The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20020313. a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 13, 2002 REGULAR MEETING, 5:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS NOON - SITE VISITS - Please do site visits on your own. 633 W. Main Street 323 W. Hallam Street 5:00 I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes - January 23rd, Feb. 13,2002 minutes. These were e-mailed to you. III. Public Comments IV. Commission member comments V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) VI. Project Monitoring VII. OLD BUSINESS 5:05 ~A. 118 E. Cooper - Final, Public Hearing 0 11- \4509 - 5:25 l B. 950 Matchless Drive - Final, Public Hearing 5 - 5:45 CC.4 334 W. Hallam - Conceptual, Public Hearing (cont'd from Dec. 12th)CA /14'J__ 6:15 D. 513 W. Smuggler - Conceptual, Public Hearing (cont'd from 3/133 q.f) :L 10#, VIII. NEW BUSINESS 6:35 A. 633 W. Main - Conceptual, Public Hearing 11604 7 7:10 IX. WORKSESSION A. 323 w. Hallam - worksession 7:30 X. ADJOURN . -ROJECT MONITORING ouzannah Reid 414 N. First- POLE 7tl~ and Main 330 Lake Avenue 620 W. Bleeker Historical Society 328 Park Ave. 515 Gillespie 205 S. Third 935 E. Cooper Jeffrey Halferty 414 N. First- POLE 918 W. Hallam/920 W. Hallam 620 W. Bleeker - Historical Society 213 W. Bleeker 200 E. Bleeker 328 Park Ave. - Lane 209 S. Galena 332 W. Main 101 E. Hallam 735 W. Bleeker Gilbert Sanchez 333 W. Bleeker Street 501 W. Main Christiania Lodge 330 Lake Ave. 110 W. Main 200 E. Bleeker 214 E. Hopkins Wagner Park 428 E. Hyman Rally Dupps 501 W. Main Street - Christiania Lodge 129 W. Francis 104 S. Galena- St. Mary's Church 302 E. Hopkins 610 W. Smuggler 232 W. Main - Christmas Inn lanie Roschko Teresa Melville 513 W. Bleeker 515 Gillespie 232 W. Main - Christmas Inn 735 W. Bleeker Neill Hirst 450 S. Galena 101 E. Hallam 205 S. Third 419 E. Cooper 409 E. Hyman Mike Hoffman. 41 1 0 -â‚¬\ 0_tr CO.lf--Â·z_- 1 7 1 Paul D'Amato L b Hka (lut b (<i N CLL.-b 2 CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: 640 N. Third- expires May 23,2002 135 W. Hopkins- expires September 26,2002 232 W. Main- expires October 24,2002 629 W. Smuggler- expires November 26,2002 233 W. Main- expires November 28,2002 ~C 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 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS 54. Pursue the 6000 square foot lot split concept and other zone districts November 28,2001. 55. 233 W. Main Innsbruck Inn - Conceptual November 28,2001 56. 735 W. Bleeker - Final Review Nnvember 28, 2001 57. 409 E. Hyman Ave. Minor November 28, 2001 58. 501 W. Main - Christiania - Dec. 12, 2001 59. 213 W. Bleeker - Schelling Remediation Plan - Dec. 12, 2001 2002 1. 435 E. Main - Conceptual - January 9,2002 2. 950 Matchless Drive Conceptual -February 13, 2002 3. 118 E. Cooper- Little Red Ski Haus - Conceptual February 13, 2002 7 Â¥ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 334 W. Hallam Street- Conceptual Development, On-Site Relocation, Partial Demolition and Variances - Public Hearing (continued from December 12, 2001) DATE: March 13, 2002 SUMMARY: This property is a designated landmark and is on the National Register of Historic Places. The proposed project involves demolishing an existing addition on the house, adding a basement, and building a new addition with an attached garage. The applicant requests two FAR bonus variances; one for an exemplary historic preservation project and one as a waiver to the FAR restrictions on the calculation of the garage. HPC reviewed this project on December 12, 2001 and continued it for restudy of areas that were not in compliance with the design guidelines. At that time, one of the problematic issues was the applicant's proposal to move the house towards the west property line to accommodate an addition and preserve a tree that Parks did not want to see removed. HPC indicated that the relocation was not acceptable. The applicant has since received Parks approval to remove the cottonwood tree. Because this does change some of the development constraints on the site, HPC is asked to revisit the plans that were submitted in December and make new findings on the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. An opinion regarding compliance with the guidelines has been provided for the applicant by Mitch Haas, Planning Consultant. Please note that Mr. Haas' memo makes mention of an approval granted by HPC for this property in 1988. The previous property owner acted on part of that approval by reconstructing the carriage house at the back of the lot. They did not complete any of the renovations to the main historic house. The remainder of the plans approved in 1988 can only be constructed to the extent that they would comply with the new laws that have been adopted in the ensuing 14 years, which include the design guidelines. The applicant could ask HPC to review the old approval in that light, but has instead submitted a revised plan that they presumably prefer. APPLICANT: Hayden Connor, owner; represented by Patrick Cashen Architect. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-23-005. 1 0 ADDRESS: 334 W. Hallam Street, Lot K, L and M, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R.-6 (Medium Density Residential) SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds that all of the following standards (Section 26.415.010.C.5) are met: a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, massing and volume with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or is adjacent to an historic landmark. For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site covered by up to Jive (5) percent, HPC may grant necessao variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood titan 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 0 Staff Finding: The proposal is to demolish and replace an existing addition to the house, to add a basement, and to build a garage. The applicant proposes no alterations to the two story portion of the historic residence. As noted in the attached checklist of relevant guidelines, staff agrees that all of the review standards in Chapters 2-7 (with the possible exception of guideline 5.1), which deal with rehabilitation issues, are being met at this time, or the applicant has suggested no activites that would be contrary to these guidelines. It is important to note that the historic structure is to be properly preserved without alteration, which is commendable. Staff does find that numerous guidelines that relate to the design of the new addition and proposed garage are not being met at this time, as will be discussed below. The addition that currently exists on the back of this house appears to have been done in two or three phases. There is a one story gable roofed piece with a porch at the northwest corner that appears on the 1904 Sanborne map and the 1893 Bird's Eye view of the City. & 2 ~ 2< * ~ Le. 4 / \1 k V k 0 d M 4 4 i'R .. 84 17-11 0-â€¢ .rs 2 %1 .1 92 ZEf 1, 11 :U The dimensions of the addition shown on the Sanborne map are very close to the area of the existing house that functions as a mudroom and west entry porch. This piece has been modified to include a storage closet and mudroom extension, and a second story addition, presumably some time in the 1960's. The only aspect of the historic construction in this area that can easily be preserved now is the west facing porch and the wall under the porch. When this part of the project was addressed by staff in the December memo, the intent was to clarify that these portions of the existing construction must be retained, and not be replaced as implied by the plans. It would be ideal for this project to pull the second story construction off of the historic addition and reconstruct it's original form. That is not something that HPC could require, but is the sort of restoration activity that has justified an HPC floor area bonus on other sites in town. Guidelines relevant to these points are: 5.1 Preserve an original porch. o Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions and spacing of balusters when replacing missing ones. o Unless used historically on the property, wrought iron, especially the "licorice stick" style that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, is inappropriate. o Expanding the size of a historic porch is inappropriate. 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. o Such an addition is usually similar in character to the original building in terms of materials, finishes and design. The proposed new addition at the back of the house maintains the same basic footprint of what exists now, except for a two story extension towards the east. The tree issue diverted much of HPC's attention on this part of the project in December, however, those Commissioners who did speak to the appropriateness of the construction from a historic preservation point of view expressed some concerns. Commissioner Sanchez stated that (if one were removing and replacing the existing addition) it would be important to reveal the northeast corner of the original house. He suggested that there be at least a jog in the wall plane to expose the corner before the construction extended eastward. Other members stated a preference that the addition be directed entirely towards the north, behind the historic house. The important guidelines to note are: 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. o An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. o A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. o Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. o Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 3 0 While the low pitched roof over the east section of the new addition helps to reduce its profile, it is out of character with the gable forms used on the historic building. Staff also has concerns that the overall detailing of the new construction replicates too much of the features of the original house and will confusing as to what is new and what is old construction. In regard to the proposed new garage, which is meant to be attached to the north side of the house, the guidelines emphasize that a separate garage structure is preferable and that garages are to be located along alleys. 8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure. o 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. 14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene. See Chapter 8: Secondary Structures. 14.20 Off-street driveways should be removed, if feasible. o Non-historic parking areas accessed from the street should be removed if parking can be placed on the alley. HPC members previously expressed a concern about the diminishment of the existing separation between the main house and existing alley house. 0 HPC FAR Bonus The applicant is requesting a 364 square foot floor area bonus. The 1988 approval for the redevelopment of this site included a 500 square foot bonus. Only a portion of that bonus (136 square feet) was used in the reconstruction of the carriage house. The balance, 364 square feet, is not available without the authorization of this body because we have adopted new standards in regard to the bonus. Today's standard is: "A floor area bonus will only be awarded to projects which in the opinion of the HPC make an "outstanding preservation effort." Examples to be considered would include the retention of historic outbuildings or the creation of breezeway or connector elements between the historic resource and new construction. Lots which are larger than 9,000 square feet and properties which receive approval for a "historic landmark lot split" may also be considered for the bonus." This may be an appropriate site for the extra square footage, given the size of the lot and the large, detached "carriage house" structure on the alley, which serves to take some of the bulk away from the historic building, however the project as proposed does not currently meet the design guidelines, and therefore, at this time would not rise to a level that HPC considers "exemplary" work. If it can be amended accordingly, and there is a successful effort to preserve the character of the property, the bonus could be awarded. 0 4 Staff acknowledges that the house is in need of repair and the owner is making a substantial financial commitment to this important historic structure. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel propesed for development, and Staff Finding: The surrounding neighborhood contains a mix of old and new homes, and a wide variety of architectural styles. 19th century structures throughout the West End have been restored and expanded and an acceptable solution can be found for this project so that this standard will be met. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic signijicance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels, and Staff Finding: The project as proposed would detract from the historic significance of this home if the building were relocated on the site, a concept that the applicant is still interested in. This house, the Eugene Wilder House, was built c. 1885. From the National Register nomination, "The Wilder house was undoubtedly constructed from local lumber and may have been built by the Aspen Lumber Company. Wilder was associated with the Aspen Lumber Company, along with R. F. Roberts from the mid-1880s to the early 1890s. This business was one of the pioneer Aspen lumber companies established ca. 1880-1882." 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 historic house is being preserved with no alterations made directly to it. Part of the applicant's proposal includes reconstruction of the north roof slope of the east facing gable end, which was demolished by the 1960's remodel. Although there are concerns with the character of the addition, staff would agree that the integrity of the house itself is not being negatively affected by this project. PARTIAL DEMOLITION No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all of the following standards are met: 1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parceL Staff Finding: Staff agrees that the partial demolition of the existing 1960's addition is necessary for the proposed remodel, but further demolition of the historic rear addition as mentioned above, is not appropriate. 5 2. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic signijicance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions, and b. 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: The applicant can mitigate the negative impacts on the existing historical structure caused by the addition by meeting the concerns described above. ON-SITE RELOCATION No approval for oIl-site relocation shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all of the following standards are met: A. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. Staff Finding: The Parks Department is issuing a permit to remove the tree that was an obstacle in the middle of the site. As a result, there is no justification that has been Â· presented to allow the house to be moved. Nevertheless, the applicant requests a formal determination on this matter. The guidelines state that "A part of a historic building's integrity is derived from its placement on its site and therefore, its original position is important." Guideline 9.1 states: 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. o In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than â€¢ those in a historic district. o It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. o Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. o A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. o Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. o The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. o In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 6 There is adequate room on this property to site new construction in an appropriate manner. There is no need to move the house in order to better preserve it and protect it from an overwhelming addition or other threat. B. The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Staff Finding: Said report would be a condition of approval. C. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security approved by HPC with the engineering department, to insure the safe relocation, preservation, and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Staff Finding: The relocation plan and letter ofcredit would be conditions of approval. VARIANCE FROM THE CALCULATION OF FAR RELATED TO GARAGES Garages are exempt from FAR if they are accessed from an alley when one is available. Because this applicant is choosing to use an existing, not formally permitted driveway off of Third Street, the garage will count in FAR. A variance from this policy, based on hardship, is requested. 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; Staff Finding: The AACP does not specifically address this issue. The Land Use Code clearly intends to remove garages from the streetscape and to minimize pedestrian/ automobile conflicts created by backing out into a street. 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: A garage is not necessary for reasonable use of a parcel. 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 dijficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either ofthefollowing conditions apply: 7 a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or Staff Finding: There is room available on the site to place a garage along the alley. b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district; and Staff Finding: The applicant has other options to create a garage that complies with the requirements. Although there are other garages that are accessed from streets in the West End, most are historic and they are not exempted from FAR. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS All residential development must comply with the following review standard or receive a variance based on a finding that: A. The proposed design yields greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen area 0 Community Plan (AACP); or, B. The proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or, C. The proposed design is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Standard: PARKING, GARAGES AND CARPORTS. The intent of the following parking, garages, and carport standard is to minimize the potential for conflicts between pedestrian and automobile traffic by placing parking, garages, and carports on alleys, or to minimize the presence of garages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do not exist. 1. For all residential Allty. uses, parking, garages, and 1 1 carports shall be accessed ( from an alley or private road i ~~ 1,00 Yes. le t if one exists. 0 Street. 8 0 Response: As noted above, staff does not find that the garage placement complies with any specific goals of the AACP. It does not comply with the intent of this guideline and there are no unusual site constraints on this property that prevent location of the garage offthe alley. This review standard is not met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the review standards for on-site relocation, and the FAR variance and "Residential Design Standards" variance for the garage are not met and should be denied by HPC. Staff recommends HPC continue the hearing on conceptual development, partial demolition and the HPC FAR bonus request with the following direction: 1. The west porch, and wall under the porch, must be retained. 2. The character and placement of the proposed new addition must be restudied. The flat roof form is out of character with the historic house, and the overall detailing is too replicative. 3. The preservation of the house with no new alterations is a positive aspect of this proposal and may speak to the qualities needed for an FAR bonus. The bonus could be betterjustified with more of an effort to physically separate the new addition (or at least reveal the original northeast corner) and/or by reconstructing the historic one story rear addition. 4. This application requires a variance from the "Residential Design Standards" for a lightwell on the west side. Notice for this variance must be posted on the site at least five days before the next hearing. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to continue the application to a date certain." Exhibits: A. Staffmemo dated March 13, 2002 B. Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines C. Letter from Mitch Haas, Planning Consultant D. Minutes ofDecember 12,2002 E. Drawings 0 9 Exhibit B 334 W. Hallam, Historic Design Guidelines Checklist, Conceptual Review (Note that the guidelines that are not me, in staffs opinion, are underlined. Guidelines on new landscaping, fencing, and lighting have not been included because they are details that are more properly addressed at Final.) Treatment of Materials 2.1 Preserve original building materials. o Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. o Only remove siding which is deteriorated and must be replaced. o Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved. o Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity. 2.2 Protect wood features from deterioration. o Provide proper drainage and ventilation to minimize rot o Maintain protective coatings to retard drying and ultraviolet damage. 2.3 Plan repainting carefully. 0 o Always prepare a good substrate. Prior to painting, remove damaged or deteriorated paint only to the next intact layer, using the gentlest means possible. o Use compatible paints. Some latex paints will not bond well to earlier oil-based paints without a primer coat. 2.4 Brick or stone that was not painted historically should not be painted. o Masonry naturally has a water-protective layer, or patina, to protect it from the elements. Repair of Materials 2.5 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing-in, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the material. o Avoid the removal of damaged materials that can be repaired. o Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be used. 2.6 Maintain masonry walls in good condition. o Original mortar that is in good condition should be preserved in place. o Repoint only those mortar joints where there is evidence of a moisture problem or when mortar is missing. o Duplicate the original mortar in strength, composition, color, texture, joint width and profile. 10 o Mortar joints should be cleared with hand tools. Using electric saws and hammers to remove mortar can seriously damage the adjacent brick. o Do not use mortar with a high portland cement content which will be substantially harder than the brick and does not allow for expansion and contraction. The result is deterioration of the brick itself. See Chapter 14: General Guidelinesjor masoniy cleaning. Replacement Materials 2.7 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. o If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then the replacement material must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, the amount of exposed lap and finish. o Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those should be replaced, not the entire wall. 2.8 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for primary building materials. o In some instances, substitute materials may be used for replacing architectural details, but doing so is not encouraged. If it is necessary to use a new material, such as a fiberglass column, the style and detail should precisely match that of the historic model. o Primary building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced with synthetic materials. o Synthetic materials include: aluminum, vinyl siding and panelized brick. o EIFS (synthetic stucco) is not an appropriate replacement for real stucco. Covering Materials 2.9 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate. o Regardless of their character, new materials obscure the original, historically significant material. For example, vinyl siding, aluminum siding and new stucco are inappropriate on historic buildings. Other imitation materials that are designed to look like wood or masonry siding, but that are fabricated from other materials, are also inappropriate. o If a property already has a non-historic building material covering the original, it is not appropriate to add another layer of new material, which would further obscure the original. o Any material that covers historic materials will also trap moisture between the two layers. This may cause accelerated deterioration to the historic material which will go unnoticed. 2.10 Consider removing later covering materials that have not achieved historic significance. o Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material. 11 Treatment Of Windows 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. o Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation and groupings of windows. o Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them, whenever conditions permit. o Preserve the original glass, when feasible. 3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. o Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character-defining facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening. This is especially important on primary facades where the historic ratio of solid-to-void is a character-defining feature. o Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls. o Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it to receive a larger window on primary facades. Replacement Windows 3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a facade. o Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character-defining facade will negatively affect the integrity of a structure. 3.4 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. o If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window should also be double- hung, or at a minimum, appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number and position of glass panes. o Matching the original design is particularly important on key character-defining facades. 3.5 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original o Using the same material as the original is preferred, especially on character-defining facades. However, a substitute material may be considered if the appearance of the window components will match those of the original in dimension, profile and finish. 3.6 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. o Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to receive a larger window is inappropriate. o Consider reopening and restoring an original window opening where altered. 3.7 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. o A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window's easing, the sash steps back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are 12 important details. They distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane of the wall. Energy Conservation 3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy conservation rather than to replace a historic window. o Install a storm window on the interior, when feasible. This will allow the character of the original window to be seen from the public way. o If a storm window is to be installed on the exterior, match the sash design and material of the original window. It should fit tightly within the window opening without the need for sub-frames or panning around the perimeter. Treatment of Existing Doors These guidelines for the treatment of doors apply primarily to front doors, although they do include secondary entrance doors and screen doors. Greater flexibility can be applied when replacing side and rear doors when they are not visible from the public right-of-way. 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. o Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These may include the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights. o Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances. o If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut any work that is done must be reversible so that the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position. o If the secondary entrance is sealed shut the original entrance on the primary facade must remain operable. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. o Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. 4.3 When a historic door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic appearance. o For additional information see Chapter 14: General Guidelines "On-Going Maintenance of Historic Properties". 4.4 If a new screen door is used, it should be in character with the primary door. o Match the frame design and color of the primary door. o If the entrance door is constructed of wood, the frame of the screen door should also be wood. 13 0 Replacement Doors 4.5 When replacing a door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the house. o A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement. o A historic door from a similar building also may be considered. o Simple paneled doors were typical. o Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. Energy Conservation 4.6 If energy conservation and heat loss are concerns, consider using a storm door instead of replacing a historic entry door. o Generally, wood storm doors are most appropriate when the original door is wood. o If a storm door is to be installed, match the frame design, character and color of the original door. Treatment of P orches 5.1 Preserve an original porch. o Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions and spacing of balusters when replacing missing ones. 0 o Unless used historically on the property, wrought iron, especially the "licorice stick" style that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, is inappropriate. o Expanding the size of a historic porch is inappropriate. 5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details on a porch. o Removing an original balustrade, for example, is inappropriate. 5.3 Avoid enclosing a historic front porch. o Keeping an open porch is preferred. o Enclosing a porch with opaque materials that destroy the openness and transparency of the porch is not acceptable. o Enclosing porches with large areas of glass, thereby preserving the openness of the porch, may be considered in special circumstances. When this is done, the glass should be placed behind posts, balusters, and balustrade, so the original character of the porch may still be interpreted. 0 â€¢The use of plastic curtains as air-locks on porches is discouraged. o Reopening an enclosed porch is appropriate. 5.4 The use of a porch on a residential building in a single-family context is strongly encouraged. o This also applies to large, multifamily structures. There should be at least one 0 primary entrance and should be identified with a porch or entry element. 14 Porch Replacement 5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and detail. o Use materials that appear similar to the original. o While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted appropriately, alternative materials may be considered. o Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have been used on the house or others like it. o When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building. o The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork. o The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those used historically as well. Treatment of Architectural Features 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features. o Repair only those features that are deteriorated. o Patch, piece-in, splice, consolidate or otherwise upgrade the existing material, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible. o Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epo)des and resins may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be used. o Removing a damaged feature when it can be repaired is inappropriate. 6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that minimize damage to the original material. o Document its location so it may be repositioned accurately. Always devise methods of replacing the disassembled material in its original configuration. 6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced. o Match the original in composition, scale, and finish when replacing materials or features. o If the original detail was made of wood, for example, then the replacement material should be wood, when feasible. It should match the original in size and finish, which traditionally was a smooth painted finish. 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features should be based on original designs. o The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a misrepresentation of the building's heritage. o When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence, develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and maintains similar scale, proportion and material. 15 0 6.5 Do not guess at "historic" designs for replacement parts. o Where "scars" on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in character to related buildings. o Using overly ornate materials on a building for which there is no documentation is inappropriate. o It is acceptable to use salvaged materials from other buildings only if they are similar in style and detailing to other features on the building where they are to be installed. 6.6 Replacement of missing elements may be included in repair activities. o Replace only those portions that are beyond repair. o Replacement elements should be based on documented evidence. o Use the same kind of material as the original when feasible. o A substitute material may be acceptable if the form and design of the substitute itself conveys the visual appearance of the original material. For example, a fiberglass cornice may be considered at the top of a building. Treatment of Roofs Zl Preserve the original form of a roof. o Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street. o Retain and repair roof detailing. 0 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. o The shadows created by traditional overhangs contribute to one's perception of the building's historic scale and therefore, these overhangs should be preserved. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. o Flat skylights that are flush with the roof plane may be considered only in an obscure location on a historic structure. Locating a skylight or a solar panel on a front roof plane is not allowed. o A skylight or solar panel should not interrupt the plane of a historic roof. It should be positioned below the ridgeline. 7.4 A new chimney should be the same scale as those used historically. o A new chimney should reflect the width and height of those used historically. 7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional. 7.6 When planning a rooftop addition, preserve the overall appearance of the original roof. o An addition should not interrupt the original ridgeline. See also: Chapter 10, Guidelinesjbr Building Additions. 0 7.7 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and character. 16 o A new dormer should fit within the existing wall plane. It should be lower than the ridgeline and set in from the eave. It should also be in proportion with the building. o The mass and scale of a dormer addition must be subordinate to the scale of the historic building. Materials 7.8 Preserve original roof materials. o Avoid removing historic roofing material that is in good condition. When replacement is necessary, use a material that is similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities and use a color that is similar to that seen historically. o Specialty materials such as tile, slate or concrete should be replaced with a matching material. 7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to those used traditionally. o Replacement materials should be similar to those used historically on comparably styled buildings. o If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. o Flashing should be in scale with the roof material. o If copper flashing is to be used, it should be treated to establish a matte, non- reflective finish. 7.10 If it is to be used, a metal roof should be applied and detailed in a manner that is compatible and does not detract from the historic appearance of the building. o A metal roof material should have an earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. o A metal roof with a lead-like patina also is an acceptable alternative. o Seams should be of a low profile. o A roof assembly with a high profile seam or thick edge is inappropriate. 7.11 Avoid using conjectural features on a roof. o Adding ornamental cresting, for example, where there is no evidence that it existed creates a false impression of the building's original appearance, and is inappropriate. Secondary Structures 8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primarv structure. o 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. 8.4 A garage door should be compatible with the character of the historic structure. o A wood-clad hinged door is preferred on a historic structure. o If an overhead door is used, the materials should match that of the secondary structure. 17 o If the existing doors are hinged, they can be adapted with an automatic opener. Preserving Building Locations and Foundations 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. o In generalrelocation hasless of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. o It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. o Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. o A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. o Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. o The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. o In general. moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel. o If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties. 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. o It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. o It may not for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. o On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. o Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. o Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. o Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. 9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space. o In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design Standards). o The size of a lightwell should be minimized. 18 o A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded by a simple fence or rail. Existing Additions 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. o Such an addition is usually similar in character to the original building in terms of materials, finishes and design. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. New Additions 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. o A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. o An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. o An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. o A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.5 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street. o Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at approximately the same height. An addition should not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. o An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. o Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. o Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. 19 o Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. o Typically, gable, hip and shed roofu are appropriate. o Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. o For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. o The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. Driveways & Parking 14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. o Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts are not permitted. o If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it. 14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene. See Chapter 8: Secondary Structures. 14.19 Use a paving material that will distinguish the driveway from the street. o Using a change in material, paving pattern or texture will help to differentiate the driveway from the street. o Porous paving materials will also help to absorb potential water runoff typically associated with impervious surfaces such as asphalt or concrete. 14.20 Off-street drivewavs should be removed, if feasible. o Non-historic parking areas accessed from the street should be removed if parking can be placed on the alley. 14.21 For existing driveways that cannot be removed, provide tracks to a parking area rather than paving an entire driveway. o Using minimally paved tracks will reduce the driveway's visual impact. o Consider using a porous paving material to reduce the driveways visual impact. o Also consider using modular paving materials for these tracks to provide visual interest along the street. 14.22 Driveways leading to parking areas should be located to the side or rear of a primary structure. 20 4 o Locating drives away from the primary facade will maintain the visual importance the structure has along a block. See Chapter 8: Secondary Structures. 14.23 Parking areas should not be visually obtrusive. o Large parking areas should be screened from view from the street. o Divide large parking lots with planting areas. (Large parking areas are those with more than five cars.) o Consider using a fence, hedge or other appropriate landscape feature. o Automobile headlight illumination from parking areas should be screened from adjacent lots and the street. 21 'â‚¬ 4) MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 118 E. Cooper Avenue, Little Red Ski Haus-Final Development- Public Hearing DATE: March 13, 2002 SUMMARY: This house, built c. 1885, is a designated landmark. It was converted to use as a lodge in the 1960's. The proposed project involves an interior remodel which enlarges and improves the existing lodge rooms and adds new facilities, including a dining room, more on-site parking, and employee housing. A new addition is proposed on the rear of the structure, along with a new handicapped accessible entry path and some restoration work. The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council are reviewing this project to rezone the property to LP (Lodge Preservation) and to allow for the expansion of the lodge. APPLICANT: Little Red Ski Haus LLC, represented by Gibson/Darr Architects. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-71-005 ADDRESS: 118 E. Cooper Avenue, Lot O and the west half of Lot P, Block 69, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: RMF (Residential Multi-Family). 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 parcets 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) 1 square feet, or exceed the allowed site covered by up to jive (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: This building has been altered fairly significantly during its history as a lodge. The two story addition at the back was built in 1964. In 1968 the owners began a series of projects which altered and enlarged the front porch, removed and replaced the original columns and trim, clapboard siding, and windows, and placed a large addition at the rear of the house. The picture below was taken in 1980. By this time, an addition had been made that filled in part of the historic front porch (where the entry door is), extended the entry area towards the east (where the sliding glass doors can be seen), and created a wider porch that wrapped across the front and east side of the structure. This picture is useful because the original porch columns and brackets were still in place and can be reproduced, which is part of the applicant's proposal. 4. _--12 -~u id,N -'17274&- M / 1f346&< -- 24= -7 Â«E * ./ * .; ' - *-I' ./il:,4/ill .... - . 6-74" 1 . -2.14 15;5#.M... - 1 Pe~ ..r- -...... r - lilli i n.ast ?3 --- T-t 1 I'll'llify,IMI' f 1-h./. a,2 'g A 4 14 . 1 1.'i . . . -1 /4 fly . 1 I r,4 '13 0 n. t' .4 4*43Â·I The next picture, taken in 1991, shows the building as it appears today, with all of the original porch materials removed, and a balustrade added. 2 . 1 , ii'AM./.1.t / j a ~.ir I 4 .. 1. F 1 9 â‚¬ / f , 6 . 1 - f n k . . .71 . Fli 11 00 r,r 4 ' 2'i '.2.'1112 *. 0 + 1 '. The applicant plans to 1) demolish the additions that were made under the original front porch, 2) cut back the porch roof to its original location, and 3) restore the porch based on photographs, maps, and physical evidence. Staff applauds the applicant for their efforts to revise the initial plans in regard to the front of the house and the ADA ramp. The applicant has also responded to HPC's condition of conceptual approval that related to the bathroom addition on the east side of the historic house. It has been removed and the internal plan reworked. A minor bump out in the wall of the non-historic addition has been added, along the east side, behind the chimney as a result of the amendments to the floor plan. Again, staff is pleased to see the design guidelines in regard to minimizing demolition and alterations to the historic portion of the property being addressed so carefully. Attached is a memo from James Lindt, the City Planner handling the review of this project before P&Z and Council. At the P&Z meeting, some members of the public expressed concerns about how the addition at the back of the house would affect their views. P&Z asked HPC to look carefully at this part of the project. As this board has discussed in the past, the only matter that we can address is whether or not the design guidelines are met. The rear of the lot is the most appropriate location for an addition from our perspective. All o f the design guidelines for additions support this concept. 3 There are numerous minor details of this project which should be addressed by staff and monitor. The Building Department has indicated that they wish to see a modification ofthe windows in the second floor bay on the front of the house, because they do not meet egress. The window units are not historic, but their configuration as a pair of double hungs is. The architect will need to submit ideas of how these windows could meet the code requirements but maintain the same basic appearance that exists now. Additional monitor issues include review of the material proposed for the stone patio at the front and the foundation treatment on the historic house. Staff finds that this review standard is met, with conditions. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development, and t Staff Finding: The surrounding neighborhood contains a mix of old and new homes, and a wide variety of architectural styles. This house is one of three large 19th century homes in the immediate area and the property will continue to contribute to the historic character ofthe street through this project. 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 significance of the property as a modestly sized 1gth century home was affected when it was converted to a lodge and expanded, however, small lodges are also part of the evolution and history of Aspen. This standard is met. d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Staff Finding: The integrity of the building has been previously compromised. The project as proposed improves that situation to a great degree. This standard is met. PARTIAL DEMOLITION No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all of the following standards are met: 1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to demolish non-historic construction at the front porch and on the 1964 addition. Staff finds this to be appropriate. 4 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, and b. 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: The demolition has no negative impacts on the existing historical structure. This standard is met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that review standards are met and recommends HPC grant final approval with the following conditions, all of which will be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor: 1. Use the 1980 photograph, or earlier documentation, to guide the restoration ofthe porch columns and woodwork. Submit drawings of the replicated elements. 2. Submit a plan for reworking the windows in the upper bay on the front of the house to meet egress requirements. 3. Submit samples ofthe material proposed for the stone patio at the front ofthe house, and the front walk. 4. Provide a detail for the foundation treatment on the historic house. 5. Provide information about how the house will be protected from damage during the excavation ofthe basement. (The house is not being lifted up.) 6. Information on all venting locations and meter locations shall be provided when the information is available. 7. Submit a demolition plan, as part ofthe 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 staffand 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. 5 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. Exhibits: Resolution # , Series of2002 A. Staff memo dated March 13, 2002 B. Memo from James Lindt, City Planner C. Drawings 6 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 118 E. COOPER AVENUE, LOT O AND THE WEST HALF OF LOT P, BLOCK 69, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. -, SERIES OF 2002 WHEREAS, the applicant, Little Red Ski Haus, LLC, represented by Gibson/Darr Architects, has requested Final Development approval for the property located at 118 E. Cooper Avenue, Lot O and the west half of Lot P, Block 69, City and Townsite ofAspen, Colorado. The property is a designated landmark; 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, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated March 13, 2002, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended approval of the project with conditions finding that the review standards are met; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on March 13, 2002, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application met the standards, and was consistent with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application with conditions by a vote of_ to _. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That Final Development for the property located at 118 E. Cooper Avenue, Lot O and the west half of Lot P, Block 69, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado is hereby approved with the following conditions, to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor: 1. Use the 1980 photograph, or earlier documentation, to guide the restoration ofthe porch columns and woodwork. Submit drawings of the replicated elements. 2. Submit a plan for reworking the windows in the upper bay on the front of the house to meet egress requirements. 3. Submit samples ofthe material proposed for the stone patio at the front ofthe house, and the front walk. 4. Provide a detail for the foundation treatment on the historic house. 5. Provide information about how the house will be protected from damage during the excavation ofthe basement. (The house is not being lifted up.) 6. Information on all venting locations and meter locations shall be provided 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 ofthe 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. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 13th day of March, 2002. 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 MEMORANDUM TO: City ofAspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: James Lindt, Planner(]-l~ RE: Little Red Ski Haus Design Referral DATE: March 6,2002 The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed Little Red Ski Haus Lodge Preservation PUD and expansion request at a public hearing on March 5, 2002. Several members of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the public expressed concerns with the design and the size of the proposed alley addition as it related to neighboring properties. The Planning and Zoning Commission has asked that the HPC specifically review and address in their final significant design review the following concern: 1 The massing, bulk, and roof design of the proposed alley addition as it relates to the neighbor's (across the alley) view planes. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the additional square footage (as requested by the Applicant) for the express purpose of allowing the HPC the maximum design flexibility in their review. The Planning and Zoning Commission would not be adverse to a reduction in the additional square footage if the bulk-and-mass concern on the alley side could be alleviated with less square footage. However, the Planning and Zoning Commission does not favor a reduction of the proposed on-site parking for the purpose of alleviating the bulk-and- mass concern; and, The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the proposed PUD and expansion, but have requested that the aforementioned issues get careful consideration by HPC. The Applicant was put on notice at the Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing that the design concerns were HPC's purview, and that the Planning and Zoning Commission felt that it was inappropriate for P&Zto make any attempts at a redesign ofthe alley faQade. 1 ~ Â· FEB. 26.2002 8:57AM BILL POSS ASSOCIATES NO. 170 P. 1 11 3=J 3 -242%31 4 3 PUBLIC NOT[CE RE: 118 E. COOPER AVENUE-FINAL HPC DESIGN REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be hold on WedÂ¥806, March 13,2002/ at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the AspenHisto~ic Proscrvâ€¢ion Comhlission,Â·Ge=ji]' Chambers, CityHall, 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Uttle Red Ski Haus, LLC, requesting final design approval. The property is located at 118 E. Cooper Avenue, and is legally described as Lot O and the west half of'Lot P, Block 69, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further infbrmation, contact Amy Guthrie at the Aspen/Pitkin County Community Develqem@Qtne,Klment, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5096, amyg@ci.aspen,co,us. C s/Suzannah Reid. Ch-Rir enHistoric Emercommission Published in the Aspen Times on February 23,2002 City of Aspen Account February 26, 2002 I supporp the application submitted by Little Red Ski Hans. 0 I will be unable to attend the March 13th meeting. 442=64 Sarol Saunders-White 210 E. Cooper Ave. Unit 2F ASpen . 0 3-12-202 3:48PM FROM 2 1 CHARLES O. DALTON 107 East Hyman Street EXHIBIT Aspen, Colorado 81611 f 0 H 5-/3. 364 3---- March 12, 2002 rE] The Honorable Helen Klanderud Mayor of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: The Little Rod Ski Haus Redmign and Vatiance Approvals Dear Mayor KlandÂ©rud. I live and own a half duplex at 107 E. Hyman Avenue, which backs up to an alley and the Little Red Ski Maus, My master bedroom and living room fhce thealley to take advantage of the view up Aspen Mouotain. Fiat, let me say I approve of restoring the historic Little Red Ski Haus and am not opposed to rcturning it to a bed and breakhstand adding three carports. However. 1 stromgly disapprove of the 9,85 foot rear yard gotback veriance, allowing an additional 520 94 fl to the FAR and the outdoor hot tubs above the carport addition. We do not need adaitional mass to an almady over sized non- conforming (3,517 sq. 8.) property. The hottubs. aldiough they said will notbo used late at night will undoubtedly take away the quiet enjoyment of our multifamily residential neighborhood. Them is nothing to say tbe current LLC ownership has to continue to operate the property as a lodge It could be converted back to a single family residence as it was belbre. Then you would have an 0 even larger non-confonning single imily propeny. I attended the PAZ Commission meeting last weck. They had considerable concerns regarding these issues and asked stafflo oonvey these to the HPC. It seems they decided to pass the buck on to the HPC and City Council. Also, they plan on adding a restauiant in the property. I hope this will be for the kdge guests and not a restaurant for the general public in a residential district Apin, I am not opposed to the redesign ofthe interior, the removal ofthe unatomctive shed at the rear and addition ofthe carport, but I am very opposed to them building closer to die alley, adding more square footage tot)to FAR and putting in outside hot tubs Sincerely, CU 04*-- Charles O. Dalton CC: Tom MeCabe, Mayor Pro Tem Tim Semmu. City Council Member Terry Paulson. City Council Member Anthony Hershey, Cky Council Member Sumnah Reid, Chair HPC Gilbert Sanchez, HPC Rally Dupps. HPC Jeffrey Halferty, HPC 0 Metanie Roschko. MPC Neill Hint HPC Michael Hodnan, HPC Paul D'Amato. Alt. HPC F EXHIB~ March 11,2002 109 E. Hyman Ave Aspen, CO 81611 ~ The Honorable u,14anderud 7~ Wl-3 dtot k k 1, c Mayor of *spdii 130 S. Mlena A Â£ CO 81611 9 1 0- 5-9 37 r . Dear Mayor Klanderud: This letter is in response to an application submitted by The Little Red Ski Haus, LLC, requesting conceptual design, partial demolition, and variance approvals. I attended the public hearing held before the HPC on February 13,2002 and the public hearing held before the P&Z Commission on March 5,2002. There is a public hearing for final review bebe the HPC on March 13,2002. I plan to attend that meeting, also. The purpose ofthis letter is to express my extreme disapproval for a 9.85 foot rearyard setback variance. The Little Red Ski Haus is in a multihmily district and is already nonconforming. It currently is 5517 sq ft (this already makes "Little" a misnomer). The LLC wants to place a second and third floor addition to the back. This addition would add another 520 sq R to the FAR. The new owners also want to add an area for a hot tub or tubs. The addition ofmore bedrooms and hot tub area to the back will drastically affect the privacy of four town home units that share the alley with The Little Red Ski Haus. The alley is not our backyards, as is the case in many or most situations. Our living rooms are situated to face the alley. Ifthe variance is granted, the addition will come to the alley and will practically be in our living rooms. Another concern is the noise level and additional violation ofprivacy that will result from the outdoor placement ofa hot tub, or tubs, on the second floor level. It's not uncommon for hot tub activity to become raucous, especially when dealing with people on vacation. My bedroom is situated under the living room and is, therefore, on the alley side. Setback requirements were written for a purpose. I am assuming that they are meant to protect privacy, maintain an aesthetic appearance for the town and add to the quality of life to the people who live in the neighborhood. When is enough ENOUGH? The surrounding homeowners should be able to stop a negative impact to their quality of life. What happens if The Little Red Ski Haus does not work out as a lodge and the 6 partners in the LLC turn it into an owners' cluWcondominiumized home? The LLC will have achieved a goal ofadding more square footage to an already nonconforming building under the so called name of "lodge preservation". The new owners say they want "to restore the original ambiance ofthe old original lodge." How does adding a second, nonconforming addition to the original Victorian structure restore the original ambiance? The owners say they are interested in the character ofthe lodge. Bigger is not necessarily better and a bigger lodge will definitely have a negative impact on the character ofthe surrounding duplexes. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Rita Rasmussen SET OF 11X17 DRAWINGS , EXISTING BITE FLAN - 1 EXISTING FIRST FLOOR FLAN - 2 EXISTING DECOND FLOOR FLAN - 3 EXISTING SOUTH & WEST ELEVATIONS - 4 EXISTING NORTH & EAST ELEVATIONS - 5 EXISTING ROOF FLAN -6 FKOFOSED BITE PLAN A WITH ON-9ITE KELOCATION -7 , FROFOSED SITE FLAN B WITH TREE REMOVAL - 8 PROPOSED FIRST FLOOK FLAN - 9 FROFOSED SECOND FLOOR FLAN - 10 FROFOSED BASEMENT FLOOR FLAN - 11 PROPOSED SOUTH & WEST ELEVATIONS - 12 FROFOSED NORTH & EAST ELEVATIONS - 13 FKOFOSED ROOF FLAN - 14 FKOFOSED LIGHT WELLS - 15 f HAYDEN CONNOR FROFERTY FR.OFOSED NOKTH ELEVATION WITHOUT GARAGE - 16 SOUTHEAST & SOUTHWEST EXTEKIOK 5KETCHE5 - 17 HISTORICAL REDEVELOPMENT t ..-4 NORTHEABT & NORTHWEST EXTERIOR SKETCHES - 18 i 334 WEST HALLAM STREET i, . f ASPEN, COLORADO Z. BET OF 24X3@ DRAWINGS EXISTING FLOOR PLANS - 19 EXISTING EXTERIOK ELEVATIONS - 20 v FKOFOSED BITE PLAN A & GTE FLAN 6 - 21 j FROFOSED FLOOK FLANS - 22 FROFOSED EXTEKIOK ELEVATIONS - 23 FATRICK CASHEN ARCHITECT 4155 EAST JEWELL AVENUE, #1106 DENVER, COLORADO 80222-4516 303.759.0650 303.759.0852 FAX pcaehen@pcaco.corn 1 20'ALLEY 105.7 . 312 , e . 1------ FROFERTY LINE 9002' .-I _I_._.I.I.-1 FENCE TRA 51 1. DRICK 1 EXISTING TWO uil ! WALK ~ STORY DWELLING 2 CRABAFFLE Mil 1 U.11 ---L---------75 11 1 :L , 1 ~ 37.0' . 322 .. GRAVEL DRIVE | - RD C< - ' 4 I IW 12 0 1 1 11 1 h EXISTING TWO ~- - / te 1 1 i S BTOKY DWELLING - Bll i FEINEL ! E 1 1 1! E 20.2 FORCH (30 Vi f . 6} 2 CRABAFF'4*fi' - 1 0. 7 -- / L'01+ m N A SFRI~dE ( 0 . A .-.-I-.-I---.-1-.- f o lo 1 0 J COTTONWOOD / TKEE - TYPICAL 0/ C) EDGE OF STREET PAYING HALLAM STREET 0 - ~ EXISTING SITE FLAN 1"=16' i. 20.3' 2.0'~., THIRD STREET 00'00[ 3NI ONIAVA 1332{19 30 3903 04*X 11- MUDKOOM - KITCHEN -2 A L_.1~ T - -1 Â·M 1 I -27 DINING ROOM ~1 0 -=0 : LIVING KOOM - ~\ 1 11 - FORCH 7 n r UF FORCH r NORTH O EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN ~ 1/8"=1'-0" .- ----1 a BEDROOM C._ BEDROOM 0 CA I STUDY O - fl- 4 -) ~BEDROON,1 ~ J - BEDROOM 1==i~ NORTH 0 EXISTING SECOND FLOOR FLAW ~ 1/8"=1'-0" ' PAINTED FSH BRICK CHIMNEYS Â».453.- . FAINTED LAF .T **0***4 SIDING WOOD DHINGLES WOOD SHINGLES T-TIT-1- ~ED- 0[30 BBB - I --I . I.-* B BBB GLASS LITES 821 6 El *31 -EL.02. LE E < BRACKETS, m B [1 DENTILE & In[' Ii[i n El - - -f FENDANTE 0 0 00 -5-025 UPE_-V- - 0 000 ~ PREVIOUS ADDITION ORIGINAL STRUCTURE --- ~- ORIGINAL STRUCTURE ~ EXISTING WEST ELEVATION EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION 1/8'=1'-0" 1/8.=1'-0. 0 000[III WOOD SHINGLES ~Â«- r .42 /342***tÂ·-~~- WOOD SHINGLES 'T -TTITTYTY. 1 B B B LAF SIDING PREVIOUSADDIT1â‚¬L____-1 EXISTING EAST ELEVATION EXISTING NOKTH ELEVATION ---- 1/8"=1'-0" ' 1/8 '=1'-0" 0 00000 E-----------------7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E-1 LLâ€¢ f 1 1 4-12 ELOFE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 EXIBTING 1 1 1 | CHIMNEYS RIDGE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9-12 1 SLOPE 1 1 Lt-1 1 C 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 --------1 1 1 9-12 942 1 1 1 SLOFE SLOPE I 1 7 I. 1 1 1 1 1 ---J 1 4,4 - \DE BLOFE 9 \021 FORCH KOOFS EXISTING FIKET EXISTING SECOND FLOOR ROOF FLAN .FLOOR ROOF FLAN 1/8'=1'-0" 1/8"=1'-0 KIDGE 1 (11//90) i ONE ' EXISTING TWO STORY 1 STORY DWELLING . 11 GARAGE 1 - ~ 11 b i ADDITION i I| HEATED <-'' #~4 7,7 2 4.3' 22.0' ~ 15.0' 9 9.5' . 33.5' 14' I . DRIVEWAY #-1 ' , ET-KFS Â· - ' , '~ TWO STORY W-- 1',,~, , 0-~ Â¢29 HOT ADDITION LU / 1 111 / 0 22 1 0, i o KEFLACE DZ -1 1 12 PREVIOUS /// , TREE E i ADDITION ,-1./7 ~ RE MAINS I WINDOW-~ 80 11 - 2-36 WELL 1 2 KEMODELED TWO r\ 15 W dj ' i i E STORY DWELLING WINDOW I Â· WELL , | PORTION OF EAST | ~ ~- FENCE KEMOVED FORCH REMOVE ~-~ . BACK TO HERE 100' 2 . --- FENCE 04-7 i 1 $--7 4 0 0 21.DJ . 16.0' . tri - . a . Â° -Â» fi---t Â« (0) ADD LOW IRON < FENCE ALONG STREET FRONTAGES- EDGE OF STREET PAYING HALLAM STKEET FROFOSED BITE FLAN - A RELOCATE STRUCTURE ~ TO REEF TREE BY ADDITION 7 1"=16' ONIAVA 133319 30 39(13 9(0) 1 1 ; ONE 1 EXISTING TWO 1-// 1 i STORY I STORY DWELLING 1 1 GARAGE I t 11 4 1 ADDITION i - 1 1 \ i.9 7 1. 10 0' i. 22.0' 19,41 , 95 , 23.3' HEATED <~ X---4- ---3- -r -1- 1-wo 9TORY_.Li 1-1,/' DRIVEWAY #J .. STRIFS - 1 ADDITI~3--1.-1~ W-/1 / Lil i Tue F dll LU / V DZ k- 11~f j= 71- 9 Oil 2 .3.'t LD REPLACE 1 1 I // 3Â«330/ - i p PREVIOUS 10>09 F i ~ ADDITION .3~~~ - 12.EMOVE- | ' ll 1 11 11 1 4- KEMODELED TWO \ h ri I i REMOVE STORY DWELLING WINDOW - 1 ! SHED WELL 1 WINDOW 1 1 WELL FORCH REMOV L 20.2, , FENCE (DÂ¢D il 1 . 42.rÂ· > 10.01 '' I tri + 21.0' 04 7~ tO - 4 1. 0 1 .-,----4-,-.-,-0-Â»Â«94 (03 4~2~3 4Â°) ADD LOW IKON FENCE ALONG STREET FRONTAGES- EDGE OF STREET FAVING HALLAM STREET FROFOSED SITE FLAN - 5 Â© TREE REMOVAL AT EAST ADDITION ~ 7-16' ONIAVA 1332119 20 3903 LINE OF DUFLEX UNIT 1 1 22'-0" Â· & 15'-0" . 9'-6" . .. 1 la NOTE WITH SITE ' PLAN B GARAGE GARAGE O 4 i 19 MOVED 41 WEST - DAME FOOTPRINT~ 1 ELIN . LAJ _fil_L .d.- F ADD i [Cl~ C ~KITCHEN CEKTIFIED WOODBTOVE 7 32 0323 - I U _ 12) ~ 7 MUDKOOM ~ SUNROOM WINDOW - ~ â€¢C WELL BELOW .--4 A---1.-*-. -4 -- 1 1 ' I 1 -_ 2 WINDOW L_ _ DINING ROOM ~ WELL BELOW LIVING KOOM - If 11 EXISTING FIKEFLACE - REPAIR FLUE - FORCH n r nIP Â¥ L =%=2 1 L FORCH RE'FLH ~ FROFOSED FIRST FLOOR FLAN < 1/6'=1'-0" LINE OF ONE MORY GARAGE BELOW 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I L- ,-----1 t=1 ~ liu-71 Â«. L.9-1~- h DECOKATIVE DECORATIVE GAS APPLIANCE - - ~ STUDY o IE) ~31 ~ ra GAS APPLIANCE ~ 91140 04 BEDROOM 3 ouo o. Olt OJ I i n o h 1 DECORATIVE GAS APPLIANCE 31~ h *tGHT--7 -1 BEDROOM 2 4 13 BEDKOOM 1 1.-i--I/--I DECORATIVE -[4= GAS APPLIANCE 1-71 =U==P NORTH FROFOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN <10 1/8"=1'-0 IL----1 1-11 . UNEXCAVATED 4 - 03 . HATCH WITH : EQUIFMENT ~ ~ ACCESS FROM - TL BEDROOM I SAUNA FORCH DECK . , . . I r~Ul < 1221-J WINDOW ID WELL O ~ BEDROOM ; KEC ROOM 2 3 1 -. NORTH FKOFOSED BASEMENT FLAN ~1 1/8"=1'-0 WELL 1- 7 EXIBTING BRICK ,- -r -r T.,T CHIMNEYS -7.4.-=r,Ar WOOD 5HINGLEB Â¥ 'TT -1- T Â¥ Â¥ 1-7 TTTÂ¥7-TTTTT -f -- 7 -r- T I.-r T-Â¥-r WOOD SHINGLES -Â·272rVâ€ž.VV'-7-7 -r -- #- IÂ©,5<Â©rh~. PAINTED LAF -- - -4*- SIDING -h BÂ»B -B- 0 ' El B B B EFI 0,1 23 WOOD SHINGLES E.LQQR ~NE_<_ - EJB---BE ~ ~loFiLINE 1 21 U 0= 1 00 -V- - 000 i FAINTED WOOD i DOORS & WINDOWS GARAGE REPLACEMENT ADDITION ~ ADDITION ORIGINAL STRUCTURE ,~ ~ ORIGINAL STKUCTUKE ~ ADDITIOU FKOFOSED WEST ELEVATION FROFOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 1/3'=1'-0 1/8 =1'-0" i =1-1= -1.1. PAINTED FIGH SCALE SHINGLES SKYLIGHE ., '/X WOOD SHINGLES AA_---- ---_---_-----6 T I ~&:9%& I . -r :. Â·-4Â· 1 ~582;-Ir>'1-203$8& 1 -rvA./ , 14*24- -90-r . IT I r Â¥ T 7"T r-r- Tr . "rke' Â¥ 7 -t-Â· $=4FF=il PAINTED LAP I - - 0 Co 04 -2,=,r,=il E=h====M===rll WOOD SHINGLES ,977,7-' T tr.r. . SIDING ir---1 21 - E BILB - r'~-r-'1/ft~T7f~T/~~~TH~r~~ U**EE** ~ m 00 8 8 r H . -r -Â¥r -r p==:=~00181 1 Â¤0 i PAINTED WOOD NOTE THATBITE FLAN 6 DOOKS & WINDOWS GARAGE MOVES 4' WEST KEFLACEMENT GARAGE KEFLACEMENT ADDITION GARAGE ADDITION FROFOSED NOKTH ELEVATION FROFOSED EAST ELEVATION - 1/8"=1'-0" 1/8"=1'-0 " - ~ 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 6-12 0 0-12 DECORATIVE GAS 1 SLOPE 3 SLOPE j ' APPLIANCE FLUE 1 1 |-------7 | SLOPE SKYLIGHT / 1-12 i SLOPE 11 9-12 / 9-12 r--no / SLOPE \ /1 / U.1 111 0 1 1-12 0 0 il E SLOFE - \ \ U~n \\ 1 1 1 F - 1~ 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 EXISTING RIDGE | /n 1 1 \\ 1 4 CHIMNEYS 9-12 1 1 1 SLOFE | 1 Xiii 1 1 1 1 LI un L_______-pi 0 A EXIETING KOOFS -> I 9-12 g 9-12 1 SLOPE DL BLOFE TO REMAIN 1 g f 1 4 1 1 1 1 L 1 ----| 1 y/\\ 9 9 EXISTING ROOFS TO REMAIN NORM FROFOSED FIRST FROFOSED SECOND NORTH ~;~ FLOOR KOOF FLAW FLOOR KOOF FLAW ~ 1/5"=1'-O" 1/8' '=1'-0" F# Cm . C 1-7-2-5 -- 1 U. .-.- -.-. -I- --- -I -- -- 0 I . -- --------- -----------7/- WINDOWWELL <1 WINDOW 5-0 WIDE 10-0 9 5-6 WIDE X 7-0 -V X 6-0 HIGH BASEMENT J HIGH CEILING L ___, HEIGHT - FROPOSED EAST ELEVATION WITH LIGHT WELL 1/8 =1'-0" WINDOW WELL LOCATED AT INSIDE CORNER OF FOUNDATION - I.- WITH EXPOSURE TO SOUTH WALL ALSO - BEE BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN - = 1 -c- Â· r====7 'InI'll 11 U 11 11 - - 1111111 ((lilli 0. L - --------- WINE)0WWELL â‚¬ 1 WINDOW 7-0 WIDE 10-0 7-6 WIDE X 7-0 -4 X 6-0 HIGH BASEMENT HIGH L-_-1 HEIGHT CEILING FKOFOSED WEST ELEVATION WITH LIGHT WELL < 1/8'=1'-0 DII 1 11 Di' 1 11 E ~ 1 1 1, lilli 11 1 11 .% 111 1 IJ 1 1-11 1 1----- -3-3-% 2 03 6 70 m DI I! 1- 4%.-f'L,3, ~| || 1 1 17// 0 14,1107 Ell K 8 -E P 4 -1 - A A 0 Z 4Nil ==============- ~1 - ------1 ~~, 000]21 %9 1 -- j 1 -7-- -11 u U 309>IVE) lAOH.LIM NOZIVA313 Hl>ION (1390JO>!cl f - r 1 - C= lilli .'ll.=-- pq 11 11 - . Â£ .--- r le= - -, r el<etch from eouthweet 1 12 1 - .-- .-/ 5- .-/ 32 -I)El -- - L~ C=_-r-77 ~--31 ~ Â»\ 1 04-=11/<C\-/11 CM Ul==;- =11Â» Ul -- .92 1 - =r 111= 11 eketch from eoutheaet nn 0 - + eketch from northweet -=I=Sl 0 - r- 1-",--.-,- = - -- EL --1 J B eketch from northeaet Fil MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 950 Matchless Drive- Final Development - Public Hearing DATE: March 13, 2002 SUMMARY: The project involves building an addition to the existing house. APPLICANT: Alan Becker represented by Kim Raymond Architects. PARCEL ID: 2737 - 074 - 02 - 003. ADDRESS: 950 Matchless Drive, Lot 4A Dunn / Bishop Subdivision Exemption, City and Townsite ofAspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6 PUD (Medium Density Residential) 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 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)(21 for detached accessog dwelling units, and Staff Finding: The proposal is to make an addition on the rear of the house and to vertically lift the house to create a basement underneath the whole building. Alterations proposed for the historic structure are a new window in a stair on the west and restoration of the east faâ„¢le to as close to the original condition as possible. This entails replacing 1 0 some modern windows with windows of a more historic size, style and proportion and is an enhancement offered as part of an FAR bonus request. The location and size of any windows that are being re-installed must be based on physical evidence of their original appearance found during construction. If there is no evidence left of the previous windows' size, shape or position, the replacement windows must be in keeping with the typical windows of the time and style of the historic house, and a cut sheet from the manufacturer must be approved by the HPC or the monitors. Per design guideline 3.4 - 3.7: 3.4 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. o If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window should also be double-hung, or at a minimum, appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number and position of glass panes. o Matching the original design is particularly important on key character-defining facades. 3.5 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original. o Using the same material as the original is preferred, especially on character- defining facades. However, a substitute material may be considered if the appearance of the window components will match those of the original in dimension, profile and finish. 0 3.6 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. 0 o Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to receive a larger window is inappropriate. o Consider reopening and restoring an original window opening where altered. 3.7 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. o A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window's easing, the sash steps back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane of the wall. In terms of the addition, staff commends the project on the relatively small size and sympathetic~placement of the addition. Since the last review of this application on February 13 , the architect has amended the plans to accommodate the concerns HPC indicated, so that the second story deck is notched and does not touch the historic house. It cantilevers out and is supported by a single column and the tower. The detailing of the materials on the tower has returned to the initial proposal which the board has indicated was a more favorable way to deal with the height of this element. Additional attention has been given to the detail of the siding on the tower so that it will be subtly different than that on the historic house. 0 2 Staff has some remaining concerns with the deck, namely its projection past the east wall of the historic house and the railing materials. The deck has been discussed in detail during this review and has been identified as a problematic area. It has been restudied so that the rear shed roof on the old house is preserved. However, staff still finds that it does not provide a good transition between the old and new as currently designed. Guidelines 10.7 and 10.8 speak to this issue. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. o A 1-story connector is preferred. o The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. o The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. o Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. o Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. o Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. Both suggest that the connector should be narrower than the historic building. Staff finds that the deck should not cantilever out past the historic building. Staff is also concerned with the very modern railing, only because of its location right behind the historic house. See Guideline 10.11 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. o The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. Staff finds that the amendments previously suggested have improved the project. This standard is met for final review as long as the concerns regarding the deck are resolved. 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 in line with other efforts to restore and expand historic homes throughout the neighborhood. If the recommendations made above are addressed, 3 then the project will be a successful addition to the neighborhood. This review standard is met. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels, and Staff Finding: The project does not detract from the historic significance of the existing structure. The house was moved to this property but has been well preserved and will not be negatively impacted by the new addition. This review standard is met. d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Staff Finding: The project can enhance the historic integrity of the home by rehabilitating the faâ„¢le of the existing structure. This review standard is met. RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends HPC grant final development with the following conditions: 1. The applicant restudy the deck on the new addition for approval by staff and monitor. *.0 Yeft loj c o r ru-saiÂ« cc)(l- i- L.n.Ittu_ Aoi F- 0~--v~ 2. Provide a structural report demonstrating that the miner's cottagecan be Ll<_c fbo~ i g moved and information about how the house will be stabilized from the t housemover. 3. Provide abond or letter ofcredit in the amount of$30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the structure. 4. Provide a relocation plan detailing how the building will be stored during construction. Measures must be taken to fence offthe building, cover windows with plywood, and otherwise protect it from damage. 5. 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. 6. Submit a demolition plan, as part ofthe building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the historic house are to be removed. 7. 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. Final determination about the restoration of windows that have been removed will be handled in the field by staffand monitor during the interior demolition and discovery phase. 4 8. 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. 9. HPC staffand monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures. 10. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 11. 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. 12. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 13. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to approve Resolution # 3, Series of2002." Exhibits: 0 Resolution # , Series of2002 A. Staffmemo dated March 13, 2002 B. Minutes ofFebruary 13, 2002 C. Applications 0 5 0 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 950 MATCHLESS DRIVE, LOT 4A DUNN / BISHOP SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO.~; SERIES OF 2002 Parcel ID #: 2737-ON-02-003 WHEREAS, the applicant, Alan Becker, represented by Kim Raymond Architects, has requested Final Development approval for the property located at 950 Matchless Drive, Lot 4A Dunn / Bishop Subdivision Exemption, R-6 PUD zone district; and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an 0 Historic Landmark. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated March 13, 2002 performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended approval of the project with conditions; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on March 13, 2002, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards, and approved the application with condition by a vote of_to_. 0 THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the HPC approves final development for the property located at 950 Matchless Drive, Lot 4A Dunn / Bishop Subdivision Exemption, City and Townsite of Aspen, finding that the review standards are met, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant restudy the deck on the new addition, for approval by staff and monitor. 2. 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. 3. Provide abond or letter ofcredit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the structure. 4. Provide a relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored during construction. Measures must be taken to fence offthe building, cover windows with plywood, and otherwise protect it from damage. 5. 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. 6. Submit a demolition plan, as part ofthe building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the historic house are to be removed. 7. 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. Final determination about the restoration of windows that have been removed will be handled in the field by staff and monitor during the interior demolition and discovery phase. 8. 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. 9. HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures. 10. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 11. 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. 12. 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 III?C staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 13. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 13th day of March, 2002. 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 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. FEBRUARY 13. 2002 Chairperson, Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners present: Gilbert Sanchez, Jeffrey Halferty, Rally Dupps, Melanie Roschko, Michael Hoffman, Teresa Melville and Neill Hirst. Paul D'Amato was excused. Staffpresent: Historic Preservation Planner, Amy Guthrie Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer MOTION: Melanie moved to approve the minutes of Dec. 12, 2001; second by Neill. All in favor, motion carried. Disclosure: Suzannah will recuse herself on 420 E. Main Michael will recuse himself on 420 E. Main 950 Matchless Drive Conceptual, Temporary Relocation, Variances Kim Raymond and Alan Becker were sworn in. Amy relayed that the architect revised the drawings. The connector has been revised so that it slips under the back gable of the house more so than it did before. Staffs issue is the deck, it is still problematic and staff recommends that the deck be moved onto the side of the tower. It would still have the same exposure desired. It is recommended to find another way to resolve the little roofpiece that comes into the back shed ofthe historic house. This is important because the applicant is asking for a 500 square foot bonus. It is a good design and a small addition and in order to get the bonus it needs to go to the next level of excellence and resolve whatever problems are being brought up by the new construction. If that were resolved staff would support the variances and bonus. Kim said they could restudy the deck and possibly make it a little smaller and have a separate roo f underneath the deck. The deck acts as part of the connector downstairs. Kim said they intend to use vertical wood siding. Regarding the east elevation windows mullions were added to divide the 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. FEBRUARY 13. 2002 0 window up so it doesn't look like one big mass of glass. Kim also stated on the west elevation the window was made smaller. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened and closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: Teresa relayed that she likes the project and at the last meeting her concern was the French door on the east elevation and the new proposal is much better. Neill agreed with staff regarding the deck treatment. Rally also agreed with staffs comments regarding the deck and guidelines 10.9 and 10.10. Guideline 10.9 says roof form should be similar to those of the historic building. Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on a residential structure with sloped roofs. Part of this deck is a roof and he feels it is in conflict with guideline 10.9. Guideline 10.10 says design addition to an historic structure should not obscure important architectural 0 features. Rally said the deck obscures on the line of new and existing. Regarding the two story connector, guideline 10.7 says a one-story connector is preferred and he is not totally sure that is appropriate in this instance. Gilbert asked about the window well in the basement and how it relates to the French door entry at the connector up above it? Kim relayed that a grate would have to be placed over the light well. Gilbert also agreed with staff regarding the deck and the real issue is that the deck projects to the east beyond the existing house. In plan it looks like there is an opportunity for it to be pushed back. Jeffrey said the restoration benefits the entire community and he also agrees with staff regarding the deck. The deck coming out to the east is problematic for the historic resource. The architectural treatments of the tower in the previous application was more successful because there was a relationship from the ground level to the different elements. The vertical siding proposed might make the tower feel taller than it should be and also 0 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, FEBRUARY 13, 2002 might be competitive to the historic resource. The addition is very modest for the size of the lot. Suzannah said getting the smaller connector worked out nicely. Her only issue is the deck and notching it back to where the lower wall ends may help. MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve resolution #2,2002 for 950 Matchless Drive with the following conditions: 1. For final review, continue to restudy the upper jloor deck. 2. HPC approves a 500 square foot FAR bonus (subject to a PUD Amendment approval by City Council) a combined side yard setback variance of 12' and an east side setback of 5'7". 3. Restudy thefagade treatment of the lower. Melanie second the motion. Motion carried 7-0. Yes vote: Jejfrey, Gilbert, Rally, Neill, Teresa, Melanie, Suzannah 110 E. Bleeker - Conceptual, Partial Demolition, Variances Sven Alstrom was sworn in. Amy informed the board that a motion was made at the last meeting indicating five points that needed addressed. All have been addressed except the placement of the addition. The addition has been pushed back in a minimal way, only one foot and staff feels it does not meet guideline 10.8. The board looked at the story polls and there is an historic house on the other side. Staff feels the project should not go through and the project does not meet the guidelines as required. Sven said the FAR bonus request is 304 M square feet. The building has been lowered. The other element that has changed is the connector on the front, it has been pushed back further and the plate height has been reduced. With the reduced plate height we have less windows, which was a concern Melanie's. 3 0 Kim Raymond Architects, Inc 412 N. Mill Street Aspen, Co 81611 February 28,2002 Amy Guthrie Historic Preservation Officer 130 S. Galena Aspen, Co 81611 RE: 950 Matchless Drive Dear Amy, In response to the concerns of the Commission members, we have addressed the following issues concerning the renovation and addition to the Becker residence at 950 Matchless Drive. 1- We reconfigured the deck on the second story so that it is no longer touching 0 the existing shed roof below. We have shortened the deck and added a column to carry it, thus removing the small wall that was previously needed for structure. We feel that the addition of the column will be consistent with the character of the addition, as the new roof is being "held up" by small steel columns at the corners. The roof of the room below the deck will still be an integral part of the deck, but it is behind the plane of the existing comer of the building. As the deck is not as wide as the room below, there will be a section of the roof that extends beyond the deck, connecting with the existing building. This connection happens two feet back from the east wall of the existing building, thus the corner is preserved completely. 2- The vertical plane of the addition at the east, north and south elevations where there is vertical siding, has been returned to the previously submitted detail of stepping the wall back at some point at the second level. We have stepped the wall back at the line of the bottom of the new windows. This detail breaks down the scale of the vertical plan at the three visible corners of this portion of the building, giving the appearance of a smaller structure and adding architectural interest to an otherwise very "straight-forward" element. 3- The siding that will be used on the addition is Hardy-Plank. The horizontal areas (see elevations) will have the texture of wood 0 grain, being laid in a ship-lap fashion with a 7" exposure. This will be similar to the existing siding, so as not to clash, yet still be different. The vertical siding will be nailed up in a "revised" reverse board and batten fashion. The Hardy-Planks will be installed with an 8" board over a small "batten" of 3/8", giving a large shadow line, and a subtle contemporary feel, to not fight for attention with the existing building, but to add interest to the new structure. Thank you for your consideration of this project. We think that this project will be an outstanding example of adding onto an historic minefs cottage, due in part, to your suggestions and comments. Sincerely, Kim Raymond, AIA for Alan Becker . -2- b. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 513 W. Smuggler Street- Conceptual Development, Variances, Partial Demolition, On-site relocation, and Historic Landmark Lot Split- Public Hearing DATE: March 13, 2002 SUMMARY: The project involves demolishing large additions to the historic house on this site, relocating and restoring it, and building a new addition. The eastern portion of the property is to be split off for future development. APPLICANT: Drew Harman, represented by Harry Teague Architects. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-10-002. ADDRESS: 513 W. Smuggler Street, Lots E, F, and G, Block 27, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential) SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds that all ofthe following standards (Section 26.415.010.C.5) are met: a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, massing and volume with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or is adjacent to an historic landmark. For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site covered by upto five (5) percent, HPC may grant necessag 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 1 Staff Finding: In 2001, HPC granted approval to demolish the non-historic construction that surrounds this house and to replace it with a new addition that was approximately 3,000 square feet in size. The building was to be used as a single family residence. The owner has since determined that a lot split with two smaller homes is a more feasible plan and requests HPC approval to move the historic house to the west, restore the porch to its original appearance, reconstruct demolished walls of the house, and make a 1,790 square foot addition. A proposal for a residence on the east lot will be brought before HPC in the future. Staff is happy to see the project going in this direction because it more effectively "retrieves" this historic resource, which has been heavily impacted by inappropriate alterations. The proposed addition is smaller than the last approval allowed for, and it is located entirely behind the historic building. HPC has held a worksession and one public hearing on this project and advised the architect to move the addition back further on the lot to create more separation from the cottage. This has been accomplished by placing the addition right on the rear lot line, which requires a variance. This is exactly the reason that HPC has the authority to approve variances to dimensional requirements- to provide flexibility so that the best preservation of historic buildings can be achieved. The proposal requires a 10 foot rear yard setback variance and a 20 foot combined front and rear yard setback variance. For the March 13th meeting, the connector piece has been lengthened to 10 feet, as requested in the design guidelines. The architect has revised the roof over the area labeled "office" in the old part of the house, to be a shed, based on what is visible in the historic photograph. In studying these new revisions, staff has discovered an important problem in the application that seems to have existed since it was considered in 2000, and that is that the reconstructed miner's cottage that has been shown to HPC in all of the plans is not as long as the structure was historically documented in the Sanbome maps. The 1904 map, at 50" scale, is attached to this memo. It shows that the main north-south gable on the house was 40 feet long. This application has shown that piece to be 27'9," a significant difference. (This element has been further reduced in the March 13th submittal to 25'9" in order to increase the length of the connector.) Similarly, while the width of the cross gable on the east may be accurate as shown, the shed roofed element that used to sit behind it was about 18' long, while the office addition that is meant to replace it is only 8' long. The bottom line is that HPC should understand that the main gable is not being reconstructed to its original length, and the board must determine whether that fact is or is not important to their findings on the project. Additionally, because the office area is not being built to match the documentation that is available, it does not seem appropriate in staffs opinion to try to put the historic shed roof form on it and suggest that it is part of an accurate reconstruction. There is no design guideline available to speak directly to these issues, although the concept of basing work on documentation or physical evidence runs through the book. Staff is uncomfortable with rebuilding a southwest corner on the miner's cabin that is incorrect. One possible resolution would be to revise the connector so that it is a continuation of the main gable roof form. That 2 would make the main gable element 35'9", which is closer to accurate. However, there would be no connector or visual slot behind the miner's cottage without some redesign of the addition. Aside from this difficult issue, there has been discussion about the nature of the new addition. The goal of the lot split program is to create more reasonably sized additions to historic buildings, particularly the miner's cottages. Although the owner is given the ability to determine how the allowable FAR should be allocated between the new parcels, it is generally preferable to HPC to see the majority of the square footage assigned to the new parcel. In this case the FAR is almost equally divided, with about 200 more square feet assigned to the historic house. This results in an addition which is roughly three times the size of the original building, which presents design challenges. The relevant design guidelines are: 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. o An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. o A 1-story connector is preferred. o The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. o The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. The front wall ofthe addition is approximately 50' back from the street, and the ridgeline is 9' over that of the historic house. While staff acknowledges that the perspective view that is provided in the application shows that the addition is not overwhelming from head on, the addition as seen from the east and west does dwarf the historic building. As pointed out by Commissioner Reid on February 13th, the starkness of the architecture of the addition may accentuate its size. While staff has no concerns with the design character of the addition, which successfully uses simple forms, materials, and fenestration in a manner which is promoted by the design guidelines, its size relative to the miner's cottage is still a concern. The applicant may need to rethink the amount of square footage that is being allocated to this lot. It may be creating a larger addition than can be supported by the guidelines. Staff continues to believe that the applicant is doing the right thing in attempting to retrieve this house, even if what results is not a complete reconstruction, and by doing a lot split. But, whatever is reconstructed should not be misleading. The addition that is built must meet the design guidelines, and because a bonus is being requested, must address the scale of the miner's cottage in a way that is considered exemplary. As noted 3 in the last memo, the criteria for a 500 square foot FAR bonus are that it may be appropriate when the subject property is at least 9,000 square feet in size, when the application is for a lot split, and when the design is excellent. The first two criteria are met. The issue of excellent design is of concern to staff, because we feel that the board has created a number of tools that can be used to avoid additions that are so much larger than the historic resource. Staff finds that this review standard, and the standards for the FAR bonus, are not yet met. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development, and Staff Finding: By creating two detached homes on the site and transferring some of the FAR to a new structure, the historic house can be better preserved and the structures on the site can be consistent with the size of homes that have historically existed in the West End 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 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 thereofÂ· Staff Finding: The reconstruction and restoration entailed in this project will enhance the architectural character and integrity of the house significantly. The addition requires some additional study. PARTIAL DEMOLITION No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all of the following standards are met: A. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. Staff Finding: The areas proposed to be demolished are recent construction and have negatively affected the original cabin. Their demolition is welcome. B. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: 4 , (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: The project will be a major improvement to the current structure on the site and all concerns with the new addition are discussed above. ON-SITE RELOCATION No approval for on-site relocation shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all ofthe following standards are met: A. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. Staff Finding: The house is to be moved to the west to allow for the lot split, which is a 0 good preservation tool for this site. There are no other historic buildings on this blockface, therefore no historic building patterns will be interrupted by the relocation. Staff finds that this review standard is met. B. The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Staff Finding: Said report shall be a condition of approval. C. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security approved by HPC with the engineering department, to insure the safe relocation, preservation, and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Staff Finding: The relocation plan and letter of credit shall be conditions of approval. 0 5 O HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT In order to conduct an Historic Landmark Lot Split, the applicant shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Land Use Code: Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), and Section 26.72.010(G). 26.480.030(A)(2) SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS. LOT SPLIT The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all ofthe following conditions are met: a) The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969; and Staff Finding: The property is part of the historic townsite and has not been previously subdivided. b) No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.040(A)(1)(c). 0 Staff Finding: This proposal will create two lots, each 4,500 square feet in size. Affordable housing mitigation may be required for the old and new houses. c) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.040(C)(1)(a); and Staff Finding: The land has not been subdivided previously. d) A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the o#ice of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. Staff Finding: 0 6 The subdivision plat shall be a condition of approval. It must be reviewed by the Planning and Engineering Departments for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use action. e) Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the o#ice of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause Staff Finding: The subdivision exemption agreement shall be a condition of approval. D In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for alot split. Staff Finding: No dwelling units will be demolished as part of this proposal. g) Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home Staff Finding: The applicants intend to construct a single family house on each lot. 26.480.030(A)(41 SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS. HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT The split of a lot that is a designated historic landmark for the development of one new single-family dwelling. The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of section 26.88.030(A)(2), section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), section 26.72.010(CD ofthis Code, and the following standards: a) The original parcel shall be a minimum of 9,000 square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or a minimum of 13,000 square feet and be located in the R-15A zone district. Staff Finding: The subject parcel is 9,000 square feet and is located in the R-6 zone district. b) The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. 7 Staff Finding: The maximum floor area for a duplex on the fathering parcel is 4,080 square feet, and a 500 square foot bonus is requested. The applicant plans to allot 2,398 square feet to the parcel with the old house and 2,182 square feet to the new home. Bonus FAR for "Accessory Dwelling Units" and garages may also be applied. c) The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. Staff Finding: The applicant has requested a floor area bonus and setback variance for the redevelopment of the historic house. No variances may be awarded to the new lot. 26.470.070(C) GMQS EXEMPTION, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT The construction of each new single-family dwelling on a lot created through review and approval of an Historic Landmark Lot Split shall be exempt from the scoring and competition procedures. The exemption is to be approved by the Community Development Director, but is not to be deducted from the respective annual development allotments or from the development ceilings. Staff Finding: Currently, there are no standards for reviewing exemption requests; the exemption is by right for historic landmark lot splits. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC continue the 513 W. Smuggler Street review because the project is not yet in compliance with the guideline 10.6, or the standards for an FAR bonus. In addition, the board and applicant must come to a conclusion about what is to be accomplished with the reconstruction of the back of the house, and how any deviations from the historical documentation can be addressed in a manner that makes it clear to the viewer that changes from the original have occurred. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to continue the 513 W. Smuggler Street application for Conceptual Development, Variances, Partial Demolition, On-site relocation, and Historic Landmark Lot Split to a date certain." Exhibits: A. Staffmemo dated March 13, 2002 B. Sanborne map from 1904 C. Minutes ofFebruary 13, 2002 D. Application 8 J - 5=21 - -2-4 -/--~ R--1:r>,2. . 1--2- - 79 1 - ~~l_i- *--- I.'ll - - /1-20 04 , - L.-J 9 -b 0 2 & N k ijit 40 4 0 b r -11 Â· 7 1 * - 1 . Outtio~~~<<~6 N /N -1 I lE 1 k= L-12+ ' l.121 I 10 9 ...1 1 *1 * h 4 .6 Z \ k 0 2 - 7 - -C OFf- 7-0-1 t - 01 J r' 1-1 2 \N Â»r 1-1 h 1.1 % - I . 41 17- 9 LT ti i~ lits 1 -7131_ - t,L M . 1,1-* -1 A v.. 1.1. . 505 513 5/7 525 603 609 613 6 ~ SMUGGLER = =======r.================ == ==- -=-==-=--==================, - - lill -i- - 101 of 5/8 520 524 600 610 -- C--7 - %1 - 0-M-7r r -- - - r-6 1-11 - '6 5 j: 44 1 . 9 0 -O -- 1 12 -11 21-1 0 - CD - 9% AX . 4 2 -1 0 .41 4 NO DKAN-=T \1 2><E \1 . . 1. -1 K ro -. 1-11 1 IL - 2 0-1 4 =h-~ g 1 ---- -1 1 th 4---- - t.3 257- -N - a , %1* - . - 1 ted 75' 5/3 C NORTH El 9 ri=-1/ ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, FEBRUARY 13. 2002 513 W. Smuggler - Conceptual, Lot Split, Variances Ryan Sturtz and Harry Teague were sworn in. Melanie recused herself. Affidavid ofposting was entered into the record as Exhibit I. Amy relayed that the addition that exists on the house is completely out of character with the original structure. The lot split means that less of the addition is being put on the original house. There is a request for a 500 square foot FAR bonus and that is warranted due to the significant amount of reconstruction/restoration that is being done on the building. There are a few setback variances being requested. Staffs concern is that the proposed addition is still somewhat overwhelming in height immediately behind the historic building. Possibly some of the massing could extend toward the alley and the entire second floor slipped back. Also there is an opportunity to fill in or relocate some of the courtyard that is shown on the east side of the building. Harry Teague gave an overview ofthe project. The entire building was moved so that the garage portion comes up to the lot line. In doing that it allowed an increase in the separation of the two buildings to six feet. The non-original materials surround the existing addition from the street. The separation new from old was addressed by placing the addition directly behind the existing house. There is one elevation that is currently not there and it will be restored according to the historic photograph. All the window proportions were derived from the window placements on the historic building. Gilbert said one concern was the proximity of the addition to the historic house and possibly that mass could be pushed back. Harry said they pushed it back 3 more feet but it still isn't ten feet. Harry said the plate heights floor to floor are ten feet from the main floor to the upper floor and the next plate height is 6'6". Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened and closed the public hearing. 8 . ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, FEBRUARY 13, 2002 Comments: Rally said retrieving the historic resource from all of the appendages is exciting. Guideline 10.8 says a minimum of a ten-foot setback should be maintained. Rally feels even though the ten-foot has not been met this deck is on new construction not the historic house and the setback is acceptable. Rally said his only concern is the ten-foot separation. Harry said from the east elevation there is a deck that extends on top of new construction to the south. He also stated that they are recreating the gable end according to the historic photograph and continuing the wall back but instead of having a pitched roof we have a flat roof. Neill said his biggest concern is the nine-foot ridge height. He is also concerned about the enormous mass behind the miner's cottage and as presented, is not in favor of the project. Teresa relayed that she supports staff s comments in her memo regarding being consistent with the ten-foot connector. Melanie relayed that she appreciates the efforts to restore the historic resource but the proposed addition still overwhelms the historic house. One issue that is disturbing is the zero lot line. Michael remarked that he agrees with Melanie's statements. Jeffrey also stated that he commends the restoration efforts. His concern is the proximity and the connection seems too close. Possibly the mass could shift toward the alley. What Neill said, if we are recreating a mass or form on the east elevation, we should respect its massing and location and the deck coming across. Gilbert agreed with Jeffrey that this is a great project with only one problem and that is the proximity of the addition to the historic house. This is the one thing that prevents the project from being exemplary. The height of this addition is the exact same height as Matchless Drive so there is a discrepancy in building height here. There is also the proposal to have the 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. FEBRUARY 13. 2002 addition closer to the historic house than Matchless was. What you are able to take advantage of is the fact that you don't really have a side view and a large house next door. Gilbert also agreed with staffs recommendation. Suzannah said her issue is the six feet and the guidelines ask for more than that. The starkness of the architecture of the addition accentuates the size of it. She also agreed that the ten-foot setback needs to be respected, specifically because of the nature of the architecture of the addition. Harry said they could make the wall continuous and set it back with a pitched roof with two windows just like they have in the photograph but he would like direction. Suzannah said her only concern would be the length of the addition. Harry agreed that the wall could be reduced. MOTION: Gilbert moved to continue 513 W. Smuggle St. to March 13, 2002; second by Rally. Motion carried 7-0 Yes vote: Michael, Teresa, Neill, Rally, Gilbert, Jeffrey, Suzannah 118 E. Cooper Avenue - Little Red Ski Haus Conceptual, Partial Demolition & Variances David Fiore and Carl Darr were swore in. Affidavit of posting was entered into the record Amy informed the board that the front of the house has been significantly altered; particularly the porch and the additions that were added are to be removed. It is very important to get the front of the house back to what it once way. There are three proposals for the ADA ramp. There is a proposed bathroom addition on the east side of the house and it overlaps one of the eave lines of the gable and staffis recommending a restudy of that bathroom. Some variances are proposed for the back of the property. David Fiore, managing partner of the LLC gave an overview of the project. They are increasing parking and decreasing the room count. The intent is to preserve the lodge and bring the building up to code. 10 HARRYTEAGUEARCHITECTS 412 north mill aspen co 81611 t 970 925 2556 f 970 925 7981 mail@teaguearch.com 0 Job: date: re: 2 -1- -p: A,7 1 911+F'' C 820,1: 7-/Aw 31*T,- -1Â¥WL : 03.0 l. 01 ME : 513 61/637--5.tv49((,2 57'ze~r 0 41- 6.retteâ€¢ Neâ‚¬ ge'sgo DeketÂ»Â¢\4 05. t),Bevok Peopeirr~ *r 58 1281- 5MOFF.vt. yre~â‚¬r. BAR, 0% H'POS ceâ€¢kEROS WE Amâ‚¬ l-GN,TRGBâ‚¬p 17% UNIC Be,WeE-0 bee' A.ye *Ne,0 ' -10 ~0 FErr- ~ FEat.491,4~ 4, An,~ At* HPNE 7-6,40'18> 79+â‚¬ FLA:r- Taot.Fl Nal-I,JD 74â‚¬ cABIO A A* F-EM-Acâ‚¬t> t'r \,1 i-rf A P+01-tb,-irp meÂ·DF: 13ffse, O/0 -OfE Hls?Die (C- P++*Tb 7-HA.â€¢r WE W AJâ‚¬ 0 Â¥Lâ‚¬Rsâ‚¬ coAl-At:r /4 (fÂ· ~00 tvhlâ‚¬ ty#~ 4,095-hDAA. | -17~AOIC- rv. 4-1 47 U - clfcÂ»\--0- ... \ --- 1 -- M -* /*,0*27 1 / I -1 B.-1// Â·lrÂ·--'~Il. 1 .~ j.,4 't.~~ ~ .# i .. +~9, \ 00'4-WRA-* 1 -JI "*f'~ 4Â·hi it-1 *~Â»'' 11 - ,/ '-t 5 2Â¥1 2.4 ead~A. 2 ~ 4%~ g ';14-Â«Plit-fl 1. \ h:4. I .7 i. \.1 -4 1.gle-%Â£-i#0*Â¥-- Â·tÂ· . X .. .] - f. .2. P -- ELâ‚¬-yfe: 714- ..-* - 22721 %41-:*4 4 - 9 88-212~52!**1+9 02 Ki \. I- -1â‚¬ IN-01Â·6+241 L -- /1 -0-, =- E-â€¢-4,-3-6,11Â·0Â·-t 6~ / 11151%-e..:- .Â¥ -241]_--1.29 1 j U W Ikitflflit:ji* - =L-4 . - Â· 9,.LMFLXT:<O 1 , /=Ell' + - 10 0 - 44 r. p ' i R:Â·V-Gv:EdfdFV< 1-2-$"1 ff- 1 ~ \11 Â« ~ ~- %~14,1- f---i' 11 -1--I~~ 44 4 -4.1 r 1 , 10- = . 1 ill'1*4%-t it-2 3-1745---* It)NE-F! Tiftp FI+1*'434 99]pt f - 'i.'le.3 .Ii .I' s-4-1~ , r' M 7*66% 1 1 411[i,Rci.z 023 -â€¢7.aim 1-12 6 rES ' ~ -Â·-tÂ¤Â· /4 1 L ;.. w-* ,# 3#*- -- -N- ' Il bgfE/*bak:di -8 -ig/*A . k - - off~>j~0 - -r- O Â· Ma42 o ~1 1. 1 [34 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION .g. 1 - 3 -1 Z 7 smuggler street residence i 0 Hi. " in 513 west smuggler street f N Â» C 1 01 â€ž11 aspen colorado mÂ« EXHI I 412 N &*L ST ~-el .081011 30-@Ego :POGIASJ ARCHITECTS ... IN j 1 Lii. 9 4 1 1 4- 1 11'lly'll-t i 1 4- .1 ",4 f .Â·' 31Â·Â·; ' t.Â· i fi \S 4 i .1 i.-11 % ,< *, / 1 t.4 3 , .1 Â£4 1 IS .15 t. 4 l\&' ft % 1 I . f- Pr. IN Â» 0 J,1. 1 - ./ 0 =14' / Ff 4 4 r I 1 i i ,-- =28'- -- r %: . ZF 43â‚¬=F -4 =40' 29Â¥ Er E , = A 4 a (13 =24; C ~ 4 4- >4pÂ» 4) I 4:"# I i II tÂ« ell I *2 ' Ld 9 , 6 -*-Â»**W-W**~1~*W4*'** I - . 1 1 *v / 1 .... ,0MJÂ¢*N&Â®28:kehebâ€žee,y* I. I -.99=Imp ..4,7 rah .... U J Â· 4 4 1,4 i 4 â€¢â€¢ , *A F 1/, & f Â· :1; / 1 I . 40-1 ' 4..â€¢ ..4. 1 11~i .11.1 141-9, /1 Â· 1 t ... . t .& f ./ I *1 + I +. I * . 4 et'. f 'f . 4, . 4 J/': 4 4. /. .: 1 If:t â‚¬ 1. , F 44 'j i$. I I , f i 1 I f. 1 6 4, . *Ae R 31. : . 24 90 : . 5 r' -4'q.%7 NOT FOR Â£ ONSTRUCTION 1 1% 0 11 -1 Z 41% I smuggler street residence I 0 2. 7 1 m 92 f. Iii 1 | 513 west smuggler street 1 1 f i m 3,8 2 I E fill aspen colorado - 4% 4 uiqeo ieu,6110 40 e ueld aits Bunsixe 900Â¥ ARCH1 TE AGUE . 1 li -~ 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 (61 41 1 1 -UT ~ i-E=i :---1-1 g a I 1 Izi l L--- '111.: 42 1 1 CE 1 1 9 -- 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L______ 1 1-----2 1200" , 900- E 6'-0" 2 9-0' 4 (f) (0 0 0 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Iii' 38 -1 Z smuggler street residence I i: ili. 4 1 12 4 1 513 west smuggler street 1 - 00 ,,il aspen colorado 21'-6- 21'-mr-3- 5% OOW go@L'QO :POGIADJ ARCHITECTS EAGUE -1--1- f -- 1 --+7 f ~ J t.- f N 1 . *==4 : i ---- Fi 1 4-114 9 2 L-1 1 - 9161--409 -. 4~ 1 .1 2 1 : 1 : 1 4 1 /H + \ 1 / 1 4 = N j {1-2 07 1 ~I 1 1 9 i 1 -1 . 2, 1 1 7-1 1 v ntt PY . 1 t --' -lmil./ & ~ 11 : 1 1 1/3, L 1 -0 Cd h -SILE_ u [1 - 4 of 4 - 4.TJJT/' 1;1 - ~ 14 4 4 1(Â· m .:12 : 7 14 1 4 0 4 2 1 -17 1 6 [f i__._- LE-2233 1 - 0 1 1 1 1 66 -U 0 1 1 L---- - - YÂ« b Â® ,Â»f Â«Â»11 1 9% 1 3 UX Pâ‚¬ 9,Â·Ni k .4 j tÂ® f //0// 0 /1 /13 -//4-327 4 100 14 f 1 4-31 / 4 Â«Off A 1 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION /2 11 ,%91 18 -1 z 81 1/ gg1 smuggler street residence 1 7 9 Â» CD 4 1Â·i 513 west smuggler street ~ 0 DE i #11 1 aspen colorado m i 30*[90 :POGIA93 ARCHITECTS HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS 412 11 -LL ST ASPEM 30 81011 -12, Nkl A /,6 /L/ _~ 0 0 -- M 0 fl1MJM ~ 4 le-e : 14.-0, 8.-0. 2 21'-87 v *6/ 1 0 684 1 ~-=---Zt--71--1 " ' U l Ori M I,11111111 -- - -*4 - -~, F..1 ,- , 1 ..... Y 1 E a ; Â» A clood -8-- IR I b 1 'val b.*06 ' L-+1 ~m-Ill------ 0 54:Ati#ft=gli~*Ir~**40/*MI....... 9 1 1~6 1 1 0 tt:f'ktkr~*v*~*~gÂ¢*R:320222 9 ~ 0 22 . 0O 9 -1111 - 0 98 f.)1!':,1,24:&.:qv 1 hi;;R*hyf ':Â·;[.:.Wi~6-~ 5,19'rt>{tui< .44=to 0 0 . 7, f-ffÂ© 1 1, 0 gl' 0 W , >411...:49,1 11.4 4... . r .4-4,4451' *-1-~--- O 91Â»\J CD 1 -0--=--=-==--" 1 00 09/1 1 ./.alminmzmlimal""mmaw/mil... I be of id spk 2 0 D- 01'.m O 1 m .130 .0.---- 0 U2 ----- Ir,v1134 4,1j fil 91\41\J % 0 0 1 // upper level floor plan 44-2 1/C - 1'4 revieed: 03.13.02 A102 eouep!Sel Je HARRY 1 1 1 1 < TEAGUE 1 L A / L K' 2, ,. 12-OM ' .1 14'-0- ARCHITECTS -1 1 1 1 , p. 2-f / / 2'40 , 14'-0. . 1 1 : Ve - . ' 5 / .i~ ih 2 4 1.- & ' FMW092579/1 412.-LST ASI'84(3081011 1 1 Â· 1,~'1.2, Â· 121-7- ............ Â·-' 1 1 + 0 ..1 . 1 $ , .. '- 1 f -1 L t ChA h ' L -Â¥ - - ..2 1 -r- 1-7--7 -, 01 6,0-/SLJJIJNJAL;7,4- 1- - / i A- 23 1.04- 1 35' -- TIT,4-12-I-11,,.7-T' 1 1-2 I L-f-4-1.-[-bl.. --- -- 4 + 7 -_ I_106 '1 7 1157 ' -j. : - r 5.11 - . f' r i , LLJ-' ~LI.- I ~ 1 ~ 24 -1- 4 - ------- -- --- - ----- -- I I L' -1 1 r .1 1 -r ---- - I 1 lili,1 1 - - - 1 11 :99011 .. L 64 1 - -T -I --- --r L.3--3 -~I-'7- 3 - 'L..,IN -itÂ°14=1 ' - : --1-I-/3,601/1*" -.1.1,1>C P-- 1--- 11 - .; 4 - = r - E-=~'** --* 1 f.4.3 Zif:rm 159. ., . 4, . 1' 10~4 P 11 .15 1- 1 --1 , ' -- !h, : 7.-2 745 L . pr- r--------_ ''0*39 -- -- 12% -0.-h--. - -- - 41 - . +1,1, /4 . -1 - 2 1 , /44. 4.} Â· -13 4 I -: 43.4/ - , -0 :. j -3-3 , 42 - ~ =- 4 11 11 /7>77. .t It.' t 7-16 -, 1 3.- 2,1 r #11.41 1 -~ I -= C-Ill-*-Ill- -- -- 4...1. -- 7 1004 _ 7~~jf~~ill ,./ ./ 1 1 1 1 ~7~ - _ I__6*5--Il.----, ~ .22'Smi5i392:1.<2499P~39,46614#.iest'., Â°0%%~~hz;~;AJJ;122;/7/STWal)3366682;96i .fâ‚¬ v.%4, 1 1 1 - I 1 ' I I 1 .1 1 64~4%4,24~584~.<%0,,~.i~~<4~9443448~2*AA#$%<4T~,$~~0%1%~5-041%~4#63~9T<~~,~2â€ž1*~ 43Â¢Â»94%44%23Â»39<Â«Â«*E 4 ..01" 7 9,8â€¢ . 44 49'7Â«<44Â»42**o<Zid'Y+424164Â»922< 422 1 â‚¬Â«~*,~~*i*Â«:,3 ... ...'. &2;34Â»~31~Â«39~Â»Â»*i 1 :Â»Â»26Â»71,Â«:r~>Â»Â»/VAx*Â»154*xte>Â»lvtÂ»iy,Â«>xy,~Â»6/>.Y~ (PAyÂ»>Â»Â»10>~ pe,spective of north elevation , ; from middle of smuggler street f~> north elevation 0 0 0 Â®Â© 00 Z 8-0' 14'-0- le-0- 144r E-Ar 21'-3- er-gÂ· 12Er T top 01- 6 -- 0-) 115-7- 7 Pltil 1!12 1.!01'iÂ· 1 . .4 .1,1,1 i .lili, 44Plili lili tiÂ· 9-2. -1 . 1- IiI L - .4 Â·.f -1' Â· -A~ I â€ž5 -- - -~~1~~~~~ 0 1/3#~. 9//// I/l'l.1//////// j 4/444' C- 9.47 2 4- , 4 11 ' u. 21= 1117'~ 1. - ' lib*yvin, -1 ------- a '-4 4 + r--' -2 4 9 +' -i Â·-% 1,11Â·~#!Â·11 f, 1 â€¢ % g-__ + - ilm.:1,1111.'. 41+ L T 11 -11 - 11, , 0 #Wi#& %Â®:'lIll"~FI' 11 Ht:'H jv 14 1 : 61.ele/ :,1,11!"il "111 1. .111 1H j'41 ~~ ~.94.1-,- ,~ 1 11. 111 11 -2 1 F / 41.1.111 1 105-r -k 1 + 411 1: 1 1064 '7-/ 1 . ' il " ti ii 4 E-1[2---1--Ilf-1 I 11,1 - , . Â»M- - Mm Il J f 1 ./.m lili 11 1 Slip:':11 EAM-4 -7 .13.2 , I ~ /66.1.- - allen *"Ii////Ii' 911110 11 ViaE- 1(*4 T 4Â»921Â»Â»94%4Â»tÂ»ttÂ»Â«Â»*~Â«ig*%:Â»~1%44Â»ff*~ 7Â«0Â»4*/fÂ» :*20099449<449 iÂ»429Â«194401. . - 30.0.4*2#W**:'~: 1/44 - 9.91.>UL...\,9\Aâ‚¬~Â»1 , ~Al/"~~,A..~~~~/'.<~ 7"~~~ A~~Â»*Â«fÂ«ffÂ»~9~4~~Â»\Â»Â»/-4 9/Â»44Â« Â«4%/-, - 0,07 . 11.- 1. /4229<40/tftt>*92~2*449~.994<6229p,L2Gf)~~U O 're Â» 7 war-'449<04>33~. â‚¬29 44<%49Â»99Â«41.2/ 363 elevations north&east ' yx/Â»/x.Â«,4Â«xyxÂ»>/Â»Â»/xyÂ»/XyXÂ»/X/X/Â»/X/,9Â»4/X/Â»XyÂ»/Ay,<y-Â»0Â»kÂ»/2Â»/A~,Ry,X/XÂ»Â»Xy;1~/Ai/#/XyÂ»/9/2/~ 1#4â€¢-1'-0â€¢ <~> east elevation revaed: 03.13.02 A200 Ouep!Se.I lee.Ils Jel66nluS lee#s JeIBBnlusweAA â‚¬ tg pen colorado NO!10nkliSNOO kIO:I lON HARRY ~ ~~ ~ ~ TEAGUE ARCHITECTS j.....~ 412 N -i ST N.94{3081011 -I - Ii--*- il-- - 9701323% Falle=mlel I 123Â·-r ../......... ~ 6 1- 7 115-7 0 944 1. 4 i ft tr 41- - 1 010 -v q i.1, ;1~. ~ 111!18 111111 Hil;11 181:,I| 1 11,1.!11 'llil '1 !:!10. iF Ii ' 1 14 . Â· r ! 0 !' li Ji N Q... 1 J. 11 !1 . 1, 1 ~1 11 11 !1 1 11.11 f " 426:Â·12Â·Ash.Â·ar. ./. 1. .PITA/.9... ~1 Ir . i 11 ; 4 11 7 114 411 ick,leiev , / 44, /,%/A<,<cz</\4'.<//tff / /43(OR:.64(F~,A~'4 L *> \<Sh*&**N>.29/34Â¤il~Ry<Â·p~:~ '4 'AOR*kiL<// *>5Â»16Â»(009/Â»Â«34Â»Â»Â«09\4Â»Â§7 Â«Â« t. 41<2%*P<,<Â£ '6 ) PAY,y,>>A~ ay %5<32%33%3Â§*tÂ¢422%39*90%31%3kft@3*~9 \ /94>, 5444%8~~~~ Â» / 92Â»69<40 0Â«/4 /4<707/,Â«49<94*4094,Â»0<0://vol/-44Â»<>4,0/*akÂ«4~44 /*"elev 51 2 fi <~> south elevation . & 0 Â© 0 0 0 O 0 B D V. 3 00 0-7 21'-20 80-0- 14'-0- 18-7 14-0- 5-(r 6- Ce 7 12;-r Pel /6~ -_-___ r.,1.03:4;1 , MZ 00 119-7- 1 1 111 -- 1. 1 lu '!.i H 4 4_ rt; 14'4 3-1 + -- 7 . 11. 1 1 4,1.11.19.16 K 64 - +L 1 -1 - I 4/4.4~*.'27, 1#4- 1 -1- int 11 0 - 6.15 141+ 1111 - 1-r-,t-3= h . i.Â·644&4:'29/b:04 1 1 - M ..Â¢MI.:/:ILI::%&ii#. b.- ' - 123-f"IL 1 -4, 1 -- r til ih, . ifW%.7iii' 04,1746 .... 11 re| i r| -- .1-1~ ,- IL ;~ 'i|_2' 1 't =f- . 10.-r 40'.1-(ca-k --~-- -1 1 1, - Allip//1,42'Ill 1014 7 , illill m//1//rm IT~:il WAIMM#9136)T , 1 Ill m lilli?101- f 0 - 7 2 12--W=ZE 38 iny,rt idd"b hÂ·. m.lam ..../1-0- 1. 9 4-Lt 14111115 . ollsm Ilill/11,1 /Â· I //.. - I / 1 4 /. /.4 /004 4 2 //Y Â» i <352>, \ <>,tÂ» \ 9 '1 lit . 1 4 1 1 29> / 2.,0.Â·:X,5>~' ~' 4, 12Â« 244 %Â£9*/0x, h~>R>p4*SA,4"Â»35'<~'<R> *tliiÂ»%444ftitÂ»~ffs#Â»Â»0114#1~" ~~.firt Â»Â»Â»1>Â»Â·r, tj ./&2 Â«<:Â»4/44Â«%Â»4>, 44\ 4 /4 414% / \*65~ ~ ,<0Â«7 tÂ»,9~/<93>444*f \ v x' <f I 45<%>" 44 / 1 1 1 k - \ f A \ \ 4 \\/9 \ 9\/ Â« \ â‚¬ 0\99\14/ r \\\ \:'\ .,1730%69'' Â· / 6Â£ 294> 49' *4,4*>4<*M#,0 .4 \/ 94,4 /, 0 - ...4/ 1 O- '' . \ I 9Â»Â»Â»tqyÂ»Â»44Â»Â»*9-44*tÂ»%%taÂ»%*Â»43Â»Â«4Â«****Â«*~ .- 0 - U. 0 - 2 elevations %>~~~~~*0~>yÂ·34,>00* SOuth 8 west 1/4.-14- f~> west elevation revaed: 03.13.02 A201 ~ eouem pejo kg Ir EE 4) MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director,~4 Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer FROM: Christina Amato, Historic Preservation Intern RE: 633 West Main Street- Conceptual Development, Partial Demolition, and Valiances - Public Hearing DATE: March 13, 2002 SUMMARY: The project involves partial demolition of an existing addition to the historic house, and construction of a second story master bedroom suite with a garage off the alley. The applicant is requesting a setback variance for the garage. Skylights are proposed to be removed on the east side of the historic house and replaced with a dormer similar to the one previously approved on the west. The applicant is requesting HPC approval to relocate a window on the west side of the historic house. All of the new construction is to be sided with vertical siding. APPLICANT: Elizabeth Dart, represented by Barbra Long and Associates. PARCEL ID: 2735 - 124 - 48 - 001. ADDRESS: 633 West Main Street, Lot A, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: Office 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) 1 't 4 0 square feet or exceed the allowed site covered by upto five (5) percent, HPC may grant necessag 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 accessog dwelling units, and Staff Finding: The proposal is to add a master bedroom suite and a deck on top of the existing addition, which is not historic, and a garage on the alley. The proposed project is sufficiently in compliance with the following relevant Historic Preservation Design guidelines: 7.7, 8.4, 10.3, 10.4, 10.8, 10.11, 12.13, as noted on the attached checklist, as well as the Residential Design Standards. However, staff finds that the project is out of compliance with the a number of other HPC Design Guidelines. There are three alterations proposed to the historic structure itself: replacing one of the skylights with a dormer, adding more windows in the existing dormer on the west, and moving a window on the west side of the house by 2'. In regard to the dormers, staffhas concerns not with their overall design but with their glazing, which is in conflict with the following design guideline: 3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a facade. o Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character-defining facade 0 will negatively affect the integrity of a structure. The amount of windows proposed in the dormers, and their stair stepped design, is not in character with the type of windows that would have been used on a historic building like this one. The window that is proposed to be moved on the west fa~ade of the old house may not in fact be an original unit, but it is not clear whether it is an original window location. If that is the case, moving it would be inappropriate based on the following guideline: 3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. o Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character-defining facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening. This is especially important on primary facades where the historic ratio of solid-to-void is a character-defining feature. o Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls. o Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it to receive a larger window on primary facades. 0 2 The burden is on the applicant to show, through photographs, or physical evidence, that the window location is not historic and should be allowed to be changed. The project also involves modifying a l M story addition into 2 stories. The current design is problematic because the roof on the new master bedroom addition sits taller than that of the historic house, overlaps onto the roof of the historic house, and almost completely obscures the rear gable end. The guidelines emphasize creating separation between the old and new construction. Becuause the proposed addition is relatively small, and the back of the house has had some alterations previously, this may be an acceptable location for the new room, but it's height and impacts on the historic building must be minimized. It's roof should tuck under the eaveline of the old house. The guidelines which are of concern are: 7.6 When planning a rooftop addition, preserve the overall appearance of the original roof. o An addition should not interrupt the original ridgeline. See also: Chapter 10, Guidelines for Building Additions. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. o A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. o An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. o An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. o A 1-story connector is preferred. o The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. o The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. o Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. o Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. o For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. The applicant proposes to apply vertical siding on all of the new construction to be able to differentiate between the historic portion and the new addition. This is effective, but there needs to be more of a delineation on the east side of the structure, where a 76'5" long windowless wall with no changes in plane is created. It is recommended the proposal take this into consideration and either add windows to that wall (in historically correct locations on the old house) or create some form of visual break between the historic structure and the addition besides just the siding change. This is supported by guideline 10.3, cited above. Although the historic house does not have any windows on the east side today, it can be assumed that they existed historically. Carrying the blank character that exists now on that wall into the new addition is not sympathetic to the original design. The placement of the garage at the back of the site is appropriate. Because it is not detached from the rest ofthe building, it is in conflict with guideline 8.3: 8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure. o 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. However, since it is a one story, single stall garage, near the rear lot line and away from the corner, staff finds that the intent of the guideline is adequately met. Staff does recommend that the dormers shown on the garage be deleted because they complicate the form and are out of character with the simple roofline that is original to the house, again, supported by guideline 10.3. SetbackVariance The applicant is requesting a 5 foot rear yard setback variance along the alley for the proposed garage. Currently the historic structure and the existing addition encroach on the west side property line. All other setbacks are in compliance. The garage is located appropriately on the site, and the variance allows it to be moved away from the historic resource. Staffrecommends the setback variance be approved. 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 the character of the neighborhood, where numerous other historic buildings have been expanded. Staff finds this standard is met. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels, and Staff Finding: The project does not detract from the historic significance of the existing structure, a simple 19th century home, but could if the above guidelines and 4 recommendations are not considered in this process. Staff finds this standard is not yet met. d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Staff Finding: As long as the master bedroom addition roof height, the dormer windows and the blank western facing wall are reconsidered to comply with the design guidelines, the project will not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity ofthe designated historic structure or part thereof. Staff finds this standard is not yet met. 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 partial demolition of a portion of the rear of the existing house has begun with the existing addition. Staff finds that this is an acceptable area for the second story addition to connect to the rest of the house. B. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: (1) Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions, and (2) Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions that are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Staff Finding: The impacts discussed in these standards are addressed earlier in the memo. Staff finds this standard is not yet met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the review standards and design guidelines are not met and recommends HPC continue conceptual development, partial demolition, and variance request with the following conditions: 5 1. The addition must comply with the design guidelines by reducing the height on the second story addition so it is not taller than the existing historic house and does not destroy the original south gable eaveline. 2. Restudy the windows in the dormers. 3. Restudy the west side of the house to break up the wall surface. 4. Eliminate the dormers on the garage. This house has had numerous alterations, including removal of historic materials, trim, and windows. Any efforts the applicant can make to reverse these conditions, based on photographic or physical evidence, would be supported by HPC. RECOMMENDED M0TION "I move to continue the application to a date certain." Exhibits: A. Staffmemo dated March 13, 2002 B. Application C. Checklist ofrelevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines 6 Attachment C Relevant Design Guidelines, Conceptual Review (Standards which are not met are underlined) 3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. o Enclosing a historic window opening in a kev character-defining facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening. This is especially important on primary facades where the historic ratio of solid-to-void is a character-defining feature. o Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls. O Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it to receive a larger window on primary facades. 3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a facade. o Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character-defining facade will negatively affect the integrity of a structure. 7.6 When planning a rooftop addition. preserve the overall appearance of the original roof. o An addition should not interrupt the original ridgeline. See also: Chapter 10, Guidelines for Building Additions. 7.7 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and character. o A new dormer should fit within the existing wall plane. It should be lower than the ridgeline and set in from the eave. It should also be in proportion with the building. o The mass and scale of a dormer addition must be subordinate to the scale of the historic building. 8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primarv structure. o 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- bv-case basis. 8.4 A garage door should be compatible with the character of the historic structure. o A wood-clad hinged door is preferred on a historic structure. o If an overhead door is used, the materials should match that of the secondary structure. o If the existing doors are hinged, they can be adapted with an automatic opener. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. o A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primarv building also is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primarv building's historic style should be avoided. o An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. o An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. o A change in setbacl<s 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. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. o An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.7 If it is necessarv to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. o A 1-story connector is preferred. o The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primarv building. o The connector also should be proportional to the primarv building. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. o Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. o Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. O Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destrov or obscure historicallv important architectural features. o For example. loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. O The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. 12.13 Locate a new secondary structure in a manner that is similar to those seen historically in the district. o Place it along the alley edge. 0O D A 4-T 2Â£111 oDâ‚¬, l_ r--imlm~ 63-6 00 Â· tyl AId 11 21 126015/62/ CKISTINe ,~PITION ORIGINAL- 91*(11;Re _----- ADD NEW WINOONS O EXGTING AD[MnON (WIDTH TO 1 96,Illl \ TO BEDRON WWOON) '1 , 1, I li 11 '1 1 â‚¬ 60&0g=lt=:, 11 11 11 4 Il 1 1 i RECONFIGURE WINDOWS AND ,L---- 11 , EXIST. /Allo FRENCH DOORS TO PAnO AREA 11 + 11 i L.N')hi<, 1 1 FAMILY KITE+EN 1 BEDâ€¢ReeL--_--] 1 - I t ====. 1, H I \ r 4 , L=ZE.... L 1-1 || 0 &~ 44 9 -U]/31[JO--4. 3 , 4 . 4/ - I E--------------tftibEE--t~- Â£ E~ FOYER 1 ~, ... BAR u . 1' 1 -11Â£ 1 1.'/ - r 1 " 1 - A 74 *- ULJ Q I ~--~00 2 WINDOWS L21*%*11 rn WÂ¢Â¥HAT WAS REÂ¥(WED ADO WINDOW SU-1 - DURING 1 997 REMOOEL LOCATION CANNOT BE LOCATION MAY NEED TO THE SAME BECAUSE THE STAIR VERIED BE:AUSE IT FALLS WAS RECONIGRED BETWEEN: ROOMS MROPOSCED OARADE *OPInoN , ~OPOSED FAMILÂ¥ gOOM ADPITION 22'-ek ts'-bÂ· 581-46. 4.-16. 00 PROPOSED LOKER FLOOR PLAN ~ j /175 . 1. Le. PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL ADDITION , ORIEINAL STNLICTUâ€¢UE .. 33'-6. "'~3FFErmÂ· .1 1 â€ž , ~ 11 4-111 'Toâ€¢~ae I lilli 1 1111 1 1- -%:=.2.7i--hy 1 la 1 1. 1 Pal-, 1 1 ! ------ -IT - 11 1 1 Iii- ~V'' BATH /- &2' i BEPROCOM 2 ~ 9 6=11- d ---- ------------1 '- /-\1 2] & 1/ La - 1 ~ HALL ~ ---r-- A Al OPDA TO 88.CÂ»N . I ' B=i;.2:'ll.-4:/:I:.'I:I::::-1~. ~ EMT. 1 1 rmal Il ~ Â¢11111 1 11'17'IN'111 ri' '7Â¥" IN' 1 1111"1'Illl.Illl I Illili ll' MT. 1- , STORABE 111 1 11 T 2, i "px T - 1 111 .11, tii N,Ii,111111,[111111&111.61,dhil,(11111(111[11111111â€žl]â€ž,1,1â€žn,H,~1,1'N,'6181 11' Ul REMOVE EXIST. SKYUGHT - ADD NEW DORMER. & EDRE55 WINDOWS ('~~3 PROPOSED UPPER FLOOR PLAN NT s . ... EXISTING ADDITION ORI[,INAL STRULTLRE PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL APPITION --- 0 | 6KÂ·fL167 ROU. PE-K 1 l f W Lil--3 -1 1. 1â„¢ /1 3 ----r-71----Tl-r-----1-rr----Fl---- 44 82 11 1 11/ N rt - 12 43 1 Iii I -1 1 ExisTINe EXISTINI 4 4\~ ~ 0 40 1 sterLIGHT merli-T 11 11 11 11 11 11 & 1 1 1 NiN PORMER ~-~ PROPOSED ROOF PLAN ~ }U.7-5. /#At /#~ 12:12 TYP. 12:32 1,7.,d~Â·d~1~ 1/3 4."Ar /%4=1\ t/3 ,l14Â». -Ilr11111Â«*~ ~ ~111-1 [-11111111&11 Xm--n-' Lm#F),APIT~1 e 5410* m E HF=* Litly Â· r 4 I=&43=.44- F==1 694.4 .Â· 242 .00' 06 ;:, i .lia, n./ M) " 1 , Â» di#FLH'1111111111 lilli r INNHUM IHHMHH 11. UNE OF -711 r--- - 11[--1 m961LI~ -ru=-_CCZE Â·:21;" 7.remlm,7 . I - - - - tv~ijiti- UUMIL-a - 11.--3.-1-11111- 11 IST 'LOO< i . 15Â¥ FLOO.. A Il Il 1 EL]]11 ELN 1" -04 ~7 .~!TH ELEVATION W HEIGHT LIMITS 4 yNINDOA-DOOR CONFIGURATION OFF SOUTH PATIO ~ SOUTH ELEVATION V'/5. ) U --ft . 25-0 HEIGHT LIMIT TO THE LOMER 1/5 r r 1 ' 2, :: 1 1 : 1 ./ ... . I f MAINTAIN EXIST. ROOF UNE ~.., mrs*t-- - ----- -- -- ------ --- -- --Vi- Â» ---* 4 IN 'Le- I J EXIST. 64ETER LOCATION DRIMNAL. Sâ„¢UGTUZE EX]ISTINO ADDITION eARAGE A/DITION VERICAL SIDING ON NEW & 2 NEW WINDOWS ADDED O ExISING ADDITONS WEST WALL EST ELEVATION . h /1 111111111'llilli A \ '"4|I'l|I|I|I|I~I~I|I|I~1~I|I|I|1~Il~N A 1 Â¢ t 1111111 t 11111111111 411111,11111111111111111'till'11111111111111111!11~\4,~ d~ki'1'1'1'1' 4====r- il'I~i~i~111'1'1'1'lli~ Y /1111,1111111111~ 1111111111111I1\ "' /1{I1illlII1iIIII 1111111111111!11. A<Ar~1'#1~1~1~1~1~1~1~ 111'111'111'111'111'11 21'1~.h \~ ~I[(111111111111~'IN /111111111111111111 . . 11'111'111'111'111'111'111'111'11111'11 'A / i 111'11Â¢Ii'111'111'111'111'111'111'11*11 11'111'11111'111'111'11111'111'111Â¢111'111'111; lf964W~W+Vi*W~%11Â·'Â·F WinAnnnIi!,lilinlilililililili -777777, 1,1,1,2,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,12,1/Rililit 1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1-111-1111.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 1 Npi~Â·Â¢ e --1 Li-~--- 11 k " 34 I 1 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 9 1.- 1 1 11 111 -- --- i 1 111 1 HI 1 !. 1 2-1 Unlin 1 IST FLOOR 1 . 1, Il I ELEV. 100'-0-9 ' 1 -/ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ NORTH ELEVATION -12:12 "75 . 0 . .0 i r--Â· 1 1 1 --1 1 1 SKYUGHT - ADD RE1Â«JVE EXIST. NEW DORUER , * EGRESS WINDOWS 3 00 m! 19 1 11 1 L-11.1 1 12 : 9 1 11 11 1 1 -4 A 1-lila ; E--- 1 1 1 1 V : b '06 /B// FLO/Â£ iliell ~ ; I Â·Â·r et-ev. IM'-a' 111- - E-1; zi=. 1" !0 - In 111 - J - r In - 111 - -1 11 111 I -- 11 IiI 11 1. 11 4 1/r llc>o. lilli 11 -9 ELe/.100'-0 1 ORIGINAL STRLCILIRE EAST ELEVATION - . r--2.T % 1 9 AA 1 //1114 - r-- 0 Â«lai Â» ~ UE~~ ~ f MAINTAIN EXIST. ROOF UNE #... I E M.Â£*Of J .1 _ _ 1 ' n lili [51111-[PI'll'Ill'--~Jilf~III~1I1I2II1 9 21-2/ 00 -0 EXIST. METER LOCAION 6*RAGE APPITION + ~ VERTICAL SIDING ON NE# I 2 NEW WINDOWS ADDED O EXISITING ADDIT[)0 WEST WALL B-WERT-ELEVATION C-/,42' 44.C, L C,-7 .O,2 2 4Â© 1 92 At : 1 1 1 H 1 - â€¢Sed DIT, 1 SKYUGHT - ADD J 00=110 0Â«2Â«21- r-- ming i It I 1 0 0 017,01@ 'Mit{%04*42*21 . ..4 70 '100. 21.... loe -IÂ· ~~ ]3111 t=================0~0 -t - unil- 1 1111.l -U QUOI f ..6 1" FLOO. 11 11 11 lili 1 lili IiI 1 . Lei. 100-0' -1 ORIGINAL STRUCTURE EAST ELEVATION 1/4. â€¢ 1'-0- f Â· r-EXHIBIT-~-~ .M=*J 11 -2&3_2Â«--1 SICÂ·fueâ€¢Ti . / - ~ Â£Z-- *A'US,4-0% / 'th - 1 4 /7/4\/ 16 0. 06ULUOK )1 1 0 4 /0.-3 I I 1 -1\ Z.Ceoo,ts; . 1 e 0 -2 .. . r -- - 0 *- -I -- - -- ro. 60â€¢~10 'b ' W--- --2 lit + 1 I , ; ' \11 2. c.â€¢724Â·5 ' 3 ir#V=:. I 14 Ir 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 -719%$ : 0 , ./12\- ~OC/77'f-7%42-2-27228-_ _.. - - ~D.rh<77AL 2360 4 626770/7 4 5Â»v/q:~. 0 -- Â£7 -W .11.U .. - - - C-79 -4, -U , .. -7/ "/57-4 //014= lt' t. l@ fILL.. , bdI . -9 1 6 icd, c 31.W -â€¢5â€¢:rtte,4-A , - _ Z*XUGY'r ) *. 4Â»1 Â£ 1-Ame.,b= - . .1 /. 1 t SISTjjewt ~ acrue.-~ . . ZONING Â·U - Â·ezzÂ£- I. - ~11 t:~31 / rre===TE - *n.t . 6-,2.a~ 1444'06 WIr,0045- - rÂ· r-- .FÂ»CCM 6 of +44 T-0 - . 11 11. C ~19â€¢9Â·~1 S><lerz; /, 11' Il .. - 1 .--/0.-I.I --. --- .-\ 111 !11 - - - - .., . 1 --- \/L--211 =: 0 --1 W 1-1 - - '25Â¢/97-4 .140//94 --- 1 4' ' m ~- CrY/0/CAL 1 1 1 11 7 11 1 ; -, i . a -, . F'*Â· 7-- -t ?EV . - .r Â· -- j -nr/Â£400,1 4 I 11 1 1 1-- -1 . ** .* a~kA/%-I' - ' 1--54.7- - /--n - 4-43 - , , I- 4 *.Â·Â·:-- rpy:.. (-7 y . - ..7~-tÂ©Mbr.ze-EEVemOTEâ‚¬77--962.- 1' 3 -4... 5- G C )=e]*11-20 - . - --- .... 0..74*GFAA-.* g .r , .â€¢ Â·,u.,'â€¢Â· . r.x-â€¢,~Â«z 192Â·t<Â©rÂ·jÂ·~ 22-XLEÂ·*~ -.- 11-au EXHIBIT - 0 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 633 W. MAIN STREET CONCEPTUAL HPC DESIGN REVIEW, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, VARIANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, March 13,2002 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 Elizabeth Dart, requesting conceptual design and partial demolition approval for the property located at 633 W. Main Street, which is described as Lots A, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen. A rear yard setback variance of 10' is also requested. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5096, amyg@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Suzannah Reid, Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on February 23,2002 City of Aspen Account g:\planning\aspen\notices 0 REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 6 6 5 WEE-T /Â»af N ST , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 5-P#k, WEb, /9/Kott 1 5 , 200ZL STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, EUa.Aâ‚¬ET-HÂ· A Â· M-Â£r (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) o f the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: 4 Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the 0 Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, .1, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches-Wide 1 11 and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of lettefs ndt .0 61]AAN 3 1 less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least ten (1(1> day<#A.. vl g prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the 2%*y of fNE AJA-RÂ¥ ,2002 , to andincluding the date and time ofthâ‚¬'pu~lic ~,1/ headng. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. \~ Mailing ofnotice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class, postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application, and, at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses ofproperty owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and 0 governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) ,h Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in 0 any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment o f a new land use regulation, or othenvise, the requirement o f an accurate survey map or other stifficient legal description o f, and the notice to and listing of names and h ~ A addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. . 0/4 1 -42 Signature 1 The tgregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged beforelne t~i.Uf4ay of -*AÂ«=014 ,2002.>1 66 3~drdÂ·Â£ M. 61 + 0 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: f-1/lolot 00/ U ki. .O 8 0 (.KAREN C.\ R t-5 07Â©kn n <fÂ» 0 1 \BOMANNON / # Notary Public /<Pm X%Ei0" 533 8 Nof>d ,-0 , 3 401 1 6Â»- - tr,Ft-.,4 25 9 / lo / i ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL 0 A ./ 34 ' . --44 ... 1 .t ./ 1â€¢ Ne . 4 i F Â· k: 17 F- -~ -.. Nt - L - t : .- .... LE - ....'I., il'' 1 "~PUSLICNOTICE 1 DATE _ILL ~ TIME '.. t ..... 4- ' 4 0 '' -1. L'. 4,)/4 -f, h.'t -1 f. -. 14 I ... 4, I ...4. ''' 'j K.k . I J. 1 ,. 15. LI.C. , ALLEN DOUGLÂ» P ,ALLEN DOUGLAS P 15 W MAIN ST STE #201 520 E COUPER AVF STF 230 520 E COOPER AVE STE 230 SPF.N CO 81611 Â·\ Si-'F N (. 6 8 I 6 1 1 ARPEN CO 81611 ~ANSON WESTON 1 & ,<l'..r~ 2.1 . 9 i 9.1 <41 + 1 - 4.1 AKIKO ASPEN MIN RESCUE 8030 EL PASFO CRAN:)! 4 . }.1 4 i k . 2.i K :44 6-+ W MAIN 341 LA JOLLA C.Â·\ 92037 . i. i A ! f 1 . . -- .2 01 4 4 N 11Â· N CO 8 j A 1 1 1 2% .i... ASPEN/PITKIN COLry Y rei ..1 ''r}i f. T tÂ· Ul 7 1 F f , At! IHORI I Y . â€¢' L. Adi. C "' ' 4, \ IA C< S I 530 EMAIN ST . " 1 19 b c O 810 1 i . ASPEN CO R Ibi! I - BODERTHASUS.\\ M BRINK\11.Yi-4 -7]h A'. r< i. BRB AN NJÂ·!Fl}.A}! ,H)DI-H 719 W MAIN ST #286 2) 91\ ,)612 {'13 301 (' 76 ASPEN CO 81.511 44 14. N i 0 816 2 ,>PLN CO 81,113 . BUDSEY NIKEOR & SUSAN I Â·'2 ill..,ftÂ» 1(1 1 h 0...L E r. f In k k \ , 'Â· '.BL..E TRI 'ST i 728 W HOPKINS AVE -]C.1 .4 M.A IN S 1 2 - 1 i Z) / i t l,J i \, ' 1 . t ASPEN CO 81611 A>,PF \ 4 c.j Xihi, 1 % PE.\ , , :' 1 6 1 - :HRISIOPHER MAR]DE arroF 41.9[F\ :01'< ARELLA ROnt?RT & Rl.IZARRTH 121 5 N CIVIC CNTR BL\Â·' 113 (iALL j,i'\ br 5:. 41 'VIAIN tPT 374 \ RPEN O 'b:,1 1 , ,\<>'EN '.(, 3 3 , 1 SCOTTSALE AZ 8524 1 CROCAFTTAANK -'R %41:f OF TRI ft JOULTER G LYNNE DAN.if -i. \!FRIDITH NELSON & GARY PRICE Li\:IN(; IRLiT D I.,4 3(,PRI:6 'OBOX L] 10898 MAR:\ DR UPEN CO 816.2 ASI-'21 0) 34â€¢'u i 1,()S AI TOS 11!i I S CA 9-1,24 1~MID0N % MICHAELE Â£ dRiEr INC i '. ' '. '. i.' 1. ' I'' 30RKENHAGEN DAVID A 1255 MOUNT.ALK . fER PO B'JX 71- WIWMAINSI #D A>PEN CO 316] 1 ,\*Ph N i:(3 %1612 4SPEN CO 816!1-!6ig ... ; . , .. .. ~ Yj *-3.44 .\ Â·' ':'4 4.Â·A, i ~ .,4 . Â£ *.1. .... 4,4.,4 ' ~ â‚¬ ./ L/*172.- r k, r ./01 , 1 I [1.1.C, ANNE S FISH':il .1,\h b AlaRR,1 1% t ..iÂ»14'iNC ~ACIFIC .AVE KTF .11 'Ri htÂ·5 8.,1 \14!N KJ P[-4 , HANER it PO B('X 0%.7 ~S TX 7320! A:lu ...4 < 0 816,1 GOLDSMITH ELLEN 'If\')14\D \\> c f 11.'GY El.JZ.l",r' H r.VANS i 3 W :WAIN â‚¬ T i: 1 0 1 ASPFN CO 8(Gil ~li *14.:I:.f .......................WI'll'lill///g//Ill'll/JL,Ed/1/b '. V>Â»17,! tk ...'.~ g f v 11AL~ MICHAEI. DONGLAS & i-IAMLIN CONNIE F HANLE JEFFREY r TAI~) LISA YERKE 416 W'REPKINS PO BO.\ 1 <)06 125 9 7'TH 51 WFPEN CO 816 i I "APEN Co 914!2 \SPEN CO $1611 DIAYES MARY FAMILY P,\ IÂ·:1 N:~ -' h .W) ' 1'Â·\ TE~ : c r ir: 1 t., ' ./AÂ· HUNTI>(iTON TRUST CO NA TRUSTEE / ~TD LLLP i,i) i 3.<CR CONF P XEON (.OWELLSTRSTCNI'ROFNVATTNE J~ PO BOX 497 WIll I.AMC 1 ,! . I ASPEN CO 816 ! 2 1.7.111Â·\, i.~Â·di.'\ Â·! 3.1134 PO BOX 9 *21 111 NDERS'ON N\ 89009-5021 IGLEHART JIM ;1: 1 't 14 (11 : Rn-INSON Il.Ill:E A 610 WHALI.AMST 7 19 W \1.AIX ST #207 ASPEN CO 8161 1 A.SPE.< CO R i 6 i ' 4 . JOHNSON ST ANFORI ) ti . 11 \\,1 ill R FI P I<l,E'N DEBBIE PO BOX 32102 \ COLOR Â·\DO COR PORA'{HON TUCSON AZ %5751 i-,'it:,;M o.u.: 540 %1(:SKIMMiNG Rf) ASPEN L O 816} ; KNUIIT GLENDA C :\Clt L.i., ...6,1.1 0''I,-1 1 f 1 I .0 r i<:tif]DENE[Â·.R l'fi\Rll~,'\BLE FOUNDATION P(~ 00 3,-9 le- . ...1 1>(' 7â‚¬9 ' -13 LOC I.*\Thi- SNWHIMASS CO 816>4 \4!Tv 00 thll ')ES N.!4.)i>, 1?4 142. 30..09 L.LNBJ :i D LARY LANCER 1/2 Â· LEVIN \\ ILI,!AM A RE\' 1.1'v'1NG TRUST 49 WMAINST#.101 C.- r ) Ati.' I t Nic 739 4 01.0)1 )>.irll.f D j il-NK I,LZ 41'Â£723 \SPEN CO 8; 6 11 .\Lic YORK NY :01!9Â·0790 1<f)ME \1 1 3Â·; D. ,UU INVESTMENTS LLC [ \12 ALLÂ·UNDFK & WADS[k, 4.\RTH.-\ W. Â·35 E MAIN ST - 1 19 un:. \1: Â·Â· i ':fi, 4 k.5 W HOPKINS AVE Â·\1>T. 9 4SPEN CO 81611 Â»P] r t.-1 3 916.11 1%,ki :4, S ,&/; A M.ANCI. ARK \\Â·ILL!.111 & DARLEÂ·N AAEWEST LLC 11.Alt.41,ALL ELLEN \1 & THOMAS M ~ f R .., S I )0 BOX 3153 no Ril PRWDE AVE 3 13 1- Il .\.5' iÂ·RONI ISEEN CO 81612 BALBOA iSLAND 03 92Â§62 19*N â‚¬0 81611 WAWICKIE FREDERICK H 41(-GARVFY IAMLS N TR & K.\,l L.jÂ·\ S \Â·114.1 1% GRAIMF. 99 W MAIN #205 81 POATIL VEDRA BI.vil 189 Ul .ADWOOD DR \SPEN CO 8!611 PONTE VEDRA BEACH n 32082 AfFEN l. () 81611-334[ -.â€¢~~ ;If ~MRI CRISTINA & 1-).AN [F Ul-YER r *BRA XÂ·In'lk '4'..\RN iNNE 620 E HYMAN AVE I 34 S . 71 1 N T 14'.3 130\ It 238 Â·ASPEN CO 81611 Â·ASPEN CO 81611 Aii-%.h Â£ 0 81612 .-451. 8 ':11.7. 447.*.......I...--Il----# 11~US,AN $0011 & Rl 'SSELL Ni VINS ROBER : 11 & WENDY S ONEIL BRIAN & SUZANNE PO BOX ]1433 PO BOX 199 kSPEN CO 81612 44/l N CO, 84,1 . -FAVERNIFR FL .13070 3:.%1.49*)44*-2 :f' 7. â€¢ ihf hy'N li'fÂ·? fOLSHAN Bl.'RTON D 1/2 ( 57.1.IVAN MiKE & USA p5408 DID LEEDS R D PO BOX 1 17, Â®RMINGH.AM AL .:,3211,1 ..\NPE'. (,1 41617 PARKER GALE M , e .1.; ?EARSON \! \RK M & LiES M PO BOX J Â·19(j -02 W MA'X S f ASPEN CO RihIC AS:'pÂ· h CO 8 !61 1 R RID BETSY M r y. HROIDER SARA 59 FALLON DR 611 Mi\lb ST 42 NORTH HAVEN C'f f )64 -; 1.,PiÂ« CO 8161! SHADOW' MTN CORP C~ES 1-11-GHES &:< , -Â·.Â·\!.k, 14 3>.i. \1 1 A hi D 1 \ROE [-f.IE< LLC 12(,4 LE<H \FAIN ('FEW .l: \SDi'.N ( O Hlf,11 AS~ CO 81611 STARFORD PROPERilliic N\+ I.\:LOR. mii'\ IA KEON WILMAM- 00 *10~ 1 3.1.31 4A30 V.' THOMPS( )\ LA :.i... -* 530 BILTMORE WAY OTH FL CORAL GABLES FL 33134 ltÂ·l'Â«Â·.1,4.K <.4 4.7 4 ti \RH \No V,1 <4Â·10 TERRY TONYA M AiROLI 3( 4 4 : g. i i J (.84(Il H 811.1 1 Â·1>.1 744 W HOPKINS AVE ;,17 W N,tÂ·% :iN N I Pi-1 11(-)A "Â¢98 ASPEN CO 81611-1664 \Spr' CA gif i I ASPEN ( O 816!2-1 498 \*11MR \ UNDA 50'11 INTEREST TONER MARK K VALLEY 11!A PIALL i FRES.\ 50% iNTEREST 719 W MA]N ST #103 -40 W HOPKiÂ» AN P 61'' W iNtÂ·\IN Sl ASPEN CO 8 1 611 ASPEN CO 81611 *SPE.A ' o giGi 1 VILLARI JOHN TRUST *br \!.1-'RILD P .JR U CIEN J ROBERI C/O HERBERT NECHIN WESI I.OR.ALEE S 709 W MAIN S r 12 GRT-ENBRAR LN 120 N LASALLE ST 38TH FL ASPEN CO 81611 CHICAGO it, 60002 PAOL.I 11\ 14301 WESTCHESTER ]NVESTATENI S IM. jÂ·\ 1-1;TrIELD DONN,Â·\MARIE C CORPORA HON I RL-<T Crl<-1-}:R ~T HOPKINS CONDO A><SI)(. IATION 122 U 1-r<,PKIN< AVE #43 1209 DRANUF 8 f ,\SPUN (.:0 8161 1 KII.MINGTON DE. 1 ,%0 1 %1211'b,Tridblid"Ill"li'"=Ii'Ii...Ii'-I-* . r J 3,.:0**~.' :*4Â¥:*z V<4*45 pz~*24*<44*: . ~INGSIDNE TOY COMPANY ! ' c WORTH HOLDINGâ‚¬ 11,( YDUNG DAN:Al D L G RIAR LN PO BOX 3334 617 W MAIN .ST 19301 \VOK (71 4620'- ~ ASPEN CO 9,44 j + .. c': . 144 ;rupÂ» 1 .r#Â·60 + -4 : , - ..E ./ 1719*2Â¢4~ 9-1 1 ~EGLER JUSTIN C ~19 W MAIN ST #202 .SPEN CO 8!611 . 1 A. V - -. Saturday-Sunday, February 23-24,2002 â€¢ The,Aspen Times 33-B . PUBLIC NONCE forth m Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Department In additton, the Applicant shall sulfâ€¢~ PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE requests for the Final PUD including Final PUD mit a fire safety plan for the demolition of the existing RE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD# SUBDIVISION FINAL' RE WARREN AND DIANE; LICHTENSTEIN SIDE ORDINANCE No 7 Development Plan, Subdinsion, Condomintumiza structures and the construction of the proposed PUD REVIEW FOR I OT 3 (TOP OF MILL SITE) YARD SETBACK VARIANCE (Case # 02-Â·08) SERIES OF 2002 tion, Mountain View Plane, Special Review, GMQS development of Lot 3 to the Engineering Department at the NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing AN ORDINANCE OF 1 HE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL Exemption, 8040 Greenline Review, and Rezoning time of building permit application will be held on Monday March 11, 2002, at a will be held on Tuesday, Mar, h 5, 2002 to begin APPROVING THE FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVEL- for Lot 3 of the Aspen Mountain PUD is recorn- 13 The Applicant shall executea'Line Extension Request" meeting to begin at 5.00 p m before the Aspen at 5 30pm, or as soon thereafter as the conduct of OPMENT APPLICATION INCLUDING St IBI )11 mended for approved with the following condi and a 'Collection System Agreement ' with ASCD prior to City Council, Council Chambers, 130 S Galena St, business allows at the 000,missioner's Meeting SION CONDOMINIUM]ZATION, MOUNTAIN VIEW tions stated herein building permit application In addition, forty percent PLANE SPECIAL REVIEW, GROWTH MANAGE- 1 -Fhe defelopment shall comply with the most (40%) of the est,mated total connection fees must be paid Aspen, to consider an application qubmitted hy Room of the Courthouse, 506 East Main Street, MENT QUOTA EXEMPTIONS (GMQS), 8040 recent municipal engineering practice standards to ACSD by the applicant for service lines that are to be Four Peaks Development Corporation. requesting Aspen before the Pitkin County Board of Adiust GREENLINE REVIEW, AND REZONING FOR THE and the "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) stubbed off the main line mto the specific parcels of thiq knal PUD and "Subdiviston" approval to develop ment, to ionsider an application submitted by Top OF MILL SITE TO LODGE / TOURIST RESI identified for water quality control requirements development Lot 3 to include Warren and Diane Lichtenstein, requesting a DENT[AL PUD AND C<)NSERVATION LOT 3 OF 2 The Applicant shall meet with the Housing Au 14 The Applicant shall be required to show to 20 â€¢ 5 Free Market Single Family Residences foot west side yard setback variance where THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD, CITY AND TOWN- thority Staff to readdress the type of units 01 the the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District all 20 â€¢ 1 Free Market Duplex feet is required, for the conâ€¢truction of a swim- SITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO four (4) deed-restricted inulti-family housing service locatins at the station numbers on the final utility â€¢ 6 Free Market Multi-Family Units ming pool and landscaped patio area on this 1.55 PARCEL NO 2737-182-85Â·003 units on Parcel 2 to see if one or both of the du plans for this development Prior to â€¢ 4 Deed Re,tricted Aftordable Housing Units acre lot in the R-30 Zone District The property 19 WHEREAS, the Community Development plex units could be converted into one-bedroom building permit application Addmonally, the ApÂ· The proposed PUD on Lot 3 requires the follow- located at 777 Spruce Street and is legally descri- Department received an application from Top of and/or twoÂ·bedroom type units while still meet- plicant shall undicate to the Aspen Consolidated ing actions to be taken by City Council bed as a tract of l,Ind situated in the NE 1/4 of Mill Investors, LLC 0/0 Four Peaks Development, Ing the bedroom and square footage require- Sanitation District if mam line easements in the â€¢ Final PUD Development Plan Section 7 Township 10 South Range 85 West of LLC (Applicant), represented by Vann Assoct. ments under the Multifamily Housing Replace- ROW are to be dedicated by plat or by devrti> â€¢ Subdiwsion the 6th P M ates, requesting FInal Planned Unlt 1)evelopment ment Progiam and the other requirements stated tion â€¢ GMQS Exemptions For further information contact Joanna Schaffner (PUD) approval for Lot 3 of the Aspen Mountaln in the Code (specifically the parking require- 15 The Applicant shall record the approved conl â€¢ Rezoning from R-15 & Conservation to L/TR at the Pitkin Community Development Depart- PUD (hereinafter "AMPUDD, and ment) Should 12 not be possible to change. the dominium ,ubdivision plat for Parcels 1, 2, and 3 - â€¢ Special Review WHEREAS, Top of Mill Investors,1 LLC c/o unit type, Staff would recommend that the appli 01 AMPUD Lot 3 m the oilice of the Pitkin County ment, 070) 920-5105 â€¢ Mountain View Plane Pitkin County Board of Adjustment Four Peaks Development LLC requested specific cant meet with Housing Authority Staff to main- Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty â€¢ 8040 Greenline Review Published in The Aspen Times on February 23, land use appropal, as part of the Final PUD in- tain the average of the Category 2, but to price (180) days of its approval by the Community DeÂ· â€¢ Condomintumization 2002 (8394) cluding Final PUD Development Plan, Subdmsion one of the three bedroom units between Catego-' velopment Director Failure on the part of the applicant to The property is legally described as Lot 3, Aspen Condominiumization, Mountain View Plane, Spe- ry 1 and 2, and to price the 4-bedroom unit be- record the plat within one hundred Mountain Subdivlmii and PUD, and is referred to cia] Review, GMQS Exemption, 8040 Greenline Re- tween Category 2 and 3, and market as a latego- eighty (180) davs following appro,al by the Community as the Top of Mill Site PUBUC NOTICE view, and Rezoning, and ry 3 Development Director shall render the plat invalid and a RE RAFTING COMPANY SPECIAL RrVIEW FOR WHEREAS, Savanah Limited Partnership, 3 Three 01 the units on Parcel 2 shall be dist nt} new applicaW,n and approval will be required For further Information, contact Fred Jarman at COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL USES ON OPEN owner at the time of Lot 3 of AMPUD, recdved uted and sold under the general lottery through 16 The Applicant shall record a PUD Agreement the Aqpen/Pitkin Community Development De- SPACE AND COUNTY OWNED PROPERTY OR Conceptual PUD approval from City Council for the Housing Office The Applicant shall be able and the Final PUD Plans within 180 days d the final partment, 130 S Galena St, Aspen, CO (970) 920- Council with ROADS (PO1802) AMPUD on December 6, 1999 which is memorial- to choose a buyer for one of the units However, approval by City the Pitkin 5102 or by email at fred}@u aspen co us . NOTK F IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public he.tring ized through Resolution No 93, Series of 1999, the buyer must be a fully qualified employee un- County Clerk and Recorder binding this property WHelen Kalm Kianderud, Mayor -11 be held on Wednesday, March 27,2002 at a and der the category for the unit chosen by the appll- to this developnient appropal Aspen City Council regular meeting to bewn at 3.00 PM or as soon WHEREAS, Top of Mill Investors LLC re- cant, le, the potential buyer must meet Income 17 The development of the free market single- Published in The Aspen Times on February 23, thereafter as the conduct of business allows, be- ce. ed an Amended Conceptual Approval from and asset requ:rements, meet minimum occupan family dweilings proposed for Parcels 4-8 of AMPUD Lot 3 2002 (8398) fore the Board of County Commissioners Plaza City C ouncil for Lot 3 AMPUD on May 29, 2001 cy, not own any other property in th, Roaring shall be subject to a bite and design specifi 8040 One Conference Room, 530 E Main St, Aspen to whxh is memorialized through Resolution No 50, Fork Drainage System, and have worked in Pitkin Greenline Review prior to their development These PUBLIC NOTICE consider an application submitted by Peter D Series 2001 wid County 1500 hours per year for the last four Parcels shall only be required to respond to review VO MILE RANCH 1 RUST, LLC Hicks to obtain permits for commercial rafting WHEREAS, the Housing Office, the City Zon years standards 26 68 030 (C)(3) and 26.68 030 (C)(7), thli~ on the Roaring Fork River, using Jaffe Park and ing OU]cer, the City Engineer, the Parks Depart- 4 The Applicant shall submit Infrastructure and resolution recommends approval for Parcels 4- 8 regard,~11111& 7-qUTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing Wingo Junction as launching and take-<,ut areas me/t, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the Removal of Fill Matenal Permits for Lot 3 AMPUD 8040 Greenline Review Standards 26.68 030 (C) (1, 2,4, 1~ will be held on Tueiday, March 5 2002, to begin The application/rebolution are milable for pub- Environmental Health Department, the City Fire within 10 (30) days after recordation of dil Final 8. ./-". at 5 30pm, or as soon thereafter as the conduct of llc inspection in the Community Development De- Department the City Streets Department, the PIJD documents The Applicant may submit 10, and 11) thereby precluding any luther review of the business allows, at the Commistoner s Meeting partment, City Hall, 130 S Galena St, A.pen CO ('tty Parking Department the City 8'ater Depart- building permit applitations at the Applicant's same standards as m{licated Room of the Courthouse, 506 East M/n Street, 81611 ment, and the City Electric Department reviewed discretion, but no sooner than the issuance of a 18 The Applteant shall pay the required School Aspen, before the Pitkin County Board of Adjust- For further intormation, contact Brian McNellis at the development proposal for Lot 3 and provided bulldmi permit for the Bavarlan Inn affordable Land Dedication fee to the City of A,pen, which ment to consider an application submitted by (970) 920-5092 written referral comments as a result of the De housing project The Applicant shall be eligible 19 due and payable at the time 01 building permit Two Mile Ranch rrubt, LLC, requesting a height Jeanette ]ones, Deputy County Clerk velopment Review Committee meeting and for a ( ertificate of Occupancy for the free market application for the development This fee shall be varlance to change the grade m excess of the 30 Board of County Commissioners WHEREAS, the Applicant appropnately ap- multi-family units on Parcel 1 only after a Certifi- asse,sed at the rate of the regulations and calculations in Htch height restriction to allow for the construe- Pubhshed m The Aspen T,mes on February 23. plied for specific land use approvals pursuant to cate of Occupan.y has been issued for the afford- effect at the tlme of the bullding permit application tion 01 a driveway for th,4 245 aire pdrcel in the 2002 (8382) the June 1996 reprint of Title 26, Land Use Regu able housing units on Parcel - 2 The Applicant 19 The Applicant shall pay the required Park DeÂ· RS-20 Zone District The property ts located at Ideas, of the 1995 Aspen Municipal Code for the shall be eligible for a Certificate o[ Occupancy for velopment Impact Fee to the City of Aspen which M due 3448 Woody Creek Road and 16 legally described PUBLIC NOTICE Final PUD for Lot 3 AMPUD including Final PUD the Free Market Duplex on Parcel 3 and the sin- and payable at the time of building permit application fol as Lot 15 and those portions 01 Lots 8,9 14,16, and 17 situated m Section 23, Township 9 Sc>uth, RE LEONARD WALDBAUM SIDE YARD SETBACK Development Plan, Subdmsion. Condonmuumiza- gle-famil> unit. to be constructed on Parcels 4, 5, the development This fee shall be assessed at the rate of Range 85 West of the 6th PM, aka Two Mile \'ARIANCE (Case # 02-06) tion Mountain View Plane Special Review, 6, 7 and 8 no sooner than the receipt of a Certifi- the i egulations and calculations in effect at the time of the Ranch NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing Growth Management Quota Exemptions, 8040 cate of Occupancy for an on-site accessory dwell- building permit application For further Information contact Joannd Schaffner will be held on Tuesday, March 5 2002, to begln Greenline Review, and Rezoning, and ing unit or upon the full payment of the applica- 20 rhe Applicant shall record the appropriate at the Pitkin Community Development Depart- at 530pm or as soon thereafter as the conduct of WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26304 060 ble affordable housing impact fee mint, (970) 920-5105 deed restictions for Parcel 9, containing the <,ix bu,iness allows, at the Commissioner's Meeting of the Land Use Code, and in consultation with 5 The accessory dwelling units (lor Parcels 4 - 8) space enclosed parking garage, requiring that the lot Pitkin County Board of Adjustment Room of the Courthouse, 506 East Mall Street, - the applicant the Community Development Di- shall abide by the regulations iii the Land Use remain for parking purposes only as part of the Summit IPublished m The Aspen Times on February 23, Aspen, before the Pittan C ounty Board of Adjust- rector has permitted a modification in review Code in effect at the time of building permkt appli- Place Condommiums project 2002 (8391) ment To consider an Application submitted by procedures to combine the Final PUD Develop- eaten and further defined in the Aspen/Pitkin 21 It is understood that upon approval of this Fi c ment Plan, Subdivision, Condommiumization, County Housing Guidelines Should an accessory nal PUD, all rem/ning residential credits associ Leonard Waidbaum, requesting ~ 7 foot side yard Mountatn View Plane, Special Review, GMQS Ex- dwelling unit not be provided on Parcels 4 ated with the Aspen Mountain PUD are hereby PUBLIC NOTICE fetback variance, where 10 feet is required for RF SNOWMASS CORPORATION HIGHWAY SETÂ· the construct,on of a Ingle family residence on emption, 8040 Greentine Review. and Rezoning re- thmugh 8, a payment-in heu fee shall be provided extinguished view for the purposes of ensuring economy of m the amount required in the Guidelines at the 22 The Applicant shall be required to submit de- BACK VARIANCE this 0.33 acre kit in the AFR 1 0 Zone District rhe tailed Lut sheet, lor ll.e proposed [ls*t, on Lot 3 AMPUD time and clanty and tmle of building permit approval (Case # 02-09) property is located at 0918 Castle Creek Road WHEREAS such re\,ew procedure modifica 6 At the time of Certificate of Oicupancy, a site indicating the correct lumens on the lighting plan as part NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing and is legally described as Section 13, lownshlp tion has not lessened any pulblic hearing noticing visit shall be conducted on the deed-restricted of the detailed building set to be examined during building will be held on Tuesday, March 5, 2002, to begin 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P M or any scrutiny of the proJect as would otherwise units permit review at 5 30pm, or as soon thereafter as the conduct of For further information COntdlt Joanna Schaffner be required, and, 7 Since the "for-sale" affordable housing units are 23 The Apphcant shall work closely with the City of Aspen at the Pitkin Community Development Depart- WHEREAS, upon reliew of the application to be developed on a separate parcel, Parcel 2, a Engineering Department to ensure the access point Moin business allow~, at the Commissioner + Meeting ment, (970) 920-5105 referral comments, and the applicable Land Use separate ' homeowner's association shall be estab- Parcel 1 on Lot 3 adequately provules for a left turn onto Room of the Courthouse, 506 East Main Street, Pitkin County Board of Adjustment Code standards the Community Development Di lished for the affordable housing portion of the South Mill Street Aspen, before the Pitkin County Board of Adiuqt Published in The Aspen Times on February 23, rector recommended approval of the Final Aspen development 24 While the development proposal meets virtu ment To ton,ider an application submitted by 2002 (8392) Mountain PUD land use requests for Lot 3 with 8 The Applicant shall include appropriate tan ally all of the proposed underly,nq L/TR and Conservation the Snowmasi Corporation, requesting a 175 foot conditions, and guage in the Final PUD Agreement for Lot 3 and zone districts' dimensional requirements, this Ordinance approves the following modifications of the dimensional ArterIal Highwy setback var,ance where 200 feet PUB[ IC NOTICE WHEREAS, the Planning 'and Zoning Com- it'~ associated condominium documentation re- Is required, for the conversion of an exicting non- RE 118 E COOPER AVENUE-FINAL HPC DESIGN mission forwarded a recommendation of appro- garding the separate hoineowner s association requirements a Maximum Lot Size for Parcel 3 r. 15,598 sq ft conforming triplex into a duplex on this 045 acre REVIEW val to the City Council, by a vote of four to one (4 for Lot 3 (to be rewewed and approved by Staff b Max,mum Lot Size for Parcel 4 is 12,182 sq It ' lot in the AFR-10 Zone District I he property Is NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing - 1), Final PUD Development Plan, SubdivIsion, that ensures that the four (4) "for-sale" affordable e Mdximum Lot Size for Paice] 5 is 10,416 sq ft will be held on Wednesday, March 13,2002 at a Condominiumization, Mountain View Plane Spe- housing units, to be developed on Parcel 2, shall d Maximum Lot Size for Parcel 6 is 10,232 sq ft located at 24472 Highway 82 and is legally descri- meet,ng to begin at 500 pm before the Aspen cial Review, GMQS Exemption 8040 Greenline Re- comply with the representations made in the ap- e Max,mum Lot Size for Parcel 7 19 17,914 sq ft bed as a tract of land situated in Tracts 55 and Historic Pre~ervation Commission, Council 57, Sectton 17, Township 8 South, Range 85 West Chambers, City Hall 130 S Galena St, Aspen, to wew, and Rezoning for Lot 3 AMPUD, and phcation, adhere to the conditions of this Final f Maximum Lot Size for Parcel 8 ts 19 048 sq ft consider an application submitted by Little Red WREREAS, this ordinance, as adopted, m PUD Approval, and comply with the required g Minimum Lot Size for Parcel 9 is 2,794 4 ft 01 the Gth P M Ski Haus LLC, requesting final design approval corporates all the relative and applicable Co,Id' deed revtnctions as admnistered by the Aspen / h Minimum Lot Size lor Open Space Parcel B is , For further information contact Joanna Schaffner The property is located at 118 E Cooper Avenue, lions of approval formerly contained in Resolu. Pitkin County Housing Authonty so that the own- 49,214 sql ft at the Pitkin Commumty 1)evelopment Depart- and is legally described as Lot O and the west tion No 93, Series of 1999 granting Conceptual ers of said units shall not be unduly burdened by 1 Minimum Front Yard Setback for Parcel 9 is 8 mint, (970)920-5105 half of Lot P, Block 69, City and Townsite of As- PUD Approval to Lot 3 AMPUD by City Council a disproportionate share of responsibilities asso- feet pen and Resolution No 50, Series of 2001 granting ciated with the master homeowner's associadon i Minimum East bide Yard Setback for Parcel 9 is 3 feet .A':tkin County Board of Adjustment For further mformat,on, contact Amy Guthne at Amended Conceptual PUD Approval to Lot 3 AM- or other homeowner associations established for k MinInium West Side Yard Setback for Parce]~ lished in The Aspen Times on February 23, the Aspen/ Pltkin County Community Develop- PUD by City Counctl thereby allowing this ordi- the free market residences on Lots 1 and 3-8 19 3 feet 2 (8395) ment Department, 130 S Galena St, Aspen, CO nance to supersede those resolutions regarding 9 The Applicant shall submit erosion control 1 Minimum Rear Yard Setback for Parcel 9 (970) 920-5096, aniyg@ci aspen co us s/Suzannah Reid,Chair the conditions of approval as stated herein, and planâ€¢; including potential natural resource protee feet PUBLIC NOTICE ation Commission WHEREAS the Aspen City Council has re- tion structures and a detailed plan for irrigation Section 3 RE JUDITH AND ARNOLD HORWICH HEIGHT Publis in The Aspen Times on 3, viewed and considered the development propos- systems and other plantings with in the City of All material repreâ€žentations and commitments VAR]ANCE (Case # 0245) (8401) a[ under the applicable provisions of the applloa- Aspen nght of way to the Parks Department for made by the Applicant pursuarft to the developÂ· NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that a public heari le Municipal Codes as [dentihed herein, has re- approval prior to the application of building per- ment proposal approvals ds herein awarded, will be held on Tuesday, March 5,2002, to gin PUBUC NOTICE vie ed and considered the recommendation 01 mits whether in public hearing or documentation presented < at 530pm, or ds soon thereafter as the co uct of RE 633 W MAIN STRFILT CONCEPTUAL HPC DE- the mmunity Development Director. the Plan- 10 The Appilcant shall construct the *Aspen before the Aspen (.Ity Councll, are hereby Incorporated m business allows, at the Commissioner s Meeting SIGN REVIEW. PARTIAL DEMOLITION, VARI*ICE ning an Zoning Commission, the Aspen / Pitkin Mountain Trail which traverses the adiacent such plan development approval. and the same shall be Room of the Courthouse, 506 East 111 Street, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing County = using Authority the 'applicable referral Open Space Parcel 'B" according to City of Aspen complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended Aspen, before the Pitkin County Boar of Adlust- will be held on Wedne,ddy, March 13, 2002 at a agenctes, a d has taken and considered public standards during the completion of this project by an authorized entity mint To consider an application bm:tted by meeting to begin at 5 00 pm before the Aspen comment at a ublic hearing and This trail improvement shall meet engineering Section 4 Judith and Arnold Horwich, requesti g a 3 loot Historic Preservation Commission, City Hall, 130 WHER , the CitÂ¥ of Aspen City Council specifications as defined by the City 01 Aspen This Ordinance .hall not effect anÂ¥ existing littgatin and height variance, where 30 .nches 16 the maximum S Galena St, Aspen to consider an application findc that the development proposal meets or ex- Parks Department Including a crucher fines trail shall not operate as an abatement of any action cir height allowed for the construction f a driveway submitted by Elizabeth Dart, requesting concep- credk all ap 1cable development standards and surface, a width of four feet, a trall sign located at the proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the tual design and partial demolitIon approval for that the appr val ol ne development proposal entrance of each trall identifying trail name and public ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and access to this 3.55 acre lot m 0 AFR-10 Zone the property located at 633 W Main Street, which with conditions, is consâ€žtent with the goals and access, and the 61*1 shall be designed and built to match the garne shall be conducted and concluded under such District The property is located at 0485 West is described as Lots A, Block 25, City and TownÂ· elements of the A pen Area C ommunity Plan and the character of the neighbor-hood The Applicant shall prior ordinances Buttermilk Lane and is legally escribed as a site 01 Aspen A rear yard setback variance of 10 WHEREAS the Cm of A,pen City Council submit a detailed plan for trail design and drainage Park, Section 5 tract situated in Lot 13, Section -10-85, West of is also requested hereby approve., by a vote of - to - O - Department requests the applicant field stake the trail H any mtion. subsection sentence. clauge, the 6th Principal Mendian In t West Butter- For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at _), a Final PJD Development Plan, Subdivision, The Applicant shall be required to have the trail im phrase, or portion of this Ordinance 13 for any niilk/ Aspen Oaks Subdiwsion the Aspen/' Pitkin Community Development De- Condommiumizanon, Mountain View Plane, Spe- provement iompleted and inspected to the satis-faction of reason held invalid or uncomtitutional in a court For further iniormation contact J anna khaffner partment, 130 S Galena St, Aspen, CO (970) 920 cial Review, q|AQS Exemption, 8040 Greenline Re- the Parks Department pnor to the receipt of a Certificate of competent Jurisdiction, quch portion shall be at the Pitkin Community Devel ment Depart- 5096, amyg@ci aspen co us Mew, and Rezon)hq for Lot 3 AMPUD, and of Occupancy for ihe free market triplexes on Parcel 1 deemed a 9eparate, distinct and independent provision ment, (970) 920-5105 s/Suzannah Reid, Chair WHERE;IS, the City of Aspen City Council 11 The Apphcant shall formalb establish the rop of M,11 and shall not affect the validity 01 the remaining portions Pitkin County Board of Adjustment Aspen Historic Preservation Commission hnds that t s Ordinance furthers and is necessa- Trail across Lot 3 AMPUD This trail shali have a legal thereof Publi,hed in The Aspen Times on bruary 23, Published in The Aspen Times on February 23, ry for the romotion of public health, sajety and description, be shown on the Fmal Plat, and be Section 6 2002 (8393) 2002 (8397) welfare dedicated/conveyed to the City of Aspen Further, the A public hearing on this Ordinance was held on â€¢ the lith day of March dt 5.00 pm in the Council NOW, EREFORE, BE [T ORDAINED BY THE Applicant shall memorialize in the FInal PUD / Subdivlsion Chambers Room, Aspen tity Hall, Aspen Colora PUBI IC 307 ICE ASP CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS Agreement for Lot 3 and associatedcondominium do, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a pub RE 950 MATCHLESS DR[VE- FINAL SIGNIFI T PUBUC NOTICE Se ion 1 documentations, the obligation by the master DESIGN REVIEW Of lic notice of the same was published in a newspa rsuant to this Ordinance and consistent with homeowner's asso- NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL per of general circulation within the City of A, condition no 3, of Resolution No 93, Serws of clatlon or Applicant to Improve the eastern por- will be held on Wednesday, March 13.2002 at a No . hereby given to the general publ of pen meeting to begin at 5.00 p m before the Aspen the appro f a site spectf]. dev .nt plan, 1999, the City Council approves the allowable boo of the Top of Mill Trail at such time the con- INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED Histork Preservahon Commission Council and the creation o e property right pur FAR tor each Lot 3 parcel and allocated as shown nection is realized, pursuant to the Parks Department's as provided by law, by the City Council of the Chambers, City Hall, 130 S Gatena St, Aspen, to suant to the Land Use Code of the City of A'.pen in the matrix below design ctiteria If the trail has not been improved to the City of Aspen on this 25th day 01 February, 2002 consider an applâ€žation submitted by Alan Beck- and Title 24, Article 68. Colorado Revised Stat- Parcel No Maimum Allowable FAR satisfaction of the Parks Department within 5 years of the . Attest er requesting final significant HPC design rev]/w utes, pertalmng to the following described propÂ· Parcel 1 27,000 square feet 01 FAR recordation of the [mal Plat for AMPUD Lot 3, the master Kathryn S Koch, City Clerk , The properly is located at 950 Matchiess Drive erty Lots K-M, Block 51, City and Townsite of As- Parcel 28000 square feet of FARt homeowner's association for Lot 3 shall make a Cash Helen Kahn Klanderud, Mayor Lot 4A of the Dunn/bhop Subdivision Exemp- pen, by Ordinance of the Aspen City Council Parcel 39,000 square reet of FAIt payment to the City of Aspen equal to d sum defined by FINALLY, adopted, passed ind approved thlb hon, City and Townstte of Aspen numbered 3, Series of 2002 The approval ls for Parcel 4 6.20{) square feet of FAR the Parks Department for the improvement of the trail tlth Day of March, 2002 For lurther information, contact Amy Guthrie at an addition of 8 lodge rooms and 2 employee Parcel 55,200 square feet of FAR 12 The Applicant shall mstat! hre sprinklers and Attest Al~,e Aspen/ Pitkin County Community Develop- housing units to the existing lodge Parcel 65,200 square feet of FAR alarm systems m all the proposed buildings on Kathryn S Koch, Cit) G~~ t Department, 130 5 Galena St, Aspen, CO For further information 130 S Galena St, Aspen, Parcel 7 6,500,quare feet of FAR Lot 3 as required by the City of Aspen Fire Mar- Helen Kahn Klanderue 9 920-5096, amyg@ci aspen co u, Colorado (970) 920Â·5090 Parcel 86,500 square feet of FAR shal rhe Applicant shall use appropriate "boos Approved ab to form s/Su,annah Reid Chair s/City Clerk, City of Aspen Parcel 9 No FAR shall be allocated to this parcel ter pumps" Of required) rather than pre,sure john Worcester, City Attorney Aspen H~storic Preservation Commision Publish in The Aspen Times on February 23 2002 Section 2 tanks for the sprinkler iystem to gam the neces- Published m The Aspen Times February 23, 2002 , Published in The Aspen Times on February 23, (8399) 2002 (840()) Pursuant to the procedures and standards set sary water pressure as required by the City nre (8383) I 34-B The Aspen Times Weekly â€¢ Saturday -Sunday, February 23-24,2002 ASPENDMES11*EKLY service directory 925-9937 fax: 925-5647 email: classifieds@aspentimes.com -. Service Directory _â‚¬at r-Weit at Utome- ~ Service Directory Service Directory 3250 Remodeling ~Without the ~Work 2300 Health & Beauty 2510 Internet 1000 Miscellaneous Services Experienced Cook TIRED OF THE POOR Reasonable rates. Valley wide service. Call Gina at 963-4224 Rocky %74:1 Image 1- 14,9.0 1466 De,i,â€¢ ' 44 N#441Â¢3#5 CELL PHONE SIGNAL IN - - to discuss your needs Call Today for a .* I.;44-'*IÂ·<41Â·I, ... Full Service Family Hair Design yOUR OFFICE OR HOME? Nail Service â€¢ Lash Tinting FREE Consultation! 925-1585 1830 Decorating/Int. Design ~ European & Institute 2 97&920416 REMODELING SPECIALIST Facial Treatments BTS Wireless can provide a solution Now offering in your area Body Waxing 1 1 www.ayenwebdes<gn.com , to allow your cell phones to work - - Hand Forged, Glass Fire Doors Therapeutic Massage 3260 Repairs ~ where they don't now We can 2750 Massage & Fire Screens. FEATURING: 6-~ 4- k engineer and install the proper Deflachett Flumbin Hand-made Kitchen Pot Racks * system for any situation. & other commission work available.i Nick Padilla F , A Great Massage...Guaranteed! .Cuetom Bath & Kitchen Inlteri~ ~ Don't miss out on those important Specializing in: There are 168 hours in a week! â€¢Flumbil'10 repairs/custorn rerrlooleâ€ž~ ~ calls at home or the office / 970-325-0201 The latest chunky/choppy~ w#.bt#eless.com ~ DESIGNER Manicures â€¢ Pedicures Fred Thiemer, LMT. Spend at least 1 hour getting â€¢Tile: showers/ pane/ baths/ floore cuts â€¢ Full service family hair massage therapy with... Bok (970)618-6522 1 EL 303-956-3806 design bobdeplachett@yahoo.com He Eaire: â€¢ Murals Â· Pictures Â· Lash Tinting â€¢ Body Waxing A Great Massage 948-8842 Ornimental Reasons â€¢ Portraits 3630 Tutorial Â· Furnitures. Bring this ad amt receive , <5Â·Â°Â° 011 1 st service 2950 Painting SPANISH CONNECTION ' ARE YOU HAFFY WITH YOUR He Daigns: â€¢ Furniture â€¢ CURRENT SERVICE? Ornamental Objects â€¢ Logos :10Â·Â°Â° off Chemical Service Coareey Paints & R&R Painting Translation, interpretation, â€¢ Signs â€¢ Warnings â€¢ Illustrations. (Nick only) Have Joined Forces instruction Housekeeping & Froperty Management Reliable, eelf-motivated, Englieh epeakin0 E-mail: renatoqaz@hotmail.com Sorry no credit cards couple w/referencee. We offer a flexible scheduls to meet your needle. (970)-544-5351 Â· 1018 Grand Ave. â€¢ Glenwood Springs Two Superior Comparing Call Elaine Harvey: www.rockymtnimage ONE GREAT PRICE! 970-963-7421 Satisfaction guaranteed! Tom or Barb, (970)527-2440 M-F 9-6 â€¢ Sat. 9-4 - 010 or emall, we do it alll Evening By Appointment 3850 Worship Walk-Ins Welcome Give a sall for your fric Estimate. Detail Cleaning Get them lining 945-2652 En Espanol. Domingos 6 a 8pm. Jay Coareey, (970)379-7404 IGLESIA DEL Dios Vivo Cultos & Reorganizing of your home or business. lip fo'. ijoill 2450 Home Improvement/Repair 3000 Pet Care Jueves 7a9 pm. Para mayor Informacio, (970) 923-3598. Regular or one time-cleaning. References â€¢ Resonable Rates Increase your business WHOLESALE KITCHEN & 970-309-2982 with little â‚¬(fortf BATH CABINETS Our product lines oHer quality and M -1 4 Recycle Advertise in the style for any budget ~4- SCHOOL or Aff 1825 Culinary SERVICE DIRECTORY! Scott 970-379-8583 wEIRLKIMN>~ Jamie 970-379-8683 Boarded Training GOURMET VEGETARIAN CHEF Call Zach to get your ad started! Brand Name â€¢ Consultations this Creator of Aspen's Explore Bistro's new 925-9937 . Puppy and Dog Classes Specials menu, Prepares healthy and g Window Coverings at Start April Ist delicious vegetarian cuisine for private clients. Extensive, exciting selection. 4~ Discount Prices A non-traditional Kennel facility Excellent references ds=ja,Ar.&,M m.9 with an in-home atmosphere. Paper! Jamie 970-379-8683 1-877-9-BLOSSOM -Al'/irL#.64"VAN.El Scott 970-379-8583 119, (970) 963-1287 0 Looking for that unique outdoor-oriented employee? Place your employment ad in the Help Wanted section of The Aspen Times Classifieds ! Call 925-9937 or come by our office at 310 East Main St, . Â· 9 ... *,S . N. I, . 1* -Â·:.....Ta#.... T-'P'Â· V. 1 ... . . 1.