The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20111116 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 16, 2011— 5:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO SITE VISIT- NONE I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes — III. Public Comments IV. Commission member comments V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) VI. Project Monitoring: VII. Staff comments — (15 min.) VIII. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued (Next resolution will be #13 ) I. OLD BUSINESS A. 217 E. Bleeker — Conceptual, Major Development, On -Site Relocation, Demolition and Variances. Public Hearing — Cont'd from Oct. 26 ( lhr.) II. NEW BUSINESS A. 518 W. Main — Final Major Development, Demolition — Public Hearing (1hr.) B. 316 E. Hopkins — Minor Development — Public Hearing (20 min.) III. WORK SESSIONS A. None IV. 7:30 Adjourn Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) Staff presentation Applicant presentation Board questions and clarifications Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed Applicant rebuttal (comments) Motion No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes of the members of the commission then present and voting. :L- ct, P MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 217 E. Bleeker Street- Conceptual Major Development, On -site relocation, Demolition, FAR Bonus, Variances, Public Hearing DATE: November 16, 2011 SUMMARY: 217 E. Bleeker is a 4,513 square foot lot that was created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split. It is vacant except for two accessory buildings and a significant tree at the front of the site. A maximum FAR of 2,280 was established during the lot split process. The property is eligible for setback variances and a 250 square foot FAR bonus if found appropriate by HPC. The applicant requests approval to demolish a very small shed structure towards the center of the site, to remove a lean-to addition on the large alley building, and to relocate that building on the lot in order to create a building envelope for a new home. Conceptual design approval is requested along with setback variances, a Residential Design Standards Variance and the FAR bonus. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the project has strengths related to the preservation of the alley building, but the new house does not meet the design guidelines as designed. The public hearing should be continued for restudy. APPLICANT: Karen Kribs, owner, represented by Gretchen Greenwood, architect. PARCEL ID: 2737 - 073 -20 -013. ADDRESS: 217 E. Bleeker Street, Lot 1, East Bleeker Historic Landmark Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R -6, Medium Density Residential, Historic Landmark MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons 1 P2 for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two -step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: HPC has held two . ti �. worksessions on this project. Much of y ,� a 2 f ro the conversation has been focused on'° the structure along the alley, and the - w. a " best way to preserve it given the plan i= to build a new house on the site. , - HPC has been informed that the alley structure appears to have been a small house that was located close along the west side of the Victorian at 227 E. Bleeker (seen at right). This is the opinion of long -time neighbors, and it - - I is supported by the Sanborne map, `" which shows a building of comparable ,.,„ a, fr " ¢ ;'S t t `> ; = size alongside 227 E. Bleeker as of 1904. Furthermore, the building along Demolished the alley has original doors and (date unknown) Moved to alley 227 E. Bleeker windows that suggest it was once a l) home rather than just a barn. VS + 2/9 S 2z3 2 { 3 The applicant wishes to remove a lean- Is to addition on the historic structure and • 21 D i7 f ' 1 to rotate it to create access for a two car garage. There has been concern that its - - 1 presence on the alley will be rd f$ diminished, and that the alley structure / would be surrounded by fences and new construction. For this meeting, the site & plan has been changed to show the alley building in the southeast, instead of the r - southwest corner of the lot. The result ins • 2 73 P3 is that the building is moved in almost a direct line back from where it was located in the Victorian era. It will continue to have some visibility from the street, and has significant visibility along the alley. Future development of the miner's cottage at 227 E. Sleeker is somewhat unlikely to change that circumstance because of the small amount of square footage allocated to that lot. From a site plan perspective, staff believes the positioning of the alley building is appropriate. The footprint of the new house is designed to avoid any setback variances other than for the alley building, which responds to HPC concerns at the worksession. The applicant has elected to leave significant areas of the ground plane as patio area rather than livable area. Staff is concerned that this misses an opportunity to make the new house primarily one story. When the lot split was approved, square footage that could have been added to 227 E. Bleeker was almost entirely tranferred to this lot. 227 E. Bleeker now has a maximum FAR of 1,800 square feet and the subject property is allowed 2,280. The lots are the same size. The distribution of FAR was intended to keep the buildings very much in scale with each other. Staff recommends that the footprint of the new house be restudied to place more program on the ground level. The significant setback of the garage from the alley does allow a west view of the accessory building, but too much mass is being pushed towards the center of the property. Staff also recommends that the front porch be recessed to align with the entry wall of the house at 227 E. Bleeker. That house used to have an open porch, which has since been enclosed and perhaps altered to have a mansard like roof. Staff believes it would be more appropriate to begin the front facade of the house entirely behind the tree rather than to try to slide an entry porch into the narrow space that is available. The resulting forms appear to be very out of character with the adjacent historic homes. The adjustments described above, if pursued, will change the elevations. Staff disagrees with the notion that the proposed structure is simple in form. Admittedly, the Victorian at 227 E. Bleeker has a more complicated massing than most of Aspen's miner's cottages, however it is a one story, 1,000 square foot building with an addition on the east side and an altered porch. At its core it is a simple cross gabled structure. The proposed new building, particularly when viewed from the front and sides, has a complicated arrangement roof forms, upper floor cantilevered over ground floor, upper floor bay windows, etc. The elevation that staff finds most successful and simplified is the view from the alley. We recommend a similar approach around the rest of the structure. Guidelines particularly in question are 11.3, 11.4, 11.5, and 11.6. Fenestration and materials are discussed at Final review. 3 P4 ON -SITE RELOCATION The intent of this Chapter is to preserve designated historic properties in their original locations as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical relationship to their surroundings as well as their association with events and people with ties to particular site. However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a property may be appropriate as it provides an altemative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that make it significant. The following standards apply for relocating a historic property as per Section 26.415.090.0 of the Municipal Code: C. Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a non - contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. Staff Response: Based on the history of the accessory building as discussed above, staff does find that the proposed relocation is an acceptable preservation method. It has been stated that the building has been in its current location for as much as the last 90 years. Some board members may take the position that it should be preserved as is. This would make it difficult or impossible for the applicant to achieve the on -site parking they desire. Staff does find the relocation acceptable in that the building remains small and free - standing, highly visible, and similar to its Victorian era orientation. If relocation is approved, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that it can be done safely to preserve the structure. 4 P5 DEMOLITION It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of properties designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures will be allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner /applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Staff Response: The applicant plans to totally demolish a small shed that is clearly non - historic based on appearance and comments from the owner of 227 E. Bleeker Avenue. Staff finds that the review criteria are met. FAR BONUS In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; 5 P6 f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. Staff Response: Restoration of the accessory structure will be a substantial undertaking. There are relatively few alley buildings left in town. This 350 square foot building does count completely in FAR. The justification for granting a bonus would seem to hang entirely on the success of the preservation strategy for this building. Staff would not support the bonus solely for the construction of the new house. SETBACK VARIANCES In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Staff Response: The necessary setback variances have changed since the public notice was issued, therefore additional notice for Conceptual or Final Review will be needed. The applicant proposes to set the accessory building 1'6" from the east property line, when 5' is required. The applicant proposes to set the accessory building 4' from the alley where 10' is required. (Though the building is accessory in character, because is attached to the house below grade, staff has been informed by Zoning that it must meet the setback requirements of a primary structure.) HPC should generally discuss the appropriateness of these variances, but again additional public notice is needed. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The project does not comply with Residential Design Standards related to the setback of the house from the street. Build -to lines. On ,parcels or lots of less than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, at least sixty percent (60 %) of the front facade shall be within five (5) feet of the minimum front yard setback line. On corner sites, this standard shall be met on the frontage with the longest block length. Porches may be used to meet the sixty percent (60 %) standard. All Residential Design Standard Variances, Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410.020(D)(2) must: a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the 6 P7 context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or, b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site - specific constraints. Staff Response: Staff finds that the property has a hardship related to this standard due to the location of the tree at the front of the lot. A variance is recommended. The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends continuation of the project for restudy of the form of the new house. Exhibits: A. Relevant HPC Guidelines B. Application Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines, Conceptual Review 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved. ❑ When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character- defining features. These include its primary and roof materials, roof form, windows, doors and architectural details. ❑ If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional. 8.2 If an existing secondary structure is beyond repair, then replacing it is encouraged. ❑ An exact reconstruction of the secondary structure may not be necessary in these cases. ❑ The replacement should be compatible with the overall character of the historic primary structure, while accommodating new uses. 8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure. ❑ 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. 7 P8 • 8.5 Avoid moving a historic secondary structure from its original location. ❑ A secondary structure may only be repositioned on its original site to preserve its historic integrity. See Chapter 9: Building Relocation and Foundations. 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case -by -case basis. ❑ In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. ❑ It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. o Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. o A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. o Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. ❑ The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. ❑ In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel. o If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties. 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. ❑ It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. ❑ It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. o On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. ❑ Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. ❑ Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. ❑ Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. 8 P9 11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street. ❑ The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the site. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. ❑ The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry. ❑ A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. ❑ In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street; nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to the street. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. o Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. ❑ The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure. ❑ The front should include a one -story element, such as a porch. 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. ❑ They should not overwhelm the original in scale. 11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. o Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. ❑ Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. ❑ On a residential structure, cave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context. ❑ Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A- frames. 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. ❑ These include windows, doors and porches. ❑ Overall, details should be modest in character. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. ❑ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. ❑ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged on historic sites. 9 P10 Ir k) P11 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 518 West Main Street Major Development (Final Review) DATE: November 16, 2011 SUMMARY: The subject property is a 7,500 square feet lot in the Main Street Historic District and it is zoned Mixed Use. A modest 1880s miner's residence is located on the site along with a more recent non - historic shed. An interior fire gutted the historic home several years ago after which the building was mothballed and left vacant. The applicant requests Major Development Final Review for an eleven unit affordable housing development which re -uses a 19 century miner's cottage and adds two new detached structures to the site. HPC granted Conceptual approval, Demolition, Relocation, Variances, and Residential Design Standard Review with conditions in March 2011. The Planning and Zoning Commission has since granted Growth Management approval and approval to Establish Affordable Housing Credits equal to 24.0 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs). In August, City Council granted Subdivision approval. APPLICANT: Fat City Holdings, Peter Fomell (manager), 402 Midland Park Place, Aspen, CO. PARCEL ID: 2735 -12- 443 -006. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 518 West Main Street, Lots %z 0, P, and Q Block 30, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONE DISTRICT: MU, Mixed Use. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Final level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. P12 Major Development is a two -step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: HPC placed numerous conditions on the Conceptual approval, which were: 1. Conceptual Major Development approval is granted with the following to be submitted in the Final Major Development application, in addition to the Land Use Code requirements: a. A sloped roof is approved for both new buildings with further refinement and approval during HPC Final Review. b. A flat roof with deck access will replace the shed roof on the second story of the new building located behind the historic resource for review during Final Review. c. Provide circulation diagram and hardscape materials in addition to specific plantings proposed for the landscape. d. Provide details on front porch rehabilitation (the Aspen Historical Society may have a photograph to aid in the rehabilitation). e. Provide actual material samples for the all proposed materials (i.e. roof, siding dimensions, foundation, window components etc). f. Provide a detail for all of the front doors, specifically for the historic resource to match a typical 19 century front door on a modest miner's cottage. 2. Demolition of the 1968 garage and 2 non - historic additions to the historic landmark are approved as proposed. 3. Relocation of the historic home is approved with the following to be submitted with the initial building permit application: a. A structural report demonstrating that the building can be moved and/or information about how the house will be stabilized from the house mover must be submitted with the building permit application. The applicant must provide information as to whether or not the existing floor structure will be maintained and the advantages and disadvantages s of the decision for review and approval by staff and monitor. b. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the structure must be submitted with the building permit application. c. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 4. Parking is reduced to 8 parking spaces provided on site, as shown in Exhibit A to the Resolution. 3 dedicated offsite spaces or other alternatives, one of which may be cash in lieu payment for the 3 spaces, are to be reviewed and approved during Final HPC Review. 5. Utility /Trash/Recycle Service Area is reduced to 20' wide by 8' deep by 8.5' high. P13 6. Setback Variance is granted pursuant to the attached site plan, Exhibit A to the Resolution, for the following: a. 3.5' west side yard setback for lightwells where 5' is required and 1.5' is provided. 7. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one -time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. The applicant has provided responses to all of the conditions that required restudy. The elevations approved at Conceptual are attached to this memo, along with the HPC minutes of March 23, 2011. Site plan The site plan is unchanged from Conceptual review, but new details such as location of sidewalks and landscape materials have been added. Staff finds that the plan generally meets the guidelines. There is enough lawn around the front of the property to honor the residential context of the neighborhood. The applicant is retaining a historic twisted wire fence that is less and less common in town. Well established lilacs are preserved at the front of the site, and a limited number of omamental trees are added at the corners of the structures in a similar manner as might have occurred historically. Staff suggests that the sidewalk at the center of the property should perhaps be pulled away from the southeast corner of Building 2, to provide privacy to Unit 3 and to allow for grass or plantings to surround the base of the building at this very visible comer. For similar reasons, staff recommends that grass or plantings be extended slightly further back along the west side of Building 2 before the utilitarian gravel begins. See guidelines 1.9 and 1.10. Some clarification is needed regarding the Cotoneaster shrubs proposed at the front of the property. The variety that is planned can grow somewhat tall. The Residential Design Standards do not allow for hedgerows to be more than 42" tall at the front of the site, and a dense hedge may not be in character with the historic landscape. Finally, a specific design for the wood fence that will be installed along the east lot line is needed. Restoration plan The existing house was altered somewhat over the years, particularly through the installation of aluminum siding and removal of the original front porch. There has also been fire damage. The applicant proposes all new siding and trim, windows and doors. It must be verified that none of the original materials remain. The fascias are in place and will be retained and repaired. New roofing is proposed. P14 On the front facade, the applicant proposes appropriate new wood windows and doors within the original rough openings to replace those that have been destroyed. Staff recommends that the entry doors be painted, not stained because it appears to be what was most typical in the Victorian era in Aspen. The original front porch was demolished years ago and the applicant proposes to reconstruct a shed roofed porch with a minimal pitch, supported by simple turned columns. The proposal shows the new ' 6 porch roof tucking under the eaves of the gable roofs. The result is that there is not enough clearance under the porch to have full sized transoms over the entry doors. Transoms were a standard feature of Aspen's miner's cottages. Site inspection of the existing framing I suggests that transoms previously existed, so staff recommends they " be installed. See guideline 4.2. Furthermore, the adjacent historic photo of the house indicates that the porch over -framed the gable roof slightly, since the eave -line of the gable can't be seen. Another miner's cottage in town, in the • photo at lower right, has a similar condition, and transoms over the doors. We recommend this porch as a model following guideline 5.5. _ ;a The east elevation will have wood windows installed in the original openings, which meets the , ' ,X *--re' guidelines. The original rear facade has been •,," . .`' "s lat,r =1g.� r, r, covered with non - historic additions in the past. The • , -�,,, “ t tt applicant's proposal to reconstruct this original wall a P 4. •;. " and add new windows is acceptable. The proposed west elevation shows new windows that do not match the historic openings that can be i :r - restudied seen in the bottom photo. This needs to be restudied to retain all of the historic window openings. No new windows should be added if possible, according to guideline 3.2. "r° The product proposed for the roof on the miner's cottage is a polymer tile. With very few exceptions, the only roofing that has been allowed 't • ---- -- for Victorian era structures is wood shingle or l asphalt shingle. Staff recommends one of these be selected for the historic building only. A sample must be provided. See guideline 7.9. Existing west facade P15 New architecture Staff finds that the relationship between Building 2 and the historic structure has improved since Conceptual approval. One significant change that has occurred is that the previously open air exterior stairs have to be enclosed to meet Building Code. On the front facade of Building 2, staff recommends that a flat soffit be constructed to fill in the area below the rake of the porch roof to bring down the scale of the porch to be more similar to the miner's cottage as illustrated at right. In the alternative, a flat roofed porch might allow the upper floor street - facing unit to have a small deck. This porch should have a squared post, not a turned post to stay in the traditional style that is proposed without becoming faux Victorian. The fenestration on this new building is much improved from the previous drawings, however staff recommends that the ground floor windows on the front should be the same height as the upper floor windows from sill to header. (The transom on the upper floor is acceptable.) Also, staff does not support pushing the windows up against the comerboards on this portion of Building 2 because they conflict with the way that windows are placed around the Victorian and seem out of character with this more traditional, clapboard sided front section of Building 2. The packet indicates that windows on the clapboard sided portion of the building will have more narrow trim on the verticals than on the horizontals, but a photo illustrating the intent indicates the trim is the same dimension all the way around the window. Clarification is needed. Staff has no concerns with fenestration or materials around the rest of this new building. We recommend that all doors on Buildings 2 and 3 be paneled in a way that relates to the '/Y light front door of the Victorian, whether there is actually glass in the new j doors or not. We recommend shed roof entry canopies over the doors on Buildings ! 2 and 3 to simplify the forms on the building. On Building 2, perhaps slightly longer shed roofs could be constructed outside the entries to ground floor units #4 ` and #5 to provide them with some sheltered outdoor space and to create a stronger one story element on this facade. On Building 3, the only additional recommendation is to create more symmetry in the placement of windows on the south, street - facing facade to relate better to the Victorian. Parking At Conceptual review, HPC approved waiver of three required on -site parking spaces, but required that the applicant provide 3 dedicated off -site spaces or other alternatives, one of which may be cash in lieu payment. The applicant researched options for purchasing parking spaces in town, worked with the City Transportation Department and has determined that a cash -in -lieu contribution of $90,000 toward the purchase of a City owned bus will have a more meaningful impact. Staff supports this plan. P16 The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the applicant has done a good job fitting a relatively large and community oriented program on the site. The restoration of the Victorian will make a great contribution to Main Street, and it will be one of the few miner's cottages in Aspen preserved with no significant addition made to it. The bullets below list the areas for restudy identified in the memo. The applicant may bring revisions to the HPC meeting. Some issues may be appropriately assigned to Staff and Project Monitor following Final approval. • Pull the sidewalk at the center of the property away from the southeast corner of Building 2, to provide privacy to Unit 3 and to allow for grass or plantings to surround the base of the building at this very visible corner. • Extend grass or plantings slightly further back along the west side of Building 2 before the utilitarian gravel begins. • Clarify the mature height of the Cotoneaster shrubs proposed at the front of the property. • Provide a specific design for the wood fence that will be installed along the east lot line. • Provide south, east and north elevations showing all three structures proposed for the site in context with each other. • Verified that none of the original exterior siding, windows or doors remain. • The doors on the Victorian must be painted, not stained. • Redesign the front porch on the Victorian to slightly overframe the west facing gable roof • Provide transoms over the front doors on the Victorian. • Revise the west elevation of the Victorian to re -use the historic window openings. • Select wood shingles or asphalt shingles for the roof on the Victorian. Provide a sample. • Create a flat soffit on the front porch of Building 2. Design a squared post, not a turned post. • Make the ground floor windows and the upper floor windows in the south facing gable end of Building 2 the same height from sill to header. • Pull all windows in the clapboard sided portion of Building 2 away from the corner boards. • All exterior doors on Buildings 2 and 3 should be Y2 light doors or two panel doors. • Design shed roofed canopies over the side entry doors on Buildings 2 and 3. • Create more symmetry in the placement of the south facing windows on Building 3. • Provide cut sheets for any exterior lights. • Provide cut sheets for doors and windows on the Victorian. • Provide actual material samples for the all proposed materials (i.e. roof, siding, masonry.) P17 Exhibits: A. Relevant HPC design guidelines B. Approved Conceptual design and minutes C. Application Exhibit A: Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for 518 W. Main Street, Final Development 1.1 Preserve original fences. ❑ Replace only those portions that are deteriorated beyond repair. Replacement elements should match the existing fence. 1.2 A new replacement fence should use materials that appear similar to that of the original. ❑ Any fence which is visible from a public right -of -way must be built of wood or wrought iron. Wire fences also may be considered. o A wood picket fence is an appropriate replacement in most locations. A simple wire or metal fence, similar to traditional "wrought iron," also may be considered. ❑ Chain link is prohibited and solid "stockade" fences are only allowed in side and rear yards. 1.3 A new replacement fence should have a "transparent" quality allowing views into the yard from the street. o A fence that defines a front yard is usually low to the ground and "transparent" in nature. ❑ On residential properties, a fence which is located forward of the front building facade may not be taller than 42" from natural grade. (For additional information, see the City of Aspen's "Residential Design Standards ") ❑ A privacy fence may be used in back yards and along alleys, but not forward of the front facade of a building. ❑ Note that using no fencing at all is often the best approach. o Contemporary interpretations of traditional fences should be compatible with the historic context. 1.4 New fence components should be similar in scale with those seen traditionally. o Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment. 1.5 A side yard fence which extends between two homes should be set back from the street - facing facade. ❑ This setback should be significant enough to provide a sense of open space between homes. 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public -to- private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. ❑ This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding along a "semi- public" walkway, to a "semi- private" porch or entry feature and ending in the "private" spaces beyond. ❑ Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry, Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree. ❑ Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style. Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles. P18 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic structures. ❑ The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod, and not covered with paving, for example. 1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. ❑ Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. ❑ If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project. 1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs. ❑ Retaining historic planting beds, landscape features and walkways is encouraged. 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site. ❑ Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long -term impact of mature growth. ❑ Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent. o Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials. 2.1 Preserve original building materials. ❑ Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. ❑ Only remove siding which is deteriorated and must be replaced. ❑ Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved. ❑ Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity. 2.5 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing -in, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the material. o Avoid the removal of damaged materials that can be repaired. ❑ Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be used. 2.8 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for primary building materials. o In some instances, substitute materials may be used for replacing architectural details, but doing so is not encouraged. If it is necessary to use a new material, such as a fiberglass column, the style and detail should precisely match that of the historic model. o Primary building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced with synthetic materials. ❑ Synthetic materials include: aluminum, vinyl siding and panelized brick. ❑ EIFS (synthetic stucco) is not an appropriate replacement for real stucco. 2.10 Consider removing later covering materials that have not achieved historic significance. o Once the non - historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material. 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. ❑ Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins /mullions, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation and groupings of windows. o Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them, whenever conditions permit. ❑ Preserve the original glass, when feasible. P19 3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. ❑ Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character- defining facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening. This is especially important on primary facades where the historic ratio of solid -to -void is a character - defining feature. ❑ Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls. ❑ Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it to receive a larger window on primary facades. 3.4 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. ❑ If the original is double -hung, then the replacement window should also be double -hung, or at a minimum, appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number and position of glass panes. ❑ Matching the original design is particularly important on key character - defining facades. 3.5 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original. ❑ Using the same material as the original is preferred, especially on character- defining facades. However, a substitute material may be considered if the appearance of the window components will match those of the original in dimension, profile and finish. 3.6 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. ❑ Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to receive a larger window is inappropriate. ❑ Consider reopening and restoring an original window opening where altered. 3.7 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. ❑ A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window's casing, the sash steps back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane of the wall. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. ❑ Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. 4.5 When replacing a door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the house. ❑ A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement. ❑ A historic door from a similar building also may be considered. ❑ Simple paneled doors were typical. ❑ Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. 5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and detail. ❑ Use materials that appear similar to the original. ❑ While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted appropriately, alternative materials may be considered. ❑ Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have been used on the house or others like it. P20 ❑ When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building. ❑ The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork. ❑ The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those used historically as well. 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features should be based on original designs. ❑ The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a misrepresentation of the building's heritage. ❑ When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence, develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and maintains similar scale, proportion and material. 6.5 Do not guess at "historic" designs for replacement parts. ❑ Where "scars" on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in character to related buildings. ❑ Using overly ornate materials on a building for which there is no documentation is inappropriate. ❑ It is acceptable to use salvaged materials from other buildings only if they are similar in style and detailing to other features on the building where they are to be installed. 7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to those used traditionally. ❑ Replacement materials should be similar to those used historically on comparably styled buildings. • ❑ If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a matte, non - reflective finish. ❑ Flashing should be in scale with the roof material. ❑ If copper flashing is to be used, it should be treated to establish a matte, non - reflective finish. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. ❑ Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. ❑ The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure. ❑ The front should include a one -story element, such as a porch. 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. ❑ They should not overwhelm the original in scale. 11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. ❑ Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. ❑ Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. ❑ On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context. ❑ Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A- frames. 11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used traditionally. ❑ Roof materials should have a matte, non - reflective finish. P21 11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. ❑ Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are encouraged. ❑ Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged. 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. ❑ These include windows, doors and porches. o Overall, details should be modest in character. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. o This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. o Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged on historic sites. 14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that used traditionally. ❑ The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be approved by the HPC. ❑ All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence. 14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting. o Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be permitted. o Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures. ❑ Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night. ❑ Do not wash an entire building facade in light. o Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls of buildings. ❑ Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that Light the same area. 14.14 Minimize the visual impacts of service areas as seen from the street. o When it is feasible, screen service areas from view, especially those associated with commercial and multifamily developments. ❑ This includes locations for trash containers and loading docks. ❑ Service areas should be accessed off of the alley, if one exists. P22 Main Street Historic District City of Aspen • Final Review Design Guidelines The following design guidelines shall apply at the final review stage. Mi Building Design & Articulation Entries are clearly defined on most structures in the neighborhood. Porches, porticos and stoops F are elements that typically define entries. These 4 features add a one -story element to the fronts of buildings, helping to establish a uniform sense of • human scale along the block. They are essential ` elements of the neighborhood that should be maintained. Other architectural details also Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those contribute to the character of the street, adding seen traditionally on Main Street. visual interest for pedestrians. Their continued use is strongly encouraged. Architectural features • The Main Street District has developed into a mixture of commercial and residential forms. • The Main Street District is composed of varying architectural styles reflecting the development phases of Aspen. • The historic mining era is responsible for the majority of small miner's cottages and larger high -style homes, although considerable infill has occurred due to the ski industry. • Infill buildings include samples of Chalet style and Rustic style buildings. • Residential buildings are primarily vernacular designs, with highlights of Queen Anne buildings. 7.16 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the Victorian era residences seen traditionally on Main Street. • These include windows, doors and porches. • Overall, details should be modest in character. pa tie.: ;: iy su t , ` rie v ra r , C4inestygF��I,'adgrng gndlhstanF !jai t P23 City of Aspen Main Street Historic District 7.17 The imitation of older historic styles is ?i' . "4 , t_:° discouraged. t • This blurs the distinction between old and 4 , new buildings. s az • Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspens . , *. j ;; G history are especially discouraged. g a l ,. Windows & Doors . The similarity of window and door size and - location contributes to a sense of visual continuity - `- r along the street. In order to maintain this sense of visual continuity, a new building should maintain the basic window and door proportions Maintain the scale and proportion of window and door size and and placement patterns seen traditionally in the location along Main Street. district. 7.18 The retail entrance should be at the sidewalk level. • All entrances shall be ADA compliant. • On sloping sites the retail frontage should be as close to a level entrance as possible. 7.19 Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for all new structures. • An airlock entry that projects forward of the primary facade at the sidewalk edge is inappropriate. • Adding temporary entries during the winter season detracts from the character of the historic district. • Using a temporary vinyl or fabric "airlock" to provide protection from winter weather is not permitted. "CbfitlYi$/$✓AN. Lodgtwq,�u},j�to/a,e&Prt.. s d^".:1 ^ Pn8¢137e c r sa 4 i! P24 Main Street Historic District City of Aspen Architectural Materials The existing palette of building materials within the Main Street Historic District is an essential -. part of the sense of evolution of the area and its current character. Primarily wood and masonry define the majority of the area and express both human scale, structure, detail and a sense of historical continuity. These materials have been used in recent lodge development within the area. pM The predominant use of wood siding is another + 'sir.. 'r important feature in the district. Building Wood is one of the most common building materials along Main materials of new structures and additions to Street. existing structures should contribute to this visual continuity of the neighborhood by reflecting the ;r scale and texture of traditional materials. While - , ,,�: new materials may be considered, they should appear similar to those seen traditionally to Al ;t y1, _?` establish a sense of visual continuity. Materials • Historically, masonry and wood buildings characterized the district. Stucco and manufactured logs are seen among the infill buildings from the early is « •,� >tr� ski -era. Use materials on the exterior facade of 7.20 Use building materials that are similar buildings that convey a human scale. to those used historically. • When selecting materials, reflect the simple and modest character of historic materials and their placement. Roofing Materials 7.21 Use roofing materials that are similar in appearance to those seen historically. pg ey:f4 s ;; ,} +!tiP: '+ ; ,�e 'Commeic�a4 Lodgg�� p�andl[s ' �kbno ihsf{�rct 'yam iz :' < , ., , , ' %. Deatgrt D6lec lves GusAelt�les',. P25 City of Aspen Main Street Historic District Paving & Landscaping :' Certain settings and buildings within the city are associated with the quality of design and materials 3 " in paving and/ or landscaping. It is important that this be recognized and retained where it exists, is of historic relevance, or otherwise successful. The site and setting of all development shall be enhanced by design of both paving and landscaping within any proposal. Proposed _ m enhancements within the public right of way Landscaping should create a buffer between the street and shall form part of a comprehensive improvement sidewalk. proposal for the street or area, and approval will be required. Landscape design features • Some historic houses still retain their front yard original fence patterns that create a distinct residential character. These fences are low and transparent in nature. • Landscaping is dominated by shade trees along the right -of -way, although lilacs are common plantings adjacent to houses. 7.22 Landscaping and paving should have the following characteristics: • Enhance the street scene • Integrate the development with its setting • Reflect the quality of the architectural materials 7.23 Landscaping should create a buffer between the street and sidewalk. Commefig ,LoilgnJind HTStcnc DTStnct. + - r,� p 139 • S slaebiEchTies anfC0i#Iinek ° ._ -; " > P26 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 518 WEST MAIN STREET LOTS P, Q AND1 /2 OF LOT 0, BLOCK 30, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION # _, SERIES OF 2011 PARCEL ID: 2735 -12- 443 -006 WHEREAS, the applicant, Fat City Holdings manager Peter Fornell, has requested Major Development (Final) for the property located at 518 West Main Street, Lots P, Q and 1/2 of 0, Block 30, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, 518 West Main Street is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures; and WHEREAS, 518 West Main Street is located within the Main Street Historic District and is a considered a contributing building to the integrity of the Historic District; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Final Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report to HPC dated November 16, 2011, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards would be met with project revisions, and recommended restudy; and WHEREAS, at their special meeting on November 16, 2011 the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and recommended approval with conditions by a vote of _ to _ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants HPC Major Development (Final) for the property located at 518 West Main Street, Lots P, Q and %z of 0, Block 30, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 518 West Main Street HPC Resolution # , Series of 2011 Page 1 of 3 P27 1. Demolition of the 1968 garage and 2 non - historic additions to the historic landmark are approved per Resolution #4, Series of 2011. 2. Relocation of the historic home is approved per Resolution #4, Series of 2011. a. A structural report demonstrating that the building can be moved and/or information about how the house will be stabilized from the house mover must be submitted with the building permit application. The applicant must provide information as to whether or not the existing floor structure will be maintained and the advantages and disadvantages s of the decision for review and approval by staff and monitor. b. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the structure must be submitted with the building permit application. c. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 3. Parking is reduced to 8 parking spaces provided on site per Resolution #4, Series of 2011. A $90,000 cash in lieu payment is required. 4. Utility /Trash/Recycle Service Area is reduced to 20' wide by 8' deep by 8.5' high per Resolution #4, Series of 2011. 5. Setback Variance is granted per Resolution #4, Series of 2011 a. 3.5' west side yard setback for lightwells where 5' is required and 1.5' is provided. 6. The following must be restudied: • Pull the sidewalk at the center of the property away from the southeast corner of Building 2, to provide privacy to Unit 3 and to allow for grass or plantings to surround the base of the building at this very visible corner. • Extend grass or plantings slightly further back along the west side of Building 2 before the utilitarian gravel begins. • Clarify the mature height of the Cotoneaster shrubs proposed at the front of the property. • Provide a specific design for the wood fence that will be installed along the east lot line. • Provide south, east and north elevations showing all three structures proposed for the site in context with each other. • Verified that none of the original exterior siding, windows or doors remain. • The doors on the Victorian must be painted, not stained. • Redesign the front porch on the Victorian to slightly overframe the west facing gable roof. • Provide transoms over the front doors on the Victorian. • Revise the west elevation of the Victorian to re -use the historic window openings. • Select wood shingles or asphalt shingles for the roof on the Victorian. Provide a sample. • Create a flat soffit on the front porch of Building 2. Design a squared post, not a turned post. • Make the ground floor windows and the upper floor windows in the south facing gable end of Building 2 the same height from sill to header. • Pull all windows in the clapboard sided portion of Building 2 away from the corner boards. 518 West Main Street HPC Resolution #_, Series of 2011 Page 2 of 3 P28 • All exterior doors on Buildings 2 and 3 should be %2 light doors or two panel doors. • Design shed roofed canopies over the side entry doors on Buildings 2 and 3. • Create more symmetry in the placement of the south facing windows on Building 3. • Provide cut sheets for any exterior lights. • Provide cut sheets for doors and windows on the Victorian. • Provide actual material samples for the all proposed materials (i.e. roof, siding, masonry.) APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its special meeting on the 16th day of November, 2011. Ann Mullins, Vice Chair Approved as to Form: Jim True, Special Counsel ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 518 West Main Street HPC Resolution # , Series of 2011 Page 3 of 3 P29 c it v, z !1111 LlI li11j1111 1 J ❑ i!I.I w �v `I t i c ,7 ) ■iii! ------C lam: MI i g II lea IIIII §e- isl II dins , 1 . 111111 in mg (Li , .4„ \ , - ail El ii ,-, ) f lNP�C 1 IiIiIiiiii1i , I ,1 110 I 11 ,�: '1.'11 I; [ 111.1111110,111 W i. I ., � I ��ll11 i l III 1 o 1: 11 I 111111 11111 I I 11111.1 Lij III�I � 1 � , I. ; I fi L �� I I ii :ii -Th x f j 1 : II M I-I f4 ;' ) !1161!' I v 4 ',( n" � � .I • AIMEIillIIIIIIiI1 b i cL., — 7 si liriir P r i ,, , . • i li m 2. �I ll�� l�l�� 1 �� 1� c,_ ,, „.. III , ��,�� 0 o io Ilk ®'�I + Ilill II z 0 W l . Q Fa , ;. cs + a i� . + • P30 (4 tib Z aTw OK CI IjlIjl��1I l � j cc g a "I IIF1I!I 1;1 �I I •� -- i _ O l i F-,i ' jf a{ 1 g 11 1' KJ � r � JIL. d ,l� m N D II ,. , -� 1� �CI 999I�I . .� XY311111TI!P 11: - - ! ®I 4. �,� ��l�1NLIt[I > I00 i 11'1 p'��11111111111111_ E Jill • I I 1 III � I W „ 1111111T _ I A' T I ! — E 1111 EIC) N I � III � i ICI, ��, �— N. 11111111111 1 'A $ I, t . .1 D (ili i, Q 'II 1111111111 ' i ' L-u uuu,imT 1, a 4 it Li '' LJ t F � I : La[ r II - AIM. 1111111/111 0 C — t ! , ' ii l t ;' '''� 111111111111 1 1 i { '. � � � II I C I: , jl ; �� minim „I ; I ' 1 �.. I 4' { l • 111) mrtsn nm Z V X CI W 1J X I n :! ! Ill: V7 O J El i ' I i t ' ; I I W I- • I:: . -', : yr ,- '� s t i, { `\ f �y �._� f �. �L ?y P31 o z i 411 t 1111 __ 2 c e r� z im' � a l l I L � 111 L a■ lit _1 E „ illo ; , , III Ld �� ' • �W , vs i_ i W a \MM. CE z - � w a lilii - � 1i _ �� i—i co p► i p ,l , Jik: ,,,,,,, y:ir }I — , 0 . 1-- :f ` v) II ii lion i Q j' , ; I111 ;, Q ill s �.. um ". III "1'1 , W • ' � ,! 0 1 Li , � � l; I, 1 EL II c r li l I T 1 1E1 u� I �'llii Ni'u Li �`rl1l — 1 i F- 1.- 1 7 1 -� —1 a L I l H -1 a (4 0 la 0 0 P32 0 0 _ --4-- _ D i H ii o V) V ( 111111111111; ; ,I: II �Ii: 1 !I 1 IIIIIII��I IIIIIIIIIIIIII Z � o {, ; 1111111 Q , p ! IJT W 1 I- ■ 14 11 L W W I W o N N. v III LIJ zW 3 „, ,, . . .. \_, in W 4 1 1 11 ! o All b. iv i a 1 ii Mt I t mom %� _I 1 11 1 -..1. � p „ i , ,, H . J` H. ��L�e� >�� i. P33 ti w� DE 11 I et re x vi ® 1 n 1 z a 1— Q Z > 0 w Q w _ % U j 1 . ' ' ��' � '' 111 I �' � 11111 J o `'' 1 +, w III 1_ t , ' l I I I 111111111111 �' ' 1 � < JJJJJ; k !I i , II I q 1--I ' � 3 6 O k r 1- limom ix l�, z a ; �' 0 1 1111111i 1111 J I a I I ; in (A � 1 Li w w o- v) -- -- o 0 cK EL 0 1 ® W z ¢� GO 0 _.1X 1.1.1 I— E Cl ,_ P34 i-- H i , X LIZ 3 El ¢ OD lW O J .- a I i LOT LINE 75' CC EL LO O I j I I I 1 1 1 � I I 1 1 • I 1 I 1 I . I 1 I I I j I j I 1 HL Z • i of I-1 -J i I j 1 I _ j I . I j j i I I L 1 I I 1 1 Fr ,r j • j j j ! I I 1 - i I I L ..-. -.- - - -- 4----._._.____._._._._._._ J LOT LINE 75' ,_: P35 0 z 0 n J , 4 A <'o` D IA Z =a _ O>QOOt3 w . OZ LJJ� LOT LINE 75' Lu --I Q.. In • a .._.___ S F- . ,.. ,I 1 1' — = IN 4 ei — II1 In MOM ® _ ®g of o ._ C 01 . ..�.��.�,� ,o H v 1 us i F lA� � ... '7 it ?i „ I h EDI 113 _II 11 i h J 11 111 1 r i ! 0 4•31 11 1 ■. � I: Illa j M C W j N W li i � - a i I I a � j I ti I v/ a. 11 aer 1 is i j I ! I I I _ . . -- — i_ J IIOZ ..W . ._.�._. — - LOT LINE 75' V - M1FIKd All P36 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 23, 2011 Chairperson, Sarah Broughton called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Ann Mullins, Nora Berko, Jason Lasser, Jamie McLeod, Jay Maytin and Brian McNellis. Excused was Willis Pember. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sam Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Jay moved to approve the minutes of Feb. 23 second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Jason moved to continue 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Conceptual, public hearing until May 25, 2011, second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. 518 W. Main — Conceptual Major Development and Residential Design Standard Review, Demolition, Relocation, Parking Reduction and Setback Variances, Public Hearing Exhibit I proof of publication Exhibit II exhibits from work session in July Exhibit III photo of 7th and Main Exhibit IV parking photos Sara Adams said in addition to conceptual etc. as listed above the applicant is requesting a reduction in the size of the trash recycling area. This hearing was continued from Feb. 23rd and the applicant re- noticed the hearing to tonight to capture a side yard setback variance and the trash/utility recycle service area that was requested. Peter has eliminated one unit, 12 to 11 which also reduces the number of parking spaces that need waived. You are required to have one parking space per unit so 11 on -site parking spaces are required. The applicant is providing 8 spaces and requesting a waiver of 3 spaces. The roof forms of the detached building on Main Street and the building behind the historic resource have been changed and there are two different options proposed. The applicant has also worked on the front porch of the new building that fronts Main Street to make it more substantial. The historic home will sit on the ten foot front yard setback and 1 P37 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 23, 2011 previously it was io be five feet. The existing lilacs and cottonwoods will be maintained on -site. Overall staff is supportive of the project and it meets the guidelines for conceptual review. In terms of mass there are two roof options. Staff feels the flat roof is more simpler and relates to the false front of the 02 building next door. Staff is also recommending that the stepped roof behind the historic resource be changed to a flat roof with decks. The three story building at the rear is appropriate and the plate heights are eight feet and the project is within the height limit. Staff feels the scale is appropriate for the property and the proposed modules are proportionate to what you find in the district. Parking: HPC has the purview to reduce the parking requirement and possibly waive the fee of the parking spaces. It is $30,000 per parking space and they are asking for three which would amount to $90,000. The parking reduction and waiver of payment -in -lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance of architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district. After reviewing parking with the parking department etc. there seems to be enough parking in the area to support the reduction of 3 spaces. The lot is 7,500 square feet and the parking is proposed all the way across. Jay asked if we can restrict residents at 518 W. Main from getting a residential parking permit. Jim True, special councftsaid he doesn't feel that would be appropriate and how it would be enforced. You are asking that the deed restriction for any resident in this project not be allowed to apply for something that other residents in the city are allowed to apply for. I do not feel this is appropriate or under HPC's authority. Utility trash recycling area: Sara said the requirement is that the area be 20 feet long, ten feet deep and ten feet high. The applicant is proposing 20 feet long, 8 feet deep and 8 '/z feet high. The Env. Health Dept. feels confident that the proposed dimensions were adequate for the project and they will work with the applicant to determine what composting/recycling will work on the property. Setback variances: 2 P38 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 23, 2011 Sara said there is a side yard variance closest to the Ullr and it is for two light wells. They will stick 2 feet in to the side yard where five feet is required. You will not see them from the street. If you required them to meet the setback it would bring all the buildings closer together and we don't feel that would be a positive outcome on the preservation of the historic resource. Residential design variances: The requirement is for a 50 square foot entrance porch for the new building. The front porch is measuring 39 square feet and it needs to be 50 square feet. They need direction as to how to meet that requirement. Peter Fomell, applicant thanked Sara for doing a thorough job. Last July was our first work session and we came up with an idea that was over the height and it was one large attached building. It really didn't have any consideration to the historic asset. We then came back in February which posed the new structure which incorporated the concerns of HPC and the design was three separate buildings. The roof forms were a single slope and we reduced the size of the units so that we are under the allowable FAR. The new design is around 7,200 square feet. Regarding the affordable housing there is a need for category two housing. Peter said with the third set of plans we changed the walkways to coincide with the cabin and we are down to 7,050 square feet. We have expanded the variety of roof forms. At the last meeting everyone liked the idea of a flat roof. We also have a second choice. We have reduced the units from 12 to 11. Some of the roof forms have flat roofs with patio decks. The historic asset is moved back to the ten foot lot line. Regarding the height we wanted to make sure we had a product that matched the goals of having varying heights. We have one story, two story and three stories on the property. The three story is 50% of the overall building. The two story is 25% of the building element and the one story is 25 to 30% of the overall building envelope. We have a good mix of varying building heights. I would like to compare myself to the work that was done on 7th and Main affordable housing project. Chapter 7 in the guidelines 7.2 talks about alleys and uses 7 and Main as an example. Ann asked how many square feet are on the historic front porch. Amos Underwood said it is 60 square feet but has an overhang. 3 P39 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 23, 2011 Chair - person Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. Doug Allen Doug said he has been an Aspen resident for 30 years and a property owner in the neighborhood. Your job is historic preservation. Historic preservation consists of more than just saving the small house. This project is totally changing the context of the house and impacts the neighborhood. This is not a charity project, it is a for profit venture with the potential of making millions of dollars and it should be allowed only in the context of maintaining the historic context of the house. When you pile all these buildings onto the lot and then in addition don't provide adequate parking the project is not appropriate. Staff said the neighborhood can absorb all the parking but it can't. The Jewish Center has yet to be built. People don't give up their car and cars need to be stored and these things are being ignored way too much. Steve Goldenberg I live across Main Street on Hopkins Ave. and we are also going through parking problems with the Boomerang. Everyone gets two parking permits plus a guest permit if you want it. It is 50% more than the number you come up with. If the statutory requirement is one space per unit there are a number of two bedrooms and they will generate more than one space per unit. It is at least 1.5 spaces per unit. Applying that to 11 units you need 16 spaces and we are only going to have 8 spaces. We looked at the parking study for the Jewish Center and half of their requirements are met from the north side of Main Street. Paul Taddune, attorney I am here on behalf of the Christiania and I own 523 W. Main. I agree with the comments that parking is an issue for both sides of Main Street. The reduction in parking is symptomatic and there is a problem with the development as a whole. The aesthetics of the project I am impressed with. What we are not focusing on is the density. Historically you should concern yourself with the use. We are going from the use of one unit to 11. There should be a proportion between the size of the unit and the use of it. As an observation I'm not a big fan of flat roofs. The sloping roof is a much better treatment. This is not a perpetuation of an historic use, it is actually working against it when you have so many units vs. the one unit that was there before. 4 P40 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 23, 2011 Cheryl Goldenberg, 430 W. Hopkins I'm concerned about the parking. The Christiania when it was developed got away with very little parking because we were worried about the historic lodges. The Christiania doesn't have enough space to park. These people will be my neighbors and I just want them to have a nice place but they will need places to park their cars. I walk everywhere but we still need a car to pick up groceries etc. The people that have two bedroom places will have two cars. These people need a place to park. Little Ajax has 14 units and 24 parking spaces. Chairperson, Sarah Broughton closed the public hearing. Jamie addressed the flat roof. I am not a huge advocate of flat roofs. I like how you have broken . up a lot of the forms from the last time to this time. On the front building the previous option looked to be more in scale. I am also in favor of deck space and Ok with demolition and relocation. I'm not in favor of the parking waivers. I am concerned about the access to the utility and trash area and can support the height and depth reduction. I can support the west side yard setback variance for the light wells. Brian said the flat roofs are not the most functional design but from a mass and scale it fits better. Possibly some kind of pitch could be incorporated that would be lower than what was presented at the last meeting. I am also concerned with the utility and trash accessibility. I am concerned about the parking. I live in a building that has 11 units and 8 parking spaces and we have space on the street to park. Given the area I am not sure 8 spaces will work and I am in favor of the cash -in -lieu. Ann said she appreciates the public comment and it helps to hear what people have to say. In terms of the flat it works with all the gables. The ten foot setback is appreciated on the historic house. I cannot support the parking waivers and the parking should be the code at least one to one. The west setback and trash recommendation are appropriate. Jason said the flat roofs seem to increase the mass as one big volume. The decks help to relate to the historic mass. The proposal is to move the historic building to add development and is that appropriate. The bigger question is this the right amount of development on this property. Having the affordable housing on Main Street is commendable. Hopefully 11 parking spaces can fit on the property. I am concemed about the livability 5 P41 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 23, 2011 and the floor plan and I couldn't live in these units. Is it our purview to be talking about floor plans and livability and the parking is somewhat tied in. Sarah said the land use code is one space per unit. Jim said basing parking to the livability of the units might not be appropriate. It needs to be tied to the criteria. Jason referenced criteria 26.515.040 (A) 1,2,3 — for a special review for waiving parking. The criteria has not been met. Jason said he has no problem with the dimensional changes of the trash area as long as it is approved by the Environmental Health Dept. The front porch is workable. Jay commented that he feels the parking code is incorrect, it falls short of the need but none the less that is what we have to work with. The parking code should talk about bedrooms. You want one space per unit and that doesn't change the amount of drivers in the building, one to one doesn't solve the problem. The argument is that we have the ability to make changes to a bad rule. I would give the waiver in order for 11 families to live in affordable housing rather than 8 families. We can sabotage our community by only allowing 8 units or help the community by giving the waiver and having 11 units. The commission needs to grant the waiver to get more units. Nora said the guideline is the integrity of the historic district and when you have this amount of parking the integrity of the historic district is being eroded. It is a bad rule and the code needs to be changed. Every time we grant a waiver we are turning our backs to the root problem which is the code. I cannot support the cash -in -lieu because that money goes to help solve transportation problems. The flat roofs look out of scale with all the gables. The public comments were good as you are going from a one family lot to 11 units. The question is how much housing. The front porch should be 60 feet. Sarah thanked the applicant for the model because it helps the HPC to understand what is going on. Regarding the roofs and mass there still needs to be more study. The width of the addition to the west should be restudied to bring in the full size of the deck. It is nice to have people on Main Street sitting out on the porches. As a direction I am in support of the flat roof and the density on this lot can work. On a dense lot you need to look at snow, ice and where it can go and how you deal with it to make it safe. I am in 6 P42 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 23,2011 agreement about the parking waiver. I live in an 8 unit building and we have 8 spaces. All of us only have one car. I feel the code is appropriate and I am in favor of one car per unit. I would be interested in some creative solution for this project. Someone brought up paid off-site parking which could be an interesting solution. I am ok with the utility trash area and the variance. Sara mentioned that she met with parking and transportation for options for this project. Finding off-site parking spaces, such as those at the Rio Grande Parking Garage, doesn't work. Sarah said we all need to work together to get a parking solution so that a project like this can move forward and that we are all comfortable with. Jason mentioned the car share program. Sara said parking and transportation see that as taking up a parking space on the lot and are generally opposed to it for this type of project. Peter said if we are going to promote affordable housing and promote people living inside the S curves instead of people going through the S curves twice a day we need to decide what is more important 23 people or 3 parking spaces. This project is a need in this community. I am under the FAR and so many people come in here and sit down in front of everyone and they start 2 -1 hoping you will twiddle them down to 1.2 and what they should have done is come with the project that the community is needing in the first place. I could just build three bedrooms but we have enough of those in the inventory. It serves the community better to have 11 units rather than 8. The work force needs the most help in housing. Why wouldn't we offer to a home owner to use the parking garage at a better price and then we are incentivizing that person to put their car away. Jay said a three bedroom inventory is not what is needed in affordable housing right now. Peter said he took photos at 4 Street and Bleeker and there is plenty of parking. 1102 Waters Ave. which was a free market product that isn't doing anybody any good except the person building it and his requirement was three parking spaces and he got a waiver for all three of them. Waters Ave. is where day skiers park and it is a dead end street. 7 P 43 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 23, 2011 Sarah said we need to focus on what needs to get solved and give recommendations. Ann also agreed that we need to give the applicant direction. Peter said the useful life of a flat roof is less than a sloped roof. What is the ongoing cost for these people. I don't want them to have to pay four or five hundred dollars in association fees. Vote - sloped roof vs. flat 5 sloped - 2 flat Brian said we aren't necessarily accepting the design presented tonight. Sarah said it could be a sloped roof with further refinement. The board agreed that the sloped roof needs refinement. Sarah said she is comfortable with looking at the roof at final because Council and P &Z will look at the project and know that the roofs and massing are still being refined and that includes the porch. I-IPC will review everything at final. Sara asked if P &Z should be looking at the re- design. Sarah said HPC should see the design not P &Z otherwise it will be confusing. Jamie said she is in favor of 11 units and we just need to develop the parking. Jason said he understands the time constraint but every time a project comes back it gets massaged and improved. I feel we need one more meeting. MOTION: Ann moved to approve resolution #4 as written with the following changes. Roof to be restudied after the project goes to P &Z and Council for approval at final. Parking: The applicant will continue to work with the city to find a solution to provide the 3 additional required parking spaces. Sara said the parking requirement needs to be nailed down on this property due to growth management etc. 8 P44 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 23.2011 Sarah said it sounds like we are approving 8 onsite - parking spots and three off -site. Jason said you aren't going to put them in the parking garage and we are avoiding the decision and we need another meeting to make sure all our recommendation are clear for P &Z and Council. Peter said there are places in town that parking is an issue and places in town where it is not an issue. Ann said her motion regarding the parking is per the code, if you have 11 units you have 11 spaces and if you have 8 units you have 8 spaces. That is the motion. Brian and Ann said the requirement for parking says on or off -site. Sara clarified to meet the requirement you have to have one space per unit on -site and it has to be the dimensional standard. Nora said if we pass this, it's muddy and we should have a resolution with total approval. Peter said by building this affordable housing we are reducing the number of trips in and out the S curves. Motion died for lack of a second. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve resolution #4 for 518 W. Main as stated in staff's memo with the following changes: 1. (a) A sloped roof is approved for the new development with further refinement and approval at final. (both buildings) 4. Parking Waiver — The three additional required on -site parking spaces be provided off-site in a dedicated parking spot or other alternatives, one of which may be cash -in -lieu payment for the 3 spaces. The parking for the total project will meet code either on -site or off -site, one per unit and to be reviewed and approved at final. Clarification: Brian said we need 11 spaces mitigated for. Sara said the mitigation in the code is $30,000 for each space. 9 P45 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 23, 2011 Sarah said she would rather have people have the ability to park their car instead of the cash -in -lieu. Sara said the code does recognize these situations and it says it is $30,000 per space of mitigation and it goes toward the big bucket that the City, RFTA and other groups decide to disperse. Peter said he is not opposed to paying the cash -in -lieu and we will hope that the best thing happens with those dollars and Council can make that decision. Peter said if it comes up with a solution can it be amended at final? Jim said you are approving 8 spots on -site and waiving any additional requirement but recommending that the applicant explore other alternatives to the three off -site. At final you could accept the alternative. Sarah said he can come back and say he exhausted the solutions and can pay the cash -in -lieu or he can say he found three spots or he could say he found an alternative solution. Jay said we have the authority to waive it or accept the cash -in -lieu but we can't force him to come in with a solution. If there is no alternative he can pay the cash -in -lieu. Sarah said we want the door open for an alternate solution for the three spots and if he can't do that then there needs to be the cash -in -lieu. MOTION second by Jamie. Vote: Jamie, yes; Brian, yes; Sarah, yes; Jay, yes; Ann, no; Nora, no; Jason, no. Motion carried 4 -3. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. Meeti adjourned at 7:45 p.m. ..-i ..i 10 EXHIBIT--- The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the applicant has done a good job fitting a relatively large and community oriented program on the site. The restoration of the Victorian will make a great contribution to Main Street, and it will be one of the few miner's cottages in Aspen preserved with no significant addition made to it. The bullets below list the areas for restudy identified in the memo. The applicant may bring revisions to the HPC meeting. Some issues may be appropriately assigned to Staff and Project Monitor following Final approval. ID RAW ING # 1' • Pull the sidewalk at the center of the property away from the southeast corner of Building 2, to provide privacy to Unit 3 and to allow for grass or plantings to surround the base of the building at this very visible comer. 'DRAWING # 1 I • Extend grass or plantings slightly further back along the west side of Building 2 before the utilitarian gravel begins. 'REMOVED' • Clarify the mature height of the Cotoneaster shrubs proposed at the front of the property. 'SEE PHOTO '• Provide a specific design for the wood fence that will be installed along the east lot line. 1DRAWING # 21' Provide south, east and north elevations showing all three structures proposed for the site in context with each other. 'VERIFIED I. Verified that none of the original exterior siding, windows or doors remain. 'DRAWING # 3I• The doors on the Victorian must be painted, not stained. (DRAWING # 3 1. Redesign the front porch on the Victorian to slightly overframe the west facing gable roof. (DRAWING # 41. Provide transoms over the front doors on the Victorian. (DRAWING # 41. Revise the west elevation of the Victorian to re -use the historic window openings. 'DRAWING # 41• Select wood shingles or asphalt shingles for the roof on the Victorian. Provide a sample. !DRAWING # 5'' Create a flat soffit on the front porch of Building 2. Design a squared post, not a turned post. (DRAWI # 51. Make the ground floor windows and the upper floor windows in the south facing gable end of Building 2 the same height from sill to header. 'DRAWING # 5'. Pull all windows in the clapboard sided portion of Building 2 away from the corner boards. DRAWING # 5/6 i All exterior doors on Buildings 2 and 3 should be '/2 light doors or two panel doors. 'DRAWING # 5/61 Design shed roofed canopies over the side entry doors on Buildings 2 and 3. 'DRAWING # 6 • Create more symmetry in the placement of the south facing windows on Building 3. RECESSED • Provide cut sheets for any exterior lights. PAGE # 7 • SEE SAMPLES 1 Provide cut sheets for doors and windows on the Victorian. Provide actual material samples for the all proposed materials (i.e. roof, siding, masonry.) dollIMIN ::."--- - .--;-:- - - :::';' --- • - •:z - :- •,• .,-:•....,:, 4 i • . 1 . .amillim.,.!...../ ' ' ' ' . . . , IMO . • 1 , 1 , I ' • ' — 4 4 - MOM . t . 414111 a . a . . , — . ••— ', s. . . -' v i, 4 1 / .. • —.... . . t :. • .1 ,. . ,— 1. 0 - 0 . .4 : ' • . _ : . i :.,- 0 ° • . 4 ," _ . i .. . V ' .... -217 4k, -.4. At- ,- t -,' 111111tal „,.:,..:::,:..:sox. 411 • .. • . . . . .. , . L 0 . s ,..,.. .. _.„ ... ..t 1 . ' — . _ ... . .. . . ' . MIEN , . • . . , • . ,. . • . . . • . . . . . 4-1'..-4... • — • ' ,.,. 51.„..0, 1,-„,,,, - _ • MAIN STREET w z a_ Q 1 1 i 1 i 5:01 (_) Q z i 1 :_ - 11 Igil / k _a 1 tr �A co- \ ism: I■wa■rSimm MIIN :Nth NW MIIN: 3 * 4 * iAih '11111 111116 .. -4 * + * * li tilli k.... .- ' * .9 -4 * 4 . ,,„„ illorisiorsocc ...... cp-o 4 i 1 + + + W + + • ' �� + G. + + + U + + • + + + + + ,. + N Q y y + �, :., + + j 1, o + + + + ▪ : MII1111 iriI1 1 H'n + - �': J O efT I 4 + .II .I , � + + ; ►i[ . , I _ -+ + + ▪ �i , 4 Ir I��iiiMllil Iuiii lIlI + : � + I + 1 1 IIIIIIIImR111 ,il, ' ,.,, + I T rte— I ; 11 . _ gsk II 3 - 4. i _ __ + ++ . II - Tr^ I I 1I I + ? 11 L 1 Il + It 1 R IU1u �ulmu unllnnilnl1111111iu imsnuiii i ( v + + 1 ' 1 , _ �_ F -IF-�� 11 + 1 I Q V) laJ _1 4.3 + 1 I _ + i IX L.1 + I . 1 - .7_ I z LJ a v + i ' _ + E OM . ON W �s y ■ Z • + 1 1 11 I . _ .a =.1{ I �..: F 0 (24 CVX 0 I-7 z . + + * + + + + + ..s.. ice. G r mo! ■� /1 Y J at + * + J 3 + 9 9 + 9 9 + 3 �= N Ilb (2) w¢ + + +Z�+ + + + + + + + + 1 ▪ + a off N, + + + i :! - .1. , �-a 1" J + 9 .— • + + + 2.: _. MMI �. o + .'";i0 `% iI INA f Z • ]1 1 + + ~ CI t' ° + IIil M l'A.= I — , + rill! + . ?= mI0MIMIa,DM,n 1111111 + —: 11111 il J + ,I, + ai f 1 . N IhL,. • 1! 1 ' W -- , , Z . 1limn � � 1 _ _ r IX p 2,i jj I ii �s I� L..., 1 gIIIIIIIII 1 L.Limim a¢ 'I" i i' 1 'i a i nlsummllun•unliiiiiiii % ti i . 1 ; N I 1 1 in t J LOT LINE 75' 1 -J w r 6 J CE 'aa 0 11111 110 UU �1:: ' liiIiiIiiiiiiIIIIIIIIIIII . ' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII , ❑� o i nu ounnunuu N I I ' ; ' a I z _ W F i J __, W ■■ ■ C OO L�J \ I 1 IIIIIIII el IIIIIIIIIIIIIII , , ''''444'45!....". 1 (� IIIII I i 0 04' ■ ■'i'i' i 'I I I IIIIIII 1 I I,I ll'I'I'lllil'll �'�'�' _ , 11,,11,11,1,1,1,1, , I , I , 1 1 111111 _ i''i''ii'i' 'i'i'i �� (-NI 1_ I I 11 1111 1 111 � 1111111111 1111111 $i'''i''i'i'i'i'i'i i'i'i' pe;,:.:1,,,,:,:.:.:„.":00:. L., O IIII tt I t - 1111111 �t I ! _ 11 ----= - i''''''''''' ''' ''''''''' "' Z Q La— ''• r... �_i!i!i!i i!i!i!, U 4 1: EY z 1 ■ a N <41 4; j !' 1 111 ::,:::: W i_ 1 _ !'! 1 � 121 I- �1 1 ) ii,.. 1 mmii , I ,.. ._ c. , . , J „ J CI CI • Q ` W 1 • L17 W II " I I W - '''''' "'''' "''44444 " ' '' 444' 4444444' 44' " 444 } ; Q [Z,. 1 111 i hi 0 i 01111 II I ' 4444'di44 Il i iii'i'i'i'i'i4i'i' ii ' ''''''''''''''''' ''" ' '''''''' '' 44444444 11 44 444a'�' 4�' , +44',., 4'dd�4'i4 i!�,i44'i44 4444' d,44�,l.,�.i ',i,i. ;l '; 1'1'111'1' 'I'I�I;1 , I II 1::::::111:1::, 1 i'i'ii'ihi'..,. I 1 111 1111 4 11 119'1'1' 111111111111111111 1 1111111111111111 �iiil�iiiii Iii IIII �dd,I.41,1A,1,IddJAAJ.i. I 11111111111111111 „ • i i o r u ' l i 1 1 iii IWW WuuluIHHIII!!�U 1I . 111111 1 1 NummRtion I q 1 1 1 1 1 . ra3W ini imi i1111 11 111 11.1 1 ›EW W w 1- & J �� z Q rW A S � y S l7J & " I 3g J it wu>oW Jy �W 1! NW < J NH i19 V Wj Z Z N 3 .\a.r 3 °o o x °a LnL/ ( H � }C Z p�‘xxD X N3 W N Q O Z w VI ~ N N G Z W Z I__1__ J l w 3 Z r O H I- 3 .. W -. mw -}�.. W = W 11 H a Z W ��» Arlf w y Z O 1 : 5bti r Sy2 I J wU WA ' '` y<N W _ a. 1:4 \ h� a y ai P21 I- a �iyy-I� h yy i NA r-w K ON H F �I D e Q oe ca E~ r 3y ,ey H A a r= o � 3 cw z � o3Q a a . Q LL- Z .�y?� a 0) . J a_ a 3 I a r z osexo Z I � Q .W Ni WA a R . V1?H g � N U W �Q I FS I Aa 3 "_ N , Z O�U W F'_' Z” } N 1_I , X A Q . ., r �>],� F 7� y U ' w re � a z 1{ k+1 J J W XrZ~ N a {� Wa xa3Zy� KOC27v�i 7 WCQ Z WV a ` Z X w W 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a N 1 1 M { J 3 W Q w w I.L "t A y . � in .., 1 r 1 p 11 1 1 • • - IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1 1 1 i•iu iiu— iTini= i � 1 �I'.II F- 1-_ - - H W Z es. 'Mims. Z al e Z > - z D .11111111111111111 I _ F- 3 412 Q Q WI X� v N li a li !: Z CIE Z o ° " I■ W �� 11111111111111111111 W J it .11II III ■ ■I II w W II z z , . IpIIIIIIIIIIII ,l IjfIl1 o cL ❑ Ill 1 I' 1111111115111111111 1 .f. L_ , I. ❑ Ix J H 1 ',�� ''i numm�annm W o ,1 it 111111 ■ -- — ~ ;a Q V) /4 i___ V) ►� W 1� W J 11 W II 11111i ;i ii!. lil a 111— IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1! 9 MI Z 1— I ' I Q Q I iIIIIII I `i 11; Q W 5 NI Q ! ILIUIf IF Q J � % 1 I . I . iI'I ;; al CO 4T li { iHflHHH h11 II W in l' I 14 I _ _ , W "II JF- Ce Q Z Q r-i Q , . Z Z Oa0 ZO CCN. -i W A RAar > j A y 3 U ° W 2 Y P W3 J Q -cu i . 1 1 - o- III IIOI1IN II f[I1 ! i .. - I' f _ IIIIIIII g L I d ' 1 ------ P 1 I I I :' 11111111 ! 1 -_ 1N ! 111111 -= 1 ■1 [ 1 11 1 -- �� 1111111 - — oat z ii ■� a I _ - II 1111111 1 Li_ $t ■•11 1 _Q�1� _ 1 L W I 1;i W ■ I ■ • l � - fib, Z ' ' 1 3 i ■ - — w T 1 11 , � \ IIW U II�� III � 1 1 11111111 — 1 1 I _ W ' ■ 1 1 ,II Ii_—I— i 1 W 1 ■■ IIIow -- 1 i i 1 � \ - -- • •1 11 I I E i VI (/� > I I� 1 ■ - 11111111 z� I II 1-1 ■__. 1 O Illlliiii ii1` 1111 I m ME, 1■ 1 ■ ©I Mail - CLI ° - -i 1 I_ ` I 111111 m mom —.� ill 1 I II 1 p CO z ii �i si I 'ufc �IIII i 1 ■■ ■■ :121 It•1 ,��> III ■ 0 Ii —I lir III I 1 ■. 11 • lralmliamilliiii 1 ilg mum o • ICI .Ell'il 5 q1 I imiiimvilli 11■■■ ■■■■■■ ■ 1\ 1 �. \IIIIIIIII TIIHhuIIIIII ir CM .�� z W 4 d - -- z o I J ° �■ r-, W rZ-� ( ~ q '- ce¢Q �� Li CL 3 PI ° °° c Z n 3 % I I ❑ i 10 Fr ' F; 1* 4.r...1.. - 1 1 •..,.,:, LLI 1 _:::: . g i._.71 ...... rmil•:- d 0 ■ .„.. loll . / LLI J r2ci 11 F- I a N rLi It F Ft o W c.... W 0_ 12 Q __ , cC 4 n P4 I : , ' ID I :=_-a- I�1 J III __ I fnliu 1 A — _ — [[:r_ — ,., _.„ III - —_ —_ —_ Lii pm —, o .., ), o 1-- , : 41.13.1 _ 1 --___-___:: I 1 _ _ 4 , 5 -Ca lillll 411 . M L — — — IL :'IUIIIIIL. In P n n N ). 1, f_ , V W V Z V O °U _ '. LiZr t�1- q N li!l I • W Z °" Jt,+ V1W x ° Z 2Q3 Y Li vl" , K i ""a At°vo WqY . Zy I=I y° �. N _1 ° ° H • x 3 1..: , _ 'r: ca • L., }' . # + #.ctr' /' Nr 1&2 Panel Doors r III _. CDM1010 RM Plank ' ' 1 an• CDM1010 RTP CDM1010 CDM1010 TRA Plank CDM1010 TRA mahogany IDOOR OF CHOICE i _____----, / / CDM1022 CDM1022 CDM1022RTP CDM1022RTPPIank CDM1022 Plank CDM1022TRAPlank cherry �� , 1 / 1 { \ PAGE #7 { PN i J r \ CDM1022TRA CDM1022TRA CDM1021 knotty PC maple RM= raised molding RTP= radius top panel TRA =tap rail arch 4 eirb P47 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 316 E. Hopkins, Minor Development- Public Hearing DATE: November 16, 2011 SUMMARY: The applicant proposes minor alterations to 316 Steakhouse (formerly Lulu Wilson's.) The restaurant is housed in a historic landmark miner's cottage, within the Commercial Core Historic District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve work proposed for the rear courtyard, but not approve a canopy at the front of the property. APPLICANT: Craig Cordts - Pearce, represented by Amos Underwood. PARCEL ID: 2737 - 073 -29 -008. ADDRESS: 316 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lot 0, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen.. ZONING: CC, Commercial Core. MINOR DEVELOPMENT The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316. Staff finding: The relevant guidelines from "The City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines are listed on Exhibit A. 1 P48 The proposal is to maintain a canopy that has been erected to cover the front walkway entering the restaurant. In addition, a restaurant seating area at the back of the site is to be improved with a new fence, trellis, roof over an existing staircase to the basement, and better enclosure of trash and recycling. Regarding the canopy, the front of the property is considered "Public Amenity" space. Each downtown parcel is required to provide 25% of the lot area as an unenclosed area which is open to the sky, or pay a cash -in -lieu fee towards equally valuable improvements in the neighborhood. This property does not meet the 25% measurement due to pre- existing conditions. Temporary and seasonal coverings, such as umbrellas and retractable canopies are permitted, but structures that are installed year round would require special approval to reduce the Pedestrian Amenity. HPC may only reduce the requirement for historic landmark properties if one of the following applies: a. When the Historic Preservation Commission approves the on -site relocation of an historic landmark such that the amount of on -site public space is reduced below that required by this Chapter. b. When the manner in which an historic landmark building was originally developed reduces the amount of on -site public amenity required by this Chapter. c. When the redevelopment or expansion of an historic landmark constitutes an exemplary preservation effort deserving of an incentive or reward. Staff finds that the canopy interferes with the architecture and visibility of the historic building and does not recommend reduction of the Public Amenity requirement. The guidelines below are not met. 6.6 A street facing amenity space shall meet all of the following requirements: • Abut the public sidewalk • Be level with the sidewalk • Be open to the sky • Be directly accessible to the public • Be paved or otherwise landscaped 6.49 Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for all new structures. • An airlock entry that projects forward of the primary facade at the sidewalk edge is inappropriate. • Adding temporary entries during the winter season detracts from the character of the historic district. • Using a temporary vinyl or fabric "airlock" to provide protection from winter weather is not permitted. 2 P49 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. ❑ A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. ❑ An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. ❑ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. ❑ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. ❑ For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. Staff recommends that HPC require the canopy to be removed. This property already has an old approval in place to enclose the front porch with roll down canvas sides during the winter. This is of great value to keeping the restaurant patrons protected from cold air coming into the entry, but arguably diminishes the historic character of the open porch on a seasonal basis. The canopy further obscures the front porch. With regard to the proposed trellis, stair cover and new fence in the back of the site, staff finds the proposal meets the design guidelines and improves the usability of this part of the property. No historic materials are affected and the new construction will not be visible from the street. Staff recommends approval of this part of the project. More detail on the exact design for the fence is needed, along with a sample of the roof material for the structure over the stairs. The application indicates either shingles or standing seam metal. The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the proposal for the rear courtyard. Exhibits: Resolution # , Series of 2011 A. Relevant HPC design guidelines B. Application 3 P50 Exhibit A: Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for 316 E. Hopkins, Minor Development 1.2 A new replacement fence should use materials that appear similar to that of the original. ❑ Any fence which is visible from a public right -of -way must be built of wood or wrought iron. Wire fences also may be considered. ❑ A wood picket fence is an appropriate replacement in most locations. A simple wire or metal fence, similar to traditional "wrought iron," also may be considered. ❑ Chain link is prohibited and solid "stockade" fences are only allowed in side and rear yards. 1.3 A new replacement fence should have a "transparent" quality allowing views into the yard from the street. ❑ A fence that defines a front yard is usually low to the ground and "transparent" in nature. ❑ On residential properties, a fence which is located forward of the front building facade may not be taller than 42" from natural grade. (For additional information, see the City of Aspen's "Residential Design Standards ") ❑ A privacy fence may be used in back yards and along alleys, but not forward of the front facade of a building. ❑ Note that using no fencing at all is often the best approach. ❑ Contemporary interpretations of traditional fences should be compatible with the historic context. 1.4 New fence components should be similar in scale with those seen traditionally. ❑ Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment. 1.6 Replacement or new fencing between side yards and along the alley should be compatible with the historic context. ❑ A side yard fence is usually taller than its front yard counterpart. It also is less transparent. A side yard fence may reach heights taller than front yard fences (up to six feet), but should incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible visual impacts. ❑ Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give the appearance of a solid plank fence when seen head on. ❑ Also consider using lattice, or other transparent detailing, on the upper portions of the fence. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. ❑ A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. ❑ An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. ❑ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. ❑ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 4 P51 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. ❑ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. ❑ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.5 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street. ❑ Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at approximately the same height. An addition should not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. ❑ Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. o Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. ❑ Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. ❑ Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. o Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. • o For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. ❑ The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. 14.14 Minimize the visual impacts of service areas as seen from the street. ❑ When it is feasible, screen service areas from view, especially those associated with commercial and multifamily developments. ❑ This includes locations for trash containers and loading docks. ❑ Service areas should be accessed off of the alley, if one exists. 5 P52 From the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines 6.6 A street facing amenity space shall meet all of the following requirements: • Abut the public sidewalk • Be level with the sidewalk • Be open to the sky • Be directly accessible to the public • Be paved or otherwise landscaped 6.49 Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for all new structures. • An airlock entry that projects forward of the primary facade at the sidewalk edge is inappropriate. • Adding temporary entries during the winter season detracts from the character of the historic district. • Using a temporary vinyl or fabric "airlock" to provide protection from winter weather is not permitted. 6 P53 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMENT FOR 316 E. HOPKINS AVENUE, LOT 0, BLOCK 80, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION #_, SERIES OF 2011 PARCEL ID: 2737 - 073 -29 -008 WHEREAS, the applicant, Craig Cordts - Pearce, represented by Amos Underwood, has requested Minor Development approval for improvements to the areas in front of and behind the historic miner's cottage located at 316 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lot 0, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is a designated landmark; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Minor Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.0 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated November 16, 2011, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines were not met for a canopy proposed at the front of the site, but were met for improvements proposed at the back of the site; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 16, 2011, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the applicable review standards and approved the application by a vote of _ to _, with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves Minor Development for the property located at 316 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lot 0, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, with the following conditions: 1. Only the work at the back of the site is approved. 2. Further detail on the design of the new fence must be reviewed and approved by Staff and Monitor. 3. A sample of the proposed roofing material for the stair over the stairway to the basement must be reviewed and approved by Staff and Monitor. HPC Resolution No. , Series of 2011 Page 1 of 2 P54 APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its special meeting on the 16 day of November, 2011. Ann Mullins, Vice Chair Approved as to Form: Jim True, Special Counsel ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk HPC Resolution No. , Series of 2011 Page 2 of 2 D o Sin S1NdN31 lld SIN;N31 ll A, o D %) '4 r D m r r'ix �D M < H M r 1 - D - I I , U1 D , - rt B B t r D 1T1 a rB -1 B -r 3 -t - - D < n n n_ n n n n n MI M M iti - ('l 3 M M M M MI --.1 QN I 1 D _ _ \ i t i r � Ul < C 4 w Ill '_ 3D_ V" J �1 Z I 1 1 I I I ��• I 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1 v, 0 Z \ ��p \ rn �Cl �� E E ti., N 4sii l lt/ \ \ \ \ \ \�� \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ c E X r a td �� T E E cri CO I F/3NV 3�1�J1 H del] Z 1 1 [ _ m F ° ° m E F F 0 O 4 4 r 0 Z 4 N' Z73 E E C 4 ■ z D 1-1 E ■ z Z E E M N C E ■ z r E E l y - � � it E ti E E E E E E E E E E F E F 1-- \' z \ E E E E E E E E E F E E E � I • O x --, \ E F E F E E E E E E E E Iv 1 j E E E E E E E E E E F E EC _ CD a t7 I E F F E �'� E E E E E Z MI y _c I Q I I 3 Z D -� E 6 6 4 E E E E E GI O E X / £ D = � • E E E E F E E E E E E E C n O ed < _ . D OD \ y � f E D D I V) 1=1 H Z c \ E F E D � "V^ 0 Z�-1 E E V J fzI �zC J \ E EC r 4t _1 n \ � E M N . C \ F E E D I < Z I -I 1-r1 z E I- J it 4 E £ E E C I E td C T1 n TTI E E r 0 0 p F E ' E E d _i (n 0_ E G1 7) 73 7) E E r- Z C n Z E E '° fTi E < z E E v) 0 E z Z •E C x E < n E E I E F° 73 E E- D E - = E ^ rn 1 F E E 4 - E < p 4 0 C '� E E CJ E � I G T D C.., E E E E E E r- Iv F E E E 4- 4- i E E Z O E I E F E E E 4 E F 4 E E E E F , t r E F E E E I E E E E E E I E E E E F E E v E E E E C E E E E E E E E E E E E E E \ \`' E E E E E F E E E E z E E F E E F E F E F E E E E E 4 E E E E E E 4 E E 4 4 E N it 4 F E E E E E E E E E F F E E E E E E E E E E F E E E E E E E W E E E E E E E E E E �� E n E E E E Cl E o ff_ S _ Nb N31 ld \O \ \ \� � ` �ae: \\ � . � �• \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \\\O\ \� \ \\ . . , \ \ \ \ \\Q\ • 1Nd N 3 - 1 - 1V s \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\� \ \ \ \�\ ' WIIIM 1111PAIMP' .' =II cox r :x 4 -1 N N m y 0 E E E F E E E E E E E E E E E E E F E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E F E E E § F E E E E E F E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E F E E E F E E E E E E E E E E 1 E E E E E F F F E F E F F F E E F E E E E E F F F E F E F E F F E F TA Ul - 0 n f i in I co D H' H D 71 t • Gl r,� 3 (/l D Z 7 (� Z7 M n Z d ' i ,. G I. , I t''' . Iliar, 71 ' . 4 - --I ' I it r'''''' -- - I> _ 1 a ■ / �. • y.' ` • . Tr II II , . II 1 i I ... _. ii • : I Illlll I 1 �' �,: I ] , ut ` I �� • 4 I JIr ,„ . - '' f • T CO D I I I I I I CHZ737J N Z 11 t 1 1 1 1 MZ� -03 M -0M Z i m Z�X �z Df'ICCZ�I�I 1 Fri D m z = d z £ z£ . " cv) D£ r�rlr£ D _I n m p - 0 N 7C M r p rn p X M N C` . M -I „ Z D G - C£ 71 C M M D A r DX p �Z -< MZD _1 C7 m 7° -1 v) Z-1 nD(4 -tom al =-I 3pCt7 r N , C - 70 �7�J ZC� k7 0 = Z � DX DO C nX fT mz 70 CZ 0/Z )Q° C GI _.1 ZODrr O� Z p rim =D f'l'0 pD I j � z m -1 l /, D r -t C t7 r£ Z� s� v) D ( Z — 0 ty ( _-r z £ o £ d c� xi ty i O D£ 0 I -' � �d M M7 -1 I—I n- ( n £ z pCi -70 0 �iC1� td / D z �� M 1 - I D dw pC Z£ _( rr_ (O ' d 3 zc» z -1 _ 1 �r _1 £ F—� d Z U0D d F D � 0 � tJ 1 D c' m M 3 rzd �� I- -o D £ d 3 D D-- Z Z =zJ D O _ C i 1-1 0❑ZD£) ''r' ! � y � r- -1 �� ; 1 =Cnm o ° _ D £ d `' 2> -< - - I -I MZ 7C xi n F �_ �£dti I�' r l Z I gym Ipp t_, _1 Z M v) 1— � T z o £ r x TIZ £ ft) X p (4 v) ry N X O� z£ N £" Q` Dxiz m F d X 0d n Z -o L-) £ c 7 m o p -1� D� ty ti £ Z Z fC7 - 'l Z r 1 / (4 3 � p � 0 7 17 C m7� 3> 3> iilrn I i I m m D M Z £ £ ND HrX mp • zcii �o £r z CO D=zr Dp o p 2D(� z- t rl - I £ D m 7 7 £Z M �z� ClM tr CC £ r M 3 V) G1 3 d M -I D 71 I— 7= _ p 7 zz j -1 D H ~� �"0_1 ZZ` O (7Nn -1 m 0�(A -1 0 -Iz d �r1� t ,.. I Z D CZ - rn 70273 70 ti Ai fTl r Z1 v�c��p- I1I I1 M r D Z -I�o „ 11 I I I I I I_ 111 I I £��0 r 1 �--� ( o C�-tz - _1 0 zC-, - � mm _1 d( t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • i 1 II II W -u, .. 1t ...,,, . I,. ) . 11 w '/,/ 11 1 11 bd 11 1 " D 11 2 0 1 r°tli r v, A 1 A CJ -t ' 3 0 11 0 a a 11 3 1--1 Z a 11 a CO 11 I i —11- 3' - 4 ' L „ ■ ■■ m . -11- .■ ■ ■■ Ul F r i li ■ _ —11— ii iii °\° �1 i 8 0 ii ■ —1 v° : °i - ii i i M=41 7 ., ■■ ■r I ' l r �11� � IC� 1a 1 J:2> 11 1 11 11 o H 11 --I 7 11 11 1 1 d 77 — __ \- 1 I �I r I 1 1� \I I - - _ , 1 �I \- - 1 I 1 �_ -T ( II , 11 UJ — - _ .. I '1 Di l i ' I 1 , . 1 MI 1 I 1' 0 3' -0 1 1 11 II Z _ 1 � m X 11 o ° 1 I 1 - -- - I' I ° ' ' \ — I s - m i 11 i i —ri — I 1 = I W L h yy II II, c�l 1i Aj 11 o libi II ,1 - 1 I 1 N O O �r I� w OO 1 m X \ I II �11—� I— z z —1 m i. d 8 3' - 8 11 1 A Q v o \ \ E A< 4) = A I m m L. ■ 1 13' -2' II # # 13' -2' 27' -3 5/8' .E N# a ■ A m D Vl L.) . , 1 co 2 : Z N N •. - A 0 A A A A A ? a Pi N N r. m N ' 2 V N. 1I N 'h ■ jr r tit m c n c m m Mt w 0 m CT CO W 25' -9' CIA.. ICO IIor mom - II / n . u: r w 0 - �■■ II m H ,: u m Z 0 3 ri Adl I / I 11 iN • ■ to rn O O , �.. ■■ . ■ ■ ■■i °a n V) _...- ....�f D l/ l i■■■■ vvi m c Fri Ir��__�'� :iii -� n'�iii ii I-. iiUi :iii c D c) IIu:G :iii N. i .z..■ ••••1 t MI w o Q O O ^�' NMI v m 1 j a o oo z 00 / a g . :1 I— 1 1 1 w --- .. _ 9. o N ° o h „, t y � � I 1 11 -0 t1E=' - 3 '-0 •' -4 1/2 • /� 2� V 1 0 1 ■ ■ ■I/ ICI JI tcl ° . m ■ ■.I D 11 \ 0 xi m na -: NAM'. liq 00 1 ..�� II J 1 • Egli lam+ ■ u■ z i ii i-- w - ■. �■■ 1 � 1 :■,,■■■ . ■■■ I 0 i ia■■■ rim. wow I IMAM I MIN rii N II:o e i I-1 Z III rg 0 0 X / '11 d A '1 CIL MINIM L m 77 xi o a n r Nn D �y c1 0 < m 1I1 N = �- m 14'-10 1/2 � 24' 6' I/ N A () D A m C y 0 A A A, td ”' bl 0 ,1 _ N N UNI D N z �. 7'7 I I IA a 'CA 3 m A v m x) v 4. 4. Z yr 0 co °� -1 El m in in in — O 7J I- 1> mN�- Z N N fl !F il( /4 1-5'-3' {{ 15' -9 1/4' + mil' -0 1/4' 10' 3 3/4' {{ 10' -4 1/2' C t It � I II ■ rn CO N o 1 o II N il 1 0 0 0 in 73 9 tz P4 1 m v m i r) o I � A , Ji: :ii ' -9 3/4' ME 11111:-. I ■■ ■r - Q - - -- 2 » : 44.1 ro ■ ■' :: 1111111111111 D �E:e:« 1 = 6 P w I. / \ / _ Z 00 I a z 7. O p 1 m o LIP \ M. mmi m N x I D U : : y c. 7 3'-1 3/4' { G 1' -0 3' -5 :MIT V l CD I W li w 0 .. A O A 77 IF J o �!:i_::::,: Z :II '= . III ■ N It i 11111 El cl I 0 MI l ira - - ■o� r r -- CO r W l II i : A / - II II 0 � 2::. I D � E9 ra .. IC ■ P ' 4• • 2 * Z CO $ — 7 f'1 WI 4 - 1 IV:� i 3 . — 0 I 1 I 1 n 0' 1 0 ac uv:i ~� — o CO :: , -.— 7 m 0 I a z W \ \ r, 1 1 gm :�.i■•...r , ri \ N o �J / c ° ` r A a• •• 0 1/ 0 I 1 I 4.13' l r - -o - 1012 • � I I O 13 ra - I r9. I I I I I� i 1 4.1012 • p � 3'1 I 2 I a■3412 V I III I, I ` I 1 1 I I I' I I I I I 07' I ! I I 111 1 1 9' -11 1/2' 14' -10 1/2' 1 _ V) I-4 c ,0 CO ■1 " d D N m P1 o 0 A T1 N r I UI r o (a W w In lJ . Q ' 1 W ° ° 4 v iC7 m '' r A a o A T01 D N V V "4 ' T C1 to to In N V V A W o V V v • m N U N j, 31 if 11 • • �, G1 ro O /Z7 e 0 Q 0 n T1 O v C A un Z ul -13 -'- and 1 1. D A T 1 Z r 0 0 I I 7j� - li _ ro m is a U r w �J O :i m 1_. SO ~�'} • ( W A P - 2 - 6 12' - 1' CO # 1. J L a �_ I la I. 1 o m • r•IN MM rani xi = i�� iiii�iii a C : :, 1 1l� 1' � ■ • ■ ■ ■N ■■ 3:. N LL- I ■I■- �L.Ilrrla.lr� Ip'.N■ • 1 ■illiiIi iiiiiiiIiIIII C� r■i D - 11.1 � o . 111i eo I—I r� r- N / m � 0 D n A 16 / \ 1 ..., 27' -3 5/8' D 0 Al CO I_, I I I (/1 I—' I I � J I '' 0 12' -1' t ■ ■ I \ n�■ I■■■ w T Al o co o cy A F ° ZI L.) r r ■e� 3 0 0 3 m m � '■� �� w a z � Er, z — — 1 o— C xi .� to m n ' ;WM /4'-8 1/2' •'-0 r� 1' -0 1/2 M h. o m co l '� / II ro / _ y IN . ry x .n. __,... _n: ...---- f , „:. 1- _ , — � Z a C m u n m x n x IN x a a . T N V n UI T) ' - b 1 O W 0 -r1 Z N " -ri Z a m 'h A d [ A r LI _ CI 7 I CI Ti "0 ON cA O o � m N N .. (] 0 1:n • �O A O iii N 4) 316 E HOPKINS 111 RECEIVED = OCT 2 0 2011 CITY OF ASPEN STEAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HOUSE jr ps • . N so Y � CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS - MINOR HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT OCTOBER 18 2011 To: Amy Guthrie From: Craig Cordts- Pearce Date: October 18, 2011 Re: 316 East Hopkins — Steakhouse 316 Dear Amy Guthrie, My name is Craig Cordts- Pearce of 520 E. Durant Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611. I can be reached at 970.319.0060 or any questions may also be directed to Amos Underwood of the pbr workshop - 970.274.0481. Thank you for your assistance in moving this project forward. The project street address is: 316 East Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611. The legal description is: Subdivision: CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Block: 80 Lot: 0 The Parcel ID: 273707329008 This proposal includes the addition of a new roof structure located to the North of the Historic Resource. The new ridge line of the proposed roof structure will run North to South at approximately two (2) feet below the existing ridge line of the Historic Resource. The purpose of this addition is to cover the existing exterior staircase and trash /utility area. Currently all deliveries are made in this area and winter conditions make usage hazardous. The proposed roof will have the same pitch as the historic resource and be covered with a metal standing seam roof or composite shingle. Attached to the Eastern eave of the new roof is a proposed pergola system (8' -6" to bottom of beam) that will have a grid type pattern, perpendicular and parallel to the property lines. Pergola members will range in size 12"-14" for big beams, and 4"-6" for small members. This pergola will cover half of the existing outside patio area. The existing fence line that runs along the East property ling in the Alley half of the parcel is currently located outside the property lines. The applicant would like to demolish the existing fence and relocate a new one inside the property lines of approximately the same height and dimension. Lastly the project includes the re- installment of the entry awning on the South side of the property line. The awning footprint is approximately 5'0" wide by 8' -0" long. The purpose of this awning is to cover the existing accessible ramp into the restaurant, protecting this travel path from climatic conditions. Applicant has met with HPC advisors. No GMQS is needed. A certificate of Appropriateness- Minor Historic Development is requested. Respectfully submi , Craig or is Pea e 316 East Hopkins, LP 5525 E. Calle Ventura Phoenix AZ 85018 Tel. N80) 225 8986 Fax (60 2/ 840 3 701 Email: I1'a renEvan a.cox. net October 20, 2011 City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street. Third Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Sir or Madam: I am writing as Vice President of the General Partner of 316 East Hopkins, LP, a Colorado limited partnership. to authorize B. Joseph Krabacher and the law firm of Sherman & Howard, L.L.C., and Craig Cordts - Pearce to act as the agent for and representative of 316 East Hopkins, LP in all matters related to and in connection with an application to install a canopy over the rear exit of the building and the waste bin as shown on the attached drawing. Permission is also granted to submit this letter to the Aspen Pitkin Building Department in support of any necessary permits for the work. This authorization is conditioned upon Craig Cordts - Pearce and all persons performing the work having in fact liability insurance for the work, including in a required worker's compensation insurance. The address and phone number of the agents are as follows: B. Joseph Krabacher, Esq. Craig Cordts- Pearce Sherman & lloward, L.L.C. BREXI, LLC 201 North Mill. Suite 201 316 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen Colorado 81611 (970) 925 6300 x 222 (970) 319 0060 Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you. 316 EAST HOPKINS. LP a Colorado limited partnership By: EAST HOPKINS, INC. e " "'`•'` B de By: 13 ]oseph her Vice President 10028. 940 DOC \ 1; CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP The undersigned, an Attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado with Colorado Supreme Court Registration No. 010240 hereby certifies the ownership of the following real property located at 316 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado (the 'Property'). 1. The parcel proposed for development is legally described as follows: LOT 0, BLOCK 80 City and Townsite of Aspen, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Also known as 316 E. Hopkins, Aspen CO 81611 2. The names of all owners of the property are as follows: 316 East Hopkins, L.P., a Colorado limited partnership 3. The Property is subject to a first priority deed of trust in the original principal amount of $1,400,000.00 in favor of Guaranty Bank and Trust Company and recorded as Reception No. 580935, and otherwise there are no mortgages, judgments or liens, other than the lien for 2011 ad valorem real property taxes, payable in 2012. 4. A list of all easements, contracts and agreements affecting the Property is as follows: A. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Page 252 providing as follows: "That no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws ". B. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in License Agreement recorded in Book 662 at Page 968, 969 and 970. C. Terms. conditions. provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1992 by Aspen City Council recorded March 5, 1992 in Book 671 at Page 37. D. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Resolution of the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee recorded December 28, 1992 in Book 698 at Page 777 as Resolution No. 5, Series of 1992. 5. 316 East Hopkins, L.P., acquired title to the Property on August 30, 1995, pursuant to the Deed recorded as Book 792. Page 140 and Reception No. 384881 of the records of Pitkin County, Colorado, and a true and correct copy of the Warranty Deed is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 1 BCS RLl4110145.1 6. The owner 316 East Hopkins, L.P., has the right to for dev • . ent of the Property as the sole and exclusive owner of the Property. Dated: October 19, 2011 ‘- '137losep Attorney at Law 201 N. Mill Street. Suite 201 Aspen CO 81611 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing Certificate of Ownership was acknowledged before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Colorado. by B. Joseph Krabacher, personally known to me to be the person who subscribed the within instrument this 19` day of October. 2011. Witness my hand and seal. My C mmission Expires: - '\\ CNRI ■ 4 1 G yOTARY • l / 4.44jd • _ otary Public OF C s My CaSNlon E n *eto7t r BUS 12E4110445 • 384881 B-792 P -140 08/30/95 10 :23fl PG 1 OF 1 REC DOC N SILVIR DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER 6.00 0.00 BARGAIN AND SALE DEED East Hopkins, Inc., a Colorado corporation, formerly known as 316 E. Hopkins, Inc., a Colorado corporation ( "Grantor "), whose address is 715 W. Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 hereby sells and conveys to 316 East Hopkins, L.P., a Colorado limited partnership, the following real property situate in Pitkin County, Colorado: 0 0 1 Lot 0, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen p Pitkin County, Colorado Al m O also known as street and number: m$� 4 ; 316 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611 lf z together with all its appurtenances and all the estate, right, title, and interest of Grantor. V Dated: Tiny 6, 1gg5 (0 an 0 EAST HOPKINS, INC., a Colorado corporation, f /k /a 316 E. HOPKINS, INC., a Colorado corporation By: Scot■B r er, President XI STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. U COUNTY OF PITKIN LS r /4 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me _tut,- a C by Barringer, a President of East n /k /a 3 6 E. Hopkins, Inc., a Colorado corporation. My commission expires 11 (J ALL / 4 Q g Witness my hand and official seal. 71:101r, Ft -4 n sen rs+n \zmrgn.: a« � Notary Public C � ` 8L1 , 4P � ¢ Zt ` v 0i '+.. .; fp: 11 ‘\` ` STATED .- " 4/28/2011 316 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO 8... Go S ly' maps Save trees. Go green! Download Gooale Maps on your r b oneat google.com /gmm .oU E F;a. 3 /17 s, •• 0 m q f t i r G H 0^d .. W Z` l 2 A O . ]7p e}... L' u 0 y 81 15:`, m E ' ° J 2 0 f aep :,� u% ; m c " Ave s r 1 E_ 44 rn SF Ft o�k. ng a, 82 ,e f1 m lip, r CI et ve ,- E IJ co I i 4P 5. 14 .8 , 1 A S y e . co E i'i7Pk1r h c .t- . 1 . c. t : 11 — rn 6 , t1 i F [ " -- p erg yp t ice >© f1 ;i . Part O o Pe, 4. ,, F u t a rf Ave • `at' et E i'ura nf,yr,E t ; Ea .an c. ic F r -. `- Vicinity Map Aspen Colorado O E W N o ▪ p) 0 ¢ Z i rnc' N n N L � (n o Y j • c c N a 2, ° Y P . w T 2 2 E c Q o) 0 = m nm co g U p) W �p E2�rJ1 o .i v m ca Q 3 ,_ N C] �nrm �� p Q m co @~ N N N N _ 00 N E C L v N N N _ - L, O c rnro m 0 O c - ', O E N > - N _ U , C O. p G1 c O 32 L N U O n n a 1S THIN S E o d a - N L E 1- I- F 1- N g i i_m i - 1 1 I • . w Z ,.,...... _ z. ,....._....,. Q Y 2 Z a. IM IN 9 w ? . w? W$� bo a �_ z 2 o. wm xioo o ? • w , w a il egg u, f a? oQ iiii IS HOJVNOW S = 2 = co 2 = _. a a � o 1 i 6 0 2 2 °� ill A • ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: LuLu Wilson new roof structure w /.• •ola - reinstall awning) Applicant: Craig Cordts -Pearce Location: 316 E. Hopkins Avenue Zone District: er. - Cnnnmrr. i al Core Lot Size: 3,000 s . f . Lot Area: 3,000 s.f. (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area Lot Area may be reduced for area within the high water mark, easements. and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of' Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing 2,900 Proposed No Change Number of residential units: Existing: Proposed: Number of bedrooms. Existing: Proposed. Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing. 1,296 Allowable_ 2: 1 Proposed no change Principal bldg height: Existing. Allowable_ 26' -0" Proposed no change Access. bldg. height: Existing: n/a Allowable. n/a Proposed: On -Site parking: Existing. n/a Required n/a Proposed no change %Site coverage: aiming: Required: nit Proposed: % Open Space. Existing: Required. n/a Proposed. Front Setback: Existing. Required. n/a Proposed: no change Rear Setback: Existing: Required: n/a Proposed: no change Combined F/R: Existing• Required n/a Proposed no change Side Setback • Existing.. Required: n/a Proposed: no change Side Setback. Existing. Required. n/a Proposed. no change Combined Sides: Existing. Required. nia Proposed no change Distance Between Existing n/a Required: n/a Proposed :no change Buildings Existing non - conformities or encroachments_ Existing fence line (north -east property line) currently on neighboring_ perty be__relocated within property lines. Variations requested: Continue existing footprint of Uti1ity/rrash/ Recycle area. CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF ASPEN Iheranatlert'1 TY) and CRAIG CORDTS- PEARCE thereinafter APPLICANT' ACrREF AS FOLLOWS: I . APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application lot 316 East Hopkins Avenue thereinafter, TIII: PROJECT). 2 APPLICANT understands and agrees that the City of Aspen has an adopted fee structure for Land If applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a dcterminatnm of application completeness 3 APPLICANT and CfrY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time lo ascertain the hill extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to therealler permit additional costs to be billed to APPIICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs mac acme following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retammg greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are mooned. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovenng its full costs to process APPLICAN'1 .S application. 4 CITY and APPLICANT further agree that n is tmltracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Historic Preservation Commission. Planting and Zoning Commission andior City Council to enable the Historic Presen•ation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission anS +cr City Council to made legally required findings for project consideration. unless current billings are paid m full prior to decision 5 Therefore. APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CIT Y's waiver of its nght to colkct full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ 2 45.00 wtuch is for all hours of Conmamity Development statT titre, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit. APPLICANT shall pay additional montht billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY Ibr the processing of the application mentioned aunt, including post approsal review al a rate of 5245.'X) pet planet hour over the initial deposit Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be gnutids for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all acts associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT By: By: Chris Benton Cnmrwnlh Deselupntat Director Date: Billing Address and Telephone Number. 520 E. Durant Ave Aspen Colorado 9711 11 9 rinAn General Information Please check the appropriate boxes below aml submit this papa• along troth applicututn This information will help us wriew tourpkau anct if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that may he ',twitted YES NO X Does the work you are planning include exterior work; Including additions, demolitions, new construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or restoration? X Does the work you are planning include interior work; including remodeling, rehabilitation, or restoration? X Do you plan other future changes or Improvements that could be reviewed at this time? X In addition to City of Aspen approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness or No Negative Effect and a building permit, are you seeking to meet the Secretory of the Imerior'.s Standards fitr Rehahihtanon or restoration of a National Register of Historic Places property in order to qualify for state or federal tax credits? If yes, are you seeking federal rehabilitation investment tax credits in conjunction with this project? (Only income producing properties listed on the National Register are eligible. Owner- occupied residential properties are not.) If yes, are you seeking the Colorado State Income Tax Credit for Historical Preservation? Please check all City of Aspen Historic Preservation Benefits which you plan to use Rehabilitation Loan Fund Conservation Easement Program . Dimensional Variances .. Increased Density Historic Landmark Lot Split Waiver of Park Dedication Fees Conditional Uses X Exemption from Growth Management Quota System Tax Credits A4en 1l6torie Presenation Land Use Appheatlon Reyuirements. Updated: May 29, 2007 ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Application PROJECT: Name. Craig Cordts - Pearce (Steak House 316) Locanon: 316 East Hopkins Avenue Subdivision: CITY AND TOIaNSITE OF ASPEN Block: 80 Lot: 0 (Indicate sweet address, lot & block nwnber or metes and bounds description of pmpem ) ParceIID# (REQUIRED) 273707329008 APPLICANT: Name: Craig Cordts - Pearce Address: 520 E. Durant Ave. Aspen Colorado P 970.319.0060 Fax# E - mail: cscvOcomcast.net REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Amos Underwood Address: PO Box 512 Phonetic: 970.274.0481 Fax# E- maiIanosOnbrworkshop.c TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please dieck all that apply): ❑ Historic Designation ❑ Relocation (temporary, on ❑ Certificate of No Negative Effect ❑ or off -site) ❑ Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Demolition (total © -Minor Historic Development demolition) ❑ -Major Historic Development ❑ Historic Landmark Lot Split ❑ - Conceptual Historic Dcvclopmait ❑ -Final Historic Development - Substantial Amendment Exzsrmc CoNonoNS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) Historic Structure(188B) existing 1,296 sq.ft. 1st level resturant updated 1970 1,690 sq.ft. basement addition of commercial kitchen and office area PROPOSAL: (description of proposed building uses, modifications. etc.) Proposed addition of roof structure with attached pergola on alley side of property(north) for water protection, maintenance, and user safety Re- install of fabric awning an south side of property (new fabric added) ,l,Lzn lliaorie Preservation Land Use Applleatkon Requirements. Updated: May 29. 2007 Wet r� '•" e i4, ;S' ry� ^�i 1�'t + t 5 5r r r to _? � k' S* wan.. .. ._tKS. 'S:r.+V . ':,tv. ti. , e to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ MW ORDERED PUBLIUIiED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the J_ day of John Bennett, Meyer 4 0 11 BT: Kathryn Koch, city Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this (L__ day of 1992. /1 - John Bennett, Mayor 1 Of 4J, t . 1a / clerk ryn S. Koch, City tv ord.316eh.ld 3 6 ,l r { + A l 9 , l> * ° d.D 5 9jA Ni`" • ,ea!` An**. , a ,'n} 4. +..1 )..� 1 "a - ,� 11^., q l.,a Il : . I. 672 . 30 �� NON, THEREFORE DE IT ORDAINED DY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: FFction 1 , That the existing structure and property at 316 East Hopkins Avenue, Lot 0, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen. Colorado be !� and is hereby granted "H ", Historic Landmark Designation. 5 tion z That the Zoning District Map be amended to reflect the rezoning described in Section 1 and the Planning Director shall be authorized and directed to amend said map to reflect said rezoning. section 3 That the Planning Director shall be directed to notify the City Clerk of such designation, who shall record among real estate records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office a certified copy of this ordinance. Section 4 That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. beet ion 5 That a public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the / I n day of . ;,L'�,., ..• - , 1992, at 5:00 p.m. In the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior 2 I .. ....,,,, s.tl.4..CX4+4 Ekl =a', , •: 3l; .a, �� et. d . •a; ` t 4 4: 4 0342273 , .." iv:' I'4 .1. 1:46 11'' , r,r 671 1' 37 ORDINANCE NO (Sarin of 1992) ; AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING 316 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE AS "11 ", HISTORIC LANDMARK PURSUANT TO DIVISION 7, SECTION 7 -701 OF CHAPTER 24 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. WHEREAS, Margaret Johnson, owner of 116 East Hopkins Avenue, q. ,+• Lot 0, Block 80, City and Townslte of Aspen has filed an application for landmark designation pursuant. to Section 24 -7 -701 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the structure and property at 316 Eact Hopkins Avenue i listed in the 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, as amended in 1986; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preserv14On Committee unanimously recommended historic landmark designation at a duly noticed public k hearing on October 23, 1991; and I WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended historic landmark designation at a duly noticed public hearing on December 17, 1991; and 'I ` WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24 -7 -702, the City Council has pe found that the Landmark Designation Standards B, E and F have been net: the structure reflects an architectural style that is of traditional Aspen character, the property is a significant component of an historica:ly significant neighborhood and the preservation of the property is critical to the character of the Aspen community; and ° i ' WHEREAS, City Council wishes to pursue those recommendations !'� and complete the designation process. . ! , . . . . • E E e � ' l 1 ; dl, . • 11338923 11/76/91 13:11 Nec $15.09 PK 662 PS 970 t.� 1 41, : Silvia Davis, Pitl:: in Cady Clerk, Doc 9.00 • by the parties hereto. IN WI•INFSS WNEIRDF, the parties have signed this License Agreement the day I t - j and year first written above. i LICENSOR: U CCCINA INC. E. i Ni'-: as Levy, Ptest• nt , LICENSEE: TIIE WANE ROBERC JOHNSON AND MARGARET j 1 WHITFIELD JO4BISCY4 REVOCABLE TRUST, +( ED RAT JUNE 15, 1989 , i II I .r et Yhitfi Id J. son, Sol Trustee STATE OF COIDINOD ) j ) ss. t ccuart OF PITKIN 1 foregoing License Agreement was acknowledged before me on this Q(I� day of �' /IA/ , 199/ , by Nicholas lebby as President of La Cecina, Inc. I - WITNESS my hand and official seal. eSs 3 My commission expires! t2; /943 •o u_01., r oll { {j V Cc STATE OF fW17AACA. 1 ' r: canny or _Ma j j ' The foregoing. License Agreement was acknowledged before me an this ,1, day of Nr14p1-44vr , 19'1) by Margaret Whitfield Johnson as sole trustee for the Oran Robert Johnson and Margaret Whitfield Johnson Revocable Trust, dated June 15, 1989. )- I :+. h 1:'p I I r. 1 WITNESS my hand and official seal. .. { fal My oommlssion expires: 1 4 - I- `ia I • Da,r �Stncuac, :1 Notary Publ c • 1 ii i1 -3- :`I mg o A a 1. I . • it, y !IRO i�GA {), Jf11 Run $15.00 Dr. 662 PS 969 0 1tt6i cSilvia Davis, 91 1 Silvia avi. PI tY.in Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 such additional instruments as may 1m required in order to accomplish this • • subordination• Licensor upcn ono } ,� 'mis license may terminated by i p..).: In the event of such ):: hundred eighty (180) days written notice to Licensee• roan of the _(' termination, Licensee shall, at tlmfr expense, remove that Po' hundred eighty (180) day Period' e sUUCture from int N within said oono rrr emett is 1�'. without notice, in the event the irp ,; Block license shall also terminate, laced on Lot 0, 1 building is constructed or p 'i destroyed, abandoned, or a new 80, aspen, Colorado. In the event of any abandonment or termination Licensor may demolish or otherwise remove the same without being accountable or liable �.. } w h a tsoever to Licensee• hold. keep j shall upon deeotd. save. 4. IND NIT.. Licensee agrees and � judgments indemnify La Cain free and for any and all claims, j harmless, and la Cocin, j if attorneys fees incurred by • j awards, payments, or liability, including attorneys or injuries or death to Persons 1 on account of any loss or damage to property > wholly or in part or resulting from any acts or omissions by Licensee II occasional Y wiiatsu'.vor arising out t or Licensee's guests or invitees for any cause or reason of the maintenance of the encroactment or any use of to Cocina's property. 5. NAMES. In the event any party hereto requires or desires to send a notice pursuant to this agreement or any attendant matters, it shall be deemed person or by registered or certified 3 sufficient for such notice such be served in the address set forth at the beginning . . mail, postage Prepaid, to such Pa Y for such of this Agreement or to such outer address as may be designated purposes• titutes ththe e entice t mderstarding 7. MISC� 'lttis agreement cons anal agreement among the parties hereto with respect [o subjec matter Ite[eOt ... '' understariings, restricticrosr representations or > !, and there a� pe agreements, set forth herein. 'belie agtnnt �` warranties among the parties other than those . 'jiff in accordance with ad governed by the laws of the State of shall be construed the parties hereto their heirs, t Colorado. 'this agreement shall be binding upon thereto shall not s, �_ successors, personal representatives and assigns. Ieooti l shalt signed be altered. modified, or otheiwise changed except DY 1 v � 11 1:.. r L L.1 l !:4 i VA e . • • y pA 11338923 11/26/91 13:11 Roc $15.00 OK 662 PO 96B Silvia Davis, Pitl::in Cnty Clark, Dor $.00 • LICENSE AGREEMENT n � This License Agreement Is made this 7./0g day of /1414444.4./ 19 7� , between fa Cocina Inc., a Colorado Corporation (hereinafter referred }'} . to as "La Cocina" or "Licensor ") whose address is 308 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, li k.V • Colorado 81611, and the Duane Robert Johnson and Margaret Whitfield Johnson ,� Revocable Trust, dated June 15, 1989, (hereinafter referred to as "Licensee ") { nn whose address is 1116 East Ciebar, Phoenix, Arizona 85020. t RECITALS 1. la Cocina is the owner of the La Cocina Restaurant Building and real 4 property in the City of Aspen legally described as follows: Lots M E N Block 80 1. City and Twnsito of Aspen p County of Pitkin. State of Colorado (sometimes R hereinafter referred to as the "Property") i 2. Licensee desires to continue to encroach upon a portion of the above m described property owned by Licensor for purposes of maintaining a structure partially located on It N, Block 80. 3. Licensor is willing to grant Licensee a license to maintain said r1' ' encroachment subject to the terns and co ditions as set forth below. ` Ill i wiTNESSEiH NOW THEREFORE, IN C'ON.SIDERATION OF the terms and conditions hereinafter provided, the parties agree as renews: - � 1. GRANT OF LICENSE. La Covina hereby grants to Ll Teee a revocable 1 license for the sole purpose of maintaining the existing structure, a portion .t of which is located within Lot N, Block 80, Aspen, Colorado. 2. SUBORDINATION. This license is and shall be subject to and subordinate .* to all present and future mortgages, deeds of trust or otter encuMmances '4 affecting the Property to the full extent of the principal sun or sure secured !, or intvxld to be secured thereby, the interest upon said sum or sums, any other VA ` u. charges or costs thereon and any modifications, assignments, consolidations, Pin; 4 1 renewals or extensions thereof now or hereafter made. Licensee shall promptly I . at the request of Licensor, execute, acknowledge and deliver from tire to tire 1 A ; -1- R } F ` 1 l • I. fir . 81 4571;11..582 _ I 5C4!E SL4LE / /0' / ' 1 3 k !-- /1707 1 i 5 ;ROPCRTVt L E : i . ✓ t . ~ y At 1 • 1 ! Y i F; Z ti P a -4 ' Lor o LOT P \ 7. a •"....1 1 N • . - b ■ 5. 7.509 / yrs • 1 053' k / � I i i n o j kV/ 4 i ' � � 2 / / < 't \\ ^ HO1/9E I v /7./ ^ 2 fi c4 I I q e " ' _ 0' � � C PO RON Q /i c _ • i 1 0 " 4-.47 / " / ';.YON ( EDGE OF 610EM'dLK t / C . -... -- °ROPER/)' 1 LINE " Y ' 6 *5 R°dSK L:; /GAP , IN EONORETE '� =' '��- G!B:.e 77 PPOP.5RTY LORNE" N. 7o'O• /'/ 1 'ky. - 0. 95' 0 EXRIDIT 'A" I. / eel 457 Aue581 pine _. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT PAGE TO LICENSE AGREEMENT I STATE OF AY/20/1 -1 ! 1 ss COUNTY OPI • s tAUOM •y x (4 The fpregoing License Agreement was acknowledged before f Y me on this NW day of 1 , 1983, by Margaret W. .rr= Johnson. 5s'a? WITNESS my hand and official seal. "' R16maislm hem 1. "16 , My commission expires: THE A':IZONA BANK z -- My address 13: whoa relnaf n:nrr ,, P. O. BOX 2915 ' • t. PwnrN:r aBIfnNA - ftcM ; IJ - P bai 1 T ... e o off.` II ',.,• k)Z STATE OF COLORADO) ;Z% ) ss ?y COMITY OF PITKLN ) ' '+ g The ,fpregoing se Agreement was acknowledged before me on this FT' day of _ 19B3, by James W. a Patterson, President of Aspen Bancorp, Inc., a Delaware x Corporation. , t,, WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: /0—S"- My address is: rt�"al n • wv oer,mdsaw' 'O _ a .; I • 110TH ny 0 floc Ax ' . cos( Notary Pub c ^ ,Vr 3 e. r ., i f i sj 1 t 9 � .Yt 6 i yy «Na cox 457 w €580 Y .i as _ beginning of this Agreement or to such other address me may be designated for such purposes. } 7. MISCELLANEOUS. This Agreement constitutes the 1 m?, entire understanding and agreement among the parties hereto with - Q.j.`7 respect to the subject matter hereof and there are no agreements, i.. y, rtT; S4, understandings, restrictions, representations or warranties among .: the parties other than those set forth herein. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of ' i '`tr the State of Colorado. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto their heirs, survivors, personal representatives ac and assigns. This Agreement shall not be altered, modified, or w - ` v0 otherwise changed except by a recorded instrument signed by the ' s parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this License Agreement the day and year first written above. r3 ' S BANN: LICENSEE: Aspen Bancorp, Inc. - A Delaware Corpora 2 ♦; s i`a.,..reon, Duane R. To son i t idea 1 .p l.. .. aka :Seal) 71 ,e li �Ic.GLxnls _'• `. R Mat t W. Johns + yy STATE OF -ISOM, ) as COUNTY OF lMv) - t T The foregoing License Agreement was acknowledged before me on this µ{0' day of )PtOmtta. , 1983, by Duane R. ° - Johnson. ._: WITNESS my hand and official seal. ,13 My commiss expires: NI' famniim E:olmf May {'BIi c t a My address is: THE ARIZONA BANK P. 0. BOX 2916 § —1410644farleR190fte-Y19062— 4.02._ v; . ,y.... No Tub c : n: y ' If t L a • o:d 1 J 1 a 457 Pg:579 , la 2. NAP OF ENCROACHMENT. A ��_ map showing the area of the encroachment is attached hereto as Exhibit 'A ", - 3. • SUBORDINATION. This license is and shall be i an j I subject to and subordinate to all resent and future p mortgages, tee deeds of trust or other encumbrances affecting the Property to 1N '" the full extent of the principal sum or sums secured or intended to be secured thereby, the interest upon pon said sum or sums, any z _ ; other charges or costs thereon and any modifications, . 'iy r, assignments, consolidations, renewals or extensions thereof now 'xc`- or hereafter made. Licensee censee shall Promptly at the request of ? Bank, execute, acknowledge and deliver from time to time such IS additional instruments as may be required in order to accomplish this subordination, • 1 4. TERMINATION, This license may Y be terminated by Bank upon sixty (60) days written notice to Licensee. In the event of such termination, Licensee shall, at its expense, remove the fence and boardwalk within said sixty (60) day "<g Y Period, This & license shall also terminate, without notice, in the event the ` 1' fence or boardwalk are destroyed or abandoned. In the event of $t any abandonment Bank may demolish or otherwise remove the same without being accountable or liable whatsoever to Licensee. 5. INDEMNITY. Licensee agrees and shall upon demand, A save, hold, keep harmless, and indemnify Bank from and for any and all claims, judgments, awards, payments, or liability, -' including attorneys fees incurred by Bank, on account of any loss or damage to property or injuries or death to persona occasioned or in 3 wholly part or resulting from any acts or omissions by Licensee or Licensee's guests or invitees for any cause or reason • whatsoever arising out of the maintenance of the encroachment or {T. any use of Bank's property. ^ 6 . NOTICES. In the event any party hereto requires or desires to send a notice pursuant to this Agreement or any attendant matters, it shall be deemed sufficient for such notice to be served in person or by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, to such party at the address set forth at the _Z" / Bmf 457 rAs: am, LICENSE LICENSE- AGREEMENT This License Agreement is made this 6 th December day of ^;. , 1983, between ASPEN BANCORP, INC., a Delaware 4 4'' corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'Bank") whose address is k( 119 South Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 and Duane R. Johnson and Margaret W. Johnson (hereinafter collectively referred to as s 'Licensee') whose address is 1116 East Cinnebar, Phoenix, Arizona 85020. RECITALS 5 1. Bank is the e owner of The Bank of Aspen pen Building situated on property in the City of Aspen legally described as follows: ti. t ots otskP,0Q, R and S 5 f City.. and Townaite of Aspen County of Pitkin, State of Colorado 2. Licensee desires to encroach upon a portion of the above described property owned by Bank for purposes of 1. maintaining a fence and boardwalk. 3. Bank is willing to grant Licensee a license to maintain said encroachment subject to the terms and conditions as set forth below. - WITNESSETH NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF the terms and • - conditions hereinafter provided, the parties agree as follows: 1. GRANT OF LICENSE Bank hereby grants to Licensee a perpetual license for the sole purpose of maintaining a fens and boardwalk upon the following described property (the ° Property ") to wit: A parcel of land situated within Lot P, Block 80, City and Townslte of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, further described as follows; Beginning at the S.W. corner of Lot P; Thence N. 14 ° 50'49° E., 67.27': i Thence S. 13 ° 23'35" W., 8.22'; o Thence S. 75 ° 09'11" E., 0.53'; ai• -o N Thence S. 14 ° 38'43" W., 59.05'; =m U1 cap - - Thence N. 75 ° 09'11" W., 0.95' to the ti :, Point of beginning. ; < y Ad y '•' nu N 02 S 0 P j> ara W A P I , 'I I I = ". ”1. =Y ' _ t 11 • • r �. A 1 ._ ^ f i f • .e 1 !{ l i i - , a i ' ;14 I I I ' ( 4 -' _ s r 1 sr • �' - 1 f . , 1 1 1 A 1. .. b . 11' • i I, 11 ' > . 40 Ai • Y s t ? a 1st 0 111 Oe , if i 1 11414 i Iii r h ii- • i i re! i' iI vili i i i 1 [ S'{ i * {a " n II [ . N 0 316 E HOPKINS N 0 NO SCALE 11.18.11 1 HOUSE ROOF P-P m O cK [V il) U ENS z 10 K 66 P Ng.- 96 o X /- 9'°°‘ O / N NSE pGRPA�E $ 0 PM P; Bp 45 15.1 / �T W PORCH O RN P � '_ � 12.3 I—i N / 1_ x PATIO Aib,, 7 "D \ c T \ PLANTER 3.3 HIGH PLANTER 33" HIGH PAVED I • WALKWAY T BACK OF CURB EAST HOPKIN S AVF,NUF, (75.00' R.O.W.) 316 E HOPKINS ? . ti'. • _., 4 ------- ........_ ...„___,.. 1 • i . i , , i ii 11 - + i BEFORE 7 4 • v." I 1. t A. 6 1 I I 111 t il.. h'' il.: . AFTER AW \I \G STRUCTURE AT 316 E. HOP< \S SCALE: 1/4" = 1' -0" 10:18:11 r .q. RIDGE a • PLATE " BL AA & c 1' sq. ALUMINUM FRAME WORK l L J Y .q. ALUMINUM CORNER POST PLAN VIEW 4' -9 5/8" AWNING STRUCTURE 8'-1" Ahli co c �1 0 NORTH /SOUTH ELEVATION EAST /WEST ELEVATION 316 E HOPKINS goo R �1 P ' NO SCALE 10.18.11 - o E cn , J k .'iltt-'':'- 1 \ ■ ENTRY a X \ XFMR \ .Z/ L 9 -,61 ..17/L L -,6- - ALLEY BLOCK 80 PAVED ALLEY 1 - 41 ' ' \ ' P':'' I r I I Hill ilg i'A'''' '' 1 1 t r- t " --ai m t 316 E HOPKINS 1 �, �� ilia. , , \II, ,,..._,..,, .... ft A04: BEFORE ~ 3 ; `' 1 � // ROOF TO MATCH � HISTORIC RESOURCE t t1. HAND HEWN 2y BEAMS APPROX. " . .: s �∎ /f 8TO14 IN SIZE rt - �: ------------ 1 = NEW FENCE RELOCATED ONTO PROPERTY AFTER _ 1M■■• • I