The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20031022ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 22,2003 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 130 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO Site Visits: Please visit 514 N. Third and 1295 Riverside Drive on your own. I. Roll Call II. Public Comments In. Commission Member Comments IV. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) V. Project Monitoring VI. Old Business: A. 2 William's Way- Major Development (Conceptual) and On-site Relocation, continue to Dec. 10 B. 470 N. Spring- Major Development (Conceptual) and Variances, continue to Nov. 12 C. 135 E. Cooper- Final (30 min.) D. 819 E. Hopkins- Major Development (Conceptual), On-site Relocation and Variances (40 min.) , '32 VII. New Business: A. 514 N. Third- Minor (40 min.) VIII. Worksession: A. 1295 Riverside Drive (30 min.) IX. Adjourn 'Ti' MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 135 E. Cooper Avenue- Final Development Review- Public Hearing DATE: October 22,2003 SUMMARY: The subject property is : listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, as well as the National Register of *1#&%'2 Historic Places. The site contains the .m '" Fk 4. '.*' -' 1888 Dixon-Markle house, which is Â· -- ---- r#~3~4 virtually unaltered on the exterior, along with an outbuilding that appears to have been constructed in the 19th century. The application proposes lifting the historic house to excavate a basement, 4 and relocating it slightly to the north FOR Ma Â¥ c and east of its current position. An HOUSTON >C'LEA addition will be built to the west. The 'EÂ» 41 outbuilding is also being moved towards the southwest corner of the site and a single car garage will be built on the southeast. HPC granted Major Development approval (Conceptual,) On-site Relocation, and Variances on September 10th. Staff finds that this project meets the applicable review standards for Final Review and complies with the design guidelines, with a few areas for restudy noted below. APPLICANT: Chris Pat Aspen LLC, represented by Dave Gibson. PARCEL ID: 2735-131-04-003. ADDRESS: 135 E. Cooper Avenue, Lots H and I, and the easterly 5 feet of Lot G, Block 70, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: RMF, Residential Multi-Family. CURRENT LAND USE: Two detached residences. 1 MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual levet 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 stajf 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 structurefs) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, 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 a high style Queen Anne residence built during the mining era. The exterior of the house has only very minor alterations to its original architectural design. In recognition of this quality, 135 E. Cooper Avenue is an Aspen Landmark and was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1986. The outbuilding appears to be of the same vintage as the house, but may or may not be original to the site. The key features of the property include the prominent corner placement of the house, the open space surrounding the building, and the detached alley structure. All of the original architectural features of the house are still present. The alley building has had an addition made to it and it's history is not well documented. With regard to the context of this site, there are two other Queen Anne homes from the period across the street from 135 E. Cooper. The neighborhood has otherwise been significantly redeveloped with multi-family buildings. 2 In Staff' s assessment, this property achieves a perfect score of 100 points on the integrity assessment form we have developed, plus 15 bonus points, for a total of 115. If the proposed project were to be constructed, the score would drop by only approximately 4 points, as a result of the impacts of moving and adding onto the house. There is limited potential for future alterations to the property because this development represents a build out to the maximum floor area and density allowable for the site. Design Guideline review Final review deals with details such as the landscape plan, lighting, fenestration, selection of new materials, and technical issues surrounding the preservation of existing materials. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit B." Only those guidelines which staff finds the project does not meet, or where discussion is needed, are included in the memo. HPC approved Conceptual for this project with two conditions related to the design; that the proposal to add French doors on the south elevation of the historic house was to be restudied and that no more than one skylight will be considered for the roof of the historic house. With regard to the French doors, it was suggested by the architect at the last meeting that an opening may have existed in this location historically. After further research, he has determined that this was not the case. Nonetheless, the applicant's desire is to install doors, or in the alternative a bay window, in order to provide direct access to the back patio and south daylight. The guidelines state: 3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a facade. Â¤ Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character-defining facade will negatively affect the integrity of a structure. The rear wall of the house has no fenestration. There is an east facing back door that leads to the yard. Allowing a new feature on this wall will not reduce the integrity score of the building in any meaningful way. The treatment of the proposed new bay window does not make it easily distinguishable as new construction, therefore staff would not be in favor of the current design. The French doors are more simple, however staffbelieves that a single window or door opening would be more sympathetic to the existing character of the back wall, and with the overall architecture, since paired fenestration is not characteristic ofthe building. The second area for discussion is the proposed skylights on the old house. The decision at Conceptual was to allow only one. The final roof plan indicates one operable light with a fixed triangular light next to it. The guideline for skylights is: 73 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. 3 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. Staff does not find that the proposal minimizes the visual impact of the skylight. It has been placed in a relatively discreet location, and is flush with the roof plane, however, one of the most important characteristics of the roof is that there are no punctuations through it other than a simple chimney. For this reason, the board has routinely disallowed skylights on historic buildings, accepting them only on additions. HPC may be willing to accept the argument that this specific skylight is concealed adequately by the chimney, however, staff finds that the size of the unit should be minimized. The applicant has indicated that all existing materials and features of the historic home and outbuilding will be preserved, other than the alterations that have been discussed. Standard conditions of approval related to protection of the buildings are included in the resolution. One thing that needs clarification is that the floor plans indicate gas fireplaces to be installed in the living room area. Venting will not be allowed to come out through the east wall, and may be problematic to run up to the roof. The architect will need to address this. The design of the new construction is in keeping with the guidelines, in staffs opinion, except for one area of concern, which is the large bay on the front of the addition. The bay is clearly influenced by the one found on the corner of the historic house, however, because that is such a prominent feature of the Queen Anne, staff finds that the new bay is competitive. It is also not consistent with the solid to void relationships that are respected on other elevations of the addition. The ground floor window headers are much taller than those on the Victorian, and the glazing carries up into the gable end. Guidelines that the HPC should weigh are: 103 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. 4 Staff recommends the bay window be restudied. A landscape plan has been provided. No new trees are being planted that would affect the building. There is a new patio area at the back, and a hot tub that is below grade. Staffs only issue relates to the new wood fence along the alley.. A six foot privacy fence is proposed, which is generally allowable, however, the Municipal Code requires that fences step down to a 42" height at intersections (such as this, where an alley meets a road) to create a site distance triangle. Staff is also concerned about the transition from the historic wrought iron fence. A restudy will be needed, at least to comply with the safety issues. The guideline is: 1.3 A new replacement fence should have a "transparent" quality allowing views into the yard from the street. o A fence that defines a front yard is usually low to the ground and "transparent" in nature. o On residential properties, a fence which is located forward of the front building facade may not be taller than 42" from natural grade. (For additional information, see the City of Aspen's "Residential Design Standards".) o A privacy fence may be used in back yards and along alleys, but not forward of the front facade of a building. o Note that using no fencing at all is often the best approach. o Contemporary interpretations of traditional fences should be compatible with the historic context. Staff finds that all other guidelines relevant to this proposal are being met. The project has improved significantly from the initial approach and can be considered excellent preservation of this important property. 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: Staffrecommends that the following issues be resolved before granting Final approval. A resolution, which will need to be revised based on discussion at the meeting, is attached. 1. Study a single window or door opening, rather than the proposed pair, for the south elevation ofthe historic house. 2. Eliminate the triangular skylight on the roofofthe historic house. 5 3. Provide a plan for how the gas fireplaces in the historic house will be vented. 4. Restudy the fenestration on the front of the new addition. 5. Restudy the wood fence to meet safety requirements and to provide a sympathetic transition from the historic wrought iron. Exhibits: A. Staffmemo dated October 22,2003 B. Relevant Design Guidelines C. Application 6 "Exhibit B: Relevant Design Guidelines for 135 E. Cooper Avenue, Final Review" Fences 1.2 A new replacement fence should use materials that appear similar to that of the original. o Any fence which is visible from a public right-of-way must be built of wood or wrought iron. Wire fences also may be considered. o A wood picket fence is an appropriate replacement in most locations. A simple wire or metal fence, similar to traditional "wrought iron," also may be considered. o Chain link is prohibited and solid "stockade" fences are only allowed in side and rear yards. 13 A new replacement fence should have a "transparent" quality allowing views into the yard from the street. o A fence that defines a front yard is usually low to the ground and "transparent" in nature. o On residential properties, a fence which is located forward of the front building facade may not be taller than 42" from natural grade. (For additional information, see the City of Aspen's "Residential Design Standards".) o A privacy fence may be used in back yards and along alleys, but not forward of the front facade of a building. o Note that using no fencing at all is often the best approach. o Contemporary interpretations of traditional fences should be compatible with the historic context. 1.4 New fence components should be similar in scale with those seen traditionally. o Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment. 1.6 Replacement or new fencing between side yards and along the alley should be compatible with the historic context. o A side yard fence is usually taller than its front yard counterpart. It also.is less transparent. A side yard fence may reach heights taller than front yard fences (up to six feet), but should incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible visual impacts. o Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give the appearance of a solid plank fence when seen head on. o Also consider using lattice, or other transparent detailing, on the upper portions of the fence. Walkways 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. o This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in the "private" spaces beyond. o Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree. o Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style. Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles. Private Yard 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic 0 structures. 7 o The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod, and not covered with paving, for example. 1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. o Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. o If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project. 1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs. o Retaining historic planting beds, landscape features and walkways is encouraged. 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site. o Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact ofmature growth. o Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent. o Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials. 1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are inappropriate. o Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer than the mature canopy size. Â¤ Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural features or block views to the building. o It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard. Site Lighting 1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting. o Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes. Replacement Windows 3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a facade. o Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character-defining facade will negatively affect the integrity of a structure. 3.4 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. o If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window should also be double-hung, or at a minimum, appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number and position of glass panes. o Matching the original design is particularly important on key character-defining facades. 3.5 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original. o Using the same material as the original is preferred, especially on character-defining facades. However, a substitute material may be considered if the appearance of the window components will match those of the original in dimension, profile and finish. 3.6 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. o Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to receive a larger window is inappropriate. o Consider reopening and restoring an original window opening where altered. 3.7 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. 8 o A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window's easing, the sash steps back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane of the wall. Roofs 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. o Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street. o Retain and repair roof detailing. 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. Building Relocations 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. o On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. o Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut ofthe stone and design ofthe mortar joints. New Additions 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. o A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. o An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. o An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. o A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.11 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. Lighting 14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that used traditionally. 9 o The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be approved by the HPC. o All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence. 14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting. o Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be permitted. o Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures. o Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by . controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night. o Do not wash an entire building facade in light. o Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls ofbuildings. o Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area 14.8 Minimize the visual impact of light spill from a building. o Prevent glare onto adjacent properties by using shielded and focused light sources that direct light onto the ground. The use of downlights, with the bulb fully enclosed within the shade, or step lights which direct light only on to walkways, is strongly encouraged. o Lighting shall be carefully located so as not to shine into residential living space, on or off the property or into public rights-of-way. 10 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 135 E. COOPER AVENUE, LOTS H AND I AND THE EASTERLY 5 FEET OF LOT G, BLOCK 70, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. -, SERIES OF 2003 PARCEL ID: 2735-131-04-003 WHEREAS, the applicant, Chris Pat Aspen LLC, represented by Gibson Architects, has requested Major Development Review (Final) for the property located at 135 E. Cooper Avenue, Lots H and I, and the easterly 5 feet of Lot G, Block 70, City and Townsite of Aspen. 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 Final 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.4.b 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, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated October 22,2003, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 22, 2003, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote of_to_. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants Final approval for the proposed project at 135 E. Cooper Avenue, as represented on October 22,2003, with the following conditions: l. HPC grants the following variances: a 3' west sideyard setback variance for the new addition only, a 1.5' east sideyard setback variance, an 8'rear yard setback variance for the residential unit along the alley, a 3' rear yard setback variance for the new garage and a 500 square foot FAR bonus. 2. A structural report demonstrating that the Victorians can be moved and/or information about how they will be stabilized must be submitted from the housemover with the building permit application. 3. The applicant will provide HPC staff and monitor with a plan for how the housemover proposes to lift the building, for review prior to submittal of a building permit. The approach chosen, whether it be to move the house with its original floor system, or without, must be demonstrated to result in the removal of the least amount ofhistoric exterior materials, and the least damage to the building possible. 4. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $40,000 to insure the safe relocation of the structures must be submitted with the building permit application. 5. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 6. The applicant must submit a preservation plan with the building permit indicating what original materials appear to still exist on the structure, and what treatments will be used to retain them. 7. HPC staff and monitor must approve any changes with regard to the type and location of exterior lighting fixtures by reviewing a plan prior to wiring, purchasing, or installing the fixtures. 8. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the information is available. 9. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the existing house are to be removed as part of the renovation. *4& No elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist. No existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor. 11. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board. 12. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 13. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 14. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 22* day of October, 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 %41 B for 13 s ERs-r a. HITFFTS 11Â£ Eju}18.-*-i i XI < - 41 t;\Ii.:~1-zji- -,Â¥< . -Ny_1...Â· 3 4,~ 64,4 . - v l. 0 .4! - I 4 - - f 41 1-1 - 1 1 1 411 I . -- / 1\ 1. 0 \ 1 4 ,. 1 1 i -4 ...... .. li- 1 r.2, 1 1 1, 1 1 i --7 I i 1 7--,- -* , 1 1 tj ELEVAT~> 1 -4. pÂ¥:G- to flo_ 1 03. + 61 BSOn ARCHITECTS l IC October 16, 2003 Ms. Amy Guthrie Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen 30 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Dixon-Markle House (Ferer Residence) 135 East Cooper Avenue; Lots H, I, part of G, Block 70 South Bay Fenestration Dear Amy: The south bay of the historic house was discussed at the 8/10/03 meeting with regard to proposed new fenestration and any verifiable previous fenestration features. Previous features were investigated, and no evidence was found that a previous window bay ever existed in this location. The exterior siding extends all the way across the bay, unbroken. The exterior storage closet, attached to the right side of the south bay, has been nailed onto the exterior siding and could easily and cleanly be removed. Two studies for the treatment of this bay area have been provided: 1. A pair of French doors, centered in the bay, and 2. A pair of double-hung windows with a projecting roof canopy, centered on the bay. Our preferred option is the pair of French doors. VOICE 970 Respectfully yours, ~0~ 920 0,444 3007 715 WEST MAIN ST., #203 ASPEN, CO 81611 David F. Gibson, AIA www.gibson-architects.com FACSIMILE 970 920 3103 135 East Cooper October 15,2003 EXTERIOR MATERIALS LIST A. Historic Residences (Main and Guest)/ Siding: Bevel lap siding, 1 x 5. Existing to be repaired and repainted. Trim: 1 x corner and casings. Existing to be repaired and repainted. Windows/Doors: Wood sash and doors. Existing to repaired and repainted. Stone Base: Sandstone skirting to be removed during house moving and replaced. Brick Chimney: Non-historic brick to be removed during house moving and replaced with older clay brick. Roo#ng: Cedar shingles to be retained; option to replace with new cedar shingles. B. New Construction (Addition and Garage). Siding: Bevel lap siding, 1 x 6, primed and painted. Trim: 1 x corner and easing, primed and painted. Window/Doors: Wood clad sash and doors. Roofing: Cedar shingles, 7" to the weather; "knife edge" eave detail. Eaves: 1/2" resawn cedar plywood, primed and painted. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Direct~~<~ FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 811/819 E. Hopkins- Major Development (Conceptual), On-Site Relocation, and Variances- Public Hearing DATE: October 22,2003 SUMMARY: In April 2003, HPC granted Conceptual approval for a redevelopment of 819 E. Hopkins Avenue. Since that time, the applicants, who are under contract to own the adjacent designated site, 811 E. Hopkins, have decided that their project may be improved by including both properties. Â· 811 and 819 E. Hopkins Avenue are listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures," and each contain a Victorian era miner's cottage. The proposal before HPC involves removing non-historic additions to the cottages, relocating them and a contributing outbuilding on the site, and constructing a new home along the west side and rear of the parcel. Variances are requested from the requirements for setbacks, open space, parking and the "Residential Design Standards." At the October 12th HPC meeting, the board voted to continue this project for restudy of four areas; providing at least 10 feet of separation between the two miner's cottages, pulling the new house at least 5 feet away from the rear lot line, reducing the parking variance, and reversing the placement of the cottages. The applicant has addressed the first three issues, but disagrees about leaving the yellow house more in the center ofthe property. There are undoubtedly positive aspects of this proposal with regard to historic preservation, however, staff is unable to make a finding that they outweigh the negatives. Two historic buildings are being removed from what we maintain are authentic locations to new positions on the lot, and then impacted by a significantly larger new structure in close proximitv. While surrounding construction that had no III'C review may have created similar impacts in the past, 811 and 819 E. Hopkins Avenue are designated properties where a different outcome should be achievable. Staff cannot support the granting of Conceptual approval. APPLICANT: Tom and Darlyn Fellman, represented by Rally Dupps, Consortium Architects, and Mitch Haas. PARCEL ID: 2737-182-08-032. ADDRESS: 811 and 819 E. Hopkins Avenue, Units 1 and 2, Plat ofFellman Condominiums, A Colorado Common Interest Community, Situated on Lots C, D, E & F, Block 31, East Aspen Townsite, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. 1 ZONING: IUMF (Residential Multi-Family) CURRENT LANI) USE: A 12,000 square foot lot condominiumized property containing two single family residences and a shed. . 94 1'2 /7--- IL _, -'LU 2*ffi -i'-~-_c AJ~1& * _ , 1Vift ' *'I 23- 11 -113-9.-ir- .t--T'i'Â·01-~-~~~-'fl . 1 11/*: 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 - -11 1.1 lillieÂ· 1 1 :*44 - - L 0,1,1 1,1,1 L ,-'--- t'i, .- r/- -'. et. - Cle 1 - - 1 â€¢v- Â·Â·-- ve.:-~t,-=rer; TE ' 1 '4461.411, 1,1.,..ill,,r,w414 + 1.=IA 41 4, rl - 4 |40112 2- ; 2- 811 E. Hopkins 819 E. Hopkins MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) The procedure for a Major Development Reviews 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 shaN 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, scale, massing and proportions. No changes wit! 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: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit B." Only those guidelines which staff finds warrant discussion are included in the memo. 2 There are three historic structures affected by this application. Staffbelieves that all three are in their original locations based on historic maps. 819 E. Hopkins and the shed behind it are fairly unaltered. 811 E. Hopkins had a large addition made to it that has compromised its integrity. During the previous review, HPC became very familiar with the house and shed at 819 E. Hopkins, the surrounding context, and the large cottonwood that must be protected on this property. The approved site plan is attached for HPC's reference. In brief, the proposal was to move the 819 house approximately 15 feet west and slightly forward of its current siting. The shed was rotated perpendicular to the alley. A new house was designed along the east lot line. In this new proposal, the addition to 811 E. Hopkins is demolished, the house is moved approximately 45' east and restoration work is proposed. The 819 E. Hopkins cottage is moved approximately 30' east, and also undergoes some restoration. The shed is rotated and moved into the southeast corner of the site, and the new residence is placed along the west and rear property lines. Staff agrees that there are aspects of the new plan that are arguably improvements, and that the concept of rehabilitating the miner's cottages without major additions is laudable. However, even after the discussion at the October 1 00' HPC meeting, revisions by the application team, and further Community Development Staff debate, the two basic impacts to the historic resources that were hurdles in the last hearings are still troubling; which are the overwhelming size and massing ofthe new home and the building relocations. The relocation issue will be addressed later in the memo according to the appropriate review standards. With regard to the new house, the guideline which directly addresses staffs concern is: 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. o Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. The applicant has not included a discussion of the square footages of these buildings in their information. By staffs calculations, 811 E. Hopkins (the ADU) will be about 650 square feet, 819 E. Hopkins (AH1) is 950 square feet, the shed (AH2) is 550 square feet, and the new house is approximately 5,600 square feet. While this is well within the allowed FAR of this multi- family development (the maximum FAR is 1:1 or 12,000 square feet), there is an obvious imbalance that results in a large structure dominating the site. This building is only 10 feet away from the historic structures in some locations, aggravating the situation. In some similar cases that HPC has recently discussed, a comfort level with new structures that are not even this large being added to the property was only reached after a much greater distance between the new and old buildings was achieved. While the architect has used some similar roof forms and lowered plate heights, particularly at the front, the footprint of the building is very large and staff does not believe the structure has effectively been divided into distinct "modules" that break down the 3 scale. In staffs opinion, the Victorian vernacular that the new building is trying to honor falls apart when the size of the building is so out of character with others from the period. A restudy of the height, scale, massing and proportions of the new house would be needed to meet the design guidelines. ON-SITE RELOCATION The intent of the Historic Preservation ordinance is to preserve designated historic properties in their original locations as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical relationship to their surroundings as well as their association with events and people with ties to a particular site. However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a property may be appropriate as it provides an alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that make it significant. 26.415.090.C Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; i 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionallv. for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. Staff Response: As stated above, all three historic structures on this property are proposed to be relocated. While HPC has generally been permissive in approving on-site relocations in order to distance a small historic building from larger new construction, the degree that the resource is permitted to move is generally significantly less than shown ih this application. The project team has apparently studied and rejected several site plans. Staff feels that a better plan, from the point of view of retaining the historic integrity of these structures exists, although it may not meet the owner's current parameters. The guidelines state: 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. 4 o In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. o It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. o Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase o f any improvements. Â¤ A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. o Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. o The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. o In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel. o If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties. It is difficult to argue that moving two historic houses a relatively significant distance in order to construct a new building is the best preservation option. 811 E. Hopkins is not remaining within the boundaries of its historic parcel. Relocation of the shed may be acceptable because it is a secondary structure and it does occupy enough length along the alley to pose another challenge to the redevelopment plans. Staff acknowledges the complexities of this site and respects the owners' efforts to continue to study the proposal. Building relocation is a threshold issue that must be evaluated for the project to move forward. SETBACK VARIANCES The setback variances needed are a 3' front yard setback variance, a 9'6" rear yard setback variance for the relocated shed with addition, and a 2' variance on the minimum distance between buildings for the miner's cottages. The criteria, per Section 26.415.110.C ofthe 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: The board has consistently been favorable to granting waivers when there is a clear benefit to the historic resources. In this case, the goal would presumably be to create distance between the new and old construction, and to allow some flexibility to break up the massing of the new home by allowing it to spread out a bit. 5 The front and rear yard setback variances would help with the latter goal. ON-SITE PARKING The applicant plans to provide one on-site parking space for each affordable housing unit, but requests that the second space that each unit should have be waived. Previously, the one parking space for the ADU was also a variance request, but now one of the garage spaces has been earmarked for this use. Per Section 26.415.110.C, parking reductions are permitted for designated historic properties on sites unable to contain the number of on-site parking spaces required by the underlying zoning. Commercial designated historic properties may receive waivers of payment-in-lieu fees for parking reductions. 1. The parking reduction and waiver of payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a jinding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district Staff Finding: There are four units on this site for which some on-site parking is required by the Land Use Code. The total number of spaces needed is 7 (two for the new house, one for the ADU, and two each for the affordable units.) There is street parking available, and the rear of the property is the best location to site new square footage. Staff can support the waiver of one space for each affordable unit in order to remove some program from the site. VARIANCE FROM THE CALCULATION OF OPEN SPACE The zone district requires that at least 35% of the property be left undeveloped and meet the Land Use Code definition of "open space." The applicant requests a 9% variance from the requirement. Open space variances are not within the variances that HPC is empowered to grant as a historic preservation benefit. The board can review the request, but must apply the standards generally used for variances (usually applied by the Board of Adjustments.) In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the HPC must make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; Staff Finding: The AACP supports historic preservation as a goal for Aspen. Staff does not find that this variance would be inconsistent with any aspect of the plan. 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and Staff Finding: The open space requirement could be met if any of the buildings on the property were smaller. Staff cannot make a finding that by not granting the variance, reasonable use of the property is denied. 6 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical dijficully. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or Staff Finding: The property does have challenges in that there are three historic buildings that must remain one story, probably resulting in more development on the ground plane than would occur without the presence of these structures. b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district. Staff Finding: The variance does not create a special privilege in that the development is still below the maximum density and floor area. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 26.410.040.D.1.a. states that the front door on a new residence must be no more than 10 feet back from the front most waU of the buUding. Residential development may 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. Staff Response: The front door on the new house is recessed 14.5' from the front wall, and the door to the ADU is set back 16 feet. The ADU is exempt from this standard due to the fact that it is a historic building that should not be altered. The proposed location of the front door into the new house is acceptable because it creates a deep porch that relates to the one on the adjacent historic building. If the site plan changes, this argument may not hold true anymore. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" have not been sufficiently met with regard to the height, scale, 7 massing and proportions of the new house or the proposed relocations of the historic buildings and cannot support Conceptual approval. However, as is customary, a resolution approving the project is attached for the board's reference. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to continue Major Development (Conceptual), On-site Relocation, and Variance review for 811/819 E. Hopkins Avenue to a date certain." Exhibits: A. StaffMemo Dated October 22,2003 B. Relevant guidelines C. Existing site plan D. Site Plan from April 23,2003 Conceptual approval E. Application 8 Exhibit B Relevant Design Guidelines for Conceptual Development Review and On-site Relocation, 819 E. Hopkins Treatment of Roofs 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. o Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street. o Retain and repair roof detailing. Z2 Preserve the original eave depth. o The shadows created by traditional overhangs contribute to one's perception of the building's historic scale and therefore, these overhangs should be preserved. 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. 8.2 If an existing secondary structure is beyond repair, then replacing it is encouraged. o An exact reconstruction of the secondary structure may not be necessary in these cases. o The replacement should be compatible with the overall character of the historic primary structure, while accommodating new uses. 8.5 Avoid moving a historic secondary structure from its original location. o A secondary structure may only be repositioned on its original site to preserve its historic integrity. See Chapter 9: Building Relocation and Foundations. Preserving Building Locations and Foundations 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. o In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. o It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. o Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. o A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. o Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundalion, utilities, and to restore the house. o The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. o In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel. o If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties. 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. o It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. o It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. o Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. o Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. 9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space. o In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design Standards). o The size of a lightwell should be minimized. o A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded by a simple fence or rail. Existing Additions 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. o Such an addition is usually similar in character to the original building in terms of materials, finishes and design. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. New Additions 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. o A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. Â¤ 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. 10 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. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. o Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. o Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. o Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. 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. Building Orientation (new buildings on Landmark Lots) 11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street. o The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the site. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. o The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry. o A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. o In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the slreet; nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to the street. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. o Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. o The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure. o The front should include a one-story element such as a porch. 11 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. o They should not overwhelm the originalin scale. 11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block o Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. o Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. o On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context o Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames. 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. Â¤ These include windows, doors and porches. o Overall, details should be modest in character. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. o This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. o Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged on historic sites. 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 uâ‚¬lizes 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. 12 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), ON-SITE RELOCATION, AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 811/819 E. HOPKINS, LOTS C-F, BLOCK 31, CITY AND TOWNSITE OFASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. -, SERIES OF 2003 Parcel ID #: 2737-182-08-032 WHEREAS, Tom and Darlyn Fellman, represented by Rally Dupps, Consortium Architects, and Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, LLC, have requested Major Development approval (Conceptual), On-Site Relocation, and Variances, for the property located at 811/819 E. Hopkins, Lots C-F, Block 31, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; 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, the application included a request for approval of on-site relocation of the historic houses and barn. In order to approve Relocation of a historic structure, per Section 26.415.090.C, the HPC must find that the proposal meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character ofthe historic district; gr 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; gI 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; gr 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security; 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 ofthe 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 parking reductions, HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.110.C ofthe Municipal Code, that: 1. The parking reduction and waiver of payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district; and WHEREAS, for approval of a variance from the open space requirement, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine that: 1. The grant ofvariance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district; and WHEREAS, for approval of a variance from the Residential Design Standards, HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine that: A. The proposed design yields greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan ULACP); 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 October 22, 2003 performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended the application be continued for restudy; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on October 22,2003, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards, and approved the application by a vote of_to_. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the HPC approves Major Development (Conceptual), On-Site Relocation, and Variances for the property located at 811/819 E. Hopkins, Lots OF, Block 31, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado finding that the review standards are met, with the following conditions: 1. A landscape plan, lighting, fenestration and detailing, selection of new materials, and technical issues surrounding the preservation of existing materials will all be addressed at Final Review. 2. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a C6nceptual 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. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 22nd day of October, 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 Haas Land Planning, LLC Memo To: The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission From: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, LLC Rally Dupps, Consortium Architects Thru: Amy Guthrie, Aspen Historic Preservation Planner Date: October 14,2003 Re: 811 & 819 East Hopkins Avenue, Conceptual Review The accompanying revised plans for the 811 and 819 East Hopkins Avenue project reflect several changes made in response to concerns voiced by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) at the October 8,2003 hearing. This memorandum summarizes the changes shown on the plans. â€¢ The separation distance between the ADU and AH-1 (the Gates/811 residence and the 819 cottage, respectively) has been increased from 8 feet to 10 feet. With this change, a need for a variance from the minimum separation distance between structures has been eliminated. â€¢ In a similar vein, the separation distance between all structures and at all places is either 10 feet or greater. Between the ADU and Unit 1 (the gates residence and the new structure, respectively), the minimum separation distance is 10 feet, which occurs at the ground level; however, the second story of the new structure, which is the portion visible from the street as directly behind the ADU, is set approximately 16 feet away from the rear wall of the ADU structure. â€¢ The minimum rear yard setback for the new structure has been increased from 1'-6" to 5 feet, as suggested by the HPC. â€¢ One of the on-site parking spaces located in the garage attached to the new structure (Unit 1) has been designated for use by tenants of the ADU. The space will better serve for vehicle storage than it will for everyday use due to its location, but this is assumed to be better than providing either a space on grade 201 NORTH MILL SIREET, Sun'E 108 â€¢ ASPEN, CO 81611 â€¢ (970) 925-7819 â€¢ FAX (970) 925-7395 Page 1 from a street cut at the front of the property or no space at all. With this change, each unit (AH-1, AH-2, and the ADU) is provided with 1 on-site parking space. â€¢ The site plan has not changed, except as noted above with regard to separation distances and setback revisions. The proposed locations of the ADU and AH-1 were not changed as doing so would run counter to several of the applicant's goals and motivations for endeavoring to develop this project in the first place. Further, switching the arrangement of these buildings would reverse their historical relationship/orientation to one another. C./My Documents/City Applications/Fellman #2 cont'd Memo Page 2 HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC September 19, 2003 Mrs. Amy Guthrie Historic Preservation Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 811 & 819 East Hopkins Avenue Conceptual Application (Units 1 and 2, Plat of Fellman Condominiums, A Colorado Common Interest Community, Situated on Lots C, D, E & F, Block 31, East Aspen Townsite, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado) Dear Amy: Please consider this letter and the accompanying plan sets to constitute a formal request for approval of a conceptual development for the above- captioned property. The applicants, Tom and Darlyn Fellman, own 819 East Hopkins Avenue and are in the process of taking ownership of 811 East Hopkins Avenue. In the meantime, the current owner of 811 East Hopkins Avenue has authorized the Fellmans to pursue land use approvals that include the 811 East Hopkins Avenue property. The subject properties include two (2) historic miner's cottages, an associated historic shed structure located along the alley, and a nearly State-record size specimen cottonwood tree that must be preserved. 44Â·> e . Project Site & Neighborhood (Existing Conditions) The property addressed in this application includes both the 9,000 square foot 819 East Hopkins Avenue (Lots D-F) and the 3,000 square foot 811 East Hopkins Avenue (Lot C) properties. These properties are legally described as Units 1 and 2, as depicted on The Plat of Fellman Condominiums, A Colorado Common Interest Condominium Community Situated on Lots C, D, E & F, Block 31 of the East Aspen Addition, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado (recorded in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder in Book 9 at Page 96). 819 East Hopkins Avenue has been assigned a Parcel Identification Number of 2737- 182-08-003 by the Pitkin County Assessor's Office. The Parcel Identification Number for 811 East Hopkins Avenue is 2737-182-08-002. â€¢ 201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108 â€¢ ASPEN, COLORADO â€¢81611 â€¢ â€¢ PHONE: (970) 925-7819 Â· FAX: (970) 925-7395 Â· C , A Vicinity Map showing the property location within the surrounding area is provided below. dooft 4,% r .:;,33*Pcke;pÂ·ar*i~,~, ~4~~ h~ 9 *kilA / 4% r \1 4,9.. 9 i :.Â»41,8 / 2,Â·4: it *Ahghe:ipark : t=- i-'f: i Â·.Â·:Â·Â· f ; . Â·.rÂ· }zjFIÂ»~ed :27-ff .el *-Â· Â· f. :1:22Â·Â·CtÂ·Â·Â·f -:;,~Â· Â·1'..1.E- 14&. :Â·~. -4 Jiff /0... 4 . 1. S.Â·- I. 1, 0 &- v - . ' -1 . v,. j,; 02003 MgoQuestcom. Inc.: 02003 Navioatbri Technobahs.. ' A.2-1 Vicinity: Map - 811 & 819 East Hopkins Avenue As the vicinity map shows, the project site is conveniently located within a couple blocks of the commercial core and downtown. RFTA stops, parks, and pedestrian/bike paths are also within easy walking distance of the project site. - City Market and other essential conveniences are alllocated within just a few blocks. Given the project site location, the zoning, and the surrounding . development patterns, the site is ideally situated for multi-family residential development and the provision of affordable/employee housing. There are three (3) existing structures on the project site, namely the 819 residence, the 811 residence (or "Gates" house), and the shed. AI1 are considered historically significant; the two residences are miner's cottages and the shed is an accessory structure situated along the alley frontage. The 819 residence is on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures (hereinafter "the Inventory"), and is a two-bedroom single-family Victorian residence built in the 1880s (estimated, per the Inventory). This Victorian is a one-story "L-shaped" structure with a cross gable, metal roof. It is a typical wood frame Miner's Cottage, with a gable end facing the street and a large bay window as the principal window. The bay is comprised of four double-hung windows with a decorative frieze and a stone base. A cross-gable runs parallel to the street with a shed roof porch infilling the corner. A shed roof FELLMAN 811 & 819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 2 addition, also from the main ridge, extends to the back, with an additional hipped roof addition on the rear. The 811/Gates residence is a single-family house situated on Lot C of the property. The historic portion of the home is one-story, but a large two-story addition has been made to the rear. The site is listed on the Inventory, but its historic integrity has been severely compromised not only be many inappropriate additions but also by inappropriate renovations that have obscured the structure's historic form, such as a new entry door, new clapboard siding, enclosure of the front porch, addition of arched windows, and an overwhelmingly large two-story addition to the rear. Also, virtually every historic window has been replaced with metal/aluminum clad windows. The accessory structure on the project site is a 150 square foot wooden storage shed located on the alley frontage (behind the 819 residence). While not the reason for the property's inclusion on the Inventory, the shed is believed to contribute to the historic significance of the site. There also exists on the property a cottonwood tree of nearly State-record size. The City of Aspen Parks Department has required that any buildings to be developed on the project site be designed and located so as to provide adequate space for preservation of the tree's root system. Two large, fulIy mature lodgepole pine trees are located in front of the historic Victorian residences, approximately twelve inches (12") off the front property line and in the East Hopkins Avenue right-of-way. The property is zoned Residontial Multi-Family (R/ MF) and is surrounded on all sides by relatively large two- and three-story multi-family housing blocks. As the attached Neighborhood Map illustrates, the immediate neighborhood surrounding the subject property is predominantly multi-family residential in nature, with a handful of duplexes mixed in as well as an occasional single-family residence. Buildings tend to be two-to-three stories in height and consume a large portion of the property on which they sit. Architectural character varies quite widely, from 1970s-contemporary to Victorian and Neo-Victorian, and from stone and timber structures to 1990s- contemporary. Properties on the 800-block of East Hopkins Avenue are almost exclusively developed with multi-family residential structures ranging from two- to three-stories in height. Next door, to the west is 801 East Hopkins Avenue (a 6,000 square foot lot) which includes seven or eight multi-family residential dwelling units in a three-story structure with a flat roof, exposed stair towers, and unpaved parking off the alley. Next door, to the east is 825 East Hopkins Avenue (a 6,000 square foot lot) which includes several multi-family residential dwelling units in a two-and-one-half (2.5) story structure with pitched roofs; FELLMAN 811 &819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUALDEVELOPMENTAPPLICATION PAGE 3 parking for this building is provided off the street and off the alley. (See Neighborhood Map.) The north half of the 800-block on East Hyman Avenue shares the alIey with the subject property. Directly across the alley from the subject property is two virtually identical duplex structures (816/818 and 820/822 East Hyman), each on 6,000 square foot lots. These are two-plus story structures with flat roofs and garages accessed from the alley. The rest of that block includes a multi- family structure (800 E. Hyman, a 6,000 square foot lot), and two single-family homes (824 and 826 E. Hyman). (See Neighborhood Map.) Across the street from the subject property is the north half of the East Hopkins Avenue 800-block. This half block contains only three lots, moving . from west to east: 800 East Hopkins (a 15,000 square foot Iot) has a three-story multi-family residential structure (plus exposed basement level) with flat roofs and at least ten dwelling units known as the Larkspur; 830 East Hopkins is the Centennial Park multi-family residences of two-and-one-half (2.5) stories (including garden level), some eight dwelling units, a combination of flat and pitched roofs, exposed stairways, and a parking lot accessed from the street. 898 East Hopkins Avenue is a single-family home with a driveway and two-car garage facing the street. 898 E. Hopkins and the Mountain River Manor property inunediately to its east (900 East Hopkins Avenue) face straight down West End 0 Street and are separated by a surface parking lot that serves the multi-family residences of Mountain River Manor. (See Neighborhood Map.) The immediate neighborhood, described as the 800-block of East Hopkins Avenue (exclusive of the subject site) and those properties located on the other side of the adjoining alley, have a combined average density of approximately 1 dwelling unit per 1,744 square feet of lot area. By comparison, the subject proposal includes-1 dwelling-unit per 4,000-square feet -of-lot arear plus an ADU. 1 Background The Historic Preservation Commission (hereinafter the"HPC") has reviewed and approved (April 23,2003) a conceptual development application involving the 819 East Hopkins Avenue property only. The approved - conceptual major development plan includes restoration of the historic Victorian (819 residence) after on-site relocation onto a new foundation with a basement. - The hipped roof addition to the rear of the Victorian was to be removed as part of the historic restoration efforts. The approved basement addition and interior remodel included a third bedroom. FELL.MAN 811 & 819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 4 The HPC approval also provides for relocation and adaptive reuse of the shed such that it would be added onto and become a two-bedroom dwelling unit. Finally, the HPC approval allows for development of a new residential structure and preservation of a heritage cottonwood. The total HPC approval includes three detached residential structures on the 9,000 square foot lot, where the two of the three residences (the two that are historically significant) would be deed restricted as affordable housing. After having time to review and further consider the approved plans, it has been determined by the owner that the project does not satisfy his family's needs; thus, the applicant does not want to spend the resources that would be required to build the approved project. Further, the applicant does not want to sell the property but has, instead, decided to submit these revised and substantially improved development plans for review and approval. This new formal application requests conceptual approval of a significant development on the entire 12,000 square foot property, including 811 and 819 East Hopkins Avenue. Associated incidental approvals are requested to aIIow on-site relocations, variances and special review approvals, all as detailed below. The Proposal The applicant recognizes that the subject site presents many relatively unique challenges inasmuch as it contains two miners' cottages and an associated out-building as well as a large cottonwood tree that sits near the center of the site and must be preserved. Further, the R/MF zoning allows for significantly more development potential than ordinarily found on historically designated, residential properties. In recognition of these somewhat extraordinary circumstances, the applicant held a work session as a means of engaging the experience and expertise of the HPC at an early juncture in the design and conceptualization of the project. The applicant received positive feedback and constructive suggestions. The submitted plans have in[corporated the suggestions offered by members of the HPC. Please refer to the attached plan sets while reviewing the following description of the proposal. The labels provided on the plans refer to the relocated 811/Gates residence as "ADU," the relocated 819 residence as "AH-1," the relocated shed with addition as "API-2," and the new residence as "Unit 1." The submitted development plans include preservation of the cottonwood tree; restoration and preservation of both miner's cottages after their on-site relocations; on-site relocation and adaptive reuse of the alley structure with an addition; and, development of a new, detached residential structure on the site. The 819 East Hopkins Avenue miner's cottage and the shed structure with FELLMAN 811&819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 5 addition will both be deed restricted and sold as affordable housing. The 811 East Hopkins miner's cottage will be used as an accessory dwelling unit. The plans involve relocating the 819 residence to the northeast corner of the property. The large addition on the 811 (Gates) structure will be removed before relocating the residence to be restored alongside and to the east of the relocated 819 cottage. The relocated and restored Gates residence will be used as a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU), accessory to the new free market residence described below. The shed structure will be rotated 180 degrees (to a north/south orientation) after being relocated and added onto; the revised structure will provide a two-bedroom affordable housing unit located aIong the alley and the shed portion will serve as an attached one-car garage. The shed/ alley residence will sit in the southeast corner of the property, directly behind the relocated 819 cottage. Enough space will be provided between the 819 residence and the alley shed/residence to accommodate preservation of the cottonwood tree. A new three-bedroom residence will be build along the westerly side of the property, roughly in the current location of the Gates residence. This new residence will be "L-shaped" to parallel not only the west property line but also the alley frontage behind the relocated Gates residence (ADU). This new residence will present a one-story element on its front facade to "inflect" toward and complement the 811 and 819 structures. To the west and south of the one- story element (the size of which approximates that of the 811 and 819 structures), the new residence will be two stories above grade. The portions of the new structure that will be located behind the ADU (811 residence) will not have any subgrade space in a further effort to protect the cottonwood's root system and ensure its preservation. ----The-applicantproposes-to restore the minerst-cottages--to their period materials, roof forms and building footprints (as such is/are depicted on the 1904 Sanborne map). As described above, the Gates residence has been severely altered over the years and the applicant intends to restore it to glory. AIterations to be removed or replaced include the front porch enclosure and the aluminum clad windows. It seems from site investigations that only one historic window remains on the Gates residence, that being the front bay window. The bay window will be restored and preserved, while the aluminum clad windows will be removed and replaced. The arched windows will be removed as well. The original location of the front door on the Gates residence will be restored (opening still remains), which was changed when the porch was enclosed. On the east elevation, the arched window in the gable end will be removed, leaving a more in-character double hung window, and an aluminum FELLMAN 811&819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPUCATION PAGE 6 window will be replaced with a double-hung wood clad window. Also, new windows will be added on the east elevation to allow for natural light in the master bedroom and bathroom of the ADU. The south fagade of the historic residence no longer exists as an addition to the south side of the building resulted in its removal. A new south fa,acle with three double-hung windows will be constructed after the addition is removed, and it will be in character with the remaining historic facades. On the west elevation, the secondary front door will be restored, as will the double-hung window under the porch. Also on the west elevation, the arched window in the gable end will be removed and the double-hung aluminum window below it will be reconfigured. On the 819 residence, the non-historic addition at the rear will be removed, and the one remaining historic window on the south/rear side will be relocated to the east elevation. All windows shown on the proposed south/rear elevation are new. This south elevation includes a new shed addition placed in the same configuration indicated on the Sanborne maps to have existed historically; thus, these new windows are placed in new construction but of a scale and design that is in keeping with the historic character and proportions of the building. Conversely, on the north/front elevation, the windows, doors, siding and building, in general, are to remain unchanged. The west elevation of the 819 residence does not currently have any windows at all, but the proposal includes four sets of new, appropriately proportioned and scaled windows. The east elevation includes a new door, and the historic window relocated from the rear side, both in the new shed addition described in the previous paragraph. A new, small double-hung window is proposed in the gable end of the east elevation, and it is proposed that the secondary historic door under the front porch be restored. The new residential structure (Unit 1) will be set back a minimum of 10'- 0" from the historic buildings, and will be sympathetic in height roof forms and massing. Nevertheless, accommodation of the proposed plans requires a few variances from the dimensional requirements of the R/MF zone, as described below; however, the applicant is not requesting any floor area bonuses. Comparison with Previously Approved Plans While the current proposal provides a vast improvement over the plans previously approved by the HPC, there remain a number of similarities between the two. For instance, the current plans still group the historic resources together in the manner desired by the HPC. The plan to relocate the 819 residence and placing a basement under it is still the same, albeit to a modified location. Similarly, the plan to rotate and relocate the shed structure then place an FEL-LMAN 811 &819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 7 addition onto it is still the same. In fact the proposed designs for the 819 residence and shed structure with addition have not changed, nor have the restoration plans for both of these resources. The main differences between the approved plans and the currently proposed plans are in the design of the new structure and the inclusion of the Gates residence. In comparison with the conceptually approved project this proposal represents a vast improvement in at least the following ways: â€¢ It is more sensitive to neighboring properties by providing greater side yard setbacks and a predominantly single-story presentation along the East Hopkins Avenue street frontage; this ensures greater solar access for the properties on either side and greater preservation of Aspen Mountain views from across the street. â€¢ Density and associated impacts thereof are reduced from that of four dwelling units to that attributable to three units. â€¢ Better preservation of the cottonwood tree by providing not only more space around the tree itself but a reduction in the required amount of excavation near the root system. â€¢ Complete restoration of two (2) historic miners' cottages on the East Hopkins Avenue frontage (previous approval called for restoration of just one of the miner's cottages). The Proposal Relative to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (for review of conceptual application and on-site relocations) The only -applicable-review--standard-for-Conceptual- Review uf a Major Development project is a determination of consistency with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (hereinafter "the Guidelines"). An FAR bonus is not requested. Accordingly, the following portion of this application demonstrates adequate consistency with a sufficient number of relevant guidelines, as called for in italicized print on the very first page of the Guidelines. Specifically, the Guidelines state that ...not every guideline will apply to each project, and some balancing of the guidelines must occur on a case-by-case basis. The HPC must determine that a sumcient number of relevant guidelines have been adequately met in order to approve a project proposal. FELLMAN 811 &819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 8 Conceptual Review focuses on the height scale, massing, and proportions of a proposal. The heights, scale, massing and proportions presented in the proposed plan provide an appropriate relationship with the historic structures, will not compete with or overwhelm the historic structures, and will not compromise the integrity or historic significance of the property. Where additions and alterations are proposed to historic structures, these changes are in-character with and subordinate and subservient to the historic structures. The following narratives demonstrate consistency with those Guidelines applicable to the subject proposal. Chapter 1 of the Guidelines addresses the streetscape and lot features. The neighborhood of the subject site maintains no historic structures other than the ones on this property. The proposal keeps the historic structures grouped together while preserving the historic landscape and landscape elements, including the exceptionally large cottonwood and the two conifers located near the front property line. The two miner's cottages will maintain their proximity to the front lot line, but will be moved out from behind the large conifers that obscure their visibility. Further, the large and inappropriate addition on the Gates residence will be removed, thereby enhancing its contribution to the streetscape. The new structure will provide an appropriate buffer between the restored Gates residence and the large multi-family structure to the west. Walkways to the front porches will be recreated in simple, proper form. In accordance with Chapter 2 of the Guidelines, historic building materials will be maintained and preserved in place to the maximum extent practicable. For the original walls and windows that no longer exist on the historic structures, use of replacement materials will follow the recommendations of Guidelines 2.7 and 2.8. The description of the proposal, above, provides a detailed explanation of all proposed changes to existing fenestration on the historic structures. Consistent with Chapter 3, all character-defining historic windows and their distinctive arrangements on primary facades will be preserved. Where historic windows exist they will be preserved in place with one minor exception. The one exception is a window on the rear of the 819 residence, which is not in a character-defining location. Indeed, it is located on the least visible portion of the structure. The applicant is not proposing to eliminate this window altogether, rather it will be relocated to the east fa~ade. Moreover, in many cases, distinctive arrangements of character-defining fenestrations will be restored to their historic condition, thereby eliminating the unfortunate and inappropriate changes that have taken place (i. e., arched windows on primary facades). FELLMAN 811 & 819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENTAPPLICATION PAGE 9 The character-defining features of the historic doors, and their distinctive materials and placement will be restored and/or preserved, as applicable, thereby ensuring consistency with Chapter 4 of the Guidelines. For a detailed explanation of historic door restoration efforts, particularly on the Gates residence, please refer to the Proposal description provided earlier. Secondary front porch doors will be restored on both residences. Both of the historic residences benefit from character-defining front porches, although the one on the Gates residence has been enclosed. As dictated by Chapter 5, the porch of the 819 residence will be preserved, with its secondary front door restored. The front porch enclosure on the Gates residence will be removed and the historic elements of the porch will be restored. Similarly, architectural detailing on both residences is being preserved and restored in accordance with the Guidelines and policies of Chapter 6. Chapter 7 provides that the character of a historical roof should be preserved, including its form and materials. The proposal does not involve any changes to the historical roofs, their forms or their materials. The original eave lines and eave depths are being maintained. In a related vein, the inappropriate additions on both residences are being removed and replaced with additions that match the forms shown on the Sanborne maps. Chapter 8 addresses treatment of secondary structures. The overriding policy of this Chapter states that, "When a secondary structure is determined to be historically signijicant, it should be preserved. This may include... adapting it to a new use so that the building continues to serve a junction." The shed structure on the site is in severe disrepair. Nevertheless, the proposed preservation and adaptive reuse of the shed structure is consistent with the guiding policy of Chapter 8. Indeed, the proposal for the shed structure has not been changed from that granted-conceptual approval by the HPCback in-April-of thisâ€žyear. Chapter 9 states that proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The proposal involves relocation of both residences and the shed. The structures wilI remain on-site and the residences will maintain their current/historic orientations. Their heights above grade will not be perceivably altered. The Guidelines state that in general, relocation has less impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district; the subject property is not in a historic district. The relocation will also enable enhanced preservation by allowing construction of proper foundations and, thus, better support for the aging structures. Further, existing approvals included relocation of the 819 residence and the shed structure, but no changes (not even restoration efforts) on the Gates residence were contemplated at that time. FELLMAN 811&819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 10 Overall, the current proposal provides a far greater preservation effort which is enabled only by the on-site relocations. After experimenting with a great many conceptual site plans, it has become clear to the applicant that the proposed relocations provide the best, most effective, and only desirable preservation alternative. As explained above, the relocated structures will be rehabilitated and their historic integrity will be restored. Also as .described above, the surrounding neighborhood maintains no historic structures other than the ones on the subject property. The proposal keeps the historic structures grouped together while preserving the exceptionally large cottonwood and the two conifers located near the front property line. The two miner's cottages will maintain their proximity to the front lot line, but will be moved out from behind the large conifers that obscure their visibility. The new structure is designed in accordance with the Guidelines for new construction, as demonstrated below, and will provide an appropriate buffer between the restored residences and the large multi-family structure to the west. Chapter 10 addresses how to appropriately design new additions to historic structures. In the case of the Gates house, the inappropriate additions will be removed without replacement. In the case of the 819 house and as previously granted conceptual approval by the HPC, an existing addition will be removed and replaced with a shed roof addition matching the form of the original structure, as indicated on the Sanborne maps. The proposal is consistent with the Chapter 10 guidelines. For example: (10.3) one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary buildings wilI be fully maintained (as described in the foregoing); (10.4) the new addition will be recognizable as a product of its own time due to its proportions, materials, and fenestration; (10.6) the addition is compatible, subordinate and subservient in size and scale, with lower plate heights, lower eave heights and a lower overall height than that of the historic house; (10.8) the addition is set at the rear of the historic structure to minimize visual impact and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent; (10.9) roof forms of the addition are similar to those of the original historic structure; and, (10.10) all historically important architectural features of the historic structure are preserved without being destroyed or obscured. Chapter 11 states, as its guiding Policy, that "In some cases a new primary structure may be constructed on a parcel that includes a landmarked structure. In such cases, it is important that the new building be compatible with the historic structure such that its integrity is maintained." Given the existing conceptual approvals for the site, the decision allowing a new primary structure on the subject parcel has already been accepted. The current proposal does a far greater job of providing compatibility with and maintaining the integrity of the historic structures. The current proposal is fully consistent with Â· the "Basic Approach" outlined in Chapter 11 for designing new buildings. FELLMAN 811 &819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 11 In accordance with Guidelines 11.1 and 11.2, the new building maintains an appropriate orientation with a primary entrance facing the street and the primary entrance is clearly defined under a front porch. The proposed mass and scale of the new residence takes cues from not only Guidelines 11.3 and 11.4 but also from the suggestions made by staff and the commissioners at the August 13, 2003 work session. For instance, the masses of the front elevation are subdivided into "modules," including a substantial one-story element and front porch. Also, rather than include an entirely one-story street-fronting presentation (as presented at the work session), the applicant has accomplished a design appearing similar in scale with the historic structures on the parcel by exceeding the letter and adhering to the spirit of the so-called "inflectior(' standard. This was done at the suggestion of staff and the Commission. The suggestion came as a means of ensuring a design that would not from the front read like a historic building with the type of large, "balloon" addition on the rear that is too pervasive in Aspen. The new residence uses building and roof forms that are similar to those of the historic structures and those seen traditionally in the block, as called for under Guidelines 11.5 and 11.6. Finally, the proposed architecture complements the historic structures without imitation, and will be readily discernable as a product of its own time. The Guidelines of Chapters 12 and 13 are not applicable as the project site is not on Main Street or in the Commercial Core Historic District. For the most part the Guidelines of Chapter 14 are more applicable to Final reviews than they are to Conceptual reviews. Nevertheless, the project is and will be found consistent with Chapter 14's general guidelines addressing such topics as accessibility, color, lighting, on-going maintenance, and treatment of mechanical equipment-service-areasrdriveways-and parking. In total, the project is consistent with the HPC Design Guidelines as thoroughly demonstrated above. More importantly, the applicant maintains a conceptual approval from the HI?C, but the current proposal provides a far greater preservation effort greater protection for the nearly State-record size cottonwood tree, and significantly greater consistency with the HPC Design Guidelines. Also, the proposal provides two deed-restricted affordable housing units as well as an ADU without even maximizing the zoned density or floor area potentials. This project would be worthy of an FAR bonus, but one is not even requested. FELLMAN 811 & 819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPUCATION PAGE 12 Variances As mentioned earlier, accommodation of the proposed plans requires variances from the dimensional requirements of the R/MF zone, reductions in parking requirements, and variances from the Residential Design Standards, as described below. The applicant is not requesting any floor area bonuses. The specifically requested variances or special review approvals, as applicable, include: (a) 7 front yard setbacks for each of the two miner's cottages (a 3' variance from the 10' minimum front yard setback requirement); (b) 1'-6" rear yard setbacks for the easternmost portion of the new residence and for the "API-2" structure (a 9'-6" variance from the 10' minimum rear yard setback requirement); (c) 1 on-site parking space per AH unit (HPC Parking variance to reduce the requirements from 2 spaces to 1 space per AH unit); (d) 8' separation distance between the 811 (ADU) and 819 mihers' cottage buildings (a 2' reduction by special review from the 10' separation distance requirement); (e) No on-site parking spacefor the ADU (special review approval to reduce the requirement from 1 space to no spaces); * a variance from Residential Design Standard 26.410.040(D)(1)(a), Building Elements, to allow front entry doors on the new residence and on the ADU to be more than ten feet back from the front most wall of the respective buildings; and, (g) a 9% variance from the minimum "open space" requirement to allow 26% open space where 35% is otherwise required (HPC to act as Board of Adjustment in reviewing this variance only); The requested setback variances ("a" and "b," above) are to be reviewed under standards of Code Section 26.415.110(B), and the requested parking requirements variance for the affordable housing units ("c," above) is to be considered under the standards of Section 26.415.110(C). The special review request to reduce the otherwise required separation distances between detached structures ("d," above) is to be considered under the standards of Section 26.430.040 of the Code, while the special review request to reduce the off-street parking requirement for the ADU ("e," above) is to be considered under the FELLMAN 811 &819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENTAPPUCATION PAGE 13 provisions of Section 26.520.080(D). The variance from the Building Elements standard of the Residential Design Standards ("f," above) gets reviewed according to the standards of the Design Review Appeal Committee, as enumerated in Section 26.222.010 of the Code. Finally, the "open space" variance ("g," above) is to be reviewed pursuant to the Board of Adjustment standards of Code Section 26.314.040. Each of these variances or special review requests and the applicable review standards are specifically addressed below. Setback Variances, Section 26.415.110(B) Section 26.415.110(B) of the Code states that dimensional variations are allowed on projects involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property than would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards. Specifically, the HPC is empowered to grant variances for designated properties to alIow: a. Development in the side, rear and front setbacks; b. Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings; c. Up to five (5) percent additional site coverage; d. Less open space than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic properties. The proposed conceptual development plan requires a 3' variance from the 10' minimum front yard setback requirement (to allow 7 front yard setbacks for each of the two miner's cottages), and a 9'-6" variance from the 10' minimum rear yard setback requirement (to allow 1'-6" rear yard setbacks for the easternmost portion of the new residence and for the "API-2" structure). In granting these variances, the RIPC must find that the requested variances: a. Are similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhance or mitigate an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. The requested front and rear yard setback variances maintain consistency with the patterns, features, and character of the historic property and the neighborhood. A substantial distance (approximately 15 feet) is maintained between the front property line and the edge of pavement on East Hopkins Avenue; thus, the perceived setbacks from East Hopkins Avenue will be some FELLMAN 811 & 819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 14 twenty-two plus feet. The proposed front yard setbacks are identical to the existing front setback of the Gates house. Similarly, the current location of the shed is less than two feet from the rear property line. The proposed front yard and rear yard setbacks are a function of and are necessary for preservation of the nearly State-record size cottonwood tree on the property. That is, moving the structures into the front and rear setbacl<s allow for provision of greater room for the trees root system and better enables this preservation effort. Further, use of the front and rear yard setback areas enhances the.preservation efforts by facilitating appropriate separation distances between the structures. Affordable Housing Parking Variance, Section 26.415.110(C) Section 26.415.110(CD of the Code provides that a "parking reduction... may be approved upon a jinding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic signijicance or architectural character ofa designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district." The applicant is providing two detached, deed restricted single-family dwelling units as affordable housing. The Code requires provision of two on-site parking spaces for each of these units. The applicant cannot fit the required amount of spaces onto the site without severely compromising the entire plan, and there is ample parking available on the adjoining public streets. Instead, the applicant's proposal provides one on-site parking space for each of the two deed restricted units. The project's site, itself, helps to mitigate the demand for on-site parking. That is, the property is conveniently located within a couple blocks of the commercial core and downtown. RFTA stops, parks, and pedestrian/bike paths are also within easy walking distance of the project site. City Market and other essential conveniences are alllocated within just a few blocks. GiVen the convenient location of the project site in relation to downtown Aspen, skiing, shopping, groceries, banking, public facilities (City Hall, Library, Courthouse, Parks, etc.), and public transportation, it is anticipated that residents will not require frequent use of their vehicle(s), and therefore, will not require the most convenient parking possible. Thus, parking any second vehicles on the public streets with the City-issued parking permits that the residents are entitled to will not be a hardship. There is no doubt that the surrounding streets network can, in their existing condition, adequately and safely absorb the additional parking demand that might result from the proposed development. The previously approved conceptual plan provided for all required parking but did not present a preservation effort nearly as desirable as that of the current plan. The current plan achieves too many goals to also meet the FELLMAN 811 &819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUALDEVELOPMENTAPPUCATION PAGE 15 otherwise applicable parking requirement. That is, the plan provides for preservation and restoration of not one, not two, but three historic structures ~ while also preserving a nearly State-record size cottonwood tree that sits roughly in the center of the site. The plan provides a new residential structure with a design that is consistent with the HPC Guidelines. Further, the plan provides not one, but two deed restricted, affordable, detached single-family dwelling units as well as a detached accessory dwelling unit. All of these goals are achieved without even developing to the maximum possible density or floor area limits of the underlying R/MF zone district. To require the applicant to provide two on-site parking spaces for each of the affordable housing units would severely compromise, if not completely eliminate the applicanfs ability to achieve one or more of the goals described in the preceding paragraph. Therefore, allowing the applicant to use the more than ample parking available on the adjoining public streets enhances the ability to provide a successful and exemplary preservation effort. Further, it mitigates the potential for unnecessary on-site parking to have an adverse impact on the historic significance and architectural character of the designated property. Minimum Distance between Buildings Special Review, Section 26.430.040 The minimum distance between buildings on a lot in the R/MF zone district is 10 feet; however, this dimensional requirement provision also states that for detached buildings on one lot, the minimum distance between buildings may be reduced to 6 feet subject to Special Review in accordance with Chapter 26.430 of the Code. The applicant proposes a distance of 8 feet between the two historic residential structures. All other detached structures will maintain separation distances of at least 10 feet. Section-26:430:040 of the Code-states- that-Â«Whenever the-dimensional-- requirements ofa proposed development are subject to special review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met:" 1. 772 mass, height, density, conjiguration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks Of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes ofthe underlying zone district. It has been amply demonstrated in the foregoing portions of this application that the mass, height density, and configuration of the proposed development are designed in a manner that are not only compatible with but also enhance the character of surrounding land uses. The purpose of the R/MF FELLMAN 811 & 819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 16 zone district is to "providejbr the use oflandjor intensive long-term residential pulposes, with customary accessory uses." The proposal provides for relatively intensive use of the land, given the existing constraints of three historic structures and a very large tree that must be preserved in its location close to the center of the property. The proposal includes one free market residence, one ADU (with a deed restriction requiring rental periods of not less than six months at a time), and two deed restricted dwelling units; these are perfect examples of long-term residential uses and customary accessory uses. Finally, the proposed eight foot separation distance between the two historic residences exceeds the minimum separation distance that could be requested (6 feet is the minimum), and is consistent with many historic adjacencies found throughout town. This distance could easily be increased to 10 feet but that would move the Gates residence closer to the new structure and have an adverse impact on the site plan from a historic preservation perspective. In other words, it is more important to have a maximized separation between the old and the new, than it is to have two feet of increased separation between two historic structures. ADU Parking Special Review, Section 26.520.080(D) The ADU design standards require one off-street parking space per ADU. An application requesting a variance froni the ADU design standards is processed as a special review. If the property is listed on the Inventory, as the subject property is, and the application has been authorized for consolidation pursuant to Section 26.304 of the Code (as this application has been), the Historic Preservation Commission is to consider the special review request. A special review for an ADU is to be based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The proposedADU_is_designed.in a.nlaYmpy 71*lirll ryn~mntpq-thp purpose of the ADU program, promotes the purpose of the zone district in which it is proposed, and promotes the Unit' s general livability; and, The ADU exceeds all applicable design standards with the exception of the parking requirement. It will be one of the best ADUs in the City. The ADU is a free-standing, restored historic residence and will be located on the front of the property, very close to nearby on-street parking. Residents will be entitled to parking in the public streets with City-issued residential parking permits. 2. 77ze proposed AD U is designed to be compatible with, and subordinate in character to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site FELLMAN 811 &819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 17 configuration, landscaping, privacy, and historicalsignijicance ofthe property; and, Consistency with the HPC Design Guidelines ensures that this standard is met and exceeded. 3. 7?ze proposed AD U is designed in a manner which is compatible with br enhances the character Of the neighborhood considering all dimensions, density, designated view planes, operating characteristics, tra~c, availability ofon-street parki,zg, availability of transit services, and walking proximity to employment and recreational opportunities. Again, consistency with the HPC Design Guidelines ensures that this standard is met and exceeded. Also, as stated above, the project's site, itself, helps to mitigate the demand for on-site parking. That is, the property is conveniently located within a couple blocks of the commercial core and downtown. RFTA stops, parks, and pedestrian/bike paths are also within easy walking distance of the project site. City Market and other essential conveniences are alllocated within just a few blocks. Given the convenient location of the project site in relation to downtown Aspen, skiing, shopping, groceries, banking, public facilities (City Hall, Library, Courthouse, Parks, etc.), and public transportation, it is anticipated that residents of the ADU will not require frequent use of their vehicle, and therefore, will not require the most convenient parking possible. Thus, parking on the public streets with the City-issued residential parking permits that the residents are entitled to wilI not be a hardship. There is no doubt that the surrounding streets network can, in their existing condition, adequately, safely, and easily absorb the additional parking demand that might result from the proposed ADU. Residential Design Standards Variance, Section 26.222.010 Residential Design Standard 26.410.040(D)(1)(a), Building Elements, requires, among other things, that front entry doors be no more than 10 feet back from the front most wall of the building. The front entry doors on the new residence and on the ADU are set back approximately 14.5 feet and 16 feet respectively, from their front most walls. Section 26.222.010 of the Code states that "Any appealjbr exemption,Iom the Residential Design Standards should [emphasis added] simply and succinctly ident* why, ifgranted, the exception would: (1) yield greater compliance with the goals Of the Aspen Area Community Plan, and (2) more @ictively address the issue or problem a FELLMAN 811 &819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENTAPPLICA-nON PAGE 18 given standard or provision responds to, or be clearly necessaryjbr reasons of#drness Felated to unusual site specijic constraints. The front most wall of the new residence is set back 10' from the front property Iine while the front most wall of the ADU has a front yard setback of approximately 7-2". The ADU is a historic structure and its existing, historic front porch has a depth of approximately 16 feet; therefore, the distance of the front door from the front most wall of the structure is an already established and historically significant design element. The designed location of the front porch and front door of the new structure were carefully chosen in an effort to align with and complement the adjacent historic structure, which happens to have an unusually deep front porch. By having a front porch of approximately 14.5 feet in depth on the new residence, its front door is at an approximately even distance from the front property line as that of the historic house. The new structure's front door could easily be moved 4.5 feet forward to comply with the letter of the standard, but it - is felt that doing so would compromise the complementary nature of new structure and its compatibility with the historic resource. Doing so would run counter to the HPC Design Guidelines. Given the design concerns and explanations provided above, it is fair to say that the proposed front entry door setbacks more effectively address the issue the subject residential design standard responds to than would a design that complies with the letter of the requirement. Historic preservation and complementary design of adjacent new construction are goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Minimum Open Space Variance, Section 26.314.040 The R/MF zone district requires that a site plan provide at least 35% of the ~ lot area as "open space;" meeting the standards to qualify as "open space" under Section 26.575.030. These standards are attached hereto for easy reference. To be considered "open space," the area must: be open to view from the street at pedestrian level, have a minimum frontage on the street of one-half the length of the lot line on that side of the building site or 100 feet (whichever is less), have a minimum depth of 10 feet measured at a right angle from the front property line, be not more than 4 feet above or below the existing grade of the street and not include storage areas, utility/trash service areas, rear access areas, and parking areas or structures of any type. Most zone districts do not have a minimum open space requirement but, instead, require that a percentage of the lot area remain clear of structures by FELLMAN 811 &819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 19 including a maximum site coverage requirement. For instance, instead of requiring that 35% of a developed site meet the standards for "open space," many zone districts simply require that buildings do not cover more than 65% of the site. The proposal maintains site coverage of just 61%, leaving 39% of the property open/free of structures. Nevertheless, only 26% of the lot area remaining open will meet the standards for "open space" and, thus, a 9% variance is needed (to allow provision of 25% "open space" where 35% is otherwise required). In order to authorize a variance from the minimum "open space" dimensional requirement the HPC must make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies ofthe Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; The proposal, with or without the required percentage of"open space,"is fully consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the AACP. The proposal provides needed density within the Urban Growth Boundary and in a multi-family zone district where most people instead develop single-family homes. The site is within walking distance of town and transit routes, thereby ~ - reducing dependency on automobile usage. The proposal provides two deed restricted affordable housing units as well as a voluntary accessory dwelling unit. The plan sees to the preservation and restoration of three historic structures while providing new construction in a manner consistent with the HPC Design Guidelines. The project facilitates preservation of a nearly State-record size cottonwood tree that resides close to the center of the site. Finally, the spirit of the "open space" requirement is met by providing a plan that accompIishes not I only-allof-theforegoing-butalso leaves39%.of-the-site free ofstructures. 2. The grant ofuariance is the minimum uariance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and The three dwelling units proposed would require only 4,000 square feet of lot area under the R-MF zoning, and the proposed density is only 33 % of that permitted by right (a 67% reduction). If simply left to the underlying zoning, three times the density proposed on the 12,000 square feet of land in could be added, but to protect against this and effectively "downzone" the property, only 3 units (two 3-bedroom units and 1 2-bedroom unit) are included in the current plan. An ADU is also included, but does not count as a unit of density. Any additional density is basically precluded by the proposed site plan and would, at a minimum, require further HPC review. This "downzoning" to effectively - FELLMAN 811 &819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 20 reduce the density potential by some 67% is consistent with the constraints specific to the site, such as the need for historic preservation and development sensitive to those goals as well as the need to preserve a nearly State-record size cottonwood tree that resides near the center of the property. In light of the foregoing, it is clear that the applicant is not attempting to maximize development rights, but is only attempting to achieve a reasonable use of the parcel. The proposed site plan is almost completely driven by two primary factors. The first and foremost factor is the need to preserve the legacy cottonwood tree and as much of its root system as reasonably practicable. The second factor results from the desire of the HPC to have the two historic residences (811 and 819 E. Hopkins) grouped together to provide a microcosm of the neighborhood's historic architectural roots, which have been significantly eroded over time with the demolition of all the other miner'; cottages in the area. In addition, the underlying. zoning provides the applicant with rights to a good deal of additional density and floor area and, as explained above, much of this density has been forfeited in response to the site specific constraints. Together, the tree preservation and HPC goals described above forced the development away from the central part of the property and into the otherwise required setback areas in the front and rear of the site. In addition to providing space for the root system of the cottonwood tree, the proposed front yard setback allows for better alignment between the front facades of the two adjacent historic residences. As a result of needing to reduce the front setbacks for the specified reasons, much of the area in front of the houses does not meet the minimum depth provision to qualify as"open space." The applicant prepared a multitude of potential site plans aimed at satisfying the goals or driving forres ClpArriberl above Not a single nne roiilri comply with the "open space" requirement. Oddly enough, the one that came closest to meeting the requirement is the one that achieved all other goals and is currently proposed. Therefore, it has been concluded that given the above- described driving forces behind the proposed site plan, it is virtually impossible to maintain 35 % of the project site in a manner that would meet the "open space" qualifications without greatly exceeding the height limit or proposing a development plan with no incentive for the owner whatsoever. Thus, since the currently proposed site plan is the closest the applicant was able to come to meeting the "open space" requirement, it is fair to say that the requested variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel. FELLMAN 811 &819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 21 3. Literal inte,pretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of tghts commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical dgiculty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be depriued, the board shall consider whether either Of thejbllowing conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which gre not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not resulthm the actions ofthe applicant; or b. Granting the uariance will not con#r upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcek buildings, or structures, in the same zone district. The applicant has satisfied the spirit of the minimum open space requirement by providing a plan with just 61 % site coverage. This ensures that at least 39% of the property will not be built upon. The location of the legacy cottonwood tree forces the site plan design but provides no assistance in meeting the minimum open space requirement. That is, the cottonwood is located in the center of the site, forcing development to more or less encircle its root system and screen it from view. The effect of this is open space that does not qualify as "open space" under the terms of the Code. The spirit of the regulation is satisfied by site coverage of just 61 %, a density reduction from that allowed by the underlying zoning, and the forwarding of other community goals such as historic preservation, tree preservation, and the unsubsidized provision of affordable housing. Again, given the above-described driving forces behind the proposed site 1 plan,- itis-impossible-to-maintain 35%-of thepreject site-in amanner-thatwould satisfy literal interpretation and enforcement of the requirement without greatly exceeding the height limit or proposing a development plan with no incentive for the owner whatsoever. In fact it is evident that literal interpretation and enforcement of the requirement would, in fact deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship and practical difficulty. Clearly there are special conditions and circumstances that are unique to the parcel, which are not applicable to other parcels in the same zone district and which are not the result of actions taken by the applicant. How many other parcels in the R/MF zone district contain three historic structures that require preservation AND a nearly State-record size cottonwood tree that the Parks Department will not under any circumstances, allow to be removed? The - FELLMAN 811 &819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUALDEVELOPMENTAPPUCATON PAGE 22 answer is exactly "zero." Further, as demonstrated above, the proposal is fully consistent with the AACP; therefore, the variance will not in any way whatsoever confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the AACP to other parcels in the same zone district. GMQS Exemptions Section 26.470.070(D)(2)(a) of the Code provides an exemption from the GMQS scoring and competition procedures for, "The enlargement ofaproperty listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures that develops, on a maximum cumulative basis: not more than one residential dwelling..." The existing property is listed on the Inventory and has two residential dwellings. After development of the proposed plan, the density will be enlarged by just one residential dwelling (from two units to three units). There will also be an ADU, but under the provisions of the Code, ADUs are not considered units of density and, therefore, have no bearing on this exemption provision. The Code further provides that this exemption shall be deducted from the respective annual development allotments and from the Aspen Metro Area development pool. The exemption review is by the Community Development Director. Placement of deed restrictions on the other two residences does not require GMQS allotments or exemptions, as there are already two existing units on the property. The ADU is not required as a means of obtaining a GMQS exemption; rather, it is purely voluntary. Further, the ADU does not, itself, require a GMQS exemption or allotment since, as mentioned above, it is not considered a unit of density. We hope the information and responses provided hereinabova prove helpful in your review, and we look forward to working with you toward approving this highly worthy application. If you should have any questions or desire any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, Â¥Â¥ id Planning, LLC D Mltch riaas, AICP Owner/Principal CC: Rally Dupps, Architect Tom Fellman, Applicant/Owner c: My Documents/City Applications/HPC Applications/Fellman/Fellman Conceptual HPC #2 FELLMAN 811&819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 23 Mr. John Gates 811 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Mr. l'homas Fellman do Broadmoor Development Company 809 North 96 Omaha, NE 68114 RE: Authority to Submit Land Use Applications DearTom: As current owner ofrecord of Unit 1, Fellman Condominiums, and as Co-Declarant of the Condominium Declaration for Fellman Condominiums, I hereby authorize your submittal of aland use application(s) to the City of Aspen forlhe development ofLots C, D, E and/or F, Block 31, East Aspen Townsite Oncluding Fellman Condominium Units 1 and/or 2). I also hereby waive myrights withregard to theprovisions ofthe Condominium Declaration for Fellman Condominiums relative to any and all proposed changes Onodifications, alterations, and improvements) to the above-described properties, provided such changes do not conflict withmy ability to continue use and occupancy of the premises as detailed under separate agreement/contract Sincerely, g Â£,36hn Gates 185- 277'~ ~94-7-R15A 1 7 1 1 NEALE AVE A -I~JSAL - Lu rn- 6 . 0 M i M -71---t_ 1 , M r---Â· i + 4 .8 1&-b-1.8 / Ir-4.-1 w T - PA t ,-U--L--1 r -- i E HOPKINS AVE Rtmf - 11 0 JL . h 0=77Â« g -m / FUMF LP r.=1 \ 00 '0 rl-- --I# 1 '- 4 1. 8 1 0 1 1 , z 00 L 0 1 7 8 L g S i w | M - LE 8 1 Â·M 0 This map/drawing/image is a graphical representation of the features depicted and Is not a legal ,~-8 - representation. The accuracy may change depending on the enlargement or reduction. Copyright 2003 City of Aspen/Pltkin County #rt , 819 E. Hopkins 18 1VNISINO S 18 12 E 3193* S , - Section 26.575.030 Open Space. Page 1 of 1 Section 26.575.030 Open Space. A. Standards for open space. Development which is required to provide open space shall comply with the following provisions: 1. Open to View. Open space areas shall be open to view from the street at pedestrian level, which view need not be measured at right angles. Fences or walls shall only be permitted within or around the perimeter of open space if such structures shall permit views from the, street into and throughout the open space. 2. Exclusion. Open space areas shall not include storage areas, utility/trash service areas, rear access area, parking areas or structures of any type, except as specifically provided for herein. Vacated rights-of-way shall be excluded from open space calculations as well. 3. Minimum Frontage. The open space shall have a minimum frontage on the street, or if there is no street, on the public right-of-way, of one-half (1/2) of the length of the lot line on that side of the building site, or one hundred (100) feet, whichever is less. 4. Minimum Depth. The minimum depth of the open space which is open to a street shall be ten (10) feet measured at right angles from the front lot line. 5. Grade Limitations. Required open space shall not be more than four (4) feet above or two (2) feet below the existing grade of the street which abuts the open space, unless the open space shall follow undisturbed natural grade, in which case there shall be no limit on the extent to which it is above or below the existing grade of the street. httnÂ·//www hnrnet r.nm/r.nrie,q/Agnen/ 1-)ATA/Title 76/575/030.html 9/19/2003 biâ‚¬'; FELLMAN MU LTI - FAMI LY BUILDING 811 -81 9 east hopkins st., aspen, colorado p--liyE-6-8-RECEPTUAL - OCTOBER 22,2003 0 0 ELI O-0 00 consortium a-r-c-hitects-1 P.O.B. 786, basalt, colorado 81621 v: (970) 927 - 2299 f: (970) 927 - 2266 ~ (801 E. HOPKINS) PROPERTY LINE 0e ..1 . 1 1 f , loud" . .. 1 L-- 1 1 r--- 0//2. HOPKINS) 1 1 1 1 13 ' L 2 1 CD 86 il EC 1 ,-1 1 01 1 0 01 10'-0" . /'0~'1 1 I 1 1'-1 -1/8" 05.-0. L 1-\ 1 ' ' ' mm!12112.-4 9 0 1) I X_. 1) ~ 2*11'm -1 > Oil 0 - \\\31 6. Ae 1..#' 4Z. rn l 2--1 11-1 van 22â‚¬/1 % --i N . 0 1 u, 1171 2 U le *02, 90 I 1/ O.4- 10 616 1 1 X m. ~ walk 04 LIZW ) -0 1 2/801 4 1 1 4 23><5 0 I I h. (819 E. HOPKINS) 11~ 4 PROPERTÂ¥ LINE (825 E. HOPKINS) 5-0.. PROPERTÂ¥ LINE NV-Id 3116 CESIAZIN PORCH 3141-1 UhGdOhld AN'Ily 1 1 INn WOOhloae â‚¬ -Â¥981-269 PORCH EGAOH OOTTON#OOP EAST HOPKINS AVENUE NORTH AH- 1 00 2 LOWER LEVEL PLAN 3 BEDROOM # HISTORIC 11 2/0 6 12!OUSE 1. / 2-_44 = *- BATH 71 101 12 1 /4 4 /-1 CLO. A /1 CL ./A [ L ADU ~I.I.- BEDROOM HISTORIC - 1-13 41 15'xle' - HOUSE - - BEDROOM ~BEDROOM UNFINISHED = Z CLOS. LAUND. fl -r STORASE 4 1 41-13 - 0 L 111 GL. i. lIUâ‚¬ ./../......../ [-1-1-1 4 UP lU Lj_ 4 1 Eli -cup -4* UP PLAÂ¥ROOM .. #lv I 20'x25' LEMZLAmeyU_ _ _ Irma g 11 11 11 11 - 0 11 11 / /Jiii \ \ 11 11 / \ \ - C IL _eae 0 -54072â‚¬01_ _ JI /, 1 tFBATH \ Ill '' i AH-2 STUDY 1 2 BEDROOM ~/ 1 1 1\ / E . || 'X|3' 1 \ / HISTORIC SHED [ 1\ / [ . 7 1\ / / 7--7 MEDIA STORAGE/ 1 - ' %--- 1 12'xl4' MECH. 1 1 1 0 =\At- -- LIBRARY . 1 I 7\ 1 1 15'x16' 0% /cl BEE>RM. ~ BATH~ i 1 ..3 1 91 1 1 7 744 1 2 /*ON rr-Â°lei 1 ' rl-~ M. 1 .J 1 74 BED>RM. ~ 1 1 L________-__J 1- PROPERTY LINE ~ ~ (SNI>!dOH El b19) m kil . 1 Ii-,1 r\Â» NORTH %,V \~V 31 /'ih /09'\ MAIN LEVEL PLAN V - M 0 O K K Ir--il J L ' -& SETBACK M. BEE>RM. 1* M - 4 A~u imm- -1 . W 671 I PORCH I 2 HISÂ«dORIC# - F**1 ~ M. BEDRM. . _ HOUSE ~ ~ L,/ PORCH PORCH . -- - ~ AH- 1 ATH GUEST MASTER -h' h ,13. Q |A r n r[ u _ # 9 BEDROOM * S HISTORIC 3 HOUSE - 11 -eS?N , 10 _ ~f ENâ„¢Â¥ 3: - FUL. -7 LIVING B - c[F- - g - _ - KIT./ W - L--/ DN Up k KITCHEN g 4 L=71 * ok- SON C.% 14 WATER FEATURE % i ~ - 372 CRK- 1 BATH r -DEEK-ABOVE------1 0 REV - 1 EXISTING I - . - GOTTON,Â©00 7 1 'L__ wl\ POOL - < 2 31./ -i- -----9 - CEâ‚¬C-;Gc*6 - 1 GLOS. 1 3 Â« ENTRY 1 1 -SAV~7,4, L______1 0 < .-=- ~ ~ MUPROO HAL 1 lo'xe' 3 t,/ 4 4 V tu 1 1 1 3 CAR GARAGE . \1/ grop 1AD~ EXERCISE ~~~ BATHlt 1 lu i 10'x14' STEAM -~ - ~~f fKÂ«/- Z U 111 1 11 4-1 -2 - 2 -0 1/ r uoi i POR C liNA 2 : 5 'Al-142 BIKES \ Ap-1 / ---1 2 |BEDROOM 01/ ~ ~PARKIN* HI~TORId SHED i * A 1~Arh / I f. 1 6**E iz rl 1 STOR._j I ART 1 <--5013--- --A---4&-- H -- 1 1 - L'*4 -7 / 3 -/ 1 -1 00-- / AF-2 \ DECK ABOVE LLEEMSE_' PARKINÂ¢3 ~ - (pN<7 / -1 1 1, , PROPERTY LINE ALLEY (80\ E. 'KINS) (GNI'>61OH '2 GEâ‚¬) ZINI-1 ALhlactahld 0e /vy, 1 NORTH - VV \1 V 3/4\11- /'~1 /4) ROOF 4 UPPER LEVEL PLAN i /37 ED;~ -- 1 E---- --1------1 1 - - 1 9 111 i lils I pFFICE I 1 i fl'xII' I 1 QI 1 Ill I IHER 1 1 1 -J OFFIÂ¢~ 1 == - -- 4'Xll' 1 11 i --- ---- --- I---- 1 1 Â· 1-1 1 1 lhot li i TOR. ~ tub ~ 1 1 1 1 1 Â· E M 1 3 FAST 1 ~1 I TRI 1 1 1 09 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-TT-1 1' 1) u ill| 11â€¢r-' [17! 11 -[Eli3~ 1 1 lEi illl 0 1 11rn r IL 1 1 KITCHEN 11 ~-1 1 1 15'*20' 1 1 1 01] f. i ~ v- --I-Obl .IJP~y'~>bi, 1 /0 Â» f .%104 \Y~5<9 \ 5 i 7 -09 / \ A POR ' M. BEDROOM -10 S ! 11-t' LK-3 '141 \, 17'xle' / -4- /44--Ad A 1 10#4Ndi=11 1 -W-#304___________12,1-_34-7 _<~rE - 47--r rll.2_3 141 1 IL|.4 1 \ 411 ROOF ABOVE ./1/\ 1 0 ----- ! .1 r !54' 1 /1 3 __1\ wvp bv, hi 4) 1 ] 1 { Il 0/ \ L- r---- w d ' i 8 \ . 1-=.L-*--1 1 HIS 0 0 r -=7-- =::--=--- -1 C= 1 .P. 1 \ / 1 8'x15' 1 1 &1 L141Ne L_ _ --- 1 ====-11 2b'x94' fc=in I 1 --- M. BATH Tom i 1 1 i - i LWI ri4-ERS i L[LI k2_*51 17'x21' 1 1 -7 11 DECK ' I ~ r----2 1 9 1 == 1 1 11'*20' 1 11 -53 -asm-22= â€¢ ~ L== 11 1 1 Par lyn I 1 1 ROOF' 1 1 1 11 1 11 | L_-n- t.r:r- -1 PROPERTY LINE (SNI>IcIOH *3 Â»19) (GNI>IcIOH 3 119) (GNI>IdOH '3 GEâ‚¬) 1 E. HOPKINS) PROPERTY LINE (*2/ E. HE :/NS) PROPERTÂ¥ LINE 11== IWKÂ»:=-~An I llÂ· IIT ~JI.4%14%fiT (%1 aft*-Â©14 U LI -0Yrme=r:=p---EF= A IT 11 lilli J , -- -ir- Illl H.II, Ill I Il'Ill.lili Ul[Il,Illl Ill ~ 111'10ITÂ©111!Eltibll IMIE-81 ~ 71-[Illifl-[Ill'*% 11 111|11 4 1.1 1, lili 111 L 111.11 lilill lilli 11 6 I I "Illl lillitilll[ Illili lili 1 ~ wil IlliT-rnlr,e= 11.11 lillillilli 11 Ill i lil lillitil Il!'[Illl~IL &~1 11 N li-il IlliI I;Ill Flm Ill 11 Illlil'11 ~-~ " " 11,li li 1 All' 11 Nr Hil l iii Il,Ii ii 'T ii Jilt " Il 11 11 .1,1 li li Illili 11 IT 111, H!1111111111'll'lilli 1111,11111111111 1 lilli lilli lITUL:Al[Illl-11 lilli M Ill-[Il lITII Un Illl) lilli 11 Il ] f 11 Il IT 11 Il Ill ] I li li li li I .1111 r-IHITI_, 7,'-023=14[1111 lili I lili Ill HIT Il lili lilli 11-* c'h 11 Ickb ~=:~:El:l=I~ till .Illl-Ill~I y' 1-11].ilm--ll0-=-*-=JL 11111 1 lilli Il Il lill I lilll] Ill,1 1411 41 iii H I Il li lli[ Il'I I Illil IT I [lt I/:-- --=_- -'' li lli f Ill I lilli lilli Ill l illi ]11 lilli lilic lili .11.1 lilli &164&52#jE-dE~LI lilli 111.11111111-1'uj~UL' Ill Il Illl H Illl-I IlIT I lili Il -b=---=--===t=E==2<*1441-11 414,6W1,&00= ==- -B- - r -114414-1141 WA+~'A;itiM-~ it':I' l' 1 Tlm Il 11 fe 1.---r - 4=_zp-'=_r-c==BtoR==-=FÂ» li - 1-... 1 il 11 IM I - h='luull '11' I lili | I IlITI IlITI .LU.L; Ii->.C==211---TLET-I . 11 1, ii i i 1111 Atil 1111111111.1 F-[mC=011.1111.1Â§111 -f__tll "! lilill ill lili Illili I! lili lili- 111111'V'1111 lili. 11 1111.1111=- ..2.-=1 ----- --7 il <hi &11 ---- Il Il lili Il li li Lil i] Il lil li-1-1-- 1 U Il 0-All 11 ]I J Uill J L 11111 liT 1 1 I F.Il-] 1 III I.LIll -T[TWZIE"Â£['7TT -IRIT 14 1 li li 1 111 11 [1,1 1111111 * 11.Jili[I /===ZE):XIL]11 ITIT'il :1 li li ll l il li 111 TI li ll i, l il li 11.0-f===-~MAI III Ill il ==Â»-- -&-cw-93'rn-Trr IT 111111 111-il lili iIRII Ilf.I,~2~:~9~~ Il 1 - li lilt I I I li lli I Il f=Â¤Ezzy=- -y~*ECAT Ill t[L 11 LL! 11,1,1,1 -1111.141 411 115=i=-e--2-34*UNICU 11 i N .1 11 11 11 11 1 11 . 11 11 -4- 11 F--------1---------7 11 - P===.li 11 11 1 lili ill I 11 =-26 14 C~' 1 1 lili- 1 1 33. II h.... 1 4 1 1 1 L- th L 0 1 16- 3 10 \ 11 1 1 U- I 1 1' ________u 11 1 n j 10- ~ 1 1 .I----I I. 10./<31/1. t 1,1 b 11\ 7&/1.-4 : 1 1 I 10 ivul > ,/(4 2~ I Â¥40 A .10 60 1 4/4/ r m o hj I1 m. 04 -1 I I W A 9 1 [D / m -1 m I 00 0 I PROPERTY LINE (825 E. HOPKINS) 1 1 ~ UPPER LEVEL ROOF PLAN ZIN11 1.12151cIOhld WATER / SNOM Ailly /\ .... Ila...... A T.o. PL. I MaR ORMR. 7 ELEV. 120'2 - - - ==<555 .= 9-0- =~iorm/=F - -1 r Â¢;-'-'-'ll~.~I: 51-M A To. F.F. o UPPER 1 . - JUL -- Y ELEV. 116* - I'Il TO. F.F. I MAIN A T.o. pf. I MAIN - ELEVÂ·'Olew - E--------- ----------------------3 ~ EAST ELEVATION 1 UL] 11 U]All Ill,l u Uu ll IllI U 1.11' U [I'l l] UU LI lili 14Â£1LLI LL1 1 1 lilli 1 ] 1.pb ii iY ii ii i hit 11111.1/7 gl 1 1 -1 ]Il] LLT]_1 If L LI J,V ~\ 1-11 ITII lilli 1 Frly-WI T] LII] J ]L I _ I j IT ~ LI IT [L-LLII A no. PL. O DORMER JIL- 7 ELEV. 129'-6- Â»ELI1311_111311 4- - A LOPL. a MASTER BR. A T.o. PL. o LMNe .47%,1 111 1 \NI-11 111 f U 7 ELEV. 12i* -â€¢LIA EL.0 DINING 7 ELEV. 120'-O" Ill#.I I.I.-.*il.I-. - - I lillI i n n r ~-fr-/1117+Th-Â¥' hv,-9*777$im:= c A r.o. F.F. O UPPER 7 ELEV. liAÂ· Il- 7 ELEV. 110'-6 A T.O. F.F. 2.-UPPER =8 A T.o. FF. e MAIN A To. F.F. . MAIN 7 ELEV. 100'-0" i i ' i ' â€¢ ' ~~ 91.137.100'.O" 11 0- --- -----~] 1 1 11 1 11 1 11 1 L-1-------------- .F. Â® LOMER~ Â© SOUTH ELEVATION 'I U lili LI Illl !-I I.Illu Ul' U 1.-IlI U 111I UJ-I[IU IllIU IlllII Ill-I/\LL-LIL_ILLL-11 lili IL I'J 11 -1 - 1-11 1 11 - 1-,1 1.11 -- 1 4 1.11 1 -1 1 Ob]Â»/\Â»-6- nur J 111 U 111111 11111 111 1-0_Li r-III 1111 11 lilli Ill T fl-I] 1-11 11 11 U u u U 11 1.1 U U u U Ill I U u u Ull 1 - -111_-L_ 1 -- 1 -- - 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 - -1-L- --1 F - li li 1 11 J L 11 11 I ITI T -I T -I T -1 I l l I.J_ 1 -_1 L.LI/7 f lili .1-11.1 11 -1] - 1 T l _ T T I 1 ITI I l l T I _T I L T I [l LI~ 2- 1- 11 IT - 11| 111 T T fl ITt, Illy. IlITI 1 ITII I IT 1./. 1 T.O. PL. KIT. ORMR -~1-1 --Cj~' i| '- 11'1'1-J- ]i-f~T _]3''fl T' 1 11| T| 4 f~H~--i? 1[ 1 T _- -Ir.E[L 8 11,11- B lili 11 .1 ~Ill 1-I-[ 8--I TI I -. TB " 11 lili 1 -~-ELEV. 121'-6. -1- 1-11- 1 1 11 f 1 [-Tr 14|T 11 1|1|IT II I l ITIT71 1 If 111 1 1 LL 111 IT _L_ =~ 111 11â€ž 11 T[ _1 1 IT 11 ; lilill lilli-lili'lili- 111Tll lilill )11 U_[Il ~- 1_MIl IL___1-11 - ~J[~I - - 1-Prn I li 111 11 11 1 111 Ill 11 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 0 - .- 1 n A T.O. Fp.. UPPER - 7 ELEV. 110'Â« 1 T.O. P.F. c MAIN 7Â¥e' ~" El E 1 El El 111 1 111111 111 1 IlillI 111 1 lillil 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1. Ill 111 1 lillil O. Pr. e LOyâ‚¬*t - ELEV. 89'-62 L___ _____11________d___________11___1______L___J______L__li ~ MEST ELEVATION U U '"I U Illiu .11.10:NJ I U ]Ill U }Ill U 'Ill U 'Ill U lili l] .Illiu III I]Al 'I U Illiu lilli 1 ] ] 1 -1 ...1/0 re l ] l i l l I ] 1 1 ] 1 ] _ _ [-1/ \_1_ I L 11 1-L L 1 1 1 L.LI~ ]1 T..11 1] 1 1 U 11 Il l l l[-11- _ iLl I J _ ~ 1 L - 9~ A N[ 11.11111 17[LT 1-11 1-illy \ N--11 lilli 11 I T 11 11 1 T It ~ \ r I lili Â£ TOPL.â€¢MASTER BR. 1/0 ; -3 - 3 7 f Mv. 121'4" L 1 n C 1=]........: --4 A To. F.F. Â® UPPER -- 7 ELEV. 110'-6Â° Elm A T.O. F.F. Â® MAIN 7 ELEV. 100'-OÂ° 1----------24 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 ~ NORTH ELEVATION uUU 11'lu 11]IJ 1111U lili 111IU UL 1' [11] LI U 111 L I] D U I 11 U ] 1)11 lilli -1 lili lilil lilli lili lili J GIl lilli 1-Ll.1 IJ lillil illIU Illkll ULII] lili U LI'lll lilli !111 lilli lilli dll IlITII lilli 1111111 lilli lilli] 111[1 111[1 1110 111 11] 1 11 IT U lili lili IT I Il IT Il liTII Ill I [1 1 IT[ lilli Lilli lili L lilli lilli U A TE PL..DORMME 7[ 11'TU 1111111111111|1Â·~11 lili Il U.L.LL Ill lili 111111 lilill lilli lITII 111111 7 ELEV. 123'-O' lili III[I lil li liT 11111111-IJ-es/--0 lili[ lilli lilli] 11[ll lilli liT U lilli A TO. PL. O 3.FAST - L Ill lillI lili L,1-LI.Hfzf>~ .!711[-lilli' 111II-Tillil 111[-11117.111 , ELEv. Iii;14. illÂ·lilill lITII _lili] Il.]I ]LI-]I Jill _1 4 lili HI-l- 1 U LI I Ull I lilli ]TTI lili T.O. PL. I M. CLOSET - - - -1 lili U lili U Illili Illili lilli Il IT I lili I 1 11 1 1 11 Il i l i 1 11 IT 11 11 11' It Il il i 1 11 1 1 11 11 1 1 - - - 4 $124,1:NES - 1 -r r-----3 L___6 * To. F.F. 2_UPPER A no. F.F. O UPPER - 91 ELEV. 116* ---1 ELEV. 110'-*' 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 $ 1 1 1 1 1 * TO. F.F. 2..MAIN 70. P.F.2-MAIN , EUBL EK#47 ELEV. too'-O' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T.O. FF.. L.OFEE. ~ ELEV. 840-6Â» 1____________________1 /12\ PARTIAL EAST ELEVATION L-J **8*82*:...:i:i ~ T.O. PL. Â®21CLOSET ELEV. 118'-6" n . 1 ~ T.O. F.F. E-UPPER 7----T- ;---- ELEV. 110'-6. - I - El= 4 T.O. F.F. E-MAIN ELEV. 100'-O" ~ PARTIAL MEST ELEVATION 28*i:*:ZI*8*82:â€¢ 1% 9 EUN.01 A T.O. PL. Â®STORAGE - -1 n â€¢k -rol â€ž. I UPPER 7 ELEV. 110'-60 A aol BEAMIENTRY 7 ELEV. 106'4Â· - El:, A T.o. F.P. o MAIN A T.o. F.F. o MAIN 7 ELEV. 100'-O' 7 ELEV. 100'-O' 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 -------- ---- --------~] 2------------------ -1-3 ~ PARTIAL SOUTH ELEVATION ~N~ PARTIAL NORTH ELEVATION %%%%%*Mifiti i Â¥imitilialiwwili =:===M=========1== im,11121111Â®v/~.~gmlillal,Imill[Millimmulnl :101.1111"2~ 11111.mal.111"111â€ž1111 EAK-Frvfillimmill,[limâ€¢IMâ€¢miâ€¢amâ€¢miâ€¢illmâ€¢t Imipl-/lim1k 111"111.111.111 /,/.*#ap'.111.11"111...111"1110111"111.m imilimr 02 w immit,immimmii 74*1-1*z~milmill:Imitimil,limm,1111*l,Immill 7-Im,1.11111.1110 , 0- - -..mill.11111.1111!1111.1.11111.11111.111.1.111 pr ---. vumâ€¢limimmilm -~I-I==*ae,ii.,i.,imi,i.iâ€¢,imii.ti,ii.i - VI.11.11.11 /k-1.1 --~Pimimilaillilitillimlittlinlimillill --quau.immiuu'un"inaTimirmw II.I!I.1.I.I.I.I.I.1.I.1.I.I.I.1.I.I.1.I...I.I.I.I.I.I. --2:,11,1,11â€¢â€¢11111â€¢Imâ€¢Illâ€¢Iâ€¢Illmâ€¢Ilimmitiâ€¢I :.Imimmlimmi,m,imimmu,mil,imimmi,itiâ€¢i /2--in-,vi|*Immi,|mm|immumâ€¢Imâ€¢iâ€¢Ii,â€¢1 I,101.Immil.Illm.1111*11.11121.10111.11 /-1=1-VL,El~41â€ž1114~im.11,110. .111.11'm.1110.111.1,1.111.111".1.111Â®1 1~11 mmitmmilm,ilimmi:imm,immi,Im,imilimmii, 1-1 -1.- I.-ME-/iill == 1.11111.....1.imilimmlin..Im...Rmimi - IIIIIIIIIIIIIII l -~imlmi , 111111.1~1.1-U.1 - !/m1"m.....I..lim -1.1 ill.1~1---= - .-1.1---1 111.1-1- - i~ ~III------ 1*"liL==l-L-j-1 t.3 - -1...................................I- ....22................7............r-'ll'.I---il t..I /...M - 1.1-11 I .-4 - .lin Â·â€¢ Â· =1- - Il,Ill,Imilli],1,1,ili~Illit,111,11.Immilillillill.1 filll,11111111111111!Emlillim[1111,ilimill,Elill,111~1~L Ilmimmimilili,mimmilll,M[limâ€¢Illmâ€¢Illmâ€¢mE M<111121110~101111~11]mliummI~1<17-,v# 111:imillillillmillimmillmâ€¢1111,1110111!Mil:01,1 1,:iminimmimi[,Immil||Im~|mi,||m,574==. 1 .1,1,1.11111.11111.11111.111,1.11111.1,1.1.11111.11111.â€ž 111.11111.111.1.111[mill'111111!.1,1,1.11111.1),te=I mmimm=mv-~,~Ii",im~i,ii,miâ€žmi,i,m mwAr.,06"himWA,69&'râ€¢'mir,â€¢'mâ€¢67%â€¢â€¢~'mâ€¢,Im-,I, ..Im..Immilmii,Imimm."111.,Immilmill,111 Eulâ€ž111â€ž111â€ž1110!11â€ž111â€ž111â€ž111,!,5=-1. ~ 111.111.11111.1.552~4111.11111.111.111.1.11. 110.1.111.10.111. 111.11111.111.11'FV \~ 11â€¢lintallimmillmillmI[11111[1111[111011111*11111 1111211110]11211]1Ill[1111,1110!Illarr,-I. i-1>x .i.Qi,Im,t-ri|~,im,|mili,mâ€¢11,01â€¢11 Ill,m,nilmlillmlillil,nililll,Im,Illill[Ilmâ€¢>' IillÂ®NoLIÂ®10.Â®01Â»0111Â®EllÂ®~1!1â€¢Jil#lIJ~.01!1 14IlmmimmigiUilMlllÂ®Â»C54,vi-li,L-34A, 11111[1111,0>=~- I-rvmilll,11:El||1111 .11.1.Immil.1110111"111. 11101â€¢/ 1111.1.54-~-rvill.1111.11'm Ilililll,Illmimmilll,illilall~01:~75--Â·-v 71.........1--- --UE-,1- -b7ummlimmi-- 1'.m.1.1.lilli.1.1.1...m.1.1.I.1.1.5,9==~ 1 eml.larmill= i@= limil-Ill-I-DID-FiEimiliu 1~-1.Ii-ilill@~1 S =1.1-1- 1................11= - L - -"Ii'"-~-1- --- il -#all ililli-t-,i 1.Il~Fil-Illl- l=l&'j'-=.17....ili7.I....=1.... -~I--1-- I. , . 4- = . C. - e-. . , IllilliliIll e ililll'll 1~111111illl '1111111111,111.1 .D @ 74=5-â€¢ TALL ROOF r 06 10. PL. EBTCHEN rumi 1060. L Y ELEV. toe'-O- 0 -- - 00 A To. Pp.. MAIN A To. pp. I MA]N Y ELEV. 107*' ..1- .. f. ICAr 111 111 1 lili 1 1 lili I 1 lili 1 2------------ -1__ 3 1__1________ ---3 rs@h AH-2 -SOUTH ELEVATION (SA AH-2 -MEST ELEVATION U-0/ . 1....47 It. To. Pt. E.91Â¢4-EN = -II A To. M. 9.2â‚¬ED = .===='..=====. 7 EVE EXasTIND - Y m.tw. 10*Â·-O- 1 00 -2 0 o A T o. PP. I MAIN 6 To. PY. I MAIN 7 alw. .acb. 1 1 1 ~100-q rl 1 11 1 111 11 1 11 1 111 11 1 11 1 111 11 1 11 1 Ill 11 1 1__1_________________1 22____1_____2____L____1 /2\ AH-2 - NORâ„¢ ELEVATION /Sh AH-2 -EAST ELEVATION Uj Uj _ 1 --4 . rE# 3"=ri - =10 - mil nn nn 3 W O I . iffiJAI}ii litii tiii il'h'Wil'h'i'N'h'i'N"M ' 1. I ..1111111111111111111111,11111,11,1111111111 1 â€¢111111111111111111111 11[11111111111111]1 -milin'Immimili '14"1116111'ANI" 110"Ult'll'll 8 1: L -'"'.' 771 'rfi .7 -- L-- 1 Mi@[FIC - lim m fig Â¤ 0 --- 1 Flo 1-10 [-1 o --- 1 1 1 "----0 1 -111 895 E HOPKINS 825 E HOPKINS 814 E. HOPKINS all E. HOPKINS FRONT OF NEM BUILDING 801 E. HOPKINS /32\ E. HOPKINS STREET-NORTH 47 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director ~~97~ FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 514 N. Third Street- Minor Development- Public Hearing DATE: October 22,2003 SUMMARY: The subject property contains a 19tlt century residence and carriage house, which were linked together with new construction in 1998. This June, the owners installed a fence. unaware of the need for a building permit or HPC approval. A red tag was issued by the Community Development Department. ........1- Ialli-'34 15:WE:jism. ~fllfit.IN, 417 611.1,; 11, 4 ~9111 1.1 1, 1 -U:!94 ~ d . 9~41]71 'Rlfillris~01 I . MMiliHMlelliHIM.IFT.Efief~d'it?1!jlt?.ff - -~-5#111- - 4.1 . . 1 1 1. 31.211 Fence at 514 N. Third Fences are one type of alteration to a historic property that can be approved by the Community Development Department through the issuance of a "Certificate of No Negative Effect." According to Section 26.415.070.B, the criteria for approval are that: a. It is determined that the activity is an eligible work item and meets the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and b. Any modifications to the proposed work requested by the Community Development Director are agreed to by the owner/applicant, and 1 c. The proposed work will not diminish, eliminate or adversely affect the significant historic and/or architectural character of the subject property or historic district in which it is located. The Community Development Department was unable to make a finding that these criteria were met, particularly due to the precedent set by the board last October when reviewing a similar new fence at 218 N. Monarch, the Myrin property. As a result, the applicant was asked to file for Minor Development. Staff finds the fence that has been constructed does not meet the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The board may be able to suggest modifications that would allow a "Certificate of Appropriateness" to be issued. APPLICANT: D.W. Ringsby Enterprises, Don and Karen Ringsby, owners. PARCEL ID: 2725-124-16-001. ADDRESS: 514 N. Third Street, See application for a fulllegal description. 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 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 Chapter 26.316. Staff Response: The request is that HPC approve the wrought iron fence constructed along the streetfacing sides of this parcel. No photographs or information has surfaced to establish whether there was a fence on this property during its "period of significance," the late 1800's. The property was surrounded by a white picket fence, which does not appear to be historic, for some years until it was removed around 1998. The applicant has informed staff that the fence Which 2 has been submitted for this Minor Review is 19th century, and was purchased from a property in another state and brought to 514 N. Third Street. The applicants have taken numerous pictures of fences in the surrounding neighborhood which they feel are similar to the one they recently installed. In a quick survey of the West End, staff has found that some new metal fences allowed over the years are very Victorian in character, and just as many others are more contemporary in design. This history aside, since the adoption of the 2000 "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, HPC has been consistent in its philosophy that new work which occurs on a historic property must be distinguishable from old. This concept comes from the "Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings," Appendix B of the guidelines, which are identified as the policies that serve as the basis for Aspen's reviews. The standards indicate that "each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, shall not be undertaken." Staff is very sympathetic to the fact that the owner has invested time and money in purchasing this fence, and understands that the work was done with the intent to be consistent with the Victorian building on their property. However, this application must be reviewed according to the guidelines, as if it were being discussed before installation. Looking at it any other way could result in special treatment. The guidelines which HPC must find are met are: 1.2 A new replacement fence should use materials that appear similar to that of the original. o Any fence which is visible from a public right-of-way must be built of wood or wrought iron. Wire fences also may be considered. o A wood picket fence is an appropriate replacement in most locations. A simple wire or metal fence, similar to traditional "wrought iron," also may be considered. o Chain link is prohibited and solid "stockade" fences are only allowed in side and rear yards. 1.3 A new replacement fence should have a "transparent" quality allowing views into the yard from the street. o A fence that defines a front yard is usually low to the ground and "transparent" in nature. o On residential properties, a fence which is located forward of the front building facade may not be taller than 42" from natural grade. (For additional information, see the City of Aspen's "Residential Design Standards".) o A privacy fence may be used in back yards and along alleys, but not forward of the front facade of a building. o Note that using no fencing at all is often the best approach. o Contemporary interpretations of traditional fences should be compatible with the historic context. 3 Â· As mentioned above, the board reviewed a similar case recently, when a homeowner asked to install a new fence that exactly replicated Victorian wrought iron. Staff s recommendation, and HPC's decision, was that this would be appropriate only if the work was restoring an original condition. In surveying historic photographs of Aspen as part of the past discussions on this topic, staff has found that overall, wrought iron fences were far less common than wood on our Victorian properties, even for very high style mansions. For that reason, guideline 1.2 encourages wood as the most appropriate material and metal only if the style is "simple." 1.3 promotes the use of contemporary interpretations of traditional fences. Staff finds that the proposed fence is neither simple in design nor a contemporary interpretation of a period fence, and does not meet the guidelines. It would be misleading as to the historic development of the site and would detract from authentic 100 year old wrought iron fences that still exist here as rare pieces of our Victorian past. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the fence does not meet "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" 1.2 and 1.3, however a resolution approving the fence is provided as an option for the board. Two examples of projects that have recently been accepted are shown below, so that HPC may consider whether any modifications to the 514 N. Third fence could bring it into compliance. The rail of the 514 N. Third Street fence is not totally unlike what was used for these properties, however, these posts have no ornamentation. I. I 41 1 .. 11 - 4 4.-4 0 - -1,%11 1 1,1 1.1. . - , A thA -*' i r. 01.1 1 . 1 . gri - 1 0 - 4 ./ -4,1*341.--4,Â¥.m~ t.. â‚¬1967 4.44 .. 1 61 * 04* r: , .t ..1.. .4 4157-7*k*N .. . 1.. . 1 w Y J A - .0 p . 4. 114 4 + . .Â· ,-Mt'*4) 4trâ€¢â€¢-14.-61#1511 -E-Q ...4. . 4 71 .. A *127143*ifilgb#I)Zj 7* * ' ~* ..&=.:WyfhA-a=me.*4* 1-4..El~ 61. . 1,1,1, 11.11~. , 1. . 1 4..,-0 4 J. 11.1 1 I . 4.. 4 '- 42 ../crk t*.bfud... -- ...... . ..@1 , * h. $ ft -./ k- q=ee..r> - - 1 1,01.1 .. .11,11 - 1. ... . 4.*" 1.- f . I -â€¢k=fl 4 .1, 1 12 '.,4./Suff M.ZIN $ 4:. Trre- .... 1,4/Wa.b.~'141 AUFF'iM 0 ., 4 I..,1.41:41# I .. ' 1 1 . 610 W. Smuggler 218 N. Monarch (Myrin) Exhibits: Resolution # , Series of 2003 A. Staffmemo dated October 22,2003 B. Relevant Design Guidelines 4 "Exhibit B, Relevant Design Guidelines, 514 N. Third Street Minor Review " 1.2 A new replacement fence should use materials that appear similar to that of the original. o Any fence which is visible from a public right-of-way must be built of wood or wrought iron. Wire fences also may be considered. o A wood picket fence is an appropriate replacement in most locations. A simple wire or metal fence, similar to traditional "wrought iron," also may be considered. o Chain link is prohibited and solid "stockade" fences are only allowed in side and rear yards. 1.3 A new replacement fence should have a "transparent" quality allowing views into the yard from the street. o A fence that defines a front yard is usually low to the ground and t'transparent" in nature. o On residential properties, a fence which is located forward of the front building facade may not be taller than 42" from natural grade. (For additional information, see the City of Aspen's "Residential Design Standards".) o A privacy fence may be used in back yards and along alleys, but not forward of the front facade of a building. o Note that using no fencing at allis often the best approach. o Contemporary interpretations of traditional fences should be compatible with the historic context. 1.4 New fence components should be similar in scale with those seen traditionally. o Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment. 5 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND FOR 514 NORTH THIRD STREET, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 2003 Parcel ID #: 2725-124-16-001 WHEREAS, the applicant, D.W. Ringsby Enterprises, has requested Minor Development approval for a fence at 514 North Third Street, 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, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated October 22, 2003 performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and found that the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" were not met; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on October 22,2003, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application after a duly hoticed, 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 a fence at 514 North Third Street. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 22nd day of October, 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 Land Use Application RETAIN FOR PERMANENT RECORD THE Crrr oF As,EN PROJECT: Name: Location: 67 4 V. BRD j kets l Â¥LK- blod< 10 H-ALLA Flf diD Il-1Dkj (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) -2071 SC, - 1 2.4 - (Co - AD I APPLICANT: Name: DI W, R l k)-69 177 8-Aj TE-Ef KE. aF Address: 1 (13 ,4-K E-mah- T>d*. KryÂ»I ,41= 2 007 DEN FERCD 80204 phone #: 3DK-892*-LP/(.5- Fax#:Â·90$892-0 10?> E-mail: cous,lduvâ‚¬ /Wt. COR REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Address: Phone #: Fax#: E-mil: TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all thatapply): Â£ Historic Designation El Relocation (temporary, on or off-site) ~ Certificate of No Negative Effect Â£ Demolition (total demolition) [~ Cer~ficate ofAppropriateness O Historic Landmark Lot Split -Minor Historic Development -Major Historic Development -Conceptual Historic Development -Final Historic Development -Substantial Amendment EXISTING CONDmONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) ruÂ·Â· PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) A-* WAe WEEFF- 12 8,4 fga)Ce 1 FEES DUE: S 57 5 D.W. RINGSBY ENTERPRISES 1123 Auraria Parkway #200 Denver, Colorado 80204 303-892-0115 July 23,2003 Ms. Amy Guthrie Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen ~ 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 Dear Ms. Guthrie: , D.W. Ringsby Enterprises, a Colorado partnership is the owner of a residence at 514 N. 3rd Street in Aspen. The partners are Karen R. Ringsby and Donald W. Ringsby. D.W. Ringsby Enterprises is the applicant. This letter is being written to apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness- Minor Review of the fence we have constructed on our property. In many ways we comply with the City ofAspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. We replaced a rotten white picket fence with an antique wrought iron fence. ' The gate on the wooden fence was wrought ifon. We have preserved the gate and matched it in color and scale with the wrought iron fence in compliance with 1.1 ofthe Guidelines. 1.2 states in part "A simple wire or metal fence, similar to traditional "wrought iron," may also be considered." We rely on this in our decision to convert to a wrought iron fence. Our fence has a much greater transparent quality than the former fence allowing for enhanced viewing of our yard and flowers as well as the ornate detail ofthe house. This is in keeping with 1.3 of the guidelines. The fence is less than 42" above natural grade. The five posts comply except for the decorative tops that extend above 42" Attached are photographs of our wrought iron fence as well as others in our neighborhood. The fence components are similar in scale to those seen traditionally per 1.4 of the guidelines. The antique wrought iron fence is compatible with the historic context. Our house has more decorative trim than most other miners' cottages in Aspen and the wrought iron fence serves to enhance the antique appearance of the property as a whole.. It is our belief that we have made a tasteful and appropriate addition to our property. We look forward to favorable review and the issuance of A Certificate ofAppropriateness. Yours truly, U A\1 )1 M (Vir, n /n 1 8 # n Ur M#*fy0 1Vvue- ty- / D.W. Ring#by Enterprises by Karen R. Ringsby, partner Donald W. Ringsby, partner i 4 1 . 7 1 1./ + 1Â£2 , 1 AFORTH it' i E itt. 1 I. i / i '00 */DE 75FEET 4 .f i /4 -Ii 3 4 EDGE OF-FAVEMENT C-34 f . \\ 1 Â·<0 k \\ 3 -Ck ;41 - 4 T+0<04 A. . &2~6. \Ii * FOUND 1 clit 1/ 9> + OLD SRIKE 90 6. f 4- l* 9 YELLOW PLASTIC ' u i 5. it: CAP -LS 2376 - ' Â· ~ ~ 5- 45 jR: 4 , N a .09. .~ 4.40' ro 1 - h e.; ' 1 F 9. F, t. 1 1 1 OOK P I i 6.23. Fid r 3 l f \\- B7 3 1 . ' LOT / 3.1 3. 1 1 e. i I h Ill - 43 1 1 11 2.. -4- 61-12 Fl i 1.1..r 1 1 V'~ Â»ORCH \/ 1 1 5(LL - too 0* / 12,1. A/J .1 1 1 PAVERS -n~1 1 1 1. a. LOT 2 5 w, RIDGE 1 4 3 0 thi . 41 J ~~ ~ ~ ~*--- EAVE 1/8.9 f A ~ ij 47. r //2 STORY WODD FRAME HOUSE 1 m. //1 i I . 00 0 i l.8. ADDRESS *514' /ll, Â¥ \ / 1 8. 00 1 13 2 0, /11> /1 1 Â·uure / 1 /1 1 \ 1 1 \/ - S.I 1 1 11. 11 -49-L 1 1 . 0 3 -1 2 6- o c 1 8. 1 GRAVEL A 5-8 3 PARKING 1 $ a -ki v /1 ,o~-31/\P-* /0-1 rÂ« 6 i /O-, Fli j PAVERS . 1 1 1 1 1 1 7- ~1-J-lt?6 -~~--Jz,141 1 1 21& 1 Â· /6. /5. 6. 6 - qÂ¥~'- , 9 5 ' ENTRY too,4' 43 . 9. YELLOW PLASTIC ~ CAP -LS 2376 1 0 / CARRIAGE HOUSE 3.6. ~ l t>la 119.6. 1. ADDRESS '510' ' 1 ' I.I.- 1 t 3 75' 6 09Â· 1 --- /1.2 N 75'09 11 W 1 204 -03.-G/6-4 - 7,---- 30.00' .< 1 ELECTRIC Wi 5.6 A TRANSFORMER 1 01. W 01 4 f -- 10. 0 . '91,4 14 EAVE 1!1.5' L.-2 & tii -P...J 1 YELLOW PLASTIC ; \ ' SEWER ~SEÂ·RÂ·v I CAP 'LS 2376" i CENSE AGREEME vATED NOV. 18, U -1-6 & d *vÂ»- CURB CUT BACK OF 66 RINGS