35. Historical background: This structure is reoresentative of Asoen's minina era character. The building represents a tvpical type known locally as the "Miner's Cottaae", characterized bv the size, simple plan. and front aable / porch relationship 36. Sources of information: Pitkin County Courthouse records: Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps; 1990 and 1980 Citv of Aspen Survey of Historic Sites and Structures Resource Number: 5PT. 188 Temporary Resource Number: 811.EHO Architectural Inventory Form (page 3 of 3) VI. Significance 37. Local landmark designation: Yes No X Date of designation: Designating authority: 38. Applicable National Register Criteria: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; X C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction> or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual) Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria 39. Area(s) of significance: Architecture 40. Period of significance: Late 1800's Silver Mining Era 41. Level of significance: National State Local X 42. Statement of significance: This structure is significant for its Dosition in the context of Asnen's mining era. It describes the nature of the life of an averaae family or individual during that period. as well as the construction techniques. materials available and the fashion of the time. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: The general form of the structure aDDears intact from the street. However. revised materials and enclosure of the Dorch detract from the oriainal integrity of the street facade. Arched window with stained glass confuses oriainal historic details. Addition to the rear allows for continued reading of the historic massing and street relationship. but overwhelms the original structure. VII. National Register Eligibility Assessment 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Eligible Not Eligible X Need Data 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes No X Discuss: If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing Noncontributing 46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it: Contributing __ Noncontributing litesource Number: 5PT. 188 Temporary Resource Number: 811.EHO Architectural Inventory Form (page 4 of 4) VI11. Recording Information 47. Photograph numbers: R10: Fll. 12 Negatives filed at: Asoen/Pitkin Communitv Development Dent. 48. Report title: Citv of Aspen Undate of Survev of Historic Sites and Structures, 2000 49. Date(s): 6/29/2000 50. Recorder(s): Suzannah Reid and Patrick Duffield 51. Organization: Reid Architects 52. Address: 412 North Mill Street. PO Box 1303. Aspen CO 81612 53. Phone number(s): 970 920 9225 NOTE: Please attach a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad. map indicating resourge location, and photographs. Colorado Historical Society - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395 0 811 ..I. Hopkins - 3/ , f 'k),e/1972 - j,ir<~ / Glxul, r.gri/4 111 Al R:"*Mq,19 ed U ,9.7 1 i.l ki - 2/~ / //:=st* 4ltdpf /4 .42Â« Â»mugy/VÂ» ./1 u < D /W 1- . - 1 - Â«AVE~=C,"IJ/l/ eny'll'.--./*1 liâ€¢2-1~ 2=Z3~ *9 i#Ilt/yn-42~7* Â¥1*1~~4t" : A // I f It 1 N h C'. 1. 9 9 -~ ).. \titiSE.9~ ~ *51&12*b,%424-isr4Ii.-4-:jt-11 37PJ9 h % 'h,l '31:--.If ' .11/ 14.11-192 /1 - - /9----l--4-~11 49-44Â» --B.;4600 7=*.41*4 \FU~ --7 92- rp'~ 4 ..1 AL - '. -- Il ge- 1~ 4%391...r-- \ 1 I -===N<100 - Py + -</7 :l'll;\ 1 1,1<pihi 6, 9&*i .--rt-3/JL-*T.34 - 417*.4 1 , \ t.j <7 1 1 \ 1%6' 93Â»4 1/41 ... 11- -01 k- i ' 2 - 00., - UNT .ri U 9, / k t~- - 41\ 1. 4/ " 2/ ,Li' a~,~,, f,J'*~/ >:11<04Â«tz--' 3.Â·\ - - = < - , 0 #v-- - -*-,7/ /1 . .O , f + 0 -- -Cl , -' f, 1 \ h' A.Bamti-.283 '2 Â·1* rbl:L - - j . P.. .1.,\ .\ O--~C3~\.1>4=:=L_ 4 / /, '4~4141%02 6~42 . A:kff->..,0~-i~iÂ»: 1Â» Af- -== ,- -< X - 4 --- 4 / /' ,-6:28#Entil, .;S..1 #-Â·:. .--2-Z~~39- :-Â·& ~b#,AA ee,lj_- ~---=i-L-7.- 7.-fa,--- - / 40* JOITN/6/%:9/V-1/~' Â·~~t /\t J.--.Â»\9 \ ~1>\~ \4.1\ .\.~b~ 11--33Â»-F--/ - / 4 - 1-- I .,3-725----- . 2,% t : ,*fr I -4.-ra~ Ptz/fix*),r\( il.-. 5//Of.H' / - 1 A,t - / P. e . ;R d :B tte~,-7 2%. ' 3 #:fy f 0.~09' emet ry :,2 1 " i 00~~GOLF COURSE ' Â©.'1,; h n. :,7 1 / 1..1 \ . . I / . I.--I. -/%-3-11 ~,, 6.=.- ~2;&4_:,\ r: \1Â°Zall i~'.. / 1 .4.1 ..4 91':/1 ' 'A k.- \-r. ../0. J'r104~. ' ..1 1 . . ' ' 7 1 ..vf '49,1 Bust)wack& r~ ---\\\ 3% _FÂ© 1-WA.UPAW/4 / | â€¢Cl , T.'-19 -=--- -40.--'jot~-- i. 4~577~---~g-cwfiRE--3 Â·Â·2*49>Â©Aspent 1 11,Â· -37 . t ,/9-FbwÂ¢r \32. -,1 Shaft' - X \ - -~ \\ 45 Â·.2 .f. :teD/*44, â€¢ . 4-1 --1 'tar, . rh.l' ' / %.-~li~-W 4 \ Cill k Â»14 1 \ N:-4 â€¢â€¢â€¢. -Â»444-4, ~414,1 74&1114wen~dven ~ L~ ~t '/6' Turinel J v J C \JohAson â‚¬4 71Â¢ I - 2 41' r.' I ... - Â·Scr,qggltf, f x / 3 56Â«f*.9 0, hic.. :49Â«-eÂ·-Â«4:2:.4,= 04.0 2 Â»4.-t-fiTl ~ italtÂ·at 1 , l th 6% i \: <772\ 4 ' , '5Â· 1 1â€ž/ ., ) - -2\l - 4266.. 4..22..4 -9 In / ..... Ir,i-'â€¢ 0, 2 -00Â»dfi .~.9*.:... - I ... r. 1 34Â®i -VT-XI , 1 I - I =,1 - 1 / --~lii.~1\ + ... P.72-1 4 1 V n : 4-* 3 â€¢. .. \ 4 6/ . .Â·tt. 4 I -44- 11*94, 4,9 6 . " ~ ~ r- 4 -. 71 ... ..I--I. I ....44, ..==4c.f' Water tur' 3.' A\\ 1. . .- - .2..4 . ...i, 2...t, -7... il\~r : ~-21 --:W.C/- 1 M Avf / 1 \91 1< wit *111\ - ....Um . 1 1 .... - 620.. 'j 1 4,/4.1 . ..,/ =34 <, T. -1. \,L...A. --~1 .< .,7 4 ' Ch . 1/1 -V . I w ' / 11; /â€ž49 / i, 1 .' .. $ 4.- i-t..0 2-'.pt->4. '.. 4 4â‚¬9. .-1 \ \91 .%~ Â«<fy . C * N . 0 1 MiÂ· ...... J C le '' '.6...1. .(i:NUA..':/.-1~~=T~' ~4 :ji:2%~ 4,;43*26#J-.U~b?lf, 75'(ClJO- Wr *6*Â«-/ 233Â»licH# / .,1 1 1~,Viafw.kba.9.4 ~ 1 1 'Â«*f>33,-t\ 4. 9.11\ \%\Â¢7,Â»*Ch,kn h'\t Â» - ---4404<2614Â¢.0-/F< \ -1--= i I J.y- I 7 ' 2 4///7/2 FAI'.*3 1 Z< ~~3/571 .i'44 -1Â»\.9.4141. *2: ' L- 7449/4404+94*64.: 4 X 1- - 14\ p + 4 91(14 (Gra~ PitsÂ·,A:4 i 4 4/re#Aj=*34*A. r Lf :Â·f'.( 1 9- f.~Hil - p , ,Â®,)1, u.0Â·,C ( .9.1Â·- > d-r..~J~~ bÂ· 1'.04/ 2 Â«r..4~~~t- j(A A GRi f~~4297-24 ... 2- , L. . Â»f/44~xÂ«lith 9 Â»+ 1 f--- fl~,7 9-1 1- t\)411 31- . C 1 , \. \ 1â‚¬24Â»21146\~~21~ . : Â£ - Ed' - 411 2 00*.4 V.34 4%49Â° 4 91~,> 9>Â· Ail Survey Sites are included within the City of Aspen limits, Aspen Quadrangle See Sketch map for identification of specific location and building context Colorado-Pitkin County 1960, Photo Revised 1987 Scale: 1:24 7.5 Minute Survey WN GN SCALE 1.24 000 / 1 2 0 1 MILE / 120 - - - - - - 1â€¢09' ~ 213 MILS 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET ~ 20 MILS $ / 1 1 1 1 7--4 _ ___~ U-- - 1 5 0 1 KILOMETER UTM GRID AND 1987 MAGNETIC NORTH CONTOUR INTERVAL 40 FEET DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929 \ 803\1 01 4 - 4,44' pp'I TZ.2 .;*,74 4 . , 1 I. 44 r fi '' VM'-1* 9 0*Zr' b , a , 41 , I .*fe- : 4 4 - , 10,Â·04 . 35* . Ir r, ' 1,t /,1,4,-1 1 9 45 + P 1 - .-7 . 1 I .2 - . 4 , .5.. . :: -' j.j .,4. 4.1. " 1 1 . 91 f El:~-r:.I:. I .. .:... . . .1 I #t 4,1 - t .% r. 1 itj- Bal , -i , :18 , 4 . j.. ' /1 1 6.. .. ii< ill 1% p CON/; 11? 2 f.,gel Ll_lA e ".3 - i 1 // 5 j 1 0 3 8 11 -â„¢7771 C 07 4 _r- 7 11 43 8 UN . 1 0 ... 1 N \ 2 11 1 Â¢ .4 (1.4 Â¥ â‚¬/ 2 ZILLE -* 1-1 -6 -O 0 . 8 LIB 9 06 Ei)6 106 389 EER /Â£9669 Z.ZO Sâ‚¬S US /28 0/9-L/# SH EiS //9 608 203 903 Â£09 /619 11 ==== == === = =11.:t = DE,25*i.tr-- -= == == - == = = === = === = == 1 ~7 NVINAH 3 9 906 #178 106 006 PES ZE- 029 *R.-,929 -i ) 329 029 ,8,8 9711~ *m * 0/2 905 908 1709 205; 009 - 1 1 -714*1 . \ ' F 7 LOI-7 =-i 1 0 2 IL I+- Im & =-7100 4-- - 17 97 : 9 .,1 ..41Â£11 e Â·hb 4 LE 1 ; 1/6 \5 -12.1- 1 4 ..J, 11 f 01 __11 --1 9 v %? J'22 0 1 - - 0 / -ry' O-------- / 9 \ 0 4 -I 7 ow, 0 2/ 5~- d 0 Nf;~W 7 2 r-771 i A ipl .- r--- [7-1 2-1 g // V,N 10 / CD Le 43\ -1 43 I J- 0 OVD , 12 7 1 0 X IFI-3 / U *SÂ» 4 1 0 : s % 0 h.1 F /1 4+ L._L 10/ 3 0 -- 0 4,- 71/ 0 1 2 EN al i.\ l 1 .--1 2: 3 + ti~*-4 PLE ~ 02596 3 u/-- ' ~Â·, 1 z.i~~ i ~ g ~ r ET- L\ flit lit ./ 33 206 905 EOR It)6 SE@ EER /86 629 129 543 -EZe /28 6/8 4/5-5/8 E IEI 777----109 50& 909 /03 ~. s.:714,1 3119 S V.1, OH '76,0 SNIMcION 3 r.â„¢O t)0'VS ,9GI .f. 906 +06 -2,06 006 lt,9 DDE 8Â£9 959 *EE ZEE DEE 929 92.-*48 -23 019 3,9 913 *19 2/9 909 fog 7.09 009 ~ - 1. y'l 'a' a 7-71F-7 1.-r / 1-7 1, - --1 7-71 0 11 2 LE'r7 + g a k a -I -- 10 /1 1 L -1-_ _1- aiL , Cp -27 .11.,445; -- -, , 09 - 2 121 A ..,6 - - - 4. : i - . ELI 202 ZOO Â· --1â€¢â€¢lyÂ·â€¢-19.I'<.9/'llÂ·Â·~ t...Â· ?1 I- .. Â¢ + 0-64#39â€¢?linÂ·3Â·Il)/ ' 2'Â·'f.'-'Â·72â‚¬â€¢Â·*i- .... .:- -I,re'- " ~'~~'~~~rly'i-â€¢-Â¥'~Â·Mli,7'-r~*V- '.1.-;-k'â€¢2; '%'6"-,--- -" -==-pÂ¢r--- 79~-JÂ·-'~-Â».7~~n L 5,440-1-1.-2 91,1401-1 +3 1- 4 2/3 613 4.-I<-,1~ - "r. *14,91--- 5.9- S :, It, ,2 . , :Ii 4,1 2- . .' er , 11 -<'7Â¢!014% e. I -~ 4. 41 3 1 /9 "... I .~ I . 3 -9 4 I< 'l Â¥- i i . 9 ,/ 44?M $ I ' ' :I 1 - 'D .119,+DEI Exl,4 .44 3 RESOLUTION NO. j SERIES OF 2001 J RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO REMeVE 811 E. HOPKINS AVENUE, LOT C, BLOCK 31, OF THE EAST ASPEN ADDITION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, FROM THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES Parcel ID: 2737-182-08-002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has conducted an evaluation of the City of Aspen "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" to identifr any properties which should be removed from the inventory due to loss of integrity, to nominate any sites which should be added to the inventory, and to rate the resources using the terms "significant, 5,6,contributing" and "supporting;" and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has forwarded a recommendation to the Historic Preservation Commission; and WHEREAS, Section 26.420.080 of the Land Use Code provides guidance on evaluation of the inventory. According to that passage, the Inventory shall include all structures in the City of Aspen which are at least fifty (50) years old and which continue to have historic value, and such other structures identified by the Historic Preservation Commission as being outstanding examples of more modern architecture; and WHEREAS, Section 26.420.080 of the Land Use Code also requires that all structures on the inventory be evaluated by the Historic Preservation Commission regarding their current architectural integrity, historic significance, and community and neighborhood influence and be categorized as "significant," "contributing" or "supporting;" and WHEREAS, in a Staff report dated February 14*, 2001, the Community Development Department's recommendations in regard to 811 E. Hopkins Avenue, a property currently listed on the inventory, was provided; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting on February 148, 2001, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the staff recommendation, and approved this resolution by a vote of ~ toa-_, to reaye 811 E. Hopkins Avenue from Aspen' s Inventory of Sites and Structures finding that the structure does not meet the review criteria pursuant to Section 26.420.080. ./../ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the HPC finds that the standards and review criteria established in Section 26.420.080 ofthe Land Use Code are not met and that 811 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lot C, Block 31, East Aspen Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, shall be removed from the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures". 2:fl APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14th day of February, 2001. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVAnON COMMISSION Acting Vice-Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy H:4Mnventory/resolutions/811 E. Hopkins.doc Ell,-4,~+ /1 RESOLUTION NO. ~, SERIES OF 2001 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO 3-ff--I 819 E. HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS DA & F, BLOCK 31, OF THE EAST ASPEN ADDIT[ON, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, FROM THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES Parcel ID: 2737-182-08-003 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has conducted an evaluation of the City of Aspen "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" to identify any properties which should be removed from the inventory due to loss of integrity, to nominate any sites which should be added to the inventory, and to rate the resources using the terms "significant, 5, 66 contributing" and "supporting;" and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has forwarded a recommendation to the Historic Preservation Commission; and WHEREAS, Section 26.420.080 of the Land Use Code provides guidance on evaluation of the inventory. According to that passage, the Inventory shall include all structures in the City of Aspen which are at least fifty (50) years old and which continue to have historic value, and such other structures identified by the Historic Preservation Commission as being outstanding examples of more modern architecture; and WHEREAS, Section 26.420.080 of the Land Use Code also requires that all structures on the inventory be evaluated by the Historic Preservation Commission regarding their current architectural integrity, historic significance, and community and neighborhood influence and be categorized as "significant, ""contributing" or "supporting;" and WHEREAS, in a Staff report dated February 14 2001, the Community Development Department's recommendations in regard to 819 E. Hopkins Avenue, a property currently listed on the inventory, was provided; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting on February 14~ 2001, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the staff recommendation, and approved this resolution by a vote of _~ to & to Femefe 819 E. Hopkins Avenue from Aspen's Inventory of Sites and Structures findingjhat the structure does not meet the review criteria pursuant to Section 26.420.080. ' 4-pF NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the HPC finds that the standards and review criteria established in Section 26.420.080 ofthe Land Use Code are not met and that 819 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots D, E, & F, Block 31, East Aspen Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, shall be removed from the "Inventory ofHistoric Sites and Structures". 1.tu&*tl, A]*ROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14th day of February, 2001. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Acting Vice-Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy H:/hpinventory/resolutions/819 E. Hopkins.doc JAN-26-2001 FRI 10:58 AM FAX NO. P. 03 61 4.4, + B . 1 ATTACHMENT 1 MINIMUM SUBMISSION CONTENTS 1. Applicant's name, address and telephone number, and / or the name. address, and telephone number ofthe representative aurhorized ro act on behalf of the applicant Of applicable). Name: -6,(Al ,#6Â· ,5*-ns:- Address: .0(( E 1-67*f ".S Phone: 124-4 1 64 2. The street address and legal description ofthe parcel (Lor and Block *) on which the subject property is proposed for removal from Aspen s Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. Street Address:5(( -4 05 (1 EÂ· 445:lek-(PS Legal Description: (Lots and Block #) Z.=rG; di [3 E Â¢F Suzs~c- 33 Ehef Â»eeu, hoD rulop 0 3. Please attach art 8 1/2- x 1 1" vicinity map locating rhe subject parcel within the city of .Aspen with rhis applicarion. 4. Please attach a women explanation of how the current property does nor meet each of the review criteria for being placed on Aspen's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures listed below: > Is your structure at least fifty (SO) years old? > Does your structure continue to have historic value and such other structures identified by the Historic Preservation Commission as being outstanding examples of more modern architecture? (If not. why? What has changed?) > Does your structure, in its current condition, conIinue to maintain architecturaI integrity? (Ifnot. why? What has changed?) > Does your structure, in its currenr condition. continue to maintain historic significance? (If noI, why? What has changed?) > Does your structure, in its currem condition, continue to maintain community and neighborhood influence? (If not, why? What has changed?) 0 E~FKINe AVE. .- y r -v l. '.. I - W 1) UU f 9 75-0911"E 91, i ' 91'" r g 9 75-09 11 i 9 75-0911"F 29.er FIELD i 1 1 - 1 83 1 LOT C I EXISTING 2 1 EXETI NG 1 STORY HO USE STORY HOUSE L oT D U'D - I f ELOT F 1 2 1 3 Alb, j 04Â¢*41 '4% L.<4 LD TÂ«b 31* LOT E O.7 OVERHANG r---29 2 - -- - - ~7 ELLILLIT Exciting ehed i .: N 75-09'11"W N 75-09'11"y. 30.00 j- CW - 3006 36.00 ALLEY L 10 F.5. 9NI>IJOW .3 41?9-lE -1 8/ - 1 L 17-\%21-fE-El/ .....-- Â£ M " Â·iz~ : 7, ~3121---. -9/ 13#4 0 1 - - / 1... 1 f.t\2 --I. r-- .......... ~--T7 .- ----â€ž nr -1' v -1 : lilli - 1 1, 1 1 1 -- 1 '1 1.-1 11Â£11 7 0 .- J lit 'na \0 1 77 1, 1/ Al 7, 0 1-Â£~ P 0 r -9 p F 1 It , l -I--.1- - .--. 1-35Nr . L JU-il -IL-Â£ b 0 01 LA /7 ri 1 1 $43 - -600 802 24 808 8'2 84 4 8,8 620 822 074 76 }128 830 83* -r~Â¥--036 738 -3,0- 841 -i~~92 9M 216 908 3/0 367 9/4 945 3, 809, (88840; {S,?4} ./4 E.HOPKINS AV. 1 1 80# â€¢11 _Unt Ah, ROQ Â»,; An A,C Rn oM Â£~0. R~, b5 827 87333# An 835 , -2(il.--Â£1-21611ir:. 201.Sti. .2112LWLE 75 2 4-11:# W - r' 112- v -LL~ 27 1 4 P .& x '15311 fÂ» 1 7-,Ti- Â¢ P If:N.P b 1 11-4 r- E.1 , 4. 44 [12 Ll___I-. ~Il-/ A-[110 0 Â· L.2-1 9 0 1 -1-- '2 - 0 4 t> O Â· 88CD.â€¢,6 '2\BncÂ£ 27 Al# i E 1.-.., IT 4 r i 171. 1 " 0 , Jr . , r [. . - 81 CD r 1.J J 1/ 1 4 / 01- f I t .1 , 4 , â€ž['. 5\71 1 1 N I 1 -Cr- N K -L_.1 Ill I.13 .-- 1--0 ---I & ' 14, i aj Lj -- 1 K. 1 p u 0 19 r 4 11 1 1.3 M ~ * L ---.- 0 7-EL 6 ---1 ts s 0 . rn /1 3? , 13 t F~-71 N r L-- 1 ,<L-, 91 * .- 1 -21131 igi 6, i - 6 0. 01>(97\ 51Â·7,1 -LI13;1 dir-1 +0' A Ul, A 6' 9 --r| 0 -- 11 - hob' iot' ao. *00 ' 500 d.0 87 a. '46 818; Am ant % 822' .Â«rfÂ·3?-8334 *Tmt*WliC)*38- Sto ..sit Stâ€¢ ' 5~ Â·IM 5 Al CE 206. 26,& 7(2 zoo 1.- E ..Ape NL--ll-,-/*. 11 oom -vooft, Ptl \0 4\ 0 UL -21 W-,.n f. 14ml *i & 1 84,4 #4,4 -Nk-0/ 2 %7 i E 48}n St 2 '08 4 f r e 1 4 % King 9.V I ti 4 E Hym o Ave 1#81? Rearing Pork River Cooper A E CooperA 4 E Our tAVe ~ -5'T----; 2 07-Cm=== 9 C C e 0 Â£ 08% St f .=&/ 00 - 9/ f E ~lkE,-~ 0-2/ 69 449 Qi St 41 '21 â‚¬20 18 02 / ---LE Oe ---- D2000 MapQuest.com, Inc.,Â©2000 Navigation Technologies r-Â·Ast AfigewÂ·) 8~ Egive~ide Ave,~-~ S Monath St 1 , - 1 d - L.3 - (k WnT CLCVATI9N --Er \41 m-Im - C FIEFE _-_-_ 2 N9RTM CLEVAT19N 59UTM CLCVAT19N 11 -- P~- IHIR, Â¢ 1.62~ ,~ - 9rf Ii-,4- GATES ARCEITEâ‚¬ TUUE 2, 1 1 S. HoplcinÂ·e Ave. Aepen 6 o\or a&0 b fell 9 70-9 20-1 6 76 344*+0466+n.orA February 6,2001 Hietoric Freeervation Commiesion Community Development Department City of Aepen 130 Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Owner: John 6. Gatee 811 E. Hopkins Aepen, CO. 81611 970-925-4154 Froperty: 811 E. Hopkins Lot C Block 31 Eaet Aepen Addition 819 E. Hopkine Late D, E and F Eaet Aepen Addition le your property at least 50 yeare old? Both Froperties are over fifty yeare old. The ori0inal portion of 811 E. Hopkins le from the late 1880'0, but it was remodeled in the 1970'0 and 1980'0. Doee your structure continue to have hietorical value and euch other etructuree identified by the Hietoric Freeervation Commieeion ae being outetanding examplee of more modern architecture? te\4 The addition to my houee at 811 E. Hopkins le an extraordinary example of modern architecture, but aince it ie only 13 years le does not fall under any prevue of HFC. The 819 houee le not a remarkable example of Victorian architecture. It ie a miner'e ehack, and were it not for the atubborrineee of the previous owner'e wife, the buildin0 would have been demoliehed lone a00. These ehacke, while colorful parts of Aspen'e history, were certainly not built for any lor10evity. The outbuildine le ueeleee, and does not appear on the 1935 map of Aepen, and ie derlerally Delieved to De cobbled to0ether from varioue other outbuildin00. Its contribution to hietory ie unknown, and doee not add to the ambiance of the neiehborhood with the exception of the raccoone and ekunke the live under it. There are many other ei0nificarit examples of Victorian architecture in Aepen, onee with many more meaningful contributions to Aepen'e architecture. The hietory of the ehack ie not one that etande out in any way, and with a number of other historic propertiee in the area, doee not add 0reatly to the historic vallie. Doee your etructure, in its current condition maintain Architectural Integrity? 811 E. Hopkine When 811 E. Hopkins was put on the Inventory in the late 80'0, the property had under0one sienificant additions and improvemente to the point where very little of the ori0inal miner'e ehack remains. From the exterlor, only a 30' section of the east wall ie ori0inal and a 14' eectional of the weet wall ae ehown in the attached Elevatione. Both theee walle are in bad repair and have been previouely modified. The north elevation, the view from Hopkine that ie perceived to be the historic value wae remodeled in the 1970'e. The materiale, Day window and encloeed porch are from that era and clearly do not reflect the oridinal nature or layout of the structure. The exteneive improvements to thie property euedest that it ehould De removed from the inventory. 819 E. Hopkins The house and outbuildin0 on thie property are both in the etate of advancin0 dierepair. Both the house and the outbuildine wers built ae wood board conetruction directly on dirt. Time and the clemente have taken a toll on both etructuree and both have eevere decay eepecially around the foundatione. Further deterioration hae been caused by vermin that have burr'owed under the walls. The main roof rid0e of the houee ie deflected at least 6': The roof of the outbuildin0 ie in advanced etate of dierepair. The houee, ae documented in Feiehtal Guy Eneineers report dated Nov. 3,1995 will continue to deteriorate. The many of the materiale on the house are not ori@inal. The roof ie metal roofin0 inetalled in the last twenty yeare. The ori0inal wood lap eidin0 was covered by aephalt-coated fiberboard at leaet twenty- five years 800. Thie repair hae caused the acceleration of deterioration of the oridinal wood eidi110 to the point where it ie unrecoverable. The further action of buret water pipee two different years, bad detailin0 by the previous owner in addin0 a atone rain couree and the lack of any real foundation hae caueed serious dama06 to the northwest corner of the house causin0 the room there to tilt at leaet 2" in 14'. The oridinal ehack conetruction and damage to the house make it very difficult to do any eienificant improvemente or repairs. Further, any coemetic repairs are not viable ae the base problems cannot be solved. Doee your etructure, in ite current condition maintain Historical Si0nificance? 811 E. Hopkins The alteratione and additions to the house have clearly moved thie etructure outelde the Hietorical eignificance 0uidelinee eetabliehed in Section 26.480.080 [)(1). Theee chan060 were effected prior to the lieting of the houee in the Inventory. 811 E. Hopkine ehould De removed from the Inventory. 819 E. Hopkine Followine the Hietorical elenificance 0uidelinse eetabliehed in Section 26.480.080 [)(11 thie etructure maintains its siGnificance Decauee it exists. But, it le certainly not an exceptional or excellent example. There are few or no examplee of distinctive etyliatic featuree or examples of skilled craftemanehip. Thie etructure clearly falle under the category Non-Contributin0 due to 1060 of integrity. .. Doee your etructure, in its current condition maintain community and nei0hborhood influence? There many other hietoric propertise in the Eaet End nelehborhood. The influence that they have le relative only in that they are propertiee that people cari afford. They do not by their nature keep the population deneity down, but they do by the restrictions placed on them, keep the unit deneity down, which le in conflict with the Aepen Area Community Flan. By their exietence they do have an influence. 819 by ite gize ie one of the larer lote in the neighborhood, but it ie being penalized for that characterietic. Ite major influence on the nei0hborhood ie it ie an example of a deteriorating ehack. Ae for community influence, neither of the propertlee have any influence Decauee clearly the community choosee not to eupport them in any way. The community hae riot provided any incentives to maintain the propertiee. The only commente from neighbors in previoue discuesione have been in eupport of redevelopment. The community doee not offer any relief in terme of property valuation or taxes. The community opinion of the houee at 819 ie obvioue in the tax aeeseement of $780.00. I have proposed twice to the Historic Preservation Committee solutions that would allow the house to be eaved, but due the nature of the propoeale they have been denied. To put thie ae softly ae poseible, the conditions of the two proposale required the demonetration of full developments with complete FAR bulldoute. Thie of couree preeente the eolution of the email historic property in front and a lar08 improvement attached to the back. A very unpopular aolution to HFC. But, the requiremente of the proposal, a claeeic Catch 22, mearle that the propoeal will De rejected. Ae with many other hietoric property owners, I own thees properties Decauee they were the leaet expeneive to acquire at the time. I etill have to pay mort0agee, taxee, utilitiee and other coats aaeociated with property ownership. Freeervation costs are enormoue, and eiven the current climate in preservation culture the risks far outweleh the benefits in pureuin0 any improvements throueh the HFC process. When I started workinG on thie proceee four years 800, all I wanted to do wae moved the houee at 819 12' to the east, provide a baeement foundation, reetore the houee and eell it on Late E & F. This would allow me to keep Lots C & D for me and my family. I have never been allowed to even request thle throudh the HFC officer. Now thie option le almoet impoeeible and the coete are too ereat. My optione are Decomin0 more and more limited. Havine lived in the houee at 811 E. Hopkine for thirteen years, it ie in my intereete to preserve the deneity and character of theee properties. But I do not have unlimited funde and the onerous requiremente of the HFC do riot allow me to develop the property in a way that ie either affordable or preferable to my neede. There are many layere of civic requiremente that would protect the public neede from my pilla0in0 other than historic deelenation thue I do not feel that preeervation of theee propertiee will ultimately be eerved by the HFC. Respectfully, //51Â«6 John 5. Gates AIA . 4 ' GATES ARCEITEâ‚¬TTHLE a 1 1 S. Hopkins Ave. A4Fen 60\or Uo b 1 4, 1 1 0 970-9 20-167 6 144** Li.er of.neÂ¥ February 13, 2001 Historic Preservation Commission Community Development Department City of Aepen 130 Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Owner: John 9. Gatee 811 E. Hopkins , Aepen. CO. 81611 970-925-4154 Froperty: 811 E. Hopkins Lot C Block 31 East Aspen Addition 819 E. Hopkine ' Lots D, E and F East Aspen Addition DRe: Homeov. , 'fe Reeponse to Memorandum to HFC dated FeD. 8,2001 RE: 811 & 819 E. Hopkins We have reviewed etaffe Memorandum concernine the request for removal from the inventory of Historic Sites and structures. We have found leeuee that we must take exception to: 1. In respect to the historic intedrity of 811 E. Hopkine, we 0ave the account of the amount of the oridinal structure left in our application. The question of whether the majority of the etructure 16 remainine should include the removal of almost half of the orieinal structure at the time we did the major addition and well ae the reetatement of the remodel done in the 70'e to the front of the ori0inal structure. Further, in doing the adolition, much of the oridinal structure wae modified or removed at that time. Clearly to us, the inte0rity of the ori0inal structure ie 0one, and the structure ae representative of the conetruction at the time ie longer valid. 2. In reâ‚¬lards to the value of the properties redardind their current community and neighborhood influence we find the Staffe analyele factually in error. There ars three properties or 5 of the lote oil the Mock that are eindle-family residence These are the majority of ownerehips types by lot and buildinde. Moreover, whether or not the properties are on the inventory, the uee of the late obviously would not chanâ‚¬16 01'ven the overriding zonind. And if this le considered a valid ardument. then I would add that the economic pressures reaultind in a probable eale of the property to a nonresident second homeowner. The second point made in the Staff Findind le concernind the development of Lot F ie not 4 reaw :"Â·r in any way. The aubdivieion of a 3000 9.F. eingle lot would create non-conformity in the 1<MP zone.Since the there ie no hardship imposed by the zonind no relief could De diven. . 4 This canard ie another complex and *nerally unworkable eolution made haphazardly by Staff to the requeete for relief I need from the burdens of being placed on the inventory. 3. The staff findind that"Material changes to the exterior alter the detaile of the Duildinde. but restoration ie poseible", leaves open the euddeetion that restoration would De epeculative at , Deet. The findine that this etructure le repreeentative of its time may De factual but etill does not resolve my circumetances of ownerehip. If it ie truly such a valuable aeeet to thi community, then there should De incentives and obli0atione by the community to ite preservation. Ae le there ie no incentive for me to De part of this onerous and non,reentative system. N . Reepectfully, John 9. Gates AIA 1 .