The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20031112ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 12, 2003 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ROOM 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO NOON - SITE VISIT - Elk's Building - view all four elevations on your own. 5:00 I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes - October 8,2003 III. Public Comments IV. Commission member comments V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) VI. Project Monitoring A. NONE VII. Staff comments: Certificates of No Negative Effect issued (Next resolution will be #21) VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. 426 E. Main - Visitor Center - Continue the public hearing and conceptual development to January 14, 2004 B. 470 N. Spring St. - Continue the public hearing and conceptual development until December 1(74 2003 5:05 C. 311 S. First - Minor Review k. a i 5:15 D. 28 Smuggler Grove Road - Conceptual - Let Split, On-Site Relocation and variances. Listing on the Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures .Â·. 4-Â·/ 6. Or / 4 1 IX. NEW BUSINESS A. NONE X. WeRK SESSION: 6:05 A. 2 William's Way :30 B. Elk's Building 7:00 XI. A]DJOURN P1 PROJECT MONITORING Jeffrey Halferty 428 E. Hyman (former Sportstalker Store) 213 W. Bleeker (Schelling) 101 E. Hallam (Gorman), with Neill 216 E. Hallam (Frost/Auger), with Mike 735 W. Bleeker (Marcus), with Teresa 922 W. Hallam 110 W. Main (Hotel Aspen) 118 E. Cooper (Little Red Ski Haus) 432 W. Francis - Minor Neill Hirst 434 E. Main (Hills) 409 E. Hyman (New York Pizza building) 205 S. Third 101 E. Hallam (Gorman), with Jeffrey 635 W. Bleeker 110 E. Bleeker Mike Hoffman 950 Matchless Drive (Becker) 216 E. Hallam (Frost/Auger), with Jeffrey 513 W. Smuggler (Harman) 633 W. Main (Dart) 920 W. Hallam (Guthrie) 640 N. Third 21 Meadows Road Teresa Melvilie 232 W. Main (Christmas Inn) 323 W. Hallam (Riagoli) 513<W. Bleeker 735 W. Bleeker (Maicus), with Jeffrey 515-Gillespie (Bone) - 501 W. Main Street(Christiania Lodge) Valerie Alexander 216 E. Hallam (Frost) 533 W. Francis (Gibson) 232 W. Main (Christmas Inn) 114 Neale Ave. Derek Skalko 135 W. Hopkins P2 302 E. Hopkins 501 W. Main Street (Christiania Lodge) 331 W. Bleeker 114 Neale Ave. CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: HPC Legal Procedures (Submit affidavit of notice for PH - conceptual) Swear In Staff presentation Applicant presentation Board Questions and Clarifications PH opened and closed Board Comments Applicant Comments Motion 1 1 b 1 fl 9 6 l ( bl,~ . N ci_ ( 1 Cl - J k -u,l rt iAl t> ~ l IL COLL \ - P3 fittic, MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 311 S. First St. - Minor Development, Public Hearing DATE: November 12,2003 SUMMARY: The subject property contains a Victorian era home that was attached to a new home in 1980. The applicant proposes to demolish the link between the two buildings and complete a "facelift" on the non-historic residence, adding a one car garage, porch, new exterior materials and windows. In order to make the garage functional, a front yard setback variance is requested. APPLICANT: Paul and Elaine Sandler, Represented by Donna Guerra and Martin Mata. PARCEL ID: 2737-124-68-004. ADDRESS: 311 S. First Street, Lots R&S, Block 54, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R&IF - Residential Multi-Family. 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 jinal unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three 1 P5 hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316. A list of design guidelines relevant to this project is attached as "Exhibit B." The memo will discuss only those that staff finds warrant discussion. The applicant is planning to remove a non-historic connecting element between the historic building (constructed in 1887) and the newer structure (constructed in 1980, not reviewed by HPC.) There are no proposed changes to the historic building except for repairing the wall. The floor of the connector serves as a roof for an existing basement mechanical area, so it will be retained as an exterior deck, approximately 2 feet above grade. The connection and new house are out of character . with the historic building, and any improvements to the situation are welcome. Current location of connector Staff has recently located a photograph of 311 S. First that should be used as a guide to repair the disturbed wall, according to the following guidelines: 1. I A 4 3.4 Match a replacement window to the Â§6Â· . \ original in its design. ..., ...4. 1 ._/66/ .../.*---.,- .... , u If the original is double-hung, then the . 14*i, . j t. i, i fr.~~ replacement window should also be double- 422 0 :0 hung, or at a minimum, appear to be so. Match 1. .=*11 ~ .1- 1 5.. S' .1 . , the replacement also in the number and 1- Â·Â· 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 o f 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. 2 P6 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 ofthe wall. Two double hung windows will be re-installed to match the photo, with the location to be driven by any physical evidence at the site, as well as close examination of the picture. In addition, selection of brick that matches the historic material, and cut sheets for the exact windows to be installed will be required, all subject to staff and monitor approval. With regard to the proposed alterations to the new house, it should be acknowledged that it's massing and placement, which are not variables up for discussion at this time, were not particularly sympathetic to the old cottage. It is difficult to create a strong relationship between the two structures at this point. The most important action is to remove the physical separation, which is occurring. The proposed new fenestration is more vertically proportioned than the existing, a nicely scaled porch is added, and the wall surface is broken up with new materials. Staff finds that the changes are appropriate and meet the guidelines for new structures on landmark lots to the extent possible in this case. Part of the application is.to add a garage to the front portion of the new house. The doors face the alley, however, in order to build a stall that is functional the new construction will encroach into the front yard setback, as will the new porch which is designed to align with the garage face. The request is for HPC to approve a 3' encroachment into the required 10' front yard. The criteria, per Section 26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code are as follows: HPC must make a finding that the setback variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Staff Finding: The new construction that necessitates this variance does not directly affect the historic structure, however it does have two benefits: it provides an enclosed parking space in the foreground of the property rather than a parking pad, and it is integral to the owner's motivation to undertake this project and demolish the inappropriate connector. The board has consistently been favorable to granting waivers when there is a clear benefit to the historic resources, as is the case here. 3 P7 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The garage requires a variance from this "Residential Design Standard: 26.410.040.C.2.b. Thefrontfa,ade of the garage, or thefrontmost supporting column of a carport shall be setback at least tenfeetfurther from the street than thefrontmost wail of the house. The elevations also include some windows on the east side of the house that violate the following standard (Note that there are windows on the south that also violate the "no window zone," however they are existing and do not have to be brought into conformance): 26.410.040.D.3.a. Street facing windows shall not span through the area where a secondfloor level would typically exist, which is between nine and twelve feet above the finished first floor. For interior staircases, this measurement will be made from the first landing if one exists. A transom window above the main entry is exempt from this standard. Residential development may receive a variance based on a finding that: A. The proposed design yields greater compliance with the goals ofthe 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 proposed garage will be the closest part of the house to the street. There is no other location possible that would not involve significant remodeling of existing space. The garage function is not evident from the street, and does not create the kind of lifeless elevation that the standard is concerned with. Many other improvements to the building are being made, therefore staff finds that a variance from this standard is appropriate. The small clerestory windows proposed on the east elevation do not, in staff's opinion, create the perception of a voluminous space, which the standard is addressing, therefore a variance is appropriate. 4 P8 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant Minor development approval for 311 S. First with the following conditions: l. HPC has granted a variance to Residential Design Standards 26.410.040.C.2.b and 26.410.040.D.3.a. 2. HPC has granted a 3' front yard setback variance for the garage and porch on the non-historic house. 3. Exact location of the restored windows, selection of brick that matches the historic material, and cut sheets for the windows to be installed on the south wall of the old house will be subject to staff and monitor approval. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 9. The applicant shall be required 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. 10. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution # , Series of 2003. Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated November 12, 2003 B. Relevant Guidelines C. Application 5 P9 Exhibit B - Relevant Guidelines Windows and Doors 3.4 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. o If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window should also be double- hung, or at a minimum, appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number and position of glass panes. o Matching the original design is particularly important on key character-defining facades. 3.5 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original. o Using the same material as the original is preferred, especially on character-defining facades. However, a substitute material may be considered if the appearance of the window components will match those of the original in dimension, profile and finish. 3.6 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. o Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to receive a larger window is inappropriate. o Consider reopening and restoring an original window opening where altered. 3.7 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. o A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window's easing, the sash steps back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane of the wall. Existing Additions 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. Mass and Scale 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry. A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street; nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to the street. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure. The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch. 6 P10 00 00 0 Building & Roof Forms 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. o They should not overwhelm the original in scale. Materials 11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. o Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are encouraged. o Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged. Architectural Details 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. o These include windows, doors and porches. o Overall, details should be modest in character. 7 Pll RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND VARIANCES FOR 311 SOUTH FIRST STREET, LOTS R&S, BLOCK 54, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 2003 Parcel ID #: 2735-122-39-003 WHEREAS, the applicants, Paul and Elaine Sandler, represented by Donna Guerra and Martin Mata, has requested Minor Development and Variance approval for removal of a linking element between a historic building and a non-historic building, addition of a one- car garage, and fal?ade changes to the non-historic building at 311 S. First Street, Lots R&S, Block 54, City and Townsite ofAspen, 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, for approval of setback variances, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code, that the setback variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district; and P12 WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated November 12, 2003 performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended the application be approved with conditions; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on November 12, 2003, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application after a duly noticed, public hearing, took testimony, found the application to meet the pertinent standards, and approved the application by a vote of to THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the HPC approves Minor Development for 311 S. First Street, Lots R&S, Block 54, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: l. HPC has granted a variance to Residential Design Standards 26.410.040.C.2.b and 26.410.040.D.3.a. 2. HPC has granted a 3' front yard setback variance for the garage and porch on the non-historic house. 3. Exact location of the restored windows, selection of brick that matches the historic material, and cut sheets for the windows to be installed on the south wall of the old house will be subject to staff and monitor approval. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 9. The applicant shall be required 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. 10. 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 12th day of November, 2003. P13 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 P14 %Â¥ i. â‚¬. 4.: 4 \43. Ist + O t.-8 63 1.4, .0 .1 4 - Cl -3 / :Re 0 6D. :4 -4 .t" 0 5% A C- C-- 4 1 .1 6 I. f. - .Â·63, D 1 / C : ..5 / ..A 2-r e / 1 - 1/3 /2 - f, ; , .2 I. 1 i new access to.- ~ \ 46 existing mich. 1 room .4 -E -vA ,; 14Â·9, ./*,Â·. 'r-, t t. lilliT.'1 / .1 1 'll h 1 i new deck over ~1 existing mech. & room â€¢ Fvs/ f AL_A 73 m ff /. 42]- -rl/ existing 0) e . \1 /9/ O ~-7 11 I' , historic . Al.L r Q j J ~ ~~~ ~ structure I ,Â· @ ,:3 Ig F 11 residence =.& E 11 2-/441 new deck Â· x hi ,-,4 . ff j I ,-19 L _ * ~ i i' 3, ~' l,j 17 'I I 11 f I ' .7 i stair I i 1-1 & ?- --- U f --'*--0-Z :1 : 1-- 1 1 1, up'=ii*a*i '- ~ C~ -- _1 r ew e= 1!. new porch ~ /91!l 1/17\1 J :,114.. 1 4. 11 , acl -.-.+./' - 4 - 1 Â·*, 4-/ /2-=Mi 1 81,19 1 ifÂ¢59-Â¢ \49 w f . k f --4 ; spruce , prÂ¢perty line / /63 .,8/, Vt'Â·Â· ) Â·3* 1 - .0,9 11 1 / 11 /9 19 & 125.16 r --- 1 - - ,-44'lc1~ Ii] -9 - .1 Ill, 19.2 1 - 6 49 1, 0, 06â€¢.k i â€¢--Â·4 - ,-1 : -~._.~,.r,--'--- 1 .IN' , ..~ r . C existing pavement existing grass ) '' 1 .ufNA. 4 1 41~' T ''1 Existing site plan information taken from 09-28-01 ----- " south first street improvement survey prepared by Aspen Sumey Engineers, 3.1D MINOR HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT -SANDLER RESIDENCE September 2003. HPC Minor Development Review., O. 0 311 South First Street -Parcel ID# 2735 1246 8004 Aspen, Colorado Architectural Site Plan Scale: 1"= 20- NORTH MATA DESIGN COMPANY 12*4 Avenue, Suite 100 Basalt, CO 81621 A. 970-927-1092 Fax 970-927-1093 ~ ~- ~ .~ mata@sopris.net 9 Ld ./ P Irl h<L LOCK ... --*. â„¢A.ad.tâ‚¬ r'â€¢ -lit,;~-7-2- 1--1.4--- , 'r 41- ely. 1 ... 111 1 1 +F ..~1 1 L 1,9 , 3 / 1 1 - ./ + ... $ . I r# _ -~ .. 7. ''.Â· A.1.:r?:?*k t h '-2- Ill eyÂ». -- Â· I./ f 1 . $* 1.94 4 , I & 0 New living space over garage is ' t j stepped back from face of - 0 . ;1 11 , 4 - 3 . 7.. 1 , 44 1* PRÂ· - 1, t.,Ny, 1 . 9/64,~I '41!' '-1 garage below KE~ 3- 1 1 ''' i .~...., .1-~. et'17 ~-~ .' .b. 1 ', lit-' ' 11 -I- - -1.t 1 1. 1 '.- ' '~ 1, 1 7 -.~ :" 12-- ' ' I . 4-2*Â»c K' A â€¢ I 49 ~ t , 1 . : .â‚¬r?Ii:.. <,- .. . 01 ki t,-'2 1.. 14 4 , Â·Â·,4 - 1 4 k t'.- . r~.. * 4Â¢ 1 .m I u ' U - 0 Il. 3 1Â·' j ' I I . *. .-1 'Th. C I 1 4 4 4 7 . F 40 . 1 706*f .% - 1, - 1- 2; 1 1.,111 ''14 Â·iâ€¢'1.'9-' 7.'I ./L-- .- ' .r 1 ' Covered poreli (8'-0" clear) First Street Elevation (East Side) 1/8"=1'-O Roof eleinent at ist story level Sandler Residence 311 South First Street, Aspen HPC MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW -MATA DESIGN COMPANY September, 2003 9 Ld setback '7%21..... fi*#41 : ' :4- Â·W- - .1 #. Â· 1 1 Box-out beams - 4- New living space over garage is ~ stepped back from face of ' 4 - 1. K J Â·r.> 1. ., ~ garage below ,6 0 4- M 4 1 f Â¥ i. . New windows, t doors and siding -* i: jit & 4 , 1 1 ; .4--Porch roof beyond Â·. 61 '11. 1 111 V I Re-build decks - Â·Â· , 1. 214'kl ...F.31,11~42:. 1 I 8 1 1 1 1 : , â€¢ -34 - I I .''.-*I'.IL.' ' ..4. ... r. ' ' , i. e - . 0 * 1 :,46- 4 * I Â«r . . - It.. h ? . ... 1614' New stone and Â· . J i 4--- New garage with alley access is timber columns . . f ' 0 < '?1 , forward of living space above 11 4 1 11 1 61 2.1. 1 1 64 1 2 .5 . 2,"- t Â·-; f i~11 i:i,1 ! râ€¢ 1....1,7.1 4,... 8/:2.- I 64- 7'-0" setback variance Mountain Side Elevation (South Side) 1/8"=1'-0 Sandler Residence 311 South First Street, Aspen HPC MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Ulj/A/Al.li Septer~ 2003 .. Lid ... Living room addition beyond 10'-o" setback- - 2 - 7-03-Â«i ..2 - Repair, patch, and I '.1 - -All Y-$0 paint existing siding Ah- f ~ 7%Â£EETN - i -/0.....-Il//IN:Mip#-7- I--..#"Â£A-- -- '11 -- 1.=;2---- - ryg- -- f~ --4- Relocated/ new ; 2 1 1 1 9 1 14.-11 . - -1 d',-P -11 11'Wk-r<< I Â»111. Â·'- P --"al 11 windows - I: ~:2- : 7-, . . I I + -# Outline of connector 1 - - I .'ll to be removed r 1? 1 4* . 1.5.0Â¢7-7 41 i 7'-0" setback ' , 43 :37 >44922; â€¢,AUD [U,!. 1 . , Tim - NE-li '22 %<,; V: 4 'J Al' /]411Â¢. ... - 1. 111 11-- ..92.09 . 1 339 .=Afy ll.:1411-1 Â·Â·:Â· 1 variance ----AH Â· EM 92 - t r Â¥ T , I. ./. "' I I New deck surface over 4 . -v. 40. 7 1 . Ic 4% m i''Ill -Â· â€¢ ; 1 ..A. . .~ ~. mechanical room '4.94 -0 ..61 11 4/2 1. ., - 4:0â€ž4 /2:,4 r# 9 1 I il.A 9-111(. 1 ' .1 . 1,9 , 7 1 6 4 . I. -0/4-1 I .>'i.h~.~:yt â€ž I 79, : 4- t :*it ~%,6 0/.9-10 % 1 \I 41.* imtâ‚¬$70:*PAÂ»t:Lft'>Mt: 414*:, :64 1 3/YA . f '4:4..6**:404944.~.t..a 0*~I.I ;. ,, Existing mechanical 0.4.4, 4 1 1 1 -I , 11 1 11. 1 1?% * 1,1 .1 R ..ArÂ· ,'. . ~~r'. ' room below grade ' Wrap stone around corner ' Ii-li.-,V New covered entry porch -1, z.:14-~-'-.7'.'.Il- Existing north elevation - ~ 1111 1-4~ North Elevation ,/8"=1'-o" - =-:amil'E-3*1*im- Sandler Residence 311 South First Street, Aspen HPC MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MATA-DESIGN COMPANY September, 2003 8 Ld I - , ./L=- /1. 4 U. 2.7,3 A 1 1 L L-1 lili f-N:+1-4, 1....~1 Â· 1 1 11Â·L--1 Â¥ 2.97"/Â£9*--*211-im 1 4/; *r *fit ~ 3 . .1 1. 1 t' 1 ... 7... ret,74/34" Existing first street elevation ..tly"y.1 -1 , I , , - | ,6.,".1.-' \ILLIZ_~LI!' '7 ~..#AR'jill#imi 1-3..4--1 ~ i*N.4~ E _2 , :â‚¬ 4 4 6Â» 1 r ..4, -0 4, 3/ApilÂ·: t v~ 1 ~ ~ .E 1~.=~=:~ 1- . 1 , 46:~7'# 1=21- L :. 0.9..I. 1, 1,9.:31-4.34 . A . 21. te 1,/ I . 4 K.' '.g~ 4 Proposed First Street Elevation First Street Elevation no scale Sandler Residence 311 South First Street, Aspen HPC MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MATAUDESIGN COMPANY ~ .. 6[d ... f.Â·IF . 4 f E--11111-1.11 11.44/9-2 'I#.+ 1/imp#*Fl , 1--- '' Â»$-AÂ· . r 1 1, le" 4- ~111111,4 -. .f ~ 01.5'VI' / < .t . 3*J, *jt~AEL):al '92 1 1 111"" 73Â«,1.942 1%'. -- 4. . - , e -I JA. Â£ 4 1///~/-4 *AmmÂ¥ / t 100 1,1 .....) f , '4 Â·Â·!waW- ,1,9~0,1,;~.- 1 1 . ; 11, 11â‚¬- 4 . . :tyÂ¢-1. 1 1 ]1 V ., Ali' 141; 1, 74**Frrlitallâ€¢ Â£ *Uwal 14., , PAFF/1/12 IL ~ ' Wjwl,in- ' ,, W 41 " *17ll, 1 . .t ' tz 1 1 f' 1 2-0,â€¢4â€¢ 6 , . 1 Old Photograph of historic structure Existing first street elevation MATA DESIGN COMPANY -r 0Zd Land Use Application THE CrrY OF A~PEN PROJECT: Name: Â«AADLER- 94*i De.Ace Location: 24( 4 - Flear-. 5-rizt~0-t- Aseewo, CoÂ· Lof Â¢*5 Blace 61 f Cl-rf *lowflst-re of t. PEN . (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description ofproperly) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 2,1-Se- 114 - 8%001 APPLICANT: Name: 24+JL 4 Â·UU{ REÂ· 60349424- Address: 6 \ I â‚¬700-2 :Afer â‚¬71. ks?64 %\(ptl Phone #: 42-6 Â· 169 1 Fax#: E-mail: REPRESENTATIVE: Name: '96,1*JA Go,â‚¬04Â·A < AA*-=Tio MA<ta-_- Address: \0 fkf-*- Al g * 00 SPâ‚¬,Aur, Co Sl 60\ Phone#: *7-Â· (.Dll Fax#:_.AUU-1291_E-mail: (Via+O, d 52)(Prs. aert-Â· TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): C] Historic Designation U Relocation (temporary, on or off-site) ~ Certificate of No Negative Effect Â¤ Demolition (total demolition) El Certificate of Appropriateness U Historic Landmark Lot Split -Minor Historic Development -Major Historic Development -Conceptual Historic Development -Final Historic Development -Substantial Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) Â¥ea Dgs-rW- , -Two Bo\Lot beS ; tsâ‚¬. 166+ â‚¬04. \130 Ae,- lor k ade- st#X c,av\.,ec-1Â»0-- PROPOSAL: (description ofproposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) | 22.~Asu e- coueÂ©+00-- Almeâ‚¬- ~r-o~j,â‚¬. . zk,!*4.2-4 rlwl 40 liSCD Â·6ui (ct.iD f.ce- (24 -9 9<60 bl~ 1 fÂ£-~c r ludorri 6-lch,c-Lrt . P21 0181 FEES DUE: $ fÂ·LA ' General Information Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This information will help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that may be involved. YES NO O Does the work you are planning include exterior work; including additions, demolitions, new construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or restoration? 0 Does the work you are planning include interior work; including remodeling, rehabilitation, or restoration? " fl 4... ~,~GO 1.ALâ€¢k.~3 0 2% Do you plan other future changes or improvements that could be reviewed at this time? E R In addition to City of Aspen approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness or No Negative Effect and a building permit, are you seeking to meet the Secretary ofthe Interior's Standardvfor Rehabilitation or restoration of a National Register of Historic Places property in order to qualify for state or federal tax credits? 0 0 If yes, are you seeking federal rehabilitation investment tax credits in conjunction with this project? (Only income producing properties listed on the National Register are eligible. Owner-occupied residential properties are not.) O If yes, are you seeking the Colorado State Income Tax Credit for Historical Preservation? Please check all City ofAspen Historic Preservation Benefits which you plan to use: O Rehabilitation Loan Fund Il Conservation Easement Program X Dimensional Variances El Increased Density 0 Historic Landmark Lot Split 0 Waiver of Park Dedication Fees Il Conditional Uses [1 Exemption from Growth Management Quota System C] Tax Credits P22 Dimensional Requirement Form (Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) Project: 9*AD LE@- FESDENCE Applicant: Â¥'AUL- 4 ELA<41â‚¬ 9,1.hOLE 8- Project Location: Sll S Â· y,Bs-r 9-r. ; AspaR Zone District: f-/AF Lot Size: 6 A (05 * Lot Area: 6#69*41 (For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: ~ M Proposed: B k Number of residential units: Existing: 1- Proposed: 1- Number of bedrooms: Existing: Or / S Proposed: Proposed % of demolition: MA DIMENSIONS: (write n/a where no requirement exists in the zone district) Floor Area: Existing: 5110 Allowable: 333Â£~ Proposed: 110 at.1,3.6 Height 1 1 Principal Bldg.: Existing: 14 Allowable: 1.5 Proposed: 19 Accessory Bldg.: Existing: 10* Allowable: N k Proposed: -LE>' Â· On-Site parking: Existing: D Required: 4- ~uer Proposed: dt % Site coverage: Existing: Â£~b'jo Required: 14 N Proposed: 4 140 % Open Space: Existing: Â£5370 Required: 3,5 70 Proposed: 5170 1/ Front Setback: Existing: \9' Required. lo' Proposed: m Rear Setback: Existing: 4Â·3' Required: \(9 Proposed: 4-9 Combined Front/Rear: Existing: 8 4 Required: R k Proposed: M &* Indicate N. S. E. W . U Side Setback: ~ Existing: lf- Â°ll' Required: 5'-0 Proposed: \3'*91' Side Setback: Â® Existing: Y- o~ Required: 9 + O Proposed: Â¢ -cY i u Combined Sides: Existing: 14-9 Required. 19.3, Proposed. 14.9 ' Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: ~*DBO- 6-rÂ¢Uere,QÂ£ 15 W MULN 4 0 114 9&1 6,60# AJO OV e,- 1,>61- P)44007 r L{ 4 6- Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): 4 eAL FOO.dABAC+4 ed-Seâ€¢.ekt issued - 9, 4 + fcÂ·Â°44 lat-1 5â‚¬46+EW-- 4 46Â£ i Bu.e. 2-44 0-os rÂ£l.-4<.4 40 5*92 4 wÂ»J.L.,5. P23 VEIl - 63 1 - MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 28 Smuggler Grove Road- Historic Designation, Historic Landmark Lot Split, Major Development Review (Conceptual), On-Site Relocation and Variances- Public Hearing DATE: November 12,2003 SUMMARY: The subject property is not currently listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, but proposed to be as part of this application. Historic Landmark Lot Split, Conceptual Review, On-site Relocation, and Variances are also requested in this redevelopment. Staff finds that this project meets the applicable review standards and complies with the design guidelines. APPLICANT: Jim Byrnes, owner, represented by Stan Clauson Associates and Reid Architects. PARCEL ID: 2737-181-23-002. ADDRESS: 28 Smuggler Grove, Lot 2, Jukati Subdivision. ZONING: R.-15A, Residential Multi-Family. HISTORIC DESIGNATION 26.415.030B. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The significance of the property located at 28 Smuggler Grove Road will be evaluated according to the following criteria: 1. The property is deemed significant for its antiquity, in that it is: a. More than 100 years old; and b. It possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. 1 P25 Staff Response: This miner's cottage was moved to 28 Smuggler Grove Road in 1976. Because the subdivision was not annexed into the City until 1987, the City did not propose landmarking during the previous surveys. The site was identified as significant in the 2000 update, and staff is appreciative that the new owner agrees with that assessment. HPC must evaluate the application to determine if sufficient evidence exists that the property meets the criteria for designation. HPC's recommendation will be forwarded to City Council, who has the final decision. At present, it is not clear exactly where the house was moved from, although there have been suggestions that it came from the neighborhood around The Chart House. Staff and the applicant team are continuing to research this issue. Based on the style of the structure, and some limited inspection of framing by the project architect, it's construction date can be placed sometime in the late 1800's. It clearly meets the first standard for designation, Section 26.415.030.B. 1.a, related to demonstration of antiquity. Over the last few months, Staff has completed site visits and an initial integrity assessment score for all of the 19th century miner's cottages in Aspen to address the second standard for designation, Section 26.415.030.B.1.b, demonstration of integrity. While the Larid Use Code does not state a specific threshold score that must be attained, it was generally understood when the scoring forms were created that a minimum score of 50 points was required. Staff' s score for this property, attached to this memo, is 64, which meets the designation criteria. The overall form of this house is preserved. A modest one story addition has been constructed along the back, affecting the integrity of the rear wall, however, the plan form is otherwise intact. Many original window openings also appear to exist, although the sash have been replaced. The exterior siding is new. HPC may recommend approval or disapproval of this aspect of the application, or a continuance to request additional information necessary to make a decision. The board may choose to accept the integrity analysis provided by staff or the applicant's representative, or formulate its own rating for the property. The property must receive designation in order to be eligible for any of the approvals addressed in the remainder ofthis memo. HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT In order to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the applicant shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Land Use Code: Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.470.070(C), and Section 26.415.010(D.) 26.480.030(A)(2), SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, LOT SPLIT The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following conditions are met: 2 P26 a) The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969. This restriction shall not apply to properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures; and Staff Finding: The property is part of a subdivision, however Historic Landmark Lot Splits are exempt from the criterion. b) No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.040(A)(1)(c). Staff Finding: This proposal will create one 3,495 square foot lot, and one 3,882 square foot lot, each of which will meet or exceed the minimum 3,000 square foot lot size established for Historic Landmark Lot Splits. Council has recently adopted new benefits for historic properties, pursuant to Section 26.420 of the Municipal Code, which states that affordable housing mitigation will not be required for properties created through a historic landmark lot split. c) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.040(C)(1)(a); and Staff Finding: The land has not received a subdivision exemption or lot split exemption. d) A subdivision plat which meets the terms Of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. Staff Finding: The subdivision plat shall be a condition of approval. It must be reviewed by the Community Development Department for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use action. e) Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following 3 P27 approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be requiredfor a showing of good cause. Staff Finding: The subdivision exemption agreement shall be a condition of approval. D In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. Staff Finding: The existing Victorian is to be relocated onto one of the new lots and preserved as part of the project. g) Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. Staff Finding: The parcel currently contains a single family home. The proposal will add one new homesite. No more than two units in total can be created as part of this redevelopment. 26.480.030(A)(41, SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures for the development of one new single-family dwelling may receive a subdivision exemption if it meets the following standards: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square feet in size and be located in the It-6, R-15, R-15A, RMF, or O zone district. Staff Finding: The subject parcel is 7,377 square feet and is located in the R-15A Zone District. b. The total FAR for both residences shall be established by the size of the parcel and the zone district where the property is located. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. Staff Finding: The maximum floor area for the original parcel, containing a historical landmark in an R-15A zone, is 3,433 square feet. The applicant is requesting a 500 square foot FAR bonus, discussed below. Should the FAR bonus be granted, the total FAR is to be allocated as follows: 1,828 square feet to Lot A, which contains the historic Victorian house, and 2,105 square feet to Lot B, which will be vacant for the time being. HPC will conduct design review of that new home. (Please note that there are minor errors in the application related to floor area calculations. The information listed above has been confirmed to be accurate by the architect.) 4 P28 c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. The variances provided in Section 26.415.120(B)(1)(a),(b), and (c) are only permitted on the parcels that will contain a historic structure. The FAR bonus will be added to the maximum FAR allowed on the original parcel. Staff Finding: Setback and parking variances are requested for the parcel that will contain the Victorian, but not for the vacant new lot. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, 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 miner's cottage on this property is significant as an example of typical modest housing built in the Victorian period. 5 P29 The key feature of the property is that the cottage is intact in terms of its original form and scale, something of a rarity here. Alterations have been made to some window openings and features, but overall, this is a good example from the period. There are no other Victorian era homes or 19th century context that remains in the immediate area. There will be no remaining potential for future additions to the property if this project is built, because it creates a commitment to transfer all but a small amount of the allowable FAR into a new detached home. Design Guideline review Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit B." Only those guidelines which staff finds warrant discussion are included in the memo. The proposal is to demolish an existing non-historic addition and move the original 625 square feet that remains of the Victorian onto a new basement, slightly east of its current location. The house will be squared to the street (currently it is on an angle, which is uncharacteristic of other Victorians in town). A new area of approximately 900 square feet in size will be added to the house. The inappropriate multi-paned windows that exist now on the Victorian will be replaced with one over one double hungs. Staff finds that the project will improve the integrity of the house. The new addition restores the rear roof plane, which is currently overframed, and allows the back corners of the house to be read once again. The addition is all one story, uses simple forms and detailing, and is very modest in its overall character. The interior of the historic house will be gutted during the project, creating an opportunity to confirm original window and door placement since it is evident that some alterations have occurred. Staff finds that all guidelines relevant to this conceptual proposal are met, namely: Treatment of Roofs- 7.1 and 7.2; Existing Additions- 10.2; and New Additions- 10-.3,10.4,10.6,10.8, 10.9, and 10.10. The project can be considered an excellent effort to restore and sensitively add onto a historic home. ON-SITE RELOCATION The intent of the Historic Preservation ordinance is to preserve designated historic buildings 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 particular site. However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a building 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 6 P30 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; E 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; 2[ 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or 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: The house was moved into this neighborhood. Shifting it towards the east will have no effect on its integrity. Setting the building so that it is parallel to the street, as it would have been in the original location, is appropriate. Staff finds that guidelines 9.1,9.4,9.6,9.7, as well as the above criteria are met. Specifics of the housemoving plan will be required as conditions of approval. FAR BONUS The applicant is requesting a 500 square foot floor area bonus. The following standards apply to an FAR bonus, per Section 26.415.110.E: 1. In selected circumstances the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional squarâ‚¬ feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; and b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building and/or c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; and/or e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or 7 P31 f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. 2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices. Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood of being awarded additional floor area. 3. The decision to grant a Floor Area Bonus for Major Development projects will occur as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.415.070(D). No development application that includes a request for a Floor Area Bonus may be submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how the proposal might meet the bonus considerations. Staff Response: Based on the review provided earlier in this memo, Staff finds that criteria a, b, c, d, e, and f are being met, and that granting an FAR bonus is appropriate. All of the guidelines are satisfied, the historic building will have prominence on the lot, the new construction is modest in size and design, and there will be restoration work on the Victorian. SETBACK VARIANCES The setback variances needed are a 20' front yard setback variance for the miner's cottage, a 7' east sideyard setback variance, and a 7' west sideyard setback variance. 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 front yard setback requirement for this neighborhood is relatively large (25') and does not appear to be met to any great degree by the other structure in the neighborhood. This is because the zoning was overlaid on the neighborhood at the time of annexation, after most of the existing development occurred. The lot is only 75 feet deep, and the owner cannot encroach into a utility easement running along the back. In order to spread out the new construction in a manner that will meet the design guidelines, moving the Victorian close to the street is necessary. The sideyards on the Victorian are also very tight so that a reasonable building envelope can be created on the vacant parcel,- which will have to comply with all dimensional requirements. 8 P32 Staff finds that the variances are appropriate because they facilitate preserving this house with a low impact addition. The alternative possibility would be an addition to this house which could be as much as four times it's size. It should also be understood that the owner has the ability to file an application for demolition of the house because the City has not initiated landmarking. The board has consistently been favorable to granting waivers when there is a clear benefit td the historic resources, as is the case here. ON-SITE PARKING The applicant requests a waiver of the two on-site parking spaces required of this project, for Lot A only. 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 finding by the HPC that it wilt 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: This neighborhood does not have alleys to allow parking to be located in the back, and head in parking does not create an appropriate foreground for a house of this type. The relevant guidelines are: 14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. o Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts are not permitted. o If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it. C] 14.22 Driveways leading to parking areas should be located to the side or rear of a primary structure. o Locating drives away from the primary facade will maintain the visual importance the structure has along a block. Some neighbors of this property have expressed concerns with the existing parking and emergency access on Smuggler Grove. Engineering, Fire, and Utility Departments were asked to review and comment on the proposal, the result of which is attached to this memo. As conditions of approval of this lot split, the owner of 28 Smuggler Grove will need to expand the paved road surface by a couple of feet in front of this lot. This will improve the road to the extent to which this applicant can be held responsible. It is legal to parallel park on this street. 9 P33 This owner has also been asked to install sprinklers in these houses for additional fire protection. Staff recommends that the parking variance be granted. DECISION MAKING OPTIONS: The HPC may: â€¢ approve the application, â€¢ approve the application with conditions, â€¢ disapprove the application, or â€¢ continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the HPC recommend approval of Historic Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split to Coucil, and grant approval for Major Development (Conceptual), On-Site Relocation, and Variances, subject to Designation, with the following conditions: 1. The HPC hereby approves a 500 square foot FAR bonus. 2. The HPC hereby approves the following setback variances for Lot A: a 20' front yard setback variance for the miner's cottage, a 7' east sideyard setback variance, and a 7' west sideyard setback variance. 3. The HPC hereby approves a waiver of 2 on-site parking spaces for Lot A. 4. A structural report demonstrating that the buildings can be moved and/or information about how the house will be stabilized from the housemover must be submitted with the building permit application. 5. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the structures must be submitted-with the building permit application. 6. A relocation plan detailing how and where the buildings will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 7. An application for final review shall be submitted for review and approval by the HPC within one year ofNovember 12,2003 or the conceptual approval shall be considered null and void per Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.3 of the Municipal Code. 8. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall: 10 P34 a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.480 ofthe Aspen Municipal Code; b., Contain a plat note stating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to the provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; c. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements ofthe R-15A zone district, except the variances approved by the HPC; and d. Be labeled to indicate that this proposal will create a Lot A of 3,495 square feet in size with 1,828 square feet of floor area, and a Lot B of 3,882 square feet in size with 2,105 square feet of floor area. Exhibits: Resolution #_, Series of 2003 A. Staff memo dated November 12,2003 B. Relevant Design Guidelines C. Integrity Assessment D. Minutes from Development Review Committee meeting E. Application 11 P35 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (III'C) RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF HISTORIC DESIGNATION AND A HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT TO CITY COUNCIL AND APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), ON-SITE RELOCATION, AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 28 SMUGGLER GROVE ROAD, LOT 2, JUKATI SUBDIVIONS, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. -, SERIES OF 2003 PARCEL ID: 2737-181-23-002 WHEREAS, the applicant, Jim Byrnes, represented by Stan Clauson Associates and Reid Architects, has requested Historic Designation, Historic Landmark Lot Split, Major Development (Conceptual), On-site Relocation, and Variances for the property located at 28 Smuggler Grove, Lot 2, Jukati Subdivision, City and Townsite ofAspen; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the process for Designation and states that an application for listing on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall be approved if HPC and City Council determine sufficient evidence exists that the property meets the criteria; and WHEREAS, in order to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the applicant shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Land Use Code: Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.470.070(C), and Section 26.415.010(D.) 26.480.030(A)(21, Subdivision Exemptions, Lot Split The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following conditions are met: a) The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969. This restriction shall not apply to properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures; and b) No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.040(A)(1)(c). c) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.040(C)(1)(a); and dj A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of P36 applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. 4 Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. f) In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. g) Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home; and 26.480.030(A)(4), Subdivision Exemptions, Historic Landmark Lot Split The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures for the development of one new single-family dwelling may receive a subdivision exemption if it meets the following standards: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square feet in size and be located in the R-6, R-15, R-15A, RMF, or O zone district. b. The total FAR for both residences shall be established by the size of the parcel and the zone district where the property is located. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. In the Office zone district, the following shall apply to the calculation of maximum floor area for lots created through the historic landmark lot split. Note that the total FAR shall not be stated on the Subdivision Exemption Plat because the floor area will be affected by the use established on the property: If all buildings on what was the fathering parcel remain wholly residential in use, the maximum floor area will be as stated in the R-6 zone district. If any portion of a building on a lot created by the historic landmark lot split is in commercial/office use, then the allowed floor area for that lot shall be the floor area allowed for all uses other than residential in the zone district. If the adjacent parcel created by the lot split remains wholly in residential use, then the floor area on that parcel shall be limited to the maximum allowed on a lot of its size for residential use according to the R-6 standards. If there is commercial/office use on both newly created lots, the maximum floor area for all uses other than residential in the zone district will be applied. c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. The variances provided in Section 26.415.120(B)(1)(a),(b), and (c) P37 are only permitted on the parcels that will contains a historic structure. The FAR bonus will be applied to the maximum FAR allowed on the original parcel; and 26.470.070(Cl, GMOS Exemption. Historic Landmark Lot Split The construction of each new single-family dwelling on a lot created through review and approval of an Historic Landmark Lot Split shall be exempt from the scoring and competition procedures. The exemption is to be approved by the Community Development Director, but is not to be deducted from the respective annual development allotments or from the development ceilings; and 26.415.010(D), Historic Landmark Lot Split A Historic Landmark Lot Split is a two step review, requiring a public hearing before HPC and before City Couhcil; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for approval of Relocation of a Designated Property, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.090.C of the Municipal Code, that: 1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; gI 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; RE 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: P38 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 an FAR bonus, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code, that: a. The design ofthe project meets &11 applicable design guidelines; and b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building and/or c. The work restores the existing portion ofthe building to its historic appearance; and/or d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; and/or e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained; and WHEREAS, for approval of setback variances, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code, that the setback variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district; and WHEREAS, for approval of 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 of the 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 propetty or a historic district; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated November 12, 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 with conditions; and P39 WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on November 12, 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 recommends Council approval of Historic Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split and grants approval for Major Development (Conceptual), On-Site Relocation, and Variances, subject to Designation, with the following conditions: 1. The HPC hereby approves a 500 square foot FAR bonus. 2. The HPC hereby approves the following setback variances for Lot A: a 20' front yard setback variance for the miner's cottage, a 7' east sideyard setback variance, and a 7' west sideyard setback variance. 3. The HPC hereby approves a waiver of 2 on-site parking spaces for Lot A. 4. A structural report demonstrating that the buildings can be moved and/or information about how the house will be stabilized from the housemover must be submitted with the building permit application. 5. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the structures must be submitted with the building permit application. 6. A relocation plan detailing how and where the buildings will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit ~ application. 7. An application for final review shall be submitted for review and approval by the HPC within one year ofNovember 12, 2003 or the conceptual approval shall be considered null and void per Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.3 of the Municipal Code. 8. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall: a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.480 ofthe Aspen Municipal Code; b. Contain a plat note stating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to the provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; c. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements ofthe R-15A zone district, except the variances approved by the HPC; and d. Be labeled to indicate that this proposal will create a Lot A of 3,495 square feet in size with 1,828 square feet of floor area, and a Lot B of 3,882 square feet in size with 2,105 square feet of floor area. P40 APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 12th day of November, 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 P41 "Exhibit B: Relevant Design Guidelines for 28 Smuggler Grove Road, Conceptual Review" 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. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. o The shadows created by traditional overhangs contribute to one's perception of the building's historic scale and therefore, these overhangs should be preserved. Building Relocations 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 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. 9.4 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 12 P42 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. New Additions 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. o A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period'than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. o An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. o An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. o A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.6 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, comices and eavelines should be avoided. Driveways & Parking 14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. o Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts are not permitted. o If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it. 14.22 Driveways leading to parking areas should be located to the side or rear of a primary structure. 13 P43 o Locating drives away from the primary facade will maintain the visual importance the structure has along a block. 14 P44 Exhibit C-INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT, 19 TH CENTURY MINER'S COTTAGE 28 Smuggler Grove Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. â€¢ LOCATION Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the. place where the historic event occurred. 5- The structure is in its original location. 4- The structure has been moved within the original site but still maintains the original alignment and proximity to the street. 3- The structure has been moved to another site, still within the historic Aspen townsite. 0- The structure has been moved to a location which is dissimilar to the original site. POINTS: 3 TOTAL POINTS (MAXIMUM OF 5) = 3 â€¢ DESIGN Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. BUILDING FORM 10- The original plan form, based on Sanborne maps or other authenticating documentation, is unaltered and there are no recent additions. 8- The structure has been expanded but the original plan form is intact and the addition(s) would meet the design guidelines. 6- The plan form has been more altered, but the addition would meet the design guidelines. 4- The structure has been expanded in a less desirable manner, but if the addition were removed, at least 50% of the building's original walls would remain. 2- The structure has been expanded and the addition overwhelms the original structure , destroying more than 50% of the building's original walls. 0- Two historic structures have been linked together and the original character of the individual structures is significantly affected. POINTS: 6 ROOF FORM 10- The original roof form and the original porch roof, if one existed, are unaltered. 15 P45 8- The original main roof is intact but the porch roof, if one existed, has been altered. 6- Dormers have been added to the structure or additions have been made that alter the roof form, but the changes would meet the design guidelines. 2- Alterations to the roof have been made in a less sensitive manner, not in conformance with the design guidelines. 0- Less than 50% of the original roof form remains. POINTS: 9 SCALE 5- The original one story scale of the building, and its character as a small cottage is intact. 4- The building has been expanded, but the ability to perceive the original size of the 3 or 4 room home, is preserved. 3- The building has been expanded and the scale of the original portion is discernible. 0- The scale of the building has been negatively affected by a large addition, whose features do not reflect the scale or proportions of the historic structure. POINTS: 4 FRONT PORCH 10- The front porch is not enclosed and original decorative woodwork remains, or if there was no porch historically, none has been added. 8- The front porch is enclosed but maintains an open character and some original materials. 6- The front porch is not original, but has been built in an accurate manner, per the design guidelines. 2- The front porch has been enclosed and most original materials are gone. 0- The front porch is completely gone or replaced with a porch which would not meet the design guidelines. POINTS: 10 DOORS AND WINDOWS 10- The typical door and window pattern on the original house is intact- two doors off the front porch, large double hung windows in gable ends, and tall, narrow double hung windows placed "sparsely" on building walls. 8- Less than 50% of the door and window openings on the original building are new and the original door and window openings are intact. 2- More than 50% of the door and window openings on the original building are new and/or some of the original opening sizes have been altered. 0- Most or all of the original door and window openings have been altered. POINTS: 6 16 P46 SIMPLICITY OF DESIGN 5- The overall sense of"modesty" in design and detailing on the original structure is intact. 0- New, non-historic trim and other decoration have been added to the building and have altered its character. POINTS: 5 TOTAL POINTS (MAXIMUM OF 50) = 40 â€¢ SETTING Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. PROXIMITY TO SIMILAR STRUCTURES 5- The structure is one of a set (at least three) ofbuildings from the same period in the immediate area. 3- The building is part of a neighborhood that has numerous remaining buildings from the same period. 0- The building is an isolated example from the period. POINTS: 0 HISTORIC LANDSCAPE FEATURES 5- A number of elements of the original landscape are in place, including historic fences, walkways, plant materials and trees, and ditches. 3- Few or no elements of the original landscape are present, but the current landscape supports the historic character ofthe home. 0- The current landscape significantly obscures views of the structure. POINTS: 2 TOTAL POINTS (MAXIMUM OF 10) = 2 â€¢ MATERIALS Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. EXTERIOR WOODWORK 10- Most of the original woodwork, including clapboard siding, decorative shingles in gable ends, trim, fascia boards, etc. remain. 17 ?41 6- Original siding has been replaced, but trim and other elements remain. 6- Original siding is intact but trim or other elements have been replaced. 0- All exterior materials have been removed and replaced. POINTS: 6 DOORS AND WINDOWS 10- All or most of the original door and window units are intact. 8- Some window and door units have been replaced, but with generally accurate reconstructions of the originals. 6- Most of the original windows have been replaced, but with generally accurate reconstructions of the originals. 0- Windows and/or doors units have been replaced with inappropriate patterns or styles. POINTS: 0 TOTAL POINTS (MAXIMUM OF 20) = 6 â€¢ WORKMANSHIP Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. DETAILING AND ORNAMENTATION 5- The original detailing is intact. 3- Detailing is discernible such that it contributes to an understanding o f its stylistic category. 0- New detailing has been added that confuses the character of the original structure. 0- The detailing is gone. POINTS: 3 FINISHES 5- All exterior woodwork is painted and masonry unpainted. 4- All exterior woodwork is painted and masonry is painted. 3- Wood surfaces are stained or modern in appearance but masonry is unpainted. 1- Wood surfaces are stained or modern in appearance and the masonry is painted. POINTS: 5 TOTAL POINTS (MAXIMUM OF 10) = 8 18 P48 â€¢ ASSOCIATION Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. 5- The property would be generally recognizable to a person who lived in Aspen in the 19th century. POINTS: 5 TOTAL POINTS (MAXIMUM OF 5) = 5 BONUS POINTS UNIQUE EXAMPLE 5-The design of the building is unique or one of a small group among the miner' s cottages. (i.e.It has Italianate or Second Empire detailing.) OUTBUILDINGS 5-There are outbuildings on the property that were built during the same period as the house. MASONRY 5-Original brick chimneys and/or a stone foundation remains. PATINA/CHARACTER 5-The materials have been allowed to acquire the character of age and are obviously weathered. POINTS: 0 MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS= 100 (and up to 20 bonus points) MINIMUM THRESHOLD FOR DESIGNATION= 50 POINTS TOTAL SCORE FOR 28 SMUGGLER GROVE: 64 POINTS (Note: Each area of the integrity analysis includes a description of the circumstances that might be found and a point assignment. However the reviewer may choose another number within the point range to more accurately reflect the specific property.) 19 P49 John Niewoehner, 02:01 PM 9/29/2003, FINAL 28 SMUGGLER GROVE DRC MINUTES FOR YOUR X.Sender: johnn@comdev X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 14:01:35 -0600 To: amyg@ci.aspen.co.us From: John Niewoehner <johnn@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: FINAL. 28 SMUGGLER GROVE DRC MINUTES FOR YOUR FILE Amy - - These are the minutes of the 24 Smuggler Grove DRC Meeting that include additional comments from the Sanitation District. The following are the minutes to the September 24, 2003 DRC Meeting. September 24,2003 DRC Meeting : 28 Smuggler Grove Historic Lot Split Attendees: Jim Byrnes, Applicant Valeri Brynes, Appticant Amy Guthrie, HPC Planner Nick Adeh, City Engineer Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshall John Nlewoehner, Community Development Engineer Background: Request for HPC Designation, Historic Landmark Lot Split, On-site Relocation and Variances This project involves subdividing a 7,377 square foot lot into two roughly equal sized parcels. An existing miner's cottage, which currently sits in the middle of the site, will be moved onto one of the lots, and expanded with a basement and small addition. The new house, to be built on the other historic lot, will require HPC review. The case is being referred to DRC because it is located on Smuggler Grove Road, which is a private road that currently has issues with regard to adequate area for on-street parking, snow storage, and emergency access. Comments: 1. ROW and Roadway Width: Currently the asphalt pavement is 17 feet wide within a 40 foot right-of-way (ROW). The street should be improved to have 24 foot of pavement for two travel lanes. In addition, two 8 foot wide parking lanes on both sides of the pavement will provide adequate room for paraUel parking. Thus, there is room in the 40 foot ROW to accommodate 24 feet of asphalt and two parallel parking lanes on each side of the road. In this scenario, snow storage would have to occur on private property. Printed for Amy Guthrie <amyg@ci.aspen.co.us> 1 P50 John Niewoehner, 02:01 PM 9/29/2003, FINAL 28 SMUGGLER GROVE DRC MINUTES FOR YOUR As the applicant's contribution to creating the 24 foot travel lanes, the City Engineer requests that the owner of 28 Smuggler Grove provide a12 foot pavement width from the center of the ROW towards their property. This may mean adding a couple foot wide strip of asphalt to their side of the road. After widening the asphalt, there will remain an eight foot strip between the asphalt and the property line for parallel parking. Notes: (a) Although the ROW is 40 feet wide in front of the 28 Smuggler Grove property, it necks down to 34 feet past their property. (b) Some buildings on Smuggler Grove have head- in parking. Head-in parked cars may be partially blocking the recommended 24 foot travel lane. 2. Emergency Vehicle Access and Turn-Around: Smuggler Grove Road is a 300+/- foot long dead end road without a cul-de-sac to allow a fire truck to turn around. The proposed lot split can not correct this deficiency. Parking along Smuggler Grove will not hinder emergency access as long as a 20 foot wide travel lane is maintained. 3. City Acceptance of Smuqqler Grove Rd.: Smuggler Grove Rd is currently a privately maintained ROW. In order for the City to consider accepting the road, the road would have to be brought up to code - - a 4-1 /2" thick asphalt surface, a 24 foot asphalt width, and stabilized gravel shoulders. The local residents would benefit by the road becoming a City street since the City would plow and maintain the street. 4. Main Water Line Extension: Currently the property owner plans to abandon the existing water service line that runs up the back of the property. The applicant proposes to install a 60'-8" diameter water main from Midland Ave up to the 28 Smuggler Grove parcel. New water services for the lot split lots will come off of this new water main. (Note that the water main must be 10 feet minimum from the sewer line.) 5. Fire Sprinklers: Based on their experience fighting fires, the Fire Department strongly recommends the installation of sprinklers in the two homes that are proposed for 28 Smuggler Grove. Although the sprinkler system requires a 1 -1 /2" water tap, the Water Department will only charge for a 3/4" water tap. 6. Fire Hydrant: The City highly recommends that a fire hydrant be placed in front of the 28 Smuggler Grove Property. This hydrant will benefit the whole street. 7. Drainaqe: The runoff should not flow onto the street or adjacent properties. Runoff can be kept on-site by routing roof down spouts to drywell(s). 8. Sanitation: The Sanitation District requirements include the following: (i) The existing Printed for Amy Guthrie <amyg@ci.aspen.co.us> 2 P51 John Niewoehner, 02:01 PM 9/29/2003, FINAL 28 SMUGGLER GROVE DRC MINUTES FOR YOUR sewer tap in the street is to be abandoned. (ii) At the time of building construction, new sewer taps are to be installed. (iii) At the time of building permit application, the applicant should contact the Sanitation District to determine tap fees. (iv) The applicant is to adhere to all Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District rules, regulations and specifications. John Niewoehner Community Development Engineer City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen CO 81611 920-5104 www.aspenpitkin.com Printed for Amy Guthrie <amyg@ci.aspen.co.us> 3 P52 Steve Hach and Marty Ames 23 Smuggler Grove Aspen, CO 81611 October 8,2003 RE: Cover Summary Dear HPC Members, Please find attached our letter and photographs of current parking on the access easement and a representation of the proposed relocation of the original house. The attached letter and photographs further emphasize our position which is summarized below and follows the questions asked of the committee in the 5/28/03 work session (Reid Architects memo). 1. We challenge the Landmark Historic Designation of 28 Smuggler Grove: â€¢ The structure was re-located to this neighborhood and has lost its "contextual"lvalue. The existing location is a small dead-end street developed primarily in the 1960-1970's and is not part of the historic grid pattern of the original Aspen town site from which this structure most likely originated. No conclusive research on its significance has been uncovered. â€¢ While the historic rating (scoring system) may have been revised, this house is not currently listed on the City's historic inventory. Various building permits were issued by the City in 1976, 1997 and 1998. â€¢ Significant alterations have occurred to the original building relative to finish materials, windows and basement addition. It has been remodeled at least three separate times in the last 18 years. â€¢ While the "cottage style" structure may be visually appealing, we do not believe its historic value, if any, is enough to warrant the significant variances that are being requested. (see #2 relating to surrounding neighborhood considerations) 2. Lot Split Request: There is no legal access for an additional lot (see the limited access easement, reception # 124812, book 221 page 429). The lot is non-conforming given existing zoning. The total parcel, as it exists today, is roughly 16 the size of a conforming size parcel in the R-15A zone district. â€¢ The current 1,142 sf is the footprint of the existing house. It does not include the basement square footage that is approximately the same amount, which adds to the bedroom and living space of the house. This has meant more people living in the home and owning more vehicles (currently 4-5 cars with the existing house alone) that have no legal place to park. P53 â€¢ The proposed lot split and PUD leaves inadequate legal parking. The 5/28 work session materials were incorrect. The measurements represented to the HCP on 5/28 were erroneously taken from the fence lines. The lots on the north side of Smuggler Grove jointly moved their fences back into their properties in order to provide for parking outside of the access easement. Please note that the paved strip is 16' wide, while the legal easement is 40' wide. Given cost constraints, the neighborhood decided to only pave a minimum amount of surface. The placement of the paved strip neither defines legitimate parking nor is indicative of the property lines or easement boundaries. â€¢ The current home on 28 Smuggler Grove does not have any legal parking. Parking encroaches into the easement. â€¢ The access easement is private. If these homes were to front onto a public street, the City could allow for variances to the required parking standards. It is our opinion that the City cannot legally modify a deeded easement, impose parking on, or inadequately provide for legal parking, relative to its impacts on a private right of way. 3. Setback Variance Request The 5/28/03 proposal requests a 22 W variance on a 25 foot setback. â€¢ The original proposal on 5/28/03 had inaccurate information concerning neighborhood setbacks. "It appears that few of the other buildings on this street comply with the 25' set back requirement." The GIS site analysis showing other sites in the neighborhood is inaccurate by 7 feet on 23 Smuggler Grove alone. It shows a 13' 7 14" setback, when an accurate survey shows over 20: When the house was remodeled no living space was allowed to be built over the existing setback encroachment. Based on the inaccuracy of 23 Smuggler Grove, the GIS mapping cannot be deemed to accurately represent existing setback compliance. â€¢ The 7377 sf lot is already encumbered by approximately 1800 sf of utility easements (5' on each side and 10' in the rear of the site). This leaves 5577 sf of lot surface area for two houses with an estimated footprint of approximately 3100 sf. This leaves only about 2477 sf for setbacks, parking, sidewalks, lawns, decks and patios or landscape features. The front setback alone at the current non-conforming 18' setback is over 1600 sf! The side setbacks add an additional 480.50 to the utility easements, without taking into account new setbacks created by the proposed lot split. (1600 + 480.50 - 2080.50sf) 4. PUD Request: Given the above noted site constraints in this neighborhood and the legal access issue, we do not support the PUD process for this application. P54 Stephen C. Hach Marty Ames 23 Smuggler Grove Aspen, Colorado 81611 970/925-9499 Voice 970/925-8322 FAX ucphachÂ·'Brof.net October 8,2003 Historical Preservation Commission 130 S. Galena St. Aspen Co 81611 Re: 28 Smuggler Grove redevelopment Dear Historic Preservation Commission We live at 23 Smuggler Grove across the street from the proposed redevelopment of 28 Smuggler Grove. We are not opposed to the redevelopment of the site and have always assumed that it would be redeveloped. With the close proximity to the property we obviously have some concerns, especially after the work session 5/28/03. We always assumed that the house would be scraped off the site. It was advertised as not historic and permission to remove it was supposedly approved. It seems that there would need to be some significant discoveries to make it historic especially since it was moved into a neighborhood with no Victorian history. To allow a lot split of this site would seem to be a considerable deviation from the current zoning. We are on a 25% larger lot and the duplex use is now a non conforming use that is allowed because it existed prior to the annexation and stricter rules imposed by the City. A lot split would certainly not have been allowed in Pitkin County prior to the annexation. At the May 28,2003 HPC work session the applicant states in the Project Overview that it appears that few of the other buildings on this street comply with the 25' set back requirements. The Site Analysis erroneously shows our structure 13' 7 3/4" from the property line. It appears that the Site Analysis possibly uses the fence line to determine the setback rather than the property line. Unlike 28 Smuggler Grove, many of the fences in the neighborhood do not follow the property line. The south west corner of our structure encroaches about 4.5' into the 25' setback. Our house was originally built as a single story structure and we believe prior to the annexation there was not a 25' setback. When we remodeled to add the 2~d story, we were not allowed to build living space in that encroached area. The city required a setback variance just to level out the area above the roof of the original structure that was already in the set back. Ifthe information on our property is incorrect it is possible that all those along the street are incorrect as well. In any case these homes were built in a different time without City zoning in place. Regarding what other owners on the street do within the setback, there has been historic disagreement over the placement of the fence and the parking on lot 1 East Meadow Subdivision. The address for that house however is on Midland Avenue and it is most likely that his Smuggler Grove frontage as well as lot 1 of Jukati is a 10' side yard setback and within the limits even ifthe Site Analysis is correct. Neither of those sites participates in the costs of street maintenance or snow removal. Lot 3 of East Meadow and lot 3 of Jukati are well over the 25 foot setback. Lot 5 of East Meadow has front yard P55 setback issues and has had great difficulty with redevelopment approvals without even asking for an additional encroachment. The structure at 28 Smuggler Grove is already into the setback. Certainly the 2' 6" proposed setback in the proposed Lot A plan is not acceptable. We were not allowed to construct living space 20.5 feet from our property line and required a variance to even make structural adjustments within the setback. We see no need for any FAR bonus. Any new structure will certainly have basement living space at least equal to whatever footprint is eventually allowed. This likely will effectively tripple the living space with the structures as proposed. In addition many ofthe neighbors would like some assurances that the below grade construction does not include separate entrances and kitchen facilities as currently exist. We would like to stress that the most recent previous owner has rarely exercised the duplex potential ofthe house but previous owners utilized that existing arrangement with disastrous results. Missing from the plan is adequate consideration for on site parking. On the north side of the street many of the property owners have pulled their fences back to provide nearly all of their parking on their own property without using the easement. The site plan as it exists for 28 Smuggler Grove Road shows an area ofgravel parking. Parking on that area is not on the property and encroaches on the easement. It is already inadequate for even the current use. Any plan for redevelopment needs to require a parking space on the property for each bedroom. This is the standard that we were held to and we expect at least the spirit ofthat standard to be enforced with 28 Smuggler Grove as well. The strip of asphalt down the easement right of way may be visually deceiving to officials making a site visit or even the new owner ofthe property. It may give the impression that 28 Smuggler has property extending beyond the fence which is not the case. We question the right ofthe City or any committee to allocate parking on an existing private easement right of way. The current structure is approximately 2194 square feet including a basement. The applicant is proposing an increase to at least triple that size with basements on this site. The current use generates 4 to 5 cars parked on the easement or right of way every single night. It is not imaginable what 3 times the dwelling square footage might generate. The easement is private in nature and was deeded for use as a private way for ingress and egress to the five lots in East Meadow Subdivision and the 3 lots in the Jukati subdivision. It is specifically limited to a total of 8 lots and parking on the easement is not an intended use. We don't understand how the city could modify this deeded private roadway easement. Because 28 Smuggler Grove has made no provisions for parking, each and every act of ingress and/or egress requires that a vehicle drive onto either our property or the adjoining property. From a noise and disruption point ofview this is a considerable impact. With two acts of ingress and/or egress per day per vehicle by just the 4 or 5 resident vehicles that is approximately 3000 acts of intrusion onto private property per year. That does not include guest or delivery vehicles. We as the owners of the property bear the burden of maintaining our gravel parking area and are disturbed by the additional traffic on our private property. In summary this is a small neighborhood that is primarily owner occupied and therefore used year around. We are near the limit of the density that this substandard private road can support. There are approvals in place to redevelop lot 5 ofEast Meadow and Lots 1&4 willlikely be redeveloped as well. Just as we were restricted, they have been and will be restrictedip what the zoning allows. Allowing a lot split and bonus FAR for 28 Smuggler Grove is not an acceptablp option as proposed arthe May 28, 2003 work session. Â» C 644 ////luk.ft ffix O Respectfully Submitted, Stephen C. Hach and Martha E. Ames P56 .Â· - 224*9 T .. :.1 . Filed for recorit a: 3:45 P.M. July 19. 1966 Kerept lon Su. 124812 PeD;v E. Câ€¢,hle, 0,Â·câ€¢,rder . a . ' tbid )Breb,Mi.1.Â· i!:in luth â€¢lav Â·Â·f July h, 11â€¢ryÂ·.:.r Â·,f,,;tri.t,r,1 -4 , I 1 tâ€¢mâ€¢ 11â€¢Â·,1:~::11,1 ;tit:â€¢ littein .1:tâ€¢:11 SiXL&-SiX 1.i; Â·.Â·.,in JOHN J..SNYDER, ala JOPN SNYDER, aka OAMES J. Sri'DER ,â€¢Â·- the C,Â·Amly i,f Pitkir. ;.nd 'Al:,te â€žf C.,le.rn,14 :.f the r,r,1 part. :1=14 JACK }joi.ST, of County of Pitkin and Stito of Colorado. and N. A. DOSS IGNY 01,4 OXEST E. 411:1411.2 1 1,f 11:.,Câ€¢,ill:t,Â·,4 Garfield , :'!:,1 El:,2 ,Â· â€žf i Â·i.â€¢:Â·:.5â€¢. ,â€¢fit,r ,tâ€¢r,â€¢:;â€¢1 1,;111: , , 1 .'itn.Â»vih. 1 11.,t the imi Â·1 r:ul y Â· Â·,f 11,0 1Â·>; 1,:1,1. 6,r :,r:i in cr,]:Aterati, n â€ž1' ille *um ot. . ONE HUNDRED 1}OLLARE And Other Valuable Considerations ----12@61.AUG;. ; Â·~ to the Bill part y of thr first 1,;irl in h:n:,1 1,1:M hy thiÂ· ..Â·Ed p.,1-1 ies of Lite Art:::d part. the rcceipt trb:Â·:Â·,Â·:,f i.: hâ€¢Â·iÂ·,40Â· ei,nies*2 :,a.| a.Â·;;niÂ·w;â€¢ Â·i,:riL it:Â£ s ;:r:u:ted. 1.:i'g:tined. st,1.1 and c<,inÂ·eyed, i,n,1 1,>Â· : , i thip ~irtÂ·.:alls d., 00- 02:i:,t. 3.â€¢:try,ti:i. :,Â·11. c.Â·,;.Â·.Â·Â·Â·:- :.::â€¢i ,Â·Â·Â·32:;r:,1 it:,1,3 :he mid part ics of the w.mtid . palÂ·t, the i r heir.% at:,1 ;:>4:fits :'t,rever. :C! thÂ·.Â· f.Â·;il,$\ ill::,:esc}Â·il,ed lol orr..Ii.Â·1 ,â€¢f land, ' situ.,te. }yin:: and ],eing iÂ·.1 11,2 Ct.l;illy â€¢,1 Pi tkin , r.n,1 6tate ,â€¢f C,Â·bitÂ·:dilit, tt,-wil: A tract of land lying in Section 18. Tcwnship 10 South, Rauge 84 West of the Gth P. M., and described as follows: Beginning .lt a point from s.Â·1:e:lec corner NO. 2 of Riverside Placer U.C.M.S. No. 3905.Â·bcars N. .r ...., .*.1 - 335.69 feet; thence N. 81*30' .U 1. 4.1 â€¢4 W. 344.38 feet: thence S. 04 -. r. 120.37 fect; thence S. 79'41' E. 216.46 feet; thence N. 78-57' E. 29.14 feet; thence S. 06/18'E. 34.69 feet; thence N. 78*57' E. 15.79 feet; ti.0.-.ce N. 10 19' E. 5.00 feet: thence S. 79'410 E. 45.00 feet; thence N. 15 -7' W. 130.00 feet to the place of beginning, cor.taining 41,910 square fect, psre or iess. SUBJECT to any :Â· eascments and rights of way of record ar.ci thcse 41 are now in use. : Party of the first port further agrecs that the second parties : and those claiming by, through and-cr.der them. and each of them. shall ; have a perpotual easement or righÂ·i ci way through. over and across the following described pror>crly. which adjoins the property hcreinabove conveyed: .. Beginning at the SW corner of the above, d.oscribed tract. said t i. corner being S. 75'41'40" W. 335.69 fee: and N. 81 30' W.344.36 feet and 5 I , S. 04* 54' E. 120.37 fec,t from corner Nn. 1 of Riverside Placcr U.S.M.S. No. 3005: Lhence S. 04'54' E. 41.45 feet: thence S. 79 41' 2. 198.29 feet; i , thar,ce N. 78'57' E. 107.66 fent; thunce M. 06-18' W. 34.69 feet; thance S. 73* 57' W. 89.14 feet: thence K*. 79 41' W. 216.4G feet to the point of beginning. This easement or right 02 w y sr.,Â·.11 be of a pri.vate nature and , . t snail be used by the gruntecs .â€¢rd their as.signs as a private way for : ~ - ingress and egress to sala lanes .ina to not more than five lots thereof. In this connection, it is unders:00.; that: thore .trc thrac morc pieces of ' ground ac,Joining suid ease:zrne, .,ele:.ging to grar.Lor. which may be sold i to other porties than the r. . ':.,c, herein c:Â·d their assigns, and Lhat the , ... t saia thred additional lots re:.inÂ·-6 0Â·.Â· grancor shall have r.hc same rigncs i ~14 - And privi.oses of ingress -r.u Â·--Â·<:ress :n said easement as the grantees and 1 In Lhis cr,nnectior. th).s :or:y (40) foot private right of l by the grant:or herein and his . 1 assigns for a period o: three (~) ,cuis an,1 chat Lhe costs of the said : snow plowing by the granlor shall bc paid by the respective owners of lots i in said subdivision at the rate of $25.00 per lot per year for the five ,' ! (51 lots; said sum to lme paid directly to the grantor or his aisigns. . The said snow plowing agreement sh:,11 be reviewed three (3) years from - the dete of this deed and either renewed or re-negotiated by the grantor 1 ! and the then ovias of Aaid lets. Suid grantor may cancel his part of the~ snow plowing agreement without notice to the grantees and their aasigns i ! .. . at the end of the three (3) year period. I e . i ./ -I. ....:.... I-I'll./*I'Il-.Il.--I.-*.I-..I-I...'.:Ift'-I.W----I.-IA'I. //...; $ P5j . C 3 Ar, / /4/4 1,6 1 VAA M'.4 40 < 5 I. I .m :aLD#il,MI,go,b - 4 V %' . + b ....ft?i.416 1?42"Â¥ 91 0 W . , 1 2 ..1 V ,1 , 4 7' m.44, iâ‚¬k ' I , ,// I f. I 2 4 -gÂ· I IMBS.,4%Â¢Â·*'22 1 4 1)44:filri~.,3.~6/6/ ft#.,(.)4, 3 ., " > k 7 0 4 14 ... 1 ..,91 4.. 40, 926 'f. L . 'd>, dix.,A.' 42'' 191 L 1 J fla,4,7.i IpÂ·Aâ€¢Â¢~ Â·'. A.â€¢ 0 49â€¢ ' ; :.f.4/7 . Â·./: i; , 30 I .. ...//Â».0 . 'it '49.1 'â‚¬~ 6' : 6/2.' - . '.. >.09"b/4 '74 ..ir.,r~07"plr.,# Â·, . . A 3,/ ,/ y h, 4,4 ' * *tu,4>*. --, 9,7 -' . -C' ' 'Â·-9 > 1,0 7 - r ./ 1 B 442Â£34 ' 32 - Ll 7*4 12 4Â»P A ,>t,41 .. . 4,6 h~ 2 '-'F -'25"t.f,19.04 421 - 2 r. t. .t > . ' .4, I. 1 . Whm/4*0 3440 J eâ€¢ / ,& 4 1 , WRAY'REFF#:5* 3/.Â·312 44''rÂ»4 I -9 2 j 't,Â¥A r, Ma,ff,(1 '. 4 .7.4,% I. $ ly.' . v (34,0 , , , .~ , #ely;A U .1 F 4 '. ' ' , b >.41 4 â€ž R ~ .file?;I-j~,0.~0: 4%2jifjf-*Nt;*t?yfi{9~27'*Â· 40Â· â‚¬ 2.5, 2/ 4 -1 4.-,., 1,;,- ..67 ' ...1'fe '. 9iut #7 . I 5, 18'ft 4 4. r -I< I. #- 4 . r 1 4 5 ... . J. W + ,%#n-e-Â·O r '.4 . - r';*ti)~2*Â·*p:->4+~,0*> i-~<,f;~f'g ra'*' 5{~46 rI , * r Â·Â· .2.f r. ilâ€žtt r '.4,9.5 03*RW:4(*A'.4..TÂ·VS..7 . f : W. ivt;Â£1*.,h /14 4,6'. V % ' ./ Â·r '' *, I / 41 .-3 fir , .3, . u ' Â£ ' 'J ./ 4. 4/ I, - . , -UD. w 4 * . -'J * ' 14 . . 1 - r.~23*3~Â·Â·Â·~ @- < 4 I '' 44 "~ W I . L . ' Me-DeÂ»P 1, 4 u 1 - 1.5. ' t. / Nt $43, - 1 i, U .Z:/0 ' 22. 1,&.,<tili f ./ . 1'" d .. thi :Â»Ait,) . â€ž 4 A#I MEMA#&68,4.Ke ' t...1,4 , ''b : J~<:'10 2 *iw. I -â€ž : , 49 . V 6 r r.,Ck- ~ 1 - ' '...: , <t r Â· 11' I ' f % 4,/, 6/ 6 4 L./4 I 9 I Â»4 4., 6 9 1/:â€¢, '- I ..'. . '1 9,14 - 4.* 'U 3 1, â€¢4, 'f I. //U 'h . 3 > . "r . A Â·Â·i#,Up,44& I.. 4, ~~~ ~t 'Â« .<>' * fre .-'51,- ': 9'rÂ· 5?439. ie .44 , I - I ..... .) V 244 840Â£1, z,4 51'Â·Â·''tf. 4,Q- c , ,t;<Â£16&~1 5+~5~40- .,7 -P />,fAIJ EÂ°3v; p Â·., 4,~Â·~ . .5.- .,f~, .': ., 1, , '14-,Acelf 30 .1'.0. - -, -Â·-7Â»1. .: 'r~40â‚¬Iix:~,102: , -- -'. . .Â»--y-"1-''>- '37Â» J- ~, â€¢-= D . .. - '* 3Zyh:#$ :U '& I + r 4 $ f di'/ v 1. D ' il) Â·11 -gs. P . :,414 0 0' A }TA 45.-Â·,0,4:,1,=24#i..p 29Â»# .4 -vt'&. - 4.7:CL, 44%-*Ate~vt.3. \5 ~t i~ ..d .4 " i, 4. 11 VO 9 1 ~ '09*:4*, 1,21 ..9 5.9*,ha- B â‚¬ Alpt, , -0.4 4 . C J. 4 S : * ./ 7 4 , =Ir i.*,r- I., 9Pry, 4'K: 1,; *AP Y9...Aj& 7*0 b. 4, 1 , h -1 11*,MA"Pft,Â°i:Yjce , â€¢ ,Â£ B . 96, 1%1*K 'i'-/ -9,=21. 0 94 ,-0.1 , . 'll .. . /. . ' .) ' ' I I.. ....3:44/.591 Â· - , _pt.Â·'d' /: t. >f, '7 . 4 1., f t, thÂ»=I,1 , h y:,yÂ¢. 416 , I . 5 . 1 16 '4 I I --1 ./ .. 'f~ .,2 ;: ' ,@p a -* ' 7<0 MA 4 , 4 ':?* Ii, ~,le>f ..t -*,7 P.;fr-' fi-Â°i~=!,4,tae- 11,4, 4 V Y. . M ~ ~I:â‚¬tÂ·'1' ~0 "7~' - 14 "9.6.2, . '. I : 4.9 r , , 20 0 r-" ; Wh Â» 4 t,0 + . 4 *:,44 21- 44â€¢ I 46 ~A ~ Ld , 'Pkty . * I .h '' r /:tix . 1. ,â€¢ ' r' .:.:9 t i. . , , 1 Â£ 4, '-44:4* 4. 46 Â£ 964 4 4 I. .tek' ,~, : 6. , 3 . P. 0â‚¬ , . Al : 'prf v ?>40 â€¢, h - *414: ' 299 I - .. #5< 3 4. <27. ' . . I-- Ir fle a 3* I IÂ»ky#,Pl/ 61<80.I .... Â·it :4': 2- ' 4 I V. .' 4 '.1.9, ..' 1 V .A , irk f . m , t. '0/1-i,Â» 44,- .9.lt:,21Â· 4-10,2. ;, 61'61, 11 t,Trt ,:' < . A :,1,,4~14 ~''lgn .,4> I J A ' ... b: . 1 1.4-2 4%'-2 0 ' I 9, . . ..44/ Â¢ 1 a .1 Â¥ 17=, 275. 4.'.r ., " - 1, , 4, '. Mir . ':. 00; /12 4( 1 0 nt g A 4 -# I , ..' 2~ 12, 4.,A.,-4 .'., '6 9 W ,,1 9%9,22 - - n. 7%4*p-,7:51396 4. 0,&4Â».; 1 f L Ch '12. '/Â¢ J~ eh'~ Â¢3 4 . .*,/far .' 12 *~ 6 I 4- 40. ~, ~ '7 1, .~~y. it 04.f, 'K , i ' v .,- . ' . ~i A , pÂ©- 41':t, 2 ' 24,2,:t'- .:, -*. .1-,-4~VtÂ£2%,gEAr *if 2 ~~~~. Frh- - -60#4J 1 U,1 4 1, ,â€ž 41 . 9 Â¢.3 9~ ; 'V I 09Â¢ >,3- 94 A' 1445,3712 '4.4 "4'.4Â» 65 Y'*F:~&Â©12.Â£4*10*; 1,;1349;6%/.131: ,~,9[:y ,<: P' '4/ 2( 3 fâ€¢'ty, ./4 /0 V I '20 19> 11 - 1% a U W......1 /4/4..... ..V .# 1." 4 4 :â€¢6Â«0 ... .7.1 y . P, M '.4 1 % f /4 â‚¬ , 4,4 L '9,- ," 4 , ..f,1 * 77% ft ' /' #.84:*fFÂ·Â·1~~90Â©,i. I ' , ., *1Â¥ & f. *59,2., , .e. , ... -0 - â‚¬ 4...f d. Â«>1 g.,9 % . S. I . 1 11''~*.letgwkw#*pe '7'~4' 4,~*,Â»/, 4#3 Am. " 4 V , 1 L P .,?4-1. t. . j /0 N % , 1 -B r / 2 <fÂ·i~~-Â·t'"'"'~~~A. i >iâ‚¬44'~, :r . 41%*r :' rz.li., â€žr'...t. 97/el,<,N&E~%4#*19 1,11 , 7. 9 4 ' , ... .1, 6 ' : ..Â» â€ž ).3Â· 3 1 '# 44 1 - , Â· L 4. .P ' I.:I . I, . . ip D'"i 2. A i d A, ' C -/ d :ipj > diâ€¢Â·Â·62 ./... I) " ", '11 .B: I,<, , I .1 r, .21 "~' 41-b,tÂ·A,i, **<, 1~ ' .4-4 tf ' ' 4 .... . 'Â£ . , I ./ I '' :4, '. ...0.le~1,> . I 4 ' I 4, r 4 ' 0 32'.4 244 1 4 .: ... $ .4, 4 9/ 5. , A ' .4 . 'f 1 . . 3,4,2,4.9 , 4 . 25 ./.f , ,â€¢637 D ./,12 A , f 1. , -.. AI,nt, 1 % 1 :, \'' 4 , .ri..' r 4 , , P Â£ 9 all :ir,/Â·tt ' vf. SA'. '.ef , 'P" t r. ' . I ' - >2, ext , 1 :8 9. 4 .... I. N.=' .b,Wh f 17'1,0,~,ati' ." , 4., , Â· 0 - I 7 '.k , , ft>-MS ~A ' - .*:*#*1#*41*4~ <.,itutâ‚¬,142. ~~~ .4 .. z I / ' 2%.4.1 6., 4'' 4 1 '4 1. . r . 41 ... F. J - ,.-irt:>44*.., i*.f ,~.;.~ Â·fy(~Â·~- f Jâ€¢, ,,.164".41 ./0.45.80*9ht,gwA~M.6, - l. , 2. I r i.ter-- -34;i~ .,W@%*Wittif,tiff*-1*54ittfp~â‚¬4 +; ./ ' . $ I. Â¥i C.+ '..72' 43'ir - 1/.b 'a-./:/f. / ' ~igj?*f~ ~~~11Â»t*r-n:-1 ~4----from . ,-~t'.4~Â»~ . . , I. .......ill---I. 'e'll I , t.k' k. " I Â· AE.--- lie .1,4'F. %442- 'd t.. 4 I J ' '' 7 ) ': 1., TROZE'.b* B-I#N~ - - f I â€¢ 0 - . .3 - - i 0%29 ~ 41*41 1 -~/1"11' 3~'WhtÂ·gm ' '1 2- 99#/8/./7% 4 1 a , ' v ' -=- 43 : <-r " ' ~4 4 'EMET-Ill 119!Ble 4., . S ..~.5##*,4, r '9# 1~4 .9, ' B. 't A - 4~fj#4' 4 ht ..:Pr I :. 41;,=~ ., r~ ,~-1.3~' . :-Â»2 f >4, 1'Â· 2*+ , ~, .,ir./- ed,ep..ff./9F7T. -- - /3 ..2 4 *9 '. 2 R -- 7 -4 ~7~ef , -. -Â· \ 'S ' #R, 34* 8-*R â‚¬ 0 Â· t,2.642 211,Â¥t.' . r u. .* . " 'he.1 , 'kA/(1;4-*fp < 4., A*pr,. 4Â«04, ..., 9.. ./15 ;*.fll .:'I -Alli'~pr4eV/EX1/#242~+0.2 *I: ''j-t #9#figf --Â·. .- CÂ·@'~~,9~44 0 . 1- P #tld,-Ay{,E <4 ..5, ..VI .. .1 - y . â€ž I Â¥/ .. I I . .. .: 43!rit'2.. 1* , 9140 11,Â· ..,1, triÂ¢* U . : I. A Â«,4444*'Â»Â· 4 4~. '' Â·42'72753 4';9 ; 24't ' 'â€¢ t. , 0, , ,-C :N.;*14:J)Â¢9,3.9.- 2'40 .*.%~r*4,. '''t..L:.'.':,f~5'4:w#.'f:w 8. ' I '::. .4 4 %Â«,6.Â·Â·Â·Â·t Me**A/.Â·tÂ«70. ,Â©iÂ·;- ,/'i:;-4.E' i. ..ti'~g~r' .2 4 4. :,~f , 0 *,., .,., - .- dri, t fh'Ait,#*Â·N : ./ 4. ' ,.4 ' .h *, AL-,ti U~it,~83 i VMM ,..~ ',Aa#& . â€¢1?, :'4 Â¥,(Soip ; 'I 2 74.... , .4. I 1 Ir â€¢ ...'.i - ~"â‚¬3; 4 ~.t I , I .t,J fl': Â¥. 23Â¢'kf fi,0.-, a g* .1.7 .....,1.2 4., s.,C , 0 0/: - LIt> 4-?. .. Â¢., 4 f 2t Â·'ID. --Pir i, f 2 114' 1.,i; .. ".. EM . 441#, - /1, . . .:i....â€¢ I â€¢ 44 , 'MF/. .2.1 1, 6 . -94.4.J'.. h ..,17 " . I V -4. I M , 6/5 . , 3 84/Al 1% â€¢ ALAM< init.Â£ .' 340 ... 1 KI"~2:t- 4 4:y. ._ ..I a - dy*,1 .Ne #29- uu<JAP. -.#<3**Ar,kNA +T'-9 3454 .16,9: t~44 lf... 4 .,/- .':1"j, " .P" . -fit ,&1 + , 4 44 . 4,Â· hk' '-'*41'4.41 .12?14,4 A . ' : I :Â·.7~ :112*K<1 -421Â£ . .. .f .1 I .43*1Â·:'*5Â¢93 #*..1â€ž...1, t. ,/2..& 4 /..hill ./ fl 8 .4 'al .. . h.Â¥AA: 4 ' ...Â·uÂ·16:Â·*.tiÂ»*:4Â¢f., k - ji' I ./4019:44.? :.**t. ,Â·4:1,Â¥-Â«91.49:413.1,1 .-7-"I.1~41 r , 4~f~jb:ii,Â·ty:,5. ,Â¥3 *.3 '.1.4-2 Â·Â·.t,dit-10:1 r< 1 W)?.*f'..4- .:hi . r . 7*4'42.-, 4 >Â· 4 - 'w i'~f* , , I. Jk . zi-5 -1 .13 -- ' Â·i. i . Â·'p ./ - 2 .B ' ' H 744& Â· 1,1 i.1 4 - I . '. it * ".0 -Â· .7,1. 4 . ..:*A 1, 1 ..1 .â€ži â€¢c i~/'Â· 1 41- 44~4 43/~~~~,~1~<,% ., 2 ".r . r. 4 tit~Â¥;E,~-,fli/LA - . - .2-2(44' r,; 7: 41Â· . ..a '* 7 i vÂ· .%Â·A, .... â€¢teâ€¢,l ... 1--h ~ -e .... . , 411. ~ ~ -, k - 4/ ". Â· "4'? 4 Â· I .4 # 4 , 1.7 1 43,6.- *. ...< .1 7 / I L 4 / .7, 1(4#"RF : A.~-1, 19- W 1 .,1 .11'.. 2 ' 34 4 5 ,t.V#<LpAM V.JT' *. 41 r. * ' LFÂ·-'<SH 3.49241.'~Â·)11~-1â€ž~ . 0, 31Â¥. # . , .. , . ' 0 , 3 . 1 , 'I '' I. I' ve * 2.' , . /1 , . ... 9 7 1 4 r ii -â€¢â„¢ Â¢2/ ,; U A. . 0,5.â€¢'t,8.. 0 0,12 . 7- 7 -41%9 0,-9 0 / '4 41 *444:A'Vi u. t . ' -' 7412 1~* 3-Cl,~" f.4*+7 d. ''.,2.. . ..e 1.-Wfli.47 } , %* râ€¢ "*,-44:349, 2/ â€¢ ...: 412#ri'fÂ·4.41Â·Â©~~~: 4 *~ ~ ~~' b ' .,Â¢:'t elfu' *06. #b . . 1 1* .....t ' d1? Iiâ€¢i~-4;Â·~t~., Â·Â·-1 :z.. ~ 4.< 54~;,L~g,*'j?.,~p>:*dt ' , 6 '0 1&4Â£ '. .,$*.A #,f'< Â·90' '4 '. ~ '- .r. 1 42. P ''K & 4, . . 1 I. - P ... :22;,2~,2440'4444.4.:..iNJ': : f t:* . A *. *0\G. ,+4.#.0 6&0 Â· '>4>3,40Â¢,1 -7.0:.44 4 91.. ... I . tit . --. 5'.' 41'*' 9 4 6*fi: . 4 -1":4 + :* 14:~8:" ,-(Â·0*r ik,ir.i49 + 4 . , I I .7 th J"EgagE,J, 9 91 63 701, 1. IMÂ· 1,*~,I . â€¢geiNUÂ¥,- w . :4#,1 , '. F' t . .1 4 Â· A-l ........./ . &â€¢ â€¢ Â¥4*1*Â·14,411 61.*15/Kik Â· .2 y * 44 411~1&*m- -,Â· Â· " %1'4Al*F Â£ *ji~,7-;,Â·I>. ~~-litt#ff-> ,,:~';~/' *-tjj~Â·ill . .@11 ' 1 Â¢mrâ€¢'44*A@'71 7 ..21Â· 42' . .4 , kifiÂ·2\Â· *I:Â£.A-221%,/.4 .4*.4. 441491 4 ..6 ....7.- It 0 44. h :. e . : <250=Imndwk).74~W**44bkOdr7Iki#de<-6 8--9#...4 2,024' I 0 :.t :.. .-9*51.;i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4~141*Pt*~42.3~ f f. " . I I. - Â· u>- A- : f~~4% ..2' 1 f * 1*WA!.... -Â· ~ ~'0' 4.:.*,1:0'' ~S~~"~~,,,~,'+:~4.,~~~~i,"'L~:~~f~i'~~~' ;~$9~4.~i.,Ii,,; ~ 1:. 4 '1 ., . h '1â€ž3 . 44 9 . 0, 4 .. '1 yA 7.1,1,(:ffi~2.~*f <Â«:~ .Tip~t~.i.,Ae â‚¬-1~*ti~,fei:9: ... 4 - K:ITPR .-+6 .. J , emme*331.iI,L.ffrtl~* t.., Â·, Â£ -~ -4' , ; i:,4. Y;44*-Â·'1 N.: Â£7 0 7/9 , . -94 .13> 41~-, .:3.,Â·1 44:2'> -- m.-m|-49 I + r e. 97 - -.......1-- . ALD - T- 1 , .6, Vili- 0% ... 42 .,1 1 .:>.Â· '61. ' j Â£ i 1 1 *640, i L v ...1 E 4 9.16**0:*44:#- - 4 ' .1 ,+ - *2#.*7444*~10,1,1 _~ 9 + 4 -\ -17: . 2.'- 4 . rig@Ul#.6/ . ' 1 11.#/I , I i '3#ye.:41 ~':Ast. #.in,-Â·*,+ ~:.# ..=-_'-'At.:@. c 1 a 4 - .. .fit ''21, - AX{1 t ~ r:. %~4 4 *iÂ»14*45. I,#:~ bl-& . . 41 014 0 ,:16 '034: 4. ' 1â‚¬420*Ut4+44.021*42;,I.,k{;....t ~ JI~,4 Â·~â€¢.4,~ . 4 Â·i .4 i:. tw. ~ ~ 1 '*ji:~ tivigi.i ~01:* ,",4.1,&*4.~*~3,~~+~~.~~r.;~*41Â·16*fÂ·~lof2 - 11 v124'iri': '5' v..r,, 1, # . ~Â·.I:+**I7%44 2.6Â»p.1 f.; . I . 0/4 './ : I J . 4, I. ' 4%8*AA â€¢ i Yr 1*'., 2 . I..tpi,te,:.:~,~<4~6.~-73'C:.:tili" 1 T <R. -32*41<91,11Â©6 2.r 4.2:,2.5>' b.+0911.*24 . j 1'*â‚¬8,1,~4484'A' CiA 7 0 +4 . eaci , miL..l, d ./:f'. t. d*v-~3.2 8%4.:.f':ri'., ,Â·. 6 #â€ž. ' i k.>6. 944~:14 1,7/Qi' . i, , RO,{~ . * I 49Â¥Â·445Â·42 #Benk ': 'Itâ‚¬Â·1~' .4..32<44/1 3 10,7 . S/% h :6*6594: 2 ./ # f. . I .. 3/53)421.47.:42~04Â·Liiâ‚¬~~~~.Â· Â·*i,2.# ~ -W.~,1*tr..'.'. 5~~Ar#.mp- + t * 17 . ,.Â·:v+0544 -~~4 13*<:-+ .'t!,Â·. ,"r . 4, L 4, , , r,r k, 2 ' , *Mp -f , â‚¬0 4%~' r 2 - 1/t .41 *'R . Â¢ '1 , ':11 1, f '0,2 . UN.*47.9 .: /* e-<1Â£,11*f 7,~=~ t : i 'le; ..12 4 I ..l. } :t '1:t7, @ 'y J~~,qf , :Â£5. Â·01,1,4 . 1 44'. , 4, r f t.t '9 â€¢ W., ,/u â€ž 14 1 1 '.f" L . f. f.up- 6 - ..Re.. . 0, r . t. J ' 6 9.97 0 z .' ' '' -4 ' 1 /.Pr 4. I - 4 i.; 4. 2 14 .f / I. .. , . i* a ' 1,1 , NE ./. ., 4. .1 .9 ..5 k le'.~. 4 e 4 W 4/ â€¢:1(/MV - Â· Ir 'j.) 9, :45 1 1 :14 4 . . , I. . + '* . 414 $ 4 I 4 1 , . 1, .4 . ..4, , I . t . 4 .r 44 , 14: . I I ** 44%&â€¢D . t. I . rÂ·.%' e - 1 ' *1*G L %-4 i â€¢- 24 .1 1 4 ' #/1 e Â· . 91,- -,# r v , .6 8 1/ I '3 2 . ~af ' 4M *,u,Â· .% Â· - ' I . , I ... wiv:'-' 4 Â·4*10. ,/ , 1,1 17 ... I P 4 2 'A T.,~ . 1 /2 5 4 , 11.1 I. 1, I ' ' ...'36: 4.' el' *. 4 .f ~ 32* Tr . ' 9 , a . ,#b '. 1-17'1~Ug2*:PitÂ·~.,.' *. f,1~,44*j~~~.404~.' Wair.di >i, jolw , ,. .vt. 34 14@Â£Â£ 1. 1.4 :. #-0 / F Â¥ , 4. * . d.,ta - eEc. . k ':7 t:*#08 Apkew- 44- Â· - - 't 627 4 w.:T.q~*v, , f , $ Â·i ' 1 ....E + I ' r,tfleâ€ž'. v.:9~,1 @-1. r :,igwibik ,.. ~ 4,4 F . r.. #''a* '1'01,2.4 1- .Â£9 â‚¬Nki;*>F, 2 b t' 6 +U, 41'i 0-6, C.i /.4Â·le, , L. 4 -r, .T* 'lr ~ ~ T + ** . 19*%*, . I 1/Flah: I. I + ck + . . * 41 1 4, 7 7. ' .2 -44 1 11* 04 .//12<44*+~gj 9/ f.92 .1 1.14 043 -7 .9': .- 2, ; . , 0., r 9, 4 $ i t , . ., I '5*It,#IC ~'L. Â© .0,0 1 0 4 0 A , D .'T )44, 1/ j. e ~...za.,- . .... 0 ...Â¢*4'.9 D. : Â¥ F h I . :A .. A ' lf'. >4.- 4 .? .re ........ I ./. I 1~'dit.* -' ..../LES":3&1 ' I . : " =, 40" I . U: 4 - 7". #* 90U.-* 4 1. . i 4.41*.* - '14% 4 4, 44 0/ le, . 08 ' I Dan Sadowsky, 01:46 PM 9/19/2003, Message from Contact Us form X-Sender: tarao@commons X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 13:46:48 -0600 To: amyg@ci.aspen.co.us From: Dan Sadowsky <asdn@mac.com> (by way of Tara O'Bradovich <tarao@ci.aspen.co.us>) Subject: Message from Contact Us form X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MaiIScanner: Found to be clean Hi Amy: I am forwarding this to you. If you are not the appropriate person, please let me know and I will direct it there. Thanks. *************************************************************************** Message from Contact Us form *************************************************************************** Directed towards department: Community Development - City Description of question/comment Feedback/Comments Name of sender: Dan Sadowsky Email: asdn@mac.com Phone: 920-2076 Message: Dan Sadowsky and Alexandra Halperin 0043B Smuggler Grove Road POB# 2210 Aspen, CO 81611 970.920.2076 09/19/2003 Members of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, Regarding the 28 Smuggler Grove Road request for Historic Landmark Designation, Lot Split, On- Site Relocation, Major Development, and Variances. In case I'm not able to attend the October 8th 2003 meeting at City Hall Council Chambers, 1 respectfully request this letter be read aloud and into the public record. Alexandra and I bought our house at 43B Smuggler Grove Road in 1987 and have occupied it continuously since then. We raised our family there. We've remodeled twice and have never requested variances. We've stayed within the setbacks and though we've doubled the square footage of our house, the footprint is exactly as it was built in the early 1960's. There has been development on our street, but it can be characterized as modest in comparison to the typical Aspen tear-down and lot line-to-lot line build-out. Our house is directly across the street from the property in question. Printed for Amy Guthrie <amyg@ci.aspen.co.us> 1 P60 GRAEME D MEANS 210 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN CO 8161I TELEPHONE 970 925 9150 Historic Preservation Commission City of Aspen, Colorado Work Session 12 November, 2003 Proposed Expansion to Elk's Lodge #224,520 East Hyman St. Lots KAM Block #94, Aspen, Colorado The present Aspen Elk's Building has stood on a prominent corner of downtown Aspen since the early 1890's. The building is remarkable in that it has retained an enormous amount of it's historic character and fulfilled a variety of community needs for over a hundred years. The historic building currently occupies Lots K and L. There currently exists on Lot M (to the east) a 1991 expansion which contains an entry, elevator, and stairs. The majority of the north portion of Lot M is vacant and this is the area being considered for expansion. The applicant proposes this small expansion to allow the building to continue to meet the community's needs into the future. Because the expansion would exceed the dimensional requirements of the CC zone district, it would be required to receive numerous approvals from the City ofAspen. The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council would need to approve the additional floor area, height, open space requirements, and other more internal issues through the P.U.D. process. The project would also be required to go through a major Historic Preservation Approval process. The purpose of this Work Session is to identify and comment on major conceptual issues which the applicant will need to address in the conceptual submission. A vast majority ofthe historic building would not be directly physically impacted by the addition. The Southâ€žWest, and North elevations of the building would remain unchanged. No point of the addition would be higher than the existing building. The existing pedestrian court on the southeast corner of the site would be retained, and all development would take place adjacent to and behind the fa,ade ofthe stair tower as viewed from Hyman Street. From this viewpoint, the proposed addition becomes an addition to an existing recent addition to the historic building. From the side, the proposed addition would cover that portion of the East fa~ade north ofthe stair tower. Covering these side elevations of historic buildings in the downtown core is common due to the relatively dense nature of development. P66 *-4 I B) Asp u M-1 -4 2 gIlts #lutrge #224 November 4,2003 Historic Preservation Commission C/O Amy Gutherie City of Aspen This letter is to. act as an introduction to the commission regarding the work session concerning the preliminary investigation into the addition ofthe Elks Building at 510 E. Hyman Avenue. We currently have a membership of 725, but an occupancy rate of299. This in itselfis impetus for us to examine an expansion. We are only focusing on what might be possible with our building. Yoar time and efforts are greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Ed Daniels Mike Haman Elks Lodge Representatives /66*79 OUX 510 E. Hyman Avenue, Suite 300 â€¢ Aspen, CO 81611 â€¢ 970 925-9071 â€¢ 970 925-8678 (FAN P65 1 <57-- 0/ 0 CL November 4, 2003 Historical Preservation Committee City of Aspen Re: 2 Williams Way We are requesting a second work session with the committee to present a revised parking/driveway scheme and to review the height, mass, proportion and scale of the new structure on the property. The last work session resulted in conceptual support for the site plan. Based on recommendations from the Committee, we focused on emphasizing the relationship between the two historic structures, while extending the separation of the new structure. The two historic structures are located on the western side of the property and oriented to Williams Way. As suggested by the Committee, the driveway has been configured along the northern property line. The new structure has been situated on the upper portion of the property with a great distance between it and the nearest historic structure. As the location of the structures on this site plan protects the rural heart of the property, we have reconsidered the driveway. We are still advocating a parking area along the northern property line to service the two historic structures. However, rather than a driveway continuing through the heart of the property to a basement level garage beneath the new structure, we would like to locate the entrance to the garage for the new structure off of Spruce St. on the eastern side of the property. This configuration eliminates the constant traffic flow by the historic structures, and it preserves the tranquility of the historic setting. This design will relegate the vehicles to the periphery of the site where they belong. We are seeking HPC support, because a preliminary discussion with the City Engineer indicated that properties are only allowed one curb cut or entrance. There is an existing curb cut on Spruce St. which would require a slight expansion. Access to the parking off of Williams Way can be accomplished at grade, and there is currently no curb or sidewalk. HPC support for this plan could facilitate negotiations with the engineer. In response to the HPC suggestion to increase separation between the new structure and the historic structures, we began the design concept from the northeast property corner and extended the new structure downhill. We are proposing a single story component along Spruce St: that extends toward Williams Way. The garage is located behind this portion of the structure in the NE corner. This location of the garage increases the separation between the historic and new structures in comparison to the previous plan that located the garage below the riew structure. The design includes a distinct front entrance with a covered porch continuing to the west. The western portion of the front fagade is also single story rising to a second story at the back of the property. The western side of the house has been designed to complement the historic structures by incorporating a simple single story roof element that gradually gives way to the second story on the new structure. Based on feedback from Amy, we have simplified the entire roof plan and condensed the footprint of the structure. The below grade garage has been replaced with a guest bedroom which will soften the western facade in relation to the historic structures. We are seeking HPC support for the parking scheme and further direction on the design of the new structure. We are scheduled to resume the formal conceptual review on December 10, 2003. P63 Dan Sadowsky, 01:46 PM 9/19/2003, Message from Contact Us form It should be noted that the neighboring private roads in the Ardmore Subdivision disallow parking-all parking there is on-site. Indeed, a City zoning ordinance requires new residences to provide parking on-site for each new bedroom. I can see no extraordinary circumstances which demand the ordinance be waived in this case. I fear Mr. Byrnes' new construction will load half a dozen more cars onto Smuggler Grove Road. His tacit request to park all his and his renters' vehicles on the street, rather than on his own property, will bring about invasions of his neighbors' property rights, create a looming safety issue, and is likely to interfere with the reasonable and peaceable enjoyment of his neighbors' homes and property. Sincerely, Dan Sadowsky End of Message Printed for Amy Guthrie <amyg@ci.aspen.co.us> 3 P62 Dan Sadowsky, 01:46 PM 9/19/2003 , Message from Contact Us form I have a strong objection to the request for a waiver of 2 on-site parking spaces. Such a waiver would stress the parking issues which are already in a delicate balance on my street, and also introduce significant safety risks. This waiver will out of physical necessity, compel the residents of 28 Smuggler Grove to trespass on adjacent property every day, all year. I think I can explain why this waiver is ill-advised. A brief history of the street... Smuggler Grove Road was never built as a road per se, but as a driveway to access two homes built on the Jukati Subdivision. In the early 1960's the five Panabode homes in the East Meadow subdivision went up. Panabode homes are Lincoln-log construction with no insulation. They were never really intended to be winter residences. The road was not, to my knowledge, improved to accommodate these quasi-summer homes. When I moved into 004313: Smuggler Grove Road was dirt. Big dust clouds followed each car down the street. Smuggler Grove Road still is a private street-narrow, without drainage or sidewalks, substandard in the sense that it's below City and County code. Although it was paved last year at the owners' expense, it's still just a glorified driveway. Attempts to deed Smuggler Grove Road to the City have always failed, though the subdivisions adjacent to it were annexed by the city in 1985. (Part of the lure of this annexation was the implicit promise of city services including road maintenance and plowing, the latter of which in fact never occurred. Homeowners maintain the street.) Shortly after the Panabode homes were built, fences went up at the property lines on each side of the street. I understand it was a dog issue. It became obvious that with fences at the exact property lines, cars (much less fire trucks) couldn't turn around, especially if there were parked cars on the street. It is my understanding that everyone casually agreed to pull their fences back to create parking and turning. The fences on the north side went back fifteen feet or so. The fences on the south side never went back. They are still on the property lines. Therefore East Meadow Subdivision homes, on the north side, park mostly on their own property. In my case, I park entirely on my own property. 28 Smuggler Grove, however, parks their vehicles entirely at the pleasure and tacit consent of the joint owners of the street, and not at all on their own property. The two houses proposed at 28 Smuggler Grove Road, fully occupied, could easily bring one or more car per bedroom onto the street, as recent history has proven at other rental properties on this same street. Each car, entering or leaving, will turn around on property owned and maintained by neighbors. If several cars a day do this, unwanted incursions onto private property numbering literally thousands of times yearly are guaranteed to occur. Mr. Bymes, by requesting a waiver of 2 on-site parking spots is ostensibly asking for adverse possession of the communal property in front of his proposed homes on Smuggler Grove Road. Too many cars parked on the street means limited access for fire trucks, emergency vehicles, and maintenance vehicles. The density of this neighborhood is very high, like Cemetery Lane, but unlike that area, all four streets bordering East Meadow Subdivision-Mdiand Avenue, Smuggler Grove Road, Mascotte Road, and Ardmore Drive-are narrow and substandard. A fire in East Meadow Subdivision would be hard to access, even with no cars in the way at all. Printed for Amy Guthrie <amyg@ci.aspen.co.us> 2 P61 Page two Attached find conceptual floor plans for the three floors ofthe building with proposed additional space highlighted. Expansion ofthe existing Elk's Lodge Meeting Room on the third floor is the most important force driving the expansion. Several uses for the second floor space have been discussed but the uses have not been determined at this time. The ground floor would consist largely of existing support services such as trash and shipping and receiving. Photo A shows a general view of the building from the corner ofHyman and Galena Streets. Photo B shows the 1991 elevator addition. The proposed development would leave this new elevation largely intact, although perhaps with some aesthetic modifications to integrate the new with the existing historic building. New development would take place adjacent to and behind the elevator addition. Photo C shows the rear of Lot M as taken from the alley. This would be the major area ofimpact as the existing void would be filled with a new faGade in roughly the same plane as the existing building. At this preliminary stage, the aesthetic character of additional construction has not been determined. However, the second floor ofthe South Elevation would be required to be very heavily fenestrated due to internal requirements for light. At this point, we can say that the Elk's are very aware ofthe important historic character of the building and will maintain very high standards of design, materials and workmanship in order to compliment that character. We look forward to your input to this very special historic project. Graeme Means /3 ULwdL-Q 1 ~ i '-I It - /.1 1 / 1, t .If..i i FLA,j : :, 1 Â· ...Vu , , 4- - 1 . Ff ,Â» 1 . ----: -j S- 944,. *f li:H';0'; twwk.WW 1 I 1 *fe ,.,; 14 11 -=. - /4...'.:.,1 miÂ®":ti,~ .' . -~ ~XÂ·' 4 1.4 .4. 1 4- ' i-- F Â· 93Â·.XÂ· Â·i.Â·*.:4Â·.'1:.,1 -- -- -- 4,1,6..re..44Â·rited ; 07 I 4 ' P~...71 F #.2*62' ~' ~ ~(~41 Pr~ 4' ~~~ 1.,-'.44[= < ~ r,~ -*- '. 4~1~4-*4,1 <01.../Â£*RA . Â· , kâ‚¬ 0 1 Ik t .1 1 , 11 0 tinat L -1. 1 -N!â‚¬1 it.*Alj:...Â·, EÂ»Â»123-7.;f, #l~'~~~ -- 7 - **f? :~ , 6 .2 Â£ \1 5 /,Il ' J :I. I - t '' 1' ti ?1 1 ' 1 Ne.,9/89)/ Â·-A A:Â·49,r<:7* 6 m it E J M= B E-IN X d , m / 4- " r.':ff. f i / I. I.' 4,â€¢r ... 41*],3 / 4. 1 'LI; L ! i Lu: -i f '.E -f ~ fli?f,j (!il .E5/:IMVJW' I 11.,1:..th 42#i.UL.2 2 -Ild/~.p'-m~P: Fl - 44 3432 Â· '1 r=, , 1 9 69â€¢ ''-r.1 m . N 4'',R- ~ i~ ~'tf GH.eM.?..2. /,2.1...9 1Â©71 A k::-: -:-- : : :: -<< il t-2 <H I tiE trf'Â·. LE,<;~13 8-- )..i,:8///.""I 1' -t:'.tA| 7...:1 1 1 1, .4 .. '911 w:"'*l' Â·'Â·. t. g, . 4 *'Af.l9:;LA-d,-H~~Mm"1--1.1 ~,94/1/ 6 11:'.3.---1.R[2Rfiy3â‚¬.:.f~.ri.U+:.:.:ni. r'[14:1.Ij4 ~ <1 rÂ·Â· r" 11 '- 7'4'Â· Â· 9.41. ~ L Â·Â· 1Â·l~ ~ 4'Â·' ~/FÂ·Â·'7'5.9'17:Â¥, ~ 1 11**hE***2*,*20 ,~~ , ~.11 t;V. Jt "1;All /.22â‚¬f:~.--9/Al":"Il"lill"'lill'gl"'ll . - I 89d F 1 rpe- -flAS,14 HAID NOCK CA FI < lili /4. FT I ' M i 1 1 L. 21 - - S[-4.IPPIK-ler AMIN Â¥AKDY LOFT 4 ' 183 8. FT. "R-EC-*5-1 V / b-1. (Er ' STAIAS 1 - 1 . _ ILIV STAIRS . HALL AMIN Â¥AKDr = F - 1 RS- T-- F L D O 12 - 1.11 .0. Fr. B 1 1 -10 1 -ED>774 L K.4 5\6/ :F LOO IE A- 2-*A = 1 69 6, 541 f . a&/ 'r 41 \\43Â» n n 1 1 r--1 n Il ill j 1 ----71 14*CH. 1 - iii C R . F UNIT 1 , Ill M. FT. UNIT 3, UNIT 17 I LI-kl IN-- 3 1 1-1- h-117- 3-3 3,0 W. FI. i UN I 1- 3 1 Â· 311 ./. r r HAL LWA Y 1/4 ./. FT. MICH. UNIT 25 -7 $1 I .1 Ll}Â·,41-t- 3.4- 1 J. . STAIAL - i UNIT 1 1 . 1.111 I. I. I ILIY . STAIRS HALL MALL UNIT 13 UNIT 23 175 * 1 142 :N u SECON D 710 Opt -7-67--4 -L h.4 E-Â»/ :F= l.-0 6 32 A.E.ELA - 1 1 2.6 974 -1 . ELI: LAA Ela Dul/ 14/MS . VOWIN S - i HALL 1 - I ulÂ·I IT 14 UNIT 13 UNIT 11 17. 1, 371 .0 305 WI , 4 - 1 E-0 EE- LKS HE.E.-r; hicr -knoM $ t STALLS ELIV. OFFICES STAIRS ILKS CLUB HALL -1-3-4 1 KE) FLOOR Br. 11 1 1 1=. lo 1-Earl- 1 1-1 G.r 2-00 11 I 619 s 62 -p-r* OFe\CE- 249 s O Prr -T-t) -TiL L h.4 42>*, f:T~ 1 9 16 91 E-n . 1 , <229 4 1 1 i i SET 5.6' WIT. COR. i NO. 4 RB W/ YEL CAP :WC 16!29* ALLEY BLOCK 34 20.90. R , 97 1 0 4~03.1 9 O.W., PAVED 9 98.1 46.7 +98.0 ~98.0 ~t (7 TEL - 3 SID' 0 _97.4 TV 4'*4' ELEC 6.6. TRANSFOR*IE . .EA418.2 + ENTRY ' â€¢ 100.0.+ IiI ... . +10 ., 4â€¢ 5 4 . , I . 4 . 99.if 4 I I . Â· 98.7 GAS - ~> 100.3 UETERS 499.4 ~-~ Â°9.7 +99 . 2 â‚¬0 ~~99,3 ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER Â· 99.6 99.7 GREASE RAPS 10 99.8 0 , 3 STORY MASONRY BUILDING 1.4Â· 15,3. WITH BASEMENT 9 . 99.8 -THE ELKS BUILDING- ENTRY FINISH FLOOR - 100.0 0 I k .0 P e 4 I '0.2Â· I. . I . .. . 4 4 . 99. I r . ..0 .. 10.6 . . 4 /4 . 0 4 0 I , . .. -'ll . . . . 4 , I . 99.6 99.5 PATIO ..'* 53,9, .:4 6 .AG . MEASURED 90.34- (90.27' RECORD) 99.3 4 1.0 OACHMENT LICENSE ip 3 PLANTER EN ROACHES 0.3â€¢/- 11 / 55.07__ - ME'* R ~GRATE 99.1 3 â€¢ 99.0 TREE . 99.0 STAIRWELL N 75Â°09. - CONC. 822IREE 11 W A WALK ~--<~RATE ~. 01 . 464 SURED 124303 ~IREE 3---/9~/dRATE & *gNER VALVE dIRr**:=[2r-6 ~47 prjvu 1 CUT 69 WATER VALV 49.1. - _ -- -~~ _ - _ 3~*17 AlkladOW,1 01 3 ON DN101189 Â· Oo -0 f d: 7 77~Kd Â·t tz M.64.05.*T S Â·90 AVAGA 1 80 3A '30.2