HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.Juan Street AH.HPC3-94 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen Historic Preservation Committee
DATE RECEIVED: 02/08/94 CASE NUMBER: HPC3-94
DATE COMPLETE: PARCEL ID#: 2735-131-14-002
PROJECT NAME: Juan Street Affordable Housing
! IL--
Project Address: 107 Juan Street
APPLICANT: Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority
Applicant Address: 530 E. Main
REPRESENTATIVE: Gibson and Reno
Representative Address/Phone: 418 E. Cooper
Aspen, CO 925-5993
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: 3 STEP:
HPO Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption:
HPC Meeting Dates:
P&Z Meeting Date: CC Meeting Dates: 1st 2nd
REFERRALS:
Planning Building Zoning
City Engineer Parks Dept. City Attorney
DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: DUE:
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL:
City Atty City Clerks Office
Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
COMMENTS:
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM
State Site Number: Local Site Number: 101. 9JS
Photo Information: ASP-L-36A
Township 10 South Range 85 West Section 13
USGS Quad Name Aspen Year 1960 X 7 . 5 ' 15 '
Building or Structure Name: Austin Property
Full Street Address: 101-109 Juan Street
Legal Description:
West Aspen Mountain
City Aspen County Pitkin
Historic District or Neighborhood Name: Shadow Mountain
Owner: Private/State/Federal Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority
Owner ' s Mailing Address:
ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION
Building Type: Residential
Architectural Style: Victorian Miner ' s Cottage
Dimensions: L: x W: = Square Feet: Approximately 900
Number of Stories: 1 story
Building Plan (Footprint, Shape) : "T" shaped
Landscaping or Special Setting Features: Located directly at base
of Shadow Mountain
Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material and
Function (map number / name) : None
For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in
the description as appropriate:
Roof: Simple gable with full-width shed off rear (material unknown)
Walls: Clapboard
Foundation / Basement: Cellar under west end of house
Chimney(s) : None visible from front
Windows: One-over-one double hung with simple wood crown front and
sides; original wood; cottage windows in rear
Doors: Transom over double arch light over wood panel with simple
wood lintel
Porches: Rear, no front porch; uncovered stoop (small)
General Architectural Description: Simple side-gabled miner ' s cottage
with rear added, not visible from front.
Page 2 of 2 State Site Number
Local Site Number 101 . 9JS
FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY
Current Use: Vacant Architect: Unknown
Original Use: Residential Builder: Unknown
Intermediate Use: Residential Construction Date: 1887
_ Actual X Estimate _ Assessor
Based On: Architecture
MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS
Minor X Moderate Major Moved Date
Describe Modifications and Date: Screened in rear porch
Additions and Date: Rear shed, very early
NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA
Is listed on National Register; State Register
Is eligible for National Register; State Register
Meets National Register Criteria : A B C D E
Map
Key Local Rating and Landmark Designation
Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register
Contributing: Resource has maintained historic or
LI architectural integrity.
0 Supporting: Original integrity lost due to alterations,
however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort.
Locally Designated Landmark
Justify Assessment: Maintains much of original quality
Associated Contexts and Historical Information: Aspen Multiple
Resource Nomination
Other Recording Information
Specific References to the Structure/Building: Pitkin County Court-
house Records; Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps
Archaeological Potential : Y (Y or N) Justify: Possibly in
cellar space
Recorded By: Glenn Rappaport Date: September 1990
Affiliation: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee - City of Aspen
Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer/Planner
/ - C
To: Historic Preservation Committee
From: Dave Tolen, Housing Office
Date: 7 September, 1993
Subject: Juan Street Affordable Housing
Background: The City of Aspen purchased the property on Juan Street- - -
just West of Aspen Street for the development of affordable
resident housing. The Housing Office Board will be meeting on
September 15 to decide on a program for the site and approve a
Request for Proposals for a design/build team to develop the
project on the City' s behalf.
Historic Structure Review: One of the existing structure on the
Juan Street site is a designated historic structure. The Housing
Office intend to develop an affordable housing project which
incorporates the historic house. We are presently looking at two
alternate programs, one which calls for one bedroom and studio
units and another which calls for three bedroom units. The
historic house will be renovated and used as a two or three bedroom
home.
The purpose of this worksession is to give the housing office some
guidance in selecting the final program and developing the Request
for Proposals. The most important issue is the program. Attached
are several drawings illustrating two possible site plans, one
containing 13 studios and one bedrooms and incorporating the
historic house as a two bedroom residence. The other site plan
illustrates a possible three bedroom development, containing five
new units and the historic house, which we would remodel as a three
bedroom residence.
In reviewing the criteria for historic review of a new project, we
will be addressing issues of setbacks and spacing, in order to
ensure that the new buildings maintain a typical front yard setback
in relation top the historic house. We will be reviewing massing
and ornamentation in relation to the street. We will be reviewing
rooflines of the new structures in relation to the type of building
represented on the site. There are several other detailed criteria
for the review, but those above represent the major structural and
site planning issues.
We are requesting guidance form the HPC in relation to these
issues. The site plans attached are not intended to represent the
final site plans, but are intended to give us an opportunity to
discuss the potential for the site in relation to the historic
house.
85- tb- 1,b-
IL,
'ir) Z , k E .
t _a
' ‘ ) k .{ (-... — „._-,
it_
, ,, , tg,\ z r, a --
J ‘ - ‘9 (1-.1: . ?.. li Zi, -,, -., Z'k: it t
\ k „, b- ,, . c, .. .. .. ri.. :T.,: — t 0 t
k t 1 t. f-
, c, Q......
i,
f.. z w
) ---- o t_kk.--- c. lio -A (0 Z eL.r-:.'44: (1( d■ ° i E 6- 6 °
iL\ vt, c -
, ,.
), -, k_ IL 1 1 , ;#1, q 0. t.e) .. i.eL 1 Ea. ;
-",-A 9 .z. u_. Z Z. il) < t(\ !
/ 1
. ..IN
..„,.....41t
_.,...„,.:,
' 11.""•••■.- 0.11■-._ \
1 °"aft■al .14 "..m."111illum...._ i CC - . I \ l 1 i,
• ..... ..,..... ....„. 1 i 1
at
— ■. `'` ( 1 1 (
) 1 t
i
1
1 / I 1 D
1 ....... .,_ ______ _ t_____ _...k._ _..._ ______ ____. ______ oll■ emmiams I■oe.■ ■■•■■■ .....1..■ ■..■.
_
_ I
N \
li
_ I I_. .
-.... \
1 et� I. _ LT \ I
\
l I
„I.—
, s •s,di;it' I 1 0
;. , .._,.„.,..,, ..... _ e■■••imo Oms■ ■■•■••• .1______. ._.... 1 ....4 ..■•■• mio■P..... %%... 1 ■■■•■•4 ....i _1,
.,. ra•-•=_�� '.... ,
i:
0,000-0.6,,.7_.:--.-_-_-_1 1 rk�� 1— _■ tsl 1 \
•i� / \ �. 1. — _._. _ r- - - -'-\--1
--10.710 . - NI
.... ...11, 11==1_00,1 _____ 4_ ___ __ ._____ 1 ___ 4__
......= I,,..„.....„.....iiiii.,....„...„, /
\
..Ift— ''''''1'',,_. / k t \
;•• ., i isi T \
I \ o
�� / ) I \
Zuemmmoormmo: \ . f \ \ \
Ar ' '''d \ \ 1—— —--- ---—I— _4_____.,
. 11141...,---- , \
......... \ \
,N
N I
a
AL
.,. ii: i 4:C, - ..g
k it 4 0, i , __
.. , ,. , c,
1 i . ci. .!0_
la tl\-: ‘Z. t z. g .z
'c, el. Z c‘ i.
g` _ t - }.. 't .k. i C> ;L. I 1 g :53
v t Z. q) .c tA.
3
1\7 A !
\ --- : I ill
CO
0
' 1111
4.
T .D
77.....„..._
ti, ,
4.4
z i ..............
. 1
( . 1
, i,
LL\
A iV
t cb
4. T 4- - - -
� a NIIIIIIIIIIMIWININAINI
91.
to
1>
.0 U d-
` � 1
. Le
■OM OM - WIMP... W1 rr
1 te• 44
,„
z ,
g t zi
ik\—' 111 it\ id 1 ..- ,4 ; -4.1t . "t. 1 > 43,
:, t (7 q>7—. /i1 "11 I.
°) lik k t K S
} _ 1U $ II r- j ° q �
a 6 — ' 6) *L- t i ii '.1\-
'`(. g - c ' k 4 4 . e-. ;/.. . -- 1.!
t
k.. k- a
. .
i: 1
a 1 y
lis
1
I 1
_.,..
1 i , 0. . ..I 14 c____-__4.- ---1
(-- i it 1 s: ' [
_ 1
,$) i , TI-.J eL
itih . .. ..... - — _.
, g _4, „
, (is
o
' th 1 i _ ..........a.......__A..._Th.
I T
I t, 4 r..._.,,
1 I ill ,_ 0. 1 !
et_ 1
1
),c
. .,1 t_ 1 , 11 1 1 z. 4.1_
0 0. Nrii
III • � � =��'' *- I
1 _ , ; ° I ( '
o co
g �- I z 1 j
I . N
L.
' - " [
1
, t14-1 e.. — -
ft, et 4
i o Z
d\ R tA , 1.
I 1 I 3 � 3M
e i
' m 1.I a".1 2v 1) 2,
a
1
OD ■IMUIPOIMINIPAIIIIIIMIIIRMIMMIft
■
E.
..$)
_._.
)....... i „a.,
.. .. . . q .-......._. & i . I ..„
Y. I a
t. -
k..... 41
.._.( .......
. 0 - •
, .,..
., .
03 t .....
ic.
43 e ; ..... t et■
A CO
N.
' ..Q lik•cc) Krt. fk .. i 1) 1 .......;..
illirwC%■•• 11 1
ith -"Z.: Z.-
4.
• C.) t- t 1 Z co
L('). `Z
--.....J. .. .. .
0
I 'c
i a !
. CO
•
■ z .
j 1
V
— 11\ In . r )- _
L___ ii ,
. . ..teljt -), •
Ii .
'A
Cb . 0 ..:'.
t
1 (..'''..-
1,
I . )....
1.4
,...,
, .
. . .
____ 1-
3 1>
Al
•
. E. A
11 111
0
i -c) W. k
K. 4(c.... 1.-- -„,.
._ 1. > co
r i '...'..._.,.. ; . q
_do,P. .
Z. t...!„.. gio
fhlr) z Cti...: <(........
.... 41..... it
1 i
.. t 'Cr-
14. itil- 1—.
c..,, ,,,,
(I)
" 0 . t I .1.... .'' 1"6--
* . .
Z.
I E.
,b,
4
i;:. . '"" �. �: \ :!/`iii::
I iNK{"r'
i / -".%,. to
).
/
I r 3
..;
i i 1
CD
.,„ iii?i 4. !f i .,. .,
lio
•
t . a .
,,,..1
-1- Z
tj....) fil,... •;•::
•
rill. g.r r s : ',
•
atoll 1 i
;••.: •2• /....:::'• • 11 - -• I ,‘1°
Z. 4..\ ri,..,
i ;' . I f X f'.
6
//i. • •
A e'A 4'.3 17.-j,"*.
/•
P.,
P� \ice -._........-..
/� \ ,
i s tilL[t•iii'• /iZii : i5..:• ., Pi,
/ I / ;.,...;,/,-1/".x._,.4. .%/„,:.'7d://
\: �,• •(
I - .
I -* V',
Li %/,/A.
t...., .
. ,
tb P 6)
za. zz. m - -A E
k k ti, a- t ri g _I
r i t 1. i IU ?s: - v �
T k- kk- it I 1 '‘-- _1`-‘ Lk' E. :. :i-, Ls>. ja-- z ?, rlt
• � � -
-o o ; ir--:,
lk. N ---,, !,' 4' 6 14 °-
•s %k SA 1 t._ tiC) - i la la •4--
r-- t Z 0
Oo
r
-,- _- - - --- –E- — :-r ..hs- 11{ I
t il I I Ifi
x.
t >, a z
0 t '4-II. :
dmil I / -
t m __ _
3 cL t.
y
I t-1 Z-4 ■111 7.
I z-- g t L
7 ,, ,,
jI
it
,,
k,
& , Q '
..._ I "- - {I 1-667-1 '") ' , ,
1 cr- t
i _
•
i •.• Z. ‘t
\r .1-• ,
ita . i6i
1 _l_ 04 4L_
r.i.. i ■.9
z ttA k k
, t, tt
A ,,,
, .i ..
, ....
1
1
.....„ 4___....„ ..,=,...p,,,„,,b,,,,,.....
, ,
' --,- , - -
*_.e
-- _- ( I::: It 4: t AL
a.. g k, i i,
, .° II- 4„.
k it, y
,.
4—.. tt- '3 - ..., 14- (.64
'A i 4) 4.
Q■ tL 41' a'k t k 01 k'iN
LE} ;c. I " .k1 $14-.
t Zg "
i
_ a aL
j 1 i -
'
tl
U y
2.
x' ii '
eh
I r 4
1
1
I
LL\
N IV
t 03
I cL
th ,
a4 ,,, ( k___, _.,
Q1 ...._,.=,
im_m_ir. i._
4 ,t '1 �1
d3
rt- W I>
I 'N .(.4 .1.,
1
1. Lr
i QQ E 4)
� N
4
.z. k i,k. 1 ,t, 6. .iL. lilt * pY -. .
,il a,
c.
�
rff,lk a. co t gyp, v _. u1
4( 1t. (
lk. 'L k 4 1 a z t t. hg,t,
7
.....=MD aimmalt-
it l ' i
a
Num- —LS It E. ti- --t 1 i
Z i
cis Z °I- I s it
C.) , 1—, ' 1 4 . i
i 1.011k t4
- a -
. t - - -
6
t -,_, 'CI.-- "
' . t - - - -fr ,
' 1 '': m 1.. .1 th a 6_ _ _ __ _ _4__ _____ _
_ - 41 _ _ _I , ) N
1,_ t1 I
;i
zi I
t_ -4 .
o �.
t
k I* I evel 1- U - 1 ' '-N34,
0 i .. IP-,
i C) 1
(6 lil I co
° g I 1
— — --,--——ti.o[
!fi„ —
j. ;
o tA t\ t a i)
1 I 3li, 3M CLt °1
P. ei 1 k `t!.. i
;. 711 t) 1-----tt .,1
—
k -,,
li Z
(" *114 i a
k. za
(ant 0 1 4..4) 1 ,S1 X.( t A co
I. i ° tl ti
"117 ZsD" cc)
I(. 411(.. il Z
a d, ',i , E. _ z Ri.
ilt__ LL < il''' r% - 4.A i i Vi , '_'
` ,.° ck: z ri__ z % tt'o-
1
, L
0., Q
Z
M 1
W ...- y
Q �A� -,
tk_ j� 4--
1_ • i M
r
0-
rt-
______.
)
i
ill
.
1`w\ g pc 0 .
6 1
i- • J
4 WM -e
. it-
A
1 '
' , I I_
. ,
1 , i>,,
4
.
k-- 4, .1
0 _.
'Ik i ;.. i.P.- 1 ii,
O0 SL V
-.3 zy.i,
o y °2 ....... s
.0„,'P. 1 ti%
I .. Z.... to... is a7N
t t r
rn. Z .....,...,., .........
i 6
, - t &. 1- 4-
q...... it_ c - P
.4k. 0 t 1 ! . z. ;?\ r
Z. /
Iv
1
i 4. ,. ,v // /A
< v 4.z
?...,.../ .. ...)
.,,
, ... /:- /, . . ,/,'
.....,..... . . ..,.,„, ,
I \ ...r,
,; -, ;-/
..... ,„
,.
<12: .... t
,... i ,., .....
III
k 'Ott,
Y
CID4/.. ,,,,;7.%, ;/;:).. ti" 4i r■,
i. 3 .A
r.
i� ?-
li•
,
t WI
• 1
I i
Z...
/ 0
III I
P.
3 �
z 41( i
i
____
.r
NI
. ,
zi ...
ri
, , 1 I, :j /%,
,-,,bill ,,,,
<I
Z 1 ....,
z.... .,... ..„, , ,,, „ k
/ e
/ / /,
L _I ..
, . L i
•
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of September 8, 1993
Fred: I still feel you should include the paragraph in your motion
to take the political issue out.
Amy: Including that in the motion we are stating that it is a
political issue.
MOTION: Les made the motion that HPC recommend to City Council
designation of 835 W. Main, know as the Berger Annexation, City of
Aspen finding that it meets criteria B,C,D, E, and F; second by
Roger.
Joe: Adopt a resolution recommending landmark designation for 835
W. Main Berger Annexation finding that it meets one or more of the
criteria B, C,D,E.and F.
AMy: The site and structure are designated.
Fred: I feel you should designate the site only, .
Bill: We leave it open to the benefit of the applicatn to be able
to move the structure on the site by giving incentives such as
setbacks, parking etc.
Fred: If you designate the site you will find that when the HWY
come in the city will be waving its red flags saying I 'm sorry it
is an historic site. We cannot move the site.
AMENDED MOTION: HPC recommends approval of landmark designation
of 835 W. Main Berger Annexation, City of Aspen finding that it
meets one or more of the criteria B,C,D,E, and F; second by Roger.
All in favor, motion carries.
Mary Martin: You cannot dsignate annexation.
Amy: That is the address that is used as metes and bounds.
DISCUSSION 107 JUAN STREET AUSTIN PROPERTY
Amy: We had a site visit and this house is on the inventory and
is a miners cottage. We are looking at doing an affordable housing
project.
Dave Tolen: We are trying to identify programs to present for
conceptual. Considering the historical resource on site we
recommended two programs C & D. This is GMQS exempt as it is 100
percent affordable housing. It is a six step process. The project
incorporates underground parking. One scheme would be studio one
bedroom and the other is family oriented.
21
4 Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of September 8, 1993
Joe: I like C better than D as it is a little tall.
Amy: The building is being shifted to the right because there is
another residential structure at the bend of the road. I like the
courtyard configuration which is represented in C.
Karen: Which is needed the most in employee housing, three
bedrooms or studio.
Tom Baker: We need both. All of the needs can be met on the site.
Karen: I feel to make the historic residence dominent would be to
do the one bedroom/ studio which would be D.
Les: I like the smaller scale. Units along the street front would
be smaller.
Donnelley: Both schemes would work. I would like to have a
definate program come out.
Roger: Will the historic residence have a basement?
Dave: Potentially.
Roger: I would have the entrance to the underground parking moved
further up to the east. The front of the project is Juan street
and why have the underground parking th dominent item. The
historic house will be moved.
Dave: You mean move the entrance as far away as possible.
Roger: In D.C. the entrance is only one car wide and they had a
light to control it. That will work with either plan.
Jake: Possibly intergrade a porch.
Martha: I am for the less square footage and like the spaciouness
around the historic structure photo D.
Jake: Regarding the program I feel there is a need for family
housing. When you have family housing that involves kids and
issues of safety and where they play. You need to adequately
provide for their needs. I like C because the height is lower and
the historic building is more visual. I also like the articulation
of D fragmented and broken down. Maybe you could do something
creative with the bank.
Bill: The smaller structures are more compatible.
22
IHistoric Preservation Committee
iy Minutes of September 8, 1993
Roger: What about a porch on the historic structure.
Don: We had talked about that and it is appropriate.
Don: What incentives will there be for the design team to make it
economically viable to do a good job.
Dave: There is a preference for the three bedroom option.
Roger: Most people have a bike and car and there should be
sufficient storage. At west hopkins that is a major storage
problem. Possibly provide for a path etc. to the Koch Park.
Les: Probably why we like C over due is due to scale and massing.
MOTION: Jake made the motion to adjourn; second by Les. All in
favor, motion carries.
Meeting adjourned at 9: 30 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland Chief Deputy Clerk
23
1.k))
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 107 Juan Street- Worksession
DATE: January 26, 1994
SUMMARY: HPC members made a site visit to 107 Juan Street, and
have seen conceptual plans for developing affordable housing on
this property. Now that the Housing Department has selected Gibson
and Reno as their project architects they are returning to HPC with
a fully developed design. They have asked for comments in a
worksession format at this meeting, and will formally request on-
site relocation of the historic resource in a public hearing on
February 23rd. (partial demolition of the rear lean-to may also be
involved. )
As part of their review of a relocation, HPC may evaluate the
proposed development plan which necessitates moving an historic
structure. The Board' s review of the new structures on this site
should be specifically directed towards their relationship to the
historic resource.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff supports on-site relocation of the
Victorian and the construction of an appropriate porch. The
proposed porch does seem to be in character with the house, but the
building should be examined to see if there is any evidence of an
original porches ' appearance. Staff is not completely in favor of
the second story addition to the lean-to. It seems that the lean-
to would have to be reconstructed in order to support another
story, and there would be a negative impact on the historic
character of this structure.
Staff is also concerned with the height of the new structures.
Topography and the need for an underground garage have caused these
buildings to be much higher than the historic house. A model will
be provided at the worksession, and the housing department intends
to put up story poles in February. The new buildings (at least the
one next to the Victorian) should relate more to the one story
height of the historic resource, by using porches or some other way
to step the massing down. Entering the site through a small
gateway is a good way to relate to the scale of the house and to
the street.
Windows on the new structure should be about twice as tall as they
are wide. Native building materials are preferred, including wood
clapboards, wood shingles and stone.
/ / // /. / / / / / I
/ / // / / / / /
N / / / /
/ / /
// /// �� 7 f R //
/ ��/ / / / I
/ / / / I
/ /
/ /1 /
f /
� ,// / / I \
6,'4 c; ^ i �v / I f
O' y
i / /�/ ' j a I I
1 / I I
f / / 1 I I I i
I
V •�_ � -�
v
1 I 1— I1 \ �1
vF
� /I r io
I I 11
1 II I r \
i
1 I11 r ' 1 ■
I I I o ! , F L_T_._� 1
1 I , , . 1 1
-1 1 -.— • 4• I 111111 .' ;r a 1 III it ® 5>�,.
R \
1 I 1 I I ' p _w - T.
1,mil .°� r 1 II
- lo I I - --:1 -
mI I i ,_ I
d/ / 1 m
mcni
_j i � / in 1
A z 1 1 I 1
�\ ? \\
$
I o I
I 1
f 6
1I
I I I
m JOB m NO: I aO PEVieoN: i A+/Is,STREET HOUSING w n�
N: '2/,1/4",
onic
b 107 JUAN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO ACE. .
• R • II .,,x: 'Wg:9
� iB CAST COOPER AVENUE� � n9cEN.pLOLORGLO • B1B�'1 0 Cp bNi t8�-
I
j I I-
I
i
ITIr -
I C
I L
38 M
1 Iii' k,
I 1 m �II
L U 0 3 O` - m
0 5- .4: , mw jT
z d - 1111111111111111 s t w O N ■0
1 0 thi
-- T -
■Hie
■
mJOE N°: 4330 - aev,ei°N:/2;,,7.2
m JUAN BTREET MOUS1111O /),,G
d
DATE /.2../..,/93
107 JUAN STREET A8PEN. COLORADO SCA°E` A_
G I B S O N .S. RENO • ARCHITECTS CAST°ODAEA•VENU• �A RK: 30�'Qe-e0s e
ASPEN
COLORADO e1e11 Ocowniw+..v
- II
ti
. ..
M
Y r
fY
` :r
I,
{— --, vl
Y
I
_-'
i AV4 . n
L
Y Y \
0 3 n y�!
n
r N
•
_. JOB NO: REVISION:
JUAN STREET HOUSING DRAWN
SCALE.
. Riot: 303/995.3993
G I B S O N S. RENO ARCHITECTS `°_O COOPER" sus" RYRIONT _5 58aa
nnREN. T COOPS o`ro
11
A.
1 26'
1
g
N Q�
nI r
W I
iiii -A
is- Thx) - Y a J � E
a
o •
z 09 alp II \ -
oil iii 1,..,
q m 1 n
♦ {2 i
1 a
m C\ .p
T
0
/1'c 9'
r 1----t-- — --- -}-
9 i �
v4 3 __$a /
1 2 ni 0 41 ... -
_ o, r
� . � �G
i r —T. f
r3\ - r 7 I
m -I E3 = 3 1 I ? Q
_ P
n
-- C Z i
a ti
1
1
,
fl
1
m JUAN STREET HOUSING JOB N°' 4at, REV'9'°N'
CHECKED
b 107 JUAN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO SCALE. `A_/
-
CAST COOPER AVENUE ERAoNE 903925 59Ee
G I B S O N (S. RENO - ARCHITECTS ASPEN, COLORADO 111911 O COPERiOMT 191
1
,tIii y 1pi N
��1� 1 �® fiu.
1 I
40 I!;.,1.
102.ie�11 m ii
#401,14— I I' A$ P P F Q
II � ® _atrnll Ali S
44,.._ .1111 1
NI
01 I fll_ ,.._Pd. I® 0I 1 1 — — 1 _ \ t.
xii,0 ,......0.1.,
.ct r _r_r_t
�:IEr ER_iv /I
II 1 -V
I
d
I C
s
I.
n
�,1,, �-- m I 11:1111
I MB
I 1 1 ,'1 .1 ■51 ,I MI
Ally 1 NMI
r ® r w �l
t �
D 4 47.1-4,,' iD s
I,
4
a ,k ,o
0I o f °I
N o I■
A 1 I
m '
m
7
M�.,.0 PEVis:ON /2 A7/q!
4N JUAN STREET HOUSING "3;/45
107 JUAN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO s`" ° `'
G I B S O N & RENO • ARCHITECTS Ai, °°en COOPER AVENUE 'REP-ZEE 3° >
YEPEN, coLowm EMI OCOPVPIONT+a
•
I
Rg
a
il-ill .
_• D II I 11l h ;,
,
it n.. 1 III
r hn 6 oltl1l'�
on LI
�_.�._..� I. it 11� r,i�1
I��I L�1
1
1U- 1
.I. _ ®I
.I.
1.1-. I®n
r-- - 1 fly — i I � ,i. ,
I .i � 7
1 � _ a . I
m
'I, iii'' m
D
, I, I 0
DI t
0 - Pi p° p•
a � yg
m I"
m
z -
I JUAN STREET HOUSING .73I,,. AE�s°" r/+�44 JOB NO:
CA 7 (T/43
107 JUAN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO SCALE. ijRs-/
PAX• 3m;aae•3eao
G I BSON RENO • ARCHITECTS A'° ` `°°DO °�"�° EA�,E: _
ASPEN.EAST=CCPo • 01UE QCPHONE:rT 0 MGM
.. I
•
m .II
• , I I I
• I 1 ii[IL 00
-1 ■I■
1-Iti±M :I�: I '�-' IC
r � III - , . ('
Lilt
I J!ri z ,111 WP------i
IFII- aa I�11 I
•
11111614 I "air Z
•
1 ,, ,
,, ,
1, ±1 _ ' ll'li �� 111 1I I II 1 _I 1 '111 '
, , lir i, , b.
, .
_..I1 :,1 1 ,' 1 loll �� y b L— —
1
I �;i4 ,I Iffie—iiiiitiiit 2 _ I, 1 i11'fillma P.
■. ■I■ III i% ''' Is is
0 ( I Ii 1 .
. MI 1 L �i U
4-
m
1 i 1 m
8 �o r
lo So
4- - + 2
m
4
JOB NO!mb �
REVISION:■.x{. 4
DRAWN Mi
b
JUAN STREET HOUSING
107 JUAN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO
PAX GIBSON & RENO • ARCHITECTS ON
aid C�•1 COOPER PvENUE �ET.°NE: 3°].aEa..
ARR. , COLORADO • WEIR pCORvRO.*.a •
y
ii0E1
IIm11111N1 -_
0 -
2 nmmm
II II
•
,
111111
m �� .
.„
*El 111100
11-1
JOB NO:1710 R
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of January 26, 1994
MOTION: Joe made the motion that HPC approve the conceptual
approval of 220 W. Main Street subject to the following conditions;
that there be a restudy of the materials used for the facade;
second by Jake.
AMENDED MOTION: Joe amended the motion that the HPC urge P&Z to
grant the special review approval in light of the contribution that
the property makes to the historic district. Also more importantly
is that they are putting in a 690 square foot employee housing
unit; second by Jake. All in favor or motion and amended motion.
Glenn: We are going to P&Z and will request the .75 to 1 increase.
If the HPC can support that I would appreciate it. I hear that the
Board likes the building etc. and you would like to see it draw up
in wood also.
107 JUAN STREET - WORKSESSION
Dave Tollin, Housing Authority representative: The idea is to
maintain the historic house but moving it on the site toward the
property line basically keeping it in the same configuration. We
will be constructing five new deed restricted affordable housing
units, basically single family homes and duplexes. We will be
rehabilitating the existing structure and using it as an ADU unit.
We have retained the firm Gibson & Reno and Colorado Construction
and it is at the design level.
Amy: My biggest concern was the height of the buildings especially
the one in front. It needs to be brought down and aligned with
the historic house at the street level.
Dave: Regarding the existing miners house we have the option of
doing a three bedroom unit by adding a loft space at the rear.
That is attractive to keep it a family oriented site but is not
something that makes or breaks the project. There is not a
basement proposed.
Amy: I am not in support of the loft on the miners cottage. It
has a big impact on the character of the house.
Jake: What is the intention for all the site walls dividing up the
property?
Dave: Those are fences as opposed to walls. We want to keep the
feeling as open as possible. We have discussed incorporating them
into the landuse approval but not actually constructing them and
leaving them at the option of the homeowners. The idea is to
create a space for a pet or area for a child to play.
7
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of January 26, 1994
Joe: Why is the foundation of the historic house so much lower
than the townhouse.
Dave: In order to get the required parking we have to basically
do subterranean parking and that is done with twelve spaces two per
unit which brings the foundations up. As it is we have cut into
the back of the hill between six and eight feet with a retaining
wall in an effort to maintain some type of usable yard space. We
have tried to keep the units as low as we could as well as keep the
parking.
Alan Richman: All of the units meet the 25 foot height limitation
of the AH zone district.
Joe: Was there an analysis as to why or why not do a basement
underneath the historic house?
Dave: We have not done anything yet and the site space is so tight
that we didn't think it was real usable space in terms of bedrooms.
We could go a little higher.
Joe: You have a choice to either bring the other buildings down
or the historic house up.
Jake: I also like that decision as an option to putting on the
addition on the back. If you raise the historical building and put
a couple bedrooms underneath the historical building they could
orient and put the windows toward the street. I think a walkout
basement could work.
Amy: You are changing the character of the building when you are
putting a doorway in. I would have to see that.
Jake: This project was discussed with Nore Winter and used as an
example for our new guidelines.
Roger: If the historic house is left as is where is the laundry
and heating?
Dave: We have not gotten to that level yet.
Roger: Suppose you had a partial basement for the laundry and
heating system, would there be enough space on the rear of the
house to have a small connecting breezeway and behind that another
tower configuration that would work with what you have on the new
structure to put another bedroom and bath in.
Dave: I took a guess that you wanted to keep things below the
8
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of January 26, 1994
ridge line and possibly something different would work.
Roger: You could have a connector between the new and historic
structure.
Dave: I can look at that and we would have to see if we have the
space.
Roger: Regarding the corner unit next to the historic structure
could you reduce that immense wall and possibly lower the tower and
get rid of the cumbersome stairway in the front. That is very
visual. It needs softened. Also the garage door could be a single
rather than double to lessen the impact.
Linda: How do you access the parking spaces?
Dave: Basically it is a double loaded with six spaces and you go
through a double wide driveway with twelve spaces around the edges
and storage and an enclosed trash area. I never thought that we
might not need the double driveway.
Jake: I will summarize our meeting with Nore Winter: What works
is that it is broken down and not one big building. The units are
residential in scale and the roof slopes down. You have the tall
vertical windows. The stepdown honors the historical house. The
use of porches and lower single scales was appreciated. One thing
that was discussed was an inverted plan where the living level on
the back units would be elevated so that on the back side, south
side you would be exiting at grade instead of down in a big hole.
The inverted plan is an interesting concept. The way the bays face
each other is awkward. Possibly the towers could be glazed and put
the stairs in back against the hill on the rear. That way you are
working with the grade a little better. Covered walkways and
things like that are good because it is dark. The relationship of
the project to the street is important.
Joe: From an historic perspective the elements that I would like
to see restudied would be the tower element on the front townhouse
unit, the stairway coming up to that unit and the treatment.
Dave: We thought of using a brick facing on the stair that stepped
out a little to help break it up.
Joe: That will help and the tower element is so tall. I agree
with Amy's comment about having the walkout on one side that the
historic building becomes something different and I am not sure
that is appropriate. I feel the historic house should be raised
a little. I would like to see this as a pure preservation project
and not do the shed addition on the back of the historic house.
9
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of January 26, 1994
I am not sure what the connector idea would look like.
Alan Richman: We also have a parking lot on one side.
Roger: The overall concept of a village type feeling is good. I
feel the fences should be softened possibly with vegetation.
Regarding the historic structure everyone is opposed to adding to
it and keep it as is.
David: My gut feeling i to make this a two bedroom unit.
Roger: The concept of the porches is great and the idea of
inverted interior was interested. The massing on the corner front
unit needs lowered.
Martha: I like the stepping down area by the historical building.
I agree with most of the comments and feel the single car entrance
would be less intrusive visually.
Linda: My only comment is the unit on the left, it is over
powering, too high and the entire things needs brought down.
Possibly the garage could go down and in.
Bill: I would much rather see an historic restoration of the
historic building rather than adding on. I don't have a problem
with the height to the buildings on the rear of the project because
they seem to step up the hill and the model is quite successful in
showing that. I find the bays on the east side to be somewhat
foreign to the shapes that you are using. You were quite
successful in keeping the shapes primitive and if you use a simple
shed that extended across the whole building it would give you a
more horizontal line and break down the scale. You would also gain
some covered porches.
Amy: If you redo study the height I think the roofs should be a
little more steeper and possibly some of the massing incorporated
into that so that we don't end up with taller structures yet.
Bill: I also feel a steeper shape would be more compatible with the
town. If you had to work with the height line you could break the
roof on the back and come down. Historically buildings had 12 x
12 pitches.
Dave: The roofs now are 8 by 12.
Bill: Sometimes with the wider shapes you can get something in the
middle that can allow you to steepen it and shallow the back.
Dave: We have the ability to ask for an additional five feet but
10
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of January 26, 1994
we have not done that due to concerns of the neighbors.
205 S. MILL STREET - FINAL DEVELOPMENT
Larry Yaw, architect: The changes from conceptual were opening the
area up and creating a cross block circulation so that you can
enter the internal courtyard from two different areas. The other
change is creating more verticality and we have carried the idea
of the chanford corner across. The slate above was brought down
to tie the two together.
Amy: This is a good project and it is important along that street
as there is not enough vitality there. I thought maybe the way
the stairs were chopped off that maybe they should be cut back on
an angle.
Larry Yaw: With response to the awnings we think they will be the
same and tie into the others. Maybe we need to use a different
color. We can use the existing stairs and with the opening it is
much better.
Jake: What about the revisions of the windows.
Larry: The glass in the windows will line up with the glass in the
rest of the building and there will be no exterior lighting.
Amy: We approved an awning for Chanin's and it was the same color
of green so I would suggest using the same color.
MOTION: Joe made the motion to approve the final development
application for 205 S. Mill Street finding that it meets the
applicable development review standards; second by Roger. All in
favor, motion carries.
520 E. DURANT - AJAX MOUNTAIN BUILDING - AWNINGS
Amy: We have had a problem with illegal signage on this building
and I am trying to get them into compliance. Pizza Hut, Ross
Andrews and Ajax Ski Shop. We need to decide if it is appropriate
to have all of the awnings blue and gold when the HPC approved the
Polo shop. Pizza Hut does not fit that. Ross Andrews has writing
on the face of the awning and Ajax Ski awning needs to come into
compliance with the sign code. I feel because the HPC said the
awnings should be consistent years ago, we should keep to that.
The problem is that all of these people put awnings up.
Roger: Why did they put the awnings up illegally?
Amy: Ross Andrews did his because it was getting near the
11
.
. •
MEMORANDUM .
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 107 Juan Street- Relocation, PUBLIC HEARING
•
DATE: February 23 , 1994
SUMMARY: This project involves on-site ,relocation of a Victorian
miner's cottage (listed on the Inventory) and the creation of six
affordable housing units. The Housing Authority and HPC have
worked closely together to determine an appropriate redevelopment
plan for this parcel. Worksessions were held on September 8 , 1993
and January 26, 1994 . HPC is now being asked to approve relocation
of the historic structure.
NOTE: A second structure on the property ' is to be demolished.
This structure is not included on the Inventory.
APPLICANT: Aspen/Pitkin Housing. Authority. Gibson and Reno are
the project architects. .
LOCATION: 107 Juan Street, Lots 3 ,4 , 5 and .6, Block 11, Eames
Addition to the City and Townsite .of Aspen.
PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: . Under Section 7-602 of the Aspen Land Use
Code, no relocation of any structure included in the Inventory of
Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established
pursuant to section 7-709, shall be permitted unless the relocation
is approved by the HPC because it meets the standards of section
7-602 (D) .
Section 7-602 (D) : Standards for Review of Relocation
1. Standard: The structure cannot be rehabilitated or
reused on its original site,to-provide for any reasonable
beneficial use of the property.
Response: The structure has been vacant for a number of
years. The Housing Authority wishes to incorporate it
into an affordable housing development, and proposes to
relocate the historic building approximately 15 feet to
the north and 20 feet to the west in order to make the
best use of the land.
•
2. Standard: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be
the best preservation method for the character and
integrity of the structure, , and the historic integrity
. of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structure will
not be diminished due to the relocation.
•
•
•
•
Response: The proposed location for the historic
structure maintains the building' s original orientation
and allows it to remain a prominent feature of this
neighborhood. 107 Juan Street is the only extant
Victorian structure from the Eames Addition, which once
contained more than fifty houses. Today, most of the
buildings in this neighborhood are condominiums, although
a few smaller houses and some skier chalet style
architecture remain, especially around Juan Street. The
Housing ' Authority proposes to locate the Victorian
structure close to the existing small homes in order to
provide a gentle transition .between them and the new
affordable housing units.
•
In response to HPC comments, an addition ' is no longer
being proposed for the historic structure.: The committee
has expressed a desire to see the Victorian preserved in
its existing : appearance. ' Staff suggests that some
thought should still be given to whether or'not the porch
element on the historic building is appropriate. After
researching historic maps from the' late 1800 ' s and early
1900 's, staff has determined .that this house has never
had a porch. Although porches are generally encouraged
and this porch visually connects the historic resource
to the new structures,: this is an addition of an
.unoriginal feature to the main facade of the building.
Also in response to HPC comments, the applicants have
changed the massing of the building immediately east of
the historic structure and have oriented the entrance for
that building to the. street. The Housing Authority is
still trying to determine whether the entrance to the
underground parking can be limited to one lane.
3. Standard: The structure has been demonstrated to be
capable of withstanding . the physical impacts of the
relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be
submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the
soundness of the structure proposed for relocation.
Response: Due to financial and time constraints, the
applicant has requested that the structural report •be
made a condition of approval. Staff recommends that the
HPC include . that condition in their decision. No
building permit will be issued until .this report is
submitted to" the Planning Department.
4. Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted,
including .posting'a bond or other financial security.with
the engineering .department, as approved by the HPC, to
insure the safe relocation, 'preservation and repair (if
required) of the structure,' site preparation and
infrastructure connections.. The-receiving site shall be
prepared in advance Of the physical relocation.
•
• •
Response: The Housing Authority has requested that the
relocation plan and bond also be made conditions of
approval. Staff recommends HPC include this condition
in their decision. No building permit will be issued
until the relocation plan and -bond are submitted to the
Planning Department. HPC should set a value for the bond
at this meeting.
5. Standard: The receiving site is .compatible in nature to
the structure or structures proposed to be moved, the
character of the neighborhood is consistent with the
architectural integrity of the structure, and the
location of the historic structure would not diminish the
integrity or character of the neighborhood of the
receiving site. An acceptance letter from the property
owner of the receiving site shall be submitted.
Response: This proi.ect involves an on-site relocation
of an historic structure, therefore staff finds that
there will not be a negative impact on the character of
the neighborhood.
•
ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following actions:
1) Approve the relocation application as submitted.
2) Approve the relocation application with conditions.
3) Deny the relocation application, finding that it does not
meet the relocation standards.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the relocation
of 107 Juan Street with the following conditions:
1. Before applying for a building permit, the applicant
will submit a structural report from a licensed
engineer,demonstrating. the soundness of the structure and
describing any structural bracing that will be necessary
during the relocation.
2 . Before applying for a building permit, the applicant
will provide a relocation plan which shows how the
receiving site will be prepared, and will secure a bond
(value to be set by HPC) to insure safe relocation of the
building.
3 . The applicant should limit the width of the
underground garage opening -to one lane., if this is found
to meet safety standards.
4 . The applicant should not - construct a front porch on
the historic resource.
. • _ ATTACEMENT 1
IAND USE APP MICel FORT{
1) Project Name f VA N 3T• ..� 0 - s 2 a I,
2) Project Location- I ® I J A N
A5 PE tJ C:o,; LOTS 3 4 5 G. 4 M E5 APP I- at-)cK II.
(indicate street address; lot & block der,.legal description where
appropriate)
3) Present Zoning R- 5 <L.) (r V-D,) 4) lot Size 12�000
5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # f� 11 /�ITK� Al _HO US '.
A I)R l 74 530 E, i N $71 A3PEA C 4%1/-5 - o
6) motive's Name, Address & Phone # *l 13O R..N 0 A IZCH
7) Type of Application (please dyedc all that apply):
Conditional Use ponoeptual SPA Qxx eptuai. Historic Dev.
Special Review . Final SPA ,_ Final.Historic Dev.
8040 Greenline Conceptual POD Minor historic Dev.
•
Stream Margin Final PUD - Histtoric Demolition
Mountain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation
n .
Qpndaminiimi zatidn Text/Map Ambit GMQS Allotment
lot Split/lot Line- GUS Eaa:pt-i n . •
Adjustment
8) Description of Existirg Uses (number and type of existing- structures;
approximate sq. ft.• number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the
Pr Y)
0)-16 H STOR■C� R'2lOEL`ICE cpR� C-t�"t !.1 VN inl}1A?rrA5L-E.) or
bv1' 70o Sr 01.1E 1idlc/- N15TbK1G i eNic . cnF
,A ou'-r X25 SF ('To t3E. Kr✓M n dED) .
9) Description i on of Development, Application
'THE PI I STo fZtc &-(.E KE.L.DEATW - ) 4 k w
j ,u N c,,4'T l v l%t CAT Nnl. C6k. OF" 6i-T .)) AMP Ka M o r2 1-t,CD k'/D
G AFraz P A F L HOUenl(7. uN t¶s / I i-i- Oa ADIDED
10) Have you attached the following?
Response to Attadiment 2, Miniiuiim Submission Contents
Response to Attachment 3, Specific S�-Ssion marts
Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application
SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
IMPORTANT
Three sets of clear. fully labeled drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than
11"x17", OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 11"x17" format.
APPLICANT: PL'TtI 1-40u5(&L ea- A VM a Q E-r‘i
ADDRESS: O E. MAi pJ 41 A5P8t4. Co c9 c,i
ZONE DISTRICT: g 11=i (L.)(PL D t, , KE2oIJ E.r, 'Tn A14
LOT SIZE(SQUARE FEET): 1-2.o00 5 F: •
EXISTING FAR: . 1 2 5
ALLOWABLE FAR: I . O <A 1-{
PROPOSED FAR: • . 7 1- •
EXISTING NET LEASABLE(commercial):
PROPOSED NET LEASABLE(commercial):
EXISTING%OF SITE COVERAGE: L._2 5
PROPOSED%OF SITE COVERAGE: , 40. 1
EXISTING%OF OPEN SPACE(Commercial):
PROPOSED%OF OPEN SPACE(Commer.):
EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Principal Bldg.: 15 /Accessory Bldg:
PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Principal Bldg.: 25 t Accessory Bldg:
PROPOSED%OF DEMOLITION: N.A-
EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 2 6141 5T e 1", RES vEIVGE,).
PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: N15TD KI C. 1 :g5 LI)ENCS
EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: 0
ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: Pg. -(,kL , eV rEW
SETBACKS:
EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED:
Front: N`A- Front: I c7 Front: 5
Rear: Rear: Iv Rear:
Side: Side: S Side: 5
Combined Front/Rear: Combined Frt/Rr: 2 0 Combined Front/Rear: I S
EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/
ENCROACHMENTS:
VARIATIONS REQUESTED(eligible for Landmarks Only:charracter compatibility finding must be made by HPC1:
FAR: MA-- Minimum Distance Between Buildings:
SETBACKS: Front: Parking Spaces:
Rear: Open Space(Commercial):
Side: Height (Cottage Infill Only):
Combined Frt./Rr: Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only):
U)
In
/ // // / /
/ / .,/ - .
/ , /' . 6 .a
/ ," / / .- ,
,/// /
,. ,
k
OARMISCH STREET
,
// / // 7 / ,i ,
/ / • / / / ,
/ / / / ' / ( -- ir.:11
LI
, / / i r '------1
, ,,,,, , I
r
/ .. , Hii.
,.... .... /.. / .. , ,,, .... /.
\
,.... . ./,,,,„.... ____ , . : ci,,
,
/,, ,, _ i !
i ..__ : z1 r
/77,____ _,....,,-/ / //,,--- i :) ,,
5i
■
/ / / / / / ..i
.4 L
, 133 0 I 1
: C /0 / (
f 1
a > 1 \ I 1 I m
o Z 0 I
J n.
6. w E ,
' i
1 1 1 D
" ••1 4116 3 1,___
. '
1
> i
s-N (
m ,
■ //
M ,
, I I
ASPEN STREET I
\"-----7---2 ' `,
M ,
■
I 1
M /
13 / , , :'
r ; 0
Z
i II
> , ,
, .
I I
I I
M'
! 1
.,
. , ..,
7 : ,
i I Li
,,..., GI
■ ..
i 1■. ,-
---1 '
it
JUAN MONARCH STREET
j____,
0 1
.b 1
■ 1'M 1
i ,
MI
rit m
o
;
:
L JUAN STREET HOUSING
L
L....
- T. • • - A r . ,,,,,
GIBSON
A I. r 11,•.r.00p= •VeNvE •[.r....20...'!' Pn.7.,•Tra ■
/ / / / '
// / / / / / / / / /
/`/ / /// / // / / / 1
,' / / /, / / i
/// / 7
/ // 7 / / /! I 1
/ � / I'
/ / I
/ /% V I
/
1
/�/�/ / I I
C. u I i
i / 1 1 $ ( 1
/ / ! l I ,
t I 1
i I \
/ I 1 L o$ :
I I j
1 111 1
I � / i 1 r I \ \ i
/ I II, i II r \ \ R �I I 1
m IL _ i _v 1
- m .44 I, —I
I /
I I 111 II r_ i `
r
I ! o I 1 ,I •, 1I I \
1 1 I -I 1 . 1 1
1 �� / . 1 v1
I ;! A r Ori a 1 N
1 I K1 -1 i i 11 j _- 1 ,1 's
1 I I 1 C�y — ��' .I " \�
1 I 1 f — �� �r-- '4'; I v
l
I 0 <a I
1 1 o 4 / \ 4
o
�\ o
■
# I
m m ro ,�
c r l i �a i
Y
7I wi 1 1 m
m I I ; _---- __- 1 /11!I\ 1 m
' I D1 11 1 I \ \ 1
1
A I 21 1 � \� I 1 I \
I \ \
1 \ \
j 1 ' „ I \
+▪ N 0 1
I
I I I 1
m JUAN STREET HOUSING «:i ors
PA 1/"1/Qry
� 107 JUAN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO CNECKE0 � ••_, ,
r.tx• a a:CC:=
GIBBON RENO ARCHITECTS ASPEN'_�� o ,..3n
'1
I
1
r-{ I I--,-.T'— -----1,
1 I
r
71 l
C
I 1 , 1 I.
I 1
DL• , r'a4� b
L
II' li
I ,._ Pow...,Pow..., .... .1 H
ri
♦ " .1 1 j 1 ,Itv N - L ,
m o
■4§ . m
1 nil
41 limHu .
, ,
1
I
.,ae No: 4330 aev�sroN:n n
1: JUAN STREET HOUSING oaewN: arr.; �„
o•Te: /2/i/13
b 107 JUAN STREET ASPEN COLORA00 `"""`
9cKE: i4l'�,
Irarrarisimulitriwzmisraum-
l' .i. CAS"COOP.MANOR 1lL�Ti jlpi�l�G1I!
ASPEN cowa.00 • well pcoarator.T• M .ib
i
w
F "r
r,X:
� <_,151.
—
Y
Ti
r
ale� ---_
Ellin: 3
L
I F �
f ( N
sM
0
5 11
n If, ,r r
•..
I •
---.......- ,,,, ,... .
l .
.
•
!L.nve Nue .h6AV<:
sWEN, cownnoo • eye+. pmn,.non.6_
f
1 z.
.•-- __ --_-_.__-_..__. __ r
G ,. s 1 S' y ?'
4
Vur
'�
N M
1
1
III �1 �
I r
° q ` 1 LL -
c kz Ta
P
1 IT ll ma 1111
1 ; 1...____________
1 .
o r� fit; I
it
- 1
—4
... 9 .....,,,,.
0.. ,, _,
,3,, at
I -
y to AI
i Ig— � x e i i
C o _ a , I II NNIII , , 1 a L i L D ■
l' r i ) 1
slya 3 i '? 1
I1 y N + p III���"'��� pr� nz 1
1 �— � —� �
1
r
I 6‘
1
m -
JUAN STREET HOUSING 4 3, ^�•
:.I _ cr,
b 107 JUAN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO SC
G I B S O N & RENO • ARCHITECTS °" `°"°°°°°"...NU( `
-7_7='•__Illi .
-
ill
I j H .III : '--—---',"7 i, ,■ '
il ? P Pli rf ri-k
ArmlaWIIIIF
L'tt 11
11 'I" 11 1 i
-4
S. ----1
L;
.......... --
N — . 'PP
a ---,---, .
‘<-.. •
-..-- 1
..:
< HI HIIL 1
e
11- 7
1---1 " 1
1 — 17
1 ,
,A
' J1,
1 7-7
/ j
.1
5
---Jiz
_ •
0?-2 tir-----4---, --- ,
III Fr r 1- \
\
33 1
-41 •
1
[
&Al 111
(e)
In ' II JI '; 1M
..J.
I 4" Ka ra-4
lm ,
,m ,
i 1
ra - ,II)<
---.=
..? , -..,',pl,..
't.-..
1.1 /
1----— -==---:__-,
. II,n-ill,
__ .--
13 .._______ 0 _ ,
12 iZ
1
t 1 3
1.,
0 ■,
.....
i
4 4 4
I
N.1 P
,
t
I II P n
1
i
•
g.oesza Mc, 0EviSiON 1.7../.7 l'",
DATE /.2 _,TZ L/774°
..;. '''-i' JUAN STREET STRESET
C.-.ECKE0
STREET ASINSPEN, COLORADO
1 = IN k .... R N a - AR HI A. tee-COOPEC AVENUE TE, '4....;,C."' 133.:5?,-13-Z
...., ASP, cOLOAA00 we, C eowenc.-,e12_
I
CI
2
a
J
T
n -4,--
y
P...'... :•
(A
M El
I /11:1,1L iir
(1 lj
I IJ �;I!I''i�uU' 8 ED
I 1
r ',1 4 -' — ! 1--Lilffl
1 mom I in _
m *A
_ II G
I 'Ij i
ri
O!
'---I II 2
�, 4- 4- 6
I, P 4. r Pe
it g
ix
r �.
m
G
u !;
5 / h
2 Y.,
B _- -6 6 6
;' .-- PI 0;,-:
8 _ CIF '.-,'
� F
i
0 16 JUAN STREET MOUSING JOB"°' &7 wpc., r/4/+4
107 JUAN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO C.FLKEID
SCALE 4B'ei
1 = INN R N. • AR HIT T OM �p.� v' �g9.epj,
^ COLORWO e r 0 CO,ssow ili...
-,e_o' j
•
— I-7777
c r 'fli,j l ' 6: 0 r' d'�
I rCIC o
m �I�
I 711
�lljlllii 1
1 'III a
ii Ill l' 6-Y �- � -u�
ill!' 1 ' i �I it
0IIi i Ij H. I 1,;_L____J _
�i 4 ti. ,
,I j Ili!!! 1® � IP', ® I. 1
n
!I I,; '7,'', ;II it iliil ; i 1111
mt..
;.1 �11
I L. � z fl
�� e11,, l ,I. L� -
4 111 II t
,�! rS
',;� Ili '- 'll I III _ r.e
{jam I,
�f' 1I I 1 e I!
� , I1I' � }I
lily 1:1i.IIC 1 ,. .'il .--��i� . 1
l
m
m
-1 \Ili)
..,
m � lill L 1 11I
�I
G I'li }
G 1 \ a
2 I
\j n
. ,, , , ,,I //,/
D
:'' ' / > .. __ ° ... c
F F F d o_
s 111
]',
OI —
,
I
a —
li Ii i
•
e„ I,ym
'o,'o�l ? Ir-la rA
Q -e-o-
O
0
401N .»e wtvnro..:,_,.'I/
d JUAN STREET MOUSING °:,E: .'5 ._,
107 JUAN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO :.E:K` "-..o-
G I BSON & RENO ARCHITECTS "e ".'`°°°E°•"Ee r♦k. .3 YGe.Eeg
�E�eo•wee. �,e G��•�e6e
mew, col.o.uo° , Ocoe.n�o....E
I
m' :__ .
a ��nm�o \
Zm IIE � _
!I, i! I
.I I
,
'WWII ,
, I ,II
•li
• rz_ , \I .
to
M
!IIIU
m N❑ M
m
IIIIIIL11(
2 ,H I ItEs\'`,
I III
0
•
{
Joe ro:
'7 3 JUAN STREET HO ECKE
1107 JUAN STREET USING ASPEN, COLORADO :°E
.D
11_m■l,se ."moR o r nsig=i�a'lININIA -—COO.EO AVE nUE fELE40.F. E x=�j.'tra
` 1 n COLD.nOO .. OCO.veq..-
a
le
•
1
/
i
/
I
\
CC - � • \i {`��ff _ .4„1-ice .\\ p .\
/ \
' , E , \
\�
N p \ 1:1 g.
a J
I� c I E a
1 € A\\� i bl y \ n r 1 II e i -
i
f0 Y I
• 1F•
[ 1 o
C 4 _ \ '� j l I Ii
\ k,_ -..-\\\
" D III r ro " '; :�1
,,,,d, ,.. __,, • .., 1
\,/ \
\‘‘
. \\,,:
, ,
,,,
1
o
• „ I , ,
, ,
, , ,
: ,
\ .
, , ,
..„. ,
, ,
, \ N.i,..
/1 - \
N
0
JUAN STREET HOUSING 0.;E”, !'F pEVB ,/, zt74..
b '107 JUAN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO s==«`0
KniViefi
f
0 1
I
1
--j I
I i'—
1
ee
II I
— \ fir " — I
I
' E i t' ll
- I O
/ 0
�
�� / 2
i 1'
to
11 i m 2 pI'1 f ° m
C. o 3. s
Q Ix 5--� —N,, m
Ir \ 1
1 R. 1 F I J 1 U, 1
0 4. Z
LIII% JUAN STREET MOUSING ;M°: °30 �.ab„:,n ,-"k��/ice !06 107 JUAN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO
cm, ,.,../,, 3
s�:�EEO.
;ate,
r. UN R N• • A.
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 107 JUAN STREET SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Wednesday, February 23 , 1994, at a meeting to begin at 5: 00 pm
before the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee in the second
floor meeting room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen,
Colorado, to consider an application submitted by the Aspen/Pitkin
Housing Authority requesting approval for the on-site relocation
of the historic building at 107 Juan Street as part of an
Affordable Housing Project. The property is located on Lots 3-6,
Block 11, Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen. For
further information, contact Amy Amidon at the Aspen Pitkin
Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St. , Aspen, CO. 920-5096.
s/William J. Poss, Chair
Aspen Historic Preservation Committee
Published in the Aspen Times on February 4, 1994 .
City of Aspen Account
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
Minutes of February 23, 1994
Meeting was called to order by Joe Krabacher with Les Holst, Roger
Moyer, Karen Day, Scott Samborski, Tom Williams, Martha Madsen and
Linda Smisek present. Excused were Donnelley Erdman and Jake
Vickery.
MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve the minutes of January
26, 1994 ; second by Karen. All in favor, motion carries.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Roger: I had a call from a woman in Rifle with regards to
restoring a building as Rifle has no preservation committee. They
may come to one of our meetings.
The Board welcomes our two new members Tom Williams and Scott
Samborski.
Karen: I would suggest using the Angler Room at the Hotel Jerome
for the awards ceremony. It is a very warm room rather than the
larger one we used last year.
Amy: We need to reassign Bill Poss's projects.
Karen: I 'll do Saint Mary's church windows.
Les: I 'll do the elevator for Pitkin County Court house.
107 JUAN STREET - RELOCATION, PUBLIC HEARING
Joe Krabacher opened the public hearing.
Amy: The applicant is coming back for final approval for the
relocation of the historic structure towards the west and I have
found that it has met all of the relocation standards and recommend
that the HPC approve the application with the conditions that they
submit a structural report from a licensed engineer, that a
relocation plan be submitted and that they limit the width of the
underground garage to one lane and that they not construct a front
porch on the historic resource. I brought up the issue of the
porch before and since then I have found that it was never on the
building and from a pure preservation standpoint you don't want to
introduce elements that were never there historically.
Dave Tollin: Housing Authority office representative: The site was
purchased by the city of Aspen and the housing office a few years
ago for affordable permanent resident housing. We are working with
a design development team. The proposal is for six units, five
new and the existing miners cottage which will be relocated
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of February 23, 1994
slightly on the site. The two units in the back each are duplexes
with a total of four units and will house basically families. They
have small but useful yard spaces incorporated within them. In the
front will be the single family home. This unit will be
rehabilitated and become a two bedroom unit. There will also be
common yard space. The parking associated with the project is two
spaces per unit in an underground parking structure under the site.
We are hoping to price the units as low as $130, 000 to $150, 000
each. In the last worksession we had talked about the concept of
reducing the parking impact entrance. There is a problem with
safety and we would not be able to narrow the entrance due to
engineering concerns. We can alter the front elements which will
soften it. The second issue is the porch on the corner unit. It
serves two functions: protects the front entry from ice, snow and
rain. The second thing it does is provide a connection between
the unit and the street. There are small cottages throughout town
with porches like this. From a pure preservation review this had
not had a porch but I feel we can design it in such a way that it
enhances rather than detracts. The other issue from the site visit
is the proposed height. The existing is four feet lower than what
we are showing on the elevation. We were asked to leave the
building at the present elevation. The reason for the elevation
is the position of the transition behind it. To have the building
at a lower elevation creates a deep canyon or well in relationship
to the retaining wall making the yard space less usable.
Roger: What is the height of the retaining wall?
David: Six feet at the front level and also six feet at the back
level.
David: I also believe the front porch is within the ten foot
setback and that was addressed in the application.
David: I would like the HPC to consider a setback variance to give
us the opportunity to move the unit forward. We need to look at
technical issues.
Roger: Can the front porch be added so that it is not as prominent
addition to the historic cottage and that it look like an addition
rather than part of the addition.
Karen: I had a question concerning the stairs as we had to have
ours redone because they were so dangerous.
David: We have a cost estimate currently for concrete stairs
throughout the site.
Les: Regarding the entrance I have seen several complexes in
2
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of February 23, 1994
Denver, Park City that have single entrances to underground
parking. We can get information on them.
David: The standards are loosely defined but 18 feet for a two car
access is probably the minimum you would want to go.
Roger: You don't need a two car access, have a one car access and
then that standard is met.
David: You could do that but in terms of safety for a structure
of this size that is what they recommend.
Roger: The building I stay at in Georgetown is new and has 25
parking spaces, single car garage door and when you pull up there
is a light that comes on and it is green and you go through. If
cars are coming out it turns red and you wait until they come
through. It is real simple.
David: The city engineer told us you can only do it under this
circumstance.
Les: Very interesting, that is one of the reasons we loose these
great spaces. The building code has exceptions for historic
buildings so that we don't have to meet the standard codes. We
could have a worksession and explain the situation that it will
work.
Joe: Get a subcommittee and meet with the Engineering Dept.
David: We are not asked to meet a function standard we are asked
to meet an Engineering standard.
Roger: Concerning the corner to the left of the parking garage
possibly have a landscape person study the area to soften it up.
David: At this point we have not had any detailed work done on
that area.
COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS
Tom: I feel the opening would be less of an impact if the
clearance were lowered.
David: The ramp will slope down over a foot so it will drop down
a little. We are also facing the entire area with stone.
Les: I feel the porch is necessary with that roof on the cottage.
If there is a way of dropping down the corner unit that would be
appropriate. Regarding the opening we need to make sure a van with
3
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of February 23, 1994
a ski rack will fit.
Karen: I also agree with Les's comments.
Roger: In the motion we should state that they look at a single
door opening.
David: P&Z and Council has the ability to look at these two
issues.
Amy: I can discuss the opening with the City Engineer.
Joe: I would also like to see the parking garage door opening
lowered or restudied. I am willing to recommend the front yard
setback variance but it might be a planning issue in exchange in
bringing the height of the building down. It seems there is no
objection to the porch. The stairs into the historic cottage I
would personally see those done in wood rather than concrete. I
also agree with Roger that landscaping needs looked at on the
corner of the parking area.
Chairman Joe Krabacher closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC recommend approval of the
relocation of 107 Juan Street with the following conditions:
1) Before applying for a building permit, the applicant will
submit a structural report from a licensed engineer, demonstrating
the soundness of the structure and describing any structural
bracing that will be necessary during the relocation.
2) Before applying for a building permit, the applicant will
provide a relocation plan which shows how the receiving site will
be prepared and will secure a bond (value to be set by HPC) to
insure safe relocation of the building.
3) The applicant should limit the width of the underground garage
opening to one lane, if this is found to meet safety standards.
4) Condition four would be to study the lowering of the height of
the historic building and deal with the setbacks as need be.
5) Study the softening of the north east corner landscaping;
second by Les. All in favor, motion carries.
4
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of February 23, 1994
DISCUSSION
Tom: In regards to the opening a regular overhead door is 6x8.
Joe: Maybe we should amend the motion that the applicant should
limit the width and height of the underground garage to one lane
and the appropriate height regarding safety standards. It may stay
the way it is presented.
Les: A ski rack and windsurfer should fit. I try and watch people
at the Little Nell and they cannot get in due to the height
problems.
AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended the motion to limit the width and
height of the underground garage to one lane and the appropriate
height regarding safety standards; second by Les. All in favor,
motion carries.
HOLDEN-MAROLT MUSEUM - MINOR DEVELOPMENT
Amy: The master plan was reviewed several years ago and the
applicants have found that they cannot locate the bathrooms inside
the barn and they are proposing to do it on the exterior. They
propose setting them under an existing lean-too on the south side
of the barn. I recommend approval but they can limit the overall
size of the bathroom.
Graeme Means, architect: Amy talked to me concerning the
recommendation of having the bathrooms detached from the main
structure. Our PUD approval states specifically that there be no
new construction on the property and one of the main reasons is
that this was city purchased for open space. Secondly we talked
about this and there is very little visual impact and will work
better than putting a new structure on the grounds. We do not like
the idea of introducing a new element into this plan. Originally
we received approval from the building department to put our
bathrooms inside the building but the museum consultant that we are
working with stated there would be a circulation problem etc. and
suggested the bathroom to be outside of the building. They also
felt that the building was small and any exhibit space is precious.
It would also alter the character inside. We then looked at the
alternative of where to put them either in a new structure or in
the salt shed. The salt shed is an original historic building that
we are going to turn into a shop to restore old equipment and
display materials and this would be part of the museum for people
to watch and see how things are done. Introducing the bathrooms
in the salt shed would take away valuable space so we decided to
5
T
..,:,,,,- .
i . , .
f • A ---
.. .
..t,... i
_______ _z _ .,.,.. . r , ' 1. • vi
— :LL . 1 \\ \ 4 ' . " , - , ti': -.;.:1 I f,..
lib it
• i
'',. f - --c ` ,)J... Al 4'i '�a Z} ,, f ,
. ;tp .'t
i �, -"
y y
PUBLIC NOTICE
DATE .23
TIME 5:00 'Pr1.
c, "7-1' HALL
PLACEc s,iAL.Esa
PURPOSE ON-sire•
pELOCAT/ J OF I{15TOR(C.r
tBuiw,NG A5 PAST or,
ANA DRI)A31.-E
d I46USING PRoJEcT_
Housing Office
,,j(;;;;;2)00.\ City of Aspen/Pitkin County
530 East Main Street, Lower Level
Aspen, Colorado 8161 1
(303) 920-5050
Fax: (303) 920-5580
To: Historic Preservation Committee
From: Dave Tolen, Housing Office
Re: 107 Juan Street Relocation
Date: 23 February, 1994
I want to thank the members of the Historic Preservation Committee
and. Amy Amidon for your assistance on our Juan Street Affordable
Housing project. I believe that your input and ideas have
benefitted the project, not only from an historic point of view but
from a user and a community point of view.
I believe we have met all of the concerns that you expressed during
several work sessions and site visits. I want to make an argument
for one element that I feel is very important: the front porch on
the existing house.
The proposed front porch serves two important purposes. First, it
shelters the entry door from rain, snow and ice. Second, it
provides an amenity in the form of a connection between the unit.
and the street and between the community and the unit.
The front porch would be designed to be consistent with the home.
It should not, in any way, overwhelm the existing visual image of
the home. While there is no evidence that this particular home
ever had a porch, there are examples in the community of similar
homes with such porches.
The present review, based on relocation of the unit, gives you the
opportunity to examine these issues. However, I would like to note
that, absent the proposed or.site relocation, there would not be any
review required to add a porch to this unit. For example, if this
unit were simply owned and occupied by a local homeowner, that
homeowner could add a porch to the unit without approval. I don't
mean to imply that your review of this is not appropriate, but that
under other circumstances it would be permitted. I would hope
that, if you find the front porch reasonable in respect to the
overall needs of the project that you would approve it.
Thank you again for your suggestions and support on this project.
GIBSON S. RENO • ARCHITECTS ()AVID GIBSON AIA
AUGUST G.REND AIA
MAR - 2 - --
SCOTT C SMITH AIA
February 19, 1994
Historic Preservation Commission
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
JUAN STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Standards for Review of Relocation
1. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any
reasonable beneficial use of the property.
Response: Presently, the historic structure is sited in the center of the
12,000 s.f. parcel, not permitting the practical use of the property for
additional dwellings.
We propose relocating the historic structure to the N.W. corner of the site,
which does three beneficial things:
1. Relates to the scale of the adjacent existing Residence
(Barbee)
2. Gains prominence by virtue of a street-front elevation
location for the historic structure, and
3. Permits the siting of five additional dwellings on the
property.
2. The relocation is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character
and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood
and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation.
Response: The character and integrity of the structure will be enhanced
because the building is presently uninhabitable and is physically in need
of repair. The relocation will give a new foundation and bring the
structure up to code, without compromising its authentic historic rooflines,
window openings, or materials. These will all be preserved. The integrity
of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. In fact, no other
historic structures are nearby, and the property is surrounded by vacant
land.
3. The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical
impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a
licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for
relocation.
41B E. COOPER AVENUE • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • 303/925-5969 • FAX 303/925-5993
Juan Street Housing
Page 2
Response: The wood frame 1-story structure can be easily moved. A new
foundation, new interior finishes, and a reinforced roof and floor structure
will be provided as a part of the relocation process. Contrary to the
structural soundness being threatened, it will be enhanced and fortified,
(David F. Gibson, AIA, Colorado Architecture Licensure # B-1238).
4. A relocation plan shall be submitted,including posting a bond with the Engineering
Department, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of
the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site
shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation.
Response: The relocation plan and improvements ares shown in detail on
the accompanying site plan, floor plans and elevations. Our plan is to
construct the new foundation along with the other site foundation work,
and to place the frame structure on a new foundation within about 3
months of groundbreaking. Adjacent land owned by Savanah properties
has been identified as the temporary receiving site for the structure, until
the new foundation is prepared. A qualified house mover shall be retained
to perform this work.
5. The receiving site is compatible in nature to the structure or structures proposed to
be moved, the character of the neighborhood is consistent with the architectural
integrity of the structure, and the relocation of the historic structure would not
diminish the integrity of character of the neighborhood of the receiving site. An
acceptance letter from the property owner of the receiving site shall be submitted.
Response: The receiving site is one and the same as the original site. We
are proposing to move the historic structure only about thirty feet, to the
Northwest. The owner of the site is the Applicant, the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority, and the City of Aspen.
Respectfully Su,mitted,
de PI
"Porn C.'' AIA
MT CO >-+ YJl•JJrI'I 17J DJVI1 Oc MC-1 1V iVCU{CLL / "' • .�n`J r•1,� Vj�
Post-it'"Fax Naito 7671 Dace 6 It at ■
To
CciDepl. CO.
Phone# Phone!!
FaX# 7 47.5 Ye) Fax#
Monroe & Newell
Engineers,Inc.
April 18, 1994
Gibson-Reno Architects
418 E. Cooper Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
ATTN:Mr. Scott Smith •
RE: Juan Street Housing(M&N#2299)
Gentlemen:
The following letter is in regard to the existing historic building currently on the site to be
relocated elsewhere on the site.
•
The existing building is roughly 16 feet by 25 feet with an addition on the south end of
roughly 10 feet by 25 feet. It is the understanding of Monroe&Newell Engineers that the
main portion of the building is around 100 years old while the southern addition is around
50 years old.
The main building roof framing is 2"x 4" (actual) timber rafters at 24"o.c.connected to
each other at the ridge line running east-west. At the ceiling support there are 2"x 6"
(actual)timber collar ties at 16"o.c. spanning across the 16' width north-south. The roof
deck is 1"x 8" (actual)planks spanning between the rafters.
The main building floor is 2"x 8"(actual)timber joists at 16"o.c. spanning the 16' width
north-south with an intermediate bearing line at midspan of the 16' span. The floor deck
appears to be 1x4 tongue and groove decking.
The main building foundation is constructed of stacked horizontal tree logs with vertical
posts on either side of the stacked logs to hold the logs in place. The stacked logs bear
directly on the soil providing a crawl space approximately 3'4'deep. The interior
bearing line consists of a 6 x 10(actual)timber beam supported by wood posts at 6 feet to •
8 feet on center. Extensive deterioration was noted at the exterior foundation walls.
1660 Seventeenth St. • Suite 350 • Deaver, Colorado 80202 • (303) 623-4927 • PAX(303) 623-6602
Mc co 5y rJi•,4ri I a_MC.-1.11,J a. NCwc.L_L liesiutrt .SN.i 623 6602 r.
The exterior wall system of the main building consists of 2"x 4" (actual)wall studs with
an exterior wood panel. The floor rim joist also appears to be an exterior wood panel.
The south addition roof framing appears to be of 2 x 4 joists spanning the 10'-0"length
north-south. The exterior walls appear to be 2"x 4"studs flat with an exterior wood
panel. The floor joist member sizes are unknown but are assumed to be similAt to the
mein building.
The main building appears capable of being relocated to a new foundation with the
following considerations:
1) The existing brick chimney shall be dismantled.
2) The existing windows shall be removed and the openings covered with
sheathing and temporary framing while relocated.
3) The existing floor and roof rim joists shall be replaced and connected to the
floor and roof rafters.
4) The roof collar ties shall be attached to the bearing walls and new ties shall be
located at each rafter.
5) The roof rafters shall be attached to the bearing walls with metal clips.
The above listed items shall be reviewed with the building relocation subcontractor and
further items may need to be included.
The south addition does not appear capable of being relocated either separately or
together with the main building. The wall structure and roof structure are currently not
structurally capable of meeting the required design loadings. The south addition is
deteriorated structurally and any movement associated with relocation may collapse the
structure.
The construction documents prepared for the project shall include the new foundation
drawing and details for the relocated buil ding. In addition,the documents shall include
framing detailing to upgrade the existing structure to current design criteria. The
structure relocation sub-contractor shall submit shop drawings and details for the •
relocation process to be reviewed by Monroe&Newell Engineers. Please call with any
questions.
Sincerely,
Monroe&Newell En _ :,Inc.
/ /�
• :' oll,P.E.
Principal
•
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Amy Amidon
From: Leslie Lamont
Postmark: Jun 02 , 94 10: 56 AM
Status: Previously read
Subject: Reply to a reply: Juan Street housing project
Reply text:
From Leslie Lamont:
thanks I'm anticipating some grief over their "surprises" that they
now have to deal with and i want to be able to at least tell them
that they knew what was required.
Preceding message:
From Amy Amidon:
this stuff is required anytime you move a historic house, on or off
of the property. i told dave all of this right from the start. it is
always a condition of approval, before you can get a building permit.
From Leslie Lamont:
would this have been the case if the house stayed on the property??
was the applicant unaware of what is required when relocating a
hsitoric structure or were they in such a hurry that they didn't
consider all that needed to be done??
From Amy Amidon:
dave-just to confirm. . . i will ask hpc tomorrow night if they have any
problem with temporarily moving historic house off-site. before it is
o.k. for you to do so, you need to give us a relocation plan, showing
how and where building will be stored, an engineer's opinion on what
cross-bracing or other methods are necessary to protect house while
moving. also you need to secure a bond (hpc will set the value-
somewhere around $80-100, 000 . ) Check with John Worcester. .maybe bond
isn't necessary since "you" are "us, " but it probably is.
From Leslie Lamont:
the housing office will need to remove the existing nonhistoric house
X
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Amy Amidon
From: Dave Tolen
Postmark: Jul 15, 94 10: 40 AM
Status: Previously read
Subject: Reply to: juan (cont. )
Reply text:
From Dave Tolen:
I thought we gave this stuff to you. I know I saw the letter from
the engineer several months ago, and the relocation plan went in with
the Board of Adjustment request. I'll check it out right away. The
bod we can handle easily by setting aside funds with the City Finance
Department to hold until approved by you. I' ll talk to you on this
today!
Preceding message:
From Amy Amidon:
i suggested a number of solutions to dave about how to handle these
requirements if time or money were short. we have engineers and
structural engineers on staff who might be able to do the assessment.
also, i recommended he speak to john to find out if the city needs to
get a bond for its own work. (i do think that a bond is probably
necessary. ) . . .
X
ACJPF---. -I \ c71 ,‘,.z.-.), , :-
./_,4_ :-
. . -
i
F-7-11
) i i
1 ° t
/\1
....
--..,
3 ;
, 0 It 3
v) ,
\ ° m
11 S" la
L
-3- ;
'3 I" tk isl
--- !
- —
0 A ,
i' , .... ....:.
(..)
‘,
,,,.....,_ 4
c) r `-
riV}:3
Project: JUAN STREET OCT 19 I994
Date: October 14, 1994; 11:30am
Attendees: Amy Amidon, Paul Broome, Alan Styers, and
G-
Scott Smith V
Location: Juan Street Site •••
Notes: The scope of historic preservation work was
discussed and the following items were decided: NOTES
Existing B it in
1. Front Entry Door: Existing door and transom will be renovated if
possible. If problems during renovation occur, Amy will be contacted. 61 I < "
�� I
An acceptable alternative will be to construct a new door to match the
existing door is it is unable to be renovated. The existing door is 1 3/8" `
thick and is cracked and panels separated in several locations. Paul said
the existing door will not function like a new one as it is not very � o�
sturdy, is warped, and will not be as weather tight as a new door. 'V_- -;��•
� a
existing 2. Windows: The extstut window sashes and frames will be
renovated. New single pane glass will be installed in the existing sashes GIBSON • RENO
(double pane won't fit). If any of the existing sashes are beyond repair, A R C H I T E C T S
Amy will be contacted and new wood sashes will be constructed to I I I
match existing.
The existing window sashes, due to their condition,will not appear or
operate like new windows and will not be as weather tight. If air
infiltration is too severe, separate storm windows can be used.
New Addition:
1. Siding: New lap siding will be used to match the existing siding on
the east and west sides of the existing house. The existing siding will
be scraped and repainted and there will be a noticeable difference 210 E.HYMAN
No 202
between the new and old siding. The existing siding on the south side ASPEN COLORADO
of the building will not be reused. 81611
303.925.5968
2. Windows: The new window layout in Proposal Request#1, is to be FACSIMILIE
used to approximate the original windows in the existing shed structure 303 925 5993
which was demolished. 6" wide millions are to be used between the (3)
windows on the east side. New wood, insulated windows will be used
with standard sizes to approximate the original opening sizes.
•••
3. Any will be notified of any problems in renovating the exiting house
and also of the progress of the front door and existing windows.
P.O.BOX 278
Respectfully submitted, 117 N.WILLOW
No 2
TELLURIDE COLORADO
81435
Scott Smith, AIA
303.728.6607
C: All present,files FACSIMILIE
303.728.6658
�� 7/ )
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO dave tolen BC Amy Amidon
From: Amy Amidon
Postmark: Oct 20, 94 10:50 AM
Status: Previously read
Subject: 107 juan
Message:
on the meeting notes scott smith sent to both of us from my last site
visit with him. . .there is a mistake in the first part about the front
entry door. what i told scott was that you need to keep and reuse
that door, if not as the main door into the house, than as a storm
door, with a new insulated and secure door behind it. the new door
would have to be designed so that it wasn't visible from outside.
there may not be enough room in the existing door jamb to mount these
two doors and he was going to try to think of a way to deal with that
on the interior. i left a message for him to call me.
X