The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20010523ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION *0 May 23, 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. NONE 5:00 I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes (none) III. Public Comments IV. Commission member comments and project monitoring V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) VI. OLD BUSINESS ~10 A. 735 W. Bleeker - Final - Continue to June 13, 2001 5:12 B. 629 W. Smuggler - Conceptual, - continue to June 27, 2001 5:15 C. 515 Gillespie - Conceptual, Historic Landmark Lot Split-*La /37* %21Â£ rt.Paâ€¢/ 4- G ; 104 941#J k 5:45 D. 101 E. Hallam - Conceptual 6:20 E. 47 640 N. Third Street - Conceptual, Historic Landmark Lot Split VII. NEW BUSINESS 6:50 A. Lot Split Code Amendments - referral comment 7:15 VIII. WORKSESSION Proialmenit#fing -#5 VIII. ADJOURN MARGARET SAUNDERS BLOCK - 231 ENCINO AVENUE, SAN ANTONIO, TX 78209 May 16, 2001 Suzannah Reid, Chairman - Aspen Historic Preservation Commission ' 4 Aspen City Hall 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Ms. Reid - Please help me retrieve my house (215 W. Bleeker) from the encroachment onto my property by the adjacent property owners, Mr. & Mrs. Ron Schelling, and damages caused by their excavations at 213 W. Bleeker. Mr. & Mrs. Schelling have excavated two huge basements to the property line causing my walkway to collapse, and causing deep holes and continuing erosion. Inspections by Jack Dysart confirm that my home is in serious jeopardy. I am very nervous about the dangerous holes - it would be too easy for someone to fall into them. The construction has been built on or over my property line - with eaves hanging over my walkway. Surely there should be some 'set-backs' from the property line? Both houses, '215' (mine) and '213', started out as "historic" miners cottages. I have had my house for 22 years- and have never experienced snow piling up against my kitchen door! Now, as a result ofRon's new roof configuration, plus the overhang onthe roofonto my property -the snow pile prevents the opening ofthe kitchen door - constituting a danger since no exit is available. The Schellings promised - Con Oct. 4,2000) - to fill excavation holes and sub-lateral cutting on my property. (Not done YET). The Engineer reports that erosion continues - threatening my once solid little house. For months Mr. & Mrs. Schelling heedlessly used my yard and property for their workers, equipment, materials, access to alley, plus plugged into my electricity and water (all without my knowledge or permission). Mr. Schelling needs property line set-backs to be able to complete his construction. I should have appeared at the Council Meeting on my own behalf, but I thought that ' set-backs' to property line were automatic requirements. Please see the enclosed report from Jack Dysart (Engineer),and enclosed photographs (the holes keep enlarging). Any help I could get to have Mr. & Mrs. Schelling repair the damage they have caused, and to keep them off my property - would be gratefully appreciated. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, re Â© / ~hAt'L~*:AL-~X*u,4.JE::z b~ 4 6~.=e~-*:Jub=*. 31 3'b %6 5-,4~ e ~- }t, - P.S. Citizen Complaint Letter sent Jan 8, 2001 -to "Russell" If 1 -1.96Â©.9 2- v.,4,9% \71:.41 ."a ''AS ~e = 177- b 3+F ;-,i~.c,tÂ»~.--r I>-3 " : 0 0 . 1 1 4.1 rti 4 314 :31 0 4 1 R LO . 5,1 ee k ' : = 1 9 e. ge ek-4 1Â»-t ~-NQ 4 4.74 i.'.7 .-A / I ' . 1 -4 4- -- 0 1 -1~5 . 4 4% a . - 4- 0 4- . 4 - ' t, f 4 tt - 1. 1 1 .. O + 0 -tur- tk -b. . ' t,0 - 4. - OW:- . 532 24 - k Â¥ - J 1 e . *ty CD Â¢UL>,rle r F F A Â¢ ele L - *â‚¬1 I N r 9 2, I TPURJU S,i.knÂ» @fook - 1 . 2. - ' 2 (5 40. 2/eeker- ~ . ..r 0 4 90 .- CJ 'Â·i 5430 f ... 9. 5 1 A Â£=1=- .../.4-/ ./ ./ ... .... -IT- 14Â©ggrouÂ» 44 Deep 61 4- M.,Le -.. 1.. 4// , . t . FIJI (15 &-At c.13 LL,0 -U-Â«U.a ...1 - '2Â£2 120 0 4%. 'I 6/ - _ - .4 --- , I -t ./ . 41Â» . FROM v JACK DYSART FAX NO. : 970 963 8209 MaYÂ· 15 2001 01:03PM Pl ARCHITECTURE, BUILDING CODES & INSPECTION JACK DYSART... AIA4CBO Uell Uvi lucle: VV W IV,V Phone/FAX/Voicemail: (970) 963-8209 E-mail: dvsart@rof.net Web:www.rotoattyp/dysart EQRENSIC REPORT (ADDENDA #1) 5-15-01 Project/Case Title: Saunders House, Soils Settlement Building Project Name: Saundefs House ......'... phone in Aspen: 9254819 Site & Address: 215 W Bleeker, Aspen CO Margaret Saunders Page Saunders PauITaddune 231 Encino Ave. 9357 N. St. Hwy. 119 Attorney at Law San Antonio TX 78209 Yorktown TX 78164 323 W. Main #301 Aspen CO 81611 210-824-5922 FAX 210-824.8996 361-564-2976 Teddune: Tel..925-9190 FAX 925-9199 E-mail: teddune@compuserve.com ADDENDA - Soils settlement and collapse nas been and will continue to be esaerbated due to water runoff from the roof of 213 W. Bleeker onto Saundefs property and themes into the open excavation hole. - gutter and downspout system is needed to redirect this encroaching water - 213 W Bleeker mey encroach on the Bide lot setback. - see zoning requirements, historic district requirements, building permit, approved plans, etc. for further data and/or violations. Respectfully Submitted by: 12 942- JAt/DYSART AIA-#BO Et V FROM, i JACK DYSART FAX NO. : 970 963 8209 May. 15 2001 05:03PM P2 0 CONCLUSIONS & FINDINGS Damages to Saunders House and property, currently evident and anticipated in the future, coulo nave been prevented by the contractors' constructing house next door at 213 W. Bleeker Tne UBC, Uniform Building Code requires engineered soils and foundations including proper shoring, stabilization, backfill and compaction of soils. Excavation or fills for 213 W Bleeker have nglbeen constructed or proteoted and they do endanger life and properly of Saunder's at 215 W, Bleekerand probably on the alley behind 213 W. Bleeker. Severe soils collapse and settlement has occurred extending from 213 W. Bleeker back into Saunders properly at 215 W, Bleeker, which constitutes an eminent danger. Currently the open excavations at 213 W Bleeker present an Â«attractive nuisance' and a direct danger and damages on Saundefs property. The open excavation is large enough that a person or child could easily fall through and be killed or injured. More soils will probably coliapse and the danger*damages exacerbate, as tong as the excavation remains open and unfmed If corrective work js not done soon, Saundefs foundations and house will experience severe damage. DISCUSS.IQN See photos. Current danger and damages on Saundefs property include: 0 - soils have Goilapsed, extending back into Saunder's property - an open hole exists under the end of Saunders fence of about 180 into Saunders and about 6 foot long . end of fence on Saundefs property is unsupported and unstable - gas meter on Saunders properly has been pulied down and away from the house, a potential gas leak . gas line lo meter has been pu'led, thus purling and turning the gas meter noted above - soils have been pulled back frorn Saundefs foundation up to 2 inches - walk decking mbutting Saundefs house has been pulled away and settled downward - soils have settled under the middle of the walkway near the open excavation, about 3 inches plus . walk deckIng at turn at Saundefs tree has been pulled apart about 11/2", one leg settled downward - N.E. comer of Saunders house has settled, such that window frames and sashes have unequal margins - roof overhang, as constructed is about 18' from the wall and appears to encroach onto Saunders property, this roof encroachment should be removed - soils settlement and collapie has been and will continue to be exacerbated due to water runoff from the roof of 213 W. Bleeker onto Saunder'$ properly and theme into the open excavation hole. - gutter and doWnspout system is needed to redirect this encroaching water 0 , FROM : JACK DYSART FAX NO. : 970 963 8209 May. 15 2001 05:03PM PE - 213 W. Bleeker may encroach on the side lot setback. 0 - see city, zoning & historic district requirements, building permit, approved plans. etc. for further data andfor violations - see any future report by Bob Pattillo, Engineer regarding sorls, drainage, foundation, etc. UBC CODE REQUIREMENTS & VIOLATIONS The UBC Uniform Building Code, 1994 edition, governs work at 213 W Bleeker. Sec. 101 Title. Purpose and Scope of the Code, - Thd Code governs all construction, additions, etc Sec. 103 violations .. - 'lt shall be unlawful ..10 construct.. any building...in violation of this Code " Chapters 18 and 33 - includes provisions for soils investigation: soils engineering, foundations engineering, backfills, etc. Sec. 3301 Excavation and Fill, 3301.1 General. - "Excavation or fills for buddings or structures shall be so constructed or protected that they do not endanger life or property.' DOCUMENTATION & REFERENCEA 0 Photographic data - Photographs by Jack Dysart AIA-ICSO Governing Codes, Permits, Ordinances, Standards and Laws. - Building Code (for construction)' Uniform Building Code (UBC). edition: 1994 -Building Permit: :#2963.2000.alim, dated 11-30-00, issued to Schelling Dev., Ronald L. Schelling - Inspection Records: available on site. - Correcticn Notices-Stop Work Order: dated 2-23.01; regarding fence beside alley has fallen down. Future data and information appropriate to thi$ case. - See complaints, plans, permit end inspectiojn file at Aspen-Pitkin County Community Development offices - Further requirements of Code-Building Department and/or Health Officials Respectfully Submitted by: r} 0 VÂ»-- \\4114.4 84/4,4 ,#CK DYSART 40-]CBO LA 0 jr c. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Community Development Deputy Directorj43 FROM: Fred Jarman, Planner f.5 RE: 515 West Gillespie Street - Significant Conceptual Review / PUBLIC HEARING (Continued from April 25th, 2001) DATE: May 23rd, 2001 ,, 1,1'1Â· ,; 1 , :042 " 1 1 - 101 GILLESPIE AVE S 1 -* I .7 1 '7114 1, 1 3,#,4.~~. i.li~*fi EE ~14/ 0% PEARL cT 11 ... , *'rw , 2" 1, .1,111 A,%1141 , , 4 tio".., ~RT,1 ST -- Z 1 1.-4.11 L.-1 1 ,J )'**E'* i 'WAilI""Ilifs"//fLi::9:2,7-.vpi' lilli e==mn-- I ' ---=t .1.1.d 'lld..1 ii ta Mt'.i, ill.lin ,/Er - ' ...&=*4/3 1 : 1 /11 1,1 11 1 -,0.1 11.-6 = - 2 709*p 1 1 1 i. 'C] Â¥1'Sq.iq i]?~.T E . R.-- 1 1~ 91-i . .2 1 1,114 ..MA<MP,VWN#ji 1 NORTH ST Â·1' Im i-- 1 "'"A''R '/Al~- , ti~~Fih 45 u:HABS.Mi7,2, SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting Conceptual Review for the following land use approvals for a property located at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, City and Townsite of Aspen. 1. Historic Landmark Designation 2. Historic Landmark Lot Split 3. Partial Demolition 4. Relocation 5. 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus BACKGROUND The subject property currently contains a two-story residence (pictured on front) that is listed on the City's Inventory of Historical Sites and Structures and is situated on a 9,210 square foot lot. The house was built in approximately 1887 and was originally located at 100 West Hopkins Avenue. It is approximately 1,681 square feet in size and is used as a single-family dwelling located in the R-6 Zone District. The lot also contains a non- contributing garage that is not listed on the inventory. 3 STAFF COMMENTS 0 The applicant requests a historic landmark lot split that would result in two lots; Lot "A" having 4,639 square feet and Lot "B" having 4,571 square feet. Further, Section 26.480.030(A)(4) requires the applicant to allocate specific FAR to each newly created lot using the allowable duplex FAR for the fathering parcel. The duplex FAR allowed for the fathering parcel is 4,093 square feet which is subsequently split between the two newly created lots: 1,593 sq. ft. to Lot A (which includes a 500 FAR sq. ft. bonus) and 3,000 sq. ft. to Lot B. The applicant has also formally requested for the FAR. bonus of 500 sq. ft., which may be awarded by the HPC if a project is considered as having significant merit. PROPOSAL MoDIFICATIONS The development proposal currently before the Historic Preservation Commission has included several changes from the last continued public hearing held on April 251 2001 as a result of lengthy discussions regarding the proposed lot line splitting the property and the variances requested regarding the garage on the rear of Lot A. As a result, the Applicant has proposed a development that will not require any setback or parking variances as earlier proposed. Specifically, these changes include the following: 1) A new lot split line for the property resulting in two lots; Lot "A" having 4,639 square feet and Lot "B" having 4,571 square feet. Further, Section 0 26.480.030(A)(4) requires the applicant to allocate specific FAR to each newly created lot using the allowable duplex FAR for the fathering parcel. The duplex FAR allowed for the fathering parcel is 4,093 square feet which is subsequently split between the two newly created lots: 1,593 sq. ft. to Lot A (which includes a 500 FAR sq. ft. bonus) and 3,000 sq. ft. to Lot B. 2) The Applicant has moved the proposed garage on the rear of Lot A offthe alley to the east side ofthe lot away from the Collins' property and provided an additional parking space thereby relinquishing the earlier requested variances for setbacks and a parking space. In addition, The Applicant has slightly changed the design of the garage. However, it still maintains a shed roof and is only designed for one car. 3) The Applicant has relinquished the lot line adjustment request for acquiring a minimal portion ofproperty to the east, also known as the Odem's property; 4) Although, this would be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Applicant has relinquished the Conditional Use request to place two single-family dwellings on a 6,000 sq. ft. lot. The request for seeking landmark designation for subject house is still being sought and will ultimately be decided by the City Council along with the lot split request. 0 2 HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT To date, the applicant has worked with the HPC in the form of a site visit, a Worksession, and three previous public hearings related to this request for conceptual approval. The applicant rescinded the Conditional Use request to place two single-family dwellings on a 6,000 sq. ft. lot due to the readjustment in the lot split line creating Lot B which is less than 6,000 sq. ft. However, both Lot A and Lot B will remain under the purview ofthe Historic Preservation Commission for any future development proposals. LOT SPLITS PURSUANT TO THE AACP Lot splits were originally designed as a mechanism to control sprawling growth and place residential development where residential development should go. The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) specifically supports the notion of the lot split. Lot splits are one of the many density incentives and prescribed in the action plan of the AACP as a practice of infill and redevelopment. Increasing density in appropriate places, especially in a residential townsite such as Aspen, can achieve positive results such as providing more incentives to build in town rather than sprawl down valley, make more efficient use of existing City infrastructure / utilities, and foster a disincentive to use the automobile due to the close proximity to the downtown core and free mass transit just to name a few. Specifically, this action plan calls for possible amendments to the Code: "to allow and encourage greater residential densities within the original Aspen town site; allow easier subdivision of properties in the historic town site and allow for inÂ» development." - page 40 and 49,2000 AACP Also, as listed as Action Plan number 52, the AACP calls for: " a review of the existing Historic Preservation program to see how well it is working and to maintain and add innovative ways to make preservation work in Aspen, such as the lot split, property tax relief, and to study the impacts ofthe FAR bonus." - Page 56,2000 AACP Finally,fae AACP "encourages returning to higher density development within the city limits where appropriate. " (page 39) Staff finds that this site and project promotes this appropriate type of increased density. FAR BONUS REQUEST The Applicant is requesting a 500 sq. ft. Floor Area Bonus to be placed on Lot A with the relocated historic structure. According to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, historic resources are finite and cannot be replaced, making them precious commodities and defining elements of a town's evolution. Historic resources are, in fact, slices in time, preserved to be appreciated and to help a community understand its past. This project is a strong example of how a valuable resource can be maintained and preserved with the 3 7 evolution of a community. The recently adopted Historic Preservation Design Guidelines discuss specific examples / reasons that the HPC would award a project with a FAR Bonus. These include, but are not limited to: > When the parcel is larger than 9,000 square feet. > When it is used to create a historic landmark lot split. > When the project shows an outstanding effort to preserve or restore the historic structure. -Page 2,Historic Preservation Design Guidelines In addressing the examples stated above, Staff finds that the subject lot is larger than 9,000 square feet and the applicant is proposing a historic landmark designation in order to conduct a historic landmark lot split. Moreover, Staff strongly believes that this project demonstrates an outstanding preservation effort for several important reasons. First, the applicant is proposing to relocate the resource onto a portion of the lot that will continue to promote the prominence of the resource. Second, some of redevelopment proposals for historic resources, which make their way to the HPC, have included rather large additions that obscure and mute the importance of the resource. The most recent of these HPC cases that received Final Approval and a 500 square foot FAR bonus was that of the "513 West Smugglef' project designed by Harry Teague. In that case, a very large and contemporary addition was approved less than a month ago before the HPC and granted a 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus. In this light regarding the size and style of that addition, the applicant has taken a very sensitive approach to the historic resource and is not requesting to place a large addition onto the resource as typically seen with many other "additions" which have occurred to some of Aspen's historic resources in the past. As a result of this approach, the applicant is proposing a very modest single-story addition to replace a non-historic addition at the very back of the house which meets all of the historic preservation design guidelines regarding additions. Lastly, the applicant is proposing very minor modifications to the rear fagade on the second story, which are consistent with the HPC's direction over the course ofthe last public hearings and work session. More importantly, these slight modifications to the house will take place on the rear of the faGade thereby unseen from the street. It is for all these reasons that Staff strongly believes this project merits a 500 square foot FAR bonus. TREE REMOVAL/ RELOCATION There are several trees that the applicant proposes to either remove or relocate to another property. As required, the applicant has worked with the City of Aspen Parks Department in order to discuss the appropriate actions regarding the subject trees. The applicant 4 received approval form the Parks Department to conduct the relocation / removal as requested. BOUNDARY DISPUTE During this proposed project, an adjacent neighboring property owner to the west of the Beck's property, a Mr. And Mrs. Collins, questioned the accuracy of the lot line separating the two properties. This has remained an outstanding issue regarding this proposed development. Despite the potential alleged boundary dispute, the applicant has proposed a development plan that would not be affected at all should the questionable lot line be decided in favor ofthe Collins. More importantly, upon additional conference with the City Attorneys, the City of Aspen has no legal authority to hold this development proposal from moving forward to any City Board for land use approvals if the proposal is in no way reliant on the disputed property line. In this case, and as stated above, despite the potential boundary dispute, the applicant has proposed a development plan that would not be affected at all should the questionable lot line be decided in favor of the Collins. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the HPC approve the requests for 1) partial demolition, 2) relocation 3) the 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus, and 4) recommends City Council approve the Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split for 515 West Gillespie Avenue, with the following conditions: 1. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause; 2. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that any development of Lot "B" shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing; 3. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; 4. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R.-6 zone district and residential design standards with the potential exception for variances to be approved by the HPC; 5 9, 5. That Lots "A" and "B" are designated historic landmarks and must receive HPC approval for all development in accordance with Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code, as well at Section 26.410, the "Residential Design Standards;" 6. That the applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR for each newly created lot, taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided into two parcels, Lot "A" receiving 4,639 square feet of lot area and Lot "B" receiving 4,571 square feet of lot area. Provided it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on Lot "A" will be 1,593 s.f. (including a 500 square foot floor area bonus) and 3,000 square feet of floor area on Lot "B." The information specific to exact allocated FAR as indicated above for both lots as verified by the City Zoning Officer, shall be included on the plat, as a plat note; 7. That the applicant shall provide the Subdivision Exemption Agreement that includes the elements outlined in Section 26.480.030(A)(2) of the Aspen Municipal Code, and shall meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section 26.480.070(IE). (The Community development department can provide an example ofthis agreement to the applicant); 8. That the applicant agrees that prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either lot, the applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement (if applicable) and pay the applicable recording fees; 9. That the HPC herein and pursuant to this Resolution, grants the applicant approval to allocate the FAR to be split between the two newly created lots (including the 500 sq. ft. bonus) to be 4,093 sq. ft. in total. The applicant shall appropriate this FAR in the following manner: Lot "A" as having 1,593 sq. ft. and Lot "B" as having 3,000 sq. ft. prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements, etc.). Further, these lot sizes and floor areas shall be indicated on the final plat that is recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and recorder's Office; 10. All information regarding possible future development on newly created Lot B of this lot split shall be removed from the site plan prior to review of the historic lot split by City Council. Only the existing structures, proposed lot lines, and existing vegetation shall be represented; and 11. That the applicant shall record a final plat indicating the approvals in this resolution as they have been represented to the Historic Preservation Commission. In addition, if the westerly lot line dispute between the Collins and the owners of the property known as lot a of the Beck Lot Split of Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, has not 6 10 been resolved prior to the recording of said plat, the applicant shall record a plat showing both lines in dispute and a note on the plat indicating the two lot lines in question and that once the dispute is resolved, the applicant shall file a new plat indicating the resulting resolution; 12. That the applicant shall submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the historic house are to be removed as part of the renovation; 13. That the applicant shall submit a preservation plan, as part of the building permit plan set, 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; 14. 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; 15. That the HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures; 16. That there shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor; 17. 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; 18. That the applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies ofthe HPC 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; 19. That the General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit; 20. 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; 7 /1 21. That, in the event the chimneys located on the roof of the historic structure, are 0 to be dismantled during the relocation as represented in this application, the applicant agrees that all brick restorations as part of the reassembly shall be reviewed by Staff and Monitor; and 22. That the applicant agrees that any restoration has to comply to the UCBC 1997 version; 23. 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; 24. That the HPC grants a 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus to be allocated to Lot A with the historic house (for a maximum floor area of 1,593 square feet). Lot B will then maintain the balance of the remaining FAR to be 3,000 square feet; 25. That the applicant shall enter into a common water service agreement with the City Water Department for the newly relocated house; 26. That the applicant, prior to Final Review before the HPC, provide the Community Development Department and HPC with a signed agreement regarding the relocation of the Si Johnson Ditch and any tree relocation / mitigation issues with the City of Aspen Parks Department; 0 27. That the applicant shall comply with the Universal Conservation Building Code (UCBC); 28. Bill Baily, a local house mover, originally moved the house to its current location in 1971 from 100 West Hopkins Street. He has recently restudied the house and found that the house can be moved without any damage to the structure. However, The applicant, as a condition of approval, and prior to the application of building permits, shall be required to post a bond of $30,000 or other financial security approved by the HPC with the engineering department to ensure safe relocation of the structure. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to approve Resolution No, 2, Series 2001, approving the requests for 1) partial demolition, 2) relocation 3) the 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus and 4) recommends City Council approve the Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split for 515 West Gillespie Avenue, with the conditions stated herein." 0 8 la REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS EXHIBIT A - HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION EXHIBIT B -HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT EXHIBIT C - PARTIAL DEMOLITION EXHIBIT D - RELOCATION EXHIBIT E - HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES EXHIBIT F - RESOLUTION No. 2, SERIES OF 2001 EXHIBIT J - APPLICATION & DRAWINGS 9 I 3 EXHIBIT A 0 HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION STANDARDS Any structure or site that meets two (2) or more of the following standards may be designated as an historic landmark. It is not the intention of the Historic Preservation Commission to landmark insignificant structures or sites. HPC will focus on those, which are unique or have some special value to the community. A. Historical importance. The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historical signiJicance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Staff Finding In general, this structure is indicative of an upper middle class lifestyle during the last 1800's silver mining era. It is expressive of the materials, methods, and style of the period. Specifically, neither Staff nor the Applicant has any knowledge of any specific significant historical events or persons associated with this structure. In any event, it should not be dismissed that the Beck Family, who are the current owners, are also the same family that originally built the structure in 1887 (by Neil Beck's grandfather) and the family has continuously resided in the house until this time. While the Beck Family may not be considered as "significant persons" in the context of the City of Aspen and would not qualify as meeting this standard, Staff is aware that there are not too many 0 unique situations such as this in Aspen. Staff finds this standard is not met. B. Architectural importance. Based on the building form, use, or specimen, the structure or site reflects 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 Staff finds that the 515 Gillespie structure, built in approximately 1887, originally located at 100 West Hopkins and subsequently moved in 1971 to its current location, is an excellent 114 year old example of Aspen's traditional Victorian Era architecture from before the turn of the century. Even though the house has been relocated, it has maintained its original form with the exception of a very minor single story shed detail on the rear of the house not seen from the street. A specific defining element of this architecture style includes a distinct roof form called the gable-end. This house style typically has a rectangular "T" shape plan with a gable roof with the ridge running perpendicular to the street as well as a cross gable form running parallel to the street. Most houses of this architectural type, as this house does, have a porch on the gabled end and a smaller roof is attached to the shelter porch. In Aspen, many of these porches have been closed in and incorporated the space in the 0 interior of the house that compromises the architectural integrity and the original form. 10 19 This house has not enclosed the porch element that continues to be one of its defining features along with classic turned posts. Most houses of this era specific to Aspen also tend to be wood sided and are l to l M stories; however this is an example of one which has 2 stories which is uncommon. Another interesting feature includes a small "hip" or more commonly known "clipped gable" element on the north facing (street facing) gable end. It is because of all the aforementioned reasons and defining architectural elements, that this structure, which is indicative of an upper middle class lifestyle during the last 1800's silver mining era and is expressive of the materials, methods, and style of the period, that Staff finds this criterion to be 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 Neither Staff nor the Applicant has any information regarding the architect who designed this home; therefore, Staff finds that this criterion is not met. D. Neighborhood character. The structure or site is a significant component of a historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is importantfor the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Staff Finding The structure is located in and is considered a very important historic element of the historic West End of Aspen that gains its character from the prominence of historic homes such as the subject home at 515 Gillespie Avenue. It is immediately located among other houses on the same half block fronting Gillespie Avenue that are more contemporary in nature that make this structure even more prominent as an important and historically distinct neighborhood structure. In the blocks that surround 515 Gillespie, one finds a wide variety of house styles, ages, sizes, and so on. The preservation effort sought by the Applicant through this application will continue to allow this structure to add considerable value not only to the specific block but also to the traditional west end neighborhood. When viewed in context of the surrounding blocks, there are ten houses currently listed on Aspen's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures; three of those structures maintain landmark status. This structure at 515 Gillespie Avenue is clearly a neighborhood defining element that is complementary of the other three landmarked houses. Following this request for landmarking, the applicant intends to split the parent lot as result of a historic landmark lot split request. Staff finds this criterion to be 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, 11 location, and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or 0 architectural importance. Staff Finding: In a similar perspective of neighborhood character, Staff finds that the 515 Gillespie single-family home is a critical site for preservation as it is already established as a home on the inventory and is an important and defining historical element in Aspen's Historic west end neighborhood as it relates to and adds to community character. The City of Aspen takes great pride in the fact that it has been able to preserve a great deal of its past so that future generations will be able to actually see the evolution of this small mountain town into what it is today. This structure is an important and original slice of time showcasing an example of an upper middle class lifestyle during the last 1800's silver mining era and is expressive of the materials, methods, and style of the period. This structure and site is important because of its relationship to the existing neighborhood and other similar homes in terms of size, location, and architecture. Given that this unique two-story Victorian Era gable-end home is in excellent condition and remains as an excellent example of Aspen's 19th century Late Victorian Age homes, it is a "city wide" resource that should not be lost to demolition but rather preserved as a historic structure. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 0 12 1L EXHIBIT B HISTORICAL LANDMARK LOT SPLIT In order to conduct a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the applicant shall meet the following requirements ofAspen Land Use Code: 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, 1969; and Staff Finding: The lot (encompassing lots 4,5, and 6) has not been previously subdivided since March 24, 1969. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 miNgate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.040(A)(1)(c). Staff Finding: Two lots are created as a result of the lot split - Lots A and B. An Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), cash-in-lieu payment, or deed restriction on any new residence will be required for a proposed house on Lot B. An ADU or cash-in-lieu payment will be required on Lot A if more than 50% of the existing single-family house is demolished. The applicant may also choose to voluntarily provide an ADU on Lot A. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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)00; and Staff Finding: Staff finds that the lot in question was not the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or "lot split" exemption. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 13 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: Staff finds that the applicant agrees that the filing of the subdivision plat, that meets the terms of this chapter, conforms to the requirements of this title, and responds precisely to the condition in the Resolution drafted herein, shall be submitted and recorded in the office 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. This shall be a condition of this approval. Staff finds this criterion to be met. e) Recordation. 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 City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the applicant agrees that the plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall meet the timing requirements for recordation. 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 City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D In the case where an existing single-famity dwelling occupies a site, which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot spnt. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the existing dwelling will not be demolished; rather, the applicant intends to relocate the historic single-family structure from Lot "B" onto Lot "A" subject to the proper application process and review by the Historic Preservation Commission pursuant to Section 26.415. Staff finds this criterion to be met. g) Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. Staff Finding: The applicant intends to move the historic single-family structure from Lot "B" onto Lot "A." As a result of this application, the owner of Lot B only has the ability to construct a single-family house. This scenario results in a total build out oftwo single family 14 17 houses. The total build out shall not exceed three units and therefore Staff finds this 0 criterion to be met. SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT The split of a lot that is a designated historic landmark for the development of one new single-family 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 26.72.010(G) of this Code, and the following standards: a) The original parcel shall be a minimum of 9,000 square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or a minimum of 13,000 square feet and be located in the R-15A zone district. Staff Finding: The fathering / original parcel is 9,210 sq. ft in size and is located in the R-6 zone district. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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. Staff Finding: The duplex FAR. which would have been allowed for the fathering parcel is 4,093 square 0 feet (not including the 500 square feet FAR bonus.) The applicant has formally requested the FAR bonus award from the Historic Preservation Commission to allocate appropriate FAR to Lot A which would contain the relocated historic structure. The FAR to be split between the two newly created lots (including the 500 sq. ft. bonus) is 4,593 sq. ft. in total. The applicant wishes to appropriate this FAR in the following manner: Lot "A" as having 1,593 sq. ft. and Lot "B" as having 3,000 sq. ft. Further, these lot sizes and floor areas shall be indicated on the plat as a condition of approval once requested. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c) The proposed development meets al! 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 proposed / newly created Lot A will contain the historic structure moved from Lot B. The applicant is requesting a historic landmark designation for that structure. Any future development shall meet all dimensional requirements of the underlying R-6 zone district. Additionally, the applicant understands that HPC bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. The applicant intends to return to the HPC upon submitting an application for any further development on the newly created lots. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 0 15 IS GMQS EXEMPTION, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT 0 The construction of each new single-family dwelling on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to Section 26.480.030(IE). This exemption shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotments established 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 ifthe standards of Section 26.470.070(B)(1) or (2), as applicable, are met. Staff Finding: Staff finds that this exemption for the construction of each new single-family dwelling on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotments established pursuant to Section 26.470.050 or from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings. Any development of Lot "B" shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.470.060(B)(1) of the Municipal Code and shall be reflected in a plat note. 0 0 16 3a EXHIBIT C PARTIAL DEMOLITION No partial demolition of any structure included on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen shall be permitted unless the Historic Preservation Commission in accordance with the standards set forth in this Chapter approves the partial demolition. The applicant shall be required to address the following Standards for review of partial demolition. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all ofthe 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, and Staff Finding The applicant has included a partial demolition plan as indicated on the site plan. The applicant is requesting approval to 1) demolish a small non-historic shed addition on the rear of the historic house, 2) demolish the non-historic subgrade level and stairs, and 2) demolish a non-historic separate detached garage currently existing at the rear of the site. This demolition will eliminate non-historic portions /additions of the house. It should be noted that the existing siding on the house is not historic siding original to the structure. Staff finds that the partial demolition of the rear shed addition and subgrade level and 0 stairwell does not detract from the historic structure and the detached garage on the rear ofthe lot does not contribute to the historic significance ofthe parcel. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b) The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: (1) Impacts on the historic signijicance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions, and Staff Finding The applicant intends to remove only non-historic elements from the existing structure. In addition, the addition to be demolished is located in the rear of the house and not seen from the street and as a result, The house, in large part, will maintain its historic significance as defined by the Late Victorian Age in which it was built. Staff finds this criterion to be met. (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. 0 17 ll Staff Finding 0 The three portions of the existing home will not significantly interfere with the architectural character or integrity of the home. The existing non-historic addition to the rear of the house is not easily distinguished from the historic portion of the house. The applicant intends to replace this addition with a new addition that will be somewhat distinct and more easily distinguished from the historic structure. Again, this partial demolition and reconstruction of a new addition will occur in the rear of the historic structure and not viewed from the street. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 0 0 18 21 EXHIBIT D RELOCATION No on-site relocation of any structure included on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen shall be permitted unless the on-site relocation is approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. The applicant shall be required to address the following Standards for review of off-site relocation. No approval for off-site relocation shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all of the following standards are met: a) The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property, and Staff Finding As stated earlier, the house was built in 1887, originally located at 100 West Hopkins Street, and moved to its current location in 1971. Currently, the house is usable as a residence in its present location. The applicant intends to move the house as a result of the ability to conduct a historic landmark lot split provided the City Council grants landmark status to the property. 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 new location of the historic home to Lot A will continue to maintain the front (or north facing) facade and its relationship to the street. In addition, the location will also promote exposure of the western faGade as a result of the angled position of the new adjacent house. There will be no loss of exposure ofthe east faQade ofthe house as a result of the move. Even though this fa~ade may be considered architecturally insignificant, it may be even more promoted as a result of the new development on Lot B. Staff finds that the move will not diminish the historic integrity ofthe house. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 tile soundness of the structure proposed for relocation, and Staff Finding Bill Baily, a local house mover, originally moved the house to its current location in 1971 from 100 West Hopkins Street. He has recently restudied the house and found that the house can be moved without any damage to the structure. Staff finds this criterion to be 0 met. 19 33 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 The applicant, as a condition of approval, and prior to the application of building permits, shall be required to post a bond or other financial security approved by the HPC with the engineering department to ensure safe relocation of the structure. Staff finds that this will be included as a condition of approval. e) The receiving site is compatible in nature to the structure or structures proposed to be moved, the character Of the receiving site's neighborhood is consistent with the architectural integrity of the structure, and the relocation of the historic structure would not diminish the integrity or character of the receiving site's neighborhood. An acceptance letter from the property owner ofthe receiving site shall be submitted. Staff Finding For all practical matters, the historic house will be relocated on the same lot where it currently sits. (The house will move approximately 40 feet to the west.) As a result of the lot split, the house actually changes lot locations; however, the nature and character of the lot does not drastically differ from current conditions. The receiver site is compatible in nature with the sending site and the neighborhood will not suffer from the movement of this structure. Moreover, the Aspen Area Community Plan calls for increased residential density. Staff finds that the lot split continues to be an incentive to promote this density increase while maintaining the historic lot sizes and relationships of dwellings. The receiver site will accommodate the house in accordance with all zoning provisions and the associated dimensional requirements. No letter of acceptance is required because both lots are owned by Mr. Bone. 20 14 EXHIBIT E 0 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES 1. Lot Splits The City provides several incentives for residential property owners to divide the square footage that could be built on a landmark parcel into two separate houses in order to reduce the size of both buildings, to reduce the size of an addition made to a historic house and to reinforce the original character of many of Aspen's neighborhoods, which had small houses on 3,000 square foot lots. This section of the Historic Preservations Guidelines deal almost entirely with new development on lots that result from an historic landmark lot split. There are no development plans proposed with this current application; Staff will perform an analysis of any new development proposal on the newly created lot with using the elements in these guidelines as major tools. 2. Building Additions Many historic buildings in Aspen experienced additions over time as the need for more space occurred. In some cases, owners added a wing onto a primary structure for use as a new bedroom, or to expand a kitchen. Typically the addition was subordinate in scale and character to the main building. This tradition of adding onto buildings should continue. It is important, however, that a new addition be designed in such a manner that it preserves the historic character of the original structure. It is important, that new additions do not detract from the character of the building or obscure significant features 0 There are a few basic principles for new additions that are prescribed by Aspen's Historic Preservation Guidelines. In general they include minimizing negative effects that may occur to the historic building fabric, the addition should not affect the perceived character of the building, and keep the size ofthe addition small in relation to the main structure. Specifically, the guidelines indicate: 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. Staff finds that the proposed new addition does not reflect the exact character of the historic house but is not too inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building. Further, the addition does not attempt to portray an earlier period than that of the primary building or imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. The proposed addition is made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. In addition, the addition maintains changes in setbacks, materials, and architectural style from the historic 0 21 13- building, that help define a change from old to new construction. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. Staff finds that this addition is lower than the height of the primary building. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. The proposed addition will be located in the rear of the historic resource. Staff maintains that the addition does not interfere with any primary facades allowing the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. Staff finds that the two roofs proposed are appropriate because they are shed roofs. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. This addition does not result in the loss or severe alteration of architectural details5 cornices and eavelines. There is some siding that will be replaced with the west portion of the addition; however, this siding is determined not to be historic to the original structure. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. With the exception of the metal roof materials, the new materials are similar to the original materials. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 10.12 When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to that of a historic building. The new addition does not overhang the lower floors of the historic building in the front or on the side and the dormer on the main roof which covers the proposed doors from the upper bedroom are subordinate to the overall roof mass and remain in scale with historic roof structures and is located below the primary structure's ridgeline. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 10.13 Set a rooftop addition back from the front of the building. The proposed rooftop addition will not be seen from the street so as to help preserve the original profile of the historically significant building. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 22 16 10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic building. Staff finds that the rooftop shed dormer is subordinate in scale and not seen from the street so that it does not detract from the historic nature of the house as it is seen from the street. However, it appears to be a large cut into the form of the roof and significantly changes the "read" of the south elevation. Yet is not street facing so that the historic appearance is not severely adulterated. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 3. Building Relocation / Foundations Generally, removing a structure from the parcel with which it is historically recorded will compromise its integrity. However, there may be cases when relocation will not substantially affect the integrity of a property and its rehabilitation can be assured as a result. In this particular case, the house was originally located at 100 West Hopkins Avenue and was subsequently relocated to its current location in 1971. This application calls for demolishing the non-historic basement which serves as the current basement The Historic Preservation Guidelines contain language referring to protecting the resource prior to and during relocation. Specifically, wood panels should be mounted on the exterior of the building to protect existing openings and particularly historic glass. Further, special care should be taken to keep from damaging door and window frames and sashes in the process of covering the openings. The guidelines specifically indicate: 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. This particular request for relocation is of an individual structure rather than a structure in a historic district. In general, a relocation of this sort has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. In addition, the applicant intends to maintain the historic structure with the exception of placing an addition in the rear. In doing so, this relocated building shall be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. In addition, the applicant, as a condition of approval, shall provide a plan to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. Staff finds that the proposed relocation meets this guideline. 9.2 Moving an existing building that contributes to the character of a historic district should be avoided. Staff has considered the significance of this house and the character of its setting and found that a relocation on an adjacent lot will not detract from its historic significance given the fact that this house once stood at 100 West Hopkins prior to 1971. Staff finds that the proposed relocation meets this guideline. 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the III'C, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel. Staff finds that this house, as proposed, will remain on the parent lot as the result of a historic landmark lot split and both newly created lots will remain in the purview of the 23 17 Historic Preservation Commission for any further development. Staff finds that the 0 proposed relocation meets this guideline. 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. As proposed, the house will face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback as its current location. Staff finds that the proposed relocation meets this guideline. 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. The applicant intends to relocate the house onto a basement similar to the basement on which it currently sits. Staff finds that the proposed relocation meets this guideline. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. The elevation heights will not be drastically changed as a result of the newly relocated house on to its new foundation thereby maintaining its current historic significance. Staff finds that the proposed relocation meets this guideline. 9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space. The applicant proposes two light wells in order to provide light and ventilation to the subgrade basement. Neither lightwells are on the front faGade of the house (per the Residential Design Standards). Staff finds that the proposed relocation meets this guideline. 0 0 24 D-2- EXHIBIT F RESOLUTION NO. 2, SERIES OF 2001 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING A PARTIAL DEMOLITION, RELOCATION, A 500 SQ. FT. FAR BONUS, AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 515 WEST GILLESPIE AVENUE, LOTS 4,5, AND 6, BLOCK 99, HALLAM ADDITION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2735-121-11-007 WHEREAS, the applicant, Pamela and Neil Beck, represented by Randall Bone, requested the following land use approvals for a property located at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, Lots 4,5, and 6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen: 1. Historic Landmark Designation 2. Historic Landmark Lot Split 3. Partial Demolition 4. Relocation 5. 500 sq. ft. FAR. bonus WHEREAS, the property is currently listed in the City of Aspen's Inventory of Historical Sites and Structures; and WHEREAS, this application for a Historic Landmark Designation, Historic Landmark Lot Split meets all of the Development Review Standards of Section 26.420.010, Section 26.480.030(A)(2), and Section 26.480.030(A)(4) in order for HPC to grant approval; WHEREAS, in a staff report dated May 23rd, 2001, the Community Development Department determined the application for a historic landmark designation and historic landmark lot split met the applicable review standards indicated above, and recommended approval with conditions; and WIIEREAS, at a public hearing, which was legally noticed and held at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on May 23rd, 2001, at which time the HPC considered and found the application to meet the review standards, and approved the Partial Demolition, Relocation, 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus, and recommended City Council approve the request for Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split with conditions by a vote of to - C_ to _). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 25 ,9 0 Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the requests for Conceptual Approval specifically including a 1) partial demolition, 2) relocation, and 3) 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus, and a recommendation to City Council to approve the Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split for 515 West Gillespie Avenue, is approved by Aspen Historic Preservation Commission with the following conditions: 1. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause; 2. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that any development of Lot "B" shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing; 3. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; 4. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district and residential design standards with the potential exception for variances to be approved by the HPC; 5. That Lots "A" and "B" are designated historic landmarks and must receive HPC approval for all development in accordance with Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code, as well at Section 26.410, the "Residential Design Standards;" 6. That the applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR for each newly created lot, taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided into two parcels, Lot "A" receiving 4,639 square feet of lot area and Lot "B" receiving 4,571 square feet of lot area. Provided it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on Lot "A" will be 1,593 s.f. (including a 500 square foot floor area bonus) and 3,000 square feet of floor area on Lot "B." The information specific to exact allocated FAR as indicated above for both lots as verified by the City Zoning Officer, shall be included on the plat, as a plat note; 26 3O 7. That the applicant shall provide the Subdivi,ion Exentption Agreement that includes the elements outlined in Section 26.480.030(A)(2) of the Aspen Municipal Code, and shall meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section 26.480.070(E). (The Community development department can provide an example of this agreement to the applicant); 8. That the applicant agrees that prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either lot, the applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement (if applicable) and pay the applicable recording fees; 9. That the HPC herein and pursuant to this Resolution, grants the applicant approval to allocate the FAR to be split between the two newly created lots (including the 500 sq. ft. bonus) to be 4,093 sq. ft. in total. The applicant shall appropriate this FAR in the following manner: Lot "A" as having 1,593 sq. ft. and Lot '13" as having 3,000 sq. ft. prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements, etc.). Further, these lot sizes and floor areas shall be indicated on the final plat that is recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and recorder's Office; 10. All information regarding possible future development on newly created Lot B of this lot split shall be removed from the site plan prior to review of the historic lot split by City Council. Only the existing structures, proposed lot lines, and existing vegetation shall be represented; and 11. That the applicant shall record a final plat indicating the approvals in this resolution as they have been represented to the Historic Preservation Commission. In addition, if the westerly lot line dispute between the Collins and the owners of the property known as lot a of the Beck Lot Split of Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, has not been resolved prior to the recording of said plat, the applicant shall record a plat showing both lines in dispute and a note on the plat indicating the two lot lines in question and that once the dispute is resolved, the applicant shall file a new plat indicating the resulting resolution; 12. That the applicant shall submit a demolition plan, as part ofthe building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the historic house are to be removed as part of the renovation; 13. That the applicant shall submit a preservation plan, as part of the building permit plan set, 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; 27 31 14. That no elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously 0 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; 15. That the HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures; 16. That there shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor; 17. 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; 18. That the applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies ofthe HPC 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; 19. That the General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit; 0 20. 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; 21. That, in the event the chimneys located on the roof of the historic structure, are to be dismantled during the relocation as represented in this application, the applicant agrees that all brick restorations as part of the reassembly shall be reviewed by Staff and Monitor; and 22. That the applicant agrees that any restoration has to comply to the UCBC 1997 version; 23. 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; 24. That the HPC grants a 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus to be allocated to Lot A with the historic house (for a maximum floor area of 1,593 square feet). Lot B will then maintain the balance of the remaining FAR to be 3,000 square feet; 0 28 Ycl 25. That the applicant shall enter into a common water service agreement with the City Water Department for the newly relocated house; 26. That the applicant, prior to Final Review before the HPC, provide the Community Development Department and HPC with a signed agreement regarding the relocation of the Si Johnson Ditch and any tree relocation / mitigation issues with the City of Aspen Parks Department; 27. That the applicant shall comply with the Universal Conservation Building Code (UCBC); 28. Bill Baily, a local house mover, originally moved the house to its current location in 1971 from 100 West Hopkins Street. He has recently restudied the house and found that the house can be moved without any damage to the structure. However, The applicant, as a condition of approval, and prior to the application of building permits, shall be required to post a bond of $30,000 or other financial security approved by the HPC with the engineering department to ensure safe relocation of the structure. Section 2: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 23rd day of May, 2001. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney 29 33 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk C:\My Documents\Current Cases\HPC\515 W Gillespie\515WGillespic Conceptual Memo.doc 30 1 10 1 - th -,4 HPC CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PACKAGE 05-23-200I HISTORIC HOME RENOVATION 515 gillespie st. aspen, colorado , consortium architects P.O.B. 3662, aspen, colorado 81612 (970) 925.6797 fax (970) 925.6797 ~ e-mail rally@aspeninfo. com -Â·Ul,Cusy %;ArY.Q]LiÂ·-AhÂ£e=i. = - Ca __ zc e.-:SLJ22.2222iM2aai;E.2ECZf~Kn2MZELI, Â·;S+-~%$}2Â£2E~aG'1a.Z:~QSLUk.DZU=:kk:2~hrxjEOtASIN.FI>. giyE:2 2LF--r-ij.:LlI;. rl:Ul?;~12;,if=iEDU~FJ;~2QiEÂ£2?ta;22&~~, 21221112 RENOVATION F.A.R. CALCULATIONS F.A.R. CALCULATIONS EXISTINS GARASE = 36.2' x 14.4' = 521 S.F. AS BUILT HOUSE FAR: SUBSRADE FAR: GROSS S.F. = 6121 9.F. GARAGE EXEMPTION = 521 S.F. - 250 S.F. = Ill S.F. MALL HEIGHT = all-OIl SARASE REDUCTION = 271 S.F. - 125 S.F. = 146 S.F. TOTAL MALL LENGTH = 122'-2" TOTAL SUBeRAPE FNALL AREA= 122'-2" * 61'-0" = HOO S.F. SUBeRADE FAR: ABV. GRADE MALL = 5'-0" (2) = 10 S.F. EXPOSED MALL AREA = 101-71 * 6'-011 = 60 S.F. NET S.F. = 8-16 S.F. % OF EXPOSED TO TOTAL AREA = 60 S.F. / 1100 5.F. (100) = 5.5% MALL HEISHT = 6,-O. TOTAL MALL LENGTH = 128'-6" SUBGRADE FAR. = 5.5% (421 S.F.) = 51 S.F. TOTAL SUBGRADE FNALL AREA= 123'-6" * BLO" = 1028 S.F. ABV. GRADE MALL = 151-1111 + 24,-O" = 42'-11" GARAGE FAR: EXPOSED MALL AREA = 42-11" * 6'-0" = 258 S.F. SUBGRADE GARAGE S.F. = EXEMPT % OF EXPOSED TO TOTAL AREA = 258 S.F. / 1028 5.F. (100) = 25% GARAGE S.F. = 276 S.F. SUBGRADE F.A.R. = 25% (876 S.F.) = 219 S.F. eARAGE EXEMPTION = 276 S.F. - 250 S.F.=26 S.F./2=13 S.F. AS BUILT FORCHES 4 DECKS: - PORCHES = EXEMPT ABOVE eRADE FAR: DECKS = 60 S.F. (LOWER) MAIN LEVEL DEMO FAR = III S.F. DECK EXEMPTION = 15% (46161 S.F.) = Acie S.F. > 60 S.F. (EXEMPT) NEM MAIN LEVEL FAR = 147 S.F. - 127 3.F. = 20 5.F. TOTAL NEM MAIN LEVEL FAR = 885 S.F. + 20 5.F. = 905 S.F. SUBGRADE LEVEL = 2Iq S.F. NEM UPPER LEVEL FAR = 17 S.F. TOTAL NER UPPER LEVEL FAR = 606 S.F. + 11 S.F. = 623 S.F. GARAeE = 146 S.F. MAIN LEVEL = 385 S.F. AS BUILT PORCHES 4 DECKS: PORCHES = EXEMPT UPPER LEVEL = 606 S.F. DECKS = 60 S.F. (LOAER) + 70 9.F (NER UPPER) = 130 S.F. DECK EXEMPTION = 15% (4112 9.F.) = el-1 5.F. > 130 S.F. (EXEMPT) TOTAL F.A.R. = 21:1 S.F. + 146 5.F. + 885 S.F. + 606 S.F. = 1856 S.F. TOTALS: LOT SIZE CALCULATIONS: ORIGINAL LOT SIZE = 4534 S.F. SUBGRADE LEVEL = 51 S.F. COLLINS' LOT LINE DISPUTE = - 324 S.F. GARAGE FAR = 13 S.F. REMAINING LOT SIZE = 01210 9.F. (REMAININS AFTER LOT LINE DISPUTE) LOT A SIZE = 4634 S.F. - - 4210 S.F. MAIN LEVEL = 5105 S.F. LOT B SIZE = 4571 S.F. UPPER LEVEL = 628 S.F. LOT SPLIT F.A.R. CALCULATIONS: PORCHES 4 DECKS = O S.F. REMAINING LOT SIZE = 9210 5.F. BASE ALLORED FAR = 4030 S.F. TOTAL F.A.R. = 51 S.F. + 13 S.F. + Â©105 S.F. + 623 S,F. = 15CB S.F. LOT SIZE OVER 4000 5.F. = 4210 S.F. - 4000 9.F. = 210 5.F. UNUSED F.A.R = 1549 S.F. = 1543 5.F. ALLORABLE OTHER ALLORED FAR = 210 S.F. / 100 *6=15 5.F. TOTAL ALLOI/NED FAR = 4080 S.F. + 13 S.F. = 4043 S.F. LOT A =LOT M/HISTORIC HOUSE LOT B = NER LOT FAR TOTALS FOR EACH LOT: LOT B FAR = 3000 S.F. LOT A FAR = 4043 9.F - 3000 9.F. = 1043 5.F. f'~ht F.A.R. CALCULATIONS LOT A HFC BONUS = 500 5.F. 42,9 LOT A FAR Â»1/ BONUS = 10<13 9.F + 500 9.F, = 1543 9.F. ~ GILLESPIE ST. . I NOTE: SITE PLAN TO eE VERIFIED M/ r- 30" GOTTONMOOD NEW SITE IMPROVEMENT SURVEY 10'-0" FRONT YARD 14" COTTONWOOD n SETBACK ~ NER LOCATION , FOR 14" --1 38.54' 86.44' COTTONMOOD 1 \1.0- / / COLLIN'S ~ '' 51-oIl '' ~ 16" COTTONMOO~ , f /4// O 1 5'-0" Â· ././ i LOT LINE 00 0 DISPUTE -1\\ 1 1/77 \ \ / \I L EXISTING ~ 1 1 PITCH LOCATION ~ 1 1 11 ////// 1 ' 1 1 1 ./:...... Zi,4,2- i IT I I 1 560" SIDE Â¥ARIP _~__-T------1 1 1- lk----- 11 4]1 L ,:.. //./. . 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 SETBACK . [ f 1 1 F.1 21 ~ REVISED) 1 1 1 1 1 PITCH LOCATION | | 14" GOTTONMOOD | 1 ~~ ./1 1 P 1 11 1 (MOVED) Â»\.1 1 1 1 1 1 EXISTINS :3UBGRAPE /1 1 1 1 1 1 /' L C Ol b' IL~ ~ 11 FOUNDATION TO n ~ 1 BE DEMOLISHED \ 1 1 '' i ' i 4 1 1 1 1 14" SPRUCE 1 1 1 1 1 11 // // 5 Fl il 1 1 1 1 -4-r (MOVED) 1 1 / 1 1 I 1 1 EXISTINS SUBGRADE 1--' | 1 1 EXTERIOR STAIRS - 1 1 | 10" ASPEN ~ 1 I ---1~ ~* :- ~- - - -1_ ----_ ___ =~.â€ž:* 1 l ~ TO BE DEMOLISHED 1 1 1 17 TI L - h 1 1 >Cb . /1 n \\ 1 1 // 4 ir 1 O 1 + S"//// h-A -LL_-_12.--1_ 1 , /3 31 -4.-PREVIOUS HOUSE ~ ~ LOCATION ~ lo" ASPEN -1 4 // 1/ 1 \\----0111Â£/~//==Eli, /111 1 1 1 1 1 1 9/9/11 7- 1// 1 1 1 1 1 //2.-Â«2 --1 1 1/ 1 Ll---_---3 j Â· 4 SHED ADDITION PRIOR 1 DEMOLISH NON-HISTORIC / 7 \ i----3 N-- 1 f 1 \ 1 2--222- ////1 1 HOUSE TO MOVING HISTORIC ~ 1 PATIO I / 1~ REVISED l 1 ~ ~ DITCH LOCATION , 5'-0" SIDE YARD EXISTINS /, 1 1 SETBACK I 1 PITCH LOCATION ~0,/~0I 1 01 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 -'.k~ PATHWAY $1 1 1 1 1 m--------7 1 C' J ' \\ LOT 'Al 1 1 r LOT '5 ' ' ' i i I ~ ~ HETORID LOT 1 ~ ' 1 1 1 NER LOT ' 12" COTTONMOOD - | 1 \ \4634 5.F. ~ 1 4571 E.F. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPLE TREE ---I' | - | | | 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 | | | REMOVE SM. j | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 /~- ASPEN TREES ~ 1 1 1 1 | LINE OF | 1 1 | FOUNDATION -1 _~ 1 1 9 1 BELOAr r - .=al=-1-1-11 71 1 1 1 1 /0 U' 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 \N 1 /09 1 /1 /11 1 Ill 1 1 1 /11 ~- ROOF ABOVE ~ 1 1 1 1 110 1 1 1 1 Ill 1 1 1 1 1 El-<1 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 | L__-- ---2 1 1 1 . / 1 11 1 I d J r,14-13 f ~ _f f _II 1 1 DEMOLISH EXISTING _~ 1 47-- - 1 ~ NON-HISTORIC eARAGE | 1 1 f- - I 5'-0" REAR YARD -/1'~- - ! 1 1 SETBACK 8'-6.xle'-O. - 1 PARKING SPACE DRIVE 1 ALLEY NORTH <'~j SITE PLAN 4-i@j 1/8 11 = 11-1.(Dll III.66' '.. MINDOPN PROJECTION - ABOVE ... 4 iÂ· 4 4 .. : 4. .. ..4 4 I in ' 8'-O. I . ... 4 I I MINDOM BEDROOM 4 0 4 EeRESS --- PROJECTION 7 1 - ~-133*1 . I , LADDER LT. MELL ABOVE 1 @El ' TUB O P=== 1 1/ 1 in 4. CONG. CONS. BEDROOM AREA= 141 S.F. LISHT AREA REQUIRED= 14.7 S.F. 5 LISHT AREA PROVIDED= 15.0 S.F. - CI~ Di~ BATH - ARMOIRE 2 1 3+ I 9 .. . 4 Â· BATH 03*1 10051 Â· I r-t-2 ---- 11 , ' 12-&6*-~--I// TUB /k> up VENT LOCATION -=jO 13351 0 R04L - 11Â» MEGH. ' DOOR 7 ~ -7/ STAIR - L ' ~ 9 5 -1 0~ 4 - &*48 ... STAIRS _./ , .. A'59. 7-PR MECH. 0331 LA\MD.' 4 - -IL // 1 10041 U .. $ sit ' Up - ACCESS 91 / / ..Â· LT. MELL - EGRESS BEDROOM - LADDER 1/ I W LADDER [815-1 5'-2" EXCAVATE / . DOWN 4'-0" / 1 4 FROM LOWER J LEVEL FOR , . BEDROOM AREA= 151 S.F. ' 6" DONG. MALL. LleHT AREA REQUIRED= 15.1 S.F. MECH. 4~///-- 1/4/ 2" RISID .U 4 LIGHT AREA PROVIDED= 15.1 S.F INSUL. -- - PLAYROOM rEal 4 1 * T.O. 60146. ELEV. 84'-10" 1 . U . /4 I 1 CLOS | I 1 . STRUCTURAL . i - LEVEL ABOVE 4 44 -, .. . .4 4 1 r d. 11 3 L _ __-1 t. / b NORTH LOMER LEVEL PLAN 61* 4 432/ 1/4" = 1'-O" 0 . 11' . b fF f .'G L * 021 5 sol 0 -al * 1 5'-01/2" . 0 ---- -4 1 4 1113 11 1 [3---- u L HISTORIC j METAL BAY AIDA. SUARDRAIL -7 HISTORIC JAIDA, - PORCH ~ TO. FIN. FLOOR \ rEl ELEV. 100'-O" DESK -71 . 1 0 -11 + OFFICE i 11 4 11 11 80 1 1231 < 2 LIGHT Â»lei_L BELO'Al --ir 1=liu] 1=31 1-2 1 CERTIFIED hIP. / BURNING F.P. HISTORIC - EXISTING 1 ~ FLUE ABV. CUP _ 1, BAÂ¥ MPH. 1.. DINING L E 134-1 _ e j_ HISTORIC @ = 6116 [43- 263220 192* Ff 1 K / AINDOINS BUILT-IN ~~~4-1 PANTRY ~ ~ / CABS. ABV. ~ DN ( ' 71.1 2/5" UP A STAIR STAIR 1 A 1 \\ ---4------ ' L LISHT MELL ~i- Al NE RACK STAIRS BELOR -1 27" PANTRY _~~~ ABV. LOPN /Lbld 01 Ir NE]A KINDOM MALL ~ POMDER - TIL-E MOOD _ |-185~ 27"REF 0 11 1 DRAWER CABS. - PREEZER { i f -ABV. NEIN MINDOM BELOM , KITCHEN ~ .11 RaTI 1 1 - 12 431 LINE OF ADDITIO'r /? METAL 3 | --hk_ CASE - 4 CLe. CHANDE SUARDRAIL ~ C ( < BELOPY - BUILT-IN . ~ CUBBIES ABOVE NEPN PNINDOI/4 -/ ~ 1 -7-7- r--- -- POP-UP TV SINK~ VENTILATION -1 |--- - -~--- - HOOD ABOVE ~ 11 LIVINe /*|1 rNEM kNINDOM 113*1 - FLOINER BOX ~ F~-~-- I L*v ~ we41~-- MUD RM. \ 0/ DECK rial ~ _1~00-2-1 5 12'___] < 02~RISERS * B" BENCH h \ 3/f- --t . XI f- #-f NER KINDOWS 0 --FOR SOUTH ELEVATION 1 \_ GAS LOS r; ~ APPLIANCE NORTH L OUTDOOR B MAIN LEVEL PLAN HATCH 1/411 = 11-011 11 .. . ROOF RESTORE ORISINAL TUE PECK -1 ABOVE 7 ~ HISTORIC JAIDFN. PORCH ROOF 7 1 ' 14 / 91 / 1 1 1\ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BENCH 1 1 1 \Il l lilli ll i 0 lili l lilli 1 1 1 Â° TUB 11 lili 1 1 Ill 1 1 lilli J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DASHED LINE OF ~ 1 /5HbkR 1 -R -1-1 -0 4- 1 -t t-1 -4 -1-1 1 ~ ROOF ABOVE ~~~__ FNal// | / 1 M. BATH ~ BUILT-INS 7=r - \ 13331 - 1 i 1 1 hDOD TILE M. BEDROOM 0 1334 -\1- =1 HISTORIC _Â£ .- \ 1 MINDOR 1\ 1\ - =1 -0 -U 10 1 71 1 1 E ROOF ABOVE 1 SEALED |/ HALL DN ]000 7. 0 7 IEÂ·/~6" SAS LOG 0, 1 R TR. 9 10" . APPLIANCE ~~~". ~ ST.AIRm [135-1 DIRECT _ ~ VENT ~~*=<4 -rn 51 -71-OIl . 1- '' 1 - / 1 2'KZ" 1. --=f--3-==74 1 1 Il | | . CLOTHES ROD liN -1~ -i~' ' 1' 1 - ~'---4-IN/ SHELVINS / \ i 11 ~ M. CLOSET 1 1 ABOVE 1 11 1 BALOUNT -1 ] - 11 MAIN LEVEL _, ~ ~ 1 / 133*1 1 lilli 9005. I BELOJA 1 1 3/ 1 1 11*1Â¥1 1 /1/ 1/- 0 ~ T.O. FIN. FLOOR 1-~ l-D '11 METAL SUTTER 1/- 1 4 1 A 11 % 1 1 ELEV. Ilo'-1" ~ C ~ EXISTINS ED(bE -1 lrn|{ n | - HISTORIC 1 1 4 01 in 1111% 13 ir aw 1 2/ 1~ 1 11 ./ I h'INDOAL 011 - 14 19.1' 1 1 1'1 NER ANDOM EXISTINa 1/1 01' 1, 1 1 SHINGLE -fi' LutiN--ilj // j//i ASPHALT ROOFING I ,,1/ 1,~ 1.1 1~1~lil 1 -- ~ t-'~12 ff GUARDRAIL -~ 14Â»-94224 1 - 1 ' Af 1 1311, - 03 INEIN AD. ~/ -\ DECKING 9 -x METAL -~== FLASHING 9 - STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFINS METAL y r F, 7, P / /\023 7 CRICKET Uff/1-0491 i EL- 3:12 SLOPE JA!/ METAL ROOFINS NORTH 6 49 ~ UPPER. LEVEL PLAN 1/4. 11 = 11-oIl BLOPE ... -=-r' 1 1 lili/ i 1 1 1 0- - 31904>/L- -=7 ELOPE- _7 - SLOPE ~ ~ . -1 - - EXISTI NG - - EXISTING ~ ~ 1 1 11 JIL- ----- i' 2' 1, Lâ‚¬ 4 b-(4>--~ ttl~i ------ 11 1 1 1 Ill 11\- ---------- =i li l li l l 1 1 1 1 lil li \C- lilli 111111111 .11\7 ---- P==-11 111111111111111111\ 1 1 1 ' l i l i 1 1 1 1 1 'g 81[4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 \- - - - 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1\ EXISTING | | | | 1 1 1- 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1\ ADPHALT SHINSLE -\U#--1 1 111 1=; I lilli'1111,7- 2 l i l l i 1 MIt JI lil l i 1 1 1 1 11\7 - - il ROOFING \\6 1 1.--1 1 1 Imilll'lle ll 1 1 \7 - 11 1-\ 1 1 1 1 1 I l i l l i 1 1 % 1 Inl 1 1 \7 11 DORMER MALL _* _ A l I 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -Mt| lilli I 1 \7 BELOR -\- 2 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I li 11 1 lili/ ~-- METAL FLASHINe ~ __] [__ - ~ -1 L " rri ut ~~1_â€ž~ - 1---~_-_~~-~-1 -F- 1 -fl~---11 STANDING BEAM WIP Xr METAL ROOFINe 711 1 610 11 % 9 1/1041 lilli 11 -0 m __ m UPPER LEVEL , " i tr " n #44Â«_1_I _1_ I _1_ I__ __' 1 BELOR /_- -O-2-_- --- -/ L >L__ -1- 1 - 41Â«-2 LE] 11 -,1-- - - - - - - 11 12-Â»f-1-1 I i BALCONÂ¥ BELOIN -34--2-JETI-~t~~1_2-2 I t -Â»12-2-2-2-2-2-2 'b -4777------- 11 CPI EI~444-232 _-3, I- 4 1 ROOF BELO'Al 1/---1-1 0 NORTH ~ ~ ROOF:PLAN 1/4" = 1' -011 b EXISTING BRICK CHIMNEÂ¥ FLUE EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE NER DORMER FV ROOFINe 12 VERT. IND. SIDINe METAL SUARDRAIL EXITINe HISTORIC B.O. BEAM @ DORMER DOUBLE HUNS - MINDOINS ELEV. Ilq'-4 3/4" EXISTING HORIZ. AD SIDING 1 T.O. PLATE @ UPPER EXISTING Â»ID. - 7 ELEV. 115'-11" CLAPBOARD SIDINS -TYPICAL FOR ENTIRE BUILDING EXHAUST VENT EXISTING 12 ASPHALT SHINGLE an- ROOFING T.O. F.F. @ UPPER HISTORIC hIP. ELEV. 110'-7" DETAILING T.O. PLATE @ ROOF ELEV. 1Oq'-8 3/8" (EXISTING) a EXISTINe HISTORIC Â»ID. TRIM NEA MINDOM EXISTINS MO. PICKING VERA 09. SIDING EXISTING METAL FLOWER BOX CONG. STEP METAL SIDING 6RAPE l T.O. F.F. @ LOMER ELEV. 100'-0" 11 1 , 11 HORIZ. PNP SIDINe 9 1 EXISTINS HORIZ. ~ TO MATCH EXISTING ~ ~ ,1 L _ AD. SIDING l | | - | METAL GUARDRAIL NOTE: NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSED FOR NORTH ELEV. LISHTMELL METAL FLASHING EGRESS AINDOW ELEV. aq'-10" ro REST ELEVATION Â»F---94"-0-23~' B. EXITING METAL FLASHING BRICK NEIN DORMER FV CHIMNEY STANDING BEAM METAL NEFY MINDOM ROOFING HISTORIC EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE DOUBLE HUNe MINDOM ROOFING NER DOOR 4 EXISTINe TRANEOM HORIZ. AD. SIDINS NEW DORMER PV VERT. AD. SIDING i T.o. PLATE @ UPPER LINE OF ~ ~T--*Civ. i 15:-li" HAND)RAIL METAL FLASH INS 1454 VERT. --- - - PNP. METAL CHIMNEÂ¥ SIDING I ~ | FLUE $ CAP i T.o. F.F. @ UPPER EXISTING A 7 ELEV. 110'-7" IND. SIDING I-wil T~Uzurl-11 11 11__Inlili Il l l i l i HI N 1 1 1 11-1 1 IP-4----11 - STANDINS BEAM METAL FLOMER BOX -~ METAL ROOFINS METAL SIDING-~ --Ull===Â«-Il H__p METAL F.P. ~~___~~~~~~~ ACCESS DOOR METAL SUARDRAIL HISTORIC BAY ADA. BEYOND j 1 / ~ BEÂ¥OND METAL u.<F - 1=pl [~ - 1 -Â£ _ METAL SUARDRAIL I| 1 01< . 019 - 4-1 1 -F SIDINS 11 .11 GRADE n 1, T.O. F.F. @ LOKER --1-42=4~ DUBGRADE I SUBGRADE LIGHT FNELL -1 ' BEYOND ~*1;< ~ _ _ _ _ - _ ~ F MALL BEYOND MALL LIeHT MELL r 1 1 11 11 3 -d 1 11 1 0- 11__ __1 -____-____ 210---+ 32. CONG- ELEV. aq'-10" 91 SOUTH ELEVATION BATH EXHAUST VENT EXISTINe ASPHALT SHINSLE ~ ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING ROOFING AD. TRIM EXISTING STANDING SEAM ASPHALT SHINeLE METAL ROOFING ROOFING I2 12 Â· k T.O.. F.F. @ UPPER 7 ELEV. 110'-7" ~ B.O. HEADER T ELEV. lot'-1" ~ HISTORIC DEL. HUNG MINDOM METAL FLUE 04/ CAP HISTORIC BAY MINDOM 4 TRIM METAL SIDING AD. DECK fF= __ _ - - MECH. VENT BEYOND k T.O. F.F. @ LOWER i T.O. F.F. @ LOWER 7 ELEV. lOG'-0" T ELEV. 100'-O" || EGRESS MINDOM 1 11 HORIZ. Â»ID SIDINS / METAL EeRESS â€¢ TO MATCH EXISTING | LADDER IT 1 11 1 SUBSRADE SUBSRADE MALL \ BEYOND - | HI~ FOUNDATION \ 'Al/ALI- METAL FLASHING 1-_-1--------------------3 -~ T.Q.POND. ELEV. Bq'-10" . 1 EAST ELEVATION 1/41' = It-Oil NOTE: NO ALTERATIONS ARE PROPOSED FOR THIS ELEVATION T.O. PLATE # ELEV. 115'-11" 2 T.O. F.F. @ UPPER -ECEV. Ila '-1 " METAL SUARDRAIL BEYOND 11 11 M ~ F.F. @ LOWER 1-011 1 1. 1 1 SUBeRADE MALL 1 1\4 1 1 BEÂ¥OND L______-1--_____-1- 3 Â»3.2 1/4 " = 11-0" , 151-eli . 4 22 1111 11 Ill Ill Ill 1 E------77 1 7 - LINE OF ---d' 11 1/4 - 11 - /'- FOUNADTION BELOR 1 - MALLS BELCH - / 1 1 1 1 If - ===== ~ ROOT: ABV. ROOF STRUTS | - | BELOR - CONS CONG. ~ 1) 8'6" x B' PARKI 6 PACE '# 1 9 11 0 F---- GARAGE c MESH. METAL STORASE ~ ~ ~ 1/ (BELOFV) 133rl AllhESS DOORS ~ . 4 4 < 1 STAND INS SLOPE BEAM METAL - . ROOFING 2:12 || 11 1 11 METAL SHIPE ' ' E-- --1- 13-1 11 LADDER -* 4- --1 2 1 1 1 7-- 11 * T.O. F.F. @GARAGE ROOF OVERHANS 3 i ELEV. loo'-O" 4 \ 2 - 1 e ~ ' 13=41 1 /111 --- --- 1 1 1 L =3 CONG. RET. * I PNALL Â¢ I 4 * NORTH NORTH SARAGE PLAN r/4 GARASE ROOF FLAN 1/4.11 = 11-011 2-f 1/411 = 11 -OIl - EXT. LIGHTING 12 1 1 1, 1 -72 EXT. LIeHTINe - 2xe Â»ID. FASCIA - BOARD 4 - T.O. PLATE ELEV. IOB'-2" -1 0 0 0 2 AD. ROOF U / / ETRUT VERT. AD. SIDINS MESH. ACCESS METAL FLASHINS 11\\ 4 ~~ l . HATCH 3 0 0 BEYOND ~ * * T.O. *. @ SARAGE 1/ ELEV. 100'-0" 1 111 IF--------11 Ir- -/9 - 11 - GRADE HATCH _/ MECH. | | ~ | ACCESS | | CONG. RETAINING 1 11 = MECH. < MALL BEYOND -1 ~ i Ill I LADDER BEYOND METAL ACCESS || . || || d3 9 - -6 _______ Itj $ T.0 FOOTER Er - -- - - - $ - 0 ELEV. 901-4" - -1~-~1- --~ ~ eARAeE 'AIEST ELEVATION DARADE EOUTH ELEVATION 1/411 = 11-OIl 0 11â‚¬/1 1-1=1 - 2,<6 PNP. FASCIA 12 BOARD 2~--- STANDING SEAM METAL - ROOFING ~ T.O. CONG._E_SAR. ELEV. 108'-6" 1 l VERT. AD. SIDINS L AD. ROOF VERT. PÂ©. SIDINS - STRUT - METAL FLASHING n MESH. METAL FLASHING - ACCESS 0. 1- ~ BEYOND /-HATCH \. ~ T.O. CONG. @ SAR. - T.O. GONG. @ GAR. ELEV. 100'-0" ~ ELENA 100'-O" -11 lili Ir-------------11 CONG. RETAINING | ~ || 1- 'GRADE MALL BEYOND A~ 1 MIECH. ~ ~~-4 METAL ACCESS ~ [3011 C~~ 11 | ~| ~ LADDER BEYOND ~ ~ | ~ 11 11 Ull 1 11 ~ T.O. FOOTER 4-- ---- -0 - 4 T.O. FOOTER --_________ -- ELEV. 40'-4" L_-1 L__1 ELEV. 90'-4" [_1 . 1 SARAaE NORTH ELEVATION 1 j 1/411 = 1' -OIl 1/4. 11 = 1-011 233 GARAGE EAET ELEVATION 'E D, MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director 44* FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 101 E. Hallam Street- Conceptual Development, Variances, Partial Demolition - Public Hearing DATE: May 23, 2001 (continued from April 11, 2001) SUMMARY: The project involves making minor changes to an existing addition to the historic house, and demolishing a shed on the alley. HPC acted on the landmark request on April 11th, and Council gave final approval of the designation on May 14, 2001. APPLICANT: Jim and Patricia Gorman, represented by Mary Holley. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-37-001. ADDRESS: 101 E. Hallam Street, Lot A and the west 4.86 feet of Lot B, Block 65, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential) 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 to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant necessary variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the 3 9- 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: Very modest changes are proposed on the existing house, none of which directly affect the historic part of the building. A doorway on the west elevation is to be reconfigured, a linking piece is to built between the house and the garage, and a basement will be built under all of the post 1980's development. Staff finds that these alterations have no impact on the historic structure and that the modest size of the expansion is commendable. The project also involves demolishing an existing outbuilding and reconstructing it. The issue of the appropriateness of the demolition will be discussed below under the relevant review standards. In regard to the design of the replacement structure, staff finds that it is consistent with the character and size of historic outbuildings in the West End and meets the following design guidelines: 8.2 If an existing secondary structure is beyond repair, then replacing it is encouraged. â€¢ An exact reconstruction of the secondary structure may not be necessary in these cases. â€¢ The replacement should be compatible with the overall character of the historic primary structure, while accommodating new uses. 8.4 A garage door should be compatible with the character of the historic structure. â€¢ A wood-clad hinged door is preferred on a historic structure. â€¢ If an overhead door is used, the materials should match that of the secondary structure. â€¢ If the existing doors are hinged, they can be adapted with an automatic opener. The replacement structure is in keeping with the materials and style of the main house. Staff is not necessarily in favor of reusing the old brick if the existing building is to be demolished, because new construction should be treated as new and not made to pass as an old structure. In regard to standard 8.3, 8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure. â€¢ Traditionally, a garage was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structure is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. 36, 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: Staff does not find that the demolition of the shed is necessary for a successful rehabilitation of the historic house. There are other possibilities for accommodating a garage on the site (although the other options are not acceptable to the owner), and, in staff' s opinion, a historic outbuilding that is significant should not be demolished solely to provide for parking. This said, staff must agree with the assessment provided by the applicant's representatives, who have concluded that the shed has lost its integrity due to previous modifications. Although it was at one time important as a one story. masonry outbuilding, the stucco (which cannot be successfully removed) and wood siding have compromised the building. The problems cited by the structural engineer may be repairable, however the housemover is not willing to be involved in the effort to create a good foundation for the structure. The direction in the design guidelines is: 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved. â€¢ When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These include its primary and roof materials, roof form, windows, doors and architectural details. â€¢ If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional. Staff has a difference of opinion with some of the arguments provided in the application, for instance that the shed has low visibility (our alleys are active pedestrian routes), and the loss of context (the West End is not a historic district and many of the resources must be considered as isolated properties), but the more serious issues of the architectural integrity of the shed must be acknowledged. 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: Staff believes that the shed, unfortunately, no longer maintains historic significance. 37 The board should consider if there are any negative impacts of attaching the buildings. There may not be in this case because the connecting piece is set far back from the street views, is one story, and no major addition is being created on the house. Several variances are needed for the project, namely, a .5 foot west side yard variance for the existing house, a 5 foot east side yard variance to build in the location of the existing shed, a 3.5 foot west sideyard variance for new construction (the linking element), a 5.5 foot combined sideyard setback variance, a 9.4 foot combined front and rear yard setback variance, a 5 foot rear yard setback variance, and waiver of one parking space. All of the variances are aimed at avoiding adding too much mass directly onto the back of the historic house, and at maintaining a one story outbuilding along the alley. Staff supports the variance requests. Waiving the requirement for one of the parking spaces is reasonable because a one stall garage will allow for the new outbuilding to be similar in size to the existing structure. Also, there is currently no legal on-site parking for the property, so the situation is being improved. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposedfor development, and Staff Finding: The proposal is consistent with other efforts to restore and expand historic homes throughout the 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 Staff Finding: The project will protect the historic significance of the home by avoiding making inappropriate and larger additions to it. The historic significance of the shed will be addressed below. 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 does not detract from the architectural character and integrity of the house. As noted in the application, the owners chose not to act on a much more damaging renovation proposal than was previously approved. The architectural integrity of the shed will be addressed below. PARTIAL DEMOLITION No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all of the following standards are met: 37 0 The proposal is to replace the existing structure with one that is similar in size and design. As mentioned above, staff has concerns with making too much of an effort to replicate the historic building and be misleading about the new building's age. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant approval for conceptual development, variances, and partial demolition with the following conditions: A) O-+ A boillynl.juj 9 Ajsti t oluk, -164 1. Restudy the idea of using salvaged brick for the material on the new garage. 2. The HPC hereby approves the following variances: a .5 foot west side yard variance for the existing house, a 5 foot east side yard variance to build in the location of the existing shed, a 3.5 foot west sideyard variance for new construction (the linking element), a 5.5 foot combined sideyard setback variance, a 9.4 foot combined front and rear yard setback variance, a 5 foot rear yard setback variance, and waiver of one parking space. 3. The partial demolition approval also applies to the half of * shed that sits on / the 105 E. Halamstedpropergl.u)~// 4.- /2%Â·-9 6/ 0Â¥Â£ /3 ,Â«:/ l.(00&-\~ A.~LE Ju i L 2-1 RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to approve Resolution #- Series of 2001." 0 Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated May 23, 2001 B. Application 4 j tiok .Â»- 5(td-Â¢ ,42.<_-, ULA Li-J ,(2( 4 e#&'63 0 39 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION, CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 101 E. HALLAM STREET, LOT A AND THE WEST 4.86 FEET OF LOT B, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID#2735-124-37-001 cks RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 2001 WIIEREAS, the applicants, Jim and Patricia Gorman, represented by Mary Holley, have requested Historic Landmark Designation, Conceptual Development, Partial Demolition, and Variances for the property located at 101 E. Hallam Street, Lot A and the west 4.86 feet of Lot B, Block 65, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property has been listed on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures"; and WHEREAS, 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. A. Historical importance. The structure or site is a principal or secondary 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. B. Architectural importance. Based on the building form, use, or specimen, the structure or site reflects 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. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. 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. 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; and WIIEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of 40 Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "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 to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant necessary 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 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: 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. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and WHEREAS, 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. 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; and 41 WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff reports dated April 11 and May 23, 2001, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended approval ofthe project; and WIIEREAS, at their regular meeting on April 11, 2001, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application for landmark designation, found the application to meet the standards, and approved the application by a vote of 5 to 1, and, at their regular meeting on May 23, 2001, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application for conceptual development, partial demolition, and variances, found the application to meet the standards and to be consistent with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote of_to_. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That Historic Landmark Designation, Conceptual Development, Partial Demolition, and Variances for the property located at 101 E. Hallam Street, Lot A and the west 4.86 feet of Lot B, Block 65, City and Townsite of Aspen be approved with the following conditions: 1. Restudy the idea ofusing salvaged brick for the material on the new garage. 2. The HPC hereby approves the following variances: a .5 foot west side yard variance for the existing house, a 5 foot east side yard variance to build in the location of the existing shed, a 3.5 foot west sideyard variance for new construction (the linking element), a 5.5 foot combined sideyard setback variance, a 9.4 foot combined front and rear yard setback variance, a 5 foot rear yard setback variance, and waiver of one parking space. 3. The partial demolition approval also applies to the half of the shed that sits on the 105 E. Hallam Street property. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 23rd day of May, 2001. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Â£11- Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 43 OAHP1403 Official eligibility determination Rev. 9/98 (OAHP use only) Date In,Oals COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Determined Eligible- NR Determined Not Eligible- NR ~ Architectural Inventory Form Determined Eligible- SR Determined Not Eligible- SR (page 1 of 4) Need Data Contibutes to eligible NR Distnd Noncontributing to eigible NR District 1. IDENnFICATION 1. Resource number: 5PT. 117.5 2. Temporary resource number: 101.EHA 3. County: Pitkin 4. City: Asnen 5. Historic building name: Catherine Brown nae Cowenhoven House 6. Current building name: 7. Building address: 101 East Hallam 8. Owner name and address: James & Patricia Gorman 1426 Rose Glen Rd. Gladwvne PA 19035 11. Geographic Information 9. P.M. 6 Township 10 South Range 85 West SE w of SE 44 of NE 44 of SE 44 of Section 12 10. UTM reference 0 Zone 13;342720mE43395 0 5 mN 11. USGS quad name: Aspen. Colorado Quadranale Year: 1960. Photo Rev. 1987 Map scale: 7.5' x 15' Attach photo copy of appropriate map section. 12. Lot(s): A & West 4.86' of B Block: 65 Addition: Year of Addition: 13. Boundary Description and Justification: Site is comorised of Lot A&W 4.86' of Lot B. Block 65 of the Citv and Townsite of Ast)en. Assessors office Record Number: 2735-124-37-001 This descrintion was chosen as the most snecific and customarv descriotion of the site. 111. Architectural Description 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Rectanaular Plan 15. Dimensions in feet: Length x Width 16. Number of stories: 1-1/2 storv 17. Primary external wall material(s) (enter no more than two): Brick. Wood Shinales 18. Roof configuration: (enter no more than one): Front Gabled 19. Primary external roof material (enter no more than one): Wood Shinale Roof 20. Special features (enter all that apply): Porch. Chimnev. Seamental Arch 0 --- Resource Number: 5PT. 117.5 Temporary Resource Number: 101.EHA Architectural inventory Form ~ (page 3 of 3) 34. Site type(s): Neichborhood residential 35. Historical background: This structure is representative of Aspen's minina era character. It illustrates the familv / home environment and lifestvle of the averaae citizen of Aspen based on the silver mining industrv. This residence was built for Catherine Brown n6e Cowenhoven (D.R.C. Brown's wife) both sianificant families in Aspen's minina develooment. 36. Sources of information: Pitkin Countv Courthouse records: Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps, 1990 and 1980 Citv 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 Cnteria: 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; K 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) 4 Does not meet any of the above National Register cAteria 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 sianificant for its Dosition in the context of Asgen's mining era. It describes the nature of the familv life of a middle class family during that Deriod. as well as the construction techniques and materials available and in the fashion of the time. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: Significant alterations have been made to the structure. the oriainal roof shane is comoletelv altered and numerous dormers interfere with the reading of the form of the original structure. Because the structure was oriainallv brick. the original first level does retain its character and architectural imf)ression. Due to the fact that the twin of the building survives on the adiacent Dronertv. considerable information about the ortainal buildina is available to the Dublic. 0 . Resource Number: 5PT. 117.5 Temporary Resource Number: 101.EHA Architectural Inventory Form (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 X No Discuss: There is a concentration of 190' Centurv buildinas in this area. 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: R9. F30 & 31 Negatives filed at Aspen/Pitkin Communitv Develooment Dest. 48. Report title: Citv of Aspen 2000 UDdate of Survev of Historic Sites and Structures 49. Date(s): 6/24/2000 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 Resource Number: 5PT. 117.5 Temporary Resource Number: 101.EHA Architectural Inventory Form (page 2 of 2) 21. General architectural description: Simple rectanaular plan brick buildina. foundation is brick at arade. the asvmmetrical facade has a small comer entrv Dorch and a round arch main window in a brick field. A brick belt course runs around the building at the sill of the windows. The arched window is now a sinale Dane of fixed class. The roof structure and cable ends are of frame construction. The use of brick and its elegant detailina indicate a well established familv in the communitv. The entry Dorch and entrv door has been altered with an elaborate cut alass oval liaht and side liaht. New trim has also been added. New addition to rear with new dormers and revised roof shage, main level of original house is aenerallv intact. with few if anv oriainal windows A corbelled chimnev Droiection exists on the west side, however the rest of the chimnev has been removed. This is one of the rare bMck one storv residences in town. 22. Architectural style/building type: Late Victorian 23. Landscaping or special setting features: Two larae sgruce trees on the front (north side). contemporary wrouaht iron fence on front and side. This buildina is a mirror twin of the buildina next door (105 E. Hallam) The adiacent buildina retains. for the most part, its oriainal configuration and character. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: Brick outbuildina approx. 150 sq ft. Brick with stucco in some areas, wood clamboard at qable ends. Structure straddles two properties. IV. Architectural History 25. Date of Construction: Estimate Actual 1885 Source of information Pitkin County Assessor 26. Architect: Unknown Source of information: 27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown Source of information: 28. Original owner: Catherine Brown Source of information: 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): Sianificant alterations and additions. The oriainal roof shape was reconstructed in an open aable end shane with contemporarv stvle dormers. the two story addition to the back has decorative wood sidina, a turned Dost balustrade. and traDezoidal windows. 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 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICAnoN FORM 1. Project name 6,92--'/,~N f'0551'7â‚¬y vip 2. Project location loi 63 Â¢0./.rM 4 ;05 0. ;-/24/44' Â¢000TH , '07 *, 6 -7,9 1\:0944 6.5 99 .'1)3 6371)96 9% (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning %' 9 4. Lot size '8, 2.89 â‚¬g= 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number .'HM /*1 3 Pr7:46+ 419/6 4 \4'00 94'F, 65Â£\Â·9Â·OFO . 449Â·83*R . 07. :0544 (60 -9540-'l,*ffn 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number WÂ·~*40 Â¢0554 0~ ~~~82. 4AE.+ ,ti, F:riâ‚¬y:-ru'- t:27 ~; 302 l 19,7024 ' 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA X Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivisicn Text/Map Amend. X Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption K Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review Lot SpliULot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft, number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) 1 0.â‚¬- 73Â·'.,2 ./ 'fy>Â· b 7-4,Â·# 7-9'0 5,3,'Dat Â·,7.--- '87 #5Â·52-40- t.,467 ,Â«p< r %140 re AR, (Â·'-e-TIÂ·1~; ;R fr e .. 91Â·-- k'.74; 77 0\ .. t-Â»=4 nr: ?p Â»Â·95 r,1.1- 4 fj.(tc rio 'tro '' T.i>pÂ«D '0*- F,3 '2..5;~'t':-r - Fow-4612; 1..=:1-32- % le,r 7.:%7AIL,- Cy-72.1 .f/. \Â»4Â«00. 9\\ 2::*27,1 1 '11, Â·retr,Â·3Â·71;. 11 - 9. Description of development application ,/*P/â‚¬ 69,.33 07:M Â»V lar-Al //094 3 t':pâ‚¬y, Er':27 50:41/Â·.9 -6477 2/,47 kfi ..3./206*72 4'Â·-'Â· ,:3 Wa'.4- Sot:.0106.1Â·E. Wr?f 40 EVE.'ge 10. Have you completed and attached the following? 74 Attachment 1 - Land use application form 74 Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form k Response to Attachment 3 y Response to Attachment 4 11111111 ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant: 43'. S "pÂ¢9961,Â· 40*-1/044 Address: . ;0 6. MP. 6 6,91 Zone district: 1,9 Lot size: 4 21* - 1 Existing FAR: //' .r.: 47 . 4 G Allowabje FAR: 4-. :f'#.ir i ....:. :.. :70>Â· 2 Proposed FAR: 4,5..7.-,>.â‚¬.'. Existing nei leasable (commercial): 5/ 't Proposed net leasable (commercial): y V- Existing % of site coverage: 140 (AM\TF30* Proposed % of site coverage: Ao 'v\Mrrhrd)6 Existing % of open space: ~ r ,/. td' p.. Proposed % of open space: F K Â· A- Existing maximum height: Principal bldg: 122-ov Accesory bldg: 1 :' Â·W' Proposed max. height: Principal bldg: 48 47" Accessory bldg: 0. M Â·t Proposed % of demolition: 5 4 Existing number of bedrooms: Proposed number of bedrooms: Existing on-site parking spaces: On-site parking spaces required: Setbacks Existing: Minimum required: Proposed: , Front: i'f,6 Front: /9 0 Front ;' 20 Rear: i, 0.4 Rear: iÂ·-, 7 Rear: f.4.' Combined Combined Combined FronUrean 2. Â·:Â· Front/rear: 9, J Front/rear. 'Ze.;b' Side- A sl Side: 2. p Side: *,3 Side: 8"' Side: e. , Side: Â£57. 01 0917Â¥50 8>5~ , Combined Combined Combined , Sides: r. 4 Sides: 5. 7 Sides: 4-, 0 Existing nonconformities or encroachments: Â· 9 0 INGÂ·ir ece..!AM. 42%; S 9.â‚¬Pt..1 filt Co. d Â® Gffr .:5 DEE. 4/60 9 lE?)9-44% #7:'56 Vadati0nS reqUeSted.te 'f 'f.Â¢s:FJ <5*59 ,/f:=0/J:Â·-3'~,7, (~1:9: :Z:r-- 2..':4~L P , => 4.0 9-9- 62'ODE * 25 Fjm..5Â«,zgj *yfig'/4Â« * 8' 8$4- *:pâ‚¬ -2--0 *MA NO , 6,/29*37<,724 41,1-' Foâ‚¬/ --Â· Â·; 1FrtÂ·& UÂ¥72'20990 *ir?yo'4"+t435, 2.19 COI: 4,<:95 45,3,734 f-9-1 #258**~ 4/4\NAM, +446 (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 tr residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC, and Ozone dstricts) 41,4 KP- ep 1 ?P-29 69 30/ 8 8 3Â·h lf' James J. Gorman 1426 Rose Glen Road Gladwyne, PA 19035 610/896-2880 February 19,2001 To Whom It May Concern: Mary A.A. Holley is authorized to act as our representative for approval of work to be completed at 101 E. Hallam Street, Aspen, CO. James J. and Patricia B. Gorman 1426 Rose Glen Road Gladwyne, PA 19035 Office Telephone: 610/524-0220 Home Telephone: 610/896-2880 Cell Phone: 610/724-2626 Fax: 610/524-7706 E-mail: igorman@voicenet.com Mary A.A. Holley C/o Mary A. Avjian Architects, P.C. 50 River Oaks Lane Basault. CO 81621 Telephone: 970/927-7656 Fax: 970/927-7669 E-mail aardvark@sopris.net Sincerely, James J. Gorman /kj PCT13511C2 PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. P.O. BOX 1417 23286 HIGHWAY 82, SUITE 22 BASALT, COLORADO 81621-1417 970-927-4993 ~ 970-927-4096 FAX ARCH 17, 1999 dES AND PATRICIA FORMAN 16 ROSE GLEN ROAD .ADWYNE, PA 19035 .: LOT A & B, BLOCK 65, ASPEN PCT13511C2 kin County Title, Inc. is pleased to provide you with the owners policy relative to the above mentioned file. :ase review the policy in its entirety. We at Pitkin County Title, Inc. believe in providing you, our customer, with a quality jluct which will serve your needs. ,he event you do find a discrepancy, or if you have any questions or comments regarding your final policy, please contact us d we will gladly handle any request you may have as efficiently and quickly as possible. e have assigned the above number to your records to assure prompt processing of future title orders involving the property. If u sell or obtain a loan on this property within 5 years, ask your broker or agent to contact our office to ensure re-issue rates ich may be available to you. :ank you very much for giving Pitkin County Title, Inc. the opportunity to serve you. ncerely, enise L. Lange ffice Manager NICS: COPY OF TAX CERTIFICATE -OR QUESTIONS ON YOUR FINAL TITLE POLICY, PLEASE CONTACT DENISE LANGE AT THE ABOVE NUMBER. O PLACE NEW ORDERS FOR A SALE OR RE-FINANCE, PLEASE CONTACT KIM SHULTZ AT THE ABOVE NUMBER. SCHEDULE A-OWNER'S POLICY Ilt NUMBER DATE OF POLICY AMOUNT OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER ~913511C2 11/10/98 @ 3:56 P.M. $ 1,336,500.00 1312-136886 1. NAME OF INSURED: JAMES GORMAN and PATRICIA GORMAN 2. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREIN AND WHICH IS COVERED BY THIS POLICY IS: IN FEE SIMPLE 3. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST REFERRED TO HEREIN IS AT DATE OF POLICY VESTED IN: JAMES GORMAN and PATRICIA GORMAN 4. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS POLICY IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT A AND THE WESTERLY 4.86 FEET OF LOT B, BLOCK 65, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS AVE. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 925-1766/(970)-925-6527 FAX THE POLICY NUMBER SHOWN ON THIS SCEDULE MUST AGREE WITH THE PREPRINTED NUMBER ON THE COVER SHEET. 1. 44% ./ 11:naa : m tr : : * El Sproce st ) 'U ~ Smu rSt % Y ' , 1 - 2 wm Â·6ite 44'47 4,; ~ -0 %. 'be; , HR Harold Ross Cf 4 /2 Â£ n,ic CC Cowenhove - . 1,1.. %. '+ ta- \ 8 2 WC Williams Ranch Ct .S : 2 2 51 4. cia st 5 9 4 F \, 7 E 1 , LS Luke Short C, / :C f# A O Acct PU0,~ 46 m St elli Hal 04 Mmers + ~~: 1.. *St *Â·i: ~C 4..TIEAR,d ~ 2~ <P lit 9/0, 1 po i. ... cr R c. i Alain & i --*- - ~ - 44"tr f ! IHo J 2, * p, 6. 2 ..... 4- 5..A \ +114 < ! ' 44 8 ~ -1. 31 Cl I't: iftâ€¢: 0G Â«Â¢,3 tUD 4 2 61:.7 thdept Match-~ , 94 r' a4eke ,.-- 0444 ~ -/ *fiess Dz /53~ r i.6/. 1,4â€¢:, .4... 7 4,4.994 it 1 t ..â‚¬, t 1 WA" Of * .'1Flu +. â€¢0' Queen St Â»eit WI,i:c rilrc.1 â‚¬ S *dtd~-4 /11&:ializ/Porcd * YMJeDT ~ COODer.. 8*465 LarrloN 2 .tf . 5 4 2 4341,&44 1 Mescone in ' $>m:'f.f e 22 5 2 Â¢ b m ' 6'Ove'Ad Wi.i,c A.iÂ·.Â·c, 1.a..cÂ·nci Forest . e k ~ ~le AL' 3. rdmore Ct #De#neâ€¢ Durant&Av 0. 2. '<fte -7 rI: 1,; G < ' 4 E 2*4 Gilbet St ~c 006.4 4.a .#-, ./ i , Downtown ; Sum . & = 1%726 1--6 St ce# 1 - 1 4 Uspen 69Â§... .. 3 Aspen - .* . Fi V Â· 1 5 1 1 %:Â·>b *e S RNE#p' ' ~ Westview Dr 6 - 6; 9. 11 Ute pl 0 1/4 : 1/2 â‚¬: t: \A % *Â·i,, 51& . ,~~i Â· ~ n. l..., 9%4" ~Â»1 FarkDr . 1 Lage' |t IRÂ» Scale m miles 0 Smu9le,M_!ain 0 Ma Dr Marg A. Agian Architects, r.CÂ· MEMORANDUM To: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer From: Mary Holley CC: Jim Gorman Date: March 14,2001 Re: Conceptual Review of 101 E. Hallam Addition and Remodel We are applying for Conceptual review of Landmark Status, Significant Development, Partial Demolition, rear and side yard setback variances, and a parking variance for an addition and remodel to the existing residence at 101 East Hallam. This project was previously presented to the Historic Preservation Commission at a worksession on November 15, 2000. I will address the comments and concerns raised in that worksession as well as the relevant review standards in this memorandum. The property now has an existing two-story brick residence and a detached one-story brick shed that straddles the eastern property line. The original portions of these buildings were built in 1888. With the exception of additions and alterations that were made to the 101 West Hallam property beginning in the late 1980's the main house is in its original form. In addition, the brick shed on our side of the property has been completely covered with stucco, 2x wood furring, and horizontal wood siding. The smaller portion of the shed on the adjacent property has a stucco band up to about three feet above grade. We believe that the main house is a good candidate for Landmark Status as it meets the standard of contributing to the neighborhood character and to the character of the community. Katherine Cowenhoven Brown had the house built in 1888 as a guest cottage for the mansion that had been located on the Red Brick School property. As such, it represents an important link to Aspen's past. In addition, this property is currently listed on the City of Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. The Gormans were pleased to receive a letter from the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department on August 31, 2000 regarding retaining their property on the Inventory. They mistakenly assumed it meant the property was already considered a Landmark and would simply like to complete the process that the City has initiated. For our development, we are proposing a minor addition to the existing house and demolition of the brick shed. The shed is to be rebuilt as a garage in approximately the same configuration and 1 50 River latcs Lane {basalt, Colorado 8 1 62.1 rhona: (970) 927-7656 Tax: (970) 927-7669 IL-mail: aardvark@sopris.net I Web fage: http//mt.sopris.net/aardvark ~V-V-Â¥* Marg A. Atjian Architects, F.C. MEMORANDUM location that it now occupies with the addition of a dormer to allow for a garage door from the alley. The addition to the house will be mostly below grade with a small one-story link to be added above grade between the house and the new garage. The exterior of the existing house is to remain as it currently is and with the exception of required lightwells, the impact of the new addition on the existing structure should be minimal. The Gormans purchased the property with approvals from the H.P.C. to remove the roof of the main residence and raise it as well as to demolish and rebuild the shed with a higher roof. Having a lot of experience with historic renovations in Philadelphia, they did not feel that the approved plans treated the main residence with the sensitivity that it deserved. They chose to review the design and have come up with a new program that actually preserves the original existing house in its present condition. The new basement space will end at the edge of the original brick house. The part of the west elevation that is to be filled in was built in the late 1980's and is not original to the structure. They are not planning on further modifying the roof, windows, or original doors of the residence. They are only asking for permission to rebuild the shed to accommodate a garage door off of the alley. Both the above grade and below grade additions to the existing house were well received at the worksession on November 15. However, the main sticking point for this project became the proposed demolition of the brick shed on the back of the property. Some suggestions to allow the shed to remain were offered by the H.P.C., which we have reviewed with the appropriate authorities. Unfortunately, none of these turned out to be viable. I will briefly review the condition of the shed and the suggestions made by the H.P.C. 1. Bill Bailey of Bailey House Movers was brought on site to evaluate our proposal. He has no problem with shoring the existing house but is unwilling to either shore up or move the shed. He feels that interfering with the shed will be outside of the limits of liability that he is willing to take. Please refer to his letter that has been included in this packet. 2. Dale Kaup of Kaup Engineering also evaluated the shed. He felt that the shed has potentially reached the end of irs structural viability. Please refer to his letter, which is also included. 3. A suggestion was made at the November 15 worksession that a compromise could be reached with the City whereby the Gormans would be allowed to utilize the area in the City Right of Way in exchange for keeping the shed as is. Unfortunately, neither the Engineering Department nor the Planning Department is willing to consider this option. The Engineering Department does not wish to set a precedent of allowing permanent or semi-permanent use of 2 50 River Oalcs Lane Ibasalt, Colorado 8 1 62 1 fhone: (970)927-7656 Max: (970) 917-7669 E--mail: aardvark@sopris.net I Web fage: http//mt.sopris.net/aardvark "41: Marp A. Agian Architects, V.C. MEMORANDUM the Right of Way. Also, the Planning Department does not wish to consider approval for structures built outside of the property line. 4. Another suggestion was to rebuild the shed and build a garage near it in another location. Since the lot is only 35 feet wide, this essentially fills the entire back side of the lot with a structure. This would diminish the separate appearance of the shed, first of all, and secondly, would create an unusable space in the shed. The Gormans would have no beneficial use for the space in the rebuilt shed. 5. A final suggestion made at the worksession was that rather than interfere with the shed in any way, some members were willing to let it be and see how long it lasts before it falls down on its own. The Gormans cannot state too strongly that they feel this view is unreasonable. They are not willing to keep a structurally unsound building on their property if it can be avoided. In light of our demonstrated inability to move the shed, shore it up, or effect a land swap with the City to allow the shed to remain, we feel that the only solution for the project is to demolish the shed to accommodate the garage in the same location. To that end we feel the shed meets or exceed the standards for partial demolition laid out in the Land Use Code. Those standards are as follows: 1. 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. In order to accommodate their space needs both above and below grade, the Gormans need to be able to demolish the shed. In addition, please refer to the letter by Lisa Purdy regarding the historic significance of the original shed. 2. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. The original brick house will remain "as is" with this scenario and very limited alterations to it will be required. The new garage will replicate the original shed as closely as possible by keeping to the original location, width, length, and plate height. The only change to the original mass of the shed is the dormer on the alley, which allows us to access the garage without raising the entire roof of the building. 3 5 0 River Oaks Lane Basalt, Colorado 8 1 6 2 1 rhone: (970)917-7656 Max: (970)927-7669 E--mail: aardvaric@sopris.net I Web rage: http//mtsopris.neÂ«aardvarl< . ~V-V-VT Marg A. Agian Architects, V.C. MEMORANDUM b. Impacts to 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. The mass and scale of the rebuilt shed/garage is meant to replicate, as closely as possible, the building that will be removed. There is also a lower "link" element between it and the existing house to help give the new addition the appearance of being a separate entity. The majority of new construction will occur below grade where it will not affect the original brick structure. Realizing that any demolition is a sensitive issue, we nonetheless feel that this proposal helps to maintain the integrity of the site and the main residence as much as possible while still allowing the Gormans to make full use of their property. They are much more interested in preserving the main residence than their previous approvals had allowed. The genesis of the design before you was a desire to treat the main house with care and respect. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call and I will be more than happy to address your concerns. 4 50 River Oaks Lane basalt, Colorado 8 1 62 1 rhona (970) 917-7656 Vax:(970) 917-7669 E--mail: aardvark@sopris.net I Web Vage: http//mtsopris.net/aardvark Mar-09-01 08:28A KAUP ENGINEERING INC 9709459633 P.02 P O. Box 2235 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 KAUP ENGINEERING INC. (970)945-9613, fax (970)945-9633 March 9, 2001 Mary Avjian Architects 50 River Oaks Lane Basalt, CO 81621 Attn- Mary Avjian RE Gorman Garage, 101 E. Hallam, Aspen Via: Fax Dear Mary: Per your request, I met with you at the residence at 101 E. Hallam to review the existing shed. I was asked to assess the structural viability of the slructure. The existing shed is approximately 100 years old and is Constnicted with materials and methods prevalent in that period for an out building. The roof is framed with wooden 2%4 rafters, which bear on perimeter brick walls. The brick walls appear to be unreinforced and are a double wythe layout. The brick walls appear to have been built directly on grade with no formal footing. A hard coat stucco finish and wood siding were added to the extenor at an unknown time The areas of exposed brick indicate severe ~eathering of the brick ag well as the grout joints A substantial number of cracks were observed in the bricks as well as the exterior stucco finish The shed has been through significant settlements and movements. In general, this shed is typical for the era and usage in which it was constructed. It appears to have undergone extended periods of weathering and neglect The cracking in the brick walls indicates long term settlement/heave movements associated with minimum frost cover and improper drainage. The lack of a footing has also contributed to the walls susceptibility to soils movements. The brick walls are unreinforced and therefore are held together only by the bond at the grout joints. Due to the age and porosity of the existing brick and grout, the bond holding the wall together has been significantly compromised. The roof rafters are again typical for the era of gonstruction but are greatly overstressed for current design snow loads. Based on the above observations, it is my opinion that the shed has reached the end of its useful life expectancy. The long tem weathering and movement of the brick walls has compromised the overall structural stability of the shed and the existing roof rafters are overstressed. Therefore, I recommend that the shed be immediately stabilized to prevent a potential collapse. All shed access shall be dosed off to prevent anyone, including the owners, from entering the building. All Mar-Og-01 08:29A KAUP ENGINEERING INC 9709459633 P.03 roof snow loads shall be removed as soon as they accumulate. In addition, precautions shall be taken to prevent any vehicular contact with the building from alley traffic. In condusion, the shed is structurally unstable and has a potential to collapse. Temporary shoring and bracing shall be installed for the safety of the property owners and persons using the public alley. Please call with any questions or if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, -aM A R *.f'4:44 Date D. -- <1_ fRD X222 lÂ· 7 ..4. U.Ir/ 90'10 K Â«ine *~4"Wit-111,1,#* 11/13/2000 09:44 9704349763 BAILEY PAGE 01 Proposal Proposal No. i FROM UA /Ly Â£~ %6â‚¬5 2- Sheet No. / 3 r 4-9 - 8 Â£4 Date (31Â£4Â·,u 0 3-57-. , Qo . P/:33 11 -/f- C t) Proposal Submined To Work To h Pdormed At NoN. hl 4Â£4 040 U.E Y 9-\ /8 / CO 4414/4 sk- 5-n W <um# 04:3 CAN F cÂ·f Al PE.Al City 25.454 9. r Date of Plans Slow (2,0Â£ 20 I Architect Telephone number 217 - 76.f-# we hereby propose k> furnish all Ihe material, ond perform all the labor nece:scry for ihe completion of 1,40Â£,A Gr FrIL '444 S F AT 10/ U) NALL,444 64 1 ,"râ€¢+ 37EEL =65/AaAS. -r-+4; 25,+ek-ING /0 /4 L Go Appenc . 6' 8 Evo *Ah - /4 2-Â£41 A *SUÂ¥~ENT C n Al -r A A t-re 0 AJ /L L _ rt-* U i 7-5 LO,U LA Artr G *ADL A-eouw h +AMSâ‚¬_ Jhat.1-0.L__ 8 F.cok] .5-Â¥40 21 6.-r /4.0-,Av Flk-. NowSE 7-0 -7--fi U.3 9 sr .-1-6 yriccr C. Â£-A A.un/ 71 7-* 6 Â£*,04 A Eck- 4'. moVE, ' 601{-1- ALSM A), Lb O.r'.1.r-.t,kroa -ro - 4/ I 9' eLA, 8 Perb -7-0 ELE.,ATÂ«.4 0-F A *SERK..7 FLoce a - CDN -r-/A era Â£ (.C 1 L L 8 1 Eff A M fi ALL 04,12 PE-,u LT-RAT,NG. 841* Re,Lun.7,04 Fol VY\QuERS fr/Â£ 4 8Â£.Ar..1$ A-h Also - -7-*â‚¬ CGA*. r., r 4.fâ€¢,DAT,ON All motertal is guaronÂ¢eed to be os specified, and the above work to be performed in accordance wim the drawings and specifications submmed for abom work and completed in a substantial workmanlike manner 6, the sum of Dollors I $ 612, &00 Â¢ ) 0 paymenh to be made as follows: Any alleration or deviotion hom above specificalions involving extro cosh, will be execuled only upon wriâ€¢en ordÂ®n, and will become on extra charge ovÂ®r and above the estimate All agreement; contingen! upon *trikes, accidents or deloys beyond our control. Owner to carry fire, lornodo and other nwessory insuronce upon above work. Workmen'% Compensation and Public Liability Inwronce on obove work to be token out by. Z54,Â£610Â· '04,4.i Â£ nl ou ZA 1 f Respectfully submitte,1 ,612, /~ per Â£4.7 /%445Â£ nA s u Â£-AS Nom - This proposal may be wilhdrawn by us if not occepted wilhin 90 dap - ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL The above prices, specificalions and conditions ore sa~slactory and ore hereby occepted You ore aulhorized to cio the work as specified. Payment will be made as oullined above. Aerâ€¢ptirl Signohir. _ Drâ€¢â€¢ _ Signoture LITMO IN U.S.A. ops FORM 3450 (~ 11/13/2000 09:46 9704349763 BAILEY Bill Bailey BAILEY HOUSE MOVERS ....61 LICENSED . INSUXED â€¢ IONDED Wm. 0. BAILEY 3140 8 Rd. Grand Junction. CO 81 503 970 434-9763 A-r-r,ut A.AA#4 #8 LU V I. 3-6# 2 cri - /O 1 (Ad . 1474 Â£24 Pvt 145*,u' , CÂ©*a. -71 />f JAe,~ /r *319 (1~0 e &61/ r -ra L SHâ‚¬b . 8,4 -7-22_ Aucy , 1 ArT /01 k), ~AUAN. 1 /5 /41 M.w D An) 406) -7-6 D t/(A) 57'AACE -71 6100â‚¬. SÂ·APeL-v. -716.66. Fbel-; *-r Ex=Elas /ry\* Lim,rs Fot 1-1 A,&,Lin Â£1 -74+AT /,1,~ 60,40:Â£4 7-3- 7*>al. 6 f,aCE e.il uf t A. Â¢SU O 1.40-4: d MA tt.6 1 )4â€¢u SE 77,01 Clu Lisa Purdy Consulting ......... 121 Pea rl Street Denver, CO 80203 Ph (303) 733-7796 Fax (303) 733-7110 MEMO TO: City of Aspen, Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Lisa Purdy, Historic Preservation Consultant DATE: March 15, 2001 RE: 101 E. Hallam, Aspen Colorado Jim and Patricia Gorman, owners of 101 E. Hallam, asked me to evaluate the renovation they have proposed for their property at this address. They had questions about the sensitivity of the plans for rehabilitation of the main house and the effect that demolition of the rear shed would have on the historic significance of their property. I am sharing my comments with you at their request. BACKGROUND By way of background, I have worked for over 20 years in the field of historic preservation as a private consultant as a volunteer, and as an employee of Historic Denver, Inc. My work has been the subject of numerous articles and books as well as a PBS special on my role in creating the Lower Downtown Historic District in Denver in 1988. Three years ago I was awarded a yearlong fellowship to Harvard University based on my work and contributions to the field of historic preservation. I also received the top award given for preservation from the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and have received numerous local awards for my work for preservation in the community. In addition, I have spoken at various national conventions and bar association meetings and have written numerous articles and edited a book on the subject. One of the things I have learned through the years is that historic preservation practice varies from one locale to another. Each community comes together to decide what is important to them, writes local ordinances that addresses their values and provides a legal framework, and appoints a Commission that interprets these ordinances in the context of their own community. Because of this, when I evaluate historic preservation projects I pay close attention to what a given community has written into their ordinances, surveys, and guidelines to interpret what these values and procedures are. In addition, I hope to bring the added value of my years of experience in promoting, interpreting, and advocating the cause of historic preservation in many cities around the country. I submit my comments to you for your consideration in this context. Memo to the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 2 from Lisa Purdy Consulting re: 101 E Hallam March 15, 2001 PROCESS I went to see the property at 101 E. Hallam in early March of 2001. I reviewed the plans submitted by Mary Holley and spoke with the owners to understand the past history of the house and why they are renovating the house in the manner proposed. I also spoke with Amy Guthrie on your staff and walked the West End for several hours. In addition, I spent a great deal of time looking at the shed, the context for it, and the manner in which it has been altered through the years. Lastly, I reviewed your Land Use code as it relates to historic properties, read the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines published by Aspen in April of 2000, and reviewed the Aspen Inventory data from 1980, 1991, and 2000. Because I have been coming to Aspen on occasion for projects over the last 25 years, I have developed a familiarity with not only the town but with many of the historic preservation processes and codes you've developed. EVALUATION 1. The addition to the main house is being done sensitively and without disruption to the historic integrity of the property. I was pleasantly surprised to see the plans for the addition to the main house. By putting the addition underground and leaving the part of the house with the most historic integrity (the front) untouched, the Gormans will be preserving that which has made the house qualified to be on the Inventory. It is rare, in my experience, to see an owner go to such expense to make an 1888 historic house adapt to modern times. The underground addition will add space without disrupting the house as it is seen today. The public will stiM get a good sense of the house's history as a guest cottage and because the front of the property contains the most historic integrity, this fa,ade will remain in a condition that is close to the original design. I find it unfortunate that the 1980s renovation to the house was done in such an insensitive manner but am happy to see that what is being proposed now will not detract from the main part of the house. 2. The variances requested will not adversely affect the historic integrity of the property. Given the year the property was originally built and the narrowness of the lot, I believe the parking and setback variances are appropriate and will allow for remodeling that is in keeping with the property. 3. Demolition of the rear shed will not adversely affect the historic significance of the property because the shed is not a historically significant element Memo to the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 3 from Lisa Purdy Consulting re: 101 E Hallam March 15, 2001 4 From my review of the materials describing the historic significance of the property as a whole, the rear shed was never described as a contributor to the historic qualities of the property. a. The 1980 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey form recognizes the value of the main house as a "good representation of an Aspen Victorian Miner's Cottage." The shed is not even mentioned in the physical description of the significant elements of the property. b. The 1991 form merely describes the physical qualities of the shed under "associated buildings, features and objects" but does mention it in the section on historical information. c. The 2000 Inventory form mentions the main house as " significant for its position in the context of Aspen's mining era" under the "Statement of Significance" but does not mention the shed. The form describes the significance of the house - primarily the unaltered first floor in the front of the house. However, it mentions that significant alterations have been made that interfere with the reading of the form of the original structure elsewhere on the house. Again, the shed is mentioned only under a physical description of "associated buildings, features, or objects." The only part of the property that is specifically called out as having historic significance on these inventory forms is the main floor on the front portion of the house. The rest of the property is described as having been altered significantly. The shed is only described in the associated buildings section in a physical description of the property. 4 Even if the shed were deemed a significant part of the propert, at one time, it has been altered so substantially over the years that it has lost any sign#icance it might once have had. The original brick shed was covered with stucco that was adhered directly to the brick. Then, wood lathing was bolted to the stucco and wood siding was applied on top of that. The portion of the shed on the Gorman's property is completely covered with a wood siding from the 1980'sera. The result is a shed that has no resemblance to its original appearance. Furthermore, because of the way the various coverings were applied, there would be no practical way to restore the shed to its original appearance. Lastly, due to the structural unsoundness of the shed and the softness of the brick attempts to rehabilitate the shed would be futile. 4 In addition to the above, the shed has lost any historic context that would make its preservation worthwhile. The only part of the main structure on the property that has retained its historic integrity is the front Memo to the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 4 from Lisa Purdy Consulting re: 101 E Hallam March 15, 2001 portion of the house. This shed is in the back on the alley - not even visible from the front of the property. The back of the house has been significantly altered to the point where the house is not deemed eligible for individual listing on the National Register. Additionally, the shed has completely lost its context in the alley. All of the other structures in the alley are new 1 and 2 story garages so there is no meaningful context either on the property itself or in the alley. 4. The request for partial demolition of the property is being done within the rules of the land use code for historic properties in Aspen. In section 6 of the land use code for Aspen, "Standards for review of partial demolition" there are two standards that must be met before demolition is granted: a. Standard: "The partial demolition is requiredjbr the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, OR (caps added for emphasis) the structure does not contribute to the historic sign(#cance of the parcel." I would say that the shed meets this standard on both counts. The partial demolition is needed to allow the house to meet the current needs of its owner. Standards of living are quite different from 1885, and replacing a shed with a garage is not an unreasonable accommodation to provide for a beneficial use of the property. In addition, I do not believe the shed contributes to the historic significance of the parcel for the reasons stated in Number three above. b. Standard: "7he applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: (1) Impacts on the historic sign@unce of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limited demolition of original or significant features and additions, and (2) Impact 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." The addition being planned mitigates the impact to the historically significant part of the property to the greatest extent by putting it underground. The demolition of the shed to accommodate a garage is warranted because the lot is very narrow. Other locations for a garage would diminish the property more because it would use up almost all the available open space on the back of the property. The proposed building of a garage on the site of an unsound, and, in my opinion, insignificant shed, makes sense in the overall scheme of the historic property. Because the shed is on the alley behind the house, the rebuilt garage/shed will not even be visible from the front of the house where the historic integrity remains intact. Lastly, as I understand it, Be new garage will be built in approximately the same configuration as the shed and will be built out of brick. Memo to the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 5 from Lisa Purdy Consulting re: 101 E Hallam March 15, 2001 5. The request for demolition of an outbuilding follows the standards in Aspen's Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. 4 Chapter 8 of the Historic Preservation Guidelines deals with secondary structures. While preservation of accessory structures is encouraged, the chapter also states, "because accessory structures are o#en subordinate to the main house, greater flexibility in the treatment of accessory structure may be considered." 4 8.lin the guidelines say, "(fa secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional." I would argue that the shed is not historically significant today because it has lost its historic integrity through the numerous alterations and inability to be returned to its original state. ,/ 8.2 states, "lfan existing secondary structure is beyond repair, then replacing it is encouraged. An exact reconstruction ofthe secondary structure may not be necessary in these cases. The replacement should be compatible with the overall character of the historic primary structure, while accommodating new uses." According to reports from structural experts, the shed is beyond repair. The new garage will be built in the approximate configuration of the old shed and it will be built out of brick as was the original shed. The new garage will also maintain the gabled roof of the original shed. 4 8.4 states, "A garage door should be compatible with the character of the historic structure." The garage door will be made of wood as is suggested. SUMMARY When reviewing proposals to renovate and add onto historic properties I believe it is important to maintain perspective on the big picture. The Germans are strong supporters of historic preservation and have (in my opinion) greatly improved upon previously approved plans to rehabilitate the property. They welcome being on the Historic Inventory in Aspen and even want to make it a Landmark property. They are working hard to make this historic house adapt to modern times sensitively by putting their addition underground. The demolition of an alley shed that is historically insignificant, that has been altered beyond recognition and that is structurally unsound to accommodate a modest one-car garage is a minor event in the scheme of things. The proposed partial demolition of the property is well within the guidelines and rules you have set forth for historic properties in Aspen. I understand there has been discussion of preservation of the shed by some members of the Commission. It would seem to me that requesung the preservation of a secondary structure that has lost its historic integrity would be unduly onerous to this property owner and counterproductive to encouraging others to rehabilitate and adapt their historic structures to meet today's needs. Memo to the Aspen Histmic Preservation Commission 6 from Lisa Purdy Consulting re: 101 E Hallam March 15, 2001 My overall assessment of this property is that the proposed plans for redevelopment drawn up Mary Holley will not detract from the historic integrity or significance of the property as it stands today. Copies to: Patricia and Jim Gorman, owners Mary Holley, Mary A. Avjian Architects Amy Guthrie, Aspen Historic Preservation Officer Attachments: Photos taken on March 6, 2001 showing; (1) the loss of context in the alley, and the lack of historic integrity to the back of the house, (2) evidence of damage to the original building materials, (3) the loss of historic integrity of the shed due to alterations, (4) the lack of visibility of the shed from the front (and most historically significant) portion of the property. 101 E. Hallam, Aspen, CO 4. LACK OF VISIBILITY OF SHED FROM HISTORIC PART OF THE PROPERTY - -4 -- ry ...2 1 - f r AX, .t > d. 1 :I 431 - . .. i' .Al yek r , - 1 Â®11. F , Â¥ f t. i FI) ~- 1- lili;. .. 2 r . .M I i I L. 11 . t.fitl .4- Uj:..1.- 4%11 3 7 7. Q i & 5/%9.7/4- 4 6 -:LA. , 241 : 43-ilamid '0',itip- 2.:9- 4,m/7~*d U- *1.1.Eti. . au - i 4. , - ._t# 7Â· - / f J . - 1/ ' 1 .l i Mul, il Mat - .irt .1144 , . 0.0 - - 1 & .9.- 4. 4 64: =is~a~i I - I. . .. . ./ D , ' 'r//. 'il A///2//4/4*. .' ill'illlbillhu-'*s,#***-- *- Â»e 7. 71--a- 44*71 . 4 Q ~~~~ *Ji -4~â€ža*--=~~~~~~~~~~~ Ce#v,$32:Z- Â·eÂ·â€¢a - ...Eli......m ./. A 701 R ri.r i. E:, 1 -1 1 1 8 TZ* .1, 1, 'i .f ...'74 Ril~~~~~~~~~ " r. 4, ~ 7/ ./ f 1 Off/+4 -~: . -]Il.. Ef - 1 1 *44*2Â¥i: . 4 34>1 . ill ..,e .3 4.- .....4 .., . '40 71.-S 1 . " ' 4 1 3.1 04 . **:5,! ~~ 1 .1:** I 1 2 - .2 -. . 1 -1 --- k ':- ..,.. R. 1 1 .....r'V7~22-,... , z , 4 ....<.. ,~ . 0Â«.1 1**75 ut.Â· ;i,Â·C+3-<:.p, ri .;FrfifÂ·ki:.4 i' Â· '6 - E- . - ';847.1 f ; I - --. 47 - Â·. 1 ~ fdo 9Â·1.,ftÂ»>.-~ ~UW 9 . . 3 .1 ..11 :*:' 43.-T... .iI..51. 11 v n v h a~~ ". 21 c I., 4.: 'I ... 4 *re -4 - t;>,1*9*4-*3196Â»'- 7.-94 ,. 99/ .,; # 2 I /: 5. .2~ i ./ 4, 1 2 14:-t. 2% 77: 7 y 1~ '.'f Â· Â·, OuÂ· ,Sly Ld, 4.7â€¢ 4 0 U .1 ; Â·'- 22*E: ..2...=----=- ...: .i 2-744. ....... %1 .i .~ , 41 2 1 Â·*../:13 i': ~ . 10; â‚¬*Â· _(z'-'291 . - . 0 0 r ' 2 - .. ..r.. e...:74& . *f U V .6 2 4& ~- l~~~~~~~~~, re . r :. 2. - Â· .. i â€žr Â· 4 * 1 14 2 94â‚¬ 3....' -b 1' 1..Iizi:11.... ~ 4* M i i ~'.,6 Â·3~ . 1 +12 1 17Â· If....rj 4 111 tr i '. 11-1 milk (896&/: I ''40 7/ Â·Â·311 Â· Â· ',f'*1472' 1-:AN ) :/ 3-1 .# 1*-le-- -. . -949. Â·'1/ 4 ... - 101 E. Hallam, Aspen, CO 2. DAMAGE FROM NUMEROUS ALTERATIONS 11 I#. 1 -Il: .. ~ AJ, 4. I . j .F . '2 - I , t 1- . . 2 *j. f . t % I. 0 0 0 0 0 - 41 ' i. - -9.*1 7 Aft, 36,435<.I....r.1~ L Ce ./0*". 6,2-Z:9/ 22 4/':02/22:~iJt~ ./Ill'.r aff:F.- 0 a./.: r g. -Â· -0 -7.9 2 J f i Â·. - - ... -- - 1 Ar.- Â¥ 1 â€¢. :v.- 79 ' f ,-662~. . , 4 -|. - 1:t : k.'... #1,- AC'91\47%4~Â¥4~ ,/ 7.4. r , l.WAV). 9..:-34 117, f#&*.1* ..4, SE. f'#4.--ifile 37*3 ' : 47 - I -Â·al Â« 1.:3:it:'fÂ· Â£34:451177 't-t'/1'.-1. f.kefÂ£ ir; ierÂ·Â· :i~:â‚¬2.At 9. -1,g ~ t. 4.- , 1.- - 14 1 ...3 - , C.... b,,fs- 2% 1 1. 1512> b--Â· . 64 L ' 4.- 98*.M-'2 *4-'.-- 925*.,32 k .c 4 .,fjoit*'.:i-4... le . iÂ· M . 3. I . "' - D.-44 , 1.-pflij-11~. tÂ©~0~-,.-i '2414Lf_ Ii--6&2:1AL.4:-:1}. 2132~i :3d- 1%?,t. - 7* , 0 â‚¬ 44 4. 1-Aâ€¢ f *Â·v,gÂ·u- ...:: 09:7Â·-.2- 4&6 7-4 , 41 4.A,:1*4* , L. 3- Â£ ' ' 2 L 20)â‚¬f..:-,2-I~.f L.,{~~-:,f~Â·-i~~-131~Z C #~ft fI~ri -~~i--~f~~~ ~(~~~.~Â·4 - 0' 9f. 3 4 I I I I .'.: ' . , .r .. r ./. tj.94 r.....6.% . 2 - - I. 4:%,gÂ®*,4 ~.t., , I -7.... . 4 Al#L*Â· 1.t.< : 1, Â¢ - 4. '6 C .... m:.9â€¢F,#A~ 95- ./ -1 : ' : ' .- bile/MA.va .. . .4 J *74 i 2 y -4 4 t <f b. / ~ .. -, *AL#/ ,f~ilits -1.----- 4**M?KÂ£~ST 42#K?artgE: .- f -3 .E .Â·, : 0.1 :56,?,~ *lle' . 4Â· t 1 ,~ .-4, 't ' 7 ~.iAL44#ti#di)3522*i;r,rf.Â»E,4 i,~Awti. #r & ' ./ 4/12 :0-/' i. i Â·~1Â·i i Â·. C'f 1 4 - 1 (Â¥... 1. J h ~22...4 J..?iÂ»*/34-2,6,~3Â¥7+ F# 3. . . ./.d. I r. ry. mfe: . -A - . 4 - ~:t GlÂ»; .?tjge#* ,/ 4 16.k-111~ 64<. I.<.~'~; --1~.,?Â·'~-Â· Â· ~ 13 '. f b Â·,1 Â« 11.11 1~ -,I, 4. . ... ...... 0 . 1-. 1. 0 1. 1 . 1 / "?f -, . Â«122Â«*-: /2 I- '-./2%34 -'., .. f . v J 2 :Cal-h'-1Â¥'r~ 66..9 .1 I, <7 I#*.Bll .4 1 LAI'lli/:12::1.3.......:-Ill--- 177 1 . .." ~~-=24-6 -- 1 A L .All'll'IN -.g.&.1.: f r. I . 17 /- I. -..*/ .--6....:%..2. A rr//77(MI'"39='- 4174;..044 ki, 411&.. *1#. , 1-Â· .. Â·Â· t ) -I i ''; 55 ' --t::, {4.-,4 **111 3 A 1 Â£,91114.: 2 fiÂ·:,i~~*'6-~14#.12/ 990*:1 68-22 -:tÂ·- ....:7 .12 :- : 0 1, 1,1 -- 1, 1 = '4 1 1 17!1 1 1 1 . a 4 4 *1#3%-IF 692,2,=,1-f. . -c . 04- .* 4â‚¬ Â«,, c. i Â·Â·o:A .; â€¢14 .i .Â·OttÂ·tÂ· Â·~Â· u.-kâ‚¬X*, ... IM' 9 7]51 - I ;4 : ~'-f c f. O ji.â€¢..4.- 2 1 1.': ... ' -:BIL .: 1 ..h. , ./. -M - .4 .. I . .... .., t. . I . ---~ Â·I,- . â€ž4-K . .1,>2~'~1-*fi-3'*Â·'â€¢-:En"Irjilt ......<;95-4 : Â· - . , r 'I. 4.4 - t 9. /12;Â»~â€¢1Â·2Sdi<-~1 -,4.-4-19 tj If {42 ....:te 3,4. G....4 L,Â·Â· 1~ e . - ' 9:~ 2---- â€¢W~â€¢â€¢,=-,.Â·.-**m u Â·Â·*.~.,Â·... . t. Â· . 3., -Â·~. 7' 1691971..?.-,-~fÂ·~~,1-~ (i;~t . --f#Rt 5 Â· 93*ft,446:.1.f ff i,tif .4.9 + 0-L- *luctÂ·yWAi U.': 9..2.-Â·':" '.,* 4-- / Ki ...4. i ,.6 I ' ..f-r.4,~ 4.4~*#.4 â‚¬ 291 , p -Â·.iXÂ· -:.:.Ul!,11~Lt 4 . ' .#Ay f â€¢IE+~fL 9.4/_Â»pr.3, 4.., -4 -R.4.,-,~ 6 -., .. 1.28.I.idlf>:4947 4:.F, tu.- 1/ ,%1(.5~.*ff.69â‚¬f.-i,- *rAff.ff-' 1 48,91.fityul -t-i<IN.~ff>4-te f.Â·,imÂ·fi.42 2 3. 4-te*% twt.'.4 ....6 .\1 47850-4;*.-- ' - -_--------------9 r r 111 1 1 71.1 - r- tÂ· - f gr . _, . r. '-6 -'- - A -I / 0 --- ' I .F --l -/ 9 -ILI. 'r.) 9 . .>'..ly I -M --- - : 5. . % iabia- 1 ...# I Eostâ€¢q Fencel,ne (t* 3 I X X X- y 1 1 improvement Survey Plot \ Lot A and the Westerly 4 86' of Lot B, Block 65 * * AND The Easterly 25.14' of Lot 2 and the Westerly 8.00' of Lot C,yock du 4 .4* . Aspen, Colorado 494 4. X 1 113 4,00 x Basis of Beorings \Â® 2640 Nl 450'490E 100 Do' 0 1 - 1 50 1 - NOTES - - 9 BASIS CF BEAKNGS FOR THIS SURVEYS A BEARNC OF Roof Glrhong Une ,& 0 N 14'50 491 BETÂ»EEN A T}â‚¬ SOUTHWEST PROPERTY CORNER OF- * r *~f# LOT A. AND â„¢E NORTHWEST PROPERTY CORNER OF LOT A BOTH CORNERS BING MONUMENTED AS SHOWN HEREIN. Ze 154'- 1 2) THE PROâ€¢ERTY SHOIN HERION IS SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS, . 1 ~- ' C---4- -i.U 1.â€¢EÂ£13--:-t.. .i---rr-2*a,W,5<29--1~f---~f.-u~x~.,Â·:**tki.t .~M-,--.-. ~-----8--4 --- peg--4:21-21-.-4'.--|T..2 -i'f~r~-dw-4-*al- RIGHTS-OF-WAYS. OR OTHER RESTRICFONS OF RECORD. 44 e . I,_. .-I :.. ...._,- I.-I--_2,,=.- , Â«-Â·,- ........ - -- --- - i ;<* 3) NOACE ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW, YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY 9,-a-Â»*Eff#!01-1 42*& 'Ee ., -*:. 8.--': -Â·;'-it= /0, =- --- 1-0-Â· 'â€¢'-s. r-â€¢ :~ - : i.~feÂ·:--,i..1Â·2Â·SM:lbc=f,Â·,ee-5 2 ~aÂ· LEGAL ACTON BASED UPON ANY DEFECT N IHIS SURMY NTH[N IHREE (3) YEARS AFTER YOU DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT IN NO EVENT - 82% 2343-421 -- f*310.132%32-_212.F#21-19-OIU~BFa*v*.05Â£ i v WAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THA SURVEY BE X 01 muMENCED MORE TIW, lEN (10) 'EARS FROM THE DAIE OF 0 0-5-7â‚¬83332(Lb#<-6 - 14) THS IMPROYUMENT SURVEY PLAT IS BASED UPON IA,FORMATION SHOWN ON nE -OFACIAL MAP OF 1959' 0 0- 1 â€¢ADE TO THIS COPY ANY COPY. FACSHILE ETC. OF THIS rri 5) #OVER ClÂ¥f SURIErS It.L NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY CHANGES = , ANY SUCH COPY. AND TO INSURE THAT NO SUCH CHANCES HAVE 8/IN MADE- 0 4 0 â€¢t: 5..44 -0.- -- *.~n.- - id. M#1-zi,L.E.- =9. ---2+# 4P -i.W ---F)*B.'-â€¢C- t.â€¢.-9-*:4344 1--1,--,--iLiE--pvrf ,~32~~ZA,VI,~gf54~~4-,1~~3~~~~~~-~~=~~~'*3-~~---~*~*Â© - ~~- ~ 70-~1=-3.--1-t-z.7Â·t-:3-2621'-21-2-46..5363~.'~~-24*rE-- eA-â‚¬9cr.z: : >-:-.92.r--z:tzi~ .f~~ T.5* --,~-a:+.*- .z - andc 2-- -*_4-w--ar-%19;32~255~--2-Jet~245~ 1 -- ...f.---6 1644*3-97 .. --==1>girdF@24*agoijazE.*.-I: 2.. - ,. 1 -2Â»15 -F *- g,--- 1,-jeg~ -v #* few I Â·. ~*Ois'BEBE&26,â€¢9%# I -~79;KS--.71----te%-132Â¤iIE.37ZaB357-619*t-NEÂ»23Ite~~%jJ99e7 .~~.0 - 0, -- 1 - 2-i= --c - - r - 6-'- -'Â»Â·-9-f'~-:.:â€žI.:I.&9Â»yÂ·=2:)2Â»22-1.--'.:f- - PROPERTY DESCRIPTION - 7 - - - ~J/2'ret, LOT 4 AND ll[ fi-EE' . 88 FEET OF LOT 5, BLOCK 65, CITY OF ASPEN , -rEAE' U.22Â»:Enhil#41:~ff-Â£*Grmlishyg~6YT57 COUNTY OF PmaN. STATE Of COLORADO AND er =-s,0.- ce=Â«=S:C:>P #:Â»*&& .al....-'//-:te,4/1 13'- 1 59*4295. ~ ~44Â£ R h S -4 .2 EASay 25 14 FT OF LOT S AND IME WESTERLY 8.00 FEET OF LOT C. ~ Root 0â€¢erhang Unt Kx: e BLOCK 4 CITY OF ASPEN . COUNTY OF PllKIN. STATE OF COLORADO P. 1 X a Â£ .* Aer' 24 r I 'r-'.-/.'-'. lif.)0 51â€¢30'49"W r h ~|~ ~ 100 00' t % 3, , *J 4~ 4 .e *44, * SCALE: 1 INCH - 4 FEET Roof Overhong bnc 'fÂ© ..~im"*0 . 9* = 1 .A#, , 044 - SURMIYDR'S CERTTFICATE - 1. THE LÂ»inERSIGNED. BEING A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR, UCENSED 14 THE STATE Cy COLORADO, DO HEREBY CER'llrY THAT DOS * &(PROVDJO;T QJRVEY PLAT WAS PREPARED BY NVER CITY SURVE,S. LLC, O IT IS 1RUE AUID CORRECT m THE BEST OF MY 1010Â¥LEDGE AND BELIEF- 1 - C 1.5 4 ~ fr IS FJRnIER CE]IllnED IHAT THE UPROvEMENIS ON THE ABOVE DESCRIBED 43 1 * 4%%*,11~32-743$14484# ~r~ ENMRELY WTHIN THE BOUNDARES OF THE PARCEL EXCEPT AS SH011,4, THAT 1}IERE ARE NO ENCROACINENTS UPON THE DESCRIBED PREMSES BY IMPROMMENTJ ON ANY ADJOINIG PREMISES. EXCEPT AS #aCATED. AND THAT THERE 5 NO APPARENT EMDENCE OR 9GN OF ANY EASâ‚¬NT CROSSING OR . BU1DENING ANY PART oF SAID PARCEL- EXCEPT AS SHORMI h A:-re,L - --' ..2 .1.-O. .,:â‚¬hÂ«--, t- +0~, -./.- .y --- , ./:- SURVEYS, LLC. OF THE PROPERTY SHOWN TO DETERMINE OWNERSHIP. AND DOES NOT REPRESENT A 1111Â£ SEARCH Fr â„¢IS SURVEYOR OR RIVER CrrY ,=,Ja~us.pÂ·pÂ«â€ža:n.A=<=,a>=c- - -,--*,hzâ€¢%Â·Ac=yi,*~*2:WE(>42:Â£.24Â£670*3Â· -- '--:':22=1'kj'DLEN,:--,RFâ‚¬EjÂ·Â¢Â·A**298,&:4:=RU**k+ C0MPA11/UTY MTH ADJOINING PARCE]X OR EASEMENTS OR DICUUBRANCES OF 4 . O -2 - - ~ DOCUMENT UUST BE COMPARED TO THE OF:GINAL SIGNED, SEALED AND O DATED COPY TO INSURE TIE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMANON SHOWN 0,4 -- 1,1- 32. 4 .f- . +Dt .0.. 7 -- . - .0 . :-6 1 1 . IN -- 2 (10 -- ./ ~ FOR ALAN D SUSK UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION D:210 CHECK:NG Aâ€¢ID IKAT THE MAP WAS PREPARED WITHOUT BENEFIT OF A CURRENT 1111Â£ COUNIâ„¢ENT RECORD AFFECTING THIS PARCEL ALL INFORMAIION SHOWN HEREON REGARDING OlmIERSHIP EASEMENTS AND OTHER ENCUUBRANCES OF RECORD WAS OBTABED FROM. AND SUBJECT TO A ImE COMMâ„¢ENTS PROWDED BY Pinal COUNTY P.Â»21*99Â¢449-3*ytelittif--296*90*Â»,v*2 &3*St~*i*%33**29,1- _ ~499iaffe**3*1 NC. CASE NO PCTI1055(2. DATED SEPTEMBER S. 1996 AND 1RANSAMERICA . E ...2-91 .5>21473?1--dzâ‚¬.AM~/f*.Pl~.3:isit Q **MK A COLD. REG P LS. / 29030 . Fa?&)8Â£H,LF OF 4 DAWD & COOPE)? T=-3.--Mawaedf>**UES IFÂ·3Â¢-4-23â‚¬bÂ¥' *-'-*-i 55-5- 4=: 1' -* A P..:A#-2 2-t.'AR 44 X E**, I ./ I .2--' lt. RIVER arY SUROS. LLC TmE INSURANCE COMPANY, POLICY NUMBER 46.001.804 (NO DAE ~Fj2?4*9344 Jrllf~~~7<1-E~~~~~.3~t~fft~4~~~~~~~itifi Ey:flt;*145239&-,,.EF<97â‚¬*94*GfiwÂ»EfF'*Â«fa . Revisions: 1) Add 3 tree:. gas *ve 4/6/98 19.4 1 4 - 1 2) El,vition; oddilÂ©fol tr-. carrect lot dBnoicni 7/29/98 *4 .l= f j~ -- ~~â‚¬ SUR\ PREPARED FOR a.9 1 3-4 1 ,/0'fo BOX 2,~f)* Alan Bush it k: 1 4 e .00 .4 9 \ 2101 *man *4 3- 7 4, ,0>' 3116~ 90, r \ A,pen. Colorado 514 50'43"W \ 100 00' Set Plostic Cap PLS # :, 1.10 01 (Eosterly 22 00' of Lot D ) or o Found 40 5 Rebor ~ * 9/:02+. Elev = 99.89 1 , 11 , ; job # 98:24 sneet # 29030/~ ~g 4 ~ ~ ~ 90 2- ~ 81811-2912 ------------ 1 \ U.0/ I / coord file id .98124 2 1 own by D COOPER of 1 1 2 - . ...L.. .... r .....&- 1 = 31@JOUOO MIDM )10!38 Wood Kelly - M,Â»-WARAA L C a A- ,74 6 IL- tv 9 9 Mary A. Avjian Architects, P.C. 50 River Oaks Lane Bualt, Co. 81621 870)Â·927Â·7656 0 0 ISSUE: H.P.C. WORKSESSION: 11-15-00 H.F.C. CONDEPTUAL; 03-02-0] E-----3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 If U E O LELL . r ~- 32 MEDIA 13 I I rl.NE o'--ir) O BEDROOM i nALL M :.9 1 *BOVE ill <E I 0 1 .1 12 3 3 , EJOSTING GRAFLEPACE / UGHT}Â·ELL 32 a â‚¬ 2 Râ‚¬Â£1 I tfo BEDROOM 1 w GO g | _. L AUNDRY L=,4 BAâ„¢ , 11 9 . }fr==91 LAV. : 1,0. ' P r '05 Â· - 1 31,111 3 \ 1 0 01 4 1--3 1 / CLOSEN 311 i [En-1 L---- ~ Â£-- M al MI Â© d L -RE--1 91 0 0 <[ 0 W 4 -- -2 /73 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ~A=.1 j SCALE: 1/4.=1.-O. 0 0 PROJECT: GORMAN RESIDENCE ADDITION AND REMODEL DESCRIPTION: LOINER LEVEL PLAN SCALE: 1/4" 5 1'-O' 0 0 SHEET: 22.1 U 0 1350!433 Chi I . ... Â·Â·. l. P f U k 1- 4 L 0 :0 Mary A. Avjian Architects, P.C. 50 River Oaks Lane Basait, Co. 8I621 (9701927-7656 0 -O ISSUE: H.P.O. MORKSESSION: 11-15-00 H.FUD. CLO~EPTUAL: 05-02-01 4.:Up,6..... Â·,vÂ·Â·41-.4,- ,ve-Er EaÂ·11% SIED TO BE Il 2 i ||| REUILT- REPLACE ~; ~ I $ 505â„¢ 5004 UU MIDOM. AP BRICK || 11 DETAtlu,8 #.1 1:11 aRICK VIMER- 1// Rie SALY,e t, . 1 BRICKS FROM t. 5 ! EXISTING FEM , X HISTORIC le CO~5Â·TRICTION CONSâ„¢ilonON NiaJO~RES TO BE k'. j 1 REMOVED OR |&3 -%M STAIR OPENING I EX3â„¢3 1 \ . FLOOR 1 il . iLl 1 MATCH ExleÂ·nhe O 15 i TE>N BRICK FAINEOT TO J 01{ LIGHT,el . I- \ 11 \ SARAGE | EXIST.* METAL i ~ 1===4 1 1==d --1 L>-4 1 / 7 /5 / RDÂ©VED 1 7 1.-e .21-- 114 j I SPIRAL STAIR TO rk I. o PLIâ€¢.. 1 1 1 -LJ/>- 1 C -62 . U NIla -L. CUTUE OMEXISTING -3- - I f DN. 0%3 ===h j Al lu 1 /-' iu Â·1 -- gr Â·Â· M::yj,j I - - 1 1 ' ~/ if| 1 -- A H I LOCATIONS N TIE EASTRS PIALL TO ~ TO MATCH EXISTING - -aâ€¢teRICKMAIEOT ~--7-.Â· - - Â·-: ' --- 4 r. C. PLV,O EXISTINS WALL TO BE REMOVED- -~ -~,4.# Â¥ = 100<r METAL SRATE - -- ~- Z 02 TYPICAL- fl MALL- TYPIGAL - leÂ· BRICK TERRACE < - I UNE OF AL.1 92.0,Â·4- 5>SE OF 1.- ----n ~ DININe F- BeaST Gam=lonot - - - - - - --7 4 T O. PLÂ·r,â€¢D DFILL E,05111* Elrf- *TOI - i ! 2 [i Ch LLI AD-14024 FINEÂ¢/5 AN:) I i DETAILINS 1 it 00 ' .1. V' ' . , 5 <C 0 <C f==9 . - LUE OF MAUL = J 0 0 PROJECT: GORMAN RESIDENCE ADDITION AND REMODEL DESCRIPTION: MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE; 1/4" = 1'-O" 0 0 ~~% MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SHEET: 1312.2 0 0 .R.J.I.3:.3.-, BONEd ISAI r-: f--1, f-:A ,9.2-4.;-3 24-6*- . CO hs W N E v Mary A. Avjian Architects, P.C. 50 River Oaks Lane Basalt, Co. 81621 (970)-927-7656 0 0 ISSUE: HIP.C. FNORKSESSION. 11-15-00 - H.L. CONDEPTUAL /3-02-01 3 71-3~,. EMEZ. 2 2'1 EXETINS CON5TRUCTION tel C0N5TRUCTION 1-, MXTCH BUSn'e -4--,fc .1 2 ---5-4 --1 i',- Extsâ„¢9 PLATE 3 - ---- .- +EIGHT TO DE REEOLT t' ' -2 C 2 1. ' 2 t 4- --f-14 / Â©f#'Â£. 1. 1 k -- . - - ~- 15â€¢1 S'i-APLS EEAM C) | , MS'(PECKAREA, . 'j~; , ,>~- -~-~-F---.i-zy--tiz_L---~-,-~Â·tk~,ESHT -7 12 7 1 SITTING ROOM LLI -t.1 3 - t,f Â· â‚¬M eUTTER AND 01 Z O toteon 8 4329 T - BEQRÂ£DOM 0 MASTEÂ¥2 BEDROOM 1 1 'PAA '1 = p. . 1 11 E[Â»E OF EX15!1NS DEOK Z- 0~ 2 --=/ A!\Up RmlnLE EX]STD* RAILING 1 Â«43 1 &19 0 1 Â¢ EM ! BATH -L) 1 ~- ~ ~ 11.1 IX X I t i . ' 1 ' I 0 01 qi 4 ' 9 1 - t-Ittl- t-------------------2 0 0 PROJECT: eÂ·ORMAN RESPENCE ADDITION ANC> REMODEL DESCRIPTION: UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE. 1/4- = 1'-0- O 0 rn UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SHEET: 1/4.=1'-0. 112.8 33(k/1,43131 C 310100 14 0 0 t. 1 T 7 -------15 n. i . 1 1 1 * f A Lit-%471 - al 0 - | Mary A Avjian ArchitectiP.Q. 50 River Oaks Lane BeÂ¢J woop N-lu To t,v<TA atente Baatt, Co. 81621 (970)Â·927-7656 Â«AL.Ofâ‚¬*7 \NDÂ· Â«iltellÂ» TO PXCel 0-0 Dueritte ISSUE: M He, 46â€¢04 H.P.O. MORKSESSION: 11-15-DO t.tes. Mor HP.C. CONCEPTUAL. 03-02-01 t:wur ,5Ff/Fete,- UmAJ2% u Feute 99*1-1,1 4 0. MN?t,49 1-6/Me 0,16 t,46 Too Mâ€¢ett e<entÂ·leÂ· -- -I. PEr,Al. afl/*rE 80,4 ec,tuoffm wooD ettlttleb 13 FIP'roft ekeT,Ne 1*02 4*,0,VIN MEN - P*13 MIACM 00977NG, NEW FÂ»OF Ver,fe:L fette ewritle 20Â¥ 1 0 080*94* UC,45* \M~~~~~~~~~~~----EPE:Â£, orÂ· rep 4,r*f,Â·015 +2*W' 11-1 4--- ------------------------- 0 WAST 61,6#moN iLl I ga 0 - 1 azo I U <[ 1 0 42 01 04 I L E 0 12 0 41 C 0 131 4 1 0 <04 Me Pr~oft ttwee 10 fâ‚¬r'PVA 0 -0 PROJECT: eORMAN RESIDENCE ADDITiON ANIP REMODEL .OM-â€¢2. DESCRLPTION: ELEVATIONS SCALE, 1/4. c I'-O. 0 -0 MeA, 4/tWDW *WME,05511 . - 94476 SHEET: 8/V FFI+ freâ‚¬ ID MKCÂ¢t 04Â«#Â·46, repv(4 FFKKYwe I 113.1 04Â«trib 9â‚¬6 + ren=.Â«re eÂ«~Me 98;MultÂ·* M, MUCe /4 ?0Â«1Fle we of POOP<,eMT Â»MES Ao,nÂ¥ t694,<ti 014 - 10-0 1 13CIOKÂ·4331 I r 1 1 . . ~ C=============01 A j~i<~:*31*-=-9-I i.y-2 e I 0 1 0-0 MeN elÂ«IN Mary A Avjian Architects, P.C. 11 -~ -2 50 River Oab Lanc Basalt, Co. 81621 (970)Â·927-7656 0-0 ISSUE: H.P.C. PNORKSESSIONN 11-15-00 H.P.C. CONCEPTUAL, 05-02-01 UN - 0 1 7---eme#/45*407*F,â€¢meâ€¢rce 11-1 ttw,Â£,Al.otev ent~eis, ro _~ M,an eqentÂ» Hew ?mop 4<,Â£ -0 tÂ«ron flâ‚¬W Ueell-WEU- Â¥ Mfiqc vertâ‚¬efL mmi | eÂ»mm -m a-4,5 0 01,42,4â‚¬5â€¢M Meâ„¢- FOOF 1 1 ' 111 9 1 1 01 *ELMYKBEL- U V A - 0 U 41 A LDZ O M <4[ -1 DE 1I 32 6 * 3 i I it I th O eÂ»â€žle, co,*,TrÂ·lcne,4 1 0 9 6 Bew \Noot) 941, TO O 0 3 4 +1418Â¢+ PUÂ«7* - 0 <[ 0 4 I %*0000 91*MÂ» MtotÂ® leâ€¢,M PerN- Mt;P= - rept/for ANA.*411â‚¬0' BSN WOOD $*+66 *De- 1 0 ==================== 0 PROJECT: GORMAN RESIDENCE | ~ ~ ADENTION AND> REMODEL ...... DESCRIFI'ION: ELEVATIONS SGALE: 1/4' â€¢ 1'-0' 0 ===========ill= 0 1 SHEET: - ------f *eLM,E[LEA A3.2 1 1 O-0 I . MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce 0hlson, Deputy Planning Director-,4p 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: May 23, 2001 SUMMARY: The project involves demolishing additions to the historic structure, relocating it and an existing outbuilding on site and building a new addition. The northerly portion of the property is to be split off for future development. 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 ofAspen, 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. 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. HI'C 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 secondary 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. 1 L}tj Staff Finding: 0 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 standard is not met. B. Architectural importance. Based on the building form, use, or specimen, the structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct, or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a signijicant 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 /6 stories and the cross gable is 2 stories tall. Staff finds this standard 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 0 historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is importantfor 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 standard 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 standard is met. 0 2 ur 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 of the 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 to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant necessary 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. This 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 the project as an opportunity to retrieve the original character ofthe structure and to improve its relationship to the other remaining historic buildings along Lake Avenue. At the last meeting, the board had concerns with the roof over the dining room and how it tied into other parts of the building, the clerestory window right at the back of the tallest gable on the old house, and the modifications to the second floor window on the south side of the old house. For this meeting, the architect has reworked the dining room area to resolve the issues with the roof forms. Staff finds that this effort is successful. The second floor window is unchanged from previous reviews. During the last two meetings on this project, staff has brought up numerous issues, including the fact that the rear portions of the original building are proposed to be demolished, new doors and windows are proposed to be added to the old portion of the house, there is a lack of physical separation between the new and old construction, there is significant hardscape and non-traditional landscaping around three sides of the house, the allocation of floor area for the project is unbalanced, with more (2,981 square feet) given to the historic house site than to the new lot (1,761 square feet), and there is 3 Ll L inconsistency between the architecture of the historic house and the new addition. While staff understands that the board may not share all of these concerns, or feel that the issues are mitigated somewhat by the physical characteristics of the site, we maintain these reservations about the proposal. If the HPC determines that the review standards and design guidelines are met by the proposal, on a conceptual level, staff requests that a small number of remaining items be fully addressed. First, it has been stated by staff and HPC several times that we would like to see a restoration of the house to the extent that it is possible. The applicant is asking for a floor area bonus, which should be based on an outstanding preservation effort. Staff is strongly opposed to the addition of the flanking windows on the upper floor, south faGade. Staff would also propose the elimination of the shed dormers over the front gable unless it is found, during construction, that they are part of the original framing. In regard to the addition, staff suggests that there be significant discussion about the material palette for final review. The corrugated metal that is proposed to be used as a wall material and used for the somewhat massive columns for the decks is not in character with the fairly "high style" Victorian homes in this neighborhood. While contemporary materials like this have been used in other instances, they are generally used sparingly and are applied as a way to distinguish a very simple addition as new construction. There are enough other indicators that this is an addition to the building so as not to require a major departure in materials. Staffproposes there be further discussion as to the appropriateness ofthe angled deck forms and the columns mentioned above. Finally, at a later date there should be additional information about the character of the landscaping in the areas in front of the old house. The applicant should be clear about whether the proposed planters are raised planter boxes or just flower beds *referred), and what the detailing of the lightwell at the front of the house will be. The applicant has requested the 500 square foot HPC bonus and also a rear yard setback variance. The setback variance appears to be appropriate because it creates more room to allow for a detached garage. The FAR bonus should be tied to addressing the issues stated above to the board's satisfaction. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for 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 can be better preserved and the structures on the site can be consistent with the size of homes that have historically existed in that neighborhood. 4 47 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 Staff Finding: The project can 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: Staff has indicated a concern that 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. It may brought into compliance with this standard with modifications mentioned above. 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 construction and do not contribute to the historic character of the building. Staff has concerns that the proposal does include demolition of the rear portion of the original house. 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 ofthe historic structure will not be correctly represented by the project. The areas to 5 4 K be removed step down to a one story height and could be used as the one story break between the old and new construction. ON-SITE RELOCATION No approval for on-site relocation shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all of the 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 has been provided to show the relationship created between the adjacent structures and the subject home in its new location. Staff finds that the new location of the house is compatible with the adjacent structure. 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: 6 619 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, 1969; and Staff Finding: The property was created as part of Hallam's Addition to the City ofAspen 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 of the 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. 7 5b 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 ojfice 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 City Council will be required for a showing Of good cause. Staff Finding: The subdivision exemption agreement shall be a condition of approval. D 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. Staff Finding: No dwelling units will be demolished as part of this proposal. g) Maximum potential buitdout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. Staff Finding: The applicants intend to construct a single family house on Lot A. Lot B will be redeveloped by another party and may contain either a single family house, a duplex, or two detached homes if the necessary approvals are gained. The maximum build out will be three units. 26.480.030(A)(4) SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT The split of a lot that is a designated historic landmark for the development of one new single-family 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 26.72.010(G) of this Code, and the following standards: a) The original parcel shall be a minimum of 9,000 square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or a minimum of 13,000 square feet and be located in the R-15A zone district. Staff Finding: The subject parcel is 11,707 square feet and is located in the R-6 zone district. 8 3I 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. Staff Finding: The maximum floor area for a duplex on the fathering parcel is 4,242 square feet. The applicant plans to allot 2,481 square feet, plus the 500 square foot bonus to Lot A, the historic house. Lot B is to be given 1,761 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: Currently, there are no standards for reviewing exemption requests; the exemption is by right for historic landmark lot splits. VARIANCE FOR THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT In order to receive a floor area waiver for the ADU, it must be in a separate structure, at least 10 feet away from the primary building, and must be contained in a building with a footprint no greater than 625 square feet. The applicant is attempting to reuse an existing building which is slightly over the maximum footprint requirement. After discussing the situation with the Planning Director, it was determined that the HPC could be asked to vary the standard and allow the ADU bonus if the variance criteria were met. The relevant code language is as follows: Accessory Dwelling . An Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be calculated and attributed to the allowable floor area for a parcel with the same inclusions and exclusions for calculating Floor Area as defined in this Section, unless eligible for an exemption as described below. 9 32- Detached ADU Floor Area Bonus. Fifty (50) percent ofthe net livable squarefootage of an ADU which is detached from the primary residence by a distance of no less than ten (10) feet and which is housed in a structure with a footprint Of no more than 625 square feet shall be excluded from the calculation of Floor Area Mandatory Occupancy ADU Floor Area Bonus. Fifty (50) percent of the net livable square footage of an Accessory Dwelling Unit deed restricted to Mandatory Occupancy shall be excluded from the calculation of Floor Area. This mandatory occupancy restricted requires the ADU be continuously occupied by a local working residents, as defined by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, for lease periods of six months or greater. The owner shall retain the right to select a qualified renter. Combined FAR Bonuses. If an ADU is eligible for both of the Floor Area bonuses described above, one hundred (100) percent of the net livable square footage of the ADU shall be excluded from the calculation of Floor Area. " The intention of setting a maximum building footprint of 625 square feet was to create buildings which are truly secondary in size to the primary residence. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the HPC must make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; Staff Finding: The AACP promotes creating affordable housing within existing neighborhoods in the form of "Accessory Dwelling Units." In order to have the whole apartment exempted from floor area, the unit must be detached, which provides privacy for the resident, and will have to be deed restricted to mandatory occupancy. 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and Staff Finding: The variance applies to an existing building, which is approximately 35 square feet larger than the allowed building footprint. Staff finds that the plan to reuse, rather than demolish and rebuild the outbuilding is reasonable. 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: 10 53 a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or Staff Finding: The building pre-dates the "Accessory Dwelling Unif' regulations. b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district; and Staff Finding: All parcels in the zone district have the right to construct an "Accessory Dwelling Unit," therefore the applicant is receiving no special privelege. RECOMMENDATION: If the HPC finds that the review standards and design guidelines are met, staff recommends that HPC grant approval for Conceptual Development, Variances, Partial Demolition, and On-site relocation and recommend Council approval of Historic Landmark Designation and a Historic Landmark Lot Split with the following conditions: 1. The HPC hereby grants a 5 foot rear yard setback variance and 500 square foot floor area bonus. 2. The HPC hereby grants a waiver from the maximum footprint requirement for ADU bonuses. 3. Eliminate the flanking windows on the upper floor, south faQade of the historic house. Eliminate the shed dormers over the front gable unless it is found, during construction, that they are part of the original framing. 61..4 j4.. Mpdi*--tl*agied-d~1Lfoons-10--bp-n39Fe-in4â‚¬9Â¢Ag-]*~ru~ogen~pl~df n j the-house-aad-the columns te be me~appE@pua*.ta-ine.Ecale_DUae-neese. ' 4 X 4'-Â« 0 42 4- . -190-4--4 5. For final review, there will be significant discussion about the material palette. 6. Further information will be required about the character of the landscaping in the areas in front of the old house. The applicant should be clear about whether the proposed planters are raised planter boxes or just flower beds *referred), and what the detailing of the lightwell at the front ofthe house will be. RECOMMENDED M0TI0N "I move to adopt Resolution # , Series of 2001, finding that the review standards and design guidelines have been met." Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated April 25, 2001 B. Application 11 5q RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN APPLICATION FOR A HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT AND GRANTING APPROVAL FOR CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, ON-SITE RELOCATION, AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 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, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2735-121-08-002 WHEREAS, the applicants, Jim and Gae Daggs, represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects, have requested Historic Landmark Designation, Conceptual Development, Variances, Partial Demolition, On-site relocation, and Historic Landmark Lot Split approval for the property located at 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, Colorado. The property is listed on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures; and WHEREAS, 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. A. Historical importance. The structure or site is a principal or secondary 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. B. Architectural importance. Based on the building form, use, or specimen, the structure or site reflects 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. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. 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 ofthat neighborhood character. 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; and WIIEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of % Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "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 to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant necessary 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 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: 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. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and WHEREAS, No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all ofthe 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. 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; and 56 WIIEREAS, No approval for on-site relocation shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all of the 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. 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. 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; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated May 23, 2001, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended approval ofthe project; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 23, 2001, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards, and to be consistent with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote of_ to _. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC grants approval for Conceptual Development, Variances, Partial Demolition, and On-site relocation and recommends Council approval of Historic Landmark Designation and a Historic Landmark Lot Split for the property located at 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 ofAspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. The HPC hereby grants a 5 foot rear yard setback variance and 500 square foot floor area bonus. 2. The HPC hereby grants a waiver from the maximum footprint requirement for ADU bonuses. 3. Eliminate the flanking windows on the upper floor, south faGade of the historic house. Eliminate the shed dormers over the front gable unless it is found, during construction, that they are part of the original framing. 4. Modify the angled deck forms to be more in keeping with the orthogonal plan of the house and the columns to be more appropriate to the scale of the house. 5. For final review, there will be significant discussion about the material palette. 97 6. Further information will be required about the character of the landscaping in the areas in front of the old house. The applicant should be clear about whether the proposed planters are raised planter boxes or just flower beds (preferred), and what the detailing of the lightwell at the front of the house will be. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 23rd day of May, 2001. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 5% CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS ITECTURE ING >RS Charles L. Cunnlfle, AIA Principal Janver C. Derrington, AIA Principal May 9, 2001 Amy Guthrie Historic Planning Officer City o f Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Daggs Residence Historic Landmark Development Historic Lot Split 640 North Third Street Aspen, Colorado Dear Amy, In response to the comments and suggestions of the HPC members at our last public hearing on April 25, we are submitting revised floor plans and elevations for consideration at the continued hearing on May 23. Since more than one HPC member stated that we are very close to an acceptable design for the addition and modifications to the historic residence, we believe our latest revisions will satisfy the criteria for conceptual approval. We have reconfigured the roof of the upper level of the addition to the two-story historic element to a gable over the new dining room with a ridge skylight instead of the higher transom glass that was objectionable. The new gas log fireplace on the west side of the living room is now more contemporary with a window over the mantle of a built-in metal firebox and an exposed metal flue penetrates through a shed rooÂ£ This shed roof configuration is reminiscent of the roof form of the original residence which was compromised by the additions in the 1960's and 1970's. The siding material for this element and lower level walls of the new "connecting link" is now vertical corrugated galvanized metal which provides a distinct contrast to the horizontal lap siding of the historic house. We believe this satisfies the intent of the historic guidelines while allowing the floor plan to be functional for a livable present day residence. It also creates an interesting foil for the shingle clad westerly element with the barrel vault roof as well as the historic residence two-story element to the east. The addition is set back from the historic fagade sufficiently to discretely subordinate and will not detract from the street presence on Lake Avenue. The proposed door and transom on the north side of the historic residence is needed for a functional floor plan as well as providing light to a dark space, and was mentioned as being acceptable at the last hearing. We have retained the proposed windows flanking the single historic window on the south fagade at the upper level. This is needed for light and ventilation for the living room required by current building code standards. We will be glad to study the configuration of the windows and trim during the final approval phase to make the array compatible with the Victorian style and acceptable to the HPC. 610 EAST HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.5590 fax: 970.925-5076 Info@cunniffe.com www.cunnIffe.com ~7 ASPEN + STEAMBOAT + TELLURIDE + VAIL + WHITEFISH Guthrie Daggs Historic Lot Split May 9, 2001 Page 2 With regard to the "hardscape" of the site plan, we have softened it considerably with flagstone for the patios and stepping-stones along the north side to contrast with the more formal concrete walkway around the garage to the rear entry area. This is envisioned to be stamped, colored concrete in a random squared pattern. We have added planters at the base of the historic house which will have appropriate ornamental bushes, perennial flowers, etc. We do not believe it appropriate to move the existing fence on Lake Avenue, as one neighbor has suggested. In conclusion, we believe we have addressed the concerns of the HPC in an appropriate manner to satisfy the spirit and intent of the Historic Preservation Guidelines and respectfully request approval of this conceptual submission. Sincerely, Ja~ver C. Derrington, AIA / *ncipal/Senior Project Aihitect 1 f Enclosures 1 4 6o E>411 0,1- 1+ Rey/gED Â«SCO I e splt 40-7 D erÂ¢99â„¢4 6Â·rbk}E Wâ€¢LIL\Nt*Â« FL,Ae,PRE r.'rlo~7 : LAWN - il-= f \ 0(30448*f r - *7 1 +1 - 1 1 - 4 I I -4 1 11 fyÂ·r-4~*1â€¢ iÂ»:f+E #Awky : + F~74 i(il -- --7 43} to.0 Â»11--1 _ O . STUDY --*- r- I . MUD ~ -- m.. I */14 0 . a . . . , Fe RE u I 1 LERY FLANTEH. . ,.I -Â·r â€¢ . I. . I . . . I. .. 1 .1 14 4 . I I . - CONCRE-rE . ~ 8 m - 1 j 1 4.- -'TI/'ri/*Irr-Â¥ * PRIVEWAY' , 0 ,/-- - , 1-. - 07/ jlu:04-1 j #End 0 --,2 64+BAA E ' ~ M FOR ..: 7 .$ Unnal Z STOK. 130>rÂ» 1 4,491212. D.R. 0 1 -- - - I I ' ME-12Â» r -- LAWN , -. , , 'E - . m - 1 , /4-4 UN4 / . 1 r 1612:]0 6 L --- - ----- --4 FENCE - 1 L.W. , j 1-.,~6 - 3 JUL ,- 01--~j~~~- -t:2.: Apu:A:J. LAWN . â‚¬ / JI yoLi c X*- VI'>t<. 22-yththdh--A 11 /0-4.Â»3 V , A// C A. . 4 -.1'llg/1 --i. f _r, 3- .. - f .0 .1 . 11. 3 - Â«X~it -...* I /MAI hi LEVEL FLAN - REVIOED /13 --- . 1 l 1=:=- lei 97 G w o p.44 1 9 ef=14 ' PED,S)Â£Â· f 1 4/ f . W ---9. . 40 1 K, -'rn t-In ' l...,-12,~tR. ROOF d p,â€¢, b v 0 L-JU Arp LA /Roof . L.g. 1 D.12. *KÂ¢fr A 6 1 u LE} 4 t. -- 1 *....4>~ ~PECK ~~~:lll 0 Â¥ UFFES LEVEL PLAN -IKE-VIOED - I -1 tt=.10 1 b /1 9/6\ Â· 41-0/ 6/ 6/0\ RE-V{eap Â«â‚¬01 loopil- - groos stert-; LIB+-r 1 I 4AL,4 /*ETA1- FLUE PM ATED WOOD FASC/4 + TNIAA ~ â‚¬m,â€¢04â€¢ eâ„¢ 6% 4â‚¬c,Am. 91*14* couo t- C~z.Uld,ATED' fAL.V. I KOOF A.%#MAY - REM.~C, E. vq 1 *h /V\ETÂ»Â·L g.0Â©Flb/4 - New CCONt 5)41,0*LE *upme - *IA# -1 \ ,~44,â€¢WrEP FLOOF ;YSTEMA 4, - Y= 4 rm w u 2 -r--- 1 1,- ' 1,1-/1,1:i .1{1111'r -.-2:=Z]3=,t==...- E'tÂ·fi';11 I riÂ· 1 n 959 4 i mull limp N Â· r e-11 4-713' 4111 JirinliN 11' 4 Ir949=- 11 LA li it:51 i 1, r-~ l .t -Tc:z;1 1. 1100#24' .'711 Ct 1--*t~-r-Wi . 71-4 -1 P -4 .Mrminth . -- 5.*10, \,/005, L.A.F'- 0 -r :-:!' . --7 -1-1.LIC:=tuttmtÂ¥111--1. - -~ i rn,wn /m,"41**~~ 4 -rlt /,A I.Z.-21 - - i '1 1.11: 81 1 j Irl . 2 U N wztewoh Ot ...14~ililimAil 14 -1 Il:lali Illp=ailii.ill 11441 -- ~~~~~i<Zi,14&EtI~~ 'i }Tils=! 11 1% 1 1..,. - - I 1-G EONâ€¢ 9+1 Neh LE S t PI N G, - i ' T J L _ -1 1 1 /1 1 1 1 1 r-4 GALV. IRON CORRUd . CULVERT . -1 r--: i-- - - ' 04-0 Ye' Ck>N GLETE FIU- - U.-- -1 1 _Jr 1-!16TD,QJC 1+10Â£466 -1 I - 9 1 _PRO Ftâ‚¬>ED Sol-IT94 ELEVAT- torÂ·4 - FaV12]ER_ 111=101 8/\9 /0 & 5/5/0\ 0 . Exttle,T H Revieep 9/4/01 ; 1 Â© F 1+ 4 0 0 11 li 1-.1~kIr~~~ZZZÂ·-Â·mm 1, ~~i11111IlilillP,7-331!L 11 1 If d Ii=!==ti k il 2 i' r<Ii #--bip ww vj2 *r gri imfilk n M vfk~-~ 1~,# F,Tp*TÂ» ' * r'EiNM,Af,+*Â£16 -Wfl~nlim'El,Â·-H - 1-1.mi ,?,UE==W! 1 119-1:FEEig"N, 1 W=-f-1 C..==-- . UNHHEcE=ZIT-Tl r-1/. ; Ill i -r. drzo~=.1~j -1 111'litinzic' 111 -=~ 2-1 1 2%994%'ihi em Ft - '-di F 111 1 r./.----/41.---2 1 - .r-- -ZE pl-hierl ' 97 6-=dil .Ir 111 1 MjM-Â»=e~=u 1 ---LL=.1 Cavitiful n 1 ~U L LS;~ & i i i i , 4 1 ?1 0.11 : l.1t---- - w<-41~*211= -3 t~, '..rA-Tri--5 - 1 - - - 14-- WEEjM~ ~ -'IT-1~~t~ -1%m -6-.$-1 ' - 474HYLLI.11 - 6./2,277r-7----*...rÂ·....... - 1 .., up....-- . - - el]LS,,1,1.*,Iii,Ilkil .aill};3 Â·-7-7'rf-01-+Trlgi !111 4*zÂ£2" .. . ~i- Â· , 1 -1 1 1 ' i i Hil,-~01QICÂ· 440(496 1 pwof>0951) ADDI ThON E.Wat CAÂ¥~RJA48 0 0996= 1 1 - PRO POSED NoRTH ELEVATIONI REVISED 1 W =toi 2,/\9/01 5/8/0\ c*Hell- 1+ REV leap 5/4/0 1 (-2. aflt XEMOVE /4, CED,Â¥L , A 5**4* COLD ROOP+*4Â¥ * , 9. RE.M.MÂ·E. V* NgÂ¥4 c CAVZ Slt,14*1.* SUPEK#**6â€¢Tra FOOP'>Â¥~TEÂ»,A- ---i_.,Â·z-b 1. 3 Flt- 1...:' li_,1. 1 p=44- , 1 ..f ''-- 1 . f , , .Â»-=. , --- E< 4 LAP sipÂ»10, - -Â»' 4 -- * TAIAA - r- ...bb<-./.-*-1/ ~ 4 1----~7'22_~- - ....r,n... - 1 r If=. - il : 31 1 1#F= - i.<fÂ» _ i 9 5- 1 K.1 6- .1-1 1 5 1,77 /4 - 84 /- - -- - . .p. I BLEV I SEP =Aer ElaV. REV \DED END-E E\_al hm OM Op 61 AgAG,2 /Â» PU (LAKE AVENUE) 1,1=1-0 1 11==1DI 1 11 CORRUAÂ· 4*64 4+40 AA 17.6 ROOF./ 4. / /~-- 4~ //- FAINTED ~'P. FA**f ; Â· - i 4 ' Ii,2 Ill~'1'l,1. 1 - 8,MAD * TRI'AA , Inni I- 1 - lz=i - 1,6 I 1 . $2-.1 L- Li- 1 1 #I 1_1.."L...2-22~.I~â€¢â€¢-- Â£2.-- REPLACE 524 F /*ED WME Imp GrLL4RC) - 1 .--- --- & 1:Vil 4 L. WY VV Pâ€¢ POLI 8(.i- 1 Â· =IV 1 WUM A WINgeÂ»# 0 4=:237bl-AE-Fir-11 11 1 It 11 1 -$2241~- 1 â€ž It L EE?!filin'kift--CROM *01,4016. 4 it 11 1: .--7,#---1 1- .r--- .- - t=ZZ=N'~EELL - t_, St PINA r * ~-4 E?a-r- -11. 1=*it==aggl flzf~ CORRUGÂ· <S,ALV,IR,>N A I , . 2 -_ #m--=*~~ i d[12:- ce.:>.0- sÂ»ir.~t.E I41' .4- 1+1122*21 i 1% 0 Cd- e W7'CoN G.Pll-L- 1 1 i -R~r-]~- 1 , ./ 1. EAL...+1- i i 1 6 1 DING, ro KE,Â£Â·NA L - 1.1- . rl-W-PÂ· Ph+UU-(5, 1 i . .Li lk. , E i lt- REÂ¥15ED WEST ELEVATION REVISED COMPOSFE \NEST oF ADDITI-ON --2 _8 LEVATION Â·Â»IR.[3 -STREET) 111=lot Ill=110 C 516{01 Rev 14 2 0 â‚¬8/0 1 0 Â®F 14 --2 ./1 - Azi-' I. 41 C>tA) ING, 2222 1 1 I %11 Illb . T-7 1 1-DRY [ l /60*1* 1 *1 14 j .It<tic .14 Te'i; : 02>AA 4) i % -t 1 1 E,U (Lts>1 4*~ e *grlÂ©,4 A jll= 1 0/ 3/1901 S / e>/CA 4. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director J,43 FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Historic Landmark Lot Split Code Amendment- Referral Comment DATE: May 23, 2001 SIJMMARY: Currently, historic landmark lot splits are allowed in only two residential zone districts; R-6 and R.-15A. An application has been submitted to amend the land use code to allow landmark lot splits in the Office Zone district, which is primarily the Main Street Historic District. The code amendment will be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. The HPC is asked to provide comments for those boards to consider. Staff has some concerns about the timing of this amendment, given our current effort to look at our program holistically, overhauling the ordinance and incentive program, however, the owner has the right to bring forward an application now. The board should be aware that, in the R-6 and R-15A zone districts, two detached homes on a lot of at least 9,000 square feet is a use by right for landmarks, so the only effect of the lot split is to change the form of ownership (fee simple vs. condominiums.) In the Office zone district, two detached dwellings are allowed on a lot as small as 6,000 square feet as a conditional use, meaning that there is an additional review process required to determine if the density is appropriate. We may want to consider eliminating the conditional use, and making two detached houses allowed by right, as an additional incentive.