The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.200306251 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 25, 2003 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ROOM 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO NOON - SITE VISIT - NONE 5:00 I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes III. Public Comments IV. Commission member comments V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) VI. Proj ect Monitoring VII. Staff comments: Certificates of No Negative Effect issued (Next resolution will be #15) VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. 311 S. First St. - Minor - continued public hearing from June 11% (continue to July 9,2003) B. 432 W. Francis - Minor - (public hearing continued from May 14th) 5:30 C. 470 N. Spring St. - Major Review, Conceptual - Public hearing continued from May 28th IX. NEW BUSINESS 6:00 A. Amendments to the Municipal Code related to HPC, referral comments to P&Z 04 (bÂ»ce I M.(1 X. WORKSESSIONS A. None 6:30 XI. ADJOURN PROJECT MONITORING Jeffrey Halferty 428 E. Hyman (former Sportstalker Store) 213 W. Bleeker (Schelling) 101 E. Hallam (Gorman), with Neill 216 E. Hallam (Frost/Auger), with Mike 735 W. Bleeker (Marcus), with Teresa 922 W. Hallam 110 W. Main (Hotel Aspen) 118 E. Cooper (Little Red Ski Haus)Â· Neill Hirst 434 E. Main (Hills) 409 E. Hyman (New York Pizza building) 205 S. Third 101 E. Hallam (Gorman), with jeffrey 635 W. Bleeker 110 E. Bleeker Mike Hoffman 950 Matchless Drive (Becker) 216 E. Hallam (Frost/Auger), with Jeffrey 513 W. Smuggler (Harman) 633 W. Main (Dart) 920 W. Hallam (Guthrie) 640 N. Third Teresa Melville 232 W. Main (Christmas Inn) 323 W. Hallam (Rispoli) 513 W. Bleeker 735 W. Bleeker (Marcus), with Jeffrey 515 Gillespie (Bone) 501 W. Main Street (Christiania Lodge) Valerie Alexander 216 E. Hallam (Frost) 533 W. Francis (Gibson) 232 W. Main (Christmas Inn) Derek Skalko 135 W. Hopkins 302 E. Hopkins 501 W. Main Street (Christiania Lodge) CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: HPC Legal Procedures (Submit affidavit of notice for PH - conceptual) Swear In Staff presentation Applicant presentation Board Questions and Clarifications PH opened and closed Board Comments Applicant Comments Motion 3/ lIC 63 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier~~an~i.ng Director Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer FROM: Katie Ertmer, Assistant Historic Preservation Planner RE: 432 W. Francis St. - Minor Development - Continued Public Hearing DATE: June 25,2003 SUMMARY: The subject property contains two historic structures, the Hallet House and an outbuilding. This property is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The original application, reviewed by HPC on May 14, 2003 proposed to add a roof deck to a non-historic garage at the rear of the property and a dormer on the historic carriage house. HPC continued the hearing in order to give the applicant time to address concerns regarding the materials for the proposed deck railing and the size of the proposed dormer addition. The applicant no longer wishes to construct the roof deck, but has submitted a proposal with several dormer options. APPLICANT: Sugar Mountain Trust, Represented by Gideon Kaufman, Attorney, and Bill Poss and Associates, Architects. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-13004. ADDRESS: 432 W. Francis St., Lots K, L, and M, Block.34, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6, Medium Density Residential. MINOR DEVELOPMENT The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The 1 HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject properly in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316. Staff finding: A list of the design guidelines relevant to this project is attached as "Exhibit B." This memo will discuss only those that staff finds are not met by the proposal. The applicant is proposing to add a dormer to the north side of the historic outbuilding to compliment an existing dormer on the south side. Staff and HPC had concerns at the meeting on May 14, 2003 that the proposed dormer addition was not subordinate to the historic roof and was tied into the historic ridgeline. HPC asked the applicant to restudy . the dormer. The revised application includes four options for the dormer. In the packet for this project the first drawing is existing conditions, the second drawing is May 14th proposal, and the next three are new alternative options. The following are drawings of each option: lie I Ul 71\ \1/ Â»al " 4-1- r; 1,2--*-2,- ..., t.,2. f. i....ot.Te-t- -. -0 -1- 16 %4%44=iA Â·Â·.4 h ~:.Â·< ~' ..0~=ith ~ - i.%1~_ 1._11.-_ILL ; LA~.*-"-,iÂ· 4-1--ifll~J l.f-.-I.f-LUIP#31 Ii.Â»Â»14 ---------- 2-2 E-99-EE.Elia-761-22-=-=11-- --21 -Â·-7 -1-- --==== C-------:t-L _ .-- 32-LEE: 7~--M '--- ir-=4~ 16Â·=-- --- =---1 Ii_-31:Â·7|'-LE_LE 'LE.Miyqi 333-= ----3 h ~2=tufflÂ·jÂ·~44' FE--3-=24 A IEr)-Aft-1 #=i =-I-:931# De= -~ --=i iEÂ· -5 -= -1----w=.4'iÂ·-' 13 -,L--1 :r--f,=97-3 -1 11 P.Â· - 2-= 7 =2:131 1---1 4.-1- - .I ; - --- --'t .cl i:-u, 321 17 ..E-=3=f=---1 Original Proposal Alternative #1 i '462! i 1.133Â· 2 --4 A. P Â·. 1.1 ..CrÂ£~r=.m=-ir'.1 i..1.-1-1.d-'.1... >4Kil*.~2 =tr .r-7f1.=1111:*. Â»fld- :,-,Â· i-~~~ Â·Â·---- ~- rE ..[ t z. _.! 1.--2 1.t. 1; 7~7~~=1=-t-17*~ ..11 - ..1Â©11 & 1 :41 31 /9 :... B i 'T- Ed.Â« Â· - TE=.==111 :, .1~ -- ... --Â·.3 -2-2 2-====T-1.1 := - -- ... --I.#--.---.-- - - -- -=.= -- 4 Â·r-- 1.t----=pi '1=itaajr----Â·in-'i -9-91 f= 10-90 i k -=--fi--E~-21 ILEIF---7,: E--Eiif-I*-*-3 'Uâ‚¬-E['3=lrfr-le i[E.3122=i; iC=f.-3-=W~>24 '- 2 - =-7--'d j! ErÂ·,33 F -f=:ii ~h,INE; :: 4--Er:-- - - --' 2 i #i---i-_â‚¬piligil ItiyEAI lf=:AN=f---2 1 I ~:~Al-=2- --'-FÂ·EriAÂ·Â·A ~c-ik~ th---f~%041.3---_: 6 6;li Alternative #2 Alternative #3 2 HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Cliapter 26.316. Staff finding: A list of the design guidelines relevant to this project is attached as "Exhibit B." This memo will discuss only those that staff finds are not met by the proposal. The applicant is proposing to add a dormer to the north side of the historic outbuilding to compliment an existing dormer on the south side. Staff and HPC had concerns at the meeting on May 14, 2003 that the proposed dormer addition was not subordinate to the historic roof and was tied into the historic ridgeline. HPC asked the applicant to restudy the dormer. The revised application includes four options for the dormer. In the packet for this project the first drawing is existing conditions, the second drawing is May 14'proposal, and the next three are new alternative options. The following are drawings of each option: 2..il 1 \1/ - i '.7 :ry:J - ''~--- ---- 1 Original Proposal Alternative #1 - - 26\ I . 2 ;Â· + :- .i 1 X 11 1 b . . 4 -1 -I .1 -f . P -4~ 1 0 -- 41 5 i 21 -- <4 4 lE .Jj..1.-1--. -,=}-,r--1-*i ~i:z..i.it-~z - :--- k :--1-4"4=~-3 h 11- 2 .: I it ~-74-1-1.~l_~T. *24: I...i; 4 F -- 9 1 ---7 .7.--ati ,FBi- 3 EL-L.L.-7 j 1...f=-f:"'Ni.: Alternative #2 Alternative #3 2 generally subordinate and in scale with the carriage house, however it is not an alteration that seems necessary to the preservation or modern use ofthe structure. Included with this memo, as Exhibits C and D are the national and local historic inventory forms for HPC's reference. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval for the Minor Development application for 432 W. Francis St. for the addition of a dormer, depicted as 'Proposed Dormer - Alternate 2' on page 4 of the applicant's packet, with the following conditions: l. HPC approves the addition of'Proposed Dormer - Alternate 2' on page 4 of the application dated June 12,2003. 2. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first' being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 3. The General C6ntractor and/or Superintendent shall be rtquired to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. 4. HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures by reviewing a plan prior to wiring, purchasing, or installing the fixtures. 5. These 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. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution #_, Series of 2003." Exhibits: Resolution #_, Series of 2003 A. Staff memo dated June 25,2003 B. Relevant Guidelines C. National register of Historic Places Inventory Form D. Aspen Architectural Inventory Form E. Application AU 4(7(04-3 *râ€žâ‚¬ laÂ». 4\ O 1 M.aft cl_ wiv~ A- 0Â»cl vz_ irck-J~ Ch-Â»4 0 , CLV_, 96 JErâ€žAe, Sk/+ 9 'A 1--11 1 --- Â»-Â«I toy -- -r- fl 01-4 /1,) J-C,--6 4 The May 14th original option has been rejected by both Staff and HPC, who indicated it did not meet the design guidelines. Alternative #1 has brought the proposed dormer below the historic ridgeline, however the dormer still has three windows and Staff finds that it is not subordinate to the historic roof. Both the original proposal and alternative #1 have the vent located on top of the dormer, which increases the visibility of the vent. Alternative #2 proposes a smaller dormer located below the ridgeline of the historic roof and Alternative #3 is also a smaller dormer with a lower profile and smaller, more modernist style windows. There was some discussion with a previous HPC regarding a proposal for two dormers on this building. That HPC allowed only the existing dormer, which faces the interior courtyard area of the property and is not visible from the street. Chapters 7, 8, and 10 of the Design Guidelines discusses dormers, rooftop additions, and secondary structures. The guidelines in question are: 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. 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved. o When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These include its primary and roof materials, roof form, windows, doors and architectural details. 10.12 When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to that of a historic building. o An addition should not overhang the lower floors of a historic building in the front or on the side. o Dormers should be subordinate to the overall roof mass and should be in scale with historic ones on similar historic structures. o Dormers should be located below the primary structure's ridgeline, usually by at least one foot. Staff has reservations about all of the alternatives, but finds that Alternative #2 (page 4 of the applicant's packet) is the most appropriate out of all the proposed options. The dormer in Alternative #2 is smaller and is not tied to the ridgeline and the windows are more in keeping with the windows on the rest of the structure than any of the other alternatives, although they are horizontal rather than vertical. Although the guidelines do not prohibit or even discourage dormers, it is certainly arguable that complicating this outbuilding by adding more elements on the roof does not respect its' character defining features per guideline 8.1. Staff is able to support Alternative #2, finding that it is 3 . Exhibit B - Relevant Guidelines ~ Treatment of Roofs 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, Guidelinesfor 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. Secondary Structures 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved. o When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These include its primary and roof materials, roof form, windows, doors and , architectural details. o If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional. Rooftop Additions 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. 10.12 When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to that of a historic building. o An addition should not overhang the lower floors of a historic building in the front or on the side. o Dormers should be subordinate to the overall roof mass and should be in scale with historic ones on similar historic structures. o Dormers should be located below the primary structure's ridgeline, usually by at least one foot. 5 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING ANAPPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT FOR 432 W. FRANCIS, LOTS K, L, AND M, BLOCK 34, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 2003 Parcel ID #: 2735-124-13004 WHEREAS, the applicant, Sugar Mountain Trust, represented by, Gideon Kaufman, Attorney, and Bill Poss and Associates, Architects, has requested Minor Development approval for the addition a dormer on the historic carriage house at 432 W. Francis, Lots K, L, and M, Block 34, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Aspen Municipal Code states that no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a Development Order; and WHEREAS, the procedure for a Minor, Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC reviews the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, Katie Ertmer, Assistant Historic Preservation Planner, in her staff report dated June 25,2003 performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended the application be approved with conditions; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on June 25, 2003, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application after a duly noticed, public hearing, took testimony, found the application to meet the pertinent standards, and approved the application by a vote of to . THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the HPC approves Minor Development for 432 W. Francis St., Lots K, L, and M, Block 34, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: l. HPC approves the addition of'Proposed Dormer - Alternate 2' on page 4 of the application dated June 12,2003. 2. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 3. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. 4. HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures by reviewing a plan prior to wiring, purchasing, or installing the fixtures. 5. These 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. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 25th day of June, 2003. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Jeffrey Halferty, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 2-)(Â»14-1- 0 86 NPS Form 10-9:0 OMB %(Â· 1024-0018 10-31-87 Expires t~ United States Department of the Interior ~ National Park Service Only. For NPS use 1 National Register of Historic Places received ** inventory-Nomination Form date entered .6-1 See instructions in How to Complete.National Register Forms :~ . Type all entries-complete applicable sections 1. Name h~storic Samuel I. Hallett House (Historic Resources of Aspen - 45-1 Â·,i~ and or corAmon Hallett House N 2. Location 51 .:341 la- not for publication street & number 432 WPRt FrgnrÂ·i s Street til city, town . Aspen _ vicinity of n/9. code 097 state Co.lorado code 08 county Pitkin 61 3 Classification iL Category Ownership Status Present Use n /a- museum i f n/adistrict AZapublic _X- occupied Illaagriculture _X_ building(s) --X_ private Illaunoccupied Alacommercial ;f privateresidence ~~- park n/astructure 2.aboth n,/awork in progress AZaeducational rEa- religious .nUsite Public Acquisition Accessible Alaentertainment nia_ scientific -41 -n/aobject Alain process Illayes: restricted Adagovernment ALa_ transportation n,/74 being considered Illayes: unrestricted Illaindustrial r~k,La_ other: --# II~ x multiple resource X -no Alamilitary - I 4 Owner of Property M name - Virginia Stranahan Â· - street & number 577 East Front Street --1 ,~ city, town Perryburg n/a vicinity of state ~- 5. Location of Legal Description ~ .. courthouse, registry of ddeds, etc. ' Pitkin County Court House street & number 506 E. Main .Street - - state-QQ-1-2Â·rad.n 1=Ity, town Aspen 6. Representation in Existing Surveys - State Inventory of Historid , nt=IZE=E=- ~ title Sites has this property been determined 31.Rible ~ date Ongoing County r-1- local n ta_ federal x state_nes_____--_- - 9epositary fof survey records Colorado Hi Atorir.al R nc i pty - fla.HP - r U 87 7. Description Condition Check one Check one Â· -1.-- excellent 44 deteriorated n,Za unaltered -2 original site I],La.good 021 ruins X altered n/a moved date n/a ~ 1 Illa fair n/a unexposed I-/ De:5cribe the present and original (if known) physical appearance Â·lt and The Hallett House is one of the Aspen houses which was bui d.ay enlarged through the years around a log cabin, Its present the front appearance is that of a Miner's Cottage with a gabled L plan o~ood frame 2 portion with a two story side gable section at the rear The - J and clapboard house is sited.on a corner with a law wooden fencewoodund the property on both street sides. There .is a large, two storF verted 7 -barn with a gable roof and cupola at the rear which has been c~~ntributing- J into a two car garage, (photo #10, 102, 1010 It is considered upported There is a front porch or veranda with a low hipped roof 6 tion, 7 by rectangular wood posts which Wrap around all of the froht pof ~ the west side, the.: south front and in the L. Â·The paired and si~ghouse ' windows throughout are one-over-one, double hung wood sash. TBfbles is notable for its simplicity with only the peaks of the side v - ~ decorated with fish scale shingles and a rectangular, one story bÂ·ay with a gable roof on the west side. have The transformation of the log cabin into a frame house mayfinest 1 begun in 1892 when Hallett remodeled his house into one of the orhood, 3 in.the .neighborhood with a lawn that was the envy of the neighPng Fork according to Frank L. Wentworth in his book,- Aspen on the R.oark- of the ~ (Lake*wood: Frinbis B. Rizzatil 1950, p. 293) Â·Â·--Nothing is knoÂ«len changes-that took place after that- time unti-1'6 the late 19404.fluse Richard and Margaret Durrance found the log cabin inside the hoEecords, i during remodeling. According to .the Aspen Building D.epartment room ~ ~ a bedroom.and bath was added. in 1953 -and a one story rame batb The addition with a law pitÂ·ched roof was put onto the house in 1960 ~bly one story frame addition near the rear on the east side is pror one of these. Ih 1967, the front porch and roof .were repairedjeling Little of the original interior elements of the 1892 remO.ng room remain other, than .the logs behind the present walls of the diA>stairs and a cast bronze fir.eplace with bas--relief designs in the dowf1 e name bedroom. The original carriage. step, a cut stone. block with -Cneet "Hallett" carved into it remains at the . front walk near the s-~st side 1 (photo #10c) There is onlir one street tree..remaining odÂ·the -4 and a large blue sbruce in the front yard. - 1 b. 1-; 1.- 4 J 0- j 9 ./ 8. Significance 88 Al Period Areas of Significance-Check and justify below Illa. prehistoric K]Za. archeology-prehistoric Il/a community planning 021% landscape architecturent# religion Rga 1400-1499 nia. archeology-historic 41.conservation Dia law Illa science n/2 1500-1599 ALa agriculture nia economics n,/a literature nga sculpture i~ n/a 1600-1699 X .architecture n,Â£6 education rl/a military rva social/ n/a 1700-1799 .rÂ¢a art I)ZA. engineering 0/0 music . . humanitarian ._1 1800-1899 Ella commerce 02* exploration/settlement DZ@ philosophy Â£122 theater 024 1Â·900- .n/a communications ..1_ industry 062 politics/government agatransportation 022 invention rv a other (specify) Specific dates.ca, 1885-present Guilder/Architect not known .ti U Statement of Significance (in one paragraph) . The Hallett House is significant. as one of the pioneer log cabins .o:, which was incorporated into a wood frame and clapboard house, a change indicativeÂ·of Aspen's growth and the rising.fortunes of its residents ' during the 19th century silver mining.boom. Significance is also found in the association with Samuel I.Â·Hallett, the second owner whoÂ·was responsible for the 1892 remodeling, and - who was one of the "most 9 .j prominentÂ· and successful mine managers and superintendents in Aspen. " 1 BACKGROUND The owner of.the original log cabin,+ constructed ca, 1885-1886, was 14 Thomas Anson; who,-' in 1887, sold it to Samuel I. and Julia EsÂ·telle 411 Hallett. 'The. property'remained in the Hallett family until 1935Â· 2 1.4 Hallett, born in -Hornellsville, New York in 1858, went to the-~Black Hills of South Dakota where he gained experience and knowledge in miningÂ· 6 techniquest When Hallett arrived-in Aspen in 1885, he had'little trouble finding management-positions with some of the latgest mining - operations. By the 1890s he was the superintendent of the Smuggler Mining Company, the Smuggler *Concentrator and the Aspen Sampling ,1 Company He also served as secretary of the Durant, Compromise, the Late .Acquisition ahd Conemara mining combanies as well as the secretary of the Hallam Land Company. 1 Hallett's office was in the Hyman.Block (Hyman-Brand Building; listed on the National Register). By the 1890s, Aspen had become a-mature and cultured town with Â·; many fine residences arid bubingss blocks. In 1892, Hallett remodeled* his log cabin home into one faced in clapboard, which was the prevelent : material for residential construction in Aspen at that time. 1 The Hallett House is a locallyÂ·designated landmark. 0,1- 1 89 NPS Form 1(Â·900-a OM3 Na. 1024-0018 (3Â·82) Expires 10-11-87 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service --Ay Ne Ue ortky - -1-1 - 4- -- ~ National Register of Historic Places *ciyee _ - -6 - Inventory-Nomination Form jawÂ»ered 251 - - - _- --a6~ Continuation sheet S i gnificance ~ Item number #8 Page .2 -- Footnotes 1. Mines' ang Mining Men of Coloradi: Historical,_Descriptive and Pictorial (Denver: John Â·G. Canfield, -1893), p. 49, 2. ."Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures:, prepared for the City of Aspen by Vera Kirkpatrick and John Stanford, December, 1980. (Pitkin County Abstract of Lot Books) Aspen City Directory, 1889, 1892, 1893. 3. Mines and Mining Men, p. 49. Len Shoemaker, Pioneers of the Roaring Fork (Denver: Sage Books, 1975), PP. 81-82. 4. Frank 26.-Â·~ Wentworth, Aspen on the Roaring Fork (LakewoodÂ·:. Francis B. Riz.zari, 1950), P. 293. 1, 7 . r '. , 2 . 1-=-J 1.1__1 1 -/2 Â· 1 122-3 1 Â·Â·13 W I 1 J, 59.. I - 3 9. Major Bibliographical References 90 -~ - See footnotes -~ 10. Geographical Data Â·6~ Acreage of nominated properÂ·ty under one 4%1 *Â¥W Quadrangle name Aspen Quadrangle scale UTM References 1:24 000 91 Ala 131411132io| 1413|.3191718Iol . LÂ£J Ililiilli|ilill B 1 Zone. Easting Northing Zone Easting Northing 41 C L.....1 IIil ilLI' I lilli DI l i l i l i l i 1111 111 1 J 9- E 1-2-11111 1 11 1-1 111 Lili Fl 11111111 l ili I['11 31 G Ld' 1 11111 -11111111 1 HI 'l l l 1 11 I l i ll i 11 1 1 71,1 Verbal boundary description and justification 57* Block 34, lots K, L, M Aspen Townsite ~ List all states and counties for properties overlapping state or county boundaries state n/a code county Â·. code state code county . . code 11. Form Prepared By 4 name/title Barbara Norgren tEl organization Consultant date July 13, 1986 street & number 7453 East .Jefferson Dr, telephone 740-7860 ~ city or town Denver state Colorado 12. State Historic Preservation Officer Certification fil - -60 The evaluated significance of this property within the state is: - national -. state __ local _:~| As the designated State Historic Preservation Ofticer for the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89- 665), I hereby nominate this property for inclusion in the National Register and certify that it has beenÂ· evaluated according to the criteria and procedures set.forth by the National Park Service. -4 State Historic Preservation Officer signature 71 title date 21 . 6,1 For NiPS use only f hereby certify that this property is included in the National Register 3 date -- Keeper of the National Register attest: date Chief of Registration C (\ic 2 al,#*J - .4 21 6(4 14 - | AJ OAHP1403 Official eligibility determination Rev. 9/98 (OAHP use only) Date Initials COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Determined Eligible- NR Determined Not Eligible- NR Architectural Inventory Form - Determined Not Eligible- SR Determined Eligible- SR (page 1 of 4) Need Data Contributes to eligible N R District Noncontributing to eligible NR District 1. IDENTIFICATION 1. Resource number: 5PT.262 2. Temporary resource number: 432.WFR (432.WF) 3. County: Pitkin 4. Ci ty: Asoen 5. Historic building name: Samuel I. Hallett House 6. Current building name: Hallett / Durrance House 7. Building address: 432 West Francis Street, Aspen Colorado 81611 8. Owner name and address: Joan Reed Cundill 432 West Francis Street, Aspen C6lorado 81611 11. Geographic Information 9. P.M. 6 Township 10 South Range 85 West NW M of SW w of NE M Of SE W of Section 12 10. UTM reference Zone 13;342350mE4 3 3 9 7 5 OmN 11. USGS quad name: Aspen Quadrangle Year: 1960, Photo Rev. 1987 Map scale: 7.5' X 15' Attach photo copy of appropriate map section. 12. Lot(s): K, L, & M Block: 34 Addition: Year of Addition: 13. Boundary Description and Justification: Site is comprised of Lot K, L, & M, Block 34 of the City and Townsite of Aspen. Assessors office Record Number: 2735-124-13-004 This descriotion was chosen as the most specific and customary description of the site. 111. Architectural Description 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Irreaular 15. Dimensions in feet: Length x Width 16. Number of stories: One Story, Two story at rear 17. Primary external wall material(s) (enter no more than two): Horizontal Wood Sidinq 18. Roof configuration: (enter no more than one): Gable Roof 19. Primary external roof material (enter no more than one): Wood Shinqles Roof 20. Special features (enter all that apply): Porch Riesource Number: 5PT.262 Temporary Resource Number: 432.WFR Architectural Inventory Form (page 2 of 2) 21. General architectural description: A single story wood frame structure, on a cut stone foundation. A cable end faces the street and has a pair of double hunqs as the principal window, centered on the cable, a small horizontal vent window sits in the qable end, both have a crown moldinq head detail. A cross gable extends to the east. A porch runs across the front of the front qable, wraps around the corner and extends alonq the cross gable to the east and down the length of the front qable to the west. The Â· entry sits 90Â° form the street under the porch, three vertically proportioned double hung windows sit facing the street under the porch. A small gable is overframed on the porch roof. Additions at the rear consist of a couple of hipped roof single story forms with contemporarv openings, and a two story addition sits off the back of the front ciable form creatina a second cross gable~ at the rear. A flared chimney sits on the cross qable ridge. Porch detailing is simple with square posts and a plain frieze board, simple trim delineates a capital on the posts. The front qable has a verY small field of decorative shingles at the peak. 22. Architectural style/building type: Late Victorian 23. Landscaping or special setting features: A low wood fence with a crenellated top separates the house_ from the street, This fence type is attributable to Herbert Beyer. Flowing irrigation ditch on west side. Owner added perennials alonq entire length. Two mature cottonwood street trees in west corner. Fence has perennial beds on both sides. Straight stone path leading to street. Lilac hedge at east and west property line. Larce spruce at back corner. Car.riacle stone and hitchinq post, original. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: A simple qable two story carriage house sits along the alley, a small lantern interrupts the roof line. IV. Architectural History 25. Date of Construction: Estimate 1885-86 Actual Source of information: Pitkin Countv Assessor 26. Architect: Unknown Source of information: 27. BuildedContractor: Unknown Source of information: 28. Original owner: Thomas Anson Source of information: Pitkin Countv Assessor 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): This structure began as a hand hewn log cabin c. 1885, alterations were made soon thereafter c. 1892 to transform the structure into a claoboard sided structure in keepina with the eleaant homes being built during that time. Nothing is known of the alterations that occurred until the late 1940's when the original loa structure was discovered durina a remodel. Small additions occurred to the rear and the east side ' Resource Number: 5PT.262 Temporary Resource Number: 432.WFR Architectural Inventory Form (page 3 of 3) during the late 50's early 60's: repairs to the porch and roof, in 1967. The two story rear addition was added late 1980's, early 1990's 30. Original location X Moved Date of move(s): V. Historical Associations 31. Original use(s): Domestic 32. Intermediate use(s): 33. Current use(s): Domestic 34. Site type(s): Residential Neighborhood 35. Historical background: This structure is reoresentative of Asoen's minina era character. The building in particular represents the evolution of Aspen from a mining camp, into a complex society. This was a log structure originally and altered into the elegant house that exists today. S.I. Hallett was involved in management of the smuqqler mine as well as other mining related iobs. Margaret and Dick Durrance purchased the house in the late 40's. They were photographers and pioneers of early skiing in Aspen. 36. Sources of information: Pitkin Countv Courthouse records: Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maos; 1990 andÂ·1980 City of Aspen Survey of Historic Sites and Structures; 1986 National Reaister Nomination Form. VI. Significance 37. Local landmark designation: -Yes X No ___ Date of designation: 1981 Designating authority: Aspen Citv Council 38. Applicable National Register Criteria: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; X C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual) Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria 39. Area(s) of significance: .Architecture 40. .Period of significance: Late 1800's Silver Mining Era 41. Level of significance: National X State X Local X Rdsource Number: 5PT.262 Temporary Resource Number: 432.WFR Architectural Inventory Form (page 4 of 4) 42. Statement of significance: This structure is significant for its position in the context of Asoen's mining era. It describes the evolution of an upper-class family or individual during that period, as well as the coÂ·nstruction techniques, materials available and the fashion of the time. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: Structure is intact and well maintained. Original log structure is completely obscured, but that contributes to the significance of this structure. Rear addition is simple and does not dominate the original structure. VII. National Register Eligibility Assessment 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: This structure is currently on the National Register Eligible X Not Eligible X Need Data 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes No X - Discuss: If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing Noncontributing 46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it: Contributing Noncontributing Vlll. Recording Information 47. Photograph numbers: R2: F9,10 Negatives filed at: Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Dept. 48. Report title: City of Aspen Update of Survey of Historic Sites and Structures, 2000 49. Date(s): 6/29/2000 50. Recorder(s): Suzannah Reid and Patrick Duffield 51. Â·Organization: Reid Architects 52. Address: 412 North Mill Street, PO Box 1303, Aspen CO 81612 53. Phone number(s): 970 920 9225 NOTE: Please attach a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad. map indicating resource location; and photographs. Colorado Historical Society - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395 432 W. Francis 3 SM.&â„¢gom'.-- - J zyttu<>6 F~ L 1 1 / / 1.12=g, 2-227 Ettz:**1 -' \4'v~ ~ 1 04: f //,ft*~09' i 7~ 8***:gll i.6.,7~ Â¤ 2Â®19,-Ch -4,1 1 1**\--49# 467? *i9 Buf inAÂ®49.62 2 ~07 -7& 1, i -f.~la ill i~maw:- Ll94 1 1 Kizi illwilirmiZI##5 H u- 0-*4 . 22 79/ 3341~ t,~_, 0 7--2=7E==L 1 N 2<PÂ·**Â»2Â·\,\ *21(-MLZE:>66,2Â»942Â£*r"il<\31-17'.., 3302=EFfilzj~rf :0 ".1 - 1- .. -1- ,/ i C 47 .1,/i;\\*telerÂ· ~ b 1 0/ 4, 1 '29Â» --~ \ 22) *2180Â°fay '2:1,111.i1 \\9~Â°~. i .Â·,21 Lf,Vt:LA 'ic:~**46. -~~ -0.>~~-, < ~ ~~~~ ~~~ %fUL ~1~~~4-,~,~~~&~~~~''ij/~~1<~~6 ~24~I,f 3-34?14%&jJ*Tri~~<~0<--4-100-Â»tr~.--1 - acÂ»ut-0, 171Â»1-Â«6?fi~ -19)449Â»2949>4~~~i~Â«Â»t~Â« :- \ --- '4444%10Â»14 -f__ 39~*Â£#5~9#3*6653~<346 71 r 29Â«Ux=43404==~ar~ / *22#):4/4%*Iiazz//4/TEE/ma 'ri- -*- V ./ .... ... I I --. , -1 1/ 1 -Spk.1 1 -E~ 1 tri.LS#rift.')44.irrpv 104 + 4. 1-i L,Â«r-1 - Â» -- R - F.1 Ar46:!2--3 J. WV--1/. Â«17 ..4 157 ' 7, Ir-* / VK--% . e Â·. '14.Â·34:J INK. 1 . / Nkh 4 ---~~~r N 4.-9 '12 1 1.1 J 2.- , -. 3(31 341A '1 10 1 li-ty= , 6--nl-~ 1. i,/ ) j d~8444 0 -AXÂ· A K >-7 11 i .I 1---f ./4 h ' 1 LU 00~GOLE- COURSE \Â·\.nq 1F. lili 4 %. 4 -Ory*b 1081 1 : 0 f ~ ~ll---1--- ~ 1 .. 1 1, 1, ..ij ..) KÂ« f \ ., 10 %1,Â·3: 91 C Ir Iowa// ' V 2/ U . 4 x=t -&3 -\\ /1 - \ - \\ 1, //99 \11 ' b \ i j 11 ..,1 \41 1 . -3.71 11.1/ 13 . 1/0 <:i;Â·~Â· ~ %Â·~~i ~ IFIpÂ«:*t .-4~ J n ~ED Â· ~ 4 ~ ~ /1/ ~4 VA,1 1,1 ' * Lt:/ 1 , d 01>17 32 N o r. / 11, - di 4 ,\ . 3 1 ' 0, i W. . 1 1&.-7%-rÂ·Â·Â· , ./, i* AwZ'74. .1-,7.: / Â»48~ f h \56. -- ,~<LkÂ· JI - ~ 04 -L'~T~~4 < ,#, .1,11., i./1'Je>/1-l,1-r 2 - r CD : )1- /344%31 8 '.h Il. 7- ---- , 46Â»ift 4.\ A J JJ.4 1Â© -1 ' i i- 13\ i La\4 .1, 44*I. 94 Â·,7--X - 03 4 7 /0 32 V ' r L #.1 -i. - Â·;4,.Â»~ 7.TMi 1.4 - * -r~)~~~~~ 111~? CL \ '"%. <*4 ,~Â»5~gtiti-1--f/IxfÂ» 4. _/ '0/. 2 ,) 1,4,31 //b ..... ./ Â¥,en.ov n \<- h 1 '' I F . ..... ..1, 211.1 431\9091*03.2...1 -3/1~\9?\ - :,-Al\ P in A \ 1 1., - 7 .3\ 1., 1- / //.1124 r I I - .../ 2 I /7 4-'-C>r-L., Â·Â·' OF .~k -Mlt 1\1%11 ,\ Ilk ~Â»MO~*BE,% /27 1*- 1 -11~ 6% 111.,11'k< 4. 4-4 et /6 l 'Â·=~1'g'H _ 2 1 h r 1 h r.9, 06 - l. , 6-, . - ~Â«.~ : % --511 --a Â·7. / I. t i 1. 8 7-i) .-- *- " ~:_~_ - "_--3,~*d,< u. Â·37Â»304.,1 3 1,(11Â·01,4.14 11 --- . & I. 1 ./1, 4\ U 24446:.2 nxÂ£:-2.-~~Vl~.7 p . . 06 / 0 .112(4 .1 1.1 \ . P \ '- Â· Â· ~fl - 'j Â· .44 /,171 1 1. l + liÂ·' 1 ...'P s=:%23Â¥1*- 4'-' ' 11 '- f L~;.2- &,073 I Tr ' 3 LF.2-*TES: 7 +0.. d/,/ /1 X -I ;14. 2.--3-1 / iÂ· ---- --23,34&/f.oÂ©-Â»- 1 E /\ * 11 ; U.. 3 r/,4/7 /'' 6&41, 4,7- ' - i Â·b--Â·rf-- j //.0 *C/l,ppL ~~ b, lf**~7&2'.. 11 <ni~z. --1- 41;. Â· c'- ~,6 4%< - h 4.. 4<9 .C N 1 t\ -. 34.11,1~1 4,/ 23-1.... i, 4\\ f\...C.90:9=:r-=z.:~~1~Z-;0'-r- A I .0 / 11 * $ 4 6,1 -9 I 1 .4 .. 7 1-*429,V-12Â»~\.'0.\~I~~~!'. L'- *,; -1- j.4 YL *Ill- <~ ,~~~P . \IiI b..544 959<Â£ 4*,.,4#44 3r, -<4f*;<I,=-u-yii'~tti. ;r){-3-~11 31:Â·ic.il> M \Liva 94**C/M ptij,Â» (iffr N / 92:15 \11 44 91.~ / 1 \tuf (h 1 1.. 12\ \\ , \ h,\ 9 / __.Dr=.h A--A 42 A, ut w k j |t//41{11.(.1 1.1 4 L~ -- , 74.&4 4%.\ L ~ W - rit ---:h-\Â«9 i Ajiket'~r 'r~Â·,5.~-~ 1 -2225*-- 2 T-7 \- f, X mum.JOT 3 ./ ill .it .'Y?Â·1 ,1 .Â·IA ~~i~~44~'icÂ·~fÂ°~'~~ '~ -~9W~i--- j"&=~..112~e~~~1~59<~3RJE~V~BV 1 0,0 49:t-tÂ·a x1 I . N . -- .. j fr ~~>vi,F::," fr 3Â«43*u.iâ‚¬L-~11/ c,-if ..,:Â· Â» +TMgf Â« 1. f pt#Â£ 1â‚¬4--~Ct ~,ie k,-F,a.i:~_1Â»Â»~~~~~'~)#'3;I-i ~#2~~I~,,-K.,~~. it~ 43 *93.3<44 V , ~ , fifrr/Â£~074&65,Avi:Â»...â‚¬..~~ All Survey Sites are included within the City of Aspen limits, Aspen Quadrangle See Sketch map for identification of specific location and building context Colorado-Pitkin County 1960, Photo Revised 1987 Scale: 1:24 7.5 Minute Survey GN SCALE 1:24 000 ~ / 12- 1 0 0 1 MIL w ~ H I 1 1*09' 1 ~213 MILS 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET 20 MILS ~ ~ 1 -5 0 1 KILOMETER = 1-- - 1 M GRID AND 1987 MAGNETIC NORTH CONTOUR INTERVAL 40 FEET DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET Â· NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929 4-Â«f . I . I . S ' 2 1..... ... ir. - C., A 1-4 * 21 ' *i~El - 4 1 *01 . 319Â¥2'40+4'*-Mt, U /133: -/i.11*3 .... ..2,4:*- .A~f.1#9#1%.~-4~. Vel-/91*Lâ€¢ B .., 17 V ..1, El: , . a; ~ 70= ct , 41.--Â·44*fleyi :?1'I3*RI&Â¢.t:.,*~i~~~ , r,Â¢. -~ EÂ·4 303Â· 2. 1 2-:EL~ly"4.66'' i/J -'' '' 7 K 4 ,â€¢+ 22.1Â¥~:1-a Â£--:4 "de*:24;fi?P' *Leâ€ž ,Â·.* 4~ r Â· ,%,Â· -~r.,0 - -2 Â¥. I ' $ r. . 63 0 -& Â·,Â· 4, 2 3 5 r, 21 . -4 i*<:*Aintr'Â©,Â·.014#9 :- 46."ir:. p 1 k .9Â¥1*trl:,4 .lit;061'Â£' .... 2 -70: 13Â§53*: - 4. 49' 24<k Â£26291>...6 r.>C :.... 1- 7 ':7 .... 4 46 1 *â€¢4 .el..., 11 PÂ·Â» i ffrle'**24/*56/~..~2,5/36*i/~A.A,3$~iji'E,#4':36*Ge:23-4~,ii.Â»;4*.s'.A .la /'E .~0*341.Ulf'Â·49*it: a.~râ€¢Â·Â·Fr'~ :Â£ ' 3 n'â‚¬*â‚¬221Â«9373 . 64,2 2 a-'-,4.614 Ap-te. 4-1470 1 - - Â·-= -- .--476,9/Il-/M' ~. i i,4~3%'47 .1/.Ab.faÂ©r*Â· ....... -$ Â· . '' I - V 11 fijz,Ailj/*Viv. .. - M. .; . 1- ~70 - 7 Â» 9 . 4 ./ - I - .,1 . . - r P .r... 4(M*Aft.:491:00 7Â·.'AU.66 :i-Â· t 2., 49, V ./ al '.t J.;Titect-~rit r .:it-23 -tr-. ' 4*YM/kÂ·93.>i:,~tfi'139;0,4.-ff>.~11,~Fr:4*Â·~, 6- A c_ - ,~- TT< Y 4 . * f= 4 -642 4*2 45* = +. . .LY: ; 44 't>Jitâ‚¬40-707(-14.7.t,<3 # fj r f 2 2 ~ f J. : ' ' 1-,rr*i *9â‚¬419Â¢~17*titifffir<11:f- '21'r.-Â·244'. Ii '.. 9 Â·2-L~ '7~-f'~ - git:,t~-:~408ME~,,I.I,~~,4w-*.2.I#....rb.Vid,Â«ff--Â·.*~.I<f 24:,2 6~ -*:.4Â£,:0 2....r .3;53.~~*,~Â·%Â«A,1 I *red h iÂ¢<t, 44. h -*. At#* 04-Rea t e# #tki :-'-0 : ;t - 44 1. 'Â· 9,9 e.' 1 M,VBMW 34~2.326411jitÂ«<t;it: 2 c.rer.9#5139,63%1 314,4 t*NWY,9~~~~~5~~~$M*$1~.,I~,~~#&~1~~~~%.v~~~~~~~J~.~â€žtpgattaliGA,A:GiFEJOC-,0,~.'~~,1.:,i.,k'~ I t~'i~M~~#P#*Ap&*EJB~LVAZ-'AttÂ·h -G'29Â·Wi >Â°â€¢ p .1Â·Â·U 9bf â€¢'14Â£.r,3Â«11Â·'4??C -5.?- -4449-04< 4,4/ Â· t. 't.. .r, HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM - State Site Number: Local Site Number: 432.WE u DAR-4 -r informanion: ASP-H-1 & O Township 10 South Range 85 West Section 12 USGS Quad Name Asnen rear 1960 X 7.5' 15' Building or Structure Name: Thomas Anson House/I.S. & Julia Estelle Hallett Residence Full Sureet Address: 432 West Francis Legal Description: Lots K, L & M, Block 34 City and Townsite of Aspen Pitkin Asnen County Historic District or Neighborhood Name: West End Owner: Private/State/Federal Owner's Mailing Address: ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Building Type: Residential Architectural Style: Victorian Miner's Cottace Dimensions: L: X W: = Square Feet: Number of Stories: 2 story Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): Irrecular Sauare Landscaping or Special Setting Features: None Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material and Function (map .number / name) : 2nd storv carage addition at northwest corner For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in the description as appropriate: Roof: L-shaped gable with secondarv gable projecting at east side of front facade; 2nd storv east-west uable at rear; all wood shinales Walls: Clapboard with decorative wood shinales at cable ends Foundation / Basement: Red stone Chimney(s): Red brick with corbeled top at center of 2-storv cable Windows: One-over-one double huna simole wood lintel-typical; Daired one-over-one double hung in front; awnina attic vent in front cable end Doors: Transom over segmented 1 /2 liGht over wood panel Porches: Shed; standing seam metal roof wrans front and west side, loccing to follow building plan; open; roof supnorted bv square built up Dosts with decorative brackets General Architectural Description: 1-1/2 storv Victorian contage with 2nd story addition at side and rear. The architectural significance of this structure is not onlv that it contains tvoical details of an Asnen Victorian Miner's Cottace (front cable with cross cable, both steep pitched; lonc, narrow double-hung windows; horizontal claoboard siding, etc.), but than it oricinallv was a loc cabin which changed its detailing as the mining communitv flourished. Page 2 of 2 State Site Number Local Site Number 432.Wy FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Current Use: Residential Architect: L i ; .K T-10 W I-1 IT-1 Original Use: Residential Builder: , Unknown Intermediate Use: Residential Construction Date: 1885-86 Actual X Estimate _ Assessor Based On: MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS Minor Moderate Major X Moved Date Describe Modifications and Date: Original detailing: Dosts, brackets replaced Additions and Date: 1 storv addition on west side, 2 storv addition on rear with 1st storv added to rear of that NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA Is listed on National Register; State Register Is eligible for National Register; State Register Meets National Register Criteria: A__ B C D E - Map X.Ry Local Rating and Landmark Designation 1 1 1-1 - Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register L Contributing: Resource has maintained historic or - architectural integrity. 0 Supporting: original integrity lost due to alterations, however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort. Locally Design.ated Landmark Justify Assessment: Associated Contexts and Historical Information: This residential structure was originallv built for Thomas Anson around 1885-86 as a log cabin/house. The uresence of the log cabin were found bv Richard and Margaret Durrance during remodeling of the Inside. The structure was deeded to S.I. and Julia Estelle Hallett in 1887 with the Hallett heirs selling the Dropertv in 1935 some 48 vears later. S.I. Hallett held various positions within the Aspen communitv in the 1880's and 1890's. He was sunerintendent of the Smucaler Mine, Asnen Sampling Works and the Smuccler Concentrator. He was also the cashier of The Comoromise Mining Companv, of the Durant Mine and the Conamora Mine. Other Recording Information Specific References to the Structure/Building: Pitkin Countv Court- house Records; Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps Archaeological Potential: N (Y or N) Justify: Recorded By: Date: January 1991 Affiliation: Asoen Historic Preservation Committee - Citv of Asoen Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer/Planner \4617 F Ol 2 .1 L--- xt on-- o 41. 4>N\361 U 1 . 3 1 1 Ill -.,1 .* - , \ 5 11-- 0. & 4 1 1 /1. / \ , - 1 2 4 -I, 1 i / i ~A 7 h -1 A , 1 8-5 1 X. r ' .~'t 1 Â¢1 1 ./ W , M ..~ 1 - 'A 6341 I.*. , U , i f 2 - - - Ck. 1 x r '--1 --7 rtc 1 0 il Â· - 1 ..1 kull ~Â·. 420 ic i tre . . 2 - 1 . .$ L 1 'll ''â‚¬, A y I X Â£ 7895.4 1 1 ./ b> . --'-- \Al.--P-RAMel 11'11 049 3 ) AT L,42-Or-L J-1- <\AJE--7 END 9 X / Cono ofvl UU GLZH - 41. 674(J 6>GLE-2 7.7 tf -/2Cn \ \ 4 \\1 0$.1 \' I-/ \ 1 1--' i 2. Â·4 X it L. A \ , 1 \\ ''' : i. .-- :' i 1 6.-- h 'A - 1 < 1 1 1 1 / 1 f 69 2 1 x i ~ X -0 Pcl 9 1 26 K - -- --7 3 4,4 { 1 ' i / /_3 1-1. a LIZ J \ \ lÂ« 51 - 1 I '2, . I \- -\ A --Ill' 1.22* --- - 22-3 6.2---.4-3 C . ; 1 1/ 1 1 r â‚¬ -1 , t., ! - L (1 / 1 1 1,~ I li 1)9 i - % 3, 1 1,4 ' It.-X 1 . 1 1 ..... 411,7 . u .1 + . 420 I i Â· .'â‚¬ "7% i __ ::/ 0.) -I â‚¬ X 7895.4 .En * c i. _.' '- 1 X I .... . -+~ .. W .*F- RAM 2-16 A l 1 14741 .\ 1 1~ .4.4 .. 6. tO â€¢ â€¢ Ill !9 1,-J . . - , n / 1 '11 'J . . (1 1, : -- . 1. . 9 0 1,9 . Â· 4 . OJ r: 1 0, 441: 1. 01 1 0% 1 .1 - 1 j r . 1 -~ 1 1 .1 rl . lo 1 1 e.1 . -1 1 01 .1 -'A 0 1 U -1 9.. -C k, M" LI r, M ~ 1,1 0 O 0, 'J ) (1 1, : 2 , 1-f (1] [i-1 1:~ 1.Il 1 OJ ~6 12 '0 1 !.1 4, 1 J r; 0 0 " Fl Â· 1/ 1 1 t) 5. F' 1-' ~; ~ 19 .- r- m r,3 11' C Â· 1 r. /1 - 03 '1 41 1 O fl b.1 9 61 .. , rf '11 . r- I . 11 63 0 5, If) 1-on f- . 1 1 - . 11 ,- 41 : a. 1 Â¢1 ./ 1 <* r-9 1 133 -J ~ I - 441 r, tÂ·t th <J O f.') ~ 111 Â£ Â·4) 03 1 1 J f.9 r ) 1 A '11 er !13 , 41 CL 1 Â« , , r: 0 0 0 U An l; CO LD " Ak' Il 4 Ll. 4- r.1 'rl O tn r.9} 1= 4 0- ,- rj7 ./ 111 I ..1 M.3 Ch' p o S' 44 1-4 [Al 7 1 41 U .t 21 1 - 1-; L ,- C U ; orÂ·-- W ru , ). 1 1 1 . W C f r- 0 1-/n Z Ki 1 U U -22 Â§. 0- '.P F-1 M U L.)13 44 d r 9 3 11 2. 1 14 & # 0 6-1 D.: fi-; 4. 26 0, 9 1.1 .C N A - _ r-1 N "' d :i! ..Â· Â° .5 1 5-j K 7 52 11-' o n. H 4-' p L 2 1 U (6 1 iv.,_i (n U fi In â€ž1 - 42< Cul GJ |; i 0 to f 4 1 + 1 rÂ·' (1, 01 t,â€¢ '11 1" CJ ..t / . 0 0 11,1 . ,Â·-1 U .- /1 41 1-J 'r- ~Â·Â· 1, 1 41 p ~ rr. CL hi O .' - 27_ * Â· .: m . 1 5/ 0 0 , r.-1 - I. tl Â£ t 1 1] IiI 'el 11) p, P W"I M - /4 /2 /,1 - re ' 0 0 I O, 0, S 41 th r,1 8) Al 4,~ 41 m, O 0 -3 bD u Â·ri .r. .8 2-~ fri !1; - 0-, M C 6 m u _1 - r.1 G r, .W. & I I 11 1 Â· 9 j r..1 r f 1 12 3 U 0 - U w. 4 1â€ž) , ~ 4 ij 11; 1, 1 I bl k.1 ' O 4 1-4 9 2-j 23 EL G -) r.1 .â€ž, / 1 .4 0 . i 't, I. r-1 til C N l; ht :i: 1-, 51 K -1 u -- , 01 4 r, - to ,(; /9 40 f-0 ca 1 1 . . b. . ..J C I :LI .J .- ...4 11 t: t.3 h. {Â· ' Â· Â· O ,-4 L, t: 11 M C tai 1.1 '0 0 4.1 Â« 9, . I, 1.,1 tri Â· Â· 1, r: ni O 8 , 1 tri 4 t/1 6 4) Â£ (.-) n. i: C,; i.1 1,1 WI ' to .rl C; r' 4-: O -Fl -IL 4, W 1-1 11, 1-Itl . 0 'f) 19 , 4- 1 0..1 ' O 0 0/ 4) U - m O to LJ L' 0 141 41 1 2 7 0 O 0 0 Â· ,-C 1.J 9 u 01 '03 L U M 0,4 U 64 11.. ; ; Â·,4 0.3 il) -- - 41 -13 M k.1 9) d C- r.. , u '11 0 11 0. 1~ r AJ 03 r.-u ~ 2 0 U U g Â·,-1 to I x E 16 4 '4 3 Â·..< 1/) .0 1~ r.1 e > f n. I.3 61, 1~ 2. 1 1 O W 5 d P. 4J El 9 0 in Â·,-1 i Â¢ c .- . Ill u -4 W U c th Â· U pl g .3 41 5' Ll '- g k J ./4 'o, 16 ,'!J V - W-- --- ' C I-0 -1-1 L *70. C t/1 ~ 0 . 4-1 (O Â· i. Â· - . 71 C u 1-) r-. 6 ~fl ~ 0 1, h I f.t '/1 O . 16 Â·7 h. ty "1. L.L. ru 99 t,) Q' t-N f? /1 8 . 1-, ..1 ./ 1 .; t. 01) , : 1-1 Ch - U .1 [-i (,1 2: ..1 f: 14 c . 1:1 1,-i Â· r a 1 g 8 i , c 3 4.61 N .ji ..3: 1.-i 7.- ;6 '2 7, ru I'J :1-0 .El L le 1 -1 'UP u In) . 4, i-1 7 111 U 0 0- Cy' r,J M )1 ' d) - 0 [1 , C~ 9 5.1 / A :2 9 N ' 1- ~2 0 '-,1 -'. U e-/ :,0 41 ~'2 4 51- -- f-, 10 1' 0 - 11) (T , 14 0 14 4-1 (J r -1. r rl 11 U] 11 - - 0 0 ']J r.1 . ... I 01 . m (P VI Câ‚¬ 3 n (U M S ,9 1Â·: M .C : M Â·U > 5 Â· 1. -1 . 2. 1.4 1 2 11Â«-*.,../.1 IN 1-1 0 CY [3 1, CA OJ D 0 0 0 0 1-1.Â· Ill â€¢ D 0 4, r; l-_1 1 1 W t) , 4 71 10 4. (0 -0 , : iÂ·J i Â·Â·k (1 41: i - '- 0 b 11 -3 :) 0 11 11) - -' 18 9 0. E--4 1, 1, -e -1: 1 Â·1 ,0 . 0 c M [i x W 1, f) 'r't-- rr.\(11( 1,1 r. D U r ,Â· 0 1 T.. 1 U.. 4 f to :1 (.O 4... 0 0 :.- C '11 11) ,,1 00 10 0 . LI ; J LI 1: 0 Â·01 -2.2 f Gu .1 2 . u. 9 5 1.J ' 1. 5 3 IP 439 ~ A N 03 t.O 0 r 1 -/9 -//4 11 2 3 . 9, . 4-, (13 1-1 rj 'Ii. 1-J Â· 0 0 0 r,1 U $--' 'ri (11 -, I Â£,4 f.j Â·F.31 r.-2] Â·73'Â· f: :' '9 J. L' 111 t: p (,1 0 0,Â· t) U 1 . 11 (,1 Lt, 4, M U 1 1 -r i 4 4 &, 1C O 0 M .6 40 Â¢0 M /1. M rd N t--1 14 4, â€¢ r-< I--r-- ,-A 9 In M co ,-I 3 , 66 r a M, 3 14 ff ff' 3-4 E :p 72- - ~ -- ~ A n ,-h . Ch M . 0 . rÂ· ' â€¢. r Â«1 . r-4 . rs -1 M . rÂ·Â·I . r. c I CJ (Â·/ (1 (7*'4â€¢ 4. - 'r . Â·1i ~:, ..0..# Â·0 1 QJL Ld 629501 Uljl 2-~.r A- 1 -4 }-9 /1 ' 1,-AÂ· 1.-4 1 -4 't) O.j -J Fl O. Â· ID 1 11. j /3 4Â£7 - 4 r 1 1. %-, .-1 . . 01 4 O 0 ' r: 0 O P V rÂ·. V 4) 't r.. O '1 /1 k. / 1 4 8 li; i,1 n 2 \ ~ w 11 0 . 0 1. 6; P IJ. 14 1 F Â· Tr ir) El 1-, 01 .1 '1 0 69 , i Â£11 f-1 1 6 }-4 n LO 6 i r.1 9 0, 0' 26 4' ~N' f'l ft, C (tiÂ· i ./ fl; t.,3 [,1 4 , ./.Â·Â·. r -J 1 1 ill P M 0, 0 n Ch '1 u, 14 11 {Ii - 0 '11 r, 11 .O 4 , 1 1 M 11, C 1-, i.21< 0, 6,1 i.-i .'., (,1 ' 0 . :13 .,1 '.1 Qu 'i 0 ,-4 -1 I Â·Â· Â· U, 7.1 F 8 3 4 r 1 {/ . 0 0 M F. .6/ li- (t fb 92 9% r N Â·w ID C 3. , 3 1 1 0 7. (1) D (11- 0 r.1 1 ~ ~D (/1 0) _U '1. 11. 01 0 M :1 U, Cl f~ Ct + | LY L j 14 l, 1- J (b j, ra 1 4 ID h. (D rl D 11 U 01 1.-4 9 (D n -1 W '.1 'A) , i r.} t. 1 -1 C 1 D ID Ill ,' W 4 : K l/, -1 f 1. -rl Iâ€¢ 1 l.) .. 1.1 01 to -1 i I+ (11 0-1 0, 1 1. 1 1Â·- i f-1 0 4, 0. .4 , 4 0,1 . r , Â·Â· / 6 n El W f 0 1-i, 73 i ni P. D { -1- (-} n Â£ rt 71 f., :1 1- P. 0 0 1-. 0. ... r -1 0. th . 9/ , .1. i) ..... La .i 1 1 rt L.: .. CO m D- rl -4 01 2 1 1 01) 1 1 :) ,1 L Ly' ri ,-1 M X 01 09 /21 il , , i ,Â· m :ir 111 . 0 } I -2 1 41 0 6 FA 4 fi., M: n (b inÂ· 0 ' - Cl) . r) . {,. 1 Â·IN O 1 1- f' 1./ VA â€ž m .., 1 -1 ( , L Â· 0 " /3 1'Â· al '/ 6. C, p m 11, 2: '-1 6, r-/ 1 -1 M U) ...'. . 11 Â·Â· Ut CO Â· - , Chl./1 4-; ,-1 97 Z.1: 0, 1.-1, 1 1 .2 j r- J 0 Â· .1 01 1 ID I â€¢ { 11 0, 1 -1 -1 0 ---- Â· 0 41 , ft, 2. W ,] O 1.-1 0 V, A n n U .. {' I A u, 9 cul -- C.-Â·, ..'. ...1 (.0 :I! {/J , 1 2 1 .t 1 fl,1 ' -4 , 11 1 -1 4 11, I 2 , 17 0 LE ' ' LA B A fl 4 0 O 0 '1 0 O (.1 ,Â·Â·Â·i ' 4 1-0Â· -- 11, N i j L < ' ' '1 ' ..1. 6 . ID HÂ· ' Â£Â· lf, U (11 1.-1 m -1 01 f I 11. 1 t./1 (1) 1.-â€¢ tu u, h W 51 J (/1 0 fl ~ rt) 1 It r, IL 14 . 3 M R â€ž ,-1 '-1 W r 1 (3 2.J i 4 i Â¢ 0, 0 F. U) m /11 i U un C: Â· It f 1 ,... 1 -1,.1 lilli M 0 11 .. ' U O 0 n (./1 ' ., ll; 1 3 Â· - 1 0 l/t i i 1 J r) -1 (D '.1 CJ' f. it Â·al f 1. Co .-1 61 0 1 0 0 01 m 70 Â·i 0 1,1 C /1 '1 - '7 li, ,- : -> 2.1 0.1 1 1 â„¢ 1 t,- '4Â·j El ff' . , u .., in ,, i,; 0 5 A- (-1 0 ....0 1.1 ;ij SJ. (/1 m -1 â‚¬ 1, h l /1 66 1 4 fU El' . D Â£/1 ..4 -1 . .- III . 111 Â·Â· fl lu .Url rt, 0. . ..:I CU 11, A iD = Â· rÂ·; 01 $ 6-1 . . . .rj - --â€¢â€¢D '1:11 111 1.3 11 tÂ·' (100 3 O 0 Â·-Â· 9' 12 .,1 'IJ -1 '-' .C , M . 01 (.1 .. . 1 - . . O, ir Â· Â· i - Â· 6 1.1 -- Â· C, 0,1 . . . :00 1 - . 41 . PÂ· % 1,3- . .. . c. 1111 ;. . 1 . , 1 - - A 111 r... 1 Â·. Â·Â· f 'L f 1 l Â¥ TrE ill DUP ACEIC .,4.4. i Â¥ 4,2., 4 v:.L.. DA,m:. râ‚¬784 4'his form is te be . -- ---- --I - . 1. bacu 12 conneÂ°6 4 -cion With both the corrÂ·ection of and ddition to ent.fies for the Colo, - rado IrÂ·veritorv n,- 5-74 ,Â·r:Â·0 n.Â·fÂ·,4 . CA--Â·,â€¢r.4-â€¢tÂ·Â·Â·-a= T WIT:.17'1'91 '%42*Il=F COUNTY {if moze thap nne, list all) : PITKIN COUNTY LOCATION (street ad/1 Â¥Â·Af.re 4 F .44-.- -_ L=-Li or towns distance An# direction fromÂ· . highway, river, crossing, or other -AÂ¥ . .1 I. ', 4=*-(91 1:1*Ce point, ..64 4.44. 4.....1 Z 4 32 WEST .FRANCIS. ASPEN. COLORADO ' BLOO:\L_ 314 1- n..T-5 k -I j 1 - uumultriON (cneck and Comment .aere appropriate): -ENCLOSE + 4 4 4., 9%4 11 1 P x Occunied - Threatened -2 ./. Uns 9 4./1/-4 Unoccupied Vandalized RUins A r: r, 1 +-1 A t., C X Sovnd -7.- . .. 1. Intac 2 Nee{13 ALuenulon -: r. i ter ations Movea rrom -- original site . 1 ucmments : Â· r OWNERSHIP (chect appropriate) : PA-?Ar f . P. 1 State DAP-'.... 4 Â·e- .' -I- - MU.Lile.,pul . x _ Private - Mixed, shnw In a National Park .-' - combiration D-isfORY (.Whtr -1 - 4 *0 0 4 -.â€ž 4 c...2.4-,1 - BUILT --42 -LL OU-'j .â€¢1.4.11Â».i/-141.... / ~ ,~rn * Date of Significance: 1006 . . A.L Ullitlecte BUILT IN 1888, THIS RESIDENCE WAS ORIGINALLY OWNED BY S . i. HALLET WHOSE VARIOUS POSITIONS IN ASPEN INCLUDED SUPERINTENDENT OF TRE SMUGGLER MINE, ASPEN SAMPLING WORKS AND SMUGGLER CONCENTRATOR, CASHIER OF TES I COMPROMISE MINING COMPANY, OF THE DURANT MINE, Â· AND THE CONAMORA MINE. PAE SIGNIFICURÂ·:CE : _ Local State National Event Group or Person C'21&=ral Heritage -I-*.-0.- 174 ri:~. g SIGUATURE = *3 1 . 1 lim. 4 . t ..C 1 -404:146 At!600 9-ta/A* ASPEN HISTORIC SITES/STRUCTURES INVENTORY . 1980 1620'(2 i . 34/F. 0/1 0 9 1 .~ le .. <-r. Lfs'L \.61. t--U> W.AJ2Mt ez> c> i , BLOCK/LOT(s) ADDRESS INSTRUMENT/DATE GRANTOR CDANTEF YEAR/TAX ASSESSMENT I ./ i U â€¢. F 9 4 j. >1,1 LM-2.2,6 1/01 19-â‚¬2Â£1 * Et ,D / l /31 4 7 ff..A-tle,-T EE ~~>1 69 A }C.. ~j..E. Â· M-14Â·-U_.â‚¬ T~~T- 1 9 .3 sao E irr.Or-74 I /. 3-9 * ~1 *UU + 6421!~ IDEâ‚¬313> l'A :4 \ tri C.rA.1 -\0 DGE- 3 Â·E. 8-A- LLE.-27~ it 4 370â‚¬> 11 24-13 C> 11>1Â· 3 1_FET>r- fla; ies (3=8Â·40Â·i:>e- 1* /,-C>De-- â‚¬beD 3 . E j+A,Li-,91~-T- 3 Ted M AL-/ 14 1 33 *.lit r 4-1 R f Â» 145- 7)701-R-t ~ Hoc--pÂ· dÂ¢ku) flacg.6 Apt,(91Â·fa .I , 3Ric_-*t-AAD +Â· Nip.Â»ft'f2-1 b'../ <P-~1'4/ 4% 8-Â»La..3 MO>ADE -23 3 2.-2-A S r 9~ . . RESOURCES: 1. Pitkin County Abstract of Lots Books brantor/GranteeÂ· Books Grantee/Grantor Books 2. Pitkin County T.ax Assessment Kolls (on microfilm) 1 1 RESEARCHER: \la-/4 ~E ~1 2.11{341-2 10 y _ ~Ul-q.'â‚¬O - CONCLUSIONS: Block 34 Lots KLM 432 West Francis Street 1889 Aspen.Street Directory - S.I.Hallett residence : 430- West Francis (now Â·432 ) Bookkeeper, Compromise Mining Company 1893 Aspen Street Directory - 1.5. Hallett residence - 430 West-Francis Magr. Aspen Sampling Works Magr. Aspen Concentrator Superintendent Smuggler Mine Office.- Hyman Block ' 1892 Aspen Street Directory - I.S.Hallett 430 West Francis Mgr. Rust Sampling Works Supt. Smuggler Mine 4***** NOTE: Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps list lot KLM of Block 34 as 434 West Francis. It does not show a 430 orÂ· a 432. Therefore, the three may be the same but changed over time. Nlic MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 470 N. Spring Street- Major Development Review (Conceptual) and Variances- Public Hearing continued from May 28,2003 DATE: June 25,2003 SUMMARY: The subject property is located in the Oklahoma Flats neighborhood and contains a Victorian era home which was moved to the site in the 1960's. The application proposes an addition to the rear (north side) of the historic home. Conceptual approval is requested, along with a 500 square foot floor area bonus, a front yard setback variance of up to 25 feet to accommodate the existing location of the house and the proposed location of the garage, a rear yard setback variance of up to 14' to accommodate a portion of the new addition, a north sideyard setback variance o f 8' 6," and a variance from one of the Residential Design Standards related to garages. The project was continued on May 28th so that the architect could study pushing the garage back so that it is not closer to the street than the historic house. In addition, further thought was to be given to restoration opportunities that would justify the FAR bonus. Revised plans have been submitted that change the placement of the garage as requested. Staff finds that its design is now in compliance with the guidelines. Also, within the last few days, more information has become available, in the form of photographs taken 20-30 years ago. These pictures provide evidence about previous alterations made to the house. Staff has conducted additional site inspections and created a list of possible restoration actions that the board and owner should discuss. APPLICANT: Dennis and Andrea Young, owners, represented by Lipkin Warner Design Partnership. PARCEL ID: 2737-073-08-0'02. ADDRESS: 470 N. Spring Street, Lot 2, Block 4, Oklahoma Flats Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, along with a metes and bounds parcel on the southerly side of said lot. ZONING: R-30. CURRENT LAND USE: Single-family residence. 1 MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scate, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Recently, the HPC has been contemplating new tools to analyze the appropriateness of proposals to alter historic structures., The following questions are likely to be the center of future discussions, and may be helpful for HPC to at least reference for this project (note that the questions do not serve as formal decision making criteria at this time): 1. Why is the property significant? 2. What are the key features of the property? 3. What is the character of the context? How sensitive is the context to changes? 4. How would the proposed work affect the property's integrity assessment score? 5. What is the potential for cumulative alterations that may affect the integrity of the property? The property is important as an example of housing built during the mining era. It was moved to the current location, and a number of alterations to the building occurred after that time. Some information about the footprint and design of the house as it was originally constructed is available. Key features of the property are that the original roof and building walls on the front portion of the house are intact. There is some original trim, windows, doors, and porch elements. This house stands in a neighborhood where the 19th century context has been eliminated. Only one other designated cabin is within the vicinity. Most of the adjacent homes are new construction and are significantly larger than this one. 2 The proposal before HPC will create an addition linked to the back of the original house. Very little of the existing building fabric will be removed. Restoration work is envisioned for the Victorian. There is no potential for expansion beyond this application. Design Guideline review Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. The 470 N. Spring Street site has many complexities due to encroachments that were created by the 1960's relocation, and the limited size of the lot. The owner is in the process of acquiring a portion of the area where the garage will be sited from a neighbor. This will of course be a condition of approval. A list of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit B." Only those guidelines which staff finds the proj ect may be in conflict with, or where discussion is needed, are included in the memo. In general, staff finds the design to be very well done, and in character with the Victorian home. The addition will provide living space and a garage. The guidelines state: 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. 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. and 14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene. See Chapter 8: Secondary Structures. Because there is living space that is integral to the function of the house above the garage, detaching the new addition from the Victorian is not practical. At the last meeting, staff had proposed sliding the garage back from the street so that it does not project in front of the historic /9 house. The board agreed and the architect has moved this piece back to the extent possible The idea of moving the staircase element (the "connector") that joins the two buildings further back so that there is more of an appearance of separation between the two buildings was also discussed, but it did not appear that the majority of the board felt that this was necessary to meet the guidelines. Staff finds that the addition is now compatible in height, scale, massing, and proportions with the Victorian home and can be granted conceptual approval. Materials and fenestration will be reviewed at Final. SETBACK VARIANCES The setback variances needed are a front yard setback variance of up to 25 feet to accommodate the existing location of the house and the proposed location of the garage, a rear yard setback variance of up to 14' to accommodate a portion of the new addition, and a north sideyard setback varianee of 8'6". The criteria, per Section 26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code are as follows: HPC must make a finding that the setback variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Staff Finding: This lot is unusually small, particularly for this neighborhood, which has a minimum standard lot area of 30,000 square feet. The development will butt up against the proposed new north and east property lines, and come close to the new west lot line. The property owner to the east has submitted a letter in support of the application. The owner to the north (uphill) has expressed a desire to see windows and skylights eliminated along that side of the project. No one will be directly impacted by variances granted along the west, or street side of the site. As the Commission is aware, setback variances are one of the benefits offered to owners of historic properties in order to address the requirements placed on them to retain and maintain a historic building. Staff finds that there is no other location on the property where any expansion can be accommodated, and because there is no on-street parking in the immediate area, cars must be contained somewhere on the site. Staff supports the granting ofthe setback variances. With regard to the neighbor's request that all windows and skylights be eliminated on the north faGade of the addition, the applicant has already agreed to remove the skylights, but there should 4 be discussion as to whether losing the windows will create an appearance that is out of character with the Victorian. The applicant does not propose to delete all windows. HPC should weigh the arguments on both sides of this issue as they pertain to the design guidelines and make a decision at the Conceptual level since it is the granting of variances that has concerned the neighbor. Staff believes that having a blank wall on the addition is not in keeping with the following guideline: 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. u Ati addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. u An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. The character of the Victorian is that each wall has some glazing. FAR BONUS The applicant is requesting a 500 square foot floor area bonus. The following standards apply to an FAR bonus, per Section 26.415.110.E: 1. In selected circumstances the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a. The design of the project meets al! applicable design guidelines; and b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building and/or c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; and/or e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or . Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. 2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices. 5 V ora Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood of being awarded additional floor area. 3. The decision to grant a Floor Area Bonus for Major Development projects will occur as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.415.070(D). No development application that includes a request for a Floor Area Bonus may be submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how the proposal might meet the bonus considerations. Staff Response: The applicant previously met with HPC for a worksession to discuss this project, as required by the review standard. The outcome of that conversation included a redesign of the roof form on the addition and the elimination of a glass "monitor" on the roof. Staff finds that these changes improved the project's relationship to the historic resource significantly. Staff can support an FAR bonus for this project, finding that criteria a, b, d, e, and f, above. are met, with the condition that as much restoration work as can be feasibly and accurately completed on the Victorian be undertaken (criteria c). HPC seemed to be in agreement with this th position on May 28 . At this time, the proposal in HPC's packet includes the following restoration work: a reworking of the alterations that have been made to the front porch, removal of a non-historic side porch, reconfiguration of existing non-historic windows to make them more compatible with the Victorian proportions, removal of an inappropriate storm window that obscures a historic double hung on the west, removal of a skylight on the front roof plane. removal and revegetation of a parking space in front of the house, replacement of a non-historic door on the east fagade with one that is more architecturally appropriate, removal/reworking and patching of some vents on the east side o f the house, and reworking o f a dormer on the east side of the house. In general, these are all positive changes. However, staff has been able to locate a photo of this building in 1980, and has been able to view a picture of the house as it was being moved in 1968, which has shed new light on the status of this home. 1.. 1 . A*.41%. : ..,4/'I/#/lf,~~:~- .. .grl e.=*,-.4Â© RI-J~-- ~fi- t:. ff~c.~4i,1.9Â»;;0 ....1~.93/'.Uit -1. tr - LÂ« Â· I. .A- :r~Â· I_ 1 -MAI = ~'94 Aul S ,*-*42*64- 12#-3-Ft#/3, ':'93 ..i'): 11 I. - -t/9~-*.2-':~M/lm -Ja-20 - + C i-1..._ A- .-r *-- 1*14%,4 -f~r .4*. /4 imii.Wi'rimb 47<9Â£61â€ž: 3Â·l~~~~Jk :r tc al:lim -* 1 59Zt 6 -Â· :11- TA t~JI ,Â· ./ Â·r~ s s , EF 4 4 1 .X.8,6 . - :El' < 14 -*4111 1 .. . ' J ./ .* V 4-1 I "94 I I xe , - -f, #,2 4 A24Â·15 2.i, 1968 1980 6 Close examination of these photos, and further // inspections of the property, suggest a few new -: Â·.:. .:Â·t, - - 4, things. First, it is clear that the bay window on the * ' VI'-~/9 +-"---4-â€¢.--â€¢-'Â· -0,=- th %. . .... .1.1.14:--l front o f the house is not historic. There are 19 ..4-2. . century windows in the existing bay, so either the .'.~ .- ' 1 *-- ~ whole element or just the windows were salvaged *Â· 7.- Â· 0 ., :.:+ from another property and applied to 470 N. f-7 ' 1 2.24Â£ i ..:-11 - fl.VI# 1 , ..1 , Spring Street. It is also highly suggested by these 4. .... 1, 5 photos and site inspections that the front posts and 4 - f -'I'Â·AS 4 decorative trim are all original. The only new -' 3 . 1,>_-am . %4 -. 4 ry " element there is the covered staircase, which has Il ...â€¢C>kÂ·,1.412 C.7"?Wt: 4 1 , 1 ,1,5 'Â· also been built with trim that was salvaged from , ~-39-3.- It,=Upiffly 1 . A :.ze other locations or otherwise made to closely approximate the historic detailing. Existing front porch Both pictures show asphalt shingle siding on the building, which has since been removed. Apparently, the original clapboards have been replaced with V-groove T&G siding. Finally, there is a window up in the west gable end that used to match the double hung on the front gable, but has since been replaced with something smaller. With this new information in hand, staff recommends that the HPC and owner have additional discussion at the hearing as to how far restoration can be reasonably taken in order to reverse some unfortunate alterations on this building. Everyone must bear in mind that the FAR bonus is a very valuable benefit. Staff categorizes the following work as relatively easy to accomplish and mandatory for the bonus: â€¢ Removal of the canopy over the front stairs, and reworking of the railings in that area to bring them up to code in a manner that is sympathetic to the historic house. â€¢ Removal o f the non-historic west side porch. â€¢ Removal of an inappropriate multi-paned storm window that obscures a historic double hung on the west. â€¢ Removal of a skylight on the front roo f plane. â€¢ Removal and revegetation o f a parking space in front of the house. â€¢ Patching and removal of vents on the east wall as described in the application. â€¢ Replacement of a non-historic door on the east fagade with one that is more architecturally appropriate. â€¢ Relocation of a satellite dish that has been placed on the roof of the Victorian to a much less visible location, preferably on the addition. â€¢ Relocation if possible, or at least painting a mushroom vent at the back of the Victorian. 7 Staff categorizes the following work as meaningful restoration work that ought to be required for the bonus: â€¢ Removal of the existing siding, which is not historic, and replacement with clapboards. This would dramatically improve the historic integrity o f the house. â€¢ Restoration of windows that have been altered on the west and east walls of the house to their original size and location, based on framing evidence that will be exposed when re- siding. (Particularly on the west at the kitchen window bay and gable end, as well as the living room window on the east.) Reworking of the dormer on the east side of the house was discussed at some length on May 28a and the applicant has provided an elevation of how that might look. Staff completely agrees that this would benefit the house, but does not give it high priority in terms of any budget constraints compared to some of the other actions that restore features o f the house that have been lost. The last item that is worth mentioning, although would likely be considered undesirable by the home owner, is the removal of the front bay window. The bay has been in place since at least 1980, and more likely for a decade or so before that. It is a charming feature that has, to a certain , degree, become a part of the house, however it is not original and creates a more high style decorative character than this home apparently ever had. Staff believes that removing it and installing a large double hung window as shown in the 1968 photo is the appropriate thing to do from a preservation standpoint, but does not recommend that the board require this without the owner' s agreement. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The project requires a variance to a Residential Design Standards related to the garage. 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 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 cari)orts on alleys, or to minimize the presence o f garages and carports as a li feless part o f the streetscape where alleys do not exist. 8 1. For all residential uses, parking, garages, and carports shall be accessed from an alley or private road if one exists. 2. For all residential uses that do not have access from an alley or private road, the following standards shall be met: a. On the street facing fagade(s),the width of the living area on the first floor shall be at least five (5) feet greater than the width of the garage or carport. b. The front faGacle of the garage or the frontmost supporting column of a carport shall be setback at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the frontmost wall of the house. Response: Standard 2b is the one in question. The garage has a 4'3" setback from the western wall of the house. Given the constraints of this property, and in order to build a garage that has the depth necessary to park a car, some relief from this standard is needed. DECISION MAKING OPTIONS: The HPC may: â€¢ approve the application, â€¢ approve the application with conditions, â€¢ disapprove the application, or â€¢ continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Major Development approval (Conceptual) and Variances for 470 N. Spring Street as proposed with the following conditions: l. HPC grants the following variances: a 500 square foot floor area bonus, a front yard setback variance of up to 25 feet to accommodate the existing location of the house and the proposed location of the garage, a rear yard setback variance of up to 14' to accommodate a portion of the new addition, a north sideyard setback variance of 8 '6," and a variance from the Residential Design Standards related to setting the garage back - from the face of the house. 2. In order to warrant the FAR bonus, the applicant must undertake: â€¢ Removal of the canopy over the front stairs, and reworking of the railings in that area to bring them up to code in a manner that is sympathetic to the historic house. â€¢ Removal of the non-historic west side porch. â€¢ Removal of an inappropriate multi-paned storm window that obscures a historic double hung on the west. â€¢ Removal of a skylight on the front roof plane. 9 â€¢ Removal and revegetation of a parking space in front of the house. â€¢ Patching and removal of vents on the east wall as described in the application. â€¢ Replacement of a non-historic door on the east fagade with one that is . more architecturally appropriate. â€¢ Relocation of a satellite dish that has been placed on the roof of the Victorian to a much less visible location, preferably on the addition. â€¢ Relocation if possible, or at least painting a mushroom vent at the back of the Victorian. â€¢ Removal of the existing siding, which is not historic, and replacement with clapboards. This would dramatically improve the historic integrity of the house. â€¢ Restoration of windows that have been altered on the west and east walls of the house to their original size and location, based on framing evidence that will be exposed when re- siding. (Particularly on the west at the kitchen window bay and gable end, as well as the living room window on the east.) 3. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided h written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. 4. The applicant shall be required to finalize all necessary lot line adjustments before any building permit will be issued for this development. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution # Series of 2003." Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated June 25,2003 B. Relevant Design Guidelines C. Application 10 "Exhibit B: Relevant Design Guidelines for 470 N. Spring Street, Conceptual Review" Secondary Structures 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. Building 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. 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. 10.6 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. 11 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 recornnlended. 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. 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. Guidelines to consider with regard to the FAR bonus Windows 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. Porches 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. 12 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. Architectural Details 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. Roofs 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. . 13 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (III'C) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 470 N. SPRING STREET, LOT 2, BLOCK 4, OKLAHOMA FLATS ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, ALONG WITH A METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 2003 PARCEL ID: 2737-073-08-002 WHEREAS, the applicants, Dennis and Andrea Young, represented by Lipkin Warner Design Partnership, have requested Major Development Review (Conceptual) and Variances for the property located at 470 N. Spring Street, Lot 2, Block 4, Oklahoma Flats Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, along with a metes and bounds parcel, Aspen, Colorado. The property is listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures:" and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for approval of setback variances, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code, that the setback variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district; and WHEREAS, for approval of an FAR bonus, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code, that: a. The design of the project meets &11 applicable design guidelines; and b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building and/or c. The work restores the existing portion ofthe building to its historic appearance; and/or d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; and/or e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained; and WHEREAS, for approval of a variance from the "Residential Design Standards," according to Section 26.410 of the Municipal Code, the HPC must find that: A. The proposed design yields greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen area 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; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated June 25,2003, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended that the project be approved with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on June 25,2003, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and other applicable sections of the Municipal Code and approved the application with conditions by a vote of_ to _. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants Major Development (Conceptual) and Variance approval with the following conditions: l. HPC grants the following variances: a 500 square foot floor area bonus, a front yard setback variance of up to 25 feet to accommodate the existing location of the house and the proposed location of the garage, a rear yard setback variance of up to 14' to accommodate a portion of the new addition, a north sideyard setback variance of 8'6," and a variance from the Residential Design Standards related to setting the garage back from the face of the house. 2. In order to warrant the FAR bonus, the applicant must undertake: â€¢ Removal of the canopy over the front stairs, and reworking of the railings in that area to bring them up to code in a manner that is sympathetic to the historic house. â€¢ Removal of the non-historic west side porch. â€¢ Removal of an inappropriate multi-paned storm window that obscures a historic double hung on the west. â€¢ Removal of a skylight on the front roof plane. â€¢ Removal and revegetation of a parking space in front of the house. â€¢ Patching and removal of vents on the east wall as described in the application. â€¢ Replacement of a non-historic door on the east fagade with one that is more architecturally appropriate. â€¢ Relocation of a satellite dish that has been placed on the roof of the Victorian to a much less visible location, preferably on the addition. â€¢ Relocation if possible, or at least painting a mushroom vent at the back of the Victorian. â€¢ Removal of the existing siding, which is not historic, and replacement with clapboards. This would dramatically improve the historic integrity of the house. â€¢ Restoration of windows that have been altered on the west and east walls of the house to their original size and location, based on framing evidence that will be exposed when re- siding. (Particularly on the west at the kitchen window bay and gable end, as well as the living room window on the east.) 3. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan.- The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. 4. The applicant shall be required to finalize all necessary lot line adjustments before any building permit will be issued for this development. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 25th day of June, 2003. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION jeffrey Halferty, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk nriÂ·LVÂ· LUVV v'lul 1,[ L 1.1 1\ L H 11 1-\ 1\ 11 L 1\ U c o 1 U '7 INU,JOW/ r, 2 Dimensional Requirement Form (Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) Proj ect: b/l of-A. Ave AN=4 i 6~ovi Applicant: ,/4 2 *D>1 (976.Pâ‚¬lÂ«ac.ir, L ;pk:>c.I.01 6't ->,at-1/14'~ .1345 417 Project Location: 4 1-0 4 <:Spr 40 st . Zone District: A - 3 0 i Lot Size: 2/0 02- Lot Area: 24 SO -2- (For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high wate? mark, easements, and steep siopes. Please refer to the , definition of Lot Area in the Â·Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: 0 Proposed. 0 Number of residential units: Existing. L Proposed: 1 Number of bedrooms: Existing.Â· 1,>1. Proposed: 1- Proposed % of demolition: S 71 DIMENSIONS: (write n/a where no requirement exists in the zone district) Floor Area: Existing: 1,55'257/ATIowable: 3,731{.c. Proposed: 2,9-31 63 Height Principal Bldg.: Existing: 22-/0 Allowable: Proposed: xessory Bldg.: ' Existing: */* Attowable: At / A . Proposed: ,v /,4- r On-Site parking: Existing: \ 5 Required: 2 Proposed: EST % Site coverage: Existing: :. P/A Required: N / A Proposed: N /A % Open Space: Existing: ~* /*ce Required: N,/A Proposed: Wht Front Setback: Existing: / *'F' Required: ~ ' Proposed-: C> Rear Setback: Existing: ' 822 "Required: / S ' Proposed-. /'- 4/ Combined !' Front/Rear: Existing: '14/A Required: N/,4 Proposed. u /4 Indicat.Â§ N. S. E, W Sideletbaâ‚¬c. 90,0,+A Existing: -215'-9' Required: /O' Proposed: -/5 '-9" Side Setback: turr+ 14 Existing: 9- b Required: /c)/ Proposed: / L G' Combined Sides: Exidng= -N ) 4 Radx a. At l A Proposed. N j Ar Existing non-conformities of- encrolchments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: /1. 532*4(-repatedl "4434Â£f<dkag -0 0 6Â»' 33Â¥ 60Â«#t- Â·RAIXÂ·., 1;-49-'Â¥5.95-) Variations requested (identify the exact vanances needed): 52:>c:> s. u,~pe .4,4 6*,01.LA~-,; -2 rkcf. **b , 4 h*-AL iAA â‚¬ 14>.14- 0 4- . -=Cti J.Â£-Uts ( A 2 v* 97-Jsrdls /51,-n.;es A I HOUSE ORIGINAL LOCATION Corner of 5th and BLEEKER '7. d 2 0' e.,W -1 Ulk . ' /1 v L . ./00 4 1Â» 4, d: . 1 - i* 7 , 'â€¢wr ./ I ./ , ./ 1 , 1 , . 1 . (1,~Le... .J ./At _ . .. .1 1 1 0Â»,2/7 1 62-5 /1-6 D \A .13. Oft/1.01 /Ull--~ Ml.A/E â‚¬ POTÂ«YÂ»0 / 80 Â°. 070 hizyv G f 7-2- ( A, cf-tlyn-tvnl rl -E~:b-d:El -1 r03Â«In, r./ { <2 (rpin LE. U 6,0.OL_ 2('ft:rD rbÂ«fEL Ef- -V.,v/v dE:,1.6 me 23400 Two Rivers Rd. # 44 â€¢ P.O. Box2239 T 970 927-8473 IJ LIPKIN WARNER DESIGN & PLANNING, LLC Basalt, Colorado 81621 F 970 927-8487 Young Addition 470 N. Spring St. Lot 2, Block 4 Oklahoma Flats Proj ect Description The Residence The Young Residence is located at 470 North Spring Street in the Oklahoma Flats section of Aspen. It is a relatively small one and a half story miner's Victorian house. There is a main structure with crossing gables and a front porch facing south. To the north there are multiple additions with a variety of roof shapes. House Moved We know from a contemporary newspaper article accompanied by a photograph that the house was moved in 1968 from Aspen' s West End. In addition, we know from the building permit on file that the house was known then as the "Tagert House". A 1965 phone directory lists a W. C. Tagert as living at 535 West Bleeker. We found a biography and obituary in the Heitage Aspen archive from which we learned that William Tagert and his wife Cora lived in Aspen from at least 1895. The House's Original Location (?) An isometric drawing Â· of Aspen dated 1893 shows a house at 535 West Bleeker with some similar familiar features to the house now in Oklahoma Flats. A 1904 map of the city, which includes building footprints, shows presumably the same house. We have found no other documentation for this lot, and we have not found anything that confirms the house depicted in these renderings is actually the Tagert house of 1968. There is no verifiable documentation for the existing house pior to 1968. The most recognizable feature of the isometric rendering is a gabled structure with two windows facing west and additions to the min volume to the south. If indeed this is the same house, it indicates that it was rotated 180 degrees when moved to its new location. 1968 Changes A 1968 newspaper photograph shows the house as its being moved from the West End. In this photograph the building has no south porch or south window bay. We conclude that the somewhat frilly (neo) Victorian south porch and the south window bay are both 1968 additions. The south bay looks to be an historic artifact. The porch seems less authentic. Unfortunately, the newspaper photograph shows nothing ofthe other three sides. When the house was moved it was set on a new foundation with basement. The house now probably sits higher above the ground than it did originally. The somewhat crazy stair configuration on the west, which is part of today's tangle of northern additions, we guess, was added in 1968 to account for the new ground floor height elevation. Historic Parts of North Additions 01.Project Description.HPC.lwdp.doc Page 1 4/24/2003 DI P .m 23400 Two Rivers Rd. # 44 â€¢ P.O. Box2239 T 970 927-8473 T IPKIN WARNER DESIGN & PLANNING, LLC CJ Basalt, Colorado 81621 F 970 927-8487 As for the rest of the north, the only section that may be historic is the part below the hipped roof. By pealing away some of the interior finishes we have found mostly new construction but also parts that seem to be older. The east wall when exposed shows modern framing. The north wall appears to have modern framing with older vertical planks connected to the top and bottom plates. The west wall is made of old planks with plasterboard and drywall on either side. The west wall seems to be lacking any discernable structure. The east and west walls have been internalized by additions to either side. The north wall is an exterior wall but it has a new window and new siding. Preserving the Historic Resource Our approach to preserving the historic quality of this house is three fold. First we propose to restore parts of the original miner's Victorian volume. We intend to remove portions of the modern additions on the west, which extend beyond the original structure's facades. This will also help to emphasize the original entrance on the south. On the east we will reconfigure the reversed shed roof to a regular shed roof, which will be more sympathetic to the original shapes. We will remove the modern bay window on the west and replace it with windows of more historic proportions. With the guidance of HPC we will remove the modern ginger bread detailing on the south porch. Second, although the additions to the north are at best compromised in their historic significance, they none the less represent a common practice of adding rooms with lower roof forms to the back of a main structure. We will leave the north additions as they are with the above exceptions and add a connector that overlaps only the west corner of the wall below the hipped roof. New Construction to the North The new addition we are proposing is located to the north for three reasons. First, the north side is furthest from the historically significant portions of the original structure. Second, the north side seems to have very little discernable original building remaining and so by adding here we are minimizing contact with the historic structure. Third, the lot configuration is such that expansion is only possible to the north. Space Between Connected Buildings The new addition is conceived as a distinct building form not meant to compete with the original. The two will be separated by a minimal connector. Building Height This northern migration, it should be noted, is limited in that the "flat" o f Oklahoma Flats ends right here on this side of the house. The new addition runs directly into the side of the steep embankment, which defines the Oklahoma Flats boundary. Since there is no more opportunity to expand horizontally the new addition rises vertically. Nonetheless the new addition measures 24 feet at its highest point. The original structure measures 9 inches higher. Scale The streets in Oklahoma Flats are narrow and residential. In fact, most of the new houses, which have replaced the smaller ones ofjust a few years ago, seem out of scale to the quaint streets, which remain. This is not the case with the Young Residence. This small Victorian on its new foundation is reminiscent 01.Project Description.HPC.lwdp.doc Page 2 4/24/2003 DI P .m 23400 Two Rivers Rd. # 44 â€¢ P.O. Box2239 T 970 927-8473 CJ L IPKIN WARNER DESIGN & PLANNING, LLC Basalt, Colorado 81621 F 970 927-8487 of the demolished houses that use to populate Oklahoma Flats. The new addition is of similar scale and does not overpower the site or the street, particularly as it recedes into the hillside, Garage Included Parking on the street is nonexistent and to park openly on site appears sloppy and congested. To alleviate this condition the new addition is using the ground floor as a garage. There is no other access point for a garage on the site. To minimize the garage's impact on the street it is of small scale, it is set back from the historic building and a "porch" screens it in front. The look is more of a carriage house than a modern day garage. Original Historic Use We think it is important that the original structure not only maintain its historic use but also its historic functions. To this end, the south side of the historic house is being revamped as the main entrance. The addition removes the west side stair and door, which had become the de facto way in. Of no less importance, the new structure does not replace the main internal functions of the original. Facing the street are the kitchen and stair hall, and the living room and dining room remain in their original location. The attic room remains as a bedroom. Work At Home The new addition has, as described above, a garage and above that a modest master bedroom. In front of the master bedroom, facing the street is a study where one can work at home. We think it is an important point that so many of the homes in Aspen are not lived in much of the year. However, the Young's are active paiticipants in the community and Aspen is their home. This house with its additions is not large, and it is meant to represent a modest upgrade to today's lifestyles without sacrificing the beauty and scale ofthe town they love. A Little More Space Despite the restraint used in designing these additions we do request some help from the HPC for FAR considerations. Hindered somewhat in this respect by including the garage, the Young's need 500 square feet of bonus FAR to complete the project. The scale of each new room is modest and in no way approaches anything close to "monster' status. The proposed project is meant to rehabilitate the historic building that the Young's are proud to own and anxious to preserve. Thank You, David Warner Dennis Young Andrea Young 01.Project Description.HPC.lwdp.doc Page 3 4/24/2003 DI P co ho Z. ' ]3974)11*Â·77-lpFRY.tfk~ 8 1 8. 1 B. a I R. 1 H & . >'11'.,4?j...Fri*')*lam.--Â·7- >~ 1 rdLI JUr/9 1 '41-5 2. 41Â·.,4/ 480+41,4.51 F-IP... !2.-:?Wet.;Awnl.Â·â‚¬-40#9.;AN. 1 U) 4 jjkjAINW,ON,-4 62/mot:i:t 43 CD K . - .4 N 19, . 1â€¢.4*i'GL~y..rÂ·0-14="rejffflit a & th....-' -Â©7.-El,GY - 1 .8 \1.,C.\ HEAL'FURN.r?CE 3 12:t:2,4-,-1 4/6*rJ.Â· ELEC N. 0. 53 2 3 3 I ll 516 fi4 612 610 608 606 604 God 600 534 6-32 630 528 5%6 524 52 5110 518 516 5lq 51'6 510 508 506 504 50% 500 -7134 . O.H -====== ==================== := ===07.01=p/gg ==== W.BLEEKER b. O ' -. (613) (6093 - '9 6/7 6/5 607 61.1 6(19' 607 50.- Al -0.10 am ,0,0, ow.527 525 -25124..23-_-NE.56L2i 6// 5US 507 615 503 3-(7/ 435 0 t 1 ' yar R $ 9~.7 < k 9? 3 x -in i--*I 71)1 Ey' 4 z . XI N D 1 4 - \ 1\*5>01 pi--1 I O 1- 1/XiI 19 ~1 12-1 \ U %2 ;ZT/iti 9 7 MIl 1/ X - - 2- 1. F~- 1.0 0 rt LIA I . O 00 : Z b 1 2 CDÂ·: 2 1- 4- LU 0 < 17 1 5 C. 0. ~ 25. H ~ l. k. G /9. =74 M P OlliEI 210 1 1 4 4-â‚¬66 [r-:1 - \ y-Zh - 30 24 152-1-3 -5.-it "1' * F X F '1' 11 Nalk,/f ILE]- lE] 'Lan-61 1 ~9 L. M R 67, /9 â‚¬ /7 3. 4 v n. Â« 1 l o ~ / 0 7-5 4 4 F----- -1 43 0 -31 2 7-1 O / [7-311 1 2-1 N -- 4,-1 9 d /2 1 m~; 3 32-71 , Qi'Â£1 E _ 2 L_L 731 . x . ./CD \ =41 2 ff / < 1-IEZ 2 n ... . E 0 2-_-~ I ill 516>00 21'9( E 6>0. # rE,6 6/8 6,0 6,0 608 608 604 602 606 534 538 530 6'62 326 52,4 612 520 5-18 5,6 514 5/2,51Â°Ufg40,60& 504\64%600 , o.H, 434 FiTÂ·~ 0X - _ -KJ Z__ 1'0 *42. - = ============= ====== >= --=======-=== r W.P,pc :.l /'~.1 t 2 001 20'6 009, 2/i 9jl iii 2,11 b 80/ 901 20/ ZO; 00/ â€¢t sa*Fi.f.,fift.i~1~4Â·1%F.#6~1- . ..Ir'. !11,14&tfr,â„¢*, Â£4/65) 2 8.1. / BUILDING, INSPECTION DEPARTMENT ECIP.Awlillillill'llillillill'llillillill'llill'X TOLORADO ADDRESS 470 10-*r-,2 CONSTRUCTION ~ GENERAL OF JOB Lot 2, Block 4 Oklahoma Flats 9 PERMIT WHEN SIGNED AND VALIDATED BY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES THE WORLP|ESCRIBED BELOW. CLASS OF WORK: NEW O ADDITION E ALTERATION Z REPAIRO MOVE E WRECI OWNER NAME Marvin Moriarity ADDRESS Aspen, Colorado PHONE 925-2964 LICEN5E LICENSE NAME (AS LICENSED) By owner CLASS NUMBER .INSUI C 6Â» 5 *2,Â· 6-R.Â·-~453~2,-tÂ·Â«75567~E- ADDRESS -L---w<------ --1---- . p EL-0.NEL . ' SUPERVISOR ~ -17+~ 9 L ~s o eu Â»caoce=,Â·u FOR THIS JOB NAME L &=. DATE CERTIi -- LEGAL Â· 3\ 4 DESCRIPTION LOT NO. 2 BLOCK No. 4 ADDITION Oklahoria Flats 4 1 L SURVEY ATTACHED E DESIGN g Tagert house to be moved } A llc. i BY None BY Â£ as constructed / PE No AREA (S.F.) HEIGHT NO. \ TOTAL OCCUFANCY,/r AT GRADE 2700 (FEET) 2l' STORIES UNIT'~1_---- __ 1 _,G Re-OP Res. DIV. BASEMENT FIN. ~ GARAGE SINGLE EJ ATTACHED CJ TOTAL TYPE FIRE Wood UNFIN. ,~ DOUBLE Q DETACHED J ROOMS 9 CONSTR. ZONE ' DEPTH 1 ( FIRST SIZE SPACING SPAN AUTHORIZED BELOW l AGENCY DA BY GRADE 4(5 FLOOR BUILDING EXTERIOR C RE VE W FOOTtNG ~ ~./i - CEILING SIZE O ~ ZONING EXTERIOR CONC. O FDN. WALL n // ROOF PARKING ~ ~ THICKNESS ~ MAS'Y ~ U. 1 THICK m CAISSONS m ROOFINIG PUBLIC HEALTH 1 SLAB L & GR. BEAMS U MATERIAL MASONRY ABOVE ABOVE ABOVE ENGINEERING EXTERIOR THICKNESS IST FLR, 2ND FLA. 3RD FLR. ~ WALL STUD SIZE ABOVE ABOVE ABOVE & SPACE IST FLR. 2ND FLR. 3RD FLR. REMARKS NOTES TO APPLICANT: FOR INSPECTIONS OR INFORMATION CALL 925 - 7336 FOR ALL WORK DONE UNDER THIS PEP,MIT THE PEP.MITTEE ACCEPTS FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR VALUATION COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, THE COUNTY ZONING RESOLUTION OR CITY ZONING ORDINANCE, AND ALL OTHER COUNTY RESOLUTIONS OR CITY ORDINANCES WHICHEVER OFWORK ~1,400.00 APPLIES. SEPARATE PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING AND HEATING, SIGNS, PLAN TOTA L FE SWIMMING POOLS AND FENCES. PERMIT EXPIRES 60 DAYS FROM DATE ISSUED UNLESS WORK IS STARTED. FILED TPO CD /2 REQUIRED INSPECTIONS SHALL BE REQUESTED ONE WORKING DAY IN ADVANCE. DOUBLE CHECK Fl ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE MADE OR ALL ITEMS OF WORK BEFORE OCCUPANCY IS PERMITTED. FEE E] CASH E $14 .00 5 THIS BUILDING SHALL NOT BE OCCUPIED UNTIL A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUBANCY HAS SEEN ISSUED. g BUILDING DEPARTMENT El. 1 44 PERMIT SUBJECT TO REVOCATION,OR SUSPENSION FO IOLATION QI ANY LAWS GOVERNING SAME. SIGNATURE fl j 11 1 J.\ 71 A j/ji 0/ OF APPLICANT: rÂ» j>\ 1/U44.(JI / r 4% filel /Lj/ ~ADp. 21> (7 - 7//7, ' j .e / PERMIT NO. LICENSE * RECEIPTS CLASS AAOUN THIS FORM IS A PERMIT ONLY - .WHEN VALIDATED HERE . / 7 9 ~11/61 BA-170 N NDATION CONTRACTOR .m 23400 Two Rivers Rd. # 44 â€¢ P.O. Box2239 T 970 927-847 IJ LIPKIN WARNER DESIGN & PLANNING. LLC Basalt, Colorado 81621 F 970 927-848 Young Addition HPC Conceptual Review FAR Bonus Allowable FAR = 2,241.60 site sqft{per survey} 2,195 + 607 (80%) {per R-30} Existing + Addition Total FAR = 2,739.63 = [409.20 + 1,116.63 + 1,213.80] HPC Bonus = 498.03 required to meet Zoning FAR Basement Level FAR= 409.20 = (.343) 1,193.01 Square Footage: gross = 1,193.01 = 1,100.46 {Victorian} + 92.55{addition} Wall Surface: gross = 1,089.85 = [2(48 + 28.75)] 7.1 {wall height} Wall Surface: exposed = 373.37 = [40 + 43.75 + 28.75 + 16.25)] 2.9 {wall height} Factor = .343 = 373.37 / 1,089.85 Main Level FAR = 1,116.63 = (.843) [1,699.59 - 375.1 {garage bonus} Square Footage: gross = 1,699.59 = 1,048.25 {Victorian} + 651.34{addition} Wall Surface: gross = 2,039.09 = [1,317.22 + 721.87] Victorian - 1,317.22 = [2(44) + 29.25 + 16.75)1 9.83 {wall height} Addition = 721.87 = [2(26) + 24 + 11.5)] 8.25 {wall height} Wall Surface: covered = 318.56 = [162.28 + 127.51 + 22.16 + 6.61] Factor = .843 - [1.0 - 018.56 / 2,039.09)] Upper Level FAR = 1,213.80 = [(.972) 826.95] + 410.00 Square Footage: gross = 1,256.45 = 410.00 {Victorian} + 826.95{addition} Wall Surface: Addition = 944.00 = [2(26 + 33)] 8.00 {wall height} Wall Surface: covered = 26.00 = [15 + 11] Factor {addition only} = .972 = [1.0 - (26.00 / 944.00)] 01.FAR.HPC.CR.lwdp.doc Page 1 4/22/2003 DI P 23400 Two Rivers Rd. # 44 â€¢ P.O. Box2239 T 970 927-8473 CJ LIPKIN WARNER DESIGN & PLANNING, LLC Basalt, Colorado 81621 F 970 927-8487 Young Addition 470 N. Spring St. Improvement Survey Lot Line Adjustment Existing Improvement Survey The current improvement survey included in your package was developed and used in a settlement agreement with the Young's and their neighbor, the Budingers that outlines a change in the property line. The change is an extended property parcel added in 2002 through adverse possession to the north, which increased the property's size and FAR, and required a lot line adjustment. This line is identified on the LWDP site plan as "new property line from adverse1possession". The survey does not include pending changes being proposed in this Conceptual Review packet, as identified on LWDP site plans. The pending design if approved will required a new lot line adjustment, adjusted as required for the new HPC approved addition. This adjustment is identified on the LWDP site plan, noted as "proposed property swap" (that maintains current lot size and FAR allowances). In addition an easement will be required to access the new addition, also identified on said site plan. Settlement Agreement with Neighbor In addition to the parcel agreement stated above the settlement also stipulates neighbor' s approval towards future development that extends into said parcel. Owner's Intent The owner's goal is to get approval from HPC first before obtaining a new lot line adjustment. This will allow the Young's to finalize the existing agreement with their neighbor, and thus obtain new approvals with the Planning Department to complete all necessary approvals for a Construction Permit. Lot Line Adjustment A new lot line adjustment is required to allow the development to legally manifest. Once HPC has approved the scope of the new development the neighbor will then review and approve the change. This will trigger a new lot line adjustment approval process with the City Planning Department. This process will work concurrently with the HPC's approval process. Ideally the client would like to finalize the lot line adjustment after HPC final review approval. Request The owner requests the HPC to proceed with their approval process by acknowledging.the pending improvement survey and lot line adjustment. We would like this included in the Final Review's "Conditions of Approval" for the project. 01.Lot Line Adjustment.HPC CR.lwdp.doc Page 1 4/23/2003 DI P ei: CR,</b , '10 ..p~ 5,5 WILLOW BY WAY 470 j ff 30 2 3 8 0 N. Spring 1 = am Z GILLESPIE AVE N U.aka < P RL - 9. - 9 NO 487- m :%: .v~ m Â· p ' i.itlll1ltf 1/ <0141 1 l54y> '. 8. HAROLD ROSS W FR NCIS T 0 2.- 4 . ~~~ 6>/Â¥/0//, /. -,1 ~<4 g. COWENHOVENCT .~/ 10. LUKE SHORT CT 12 '95 11.FREE SILVER CT PLFPY % ,/ 12. WILLIAMS RANCH DR ~9-9 * G~86'O 9 . 11 , 13. E FRANCIS ST ed Blick / t\ck SC*1 8 1/12 0 1 400 9 '/ //, co . 0 5 'Ip ./ t? , 24. 4.~Rio Grante 0.11.1 ' 3 AO .>~ ~ jb * ~--' - AWMILL C W H PKIN 0 E HOPKINS AVE c. . 5PE -1 ~ e '941 F ST ce<Â· a 490.04 <Â·/ : No.y ,. ' 1.:9 AVE ..2.. '' - a. E IN ST & 4/04 5 3.-j 4 5 , J, '. 4,24. f 5â‚¬Â·, Ha ~ .*WI *G ~~ // I ...... 1/440 -r it 1. ROBINSON RD 2. ALPINECT 9 'le NO 3, MAYFLOWER CT Â» -2 5, SKIMMING LANE 2 F 4. CIRCUIT AVE :80 'l*pa / 0/4/ /9. EAN 0 0 41* E N T EAN ~ AVE Ec D > RE 5~ OPER VE G/ BERT ST = 9916 *les'IN\e!4 08 L & 99 0/ el>Â£9 {1 SNA T GogHoLe wa ,;4~ t <3 '1Â· '//fl / 96 0 - e <sit .Â·~35 Z WATERS AV 0 4 6 9 r ASPEN GROVE R.6 04 4 l__J 3 Â¥4 D WE 9'9.74 U. ED 4 /Â·4'f'f':Â·I, 04_ 9~ UTE b . 1 /27.415> 3441 .*f,Â· <44. Râ€ž,1 tr:/1,<. t. 45 HWY 8 6. LACET COURT " 7. UTE COURT .'. 0 ?Â· !1!i.li.it: 'liliIÂ·/Ilill' OIl::5 4 ~-7 d-, C(/fle )Â· SNEA SMUGGLER MTN RD >1001Â¥3AO 3@A*+R;04Â» '. U NMNB V EXHIBIT B \ 8UOULWEM YAMEL. *=yncÂ», }lk */03/8 '2511.-/ -1/J>Â·Â»~ i ~. *ed #) -I-~.I {n 494. r.- 4 D ri-u:um:5 lu; / -%.\ 0- .......10 att, , Li-- *Col*#.Ill WAI.n Â¢â€¢ . â€¢cr, M rr I --1 =/43--,-1 roliUir?Malml571 SUTIYETOIVS CER:fIFICATE . .1, .....'...'- .00-101,316 , -,~. I-- ; C i~1~~ i ~ ~ Flf - WIPGREGE,UN $.8.A:wriw'56 L.- j~7 - 1 X ~wtrynm . 1 7 /// -71) ' ENESEMEEâ‚¬ T11*-OK ' ALANE /.M/4 011 ./ Mâ€¢. 09 I - le//fll.,â€¢n L - I to SUFCm'(OÂ£'5 CCKFIMCÂ»m, [ 1,...11 I Mrae. 1-0:=nur cotr,/7 D./ TH,5 2 ... -0 Wlewgi<-Xturll,V'27Â°-9 2 104* m Ul 0 2 . 0 S N /1.n,tr 8.POCÂ·fa , 11*1 tÂ©_ IME, 44)55 r' Mr=er/ L.5.1/Â»4 + 1 ke 1 0 1 RN Ut 4 4*~ Brvâ€¢yi, k,eu :=r':*i:: I.*â€ž N be â€žâ€ž ./ .1.16 ..10.-1 *Olurl,it LOT : BLOCK 1 g.. T... j## Sne)*GO;e,2.dE W~Nallio. ' -Ir--r ~2~ ~ <~2 1/08/2002 4/45b NC CO R 121 North Spring S treet ., t 1 +:: 1.0 17 .. ../.' El ,' , 1 :,1 i. ~: 1*,.P Q:.:.1 I: 10 09, Â·~.1- 14>. .1 t 1 /1 1 1 1 '- 1. 11-: 11 . ,..61. , 1 1 1 1 ,.. I.- Â· '-- .i,/ CL ... .111.1.,1.11 11.liz.j,1 1.- 1 11 - , .., -1 1, 1-1 49,404: A 7 6 ,- ' J'NI54:30',00"tiv-th,<28 ~ 4~14 ,!Â·{'44418&.8 9226. Cjhi ,0~ Â· ':,; 11: '4 1 1 L.. 1 7\ f / F .1 0 11 '111.0:. :1.1,1 1:111~~74 11 / 1 / E . 1/ 2, 4 mor . 'V, 4 / 111 . - A rÂ·Ts o ./ I d â‚¬ ..6. 1 .,1.(7 1- 4 1 4: - '.'41'9* ,Â·.'i ivÂ· p , /44 -~,Â·i. , ~ 1 j 0 0 Â·1Â·Ul,1-Ut I.' t.â€¢, ' 9-:.Â· .'/ , 3-/49 D '128 1,1 hij 0. Om . 1~:115 9 1 J 498Â«4Â·00'Y 1 - 0/ 2 -, Â·fan - ,~ '1 O, Â· , i Â· 11 11 r I. . -EN ' ,F 1./ 5, b;E 0, : :'(M. L -ii; :~' ': ,<41 4, 11 .. 1 .11,1- ElÂ· 8 , :W 2 1 '/)1 k < DO 1 .1, ' U. u,0-4 , -4 / '1 - . AF i 1,1 1 1 4 . ,1. . 1 X- 2 X X \ \ 1 he h.. 9/0/ , . - P - Z \\ \ \ 0 , A d \1\ . e 1 . , 14 Â»-41 \ 1:, 1. 2 0. -2 11 .\4 '1- 1 1 '1111 , :.,1 :%14 ; f' 0 -'1 4 0 Ill VI / 01 0 0 1, L M Vi 1 r hi 147 3 14\ 1 1 1\ XXX cm"RÂ« ix oE Â· - -, ~ 3 ~,44 ;/ i- XI i~214 F'~ 4 Ji4 Â»Â¢1 , di 111. 4,1/1 ~.9 .- f 1-\ 3 ,9Â· p, . - 1\,Ark- 1-- - 11 -1 ZNV 1 . 1 R\ 0 h 1 Â· 8 0 - 21:- -1 LailA ./ i 1 >4* ~~- ;,; 1.2. J & 121 ,* /1 MFO / 1" J @1% ' 36 0 1/ ... . -. .- / - - 'A.-. *.. 00309 NK, 00,06 ~ - ~ 474555 1 2002 f 024577 13NWI}13 ~ 19Â£ AD MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Planning Directol~[~C FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Land Use Code Amendments related to Historic Preservation- Recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission DATE: June 25,2003 SUMMARY: The Community Development Department is preparing a number of code amendments for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission, some of which are related to the functions of the HPC. HPC is required to make a recommendation as to the appropriateness of the new text. REVIEW PROCESS: According to Section 26.220.010 of the Municipal Code, Powers and Duties of the HPC. the board makes a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission to initiate code amendments. This is followed, per Section 26.310.020, by a public hearing and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and a public hearing and final vote by City Council. The review criteria for code amendments are located at Section 26.310.040 and are addressed by Staffin Exhibit A to this memo. Following is a list of the proposed code amendments and an explanation of the issue behind each change. The exact language as it will be codified into the Municipal Code is contained in the Resolution. DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMISSION: Staff proposes that all of Section 26.222, Design Review Appeal Committee, be deleted and that the Design Review Appeal Commission be disbanded as a City Board. According to the Code, DRAC is the board that is responsible for review of variances to Residential Design Standards, however the committee does not currently have any members and has been rarely used to rule on variances in the past because most applicants seek variances to the Residential Design Standards in conjunction with other land use approval requests and choose to consolidate them in front of either the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) or the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z). Because of this, staff proposes that the responsibility for reviewing variances to the Residential Design Standards be P&Z, or HPC when a historic structure or district in affected. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS. PROCEDURES: Staff proposes that Section 26.410.020(D), Residential Design Standards, Procedures for Review, be changed to clarify that the P&Z or HPC are the appropriate bodies to hear variances to the Residential Design Standards, not the Design Review Appeal Committee, for the reasons stated above. Staff also proposes moving the criteria used to determine when a variance from the Residential Design Standards would be appropriate from Section 26.222, Design Review Appeal Committee. which is being deleted, into Section 26.410. Residential Design Standards, which is a more sensible location for them. The criteria themselves are to be amended because staff, HPC, and P&Z have felt they have been difficult to administer in the past. The old review criteria states that a variance may be granted if the project can be shown to: (1) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan, and (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to, or be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Instead of requiring that a variance prove that it is compliant with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) and that it more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standards responds to, an applicant would have to show that a proposed variance to the Residential Design Standards would: 1. Provide a more appropriate pattern Of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard; or, 2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of jhirness related to unusual site-specific constraints. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS. PARKING, GARAGES AND CARPORTS: There is a misprint in Section 26.410.040(C)(1) where the word "waffle" was printed instead of "traffic." This is to be corrected. The criteria in this section. which state that garages which are accessed from an alley . or private road must have single stall doors on them is to be changed to state that double doors are also acceptable if they are designed to look like they are single stall (for instance through the application of trim.) The same change is proposed for Section 26.410.040(C)(2), which applies to garage doors that are not accessed from an alley or private road, with the condition that the garage doors must not be visible from any street. If the doors are visible, they will have to be single stall. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS-ONE-STORY ELEMENT: A modification to this design standard, Section 26.410.040(D)(2) is recommended in order to help better achieve the objective of the requirement, which is to help break up the mass of a structure. The name of the standard is proposed to be changed from "One Story Element" to 'First Story Element" to more accurately describe the intent of the standard. A minimum depth of 6' for this feature is to be established, and clarification is provided that one cannot walk out on top of this element from an upper story. HPC will recall that this issue was recently debated as part of the 819 E. Hopkins project. Staff believes that the intent of the standard is to have a one-story portion of the structure extend forward towards the street in a meaningful way in order to help reduce the mass of a structure. This element should relate to the ground floor of the home. DEVELOPMENT INVOLVING THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC LANDMARK SITES AND STRUCTURES OR DEVELOPMENT IN AN "H." HISTORIC OVERLAY- DISTRICT-FAR BONUS: Section 26.415.110(E)(3) is to be amended to clarify that an FAR bonus may be awarded at the time of a Major Development review by HPC or as part of a lot split review. HPC has reviewed cases in the past where the request for a lot split precedes development of the architecture. It is usually irnportant to the applicant to know that the FAR is established, and when there is justification to award the bonus, it should be an option iii order to encourage the use of this particular preservation benefit. DEVELOPMENT OF HISTORIC LANDMARK SITE AND STRUCTURES-APPEALS OF HPC DECISIONS: When there is an appeal of an HPC decision to City Council. the current code provision requires that the Chair, Vice-Chair, or other member of HPC is present at the appeal hearing. Staff proposes to remove this provision, Section 26.415.120(D), because the appeal before Council is not a public hearing and Council would not be able to recognize the HPC member to speak even if they wished to. It is good policy for HPC members to attend appeals iii order to learn how to improve the process in the future, however, as the code language is currently written, there could potentially be an additional violation of due process claimed if neither of these people were able to go to the Council meeting. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT-SPECIAL REVIEW: The Community Development Director has the authority to review and approve wireless telecommunications equipment if it is found to meet the existing standards iii the Code. She may also choose to refer the application to the P&Z, or the HPC when the equipment affects a historic structure or district, which is a clarification being made iii this amendment. It is proposed that whichever of those boards reviews the request, the review standards will be those found in the Special Review chapter, which addresses the pertinent issues better than the Conditional Use chapter that is currently cited. STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Amendments to the Land Use Code based on a finding that the review standards of Section 26.3 10.040, are met. RECOMiMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2003, recommending approval of Amendments to the Land Use Code." Exhibits: A. Amendments to the Land Use Code - Staff Findings EXHIBIT A Amendments to the Land Use Code Section 26.310.040 - Standards fbr Review of an Amendment to the Text of Title 26: In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the official zone district map, the boards shall consider: Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions o f this Title. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES Staff is unaware o f any conflicting portions of the Title. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES Staff finds that the amendments support the Historic Preservation element of the AACP, which includes the goals of making improvements to the historic preservation process and protecting all buildings of historic significance. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES | These particular amendments do not set any new policies that would affect land use. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES These particular amendments do not set any new policies that would affect traffic. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. 8TAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES There will be no additional affect on infrastructure as a result of these code amendments. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES These particular amendments do not set any new policies that would affect the natural environment. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES Staff finds that the proposed amendments will result in Code provisions that will continue to protect and be consistent and compatible with the established community character. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subj ect parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? NOT APPLICABLE The amendments do not affect a specific neighborhood. The majority of the proposed amendments are in response to problems that staff has experienced administering sections of the Code and are, simply clarifications. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES Historic Preservation is an increasingly difficult task in Aspen because of high property values. The City is always looking for opportunities to improve processes to make preservation efforts successful, which is in harmony with the public interest. A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE: 26.222 - DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMISSION; 26.304 - COMMON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES; 26.410 - RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS; 26.415 - DEVELOPMENT INVOLVING THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC LANDMARK SITES AND STRUCTURES OR DEVELOPMENT IN AN "H", HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT; AND 26.430.030 - SPECIAL REVIEW RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 2003 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has proposed amendments to Title 26, the City o f Aspen Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, amendments to the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Department, and, when the functions of the HPC are affected, by HPC according to Section 26.220.010 of the Municipal Code. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviews the amendments at a public hearing, and final action shall be by the City Council after reviewing and considering the recommendations forwarded to them; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on June 25,2003, the Historic Preservation Commission recommended approval of amendments to the Aspen Land Use Code, by a vote of to ; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable development review standards and that the approval for the amendment is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ON THE 25 rH DAY OF JUNE 2003, THAT: Section 1: The entire Section 26.222, shall be removed. Section 2: Section 26.410.020 (D) shall be amended as follows: D. Variances. Variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section - 26.410.040, may be granted by the Design Revie . 1 T Appeal Committee as established in Chapter 26.222 Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission. if the proiect is subiect to the requirements of Section 26.415. An applicant who desires to consolidate other requisite land use reviews by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission may elect to have the variance application decided by the board or commission reviewing the other land use application. Any appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards should simply and succinctly identifv why. if granted, the exception would: 1. Provide a more appropriate pattern o f development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard: or. 2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Section 3: Section 26.410.040 (C) (1) shall be amended as follows: PARKING, GARAGES AND CARPORTS. The intent of the following parking, garages, and carport standards is to minimize the potential for conflicts between pedestrian and automobile 1l T .V affle traffic by placing parking, garages, and carports on alleys, or to minimize the presence of garages and carports as a lifeless part o f the streetscape where alleys do not exist. 1. For all residential Alley ~ / 1 uses, parking, garages, and carports shall be accessed L 293 i No. . Yes E | Yes ' m Fi@--4 2 from an alley or private road if one exists. The garage doors shall be single stall doors, or double stall doors designed to appear like single stall doors. Street Section 4: That Section 26.410.040 (C) (2) (f.) shall be amended as follows: f. The garage doors shall be single stall doors, unless the garage doors are 'll----~ E-- C not visible from any street, Ir-----Wil-- in which case the garage - <24' -Â« doors maybe double stall doors that are designed to appear like single stall doors. limumm Section 5: That Section 26.410.040(D)(2) shall be amended as follows: 2. First storv element. All residential buildings shall have a first-story street- facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty (20) percent of the building's overall width and the depth of which shall be at least six (6) feet. Walkable access over the first storv element shall not be allowed. For example, a first-story element may be a porch roof, architectural projection, or living space. Section 6: That Section 26.415.110(E)(3) (Development of Historic Landmark Site and Structures) shall be amended as follows: 3. The decision to grant a Floor Area Bonus for Major Development projects will occur as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.415.070(D). Alternativelv, if no Maior Development is proposed, the Floor Area Bonus mav be approved as part of a Historic Landmark Lot Split review. No development application that includes a request for a Floor Area Bonus may be submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how the proposal might meet the bonus considerations. Section 7: That Section 26.415.120(D) shall be amended as follows: D. City Council action on appeal or call up. The City Council shall consider the application on the record established before the LIPC. The City Council shall affirm the decision of the HPC unless there is a finding there was a denial of due process, or the HPC has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. The City Council shall take such action as is deemed necessary to remedy said situation, including, but not limited to: 1. Reversing the decision. 2. Altering the conditions of approval. 3. Remanding the application to the HPC for rehearing. The Chair, Vice Chair, or a member of the HPC shall be present at the appeal hearing. Section 8: That Section 26.575.130(C) shall be amended as follows: C. Procedure. 1. General. Pursuant to Section 26.304.020, the applicant shall conduct a pre-application conference with staff of the Community Development Department. The planner shall then prepare a pre-application summary describing the submission requirements and any other pertinent land use material, the fees associated with the review(s), and the review process in general. 2. Administrative Review. After the pre-application summary is received by the applicant, said applicant shall prepare an application for review and approval by staff and the Community Development Director, respectively. In order to proceed with additional land use reviews or obtain a Development Order, the Community Development Director shall find the submitted development application consistent with the provisions, requirements and standards of this Chapter. 3. Appeal of Director's Determination. The Community Development Director may apply reasonable conditions to the approval as deemed necessary to insure conformance with applicable review criteria in Section 26.575.130 (F.). If the Community Development Director determines that the proposed wireless telecommunication services facilities and equipment does not comply with the review criteria and denies the application, or the applicant does not agree to the conditions of approval determined by the Community Development Director, the applicant may apply for conditional use Special Review (Section 26.430) eview by the Planning and Zoning Commission or. if applicable. bv the City's Historic Preservation Commission and such application must be made within fifteen (15) calendar days of the day on which the Community Development Director's decision is rendered. All appeals shall require public hearings. and shall be noticed by the applicant in accordance with Section 26.304.060(E)(3)(a). (b).and (c) o f the Municipal Code. 4. Historic Preservation Commission Review. Proposals for the location of wireless telecommunication services facilities or equipment on any historic site or structure, or within any historic district shall be reviewed by the City's Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Review of applications for wireless telecommunication services facilities and/or equipment by the HPC shall replace the need for review by the Community Development Director. Likewise, if the Historic Preservation Commission determines that the proposed wireless telecommunication services facilities and equipment does not comply with the review criteria and denies the application, or the applicant does not agree to the conditions of approval determined by the Historic Preservation Commission, the applicant may appeal the decision to the City Council and such appeal must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the day on which the Historic Preservation Commission's decision is rendered. All appeals shall require public hearings, and shall be noticed by the applicant in accordance with Section 26.304.060(E)(3)(a), (b), and (c) of the Municipal Code. 5. Buildinu Permit. A building permit application cannot be filed unless and until final land use approval has been granted and a Development Order has been issued. When applying for building permit(s), the applicant shall submit a signed letter acknowledging receipt of the decision granting land use approval and his/her agreement with all conditions of approval, as well as a copy o f the signed document granting the land use approval for the subject building permit application. 6. Special Review. An application requesting a variance from the review standards for height of wireless telecommunications service facilities and/or equipment or an appeal of a determination made bv the Communitv Development Director. shall be processed as a Special Review in accordance with the Common Development Review Procedure set forth in Section 26.304. The Special Review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been posted and mailed. pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E)(3)(b and c). Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is a Historic Landmark. on the Inventorv of Historic Sites and Structures. or within a Historic Overlav District, and the application has been authorized for consolidation pursuant to Section 26.304 the Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the Special Review. Such Special Review mav be approved. approved with conditions. or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. Conformance with the applicable Review Standards of Section 26.575.130(F). 2. If the facility or equipment is located on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures or within any historic district then the applicable standards of Chapter 26.415 (Development Involving the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or which occurs in an "H" Historic Overlay District). APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 25th day of June, 2003. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION David Hoefer Jeffrey Halferty Assistant City Attorney Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland Chief Deputy Clerk Im 23400 Two Rivers Rd. # 44 â€¢ P.O. Box2239 T 970 927-8473 i It'KIN WARNII< 1)1Â·>,1(,N & 1'1 ANNIN(i. 11( Basalt, Colorado 81621 F 970 927-8487 Young Addition 470 N. Spring St. Lot 2, Block 4 Oklahoma Flats Victorian Changes West Elevation 1) Kitchen window bay replaced with a pair of ~ 'ek double hung windows (2-24"x36"). *See --- attached west elevation for proposed change. j1 - i 11 2Â« I -P. 1 t ~0----~-~ 2) Existing double hung window at stairs to remain. New 9,~~~ storm window will replace existing as shown with historic 3~ mullion pattern as outlined by HPC. r - r-------37 K d. 2 2,- , 4 r . 3) Northwest corner stair and porch 1 element removed and replace with siding r 0'h. that matches existing and new double hung . 4:46 . . 9,Â£ window (24"x36") that matches kitchen windows. *See attached west elevation for , proposed change. 01.Victorian changes.HPC.lwdp.doc Pagel 6/12/2003 .m 23400 Two Rivers Rd, # 44 â€¢ P.O. Box2239 T 970 927-8473 1 IPKIN U'ARNER DESIGN & PIANNING. 11 C a. Basalt, Colorado 81621 F 970 927-8487 South Elevation 1) Reestablish main roof eave line by lowering reconstructed porch roof. . 2) Remove existing porch and reconstruct new 1. porch with lower pitch and metal roof and historic detailing. .- - 14 3) Replace existing columns new columns that match historic detailing. 4) Replace existing railing with new UBC A ..,PI - compliant railing with historic detailing. . U â‚¬./0 5) New wood skirt detailing applied over concrete wall. -Â¥016 6) Remove existing skylight and patch roof to match existing. 7) Existing parking space replace with new landscaping. 8) 330 Lake Ave. porch detailing exemplary of the detailing presented below. V /' ' '-r" 1 ' t:-","/ ,/ . -te~ - ./ '. 11 9 / ./Il- .227~./ 12. 0,/ 2.5/ 1~ 4 . , U. + 6. I . t. i. ' 3 -1.-2 \ \, \ ,-i.1*1#' , -1-.66./36& .k/Vit h L' -4 + r 11* 11! C J.b 1. .-- 0 - _~~1Eld \ ~-~ -r '9.1 -4 t I. , 01.Victorian changes.HPC.lwdp.doc Page 2 6/12/2003 n .m 23400 Two Rivers Rd. # 44 â€¢ P.O. Box2239 T 970 927-8473 I I PKIN WA RNE R DE N IGN & PLANNING.1 1.( .mi Basalt, Colorado 81621 F 970 927-8487 East Elevation 1) Dining room door replaced with new door. Detailed to minimize appearance. * See attached east elevation for -' door detailing. 2) Light fixture to be relocated above door. *See , k. attached east elevation for location. r 3) Existing windows remain as shown in photo. 4) Gas furnace box and flue removed and replaced with ~ i a high-efficiency boiler. New vent path via north foundation wall. - ~11; '. t... it :4 4 , 4 t 5) Roof"hole" will be patch to match existing roof , 6) Dormer to be replaced with smaller scaled and lower dormer. *See attached east elevation. 7) Living room windows replaced with new windows that f - match existing dining room windows. ti --95. 4 - 93 -4 Â·â€¢L 9Â¥ 8) Fireplace flue vent minimized. Roof"hole" patched to 2 match existing. rk 1, re I sr: E 01.Victorian changes.HPC.lwdp.doc Page 3 6/12/2003 'J Z - ti1I 1 22 21.- 1~ 1 1 1 1 21'-1 1/2' F EXISTING DORMER ) 11 4-------- ----~-4 EXISTING VENT STAC 12' 81/2' 0 7.5 ril FLOOR PLAN C j scale: L/4Â·=1' OÂ· /1. 4 --LN' 70731 p ,11 -- loril, 1 I ~Â»4Ettill-. - I. 1 --. 1 % m 0 i <1 --E .1 1 1 A-------------4 621 - - 4.Tal d 1 111 1 d 11'01/4 r.2\ ELEVATION 2 SECTION scale: 1/4'_1'-0 scale: 1/4'=10 Sugar Mountain Trust Aspen, Colorado S CONCEPTUAL DESIGN : Existing conditions ~ EA5T MAIN STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 016,1 0 2003 #MTM~'NUIC June 12, 2003 970/925 4755 (F] 970/920 2950 NORTA 47 21-1 1/2 1 1 Ea~*33 - EXISTING VENT PIP TO REMAIN W/CUSTO WRAP 12'-8 1/ 2-0 6Â·5 <Th FLOOR PLAN j scale: 1/4Â·=1-0 09 12 - 12 31/2 -~- 4 '---7 3 1/2 . l N - -- I ; - -1 T"--~Â¥ 23 3 0 / \ il N it 1 1 1. 1 1 I. mi .1 1 Il I \ lk-Â»- : ;-- - 1--i I 49 k I 1 1,6 -I E 1. 0 1 '11- 71 t=z~~~LIZInmuI~31 E--1-1 i... -..- - -=1~4--~- 'Fl-~--i-;4 1 1 I 11Â·-0 124' K f ~Th SECTION /~71 ELEVATION 4 / scale: 1/4â€¢=toâ€¢ Sugar Mountain Trust Aspen, Colorado S CONCEPTUAL DESIGN : Proposed Dormer Design 9 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 816~1 0 7 4' 8' 02003 54Â¥*m'AL'r June 12,2003 L 970/925 4755 (F~ 97 0 / 92 0 2950 NORTH 4'-2. Â·E/I 0..I 19*%0 1 1 21'- 1/2' 1 1 U-------- ------a 2 1---- --/j#ji- EXISTING VENT PIP TO REMAINW/CUSTO WRAP 12'-8 1/2 2.0 6.5 rn FLOOR PLAN < j scale: 1/4'=1'-0 1---- -- ALL A Irt, Il & 1. ----w# -1.- I Pl' 11(77 - .'1- - 1 \N gl 6 ;1 11-CO .- 11'-0 1/4' /Th SECTION /'~h ELEVATION / scale: 1/4Â·=1Â·-Or INy'll- Sugar Mountain Trust Aspen, Colorado S CO N C E PTUAL DESIGN : Proposed Dormer-Alternate 1 1 EAST MAIN STREET .5PEM,COLORADO 81611 0 7 4' 8' 0 7003 = All[! 0.* C June 12,2003 U BILL POSS 4 15SOUPni 970/925 4755 .' 970/920 2950 NORTH 4 2 F--16/1 2 , 1 1 1 1 21'1 1/2' -/ PRPPOSED DORMER 1 1 EXISTING VENT STA K TO REMAIN (CON,RACTORTOSHIi VLNIAS REQUIRED TOALLOW RAMINGTOPASS 12'Â·8 1/2 2'-0â€¢ 6' 5Â· <'~~ FLOOR PLAN 4 j scale: ,/4'=1Â· OÂ· 12 2 12 Zvlt7 L~ -4~31/2 4 7 Ile 7 1,+= 111 @/ 1 1 , a re . r---------------Ir=-zz===3 1--1 10 1 0 CD 11 01/4' f K /Th ELEVATION seal. 1/4'=1.0 CV) scale: 1/4.=1-0 ~~'\ SECTION Sugar Mountain Trust Aspen, Colorado - poss CONCEPTUAL DESIGN : Proposed Dormer-Alternate 2 Z~ EAST MAIM STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 0 2 4Â· 8' Ill *,ITECT~END~â€žÂ£IC June 12,2003 9~l~02Aa[)ElÂ£ (T) 970/925 4755 (F} 970/920 2950 NORTH 4'-2â€¢ .' Z ..I 2 V 1 1 21 11/2' M 1--------- ------4 - 1--------- -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 =â‚¬-- EXISTING VENT STA K TO REMAIN (CO~/RACIONIO S/1,1.L/1 AS REQUIREDTOALLOW RAMINGTOPASSI 12'-81/2 2 0 6 5 /~Th FLOOR PLAN d) scale: 1/4Â·=1Â·oÂ· /41 12 : - ."I 1 - I 122.Â« 2. 1.-I--1 1 091 -j. ! i~~_ 1241 iII J/ I 1, 1 1 , .-t---I-_ _' r ..SemaNMMA:t=t 1 111 /171 - 1 1 li 1 1 9 1 1 F 4---4- r=41 I- FF.31[-0-1 *0 1/- 0 1 1 112244-2-2--1~ 11-0 1/4Â· rn SECTION /7.\ ELEVATION CK2) scale: 1/4'=1Â·Â·0â€¢ Sugar Mountain Trust Aspen, Colorado poss STREET ASPEN. CO~ORADO .1611 0 7 4' 8 24 4)44 2 Â© 1-,-"/'.-A--M CONCEPTUAL DESIGN : Proposed Dormer - Alternate 3 5 0 2003 ./.CTUREAMOF'".. .c June 12,2003 (T) 970/925 4755 (F) 970/920 2950 NORTH # POSS & AS.GlmS - /1Â©1 T P < 4-2 .2/1 01.9 16/1 Z . r= .dlt 6Â¥~ .2/1 .QI 0 'U 7-11" 18'-1" " 3'-3"" t 101.5 ... CO 4 b '' 99 4- 7 .. .. I .1// Y. .I /:.I 1- .VII It r-ff,.0 1 . 900 OFFICE - L GARAGE iD r--1 N 103 1 - 1 1 EXISTING . gl VICTORIAN 1 1 1.1 1 = I I C . 99'- i = 99 100 1/ = XII . 6 1/ = 11- . U 4-- - C99 1 ' 2 r-~FOWDER kno 9 1.1[ 1 /0 . . 55 W 5140 c 0 11---1111, '11 -161216.Alt'"I'llot_ ........... E- , 21'-9 1/2" , 4'-21/2" e * 2 311 0 MAIN LEVEL FLAN SCALE 3/16"=1'-0" m 193 . . 0 7-11" & 18'-11' , 0 * -- 1 - ,|| ||, J'r'h .111. Al - 1 -\ E 1 11 1 I1 Ir - / f---1 1 - -A / MASTER --] '11 1| BEDROOM 511 MI j X 1 11 11 <6\-- -------- -1 1 1 1 11 1 ~11 1 1 11= 01 i C ~CLOSEÂ¥ 4 , I 1 - - lit 91 -- -- 1 1 - - 11% 1 1 111 1 // 111 1 -4 lai 1 1 1 ~ ~-1! 1 1 r..4-g - I IAi ~ 1 BATH /4- -UL I <- 1 : 1 X . 6 1 bok-j~ .-- 1 108.5 1 - 4 11 - 11 6 1 1 1 - 1 1 / 11 OFFICE 11 / ril 1 <------ 1-ir---4 lilli 1 1 \ IL' 1 1 \ 'IM \\ I "A 'IL _I__f 3; 1 *JI - 17-81/2" , 5'-31/2" - T l--- ROOF ADOVE ROOF OP ADDITION EXISTING VICTORIAN UFFER LEVEL FLAN SCALE 3/16"=1'-0" -25Â·utinr+ 60Â¥aul>ai-Eyo ----- --7-7=--:-1.2;27--7--,5.,212---1 Tri--~2==71,212,=fr,161--,M,~-.-1177==72 - . I. - 71-=- -- w. -'74Â¥ twae.7 - -- eg{ATING- HIP gobF ,=I, i 1-1369'LED _ Â¥ No.FOr , LEO IN - . y ---- ---*.**/,3,#I---TS-'-1. ., .1 - L t -~- 961 1.\ 1 J 1.- , 4 -- i Â£ w -Ff==Ir=11 /t -, - *9-W 1 M,1160 -14 1 - -- 1 1,1 11 11 . ---- -- 1 ._.,- U 14 ~~ 4-- r. i +416Tolli L **4 I - 4 - . 1 \ 0*D Â¢ - - / 2 -R, 96â‚¬2 0,/ -- - --=-- C~*42*9*7490*5 -12 . ...4*49,-4. - 1 *I \2 - Y'Ovt/ '122Â¢44 1 (50~AUS Â£* ..: 11# I 1 . i 1 -24,5* -Â£ 4 , 1---------------------1.-------Â·--1--A-1 Historic Non-Historic Lonnectot New EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 1.-7.2 --guisr,N<r- 6â€¢#fluoÂ·a Tel> - 7..lf. - . 1 c ir 4 -4. ..4 . , _ r--1 . I 0,17&3 9- - , - -e - - 72#07, : ' (70%' T' ' \ StD//Ye 1 4..4- Le 1 -â€ž . 1 + i **/n - 7--- ('1 A V. /1 %': 7/' -/ --- --- 1 1 1 :>,1 J, ..-1 1 t.:. 1 -./.9910,1...,- % -- - b H, , 1. :. -- E--- 11__IL_111 - 1-,r-vaLÂ·1 6- _ ' O**4#7 ..1 1 . 1 - .1 -r' Ir - - -- 7 r -1.-le- H'=1MH " 7- - kill t. A 'r -rit,1*+*rÂ·Â¤Â·rt--+11*91741- 1 Â· 11(69 A - Yp1*p- 0-' '11-7 f 1 0 111 1 ,~7 Â· -Â· f Â·Â·- ~2Â· Â· - --- - 1 .'i, 11 4/j li ' 0 - --I.-I- ....-..6,4// I.-- -- -~-- ..t..:-ilidtitclit w~jh.~:111.,ljft. u+ drr,:li 4..--2 lhAY w,N m - l 1 1 :/7. - r; ..4: 121} 1 1 L , i <,1. 41': 1 ..0.3 0.-.,IÂ·, #1 4 . 4t 'It 111 05<Ni,;11 1 1 '-2 I ~ - ~-.-c..ur 4Â· . 4~4|tlÂ£44-16-il.111 4 0 1 - 'l,1+ 1 ... a 1-#L 1...:.WI~;~1 1 P Â·~- lic'lle#J,zi, 1 ! i '1'. i 1 Â·, - . ..~~t,70 - ,&41*W4**dap#**,9,$,wi:.*.9 Â·.i,.i~.;airri ~~ ' I New 1 Connect~r I Non-Historic 1 Historic WEST ELEVATION SCALE:3/16"=-23" -guiint-#(r- 6*te-U O'ATEÂ» "Vier* L , 0 L'.Ade , . ........0.-,- . m-i::c:- 1 4~ ' 44. 7Â»'Â»-2 -1 , j- '40/2 NORTH ELEVATION SCALE 3/16" = 1'-0" - 7.USDN<r- Cuft<tUCral-En> Â»987-A L Â·-.~er----- ir - ' ~ t. f 1 41- . 0 1 4 1 /4 r - 11 1 /4.-4,0~ -1--Â·11 .I[il- --L - " 1 ---- N. 11. er 9. arl- 1*1 44 ..1~.1 f *1 i d i~ , 2Â£, 4. / ..7 1 : 'J,40 . 9 .r- /4 .-- a.. . 6 ?,g 1 , U. 1 - 4 1 -} i , . + m. 1 a. i *96 021 - -- - - .t. F 2-â‚¬ SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE 3/16" = 1'-0"