The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20010808ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 8,2001 REGULAR MEETING, 5:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS SITE VISITS - NOON - 5:00 I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes - June 27,2001 - May 23,2001 -3-0-4 0 1,04 4 III. Public Comments IV. Commission member comments and project monitoring V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) VI. Project Monitoring VII. OLD BUSINESS A. 735 W. Bleeker - Final Review - Public Hearing - (continue to Sept. 12th) B. 515 Gillespie - Final Review - Public Hearing Reso #34, 2001 4 ).Ok 5:30 C: 620 W. Bleeker - Minor Review - Public Hearing Reso #35,2001 44 / 5:45 D. ~ 629 W. Smuggler - Conceptual Review, Partial Demelition - Public Hearing Reso #36, 2001 3- /-- o~w te d_ - 34 clcc Irw-_ VIII. NEW BUSINESS 6:15 A. Wagner Park Public Facilities - Conceptual - Public Hearing Reso #37, 2001 IX. WORKSESSION 6:45 A. Infill 7:15 X. ADJOURN 0 1 )JECT MONITORING Suzannah Reid 414 N. First- POLE 312 S. Galena 7t11 and Main 330 Lake Avenue 620 W. Bleeker Historical Society 328 Park Ave. - Lane Jeffrey Halferty 414 N. First- POLE 920 W. Hallam- Guthrie 312 S. Galena 620 W. Bleeker - Historical Society 213 W. Bleeker 200 E. Bleeker 328 Park Ave. - Lane Lisa Markalunas 939 E. Cooper- Langley 200 E. Bleeker 419 E. Hyman - Paragon 302 E. Hopkins 110 W. Main 104 S. Galena - St. Mary's Church Gilbert Sanchez 312 S. Galena 333 W. Bleeker Street 501 W. Main Christiania Lodge 330 Lake Ave. 609 W. Bleeker- Ernie Frywald 200 E. Bleeker Rally Dupps 419 E. Hyman - Paragon 501 W. Main Street - Christiania Lodge 129 W. Francis 435 W. Main 104 S. Galena St. Mary's Church 302 E. Hopkins 610 W. Smuggler Iâ‚¬i Melanie Roschko_ ~sa Melville 518 -Lo 14LL#- Neil Hirst CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: HPC Legal Procedures (Submit affidavit of notice for PH -conceptual) Swear In Staff presentation Applicant presentation Board Questions and Clarifications PH opened and closed Board Comments Applicant Comments Motion 0 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS 17 401 E. Cooper - Minor - Feb. 28, 2001 18 301 E. Hopkins - April 25,2001 19 302 E. Hopkins - Final Utility/trash PH - May 9, 2001 20 428 E. Hyman Ave. - Conceptual Review PH - May 9, 2001 21 935 E. Cooper Ave. - Conceptual Review PH - May 9, 2001 22. 610 W. Smuggler - Conceptual Review PH - May 9, 2001 23. 101 E. Hallam- Conceptual Review- PH - May 23,2001 24. 640 N. Third - Conceptual Historic Lot Split May 23, 2001 25. 515 Gillespie St. - Landmark Conceptual, Lot Split June 12, 2001 26. 935 E. Cooper Ave. - Final Review - PH - June 13, 2001 27. 501 E. Hyman -Landmark Designation June 13,2001 28. 214 E. Hopkins - Minor Development -June 13, 2001 29. 629 W. Smuggler - Conceptual review - Partial Demolition June 27, 30. 110 W. Main Street - Hotel Aspen Final Review July 11, 2001 31. 28 E. Hyman-Final Review July 11, 2001 32. 610 W. Smuggler - Final July 25, 2001 33. 513 W. Bleeker - Minor Development July 25, 2001 34. 515 Gillespie - Final August 8,2001 35. 620 W. Bleeker - August 8,2001 36. 629 W. Smuggler - Conceptual - August 8,2001 37. Wagner Park August 8, 2001 6 lI[ 11) MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Community Development Deputy Directo?Jf\0 FROM: Fred Jarman, Planner F.3 Â· RE: 515 West Gillespie Street - Final Review / PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 8,2001 GILLESPIE AVE S 11,1 =:11,11% 1,1.1.-1~ flam , 3:' 1 1 -yeÂ» - 13 -1 QÂ¢-til L 64,9 11.4.0. ' ' f 9 LÂ· Ar 4*1~ ~ll I * PEARL CT ~ i , Ill " blk'WI 1/ 111(! 1:1 1, 1 4--6- 0----732-\- ORTH ST .li=K C l= 1 LE= .: A i I ?.m fti/t-9/4 '013 'i, i 'ld l'~*24,8#Tiv fk 1 . , NORTH ST . 1 SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting Final Review for a proposed development for a property located at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, City and Townsite of Aspen. APPLICANT: Pamela & neil Beck, represented by Randall Bone ZONING: R-6 FATHERING PARCEL: 9,210 sq. ft. BACKGROUND The subject property currently contains a two-story residence that is listed as a landmark on the City's Inventory of Historical Sites and Structures. The house was built in approximately 1887 and was originally located at 100 West Hopkins Avenue. It is approximately 1,856 square feet in size. The lot also contains a non-contributing garage that is not listed on the inventory. [Please Note: In order for Commissioners to vote on this Final Review who did not attend the Conceptual Review, Staff has attached the Staff Memorandum, Approved Plans, and minutes of the public hearing for Conceptual Review. I 515 Gillespie Final Review 1 RECENTLY APPROVED LAND USE REQUESTS The Applicant has recently received the following land use approvals as part of this project: 1) Conceptual Approval from the HPC on June 13, 2001 approving Partial Demolition, Relocation, 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus, and recommendation of approval to City Council for landmarking and a historic landmark lot split; 2) Recommendation of approval to City Council from the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 5, 2001 for landmarking of the property; and 3) Approval from the City Council on July 23, 2001 for Landmark status and a Historic Landmark Lot Split which allocated a FAR of 1,753 sq. ft. to Lot A and 2,840 sq. ft. to Lot B.. STAFF COMMENTS As a result of the aforementioned approvals already granted to the Applicant, the Applicant is requesting Final Review before HPC for this project. As required by Final Review requirements, the Applicant has submitted the following changes from the design which received approval during Conceptual Approval. During the public hearing, Staff will present the drawings approved at Conceptual and show the precise changes presented for this Final Review. These changes are outlined below. CONCEPTUAL REVIEW APPROVAL The Applicant received Conceptual Approval from the HPC for relocation, partial demolition, and a 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus. This Final Review development plan submitted by the Applicant conforms to representations made and to conditions placed upon the proposal during the conceptual review. The Applicant has further responded to the direction provided by the HPC during Conceptual Review approval by providing refined elevations. The changes from the representations made by the Applicant during the Conceptual Review include the following: 1) The south facing deck is slightly larger with BBQ; 2) South facing elevation entry vestibule has been moved 5" to the west; 3) Proposed window on the second floor of the south elevation has been removed; 4) South elevation materials have been reversed from wood to metal and vice versa; 5) More windows on the south elevation are operable; 6) Garage stairs have been moved to the west side from the east side; 7) Garage roof has been reversed and slightly cut back; 8) Garage location has moved eastward along the east side setback; and 9) Garage north and west windows and door elevations have been changed slightly. DITCH RELOCATION Currently there is an irrigation ditch running from 5th Street, across the neighboring Collin's property and onto and across the Beck property running in a northeasterly direction. The Applicant received approval from the Parks and Water Departments to conduct the relocation / removal as requested pursuant to a letter provided by the Parks 515 Gillespie Final Review 2 0 Department. The Applicant has also entered into a "Ditch Relocation Agreement" as required by the conditions of this resolution and the City of Aspen Water Department. BOUNDARY DISPUTE An adjacent neighboring property owner to the west of the subject property, a Mr. And Mrs. Collins, questioned the accuracy of the lot line separating the two properties. This has remained an outstanding issue regarding this proposed development. Despite this alleged boundary dispute, the applicant has proposed a development plan that would not be affected at all should the questionable lot line be decided in favor ofthe Collins. More importantly, and upon additional conference with the City Attorneys, the City of Aspen has no legal authority to hold this development proposal from moving forward to any City Board for land use approvals if the proposal is in no way reliant on the disputed property line. In this case, and as stated above, despite the alleged boundary dispute, the applicant has proposed a development plan that would not be affected at all should the questionable lot line be decided in favor of the Collins. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the HPC approve the request for Final Review for 515 West Gillespie Avenue, with the conditions set forth on the resolution. RECOMMENDED MOTION 0 "I move to approve Resolution No, 3% Series 2001, approving the request for Final Review for 515 West Gillespie Avenue, with the conditions stated in the resolution." REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS EXHIBIT A - FINAL REVIEW STANDARDS EXHIBIT B - HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES EXHIBIT C -MINUTES AND STAFF MEMORANDUM FROM CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL EXHIBIT D - APPLICATION & DRAWINGS 0 515 Gillespie Final Review 3 RESOLUTION NO.34~ , SERIES OF 2001 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING FINAL REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 515 WEST GILLESPIE AVENUE, LOTS 4, 5, AND 6, BLOCK 99, HALLAM ADDITION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2735-121-11-007 WHEREAS, the applicant, Randall Bone, requested Final Review approval for a property located at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, Lots 4,5, and 6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen: WIIEREAS, the property is currently listed as a Landmark on the City of Aspen's Inventory ofHistorical Sites and Structures; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department determined the application for Final Review met the applicable review standards, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing, which was legally noticed and held at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on June 13, 2001, at which time the HPC considered and approved Conceptual Review which included relocation, partial demolition, and a 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus to meet the review standards as part of Conceptual Review, and further recommended City Council approve the request for Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split with conditions by a vote of three to one (3 to 1); and WHEREAS, at a public hearing, which was legally noticed and held at a regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 5, 2001, at which time the Planning and Zoning Commission considered and found the application to meet the review standards and recommended City Council approve the request for Historic Landmark Designation, with conditions, by a unanimous vote of four to zero (4 to 0); and WHEREAS, at a public hearing, which was legally noticed and held at a regular meeting of the City of Aspen City Council on July 23, 2001, at which time the City Council considered and found the application to meet the review standards and approved the Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split, with conditions, by a unanimous vote of five to zero (5 to 0); and WHEREAS, at a public hearing, which was legally noticed and held at a regular meeting ofthe Historic Preservation Commission on August 8, 2001, at which time the HPC considered and found the application for Final Review to meet the review 515 Gillespie Final Review 4 standards, and approved the request for Final Review, with conditions by a vote of to L to ~_). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the requests for Final Review Approval for a project at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, is approved by Aspen Historic Preservation Commission with the following conditions: 1. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district and residential design standards with the potential exception for variances to be approved by the HPC; 2. That Lots "A" and "B" are designated historic landmarks and must receive HPC approval for all development in accordance with Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code, as well at Section 26.410, the "Residential Design Standards;" 3. That the applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR for each newly created lot, taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided into two parcels, Lot "A" receiving 4,639 square feet of lot area and Lot "B" receiving 4,571 square feet of lot area. Provided it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on Lot "A" will be 1,753 s.Â£ (including a 500 square foot floor area bonus) and 2,840 square feet of floor area on Lot "B." The information specific to exact allocated FAR as indicated above for both lots as verified by the City Zoning Officer, shall be included on the plat, as a plat note; 4. That the HPC herein and pursuant to this Resolution, grants the applicant approval to allocate the FAR to be split between the two newly created lots (including the 500 sq. ft. bonus) to be 4,093 sq. ft. in total. The applicant shall appropriate this FAR in the following manner: Lot "A" as having 1,753 sq. ft. and Lot "B" as having 2,840 sq. ft. prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements, etc.). 5. That the applicant shall record a final plat indicating the approvals in this resolution as they have been represented to the Historic Preservation Commission. In addition, if the westerly lot line dispute between the Collins and the owners of the property known as lot a of the Beck Lot Split of Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, has not been resolved prior to the recording of said plat, the applicant shall record a plat showing both lines in dispute and a note on the plat indicating the two lot lines in question and that once the dispute is resolved, the applicant shall file a new plat indicating the resulting resolution; 515 Gillespie Final Review 5 0 6. That the applicant shall submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the historic house are to be removed as part of the renovation; 7. That the applicant shall submit a preservation plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating how the existing materials, which are to be retained, will be restored. The requirement is to retain/repair all original materials and replicate only those that are determined by HPC staff and monitor to be beyond salvage; 8. That no elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist outside of approval granted by the HPC and no existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor; 9. That the HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures; 10. That there shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor; 11. That the preservation plan described above, as well as the conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all 0 other prints made for the purpose of construction; 12. That the applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC Resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit; 13. That the General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit; 14. That all representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions; 15. That, in the event the chimneys located on the roof of the historic structure, are to be dismantled during the relocation as represented in this application, the applicant agrees that all brick restorations as part of the reassembly shall be reviewed by Staff and Monitor; and 16. That the applicant agrees that any restoration has to comply to the UCBC 1997 0 version; 515 Gillespie Final Review 6 gra /0 j f)44ny w in 4 4- Mb 1 4 Lf S 17. The applicant shall enter into a common water ser+~agreement with the City Water Department for the newly relocated house; 18. The applicant, prior to the application of building permits, shall be required to post a bond of $30,000 or other financial security approved by *e HPC with the engineering department to ensum safe relocation of the structurÂ©; / 01 1/4 . .A & (1 Ve . -j'-31- U.4.21 8/ Mca,~ 61--/luu-a by 19. The Applicant shall enter into a "Ditch Relocation Agreement" with the City of Aspen and that said agreement be a recorded document with the Pitkin County Clerk and recorder's Office thereby representing a burden running with the land which shall 1 also be recorded onthe Plat and Subdivision Exemption AÂ£reement; and 10 - Cul. t*It.14) ft".cutÂ« 6 0 s,16* - Section 2: ,)10 This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall beÂ· conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. , i 14 - lÂ»*th / 3.Ut (25 - -tAÂ» A Section 3: btiu V-.,ZA If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the 0 validity ofthe remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 8th day of August, 2001. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: 0 Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 515 Gillespie Final Review 7 EXHIBIT A FINAL REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 26.415.010(5), Review Standardi, no approval for any development involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds that all of the following standards are met: a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, massing and volume with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or is adjacent to an historic landmark For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, Historic Preservation Commission may grant necessary variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this Section exceed those variations allowed under the Collage Injill Program, Section 26.520.040(B)(2), for detached accessory dwelling units, and Afloor area bonus will only be awarded to projects, which in the opinion of the HPC make an "outstanding preservation effort." Examples to be considered would include the retention of historic outbuildings or the creation of breezeway or connector elements between the historic resource and new construction. Lots, which are larger than 9,000 square feet, and properties, which receive approval for a "historic landmark lot split", may also be considered for the bonus. No development application which includes a request for an FAR bonus may be submitted until the applicant has met with the Historic Preservation Commission in a work session to discuss whether or not the proposal might qualify for the floor area bonus, and Staff Finding: The proposed development involves the historic structure on the lot, which is not in a historic district or located adjacent to parcels containing historic and landmarks. However, Staff finds the proposed relocation and partial demolition do not detract from the historic integrity of the residence. More importantly, the proposed additions in the rear of the residence more clearly show the evolution of this residence rather than the current addition, which obscures the viewer's understanding of the historic elements of the house. This project, in no way extends into any front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extends into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, exceeds the allowed 515 Gillespie Final Review 8 floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceeds the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent. In fact, the project has been designed such that no variances have been requested except for the 500 square foot FAR bonus. Even with the FAR bonus applied to this project, the maximum FAR. allowed on Lot A pursuant to the Land Use Code is 2,858 square feet. The Applicant received Conceptual Approval from the HPC on June 13, 2001, which included, among other things, a FAR bonus of 500 square feet. This project is located on a lot larger than 9,000 square feet in the R-6 zone district and has received approval from the City Council for a historic landmark lot split, which are three examples of why the Commission grants the FAR bonus. Staff finds this standard to be met. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development, and Staff Finding: The proposed development involves relocating a historic landmark to another location on the same lot as a result of a lot split and making minor additions to the rear of the structure. The house is currently located on a lot that situated between two houses that are not on the City's Inventory. In fact, it is this very house that lends a historic character to this street frontage adding to the character of the neighborhood rather than detracting from it. Neither of the adjacent properties (to the east and west of the subject property are considered by the City as historic properties and are not on the City's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. Moreover, the street's historic fabric was reestablished when the house was originally relocated there in the early 1970s further establishing historic character to this street. 515 Gillespie will continue to considerably enhance this street as well as the west end neighborhood as an outstanding example of homes built during that period oftime. Staff finds this standard to be met. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels; and Staff Finding: The proposed development does not detract from the historic significance of the structure. Staff finds this standard to be met. d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. 515 Gillespie Final Review 9 Staff Finding: Many owners of historic homes in Aspen have "added on" to their home in the quest for better "livability." This project actually reduces the square footage in this house. This project seeks to increase the size of a bedroom on the second story and redesign a rear entry. The current small rear entry (while built approximately in the 1930s) is not an original part of the structure; however, it looks and feels like it was part of the original structure. For preservation purists, this is less than desirable as it "mimics" the original rather that being slightly divorced from the original in design and style, which better indicates a structure evolution over time. Buildings are certainly dynamic structures whose evolution over time should be apparent rather than continually obscured by additions or changes that look exactly like the old so that the new and old are indecipherable. This project is a good example of minor additions that indicate a departure from the old so not to confuse the viewer. Moreover, the proposed modifications do not, in any way, detract from the architectural elements that make this residence unique. These elements include the "clipped gables," unenclosed front porch with classically detailed turned posts, the "T" shaped roof form, bay windows with original details, or the fact that this residence is two stories which is uncommon. The proposed modifications are so minor that all these elements remain uncompromised so that the original form of the structure is maintained. Staff finds this standard to be met. 515 Gillespie Final Review 10 EXHIBIT B HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES 1. Building Additions Many historic buildings in Aspen experienced additions over time as the need for more space occurred. In some cases, owners added a wing onto a primary structure for use as a new bedroom, or to expand a kitchen. Typically the addition was subordinate in scale and character to the main building. This tradition of adding onto buildings should continue. It is important, however, that a new addition be designed in such a manner that it preserves the historic character of the original structure. It is important, that new additions do not detract from the character of the building or obscure significant features There are a few basic principles for new additions that are prescribed by Aspen's Historic Preservation Guidelines. In general they include minimizing negative effects that may occur to the historic building fabric, the addition should not affect the perceived character ofthe building, and keep the size ofthe addition small in relation to the main structure. Specifically, the guidelines indicate: 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. Staff finds that the proposed new addition does not reflect the exact character of the historic house but is not too inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building. Fuither, the addition does not attempt to portray an earlier period than that of the primary building or imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. The proposed addition is made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. In addition, the addition maintains changes in setbacks, materials, and architectural style from the historic building, that help define a change from old to new construction. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. Staff finds that the two roofs proposed are appropriate because they are shed roofs. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. With the exception of the metal roof materials, the new materials are similar to the original materials. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic building. 515 Gillespie Final Review 11 Staff finds that the rooftop shed dormer is subordinate in scale and not seen from the street so that it does not detract from the historic nature of the house as it is seen from the street. However, it appears to be a large cut into the form of the roof and significantly changes the "read" of the south elevation. Yet is not street facing so that the historic appearance is not severely adulterated. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 2. Building Relocation / Foundations Generally, removing a structure from the parcel with which it is historically recorded will compromise its integrity. However, there may be cases when relocation will not substantially affect the integrity of a property and its rehabilitation can be assured as a result. In this particular case, the house was originally located at 100 West Hopkins Aventle and was subsequently relocated to its current location in 1971. This application calls for demolishing the non-historic basement which serves as the current basement The Historic Preservation Guidelines contain language referring to protecting the resource prior to and during relocation. Specifically, wood panels should be mounted on the exterior of the building to protect existing openings and particularly historic glass. Further, special care should be taken to keep from damaging door and window frames and sashes in the process of covering the openings. Thi- â€ž-1_'_1.UIpecifigaHrin,Heate: 515 Gillespie Final Review 12 ./B/4/31/KI./././.,1, EXHIBIT- I y- 2 zâ„¢ County ofPitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060(ED I, 73*b A-LL- rgoA) E , being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following manner: 1. By mailing ofnotice, a copy ofwhich is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners ofproperty within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list on the l O day of 3-41 , 200 / (which is 2-7 days prior to the public A hearing date of A.c~:2 g ). 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the l6 day of -3-* , 2001, to the E ~day of Ay,t- , 200 C . (Must be posted for at least ten (1Â·0) full days before the hearing date). A photograph ofthe posted sign is attached hereto. Signature (Attach photograph here) Signed beforemethish day of~jÂ·u~Ll , 2001.--Â· by / 4 \ r-612EZZI~~=2=- r WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My Commission expires: My Cor,Inhton - rkes August 28. 2001 Notary Public mt-mED.AD,0 NO*.14.C 1 =0.1 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 515 WEST GILLESPIE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, August 8th , at a meeting to begin at 5:00pm before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen to consider an application submitted by Neil and Pamela Beck requesting Final Design Approval for the relocation, partial demolition and renovation of the historic home at 515 West Gillespie. The property is located at 5151 West Gillespie and is described as Lots 4-6, Block 99, Hallam Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Fred Jarman at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 970 920 5102 fredj@ci.aspen.co.us S/Suzannah Reid. Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times City of Aspen Account ' 1 FRAZER WILLIAM R & JANE Z PETERSON JAMES D KAUS PETER & EVA FAMILY TRUST PETERSON HENSLEY R 8401 VISTA LN 433 W GILLESPIE PO BOX 1714 PRESCOTT AZ 86301 I CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81612 DURAND LOYAL m DR & BERNICE NORTH FOURTH STREET ODOM JOHN A JR. BLACK ASSOCIATES ODOM LORRIE FURMAN 4314 FAWN CT RT 1 C/O MIKE CONVISOR 11490 W 38TH AVE CROSS PLAINS WI 53528 PO BOX I I WHEATRIDGE CO 80033 ASPEN CO 81612 UHLFELDERNAOMI COLLINS CHARLES & JANICE S AARONSON JEFFREY C PO BOX 1165 PO BOX HH P O BOX 10131 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81612 SALTER JAMES BECK NEIL H & PAMELA CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH P O BOX 765 515 W GILLESPIE ST 536 NORTH ST BRIDGEHAMPTON NY 11932 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 KNURR GOLDIE P & WERNER HODGES ELAINE C O'SHANA CATHY 603 W GILLESPIE ST 2020 S MONROE #118 108 ROBBINS ST ASPEN CO 81611-1242 DENVER CO 80210 OSTERVILLE MA 02655 ELGART ALICE CLARE GOLDSMITH I MITH ANDREW LUBIN 1/3 GOLDSMITH JOHN JOSEPH 1/3 1/3 - 13- N DOHENY DR 733 25TH ST 27 E 62ND ST 6TH FL LOS ANGELES CA 90000 SANTA MONICA CA 90400 NEW YORK NY 10001 LUETKEMEYER JOHN A JR& ELLIOTT ELYSE A SUZANNE F MCCARTY DANIEL L 610 NORTH ST SCHREIBER EUGENE H & STANFORD PO BOX 4051 ASPEN CO 81611 17 W PENNSYLVANIA AVE ASPEN CO 81612 - TOWSON MD 21204 MCCARTY DANIEL L MUSIC ASSOCIATES OF ASPEN INC ASPEN INSTITUTE INC PO BOX 4051 * 2 MUSIC SCHOOL RD 1000 N 3RD ST ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81611-8500 ASPEN CO 81611 STUNDA STEVEN R NITZE WILLIAM A RICHARDS ANN K 515 5TH ST 1537 28TH ST NW 1537 28TH ST NW ANNAPOLIS MD 21403 WASHINGTON DC 20007 WASHINGTON DC 20007 LEWIS ADAM HELZBERG SHIRLEY BUSH TRUSTEE S ALBERTH & SHIRLEY S C/O KATHLEEN HONOHAN QUALIFIED PERSONAL RESIDENCE 7 ENBROOK RD @NATIONAL CITY BANK TRUST BETHESDA MD 20814 1900 E 9TH ST LOC 2030 5805 MISSION DR CLEVELAND OH 44114 SHAWNEE MISSION KS 66208 FOX SAM MUSGRAVE MARJORY M HOFFMAN JOI-IN L FOX MARILYN 629 W NORTH ST . 1035 W 57TH ST 7701 FORSYTH BLVD STE 600 ASPEN CO 81611 KANSAS CITY MO 64113 CLAYTON MO 63105 0 GREENWOOD JIM COHEN ROGER L 1035 W 57TH ST 1035 W 57TH ST KANSAS CITY MO 64113 KANSAS CITY MO 64113 0 0 . ~LES , Neil and Pamela Beer'-~ 3366 C % Rd. Palisade, CO 81526 f P August 3, 2001 Ms. Suzannah Reid, Chairperson Aspen Historic Preservation Commission City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 515 W. Gillespie Street -Final Review / PUBLIC HEARING Dear Ms. Reid, This letter is a request to you, as the chair, and to the membership of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission to approve the Final Design Approval for the relocation, partial demolition and renovation of our historic home at 515 W. Gillespie Street at your August 8, 2001 meeting. This house was built in the 1880's at 100 West Hopkins Street and moved to its current location in June of 1971. The Beck Family has always lived in the house. Over the years, the family has maintained the house in keeping with its historic value, although it was not always possible to remodel the house and its surrounding property as authentically as would have been liked. A small addition was attached to the rear of the house so the family could have indoor plumbing. The unattached garage was built for utilitarian purposes. Now Mr. Randall Bone would like to perform a quality restoration of our home. The less authentic changes that have been made in the past will no longer exist. Both the addition on the back of the house and the unattached garage will be removed. The scale of the house will remain the same and there will be only a small addition made to the house. The total allowable FAR will not be used. Relocating the house to the western side of the lot will enhance its historic value. Mr. Bone's plans for N our home have been carefully and sensitively prepared. He wishes to enhance the historic value of the house and to promote its Victorian value. There are many homes in the West End of Aspen which sit vacant for much of the year. They do not contribute to the neighborly aspect ofthe area, nor do they portray the friendliness of a house that is lived in full time. Mr. Bone and his wife look forward to making this renovated house their home. They intend to be a part ofthe neighborhood < and to enjoy and to contribute to the community. It is in the best interest of all to allow them to move forward with their plans immediately. i Â·v A 5 J 14,4,) It is for these reasons that we ask you to approve Mr. Bone's application for this restoration at your August 8th meeting. Most Sincerely, Pamela and Neil Beck ELA; 6,4- 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Fred Jarman, Planner RE: 515 West Gillespie Street - Significant Conceptual Review / PUBLIC HEARING (Continued from May 23rd, 2001) DATE: June 13,2001 "95 4 1 'Ar . ..= 7 1, li 1 GILLESPIE AVE S 1 . 141 -i./ta/'3135:/.fqilililillililMa*Mililillillit~illrilill Â¢f # fo fi f 111 I . .hh.,1,31, + 11.- - - .. \ 1 1 teÂ·.1,/ ) 1 1. PEARL CT . JO 1 2 . 1 1.- . r. u.0-5 - ..1./6 1 :1 f.....M.r~.~41.2:1!, ' > V .â€ž'. '71 > 1 lar 12*Â§ 11 ..1..... E.... .. a-'-1 .' h. 4. DRTH ST I f I I -,11 ' .u .141 "~; 1 0 11.%.*.1 i . , 4. 1.-,1- ... 6 ,= 1 ru' Â· 1 ...4/UV l .Â» A>.1,4 i -=IL NOR?>9 ST 1 . :111~1Â·11 4 _2.--* 1 1,01. P - 41 .11.,p ra. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting Conceptual Review for the following land use approvals for a property located at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, City and Townsite of Aspen. 1. Historic Landmark Designation 2. Historic Landmark Lot Split 3. Partial Demolition 4. Relocation 5. 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus BACKGROUND The subject property currently contains a two-story residence (pictured on front) that is listed on the City's Inventory of Historical Sites and Structures and is situated on a 9,210 square foot lot. The house was built in approximately 1887 and was originally located at 100 West Hopkins Avenue. It is approximately 1,681 square feet in size and is used as a single-family dwelling located in the R-6 Zone District. The lot also contains a non- contributing garage that is not listed on the inventory. 1 STAFF COMMENTS The applicant requests a historic landmark lot split that would result in two lots; Lot "A" having 4,639 square feet and Lot "B" having 4,571 square feet. Further, the applicant allocates specific FAR to each newly created lot using the allowable duplex FAR for the fathering parcel. The duplex FAR. allowed for the fathering parcel is 4,093 square feet which is subsequently split between the two newly created lots: 1,593 sq. ft. to Lot A (which includes a 500 FAR sq. ft. bonus) and 2,840 sq. ft. to Lot B. The applicant has also formally requested for the FAR bonus of 500 sq. ft., which may be awarded by the HPC if a project is considered as having significant merit. PROPOSAL MODIFICATIONS The development proposal currently before the Historic Preservation Commission has included several changes from the last continued public hearing held on May 23rd, 2001 as a result of a necessary correction to the floor area calculation allocated to each lot. Specifically, these changes include the following: 1) A straight lot split resulting in two lots; Lot "A" having 4,639 square feet and Lot "B" having 4,571 square feet. The FAR is subsequently split between the two newly created lots: 1,753 sq. ft. to Lot A (which includes a 500 FAR sq. ft. bonus) and 2,840 sq. ft. to Lot B. 2) The Applicant has moved and redesigned the garage on the rear of Lot A offthe alley to the east side ofthe lot away from the Collins' property and provided an additional parking space. The garage redesign includes a stairway on the east fa~ade of the garage providing access down to the mechanical room. 3) No changes have been made to the historic resource since the last set of drawings. The current proposal in attached to this memorandum. HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT To date, the applicant has worked with the HPC in the form of a site visit, a Worksession, and four previous public hearings related to this request for conceptual approval. The applicant has adjusted the lot sizes so that they have become smaller than 6,000 square feet, thereby eliminating the ability to request the Conditional Use request to place two single-family dwellings on a 6,000 sq. ft. However, both Lot A and Lot B will remain under the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission for any future development proposals. LOT SPLITS PURSUANT TO THE AACP Lot splits were originally designed as a mechanism to control sprawling growth and place residential development where residential development should go. The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) specifically supports the notion of the lot split. Lot splits are one of the many density incentives and prescribed in the action plan of the AACP as a practice of infill and redevelopment. Increasing density in appropriate places, especially in a residential townsite such as Aspen, can achieve positive results such as providing 2 more incentives to build in town rather than sprawl down valley, make more efficient use of existing City infrastructure / utilities, and foster a disincentive to use the automobile due to the close proximity to the downtown core and free mass transit just to name a few. Specifically, this action plan calls for possible amendments to the Code: "to allow and encourage greater residential densities within the original Aspen town site; allow easier st,bdivision of properties in the historic town site and allow for injill development." - page 40 and 49,2000 AACP Also, as listed as Action Plan number 52, the AACP calls for: " a review of the existing Historic Preservation program to see how well it is working and to maintain and add innovative ways to make preservation work in Aspen, such as the lot split, property tax relief, and to study the impacts of the FAR bonus." - Page 56,2000 AACP Â¥inally,the AACP "encourages returning to higher density development within the city limits where appropriate." 0,age 39) Staff finds that this site and project promotes this appropriate type of increased density. FAR BONUS REQUEST The Applicant is requesting a 500 sq. ft. Floor Area Bonus to be placed on Lot A with the relocated historic structure. According to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, historic resources are finite and cannot be replaced, making them precious commodities and defining elements of a town's evolution. Historic resources are, in fact, slices in time, preserved to be appreciated and to help a community understand its past. This project is a strong example of how a valuable resource can be maintained and preserved with the evolution of a community. The recently adopted Historic Preservation Design Guidelines discuss specific examples / reasons that the HPC would award a project with a FAR Bonus. These include, but are not limited to: > When the parcel is larger than 9,000 square feet > When it is used to create a historic landmark lot split. > When the project shows an outstanding elfort to preserve or restore the historic structure. -Page 2,Historic Preservation Design Guidelines In addressing the examples stated above, Staff finds that the subject lot is larger than 9,000 square feet and the applicant is proposing a historic landmark designation in order to conduct a historic landmark lot split. Moreover, Staff strongly believes that this project demonstrates an outstanding preservation effort for several important reasons. 3 First, the applicant is proposing to relocate the resource onto a portion of the lot that will continue to promote the prominence of the resource. Second, some of redevelopment proposals for historic resources, which make their way to the HPC, have included rather large additions that obscure and mute the importance of the resource. The most recent of these HPC cases that received Final Approval and a 500 square foot FAR bonus was that of the "513 West Smugglef' project designed by Harry Teague. In that case, a very large and contemporary addition was approved less than a month ago before the HPC and granted a 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus. In this light regarding the size and style of that addition, the applicant has taken a very sensitive approach to the historic resource and is not requesting to place a large addition onto the resource as typically seen with many other "additions" which have occurred to some of Aspen's historic resources in the past. As a result of this approach, the applicant is proposing a very modest single-story addition to replace a non-historic addition at the very back of the house which meets all of the historic preservation design guidelines regarding additions. Lastly, the applicant is proposing very minor modifications to the rear faGade on the second story, which are consistent with the HPC's direction over the course of the last public hearings and work session. More importantly, these slight modifications to the house will take place on the rear of the faGade thereby unseen from the street. It is for all these reasons that Staff strongly believes this project merits a 500 square foot FAR bonus. DITCH RELOCATION Currently there is an irrigation ditch running from 5th Street, across the Collin's property and onto and across the Beck property running in a northeasterly direction. The Applicant has requested the ability to relocate the ditch in order to relocate the Beck house on that portion of the lot. The proposed relocation will redirect the ditch to the south behind the relocated house then northward to Gillespie Avenue where it currently runs now. The Applicant received approval form the Parks Department to conduct the relocation / removal as requested pursuant to a letter provided by the Parks Department. The Applicant shall enter into a "Ditch Relocation Agreement" as required by the conditions of this resolution approving this Conceptual Development. BOUNDARY DISPUTE During this proposed project, an adjacent neighboring property owner to the west ofthe Beck's property, a Mr. And Mrs. Collins, questioned the accuracy ofthe lot line separating the two properties. This has remained an outstanding issue regarding this proposed development. Despite the potential alleged boundary dispute, the applicant has proposed a development plan that would not be affected at all should the questionable lot line be decided in favor of the Collins. More importantly, upon additional conference with the City Attorneys, the City of Aspen has no legal authority to hold this development proposal from moving forward to any 4 City Board for land use approvals ifthe proposal is in no way reliant on the disputed property line. In this case, and as stated above, despite the potential boundary dispute, the applicant has proposed a development plan that would not be affected at all should the questionable lot line be decided in favor ofthe Collins. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the HPC approve the requests for 1) partial demolition, 2) relocation 3) the 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus, and 4) recommends City Council approve the Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split for 515 West Gillespie Avenue, with the following conditions: 1. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause; 2. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that any development of Lot "B" shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing; 3. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; 4. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district and residential design standards with the potential exception for variances to be approved by the HPC; 5. That Lots "A" and "B" are designated historic landmarks and must receive HPC approval for all development in accordance with Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code, as well at Section 26.410, the "Residential Design Standards;" 6. That the applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR for each newly created lot, taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided into two parcels, Lot "A" receiving 4,639 square feet of lot area and Lot "B" receiving 4,571 square feet of lot area. Provided it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on Lot "A" will be 1,753 s.Â£ (including a 500 square foot floor area bonus) and 2,840 square feet of floor area on Lot "B." The information specific to exact allocated FAR as 5 0 indicated above for both lots as verified by the City Zoning Officer, shall be included on the plat, as a plat note; 7. That the applicant shall provide the Subdivision Exemption Agreement that includes the elements outlined in Section 26.480.030(A)(2) of the Aspen Municipal Code, and shall meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section 26.480.070(E). (The Community development department can provide an example ofthis agreement to the applicant); 8. That the applicant agrees that prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either lot, the applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement (if applicable) and pay the applicable recording fees; 9. That the HPC herein and pursuant to this Resolution, grants the applicant approval to allocate the FAR to be split between the two newly created lots (including the 500 sq. ft. bonus) to be 4,093 sq. ft. in total. The applicant shall appropriate this FAR in the following manner: Lot "A" as having 1,753 sq. ft. and Lot "B" as having 2,840 sq. ft. prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements, etc.). Further, these lot sizes and floor areas shall be indicated on the final plat that is recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and recorder's Office; 0 10. All information regarding possible future development on newly created Lot B of this lot split shall be removed from the site plan prior to review of the historic lot split by City Council. Only the existing structures, proposed lot lines, and existing vegetation shall be represented; and 11. That the applicant shall record a final plat indicating the approvals in this resolution as they have been represented to the Historic Preservation Commission. In addition, if the westerly lot line dispute between the Collins and the owners of the property known as lot a of the Beck Lot Split of Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, has not been resolved prior to the recording of said plat, the applicant shall record a plat showing both lines in dispute and a note on the plat indicating the two lot lines in question and that once the dispute is resolved, the applicant shall file a new plat indicating the resulting resolution; 12. That the applicant shall submit a demolition plan, as part ofthe building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the historic house are to be removed as part of the renovation; 13. That the applicant shall submit a preservation plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating how the existing materials, which are to be retained, will be restored. The requirement is to retain/repair all original materials and 6 replicate only those that are determined by HPC staffand monitor to be beyond salvage; 14. That no elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist outside of approval granted by the HPC and no existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor; 15. That the HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures; 16. That there shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staffand monitor; 17. That the preservation plan described above, as well as the conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction; 18. That the applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC Resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit; 19. That the General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit; 20. That all representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions; 21. That, in the event the chimneys located on the roof of the historic structure, are to be dismantled during the relocation as represented in this application, the applicant agrees that all brick restorations as part of the reassembly shall be reviewed by Staff and Monitor; and 22. That the applicant agrees that any restoration has to comply to the UCBC 1997 version; 23. That the applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during demolition. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction as a requirement of the City of Aspen Streets Department; 7 24. That the HPC grants a 500 sq. ft. FAR. bonus to be allocated to Lot A with the historic house (for a maximum floor area of 1,753 square feet). Lot B will then maintain the balance of the remaining FAR to be 2,840 square feet; 25. That the applicant shall enter into a common water service agreement with the City Water Department for the newly relocated house; 26. That the applicant, prior to Final Review before the HPC, provide the Community Development Department and HPC with a signed agreement regarding the relocation of the Si Johnson Ditch and any tree relocation / mitigation issues with the City of Aspen Parks Department; 27. That the applicant shall comply with the Universal Conservation Building Code (UCBC); 28. Bill Baily, a local house mover, originally moved the house to its current location in 1971 from 100 West Hopkins Street. He has recently restudied the house and found that the house can be moved without any damage to the structure. However, The applicant, as a condition of approval, and prior to the application of building permits, shall be required to post a bond of $30,000 or other financial security approved by the HPC with the engineering department to ensure safe relocation ofthe structure; 29. That the Applicant be required to enter into a "Ditch Relocation Agreement" with the City of Aspen and that said agreement be a recorded document with the Pitkin County Clerk and recorder's Office thereby representing a burden running with the land. The Applicant should contact the Phil Overynder at the Water Department for a copy of this agreement. Specifically, the Ditch Relocation Agreement should reference the plans that are approved and provide for an easement a minimum of 10 feet in width which shall also be recorded on the Plat and Subdivision Exemption Agreement; and 30. That the Applicant shall enter into a "Ditch Relocation Agreement" with the City of Aspen and said agreement shall indicate that the City of Aspen, at it's sole discretion, has the option of moving the ditch off the property at a future date and would have no obligation to compensate the landowner(s) in any way. Said agreement shall specifically state that the landowners have no water rights in the ditch nor is any license being granted for use of water from the ditch. Finally, said agreement shall state that the landowners agree to comply with all City water policies including the policy that the City of Aspen is the exclusive water provider for all use of water within the City limits (i.e. no use of ditch water without the issuance of a raw water license agreement from the City). 8 RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to approve Resolution No, 2, Series 2001, approving the requests for 1) partial demolition, 2) relocation 3) the 500 sq. ft. FAR. bonus and 4) recommends City Council approve the Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split for 515 West Gillespie Avenue, with the conditions stated herein." REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS EXHIBIT A - HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION EXHIBIT B - HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT EXHIBIT C - PARTIAL DEMOLITION EXHIBIT D - RELOCATION EXHIBIT E - HISTORIC PRESERVATION GuIDELINES EXHIBIT F - RESOLUTION No. 2, SERIES OF 2001 EXHIBIT J - APPLICATION & DRAWINGS 9 EXHIBIT A HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION STANDARDS EXHIBIT A HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION STANDARDS Any structure or site that meets two (2) or more of the following standards may be designated as an historic landmark. A. Historical importance. The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Staff Finding In general, this structure is indicative of an upper middle class lifestyle during the last 1800's silver mining era. It is expressive of the materials, methods, and style of the period. Specifically, neither Staff nor the Applicant has any knowledge of any specific significant historical events or persons associated with this structure. In any event, it should not be dismissed that the Beck Family, who are the current owners, are also the same family that originally built the structure in 1887 (by Neil Beck's grandfather) and the family has continuously resided in the house until this time. While the Beck Family may not be considered as "significant persons" in the context of the City of Aspen and would not qualify as meeting this standard, Staff is aware that there are not too many unique situations such as this in Aspen. Staff finds this standard is not met. B. Architectural importance. Based on the building form, use, or specimen, the structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct, or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type. Staff Finding Staff finds that the 515 Gillespie structure, built in approximately 1887, originally located at 100 West Hopkins and subsequently moved in 1971 to its current location, is an excellent 114 year old example of Aspen's traditional Victorian Era architecture from before the turn of the century. Even though the house has been relocated, it has maintained its original form with the exception of a very minor single story shed detail on the rear of the house not seen from the street. A specific defining element of this architecture style includes a distinct roof form called the gable-end. This house style typically has a rectangular "T" shape plan with a gable roof with the ridge running perpendicular to the street as well as a cross gable form 10 running parallel to the street. Most houses of this architectural type, as this house does, have a porch on the gabled end and a smaller roof is attached to the shelter porch. In Aspen, many of these porches have been closed , ~~ ~ in and incorporated the space in the interior of the house that compromises the architectural integrity i . ~ i and the original form. This house has not enclosed i /,/ 7=!f:f Â· 1 the porch element that continues to be one of its 1 1 : m.Â· i = defining features along with classic turned posts. ; |l:.-:~f -T -1 (Please refer to the photo to the right). Most ' -J. 1. houses of this era specific to Aspen also tend to be ' ...1 94. c 20 ,<4 4% I wood sided and are 1 to 1 14 stories; however this 2 I - 4 . is an example of one which has 2 stories which is uncommon. View of front porch and turned posts. Another interesting feature includes a small "hip" or "clipped gable" element on the gable roof ends as shown in the photo below. After examining other houses in the neighborhood and throughout the west end, there were virtually no other examples of this interesting architectural treatment. - - - -- Â· It is because of all the aforementioned . reasons and defining architectural K '13 p : . Il -M:Â· U . - elements, that this structure, which is 1, .4 + a. I64, '* . indicative of an upper middle class IP \Ne lifestyle during the last 1 800's silver , 1 ' 0, 4 1 ' . mining era and is expressive of the ' - -'- ""=- RX .Â· materials, methods, and style of the . . period, that Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. 1-1.: I ... ..4 Photo showing "clipped gable" roof forms as well as bay window details C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has injluenced the character OfAspen. Staff Finding Neither Staff nor the Applicant has any information regarding the architect who designed this home; therefore, Staff finds that this criterion is not met. 11 D. Neighborhood character. The structure or site is a significant component of a historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is importantfor the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Staff Finding The structure is located in and is considered a very important historic element of the historic West End of Aspen that gains its character from the prominence of historic homes such as the subject home at 515 Gillespie Avenue. It is immediately located among other houses on the same half block fronting Gillespie Avenue that are more contemporary in nature that make this structure even more prominent as an important and historically distinct neighborhood structure. (See photos below) 6.- ~ 2-Â·=*1 - - -r-~~~ ,Â£.:/ - ... - - 2â‚¬51 - 51 - C: ' ~0Â¥.... 1 , 1.9 09. 4.â€¢4*u .AMF...: -t 4 -I. 111 .Al lit 1 -1&.4 .==â€¢- h.- G. 6. -40/ Residence to the east. Residence to the west. In the blocks that surround 515 Gillespie, one finds a wide variety of house styles, ages, sizes, and so on. The preservation effort sought by the Applicant through this application will continue to allow this structure to add considerable value not only to the specific block but also to the traditional west end neighborhood. When viewed in context of the surrounding blocks, there are ten houses currently listed on Aspen's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures; three of those structures maintain landmark status. This structure at 515 Gillespie Ave. is clearly a neighborhood-defining element that is complementary of the other three landmarked houses. Moreover, it is one of the better examples of Aspen' s historic past due to its uncompromised form and detailing which is an asset to Aspen's historic West End. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Community character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location, and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Staff Finding: In a similar perspective of neighborhood character, Staff finds that the 515 Gillespie single-family home is a critical site for preservation as it is already established as a home on the inventory and is an important and defining historical element in Aspen's Historic 12 west end neighborhood as it relates to and adds to community character. The City of Aspen takes great pride in the fact that it has been able to preserve a great deal of its past so that future generations will be able to actually see the evolution of this small mountain town into what it is today. This structure is an important and original slice of time showcasing an example of an upper middle class lifestyle during the last 1800's silver mining era and is expressive of the materials, methods, and style of the period. This structure and site is important because of its relationship to the existing neighborhood and other similar homes in terms of size, location, and architecture. Given that this unique two-story Victorian Era gable-end home is in excellent condition and remains as an excellent example of Aspen's 19~ century Late Victorian Age homes, it is a "city wide" resource that should not be lost to demolition but rather preserved as a historic structure. Essentially, there are a few homes in Aspen that have remained fairly true to original form with little modification to them. This house is one of the few that has maintained a true original form and design in its architectural elements defining its period of origination. So this house can be considered among the handful of very strong examples of Aspen's historic past. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 13 EXHIBIT B HISTORICAL LANDMARK LOT SPLIT In order to conduct a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the applicant shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Land Use Code: SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, LOT SPLIT The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following conditions are met: a) The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969; and Staff Finding: The lot (encompassing lots 4,5, and 6) has not been previously subdivided since March 24, 1969. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b) No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.040(A)(1)(c). Staff Finding: Two lots are created as a result of the lot split - Lots A and B. An Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADID, cash-in-lieu payment, or deed restriction on any new residence will be required for a proposed house on Lot B. An ADU or cash-in-lieu payment will be required on Lot A if more than 50% of the existing single-family house is demolished. The applicant may also choose to voluntarily provide an ADU on Lot A. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.040(C)(1*a); and Staff Finding: Staff finds that the lot in question was not the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or "lot split" exemption. Staff finds this criterion to be met. d) A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the ojfice of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further 14 subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the applicant agrees that the filing of the subdivision plat, that meets the terms of this chapter, conforms to the requirements of this title, and responds precisely to the condition in the Resolution drafted herein, shall be submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation. This shall be a condition of this approval. Staff finds this criterion to be met. e) Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the ojfice of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing Of good cause. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the applicant agrees that the plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall meet the timing requirements for recordation. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days, following approval by the City Council, shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D In the case where an existing single-famity dwelling occupies a site, which is eligible for a lot split, tile dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the existing dwelling will not be demolished; rather, the applicant intends to relocate the historic single-family structure from Lot "B" onto Lot "A" subject to the proper application process and review by the Historic Preservation Commission pursuant to Section 26.415. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. g) Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. Staff Finding: The applicant intends to move the historic single-family structure from Lot"B" onto Lot "A." As a result of this application, the owner of Lot B only has the ability to construct a single-family house. This scenario results in a total build out of two single-family 15 houses. The total build out shall not exceed three units and therefore Staff finds this criterion to be met. SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT The split of a lot that is a designated historic landmark for the development of one new single-family dwelling. The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of section 26.88.030(A)(2), section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), section 26.72.010(G) of this Code, and the following standards: a) The original parcel shall be a minimum of 9,000 square feet in size and be located in tile R-6 zone district or a minimum of 13,000 square feet and be located in the R-15A zone district. Staff Finding: The fathering / original parcel is 9,210 sq. ft in size and is located in the R-6 zone district. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b) The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. Staff Finding: The duplex FAR which would have been allowed for the fathering parcel is 4,093 square feet (not including the 500 square feet FAR bonus.) The applicant has formally requested the FAR bonus award from the Historic Preservation Commission to allocate appropriate FAR to Lot A which would contain the relocated historic structure. The FAR to be split between the two newly created lots (including the 500 sq. ft. bonus) is 4,593 sq. ft. in total. The applicant wishes to appropriate this FAR in the following manner: Lot "A" as having 1,753 sq. ft. and Lot "B" as having 2,840 sq. ft. Further, these lot sizes and floor areas shall be indicated on the plat as a condition of approval once requested. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c) The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. Staff Finding: The proposed / newly created Lot A will contain the historic structure moved from Lot B. The applicant is requesting a historic landmark designation for that structure. Any future development shall meet all dimensional requirements of the underlying R-6 zone district. Additionally, the applicant understands that HPC bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. The applicant intends to return to the HPC upon submitting an application for any further development on the newly created lots. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 16 GMQS EXEMPTION, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT The construction of each new single-family dwelling on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to Section 26.480.030(IE). This exemption shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotments established pursuant to Section 26.470.050 or from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. Exemption review is by the Community Development Director. This exemption shall only apply if the standards of Section 26.470.070(B)(1) or (2), as applicable, are met. Staff Finding: Staff finds that this exemption for the construction of each new single-family dwelling on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotments established pursuant to Section 26.470.050 or from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings. Any development of Lot "B" shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.470.060(B)(1) of the Municipal Code and shall be reflected in a plat note. 17 EXHIBIT C PARTIAL DEMOLITION No partial demolition of any structure included on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen shall be permitted unless the Historic Preservation Commission in accordance with the standards set forth in this Chapter approves the partial demolition. The applicant shall be required to address the following Standards for review of partial demolition. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all of the following standards are met: a) The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic signifcance of the parcel, and Staff Finding The applicant has included a partial demolition plan as indicated on the site plan. The applicant is requesting approval to 1) demolish a small non-historic shed addition on the rear of the historic house, 2) demolish the non-historic subgrade level and stairs, and 2) demolish a non-historic separate detached garage currently existing at the rear ofthe site. This demolition will eliminate non-historic portions /additions of the house. It should be noted that the existing siding on the house is not historic siding original to the structure. Staff finds that the partial demolition of the rear shed addition and subgrade level and stairwell does not detract from the historic structure and the detached garage on the rear ofthe lot does not contribute to the historic significance ofthe parcel. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b) The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: (1) Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions, and Staff Finding The applicant intends to remove only non-historic elements from the existing structure. In addition, the addition to be demolished is located in the rear of the house and not seen from the street and as a result, The house, in large part, will maintain its historic significance as defined by the Late Victorian Age in which it was built. Staff finds this criterion to be met. (2) Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions that are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. 18 Staff Finding The three portions of the existing home will not significantly interfere with the architectural character or integrity ofthe home. The existing non-historic addition to the rear of the house is not easily distinguished from the historic portion of the house. The applicant intends to replace this addition with a new addition that will be somewhat distinct and more easily distinguished from the historic structure. Again, this partial demolition and reconstruction of a new addition will occur in the rear of the historic structure and not viewed from the street. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 19 EXHIBIT D RELOCATION No on-site relocation of any structure included on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen shall be permitted unless the on-site relocation is approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. The applicant shall be required to address the following Standards for review of off-site relocation. No approval for off-site relocation shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all of the following standards are met: a) The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property, and Staff Finding As stated earlier, the house was built in 1887, originally located at 100 West Hopkins Street, and moved to its current location in 1971. Currently, the house is usable as a residence in its present location. The applicant intends to move the house as a result of the ability to conduct a historic landmark lot split provided the City Council grants landmark status to the property. b) The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for tile character and integrity of the structure and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation, and Staff Finding The new location of the historic home to Lot A will continue to maintain the front (or north facing) facade and its relationship to the street. In addition, the location will also promote exposure of the western faQa(le as a result of the angled position of the new adjacent house. There will be no loss of exposure ofthe east faGade ofthe house as a result of the move. Even though this fa~ade may be considered architecturally insignificant, it may be even more promoted as a result of the new development on Lot B. Staff finds that the move will not diminish the historic integrity of the house. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c) The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation, and Staff Finding Bill Baily, a local house mover, originally moved the house to its current location in 1971 from 100 West Hopkins Street. He has recently restudied the house and found that the house can be moved without any damage to the structure. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 20 0 d) A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security approved by HPC with the engineering department, to insure the safe relocation, preservation, and repair Of required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation, and Staff Finding The applicant, as a condition of approval, and prior to the application of building permits, shall be required to post a bond or other financial security approved by the HPC with the engineering department to ensure safe relocation of the structure. Stafffinds that this will be included as a condition of approval. e) The receiving site is compatible in nature to the structure or structures proposed to be moved, the character of the receiving site's neighborhood is consistent with the architectural integrity of the structure, and the relocation of the historic structure would not diminish the integrity or character of the receiving site's neighborhood. An acceptance letter from the property owner of the receiving site shall be submitted. Staff Finding For all practical matters, the historic house will be relocated on the same lot where it currently sits. (The house will move approximately 40 feet to the west.) As a result ofthe 0 lot split, the house actually changes lot locations; however, the nature and character of the lot does not drastically differ from current conditions. The receiver site is compatible in nature with the sending site and the neighborhood will not suffer from the movement of this structure. Moreover, the Aspen Area Community Plan calls for increased residential density. Staff finds that the lot split continues to be an incentive to promote this density increase while maintaining the historic lot sizes and relationships of dwellings. The receiver site will accommodate the house in accordance with all zoning provisions and the associated dimensional requirements. No letter of acceptance is required because both lots are owned by Mr. Bone. 0 21 EXHIBIT E HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES 1. Lot Splits The City provides several incentives for residential property owners to divide the square footage that could be built on a landmark parcel into two separate houses in order to reduce the size of both buildings, to reduce the size of an addition made to a historic house and to reinforce the original character of many of Aspen's neighborhoods, which had small houses on 3,000 square foot lots. This section of the Historic Preservations Guidelines deal almost entirely with new development on lots that result from an historic landmark lot split. There are no development plans proposed with this current application; Staff will perform an analysis of any new development proposal on the newly created lot with using the elements in these guidelines as major tools. 2. Building Additions Many historic buildings in Aspen experienced additions over time as the need for more space occurred. In some cases, owners added a wing onto a primary structure for use as a new bedroom, or to expand a kitchen. Typically the addition was subordinate in scale and character to the main building. This tradition of adding onto buildings should continue. It is important, however, that a new addition be designed in such a manner that it preserves the historic character of the original structure. It is important, that new additions do not detract from the character of the building or obscure significant features There are a few basic principles for new additions that are prescribed by Aspen's Historic Preservation Guidelines. In general they include minimizing negative effects that may occur to the historic building fabric, the addition should not affect the perceived character of the building, and keep the size of the addition small in relation to the main structure. Specifically, the guidelines indicate: 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. Staff finds that the proposed new addition does not reflect the exact character of the historic house but is not too inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building. Further, the addition does not attempt to portray an earlier period than that of the primary building or imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 10.4 Design a ilew addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. The proposed addition is made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. In addition, the addition maintains changes in setbacks, materials, and architectural style from the historic building, that help define a change from old to new construction. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 22 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. Staff finds that the two roofs proposed are appropriate because they are shed roofs. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. With the exception of the metal roof materials, the new materials are similar to the original materials. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic building. Staff finds that the rooftop shed dormer is subordinate in scale and not seen from the street so that it does not detract from the historic nature of the house as it is seen from the street. However, it appears to be a large cut into the form of the roof and significantly changes the "read" of the south elevation. Yet is not street facing so that the historic appearance is not severely adulterated. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 3. Building Relocation / Foundations Generally, removing a structure from the parcel with which it is historically recorded will compromise its integrity. However, there may be cases when relocation will not substantially affect the integrity of a property and its rehabilitation can be assured as a result. In this particular case, the house was originally located at 100 West Hopkins Avenue and was subsequently relocated to its current location in 1971. This application calls for demolishing the non-historic basement which serves as the current basement The Historic Preservation Guidelines contain language referring to protecting the resource prior to and during relocation. Specifically, wood panels should be mounted on the exterior of the building to protect existing openings and particularly historic glass. Further, special care should be taken to keep from damaging door and window frames and sashes in the process of covering the openings. The guidelines specifically indicate: 23 RESOLUTION NO. 2, EXHIBIT F SERIES OF 2001 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING A PARTIAL DEMOLITION, RELOCATION, A 500 SQ. FT. FAR BONUS, AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 515 WEST GILLESPIE AVENUE, LOTS 4,5, AND 6, BLOCK 99, IIALLAM ADDITION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2735-121-11-007 WHEREAS, the applicant, Pamela and Neil Beck, represented by Randall Bone, requested the following land use approvals for a property located at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, Lots 4,5, and 6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen: 1. Historic Landmark Designation 2. Historic Landmark Lot Split 3. Partial Demolition 4. Relocation 0 5. 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus WHEREAS, the property is currently listed in the City of Aspen's Inventory of Historical Sites and Structures; and WHEREAS, this application for a Historic Landmark Designation, Historic Landmark Lot Split meets all of the Development Review Standards of Section 26.420.010, Section 26.480.030(A)(2), and Section 26.480.030(A)(4) in order for HPC to grant approval; WHEREAS, in a staffreport dated June 13th, 2001, the Community Development Department determined the application for a historic landmark designation and historic landmark lot split met the applicable review standards indicated above, and recommended approval with conditions; and WIIEREAS, at a public hearing, which was legally noticed and held at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on June 13th, 2001, at which time the HPC considered and found the application to meet the review standards, and approved the Partial Demolition, Relocation, 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus, and recommended City Council approve the request for Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split with conditions by a vote ofthree to one (3 to 1). 0 24 0 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the requests for Conceptual Approval specifically including a 1) partial demolition, 2) relocation, and 3) 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus, and a recommendation to City Council to approve the Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split for 515 West Gillespie Avenue, is approved by Aspen Historic Preservation Commission with the following conditions: 1. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause; 2. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that any development of Lot "B" shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing; 3. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that the 0 lots contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; 4. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district and residential design standards with the potential exception for variances to be approved by the HPC; 5. That Lots "A" and "B" are designated historic landmarks and must receive HPC approval for all development in accordance with Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code, as well at Section 26.410, the "Residential Design Standards;" 6. That the applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR for each newly created lot, taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided into two parcels, Lot "A" receiving 4,639 square feet of lot area and Lot"B" receiving 4,571 square feet of lot area. Provided it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on Lot "A" will be 1,753 s.Â£ (including a 500 square foot floor area bonus) and 2,840 square feet of floor area on Lot "B." The information specific to exact allocated FAR as 25 indicated above for both lots as verified by the City Zoning Officer, shall be included on the plat, as a plat note; 7. That the applicant shall provide the Subdivision Exemption Agreement that includes the elements outlined in Section 26.480.030(A)(2) of the Aspen Municipal Code, and shall meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section 26.480.070(ID. (The Community development department can provide an example ofthis agreement to the applicant); 8. That the applicant agrees that prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either lot, the applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement (if applicable) and pay the applicable recording fees; 9. That the HPC herein and pursuant to this Resolution, grants the applicant approval to allocate the FAR to be split between the two newly created lots (including the 500 sq. ft. bonus) to be 4,093 sq. ft. in total. The applicant shall appropriate this FAR in the following manner: Lot "A" as having 1,753 sq. ft. and Lot "B" as having 2,840 sq. ft. prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements, etc.). Further, these lot sizes and floor areas shall be indicated on the final plat that is recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and recorder's Office; 10. All information regarding possible future development on newly created Lot B of this lot split shall be removed from the site plan prior to review of the historic lot split by City Council. Only the existing structures, proposed lot lines, and existing vegetation shall be represented; and 11. That the applicant shall record a final plat indicating the approvals in this resolution as they have been represented to the Historic Preservation Commission. In addition, if the westerly lot line dispute between the Collins and the owners of the property known as lot a of the Beck Lot Split of Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, has not been resolved prior to the recording of said plat, the applicant shall record a plat showing both lines in dispute and a note on the plat indicating the two lot lines in question and that once the dispute is resolved, the applicant shall file a new plat indicating the resulting resolution; 12. That the applicant shall submit a demolition plan, as part ofthe building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the historic house are to be removed as part of the renovation; 13. That the applicant shall submit a preservation plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating how the existing materials, which are to be retained, will be restored. The requirement is to retain/repair all original materials and 26 0 replicate only those that are determined by HPC staffand monitor to be beyond salvage; 14. That no elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist outside of approval granted by the HPC and no existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor; 15. That the HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures; 16. That there shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor; 17. That the preservation plan described above, as well as the conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction; 18. That the applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies ofthe HPC Resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit; 0 19. That the General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit; 20. That all representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions; 21. That, in the event the chimneys located on the roof of the historic structure, are to be dismantled during the relocation as represented in this application, the applicant agrees that all brick restorations as part of the reassembly shall be reviewed by Staff and Monitor; and 22. That the applicant agrees that any restoration has to comply to the UCBC 1997 version; 23. That the applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during demolition. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction as a requirement of the City of Aspen Streets Department; 0 27 24. That the HPC grants a 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus to be allocated to Lot A with the historic house (for a maximum floor area of 1,753 square feet). Lot B will then maintain the balance of the remaining FAR to be 2,840 square feet; 25. That the applicant shall enter into a common water service agreement with the City Water Department for the newly relocated house; 26. That the applicant, prior to Final Review before the HPC, provide the Community Development Department and HPC with a signed agreement regarding the relocation of the Si Johnson Ditch and any tree relocation / mitigation issues with the City of Aspen Parks Department; 27. That the applicant shall comply with the Universal Conservation Building Code (UCBC); and 28. Bill Baily, a local house mover, originally moved the house to its current location in 1971 from 100 West Hopkins Street. He has recently restudied the house and found that the house can be moved without any damage to the structure. However, The applicant, as a condition of approval, and prior to the application of building permits, shall be required to post a bond of $30,000 or other financial security approved by the HPC with the engineering department to ensure safe relocation of the structure; 29. That the Applicant be required to enter into a "Ditch Relocation Agreement" with the City of Aspen and that said agreement be a recorded document with the Pitkin County Clerk and recorder's Office thereby representing a burden running with the land. The Applicant should contact the Phil Overynder at the Water Department for a copy of this agreement. Specifically, the Ditch Relocation Agreement should reference the plans that are approved and provide for an easement a minimum of 10 feet in width which shall also be recorded on the Plat and Subdivision Exemption Agreement; and 30. That the Applicant shall enter into a "Ditch Relocation Agreement" with the City of Aspen and said agreement shall indicate that the City of Aspen, at it's sole discretion, has the option of moving the ditch off the property at a future date and would have no obligation to compensate the landowner(s) in any way. Said agreement shall specifically state that the landowners have no water rights in the ditch nor is any license being granted for use of water from the ditch. Finally, said agreement shall state that the landowners agree to comply with all City water policies including the policy that the City of Aspen is the exclusive water provider for all use of water within the City limits (i.e. no use of ditch water without the issuance of a raw water license agreement from the City). 28 Section 2: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity ofthe remaining portions thereoÂ£ APPROVED BY THE, COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 13th day of June, 2001. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk C:\My Documents\Current Cases\HI'C\515 W Gillespie\515WGillespie Conceptual Memo.doc 29 64.60 + c ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, June 13, 2001 Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Gilbert Sanchez, Jeffrey Halferty, Susan Dodington, Lisa Markalunas, Rally Dupps and Melanie Roschko present. MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve the minutes of May 9, 2001 as amended; second by Rally. AN in favor, motion carried. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Lisa brought up a concern on the Hunt project and it appears that damage has occurred to the cottonwood trees in front ofthe historic house. Jeffrey inquired about the remedial plan on the Schelling project. Stephen Kanipe, building official met with the attorney Doug Allen and reviewed sketches from the architect which were rejected with a list of requirements. A survey will be required. The neighbor to the west has been addressed as far as back filling. Amy has two monitoring issues on 330 Lake Ave. and 329 Park Ave. that will be discussed at the end of the meeting. PARAGON BUILDING - 419 HYMAN Disclosure: Rally will step down 735 W. Bleeker and 515 Gillespie St. Jeffrey will step down for 935 E. Cooper Gilbert will be stepping down for 515 Gilespie and 935 E. Cooper MOTION: Melanie moved to continue 735 W. Bleeker until June 27,200; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried. Melanie, Susan, Lisa, Suzannah, Gilbert, Je#rey 515 GILLESPIE STREET - LANDMARK DESIGNATION - CONCEPTUAL - LOT SPLIT - ETC. PUBLIC HEARING City Planner, Fred Jarman presented. This is a request for landmark designation, lot split, partial demolition, relocation and the 500 square foot bonus. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, June 13, 2001 The difference in square footage is 160 square feet which was removed and relocated in the garage on Lot A. Nothing to the house changed. On the garage they added the square footage on the grade level and added a stairway on the Eastside which accesses a door to the mechanical space. Fred presented drawings. Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland swore in Randall Bone, owner. Randall said the 160 square feet was an opportunity to make the mechanical and storage space under the garage more accessible and possibly at some point have a sufficient size that would work for an ADU. Lisa asked about the Lilac bush and Randall said he would relocate it if need be. Susan relayed that any historic glass should be protected. Fred said by code you can have an eave that extends over the setback by 18 inches. Melanie had concerns with the extension and Randall said they are still four feet from the property line. Suzannah opened the public hearing. Charles and Jan Collins were sworn in. He feels the 500 square foot bonus should be attributed to the historic house lot A not B and according to his calculations it is allotted to B. Suzannah said no it specifically applies to lot A. Charles said in the R6 zone you are permitted 44% FAR ofthe lot size and this is 62% and in addition when we talk about character of the historic resource the house next door will be 2/3 again as big as the present one. Suzannah said that is what is allowed by the land use code regardless of the historic house. Charles said the west faGade stands on its own and if it moves 8 feet further west to the adjacent property it will be significantly blocked by trees which will be effect by that appearance. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, June 13, 2001 0 Ditch Comment: Charles said the Parks Dept. gave approval for the ditch relocate in which he feels is a significant change in the character of that particular site. Since this came on board the trees have been moved on the site and that has made a significant change on the site. What is proposed is a detrimental change and will have a negative impact. Jan Collins said she spent time on the guidelines and she has concerns with the roof design of the addition. According to the guidelines that is not something that you do. There is also a new window and that is not allowed in the guidelines. The house was moved there on a truck and is not as old as the ditch. It is the last of the Si Johnson ditch. The ditch serves the music festival in the tent and the wild flower garden. The house sits behind the ditch and is part of the front fa~ade of the home. This is part of the ambiance of the west end. The gradient proposed will not carry the water and will have to go up hill. Jan is opposed to the new ditch relocation. Suzannah closed the public hearing. Melanie recused herself. 0 Amy said originally Randall came here with a three house scenario and clearly he has pulled back from that as it would not be appropriate for this neighborhood. The two houses proposed is something anyone can do on a 9,000 square foot lot. He is not accruing any other development rights than anyone else. Commissioner comments Jeffrey stated that he appreciates the neighbors concerns and the applicant has taken a lot of what they have said and applied them to the proposal. Jeffrey stated he is a big proponent of the lot split and it is an excellent way to aid and downsize the potential additions that can go onto historic resources. Bailey moved the house their in 1971 and it had a different context and a different relationship to the street that it was on and to the neighborhood. The relocation of the historic ditch has not been privatized by putting it internally on the lot. It is changing course to allow the applicants 0 right to build the allowable square footage that he is allowed by our land use code. The straight lot lines is an excellent way to solve some ofthe issues. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, June 13, 2001 The shed dormer is the most appropriate dormer and the materials are acceptable. The new window penetrations are OK as long as the detailing is different and more contemporary. At the junction where the historic corner board meet the new material that there be a detail in line that can be reviewed by staff and monitor. The new proposal has accommodated a lot of the Collin's concerns. Lisa disagreed with Jeffrey's comments. She is opposed to moving the house to what she feels is an inferior location which has major impacts on the prominence of the house and impacts on the west faGade. She feels more could have been done and this is not an exemplary project warranting the 500 square foot bonus. Impacts on the streetscape, landscaping and the ditch are tremendous even before the property has been constructed. She also feels there are conflicts with out guidelines. There is also concern about the relative sizes of the structures compared to one another. Another concern is the impact on the neighborhood character. Susan was gratified that the addition is small. She is mostly concern about the ditch and would hate to see it not work and the water cut offto the music tent. She said moving the historic house isn't making it an outstanding project but keeping the addition small might apply. Suzannah said she is always in favor of a lot split because it is better for the neighborhood. To have two small houses as opposed to an historic house with one very large and challenging addition to it. That is the motivation behind the lot split. In this case the addition to the historic building is very small compared to the existing building we are going one step further. She feels this is an outstanding effort. She shares the concern about the ditch and in every project have tried to keep the ditches in their original orientation as much as possible. We do have to allow some flexibility when it is on private property. She would prefer to see the ditch run up between the Collin's and this house and cross the front. Clearly there are slop and functionality issues to that. That is something that we should direct the applicant to address for final. It is more appropriately appropriately routed in front than around the back. The only concern of the addition is the proposed change to the second window on the upstairs, eliminating that takes away from the aesthetic of the back of the house that exits now. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, June 13, 2001 Fred said the numerous city staff walked the street and the grade was a question that came out and it was determined that it could be relocated. One thought was maybe the ditch should run down 5th street and do it's function there. Randall said the ditch moved to the back because the grades wouldn't work going through the front. There was concern if it backed up that it would go into peoples houses. It is a legal obligation that the city has to deliver water to the tent. MOTION: Jejfrey made the motion to approve conceptual review for 515 W. Gillespie Ave. and that HPC approves 1)request for partial demolition, 2) relocation, 3)the 500 square foot FAR bonus, 4) recommends City Council approve the Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split for 515 West Gillespie Ave. with the following conditions: 1. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments and recorded in the ojfice of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days offinal approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause; 2. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that any development of Lot "B" shall be required to mitigate for a#ordable housing; 3. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; 4. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat ntoe stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements Of the R-6 zone district and residential 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, June 13, 2001 design standards with the potential exception for variances to be approved by the HPC; 5. That Lots "A" and "B" are designated historic landmarks and must receive HPC approval for all development in accordance with Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code, as well as Section 26.410, the "Residential Design Standards," 6. That the applicant shall verijy with the City Zoning Ojficer the total allowable FAR for each newly created lot, taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be 49 A " receiving 4,639 square feet of subdivided into two parcels, Lot tl lot area and Lot "B" receiving 4,571 square feet oflot area. Providing it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on Lot "A" will be 1,753 squarefeet (Including a 500 square foot floor area bonus) and 2,840 square feet offloor area on Lot "B". The information specific to exact allocated FAR as indicated above for both lots as verified by the City Zoning Officer, shall be included on the plat, as a plat note; 7. That the applicant shall provide the Subdivision Exemption Agreement that includes the elements outlined in Section 26.480.030(A)(2) ofthe Aspen Municipal Code, and shall meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section 26.480.070(E). (The Community Development Department can provide an example of this agreement to the applicant); 8. That the applicant agrees that prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either lot, the applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement (if applicable) and pay the applicable recoTding fees; 9. That the HPC herein and pursuant to this Resolution, grants the applicant approval to allocate the FAR to be split between the two newly created lots (including the 500 square feet bonus) to be 4,093 square feet in total. The applicant shall appropriate this FAR in the following manner; Lot "A"as having 1,753 squarefeet 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, June 13, 2001 and Lot "B" as having 2,840 square feet prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (Le. slopes, access easements, etc.) Further, these lot sizes and floor areas shall be indicated on the final plat that is recorded in the Pitkin County and Clerk and Recorder's Office; 10. All information regarding possible future development on newly created Lot B of this lot split shall be removed from the site plan prior to review of the historic lot split by City Council. Only the existing structures, proposed lot lines, and existing vegetation shall be represented; and 11. That the applicant shall record a final plat indicating the approvals in this resolution as they have been represented to the Historic Preservation Commission. In addition, if the westerly lot line dispute between the Collins and the owners of the property known as lot A of the Beck Lot Split of Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, has not been resolved prior to the recording of said plat, the applicant shall record a plat showing both lines in dispute and a note on the plat indicating the two lot lines in question and that once the dispute is resolved, the applicant shall file a new plat indicating the resulting resolution; 12. That the applicant shall submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas Of the historic house are to be removed as part ofthe renovation; 13. That the applicant shall submit a preservation plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating how the existing materials, which are to be retained, will be restored. The requirement is to retain/repair all original materials and replicate only those that are determined by HPC sta# and monitor to be beyond salvage; 14. That no elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist outside of approval granted by the HPC and no existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval Of stajf and monitor.1 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, June 13, 2001 0 15. That the HPC stajf and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures; 16. That there shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 17. That the preservation plan described above, as well as the conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction; 18. That the applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC Resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the 0 Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 19. That the General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit; 20. That all representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions; 21. That, in the event the chimneys located on the roof of the historic structure, are to be dismantled during the relocation as represented in this application, the applicant agrees that all brick restorations as part of the reassembly shall be reviewed by Staff and Monitor; and 0 22. That the applicant agrees that any restoration has to comply to the UCBC 1997 version; 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, June 13, 2001 23. That the applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during demolition. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction as a requirement of the City ofAspen Streets Department; 24. That the HPC grants a 500 sq.. Ft. FAR bonus to be allocated to Lot A with the historic house (for a maxim floor area of 1,753 square feet). Lot B will then maintain the balance of the remaining FAR to be 2,840 square feet. 25. That the applicant shall enter into a common water service agreement with the City Water Department for the newly relocated house; 26. That the applicant, prior to Final Review before the HPC, provide the Community 'Development Department and HPC with a signed agreement regarding the relocation of the Si Johnson Bitch and any tree relocation/ mitigation issues with the City of Aspen Parks Department; That the applicant confirm forfinal from the City Engineer confirmation of the information provided here. 27. That the applicant shall comply with the Universal Conservation Building Code (UCBC); and 28. Bill Baily, a local house mover, originally moved the house to its current location in 1971 from 100 West Hopkins Street. He has recently restudied the house and found that the house can be moved without any damage to the structure. However, The applicant, as a condition of approval, and prior to the application of building permits, shall be required to post a bond of#30,000 or other financial security approved by the HPC with the Engineering Department to ensure safe relocation ofthe structure. 29. The large window on the south elevation needs to be restudied(smaller or deletion). 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, June 13, 2001 0 Motion second by Susan. Yes vote: Susan, Suzannah, Jeffrey. No vote: Lisa Motion carried 3-1. 0 0 10 - 4. - HPC CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PACKAGE 06-I 3-200I HISTORIC HOME RENOVATION 515 gillespie st. aspen, colorado , consortium 1 architects 1 P.O.B. 3662, aspen, colorado 81612 (970) 925.6797 fax (970) 925.6797 ~ e-mail rally@aspeninfo. com 57~mEEPIE ST. NOTE - 30" CLOTTON2000 SITE PLAN TO BE VERIFIED YV RER SITE IMPROVEMENT SURVEY 10'-O" FRONT Â¥ARE) _ :4" OOTTONAOOD 3 SETBACK ~ ~ , NEPI LOCATION - FOR 14" - 38.54' 36.41' - -- -1 - COTTONAOOP 0+6- - -\- ...1.- ------ ..... / \ // 5'-O'Â· , , 1 , 5'-0" , ~ ie" COTTON)NOC~77 ~ / n COLLINS * LOT LINE 7 00 DISPUTE \ ://,11 1 ~=~ E)~STING - L DITGH LOCATION 1 1 .11______r---r- --L-7---7 11 / I / 11 // =*1 1 1 . 1 5'-0" SIDE YARD ~ il r' ..../. SETBACK Z .1 Ill 1 1 1 1 r.-1 il 1 1- 1 REVISED 1 iz!z= 7 1 PITCH LOCATION | 11 I i 14" COTTONMOOD | 1 ,Â¢91 ---to - 1 1 1 1 (MOVED) 1-X| ~ ~ty---cÂ»~-1 1 1 1 r\\r/hi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ || ~ FOUNDATION TO / , EXISTINe SUBeRADE 1 1 1 | BE DEMOLISHED ~ 1 1 1 92 :/ 1 * 14Â· SPRUGE 1 1 1 1 (MOVED) 1 1 1 1 1/ 1 EXISTIN6 SUBGRADE j-/~ | 1 1 1 1 // 2 41 EXTERIOR STAIRS - 1 1 ----1-- -----rl /' TO BE DEHOLISHED 1 1 10" ASPEN -~ | | 1 ./1/ 9 \\ 11 / il \\1 ------1-----1 -h_ PREVIOUS HOUSE ~ ,~ i l LOCATION ~ lo" ASPEN - 1 1 1 1 0 /1 1 - Al// 0//// 1 1 1 / 1 Ll- DEMOLISH NON-HISTORIC L SHED ADDITION PRIOR TO MOVING HISTORIC 1/ /1 | HOUSE 1 L PA-rio 1 REVISED ~ PITCH LOCATION 50-0" SIDE YARD EXISTING -/ 1 PITCH LOCATION 1 0\ ~~-- SETBACK 1 - ;- PATHRAY I 1 .1 $1 1 1 1 1 E--------7 i LOT 'Al 1 1 Ul J + LOT 'B' I 1 1 HISTORIC LOT j j ' NEIN LOT ' 12" COTTON,â€¢1000 -L-1___5~ 4634 9.F. 1 4571 S,F. i APPLE TREE - ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 101 1 1 1 1 1 1 -T~---2-_.n 11 1 1 1 | | | REMOVE SM. ~ 1 ~ 1 ,~ ASPEN TREES ~ LINE OF I ~ FOUN*IOO~ ~ ~ ~ ~ --r-12 /1 1 1 1 1 1 \ , 14111 1 1 1 Ill 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ 1 /1 -41 14-11 4-ROOF ABOVE ~ 1 \1 \1 /1 1 VV| 1 1 -~ 1 1 - [-11 i / 1 1 1 11 1 1 \1/1 1110 1 1 ' 1.J i 1 2 f / 11 44 % 1 ~ ~ DEMOLISH EXISTING j 3 I - r -1 1 1 111 1 ~ NON-HISTORIC GARAeE 1 1 -14.-1 1 r- -- - --J 1 - I j 5'-0" REAR YARD _~ -- SETBACK 1 8'-6"xle'-O".1/ PARKING SPACE L DRIVE ALLEY NORTH SITE PLAN lAI.O/ 1/8. 0 1'-O. .. MINDOM PROJECTION ABOVE 4 . 4 ..4 4 I â€¢ 4 . A 111 â€¢ ' 3'-O" D . . I 4 . .4 EGRESS -~/~' ' ~ MINDOM â€¢ 4 4, 4 - BEDROOM 4 U. . PROJECTION '~ - 036| LADDER LT. MILL ABOVE = TUB 0 D= 0 90 Ln BEDROOM AREA= I41 5.F. LISHT AREA REQUIRED= 14.1 S.F 4 00 BATH . LIGHT AREA PROVIDED= 150 S.F, 4 â€¢ BATH - ARMOIRE ! R*5m . \11 \ \IGE**Z-77-1 / TUB VENT LOCATION =00 lib - FOR MECH. 0 \ ROVL - STAIR . - DOOR 7 ~ 1 11 L ' * / 31-0. STAIRS, __.-=- 6 9 I . ABV. -,DR MECH. 9 r . / 0351 LAUND.-- 1 . 11 LA N . f 50Â® r 6 7/1 0 . *22 up - ACCESS -34 / f .. LT. MELL - ESRESS BEDROOM LADDER * LADDER [Eal 3'-2" ' Â· g ED EXCAVATE / 9 DOMN 4'-0" / 1 8" CONG. MALL in FROM LOMER 2 Â· BEDROOM AREA= 151 S.F. . C== LIGHT AREA REQUIRED. 15.1 S.F. MECH. . ji- Â»1/ 2" RleID LI6HT AREA PROVIDED= 151 SF INSUL. PLAÂ¥ROOM rEarl 1 -4<10- . 2 11 ~ T.O.GONG. ELEV. 84'-10" â€¢ 11 : .4 . . d. CLOS. | 1 STRUCTURAL /-COLUMN . , . - LEVEL ABOVE d.1-7 d - Â· -8 . 4 . 4 4 . \ 1 1 j L-_-1 NORTH 6 1 LOMER LEVEL PLAN 43-F 1/411 = 11-011 .b ... HISTORIC.j METAL BAÂ¥ AIDÂ»1. SUARPRAIL 7 HISTORIC. ADYN. -~ FORCH ~ T,O. FIN. FLOOR ~ ria-1 ELEV. 100'-O" DESK -11 \ OFFICE 11 - 11 11 80 1 [i=-1 2 LIGHT MELL BELOh! 7~ 1- 2 01 rd N CERTIFIED HIP. / BURNINS F.P. HISTORIC - EXISTINe 1 up \ BAY ADA. FLUE ABV. O 4 DINING 9 HISTORIC 7 A & r .\1 Lul G] Ln] 3 Ltli -1 - 3 - -Â· " ' <%'t }/ , MINDOÂ»IS O BUILT-IN PANTRÂ¥ 1~ A ~ CABS. ADV. ~n ON (1 | 10 R.. 1 3/8" UP 4/1 6~ in STAIR STAIR 1 | 4 TR B IC" O ' 1*] 4 - \\ 'L LIGHT MELL #0~#-MINE RACK STAIRS J BELOM 7 27" NER MINDOM ABV. ~ PANTRY ~ LOR 1 ---; MALL 7~ POPNDER t-- 27"REF - ~ TILE MooD 11 1 1 DRAMER CABS. -- FREEZER ~x- ABV. f e - NER ANDOM BELOA /4 - 1 %E 1- PJIN*4 - KITCHEN ~ lf) .1-Tail - 0 1 | 0 LINE OF ADDITION ~~., CABS. . & CLe. CHANSE 10 METAL 3 / 1 BUILT-IN . GUARDRAIL BELOR - ABOVE CUBBIES t I -1 --91 / NER MINDOM -1 ' ~ 2% --% --- POP-UP TV SINK / Â»* VENTILATION _7 Ii- Jol-- 1 Fl~-_ __ _~ Â£ _ [T--- 1 _i.___ LIVING HOOD ABOVE It 1 , ~ 42 NER MINDOM y,4==fl FLOWER BOX-/ \ ~ i 4 yeÂ·e-- MUD RM. ~ ~ 1381 DECK 1 -- ria*-1 11 1 E--3-33-1- 1 .0-11 ~ ~ ODN ~ 2 RISERS 0 5" BENCH ii NER MINDOPIS -3- 4- \ f -FOR SOUTH ELEVATION f L eAS LOS \ APPLIANCE NORTH \ L OUTDOOR r-21 MAIN LEVEL PLAN HATCH ROOF RESTORE ORIGINAL TUB DECK n ABOVE .- HISTORIC ADYN. PORCH ROOF 7 . I 2-1 %1 01 4-' 01 '-F 0-1 4- ([ $ 1,1 , I / 1 1 1\1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BENCH lll\lllllllll 0 ,Illlll1lllllll Â° TUB pll'lll'll lip 11111111111 ~ -~14 -Â»1-1-4-1-4 -4-1-1- ' i ' ' ' ' ' 1 1 1 Ill I / - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I' DASHED LINE OF ~| SR ' '1 ROOF ABOVE 1 4 / f.3811 \ M. BATH lify.i BUILT-INS fi 1 - I / M 1 1 M. BEDROOM re,07, T,LE ~ ~~ _ ~ 71/0 [=il -7 HISTORIC i MINDOM 1 \ 1 ~ ROOF ABOVE SEALED |/ GAS LO6 -1 1 i ~ HALL PNO 10' iÂ· â€¢ 1 15/~6" . I 8/ APPLIANCE ~ 4 ~ / 1 â„¢ 0 10. ., 1 STAIR m [05-1 DIRECT 1'-O" 1 , I '' L IL, 11 ..1 . 1-0 - 7 -120 2-3 4-31\- 1 1 ' 1 i_-19' 4 1 1 IN M. CLOSET ABOVE fL--1-1 ~ ~ 1- 1 - 11.-24- PV SHELVINe CLOTHES ROD lili. 111 11--1 -1 - 1 1 = 1 1 /4 11 1 --- 1 1 1 -T - 11 1 43 1 1 BALOUNT -1 1 MAIN LEVEL AV t 1 ~1 [2001 - lilli 39Â· ~ BELOW E 1/1/1 11 I A l --<<w< EW 14111-0 111 * T.O. FIN. FLOOR METAL GUTTER 1/54---t-- T th ELEV. HO'-1" ~ C ~ | EDGE- 1 |rn |In ~ EXISTING 1 -0 I~]18_L. __I_ i 1 1 9 rl i- rn HISTORIC 1 NE 10 (1' 1 ZÂ¥ 1 ~l | MINDOM 1 1 1 ~11 = 1 11, 1 1 4 19â€¢1 1 1 1 1 NEM MINDOM -, EXISTINe 1/1 0 1.- ASPHALT 4 | 0 |--T SHINGLE -f 1 04 -//1 1 -Tit-1--11 11 ROOFINS I , J~ :4[2~17b "'~'*,] Ir 1 SUARDRAIL ~ / w p Y- / /#>tioâ‚¬4 6 __ __ __L _ _1_ --U-- --| - 8 4 'faY'/ 904Â»9 111 1// \/\ 1 / A \Na NEÂ»1 FNEP, -/'~ A r 1 1-,jÂ» 1 90 DECKINS 0 0 -\ -0 -1 METAL ~ 8 FLASHINe 6/2 Â« \ METAL ROOFINe . - STANDING SEAM METAL Â» 4\ MIIR I Â»1 CRICKET 94 / / lÂ«\ 7 F g 1 9.1- 3:12 SLOPE Â»1/ METAL ROOFINe NORTH ~Â© UPPER LEVEL PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" ... lili -----\1 Ill/ 2-7 -2 2-7 --6.1 1 1 //-- - 11 SLOPE - - - EXISTING - - EXISTINe ~ ~ ---- ---- Illl1IlIilll1I1IlllllllI 1111 41-----------7-- 11 lili 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1\ - -11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11,1 \----- --------- ----- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 \ - 1-2 -- - 71 1 1 1 1 1 1 JI 1 1 1 i ' 1 J dim I i 1 I l i l i l 1 1 lilli 11\---- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1\ EXISTINS |lili ll- 10 1 1.1 1 lilli 11 I l l I l l lill 1 1 1 1 I l i l lii ASPHALT SHINGLE Tr~[--Â·-1- Ill 1 1 11 1 I l i l li 1 1 1Â· 1 \-7 - - n ROOF ING 1 \1 p-1 1 1 1 & l i l i 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1\6 -\- \. l il ill 1 l ili 1 1 1%1 1 1 1 \. DORMER Â»IALL -~1~~~\\ I l l l t l l i i ' 1 1 ~--r-Â·t~ a 1 [-~ l t i #__ ~~ BELOR Ill ' l lilli 1-j il lilli\ ~-- METAL FLASHING X 11 11 m 2 -LE- _- 1--1-/Ff-T--1 -1- 1 -1- 1- --31 STANDING SEAM Wlp Xb METAL ROOFING -\41Â«11 010 11 3 J 1/f-Ul-111111 11 m m UPPER LEVEL P\- /1-4-14 LI _I_ I -1_ I~ -I=~ I BELOR 7 li _ Â»c--0-tiff- i -1 1 E-1 BALCONÂ¥ ---c- -- BELOFN - -_~-_- EXISTANG - - - Cl ROOF BELOA 0 NORTH 6 0 ROOF PLAN 1/4" = I'-O" EXISTING BRIC< CHIMNEÂ¥ FLUE EXISTING , 1 NER DORMER Â»1/ ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFINS 12 VERT. PNP. SIDING 3 1 1 1 1 EXITING j METAL SUARDRAIL DOUBLE HUNG i 3.O. BEAM @ DORMIER MINDOMS ' 1 ' ELEV. 114'-4 3/4" 1 EXISTING HORIZ. pe sIC)ING ~ 1 T.C. PLATE @ UPPER CLAPEDCARD 5101146 1 3 - - - TYPICAL FOR ENTIRE 7 ELEV. 115'-11" EXHAUST VENT BUILDING EXISTING 12 ASPHALT SHINSLE ' i el ROOFINe HISTORIC 040. Ij 1 T.O. F.F. @ UPPER lili ELEV. liD'-1" DETAILINe li l T.O. PLATE @ ROOF EXISTING a a i ELEV. 109'-8 3/8" (EXISTING) . HISTORIC 45. TRIM <1 1 1 EXISTING 1 ~=====~ d 1~| VERT. hip. SIOINe AD. DECKINS NER ANDOR i, 4 1 EXIETINS METAL FLOMER BOX GONG.STEP 1( 1 0 lit' 1 METAL SIDINe SEADE 1 ~ 1 1 ~~1 1 T.O. 2. @ LOMER ELEV. 100'-0" 1 1 1 HORIZ. AE) SIDINS \ TO MATCH EXISTINS EXISTING HORIZ. 1 1 11 1 4- PNP. SIDING 1 I-I 1 NOTE: NO CHANGES ARE ~ METAL SUARDRAIL PROPOSED FOR NORTH ELEV. USHTMELL METAL FLASHING ESRESS AINDOR T.O. CONG. C--1------ - -~ ELEv. aquio" hEST ELEVATION AB.1-7--27-0" - -- NER DORMIER PV EXITING METAL FLASHING BRICK STANDING BEAM METAL CHIMNEÂ¥ ROOF INe 1 1 EXISTING 1 1 ' NEW KINDOM ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFINS < 1 HISTORIC NEA POOR 4 MINDOPN DOUBLE HUNG TRANSOM 0 i i NEK CORMIER FÂ« 1 HORIZ, AD. VERT. kNIP. SIDING ' SIDING EXISTING 11 1 LINE OF 11 1 HANDRAIL - - 4 7.0. PLATE @ UPPER NER VERT. 1 i = = === 1 ELEV. 115'-11 " 5101146 1 METAL FLASHING FLUE 6 CAP METAL CHIMNEY 1/ 11 1 EXISTINS i Â»ID. SUING 1 1 -T 1 1 \F- ELEV. 00'-7' O. F.F. @ UPPER 1 . 1 L IÂ· ~ METAL SIDINS - ' METAL ROOFING AL FLOPNER BOX - r-7-9 il 1 jill F--11 STANDING SEAM Pe. DECKING 7 / METAL F.P. 1, litil' 1 ' ACCESS DOOR HISTC.fIC BAY 1 PNOPN. BEYOND -3~ 1 11 1/ 1 1%Â« .91 METAL _,-A= == A F BEYOND METAL SUARDRAIL SUARDRAIL /1 4-CL 1, E ' :il i // 1 GEADE ~ 4 11 ID ' - i~ SIDINS - t METAL N 'j' 041 u '1 i i T.O. F.F. @ LOPâ‚¬R SUBBRADE ~ 1 ~ ~ J l ~ ~ L+- SLIBeRAIPE ELEV. 100'-CP" LISHT PNELL BEYOND - YVALL ]IL - ~ LIGHT hELL 1 1 11 -- -4 <- FNALL BEYOND 1 1 il i i 11 .3-2- CONS. i 2-4 -- _La 1 ELEV, 891-1011 h -- /33 BOUTH ELEVATION , BATH EXHAUST VENT EXISTING 1 ASPHALT SHINGLE ASPHALT SHINGLE 1 ROOFINS 1 ROOFING 1 1 . 0 Â»10. TRIM STANDING EEAM ASPHALT SHINGLE METAL ROOF]Ne l EXI ST! Ne ROOFINS I2 ~ 12 \ /1 T.O. F.F. @ UPPER 1 3.0. HEADER 7 ELEV. 110'-7" 11 --7-ELEV. 108'-7" . METAL FLUE __ . HISTORIC DEL. HUNG ANDOM Yil C AP ,| HISTORIC BAY METAL SIDING MINDOR 4 TRIMI FID. DECK El== - _-__ MESH. VENT BEYOND ' TO. F.F. @ LOPNER m k T.O. F.F. @ LOPNER ---7--BLEV. 100'-O" - T ELEV. 100'-O" HORIZ. AD SIDING- ~ ~ / ~~ 1 | METAL ESRESS -<EGRESS ANDOM lili 1- TO MATCH EXISTING - LADDER 1 lili -411[n lilli SUBeRADE MALL | SUBSRADE --FOUNDATION BEYOND 1 11 \lilli MALL METAL FLASHINS -F T T. . DONG t---1----------- ---------3-* 0-- ELEV. 59'-10" ~3~ EAST ELEVATI ON 439 1/411 = 11-OIl NOTE: NO ALTERATIONS ARE PROPOSED FOR THIS ELEVATION . 1 1 111 1 11 T.O. PLATE @ UPPE ELEV. 115'-11" 1 T.o. F.F. @ UPPER T ELEV. 110'-1" 6 le= 0 9 METAL SUARDRAIL BEYOND _ 11 N T.O. F.F. @ LOMER 1 F=LEV. loo'-O" 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBGRADE MALL ~ BEYOND 11 1 1 -9 1 1 6--i -----I----Ii- -1--------1-d . Lil_-_NORTHELEVATION 419 1/411 = 11-011 15'-6" 3,-O" * 1. I .. 7 - -- 9 DN- -~ 11 111 111 111 1 0--------d 1 1 1 -1 1 1 8'-6" x 18' - PARKING SPACE 1 -1 1 1 \ 1 ~L METAL c<. ~ HANDRAIL 1@ Â® Â£ f U METAL -1 * m RAILING ARAGE - ~ I 9~f-~f MECH. = 1 0521e0 1 \[*T ~ (BELOM) = 4 T.O. F.F. @ GA SE ELEV. 100'-O. - ~ < ROOF ABV. \ 1 -1 1 ,~ 1 L________2 1 i NORTH GARASE PLAN 42-y 1/411 = 11 -011 24'-1" 41-61' 0 0 E . I 46 --7 11 11 11 HALLS BELOR - k) SLOPE ~ -- 2:12 I 3-334 SLOPE 1 11 - 9009- SBUTE -/t 2: 12 BELOR . STANDING BEAM METAL -- ROOF INS 11 ROOF OVERHANe n n H 11 33331 2 -*--- 2 4. , 4'-6" e NORTH SARASE ROOF PLAN 1/4" . T'-O" SLOPE 2*6 F'ID. FASCIA 12 BOARD - -72 - EXT- LIGHTINe 4-- 1 1 4 EXT. LIGHTING - '12 - ----N -% 6 -- --I 1 T.O. PLATE 1 I.Il ~ ELEV. 10Â¢I'-0" --- . f AD. ROCF: 2 1 / 1 1 STRUT ,=TO ' , , VERT. Fe. SIDING -- VE-TAL / / / IN %\ 1 METAL FLASHINS - -- \\\ 1 -- ~ 00 1 1 6 T.O. GONG. @ eARAGE 1 1/ . 7 ELEV. 100'-O" IN--------7 1 Ir-------- -- ---73 GRADE HATCH - || MECH. || || ~ || ACCESS |~ CONG RETAINING 11 = 11 11 . MALL BEYOND -~! MESH. 1-338 3 11 11 11 11 11 Elif\,4~ - SARASE SOUTHI ELEVATION r-In SARASE REST ELEVATION 9 2/ 1,/411 = 11-011 l~.3/ 1/411 = 1 LOIl .*/1 01-,El - 1 2.<6 FO. FASCIA 12 1 1 BOARD 2-0======-~~ STANDING 11 ! 1 T.O.GONG. M GAR. ROOFING 1 ; i 7 [ELEV. log'-O. 1 SEAM META 1 11! IN.6111111111:1 ----- L pe. ROOF VERT. FND. SIDING . STRUT VERT. FND. 5131146 - ! - -l MIETAL ~~~~~~ METAL BUARDRAIL -.. SUARDRAIL METAL FLASHING - ;*. METAL FLASHING -, -- E---------r-----------4 r' 1 11 N i 11 1 T.O, GONG. * BAR. | -- & T.O. DONG. @ GAR. X J -iEEE ice'-c" - 11 1 \ , ELEV. 100'-0" 11 1 r--------7 1\ , STAIR i + 11 =3] . j f 11 11 11 LeRADE CCNE. RET-AININe hALL BEYOND --O MECH. 1-0-1 / 11 11 11 11 1 \ 0 / 11 11 11 -11 1 1 .// 11 2 T.O. FOOTER -7-ELEV, 40'-40 - 4 21;.tpr Lk----- - - SARASE NORTH ELEVATION! rn SARASE EAST ELEVATION! 1/4" = 11_(011 4141-jrk- 0 HPC FINAL DESIGN PACKAGE 08-07-2001 HISTORIC HOME RENOVATION 515 gillespie st. aspen, colorado , consortium 1 architects 1 P.O.B. 3662, aspen, colorado 81612 (970) 925.6797 fax (970) 925 6797 ~ e-mail rally@aspeninfo. com RENOVATION F.A.R. CALCULATIONS F.A.R. CALCULATIONS SARAGE FAR: SROSS S.F. = 381 5.F. LOT SIZE CALCULATIONS: MALL HEIGHT = 81-Oil TOTAL MALL LENGTH = 80'-2" ORISINAL LOT SIZE = 9534 S.F. TOYAL SUBGRADE MALL AREA= 50'-2' x 8'-0" = 641 S.F. COLLINS'LOT LINE DISPUTE = - 324 S.F. EXPOSED MALL AREA = 159 S.F. REMAINING LOT SIZE = 4210 S.F. (REMAINING AFTER LOT LINE DISPUTE) % OF EXPOSED TO TOTAL AREA = 154 S.F. / 654 S.F. 000) = 24 % LOT A SIZE = 4634 S.F. - - 4210 S.F. SUBGRADE F.A.R. = 24 % (381 S.F.) = qI S.F. LOT B SIZE = 4511 S.F. - GARAGE 5.F. = 381 S.F. GARAeE EXEMPTION = 381 5.F. - 250 S.F. = 131 S.F./2=66 S.F. LOT SPLIT F.A.R. CALCULATIONS: GARAGE FAR = qI S.F. + 66 S.F. = 157 S,F. REMAINING LOT SIZE = 9210 S.F. SUBeRADE FAR: BASE ALLOKED FAR = 4080 SP. GROSS S.F. = gao S.F. LOT SIZE OVER 9000 S.F. = 9210 S.F. - 4000 S.F. = 210 S.F. RALL HEIGHT = 91-01 OTHER At_LORED FAR = 210 S.F. / 100 *6=13 S.F. TOTAL MALL LENGTH = 141'-10" TOTAL ALLOMED FAR = 4080 S.F. + 13 S.F. = 40'13 5.F. TOTAL SUBGRADE MALL AREA= 141'-10" * 9-0" = 1277 S.F. ABV. eRADE MALL = 5'-0" + 5'-10" = 10'-10" : EXPOSED MALL AREA = 10'-to" * 6'-O" = 65 S.F. FAR TOTALS FOR EACH LOT: % OF EXPOSED TO TOTAL AREA = 65 5.F. / 1277 S.F. (100) = 5% LOT B FAR = 2840 5.F. SUBSRADE F.A.R. = 5% (430 S.F.) = 47 S.F. LOT A FAR = 4043 S.F. - 2840 S.F. = 1253 S.F. LOT A HPO BONUS = 500 S.F. ABOVE GRADE FAR: LOT A FAR E BONUS = 1253 S.F. + 500 S.F. = 1753 S.F. IMAIN LEVEL DEMO FAR = I27 S.F. NEA MAIN LEVEL FAR = 150 S.F. - 127 5.F. = 23 S.F. TOTAL NEA MAIN LEVEL FAR = 885 S.F. + 23 5.F. = 408 S.F. LOT A = LOT 04/ HISTORIC HOUDE NER UPPER LEVEL FAR = Il S.F. LOT B = NER LOT TOTAL NER UPPER LEVEL FAR = 606 S.F. + 17 S.F. = 623 9.F. AS BUILT PORCHES $ DECKS: PORCHES = EXEMPT DECKS = 60 S.F. (LOWER) + 70 S.F (NEA UPPER) = 130 S.F. DECK EXEMPTION = 15% (4112 9.Fj = 617 S.F. > 130 S.F. (EXEMPT) TOTALS: GARAGE FAR = 157 S.F. SUBeRADE LEVEL = 47 S.F. MAIN LEVEL = 908 9.F. ' UPPER LEVEL = 623 5.F. PORCHES 4 DECKe = O S.F. TOTAL F.A.R. = 47 S.F. + 157 5.F. + 6105 S.F. + 623 S.F. = 1735 S.F. UNUSED F.A.R. = 1735 S.F. < 1753 5.F. ALLOMABLE 7.A.R. CALCULATIONS SILLEDIÂ°IE ST. NOTE: SITE PLAN TO BE VERIFIED FV r 30" COTTONWOOD NEK SITE IMPROVEMENT SURVEY 10'-0" FRONT Â¥ARD 14" COTTONPNOOD -1 SETBACK ~~ e NER LOCATION - FOR 14" -~ 38.54' // -/ /1 36.44' COTTONMOOD \ -~ -- - - -- 1 , 1 i _~~ ,~~9-0" ,, ~ 16" GOTTONMOCi;7,, // / 0 1 1 COLLIN'S LOT LINE 00 A $ DISPUTE .l 1 4 -- | 1 [r - -iII - --][64/ / / /\1 1 L EXISTINS PITCH LOCATION , 111 i 1 f 1 + 4 1- -- E- 7 5'-0" SIDE YARD 2- SETBACK | --11IL - 41 L /f/// I 1-11 1/ A- REVISED -1 PITCH LOCATION r--r- 1 14Â·" COTTONPOOD ~ ~~ -toi 1 (MOVED) .,Â»77 -F l,7--P / 1 1 1 / / :1 -1---1 q I EXISTINe SUBeRADE FOUNDATION TO co.* A i x BE DEMOLISHED -'0,~ ~ 1 1 1 - -1 L.-29 74/ 11 1 L=-1 111 1 1 1|1 14" SPRUCE 1 4--1 1/71 Lu----10-~N (MOVED) ~ | .1 1 1 -=t. //// i CÂ« 1 1 EXISTING SUBGRADE EXTERIOR STAIRS - 10" ASPEN 14 1-111+1-1 --L --- -~( Lt - .,KIF-TJ~TILISHED 1 1 - -1_ 2 1 , ~L PREVIOUS HOUSE 1 LOCATION 10" ASPEN -. | ~ / ~' --A\---==d~-5 1!Lull li , 1 " 9 1 L---3 '~02Â»-1-Â«C, fi \ L SHED ADDITION PRIOR \ DEMOLISH NON-HISTORIC \ - -Xjh TO MOVING HISTORIC 1 \ .31- / HOUSE /4/// \ STONE PIATIO L REVISED ON GRAEE | PITCH LOCATION 5'-O" SIDE YARD EXISTING j SETBACK PITCH LOCATION ~ O ~ - SNOMMELT 14 1 1 PATHRAY 1 LOT 'A' . Â¢1 4 ~ LOT 'B' I HISTORIC LOT | 12 " COTTONÂ»loop Lid 46361 D.F. 1 NER LOT ~ 45-71 9,F. APPLE TREE |0 | | SNOMMELT ~F-i---j---0 1 1 ~ STONE PAVERS ~-~-_i_ f~~~~~~ REMOVE 9 11 1 LINE OF I O | ~~~~--1 -1- _ ~4-- ............... . 4 ASPEN TREES BELOW 1 ------~ ~ | | | FOUNDATION - 1 1 11 1 1 1-41 \ / - | | | k ROOF ABOVE ~ 1? 1/ 1 21 4 1/1 1 1 11 1 7 =11 1 1 L - 7-_d Id /\ 1 39--f d ~ DEMOLISH EXISTINS _/ 1 NON-HISTORIC GARAGE 1 1 37.- \-1 -*I--=71 1 00 --I- l 5'-0" REAR YARD _/i --- SETBACK 8'-6"xla'-O" V .-/ DRIVE PARKING SPACE ALLEY NORTH ~A~ BITE PLAN + 1.(27 1/BIt = 11-011 ... ... MINDOM PROJEOTION - ABOVE -F-- 1 ' 4 I . 4 4 . 9 in . 5'-O" I . .* t. . .. I MINDOM . 0 BEDROOM r Â¢ I I . 4 4 . 4 E&925=20 -bq~ PROJECTION - 1261 .. LADDER LT. MELL ABOVE f-,- - ~ TUB O D== - 'Ch in 4 BEDROOM AREA= I47 S.F. Â· LIGHT AREA REQUIRED= 14.7 S.F. LIGHT AREA PROVIDED= 15.0 S.F. I I 01 g~) BATH - ARMOIRE I BATH laam 18081 . 1 . Jer/' 1 ---- 421 TUB | | -6Â£96:- - --2~ 11,6 AP =CO O i 0851 VENT LOCATION R04L L ~7/ STAIR 4. FOR MECH. 21. , DQQRn 0331 1% 1---1 L ' MA //1 ;30% I Â· 7-_ 7 STAIRS _/ 4 9 ' ' ABV. ,DR MECH. e 0351 i E LAUND/- - , , A 44 '/l 0 . 1004| r - ACCESS _74 / f up LT. MELL - ESRESS BEDROOM - LADDER , -/ Il ' # LADDER [327 3'-2 [-nrl EXCAVATE ~ 0 - - PORN 4'-0" / L in FROM LOPNER J 4 LEVEL FOR . 8â€ž CONG. MALL BEDROOM AREA= 1-15 S.F. LaHT AREA REQUIRED= 17.5 S.F. MECH. LISHT AREA PROVIDED= 17.5 S.F. INSUL. % PLAYROOM .////- P41/ 2" RlaID [20 -A * T.O. CONS. ELEV. edi'-10" f OLDS. 1 STRUCTURAL J r COLUMN l , LEVEL ABOVE rf 1 2-3 NORTHI A LOMER LEVEL PLAN A2.1 1/4" = 1'-O" ... 0-------4 H/57-OR/C ~~ ~ ~ 9 1 LI L METAL BAÂ¥ ADA. SUARDRAIL 7 HISTORIC ADFY. -*-~ PORCH ~ T,O. FIN. FLOOR ~ rEEl ELEV. 100'-O" DESK-fl --33 + __L-1 \ OFFICE 11 ~ 11 'V I i LISHT FELL BELOR -1N M N n 1~_ - CERTIFIED AID. /- BURNINS F.P. HISTORIC EXISTING & Up - \ BAY YVDMI. -j - ~ FLUE ABV. DINING 4 4 \ L \ 1-047 W r . ~-HISTORIC 14 A / MINDORS Â® = 6 2 9 Fid-- ---- 0 t~\\1/ 1 91 Ltli -1 ---- \\ BUILT-IN I PANTRY -~- .~ r-DADS. ABV. ~ ON O ~~~Tt.. tu/eb~TAIR ~~~~P 4 STAIR 1 - 132;31 [305-1 \\ \\ LIGHT MELL ~ MINE RACK STAIRS J BELOM 7 27" 11 ABV. ~ PANTRY ~ LOIA * \ 1 -Â«1 POMPER ~~ 1 ~f- NE'Al MINDOM MALL -7 ~ 21" 41: j o TILE MOOD -[135-1 - 11 1 DRAMER DADS. -- FREEZER ABV. NE'Al ININDOM BELOR KITCHEN [277 \ LINE OF ADDITION METAL~ ~ | Â»~_ CABS. - 4 CLe. CHANSE SUARDRAIL ~ | ~ BELOR /'' ABOVE -1.6- STEREO i - - -/- - - PLEXISLASS SINK VENTILATION -~ 10 -7 SMIVEL 1 1 HOOD ABOVE 11 POP-UP TV LIVING 1 17061 NER FNINDOR LOCATION -1/ FOR GAS BBG. EOK 11-2 MUD RM. - - 108-1 FLOMER BOX - / .944 DECK 134-1 11 1 -E-2-3- -1 I * 11 - 1 < IDN BENCH ---1--3- 7 -21\~ 2 RISERS @ 8" NER ININDOMS -- FOR SOUTH ELEVATION f L SAS LOG APPLIANCE NORTH L OUTDOOR MAIN LEVEL PLAN HATCH 1/4" = 1'-0" . ROOF PORCH ROOF TUB DECK n ABOVE 7 HISTORIC FNDIN. TO BE RESTORED -1 -A F /1---7 L f W STANDINe SEAM r -1---u- .-Il#-I- .-il----- -7 \J \/ BENCH 0 METAL ROOFINS -1 o TUE 1 DASHED LINE OF ~1 /s\-44Â« , ROOF ABOVE 7~ I--jail ~ I M. BATH | ~ ~ | BUILT-INS -~ _ g 13331 - /\ 1 1 MOO 3 TILE M. BEDROOM o M/6 13641 -7 \1 =1 HISTORIC i L 1 ININDOPN T\\.-h. '4 r ROOF ABOVE 1 / SEALED ~/ SAS LOG 7 / HALL 'b Â·!0 R. â€¢ 7 15/|6" q â„¢. Â® toÂ· APPLIANCE | ~ | STAIRm DIRECT - 1-051 VENT ~~ + - â€ž -7'-O" . 1 * 4 ) P ' 11 1 1 -- . 0-4= ....i. 522â€ž '' 'IN' |~| 1-*- CLOTHES ROD 1 1... lilli' 1 PV SHELVINS || 11 3 | _~ M. CLOSET ABOVE 1 --I 13361 ~ tu MAIN LEVEL ,VI Lp I DALouNT 311 1 BELOM - Ill| 1/14 - 11|I|| | 91405. 1/11 --- 7 ~ T.O. FIN. FLOOR 11*30 METAL GUTTER -1<Lk--0-~ 1 46 1 c ELEV. 110'-7" EDGE I 1 -0 1 llEi 'PI |1 EXISTING r m HISTORIC lulu 0 11 IZ' 111 1 u.1 -O 1 ~ r[1' '1Â·1~ ~ I ~ ~ ~| 34~/..~-Al NIPOIA' 1 4 19,1 1 EXISTING 1/1 91 1, 1 1 1/ 4 lili ASPHALT -1 Il L_1/1- / I I SHINGLE 11_1/4.- / ROOF INS 1 11/ 1 1 ./ 1111'll .27 /1 'I I i ' I SUARDRAIL -~ ~ L E- \/ r--7,l///\\9212 _ _ _Â» _ \__ -21_ _| / 202Â°\ it 1 /3.1 / / 1 111- - - NER IND. _// br L-_7 / 1 . ALKA.1 90 DECKING /V/// 0 0 METAL _~ - FLASHING , -STANDINe SEAM METAL ROOFING METAL ~/3/ 0/2 / 0 CRICKET V / / 7, / 3 11 61 7 F- \Pl / 0-31 1 9. ZE-~ - 3: 12 SLOPE ~/ METAL ROOFINe NORTH ~. UPPER LEVEL PLAN 1/4" = 1'-O" . \1 lili 110/' ~1 1 lf.Â£1 - - - - 1 -- 4-24Â¢FU- 1- I SLOPE -Exte-ri 96 - - EXISTINS ~ ~ 11'11111'111'11111'111'11111 \-------------- 111 lillill Ill 1 1 1\ 1111111111111111\ 1 1 lilli 1 1 lilli 11 -\---------- lillir 1 1 NIX. - 1 1\ EXISTING 1111111 ~ 1 i lilm m 111111111111 1 1 1 \ ASFHALT SHINSLE - 1 1 1 1 \7 - - il 0--11 1 1119 11 Illl lilli 1 \7 ROOFING ,% I 7--3 1 11* 1 l i l l i 1 lil l i 1 1 \7 - \1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1,1 Ill 1 1 1 \7 n DORMER RALL _\ ,| 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11-1 I lili BELOR -\ -- lilli l lilli 1 J 1 1 - METAL FLASHINS ~L--1 L 1 1 > -1L - -] 1 54Â«I I 11 1-n 2 -1--r-- - 1-7,/P~_ifj -T- 17- 12----3 ~ M~L1 ng'tu n\Â»\\.71 9'W Â»6 00 rill?--0 nm -0 IT' Adlifil -1 1 _1_ 1_ U I UPPER LEVEL 11 n tr\-- . 11 W n BELOR //-1-0---- - - -- d 1 T L_~_1 1 -Â»----0 --- 1 4 -41-----2-11 j 1 III BALCONÂ¥ BELOR - _-4--- EXISTI %6 - _ ---- ~ZE_ 7 \ . ROOF BELOM 0 NORTH 45 Â© ROOF PLAN 1/4" = 1'-O" EXISTING BRICK CHIMNEY FLUE EXISTINS ASPHALT SHINGLE NER DORMER W ROOFING 12 VERT. AD. SIC>INe 5 MIETAL GUARDRAIL EXITING HISTORIC B.O. BEAM @ DORMER DOUBLE HUNS - - ELEV. 114'-4 3/4" AINDOMS EXISTINS HORIZ. FO SIDINS ~ T.O. PLATE @ UPPER EXISTINS AD. - T ELEV. 115'-11" CLAPBOARD SIDING -TYPICAL FOR ENTIRE EBUILDING EXHAUST VENT I2 EXISTING 3 Ell ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING T.O. F.F. @ UPPER -- HISTORIC hID. ELEV. 110'-7" DETAILINS T.O. PLATE @ ROOF a ELEV. 1 OV'-8 3/8. (EXISTINS; EXISTING HISTORIC AID. TRIM NER KINDOR EXISTINS ~ AID. DECKING METAL SIDINS METAL FLOMER BO EX+STI NG CONC. STEP VERT. AD. SIDINS GRADE -~ T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ELEV. 100'-O" lili,~ 111'r 111 HORIZ. 04[) SIDINS - 11~~ TO MATCH EXISTING EXISTING HORIZ. 1 1 1 111 L- AD. SIDING 1 1111 1 1 6 1 lilli / 1 lilli --4111.L 1 111 METAL SUARDRAIL I| 3---0-II--7-----11 LISHTMELL METAL FLASHINS ~ 7--- - EGRESS MINDOR L __ _1 40---_4 -~ E~L~Evft_ IC- AEST ELEVATION FET--721--720" EXITING NEW DORMER FV METAL FLASH INS BRICK STANDING CHIMNEÂ¥ SEAM METAL ROOFING HISTORIC EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE DOUBLE HUNG ANDOM ROOFINS NER DOOR 4 EXISTING TRANEOM HORIZ. AD. NER DORMER Al/ SIDING VERT. AD. SIDING i T.O. PLATE @ UPPER LINE OF X ~T-Â¥ERV. 115'-11" - SUARDRAIL METAL FLASHING METAL SIDINS METAL CHIMNEÂ¥ | FLUE 4 CAP i T.O. F.F. @ UPPER EXISTING T ELEV. 110'-7,1 AD. SIDING STANDINe SEAM METAL ROOFINS METAL FLOAER BOX METAL DOANSPOUT VERT. AD. SIDING METAL F.P. ACCESS DOOR AD. DECKING . HISTORIC BAY METAL GUARDRAIL ADA. BEYOND -~ / ~ BEYOND METAL - - ==4 VERT. PO. SIDINe DO SUARDRAIL ~ 11 GRADE 11 1 T.O. F.F. @ LOMER ELEV. 100'-0" SUBGRADE I ~- _ ~ ~ - MALL SUBGRADE LISHT MELL Â« BEYOND ~~ ~ ~ ~_ _____ - 3 MALL BEYOND ~/- LIGHT MELL 2 1 1 11 1 1 11 10-3 ELEV. Bq'-10" SOUTH ELEVATION Â»f---94"-2-7.-8-" BATH EXHAUST VENT EXISTINS ASPHALT SHINGLE ASPHALTWSHINSLE ROOFING ROOFING AID. TRIM EXISTINS STANDING BEAM ASPHALT SHINGLE METAL ROOFING ROOFINS I2 12 - - - -flieÂ· r=.r=. ~ UPPER 1 ELEV. 110,-T" B.O. HEADER ELEV. lOS'-7 HISTORIC METAL FLUE DBL. HUNS MINDOM 04/ CAP /\11 HISTORIC BAY 6-4 AINDOM 4 TRIM VERT. AP. SIDINS MECH. VENT AD. DECK BEÂ¥OND T.O. F.F. @ LOAER ELEV. 100'-O" T ELEV. 100'-0 " || ESRESS AINDOR HORIZ. AD SIDINS / METAL EGRESS 11 H TO MATCH EXISTING LADDER 11 1 SUBGRADE MALL I 11 1 SUBGRADE BEYOND li FOUNDATION 1 1 11 1 MALL METAL FLASHING 11___4_ -------_--__------~-m~~qu.io- EAST ELEVATION FAB.11/4"=r-O" SLOPE eUTTER TO DRAIN EXISTINS AINDOA METAL ROOF GUTTER MIETAL DOÂ»INSPOUT T.O. PLATE @ UPPER ELEV. 115'-11" NER METAL ROOF NOTE: PORCH ROOF TO BE RESTORED i T.O. F.F. @ UPPER T ELEV. 1101-111 a METAL DORNSPOUT HH METAL SUARDRAIL METAL SUARDRAIL BEYOND BEYOND r == = =1] 11 11 || N T.O. F.F. @ LOMER LEV. 100'-O 1 1 1 1 1 SUBGRADE MALL BEYOND ~ ~ | 1 \11 1 1 0 0 NORTH ELEVATION . 15'-6 . I * 5'-01" COUNTER / , , 4'-O" 5'-9" I . . 4 * 4 STORAGE -*--- i K--------411 i \U- --------1 1 1 1 1 1 CONC. ff - 8\-6" x \22 PARKING SPACE /1 1 1 DN O = ROOF ABV. 2 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 6 AeE 15331 STAIR | lEEI -- | 1 4 - METAL @. HANDRAIL ~ 1,f :=1 1 1 4 T.O. F.F.@ 6 RAeE 9 - ELEV. 100'-04 MESH. /0 1 11 L (BELCH) 1 1 NORTH 6 0 GARAGE PLAN 1/4" = 1'-O" 24'-7" ... 1'-O" 7 === C-- 1-1 11\ El MALLS BELOW --- 1-1 SLOPE H . 2:12 ===== ROOF STRUTS ~- BELOR U STANDING BEAM METAL -- ROOFING 11 ROOF OVERHANG 1 XJ 3 1| =[-1 C= z=--3Â» - - --2 4'-6" NORTH eARAGE ROOF PLAN 1/4" = 1'-O" 12 -7 2 '~ _ < 2xe AP. FASCIA BOARD 2xe hip. PASCAA - BOARD ~ T.O. GONG. @ GAR 1 ------4 '- ELEV. log'-O" /1 VERT. PO. SIDING - 4 \ MIP. ROOF STRUT VERT. 043. SIDING - 2 .\ 1 ~- METAL SUARDRAIL - ----- METAL FLASHING -1 METAL FLASHING - 1 1 ~ T.O. CONG. @ SAR -- k T.O. CONG. @ GAR. â€¢ ELEV. 100'-0" 7 ELEV loo'-O" 1 1 11 11 | | | ~ - GRADE ~ | | | SONG. RETAINING INALL BEYOND -11 MECH. || STAIR || || MECH. 1-Bari 11 * 002 ~ T.O. FOOTER - /27- - -= -= -z -= -= lk<j 2------------- ELEV. cio'-4" -ELEV. 90'-6" ------------- 2 T.O. FOOTER eARASE NORTH ELEVATION rEl SARAeE EAST ELEVATION . STANDING BEAM METAL - ROOFINS 12 AD. FASCIA FID. ROOF 2F BOARD -\\\ STRUT 7 \. EXT. LISHTING - ~ T.O. PLATE \ 1 ELEV. log'-6" 1 1 1 - EXT. LIGHTING METAL HANDRAIL -71-4 1 ]8 -U] BEYOND 1 / / . / ' METAL ~ , , -VERT- AD. SIDINS --\ 1 1 1 1 GUARDRAIL 1 \\\\ 21 - / METAL FLASH ING - -~ - 1 1 lf' T.O. CONG. @ GARAGE q j ELEV. lool-Oil 11 11 Ir--------71 In---p' 1 STAIR 15051 -- SRADE STAIR|| MECH. [5651 11 070 11 1 1 CONG. RETAINING MALL BEYOND -1 MECH. ~ ~ 13&71 3 11 11 11 11 11 / 1 f Q 0 11 / 1 02= T.O. FOOTER - / ELEV. VO'-8 69-2-lf---------73 SARAGE SOUTH ELEVATIONI 071 GARAGE MEET ELEVATION ~ 1/411 - 11-OIl ~..3/ 1/411 = 11-OIl MEMORANDUM e TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning DirectorJi FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 620 W. Bleeker, Heritage Aspen- Minor, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 8, 2001 SUMMARY: Heritage Aspen is completing their renovation of the Wheeler Stallard property and requests HPC approval to install a wrought iron fence and gazebo. Staff recommends approval with no conditions. APPLICANT: Heritage Aspen, owners. LOCATION: 620 W. Bleeker Street, Lots A-G and K-S, Block 23, City and Townsite 0 of Aspen. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-31-801. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four of the following Development Review Standards, from ~ Section 26.72.010(D) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant necessary variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the histbriÂ£ landmark and the neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this Section 0 exceed those variations allowed under Section 26.520.040(B)(2), for detached accessory dwelling units. 1 0 Staff Response: Heritage Aspen proposes to replace the existing, non historic picket fence that surrounds the property with a wrought iron fence typical of the period. The fence is appropriate to the house and is not in conflict with any design guidelines. The gazebo will be a freestanding structure, also Victorian in character. There is no impact on the historic resource. Staff finds that this standard is met. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Staff Response: The property is an important resource within the West End neighborhood. While it has a different use than surrounding parcels, it is strongly integrated into the architecture of the adjacent buildings and will continue to be an amenity for the whole community. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 0 Staff Response: No historic structures are directly affected by the project. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Staff Response: No historic structures are directly affected by the project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve Minor Development for 620 W. Bleeker, finding that the review standards and design guidelines are met, with no conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to approve Resolution #3â‚¬-Series of 2001." Exhibits: 0 A. Staffmemo dated August 8, 2001 B. Application 2 63 o. lo. 8 64-_At/ EXHIBIT I . 1 ,Ph.0 / County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26304.060(E) I, 6 raca_, 4~4,ry , being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E) ofthe Aspen Municipal Code in the following manner: 1. By mailing ofnotice, a copy ofwhich is attached her@â‚¬ by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners-orpP3Fe~3*~m=':dundiod(300) feet ofthe subject property, as indicated on the attached 10tie day of , 200 isdays prior to the public hearing date of ). - 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from theJG day of 3d y ' 200-1, to the a day of /k.~ , , 200_.)_.(Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph o:@the posted sign is attached hereto. *Vt Â» SÂ»tur~) U (Attach photograph here) Signed before me this 26 day of 3041 2001Â· by / d;AÂ» Â»r-7 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My Commission expires: ~'r/A-Â¥293 Notary Public 4.. 1 F e...... , V. 0 2 i. U .t / On 443':Eil#i:Cly ../ . PUBLIC NOTICE DATEAK, EL 102Â¥ TIME s co en PLACE-CITY \At_Ll t *Ji. 7-% . -- PURPOSE Pec--- r -r . 33:, tw - RE: 12 '2_ Hot... A -Nt-(...1--2--A">fr- AM-0- (26*N.~ 13?28~_.,i*610. t 62Â£6~_E;%13/fL--_ RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT FOR 620 W. BLEEKER STREET, LOTS A-G AND K-S, BLOCK 23, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel No. 273512431801 RESOLUTION NO ~,SERIES OF 2000 WHEREAS, the applicants, Heritage Aspen have requested minor design approval for the property at 620 W. Bleeker Street, Lots A-G and K-S, Block 23, City and Townsite of Aspen. The project involves building a new fence around the property and adding a gazebo; and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.415.010.C.5 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated August 8, 2001, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found favorably for the application, and recommended approval without conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on August 8, 2001, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards, and approved the application without conditions by a vote of_ to_. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the review standards are met and HPC grants minor development approval for 620 W. Bleeker Street, Lots A-G and K-S, Block 23, City and Townsite of Aspen, as presented at the August 8, 2001 meeting with no conditions. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 8th day of August, 2001. Approved as to Form: 0 David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 0 p/:Al of 2 4 5. :'/ 1 1 . .. vi 1/45 15 1140â‚¬ 6â‚¬46'041.- FEELI.6 96Â£ 1-BE 642â‚¬80. m. I u ... IAE Wovt-p L.\UE 113> BE AS,6 113> An--A OR- A Cardo er 04â‚¬12- THE --0 r FDM StÂ¥Â»reâ‚¬- < ' 1 r pole ocle,-3 FF#n ~wArÂ·J. 11~Â·e exz(Fo u ouu> kl,90 82 Lr<e.6â‚¬- â‚¬1-JOU68 Fbvt AT l-â‚¬A63-~ . 6 revuz http://www.negardenomaments.com/images/gazebo.jpg 7/10/2001 Fence - Victorian .of:- Wrought Iron Gates & Fencing i Flower Bed Borders/Tree Guards , rez96 lis-1â‚¬29 Vf IGarden Benches ' - ty.1~2?.*,~ * 2.;4~.+4% 'Garden Gates Park and Municloal Site Fumishinas 2 ; * f "0 A i 1 ; Photo Gallery ]' 1,1 1 , i Book of Memories i L..5 4 f Info Â· 1Â·44:;2&,044 : Search I Undex Victorian Fence Y-F SHOPPING V'3-fbot hi#h fencee- $22 per lineal foot, or the price for an 8-foot section would be $176. 4-foot high fence - $24 per lineal foot, or the price for an 8-foot section would be $192. 5-foot high fence - $26 per lineal foot, or the price for an 8-foot section would be $208. Page 4: The standard length of Victorian Fence sections is 8' with M" solid round rod pickets and loops with 4" on-center spacing. Cross rails are 3/8" by 114" solid steel bar. They come primed with red oxide industrial primer.1Mathing g*tes#an also be ordered. This style can be made in custom heights and lengths, and this is only one of our designs. Any design you'd like can be custom made. Click on Post & Spear Option page for post pricing and spear selection. Please mail, email, or fax your design drawing, photo, or magazine picture to us for an estimate. All orders for gates and fancing are considered custom orders and must be made by phone, fax, or email. phone: 301-387-9312 Â· fax: 301-387-0043 appiron@mai12.gcnet.net http://www.appalachianiron.corn/oak-6945/drawofvicfen.html 7/10/2001 Hattolm St. B 60 8 m= C M :1 5 M: & I / R M 6FRUICE (9) ~-513> riNIPER VARIETIES (1677) ~ I li HE 0 0 10/ O 0 MUE,0 PINE (IS) -- / reATI I H .1 A ~ 13lf- -06[ CLIES AM) m or:. =, 3\.,7. (9 1- /to 2 l-1*DIOAF i M .24.49.15,/'. DA11-ROOvle 008--g=E \~~~ 9 Al 0 - P k._N > 60 4 eATE--~> 10 0, 1-1 -Caâ€¢101 LILAES (2~\~ _ LEEENP Ny& 29429 i/04 Câ„¢MON NANâ‚¬ bOTANKAL NAMEI /*ACANT SIZE ---Â·,x t-CtiE G~~RANI-LAS *51,111-â„¢~L__ ARTIC WE_ON (10 i 7 ~ ~__ 3 /bt\93,1=R/.fkh ~ U EXISTINE, APPLE TREE STORAGE *A-j- 1/-7 4 ~ EXISTINIE~ ASPEN 2121 -. , 'll - SIDERIAN PEA 9-11U (3) ~~~TER (25) :c j./, >St.,19--~L-r.f0~tkffi r 1 (% ~ axis-TIble Derrot.vap o N CD 0 0 00 0000 %9/1 h 1 -WI e LL_[ \6 Ex *Rup (D & C < M I4rs (2)- 7 k> 6 03 \ fmÂ»-R#s,AN *C (13 â„¢ ~ M z. L REPTWIe C>-OOP (21) fAST- 6MAPE eARPEN-Â·~ e.,RDE,4 1 -d-3~i~<44:32.*mEw9#BM . , IX EAST SEATINe E EXISTIND FNE 3,372 7 4 lp- 41 611 7 ~* EXISTINE, ePRUCE CD ? ./6( 2 , k=a \ tz==2' j -Â»911 I 3 PRICK PATH---~m ./1 91\3Â· \ \,>517<1 1 r;77-7...~, ~ ~ '**E MARE ACAR @INNAA 6 +AP PGFUUS 11REMLOIPES 7 1" DALIFER -64 - /115 '1- =-Â·Â»h Fl .CA 2' A &[i} 94-2 0 'nr, -flip*37 -4 4 4 / lia< I ASPEN - pact-E-erâ„¢ pa"LUS TREMIOICES I Z 1/1 6AL_IFER /1 ht'\4 MALLS 'SPRINS, 61406/ 11 2" GALIFER i S 1 y: i*( *Esr- 62 ., , N/1 6,.4, a' \, '10/,//A,7/7 3 1.0./ 4-/it/'. BARPEN 1- E Â·~lf i.42 FIR NME> OONG(XOR 4 15-\Â£7 Vt 4 7 /14â‚¬F i *,>.3, ti) . L....__2*j ~ ~D MARC+WL A511 FRAXINJS PENNmLVANIC,A 'MARSIWL' 1 2 l/z'Â· DALIFER ,#111 , h.i Uy> 3 7~ 1 Â£ 10.4 hb# 2, CK,/ :1 -? 2,.w'--x~ *51:91.Et PlaYA FLNEâ‚¬146 , U.-1, 081> / ~~ BARDENS 7/4Â» 964. i 720%42 PFX 743 21 3 5 VINDA uJLÂ«34 EL] '-Alâ€ž 61 ( . 141-/ 4 120, )~~ @ PHASE I CONSTRLJOTION ITENS P/TE IlsE/Rell. \4<ittâ€žw/t 414% 1 4- 6,"7147, ':C"K 92Mle.4 49941 .09,0/ 41 .jM! .R '.r. vt 127:\ -r-\ ~\--S>Â·-5 fx 04' rat * , 1,-,1.7 rA mi 00Â»PACT AMER CRANDERRY (22) 0*.152. 76R ,PP804. 111#11 1,1 1 â„¢ 44Â·14 a.Â£01. ~68 evr,V r~AeaTONE PATÂ¥1 ijliftiff h 1,1 1.1 r-TALL Al_a< Â»,97/21 ARPOR 7, Â·,3 / (P L.1.1 4 ~1\~ & FOXELOve ~PAYL_11-126, LLES WITH FRONT ENTRANDE eARCEN 4~<21-\1 eA~FINe L&1%'9*~5O~NÂ« 19,~' z Â· 9 596<43 12. 26%0 1. 12. i MOIâ‚¬YeLLKLE (14) CUU'ACT AMER CRANIERRY (13) -\~b gaL < 'f ~0Â°PINE (9) 12\~Â«~ r M-liTE eARPEN ~~ & CLLORrt.L v-4./ 0Â£~ (34) 6 *El ba.'..Mi.X 4.52,6- - 6 (Â»I -4Â«-- FRaIT ENTRANCE eARPEN . \14 7 6.v wroNEASTER ~-~ 4 I /â‚¬>E]0 1 - *=M~TWK'% A H ARCTIC WILLOW (13) DIUWN I. f LE NAht 12 WAF* ._ i . 124.1 AineÂ« V j r-tyr\\ 90 1 W \ msm.0.6 A Uj ..02 Â»236~ Ry/t- 0*A# (57) EPREAPINe 669-01â‚¬ASTER (16) ROOKY MAJNTAN St}#0 0-1> (' 0. ~ ~~\~~~ORY MALD poewoop ;4-fÂ·' < {12Â· â€¢ 3,1 4 -A--r' tlaâ‚¬Y6LEKLE (De) MISS KIM Lit-At (M) -CJ <-2 Â»Y>*Ck ~ 50[) 6<1/3 ~ 0162) POTENTUA (00 ) < 0 8 SOC> WLE r=w-4 LANPSDAPE FLAN Bleeker St. Â£ 2-1.0 317 'SNSIHdaillN ~ AUVE 1* 12910 48*8+428'02.6 6th St.- 911-I IN[3499 31 4 01 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director OfÂ» FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 629 W. Smuggler- Conceptual Development and Partial Demolition- Public Hearing DATE: August 8, 2001 SUMMARY: This property is currently listed on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" and contains a 19~h century house and shed. Landmark designation has been initiated and will be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission on August 21st. The proposal before HPC involves demolishing a 1950's addition to the house, and a garage built around the same time, and replacing those elements with new construction. Staffrecommends that approval be granted with conditions. 0 APPLICANT: Steven St. Clair, represented by Mike Hoffman, of Freilich, Myler, Leitner, and Carlisle and Catchi Martinez, of JBZ Architects. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-09-001 ADDRESS: 629 W. Smuggler, Lot A and the west half of Lot B, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential) CURRENT LAND USE: 4,500 sq. ft. lot containing a single-family residence, garage, and shed. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds that all ofthe following standards (Section 26.415.010.C.5) are met: a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, 0 massing and volume with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or is adjacent to an historic landmark. For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, exceed the allowed floor area by up to Jive hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant necessary variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this Section exceed those variations allowed under Section 26.520.040(B)(2), for detached accessory dwelling units, and Staff Finding: At the last meeting, on June 2~, the board provided the following direction: 1. Restudy the connector. 2. Eliminate the west upper floor deck on the addition. Restudy or eliminate the south deck. 3. Clarify the design of the folding doors of the south elevation off the master bedroom. 4. Restudy the chimney stack on the addition. 5. Restudy the volume and massing of the addition including floor-to-floor heights to better achieve a subordinate relationship. 6. Wood siding on the addition shall be differentiated from the restored siding. 7. Ensure that the historic windows in "Bedroom 2" will not be required to be altered to meet egress. Staff finds that the applicant team has been able to address all of the above concerns, and all of the relevant design guidelines. There is a clear, secondary connecting element between the historic house and the largest element of the addition. The overall scale of the addition is appropriate. Little material is removed from the historic structure, and the proposed garage is a completely detached structure. This project is now on track to be a successful, modest addition to an important historic home. There are some variances that will be required, all relating to maintaining a garage facing 68 Street rather than the alley. At final review, the board will be asked to grant setback variances and a floor area bonus because no part of the garage can be exempted from calculations if it is not accessed from the rear ofthe property. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposedfor development, and Staff Finding: The surrounding neighborhood contains a mix of old and new homes, and a wide variety of architectural styles. 19th century structures throughout the West End have been restored and expanded. Staff finds that this standard is met. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels, and Staff Finding: The project will not detract from the historic significance of the home. One's ability to understand the relatively small size of the original home is protected in this project. Staff finds that this standard is met. d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Staff Finding: The addition has been redesigned and staff finds that this standard is met. PARTIAL DEMOLITION No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all of the following standards are met: A. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. Staff Finding: Staff does not find that the 1950's addition to the house, or the garage, have historic significance, therefore this standard is met. B. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: (1) Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions, and (2) Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions that are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Staff Finding: These impacts are addressed above, throught the conceptual review standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant Conceptual and Partial Demolition approval, finding that the review standards and design guidelines have been met, with the conditions outlined in the resolution. 0 RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution # , Series of 2001, for 629 W. Smuggler Street." Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated August 8, 2001 B. Revised drawings 0 0 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT AND PARTIAL DEMOLITION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 629 W. SMUGGLER STREET, LOT A AND THE WEST HALF OF LOT B, BLOCK 21, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO.3~, SERIES OF 2001 WHEREAS, the applicant, Steven St. Clair, represented by Mike Hoffman, of Freilich, Myler, Leitner, and Carlisle, and Cathi Martinez, of JBZ Architects has requested Conceptual Development and Partial Demolition approval for the property located at 629 W. Smuggler, Lot A and the west half of Lot B, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. The property is currently listed on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures"; and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," 0 Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant necessary variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this Section exceed those variations allowed under Section 26.520.040(B)(2), for detached accessory dwelling units, and 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof and WHEREAS, No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all of the following standards are met: A. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance ofthe parcel. B. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: (1) Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions, and (2) Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions that are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated August 8, 2001, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended approval of the project with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on August 8, 2001, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards, and to be consistent with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote of_ to _. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That Conceptual Development and Partial Demolition for the property located 629 W. Smuggler, Lot A and the west half of Lot B, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, be approved with the following condition: l. HPC will hear a request for variances related to the new garage at final review. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 8th day of August, 2001. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 5- 2 b July 24, 2001 Ms. Amy Gunthrie CITY OF ASPEN 130 Galena Aspen, CO 81611 ARCHITECTURE +PLANNING RE: 629 W. Smuggler Dear Amy: Please find enclosed our revised design drawings for the next HPC meeting. As you will notice, and based on comments received at the last hearing, we have made the suggested revisions to the proposed addition and remodeling on the above referenced project. The revisions are as follows: 010 CAMPUS DRIVE UITE 100 1. The height ofthe "connection" has been decreased. NEWPORT BEACH 2. The scale of the fireplace has been reduced. CALIFORNIA 92660 3. The "false" balcony on the west elevation has been eliminated. FAX: (949) 250-7189 4. The rear deck has been increased in size. 5. The siding has been revised to two sizes of lap siding. We feel that these revisions address the major concerns ofthe committee and look forwar~*tor~ble r~ng at the next meeting I /7+~,47] i / 9.0% Anastacio Martinez, AIA ~ Principal JBZ ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING Â»Aljrt DONALD JACOBS, AIA JOHNBECK, AIA ERIC J ZUZIAK, AIA GERALD V. BECK ANASTACIO MARTINEZ. AIA -~ â„¢(949)250 ~- 7171 1 V f _ NICHE 1 CU----Hlg'&- VOID VOID m T LAU. -2 11 0.60 F ~DR. 2 1 It DN 11 -- 3 11 1 ZE-=R- - (N) MBDR. ~* 1--p=--33~MBA (f) W.1.98 n _____-~ 1 -DN f - -1-- 15'X 24' I I 6 1 Ij * I B 1 23 144=liE 'g~ - i 1 VOID VOID 11 VOID 1 1 - -2-3 0 1] /11 1%.11 1 , 1 -'1\1 1., la ju Ju h --- t> 1 1 1 1 21 N/ , (N) BDR. 3 12'*12' . 1 (NEW) SECOND FLOOR ' 7------ + - -------r] ' 4 1 11 , 11 1 57'-1- â€¢ U 2/r-9. 12'-9. 15'-r . I il,/5/ 8 1 tooÂ·.00Â· 1 i ' 101 1 /<11. 1 EXISTING HISTORIC HOUSE NEW CONST. K It 1 1 --: ~'3]B~" ,--1 ~11- Ill 13'-0' An 1 " 1 - 29Â·-11- 1 [ (E) DIN. ) Ek- I CALHE~ 89 1 --1Â£_1 1 I IIi A IJ' 11 1 0001 1 Y V : - *1 1 1 1 Lp 1 ! Â«-i221=tr-74/11 0 0 k IM 8 ------ -- -- 1 P--- \ 1 J (N) BDR. It: PANTRY 1 1 11 r~---m (14) GREAT RM' up 471~ ' SITE g ROOF PLAN DEN d \ 1 1 (E) LIVING 150*24' 1 â€¢Il- n x 'o. \11 r-- ENTRY F-3 BA 4 - O - 71 6 All M TABULATION 1 \9 FIRST FLOOR 1 1 1 f 9-3- EX15-TINO 980 S.F. 1 PORCH 1 ~ (i) GARAVE 1 Nw TOTAL 1416 S.F. 4-------------1 SECOND FLOOR 1 . 372 S.F. . . , EXISTING - _ NEW 880 S.F TOTAL 1252 S.F TOTAL (1* I Znd FLOOR) 2668 S.F. GARAGE 427 S F. , LOT SIZE- 4500 9 SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED ON LOI - 2820 Sf (NEW) FIRST FLOOR LF oF RESIDENCE 2668 HISTORIC SHED 100 -276/ .5-'-9 024 8 LESS ALLOW FOROUTBUILDINGS 250 -122 PROPOSED PLAN 375 OVERALL SF + MAX. SF ALLOWED 2768 Â· 375 -1121 lk 20240 7+2441 1 //A /1 - //k /41\\ -L OiL 9 11 /Â·1111/1 A .11 1 11 J. .1.1 1 I :hi.i, 111] 41 1 11 1 11 I jott[:I'll':11'll~ 1 - 11,1,111:*lili i.,., 1- 9 'I,1 1!'.2191 9 PLIPL lilirlIll - Ill-42................................1--1 - -llr=:ilp-= (ib:,Â·,Â·i'i'j"Â·~;,ii ~.'ul'. En-v. fr. * .6...'likELI~ - 1 --]771 -1 1-1 1 19.1.- 5117'91 11 1 ILLÂ»lE 141211311--490Â»04Â«04Â«t I UCE][ZE]CE][IE]Il I -416 1% lool Â·= 41/- 1 _ 3-2 - --9- 1/.t~_.1 -32 --1--Â·-0-9-- 114~L- WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION 1 ' i43_-t v fiYAI'.NlilÂ·,1 J. h \ ~'il? r,L'T 1 â€žA,~.*LE-A~ FANX 1 ')':.R-JI.1~i,I.!IL 1 Â«M.{44#%1 -221%~3,<01-00,1 1//2.--7 L~~.CZE==61 1/ 1 ~%211*1 E';,fÂ·~MblA}*Â» 1 1 r 1 6 7 LIA==11'i' 1 11/.=a \01 r--7 ~~~~~~~-1----r----~--2 j - Â£--1- 111.114 1 .9 1 - $ tirup-.1~1111~ 11~,r~[F-2-2~-UIZE.1 11,7 '-AffÂ©34*0~~ K--At---1 LÂ»C-LI~IME~LA-_1 ----- --- &-- ' tz -' ' --2-/ t~Eu I,il 1 111:f;44~ 1 - - [LE-ff ------Â·- 22#- --- lili 1 1 _ponclÂ»to---------+---------up/~ < EAST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION 024 8 < ELEVATIONS 1 . 20240 7.2+01 A 1 1 Li/*84&, 1 .tÂ· N 4% /4' ' U 'lll!-ll,IA Â·,x .f i ' F/- 76 1.-3' + .- f- 9/ ~ ' m,Lk \ 44fh,u Hj.Â·11 81:12, h\ ~...~ ,~ UU[lil!,4'.:.\ I /Â·~ 23JIL - rl EL In'-5' Â£ M-ATE + 2' _ _. i rLATE â€¢/. p PLATE .- 2. y 444. 11 9 G r .... Â¥ ElIn'.D' / ]4 111?4 1 U J| 144 \ 1 + 11 ~ Ill 1 I /13 III- I I '4rmaii u i, I ; Â·ID?.P,/6.'. 904Llill i P,ili L 11_I N.d'F+T!+. 1 1-L il' 1. r :. 2 ~/ All]..2~1111.11 Il[,pÂ·Â·LÂ·frlt~hou.Lui~Ill ' J .44 I 14 *|4#4/ 14,4*#*F4442' 1" '2.62 7,1 rze 1 /4 1 1 â€¢, J lili 1. I 1= 1 1 l- -1.j1295,FT.~746 --1 1 -~ER LEVEL â€¢ MLATE ./. â€¢ ./ â€¢1 1 ' 1 .... Level â€¢ PLATE 4- 1 , ~ * ~1'~ L/VEL 4 PLATE /- 1 p EL 1%-8 -,0.Mr' 1111 1.11 !1.. 4 441 1+ Â·Il, 1, â€¢, i Â» -e=-====-~_-3 - --- -â€¢rÂ·[ 1.1.11 0 -\ 1 yEL w' ------------------ -- - vil'.LY.!. LICTU.-[YAJ~ .mL r . MATE I. -410-7321]1-la--Â·1 --ZO| C=]It2==Luffi I 2- -- n_ Ch J - -_ - --- ~ il'-3-1Â©~103]L==41=_ry==ur 'CE]Ir-W-1 4411 6 ENâ„¢Â¥ LEvEL ---IlL---4k*-A' }[_..-1 1-----q~-------~---- ------ =22===LL==ltnnInÂ»~Â·-4 W /Wair LEVEL ---- Thl- u- --- 7 EL -4.1 u-~ur-r......d El-=...,6.=c___ i r EL ... NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION -1--------T-- 1 0 j LF 1 LE] [O 1 Wle'l"' WaleE _ WISTOIC ..% j 1 I LLJI 1 2-1 / UP'/I UMÂ£ . ILATE Â¥- .L Â£ 1101 / D 1 Al tltt#Up ... ATTIC I MLA.TE â€¢/- y EL -1'.1 1 J NOTE, BlaltÂ·ENT PIERD-EIER - 1 ......2. - MAK*In ./ u,ALL_/ A~ MADE C. ICILDERS. ....407 ___~ _~~~__~_~___ ____W__ _____~____~_______ ~ ./Â£101,# /El-El/ICULAR 1 GAG METER N. ELECTRIC rETel EAST ELEVATION ' BASEMENT FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR 024 8 EXISTING HISTORICAL PLAN & ELEVATIONS 1 20/10 7 1401 ' 2-*~I .,32..:11@4 ./.Irimv I 7-P,3*-: . ... 0 2 -' m. "LE t..MJ, I . U~. , . 1 . bil ---2 1 1.-1/ . .-1.....1-.;,1 @E~>~7~~~~'~~~' ~'"-&- -25- 1 . .0 *---lial/ ---1 6 1 f r y . VI. 1-66- , , d F i'- ff.*M-/-~ Â· ~ ~ ~~ * ' J-Pr:R#asm,haf""*i#*~8'Im#MagumrfjÂ£Cit.~I.'Â·-4. - . 4- 1 ' Â·~Â·//41/BL'/$"Ii:5MB:&13//4/11/:92:. . y--Â«;'ts---r . I<*fisi'24'jr-----.- -.,c West Elevation 422 9 to 5 St. Clair Residence f0CUS360 A spe n, Colora d o 0 0 .: 'M #3 , ' *Â·> 4 -# M ' " 1'24' ' 11 7: .' 4 2 A - 0Â£ F *51 1 9 , .. 9, 2 6 Â£ h?K g .1, , . 4 % L... r ~433*A~ llII, 11|ImmIF , 1 Illit 41 : ... B I 7. -- G i lili 4 - J ==21//I lili 4 1.4 + 4 . lim - AA -11 4 4 *,4.- .=44.k#.3.. â€ž6- 1, f.1 . A -r ~ -reÂ·Â·Â·91 . . : -Â·'EamIN"li~' 24Â¥Â·Â·.2 - -21>0 - 1 . - 12- ,... . '52*42-0/24*. -37=12/0-r, '- 41.: .4 --Â·'-.- 2,;~Ai#EFF;.-Â·Â·Â·Â·veÂ·Â·ew,Â·..Wisi,$. f.iiÂ· p ,-~ Â· Â·- : - .cit.Syl--Â»ff 2: ...Â·â€ž 4 g 149 6%3.4.:Â·Â·Â· ~ ..... ~... . Â·42Â·322~ . . , North Elevation South Elevation f0CUS360 '-Dainc 1,1 1.--I--14~17~3%- .1-41. diuÂ·~ reW-= - Â· I k*.4)Â·:.--.f ;:-A'' "'Â·' '. N t,f lilli 1 7*,1 W n .. i.1 42 4.44 . 1 1 . lilli. 1. 4 41.. A râ€¢44*4*v ililli iiii ii 11 k 4% - . A . ,- -49 1.1 Â«,1:Fe .,- â„¢1.3 y. I ..4 - 444 . 26 ''1Â·Cl~f;:tj*:.- .... . -~ 4+ Â· -Â«4Â·.4409- 1 I. 41,4, i . 3 I East Elevation f0CUS360 . '31] A. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director<~~ID FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Wagner Park, Public Facilities- Conceptual, PUBLIC IIEARING DATE: August 8, 2001 SUMMARY: The City proposes to demolish the existing public bathrooms on the east side of Wagner Park and replace them with new facilities. The HPC must review the proposal because it falls with the "Commercial Core Historic District." Staffrecommends conceptual approval with no conditions. APPLICANT: City of Aspen Parks Department, represented by Willis Pember Architects. LOCATION: The east side of Wagner Park, City ofAspen. PARCEL ID: 2737-182-20-851 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four of the following Development Review Standards, from Section 26.72.010(D) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant necessary variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this Section exceed those variations allowed under Section 26.520.040(B)(2), for detached accessory dwelling units. 1 . Staff Response: The project replaces existing outdated public bathrooms, housed in a one 0 story, non-descript structure. In addition to restrooms, other amenities will be provided, including a clock tower, a sports overlook tower for viewing and announcing events in the park, a telephone kiosk, and an interpretive exhibit which displays information about various periods ofAspen's history. The bathroom structure and the kiosk are one story in height. The sports overlook has a second story observation deck. The clock tower, at 30 feet, is the tallest of the new elements. All the construction is done in a material palette that has been selected to tell a story about Aspen, referencing its mining past and other local structures. The forms of the buildings are contemporary, as are the solar collector panels used as a roof on the bathrooms. The project has several goals, from providing much needed services for the public to creating a gateway into the park. The buildings create an atmosphere that will encourage people to gather. There is little in the way of historic structures in the immediate area, and the classic storefront features of the surrounding buildings do not provide any relevant guide for the project. The overall policy for new construction in the downtown historic district, as stated in the design guidelines is "Improvements in the Commercial Core Historic District should maintain the integrity of historic resources in the area. At the same time, compatible and creative design solutions should be encouraged." There is also substantial discussion about 0 opportunities to enhance pedestrian character. Staff finds this project to be very successful. The usability of the park will be vastly improved and a new opportunity to describe what is unique about Aspen is offered. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Staff Response: The project lies near the western border of the historic district. The only historic structure on the adjacent block is the Red Onion, so the 19th century building context is weak in this general area. The architects have found some effective ways to tie the project into the downtown and strengthen the character ofthe neighborhood. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Staff Response: No historic structures are directly adjacent to this area, and none are affected by the project. 0 2 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the 0 architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereoÂ£ Staff Response: No historic structures are directly adjacent to this area, and none are affected by the project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve Conceptual Development for Wagner Park finding that the review standards and design guidelines are met, with no conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to approve Resolution # , Series of 2001." Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated August 8,2001 B. Application 0 0 3 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NEW PUBLIC FACILITIES AT WAGNER PARK, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2737-182-20-851 RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 2001 WHEREAS, the applicant, the City of Aspen Parks Department, represented by Willis Pember Architects, has requested Conceptual Development approval for new public facilities along the east side of Wagner Park, within the City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is located in the "Commercial Core Historic District," and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant necessary variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this Section exceed those variations allowed under Section 26.520.040(13)(2), for detached accessory dwelling units, and 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated August 8, 2001, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended approval of the project; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on August 8, 2001, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards, and to be consistent with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote of_ to _. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That Conceptual Development approval is granted for the public facilities on the east side of Wagner Park, City and Townsite of Aspen, as presented on August 8, 2001, with no conditions. APPROVED BY THE, COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 8th day of August, 2001. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Gilbert Sanchez, Vice Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk ~' 1~1-2~ 1 COUNTY OF PITKIN ) AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT )ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION STATE OF COLORADO ) SECTION 26.304.060(E) I, JANET RACZAK, being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E) ofthe Aspen Land Use Regulations in the following manner: By mailing of notice, a copy ofwhich is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet ofthe subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the 2501 day ofJuly, 2000. 00*~ 40--.c-yi J/~LET RACZAK . KEEP OFF ROOF PUBLIC NOTICE = :t=:s. 0., m 72. 0 â€¢tril Â· 4. . t . . <- 4 ~ 9~25 --fi ' ' Â· 22--2=i_--t"4-U*-C 2,1 . 721 . li-7 -1.- JUL-25-01 01:46 PM WPA 9709204461 P.02 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: WAGNER PARKPUBUCRESTROOMS AND PARKFACILmES- CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVEW NOT]CEIS HEREBYGIVEN thst apuhlic haringwill beheldon Wedne?day, Austst 8,2001 at a m=tingto begkt at 300 p.m. befom the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, Council Chanbers, City Holl, 130 S. G*na St, Aspm, to oonsider an application submittedby the City of AspmParksDepattment to replece the existingrestrooms on thecast side ofWagnerPark ad to addnew fadlitics forthe partt inchiding m exhibitionpavition, spolts overlook,clock tower, and klosks, WignerPark islocated in the Commercialaore HivtoricDistrid, boldered by Monalth, Durmt, andMill Streets. ForfUrther infonnation, contact Arny Guthrieat the AspeWPitkin County Comramity Development Department: 130 S. G+ng St, Aspen, CO (070)920-5096, amy #jolaspen.coais. 8/SuzmnikE#*CWK Aspen Historic Presendion Commissim Pubished h the Aspen Times on July 20, 2001 --- City of Aspen Account 401 COOPER PARTNERS 1000 EAST HOPKINS LLC 407 EAST HYMAN PROPERTY LTD FLEISHER COMPANY C/O 215 S MONARCH #101D 34425 HWY 82 200 E MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 419 EAST HYMAN LLC ALEXANDER JUDY ALYEMENI MOHAMMED & ALICE C/O TED C SKOKOS 2121 NW FRONTAGE RD #254 819 LINWOOD RD 425 W CAPITAL AVE STE 3200 VAIL, CO 81657 MOORESVILLE, NC 28115 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 ASPEN SPORTS INC B & K ASSOCIATES ASPEN ART INVESTMENTS LTD C/O BECKER BUSINESS SERVICES A COLORADO GENERAL PARTNERSHIP 1450 SIERRA VISTA DR #B 630 E HYMAN AVE 308 S MILL ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BALDERSON CABELL LLC BAKER CHARLES E JR 50% BATES NATHANIEL B TRUST C/O BURKE AND NICKEL 333 E 75TH PO BOX 9909 3336 E 32ND ST STE 217 NEW YORK, NY 10021 ASPEN, CO 81612 TULSA, OK 74135 BIDWELL BERT INVESTMENT BENT FORK LLC BENTLEYS AT THE WHEELER CORPORATION 152 WILLOUGHBY WY PO BOX 10370 PO BOX 567 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 TOOD ASSOCIATES BOGIN ROBERT M & KIMBERLY B BOUNDY RICHARD R ORADO PARTNERSHIP 17 APPLE LN 906 W SUGNET RD OX 3421 CALIFON, NJ 07830 MIDLAND, MI 48640 ASPEN, CO 81612 BRIGHT GALEN BRINING ROBERT BUSH ALAN DAVID PO BOX 1848 215 S MONARCH ST STE 203 0046 HEATHER LANE ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CARRIGAN RICHARD A JR CARLSON BRUCE E CHARLIES COW COMPANY LLC FERMILABS PO BOX 3587 315 E HYMAN AVE KIRK AND WILSON ROADS ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 BALAVIA, IL 60510 CHICAGO SNOWFLAKE INVESTMENT GROUP INC CITY OF ASPEN CLARK ANDREA C/O SHELL PROPERTIES CORP 130 S GALENA ST P O BOX 6452 40 SKOKIE BLVD - STE 350 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60680-6452 NORTHBROOK, IL 60062 CLAUSEN FAMILY TRUST NO 1 WILLIAM E & LOIS P CLASEN NORMAN E & LAURA B C/O HYNDS JOHN W TRUSTEE 362 PO BOX 1155 PO BOX 685 , CO 81612 BASALT. CO 81621 MORRIS, IL 60450 COMCOWICH WILLIAM L CONTINENTAL DIVIDE CO COHEN ARTHUR S TRUSTEE OF ROBERT BARNARD TRUST A COLORADO CORP IBSEN 72 420 W MAIN ST 230 S MILL ST MEXICO CITY, MEXICO, 11560 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 0 COX JAMES E & NANCY COTTONWOOD VENTURES I LLC CROW MARGERY K & PETER D C/O ROB SNYDER 419 E HYMAN AVE 46103 HIGHWAY 6 & 24 304 S GALENA STE A ASPEN, CO 81611 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 ASPEN, CO 81611 CRYSTAL PALACE CORPORATION CYS RICHARD L AND KAREN L DAVIDSON DONALD W PO BOX 32 5301 CHAMBERLIN AVE 864 CEMETERY LN ASPEN, CO 81612 CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815 ASPEN, CO 81611 DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED DENSON JAMES D DIXON R MC FARLAND 215 S MONARCH #104 PO BOX 4120 3141 HOOD ST ASPEN, CO 81611 AVON, CO 81620 DALLAS, TX 75219 DOLE MARGARET M DIXON ROGER M C/O FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF DONCER JOYCE TRUST 3141 HOOD ST CEDARIDGE 7641 W 123RD PL 6TH FLOOR LEE PARK CENTER PO BOX 8455 PALOS HEIGHTS, IL 60463 DALLAS, TX 75219 ASPEN, CO 81612 FAIRHOLME INVESTMENTS LTD EVANS DAVID COURTNEY C/O MARINI & ASSOCIATES ~X 2238 PO BOX 952 TWO S BISCAYNE BLVD STE 3580 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 MIAMI, FL 33131 FEDER HAROLD L FLEISHER DAVID M FOOTLOOSE MOCCASIN MAKERS INC FEDER ZETTA F 200 E MAIN ST 240 S MILL ST STE 201 210 E HYMAN AVE #4 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN. CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-2912 FREDRICK LARRY D FREDRICK LARRY D FYRWALD JON ERIK & GUDRUN L ROBERTS JANET A AS JOINT TENANTS 215 S MONARCH STE G101 915 CECIL ROAD 215 S MONARCH STE G101 ASPEN, CO 81611 WILMINGTON, DE 19807 ASPEN, CO 81611 GOLDEN HORN BUILDING LTD GOLDSMITH ADAM D & SMITH RONA K GOLDSTEIN ALAN J A COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP JT GOLDSTEIN MANAGEMENT C/O PO BOX 7943 601 S MONARCH UNIT 4 150 METTRO PARK #2 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ROCHESTER, NY 14623 C=JIZTEIN PETER & ALAN GOODING RICHARD L GRAND ASPEN LODGING LLC 1200 17TH ST STE 2660 308 S GALENA ST lSTER, NY 14623 DENVER, CO 80202 ASPEN, CO 81611 F GRAND SLAM HOLDINGS LLC GREENWOOD KAREN DAY & STERLING GRAND FINALE LTD C/O CARL B LINNECKE CPA PC JAMES PO BOX 32 215 S MONARCH ST - STE# 101 409 E COOPER AVE ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GUTNER KENNETH H REVOCABLE HABATAT GALLERIES ASPEN INC GRIFFITH ANGELINE M TRUST HAGOPIAN SANDY C/O 530 WALNUT ST GUTNER KENNETH H TRUSTEE 213 S MILL ST ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 11001 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 HAMPEL WALTER F JR HART GEORGE DAVID & SARAH G HARTMAN FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LTD 290 HEATHER LN PO BOX 5491 209 W FELICITY ST ASPEN, CO 81611 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 ANGOLA, IN 46703 HATCHER HUGH S & JENNIFER M HEDLUND REUBEN HERSHBERGER PHILIP G 2806 DUMBARTON ST NW SEARS TOWER STE 5700 2737 CLUB TERR WASHINGTON. DC 20007 CHICAGO. IL 60610 FT WAYNE, IN 46804 IMMOBILIEN LLC HILL EUGENE D JR 1/2 HILLIS OF SNOWMASS INC C/O NATIONAL TAX SEARCH LLC 3910 S HILLCREST DR 170 E GORE CRK PO BOX 81290 DENVER, CO 80237 VAIL, CO 81657 CHICAGO. IL 60681-0290 ANSEN LLC JACOBSON FAMILY TRUST JOHNSON PETER C & SANDRA K WARD HANSEN 2168 SANTA MARGARITA DR 215 S MONARCH ST STE G103 2. - DURANT AVE FALLBROOK, CA 92028 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 KANTZER TAYLOR MICHAEL FAMILY KANADA KENICHI KAPLAN BARBARA TRUST #1 611 S MONARCH ST #1 3076 EDGEWOOD RD 6501 VISTA DEL MAR ASPEN, CO 81611 PEPPER PIKE, OH 44124 PLAYA DEL REY, CA 90293 KAUFMAN GIDEON I KELLY PROPERTIES INC KLEINER JOHN P 315 E HYMAN AVE STE 305 PO BOX 8429 55 SECOND ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80906 L P C COMPANY INC KULLGREN NANCY A LADD EDWIN V JR & WILMA C A COLORADO CORPORATION 205 E DURANT AVE UNIT 2-C 51 GREAT MEADOW LN PO BOX 362 ASPEN, CO 81611 AVON, CT 06001-4549 ASPEN, CO 81612 N WILLIAM H AND E MARGRIT LEATHERMAN ROBERT D LEVY HELEN JOAN TRUST ALLE LOS ALTOS PO BOX 11930 421 WARWICK RD N, AZ 85718 ASPEN, CO 81612 KENILWORTH, IL 60043 LEWIS PERRY LIMELITE INC LINDNER FRITZ & ERIKA HEARTLAND PARTNERS 228 E COOPER 66966 TEN PEAKS CT 55 RAILROAD AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 BEND, OR 97701-9277 G,"7ENWICH, CT 06830 MCDONALDS CORPORATION 05/152 LOCHHEAD RAYMOND R & EMILIE M LOMA ALTA CORPORATION REAL ESTATE TAX SECTION 200 SHERWOOD RD 6210 N CENTRAL EXPWY PO BOX 66207 PASO ROBLES. CA 93446 DALLAS, TX 75206 CHICAGO, IL 60666 MESSNER CHRISTIAN MEEKER RICHARD J AND ALLISON D MEYER BUSINESS BUILDING LLC ELLIS DIANA R 0752 MEADOWOOD DR 23655 TWO RIVERS RD 13320 MULHOLLAND DR ASPEN, CO 81611 BASALT, CO 81621 BEVERLY HILLS. CA 90210 MORRONGIELLO CHARLES T MOUNTAIN CHALET ENTERPRISES INC MSE ASPEN HOLDINGS LTD MORRONGIELLO LYDIA A 333 E DURANT AVE 1575 PONCE DE LEON 18 SCHOOL LN ASPEN, CO 81611 FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33316 LLOYD HARBOR, NY 11743 MTN ENTERPRISES 80B NEWMAN KERRY J & RICKI R OBRIEN MAUREEN C/O HILLIS OF SNOWMASS 617 PRINCE DR 215 S MONARCH ST G102 170 GARE CRK DR NEWBURGH, IN 47630 ASPEN. CO 81611 VAIL, CO 81657 PARAMOUNT INVESTMENTS INC OBERT L PARK CENTRAL CONDO ASSOC A DELAWARE CORP C/O WILLIAM POPE TTERSON RD 215 S MONARCH ST STE 203 540 W SMUGGLER GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 PASCO PROPERTIES COLORADO LLC PETERSON BROOKE A PEYTON MARI SMITH PATRICK A C/O KAUFMAN & PETERSON 409 E COOPER #4 STE 1 P O BOX 688 315 E HYMAN ASPEN, CO 81611 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303 ASPEN, CO 81611 PROSPECTOR FRACTIONAL OWNERS PICARD DEBORA J & DOUGLAS M PRODINGER IRMA ASSOC 2600 GARDEN ROAD - STE 222 PO BOX 1245 301 E HYMAN AVE #108 MONTERREY, CA 93940-5322 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 RED ONION INVESTORS LLC RACZAK JOSEPH S & JANET L C/O RED ONION MGT CO RENO ASPEN PROPERTIES LLC 0234 LIGHT HILL RD 418 E COOPER #205 ATTN: CHARLES B 210 E HYMAN AVE #202 SNOWMASS, CO 81654 ISRAEL ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN. CO 81611 RYANCO PARTNERSLTD XXX SCHAYER CHARLES M III SAUNDERS-WHITE CAROL REV TRUST ITH PAT HORTON KAREN JANE TRUST PO BOX 8100 YMAN AVE STE 105 588 S PONTIAC WAY ASPEN. CO 81612 , CO 81611-1945 DENVER, CO 80224 , SCHROEDER C M JR SCULL JAMES E SHAW ROBERT W SCHROEDER BETTY ANN PO BOX 2051 PO BOX 121157 3629 ROCKBRIDGE RD ASPEN, CO 81612 FORT WORTH, TX 76121 C-- UMBIA, SC 29206 SHEFFER BARBARA & DOUGLAS SHENNAN MELISSA A SHOAF JEFFREY S PO BOX 250 2036 N BISSELL ST PO BOX 3123 ASPEN, CO 81612 CHICAGO, IL 60614 ASPEN. CO 81612 SLT ASPEN DEAN STREET LLC SILVER CIRCLE RINK LLC SILVERMAN MARC A & MARILYN L C/O STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS ICE RINK 937 DALE RD TRUST 308 S GALENA ST MEADOWBROOK, PA 19046 2231 E CAMELBACK RD STE 410 ASPEN, CO 81611 PHOENIX, AZ 85016 SOUTH POINT CONDOMINIUM SMITH RONA K SOUTHPOINT-SUMNER CORPORATION ASSOCIATION 1742 HILLSIDE RD 4828 FORT SUMNER DR 205 E DURANT AVE #2F STEVENSON. MD 21153 BETHESDA, MD 20816 ASPEN, CO 81611 SPAULDING RICHARD W & THOMPSON SULLIVAN JOHN B ELEANOR M STROH GEORGE C SULLVAN JUNE A AS JT TENANTS 8525 SKYLAND DR PO BOX 367 PO BOX 292 NIWOT, CO 80503 SAVANNA, IL 61074-0367 CONCORD, MA 01742 TAN PHILIP SUMMIT VIEW INC TANGUAY MICHAEL LAWRENCE UEBEC ST 248 WASHINGTON ST 319 AABC STE G DENVER, CO 80220-1926 TOMS RIVER, NJ 08754 ASPEN, CO 81611-3516 TOWNE PLACE OF ASPEN CONDO ASSOC INC TRUE NINA W VANTONGEREN HAROLD V & LIDIA M C/O ASPEN LODGING COMPANY 215 S MONARCH ST #102 2000 E 12TH AVE BOX 8 747 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80206 ASPEN, CO 81611 WALTERS 1/5 & ROLLINS 1/5 & GORMAN WENDELIN ASSOC 1/5 WEBSTER HUNTER M A NEW YORK GENERAL PARTNERSHIP SMITH 1/5 & BONDS 1/5 PO BOX 2366 150 METRO PARK 7350 W FAIRVIEW DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ROCHESTERâ€ž NY 14623 LITTLETON, CO 80128 WHEELER SQUARE - CASPER FAMILY WHITAKER PATRICIA D WHITMAN WENDALIN LLC 3 LAI)UE LN 210 E HYMAN AVE #101 315 E HYMAN ST LOUIS, MO 63163 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 W-TMER GORDON L WOLK PAUL REVOCABLE TRUST WOODSON TAWANA D OWARD 4868 THE DELL LN P O BOX 125 X 114 HUME, VA 22639 TETON VILLAGE. WY 83025 , CO 81612 ZOLLER LAWRENCE & HELEN 50.8% C/O STEPHEN ZOLLER 1032 TIA JUANA ST LAQUNA BEACH, CA 92651 0 i 41>61 7-9 WILLIS PEMBER ARCHITECTS INC 412 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN CO 81611 Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 7.01.01 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Significant Development Review, Wagner Park Edge Conceptual Review and Project Description, (Attachment 3, #7). To Whom It May Concern, Attached please find the requested attachments 1 ,2,3 and 4 as part of a Conceptual Review Application. By way of explanation of.how the proposed development complies with the relevant review standards, a project description follows: Project Description The essential architectural elements, the Exhibition Pavilion, the Sports Overlook, Clock Tower, and Kiosks were all designed.from the.'outside-in'. They are defined by their exterior function and were developed, to thegreatest extent possible, to reinforce two urban design goals: The first, is the creation of an outdoor performancekeremonial space located at the intersection of the Cooper St and Mill St Mall axis. The circular paving pattern, Clock tower, and pavilion graphics create both a strong focal point and restores Wagner Park as the visual termination of the Cooper St. axis. The second goal is to increase porosity, transparency, and continuity at the contiguous edge separating Wagner Park and Mill St. Mall. The relationship of this proposal to the character of the Historic Overlay District and the Commercial Core rests on three architectural issues - Materiality, Representation, and Technics. Materiality 'Galvalume' shingles, proposed at the solid portions of the roof overhangs, refer explicitly to Aspen as the 'Silver City'Â· This connection is historically apparent at the roof of St. Mary's and the dome of the Elk's Club to name just two examples. Red sandstone, a material proposed at key walls around the exhibition pavilion, are tied directly to Aspen's load bearing 'civic' material palette, as exemplified in the Wheeler Opera House. Rusted steel engages natural processes particular to the extreme weathering conditions found in the Mountains. VC 970 920 1727 . NCARB Â· AIA Â· FX 970 920 4461 Representation The proposal seeks to participate in the life of the Commercial Core by recolnizing that the Core can correctly be understood as a community of storefronts. 10 contribute to this life, the proposal offers a narrative on the history of Aspen via fixed, semi-permanent graphics, interactive computer monitors, and a demonstration of Photovoltaic technology. The 'exhibit' is on display at the East and South sides of the pavilion, areas directly adjacent to pedestrians on the Mall. Technics Aspen has always embraced progressive technologies; the most advanced smelting techniques of the 1890's, the first City in Colorado to generate its own electricit* the worlds longest gondola, and home to Computer pioneers and inventions. I he exhibition pavilion actively embraces this historical trait via the pneration of photovoltaic electricity, as a cutting edge demonstration of the City s commitment to environmental awareness. Sincerely, Willis Pember, AIA *602 ' -IÂ· , k ' .,4 ,/t}~f.' - 7; i:ltd 4.1:, F - Â·Â· Mt@ v. '. ~7 - Â· Â· -4 . Â·. 7 -,4 M ...fil i. ... :. 4.49 'I'-~'' 1/. A ... .~~~~.. :~::/043.brf ' . 4%61 ..':' 1% -, I ir.~6~1:' tÂ¢-+t: t.2;4-Â· 9-:+Ir . -71,% -, i,. i .f i I.,143=18.03 ' 74> 1 41. . '. fÂ· t 'r.' 4'.'0?1:,htÂ¢~;~~[1311.%14't" "..,~~ 4. Â· 0,11* -, ,Â· p ~ ~~ t'f: 41&194 9....+1.* D i *11 â€¢ ' Â·Â·, Â·Â·rn Â·:Â·;,j# ~i> Â¢:~Â·,Â·i.*ri-1/7.fftÂ·~~3.;,, Â· 1 4 '44 1 i I :1... 1Â·3*i'.'. ' '' '' '1249:4Â»Gt r.4.7-3&*ar .,r <t /..1, 4 -, '"crli,R:, .t>fl3,;114. t.*40;I : ~ 3..* 4 31"f.:40:~At i 4.0 %, , Â· 1 Â·Â·Â· 4-4.14 .Â¥,14. 1,4497'F. , ........ AN,4 7 i ...Wt . I.~. '~ . ~Â· 4,-?4'~9?7249,*514 0$ . 44. 0,1 t ~ , .7 1 944512*6401- . 4'I. Â·.4- Â· k. 1 ~'.Â· ....... 4 -4Â« Â£31 1 43% 61'4 i 3,r.j~:*.I. A Leâ€žÂ· 4.1.. '*+24#ij 9 r , ... 0: 4"ki.2 .., 41 ~~~ ~'~~ ~~~4~~~'~'~~~:43Â·,Â¢29 9~j.,i~- ~~:. .~ jprek".4# ./2......,22 17'llqpm,9#6.J'.4.., . 84â‚¬ w *.p.. . 11 ....J d. I:. -.1 q *17 4444-4 19% ' #MIIQ :t:-:.3 <231, ZÂ».rÂ· 2.: =a 11 I 5, ti,ji:<234' 38 I. b. Ab -. 41. -~i';~+-,r'4~ ... * 1 ;&Â¢1* ' $ 11 , -Cl- . e Tt'i. i. \2 'cÂ» -- 0..-- '. Â·211 6 *47-7.Â·037Â·3-3Â· Â· Â· .kitii . 6': rf~WA.:: 141.1 2 f L... *[217*4'fEWÂ¥,4 1Â» pi, :4 Â®RP~(41. $614~t , fip Â· ~ '*5411,1.1 MIdi 4 .2,3.- - 0... '; i.< :{ : 11Â¥*4 Â· 6.Za 11#pi -' LIlly '1%11 . ~' i.awki.(.1':.7{13?16'tÂ·/ I L, 7.7,2; . .ltilil it 574*1 1 It! ,f LI I ' 0Â¢4 9 0Â·' ' 'Â· ' '~ 1 7 -4,2, tillÂ» TiÂ·~141 r./ 4 , tilhka r.=> * ... tyi-/ Â· t'. 1 . I. . 2.~ 4.. WAGNER PARK EDGE - performance space, exhibition pavillion, clock tower, sports overlook, restrooms, mall phone kiosks, and parks storage. client - City of Aspen Parks Department building systems - Jeff Woods - Director Scott Chism - Parks Planner/ Project Manager Foundation - Slab on Grade - all structures. Heating - Exhibition Pavillion and Restrooms - Radiant Slab/Passive Solar design team = Willis Pember Architects Inc Storage Facility - Gas Space Heater Willis Pember - Principal Suzannah Reid - Reid Architects Electrical - Exhibition Pavillion and Restrooms - 1,280 SF Photovoltaic Glass Art Burrows - Ajax Design & Communications roof array. Capacity to generate energy equivalent to the usage Joan Matranga - C.O. R.E. of a single family residence. Structural - Exhibition Pavillion and Restrooms - Light frame construction cost estimating - Narby & Associates Inc with exposed rusting steel trusses. John Narby - General Contractor Sports Overlook and Storage Facility - Light frame construction with exposed rusting steel roof and trellis beams. Clock Tower - Triangular rusting steel truss. building materials - Lighting - All structures daylit. Low voltage/compact flourescent fixtures Exterior Cladding - Walls: Batten Seam metal siding, Galvinized after sunset steel wire cloth, rusted steel plate, and stucco accent panels. Graphic - Exhibition Pavillion - fixed panel 'History of Aspen' graphics, Roofing: 'Galvalume' metal shingles, semi-permanent 5 year UV warranty matte vinyl finish. Front lit photovoltaic laminated glass. in evening. Interactive display touch screen computer monitors with possible links to AspenCam, Aspenhistory.org, etc. Electric meter display and PV information panel. Interior Finishes - Exhibition Pavillion and Restrooms - Walls: ceramic tile, stainless steel partitions, Floors: colored concrete. Sound - PA system cable ready at performance space and sports overlook. Speakers located in clock tower to adress performance space Countertops: cast concrete. Ceilings: translucent Polycarbonate skylight and/or Park. (women), drywall, and PV translucent glass skylight, (men). ... 00 'NadSY 133Httllt* 'N ZiÂ¥ logn ONI '51031!HOHÂ¥ 11386,3d S}11!M -1 NV,d 31IS 1VHn1031IH0HV MHVd H3NDVM \ 1 1 / 9/ 1 1 ) 4 1 0 0 /0 0 34- \ 1 1 -1 i ' 1 1., I .1411*4-1 1 4-,-:G~ '111-<1.41 ; C 0. 1) 1// 1---1/ 1 E j W 1 0 11 I '14- -Illilli 11[ 11 /3 1 1 & r.1111 11- -1 1- 9%"-11- IL 111 3 ..1 1, 2 1 1 41 - 11 C ED /)0 -1 fli-7 -/ 3 t L_-_1 \ j LJ ; Â»/ 11 1-- Â· 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 19'Ult -1 . . I T+ .TI L 11 1 1 12 C li li 1 h 11 /- r.' I ITÂ·--' ' /' | H 11 I 1 210 3 (<-0 1 ~1 1~ 11 ? C 1 11 0115Â® 11 1 )1 11 6 11 ~~_ _ -.4 11 11 1 1- 0 ; 4 11*lili r r-- 41 11 7 1 1 il :f 1 1 101 ialmr r A -. _ rt ' -7/ 1 1 *twaJ ty W. . 12 1 6 m , (- 0 59!1 4..#lliN C, 10 1 19-1 1 1 0 /9-,9-2 i? 1 L.--1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 611 + 1 / 1 ' "cl 4. INL + d 1 1 1 -1 "11 1 /,4/ OIl 1 Â£ SIEl / 1 gdp] .5 /4/ V 0[ . r l i r N b---- *-- 0 H \. , ! 1 lET 42 \ 1 Â·t v .SPIRIT l\\ 4 // i .to/// 1 0 \ \ 1 . .....1 IN 3/ ) 5 th 1 , . 1 \1 UJ 11Â¥W 13ALLS ~1:1000 T < 2 << c - T-- ) jy * - ,/ 1 0 . CIM O 9.3\* ixi,1+, Th: cx<---* * 3) -=1 4/ j /:I# 1 + 1 41 /. /,2~---f--=-11 1 1 1 1 . 1 It It' , E-tlj _k - -lit 1 1 ' I'Lill amEIVKINN- 1!EF*-, 7.IE;t-,fimer- 1 , i lilli l ; 1 ~ 1, }Â¥Mn#%,4~, 1 :.~ 1Â®1 1 5 23 I Ir 'J ' /1 It 1,- 1*.1 33"B.1 1 - 1- 1 4 .-1 r 1-4 1 1'1 ~,+ 1 3 3 I T !41 4.x F- i ' 14. 1 .1 1 \ tz Ir I Il~~-- 74!It~' L~ li , 1 L.711-1 +1 -1 1 -,1- -3 -1 Â£ - 1 111 -1 1-1 1 021 ' R I jij 1.13 r.li -11.1 -41 1 -1 .-11 1 -1 + 34 -42 jÂ« 11|'@ cionm 'U 1 2213 3 1-4 1140--illrip -r~N~ 1% ~ - -1 -1 It 42 -11 1 1-1 1 ~-21 6 1111 1 -1- d 1 13- 4- 14-ITY' 1-1 1 Â¢D. + I_ d I 1 / 11 1 1 ... 3Â¢00-12,2.0 01 & MILL STREET MALL N V 1 3 '31'~3 +0 N alilld eNIAÂ¥-61 1 ' 1 1 --% 0 I i 1 1 ROOF CLAD IN METAL 1 TRUSSES. (4) | ~ CLAZI PHOTO VOLTAIC SHINeLES- ROOF, SOFFIT. n SKYLI~T A PHOTOVOLTAIC EAVES, ANÂ© Â£#KE TYP. 1 ~ P;~NELS 1 RUSTED STEEL PRE-FABR~CATÂ·ED 1 1 1 1 1/ lili 111 1 1 1 1 Il 1 1 I M A l 1 jr- 6U1TER KÂ¥OND j l 11 11 11 11 11 LleHT FIXT. n --9-- 51<*Lleâ€¢T ~ | /Â»Â·~30\ ----tzr=m~~-2--~ //Â»-P~bzzeÂ« -/~ 1 ~ ~ BEYOND ~ *922,5*5*==EhE@%2%*-- 5;22*E===---- 1 1 1 1 1 r- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 F.1.1 1 11 1 OUTLINE OF L (4) Rus~q ~ L RUSTED STEEL BEAM .4 3/ ~ MENS RM BEÂ·foto 6 -Ff O ..1 1 L OVERHANG 1 i 41 .-.. E FOUNTA r e PIKINKIN@ . Ie,3/I//11/ 1 1 : 4,-;9/ 1 / , L --1 : - I 1 : -71 Ft---3 /1 1 '133//1,514- . / 1.ni)/:I'll--0 JÂ·1~~~~ Cl -/ ..0,1 1 L -1 STUCCO PANEL L STUCCO PANEL. SALVASEP AND RELOCATED 1 L s"-c Co BEDO. BRONZE PL,UJES --I SNIrsZ~ 1 < < NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" 1/4"= 1'-0" 20Â·-111/8 1 38'-7 3/4Â· SKÂ¥LleHT PHOTO VOLTAIG GLÂ»SS VV PHOTO 7 1 ~ FRAf Â· 320'00. _ - ~/416 SLASS. \ r C.N4Cpf AND 11 lili i liN.- 1 1 11 - 1 0 1 1 11 1 11 IF 111 111 i ~ r-1 -- ~~ 1 1 r-- 11. 11 4' el 1 1 4 1 1 IiI; 1 . c J ---1~ \ ~f 1 -T 'L I /It \ / L-=22 ~ 1 1 1,1: w - gus... .... 1 i \ / /1 i \ / :11 1/11 - 1 11 1 11 ; A IT Y I U I 1 11 /\ 1 1 g 1 11 ~Â¢/// \\2 A ; 8 / \ l\ 1 ./ M 1 /11 . /1 11 1 -1 t-------------------76-30.-~7'L----49. Pr--3.-1 1 1 II I L_-1-1--43! M ~I , j \ /5 0 . ,1 2 11 M / 01 \ 11 *22 13 <ZE 1 1 3,; 1 1 , 11 I t- \ 11 1 1 1 1\ 121 1 -- ----J 1 Z= i j 1 \L------___--_ 1 \,~ ~ ' ul-WI W Jo 0= 91 -[ 1 22::2 I 1 - -- L INTESRAL L- GUTTER eUTTER I \~- (3) POLY. CARBO, ATE ~ 5<Vy$H15 BELOP P.V ~ 1/4,1 = 1.-0,1 ** 2 . ROOF PLAN .1 SINOOH193H pue N0I11IA * 5 - 31 ... 11I 41.-4 11 1 11 1 ~ i' _ ~__~ - ..5 IL Zi d&2 111 111 Z Â· . 1=.0 LId 111 Â§&g% 111 1209 32Â·-0" < U 4'-2' 10'-eÂ· 2'-5â€¢ Z Q 1 ! r---T---1- -T---9 F-- ---1- ---- T---7 1_--1-_J 11 Â¥11 1 1 --7 1 1 11 1 111 lilli 1 1 1 0 11 1 lili lili 111 1 1 1 11 1 ----- ---- 1---H ~ 11 1 11 1 - - 14 1 / 71 E--r--r--- 1 - 19 1 -1 1\ 1 1 -1 - V ---- ---- --7-9 2---1~._L--1- 4 1 1, /1 . 1 5 1 1 111 i 1 9 / t 1 41 1 1 4 / I 1 Ell L j \41 1 01 1 1 : 24 . / 0 1 11 1 - x I 1'\I I I 1 11% 1 71 i! 1 1 91* 1 1 11' /1 \\ 1 11 1 1 1 5 af-*- â‚¬Eli 2-1 1 1 11-1 i / 1 -71 --- -- ---- ---9--- / /1 /6.1 1 .B 11 11 1 1 -- - 111 1 1 1 /1 /W' 1 0 111 1 1 1 Z I 10 gor/ .1 1 1 I '-' I "T ~ Â®~ C 30 j lili 1 1 \4 1 1 1 1 1 '111 m 1 1 11 1 1 lili j j ~ 4 <2 1 1 111 lilli lilli 1 1 1 19 1 1 1 lili 1 11 1 ad' 1 4-1 1 11 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 4 0< 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 lili 1 H 1 1 1 11 1 1 CD %4 &81 1 1 1 11 1 jlllll1I #1 ittlt 1 11 1 lilli 1 1 1 111 1 11 1 1 It 1 1 --1---1--4 1 1 11-- e \1 70 1 114 It I Oft - -lilt 'M * ~ I 11 -0 1\ 4 1 1\6 X i / , 8 1\% /11 // . /11 1-1/ \\ 0: 1 1 1 1Â£2% 71 2*3 0% r 1 g 1 ~GRAPHICS -\~~~4 - ~ \ 1,9/9 54 14'-3 1/5Â· %0 ~~ EXHIIALTIQ-NPAYILLIO-N_a-niR-EST.R.9-9-Mi________.-_______________ WAGNER PARK WILLIS)EMBER ARCHITECTS, INC 6.18.01 412 *NILLSTREET ASPE14 CO ... METAL SHINeLES P.V. GLASS SOUTH ELEVATIO INEST ELEVATI -d.240074"~1-'~-3"~;~0 El/GL Hilld 8001 .. j \P - RUSTINS STEL TRELLIS RUSTED 'eAL.VALU~â‚¬ STEE ff METAL- SHINeLES TRELLIS -,1111,11- trr.Mr.-rl-H- f-111111117-r-Irrr'r-rrr'rr 'iill}11' U!!1 j~ti~ tijj'!1!11'1112 11.1 11.1, tilar..1111 1 1 - E814Â·1111Hz 1:FLF:FFFIER . Â®MN'IN AmmwiMwmmM ANMAMBM'4.- 1 STEEL MESH COV#RINS 283.333,13313 INHEERRE ~ b 212. OVER SPIRAL. st;KIR. P 'PE 3 ----11~.~--Â»j51 p %04 1 0. '4 1 6 111 47 11 I ~01- . 1 tilt-~'11 -.-- 1 j :.t- flroRY J i LSTEEL HANDRAIL A MESH- 3-Sa. FIXED Fâ€¢(NE)/5. 0 3 IN! UP ENFL S.bi. app. / BATTEN SEAM _~ METAL SIDING . li MALL I MALL G NORTH ELEVATION O% REST ELEVATION to) 1/4" =GO" 1/4" = 1'-0" E--) . 2-0 . n n 1 lili 11 11 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 lili I 11 1 Â«fi A il , I jl ! lilli 'Ill -1 _11____LL--_- I E | 11 L ST-E BELOW 1. STORASE 11 1 1 1 4.3 ~ ,\ r-; ABOVE METAL SHINGLE ROOF O- L OVERHANG eELOIN lili 1 li c ---2---=-ZE==22-2 23~ FLOOR PRAIN 11 1 1 1 1~ '1 1 .1 + 2 STEINER i SECURE STEEL ~~ N:â€¢t)ADOCML 910/ ! ---w I IIi 1,1 11 161 1: 11,Â« b REMOVAL < MAOHINE 11 1 !1 1 1 111 11 111 11 ~ / 34 0. 6;Z It I H 1 Ilt 11 1 ; 1 STEEL SPIRAL STAIR - 1 !1 1 11 1 11 11 ~4 \34-40 1 1 ~ - ~~. 1~KVINIZED .. BEAMS _L~~---44 1! il li t 034>f 1 e . 2 8 821-0/ \ , 11 It It 11 11 11 11 115>N 1 k Â·7~ i UTILITY 11 1 ... W I li I 11 11 11 11 lili 11 11 1 11,7 F SINK I 21 L - -11 --gl 11 11 11 1 L--31-__L_-1 -U-Ly, 1 Z= ES \ tr- 7--7 1 Il It '1 lr-- 77---Ir--7Â¥/ 4 . \ 11+ 11 I k M 11 11 1[ U U pIll 1 - --__--_-_-_ - - -1 1 --4. il *IP--0 lit-Ts ii O vik-RJ L-Noo i<1[ ~~14 1Â· C . .=====*. 1 1 - b 1 1 11 11 1 11 11 11 '! ~-Â·IL STEEL GRATE t *U,~3% Z MICROMAVE, CABS. AND UNDERCOUNTER FRIe H' 11 11 0 N H It " 1 PECKING 1, 1 11 11 11 1 11 11 11 11 1 11 1 " i 1, 1 . 11 2- 41 . j 'll 1 t\\- OVERLOOK 42-71--1 11 11 it 11 It 11 AÂ·BOVE 11 11 PLATFORM ~ U U U U 25'-O- U U Il j U .U 1 lu 1 STEEL TRELLIS G SECOND FLOOR PLAN FOVE r--A FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-O" ~ 1/4,1 = 11-011 38nlinals 39VH01S SMUVd pue MOO 10'91~9 311 'S13311 ' 1 \ 4 --0 1 ff / 1 9 10 -\47 _3 f 9 \ 9 C,OCK ACCESS _ ~ PANEL I/8 RA' STEEL PLATE 4 1 SHEAR PANELS HEÂ»HT OF SHORT MALL 9/IEET Lis/TS. 12Â·-4 7 %l 1 1 MA - FOUNTAIN / COMPUTEg ACCESS n |1 .ANEL X 4#W-AV....04#fl 9&- C 4 '1 0 . MALL)l 1 -1 \ EAST NORTH PARK (A-â‚¬12_LE_TOM_L--LLLY_ALIONS ~~~ PAEPOKE PAVILLION @ PAE=CKE PARK 1/4" = 1-Oil <3-f--3-/En'-0 SCALE COMPARISON =;1 -2 - RECYCLED EUSSER ~1.1.'Vi PLOOR'Na TILE 2'*2' ~ , bÂ·-O" //- LIGHT ~- 3.I MESSASE BOARD sTEEL MESH - # ~~ ~ 9 +3~LILLIZIEJ~/ \\..-.U\1 L TREE CANOPÂ¥ 4. E Tho SIDES N<~F--Al .......0/00/640 oil -Irr |l'20Â°0'Â°*Â°~0%Â°09Â°Ve~9"*41__ 20 6A. GALV *rox<.-1 1 3Â· TUeE STEEL COL S 0 =:. MESSASE I 8â€¢-*~-a-ia~i-~-u,0,00:011 - PENUFORATED - F.Â°0.-41<] ~ r PLANTER BOARD- [1 | ~| | 1:1:0.01 METAL PANELS r.Â°k!4110 . , METAL PANEL ; Â© BOTH SIDES ~ ~~ -1 11:950:11 OVER STEEL FRAME emoos' I SHEAR YIALL \.~~~ '~~~ ~~~ r! 1~ ~ 1---1.1 Â¤ Â°1 ~Ir-u. 1 , LUE.. PHONE = m : E W . 01 1 1 1 1-3Z...I 0.0 %1 I ,Â»*r !~Morry~~*1 9% 7 1 4--0- 1 to F to f 4- 20 3" DIA.- MKArt TUBEE STEEL SUPPORTS L-j 1 L__] ~ CLOCKTOMER PLAN ~~~ PHONE AND MESSAGE KIOS K- ELE VATIONS PHONE N MESSAGE KIOEK-P AN 5 iff--94=-EE:'-- 43_7--u*=-68' 1/4" = 1'-0" - E SMSOIN 3NOHd 11Â¥W HaMO JLM 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Chris Bendon, Long-Range planner 8 f AIM RE: Infill Work Session DATE: August 8,2001 SUMMARY: The Community Development Department is working with a citizen task force to identify changes to the City's development regulations to encourage projects within the Original Townsite. Changes being considered include all aspects of zoning, development review process, and new incentives such as Transferable Development Rights (TDRs). The two Historic Districts are an integral part of this study area and will be influenced by these potential new regulations. This is a continuation of the work session and is intended for 30 minutes. If further discussion on the following issues is needed, a continued work session date will be scheduled. MAIN STREET: 15 MINUTES Main Street provides a unique situation for staffto contemplate new zoning regulations. The Infi 11 Group wants to preserve the diversity of building sizes and uses without prescribing, through zoning, where those uses happen within the District. The Group also sees Main Street becoming more active with a greater variety of land uses. Allowing such conversion may help address the way Main Street traffic affects single family properties. Discussion: o Main Street District Goal m Preserve variety in building size, mass, use. o Review Criteria ' Can MS Goals be achieved with more flexible zoning and stricter criteria? or, â€¢ Does the HPC need/want the power of zoning for control? o Incentives for Landmarking m Land Use - Retail and SF housing ~ GMQS - less mitigation required, simple process â€¢ TDRs - Add residential units in a mixed-use project. Transfer from smaller buildings 1 LODGES: 15 MINUTES Revised regulations for lodge properties may allow for necessary improvements and expansions ofthe existing lodging base. Many ofthese lodges have been identified as 0 historically significant and there are concerns, from lodge owners, that such designation will impede their ability to upgrade their property. The Lodge Preservation Program has provided additional incentive and flexibility to a limited number of lodges and the City has been pleased with the results. This same approach could be useful for historic lodges. Discussion: o Lodge Goal m Permit lodges to rejuvenate and adapt to current market m Preserve use, architectural style, or specific architecture? m Increase lodge rooms and affordable housing. o Review Criteria ~ Does HPC need additional criteria for historic lodge redevelopment? o Incentives m GMQS - No or reduced mitigation (similar to LP) m GMQS - Remove from new lodge competition m Zoning - allow flexibility from HPC , Need demolition flexibility? ~ Rehabilitation Assistance â€¢ City remote parking or City sponsored shuttle system 2