The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20010411ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 11,2001 REGULAR MEETING, 5:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS SITE VISITS - NOON - Meet at the first site. If you cannot attend, be sure to visit the properties on your own before the meeting. 419 E. Hyman - story poles 5:00 I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes III. Public Comments IV. Commission member comments and project monitoring V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) VI. OLD BUSINESS A. 640 N. Third St. - Historic Landmark Designation, Conceptual, Variances, Partial Demolition, Historic Lot Split - Continue Public Hearing to April 25, 2001 B. 513 W. Smuggler - Final Review and Variances Re% D 14 *u E- 1 -otc I L a rl L C. 328 Park Avenue - Final Review and Variances Q.,Â¥4W h 49 4 \At) c -8 ~ 1.- 12.f 50 * is - 9- 0 D. 419 E. Hyman Ave. - Minor, Landmark, Variances Ase*/4 6-62 E. 629 W. Smuggler - Conceptual, Partial Demolition, Landmark Public Hearing 03â„¢i Â£ IM,7 11 VII. NEW BUSINESS A. 101 E. Hallam - Conceptual Landmark, Partial Demolition, Public Hearing C.e-4 4*Alle.~93,4, 3-08/ out /6~tut-Â¢ 1*pQ,â‚¬,-L VIII. ADJOURN &ROJECT MONITORING v.jusan Dodington 240 Lake Avenue- Greenberg 930 King - No Problem Joe's 121 5th & North - Ernie Frywald 330 Gillespie Ave. 232 E. Hallam St. 7* & Main Street 213 W. Bleeker 104 S. Galena St. Mary's Church Suzannah Reid 414 N. First- POLE 240 Lake Ave. 312 S. Galena 76 and Main 330 Lake Avenue 620 W. Bleeker Historical Society 328 Park Ave. - Lane Jeffrey Halferty 414 N. First- POLE 0 920 W. Hallam- Guthrie 212 W. Hopkins Ave. 312 S. Galena 620 W. Bleeker - Historical Society 213 W. Bleeker 200 E. Bleeker 328 Park Ave. - Lane Lisa Markalunas 939 E. Cooper- Langley (work stopped) 240 Lake Avenue- Greenberg 214 E. Bleeker- Brumder 330 Gillespie Ave. 520 E. Hyman Ave. 200 E. Bleeker 419 E. Hyman - Paragon Gilbert Sanchez 312 S. Galena 333 W. Bleeker Street 501 W. Main Christiania Lodge 330 Lake Ave. 121 5th & North - Ernie Frywald 200 E. Bleeker - Tly Dupps 419 E. Hyman - Paragon 0 501 W. Main Street - Christiania Lodge 129 W. Francis 435 W. Main 930 King Street 104 S. Galena St. Mary's Church Melanie Roschko 232 W. Hallam 520 E. Hyman 213 W. Bleeker 0 0 " :fil CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL -834 W. Hallam (Poppie's), expires April 26,2001 5 W. Bleeker old house expires Oct. 14,2000 -302 E. Hopkins- September 22, 2001 HPC Legal Procedures (Submit affidavit of notice for PH - conceptual) Swear In Staff presentation Applicant presentation Board Questions and Clarifications PH opened and closed Board Comments Applicant Comments Motion 0 e I.l MAR-15-2001 THU 05:25 PM FAX NO. r-ummn- 7- . L 1.Lt-2-Doe County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO AS?EN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060(E) 4, 0 i k 144Â¢U r L .>6 , being or representing an Applicarit to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.066(ED of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid US. Mail to alI owners ofproperty within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated ontheattached list, onthe /~ dayof P44 rr,A.,200--~ (which is â‚¬6 days prior to the public hearing date of Ar r. li, 2(234 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 /1 day of /9. er. L_,200 1_,tothe Il _dayof ,04pr-, ~ - ,200 < . (Mustbe posted fof a least ten (10) full days before the heming date). A photograph of Ihe posted sign is attached hereto. Signature 0Â£ IÂ»f. (Attach photograph here) Signed before me this t _ day of 40~0 2001--by Evi k 4-jÂ¢nd- rio>-1 468 ' 21Â»hok>/2 1 A11-K 0 -WED WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL ""'Utll,lism" My Commission expires: 9 -26 .0/ / AOTARA, 4 ~ PUBL\Cl, , Notary Public $~860*~ '4#m,tim#* MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: September 20,2003 ........0 4*,tttll"##4,44 m Ill . ~,31*4 '. 4. #â€¢Â· 4, 1 4* : - 1 .4. k' / 4 - K I. , I I 4 . 1 4 + I. .. . tÂ¢Â¥N \ e I I I .... 4 8 1 1 7 : 9./ I I. - I ... r , .4 Icl . r. .* * + 1 . 2 - . i * ~ -44 + . .1 . 1 S. 0. '1 - 1 il - 1 + I. ./. -Ill ./ /. I I I I. ....1. 1...J-+ ' ..1 . . 23021=nue ., . . . I . .. r + . $% 44 6, 4..:i.2 + ..67,37 .41:r . 4 . . .... .... . . ..11* t' Al:Â·'* i i.. F 669. Â»114Â·46 ' . 4 p. â€¢ I I : 2 6 1 1 1,Â·' /' 1 1 f #Illialifiraft:..t 0 1*i $ i.Â·igrâ‚¬Rce .:.v s . Â·, . Â·abâ€¢Â·440Â·44:Â¥*1~4 Â·hii 1 - 4.: A..CgÂ·:ey ,"11,3. I . 2 Alle - . a I -#-I- . " 1 1 i f ; 4Q- .,R; ' 47 *1 1%1,1,- .. . . 3 + 1 !:.0.. . . r . .4 1 . 4. 4 . P ... . . I . - 7... 4?51. - -=...~p-9:-'92*t * 6 14 PUBI1C NOTICE ~ RE: 513 WESTSMUGGLERSTREEr FINAL HPC DESIGN REVIEW NOTICE IS IIEREBY GIVEN that a public heating will be held on Wednesday, April 1lth, 2001 at a meeting to begin at 5:OOP.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Drew Harinan repxsented by Hany Teague Architects requesting Final HPC apploval for the property located at 513 West Smugler Street, Lots E, F, and G, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen. The proposal in=porates the request fora 500 sq. ft. FARbonus, a 2.5 side yard setback variance, and a 2.9% site coverage vanance from the dimensional requirements. For further information, contact Fred Jarnmn at the Aspen/Pitkin Cominunity Devdopment Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 920-5102, fredj@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Suzannah Reict Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in theAspen Times on March 24tht 2001 City of Aspen Account 0 0 - LORD COURTNEY ~' -N JOHN L SMALL ALBERTH & SHIRLEY S LORD KAREN 'TH ST 7116 GLENBROOK RD 517 W NORTH ST CITY, MO 64113 BETHESDA, MD 20814 ASPEN, CO 81611 G SHIRLEY BUSH TRUSTEE q/Â£DED PERSONAL RESIDENCE BASS RAIFIEL I CORBIN MARCIA A 606 E HYMAN PO BOX 9312 TRUST 5805 MISSION DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 SHAWNEE MISSION, KS 66208 KELLNER GEORGE A HOOK BRADLEY K & PAMELA D IBBOTSON ANNE B KELLNER MARTHA B 782C N KALAHEO 505 N 5TH ST 117 E 78TH ST 300 CRESCENT COURT-STE 1000 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10021 KAILUA, HI 96734 POPE WILLIAM H PLENK HENRY P & AGNES M WHIPPLE RALPH U & LYNNE C 540 W SMUGGLER 875 DONNER WAY 1403 855 GIBSON AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108 ASPEN, CO 81611 BERLINER ARTHUR S HARDER JAMES B & DELLA 1/2 INT THALBERG KATHARINE C/O WALDEN 2001 KIRBY DR STE 1220 434 W SMUGGLER ST 750 BATIERY ST #700 HOUSTON, TX 77019 ASPEN, CO 81611 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94705 609 CORPORATION EPSTEIN ROBERT HALL CHARLES L A COLORADO CORPORATION ///0 PLAZA ON THE LAKE BLVD PO BOX 1819 PO BOX 1819 ~~'IN, TX 78746 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 WEST SMUGGLER LOT SPLIT LLC HAGERMAN PASS EQUITY VENTURE KIENAST CHRISTIE A C/O LEONARD WEINGLASS LLC 406 W SMUGGLER ST C/O LEONARD WEINGLASS PO BOX 11509 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 11509 ASPEN, CO 81612 KENDALL RICHARD BECKER & LISA CROWN TAPPER PATRICIA SILVERMAN JACK E SEE 5 POLO CLUB DR 612 W FRANCIS ST 530 TIGERTAIL RD DENVER,CO 80209 ASPEN, CO 81611 LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 DOREMUS FAMILY LTD DOREMUS FAMILY LTD HOFFMASTER THOMAS J PARTNERSHIP LLLP PARTNERSH[P LLLP 437 W SMUGGLER ST 85 GLEN GARRY DR . 85 GLEN GARRY DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 /I~LE S MARCUS & SARA F OXLEY DEBBY M 50% ISRAEL CHARLES B ~ABC 1300 WILLIAMS TOWER I PO BOX 11689 MPEN, CO 81611 TULSA, OK 74103 ASPEN, CO 81612 UffÂ» WALTON S ROBSON GELL MANN MURRAY 70% HEWETI' CHRISTOPHER ;WAL?r2M CAROLYN F GRAY HARRY & SHIRLEY 11WST 30% PO BOX 2577 125 W-d-ENTRAL #218 1399 HYDE PARK RD RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067 BENTONVILLE, AR 72712 SANTA FE, NM 87501 FIVE CONTINENTS ASPEN REALTY L JOAN REED HALPERIN ELLEN & BARRY C/O EDWARDS JOSEPH III 432 W FRANCIS ST 420 W FRANCIS STREET 502 MAIN ST STE 201 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-1233 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 ERW[N GREGORY D STAPLETON FAMILY LLLP DIKEOU LUCY SHARP 101 W FRANCIS 1350 MOUNTAIN VEW DR 25 POLO CLUB CIR ASPEN, CO 81611 . ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80209 BLAICH ROBERT I 318 FOURTH STREET LTD REED CAROL BLAICH JANET S C/O BUSTER FELDOM 317 N FOURTH ST 319 N FOURTH ST PO BOX 445 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 . HOUSTON, TX 77001 NEISSER JUDITH E REVOCABLE TRUST 132 E DELAWARE APT 6201 CHICAGO, IL 60611 0 la 2 IES MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce 0hlson, Deputy Planning Director JAm' FROM: Fred Jarman, Planner ~5 RE: 513 West Smuggler- Final Review, - PUBLIC HEARING DATE: April 11th, 2001 PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant, Drew Harman, represented by Harry Teague Architects, requests approval for Final review of a significant development for a single-family residence located at 513 West Smuggler Street, Lots E, F, and G, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen. Specifically, the applicant requests approval from the Historic Preservation Commission to: 1) Demolish an addition to an existing Victorian minor's cottage; 2) Relocate and renovate the cottage; 3) Construct a 3,000 sq. ft. addition to include an accessory dwelling unit; 4) Request a 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus; 5) Request a variance from the site coverage percentage requirement from 30% to 32.9%; and 6) Request a 2.5' west side yard setback variance. PROJECT: 513 West Smuggler Street REQUEST: Historic Preservation Final Review PUBLIC HEARING: Yes HEARING DATE: April 11th, 2001 PROCESS: Final Review Final at Historic Preservation Commission RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions 513 West Smuggler Final Review Page 1 STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant received Conceptual Review approval from the Historic Preservation Commission (the "Commission"), pursuant to Resolution #52, Series 2000, by a vote of 5 to 1 on November 15,2000. The applicant is requesting final approval for the aforementioned requests. Conceptual Review Issues In general, this design submittal for Final Review is very similar to the design that received conceptual review approval; however, the applicant has attempted to meet the concerns of the Commission for this final design submission. During conceptual review, the applicant explained that the concept of the bonus opened the idea of separating the two houses. The idea is two houses connected with a connector. At the first public hearing for conceptual review, the Commission felt the two houses were too close together and not reading as two houses. The two-story portion of the house was lowered into the ground 16 inches. The Commission also had concerns with the connector and four feet was added. A flat roof is proposed for between the two buildings, which will be better for snow removal. As a result of the conceptual review process, the Commission felt the design's new revised massing better relates to the historic house and that final approval will depend upon the materials and palate. It was clear that the computer images identified the prominence of the historic house. The applicant also made improvements to the design as requested by the Commission regarding the glass connector on the north elevation where the new glass-connecting element connects to the original house. In addition, there has been a more successful reduction in the roofridge heights to better respect the massing of the resource. The last outstanding issues that needed further attention for Final Review included 1) the massing of the east two-story gable structure relative to the historic house, 2) further study ofhow the barrel vault transition meets the historic house clapboard, and 3) the detailing ofmaterials. The applicant has addressed the linking section, containing the living room, in order to further separate the historic cabin and the east structure as seen from the north elevation. In restudying this connector, the applicant has also reconstructed the east wall of the cabin, which will be seen through the glass connector better establishing the cabin's identity allowing it to read as a whole structure. The east wing has been lowered 18" in order to better relate in massing to the massing and scale of the historic resource. In an effort to bring the massing down even further behind the cabin, the plate height in the south wing has been lowered 6". Site Coverage Percentage Variance As a result of redesigning the project based on the comments by the Commission at the conceptual review, the project's site coverage expanded slightly by 2.9%. The land use code requires that R-6 zone district lots maintain a maximum site coverage of 30%. This 513 West Smuggler Final Review Page 2 project requests the ability to maintain a site coverage of 32.9%. The HPC has the authority to grant a variance for this requirement up to 5% as indicated in the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and pursuant to Section 26.415.010(B)(4)(a) of the land use code. Staff supports this requested variance. Building Relocation The Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (the "Guidelines") indicate that: A part of a historic building's integrity is derived from its placement on its site and therefore, its original position is important. Preserving the original foundation is always encouraged. Generally, removing a structure from the parcel with which it is historically 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 addition, early city maps suggest that some structures were shifted on their sites, and even relocated within a block to make room for more buildings. Therefore, some precedent exists. Today, however, such relocation must be considered very carefully and on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the historic miner's cabin is only a small portion of an existing structure. Essentially, the cabin is enveloped by a recent large addition. This proposal is intended to remove the existing addition and construct a new addition that better showcases the cabin through reconstructing portions of the cabin on the interior of the east facing wall (currently non-existent) as seen through a glass connector. Foundations The Guidelines also indicate that, traditionally, most buildings in Aspen had simple foundation designs, it is important to convey the character of the original foundation when relocating to a new foundation. The applicant should take special care to adequately preserve the resource in order to keep it safe until it can be improved / relocated. Wood panels should be mounted on the exterior of the building to protect existing openings and particularly historic glass. Special care should be taken to keep from damaging door and window frames and sashes in the process of covering the openings. Specific attention should be paid to the following guidelines (page 79 of the Guidelines> regarding foundations: 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. â€¢ On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. â€¢ Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut ofthe stone and design ofthe mortarjoints. 513 West Smuggler Final Review Page 3 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. â€¢ Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. â€¢ Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. Staff finds that the applicant haÂ§ successfully restudied the specific elements as they relate to the comments offered by the Commission in the proposal presented for Final Review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission grant Final Approval to the applicant to 1) demolish an addition of an existing Victorian minor's cottage; 2) relocate and renovate the cottage; 3) construct a 3,000 sq. ft. addition to include an accessory dwelling unit; 4) receive a 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus; 5) receive a variance from the site coverage percentage requirement from 30% to 32.9%; and 6) receive a 2.5 foot west side yard setback variance for a residence located at 513 West Smuggler, Lots E, F, and G, Block 21, City and Townsite ofAspen with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant 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; 2. That the applicant 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 staffand monitor to be beyond salvage; 3. That the applicant fully understands that no elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist and that are not part of this approval. No existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staffand monitor; 4. That the HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures; 5. That there shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor; 6. That the applicant submit the preservation plan described above, as well as the conditions of approval as a part of this resolution and they shall be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction; 7. 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 513 West Smuggler Final Review Page 4 HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit; 8. That the General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit; 9. All representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions; 10. That the HPC, as part of this resolution, grants a 500 square foot FAR. bonus to the applicant; 11. That the HPC, as part of this resolution, grants a 2.9% site coverage variance from the 30% maximum site coverage requirement for a lot in the R.-6 zone district. The HPC has the authority to grant a variance for this requirement as indicated in the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and pursuant to Section 26.415.010(B)(4)(a) of the land use code; and 12. That the HPC, as part of this resolution, grants a 2.5 west side yard setback variance to the applicant; 13. Thht, prior to the moving of the cabin, the applicant shall submit a plan to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the cabin as part of the preservation plan to be included on the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction; 14. That the applicant shall indicate on the building permit plan set that the new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation and that the applicant shalllocate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any ofthe following alternatives: 1 Approve the application as submitted. > Approve the application with conditions to be met prior to final review. > Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) > Deny approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. 1 9 , Series ~ 2001,;1<anting Final Review approval to the applicant to 1) demolish an addition %f an'existing Victorian minor's cottage; 2) relocate and renovate the cottage; 3) construct a 3,000 sq. ft. addition to include an accessory dwelling unit; 4) receive a 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus; 5) receive a variance from the site coverage percentage requirement from 30% to 32.9%; and 6) 513 West Smuggler Final Review Page 5 receive a 2.5 foot west side yard setback variance for a residence located at 513 West Smuggler, Lots E, F, and G, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen with the conditions as stated in the Resolution." ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A - SIGNIFICANT REVIEW STANDARDS EXHIBIT B - RESOLUTION NO. - SERIES 2001 EXHIBIT C - PARCEL LOCATION & VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT D - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION EXHIBIT E -- MINUTES FROM CONCEPTUAL REVIEW 513 West Smuggler Final Review Page 6 EXHIBIT A SIGNIFICANT REVIEW STANDARDS No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds that all ofthe following standards (Section 26.415.010.C.5) are met: a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, massing and volume with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or is adjacent to an historic landmark. For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, the 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 Section 26.520.040(B)(2), for detached accessory dwelling units. 0 Staff Response: The applicant is proposing a relocation and renovation of an existing 600 sq. ft. Victorian miner's cottage, which is currently, encompassed by a 3,000 sq. ft. addition making up the rest of the residence. The total structure contains 3,600 sq. ft. in total. The cottage will be relocated to the front of the lot in an effort to promote more of the historical structure while creating a more contemporary addition, which does not mute the historical prominence of the original structure. In order to accomplish this, the applicant is proposing an addition extending from the rear of the cottage to the rear of the site using two separate gabled masses running north to south. These elements are designed to reflect similar Victorian gable proportions in an effort to respect the scale and proportion of the original cottage. The streetscape view from Smuggler reveals the front fa~ade of the original cottage fully exposing its northeast corner with a slightly recessed single-story linking element connecting the cottage to a two-story gable mass to the east. This result achieves two primary masses which both are Victorian in their gabled roof similarities; however still allowing the original cottage to be the featured fagade. The existing configuration of the original cottage relative to the addition does not promote the cabin; rather, it is not easily differentiated from the addition. Additionally, 0 the addition has been placed in the area, which has the least visibility from streets; it is 513 West Smuggler Final Review Page 7 two stories in height, but is simply detailed and respectful of the historic architecture of the original. Staff feels the applicant is successful in their intent to create a better living space while complimenting and promoting the historical cottage with an addition that is architecturally compatible and in scale with the old house. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The properties on either side the proposed development as well as across the street along the block are large post-war single-family structures that vary widely in architecture creating an eclectic agglomeration of styles and forms. The proposed relocation and somewhat more modern addition to the minor's cabin will fit well with within this context. Staff finds this criterion 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. Response: The proposed relocation and addition to the historic resource enhances the historic significance in that it will expose more of the structure while moving the cabin to a more prominent location on the lot. It is in this way that the cabin will be a better defining element of the neighborhood. Staff finds this development does not detract from the historic significance ofthis structure or structures on adjacent lots and that this criterion 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. Response: Currently, the historic miner's cabin is only a small portion of an existing structure. Essentially, the cabin is enveloped by a recent large addition. This proposal is intended to remove the existing addition and construct a new addition that better showcases the cabin through reconstructing portions of the cabin on the interior of the east facing wall (currently non-existent) as seen through a glass connector. As stated above, the proposed relocation and addition to the historic resource enhances its historic significance in that it will expose more of the structure while moving the cabin to a more prominent location on the lot. It is in this way that the cabin will be a better defining element of the neighborhood. Staff finds the proposed development enhances the architectural character and integrity of the historic structure. 513 West Smuggler Final Review Page 8 EXHIBIT B RESOLUTION NO. l.~_, (SERIES OF 2001) / RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR FINAL REVIEW TO 1) DEMOLISH AN ADDITION TO A VICTORIAN MINOR'S COTTAGE, 2) RELOCATE AND RENOVATE THE COTTAGE, 3) CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION, 4) A 500 SQ. FT. BONUS REQUEST, AND 5) A 2.5' SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 513 WEST SMUGGLER, LOTS E, F, AND G, BLOCK 21, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, the applicant, Drew Harman, represented by Harry Teague Architects, has requested Final Review design approval to 1) demolish an addition to a Victorian minor's cottage, 2) relocate and renovate the cottage, 3) construct a new house addition 4) request an additional 500 sq. ft. bonus, and 5) a 2.5' side yard setback and height variance for a residence located at 513 West Smuggler, Lots E, F, and G, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the applicant received Conceptual Review approval, pursuant to Resolution #52, Series 2000, by a vote of 5 to 1 on November 15, 2000 form the Historic Preservation Commission during a regularly noticed public hearing for a proposal for a renovation and addition to the residence at 513 W. Smuggler. Specifically, the applicant received conceptual approval from the Historic Preservation Commission to 1) demolish an addition to an existing Victorian minor's cottage, 2) relocate and renovate the cottage, 3) construct a 3,600 sq. ft. addition which will include 4 bedrooms, 4) an additional 500 sq. ft. FAR. bonus request, and 5) a 2.5' side yard setback variance; and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark meets the Development Review Standards of Section 26.415.010.C.5 ofthe Aspen Land Use Code; and WHEREAS, Staff performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found favorably for the application, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on April 11th, 2001, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application for Final Review to meet the standards, and approved the application with conditions by a vote of 5 to/ _ E--DÂ· 513 West Smuggler Final Review Page 9 THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the review standards are met and HPC hereby grants approval for Final Review to 1) demolish a recent addition to a Victorian minor's cottage, 2) relocate and renovate the cottage, 3) construct a new house which will include 4 bedrooms, 4) an additional 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus request, and 5) a 2.5' side yard setback variance for a residence located at 513 West Smuggler, Lots E, F, and G, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen, as presented during a public hearing on the April 11% 2001, with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant 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; 2. That the applicant 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; 3. That the applicant fully understands that no elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist and that are not part of this approval. No existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor; 4. That the HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures; 5. That there shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staffand monitor; 6. That the applicant submit the preservation plan described above, as well as the conditions of approval as a part of this resolution and they shall be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction; 7. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HI'C resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit; 8. That the General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit; 9. All representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation commission shall be adhered to and 513 West Smuggler Final Review Page 10 considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions; 10. That the HPC, as part of this resolution, grants a 500 square foot FAR bonus to the applicant; 11. That the HPC, as part of this resolution, grants a 2.9% site coverage variance from the 30% maximum site coverage requirement for a lot in the R-6 zone district. The HPC has the authority to grant a variance for this requirement as indicated in the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and pursuant to Section 26.415.010(B)(4)(a) ofthe land use code; 12. That the HPC, as part of this resolution, grants a 2.5 west side yard setback variance to the applicant; 13. That, prior to the moving of the cabin, the applicant shall submit a plan to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the cabin as part of the preservation plan to be included on the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction; and 14. That the applicant shall indicate on the building permit plan set that the new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation and that the applicant shall locate the structure at its approximate historic elpvation above grade. A 19 -f u 1 1Â« Â· tul- 04 6/ull sto~, 97 -g.lf dâ‚¬f APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION' at its regular mieting on the 11'" day of April, 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 513 West Smuggler Final Review Page 11 B ExmBIT C PARCEL LOCATION & VICINITY MAP p.~ r ~ N(Rrti ST 4, e Â·e -e ~~---~ ~ 513 W. Smuggler Â£ Parcels ' Road Name ~ Structures j I i . 1 E 1 40 / //.L-- ./bl 513 West Smuggler Final Review Page 12 EA,6 :41 0 513 WEST SMUGGLER APPLICATION FOR H.P.C. FINAL REVIEW February 14, 2001 CONTENTS: Attachment One: Copy of Conceptual Land Use Application Form 0 Attachment Two: Copy of Dimensional Requirements Form Attachment Three: Finalized Drawings of Proposed Addition Attachment Four: Statement of Effect of Details on Historic Structure Attachment Five: Statement of How Plan Conforms to Representations made at Conceptual Review and Responds to Conditions Placed Thereon Attachment Six: Statement of Need for Variance for Max. Site Coverage 0 , ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPUCATION FORM 1. Project name NARM/41 RESIDENCE 2. Project location 513 W. 9Mv~44 LER. LOTS E- 4 , 81-00/Â¢ '207 (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning K -6 4. Lot size 90 Â· 06' * 10' = 9006 J. 5. Applicanfs name, address and phone number DREw MARMAN . 4 AR,84 tle. 156,5 CHAZLEÂ·NFOR BD.: HORM-rA~K VIEW 36 94043. TH:(656-950-664Â·8~ - 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number HARLY -rEA4UE ARCArr*5 4lt. K. titu- 9 . , *,PEK 8/61 1 84: 945-180 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA X Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA . Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation.HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review - Lot Splitiot Line Appeal Committee - Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) 4 BEDâ‚¬oott READEBCE j APPROV.: 'S,600 6.:F. ) IkoluDES ax> s.ft Â¥,crroRAN MIKER!5 60Â·rl-*46- 9. Description of development application PRORÂ»Al- -TD DEM0U511 AM,-110,l -ID 00-r-rAAE ) RELOC,KE AMI\ REMOvAl-E- Â£30,1-*4E) Co;45*01- 5,000 6,6 1480 Ha,66 (600 6.F c'(1;k,r + 3,000 6.F. +16 CokEAR,â€¢AÂ©t-(Dâ‚¬) 5 4 FEPROOM# + A.D.u. 10. Have you completed and attached the following? X Attachment 1 - Land use application form Â£ Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form . X Response to Attachment 3 K Response to Attachments 4 and 5 11111111 -. ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant DEEW WAKMAN Address: 56 W. SM uqft.ER. Zone district E-6 Lot size: 9006 6.F Existing FAR: 5,90 6.E ~ Allowable FAR: 3.,660 6,Â£ Proposed FAR: 63577 6.F, Existing net leasable (commerdal): MA - Proposed net leasable (commercial): RA Existing % of site coverage: 92.7 % Prcposed % of site coverage: 2,6.9,90 Existing % at open space: 71,5 570 Prcposed % of open space: -75,8 70 Existing maximum height: Princioal bida: 05' -10" Accescrv bida: NA. Proposed max. height Princioal bida: 16'-04 Accessorv bida: 05'-04 Proposed % of demolition: 8%78 Existing number of bedrooms: Fbug. + A.D.U, Proocsed number of bedrcoms: TDUEÂ· + A.D. u. Existing on-site parking spaces: 4 Cn-site parking spaces required: S Setbacks Existing: ,, Minimum required: Prooosed: Front 11 Front: to' Front: 10' Rear: 'ILG. Rear: 10' Al 4AEActÂ© Rear: 37' (91 4*44Â© Comoined Combined Combined Front/rear: 50' Front/rear: 47 ~ Side: 4'-6" Side: 10, Side: 10' Side: . Side: 10' Side: 10' Combined Combined Combined Sides: 164" -1 Sides: 50' Sides: 30' Existing nonconformities or encroachments: MOMcoMFoLMI Al /1 91-6*06, Variations requested: PRORÂ»ED A+El Â£Jrr- oF 4*RA-4 E/4.04, loM RFAL ~ OF LOT,= '15'-0*' (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks. distance between buildings. FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.fl. site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations underthe cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O zone districts) HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS 412 north m111 aspen co 81611 t 970 925 2556 f 970 925 7981 mail@teaguearch.com 0 February 14, 2001 513 W. Smuggler Final Review Application Attachment 3 - Finalized Drawings A001 Proposed Site Plan A002 Existing Site Plan A100 Lower Level Plan A110 Main Level Plan A120 Upper Level Plan A200 N&W Elevations A201 S&E Elevations A300 Section Thru Living Rm, Perspectives 0 0 HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS 412 north mill aspen co 81611 t 970 925 2556 f 970 925 7981 mall@teaguearch.com February 14, 2001 513 W. Smuggler Final Review Application Attachment 4 Effect of Details on Existing Structure It is our intent to allow the existing historic miner' s cabin to read as its own structure and retain its identity and volume. It is also our goal to fully integrate the cabin into the overall plan and not allow it to become a separate building with limited usage. To these ends we will connect the additions with sensitive detailing at the cabin's edges and scale the additions appropriate to the cabin's size. The most crucial detail is the connection of the addition at the east wall as this is visible from the street. A glass edge will connect to the cabin such that the cabin' s siding will read through the glass and continue to the interior, thus allowing the cabin to read as a complete structure (see pgs. A200, A300). Also, the roof of the living room addition will be pulled back to allow the original rooflines of the cabin to remain intact (see pg. A300). To the south (behind the cabin) the addition will step in allowing the cabin to turn its corner in the rear. The two story addition is placed as far as possible behind the cabin (as per HPC recommendations) (see plans A110/elevations A200). The character of the neighborhood will be addressed through the two story addition to the east. The intent is to add a second element of similar scale to the cabin on the east side of the lot. This will create a rhythm of small scale houses on this part of the street as was implied by the original city lot plat (i.e. small scale houses on narrow lots). . HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS 412 north mill aspen co 81611 t 970 925 2556 f 970 925 7981 mail@teaguearch.com February 14, 2001 513 W. Smuggler Final Review Application Attachment 5 Conformity of Final Plan to Conceptual Plan/Adaptation of HPC Conditions The final plan varies only slightly from the conceptual plan. The massing and scale of the approved conceptual proposal remains the same. Through the normal design process minor changes have occurred in terms of window placement, interior plan, siding patterns, etc. Also, the adjustments made according to HPC recommendations have resulted in the redesign of minor aspects of the building. In addition to adding length to the living room and linking elements (to increase separation from historic cabin), we have also reconstructed the (now non-existent) east wall of the cabin in its entirety. In conjunction with the glass edge at the east wall connection, the original cabin will now clearly read as a whole. According to HPC recommendations, we have lowered the east wing by 18" to reduce its size relative to the historic cabin. We have also dropped the plate height in the south wing by 6" to reduce its size. (Both of these changes were represented in the second conceptual review.) HARRY TEAGUE ARCH ITECTS 412 north mill aspen co 81611 t 970 925 2556 f 970 925 7981 mail@teaguearch.com February 14, 2001 513 W. Smuggler Final Review Application Attachment 6 Request for Maximum Site Coverage Variance Upon revising the proposal as per the recommendations of the Historic Preservation Committee, we encountered an increase in our site coverage. Allowable Site Coverage = 30% of 9006 sf. = 2702 sf Site Coverage pre HPC = 2697 sf Site Coverage post HPC = 2959 sf The increase is primarily due to extensions to the living room and linkage elements in the plan. Also, some storage space was added underneath an existing previously unenclosed stair (stair up to ADU). This increase puts our site coverage at 32.9% instead of the required 30% maximum. At the preliminary hearing we were granted a 500 sf FAR bonus due to HPC recommendations. Of this amount we used 231 sf. We would ask that a variance be granted for additional site coverage in conjunction with the already approved 500 sf FAR bonus. gc wr ALLEY BLOCK 27 20'-oÂ· 10'4â€¢ 4 / -113 3 - - -1- -/ --4 \ - ___- 1 --- ./1 1. 1 -11-4 -1 ltd Itt H %- -) -- V --r 1 --- 1 \ 1 42 ---: , 1-23- ,-743â‚¬ C - *> 0. . .~ ./0 // 1 4 4 1 -1+ 1 til \ y <43 11 -1 1 - L'21 i . trki.Â·E .1 Â« - - _---~- 1 4,66 ' Eri Â·iv t#62: /=. =SE== ""'ill~bill"llill##thÂ·~NIMI-E-k===ti 1 1 1/ /fa.j'Â¥FF,y~27* -IWMI 1 6 /1 .,2,7 f-Al.9 37 T 4 %- Â¥217:17.-'-Af- 4 1 #.4 36:2~491-4/2~ri -1. 211* 1 4 - I I. -~- I. 1 j 1 ---- 2 '-0/ 1' â€¢ go: \ f WEST SMUGGLER STREET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION h -1 I 3. 4 HARMAN RESIDENCE mÂ» ~ +'Â·lmÂ·,1 -513 WEST SMUGGLER STREET e; ASPEN COLORADO '@ C g m Â« -.hoot .0-.OL=.1 :elgos NÂ¥ld 318 ASPEN CO 61611 ARCHITECTS 0 . 90'-0 1 ALLEY BLOCK 27 201.0. ~/--h'\61~ 10'-0' hhO /1 / 1 ple 1 42 ' 1,4 4 1. -*7/ N> \ -1 0 -1 N. -, - RSagz aM 1 n r.41 11-10 1' 4 li~ ~Â·#Â£43./-,1 <81.-%2),21: I' 41-' .11~3Â·Â§.fi, :.Zy, f & Â·'r. & 1 ft-4 1 0 1 440.1 q 1 rE AVE: Ax 4 J 20'-7 ~ 1 413% 06 - Vit* A >41 1 tÂ«/f WEST SMUGGLER STREET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 220=i HARMAN RESIDENCE = 2 9 2 : . 1 29 5568 A Â» igm " = FI Fitihij iii ' 513 WEST SMUGGLER STREET ~~8 1 ASPEN COLORADO Â§ 2 2. Â« NV-Id 31IS SNUSI)(33 ~ .e.OK=.1 :elwoe Zoov 970 925 2556 9NllSIXE] ARCHITECT TEAGUE HARRY TEAGUE 00 Â® 0 . fir < < < ARCHITECTS 274 . 6'-9. 18-9 , 5-8- tur 1/-71' | 2-71' ~ 5-9, 412 N MILL ST ASPEN CO 81811 ~70 925 25% FAX 970 925 7981 21~ .am@-gue-ch.oom / 2 A ril fil e71/ 9857 V 7 v NM?/ 1: i :~ -~ CONSULTANT I,ORMATION ClÂ¢SET 1----- ----1 1-9-1 1 BAâ„¢ i BUNK ROOM L [-9*i] 012 9. 1 2 ) 9 ----------------------------------- --~44<LIC 1Â«14 -- -~--~f_f~1 4 h / 2 i 1 FIN FL ELEV HAUWAY LE_1 '1 1. 8 4 4 'g" 1 - - -:Un-n ;7-=t==: LU 1 ~.7% Â·5Â· 9 14*vivt,i-*4**Liad*Wali*Â»A#,4 1 1 * 11 41 1 11 1 U.1 E 4 Id 4, / 0 k -0 1 35 11 lilli ~111'.111 1 Sh 0 - 1 2% 1 0 N 4 & k 4 10 CE -9 : az ' 1 . ... B _Iâ‚¬4 3 0 0 0 1- 0- U.1 < 1 1 311 h .H 479 CE 1 1 CO 10 9 Â· 1 r.' 1 1 0'k 1 0 - 1 4-~ . n:I A T A AN FL ELEV 1 , 904- 43: 6 11111111 r. STAIR"61 ' il><- - | 2/0 12- | \,p 1 16 1 1 | 56 FIN FL M.Ev L j 1- Z STORAGE ROOM at LE] A - /(4> I 1 Lifi LAUNDRY ROOU MECHAIÂ«CAL ROOM O 9 g -1. 11 lam .C 12,07.00 MEIM 1 - 11 - 02.21 le 66 02.1.m IrCFINAL ~~ DRYER !8 11 1- â‚¬0 It - I - Z I I ~~ PRCUECT 1%101 0011 DRAWN BY: RCS M 11 1~ - IN 11 LOWER 0 LEVEL U. PLAN 1/4-= 1'-0- C -)LOWER LEVEL PLAN (-r.+ * A100 scale: 1/4'=14 < j OGÂ¥7010 ' HARRY TEAGUE - (f) a Â® (0 1 + (46) < < < ARCHITECTS 6'-9. 3Â·-3- 18Â·-9Â· 5-8- 0'-9Â· . 182-71/r . 7-7 'ur E-W 412 N MILL ST ASPENC/81611 r . RELOCATED .'00-,uer. corn 970925.5. = 970 926 7981 MINER'S CABIN 6 4 49 ' 11 1 ' 1. I .1 1------- ... ---,------3 1 1 CONSUTANT,ro/NATION 1. .1 1 11 4 i 11 -Ill 2 P.NTRY - 1-1 - 1 S:: .03 . C J 1 k -L.- 9:: --0[114!' .. Â· ' --- - - ----- - - ----Â·- Â·Â· - -4- - - -- - -Â» - - --- - -- ------- - - ----- - - -22=I~- - - ~- - - -- - -~--1/ill- ~ 1 .... 41-Â·3 .Â·-.Â·Â·Â·mill'.1 :.P....... 101.NJUO k [-12-1 4 ---:---'-. *-'-" ..'.~ l.11Lt Â·:i. '~..1 1.1 1, ' , MUDROOM -F : LAI 1 2 1 . r 1 . /11 1 i GARAGE <-6 FIN FL ELEV \~ A===k --EX-- 1. .. 1 7 99.-6. '' 4 FINFL ELEV --0-am- n... 7 1004 9 --31 1 -1 Â· ~ GREENHOUSE , -,6 FINEL. a.Ev.--Â·.: :.~:f ,:~.~. Â¥ Llaj ~ Â·Â·, 7 100,4 11 1:1 11 .1 11 i. r. - ....1 1. '11.1 ... Â·Â· 1 Â· I .1 0 *~E $ 1 PORCH ~ i E M t_ i.For 1/f '1 . 1 4.,Â·.Â·.464Â·,29....Â· a>44/.4 ar. Â«t.e.ee - 0 1 1 ~~~.3-tr.#i ~ 9 ,:'r'-:,~Â· :~elt ~~ d /1 *r.11. . 11. 0 -~ 0 4 0 LUE 1 FIN PL ELEV 3.-6- 1 -%1 4 / 08 f + . 0 1 M h 11 1 4 1 7. 0 N ce LU k COIJRTYARD 11 -+1... --I ' ' 11-- ./ 10 LUM-1 '0 to 45*of i. 1 1 ihpi- I . -6-1 - â‚¬7 1 1 :9- 6 -10/ 1 A FIN FLELEV -lalt V low ' STAR 109 s"a 108 0.- 4 /3 Re/ 3RO/\ h - 1 2/011. -017 1 Â¥ 129/Jill,1.4.- 4,1 JAIGn'.:, 4~11 IP.-7-'Â·Â·42 L -8-2-7' / 1 I Y. ./.2.6,p.44/â‚¬41.2 2,2. 1 - BATH 6* \0) ZJ I 101 I 36 FIN FL ~EV UBRAT#<7 0 96Â·-3- 1 L.121-jv PAnO 1- = =sue 0 â€ž,uo .C 12.07.00 PREUM IL--J J -1 -c-~ege==4.y U- 4* 1) 3 - 02.01.01 FRIC,19 02.14. MI,CRNAL rj I 111 1 92 -:*.$*A*# *r-1**â€¢2â€¢1**'+4,â€¢*Mr---1$ : ~76+1&4 ~404:-Wh. fiâ€¢1:*~ s"1 ~ ' 1 ,Â· P---INAN,10 r.*v=V.J 0 z ~~ PROJECTNO: 00,1 il DRAWN BY. RCS o MAIN LEVEL LL PLAN 1/4'= 1'-0- /7 MAIN LEVEL PLAN 1-Â»lit 49 scale: 1;4-=14 ( j z A110 30N30 NVIAIMVH 133hl1S h!3199 9 193/\A Â£ E .9-9 * .0-Â£ ... ..1-1. 1 1 r-1 7 1 i ' ' ~ ;0#billy....4Â·'"44:<I'll'll 1-Z Z] -Fat + 12 iE / 2 4 51- 0 r 11. ILL * 3 49Â·X~IKIA"* Illad 9110 3-1 i CF m KO *04*,t Â»t'Â¢rk+891,34,1-4 T 1 m , 11 I tr--4 '0.-m -- E i f ----- =--------------------------------------=.----1*m-Â»- ------tu---82# 1 . . LE I [952 1 .. 0 1 1-= 1 i V kil Ll - i : 1 i i 's,f-~i-'U'JIÂ·---ii*twiHEL ip-----*Â·eudÂ·, 71=Â£ 5/1) '. 8 40'41-1- -2 "3â‚¬6'' Ap.F:.4*'d#j:*en,2.23*21.17.' 1 I ( 41 c. ST I 19 , $ R 2 8 1/1- 1 13Â·011â€¢ --- 1 ic i V ./Â·' 4...#./...Al//4/'59==A t I 5 1 1/1 * 1 11,2 5 1 9 Â¥7:91 - - 1 --- (63 1 3 ./ 1 1 4 112 Ck 9 42 4 -2 <g J 26 '-6. 1410Â· 14'-31/4. 8'-2 "' 8'-0Â· 14'-0Â· 9 0 0 0 0 (24(4 6 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 33 1 9988 HARMAN RESIDENCE ~ i 3~% :~ 4 ZPE 513 WEST SMUGGLER STREET 1. 1 hi .SU* ASPEN COLORADO Â§ ~E &7*.â€žI+Â»uwÂ«:94-~%.0-,..IN ' ADU DECK if (Â© ft* - ARCHITECTS NOCNG39 Wa.LSÂ¥71 18'-71.r NÂ¥ld 13A31 hIEdcin ~ 0ZLV .0-Â·tÂ·=Â·wl :eles' TEAGUE ARRY CO 81011 4% 47 4 P E m 1% ?rv.;â‚¬zÂ·V A:.7 , 1 I j :'224.-4=:i= 12-9 WB 2 3 71 A WL.-241-~8.91-4 222.2: I l' 101 r~Ki :.blk:Cj:'.1 E 9# 5 M 1 1 :f.i y..b*:Â».1.- r t....I.J....1.. 4 i .ff N.:-9-- -0%4 6':.-2.. 3.-49.1.-42':7~0 .tAi 01 1 1 -1 1 H 7 ~.'~*ji:=-0. ~ 1 1 1 11 1 1, 1 I . -7../.:.q I I i53346 0 1 71 11 . 11 4 il 1 1 11 1 1 111 1 I I 1 . 0: D #Â¥n 1,7 31:24 1 1 1 11 1 I .) 6.1,7.ieÂ·. .Ira.D P 11 1 - 111 11 1 ----1 1 1 1 1 11 - 1 1 Â·Â·f *,37.9 WAYÂ® 4 11 1-7 625*WÂ·W'Wij: 11 1 . ..9 43-Â·-7 %14 .t,Â· 6,7 1 1 1 1 11 1 11 - , 11 ' " -:.F 11 1 r 0 -~- 00~%' 11 || E l i 11 1 1 1 1 1 1,14-,3..Fi,5.42 0.- h 1 1 1 1 1 1 -rt -11 7-1 11 k 2 0 1 1 1 .1 " ..,0 -m Â©m gm O. 0% > 11 ... 1 --r----- - t@q C- 4 3 -1 Z O 7 4-7 -7 -6 ap .Ram =: 92 t. 7122 W : < 4@ NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ' 4 :' HARMAN RESIDENCE j 513 WEST SMUGGLER STREET ASPEN COLORADO -N011YA)-13IS)M1 * FIN FL ELEV 115-10' NORTH EL scale: 1/4-=1'-0- SNOLLVA313 ... 0 44 -4- *@/% -- 47 fo E 9% 4 2/ 4.. A- L. .0 1 ~ 4%\ 1-1 51 6 H----4~ . 1 1 11 141) e= - 0/ r 1 11 1 1 ,-1 - 11 .1 11 . = i h . 11 11 . 11 11 11 Lk - - 11 11 , 1 11 . 11 1 1 1 1 11 1 11 A.,1,%,Pe 11 -- 11 11 11 11 1 & =71 -=-7 1 1 1 1. r.1 1 1 1 1 -1 - 11 .di) 11 11 -1 1- -1.- 1- 904 11 \ 11 - 4%~%%1 1 1 Ir-11 1- 0- 11 111 '.16Â·'.F.f /11 Ill V Â· 4- r '11 - IT Â» 11 4 94.... 2. I 16=21 . .1. 4 1 11 11 11 - r . 11 -IZIa 11 -It- ,>T-21 , 1 11 1 11 1 1 4 11 --- u i Â·~EEEmEE~ la 11 1 M- =========50 111 . .. . 9 0 â‚¬ 1 111 - 0 77 - 11 33# 92 1 1 - ~2%. .6 41, 0 ] 47 2 4: 401 *al 1-1 . -0- -0- -0- -0- 2 0 3 9 P 37 Im rim 32 49 4* 98 -415- -0- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Â¥ 3 8 111'Iii%F '- lr. -4 HARMAN RESIDENCE ..i.l 1,%4 - 4 -logo 49 -im ,Â·, j '40 a-*I:,â€¢Â·Â·Â· ze ER.Â·265,6Â¥Q 513 WEST SMUGGLER STREET 6 M ASPEN COLORADO i i i M 1 . Kjl~'~'Â·'-Â·Ill Â§1 NOI1Â¥A313 1SVEI scale: 1/4-=1'ir SOUTH ELEVATION S 0 VA)13 TEAGUE 7981 ST ASPEN CO 81611 ARCHITECTS HARRY .. 11 1 1 )0'=trill'& 4,1 4,17 11-1 1.1 -4- -11/ t 9~4 //hh pil- ~ elv-nÂ«:11 + It Ef m -- 00 O n 86 - - U O -Z 11 11 I 1 1 30 C 11 r 1 1 < 11 1 0 I / 70 1 ~/ & 11 -1 9.41. s * , m 1%Â·.2/.Â·/: 2 CO ~ ~ .0 ~ Â·?d.*it.; 2 // A / 10.1. n 1 1 Â·Â·â€¢Â·it. 1 G.E..24.. -Nt.I#Â·. ----24- 1 1 9~ 4 taw *ia,. 11 /4 4fâ€¢'dlp 31Â· \~j ~ 310- ./9Â·4 n:.Â·-j Rti!%2 'b(-t....2:9.4 r - MFIEÂ»ME~~ %:r 'T 40 4? 1 1 \ 5 -'I . 4 ' T '1'.3vl - . 1 1- , ,. .2.. 1 1 41. * : I#-I.* : ' / i AVA HIHI Â·liaft/Q#% 165*gref: -~ 1% :,3 1&*2*U /O/ M Hh M M MIU t. 1- '1 1-1 ~;t~ t~~~ -fl~-[i~ . -~:~~'- =c~ ~i ~~ ~ij],.~,iÂ·~;Â·-~.Â·~Â·,~ ~jj~jL 7>7, 1. L ~vi_/~~ ~,7. --------------- 25 44 -A l '.1-,Â·.A .2/1.-=:ap.2 -- L ot 1 -1 J.09 49/ 44 111 FF..... -r....t : -1/ AN.1-,3 L- t. ?t- '-1 , mtâ€¢g la -3 * p*, Lp#.F= -iwe 2 :c : ~ ' '' 4 R=11 1 1 111 u 1 11 _L'_L' |' 4RME-- i--:-Â·~ T .7.j ' 16 --1.1171.1- 14 '7} 1 - 1 ~, 4-'hifr/.irit'-2=K-2 ' Â·rl . -4-- 1 -k-frl - 71 U ' 1 11 1.!,1,1 ' . 1. - C~> T T. '. 1$ 11 1/ 1 lit. 1 1& 0 1 0 Â· k-1- r-- I,Â·-till.11 1. 1 + .-k- a ..Â· 1.1 .'.f ... 1. iz :14.*1'-2 YEr...3; 445-d ;11 T NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Â» - %2 11 ' * HARMAN RESIDENCE ~ 3 X m 1- 2 6.-1 Fi~ CD 4 3@ 4,-:19 03 0 I 2 1 1 *D,MEft=Pril ASPEN COLORADO ~ 513 WEST SMUGGLER STREET 1 109'-4' 116'-10. N FL Et-EV * FIN FL ELEV CONSULTANT I,ORNATION * TO. PLATE NOI103NNOO =IO M3IA 11Â¥130 bl319Â©nINS WON=I M3IA ' tia#J##ail .4 4 '. 1 ' '*4:7 . /* . . Ty-, FIN FL ~U 4 FIN Fl~~E~V * 412 N M LL ST AlPEN CO 81811 1'641:15*1 21 F'l A CHITECTS TEAGUE 2666 FAX 970 925 7981 RRY 4 . Ek 46,4- E ' I ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. November 15. 2000 COMMISSIONER COMMENTq 1 513 W. SMUGGLER - CONCENUAL. (CONT'D FROM OCT. 25TH) 1 303 S. CLEVELAND 1 719 E. HOPKINS - REQUEST FOR REMOVAL FROM THE HISTORIC INVENTORY - PUBLIC HEARING 9 427 E. HYMAN - BAGGAGE CLAIM GLASS DOOR - MINOW 10 BAVARIAN INN REFERR a r 12 484 E. COOPER - MINOR - BATH & BODY 13 15 . ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. November 15.2000 Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Members in attendance were Rally Dupps, Gilbert Sanchez, Lisa Markalunas and Jeffrey Halferty. Susan Dodington was excused. Suzannah recused herself on 719 E. Hopkins and 303 S. Cleveland COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Gilbert suggested documenting all building with photographs on the inventory. That would be the HPC tool for evaluating buildings. Staff was directed to research funding sources and see if the Historical Society would be interested in the project. 513 W. SMUGGLER - CONCEPTUAL, (Cont'd from Oct. 259 Fred Jarman, planner relayed that the applicant is requesting a renovation and an addition. An existing addition would be demolished and the cottage would be relocated and renovated. They are also requesting a 500 square foot bonus and a 2.5 side yard setback variance. Swearing in: Eric Headrix Harry Teague Harry relayed that the concept of the bonus opened the idea of separating the two houses. The idea is two houses connected with a connector. At the last meeting the commissioners felt that the two houses were too close together and not reading as two houses. The two story portion ofthe house was lowered into the ground 16 inches. The board also had concerns with the connector and four feet was added. A flat roof is proposed for between the two buildings which will be better for snow removal. Harry showed a movie depicting the two houses and connector on the lot. The connector is six 1/6 feet and was 2 14 feet. Suzannah opened and closed the public hearing. Commissioner Comments. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. November 15.2000 The new revised massing relates to the historic house. One of the big issues that will be reviewed at final will depend upon the materials and palate. The computer images identify the prominence of the historic house. The flat roof vs the glass roof is an improvement. The glass connector is a positive improvement. The east massing is too overwhelming even with the 14 inch reduction to the historic house. The reduction ofthe ridges iS pOSitive. How the barrel vault transition meets the historic house clapboard needs addressed. The detailing of materials is essential. One technical concerns is that we need a set o f drawings of what was presented today as a record. MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve Resolution #52, 2001 granting conceptual approval for a partial demolition. relocation of an existing historic cottage and construction of an addition for a residence located at 513 W. Smuggler, Lot E. F, and G. Block 21. Ciry and Townsite ofAspen with the following conditions: 1. The HPC granted thefollowing variances at conceptual review: a 7 foot rear yard setback variance, an 8 foot combined front and rear yard setback variance, and a 5 foot east sideyard variance for a lightwell, and a 240 square foot floor area bonus: 2. The design of any new fencing on the property will require approval. Fences may not be more than 42" in height anywhere in front of the street facing walls of the historic structures; 3. 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: 4. 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: 5. No elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist. No existing exterior materials other than what has el 0 , ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. November 15.2000 0 been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of sta# and monitor; 6. HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures: 7. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 8. 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. 9. The applicant shall be required ro 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 Ojficer prior to applying for the building permit: 10. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a 0 building permit; and 11. 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. 12. The applicant shall submit drawings thar represent the design discussed at this meeting and that this resolution will not be in effect unless those drawings are consistent with the review tonight as determined by the board. Motion second by Jeffrey. Yes vote: Gilbert, Suzannah, Je#rey, Rally No vote: Lisa Motion carried 5-1. 303 S. CLEVELAND Gilbert chaired. 0 Fred Jarman, planner informed the board that this agenda item is a continued public hearing from Nov. 8,2000, to consider resolution #54 3 APR-10-2001 TUE 01:63 PM FAX NO, f-De ff Q. 1 o,TY_~~1 9 - fLL_ 1 0 3 17 04,4 Ad#. County of Pitkin } ~ AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060(E) 1, ~tul L IJ <CO L-U~JY-i , being or representing art Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify thar I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of *bichis attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners o fproperty within three hundred (300) teet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the Zi day of /4/elÂ¥ , 2001 (which is46_ days prior to the public hearing date of /9~ 1 6/ C / ). 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible,continuously from the 2-6 day of fh<200"f , 2001, to the I 7 day of_F62-1 , 200_L. (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto, Signed before me this |l day ofÂ· Ci..~14-0 1 - 2001Â· by 1% 0 2/6 - + 41 leÂ«1 2- C*,ja>Ja~~\ - .r,Â«.MOâ„¢*-- WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My Commission expires: -. - Brandi L. uepson i Notary Public Notary Public My Commission Expires 1 /22/2005 601 E. Hopkins Aspen, CO 81611 ... dg .. 0/ 01 W -0 4 14* 49 cy : 02 0: Aroe :0 0... 4 e b ..0, . }TAibbr â‚¬E C, r-==9 1' 56-lUrt_ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission TIIRU: Joyce 0hlson, Deputy Planning Director JÂ¢O FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 328 Park Avenue- Final Review and Variance - Public Hearing DATE: April 11,2001 SUMMARY: The subject site currently contains five apartment units, two of which are housed within buildings that were moved to the property. The proposal is to demolish all of the existing construction except for one miner's cottage, which will be relocated on the site and restored. A new single family home and detached ADU will be added to the property. On March 14m, the HPC granted approval for Historic Landmark Designation, Conceptual Development, Partial Demolition, On-site relocation, Demolition exemption, setback variances and an FAR bonus. APPLICANT: 328 Park LLC, represented by Paul Nicoletti, Studio B Architects, and Haas Land Planning. PARCEL ID: 2737-181-00-045. ADDRESS: 328 Park Avenue, a metes and bounds parcel within the City of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: RMF-PUD. CURRENT LAND USE: A 14,090 square foot parcel containing five legal dwelling units. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds that all of the following standards (Section 26.415.010.C.5) are met: a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, massing and volume with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," 1 6% 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 allowedfloor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant necessary variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this Section exceed those variations allowed under Section 26.520.040(B)(2), for detached accessory dwelling units, and Staff Finding: The project involves demolishing all existing construction except for a miner's cottage. The cottage will be moved to a new location on the site and restored, and a small addition will be made. A new one story cottage will be built next to the miner's cottage, and a new two story home behind it. Staff finds this project to be outstanding in several respects. The historic cottage will be preserved with only very minor alterations. No significant addition will be allowed to detract from its character as a small home. The applicant has provided more detailed information on how the existing materials will be treated in the form of a preservation plan, and has specified the materials for the new addition (vertical wood siding.) While staff still finds that the proposal for the miner's cottage will be very successful overall, the fact that the new staircase covers two historic windows was not noticed at the conceptual review. Staff is concerned that this is in conflict with the following guideline: 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. I For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. These windows are on a primary fagade and would be visible from the street. As a condition of final approval, staff recommends that the architect study any possibilities to push the staircase further towards the back of the building. At the very least, the plan should include leaving as much of the existing wall and windows in place as an interior feature. The new construction on the rest of the site is contemporary in character. The small cottage proposed next to the historic building creats an attractive, small scale environment along Park Avenue. The two cottages share fundamental characteristics, but clearly speak to the eras in which they were built. There are no other examples in town of an instance where a miner's cottage has been preserved essentially intact, with a new structure of the same modest size built right next to it. The new single family home is not particularly related architecturally to the miner's cottage, but is completely detached, is set far back on the site and is fairly simple in 2 design and detailing. The fact that this neighborhood does not have a strong historic context allows for greater flexibility in the design of new structures on this historic parcel. The new house has advantages for the neighborhood as a whole, since on Midland Avenue, it is one story, creating a positive environment for pedestrians. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development, and Staff Finding: There is great variety in the building types and architectural styles found in this neighborhood. As stated above, staff finds the project makes a positive contribution to this area. 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 enhance the historic significance of the home by removing some inappropriate alterations that have occurred over the years. 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 project will enhance the architectural character and integrity of the miner's cottage by completing much needed restoration work and by siting it more prominently. Staff is concerned with preserving the character of the west wall of the cottage. FLOOR AREA VARIANCE At the March 14~ meeting, the HPC was informed that the project would require a floor area variance as a result of the City's desire to acquire right-of-way from the property. To grant the variance that is needed, HPC must apply the variance standards that relate to hardship and make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; Staff finding: The applicant is being asked to dedicate a significant amount of the property to the City for additional right-of-way. Both Park and Midland Avenue are substandard in width. The applicant is willing to do this, but it does have impacts on the redevelopment plan. A small amount of floor area is lost due to the dedication, but more importantly, an issue that relates to the floor area calculation on the new house comes up on Midland Avenue. 3 Floor area is calculated from natural grade, so that, generally speaking, all areas above natural grade are counted at a ratio of 1:1, and all areas completely below grade are exempted. When you expose portions of a basement level to view, for instance when you create a lightwell or a walk-out basement, some of the basement level does count in floor area. Because this site is generally flat, all areas of the new house should count as 1:1 because they are above the existing ground level. However, along Midland Avenue, the applicant will be dedicating a strip of land and then backfilling to the house to create a level surface. This is appropriate to allow for a sidewalk if the City desires one in the future, and creates a better situation visually than would building a large retaining wall and railing for the length of the property on that side. The result is that the ground level of the new house is fully exposed on the courtyard side, but buried into a hill on the Midland side. The applicant requests that his floor area be calculated to reflect that situation. The land use code requires that floor area be measured from the lower, natural grade, rather than the grade created by the fill, so the project is over the allowed FAR. Staff finds that the request, which amounts to a floor area variance of 1,267 square feet, is not in conflict with the goals of the AACP. As noted by the applicant, the project preserves a historic resource and is responsive to the surrounding neighborhood. Automobile and pedestrian traffic will benefit from the additional right-of-way, and the new architecture will make a positive contribution to the neighborhood. 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and Staff finding: If the house were calculated in the same way that any home buried into a hillside would be, the project would meet floor area requirements. 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan 4 and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district. Staff finding: There are special conditions related to the site because it is bordered by three streets, all of which are substandard in width. The applicant could dedicate the right of way and construct a retaining wall along Midland Avenue, but this would not benefit the project or the neighborhood. Staff finds that the variance is appropriate in exchange for the land being dedicated to the city and the applicant's effort to create a positive pedestrian environrnent. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve final development and the floor area variance, finding that the review standards and design guidelines are met, with the following' conditions: 1. HPC grants a h26+ square foot floor area variance, in addition to those variances approved on March 14~h, which were a 5 foot front yard variance for the historic house on Park Avenue, a 10 foot front yard variance for the new ADU on Park, and a 5 foot rear yard setback variance for the structures on Midland Avenue, a 4 foot variance on the required distance between buildings on the new house and its garage, and a 500 square foot floor area bonus, finding that the review criteria are met. 2. Restudy the location of the staircase on the historic cottage, in the interest of . T preserving the two historic windows. Staff-anhnoa~tgr to review and approve M oe w 4.-1 final design. 3. Provide a structural report demonstrating that the miner's cottage can be moved and information about how the house will be stabilized from the housemover. 4. Provide a bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation ofthe structure. 5. Provide a relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored during construction. Measures must be taken to fence off the building, cover windows with plywood, and otherwise protect it from damage. 6. Information on all venting locations and meter locations for the miner's cottage shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the information is available. 7. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the historic house are to be removed. 5 1.:6 0 8. Submit a preservation plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating how the existing materials, which are to be retained, will be restored. The requirement is to retainfrepair all original materials and replicate only those that are determined by HPC staff and monitor to be beyond salvage. 9. No elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist. No existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor. 10. HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures. 11. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. 15. Submit drawings showing the proposed millwork for the restoration of the front porch for review and approval by staff and monitor. . \ L , 41 litz /kiÂ«-- 40 6 +4> 5.Olf 0 AA Jo / RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to approve Resolution #/(--, Series of 2001." Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated April 11,2001 B. Application 0 6 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 328 PARK AVENUE, A METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL WITHIN THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO./ 9, SERIES OF 2001 WHEREAS, the applicants, 328 Park Avenue LLC, have requested Final development approval and a Variance for the property located at 328 Park Avenue, a metes and bounds parcel within the City and Townsite of Aspen; 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(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, in order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the HPC must make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies ofthe Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant ofrights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either ofthe following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated April 11, 2001, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended approval of the project; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on April 11, 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 Final Development and a Variance are approved for the property located at 328 Park Avenue, a metes and bounds parcel within the City and Townsite of Aspen with the following conditions: l. HPC grants a 1,267 square foot floor area variance, in addition to those variances approved on March 14*, which were a 5 foot front yard variance for the historic house on Park Avenue, a 10 foot front yard variance for the new ADU on Park, and a 5 foot rear yard setback variance for the structures on Midland Avenue, a 4 foot variance on the required distance between buildings on the new house and its garage, and a 500 square foot floor area bonus, finding that the review criteria are met. 0 2. Restudy the location of the staircase on the historic cottage, in the interest of preserving the two historic windows. Staff and monitor to review and approve final design. 3. Provide a structural report demonstrating that the miner's cottage can be moved and information about how the house will be stabilized from the housemover. 4. Provide a bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the structure. 5. Provide a relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored during construction. Measures must be taken to fence off the building, cover windows with plywood, and otherwise protect it from damage. 6. Information on all venting locations and meter locations for the miner's cottage shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the information is available. 7. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the historic house are to be removed. 8. 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. 9. No elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist. No existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor. 10. HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures. 11. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. 15. Submit drawings showing the proposed millwork for the restoration of the front porch for review and approval by staff and monitor. 0 APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 11th day of April, 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 I . HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC 0 0 .ECEIVED APR 0 2 2001 ASPEN / Pll KIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEK April 2, 2001 Mrs. Amy Guthrie Aspen Historic Preservation Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 328 Park Avenue, Final Application Dear Amy: Please consider this letter and the accompanying plan sets to constitute the Final Significant Development application for the 328 Park Avenue Property. As you are aware Conceptual approval of the subject project was unanimously granted by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) on March 21, 2001. No significant changes have been made to the plans approved at the Conceptual 0 level, but the Final plan sets indicate the types of exterior building materials proposed for use on the various portions of each structure. In addition, this Final application requests that the HPC approve a variance request with regard to allowable FAR floor area, as elaborated upon below. The review standards applicable to the Final review are the same as those used to evaluate the Conceptual application. Although the proposed designs have not changed in any significant manner, the applicable standards and our responses to each are provided below. A. Section 26.415.010(C)(5), Significant Development Review Standards Section 26.415.010(C)(5) of the Land Use Code provides that no approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the HPC 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 parceIs when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic landmark For Historic I,andmarks when pmposed development would extend into~#ontyant side ya#dand rearyani setbacks, â€¢201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108 â€¢ ASPEN, COLORADOâ€¢81611 â€¢ â€¢PHONE. (970) 925-7819 â€¢ FAX: (970) 925-7395 â€¢ April 2, 2001 Page 2 extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed jloor area byup tojive hundred (500) squarefeet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances ajier making a finding that such variation is mon compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accoid with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program, Section 26.520.040(13)(2), for detached accessog dwelling units, and A floor area bonus will only be awarded to projects which in the opinion of the HPC make an "outstanding preservation effort." Examples tobeconsidered would include the retention of historic outbuildings or the creation of a breezeway or connector elements between the historic resource and new construction. Lots which are latger than 9,000 squarefeet and properties which receive approval for a "historic kmdmark lot split" may also be considered for the bonus. No development application which includes a request for an EAR 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 qual#for the,floor area bonus, and This standard was found by the HPC to be met at the Conceptual level and nothing in the proposed plans has changed to a degree that would affect such compliance. For greater elaboration as to the proposal's consistency with the terms and provisions of this standard, please refer to the Conceptual application booklet, dated January, 2001. A more thorough description of the restoration efforts to be employed on the historic cottage (the Shady Lane House) is provided in the Final plan sets accompanying this letter. In addition, the plan sets provide detailed information on how the existing materials will be treated as well as what materials will be used on the small addition. All of the restoration and addition work will be in keeping with the recommendations of the Design Guidelines, Chapters 2-10. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development, and Again, this standard was found by the HPC to be met at the Conceptual level and nothing in the proposed plans has changed to a degree that would affect such compliance. The proposed project will make a positive contribution to the neighborhood by creating small scale homes and an interesting streetscape along Park and Midland Avenues. The proposed development will provide a cleaned-up, more orderly microcosm of the surrounding neighborhood. For instance, it will result in structures of various sizes that appear to have been developed in widely varying time periods. 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. April 2, 2001 Page 3 0 As part of the Conceptual approval, the HPC found that the proposed development will enhance and not at all detract from the historic significance of the Shady Lane House by removing some inappropriate alterations that have occurred over the years. No historic structures are located on the adjacent parcels. 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. As part of the Conceptual approval, the HPC found that the proposed development will enhance the architectural character and integrity of the miner's cottage by completing much needed restoration work and by siting it more prominently. B. Section 26.314.040, Standards Applicable to Variances Section 26.314.010 of the Code provides that " Hariances are deviations*om the terms of this Title which would not be contrary to the public interest when, owing to special circumstances or conditions, the literal enforcement of the provisions of this Title would result in undue and unnecessary hardship." Section 26.314.020 of the Code 0 grants the HPC with the authority to review a variance request when part of a consolidated application process. In the current case, the applicant needs a variance from the methodology of calculating FAR floor area. That is, Section 26.575.020(A)(4) of the Code explains that the calculation of floor area for subgrade spaces is largely a function of natural versus finished grade, and whichever is lower must be used in determining how much of the subgrade space will count as FAR floor area. For instance, if 15% of a structure's exterior wall surface area is exposed above natural or finished grade (whichever is lower), then 15 % of the gross square footage of that subgrade story is to be included as floor area. The applicant will be dedicating an eight (8) foot wide strip of land to the City on the Midland Avenue side of the property and a thirteen (13) foot wide strip on the Park Avenue side, both for right-of-way purposes. These dedications reduce the lot area of the property by 2,310 square feet ([8 x 110] + [13 x 110]) from 14,080 square feet to 11,770 square feet. Given the existing grade of the property along the Midland Avenue frontage, the applicant is going to backfill the area between the existing property line and the proposed structure before dedicating the land to the City. This will serve two purposes. First, it will 0 ensure that the new structure reads as a one-story residence from Midland Avenue while enabling access to the garage. Secondly, it will provide a level . April 2, 2001 Page 4 area alongside the street and in the right-of-way should the City ever pursue the installation of sidewalks and curb and gutter. Due to the way the floor area calculation regulations read and the requirement to use "natural grade" instead of "finished-grade," the subgrade space created by the backfill would have to be counted as fully above-grade floor area. Thus, the subgrade spaces created along the Midland Avenue frontage would be counted as approximately 2,720 square feet of floor area instead of just 1,453 square feet of floor area (a 1,267 square foot difference). If three free market units were proposed, instead of just two and an ADU, the development would be considered multi-family in nature and be permitted an FAR of 1:1. In the subject case, even after right-of-way dedications and lot area reductions, an FAR of 1:1 would allow for the development of 11,770 square feet of floor area. As such, even with the 500 square foot bonus and the variance herein requested, the proposed development only involves approximately 40% of the floor area that would be allowed if just one more free market residence were proposed. To put this another way, the proposal made herein involves approximately 7,024 square feet less than that which would be permitted if three units were proposed instead of just two. Section 26.314.040 of the Code sets forth the findings required to authorize the granting of variances. The applicable provisions of said Section and the applicants responses are provided below. 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; The 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan Update (the AACP) is highly supportive of the proposed redevelopment plan. With regard to conservation of historic resources, the AACP states that "the preservation process must be one of reason and balance, predictability and economic fairness." Among the goals of the AACP is the promotion of "sensitive aaWitions" in which compatibility is defined "in terms of sympathetic, subservient, and contextuar design. In addi\ion, Uie AACP urges the City to " maintain and add innovative ways to make DAstor\4 preservation work in Aspen." All of the aforementioned principles will be advanced by an approval of the current request. The applicanfs request represents a sensitive, sympathetic, subservient and contextually appropriate design which reasonably balances these values with economic fairness. Only sensitive additions have been proposed for the miner's cottage, and the proposed design for the Midland Avenue frontage represents an innovative way to make preservation work in April 2, 2001 Page 5 0 Aspen. However, this innovative preservation effort is economically sound only if the requested FAR variance is granted. The loss of 2,310 square feet of land (for public right-of-way purposes) from a 14,080 square foot lot represents a loss of 14% of the land that would otherwise be available for development Principles of "economic fairness" would dictate that an appropriate level of compensation be given for such a substantial deprivation of land. The requested FAR variance represents a fair compensation for the land area being dedicated. Moreover, in light of the substantial land dedication and outstanding historic preservation effort being undertaken by the applicant a process of "reason and balance" would allow for the variance request being made herein. The AACP also states that, "We wish to encourage creativity that results in design solutions that are fresh and innovative, yet are net additions to the built environment by being contextually appropriate and harmonious" with surrounding development "This will require the reduction of the risk of being creative in the communio/'s approval processes." This proposal is creative and respectful of historic values, exactly as urged by the AACR Without the variance, there would be no advantage to the applicant in back filling the area between the road and the proposed building, potentially resulting in a far less creative design 0 solution. The best way to encourage the development of the proposed plan is to approve the variance requested herein. Finally, there is nothing in the AACP which would run counter to or otherwise prohibit the applicanfs request. 2 The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and The property is zoned to include a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay, but Section 26.445.020 of the Code provides that since only two (2) single-family residences (and an ADU) will be developed and the property has an area of less than 27,000 square feet there is no requirement for Planned Unit Development application, review, or approval. If three free market units were proposed, by contrast, the development would be considered multi-family in nature and both PUD and subdivision reviews and approvals would be required. Multi-family development in the RMF zone district is permitted an FAR of 1:1 by right. In the subject case, even after right-of-way dedications and lot area reductions, an FAR of 1:1 would allow for the development of 11,770 square feet of floor area. As such, even with the 500 square foot bonus (already approved by the HPC) and the variance requested herein, the proposed development only involves approximately 40% of the floor area that would be allowed if just one more free market residence were proposed. To put this 0 another way, the proposal made herein involves approximately 7,024 square feet April 2, 2001 Page 6 0 less than that which would be permitted if three units were proposed instead of just two. As just explained, if three units were proposed, subdivision and PUD reviews would be required. Through the PUD process, 112 variances would be required because, not only would an FAR of 1:1 be permitted as a baseline, but all dimensional requirements would be established as part of the review process. Thus, it is only because the applicant is proposing a reasonable and appropriate use of the parcel that this variance request is necessary. Given that the variance will still result in close to 7,000 square feet less floor area than would otherwise be allowed through the PUD process, it is fair to say that the variance request made herein represents the "minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure." The applicanfs request that the floor area be calculated based on finished grade (as opposed to natural grade) is certainly reasonable. As mentioned before, the loss of 2,310 square feet of land (for public right-of-way purposes) from a 14,080 square foot lot represents a loss of 14% of the land that would otherwise be available for development. It is reasonable to hope an appropriate level of compensation would be given for such a substantial deprivation of land. The requested FAR variance represents a fair compensation for the land area 0 being dedicated. Moreover, in light of the substantial land dedication and the HI?Cs finding that an outstanding historic preservation effort is being made by the applicant the proposed use of the parcel cannot be considered anything more than "reasonable." 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms OJ this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district. As explained in response to standards one (1) and two (2) above, the variance request herein made is largely the result of "special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, which are not applicable to other parcels in the same zone district, and which do not result from the actions of the applicant." That 0 is, the subject parcel is situated between three streets, a situation made all the April 2, 2001 Page 7 0 more unique by the fact that two of them have inadequate right-of-way widths. Another special and unique circumstance to the subject parcel results from the topographic features which make it necessary to backfill between the top of a slope and the second floor of the proposed structure in order to facilitate the development of a sidewalk and a driveway These conditions are not applicable to other parcels in the zone district, nor are they the result of any actions taken by the applicant. Also as explained above, the proposal made herein involves approximately 7,024 square feet less than that which would be permitted if three units were proposed instead of just two. Therefore, granting of the requested variance would not confer upon the applicant any special privilege that is unavailable to other parcels in the same zone district. The hardship/practical difficulty which will be incurred by the applicant if a variance is not granted is unnecessary because the resulting improvements will have little or no visual or other impact on the building or surrounding properties, but will ensure the economic soundness of an outstanding historic preservation effort. It will also ensure that the above-described back filling activity will take place and result in a one-story streetscape along Midland Avenue. Again, the hardship/practical difficulty is the result of unique 0 topographic and locational circumstances. Granting of the requested variance would not confer on the applicant any special privilege denied by the AACP or the provisions of the Code. As explained above, the request is consistent with the AACP and the variance should be granted in accordance with the provisions of the Code. Given the site-specific circumstances of the property, approval of this variance request will not create a precedent upon which other properties can or should rely. C. Section 26.415.010(E)(8), Standards for Review of On-Site Relocation While the proposed on-site relocation of the Shady Lane miner's cottage was approved during the Conceptual review on March 21, 2001, a few points of clarification should be made herein. No structural analyses have been initiated yet and a relocation plan along with the necessary structural reports will be provided as part of the building permit application for the project. Similarly, the applicant will provide the necessary financial security prior to issuance of a building permit for the site preparation and building relocation. Infrastructure connections will be made prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the relocated structure. 0 April 2, 2001 Page 8 If you should have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at the phone number provided at the bottom of this letter's first page. Yours truly, Haas Land Planning, LLC i i Ah 0 Mitch Haas, AICP Owner/Principal CC: Paul Nicoletti, 328 Park Avenue LLC Scott Lindenau, Studio B Architects c:/my documents/City Applications/Nicoletti Final HPC MAR. 12. 2001 (MON) 13:55 U.: .. :_.1.Ihie:ParagonÂ·Building-----Â·Â·Â·Â· 6...................'.........:......................! 1 .Â·2:Â·:Â·----zi.~ ~f-.. ~rÂ·,. ~ ~. :*~: *LANDiPSZAPPLCATION FORM*,*: .,: 8OMMUNITY D.evEOPME.Â· :'Â· L ! ... : I $ ........ . â€¢tr.M tÂ·=1:1:i=..J~iN:i~:I . I .........I...................................................1--.6.1...:--:...:-... 9.: ~0*)*Â¢*~tz*tig.;East;Hyrfihhi*vefto~~fÂ¢*,~~~~EÂ®Â©f-iP?.~::Up:~:~~""IiÂ·:[:~:,:::~11'Â·.I~9~:d~~.:~:~2.--41:. hl Â·Â· 3. : Pâ€¢~ent-Zoning:' Commerfii41-Ar,i*q Â· Â·Â·Â·Â· .. .... M.......... .................-,-........â€ž ........ ;1~~'~ f ~~:~* ~=!- 47:}Â·:~Â·Â·:"ttot-*1* ' - ' .--- -Sj-Â®Isqi-.Roof,Qhly:-1;48Â®41:ft.2Â·-',1/:~ â€ž,~r:Â·~,Â·:,*i.~~Â·1..- ......â€ž. ..1. ... .-.. . . .. ..-I. 1 r=ff=r--12Â·90-1. -r: AppUoant'=:nume,-add ress:m,duphon*41Umbah .: -- L - a .. . .... ..1...:... .. .. . I . 1 ..... Â»117180Uth: MOMairith :,1.,,'.';*** ':..' ,*( :*' ':~'9''t':.- i ':t "i-.i,"â‚¬:0Â·-~ 'Â· ':p:-:'Â·;?i:?I=:.::=Â·9;':'i=694-'7=Â·-Â·: ':.:.'pi==:p: pÂ·Â·Â·Wl'-; ;0;;. -;.'..C m....;t.. 5.......,..;'-;.1.-'I.....- b m ......2.1....L. .... Â· "* Â·~4*reÂ·;4#4{eCu=-n- z ' ' , . . I . 2 .: .....:L...i:.li:.:.Â·:i:Â·:Â·h:Â·0Â·?:~Â·:'F:Â·El-Â·'.'-CrÂ·r-':7.2 ':1 7' .-...:...-::.Â·Â·:Â·Â·Â· Â·Â·Â· - Â· Â·Â·Â· Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· Â·Â· Â·Â«Â·Â·.:Â·..Â· Â·.Â·Â·â€ž. Â·Â·Â· '.:Â·-.Â· Â·Â·, . 1 . - -- --,Fr., ~ -4,Â·Â¥ek*:~970.920:4623:7* ff. Â·Â·Â·Â· :Â·-Â·Â· Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·.Â· Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· Â·Â·-Â·..Â·'~" ..:.:Â·5..;:Â·: . - Â·Â·Â· .Â·:62:Ed.:4-::EUÂ·_1:i.' 'Â·Â· W. , . _2'.f~'rt"~6,4.1,;::t:"Repreâ€¢entativelÂ¢~~iaÂ»mii~**W#**Thed:phonknuntbon : ... .. I. .. e. . . i . 1.,ii~i ..~~~ :~1::lr -:_:2.--Fpntentdilstfuetibl;,--Â·Â·-:: Â·Â·Â·~~~Â·:~:Â·Â·Â·i'.. 1 1,1 1 . -.---0--0-N---''p-'0-.- , ..................... 1 ; / i .. 21... . Pat.Fatitdii. 66.iJG,1 Blilly.G. +4milten*,*I:; f /" ti: â€ž~ :h ...I i â€ž â€ž .~ . ~ :':, Â·,w.:0,,,,,: ,,, , 1/Ain 1 9.:,As.above....1.Â·1 i:Â·:4. . . . + 1 /-:':1_L Typecot.<RFUE 40Â¢i~f#hkek:*nihatÂ¢1*1*Ki"~13 ~~-Er ~..*Tf-i: -2 -*. .:.g .: ~~~::~..i~Â· Â· Â·Â·3 -2-Â·:i:,:Â·Â· -Â·Â·Â·Â· Â·Â·Â· Â· - "Â· -- ..... . . . . 1 .. , ............. L ,rwÂ·, -Â·1#Z:Â·it;iÂ»IL-,-6.AdjfibnalÂ· .ude~:.~.~ :"Â·:.~~~..{Â·: 1~ .~~4&240*uaikj;A~~ {Â·.~Â·~*~-:~:.*i,::Coh---piuid.HPc ,,,,i,~, ~: ~~.Â· *~ ~,~~"~(:Â·iji~:-:<2.:jij--"Â·,- ., ~, ,,.i,,L~ ,~Â· 444*iÂ»0164â€ž111,:i_jid@ISEAUL,I, ~* ":~ 37~FE~Bpt~:~~:799,0 1- *Â·: r , r--Â·,Â·, _% 2--~ ~08040*fbenline- it;~5-: --'.*~t. Â·~:~ Cofid*Lial PUD~ "~~~*11. Minor H.PC =:z.,~........ils.i-I*:.L:,I ~Subdiki6ion : 1:.â€žL;:,i~j : ~ ::*%.~ .3 Â·Â¥~UIAab,ANiBAdE;==&==64*1fd;tofi8::1200du,~40~I:[.~12Â· lite'Elf=â‚¬~trlingÂ¢*1180Â¥2*f.*f.f~ '. GMRS *diif#whtu:. " 041;uipum#joamoâ€ž... ,..... ......â€ž 4.:.i-i-4-Viev#Plahe" 2.1-1-4.:.â€ž.rÂ·-Â·iÂ·: Cdr*mintumization.Lu:.JUR,igrdReview.1._â€ži.:.-: 1.-:..- -.:-:u. 1 -3.,3.1:1?.Elr% -::11:cLOISAIi#1401.1.jr*Et:*..4 . ~. ,**'~* ~ ~"-i:':, 1 ..~.:: 1...C. ~;:.;::...i::.pL..ljAD#ealn.ommittee,f,ii:~.:46;;4:41*T- -::C~Â·:J :1*;,,,~ . * :..>:%....:.r...t-":;TA<Q*tlÂ¥@tif. * ~Â£ #<-:; ., : F.:-674:128:-3Ii-Kbes@0~on=of-existing 060*- Cniifiib*Fiftii:*-~Ble*i*ing-u##ims,;- Â· Â· + Â·Â·Â· ....................â€ž........1.- ..... ..... ..1...... ... . 43-2*p#6*IiiilitÂ¥-847*Ei *timberÂ·6fbed*66ms, any #*Vious approvals grantad to the L property: ., 1 I Â·Â· Â·-" .3::. 1 DIE**flit8~-0,6 of the 34 floor 6f the Paragon Building (Dresently being refurbiphed))* 6. : 1 .. -4----- 1--~91/E@**61: 6NWiRMiKifyii with access righte *6 -te roof -1 thÂ¢,u@0:of which was..â€žj.. ............... i. ' .; Page*:1 ofÂ·.5.~:i-i.",........ k 1 .-/ I'.*.I-#.I'...'.I-I. #' - '. # ' / ' - /. 1 . â€¢ 1. . I=. ,=E *." =re /11 =/S-=I ]11 Ill ... ............ 0.........: T ~~ :: -~ ~ ~ previously permitted bythe Historic Preservation Commission. .......... 9. : DesÂ¢ription: of developm,Atipplication:": : L" i ff.: Thisapplication is to request permission to extend the presently permitted elevator to l continue to the roof level to allow..handicapped accessibility,;,,,, :: Â·Â· : 2.â€ž..â€ž i : 10. 1*Xe-you:complatedfandattached thâ€¢followingr -tami- u,â€¢ilpplication-form; rb::.=::24Jk:-Ijalf-En {33; JOIWiâ€¢n#'llial]Mi**iiat~ntsâ‚¬fe#ni*es#*11*6Â·16]Atth#hm*nt 3; R=poftifater 7- --i*22[.':f f ":" "~ " .- ..... :-Attathment 4Â¥ As attached/-9Â·---f---"Â·- -- ir: -:Â· Â·Â·Â·- 6- . I . I . 1 Â· i ATTACHMENT 2 . DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM LI /Ap#116"ht: " 419 East Hyman LLC . Â· Â· " -Â· "Â· Â· -Â· -Â· Â·Â·" Â·ciÂ·:.Â·* Addiessi: ..: i,419*East Hman,*4pen~;0082~611Â·.-....~.~~~~_;~-~-â€žt--_._,: . .. ..... AA : Zone distfict: i : : Â·: : 1 Commercial Core; ; ; ILI Lot size: 5,400.Sqlft, : Total gross area: : : 21,598.09 gaf . . ... I. I... r. Allowable FAR: " " -Â· ---1.5/1 C.C Zone, 8100 84.ft. ~ Existing net leasable (commercial): : Â·n/a Proposed net leasable (commercial):E: Wa i ~ i N _â€ž ~;: d . Existing % of site coverage: Â·Â·Â· Â·Â· Â·Â·Â·r-*Â·Â·-:rÂ·Â·-Â· " 100% Existing maximum height: Principal bldg: 42'-2" :1 : Accessory bldgs: .2.*r. 1*: *:;:5="-: -StairBulkheadi Â·:;:Â·~F."'. ~*'::'. ..:*Â·~. :.â€ž...:.:;.. Â· :~~1-54?5'~ (approved).:. ,.,: I - Elevator Bulkhead 1340 , -- u:90*(*Establi*lied [77.-7. -:-Sh,89:.câ€ž ; ..: . . Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· ~:Â· Â·~~Â·~~.*';:P .(~~"~~ *: Â·Â·Â· Â·Â·Â· :Â·Â· Â·; *Â·:Â·1Â·:Â·':...:-:i:........â€ž.:. :.... . I. . *... *... I.-. -....%. . . ..I-'ll./---- - -Ill.&. I"I -I.'p -. -. -I -I-'. .. Existing nonconformitles or encroachment#: The building was constructed prior to the*establishment bf the maximum allowable building height. ... ..... . .0 ................. ..... ........ 1 ... . . Page 2 of 5 2 .SOVA- "629"086*02,8 NO I.LanULSNOONO.I.NS; 'D:GI (NOW) 1002 -5 1 -EVF{ I .' . ' 11 .. r ........ , ' :~'...... . ./ .../. ' -' ./ . ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . . ' ' 0 . - .. ' . '-.I /'-//.'.. ' .-/ ' '. I Â· : i , .......: ~~ ":Thew:Paragori BUildingÂ·:Â·Â· Â·-Â·Â·*-: -:i,,: :.::i::-i.1 -~ ::" - :~-:~ ~" ~i i "--~~:-~* :-** ""t-- 2--TI- -:* ---Nifah--12--206;1~ *~- -- I I . . . S . , . 1.- variations requested: t. Â·* The.notion of hardshipanddefined limits of apeastothe rooffromthethird floor has been-: Â·:Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·- Â· 1 :*.i:..=-~4}*lidlidd at IR-nth:Â·by-the:Historic,:Pheaervation-Commission and-it.haa-been establighâ€¢8-thar - the-applicantli-*FdsbhtlychbleÂ·to utilize the roof for persorid[.uKe.9}a *stairwell fromthe third*:â‚¬ i , . ................ ............................. ...1 ...... ... . ...... I Our client has been consistent in ensuring universality of accessibility (handicapped) throughout the project; i.e. on the ground level (including signage, ramping;etc.), and within-Â·; ~ ~ ~ hia unit. The appli@rit* *re *Significantly-intÂ¢6lgad-WitTF~UlleAge Aspen andtherefote the . 1 T anticipated frequency;of.guents.Who-requice.wheelchaic.access to all'areas ofthe build~ng_..,:,- requires thatan elevator continue 16 the-roof:tevek ...,Â·.. i. .. ': .....1.............: .:- ...1 ..t..1, :t::.9..84Â· Â· :tÂ·:Â·Â·4-Â·Â·Â· Â·: : Â·'* ~ .... ::: :;:Therefore, weWereÂ®@Btin#~thaf iii*roofbe-40846sible toallÂ·hisguest,Including those who : ---:Â·--Â·-would-otherwise-be- restricted bythe limitations thata stairwell imposes on individuals with- :1 " 1 wheeleli.ii.. TI,waddltion vr.i, 61.v.lv, bulkheadÂ·tofacilitatefull. use,Â·:Wiltf (1at"**6*6Â¢rllie:~n } i : .Â·Â·Â·" height of thee*haosttolkheadÂ·andiarsetback-sufficidhily:from the perirneter of th6 building ..::. i -----2::=-1 :-"--"~"-- --:I:~uthlliifit-wou~lit-nbti#=0&61460*ibl62#8tn--tNestreet below. '~*7 ..3.YÂ·.11.:. 64 ;Â·*.: . . ..:. ....1,....."..L:t--,.LLE ......... allent and.â€žhis:archited:have with great care reconstructed and Irefurbished the Pih*n I . I ... .1 1. I Building, considering thedesign of the roof appurtencestoensure that minimum Visual impact- ~ exhaust bulkheads. would befeltbythe inhabitants of/visitors to,:the City of Aspen, by the addition of the stair and ; Furthet, our clienfs efforts have been intensivelo-ensure that the design:and re-construction " :Â· IT ofth6 Paragbilâ€žilln compliance WitlimeliatiTMATS[Ohifidahbe of the property;Â·"all-the-whil,-Â·-: -- alooreoconizingtheÂ·:prominence of theiprojecton:a:BignifIUMK-pedd*lanÂ· mall: . :Â·-r...: Â·,"Â·, Â·.Â·: Â·Â·Â·: p ... J ATTACHMENT 3 :i GENERAL SUBMISSIONREQUIREMENTS .. . I - I. ., â€žContained..wi#jIOL, lAtter:sig~.hy.11Â»Ppli*atiti:O~ im~@18*jW**it.~*64-4Â¢id. 1 -.. _ _ ..-atelephone- number/and" the name, address, and telephoneriumber of any i ~ Â· ' representative=authorized-: toriaÂ¢tog~:.behalf * the *:applicantrrk:-A#*cheÂ¢*0@VA~Obly: .. .. -. : . e . . . . - .... I I. ... -'-I ... 2. : The street address, legal description, and parcet identification; numbar of the propeity proposed for development. A#ached . . 4 .. i 3, A disclosure of ownership ofthe parcelÂ· proposed for development,f consisting. ofa. :;,=k-~,-cuFF6Rt--ceftificate~from*ia: Titte~insujancW.:iÂ®mpanyiÂ· :orÂ·-attorney licensed-tq pfacticefih.-~-~-* - *.LE. *n - f :Rage 3 4.,5. 6 ZOVa 629$,0360L6 '' NOI.I.DirE.I.SNOONOINE:i ''*'59:Et 'INOW) 1062'-21 -HY:N ~ The Paragon Building ./ . i i March 12,2001 3 theÂ· State #of Colorado,.listing the hamesof::sit owners of theiproperty, and,all moribages,iÂ·: Judgments,liens, easementÂ© contracts/,and, a greements 'affecting the: i parbel,; and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. Â·Â· 1 Attached, . i .: i 4. An*8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject* parcel within the City ofÂ·Aspen.. Attached 5. : A site plan depibting the proposed layout and the pro*cfs physical relationship to the : f land and its surroundings. Attached, .f i 6. * A site improvenient survey. certified by a regi*tered land surveyor, licensed in theÂ·State of Colorado, showing the current status of the 'pareel including the Â·current tÂ®borÂ®hy ; ' :ahd vege.tation. (This!requirenient or any part: thereof, may;*be walveÂ¢I by,the, i Community *Development Direct6r if the project le determined not to warrant a survey, i document.> Previous* submitted. . t 7. A writteh descriptionof the proposal and a ! *itten explanation of howÂ· theproposed development Â· com@le; *with the Â· review Â· Â·'standard; Â·.relevant. 16 the development j application. AsÂ·submmed above. Â· ! 8. Additiohal materials, documentation, or reports M deemed negessary by the Community Developmeht Director. To be dete>mmed. ATTACHMENT 4 SPECIFIC SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIE~ : . 0 ~ 1 : i All applications fot'minor development naview,must include the following.infotmation: I r 1. If determined appropriate by the Community Development Director, a site plan or i ., survey showing property boundaries and predominant exi*ting site *haracteristics. To: be defennined 2. An accu~ate representation of 411 major building m,ferfals, :such ds *ampies anct : ! photographs, to be used for the proposed deih,lopment.' PrevioublyÂ·submitted. 3. A *cali drawing of the proposed develgpment inÂ· relation to any,existing structure.i : Pmviously submitted. 1 1 1 .. , .; 4. If applicable, a *tatement of the:effect of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structureand charactefof theheighborhooN. Pmvbusly submittad. page 4 of 6 2,..-- r::::-:qÂ·:-Mar*12, 200111.1..1...... i .....1 : .......... ... ... . .. .1 . . : I , ... .............-... .. ... ....I..... . ...... â€ž. ., I. .....'. I ... I. ............... . 9.Jr:,;~i: - , ",, â€ž~: J.f Z,I:, 1" b ~-. ~ i J .T..1,0:J* I UA A I E VELOPME N F ~E L YEW:-STANDARDS" ~ ~~ - r -1* * * *~*~ ,~ ~I ~: :i~.i~"7"4 " r--r - "~ - ' No approval forany.development in the "H,7*Historic OverIay District, OFâ€žinvolving historig t ) v landmarks shallbegrantdd unless theÂ·HPC fihds thatall oftliefolloWihg-standards are met:f: Â·Â·1Â·Â·4.........-d-..., ..... .... . . 1 . . 1â€žTheiproposed development is compatibleÂ·in gen,ral:design, scale, site plah, massing and ~:. ] -: : ::: : i. volume wjth designated historic:structures located on the parcel and W]th development on .Â· Â·.::Â·Â·Â· Â·-adjacent: parcels'whenÂ·the:subjectsiteÂ®:in-a.314;,-Historie-Overfay Distrim,*oris adjacent toÂ·- Â·:Â· Â·Â· -- Â·- - aÂ·Historic thndnlark. -For-Ht#tor-q-:LÂ®Â¢hlarks whore preposed:deÂ¥ejopmehtÂ».i,Od:**tm*rl:2:-.2.~-,-.,: :Di-:2:#2=.---int09*6htiÂ¥artiasitle~Â¥ard.*101:*eatipatd:*tk#e!*iÂ·**teridjinto-theÂ·mimmuni *11*lanceÂ·:--2=--fx=4~ -4Â·:Â·betweeh buildings basth~lbt, exceedÂ·the-allowed:1186-Â¢.*a bki,p-?16~580'4:ft, or~exceed: ;":t- -" -- the allowed site 809*rage: by up.to:896, HPC may grant:sueh variances"after:making a finding that 'such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would beideveloprnent in accord â€žwith dimensional requirements. 1 . . . . . - --- .Â·The-proposed-developmentreflects-andis consistentwith the characteroftlie . 7- P uneighborhood of the parcel propomed:fordevelopmenti and ;: :~: ..... ...2-1.:Ihe.proposed.development enhances or does not detract from thehistoriC significance of designated! historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent. parcels; and ' ' Â·' . --~~4.- miÂ¥-prÂ®wed Â¢10961Â®meht-enhancesior dbes hot diminish or detract Trom theatchit#ctutal character and integrity of a designated historictstructure or part thereof. r. ...... .+ ~~J . Â·l.. : 1, . Â·Â· Â· ' ' -. ..==L , 6 -LA.' r' . . . . . ., . 1 ................ .. .- I I. I I I. I. I. --... . 1 Page 5 of 5 ..... Â·Â· Â· Â·Â·Â·Â· Â·Â· Â· Â· T .. . , Â· Â· .. i Â·Â·41 Â· .... ' Ill.*lilli.--....I... I . MAR. ' 2. 2001 (MON) 13:52 FENTONCONSTRUCTION 9709204629 PAGE. 9 .......... --4 0 1\Ir I L 4*-- /,1 L a 1 1,41 2 k 1 91 1 -1 .9 - 12 P s .Ae 29:2 .* Ta 1: 7 /4 . 1-.1 .'Slip I / I N \/1 . .1 7-\1 4. fil! U ! X /\ A 4 -9. 1 1.11 1 ' l 1 1 8 m 3/# Â· 4 1\ . 1 6'RK -G 4 1 1 -- 1 . :\ 1/ ,-/-1.- ..~. .Z 11 1. 4 1" i , ., IiI 1 1 liwi. 1.41 1 1 4-/ . 11. 5.* -Â·Â· f i 1. 1=Lif--~_ AulÂ¢e'qi#ak,ME.Elt- Â·- = r.-: g- --.-- _ - - 5 ' . '. ..1. . . .....11. ' 1 h ..1. ... 1 1; 1 1. m / ill im 003 14 11 . nFl.1/1 1 ~ A 2' ,~c 3 -61 1 - , . 5: 2-44.17... ii"Â§. I : 11 --I-.---.-/- -- ---- ---. t 1. b [\ rlÂ¢ O,- . if-10 Ill' t- -.4 h v . 1 1 1 . t. 1 1 . 4 . . 4% ... 1.. el,I~."- -1-__-~-9 S, 7.114 1.,lili .1 % 11 4 .1 1 1 . '' 4 1." 4..1 1, r 1 l 1 1 n . 9-0 1*f 011 F. E . Â·. gti LU lf) ~Â·Â§0- PARACON BULDING ALTERATIONS 7% 8 5 1 1 .0 1-IYMAN AVÂ¢NUM MALL ! 20 . el. Â¥ 1 Â·Â· AS[)Â·liN. CO>I~.C)IDADO . 1 1 -1 MAR. 12. 2001 (MON) 13:53 FENTONCONSTRUCTION 9709204629 PAGE. 10 1 It I .11 1 1 ' 1 . , .... . ... .1 - I 1 ....... -I i'... . h - ON 1....1 i 1,- W, 1 . 1. 1 t. I --- 1 -. Â· â€¢ Â· , 4 M 14 â€ž1 1 1 --... I D . 1 1 1 ./ , I 1 1 IL r, , -, 7 "EL -e \ 1 1 1-< lt: 44-14 Â¥5 -11% -â‚¬J 'llfÂ¥ J \7 - 1\\. - 1 / 1 Mm,"4. U -- *Ar : 22 1,2~514 ... .6 1 . 7.- .: 11 . 2~0214. , 4 I.--9 ' 1. . . , , 3 1 1, 6 -S , " 1 -a III 111 - 1 - 1 8 - 0 f=1---7*k-V ./ 11 / \ c 1 1 1/ L.V - a i H 1.- - /40 1 , Â·Â·Â·6 4 45( Lil- * t' il ; ill . 99-2 11 9 /' 10 111 , 1 1. 1 -8 14 -9 1 - L. -4-1 4 . 91 . L.1 - I U -& . LS. 1 8-1-1 0 1 4 . w c,1 n k PARAGON BUILDING ALTERATIONS , 5 211 7=< R + , I, 1-IYMAN AVEN UE'MALL H MOO : - ASYEN. COLORADO r 8 1 .. , 4 IZZEZZIZEIJUZZZ.ZEZZIn-CZJ-;I NE*Dr,ZLLSN MAR. 12. 2001 (MON) 13:53 FENTONCONSTRUCTION 9709204629 PAGE. 11 1 1 1 1 11 11 1 1 1,11,1,1,11 1 1 1 1 11 1 11, 11 1. 1 I ........ 1", ". 1 ..1--............. El.EVATOR SHAF14 ExhIAOST , i . .a[VATORÂ·.BULKHEAD .... .." '.... /: 46 )1 -9 N , ., 1 Â· 1 * 'A- .1........:-I--.........-- 1 I.: 1, 41 06 2, r' 1 1. 1 12 r' 1 1 . J -1 -' 'L: ' ' f , 1 1 - -: IL...i-: - I%:3 *'-111/. $ -/* FEm ....1., .... ..$. . 41. 4 1. 1. .4. 1. mÂ·Â·Â·Â· z +41 Â¥ -1 Â·Â·5.2Â· Â·64 2 Â· Â·PARAGON BUIÂ·LDING-Â·ALTGPATIONS ..'J\'. ~; 2-1. 1 ..:.4 .......44id..NYMANI~A\*INtÂ·01*MAEL.:~~L ASPLIN. Ec)4(.)RAEÂ© b -.--.- .-,-.-,- , 1 1 1 97004 - ' NDLLVa-Disa | 1 52 .. . MAR. 12. 2001 (MON) 13:54 FENTONCONST.RUCT.I..ON..~.~~.rÂ·':.. .Â·1..1 ..-1 .1 Â·9709204629 1 1 j PAGE. 12 ...' 4 T 1/9 1 -1 1 - , 13'Â·40* 1. I ' - . 1 , - 48& ' 1 :. 1 ., .1 1 - :4Â£ 1,14*k 45< . 1. 4. 1 1 ....4. .... 15'-4.3/4Â· 1 . ... ,i -. i.'Ur.. Â· --1 -4 - L a i-- - IN -1.......1 ...â€ž .â€ž....W................ ..............................-- - -1 â€¢1 - 1 4, 11 1 ! r :10 Â· .. .- . .. .. .11.- H. 1.2...1.:. 11 11 12 4 , n -M - * -'- -:~ ~*--z~Â·zi~PARAGON'831'[-IJiNIG-AET@EATI'ONSÂ·Â· o mg 1-IYMAIN AVENUE MALL ~5 0 AS-PGNI COLORADO- -' -- ~ gz 14 :--- A i . 1100-9=*fntriowÂ·utrom ! f MAR. 12.2001 (MON) 13:55 FENTONCONSTRUCTION 9709204629 PAGE. 13 1 11 .1. 1 . -B - M -.0 t. 11. ... ... .... ........1 .....1. -1 i . 1 % - L ---1 : -P' ' ' ' i m r I P ./ 1 X. 2\ .w 1 --- :i .1 ' â€¢ 'r#1742*2â€¢-al. -...- . 4 - .1 -8 -- I ' 4,-, 1/r L . ./ ' Â· tr-oâ€¢ ILIVAFOR DULICIÂ·feD 15*-1 Ue I -8 4 l. 1 .tri Â· -G 1.. .. ... . . , . Â· '51. Â· 1-11. .:114Â¢ W 21 1. ... . :418 - -S -'. .1.... 1 ..-.... . ....5 0 ..6 1 4 .4. l.%* ~.6 -& . 42 L %I---r-pARAGONUJEWNTFAET@-RATIONS "---*--~~~-----i---- ---1 - -- ASPEN.COL<34&40:-. M Â£..3 11.; :........:.4.4-HYMANAVENUGMALL: c -lsial , 8Â¥3HXIAH MIÂ¥13 9.*JET 74 APR. 5.2021 9 1'26PM CATES KNEZEVICH GARDENSWARTZ NO.209 P.2 LAW OFFICES OF OATES, KNEZEVICH & GARDENSWARTZ, P. C. PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 0 THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 833 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 LEONARD M, OATES TELEPHONE (970) 920-1700 RICHARD A KNEZEVIGM FACSIMILE (970) 820-1121 TED D. GARDENSWARTZ - DAVID B. KEL,LY Jtk@okglaw.com 00 COUNSEL; MICHAEL FEIGENBAUM JOHN T. KELLY April 5,2001 Mrs, Amy Guiherie Historic Preservation Officer, City of Aspen 100 South (31 =a Street Aspen, CO 61011 RE: Landmark Designation 419 East Hopkins Avenue (Paragon Building) I)ear Amy: q This office represents 419 East Hopkins Avenue LLC, Cottonwood Ventures I, a Colorado Limited biability Company and Cottonwood Ventures II, a Colorado Limited Liability Company, which represent #11 of the ownÂ¥rs ofthe Paragon Buildings Condominiums, which now constitute the Paragon Building. r The purpose oftbis letter is to request Landmark Historical Designation under the code. As you are aware, the property is already historically designated and the owners would now like to apply for Landmark Designation. Our clients would address the standards for Designation as follows: A. H*torical Importance - What is now known as the Paragon Building is historically *ignificant not only in terms of its Architecture (see below) but also due to the fact thatthe Building was Hriginally owned and built by H.P, Cowenhoven andD.R.C.Brown, who wasoriginallyMr. Cowenhoven's Clerk Cowmhoven and Brown originally came to Aspen in 1880 overthe Continental Divide from Buena Vista. Both? 1 . CowenhovenandMr.Brownprosperedinawiderange ofendeavors including Mercantile, Mining and Aller enterprises. They were both cultural, social and political leaders of early Aspen. The "Cowenhoven andBrownBlock" was constructed in 1889 and designed by a unknown Architect It lies at 419 East Hyman in the heart of Aspens Historic District. B. Architectural Importance - The building is one of the best examples of late Victorian architecture. A complete renovalion, approved by H.P.C. was recently completed The subject property is a three story brick building with elaborate detailin comice line. First floor features a centered doorway to access the upper floors ofthe building, flankedbytwo matching storefronts. The storefronts haverecessed, entered entriep flanked bystorefront windows. There is a band oftransom windows across he first floor and #ickplates below the windows. The first floor storeftonts are defined by cast iron columns, with brick pegmental ardhes and floral detailing above them. This is the same design as the adjacent Aspen Block Building. Onthe second floor, therearedoublehungwindowswith segmental arches, andonthefbird floor, 0 the game win,~lows with Roman arches. There are double hung windows on the east west and south sides Â»f the building. In our clients view, the building as renovated: is one of the best examples ofthe Victorian t AFR. 5.2001 1 1 : 27PM OATES KNEZEVICH GARDENSWARTZ NO.209 P.3 %!1 1, OATES, KNEZEVICH & GARDENSWARTZ, P. C. 0 I ~Irs. Amy Gutherie Historic Prese~vation Officer, City ofAspen *pril 5,209 1 1 Page 2 style and located in a locally designated historic district. The building is in excellent conditions and the exterior alterations have not significantly compromised the Victorian Character of the building. C. Dcf---r -The designer ofthe original building is unknown. D. Neighborhood Character - The building is integral to the Downtown Core Historic District (Hyman Avenue). The building is oneofonly four ironstorefront Commercial Buildings andone ofthe few 3 story Victorian buildings in town, h E, Communitv Character = This buildings as renovated, represents a significant contribution to fhe oommunityoharacter of Aspen. It is critical due to it's location, bistoxical significance and architectural ?imilarity to other historical structures in the core area. Pleasecall withany questions andorcomments youmayhave. Itismyunderstandingthatthismatter rvill bo ontheAgenda for April 11, 2001. Thank you for you cooperation in this matter. 0t j Sincerely, 0 1 OATES, KNEZEVICH & GARDENSWARTZ, P.C. i 4 By John T. Kelly JTK/sbs t i j 0 6/m(P\Amy 9*41,0 401Â·wpd 212_119 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director~>t> FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 629 W. Smuggler- Historic Landmark Designation, Conceptual Development, Partial Demolition- Public Hearing DATE: April 11, 2001 SUMMARY: This property is currently listed on the historic inventory and contains a 19th century house and shed. The proposal involves demolishing a 1950's addition to the house, and a garage built around the same time, and replacing those elements with new construction. Landmark designation is requested because the project as proposed requires several variances. APPLICANT: Steven St. Clair, represented by Mike Hoffman, of Freilich, Myler, Leitner, and Carlisle and Cachi 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. LANDMARK DESIGNATION Any structure or site that meets two (2) or more of the following standards may be designated as "H," Historic Overlay District, and/or historic landmark. It is not the intention of the Historic Preservation Commission to landmark insignificant structures or sites. HPC will focus on those structures which are unique or have some special value to the community, as put forth in the standards. A. Historical importance. The structure or site is a principal or 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: The house is commonly associated with the Marolt family, who have early ties to Aspen. Steve Marolt, whose parents arrived in Aspen in the late 1800's, and his wife Polly, lived at 629 W. Smuggler starting in the 1950's. Staff finds that this criteria is met. B. Architectural importance. Based on the building form, use, or specimen, the structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct, or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a signiJicant or unique architectural type. Staff Finding: This house has numerous features that are typical of 19th century residences in Aspen, such as a decorative front porch, steeply pitched gable roofs, and simple plan. Staff finds this criteria is met. C. Designer. The structure is a sign#icant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Staff Finding: The original designer is unknown, therefore this standard is not met. D. Neighborhood character. The structure or site is a significant component of an historically signijicant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is importantfor the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Staff Finding: The property is located in the West End neighborhood, which has the highest concentration of historic properties of any neighborhood in Aspen. There are numerous 19~1 century homes immediately surrounding 629 W. Smuggler. Staff finds this criteria is met. E. Community character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location, and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Staff Finding: The house is representative of the modest scale, style, and character of homes constructed in the late 1800's, which is Aspen's primary period of historic significance. Staff finds this criteria is met. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds that all ofthe following standards (Section 26.415.010.C.5) are met: a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, massing and volume with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or is adjacent to an historic landmark. For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, exceed the allowed,floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant necessary variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this Section exceed those variations allowed under Section 26.520.040(B)(2), for detached accessory dwelling units, and Staff Finding: The HPC has held two worksessions and a site visit in regard to the redevelopment of this property. Two earlier schemes for an addition have been discussed, and both times the staff and HPC found that the addition was not compatible with the historic home and required restudy. Following the last meeting on February 286, staff provided a summary of the board's concerns to the applicant's representatives. The HPC comments were: 1) There should be clear definition between the old portion of the house and the new addition. This definition should include jogging in the wall plane (on the east and west sides of the building), dropping the ridge height on the new addition, a change in materials, change in window design, change in details, etc. The differentiation can be subtle, but must be clear enough to identify the addition as new construction., 2) The break between the new and old should occur where the historic house ended; that is, where the back of the old house is minus that 50's addition, 3) There was a suggestion that the plate height on the dormer on the new addition should be lowered, 4) The board may be more in favor of seeing a one story connecting piece between the old and new construction, rather than having them butt into each other, 5) There was interest in keeping the garage facing 6th Street instead of the alley, although variances would be required, 6) There was concern that the new garage is too tall and competes with the historic house. A new design has been submitted, and unfortunately, staff finds that many of the same issues remain unresolved, and that the design is moving further away from the objectives stated by the HPC in the meetings and in the design guidelines. There are some very positive aspects to the general concept of this project. There are no alterations proposed to the north, east, and west sides of the house, the aluminum siding will be removed, and the historic foundation is not being disturbed. A historic shed is being preserved along the alley. While these efforts are sincerely appreciated, the following issues from the design guidelines are of concern: 0 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. â€¢ A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. â€¢ An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. â€¢ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. â€¢ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. No as-built elevations of the back of the historic house have been provided. The existing one story addition obscures the ground floor level on the back of the old house, but the new addition covers the entire wall. One of the reasons that that the guidelines promote creating a one story element to link the old and new construction together is to retain as much of the original building as possible. By butting the new addition right into the old house, one's ability to understand the size and character of the original building is diminished and an entire wall of the original house is destroyed. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. â€¢ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. 0 â€¢ Achange in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. â€¢ For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. â€¢ The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. 10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic building. If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar. â€¢ Eave lines on the addition should be similar to those of the historic building or structure. 0 Historically, additions to homes were almost always significantly smaller than the original structure. Because of the modest size of many ofAspen's historic resources and current lifestyle requirements, the exact opposite is often true, and an addition doubles or triples the size of the structure, as is the case with this project. The size of the proposed addition makes it even more important that the massing, roof forms, materials, windows, and all detailing be simple and subordinate in character to the historic resource. This addition creates only a very minimal change in wall planes and connects right into the original eavelines of the historic house, uses a more complicated window style, and is covered with square cut shingles, which staff finds give it more texture and creates a distraction from the detail on the historic house. The roof pitch on the cross gable and on the new garage are not as steep as those on the original house and seem out of character. There are errors on the east and west elevations in the way that a roofline and the chimney are drawn. 8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure. â€¢ Traditionally, a garage was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structure is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This standard is most important when the accessory structure itself is historic, but the comment that accessory uses were usually housed in a detached structure is relevant to the project. In addition, the guidelines favor creating two single stall doors, or at least the appearance of two doors. As proposed, the project needs several variances, all of which can be approved by HPC with landmark designation. (Please be aware that the variances were not a part of the public notice and are not being discussed in detail at this meeting.) Specifically the design requires a rear yard variance for the garage, a combined front and rear yard variance, a west sideyard variance for the garage, a combined east and west sideyards variance, variances from the garage standards of "Residential Design Guidelines" and a floor area variance to allow the garage to face 6th Street, and a variance from the secondary mass standard of "Residential Design Guidelines." Typically, HPC does support variances if they are appropriate and allow for a more successful project in terms of reducing impacts on the historic structure. In reviewing the latest submittal, staff has struggled to determine what recommendation would be appropriate to make to the HPC. We are all striving to create a good review process, and have encouraged worksessions and invested time to write the design guidelines. The HPC has previously stated that this is an important house and all indications from the owner's representatives suggest that he appreciates its significance as well. In staff' s opinion, however, the design is aiming to meet the guidelines in only the most minimal way, particularly in the area where the new and old construction meet. The project is not deserving of variances and bonuses granted for outstanding preservation efforts. The HPC can either continue to try to clarify the issues that have not been understood, or simply make the finding that the review standards are not met. The downside of the first option is that attempting to refine a project that is off the mark almost never has a good result and, in the second option, denying a project can be very discouraging to the property owner. It is staff' s understanding that the architect and the homeowner will be present on April 1 lth. Perhaps an additional conversation as a group may be able to bring everyone to the same understanding ofthe content ofthe design guidelines. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of tile parcel proposedfor development, and Staff Finding: The surrounding neighborhood contains a mix of old and new homes, and a wide variety of architectural styles. The proposal to restore and expand this 19th century structure is consistent with development throughout the area. 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: As designed, the project may detract from the historic significance of the home in that the addition does not allow the modest size and character of the original house to remain clear. 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 project as currently designed does not enhance the architectural character and integrity of the house. The connection between new and old is too large, too much of the rear wall is obscured, and the addition competes with the architecture of the Victorian. PARTIAL DEMOLITION No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all ofthe following standards are met: A. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. Staff Finding: The project includes demolition of a 1950's addition and a garage from the same period. Staff finds that these elements do not have historic significance and demolition is appropriate. 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: Building permits are available to confirm the construction dates on the areas to be demolished. They are almost 50 years old, but staff finds that their age alone does not convey significance and that they have no architectural merit. They do however, provide a good model for how the property should be redeveloped in the sense that the existing addition affects very little of the back of the original house, and the existing garage is detached and located right along the alley, as was true of 19th century outbuildings in the West End. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the project does not meet the design guidelines or the development review standards. The recommendation is to provide clarification to the development team and encourage them to create a more meaningful separation between the addition and the historic house, simplify the materials and window design on the new construction, make the cross gable and garage roof more in keeping with the pitches on the historic house, and study having the new garage be a detached structure. The applicant may wish to have the landmark designation continue through the process. Staff recommends approval of the designation finding that four of the five standards are met. Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated April 11,2001 B. Application . 4.l .1- 1 4 94 1 2 .. L ' PUBLIC NOTICE WEDNESDAY: FEBRUARY DATE 28,2001 r TIME 5:00 P.M. ... - CITY HALL. 130 S. GALENA PLACE ASPEN PURPOSI .RE:QUEST F~RF~ ~TO (DONSIDER CONCEPTUAL DESIGN A *ROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 629 W, SMUGGLER OESCRIBED AS LOTS A&1.,2 OF B. BLOCK DITY AND TOWNSITE CF ASPEN PPLICANT STE'iEN ST CLAIR 0/0 FMLC 106 S. MILL ASPEN . , - 0. Fr#'*tM#41(,4 r N d~IN#.Am& V -=' '4 4 .r.-1:6- 3.4, ./.14 , y :I- P~di# lim#// ium im~~ > ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ 1, 4 ... -* i.-Er- 'â€¢ -- Â·Â· i 2... , . 7 ..4//2.FEr; 842/2.,7. b. N Ul ~ . . :'-':Af, 1 - ttkggic..1221 1, , ty- 4 - 1 -'-1<49.-Â»,flkÂ· 4 4% â€¢ 4- rla 9- 1 . . -70*ViÂ©I>- 53)6:'34- 700.Jk,1712:23*3371.. Â·, Lifi 1,- Â· .-. 21 -0 -~' -: U.Glyâ‚¬ ./ --t-. ' --4 4 LN Â· _ -7<9-04 3. 1 92- Â·i-*-pÂ»-1-07Â°, " -b . 4, A i 1,1 3/0-0 / County of Pitkin ) AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANF=---- 0 ) SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado ) SECTION 26.304.060(E) I, Edward Micheal Hoffman . 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(F) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following manner: 1. By mailing ofnotice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners ofproperty within three hundred (300) feet ofthe subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the 7th day of February , 200 1 (which is 21 days prior to the public hearing date of February 28, 2001 ), 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 9th day of February , 20 01 , to the 28th day of February , 20 01 (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph ofthe posted 0 sign is attached hereto. Signature Signed before me this 26-th day of February 20 01 , by Edward Michael Hoffman (Attach photograph here) WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: 5-21-2003 Notary Public D 0 DEBORAH LYNN MATHIA NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO My Commission Expires 5/21/2'1 Â· j , FEB-06-2001 TUE 03:08 PM FAX NO. P, 02 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 629 W. SMUGGLER STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVTEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public heazing will be held on Wednesday, February 28,200 l at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Steven St. Clair, requesting conceptual design approval for the property located at 629 W. Smuggler Street, which is described as Lots A & M of W, Block 21 City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Fred Jarman at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galcna St., Aspen, CO (970) 920=5102, fredi@ci.aspen.co.us. 5/Suzannah Reid, Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on February 10, 2001 City of Aspen Account g:\planning\aspen\notices 0 0 609 CORPORATION ALBERT GARY & KATHLEEN ARMSTRONG ELIZABETH A COLORADO CORPORATION 725 W SMUGGLER ST 621 W FRANCIS UNIT B aD BOX 1819 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 M~EN, CO 81612 ASPEN GK LLC AULD ROBERT H & CAROL C BASS RAIFIEL I PO BOX 640 PO BOX 186 606 E HYMAN ASPEN, CO 81612 BELMONT, MA 02178 ASPEN, CO 81611 BERUNER ARTHUR S BLANK ROBERT S & NANCY L BELLINA JOSEPH H C/O WALDEN C/O WHITCOMB PARTNERS 1515 POYDRAS ST #2650 750 BATTERY ST #700 110 W 51ST ST ROOM 4310 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70112-3723 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94705 NEW YORK, NY 10020 BROOKS LAURENE B DIGIGLIA LE RAY CORBIN MARCIA A SHERIDAN SUSAN B DIGIGLIA JOHN WILLIAM PO BOX 9312 421 DETROIT ST PO BOX 4305 ASPEN, CO 81612 DENVER, CO 80206 ASPEN, CO 81612 DOREMUS FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP EPOCH ASPEN DEVELOPMENT LLC FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH LLLP 359 CAROLINA AVE 761 W FRANCIS ST 85 GLEN GARRY DR WINTER PARK, FL 32789 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 FOX SAM ~~NN MICHAEL LAWRENCE 50% HALL CHARLES L FOX MARILYN 721 W FRANCIS ST PO BOX 1819 7701 FORSYTH BLVD STE 600 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 CLAYTON, MO 63105 HOFFMAN JOHN L HUGHES GAIL IBBOTSON ANNE B 1035 W 57TH ST 712 W FRANCIS ST 505 N 5TH ST KANSAS CITY, MO 64113 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 1<AFRISSEN ARTHUR & CAROLE F JJDG LLLP KEELTY PATRICK & DONNA C/O CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER 263 E GORE CREEK DR PO BOX 5686 1301 FILBERT ST #1420 VAIL, CO 81657 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107 KRETSCHMAR WILLIAM J REVOCABLE KOEHLER DAVID R TRUST KOVAL BARBARA TRUST TRUST 618 W SMUGGLER ST 555 E DURANT AVE 2415 CASA DE MARBELLA ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-1856 PALM BEACH GARDENS, FL 33410 ;ENKAMP FAMILY REVOCABLE LEWIS TOBY D LOWREY JAMES E JR TRUSTEE â€žâ€ž..JT 1 /2 1390 ENCLAVE PKWY 18930 S WOODLAND RD 633 NORTH ST SHAKER HEIGHTS, OH 44122 HOUSTON, TX 77077-2025 ASPEN, CO 81611 D. t,-J . LRM LIMITED PARTNERSHIP MAC CARTHY LYNDA M MAROLT MAXWELL S Ail DAVIS RD 626 W FRANCIS ST PO BOX 1013 i~*AL GABLES, FL 33143 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 MCCAUSLAND LINDA MCLEAN CHARLES M MCPHERSON DOUGLAS J & SUSAN L PO BOX 1584 PO BOX 11687 PO BOX 4412 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612-9478 ASPEN, CO 81612 MILLER ANN F MULLEN MICHAEL MUSGRAVE MARJORY M 715 W SMUGGLER ST 8411 PRESTON RD STE 730 LB 2 629 W NORTH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS, TX 75225 ASPEN, CO 81611 RATNER DENNIS F RITCHIE ROBERT SAUNDERS ASPEN QPRT TRUST 717 W FRANCIS ST 701 W FRANCIS ST 401 S BOSTON AVE STE 230 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 TULSA, OK 74103 SILVERMAN JACK E SMITH CHRISTOPHER H & LESUE M WEST END 111 PARTNERSHIP LLC 612 W FRANCIS ST 234 WEST HOPKINS AVE 420 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 0 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name St. Clair HPC Development Application 2. Project location 629 W. Smuggler,. Aspen, Tnt A Er West 1/2 of Tnt R, Block 21, Townsite of Aspen (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning R-6 4. Lot size 4,500 ft2 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number Steven St. Clair, The St. Clair CaTpany, 4299 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 107, Newport aparÂ·h,< r'A 92660 Tel. (949) 477-6399 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number E. Michael Hoffman, EMIC, 106 S. Mill Street. Suite 202, Ampent no 81611 (970) 920-1018 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use - Conceptual SPA x Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA X Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin - Final PUD - Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. x Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption x Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review Lot Split/Lot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) There are 3 structiireq on the P.mrrÂ·rtÂ¥-An historic resi (lencp (constructed in approximately 1888) , an hiktoric shed (constructed in approximately 1890) and a non-historic garage. 9. Description of development application This is an application to: (1) demolish a 1959 addition to the historic residence and circa 1955 garage and (2) replace them with new structures, and (3) landmark the historic residence. 10. Have you completed and attached the following? 21 Attachment 1- Land use application form X Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form Items required in Attachment 3 Response to Attachments 4 and 5 llllllll ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant: Steven St. Clair Newport Beach, Address: The St. Clair Company, 4299 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. 107; CA 92660 Zone district: R-6 Lot size: 4,500 ftz Existing FAR: 2,500 (approx) Allowable FAR: 2,820 Proposed FAR: 2,750 (approx) Existing net leasable (commercial): n/a Proposed net leasable (commercial): n/a Existing % of site coverage: Proposed % of site coverage: Existing % of open space: Proposed % of open space: Existing maximum height: Principal bldg: Accesory bldg: Proposed max. height: Principal bldg: Accessory bldg: Proposed % of demolition: None of historic residence, 100% of Addition, Garage Existing number of bedrooms: Proposed number of bedrooms: Existing on-site parking spaces: 0 On-site parking spaces required: Setbacks Existing: Minimum required: Proposed: Front: Front: 10 feet Front: Reac Rear: 10 feet* Reac Combined Combined Combined Front/rear: Front/rear: 30 feet Fronurear: Side: Side: 5 Side: Side: Side: 5 Side: Combined Combine1o Combined Sides: Sides: Sides: Existing nonconformities or encroachments: Garage exists in Alley setback, historic shed encroaches on neighboring parcel. Variations requested: All those required to legalize improvenents. (For landmarks, HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, 0 distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.ft., site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O zone districts) *rear yard for garage (if a portion of principal building equals 5 feet). UCT# . '~ to Souâ„¢ .* I * / 4 '* .Â·â‚¬.- #.1. A 19 el" U, At... LOT -A- AND W 1/2 LOT B *Locg C-~~ ** BLOCK 21 ORIGNAL ASPEN TOWNSITE 8 - SC-LE Â¢. f e WEST 2 4...... 4. e".V, SMUGGLER STREET .OIls 040'. : ...c./ q...... V.. 01 'I,--1$. t... ., ...,6Â·// p,Al ..i â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢I .....D â€¢6 I ...... .'0â€¢f . ./.1/ ./2/1 - .â€¢GÂ·-6 4.-i S..NAE I. J.VÂ·, I. ...ODÂ«r 0. C.,1. CPI .-'ll J. E. ED*01~01/ 00 ...... I.0~4.- '0,1,sor- W -(11 *6 SURÂ¥ti. $ ,i~N~â„¢4 ~c ,5,~ ~, rol,TA,~ #*. -* . '-O, -Â£,iT,04 6'01'llt .0 1Â£4, ./ tO . Â¥â€¢I/6 I. P.6,â€¢rh// â€¢.IM ./ t. p-1,0/ ;~*â€¢ wuct ro (* I Dâ‚¬ S.1, 0, 010.i,Kn .0, 11,1, Â·-*OVE.Ir ..... '14 .Ca~D .M'.. *. JI..*-' .-I - ,0,- loW CilÂ¥ Or â€¢,MI, .*M <0~Â«I â€¢Oâ€¢/.. ON ./ Sout.â‚¬,$,19. .............â€¢i OF .... ..1 Â£ S.......ECT 3 .1 1/*4,-....r.... '4â€¢ 71/ .On.â€¢ Â».Â»0~~. I. F# '. ..... H" .Dâ‚¬ CltÂ¥ 0 4~111 0MDF. *hr Coul~,L .**D 195g I h. Aic,0+0+Il ....*06 n. r.lic. I. 00 ......MI '. 1.+4*. i.â‚¬cr i. 7, 4. rtil UL .1011~U -.-W. 4-â€¢$ 22 li'Z,&:r. *totâ€¢ OÂ» 75 00 yul 1.,S ....TOR .4'Evt. r. ..C.I.. â€ž, 1.Â«,140 ...r $00Â¥1* 1*4 LEâ€¢Grâ€¢ C~ 1*190.. trkEEr UE $1: fo~ * AL,lt.,Â·... MEN *Ue*TED 4 . 00 n. ' .0 .... ...010Â¥ 1.... ...T 00 .. '...... .... to Oltâ€¢:â€¢ . Wâ€¢ 0â€¢TICDâ€¢dmâ€¢1â€¢IG ..1Â®'~1 $/ GE~. '0~: rtaâ€¢ e-â€¢CÂ·Tâ€¢ 3'. MidÂ° W..11 .6 *09 .1. ../.'011 01 - .1L1. 00 ..,CE '.Ii... t.. .Ropoli f. .Câ€¢.%* /* a -St unlinin 00 ncililit; /* 011:us i. 2 4 /0 klt=*4 A"*Ch'â€¢/ a...$ 6 â„¢it .010!â€¢ ..............'.. COLOD.........4. *â€¢S ='- 0.000 t~-â€¢CE "OGLaâ€¢ 'LOOÂ® 1â€¢1,~â€¢~E â€¢â€¢. -P WED I .â„¢I. 14 20. 'I' 02 - 1....... .4 500Â· ...00Â© â€¢[ Al. A~ 4 Â¢~Â· coâ€¢~Ull tâ€¢Â·P*.41. 1al~' 0,0,~ Co ,@, Â¢ >.â€ž00â€ž1,1. *10 011 t~ Cut..L, 0.0~*TY houl-@T f...0â€ž.... ' W. l. .....ITS ON ..........Â¥ Il e.k~Â£ ./ ~00*~~tâ€¢./.E ./. ~41.4 â€¢Â¢.â€¢ .......ts i T , I. C.U...St' â€¢ECOAD .IEAK> #09 .4 Will US .. . +I 8 ilit t..., ocli lot .......4 4 fil.. SE.C. 8. $6*.,â€¢08 i. e.-Em/l. â€¢gr--1 â€¢ItM <CLORA~ AE,1116 lt*SUIE; Â»Â·SiÂ·*08 - -aE, ,r . e.'...1.0 ..........40 ....a" t.c:he... '10. ....O ....$ MertÂ©â€¢* A~ 60*12 ~CLICÂ· "410-1, 9 4 *tâ€¢11 eAID . ~efE.Sloilk - -â€¢i" trâ€¢|*I~9,h â€¢*,At,â€¢4 TO t. DEDÂ«li. 0~ '4{lers - â€¢10)â€¢TÂ·of .- I .tw. "r f. '16*4Â¥ pLA,5 11â‚¬ Ntd #/U-/1~â€¢I .t.. 6'1' â€¢* .4 ~-ER MI * rfD #* . * 00 A *, - SD 400% W uirÂ·'... 2 - Â·Â· 1 ; 3 iii i ; : - i 1 1 1 N A 44 . li 35 â€¢mEâ€¢= i aai,i,e.I L - WDa I ==- 1- 1/ '. # CF 4#* . ./. 0 6 .t-# ./0, co.â€¢8~ '-T .14 '-0,1..r 'llt .... i./f,E,0 10/$ . I '71'.P.47/4 .-*W. ...4- .0 01.,â€¢A i.r -uV,-wâ€¢*c., ro, .*:'LO .i, _. 0~, 4 - 20.. I' _. _0 . 4... $-tÂ¥ . W /~0.1 Wt<'ile Pâ€¢OM*-â€¢ -hE *Â¥ â€¢YUL# . LIÂ®*4 *r GÂ·â€¢U2 4.......C C.*:i"e." - ~00.......... MT 41 1â€¢1 -I. .4& .:.1,1.... 100Â» _.- I. bÂ« P "1~ '.C-" LA.4 4~â€¢t, â€¢1*'t":- Câ€¢+~4, k~~t,1 AT Pel . TO - .10 0, . â€¢.0.LEDâ€¢01 Illctel , r.11 -4 .., 00 -0, D )1 4'Ni'* - 9, 44 Â·No '44 0 I .,I. *. ALLEY BLOCK 21 EE.*= 3.3*EJEBEEE 12,W~At:.'~=19= 8 8 - a :,S,f SIXTH STREET .... .Col., '00 00 4.....+ 1 T p 1 2 LAWOFFICES FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS IN KANSAS CrrY. MISSOURI , ASPEN COLORADO 106 SOUTH MILL STREET FREILICH. LEITNER & CARLISLE ATTORNEYS AT LAW DAVID J MYLER. P.C. ' SUITE 202 ATTORNEYS AT LAW E. MICHAEL HOFFMAN Â· ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ADMnrED IN COL ROBERT H. FREILICH, P.C 14 MARTIN L. LEITNER. P.C. FACSIMILE RICHARD G. CARLISLE. P.C. (970) 920-4259 STEPHEN J. MOORE, PC ~ S. MARK WHITE . TELEPHONE KYLE E. FOOTE 2 (970) 920-1018 glrTTED IN Mol CA'. Nr. NC ' CERTIFIED LAND USE PLANNERS MICHAEL J. LAUER, AICP JENNIFER K. BARRETT, AICP KIM S. BROPHY, AICP January 2,2001 Mr. Fred Jarman Aspen/Pitkin Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Supplemental Application Material - 629 W. Smuggler Dear Fred: On December 20,2000, I submitted to you an application from Maxwell Marolt and Steven St. Clair (collectively, "the Applicant") which included the materials required by your Pre-Application Conference Summary for HPC Significant Development Conceptual and Final Approval for the property located at 629 W. Smuggler in Aspen (the "Property"). This correspondence supplements the information included in my December 20 submission by providing a written explanation ofhow the application meets the review standards relevant to the application. My earlier correspondence summarized the Applicant's plans for the Property: As mentioned at length to staff and the HPC at the Work Session carried out late in October, the proposalis to remove the circa-1958 addition to thehome andto replace it with a larger addition as described inthe drawing andthe floorplans submitted with this correspondence. The Applicant also wishes to demolish the existing garage and construct a replacement which better contributes to the historic character ofthe home and the shed. The new garage will be built within the property boundary. The second floor of the new garage will house a bedroom as described in the floor plan. No other changes are planned. The sections ofthe Aspen Land Use Code ("Code") which are reprinted below provide the review standards relevant to the HPC's consideration ofthis application. Our responses to those standards FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE Fred Jarman January 2,2001 Page 2 follow each of the italicized quotations from the Code, all of which are found within Section 26.415.010. 1. Partial Demolition. On a macro scale, the Applicant wishes to remove a 1959 addition to the original structure, which was itselfconstructed in approximately 1888. Forthatreason, the partial demolition standards ofthe Code are of relevance to this Application. E. Demolition, partial demolition, off-site relocation, on-site relocation, or temporary relocation. ... 6. Standards for review ofpartial demolition. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commissionfinds 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, and Neither the 1959 addition nor the existing garage on the Property contribute to the historic significance of the original Victorian. The garage is not listed on the Inventory of Historic Structures. An historic shed, which is located behind the garage is on the Inventory and will be preserved under the proposed development plan. A copy of the original Application for Building Permit and the permit itself are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 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 None ofthe original or significant features ofthe 1888 Victorian or ofthe historic shed will be removed or demolished by the proposed improvement of the Property. (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. , FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE 0 Fred Jarman January 2,2001 Page 3 As shown in the artists rendering ofthe proposed development, the addition to the Victorian home is compatible in mass and scale with the original. The Applicant's architects have closely followed the Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines andthe comments ofthe HPC received on October 29,2000. For example, windows on the proposed addition are spare and consistent with the originals. The original structure will be set offfrom the addition by vertical siding, thereby clarifying in the minds of observers that the addition is different than the original. The architecture of the proposed garage is more compatible with the Victorian style than is the current structure. 2. Significant Development. The Code also requires the HPC to evaluate the Applicant's proposal against the Significant Development review standards. They are set forth below. C. Significant development. 5. Review standards. No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commissionfinds that all of the following standards are met: a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, massing andvolumewith designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development onadjacentparcels 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 jloor 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 neighborhoodthan 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, Section 26.520.040(B)(21 for detached accessory dwelling units, and As discussed above, the proposed development is consistent with the historic structures located on the Property. The proposal is also consistent with the neighborhood. No variance is required to maintain the garage within the side yard set back, as it exists there as a non-conformity. The lot itself exists as a nonconformity FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE 0 Fred Jarman January 2, 2001 Page 4 as a minimum of 6,000 square feet is required for an improved lot within the R.-6 zone district, and this property consists ofjust one and a halftownsite lots, or 4,500 square feet. The new garage will no longer encroach upon the alley or Sixth Street public rights of way and it will be somewhat smaller than the existing structure. A floor area bonus will only be awarded to projects which in the opinion of the HPC make an "outstanding preservation ejfort." Examples to be considered would include the retention of historic outbuildings or the creation ofbreezeway 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 consideredfor the bonus. No development applicationwhich 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 quali* for the floor area bonus, and No floor area bonus is being requested. b. Theproposeddevelopmentreflects andis consistentwith thecharacter ofthe neighborhood of the parcel proposedfor development, and The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and the existing development located on the parcel. Please see the discussion found in the Partial Demolition Section, above. 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 The Applicant's design is intended to honor the historical significance ofthe original Victorian and shed located on the Property. The visual separation created by the vertical element located between the new addition and the historic structure will preserve the symmetry of the original Victorian and its placement on the lot. The proposed addition has been designed to complement the simple architecture of the existing development and to maintain the unassuming character of the home. d. Theproposed developmentenhances ordoes not diminishordetractfromthe architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. I . FREILICH, MYLER. LEITNER & CARLISLE Fred Jarman January 2,2001 Page 5 The Applicant's architects have paid careful attention to the Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines in designing the replacement addition to the original Victorian and the proposed garage. The vertical element between the historic structure and the addition will identify the original building and preserve its separate identity. There will be no changes made to the historic shed. Please let me know if you need additional information to process this request. Thanks for your assistance. Sincerely, FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE f *i_f ~- E. Michael Hoffman CC: Steven St. Clair Exhibit,A z,Page 1 - -Ill...- \00 - ffils - .,---40 Estimated Cost S Date Filed ----~--------Z~-11-=:.1__ ___ Building Fee S 4- LA APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT TO BUILDING DEPARTMENT, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Permission is hereby requested to perform and do the work. repairs. construction, alteration or development described as follows: Location by Street No. and Lot and Block No. 6 1 7 All Â· -~L.M...6Â·/..4' 1//.54/ / 0 Zoning Classification: 14'. . Fire District: Occupancy 1 0Â©Lu,i.4/ U Name and address of owner <A-,O..U_â‚¬.1-9 16 fAAA..2/' Â· Cl Name and addres& of contractor, architect or builder 62 0,4 2,Â·R- 1% :,0 Q W O A .6 O 0 Estimated Cost 4 9,0 ers - Type Construction -34/Â£NAÂ»-2- Intended use and purpose (LiÂ£Ft-3Le. A~f A~%4. A....1 k=ti. 4- Gli,3- Number living units No. Rooms 5- Height 4 '- 3>g.,tr Width i c, C Length 1 -7 i Sq. Feet 43i Distance from lot lines N- ; S- : E- ; W- , i . Distance from finished grade to bottom of footings S Size of footings 5/rll l â‚¬ 4 Thickness of Foundation Walls â‚¬ f U AJOC RE_ Thickness of Ist story walls CS Thickness of 2nd story walls Curb-cut (Width and location) 9 b Al D- Alley bond: 0 0 Al -4 Style and pitch of roof C A-'b L F. tb < i - Joists, floor supports and rafters: (Give size, distance apart, and materials:) First Floor 9 Â· b< 4 - (G ' 0 .(S. . US / p r.4- 4 1 6 73 B 9.- AA ~t- 12, STS Second Floor Uo Rafters -Lit - IAK O, C, FIoor Supports -E D--A- A (24- -p O 93- S ' Additional paticulars and remarks: (If above data is inapplicable, describe in detail here the work or construe. tion contemplated.) This applicaUon is made with the specific understanding that it is subject to suspension or revocation for failure to comply with the terms and conditions Of any) upon which it is approved; for unauthorized deviation from the terms of the application or laws of Colorado. Applicant hereby warrants that he is authorized to make this application and agrees that the same shall be binding upon.the owner, the applicant, their agents, heirs and assigns. All documents attached hereto are incorporated by reference and made a part hereof. Applicant agrees to notify the Building Inspector at least 24 hours in advance for inspection of footings, foundation, frame, lath, and roof; such inspections to be approved in writing before pro- ceeding further. The Building Inspector, or his agent or representative, is authorized to inspect the premises. 9/ Exhibit A - Page 2 City of Aspen, C .orado N? 297 BUILDING PERMIT =/ 000% O.2- ESTIMATED COST $ /,; DATE 0/5 262% 0 PERMISSION IS TTEREBY 61:l. A N'T'En .~A *,r.*24 ~1~~#, TO ( .4,-07 4 / STORY (a-/Flit:,2.1 -Â£ ON TinT ( Ek Z m,ocr 9. / , AnnT,row TL---22 .. 7.ANE. ~-- ( FIRE nâ„¢T. 2.1-,- 4 OCCUP ANCY A DnRESUR J. 9 -2- S TYPE OF CONSTR.UCTTON , STZE -1 0 -1.- 4,9 t NUMBER LIVING TTNTTS / NO. R noM.q 9- ~U-4 -3 Mit STYLE OF ROON' ROOFTNG MATERTAT \ ARCITTTECT (1(# CLQ 6 &29..Q, 4- R.K N.â€¢w'juâ„¢Â¥SS. 6,4=-.3 3 th,th 4 CONTRACTOR AnnRESS K. â€¢ -775 0,06/4 Le**m E-l.J 7. CÂ»23-j~ alCLQ J,Lt- X4~~_. .3 ci-1 01Â»- A. 4- 14 9>1&1Â£--a_04 City Clerk 1Â· :.0. 4 4 LAW OFFICES FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS IN KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI ASPEN COLORADO 106 SouTH Mni STREET FREILICH. LEITNER & CARLISLE DAVID J. MYLER. PC. ' SUITE 202 ATTORNEYS AT LAW E. MICHAEL HOFFMAN' ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 .Mn'TED IN CO' ROBERT H FREILICH. PC. MARTIN L. LEITNER. P.C FACSIMILE RICHARD G. CARLISLE, P.C. 2 (970) 920-4259 STEPHEN J. MOORE P C. S. MARK WHITE 1' TELEPHONE KYLE E. FOOTE 2 (970) 920-1018 #1*trITED IN Mei C.V. NY'. NC ' CERTIFIED LAND USE PLANNERS MICHAELE. LAUER, AICP JENNIFER K. BARRETT, AICP KIM S. BROPHY. AICP March 29,2001 Mrs. Amy Guthrie Aspen/Pitkin Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Historic Landmark Designation for 629 W. Smuggler Dear AIny: Pursuant to our discussion and the City ofAspen Pre-Application Conference Summary held earlier in the year, I have either attached or previously provided the following information for your use (and that of the HPC, Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council) in evaluating the request of Steve St. Clair to have the historic structures located at 629 W. Smuggler designated as historic landmarks under the City of Aspen Land Use Code. 1. Proofof Ownership, inthe form ofa Title Insurance Policy ofPitkin County Title, Case No. PCT 15591. (Attached herewith) 2. Signed Fee Agreement, signed by me on behalf of Mr. St. Clair. (Previously provided.) 3. Authorization letter from Mr. St. Clair allowing the processing ofthe application. (Attached herewith.) 4. Street address and legal description ofparcel (See No. 1, the Pitkin County Title title policy.) 5. Check No. 2156 ofthe Steven T. St. Clair Trust inthe amount of $2,480, covering the entire deposit required by the Pre-App Summary. (Previously supplied.) 06 A vicinity map. (Previously Supplied and resubmitted herewith.) FREILICIC MYLER. LEITNER & CARLISLE ~ Amy Guthde March 29,2001 Page 2 7. The current landmark designation request is brought in conjunction with Mr. St. Clair's request to construct an addition to the historic structure. Anyone interested in that application should review the HPC's files, or in the alternative, contact the undersigned for copies of the application. 8. Please see Exhibit A, attached hereto, for Mr. St. Clair's response to the landmark designation criteria and a description of the historical background information which is available on the historic residence. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNE~ & CARLISLE rA~â‚¬Â«-- E. Michael Hoffman ec: Steven St. Clair 0 . Mrs. Amy Guthrie Exhibit A - Page 1 March 29, 2001 EXHIBIT A Description of Historic Structures According to a Community Development memorandum dated September 28, 1987, the historic residence was constructed "around 1886 in its present location; distinctive Victorian features include gingerbread on the porches, vertical sash windows and gable end shingles; and the house contributes to the historic character of the neighborhood." The 1893 Bird's Eye View of Aspen reflects the existence of the residence, as well as a small shed which is stilllocated at the southeast corner of the lot. (A copy of the Bird's Eye View is attached hereto as Exhibit B.) The memorandum extensively quotes Stephen Marolt, who had lived in theresidence from 1937 until the time ofhis death. Mr. Marolt installed indoorplumbing and electrical wiring in the 1930s. Much of the interior improvements were entirely replaced when he and his wife first bought the property. Mr. Marolt told City staffthat children in the neighborhood once believed the house to be haunted by the ghost of an early resident who had committed suicide in the home. The garage located on the property is not historic. It, and a 500 square foot addition to the residence, were built during the mid- to late 1950s. A Colorado Cultural Resource Inventory Survey Architectural Inventory Form (the "2000 Survey Form") completed by Suzannah Reid and Patrick Duffield ofReid Architecture described the residence as "representative of Aspen's mining era character. The building represents the type of structure a middle class family might have owned at the time. It is indicative of the evolution ofthe mining camp into a broader based community."' The form also described the "structure [as] significant for its position in the context ofAspen's mining era. It describes the nature ofthe life of an average family or individual during that period, as well as the construction techniques, materials available and the fashion of the time."2 The form concluded that the structure was eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Structures.3 A copy of the 2000 Survey Form is attached to this application as Exhibit C. Response to Landmark Designation Criteria The italicized language found below is the Landmark Designation Criteria from the Aspen Land Use Code. Our response to each policy issue is set forth below the applicable language. Any structure or site that meets two (2) or more of the following standards may be designated as " H, " Historic Overlay District, and/or historic landmark. It is not the intention of the HPC to landmark insignificant structures or sites. HPC will focus on those which are unique or have some ' 2000 Survey Form, 9 35, page 3. 2 Id., 1[ 42, page 3. 3 Id, 1[ 44, page 3. NIrs. Amy Guthrie Exhibit A - Page 2 March 29,2001 special value to the community. A. Historical importance. The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. As mentioned in the 2000 Inventory Form, the historic residence is commonly identified as a "middle class home" ofthe Victorian era. Those structures were built and utilized during the heyday of Aspen's silver mining boom. That era was significant as the time of the first white settlement of the Aspen area; a time in which the population swelled to over 10,000 people. 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 ofunique architectural Ope. The historic residence is an excellent example of simple, efficient Victorian architecture. The detailing onthe building, especially the gingerbread over the door, makes the structure a good example ofsuch architecture. Victorian architecture wasutilized extensively inthe mid-1880s to 1893. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character ofAspen. Not applicable, to Mr. St. Clair's knowledge. 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 important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Aspen's West End is well known for its fine examples ofVictorian architecture. Although some ofthe old structures have been demolished over the past 50 years, many ofthese homes still exist in the area. It is important that the structure be maintained as a means of preserving as much ofthat history as possible. 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 ofhistorical or architectural importance. Artifacts of the silver mining boom are cherished by Aspen locals and visitors alike. As Aspen's newer neighborhoods are overwhelmed by large"hunting lodge style" mega-homes, it is important to preserve authentic examples ofthe homes used by working people during Aspen's first historical epoch. The modest size of the original structure, its location in one Mrs. Amy Guthrie Exhibit A - Page 3 0 March 29,2001 ofthe City's original residential neighborhoods andits well-preserved Victorian architecture all support the home's continuing importance to the area's heritage. 0 0 '.'- Exhibit A OAHP1403 Official eligibility determination Rev. 9/98 (OAHP use only) Date Initials COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Determined Eligible- NR Detennined Not Eligible- NR Determined Eligible- SR Architectural Inventory Form Determined Not Eligible- SR (page 1 of 4) Need Data Contributes to eligible NR District Noncontributing to eligible NR District 1. IDENTIFICATION 1. Resource number: 5PT.280 2. Temporary resource number: 629.WSM (629.WS) 3. County: Pitkin 4. City: Asoen 5. Historic building name: 6. Current building name: 7. Building address: 629 West Smuqqler Street. Aspen Colorado 81611 8. Owner name and address: Maxwell S. Marolt PO Box 1013 Aspen. CO 81612 11. Geographic Information 9. P.M. 6 Township 10 South Range 85 West SW lA of NE 1/4 of NW M of SE 1,4 of Section 12 10. UTM reference Zone 1 3; 3 4 2 1 6 5mE 4 3 3 9 9 2 5 mN 11. USGS quad name: Aspen Quadranale Year: 1960, Photo Rev. 1987 Map scale: 7.5' X 15' Attach photo copy of appropriate map section. 12. Lot(s): A & West 1 /2 of B Block: 21 Addition: Year of Addition: 13. Boundary Description and Justification: Site is comprised.of Lot A & West 1/2 of Lot B. Block 21 of the Citv and Townsite of Asnen. Assessors office Record Number: 2735-124-09-001 This descriotion was chosen as the most specific and customarv description of the site. 111. Architectural Description 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Rectangular 15. Dimensions in feet: Length x Width 16. Number ofstories: One and 1/2 storv 17. Primary external wall material(s) (enter no more than two): Metal: Aluminum 18. Roof configuration: (enter no more than one): Fr6nt Gable Roof 19. Primary external roof material (enter no more than one): Asphalt Roof 20. Special features (enter all that apply): Porch, Chimnev .. Resource Number: 5PT.280 Temporary Resource Number: 629.WSM 0 Architectural Inventory Form (page 2 of 2) 21. General architectural description: A one and 1/2 story rectanaular wood frame structure, on a cut stone foundation with red mortar beaded ioint. The cable end faces the street with a slightly asvmmetrical arrangement of verticallv Droportioned double hung windows and a small Drolectina porch. A pair of double hunas sits in a scalloped shinqle field under the cable end, the flat roof Dorch sits below and to the right. Two double hunas are set to either side of the Dorch. The porch has turned posts, and openwork brackets and frieze. Low rails with similar detailina infill between the wall and the posts. A door with transom sits on the main wall plane. A shallow bav with a lame double hung. brackets and beaded trim, and similar porch are located on the west side. A corbelled brick chimnev sits on Â·the ridge. A larae cable dormer faces the west, with scalloped shinales in the clable end. Windows are intact with wood storms. A CMU chimnev sits on the southeast corner. 22. Architectural style/building type: Late Victorian 23. Landscaping or special setting features: Very larae mature spruce at comer of 6th & Smucaler. Original stone step at front entry porch. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: Two outbuildinas: One west facing clable aaraae, and one smaller shed, appears on Sanborn Map. IV. Architectural History 25. Date of Construction: Estimate 1890's Actual Source of information: Based on buildina stvle 26. Architect: Unknown Source of information: 27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown Source of information: 28. Original owner: Unknown Source of information: 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): Aluminum sidina was installed on the main level walls, date unknown. One story low pitch qable addition w/ chimnev, at rear, dates unknown. All pre 1980 30. Original location X Moved Date of move(s): V. Historical Associations 31. Original use(s): Domestic 32. Intermediate use(s): ,â€žIA 33. Current use(s): Domestic |~ 34. Site type(s): Residential Neighborhood Rbsource Number: 5PT.280 Temporary Resource Number: 629.WSM Architectural Inventory Form (page 3 of 3) 35. Historical background: This structure is reoresentative of Asoen's minina era character. The buildina represents the tvoe of structure a middle class familv might have owned at the time. It is indicative of the evolution of the mining camp into a broader based community. 36. Sources of information: Pitkin County Courthouse records; Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maos; 1990 and 1980 Citv of Aspen Survev of Historic Sites and Structures VI. Significance 37. Local landmark designation: Yes No X Date of designation: Designating authority: 38. Applicable National Register Criteria: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; X C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual) Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria 39. Area(s) of significance: Architecture 40. Period of significance: Late 1800's Silver Minina Era 41. Level of significance: National State Local X 42. Statement of significance: This structure is sianificant for its position in the context of Asoen's mining era. It describes the nature of the life of an averaae familv or individual durina that Deriod. as well as the construction techniaues. materials available and the fashion of the time. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: Structure is intact with the exception of the inanprooriate sidina. Oriainal form. scale, and pattern are intact. as well as much of the detailing. VII. National Register Eligibility Assessment 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Eligible X Not Eligible Need Data 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes No X Discuss: If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing Noncontributing 46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it: Contributing Noncontributing -. Â·Rosource Number: 5PT.280 Temporary Resource Number: 629.WSM 0 Architectural Inventory Form (page 4 of 4) Vlll. Recording Information 47. Photograph numbers: R9: F7.8 Negatives filed at: Aspen/Pitkin Communitv Development Dept. 48. Report title: Citv of Aspen Update of Survey of Historic Sites and Structures, 2000 49. Date(s): 6/29/2000 50. Recorder(s): Suzannah Reid and Patrick Duffield 51. Organization: Reid Architects 52. Address: 412 North Mill Street. PO Box 1303, Aspen CO 81612 53. Phone number(s): 970 920 9225 NOTE: Please attach a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad. map indicating resource location, and photographs. Colorado Historical Society - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395 0 0 . I ...7, 4. 1. Â·'1Â¢ .4,Â·'. 0 + 68 4 4, NUY':f. . .1.4. '1"iÂ·'fÂ·,B , 44.2 , ~ jitl~~~; 91*~ ~4 3 r Â· ,~ 4 ' . ~'(FlvT : 4. ~i,'imji; t~i~.... '~'1 f b :#,R L , .~. I:. Q ~ pM34 A T ~:~ :y .6 9: Â· ' .9 .5 ,Â· 1"4~ 5 Â·It , ~24, 4 1 4:3%2 . 74%,ely I. I. ' '4 44â€¢ P .1 >I..* " 43'~~*~i ~ ,/ ,Â· - $% r .,4*6' tÂ¢14; ; , Qd, â€¢1 V :t'R' 1 JA 042 4,4 9 . 1~,~ , 4 / 4. 2 Â¥ VLd. â€¢ r .:1923 gl'.414/*' , j 4 4&Â· to,:0$90* , ' ///-, 4.4 , ':lf, .:,2 :4. .1,1 . - ' H $ ' 46'. 4 f 9miQ 4. . '4' b 4, b. d .1 , v . 9#(f . 4 . 91% %4 - 3 + , 4, ly . . A. I .1 , 5 - J ,.8 tr 'g d N g. 1 , '0 1 , Â·''et , .,glit . . S r lo/,4 '134 1 1, 4/1 ' 4, 6% -4 L . . 1 461 ", rÂ·i ;Â¢2; ~ â‚¬,; . ;, 2 0 ' 1, 4121 9 64*/14 0' Â· ' . I. .:.':he 31 wrifAÂ¢#ANÂ». IDAW =*. :Â¥ L ' 9/*#ti ' + ,_:4.~ ..;A 1 ,;.;4.' enÂ· .<~Ap'Eglix 4 6 1, A , 5Â¥46'. ' trÂ· 43 , ~ Â¥(me?A:Â·A .. ...9,31.... A â‚¬ 1 4, A '44 4,4 '.1. 9 -/6 1 -2. e. 01 , M.1,â€¢.1-,,n.0.1 - Â· 74. R.44* 461' . ,+QÂ·. il, p .: .: Â·t'.4 "1 , %6'., P- 1 , 1 /,4-Y-~1*JIA . 0, 74, .' 1, Â£,8 2 '93, <â€¢ . - 'i2i 15 Â· )44 + ' -.t# '- '4 5 1 4 4â€¢ 3 4 1 4 14 / '. 1.eis , /4 .2.,19~ . L i I. I. Â»-9 4, A,: 7+*91 - ,/LM' : -4174, Vâ€¢ At, ~t ~*4 44: , E.ik P./ -A '' ./;;' ',4 . $ 4%/4..'/., 2.. if ' illf ?2 k?,4 3*.4. 0'86 n.' i I. 9. 4%41 1% 12'*t. 9 4494,#LÂ·t, '' 9 ~3 . 11 ret . W. ' Â·6%0Â·,a . - *.,1 4 1 41 >, . . 097*1Â¥ i;~ '''Ack'uFf#~, , , 16" esctisgy#,29; '4.1,099*~bil 844/ 'n -, '1 *, 1 Â· Ft '* 0, r,93'Â·.4 t.9/ac iÂ¥1,# 13*9 Â·18 ' s 4,4 ''. dt''it 1 4?j,-.2 , 4t.~ ,~4 1~Â£4,4 1-1 r %. -44 t I ... .==- .,. .. 11 ' - '..5 1:*4*42~4~ \ â€¢ â€¢- â€¢ 4 It Ill;, 4 1 ff 7'. . ..r V. a 1 I It . '5 YA. .,Er t-D,- +T 4. 4 #t .* . E . -I ' . - 4.1,1 I . -2.. a //Ve/2 L â€¢'' â€¢ VE y 'P V.. p ' 4.1 -T. A .- %.4 -=-fc 22 Arâ‚¬ - ~ Â»72>iyel~:1/ .. , a â€ž 4,1 't, 0 -, .t: f .1 1 - 4 , t,%. . 1 1-f~liu jift:~t .4"A Myâ€¢ f'17 . c k.4 :;, f , %: 1 1 - 4,14 ' A j... . A , .,1, I . 4 .,1 Ki 't .7, Â· 'Â· rt'S,â€¢h k.* te * 1 4. re 7 4 42,. .+ 4:~4~ 4. Â·:Â· 4Â·:P/- : Â·.- ~451 0,1 '0/1 / 1 1. '. ... -9.r , Â·Â·ocr,lar. i Â·e'â€¢':â€¢> Cpk '*6 r. 4 ~*#. * f Â·eÂ·:2 ', ..,~14 I 4{ , 1..i, t - .....mm . : 90 4, ..1.... ,- 1% 0, 0..0., Â· , I .., I'./ 9,!Id Â· -,4 44*,Al* ,4 2,- ;7Â· Â£ , , 1.- A 4 1. .*6- 12& : 1'4 321&' FI 'Â·'1 . 14' 4 Â¢ e :- ..NED,0 ' ,~. -p tÂ·%2 '~ 19' 3 Â£ '2Â¢~,11 k. 7,TPOIJ +2 *4*6 Jum . 9 :., / Ly' Nl Y - Ct' ... .2 4 1- 2,~IK'./1 ~.5 2 4 4 1 .4 .. 9~.- 1 , ... , - . p., 4 1.19 '11*,t 3.11 1,1,41 f /41 1 4 , 11 2 ./ #1 , -Ah,1 -r'. vÂ·-41+30/ 'glib.'4; ~. i. .. 2. /1. : .. ,~,~Â»~,~~ 0,~~~#3Â»~:_3*yv 4, 77, 14'11* th.,F-,40612Â£~Â· i .Â· -d .4Â·EMI 9*aC~-ilimp A. Â¥'Â»2- d - ibl, :ek jit 14/JC; S ' ~923<,9/4:/ i . -' 4 1 . 4~0~ilIRÂ· * * 6+.c.'2-~ * *#3~,* *M.%*TL~ *, s, Â·0 '*#Ar*I#â‚¬: 4.-- ,44,#F//49.l ff '24,14 4*weli, 1 9 3, k.. . 41.4*. ... 4 T 7 ?, . 'l'. ,;414~~%~liAL 18 3*li~~0 0 1*ea::, 4471.6 f '9,4 ri, 1=.1 ./ . 4-*2-11, -t-0:**t* 4et=.an,L~F~EL.~~. < litÂ¥Â·4; I,T ** *Lf.> * â‚¬ 4, fi- 2.11Â¥ A Â¥ .- Â·~~-Â·~Â· ,~~~t0,-i.,t>Â¢i~%Â·~R~ z~~,Liâ€žmaâ€žâ€žâ€žâ€ž1~,:e+~if ~.;51 * â‚¬60~~tf> 4 >Aif,AY4~ 4FR~ 1 ~1 JN . :-Kift* 9 .: 1..... S~ 9 . 2*tr. s k -1 '142'k ./ -44 2:44. 1.21 1/2&/4-:Irt . Le r. - ff/*A.#' Fjj 'la, 4 /4 W//~~ 2 .~~' 4) - . 44 EI Â· .~ 06 JÂ· 'â€¢,1 â€ž 9%Â£ 1 -, , *â‚¬;r.>hi , &97 ' qÂ·~ 4/1--- 9 b< 0,% 1 .*91:(Ifigg"~fj&43~~~~/#Pr#Z*W W/: â‚¬ -I *20.A .01'Ent N . ,, , ift 4-,m . D. ' 9,~.'Â·<l '~fl~i,< â€ž <i-,,4 7 1 '0., ~~ Â·Al-b 19,Â· 0 4 d 'f 4-7 2, ..4Â¥ Icq, 2 ..:, 4.%41./,1.,BW~fity;jÂ¢*4*t,!FNA~*fitwi ,~ A, 1â€¢ 0 , A I . .M/. 74 ./ '- , ?:1.#T a Me'.4 409 ' - , .1 M. 4 * * 1Â·'.14/I'leszv/#Al#b'Â·0,1 VA 4%3 4 4 56, 4.t,Ir,F 4.-11. , 1,- -tlhÂ¥. - I .4,1 . '. . . L...,4 4 . AU < .1[ cvT * 4% , 1. *ilÂ·wf 2. f*.-~F14~:E.,9)2Kf~ r 4*Â» y'.1 1.9,0 4; Ar.. 1 ' A ..pt ,--5 1. .8 ...7- - -41 "4/1 '2\ 4 ". , i * - ..1 ..4Â¥'. - 79 .1.r'*ZI*t~'*-<4~'f ,â€ž4*W+*ti tif-~~ 4~ ,~4 C'**ft.E.. A:112( '4*.6 '*26/i 'Â·0,rE'fÂ¥E '1 %- f.*-Y:,%3 ''~*f' , 4, Wr ' re,ty R.144'Â·*'32':JiffÂ»,jp: ,â€ž *fift,1,41,4 " 66,2,Â·t:,0%* f f<4 1 ., 1 W ./ 71., .Abit f* t, 14. 0.**.f*t#j ' pv224%*%:,Â· 7.. #,Rk.~.1'141,:",*YE~ . 2 2<u,t? -* â€¢ 10 4 '1'.Mi 1 . I 0.4.1 ..r,F . 1-11,0, 5 f :, FAMNA#- .. ..1,r~-44'4 W 1 4; til, 114(*ej,< c ~ ..i~~4 44;4;44144:*2 4;4*1- .4<tfA :-11 :Â·Â·- 44&~~ * 1 29 z r r#~.~4;5 . M.Tilw 7191@11?9**f*?25342* ..i . 4*11 . t'4114.D...,. . 4&-1::U.irzrk tt Â¥AIGâ€¢ f# :; Ii': 1 /,p.44 4 -I ' " I , 4 4 ., .21 ./t JAZVIWT*,,4,44 '41 ji,9~142*.,~.LA.â€ž;AG>' ' 9.frfigo)21Â·:,4.3~,FA~~~~'~4'~,~1. .,546,I. * . ky,0 , P ' I : /2 ./*7'MA,4-/,2..k ' tr - â€¢1 Nt,â€¢Wh,Vb0 3.' 1,1 * 0.49 A 11)7â‚¬40 a 41'7 9 -- . .4..1 -ef# 2 . 4 11. f<[.Â· ~., Li~Ii;Tz,4493 . h. -,3 A . ' A jfilf#.ritil. .2t,-. 4, ,...v ,~.J *,p/ Â»Â· 9, , t.. f;, , 1, 4/H, 91 0 }AB- 1 â€¢ _._II. 0 . ""Y t., . - ,.47.1, 4 -- ./ -* ...,t'.,r f J , 4. .,1 40'., ..: 2 e .e, -'. - 'pi~ "1/*. . 4.* , e ltv 1, 6. 4,1 * 1 6 1Ly#+('' 40-'r .. 3 .0 .1 ,1 - 4,41 *. , 94c_ LATEA . ler , I 64 . -. 2 741Â· 'A , 0.1 1.V e .1 . I .4 =P Â¢ te ., Â» - .. I Â·, r:â‚¬ 'i' ' -, 4.. - 0 9.'. r 0- 2/4 1141 6 ''%14.. 44 i - , I "9lf,i: - 53-1/ 0, 39*61/#6%1,6., 2~ '94~47*LitÂ·:,4t-Se.~,rrÂ·4'f '' ';7% 01 ill 4, .Â· A '4Â· 'â€¢â€¢ â€¢av ' ,-9 '1321Â¢*' 1 : 1.. ItlyÂ· ' 2 , ." 4.:,46 . f-Mulf.~ ~ '' - , .,1 ... - =Â¥46 .. , f 1/ *, Â· ~ta' 1 , ... 6.- ... aw 30,Â·Ad, v,,.Â·pA, Â·1',44 Â·, *0.Â»'tit,;>,~ 99 . '1 , f- , 't'* ' 42,2(Â·L J t '.12= /40 +A '~ ~.- BR/2 4 Al 4%%04%1 .,14.:,t:%0~t, I:Â·CÂ·:es. >{402'vaL#* .9. 0 ..4 t,m - :A},6.,C Â· ''. 9'~ :C~B ,2 , e .4 U.- ' d. . <3 10 *394 '40Â«lE i . ' Â¥ i 4. , 2 15. 4: 4 i. 7, ..> , , , , : ' .-v %1 3,; ~- '. -1 3427, )4i ; . , ''r-Â·i)99 r Â· , . U . 741Â·~ 111;AW .4 f :4,. t ./ 4..t . =. 1 #. 1, 4 ih 7.Eat J , 61'1,11 lf'.17, 4.1.,i'*(~~11),,i.;:],~1,.'~,~~~~,~â€ž~~~~~~~~ ~~2 %7 r &:.if"' r- #Fiw,Â· ,â€¢ Â· r .,t I M a - /1 1 -- -1/,Im o. a %~4.1-4.;AJ. .1 u. 0 '4 ' 1 4 ' t,, A<14 1. I , 2 r ,;7Â·,â€¢'f. ~ 1Lt#; d 8,1 ..Fk 1,44 , t ' f;;3%. ', t Â· 9 *' .1 . lit, I TWW,&, 71, 3/,~ 1 F-'m. 'Â·ir . pt'Wl'js + 4' 4., il'%801.t?41*#m'ai,&92'9.0. 4:,45'/*AT <#1*1,)4%*4' 4Â£..1:44)2{~.: t)*~~ ~~ 1, 1~.'/'.0,9/10 '~, ~16.-- :* ';Â« '0 0~t, ~~ '1" 0 - V . 6?, r-: ~ ~Â· n&< , ~. ,1,4~2,Â¢1 :.2~,~,434k 43114.. 4*<.,& r 1,1 H" A .4 â€ž 4 , 1... 1 4, # .'.t 1 K 6 r '4 1; t. .07 4-~9~, ,< ,&41~9, '4â€¢1; -. < , "4wl $. 1 .914 b 4 2,. Â· -4.:'4, f*e'lf;'14< 46 "'lt ''0 00-4Â·Â·' 2'p' 2.Â· ..4. 18, . Fgy} â€¢ i, 1. 14 1, 1 $'.6'f . <'4'it* â€¢ 1 4.11 *'~ e -4 '1 1 4 4.1/ 4:%419. . .â‚¬ I . t ' ~ lf, 3. 93if, ;49;%%#43,~r.glâ€ž~,~~,Per~,IEL 'b-t~;'M':itÂ·'~,t .i~.4 49:51 " 1,; .,4... 44 i Mi' 9 1 .. I., Â·Â·Â· iÂ· Â·' 1 '' 0 1., ~ .." / 1.lt, i ~1Â¢'..'.1.. .Ilt .. t#'â‚¬1IA'Â· . wk) 2~.~~~,~~Â£~~Lifi~.~i~ 4~ . .1.3 , 1. 7 - f.*0{,~Eftit. 4]I?,4*29*%*094'41,44:1.,A*~%(43\Tc,~t?:foD,~44';2 Â·. .1 - $' 'Â·â€¢r 'rl '4â€¢Â· f, Â· f F a. 1Â¥431,1 E -9 iÂ¢, 4)25%Â£1, 'fi:(13,9,%#Ail;li4ID*ft@~"Â·gf?ReÂ·~ 2,)*i' 0~~~Â·04~9.ZO: A.Ct.â€¢â€¢â€¢,1 , %(2 ri .. + 0 ST. CLAIR RESIDENCE ASPEN, COLORADO ADDITION TO HISTORICAL RESIDENCE AND GARAG E 6 2-9 t),st 5Â»,Umler 20240 3-2%-01 4*.%~ A % .a,0 -=ry--7----7.- DGE Of, A srlÂ¢At 1' 1Â· Avi fiG - * //// - -lt 0(1.41 n i 5/B St \(, 41.1.- '11\\1Â¥.0) Ast'1.11 1 0009)11. 1, \- Il.1 1 66 Cl r'(1 C,1( E f f I N- P ~ ~~~ ~.bitj#\ 11 IA(ill\.D,i 111 ijo BL Of . SILFI . 5 75'09 11. 1 15.00 Pon< It OP . r FouSL Ill ' 3.0 J fâ‚¬-for' 4 , 42 1 Â¢ fl I 1 0% 1% me - C/RIE lt, ~1001 CL f- 1 n LO ..Lt- *- .-' -13_ -1 -2-1 1*L r O '/ IM pl .,E- 3 0 .1 1 c l.1-1 2 C O JO 0 - 1 0 V- 0 1 1 CDÂ«) R= "1 I lul'5!. 1 1 1 1.1 9 /0-I -*--- 'll.-I '.--Ill - 9 U , I â€¢L// Cb /O<0'. 1 ~; Ch 1 1 1- 00 7 .n - 02 7 . - \ 12.OF .1 1% n. - aec/Z_ . J f.t' 11; 2 I ' UI ,) fl 10 % 'tl f.) U hol 1)1 . -1 (1 r- t,n Ah, AVS -I'll 0\JETEri 11 --- - Cjf.#1\.7 810/ 1 J le r, -I i Bollf/(,Aft c hf' 3 Ogilin -* + tx 4 1 1 ) l.f, 3,~11.i) L.. 9% i h ht' 9 1 m OVERLAP 0 6 - -0 21 75*09 !1 W /1'4 00 91!NESS CORNER W I lilli 5 3 (.011 111 A 5[1 5/8 61[El ROD *1111 1 OUND 5/8 51[1 L HOP WI HI YELLOW PLAS 11Â¢ CAP MARKID TI l.1.Ow 11.AGIlE CAP MANKI R 11UE 1 111L 11 Ill 6 6 WC Bul.'11'1111 11106 WC N 7'209 It. W 1 01- 111(JI. Col(11111 5 11'19 50 9 1 ()1- fRi. 11 ((,HIll H ALLE Y 01_OCK 21 H I C,Hi Â· 01 .WAY 20 76 W 6 0 .1 01,ZOZ 0 2 5 1 1 1 ~ 2~121 1 / /EmnEFFT[Trk /[13 1 t] 11.21 LI\ \ - / A U li u 11 li li 11 11 U IN / /111Ill 11'TH INTH 11 11\ " / i ~UTIP - - 1111~ IIN ;~ / M 111111 11 71.1111111'11 i] 1 1.1/. 24[449Tf 11.--LU-LL 1211 "11.1 1 111.11-1 \ ELLL Â»9 1 1. u lili/ /nUOUTL. - - 11111 11 M ' 1 4 \ aLL_[L 47-1111 1] lil li 111 lI U lA \ Uull A lilli lilli] 11 LI U ILILINTIHILI'll] 1111\ NULL[ ~~ A 11 11 - - le . 9941444 4 -4J-2 1 41*ahÂ¥mf*Â¥Hmt- 2,- WEAVF p. - [LEÂ®~t ==- I'j' 8 11 1111111 7-6.*5:yrf"~Trbid . SEÂ»-*-474 b=:KÂ»-4112*1[22- NORTH ELEVATION SCALE : 3/16" =1' JLE 20240 3-28-01 Ult}N f-K- 4-414-lfill] [4 -I N 1 1 1-1 N 111 1 1-1 1-1 H H I-1 -_-_ . '064 4Â£:4,WI,IM::. - 0 I. 12 ilt-E -.NE-P_ir'J:,1.- 0 0 : 0 I I I./In/~,A/r~/.A/'~A ' 11. 1.1'Ill Ilâ€¢,11 i,1;1 11 !11 '1111 'lillil. 1 -w===r f U Il I I H Il ! 1 Il Il l I U Il l I Il ll I I 1] Il l I U li li 11 b 1 1 11 1 1 41 li li ]11 T Il H I[ 0 111 i U li li 11 111111 11 911 li li 11 1111 11 1111 J 1 1111 111 1 1 1 1 J 111 U ill 11 111 31 1 NIT 11 Il H 11 MIl lilill U 11 1111 MIll] 11 HH H 1 2-: 1.11 11 IT U 11 li li Il li li Il l 1.11 11 IT 11 11 11 11 Il li li PTl -LL 11 11 11 111{ Il illi0 111111 i1111111ITI1111[ Il llITII ]11 I U Ll 8=41==11 1111IU lili U llITII Â®11 NHU Ilill Ilill 1 -1, Il U Il Ill! Il Illl IT 11 Il IT il Il Il I li li l lili i ~ WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION SCALE : 3/16" =1' J* 20240 3-28-01 s /*1134 4 i -I n An/~ A n n/~ /-/. A .././././.AA/~A/./.484/I. 11 111111 I tri 11 1111111 1 111!U '11,11 1111:1 11'll.Ii, 1 5 I'lll, '11 11,Â·lilli,I 'ill11 11,1 11 lili Ill ''1 11' 1 F U 11 6 1-1 11111-11111 il 111111 lill i-I lili 1111111111111-1 Illf H 1; Il A liÂ· 11 1(~ f 'J '| '~ % N IT U Il Ir 11 11 I ] Il Il 1 F Il Il 1 I 11 Il ~ m l il li 11 11 11 Il Ill] 11 1 T 11 11 IT !1 11 11 41 li li 11 Il l T 11 11 11 11 11 1 T 11 iT I |||111|||1!1||1, 11!11 111111;1] ;III!111 IT !11,1 1111 LI 111 1 11 Il l I ll .11.11 9 li lli U Il l 1 11 11 11 1-1 li li U li li 11 111 T Il LL 1 Illl Il li i r 1 Il 1 T 1_1 Il li 11 illi H Ilil 11 11 IT H Hil- l] HI[ Il I 11 u IJ 11 1' IT 11 1111 U li ll i] 111 T li li li li 1111 4 11 IT II Il l i li Il Il li Il Il ITIJ 11 MIl lili Il Illi U Il Il U HIT Il 'Ill 11 .11 H U F ll Il li li 111 T 11 111111 111111 111 I II 11 Ii I] li li I I li li ll Il li li 1 [ li li IT Il M I l Il H IT 11 H IT H H 11 J H 1111 H IT !111 IT H H 11 111 8 111 I d li li U 111 1 1] 11 li li 111111 li l i O 11 li li li li l] li li 1111 U 11 IT 0.11 IT 1-1 1 IT U il IT [1 1111.11 III{ 11 11 IT H 111 T Il Il ~ 1111111111 il 11 I I 11111111 Il li Il li 1111 Il 1111 111) 11 Il 1111 H 11111 U 11.1111 HIll]1111 Ulilill 11 IT Dll ITU Illi Ulililll U Illtll Ili[UlllIU II'TII Illl] lilill IlITilllITU 11 lili ~ 11 Il 111] Il 11 H Il 1 1.11 Mil l] Il IT U lili 111111.11 lil li Il I [Il 1 11 U Ij 11 1.111111 8 1.1 11 Il it 11 1111 41 Mi l 11 111 T 11 11 ! 1 11 1.' IT 11 Il Il Il H 11 Illfll Ill_]Ill]Ill11Illl HHII HIll HH H HIT EAST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE:3/16"=1' 2 HFC -.W[Â·P.lfâ€¢'1_f_QI 20240 3-28-01 . e ~ EN ' E . E O 00 b - 0 WEST ELEVATION SCALE : 3/16"=1' luK 20240 3-2801 0 - ~ 01 HI 000 E EAST ELEVATION SCALE : 3/16"=1' 20240 3-28-01 - 1. . CÂ© 40-4 C.h \9 -O / CÂ© E-O r / 1 1 - 1,1 LA NEki 019 0 - .--9- I - 1 il 1 ./ 11' 71+C ~ . Ce) D,NINâ‚¬, 4 %142.LIZE 74- Mil 11 -C__ CÂ© WA#Aks I : L.-1 1 EN) FAMiLY 11 \ kooM AF . 74#43 i 1 - CH) se:Ditcohl J 71 5-. -=== - 1, 1 1 \1-0 - - r 1 , 1 1 Iii' 0 - {4 f -IR / CAL) De kt / TRE DEC>C> h/11 13 UvrN % 1 11 11 11 2 -0 - 1 \ a 1 , , 11 1, -- .(,Al)DININN 6 +0 -6 1\ 1 -I-\ & 17 -0 ,=- -I- T 1 11 1 F 1 19-D 1 If 1 / -1 $ 4- PROPOSED PLAN M em.*ete ? T FIRST FLOOR 18-4 19-0 G-0 - - JL SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" CE) 9'bo. 0 (N) ; 142.-O [ST FLOOR TOTAL = /722.092 - HOUSE TOTAL = 2 i Ga, se 68124* = Cd) 4 12 Sf 1 --4 ~5 20240 3-28-01 5,4-40 . *AO--6 \5-0 VO , 0 --9-"-- Ve ' D W#P I I----- --.g 1 ION I 11, 11 7 --- lip LI rn\\. 1 11' 8â‚¬2=- 2- 3--1 31 INEE= 1 1111 1~/ (3 Cd) MAS:re R , 1 i 1 -2 -~- 1 1 MEATÂ» 0 8/3>BOD M 1 /-2-===A 1 6 I 0 9.-7 . 1,8-1 1--r r h i 1 9.1 Ill 1 -1- . Tm 1/liT, li u 11 I \WN 1 Mll 1 901 0 = -r- / 17,-0 acE---, - 44124 *E w.oDF= PROPOSED PLAN 1 4 BELOW, SECOND FLOOR, SCALE: 3/ 16" = 1' - 0" CE) 998-0 (N) EW\.0 2ND FLOOR TOTAL 95-t SE J* . 20240 3-28-01 r-miSITEI 1 *62~-c MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director ~43 FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 419 E. Hyman Avenue- Landmark, Minor Review, and Variance - Public Hearing DATE: April 11, 2001 SUMMARY: The Paragon Building has been undergoing a rehabilitation project for the past year. In addition to some restoration and alteration work on the outside of the structure, the Board approved height variances to create a rooftop garden. The applicant now requests an additional height variance to bring elevator access to the roof. The applicant is also requesting landmark designation to take advantage of some growth management exemptions for office space to be created on the second floor. APPLICANT: 419 E. Hyman LLC, represented by Fenton Construction and John Kelly. PARCEL ID: 2737-182-16-017 ADDRESS: 419 E. Hyman Avenue, The Roaring Fork Arms Condominiums, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: Commercial Core. HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION Any structure or site that meets two (2) or more of the following standards may be designated as "H," Historic Overlay District, and/or historic landmark. 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: This building, historically known as the Cowenhoven and Brown Block, was built by two businessmen prominent in Aspen's silver mining industry, Henry P. Cowenhoven and D.R.C. Brown. Staff finds that this standard is met. 1 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: This is one of the most architecturally significant structures in downtown Aspen. It is three story masonry structure, built in 1889, and has cast iron storefronts on the ground floor and arch topped windows on the upper levels. The storefront includes decorative stained glass transom windows, and there is decorative brickwork on the upper walls and cornice line. Staff finds that this standard is met. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Staff finding: The architect is unknown, so this standard is not met. D. Neighborhood character. The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Staff finding: The building is located in the downtown historic district, which is composed primarily of 19~ century structures. It is one of the larger commercial buildings in Aspen and is key to the character of the Hyman Avenue mall. E. Community character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location, and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Staff finding: The building was built during Aspen's silver mining era and represents the prosperity ofthat period. MINOR DEVELOPMENT No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds that all ofthe following standards (Section 26.415.010.C.5) are met: a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, massing and volume with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or is adjacent to an historic landmark For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) 2 square feet, or exceed the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant necessary variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this Section exceed those variations allowed under Section 26.520.040(B)(2), for detached accessory dwelling units, and Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to extend an elevator shaft to the roof. This new element will be tucked up against a chimney and staircase that were previously approved. The elevator will be covered with brick to match other rooftop features. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development, and Staff Finding: The HPC and other city bodies, such as the Infill Committee, are strongly in favor of maintaining a mix of commercial and residential uses in the downtown. The use of the rooftop is seen as accessory, and appropriate to the upper floor residence in this structure. 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 proposal does not detract from the importance of this building as a representation of 19~h century commercial architecture. 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: Staff finds that the elevator tower creates no new visual impacts because it is hidden by the previously approved staircase and chimney. HEIGHT VARIANCE To grant the variance that is needed (a 13 foot variance), HPC must apply the variance standards that relate to hardship and make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; Staff finding: Use of the rooftop for residential activity is not in conflict with the AACP. The AACP encourages vitality in the downtown, including promoting residential uses on upper floors. 3 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and Staff finding: The HPC stated on July 12, 2000 that they found allowing access to the roof of this building for a garden was a reasonable use of the property. The elevator has been designed to be as low in height as possible. 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district. Staff finding: The HPC has acknowledged in the previous review that the building was built before current zoning regulations and that the owner should be allowed the same ability to access the roof as other structures in the downtown. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve landmark designation, minor review, and a height variance, finding that the review criteria are met, with the following condition: 1. A height variance of 13 feet is approved to allow for the elevator. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to approve Resolution # /6, Series of 2001." Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated April 11, 2001 0 B. Application 4 L 119 i .04'k Ct L.1 r-~~7'1 ~| 9//0,4 c ~ RECEIVED ~ APR 022001 County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PUR@LIANT } ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE R22Â¥1Â¥(#ICM~~~MENT State of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060(E) I, 1/0664 ~Â· 0-(A #1/41094 , being or representing an I 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 of notice. a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list. on the 79/4day of vwnc0 , 200..,f_ (which is~D days prior to the public hearing date of A//f/L /HZ - ). 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 25~ day of,07910Â¢- , 2001, to the />* day of APAHL . 200 / . (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. =,7 1/(9 A j *294f/ l/ 1-tf viJ Signed before me this 267 day of ~10/1 /FENTON /1-3/ 200Â£. by 2 ~~CONSTRUCTION,LLC f 11 Residential â€¢ Commercial 4.- Construction Management . General Contractor 970 920-4623 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL PUBUC NOTICE My Commission expires: 44/03 DATE- TIME - PLACE- 0 . r Notary Public PURPOSE- = 401 COOPER PARTNERS 4 SKIERS LP 407 EAST HYMAN PROPERTY LTD FLEISHER COMPANY C/O 1108 NORFLEET DR 34425 HWY 82 200 E MAIN ST N- -- -VILLE, TN 37220 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 419 EAST HYMAN LLC 517 E HYMAN LTD 517 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC C/O TED C SKOKOS A COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 201 S 7TH ST 425 W CAPITAL AVE STE 3200 517 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 ASPEN, CO 81611 ARCADES ASSOCIATES LTD ALLEN ROBERTA ASPEN ART INVESTMENTS LTD RJS-RS INC C/O 601 E HOPKINS AVE STE 103 1450 SIERRA VISTA DR #B 304 S GALENA STE A ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN DOWNTOWN LLC ASPEN DRUG INC ASPEN GROVE ASSOCIATES LLP C/O BROOKE A PO BOX 11468 PO BOX 3421 PETERSON/KAUFMAN&PETERSON ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 315 E HYMAN AVE STE 305 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN SPORTS INC ASPEN OFFICE SUITES LLC ASPENQUEST LLC CO BECKER BUSINESS SERVICES 520 E COOPER AVE #230 11248 JOHN GALT BLVD 630 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 OMAHA, NE 68137 ASPEN, CO 81611 SSOCIATES BALDWIN HARLEY BALDWIN HARLEY A 11 A ORADO GENERAL PARTNERSHIP 205 S GALENA ST 205 S GALENA ST 308 S MILL ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BIDWELL BERT INVESTMENT BIRKWOOD ASSOCIATES BENTLEYS AT THE WHEELER CORPORATION A COLORADO PARTNERSHIP PO BOX 10370 PO BOX 567 P O BOX 3421 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 BLACK HAWK ASPEN LLC BLESD LLC BULLOCK G E GRANDCHILDRENS ROECLIFFE COTTAGE JOE MOORES C/O SIMON DEVELOPMENT GROUP PTNRSHIP 1/6 LANE 370 LEXINGTON AVE #607 CO SUZETTE GOODMA WOODHOUSE EAVES LEICESTERSHIRE NEW YORK, NY 10017 500 E MARKHAM STE 305 LE12 8TF LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 ENGLAND, CARLSON BRUCE E CHARLIES COW COMPANY LLC CHEEK JOHN H JR PO BOX 3587 315 E HYMAN AVE PO BOX 564 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 COMCOWICH WILLIAM L )LM REVOCABLE TRUST CITY OF ASPEN TRUSTEE OF ROBERT BARNARD TRUST BEAVER ST 130 S GALENA ST 420 W MAIN ST F-.3STAFF, AZ 86001 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CONTINENTAL DIVIDE CO COX JAMES E & NANCY COTTONWOOD VENTURES I LLC A COLORADO CORP C/O ROB SNYDER 419 E HYMAN AVE 230 S MILL ST 304 S GALENA STE A ASPEN, CO 81611 N, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 DOLE MARGARET M DENSON DAVID & KATHLEEN DRUKER HENRY L C/O FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF 170 E GORE CRK 9 W 57TH ST STE 3420 CEDARIDGE VAIL, CO 81657 NEW YORK, NY 10019-2701 PO BOX 8455 ASPEN, CO 81612 FITZGERALD FAMILY PARTNERSHIP DUVIKE INC ELKS LODGE 224 LTD PO BOX 2238 210 S GALENA ST STE 21 C/O FLEISHER AND CO ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 200 E MAIN ST ASPEN: CO 81611 FLEISHER DONALD J FOOTLOOSE MOCCASIN MAKERS INC FRANCIS JOHN D 200 E MAIN ST 240 S MILL ST STE 201 525 E COOPER AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GOLDEN HORN BUILDING LTD GOLDSTEIN ALAN J GOLDSTEIN PETER & ALAN A COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP GOLDSTEIN MANAGEMENT C/O 150 METRO PK #2 11678 E BERRY DR 150 METTRO PARK #2 ROCHESTER, NY 14623 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111-4146 ROCHESTER, NY 14623 GREENWAY COMPANY INC GREENWOOD KAREN DAY & STERLING EK CHARLENE ANN JAMES QUINN HAROLD J JR 52u EAST COOPER AVE - #230-6 666 TRAVIS ST STE 100 409 E COOPER AVE ASPEN, CO 81611-1861 SHREVEPORT, LA 71101 ASPEN, CO 81611 HABATAT GALLERIES ASPEN INC GRIFFITH ANGELINE M HAMPEL WALTER F JR HAGOPIAN SANDY C/O 530 WALNUT ST 290 HEATHER LN 213 S MILL ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 HINDERSTEIN FAMILY REVOCABLE HARTMAN HARRIET TRUST HILLIS OF SNOWMASS INC TRUST 600 STREAMSIDE LN 170 E GORE CRK P O BOX 1576 BOULDER, CO 80302-5968 VAIL, CO 81657 MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 [MMOBILIEN LLC HOPPES DIANA HOPPES DIANA C/O NATIONAL TAX SEARCH LLC 5400 VERNON AVE #106 5400 VERNON AVE #106 PO BOX 81290 EDINA, MN 55436 EDINA, MN 55436 CHICAGO, IL 60681-0290 ENDENCE LODGE UNIT 209 LLC INDEPENDENCE LODGE UNIT 210 LLC INDEPENDENCE PARTNERS RALD LUSS C/O GERALD LUSS CO M&W PROPERTIES UESDALE DR 100 TRUESDALE DR 205 S MILL ST #301A CROTON ON HUDSON, NY 10520 CROTON-ON-HUDSON, NY 10520 ASPEN, CO 81611 KANTZER TAYLOR MICHAEL FAMILY JENNE MARY C 1<ANDYCOM INC TRUST #1 1768 YANCEY CIR S 766 SINGING WOOD DR 6501 VISTA DEL MAR ~UERVILLE, TN 38017 ARCADIA, CA 91006 PLAYA DEL REY, CA 90293 LCT LP KAUFMAN GIDEON 1 KNIGHT CHARLES T & ANNE G TENNESSEE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 315 E HYMAN AVE STE 305 433 E COOPER PO BOX 101444 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 NASHVILLE, TN 37224-1444 LEFFERS JEFFREY J TRUSTEE LINDNER FRITZ & ERIKA LOMA ALTA CORPORATION GERARDOT J REVOCABLE TRUST 66966 TEN PEAKS CT 6210 N CENTRAL EXPWY 5526 HOPKINTON DR BEND, OR 97701-9277 DALLAS, TX 75206 FORT WAYNE, IN 46804 MCDONALDS CORPORATION 05/152 MARTINEZ JOSEPH C MASON & MORSE INC REAL ESTATE TAX SECTION 205 S GALENA #15 514 E HYMAN AVE PO BOX 66207 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60666 MCPHETRES RICHARD M MILL STREET PLAZA ASSOCIATES LLC MEYER GUIDO PAUL 7 YOUNG ST CO M&W PROPERTIES 23655 TWO RIVERS RD BARTON ACT 205 S MILL ST STE 301A BASALT, CO 81621 2600 AUSTRALIA, ASPEN, CO 81611 MOUNTAIN RESORT TRUST MTN ENTERPRISES 80B ~IS ROBERT P C/O FISHER D C/O HILLIS OF SNOV\MASS 80FE HOPKINS AVE STE 304 PO BOX 4273 170 GARE CRK DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 VAIL, CO 81657 MTN RESORT TRUST NORDANJOSH OLIVER JAMES S & LOUISE K C/O FISHER D 110 WESTC ST STE 1901 1020 15TH ST #39E PO BOX 4273 DENVER, CO 80202 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 ASPEN, CO 81612 PETERSON BROOKE A ORTNER AVA K PEYTON MARI C/O KAUFMAN & PETERSON 29435 BRIARBANK CT 409 E COOPER #4 STE 1 315 E HYMAN SOUTHFIELD, MI 48034 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 RAY W T JR RED ONION INVESTORS LLC PITKIN COUNTY BANK 80% SPEED J B C/O RED ONION MGT CO 534 E HYMAN AVE 50 SCOTT AVE 418 E COOPER #205 ATTN: CHARLES B ASPEN, CO 81611 COOKEVILLE, TN 38501 ISRAEL ASPEN, CO 81611 RODGERS PORTER R JR EILEEN ROSS BARBARA REVOCABLE TRUST RODGERS CAROL L ST PO BOX 594 1300 S MAIN ST AGE, ME 03909 HANALEI, HI 96714 SEARCY, AR 72143 RYANCO PARTNERS LTD XXX SAWOOD SALES CORPORATION SCHAEFER WIDO L C/O SMITH PAT 501 S BEVERLY DR 3RD FL 341 SURFVIEW DR 415 E HYMAN AVE STE 105 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272-2915 kIIEN, CO 81611-1945 SCHMIDT RALPH N SJA ASSOCIATES LTD 60% STEARN LEATHEM 536 N 7TH ST PO BOX 1709 37 FERRY LN E GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501 ASPEN, CO 81612 WESTPORT, CT 06880 STEPHENSONJOANN STERLING TRUST COMPANY TRUSTEE SWEARINGEN WILLIAM F PO BOX 1301 PO BOX 1491 3611 EAGLEROCK DR CARBONDALE, CO 81623 HANALEI, HI 96714 DORAVILLE, GA 30340-4105 TAKADA MINORU TENNESSEE THREE SWENERG JAMES & SANDRA L 21710 B ISHIKAWA CHO A TENNESSEE PARTNERSHIP 2660 ROCK REST RD OTA KU, TOKYO, JAPAN 101 BROADWAY PITTSBORO, NC 27312 145-0061, NASHVILLE, TN 37201 TENNESSEE THREE RENTALS TOMKINS DOUGLAS S TOMKINS KERN AND COMPANY C/O MRS A E MILLER C O ASPEN ART SUPPLY KERN ELIZABETH C/O 126 PAUL SMITH LANE 520 E COOPER AVE 3131 LAKESIDE WAY ROAN MOUNTAIN, TN 37687 ASPEN, CO 81611 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 ~~~LAZA LLC WALL RICHARD WAVO PROPERTIES LP ~EISHER COMPY 7538 CAMINITO AVOLA 443 SW SIXTH ST 200 E MAIN LA JOLLA, CA 92037 DES MOINES, IA 50309 ASPEN, CO 81611 WENDELIN ASSOC WHEELER BLOCK BUILDING LLC WHEELER SQUARE - CASPER FAMILY A NEWYORK GENERAL PARTNERSHIP TKG MANAGEMENT INC C/O LLC 150 METRO PARK 1001 CHERRY ST STE 308 315 E HYMAN ROCHESTER, NY 14623 COLUMBIA, MO 65201 ASPEN, CO 81611 WILLIAMS DEXTER M 51% WOLF FAMILY TRUST WOLF LAWRENCE G TRUSTEE 230 S MILL ST 1221 MYRTLE AVE 22750 WOODWARD AVE #204 ASPEN, CO 81611 SAN DIEGO, CA 92103 FERNDALE, MI 48220 0 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 0 APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION, MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND A VARIANCE TO REMODEL 419 E. HYMAN AVENUE, THE ROARING FORK ARMS CONDOMINIUMS, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel ID #2737-182-160-30 RESOLUTION NO. ~ , SERIES OF 2001 WHEREAS, the applicant, 419 E. Hyman LLC, represented by Fenton Construction and John Kelly, has requested landmark designation, minor development approval, and a variance for 419 E. Hyman Avenue, The Rearing Fork Arms Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen. The project involves extending an elevator to the roof; and WHEREAS, Any structure or site that meets two (2) or more of the following standards may be designated as "H," Historic Overlay District, and/or historic landmark. A. Historical importance. The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. B. Architectural importance. Based on the building form, use, or specimen, the structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct, or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. D. Neighborhood character. The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. E. Community character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location, and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance; and 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.B.4 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 0 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, in order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the HPC must make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies ofthe Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, m her staff report dated April 11, 2001, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended approval of the application; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on April 11, 2001, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards, and approved the application with conditions by a vote of L tÂ©_. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the HPC recommends landmark designation be approved by City Council and approves minor development review and a height variance for the property located at 419 E. Hyman Avenue, The Roaring Fork Arms Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen, finding that the review standards are met, with the following condition: 1. A height variance of 13 feet is approved to allow for the elevator. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 11th day 0 of April, 2000. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chairman ATTEST: 0 Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 10i E. Hallam Street- Historic Landmark Designation, Conceptual Development, Variances, Partial Demolition- Public Hearing DATE: April 11, 2001 SIJMMARY: The project involves making minor changes to an existing addition to the historic house, and demolishing a shed on the alley. APPLICANT: Jim and Patricia Gorman, represented by Mary Holley. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-37-001 ADDRESS: 101 E. Hallam Street, Lot A and the west 4.86 feet of Lot B, Block 65, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential) LANDMARK DESIGNATION Any structure or site that meets two (2) or more of the following standards may be designated as "H," Historic Overlay District, and/or historic landmark. It is not the intention of the Historic Preservation Commission to landmark insignificant structures or sites. HPC will focus on those structures which are unique or have some special value to the community, as put forth in the standards. A. Historical importance. The structure or site is a principal or 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, tile State of Colorado, or the United States. Staff Finding: The house does have associations with the Cowenhovens and Browns, prominent Aspen families in the 19~h century. Staff finds that this criteria is 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: The original house has numerous features that are typical of 19th century residences in Aspen, such as a decorative front porch, front gable/ porch relationship, and simple plan. It is one of relatively few brick residences left from the period. Staff finds this criteria is met. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Staff Finding: The original designer is unknown, therefore this standard is not met. D. Neighborhood character. The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Staff Finding: The property is located in Aspen's historic West End neighborhood. This entire block, save one structure facing W. Bleeker Street, is 19th century buildings. Staff finds that this 0 criteria is met. E. Community character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location, and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Staff Finding: The house is representative of the modest scale, style, and character of homes constructed in the late 1800's, which is Aspen's primary period of historic significance. Staff finds this criteria is met. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds that all ofthe following standards (Section 26.415.010.C.5) are met: a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, 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," 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 Staff Finding: Very modest changes are proposed on the existing house, none of which directly affect the historic part of the building. A doorway on the west elevation is to be reconfigured, a linking piece is to be built between the house and the garage, and a basement will be built under all of the post-1980's development. Staff finds that these alterations have no impact on the historic structure and that the modest size of the expansion is commendable. The project also involves demolishing an existing outbuilding and reconstructing it. The issue of the appropriateness of the demolition will be discussed below under the relevant review standards. Just in regard to the design of the replacement structure, staff finds that it is consistent with the character and size of historic outbuildings in the West End and 0 meets the following design guidelines: 8.2 If an existing secondary structure is beyond repair, then replacing it is encouraged. â€¢ An exact reconstruction of the secondary structure may not be necessary in these cases. â€¢ The replacement should be compatible with the overall character of the historic primary structure, while accommodating new uses. 8.4 A garage door should be compatible with the character of the historic structure. â€¢ A wood-clad hinged door is preferred on a historic structure. â€¢ If an overhead door is used, the materials should match that of the secondary structure. â€¢ If the existing doors are hinged, they can be adapted with an automatic opener. The replacement structure is in keeping with the materials and style of the main house. Staff is not necessarily in favor of reusing the old brick if the existing building is to be demolished, because new construction should be treated as new and not made to pass as an old structure. 0 In regard to standard 8.3, 8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure. â€¢ Traditionally, a garage was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structure is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The board should consider if there are any negative impacts of attaching the buildings. There may not be in this case because the connecting piece is set far back from the street views, is one story, and no major addition is being created on the house. Several variances are needed for the project, namely, a .5 foot west side yard variance, a 5 foot east side yard variance for an existing shed, a 3.5 foot sideyard variance for new construction, a 9.4 foot combined front and rear yard setback variance, a 5 foot rear yard setback variance, a 5.5 foot combined sideyard setback variance, and waiver of one parking space. All of the variances are aimed at avoiding adding too much mass directly onto the back of the historic house, and at maintaining a one story outbuilding along the alley. Staff supports the variance requests. Waiving the requirement for one of the parldng spaces is reasonable because a one stall garage will allow for the new outbuilding to be similar in size to the existing structure. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development, and Staff Finding: The proposal is consistent with other efforts to restore and expand historic homes throughout the neighborhood. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels, and Staff Finding: The project will protect the historic significanceÂ·of the home by avoiding making inappropriate and larger additions to it. The historic significance of the shed will be addressed below. i The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Staff Finding: The project does not detract from the architectural character and integrity of the house. As noted in the application, the owners chose not to act on a much more damaging renovation proposal that was previously approved. The architectural integrity of the shed will be addressed below. PARTIAL DEMOLITION 0 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 demolition of the shed is necessary for a successful rehabilitation of the historic house. There are other possibilities for accommodating a garage on the site (although the other options are not necessarily acceptable to the owner), and, in staffs opinion, a historic outbuilding that is significant should not be demolished solely to provide for parking. This said, staff must agree with the assessment provided by the applicant's representatives, who have concluded that the shed has lost its integrity due to previous modifications. Although it was at one time important as a one story masonry outbuilding, the stucco (which cannot be successfully removed) and wood siding have compromised the building. The problems discussed by the structural engineer may be repairable, however the housemover is not willing to be involved in the effort to create a good foundation for the structure. The direction in the design guidelines is: 0 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved. Â· When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These include its primary and roof materials, roof form, windows, doors and architectural details. â€¢ If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional. Staff has a difference of opinion with some of the arguments provided in the application, for instance that the shed has low visibility (our alleys are active pedestrian routes), and the loss of context (the West End is not designated as a district and many of the resources must be considered as isolated properties), but the more serious issues of the architectural integrity of the building must be acknowledged. B. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: (1) Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions, and 0 (2) Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions that are 0 compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Staff Finding: Staff believes that the shed, unfortunately, no longer maintains historic significance. The proposal is to replace the old structure with one that is similar in size and design. As mentioned above, staff has concerns with making too much of an effort to replicate the historic building and be misleading about the new building's age. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant approval for Historic Landmark Designation, Conceptual Development, Variances, and Partial Demolition with the following conditions: 1. Restudy the idea of using salvaged brick for the material on the new garage. 2. HPC approves the following variances: a .5 foot west side yard variance, a 5 foot east side yard variance for an existing shed, a 3.5 foot sideyard variance for new construction, a 9.4 foot combined front and rear yard setback variance, a 5 foot rear yard setback variance, a 5.5 foot combined sideyard setback variance, and waiver of one parking space. 0 3. The partial demolition approval also applies to the half of the shed that sits on the 105 E. Hallam Street property. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to approve Historic Landmark Designation, Conceptual Development, Variances, and Partial Demolition for the property located at 101 E. Hallam Street, Lot A and the west 4.86 feet of Lot B, Block 65, City and Townsite of Aspen, finding that the review standards have been met, with the conditions outlined in Resolution # , Series of2001." Exhibits: A. Staffmemo dated April 11, 2001 B. Application 0 0AHP1403 Official eligibility determination Rev. 9/98 (OAHP use only) Date Initbls COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Determined Eligible- NR Determined Not Eligible- NR Determined Eligible- SR Architectural Inventory Form Determined Not Eligible. SR (page 1 of 4) Need Data Contributes to eligible NR District Noncontribuung to eigible NR District 1. IDENTIFICATION 1. Resource number: 5PT. 117.5 2. Temporary resource number: 101.EHA 3. County: Pitkin 4. City: Asoen 5. Historic building name: Catherine Brown nae Cowenhoven House 6. Current building name: 7. Building address: 101 East Hallam 8. Owner name and address: James & Patricia Gorman 1426 Rose Glen Rd. Gladwvne PA 19035 11. Geographic Information 9. P.M. 6 Township 10 South Range 85 West SE 1/4 of SE 44 of NE 44 of SE W Of Section 12 10. UTM reference Zone 1 3 ; 3 4 2 7 2 OmE 4 3 3 9 5 0 5 mN 11. USGS quad name: Aspen, Colorado Quadranale Year: 1960. Photo Rev. 1987 Map scale: 7.5' x 15' Attach photo copy of appropriate map section. 12. Lot(s): A & West 4.86' of B Block: 65 Addition: Year of Addition: 13. Boundary Description and Justification: Site is comorised of Lot A&W 4.86' of Lot B. Block 65 of the Citv and Townsite of Asoen. Assessors office Record Number: 2735-124-37-001 This descrintion was chosen as the most soecific and customarv descrintion of the site. 111. Architectural Description 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Rectanaular Plan 15. Dimensions in feet: Length x Width 16. Number of stories: 1-1/2 story 17. Primary extemal wall material(s) (enter no more than two): Brick. Wood Shingles 18. Roof configuration: (enter no more than one): Front Gabled 19. Primary external roof material (enter no more than one): Wood Shinale Roof 20. Special features (enter all that apply): Porch. Chimnev. Seamental Arch Resource Number: 5PT. 117.5 Temporary Resource Number: 101.EHA Architectural Inventory Form (page 3 of 3) 34. Site type(s): Neiahborhood residential 35. Historical background: This structure is regresentative of Aspen's mining era character. It illustrates the familv / home environment and lifestvie of the average citizen of Aspen based on the silver mining industrv. This residence was built for Catherine Brown n6e Cowenhoven (D.R.C. Brown's wife) both sianificant families in Aspen's minina develooment. 36. Sources of information: Pitkin Countv Courthouse records: Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps. 1990 and 1980 Citv of Aspen Survev of Historic Sites and Structures VI. Significance 37. Local landmark designation: Yes No X Date of designation: Designating authority: 38. Applicable National Register Cnteria: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; g C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual) 4 Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria 39. Area(s) of significance: Architecture 40. Period of significance: Late 1800's Silver Minina Era 41. Level of significance: National State Local X 42. Statement of significance: This structure is significant for its Dosition in the context of Asoen's minina era. It describes the nature of the family life of a middle class familv durina that Deriod. as well as the construction techniques and materials available and in the fashion of the time. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: Sianificant alterations have been made to the structure. the oriainal roof shage is comgletelv altered and numerous dormers interfere with the readina of the form of the original structure. Because the structure was originallv brick. the oriainal first level does retain its character and architectural imoression. Due to the fact that the twin of the buildina survives on the adiacent Dronertv. considerable information about the original buildina is available to the out)lic. Resource Number: 5PT.117.5 Temporary Resource Number: 101.EHA 0 Architectural Inventory Form (page 4 of 4) VII. National Register Eligibility Assessment 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Eligible Not Eligible X Need Data 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes X No Discuss: There is a concentration of 191. Century buildinas in this area. If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing X Noncontributing 46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it Contributing __ Noncontributing VI11. Recording Information 47. Photograph numbers: R9, F30 & 31 Negatives filed at: Aspen/Pitkin Communitv Development Dept. 48. Report title: Citv of Aspen 2000 Update of Survey of Historic Sites and Structures 49. Date(s): 6/24/2000 50. Recorder(s): Suzannah Reid and Patrick Duffield 51. Organization: Reid Architects 52. Address: 412 North Mill Street. PO Box 1303, Aspen CO 81612 53. Phone number(s): 970 920 9225 ~ NOTE: Please attach a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad. map indicating resource location, and photographs. Colorado Historical Society - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395 0 Resource Number: 5PT. 117.5 Temporary Resource Number: 101.EHA Architectural Inventory Form (page 2 of 2) 21. General architectural description: Simole rectanaular plan brick buildina. foundation is brick at Grade. the asvmmetrical facade has a small comer entrv Dorch and a round arch main window in a brick field. A brick belt course runs around the buildina at the sill of the windows. The arched window is now a sinale Dane of fixed alass. The roof structure and cable ends are of frame construction. The use of brick and its elegant detailina indicate a well established family in the communitv. The entrv porch and entrv door has been altered with an elaborate cut alass oval liaht and side liGht. New trim has also been added. New addition to rear with new dormers and revised roof shape. main level of original house is Generally intact. with few if anv oriainal windows A corbelled chimnev Drolection exists on the west side, however the rest of the chimnev has been removed. This is one of the rare brick one story residences in town. 22. Architectural style/building type: Late Victorian 23. Landscaping or special setting features: Two larae spruce trees on the front (north side), contemporary wrouaht iron fence on front and side. This buildina is a mirror twin of the buildina next door (105 E. Hallam) The adiacent buildina retains. for the most Dart. its oriainal confiauration and character. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: Brick outbuildina approx. 150 sa ft. Brick with stucco in some areas, wood clagboard at cable ends. Structure straddles two Droperties. IV. Architectural History 25. Date of Construction: Estimate Actual 1885 Source of information Pitkin Countv Assessor 26. Architect: Unknown Source of information: 27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown Source of information: 28. Original owner: Catherine Brown Source of information: 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): Significant alterations and additions. The oriainal roof shape was reconstructed in an or)en aable end shane with contemporarv stvle dormers. the two storv addition to the back has decorative wood sidinq. a turned Dost balustrade. and traoezoidal windows. 30. Original location X Moved Date of move(s): V. Historical Associations 31. Original use(s): Domestic 32. Intermediate use(s): 33. Current use(s): Domestic . ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name 499/5 195(36? toe 2. Project location 101 8 f24*M $ io,9 e. M/Â·24/44' wr,A, '27.r 1*, 4 7,9 \}*1911 9)401 '2 'UOT Crp ?21.06Â¥Â· 9% (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning 9-: 9 4. Lot size rr, \6Â¥10 ,>51. 5. Applicant's namel address and phone number -jIM PÂ¢43 Fprâ‚¬10Â», 40994-; \Afdo 9-936 65Â£<Â·9)20 Â· 4,94\198.9,M. EP,VA (,0 -*fto-'119)0 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number 0/-Â»/ MOr,16-7 * Fiep-opÂ·~4 94 grecur (27 07 .92/ 147Â· 70 279 ' 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA * Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. X Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption K Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review Lot SpliULot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of ekisting uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft, number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) i it- 2>#95.6'99: A 21'Ii-; fO> 33/Â·'(23 f/V/->. 4,3 â‚¬Xukoo/VlÂ·9 ,At<.2 *,11* Of P..'r*2.> CA. Cr-T~Â·/4.14 079Â·GÂ· ':,twr.Â·p, 74:'77 00 pp=:r.i; 1rw,Â¥P.. 9,7. row 5.-t h -r tbok!( ttoÂ·Tro , TAPÂ·~ 0= F..06'r.grr.) -7 9,1990 h =flf21* 9â‚¬r 14 "hE-4 671 419-Â· \IÂ·'9'Â·\\-Â·a f]\\ iD'-'CÂ°:h/ t''P'~.Sff'D.'3 *4''3-' 11 It - 9. Description of development application p.* \I,: fisk-.r% PE.7/55'44 ity..Pld oke#Ji:,F-Â·51 tEelft tft-6 .ter, tv; (19.944-A er> 6 ' %6' I./..t# , hOU, -046: f ./.:. 9-7 9 roÂ»p.. 10. Have you completed and attached the following? h Attachment 1 - Land use application form >t Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form :< Response to Attachment 3 9. Response to Attachment 4 11111111 ATTACHMENT2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM ~ Applicant 4\t'' 6 ?piput,1/*1 404444 Address: . 10 6, ft/k/(/7/; Zone district: 1,50 Lot size: Â¥ 0Â«7 - ., Existing FAR: ' , 2 .f 6 C. p Allowable FAR: 4w' ~: '4 iz,Â· , ' . I.- 4 9% Proposed FAR: Existing net leasable (commercial): A: P Proposed net leasable (commercial): ; ixÂ» Existing % of site coverage: 140 l,iM\TFOOK Proposed % of site coverage: 60 'v{MrrATIOB Existing % of open space: ~ 9. E . Fv Proposed % of open space: 9. E.. r. Existing maximum height: Principal bldg: ,ze '-F' Accesory bldg: /09" Proposed max. height: Principal bldg: 0233 L.01' Accessory bldg: 5, M,/: 0 Proposed % of demolition: 5.:,6 Existing number of bedrooms: 2 Proposed number of bedrooms: 2 Existing on-site parking spaces: c On-site parking spaces required: 5- Setbacks Existing: Minimum required: Proposed: , Front /4,4- Front: 0, o Front: Â·'pÂ· 2. Rear: i.'34 Rear: i.*, 1 Rear: 1, 9 Combined Combined Combined Front/rear: 97. c.Â· Front/rear: 97, d Front/rear: 1.0 Side: 4 9 Side: 43. ~ Side: 4- :D' Side: 87' Side: e. 7 Side: Â£57. 4' Â·09*7Â¥220 8>F~ Combined Combined Combined Sides: ' 7.3 Sides: /57, 1- Sides: + 6 Existing nonconformities or encroachments: Â·9' 0 \NGe es,2/lkf-C 1 49Â·~ 8 F~ElÂ«/F,G : CO.d 5 9Mg .rou;râ‚¬cÂ·tr ?,0,9 t/*f-3\4% 455 Variations requested:, 0 7/497 (45% tty:> t?U .~11.Â· .C0'62~'r ,#3 57,d *94 9/G s 7/<mi *591.9-+465 8,/N.przEa22.(221*6*.~r-&&.Ni*,6:*s#mijy.704.,6/ FroNJ/Â»3Â· 1/3-0 r,"~7,14* .06;i?yL~'AMANK&, 0 53' Cot' fitt,?99 65e'/-9-7 6958*0,4 f.*\NUE;, Hig (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.ft, site coverage variance up to 5%, height variadons under the cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O zone districts) 0 41M'10?- OP \?PE-966, aF, -ra James J. Gorman 1426 Rose Glen Road Gladwyne, PA 19035 610/896-2880 February 19, 2001 To Whom It May Concern: Mary A.A. Holley is authorized to act as our representative for approval of work to be completed at 101 E. Hallam Street, Aspen, CO. James J. and Patricia B. Gorman 1426 Rose Glen Road Gladwyne, PA 19035 Office Telephone: 610/524-0220 Home Telephone: 610/896-2880 Cell Phone: 610/724-2626 Fax: 610/524-7706 E-mail: igorman@voicenet. com Mary A.A. Holley C/o Mary A. Avjian Architects, P.C. 50 River Oaks Lane Basault, CO 81621 Telephone: 970/927-7656 Fax: 970/927-7669 E-mail aardvark@,sopris.net Sincerely, 60- James J. Gorman /kj 0 PCT13511C2 PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. P.O. BOX 1417 23286 HIGHWAY 82, SUITE 22 BASALT, COLORADO 81621-1417 970-927-4993 1 970-927-4096 FAX ARCH 17, 1999 dES AND PATRICIA FORMAN 16 ROSE GLEN ROAD 1DWYNE, PA 19035 .: LOT A & B, BLOCK 65, ASPEN PCT13511C2 kin County Title, Inc. is pleased to provide you with the owners policy relative to the above mentioned file. :ase review the policy in its entirety. We at Pitkin County Title, Inc. believe in providing you, our customer, with a quality 3 luct which Will serve your needs. the event you do find a discrepancy, or if you have any questions or comments regarding your final policy, please contact us d we will gladly handle any request you may have as efficiently and quickly as possible. 0 e have assigned the above number to your records to assure prompt processing of future title orders involving the property. If u sell or obtain a loan on this property within 5 years, ask your broker or agent to contact our office to ensure re-issue rates tich may be available to you. Â·,ank you very much for giving Pitkin County Title, Inc. the opportunity to serve you, ncerely, /4. I enise L. Lange ffice Manager NCS: COPY OF TAX CERTIFICATE :)R QUESTIONS ON YOUR FINAL TITLE POUCY, PLEASE CONTACT DENISE LANGE AT THE ABOVE NUMBER. O PLACE NEW ORDERS FOR A SALE OR RE-FINANCE, PLEASE CONTACT KIM SHULTZ AT THE ABOVE NUMBER. 4~ SCHEDULE A-OWNER'S POLICY 0 CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY AMOUNT OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER PCT13511C2 11/10/98 @ 3:56 P.M. $ 1,336,500.00 1312-136886 1. NAME OF INSURED: JAMES GORMAN and PATRICIA GORMAN 2. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREIN AND WHICH IS COVERED BY THIS POLICY IS: IN FEE SIMPLE 3. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST REFERRED TO HEREIN IS AT DATE OF POLICY VESTED IN: JAMES GORMAN and PATRICIA GORMAN 4. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS POLICY IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT A AND THE WESTERLY 4.86 FEET OF LOT B, BLOCK 65, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. 0 PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS AVE. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 925-1766/(970)-925-6527 FAX THE POLICY NUMBER SHOWN ON THIS SCHEDULE MUST AGREE WITH THE PREPRINTED NUMBER ON THE COVER SHEET. 0 i. 491 ..1 i 1 11 / Nomi kt IE .., -; ~ . e%; I. t l.,...6 ' . ..1:5 -8 $ \..., /ho,kÂ·r 'Â·Â· 4 Spruce B JV i t : C Cowenhovenit - 2 otc:/ Jii.trIC . 4 ZL, 1 ~th<Q HR Harold Ross CD-n 4447 " 1~\5 i IS Luke Shon Ct / et di g - '+ \%. 1%1 WC Williams Ranch Ct 2 5 . put % L 0%1â‚¬ Red S 40* Mmers ~ Hal m st 0, Bleek St Efick .-1, Crn,U i' 9* f'; Â·: 1,Tr:RRd 1! 1 FO 4% 1 Alain 1, 4. i i GO (2 3 5 2 g lit:fÂ«: 'â€¢ Match 7 j i t:46 +6. C % % 4/tess Dr /M 1 1 . .4 i FCC. t - 0.-, / 44 '4 4 1 84!41' 51 4 te Queen St fadj~'t Nctiong f Forcrt VAii:cRaa 4% g~ pe 4 i t f 5 e * 4 441 -,2 e Mascone [n : DBe f .f f Fet;: 4 3 4 ::i I m Â£ Grove'Rd . _, Wlile Rim 1.ctic.tic! Fared more Ct EDean u k, I,~ DO,ant<*â€¢ U i E y 1 4.48 7 ,-44 6 j Gil 61 St 1. 4 %6 . 90157 -1 \\ Downtown - ~~~ 0'kne Q )- /7 - Â· 4, i LA./ b 14.4 (. e 7-Â© TILâ€¢/ 45 i-/2 l . Bi 0' Uspan Grovelr-Â· .1 1 5: \'P , % % i .4.9 4. E: -7 , V, Ute M P S : Rivere .Ve / P i 9$ Â· + i n- 4 i .9 i. 1%- ,.4 1. w i. . re~-F=*Dr~ 0 114 312 0 | Â·, l 7- â€¢'ei Scale in miles $i .-I.-WI 82 . Utte 0 2â€ž 1 SmuR!CELIE Iviag A. Agian Architects, F.C. MEMORANDUM To: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer From: Mary Holley ca Jim Gorman Date: March 14, 2001 Re Conceptual Review of 101 E. Hallam Addition and Remodel We are applying for Conceptual review of Landmark Status, Signiftcant Development, Partial Demolition, rear and side yard setback variances, and a parking variance for an addition and remodel to the existing residence at 101 East Hallam. This project was previously presented to the Historic Preservation Commission at a worksession on November 15, 2000. I will address the comments and concerns raised in that worksession as well as the relevant review standards in this memorandum. The property now has an existing two-story brick residence and a detached one-story brick shed that straddles the eastern property line. The original portions of these buildings were built in 1888. With the exception of additions and alterations that were made to the 101 West Hallam property beginning in the late 1980's the main house is in its original form. In addition, the brick shed on our side of the property has been completely covered with stucco, 2x wood furring, and horizontal wood siding. The smaller portion of the shed on the adjacent property has a stucco band up to about three feet above grade. We believe that the main house is a good candidate for Landmark Status as it meets the standard of contributing to the neighborhood character and to the character of the community. Katherine Cowenhoven Brown had the house built in 1888 as a guest cottage for the mansion that had been located on the Red Brick School property. As such, it represents an important link to Aspen's past. In addition, this property is currently listed on the City of Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. The Germans were pleased to receive a letter from the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department on August 31, 2000 regarding retaining their property on the Inventory. They mistakenly assumed it meant the propertv was already considered a Landmark and would simply like to complete the process that the City has initiated. For our development, we are proposing a minor addition to the existing house and demolition of the brick shed. The shed is to be rebuilt as a garage in approximately the same configuration and 1 50 River Oatcs Lane Basalt, Colorado 8 1 62 1 rhone: (970)917-7656 rak(370)917-7669 E--mail: aardvarIc@sopris.net I Web rage: http//mt.sopris.net/aardvark . Marg A. Agian Architects, F.C. MEMORANDUM location that it now occupies with the addition of a dormer to allow for a garage door from the alley. The addition to the house will be mostly below grade with a small one-story link to be added above grade between the house and the new garage. The exterior of the existing house is to remain as it currently is and with the exception of required lightwells, the impact of the new addition on the existing structure should be minimal. The Gormans purchased the property with approvals from the H.P.C. to remove the roof of the main residence and raise it as well as to demolish and rebuild the shed with a higher roof. Having a lot of experience with historic renovations in Philadelphia, they did not feel that the approved plans treated the main residence with the sensitivity that it deserved. They chose to review the design and have come up with a new program that actually preserves the original existing house in its present condition. The new basement space will end at the edge of the original brick house. The part of the west elevation that is to be filled in was built in the late 1980's and is not original to the structure. They are not planning on further modifying the roof, windows, or original doors of the residence. They are only asking for permission to rebuild the shed to accommodate a garage door off of the alley. Both the above grade and below grade additions to the existing house were well received at the worksession on November 15. However, the main sticking point for this project became the proposed demolition of the brick shed on the back of the property. Some suggestions to allow the shed to remain were offered by the H.P.C., which we have reviewed with the appropriate authorities. Unfortunately, none of these turned out to be viable. I will briefly review the condition of the shed and the suggestions made by the H.P.C. 1. Bill Bailey of Bailey House Movers was brought on site to evaluate our proposal. He has no problem with shoring the existing house but is unwilling to either shore up or move the shed. He feels that interfering with the shed will be outside of the limits of liability that he is willing to take. Please refer to his letter that has been included in this packet. 2. Dale Kaup of Kaup Engineering also evaluated the shed. He felt that the shed has potentially reached the end of its structural viability. Please refer to his letter, which is also included. 3. A suggestion was made at the November 15 worksession that a compromise could be reached with the City whereby the Gormans would be allowed to utilize the area in the City Right of Way in exchange for keeping the shed as is. Unfortunately, neither the Engineering Department nor the Planning Department is willing to consider this option. The Engineering Department does not wish to set a precedent of allowing permanent or semi-permanent use of 2 jo River Oa Ics Lane Basalt, CL olorado 8 162.1 rhone: (970) 917-7656 rax:(970)917-7669 E--mail: aarclvark@sopris.net I Web Vage: http//mt.sopris.net/aarclvark Marg A. Agian Architects, rÂ·C- MEMORANDUM the Right of Way. Also, the Planning Department does not wish to consider approval for structures built outside of the property line. 4. Another suggestion was to rebuild the shed and build a garage near it in another location. Since the lot is only 35 feet wide, this essentially fills the entire back side of the lot with a structure. This would diminish the separate appearance of the shed, first of all, and secondly, would create an unusable space in the shed. The Gormans would have no beneficial use for the space in the rebuilt shed. 5. A final suggestion made at the worksession was that rather than interfere with the shed in any way, some members were willing to let it be and see how long it lasts before it falls down on its own. The Gormans cannot state too strongly that they feel this view is unreasonable. They are not willing to keep a structurally unsound building on their property if it can be avoided. In light of our demonstrated inability to move the shed, shore it up, or effect a land swap with the City to allow the shed to remain, we feel that the only solution for the project is to demolish the shed to accommodate the garage in the same location. To that end we feel the shed meets or exceed the standards for partial demolition laid out in the Land Use Code. Those standards are as follows: 1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration, or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to tile historic significance of the parcel. In order to accommodate their space needs both above and below grade, the Gormans need to be able to demolish the shed. In addition, please refer to the letter by Lisa Purdy regarding the historic significance of the original shed. 2. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. The original brick house will remain "as is" with this scenario and very limited alterations to it will be required. The new garage will replicate the original shed as closely as possible by keeping to the original location, width, length, and plate height. The only change to the original mass of the shed is the dormer on the alley, which allows us to access the garage without raising the entire roof of the building. 3 50 River Oaks Lane Basalt, Colorado 8 1 62.1 rhone: (970)927-7656 Max: (970)927-7669 E--mail: aardvark@sopris.net I Web Vage: http//mtsopris.neÂ«aarclvarl< . N-V-Â¥- Marg A. Agian Architects, F.C. MEMORANDUM b. Impacts to the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions that are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. The mass and scale of the rebuilt shed/garage is meant to replicate, as closely as possible, the building that will be removed. There is also a lower "link" element between it and the existing house to help give the new addition the appearance of being a separate entity. The majority of new construction will occur below grade where it will not affect the original brick structure. Realizing that any demolition is a sensitive issue, we nonetheless feel that this proposal helps to maintain the integrity of the site and the main residence as much as possible while still allowing the Gormans to make full use of their property. They are much more interested in preserving the main residence than their previous approvals had allowed. The genesis of the design before you was a desire to treat the main house with care and respect. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call and I will be more than happy to address your concerns. 4 50 River Oalcs Lane 13>asalt, Coloraclo 8 1 67 1 f'hone: (970) 927-7656 Max: (970)927-7669 E--mail: aardvarl<@sopris.net I Web fage: http//mt.sopris.net/aardvark Mar-09-01 08:28A KAUP ENGINEERING INC 9709459633 P.02 P.O. Box 2235 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 KAUP ENGINEERING INC. (970)945-9613: fax (970)945-9633 0 March 9, 2001 Mary Avjian Architects 50 River Oaks Lane Basalt, CO 81621 Attn- Mary Avjian RE. Gonnan Garage, 101 E. Hallam, Aspen Via: Fax Dear Mary: Per your request, I met with you at the residence at 101 E. Hallam to review the existing shed. I was asked to assess the structural viability of the structure. The existing shed is approximately 100 years old and is constructed with materials and methods prevalent in that period for an out building. The roof is framed with wooden 2),4 rafters, which bear on perimeter brick walls. The brick walls appear to be unreinforced and are a double wythe layout. The brick walls appear to have 0 been built directly on grade with no formal footing. A hard coat stucco finish and wood siding were added to the exterior at an unknown time The areas of exposed brick indicate severe weathering of the brick as well as the grout joints. A substantial number of cracks were observed in the bricks as well as the exterior stucco finish. The shed has been through significant settlements and movements. In general, this shed is typical for the era and usage in which it was constructed. It appears to have undergone extended periods of weathering and neglect. The cracking in the brick walls indicates long term settlement/heave movements associated with minimum frost cover and improper drainage. The lack of a foottng has also contributed to the walls susceptibility to soils movements. The brick walls are unreinforced and therefore are held together only by the bond at the grout joints. Due to the age and porosity of the existing brick and grout the bond holding the wall together has been significantly compromised. The roof rafters are again typical for the era of gonstruction but are greatly overstressed for current design snow loads. Based on the above observations, it is my opinion that the shed has reached the end of its useful life expectancy. The long term weathering and movement of the brick walls has compromised the overnll structural stability of the shed and the existing roof rafters are overstressed. Therefore, I recommend that the shed be immediately stabilized to prevent a potential collapse. All shed access shall be closed off to prevent anyone, including the owners, from entering the building. All 0 Mar-09-01 08:29A KAUP ENGINEERING INC 9709459633 P.03 0 roof snow loads shall be removed as soon as they accumulate. In addition, precautions shall be taken to prevent any vehicular contact with the building from alley traffic. In condusion, the shed is structurally unstable and has a potential to collapse. Temporary shoring and bracing shall be installed for the safety of the property owners and persons using the public alley. Please call with any questions or if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, wâ€žtm , lim, efu 1,944. C \ 2%52DffI#Â·ME-h Date D. Kâ„¢~-Cnote 12 %4<--4Â£*ey %33,!RE Al V. mimmt# f./1,/i; 0 0 11/13/2000 09:44 9704349763 BAILEY PAGE 01 Proposal Proposal No. / M L),4/LEÂ£.~ t~ 452- CVIOu E,e.S Sheet No. / 3 f 4-9 - 8 Â£4 Date 01,â‚¬,4-,0 0 377-. , (140 - 2/SB 3 Proposal Submined To Werk To h Performed AI Nrune *1 4Â£ 9 64 LLE y ,Â».1 /0 / U.3 144"AA,Â·A s...â€¢ .3-h Ptu;/ 6475 44â€¢JE. 04 Ai P.Â£00 Stnle Câ€¢) 4.0 0, 25.45.4, r Date of Mon, Stal' C~Â£ 29 . Architect Telephone number â‚¬17 - 7; &4 We hereby propose to furnish all the materials ond perform all Ke labor necessory for *le completion of 4,402,6 ~7 -7-WL /06Â«5 L Ar le / UJ NA 4-2-441 61 1 #7â€¢4- ~7EEL =15 EANis. -T--44 P 2i rk 2 i n G UJILL GO Aff,enc. 6' AtvONA N 2.,0 /4 45 EVMENT (7~,v q ry u c 7-,W. C r. MT A At-re O MY, L L 74*U i -7-3 2.0 bu Â£/2 4<Er GAADE A-,Au.u h 140-s t. fhaut,0 J 1" 2 F.Lo k] 5Â¥+O 2-F 1-, Al FL ow-ir A,u.4 F/Lo *i }40,45 E 7-0 -rie kbysr 1-T-O 45.recer- O.u,LK A,un/ 7-6 7-*42-: E.vr Age.r *'. mOVE, 03,{a. ALSM Al,Et> 0-â€¢.tr,EA~raa -7-0 8/4 61*-6, CA,8 P'Ts -7-0 ELI VAT-u o f AASE a.t.7- FLod e . /*PA, 7-,2Aerb Â£ (AL 1â‚¬-L Ause. 8, C.(ALL A- fENUr-LATNG * dE, ek Ap.L wh47,0.9 Fe A. V'A Ou ERS S.7-6.Â£ L AILAMAS r Au h ALSO --7-AL CE-,u Â£.AJ r AU NDAT-cONÂ· All material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the obove work to be performed in accordance with the drawings ~nd specifications submitted for aboÂ¥e work and completed in a substantial workmanlike manner br 6 sum of Dollars ($ caL 500 1 1 /0 poymenh to be made os follows: Any alteration or deviotion from above specifications involving extra costs, will be executad only upon written orders, and will bÂ®come an extra chorge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our control. Owner lo carry fire, lomodo and other ngessory insuronce ypon above work. workmen'; Compensa~ion and PuWic bobility Insurance on above work to be token out by. 041-24 /44,0,-F Â£ nlout,â€¢.5 Respectfully wbmilterl p. 00â€¢me v /4,4Â«,I An C J LAS Note - This proposal may be wilhdrawn by us if not accepted within fo days ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL The above prices, specifications and conditions ore salisfactory and ore hereby accepted. You ore authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as oullined obove. Acrâ€¢pled Signature 5-,r. TOPS FORM 3450 ~ LITHO IN U.S.A. . + 11/13/2000 09:46 9704349763 BAILEY - Bill Bailey BAILEY HOUSE MOVERS A...diA LICENSED â€¢ INSURED â€¢ BOMDED Wm. O. BAILEY 3 1 49 8 =1. Grand Junction, CO 8 1503 970 +34-9763 .. it-11-00 0 4-7-TA.1 ~ 44 Ae 4 2*U, V u-â€¢a s "riL - io, ul. 14â€¢ As,#& , CÂ©â€¢a. -725 6â‚¬lwok /r ,%,+ Clocced: -~2 L SHâ‚¬b ; Ay 7*& AutÂ¥ ~A-r /01 W. 4 AU AM 1 / 5 1 C ~.y 0 Af 40/4 -7-6 o UN iTABLE 74 rv\out S.APEL-v. -7146-2-ARL, Pr ExcE ins FAL. 6.,1-5 +.02 .. 1-1 Ad, L.,7-,25 -lt+AT , AA to,Li:NA 77 -7+EKE_. SfIUCEEELV . 1 4 4,4.4.4 OAn GY 1.~.usi qV'lou cle f Lisa Purdy Consulting ......... 121 Pea rl Street Denver, CO 80203 Ph (303) 733-7796 Fax (303) 733-7110 MEMO TO: City of Aspen, Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Lisa Purdy, Historic Preservation Consultant DATE: March 15, 2001 RE: 101 E. Hallam, Aspen Colorado Jim and Patricia Gorman, owners of 101 E. Hallam, asked me to evaluate the renovation they have proposed for their property at this address. They had questions about the sensitivity of the plans for rehabilitation of the main house and the effect that demolition of the rear shed would have on the historic significance of their property. I am sharing my comments with you at their request. BACKGROUND By way of background, I have worked for over 20 years in the field of historic preservation as a private consultant, as a volunteer, and as an employee of Historic Denver, Inc My work has been the subject of numerous articles and books as well as a PBS special on my role in creating the Lower Downtown Historic District in Denver in 1988. Three years ago I was awarded a yearlong fellowship to Harvard University based on my work and contributions to the field of historic preservation. I also received the top award given for preservation from the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and have received numerous local awards for my work for preservation in the community. In addition, I have spoken at various national conventions and bar association meetings and have written numerous articles and edited a book on the subject. One of the things I have learned through the years is that historic preservation practice varies from one locale to another. Each community comes together to decide what is important to them, writes local ordinances that addresses their values and provides a legal framework, and appoints a Commission that interprets these ordinances in the context of their own community. Because of this, when I evaluate historic preservation projects I pay close attention to what a given community has written into their ordinances, surveys, and guidelines to interpret what these values and procedures are. In addition, I hope to bring the added value of my years of experience in promoting, interpreting, and advocating the cause of historic preservation in many cities around the country. I submit my comments to you for your consideration in this context. Memo to the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 2 from Lisa Purdy Consulting re: 101 E Hallam March 15, 2001 PROCESS I went to see the property at 101 E. Hallam in early March of 2001. I reviewed the plans submitted by Mary Holley and spoke with the owners to understand the past history of the house and why they are renovating the house in the manner proposed. I also spoke with Amy Guthrie on your staff and walked the West End for several hours. In addition, I spent a great deal of time looking at the shed, the context for it, and the manner in which it has been altered through the years. Lastly, I reviewed your Land Use code as it relates to historic properties, read the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines published by Aspen in April of 2000, and reviewed the Aspen Inventory data from 1980, 1991, and 2000. Because I have been coming to Aspen on occasion for projects over the last 25 years, I have developed a familiarity with not only the town but with many of the historic preservation processes and codes you've developed. EVALUATION 1. The addition to the main house is being done sensitively and without disruption to the historic integrity of the property. I was pleasantly surprised to see the plans for the addition to the main house. By putting the addition underground and leaving the part of the house with the 0 most historic integrity (the front) untouched, the Gormans will be preserving that which has made the house qualified to be on the Inventory. It is rare, in my experience, to see an owner go to such expense to make an 1888 historic house adapt to modern times. The underground addition will add space without disrupting the house as it is seen today. The public will still get a good sense of the house's history as a guest cottage and because the front of the property contains the most historic integrity, this fagade will remain in a condition that is close to the original design. I find it unfortunate that the 1980s renovation to the house was done in such an insensitive manner but am happy to see that what is being proposed now will not detract from the main part of the house. 2. The variances requested will not adversely affect the historic integrity of the property. Given the year the property was originally built and the narrowness of the lot, I believe the parking and setback variances are appropriate and will allow for remodeling that is in keeping with the property. 3. Demolition of the rear shed will not adversely affect the historic significance of the property because the shed is not a historically significant element 0 Memo to the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 3 from Lisa Purdy Consulting re: 101 E Hallam March 15, 2001 0 4 Frotn myreview ofthe materials describing thehistoricsignificanceof the property as a whole, the rear shed was never described as a contributor to the historic qualities of the property. a. The 1980 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey form recognizes the value of the main house as a "good representation of an Aspen Victorian Minefs Cottage." The shed is not even mentioned in the physical description of the significant elements of the property. b. The 1991 form merely describes the physical qualities of the shed under "associated buildings, features and objects" but does mention it in the section on historical information. c. The 2000 Inventory form mentions the main house as " significant for its position in the context of Aspen's mining era" under the "Statement of Significance" but does not mention the shed. The form describes the significance of the house - primarily the unaltered first floor in the front of the house. However, it mentions that sigruficant alterations have been made that interfere with the reading of the form of the original structure elsewhere on the house. Again, the shed is mentioned 0 only under a physical description of "associated buildings, features, or objects." The only part of the property that is specifically called out as having historic significance on these inventory forms is the main floor on the front portion of the house. The rest of the property is described as having been altered significantly. The shed is only described in the associated buildings section in a physical description of the property. 4 Even if the shed were deemed a significant part of the property at one time, it has been altered so substantially over the years that it has lost any significance it might once have hai The original brick shed was covered with stucco that was adhered directly to the brick. Then, wood lathing was bolted to the stucco and wood siding was applied on top of that. The portion of the shed on the Gorman's property is completely covered with a wood siding from the 1980'sera. The result is a shed that has no resemblance to its original appearance. Furthermore, because of the way the various coverings were applied, there would be no practical way to restore the shed to its original appearance. Lastly, due to the structural unsoundness of the shed and the softness of the brick attempts to rehabilitate the shed would be futile. 4 In addition to the above, the shed has lost any historic context that 0 would make its preservation worthwhile. The only part of the main structure on the property that has retained its historic integrity is the front Memo to the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 4 from Lisa Purdy Consulting re: 101 E Hallam March 15, 2001 portion of the house. This shed is in the back on the alley - not even 0 visible from the front of the property. The back of the house has been significantly altered to the point where the house is not deemed eligible for individual listing on the National Register. Additionally, the shed has completely lost its context in the alley. All of the other structures in the alley are new 1 and 2 story garages so there is no meaningful context either on the property itself or in the alley. 4. The request for partial demolition of the property is being done within the rules of the land use code for historic properties in Aspen. In section 6 of the land use code for Aspen, "Standards for review of partial demolition" there are two standards that must be met before demolition is granted: a. Standard: "The partial demolition is requiredjbr the renovation, restoration or re}mbilitation of the structure, OR (caps added for emphasis) the structure does not contribute to the historic signijicance of the parcel" I would say that the shed meets this standard on both counts. The partial demolition is needed to allow the house to meet the current needs of its owner. Standards of living are quite different from 1885, and replacing a shed with a garage is not an unreasonable accommodation to provide for a beneficial use of the property. In addition, I do not believe the shed contributes to the historic 0 significance of the parcel for the reasons stated in Number three above. b. Standard: "The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: (1) Impacts on the historic signi#cance ofthe structure or structures located on the parcel by limited demoliNon oforiginal or sign#icantjkatures and additions, and (2) Impact on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions that are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure." The addition being planned mitigates the impact to the historically significant part of the property to the greatest extent by putting it underground. The demolition of the shed to accommodate a garage is warranted because the lot is very narrow. Other locations for a garage would diminish the property more because it would use up almost all the available open space on the back of the property. The proposed building of a garage on the site of an unsound, and, in my opinion, insignificant shed, makes sense in the overall scheme of the historic property. Because the shed is on the alley behind the house, the rebuilt garage/ shed will not even be visible from the front of the house where the historic integrity remains intact. Lastly, as I understand it, the new garage will be built in approximately the same configuration as the shed and will be built out of brick. Memo to the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 5 from Lisa Purdy Consulting re: 101 E Hallam March 15, 2001 0 5. The request for demolition of an outbuilding follows the standards in Aspen's Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. 4 Chapter 8 of the Historic Preservation Guidelines deals with secondary structures. While preservation of accessory structures is encouraged, the chapter also states, "because accessory structures are often subordinate to the main house, greater flexibility in the treatment qfaccessory structure may be considered." 4 8.1 in the guidelines say, "(fa secondary structure is not historically signijicant, then its preservation is optional." I would argue that the shed is not historically significant today because it has lost its historic integrity through the numerous alterations and inability to be returned to its original state. 4 8.2 states, "tfan exisNng secondary structure is beyond repair, then replacing it is encouraged. An exact reconstruction ofthe secondary structure may not be necessary in these cases. The replacement should be compatible with the overall character Of the historic primary structure, while accommodating new uses." According to reports from structural experts, the shed is beyond repair. The new garage will be built in the approximate configuration of the old shed and it will be built out of brick as was the original shed. The new garage will also maintain the gabled roof of the original shed. 4 8.4 states, "A garage door should be compatible with the character of 0 the historic structure." The garage door will be made of wood as is suggested. SUMMARY When reviewing proposals to renovate and add onto historic properties I believe it is important to maintain perspective on the big picture. The Gormans are strong supporters of historic preservation and have (in my opinion) greatly improved upon previously approved plans to rehabilitate the property. They welcome being oIl the Historic Inventory in Aspen and even want to make it a Landmark property. They are working hard to make this historic house adapt to modern times sensitively by putting their addition underground. The demolition of an alley shed that is historically insignificant, that has been altered beyond recognition and that is structurally unsound to accommodate a modest one-car garage is a minor event in the scheme of things. The proposed partial demolition of the property is well within the guidelines and rules you have set forth for historic properties in Aspen. I understand there has been discussion of preservation of the shed by some members of the Commission. It would seem to me that requesting the preservation of a secondary structure that has lost its historic integrity would be unduly onerous to this property owner and counterproductive to encouraging others to rehabilitate and adapt their historic structures to meet today's needs. 0 Memo to the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 6 from Lisa Purdy Consulting re: 101 E Hallam March 15,2001 My overall assessment of this property is that the proposed plans for redevelopment 0 drawn up Mary Holley will not detract from the historic integrity or significance of the property as it stands today. Copies to: Patricia and Jim Gorman, owners Mary Holley, Mary A. Avjian Architects Amy Guthrie, Aspen Historic Preservation Officer Attachments: Photos taken on March 6, 2001 showing; (1) the loss of context in the alley, and the lack of historic integrity to the back of the house, (2) evidence of damage to the original building materials, (3) the loss of historic integrity of the shed due to alterations, (4) the lack of visibility of the shed from the front (and most historically significant) portion of the property. 0 0 LA 101 E. Hallam, Aspen, CO 4. LACK OF VISIBILITY OF SHED FROM HISTORIC PART OF THE PROPERTY 4 /K, i L .4 -- 1'/1 - ,44 -41 h..S: X ,- ' 72 -44 --C, V' V - '12Â». R . 1 J 11 1 - ~3 .74, F 1 -r- . '.",1 4 44 - B . la 1 . 2.: 43 . I. f. ' .1 . apÂ»:..11 :1. r 1 t 4 A-14%?DIA..1 4 411* Â· 40 1..z- 45, 7 ' 7 k 9.-2 all 2 ~ $ * , 1 1,2- ./ *.1.' -u. .il#Z'.9 1 91 .=Â· t 1 1 ~1111 1/Im"In"~Millill/: "/'r.U/!Ntmi! ..... . A 9-4; Â·' - .' 4 . 1 73 . *01 4 Â¢lfâ‚¬i , t' ~ ,twe . Â·th - 1 ~ - - 1.23LDEÂ¢ 4. 4 - 1 Vitilll! 44 -1 /' ...:.3 Y FI ENE).fil':/*': 1 4./1 24 0/4/11111;,i - â‚¬ 'll f /11/~ ~i~//I- - rejl. 6 -. %!0*---- 01 1,1,#11+L 1---:- i r .t . . 1, 11 1' r -- . ./. I : I r i .44 /'6 1 - C.+1 23-) 1 .1 -~ It --, P 1 --- --- 4 L.ill 00 , 4 V 1 - 1 1 -6- -4 : 2 -- . -- 3 I t- -1 --- -- * 36/::1-44/Â»7ju 4 4 .: 4 === % . : 4.- 'ti, 11 - 11 I . I 101 E. Hallam, Aspen, CO 2. DAMAGE FROM NUMEROUS ALTERATIONS . . 4 ....1, 1 . 1 0 1 t .J i. I. )71 0 - Â·. /4,9 a 1 4.. I. . = -r . 11 4 .7, 4 tiÂ· 4. rL'//I- . .t . 0 0 .. ... 0 ..82332< f /* lits.... ' 1;71.4 . 1./4~*.~.<31 . . h . .. - lihE.- .244 I- . '*99â‚¬. â€¢ ill+ 4,~ .pt '411 t.449 21? ril - $,1 4*a*~ij~i,~ p..47.' S ... I. I lilli . ... I 2 #649 Â» A.; 01,/ld**W# .1 i ; r:-i:&:9** 4 {5 9.Lr ..VI' 4 'er .. I. I ..7 A 2 :t. I %)1-&' -2.-r 1 + 1.- -\12, r 1 #Â·AL.'Â· Â·-Â·.2.1*11/'...2/ =r'.4. Al ,; i - . 1 .il -\ \ ~f 1 : , 4 4 I '- ...2 L Â» 1 9.1 . */ I. ' 2Â·4.1,# ' 2 .. 7..'~ 'jil' 4 #*WARRJ' 1 I h -'Â·.6 ~4 t - f , f , i t.*#2.....ilt : 'A I . I. " j .410,=-di#:...: 4'4, 5. .F-Ii-/&= 441 ./ ierÂ¥ .eall- 401 71 4>>74%'--- '42 44.f Â¢12. .:'+,211*.4 03Â»; Â·r .: St ' 4 .41*Nb .A t , 18 p,â€¢: 3%0*Â·14 Â· i: /4.44 *r'll / -Â·.Â£ d21â‚¬17)42Â·-?,i~~ Â·Ct~â‚¬jEARbum#.i i-~ Â·' :::;~..3, 1 ..4 f .,4 .:Ex X.. 10/1 f.Â£# <$1 i, ear ,*1. â‚¬*,- in'lth# â€¢M Â» fâ€¢ .4.- r. I - .... .... . ... ff:04+ - -I: ./ y.~ ' ~~'b. L#Im:: I ,~~ ,+4* ..12. 4.'4v 2 1 ;. I .4/ Â·L.-/ ... ' Â£-' 292/ Â·~ U.r'Â·*: /9/4. ;. . + -7AF f 101 E. Hallam. Aspen, CO Loss of context in the alley, and lack of historic integrity to the back of the house 1. CONTEXT > . 31Â· 11 - 72 k Um , 211 11 1. 11..1 11, lili : 1 1 -:Â· 1 .... U: Â·>Â·' 0.0 'r Â¥ . 1 i . h ~),1 1 Â¥$ 2 t : . 2 Ir -7 1, ' 794 .'7Â·11.41'I -4 -: - - 1,4-* 96/ - .1 lat:.21*/I'l .r f 2Â· 6 KI : 8/lifilr...........................I - 1 + - -/ Ilt - ,Ck.2. I - - 1 ., , 1 ./14.. V .. I 47=-P .24 ' I .ele- 1 ...... .r.1 -#. Â¥4.-em- ------ ./1. ,; 72' *Fl ,~ 4 2 . I ./'P'*~ ~::~3. 1 III ! Flf_ P 4%6 -- -.. --- .-- /2 111 U.. .. - / , .â€¢ 4 i L..1. 4- 4# .All #' , 9 - ; 7 * /15 riÂ·. . 4'f 11Â· .J . 44 " D 1.2 It f. Â· 1. 71'Â· + :'*0 , 2-6, r.;: Di 2 * 2,7?f 4 4 &. MAR-2 (-2001 TUE Ul :40 PM 1Â· AX NO, (0 1 â‚¬- ButÂ« r-mim County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060(E) I, VAB7 twu,et , being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26304.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid ILS. Mail to all owners ofproperty within three hundred (300) feet ofthe subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the 1* day of 1.14*, , 2001 (which is 14 days prior to the public hearing date of ~f/(U Il,â€¢224). 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 lu day of M,fo. -,2001_,to the 1 1 day of KFI46 , 200 1 7 (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph ofthe posted sign is attached hereto. Signatult~ 0 (Attach photograph here) Signed before me thisijhday of 04141-f 2001,ty-3 Ulat*-ffÂ· EX\f)2,6 +10\21 ap-.ltb\klf-/ ) S MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My Commission expires: LD- i'-08 . Notaty Public 4 - L L.-i MAR-22-2001 THU 05:38 PM FAX NO, P, 02/02 PUBLIC NOTICE 0 RE: 101 E. HALLAM STREET-HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION, CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW, PARTIAL DEMOUTION, AND VARIANCES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 11, 2001 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Gatena St.. Aspen, to consider an applicalion submitted by Jim and Patricia Gonnan requesting historic landmark designation, conceptual design review, partial demolition and variances. Thc varianccs requested are a .5 foot west side yard variance, a 5 foot east side yard variance for an existing shed, a 3.5 foot sideyard variance for new conslruction, a 9.4 foot combined front and rear yard setback vaiiance, a 5.5 foot combined sideyard setback variance, and waiver of one parking space. The property is located at 101 E. Hallam Street, Lot A and the westerly 4.86 feet ofLot B, Block 65, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further infonnation, contact Amy Guthrie at the Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department, 130 S. Gatena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5096, amyg@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Suannah Reid, Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on March 24,2001 City of Aspen Account 0 0 ASPEN HOTEL ASSOCIATES LLC 120 EAST MAIN PARTNERS LLC ASPEN HOTEL ASSOCIATES LLC CO VETRA BNK-COMM LENDER 120 E MAIN ST 250 MARTIN ST STE 100 534 E HYMAN ASPEN, CO 81611 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009-3383 ASPEN, CO 81611 BROCKWAY LEXIE CITY OF ASPEN CITY OF ASPEN 7714 FISHER ISLAND DR 130 S GALENA ST 130 S GALENA ST FISHER ISLAND, FL 33109-0966 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ERWIN GREGORY D FRIEDLAND HEIDI FRINK ALBERT A TRUST 11248 JOHN GALT BLVD 124 N GARMISCH ST 9 OCEANCREST OMAHA, NE 68137 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657-1802 GIVEN INSTITUTE GARCIA SCOTT D GORMAN JAMES & PATRICIA REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF 120 N GARMISCH 1426 ROSE GLEN RD COLORADO ASPEN, CO 81611 GLADWYNE, PA 19035 BOULDER, CO 80304 GROSSE ADELINE M REVOCABLE GSW FAMILY INVESTMENT LTD GSW FAMILY INVESTMENT LTD LIVING TRUST PARTNERSHIP PARTNERSHIP GROSEE EDWIN J & ADELINE M 1300 CHAPLINE ST RD #1 BOX 110 TRUSTESS WHEELING, WV 26003 WHEELING, WV 26003 100 E BLEEKER ST ASPEN, CO 81611 1 FREDERICK B HOGUET CONSTANCE M JOHNSON RICHARD & MONTAE IMBT 1 ALLAM ST 333 E 68TH ST 6820 BRADBURY ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10021 DALLAS, TX 75230 JOHNSON-HAUGLAND HELENE L KRUMM DONALD PAUL NEW ROBERT & MONICA 105 E BLEEKER #B PO BOX 874 11414 N BAYSHORE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 NORTH MIAMI, FL 33181 NOLAN ELAINE L NORTH & SOUTH ASPEN LLC PARDUBA JIRI 148 GLENRIDGE PKWY 200 S ASPEN ST PO BOX 9903 EL DORADO, AR 71730 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 PENN PAUL E SADLER PRISCILLA ANNE TRUSTEE PENINSULA LLC PENN SUSAN W FOR HCR 64 B 200 9505 COPLEY DR SADLER PRISCILLA A REVOC TRUST BROOKLIN, ME 04616 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46260 PO BOX 2989 ASPEN, CO 81612 S U TIM SUTTON JENNY W SUTTON KERMIT S & JENNY W 1 ARMISCH 4101 CUTLASS LN 801 12TH AVE S STE 400 A , CO 81611 NAPLES, FL 34102 NAPLES, FL 33940 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS -TL393 WATSON DIANE B ZATS JULIE 6300 S SYRACUSE WAY STE 700 N 121 W BLEEKER ST 118 N GARMISCH ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 . 'ce Ex~ling Fence,ne (t*}. ) I I I roticÂ· rY-1 0 E .- -I -- I X X * 1 1 18 ~ Imp jUD'Ul~,u/ t Survey rjet 1 CD Lot A and the Westerb, 4.86' of Lot B, Block 65 *t. A A in rl / V L' The Eisterly 25. 14' of Lot 2 020 the Westerly 8.00' of Lot C Block 6~3 1 1 -M Wl i A enpo Colorado I *08<Â· - x x x ' Bosts Of 2 .7,7gs 1Â® 100.00' 1 m,.50'49,2- 3 Â¥6Â® Â¢ 1) BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURvEY 5 4 @EARING oF - NOTES - 14.14Â·30'497, BET,EIN A TIE SOUTH'*E5T PROPERTY CORNER OF- 4 I LOT 4 AND nâ‚¬ NORâ„¢IEST PROPERTY CORNER ty LOT 4 BOTH t60' 2) THE pROPERTÂ·r S,0.4 HEREON is SUUCT To ALL EASEMENTS. 4 06 3- X CORNERS BONG IONUIENTED AS S}OVI HEREON 02â‚¬,25-23-2534 165 41-friekey mag 19.4 - BMTS-oF-WAY& OR OTHER RESTRICPONS OF RECORD. 8% 9 4, d. 1 ~ '5*-2 -t:=. f.. - . 3) NOTICE: ACCOR[Â»IG TO COLORADO LAW. YOU MUST COUUENCE ANY 43Â© 0 *3-39-364- '01.3.- - - --- THREE (3) YEARS AFTER YOU DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT eÂ·u-j-,1 /Â· ..T.--*g--Â·.:â€¢st:,"m,>2 - Cli'=i ..1 5-1'94--' :-- Â·Â·-* ..t- 0 A | LEGAL ACTION BAED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS WRIEY WITHIN WAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN TMS S.IREY SEE 0 CCUMENCED MORE THAN TEN (10) YEARS FROM TA CATE OF gd-*ibi./-: .:E+76=51.3,0-5 9- .4:.- 39.G.9:.1.--:--3<N+-Â·:~9- V-L Â·'Aâ‚¬ jitÂ¢K-4 1 1 1 992.1-ff *-1.29761-$404<2244*E,k-? 70-9 7Â«9*'2.-ey.N:a--92Â·z'~y~:sÂ·:J.:r,imz-gm x CERIÂ·UNCATION 940-1 HERION. 5 4) THIS 161PROVEMENT SURMY PUT IS BASED UPON INFORMATION 910-1 ON THE -OFACIAL .LAP OF 1959 . 9 10 lu.. 0. ..1.2.6- . i,M-~rÂ·IP'ze '-f:2-J: 1-Â·--:r- 1052-eÂ·---ta:.Th-*JIÂ·:hsâ‚¬T ---2 ,%3522 MADE TO TES COPY ANY COPY. rACS,k,LE ETC OF r#S DOCUMENT, MIST RE COMPARED TO THE ORIGINAL IGNED. SEALED AND 5) RhER (Tr SUR~YS MI NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY CHANGES DATED COPV 70 INSURE THE ACCURACY OF -}â‚¬ INFORk(A'DON SHOWN ON W SUCH COPY. AND TO INSURE /1/T NO SUCH CHANGES /.af BEEN CD -4 MADE 2 3 1 , . 11,21.0 - - 6.3245.*MOR,496Â«*-Â» 4 ->)~-973~*?ffet ~**93-'4-{Pt44Â·-:-42-93 El--Â·-~-~~~42â‚¬JI?eÂ¤~*Ar-BES;62*&#*7â‚¬9-r.......1--,a r'214.REr.7.!*0*ES -6,EVJ-.-MY*t ----Â·.Ph 2 ...60-i -/. .-4- - ,- - - .,--- . 2:.01 -8.44+-6-0-*-+0 +2.-.1313---614-4 4.. -e-Fa -'Â·. Â·Â· BAck -.c:- 4.F- f.#kw,4-141*514'*%-4.62 4 7;26 - 1.-12-4:.2 - - 210:, .i Ptit 22-321 -Â·>'lf'-r?:93 lit75;2:,21%5'317. *Fev#j'~*34452*f# 7 ' 7'3447-fi .3'-!fap,- -'.- -9.' !7,3:23 S 2' F X44 1 toolgy 4 1 .J. 4747Zu.~ -- 2-Re 2-1--I-21â‚¬-979~~Â·9 fÂ£7. ~T~Â»ect92~ .1Â«g~..77 -.:.f7 36373.Â» 5 - 3 - 316,# 44 ->RE":'.-= - 9 * 4 %-344%24*49Â»Nageâ‚¬*24;2*432-41-1-4494(494*g,49% V - - - - PROPERTY DESCRIPTION - - - LOT 4 AND THE CST,.â€¢ 4.86 =EET p. I. -e--1.â€¢2e}r AW tt~Â·-~P -'~ -'*â€¢755'M~69 '7:TZE --8~t7* p_AMift~7.32-5;A~--~f..~--~ -,y~ -9ff~Â·M~p,,4*d x OF LOT B. BLOCK 55, CITY OF ASâ€¢EN =,i = c. - 741*Ed-:eg. -~-f-- -i=.1...3A -â‚¬1=pe =:-.9-3,-- .14,4 Â· .~ ,-.Â· Â·:.UN--97&li:J.74Â·Â»-, -t-*M -IÂ·=SÂ·*--,- c.Â© -ab -r- 70 Â·t,Â·.Â·-4-r-"6-4"'21, .UQ.rrqrÂ·-.uâ€ž_' :Ir-=f'5â‚¬PD COUNTY OF PITKIN. STATE OF COLORADO 6-.44Â»Â» â‚¬Â·- if<& :C#- --E E LA-.*~-,Wh*Â¥77 F-*~2%41Â£5 462 J.fi#Mk i -v *44-F f# ~7;4=.,~-*~.4%~*, ~.i,~tj . . - &.=&/ r 4,822,<jits,li,4*4/7-- I LJLU~ r # 42 8 20.5 -1 AND THE EASTERLY 23.14 FEET OF LOT 8 AND THE IESTERLY 8.00 FEET OF LOT C 44 BLOC< 63 3-7 OF *SPEN /1 1 11 x x 4.,9% ke %>el. 1 1:44 1 v X 14 I 1 Â¥1 Â£ C C 11 4 100,00' S'4'50'49"W iN. 6 U Â¢ x SCALE: 1 INCH = 4 CEET 04. < Roof Overncng Line k..ky' mr 1 i %24434*454021<ill-Clitiu-46 5-9311-J:.4.11--- ->ff365-firÂ¢~%0- i 1 023***A...33-7.to=â‚¬.3-4, -Â£5--5-tu-9/11%210M-- *â€¢ c ./ O-Â·Er-.Il- 7 SURFEÂ·fOR'S CERMCATE - .E . 4.,% '-I-â€¢~ '-- . 4 '-~ -â€¢ -Â· r.-&'-Â· *4~,â€¢ i.-- L. -9cl 8 Â·2 4* 1. THE UNDERIGNED. SENG I REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SIR'EYOR. . x LICENSED IN TME STATE OF COLORADO. DO HEREBY CENTFY THAT Tim IMPROWDIVT SURVEY PLAT WAS PREPARED BY IVER CTY SURVEYS LLC, N R?~20.-32,<-Â· .....-. 1 - ~----~- - -<u -rAt:-5.Â»*9.-i>-,--#k.IiÂ·Â·#*tb>.iÂ¥424*e:Â£422-12{y~:***7 I . 0, FOR ALAN 0.84194. UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND CHECKING AND THAT CS ]T IS TNUE AND CORRECT TO nâ‚¬ BEST OF WY KNOVLEDGE ID BELIEF IT 15 FUR'DER CERTIFED THAT THE 16~Roa,ENTS ON DE WOVE DESCRIBED U 64*AE,fLF#*49$Ver/42'115#30<.:isfia'Aft,J#Â£ PARCEL M THS DATE .kily 29. 1998. OCEPT UnUTY CONhECTIONS. ARE ,Â·r~ ~ E,mRELY ITHIN TME 001*AIES OF VE PARCEL OCEPT AS SHO-1, â„¢AT I tâ‚¬RE ARE NO 01/ROAO=04'a UPON â„¢E DESCRIBED PRDÂ«SES BY /9Â¥93%*li**6*/77:PBGr,12.,-434&.. 1,4=.2-::42.Â¥04't..2 **29'SÂ¥1~33*-a~* IMENE TS NO APPARENT EMDENCE OR SIGN OF ANY EASE}(ENT CROSENG OR M B~DE-G ANY PART OF SAD PARCEL EXCEPT AS 910-4. 2 77'72*211.9"mÂ°Pnt-lnjAFFI/:631%4#~#4&~214,1-*~~4-AX*Fk~ 1 -ROVEWENTS ON ANY ADONING PqDJISE5. EXCEPT AS INDICATED. AND THAT THIS MAP WAS PREPARED WTHOUT 8[NEFIT OF A CURRENT 11-LE COMIâ„¢ENT ~ AND DIES NOT REPRESENT A MILE SEARCH BY THS SURVEY" OR RlvER ITY SURFIEYS. LLC. OF THE PROPER'rf 5HOWN TO DETER-f OvAERSH/. Coâ€¢PAT:BIUTY .TH ANKÂ»ING PARCELS OR EASEMENTS 01 ENCUMBRANCES OF RECORD AFFECTÂ»NG THIS PARCEL ILL I,fORMAT)ON SHO\,4 HEREON REGARDING 6-45.5:2*1.&6%472..4-zw#~~.~.-,6*E&% fi~-3%19~f~~ ,~~~4*1F FRok. A,â‚¬ SUBICT To A TITLE Ccu.â„¢ENTS PROVIDED BY PITION COUNTY 0-4ERSHIP. EASEMENTS *10 OTHER DICUMBRANCES CF RECORD WAS OeTAiNED *00' P **Reen*BAkE*irt,27%69,[33'lt~V'ArtiaNAAMM%#20&%Â·41*99 1 INC. CASE NO. PCn1055CZ DATED SEPTEMBER 5. 996. AND TRANSAWERICA '4 I 54.74*7:4*3 :-.â€ž-4 -Â£A-= EÂ·f,C- p.,0.-Â·d-**= M - .~imÂ·~stÂ·Â·-â€ž904-54*Â»-,I 41,- 9 4.6. TITLE NSURANCE COWPANY. POUCY NUWaER 46.001.804 (NO DATE S 24- - 70 - - -S&-I ... . AVAILAflf). (D DAVID K COOPER *-m.----409:4.1.,4â€¢ 1' 2*ik, AD@-Â©1=-6-~424$944 -b,4 U &'; Â·4 -- L Â·Â·7Â·. . ry, -.Â·-Mi. 1â€¢-pr- r.z-.4 'rÂ·~-AC,G.,%6-:*Â·i.'.-14'AL*V COLO REG P. 2 5 / 2Â£30 FOR & ON BEHALF OF .1.:46 .66#44 52 *d#: 4**49--444-1- 2-'91.-6.~Si â‚¬71:*45'.-~*kii-L;Â»*Elee I ~EN SURâ‚¬Â¥1 L.LC 82 Wa'/*AM+th=a :5 -P-- .p;p-~0.Â·4 ,:~, -Â·fe=Â·t"Z--E' 5-;'~1:5''m2-'-5, Â·-Â¥-Â·~â€¢--'t~ji-I~4:Â¥Popt- 4-W=BE | wit.:CÂ» *2-3,%*35~ 1.Va."W.:9=7"k.-C'*497IfI.Flffy'R-;-tehc-3Â»'t:=54fd . Revisions: 27*.IÂ»:29-:.3.*U:73*#9#*#rÂ·w,4 Â«1321>Â·20-,<2-â‚¬ P##31*yrÂ· 1 -4--.2-'7*~,f.r'ZNÂ»24 1) Add 3 ... 900 .- 4/8/98 114* 2) Elevation, oddillÂ®- 9- corr,ct lot aniwi- 7/29/98 e . ex 24 A Alan Mih Roof Ov,mong Line ~ 1 \1< SURE> PREPAREDFOR: 4 1.- - P 11 - r 2 1 2 'po=/412- 7 1 210 1 Hyman Ave., Suit, 7 k \, ke | m:m.n,5~g C Â£ f /11Â» f) 81611-2912 O,4,049...4 1 00.00 A,pâ€¢* Colorado . 79 1 ~4 & 0. - 99,89. ~ job # : 98124 sheet Ai (Ecsterly 22 00' of Lot D) 1 LSÂ©st.* ~Coord file # ~2124_ 2 --------1--I---- / dwn by : D. COOPER of 2 MIDM )13!M 575'09'11"E . 9 33.14 1,1 -17: 19,15 - 14 r , ... 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L - 1 / 'W , 4 I F -pÂ·- El}J U) El'* 9 4 j' 2 // - r- T))--LE 2 -- 1-ft-34 pl- i 0 1 W =.ri; f '11 1 -- h.w I PI 'dE 1 1610 -1 1 0. lt] 11 ,-* >0 11/- L < 10 2 4r 9- 3.-7 1 t M . > 1 Z 1 1 . 4 ./A/=d'..44.1/1,1/0,0./11 W - 4 I %- 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 RE =1 85~ 8 3Am u. 2 M Â£ m M & 9* 11 (DORMAN REEIDENCE *r 3 93 ADDITION AND RE MODEL a 2 2 fi W WI 4 r 6 5 101 INEST HALLAM : m ASPEN, COLORADO 1 -13 0m 0 0 0 O 0 Ill O ... 22Â¥dOmIC) 9,~119)(1 UbH'r)â‚¬1 -- :.1.33HS Mary A Arlian 0 0 0 0 Mary A. Avj ian Architects, P.C. 50 River Oaks Lane Built, Co. 81621 (970*927-7656 0 0 ISSUE: H.P.C /%Oâ‚¬KSESSION. : 1 -15-00 M P C CONCEF"LAI. 03-02-01 5)05-iNG 5+ED TO me ~ 111 67:L-- eLACE 4 1 lili EX5T'h6 POOK Ull R,po%. ,~ BRICK k p pETAUNG 111 BRICK 152ZR- 1- M ESE EALIME P. 0 i %/5 *ROM R EXIST!0 ,/ ~L-) HISTgo r i C.0~â‚¬TIE.CTION , CONSâ„¢LET ON , STRUGWRES TO EE g' 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1- - .. - RSÂ·e/= OR p _1 1 - %X STAIR OPENINS I EXISTINe 1/ t'l ----- '~-~ i FLOOR I Ietâ€¢ MAL,J 46. El 0 1.. â‚¬}, ECK MAI'dC,OT TO t% -6 MATCH EXIST,NE 9 0.--,O het -'ymâ‚¬.1 1 4.--.---- % EXIS'1,6 rIAL. -O 1 19 -2246 Ilabl i 1 -1 BECOME i ILIR fATED 6ARAGE C - 84* EL // 9 6==4 1 r=== ':1 1-# / 01,7LJâ‚¬ 0% e,el,6 -, Â£ u.-1 MUD ROOM ; , Â·Â·1 Â· =9/ 1 LU LE 0 1 - U 177 1 | ' 21 2 KITCHEN I 1 M >S' 1 1 1 A / a * x hi----*# Â·- sÂ·,r Â·ce: 7~~ rhi ; Fii =-1 -=m ..ze/' il /1 / il / 76= , -P Z ar' n.u st LOCATed IN THIS ul#..,n>.m *I- \- "'Celâ‚¬1'5 BAL.CONÂ·f ABOVE - LIGHT)SL ERSTIO #al TO el,KIN- J / heN eROK MAI,ECOT - - -- Zd TO MATCH EXIST ll EXEr>* AALL TO BE ee/ED- 7 ~ 'I.â‚¬. rk *12 - 2 (7 < â„¢PICAL - A 47 < 4 -v - - DINING 0---2 --F â€¢EM MAL- Â·irms/L _ _ 1.= i hEA BRICK -92RACE ,, 1.22 OF *21 10Â»- 2962 OF - e ~ XTAILIN& *EUVEr'1419â‚¬5 AKI 1-0--11- ~~ 1 r El---C- M nu 00 O <99 1 1 , C L -1,3 OF YIN._ 08.01 0 0 PROJECT: SCRMAN RESIDENCE ADDITION AND REMOPEL DESCRIPTION: MA N LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE. i/4" r I'-0" 0 0 1~ MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SHEET: \*22/ SCALE 1/4.=1'-0 212.2 C O PEN, COLORADO . 1 11 X I----111 -,-1 / MN 1- 0 __Of _~-1 1 E-- - 4 1 -w 111 i I 0 111 -1 2 i _1__11 | Ir r t=.1, 1 1 ')) 1.-213< L- - 14 u L.1 1.----- I > I - 0 1 Q 1-51 2% 11 1 T 1 1 -CarÂ«Â«Lt-L_ @0 1 1~ 1 1 1 -111--1 1 . 1,40- -*- 1 2448 ..1 .1 4 ga F -1 1 312 3.12 1 .4 k rn 4 - L ~2_ ' 7 ~4 ~- 144-1. 17.2 .... --- -r --- + -- -- -9 #* 005 itqi m 21 42% 5%0 a + O 0 0 0 0 0 I I 8 Â»0 3 SORMAN KEDIDENCE **E ~ 1 1 1 1 R E \ 1 / 0 a B~2 0, 3 ADDITION AND REMODEL q 8 - a F 3 3F. 22 M 2 1 M m >t ME > u 101 REST HALLAM 22 Z ASPEN,COLORADO 2Â§ - h 70 0 m 00 0 000 O 0 Â¢ po EX}911)6 CaÂ®TR,CTION ~ 1â‚¬I CONSâ„¢JOTION hEN PECK AREA NV id 300-6 -laA -1 6 :NOLUIMOSECI tio ZV - 3-2-1 Architects. P River Oaks Lane tÂ« 0 1 . 461 1 -pec. 1 | Mary A. Avjian 50 River Cab Lane i To '97*M eognrie Basalt, Co. 81621 (970)Â·927-7656 Wel>FEQ WDÂ· ent,EF, TO M~Â¢Ott â‚¬,uÂ·,r<tte ISSUE: ate â€¢teâ€¢,1 H.P.C. AORâ€¢<SESSION, If-ID-<DO p02â€¢z- 8. fip.0. GONCEFÂ·UL: 03-02-01 i J a< /,-e m FA(X FPNOFÂ· enâ‚¬e- ttet/te 04â€¢irIN# MIC,9 4 5e,torrm ' 18#Â· Per,â€¢U,45,4 Meut ,* f-,Chie 1,01041 0<ent* III.. te~ CÂ».1'UNQ \)4000 9.Ut*, pe,At 8,9'0 15 FAct-1 â‚¬Â¥m,ritte 1.02 260-4 11 1 1.w Nfic. /7,86Â·10 *Pe - NEW YOF -66' El GueTIMG, reÂ·ute e(/T{Me i=FÂ· , meNAE FA*(* ~, I a,rlâ€¢Fe 1--~ofÂ· tiew 44,4/06 Afert WO I ----------------- wesT 6 Lav,T108 1 J M - f> 0 9201 U <I A Z-1% 1--1.- 0 b 00 6 1 0 < 0 W Irle prtÂ» Mouâ‚¬36 -tb ",NA 1 0================== 0 PROJECT GORMAN fESIDENCE ADE>!TiON Ate REMODEL DESCRIFTION . *ay *11,#LI51D SHEET: 0 ,Â»ert @ger,te ew MACÂ» P#46 ID Mâ‚¬ft e<Uite râ‚¬C)vax 14Â£+ CoteÂ© Â· p.eUSe A3.1 ellÂ«Ilte triob * lefu,~<re ENer/Ne Per,â€¢ute /4 Muat *I, FÂ»â€¢Di#F566 UBE CP MOT 791'â‚¬be HOP:nt eLWKTI orl I 0 -0 - 1 . 0 ================ 0 Mary A. Avjian . ttew **IN - 1 Architects, P.C. 50 River Oaks Lane Â»~-7656 Basak Co. 81621 0 -0 ISSUE: H / C /NORKSESSION. 1-15-00 H P.C. CONCEPTIA,-: 05-02-01 = 9 - 0 ~ ~- acee OF,lew eureAâ€¢De 49.06 te.4 404=fe,7 41,tela ro waz:pt â‚¬0â„¢7,45 t*N Ut,Tr WeA. 9 ?r** 9Eer> 14894 ,/Ac# 046 10 M~Tort / egerl7/,le, RqcM er,/Al,rE - Â£*Meâ‚¬-4 Mer/t "f 1 001./.B 11-1 1 0 1 ..REE_MENMd_ z 1------- -i--------1------1--- - - ~ 11.3 Ill 2 0 Lid <CI- 0 M z-3 [2 B I {2_ # o 1514Â«+He 9/eetono,4 - M O 0 6 BeN \NOOD M. TO O 01 4 Mray ege-nte 0 <f 9 4 tiew Woop erttreta, Mat)(te 'Seâ€¢*A Plorti i - 1 & |~51/fur PF40*â€¢,ftee' 8*N WOOD **14,6 ;OSF- 1 k PROJECT: 0 -0 1 eORMAN RESiDENCE . ~ ADDITION AND REMOPEL ~ ~~~ DESCRIPTION: ELEVATIONS 1 1 SCALE: i/4~ â€¢ 1Â·-OÂ· 0 ====================== 0 | ~ SHEET: 1 1 1 1 113.2 ~ ~ - g - I-i- - *IEMEREL 0 -01 33(JOIALIhI a