The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19990714 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION July 14, 1999 REGULAR MEETING, 5:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 12:00 NOON - Site Visits 332 W. Main St. 510 S. Galena Street, Elk's 5:00 I. Roll calland approval of June 9' 1999 minutes II. Public Comments III. Commission member comments and project monitoring IV. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) V. BUSINESS 5:05 A. 920 W. Hallam Street, Lot A and Lot B1 - extension of conceptual approval. C~/C 5:10 B. ]35 W. Hopkins Ave. - Continue Public Hearing to August 11, 1999 5:15 C. ' 400 W. Smuggler Street- Minor Development-TaiJ~_ 7La ~ .~ F' 6:05 E. '~10 S. Galena - Elgs Bui!d~g, amond~ ~~ 6:40 G. 121 N. Fifth Street - worksession 7:05 H. Adjourn PROJECT MONITORING Roger Moyer 406 E. Hopkins - ISIS 920 E. Hyman - Veronika, Inc. 930 King Street- NPJ 706 W. Main- Goldrich Susan Dodington 234 W. Francis - Mullins 421 W. Hallam Street 240 Lake Avenue- Greenberg Suzannah Reid 406 E. Hopkins- ISIS 117 N. 6th St. - Coulter 414 N. First- POLE 240 Lake Ave. Mary Hirsch 420 W. Francis Street- Halperin 930 King- NPJ 920 W. Hallam-Guthrie Jeffrey Halferty 234 W. Francis- Mullin 414 N. First- POLE 920 W. Hallam- Guttn'ie 101-105 E. Hallam (not active) Heidi Friedland 420 W. Francis Street- Halperin 232 E. Hallam St.- Pace 117 N. 6th St. - Coulter Lisa Markalunas 520 Walnut Street - Greenwood 939 E. Cooper- Langley 240 Lake Avenue- Greenberg Christie Kienast 520 Walnut Street - Greenwood 735 W. Bleeker- Bone Maureen McDonald 920 E. Hyman - Veronika Inc. 214 E. Bleeker Brumder CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: 834 W. Hallam (Poppie's), expires April 26, 2000 123 W. Francis, Lot B (Vickery), expires May 12, 2000 214 E. Bleeker Street, new out building expires August 12, 1999 920 W. Hallam Street, expires August 12, 1999 735 W. Bleeker old house expires Oct. 14, 1999 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS 1999 I. 117 n. 6TM St. - Coulter 2. 920 E. Hyman Ave. Lot N Block 32 3. 435 W. Main St. Lot A-I Block 38 4. 930 King St. 5. 920 E. Hyman 6. 735 W. Bleeker 7. 234 W. Francis 8. 205 S. Mill 9. 210 S. Galena 10.ISIS 406 E. Hopkins 11.234 W. Francis 12.234 W. Francis 13.424 E. Cooper Ave. 14.234 W. Francis (Mullins) 15 .DEPP 16.834 W. Hallam 17.2 Willjams way 18.531 E. Cooper 19.134 W. Bleeker 20.450 S. Galena 21.710 N. Third St.. 22.234 W. Francis St. 23.123 W. Francis 24.312 E. Hyman 25.930 King Street 26.117 N. Sixth 27.234 W. Francis 28.520 E. Durant St. 29.308 N. First Street 30.240 Lake Ave. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Joyce A. Ohlson, Deputy Director(._~) liE: 920 W. Hallam Street- Extension of Conceptual Approval DATE: July 14, 1999 SUMMARY: This project received conceptual development approval on August 12, 1998 through the adoption of HPC Resolution No. 15. Series 1998. The approving resolution stipulated that a final development plan must be filed within one (1) year of the date of the approval or by August 12, 1999. This time restriction is also supported by the Municipal Code Section 26.415.010.C.2.a(1). Unless HPC grants an extension, failure to file the final development application by August 12th shall make the approval null and void. The applicants have filed a letter requesting a six (6) month extension of the approval for the conceptual development plan for the two new houses to be built at 920 W. Hallam that was approved through Resolution No. 15, Series of 1998. The applicant cites that other work commitments of the project architect have precluded preparation of the final plans. The HPC has granted extensions of time for other projects in the City when warranted due to hardship, changed circumstances or other reasonable situations. There are no "official" criteria for granting extensions within the code; it is simply a matter left up to HPC judgemerit and decision. This is the first request for an extension on the subject development and property. Staff feels that the request for a six month extension is reasonable for several reasons as follows: · The conceptually approved design and development plans are still in conformmace with the design guidelines and other pertinent code provisions. · Conditions in the vicinity have not changed to warrant a reevaluation of the proposal. · The development is still compatible with the character and pattern of development in the neighborhood. · Only ten (10) months have passed since the approval and it reasonable that the final design documents could not be completed within that time period. The conceptual review packet is attached for your review. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the conceptual development plan approval for the aforementioned subject property be extended until February 12, 2000 and adoption of Resolution No. , Series 1999 RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to extend cohceptual approval for 920 W. Hallam Street, Lot A, Aspen Historic Cottages Historic Landmark Lot Split and Lot B2, Aspen Historic Cottages Common Interest Community to February 12, 2000." Exhibits: Resolution No. , Series of 1999. A. Applicant's Letter of Request B. Conceptual approval plans RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL AT 920 W. HALLAM STREET, LOT A, ASPEN HISTORIC COTTAGES HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT AND LOT B2, ASPEN HISTORIC COTTAGES COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITY, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 1999 WHEREAS, the applicant, Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC and Aspen Historic Cottages East, LLC represented by Chris LaCroix of Garfield and Hecht, P.C., has requested a six month extension of the HPC conceptual approval for the new houses to be built on the property located at 920 W. Hallam Street. The conceptual approval was originally granted on August 12, 1998. The property is a designated historic landmark; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.010.C.2.a(1) of the Municipal Code states that "Applications for a final development plan shall be flied within one (1) year of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Unless a written request for extension is filed with the community development department prior to the expiration of the one (1) year and is granted by HPC, the failure to file such an application shall render null and void the approval of a conceptual development plan previously granted by the HPC"; and WHEREAS, the conceptual approval granted by the HPC is set to expire on August 12, 1999; and WHEREAS, the staff memorandum dated July 14, 1999, prepared by Joyce A. Ohlson, Deputy Director of Community Development, recommended that an extension be granted; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on July 14, 1999, the Commission considered and approved the request without conditions by a vote of to NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That a six month extension of conceptual development plan approval for 920 W. Hallam Street, Lot A, Aspen Historic Cottages Historic Landmark Lot Split and Lot B2, Aspen Historic Cottages Common Interest Community, Aspen, Colorado be granted, to expire on February 12, 2000. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14th day of July, 1999. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk RONALDOARFIELD' GARFIELD & 5EC;FIT, P-C'- 60IEAST.Y C r ANDREW V. HECHT~ ATTORNEYS AT LAW ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 DAVID L. LENYO E-mail: atty~garfieldhecht,com ( 999 MATTHEW C. FERGUSONl ~OU ~qgF~B tN CHRISTOPHER J. LACROIX~.6 CHAD L SCHMKT~ 110 MIDLAND AVENUE SUITE 201 BASALT, COLORADO 81621 TELEPHONE (970) 927-1936 TELECOPIER (970~ 927-1783 July 1, 1999 Via Facsimile and First Class Mail Ms. Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director Members of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Facsimile: 920-5439 Re: 920 West Hallam Street- Recluest for Extension of Conceptual Approval Dear Ms. Ohlson and Members of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission: This firm's clients, Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC and Aspen Historic Cottages East, LLC are the owners of certain property located at 920 West Hallam Street (the "Property"). On August 12, 1998 the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission ("HPC") adopted HPC Resolution No. 15 (the "Resolution") approving, among other things, a conceptual development plan for the Property. Section 3, paragraph E of the Resolution provides that an apl~lication of a final development I~lan must be flied within one ( 1 ) year of the date of the Resolution (i.e., August 12, 1999). The architect working on this project recen~y informed me that due to his other commitmenU he will not be able to complete the work necessary to submit a final development plan in time to meet the deadline established in the Resolution. Therefore, please consider this letter as a request for a six (6) month extension of the conceptual development plan approved in the Resolution. Thank you in advance for considering this request. Please feel free to call me at 927-I 936 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Garfield at Hech P.. i cc: Ron Robertson ;-~.,, ~ ~ . . ~ . -= ................. :~ 7; - :: :~. '_ . . _.- :~ ...................... . L g, C, BOBiBTSON ' ARCHITECTS ~ ,' CARBONDALE, C.O, 81623 :- , ~ "':' '- ';~ - .. . .. c..o...~so.:~:~.cm~sc~s OAHBQNDALE~ OO.- 81823 ' ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. 870 · 9~. 8938 F~ · - 0 I0 - ~:~' L'~j - . , ~ ;' - ~ ~ ~ T =~..-.~ ~---~ R. C. ROBERTSON * ARCHITECTS ~. 910' g~ ' 8936 F~ ~,z~-~ ] R. C. ROBERTSO" · ARCHITECTS ~411 MAIN STREET, STUDIO ~ OARBONDALE, CO, 81823 . R. C. ROBERTSON · ARCHITECTS 417 MAIN 8TREET~ 8~DIO "A' ) CARBONDALE~ CO.- '- aie23 J ~7o:.,~os~: :.~:: ~:~ ::.: .~- :;:970. ~:~: e~e F~ ~:: c ' Z :': :' ,. ,- ~: '~ C. ROBERTSON · ARCHITECTS ,~IN STREET, STUDIO 'A~ ~. C. ROBERT~ON · ARCMITECTS 'CARBONDALE, CO. 81623 970,963. B936 F~ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director~:~ FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer liE: 400 W. Smuggler- minor review DATE: July 14, 1999 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to add dormers to a historic outbuilding. The subject property is a designated historic landmark. HPC reviewed the proposal on May 26, 1999 and required additional information about the proposed design. APPLICANT: Larry and Sara Dodge, represented by Steve Weaver, Insight Construction. LOCATION: 400 W. Smuggler, City and Tomsite of Aspen. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. I. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up t9 five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord ~vith dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: The applicant requests HPC approval to add dormers on a historic outbuilding. The outbuilding currently has a non-original shed dormer on the south side. The applicant would like to modify the shed dormer so that it terminates into a gable dormer on the south roof slope, and to add two new gable dormers on the noah side. The attached page from design guidelines created by Winter and Company, which are very similar to those currently being written for Aspen, discusses appropriate dormer additions on historic structures. The guidelines suggest that a gable dormer is most appropriate on a gable roofed building of this type, but emphasize that the dormer is to be a subordinate element. It should be located below the roof ridge, which is not the case with the proposed dormers. Staff also finds that the dormers as shown on the noah elevation are wider than might be appropriate for the structure and that this condition is particularly exaggerated by the three casement windows. The design must be modified so that the gable dormers sit below the roofline. To accomplish this it is likely that the shed dormer on the south would need to be removed and that there should be two new gable dormers on each side. The dormers should all be the size shown on the south elevation in the proposal. The domaers should have clapboard siding that matches the existing siding on the outbuilding. In terms of windows, the dormers should have casements which match the size and proportion of the ones that have already been installed although this would not have been the preferred window style. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The neighborhood has numerous historic outbuildings which have been adapted to residential use. The proposed development allows the historic outbuilding to be useful livable space by adding head height and additional light. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The proposal will not affect the historic significance of the buildings. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposed development will not affect the architectural character or integrity of the historic structures if designed as discussed under review standard I. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: · Approve the Minor Development application as submitted. · Approve the Minor Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. · Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) · Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the minor development application for 400 W. Smuggler with the following conditions: 1. The design shall be modified to show two new dormers gable dormers on each side of the roof. The dormers shall be the same size as the gable portion of the dormer proposed on the south side. 2. The new dormers shall be set below the ridgeline of the existing structure. 3. The dormers shall have clapboard siding that matches the existing siding on the outbuilding. 4. The dormers shall have casement windows which match the size and proportion of the ones that have already been installed. 5. All representations made by the applicant or applicant's representative in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 6. Any amendments to the approved drawings must be provided to staff and monitor for review and approval prior to undertaking the work. 7. Retain all existing materials on the exterior of the historic buildings, other than those herein approved for restoration or replacement. 8. No other exterior changes, beyond what is approved herein, may be undertaken without further review. 9. 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. Exhibits: Resolution No. , Series of 1999 A. Staff memo dated July 14, 1999. B. Application. C. Minutes of May 26, 1999. D. Relevant design guidelines for dormers. RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 400 W. SMUGGLER STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 1999 WHEREAS, the applicants, Larry and Sara Dodge, represented by Insight Construction, have requested minor development approval for the property located at 400 W. Smuggler Street, Fractional Lots R and S, Block 33, City and Townsite of Aspen and Fractional Lots 18 and 19, Block 33, Hallam's Addition to the City and Tomsite of Aspen. The property is a designated historic landmark; and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated July 14, 1999, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found favorably for the application, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on July 14, 1999, the Historic Preservation Cotmission considered the application, forrod the application to meet the standards, and approved the application with conditions by a vote of to NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That minor development for 400 W. Smuggler Street, Fractional Lots R and S, Block 33, City and Townsite of Aspen and Fractional Lots 18 and 19, Block 33, Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen be approved with the following conditions: 1. The design shall be modified to show two new dormers gable dormers on each side of the roof. The dormers shall be the same size as the gable portion of the dormer proposed on the south side. 2. The new dormers shall be set below the ridgeline of the existing structure. 3. The dormers shall have clapboard siding that matches the existing siding on the outbuilding. 4. The dormers shall have casement windows which match the size and proportion of the ones that have already been installed. 5. All representations made by the applicant or applicant's representative in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 6. Any amendments to the approved drawings must be provided to staff and monitor for review and approval prior to undertaking the work. 7. Retain all existing materials on the exterior of the historic buildings, other than those herein approved for restoration or replacement. 8. No other exterior changes, beyond what is approved herein, may be undertaken without further review. 9. 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. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14th day of July, 1999. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Stricldand, Chief Deputy Clerk ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAY 26, 1999 Amy stated that a drawing needs submitted regarding the shed donner before a building permit can be issued. Steve stated that recently the owners decided that they would rather do four dormers, two on each side on opposite sides of the building. There is an existing stairway and the space is unusable due to the roof line that goes to the floor. Amy stated that Christie's parents owned this house and possibly she could shed some light on the project. Roger clarified that the existing owners would like to take off the existing shed donner and put on four more traditional type gable dormers. Steve stated that they would not be obtrusive and would be the same height of the one existing. The owners are into the historical quality of the house and they want to do what the HPC recommends. The decision to alter the plans is due to space constraints and they want to put a bed in that area. Suzannah asked about the proposed triangle window. Amy said if the gable is proposed she is recommending removal of the triangle window as it is an architectural complication of the building. Christie relayed that her parents owned the house for thirty years and she lived there for a long time. The reason the house was sold in 1987 is because the HPC would not allow her to put a donner on the house. Her parents rebuilt the house and the shed dormer was there since early 60's. She feels the gable dormers do not go with the house but she is not opposed to the a shed donner on the alley. The board was amenable to some kind of donner on the house, preferably a shed donner. The board also felt that drawings should be presented to the entire board as the house is a landmark. A statement was made having four dormers might be overpowering on the little building. MOTION.' Heidi moved to continue 400 I~. Smuggler until July 14,' second by Roger. All in favor, motion carried. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAY 26, 1999 different stores with awnings. She appreciates the character and historic nature of the town. Pictures were presented that indicated a lot of predominance of the white and navy in the signage of the different stores. She would like to keep what she has as it has already been paid for. She stated h. er awning has been blue and white for six years. Several awning are the blue with a brown or gold. ' Patricia stated that it is difficult because both Chanel and Polo have signature colors. MOTION.' Roger moved to allow the tenant at Peaches en Regal to keep their navy and white awning which she has had for the last six years; second by Heidi. All in favor, motion carried 400 W. SMUGGLER - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Lisa and Maureen were seated. Sworn in was Steve Weaver. Amy informed the Board that the application is to add dormers to an historic outbuilding on the site. The property is an historic landmark. The owners have presented a couple options. On the south side of the cottage there is a shed dormer. They could match that shed dormer or they could do gable dormers on the back and change the shed to a gable dormer. Staff is recommending that the shed dormer be added because it has a lower profile and there is no reason to tear off an existing structure. Staff has listed conditions as to how the siding should be applied, what the windows should look like; they should be casement windows, and also noting that the decorative trim work should not be added. Steve stated that the decorative trim has been removed. Standards for Roofs ROOFS, continued... Roofs on Additions Roof top, side or rear additions The roof form of an addition should be compatible with the roof form of the primary structure, in terms of its pitch and orientation. In planning a Gable roo~ roof top addition, one should avoid altering the angle of the roof and instead should maintain the perceived historic roof line, as seen from the street. Dormers Historically a dormer was sometimes added to create more head room in Hip roo~ attic spaces: it typically had a vertical emphasis and was usually placed as a single or in a pair on a roof. A dormer did not dominate a roof form, as it was subordinate in scale to the primary roof. Thus, a new dormer should always read as a subordinate element to the primary roof plane. A new dormer should never be so large that the original roof line is obscured. It should also be set back from the roof edge and located below the roof ridge in most cases. In addition, the style of the new dormer should be in Place a new donner such that the roof line keeping with the style of the house. is preserve& as in the sketches above. Gabled dormer Appmpriate for: Most architectural styles Hip dormer Shed dormer Appropriate for: Appropriate for: Most architectural styles Bungalows Design Standards for Salt Lake City Page 101 jut. ~3 9 1999 no UNIFY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director~ FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer 302 E. Hopkins Avenue- Conceptual, Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, Residential Design Review-Public Hearing (Continued from June 9, 1999) DATE: July 14, 1999 SUMMARY: The applicant requests conceptual, partial demolition, on-site relocation, and "Residential Design Review" approval. HPC has held a worksession and site visit on the project, and continued the review heating with recommendations for revision on June 9, 1999. This property is a designated historic landmark and is located in the Commercial Core Historic District. APPLICANT: John Davis, represented by Vectors/Jake Vickery Architects. LOCATION: 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lot K, Block 80, City and Tomsite of Aspen. Commercial Core zone district. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District and all development involving historic landmarks must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may gxant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: This house was built in 1883, which makes it one of the oldest remaining structures in the Aspen Townsite. Throughout it's history it has been used for both commercial and residential purposes. It is the only example of a "Carpenter Gothic" building in Aspen, defined by the steeply pitched roof and decorative trim on the front of the building. (Carpenter Gothic is the Gothic Revival style carried out in wood rather than stone.) The applicant wishes to add more commercial space above and below grade, and to add a new flee market apartment. In a worksession held on April 28, 1999, the architect was encouraged to look at the idea of demolishing a non-historic addition to the house and moving the outbuilding closer to it, thereby freeing up the back part of the lot for a separate new commercial building. This would keep the outbuilding intact and directly related to the old house. The new building would appear to be on its own small lot, a similar concept to the historic landmark lot split. Staff finds that the suggestion at the worksession was an excellent way to remove the impacts of a new addition from the historic structures. On June 9, HPC reviewed a proposal which followed the basic concept from the worksession, but attached the new construction to the historic structure. The HPC members expressed significant concem with the connector, with the majority of the board saying that they would not support it- that the new construction needs to be completely detached from the historic structure. Some members of the board felt that the new commercial space should not be taller than two stories, while others were willing to entertain a third story if the connector was eliminated. The idea of sett'mg back the third story was emphasized. While there were some comments about making the architecture of the new commercial space quite different from the Carpenter Gothic architecture of the old house, staff specifically asked the board for clarification on this point. The board agreed that there does need to be a direct relationship and a clear compatibility between the structures. The revised design that has been submitted does not include an above grade attachment between the new commercial space and the historic buildings. The three structures are freestanding. The building has been made into a full three stories, with a roof deck element on top of it. The architecture has changed significantly from the conceptual proposal. Staff f'mds that the project has made progress in the sense that the connections between the three structures have been eliminated, however, the new commercial space still sits in the background of the historic shed, now in a three story form. It is staffs feeling that the idea presented at the worksession to move the historic shed was to create a new building footprint on the rear section of the lot. The new construction was to be contained in that footprint, not to connect to the historic structures or bleed over into the space that had been reserved for them. Staff therefore does not support having any new above grade construction on the lot except for in the roughly 24'x30' footprint on the rear of the property. The addition of a fourth story element on the new commercial building is not compatible with the historic structure on the lot. While there has been an effort to encourage taller buildings in the downtown, staff feels that it is not appropriate on a lot which contains a single story historic house. A roof deck can be used on top of the building, but a covering over that deck is not appropriate. Staff also finds that the architecture has become incompatible with the historic resource. As was emphasized on June 9m, the property has the potential to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is very important to the early development history of Aspen. This is not the location for contemporary design. In stuffs opinion the architecture proposed on June 9, or another design which uses similar historical references should be pursued. Because the property is a designated landmark, certain exempfions from Growth Management are available to the applicant to offset historic presercation restrictions. For instance, new below grade commercial space can be created without competing for allocations or providing affordable housing mitigation. The existing free market unit in the basement of the house was awarded through a Growth Management exemption, and is being transferred to a new location on the second and third stories of the proposed new construction. (The basement unit is expected to be deed restricted as affordable housing to mitigate for the new above grade commercial space.) Staff finds that these are important incentives and are an adequate compromise by the City to provide oppommities to develop on the site. Site Plan No trees will be removed or relocated as part of this proposal. The front and side of the house will remain grass, but a basement will be placed under the rear one third of the site, so the outbuilding has some pavement around it. The applicant must consult the Parks Department to conram that excavation impacts to street trees will be properly addressed. Variances The property is located in the Commercial Core Historic District, which does not have any setback requirements. The applicant will have to apply to the Planning and Zoning Commission for Special Review to eliminate the on-site parking spaces. This has typically been approved on other downtown sites, where on-street parking is more appropriate. PARTIAL DEMOLITION Applications for partial demolition must meet all of the following review standards: 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. Response: The applicant proposes to demolish a rear addition on the existing house. Building permit records indicate that a basement was put under part of the house in 1958 and the addition was made in 1960. Staff finds the addition does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: The area of demolition is not original or significant. b. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity Of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Response: This issue is addressed under the conceptual review standards. ON-SITE RELOCATION Applications for on-site relocation must meet all of the following standards: 1. Standard: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. Response: The outbuilding is to be moved so that an appropriate location for new construction can be created on the site. The outbuilding will maintain prominence on the site and in fact will be set closer to the street. 2. Standard: The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Response: Said report, from a structural engineer or housemover, shall be a condition of approval. 3. Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: Financial assurance in the amount of $15,000 will be required as a condition of approval, along with a plan for how the building will be moved and stored during construction. The outbuilding will likely have to be temporarily stored Off-site. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The residential space is on the second floor of the new construction, but must still meet the "Residenf~al Design Standards." From the information provided, staff finds that it will comply. STAFF SUMMARY AND FINDINGS: Staff recommends that the project be continued to August 12, 1999 with the following direction: 1. All new construction must be contained within a footprint of approximately 24'x 30' On the rear of the lot. 2. Confirm all zoning and building code implications of having three detached structures on the site. 3. Consult the Parks Department before the next HPC review to confirm that excavation impacts to street trees will be properly addressed. Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated July 14, 1999. B. Application. C. Inventory form. D. 1893 Bird's Eye View of the site. E. 1904 Sanborne Map. F. West elevation presented on June 9, 1999. G. Minutes from June 9, 1999. ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 2. Project location '~'7_ -~., (indicate street address, lot and ~lock number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning ~ 4. Lot size 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number ~ ~. 6 R . epresent tive's name, address, and phone number 7. Type of application (check all that apply): ~ .Conditiona~ Use Conceptual SPA ~ Conceptual HPC . Special Review Final SPA Final HPC ' 8040 Greenline · Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision TextMap Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allot~e~t ~ GMQS exe~ptio~ ~ De~olPa~ial De~o V~6W PJSR6 CODdO~j~jU~jZSt~OR D6S~gR R6V~6W Lot SplitLot Line Appeal Commi~ee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and ~pe of existing structures, approximate sq. ~., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the prope ) / 9. Description of development application ~_/AJ ':,~T:~TL/PA" ! ~- . 10. Have you completed and attached the following? Attachment 1- Land use application form Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form Response to Attachment 3 Response to Attachments 4 and 5 ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Address: '¢~ 0 ~- ~. ~4r~'F1/-~ ~ / Zone district: Lot size: ~, ~ ? Existing FAR: Allowable FAR: 4', ~o Proposed FAR: ~ ~r'7~"..~ L/~ ~LA~ Existing net leasable (corZn/mercial): Proposed net leasable (commercial): 7,/~r CA~-N'~'~/S ~-k/-~ -/-/.~,,~ Exis'~ing % of site coverage: ,/V//r Proposed % of site coverage: /f/A- , Existing % of open space: //~" ¢ '- ~ Proposed % of open space: ~_~'2/~, ,~F__.~2'Z::> = ?~E~/, 7~'/¢' = Z,~"'-/-X Existing maximum height: Principal bldg: ¢J/I--? Accesory bldg:/; ' Proposed max. height: Principal bldg: ~ Accessory bldg: Proposed % of demolition: /~0 ¢-//c/O =- Existing number of bedrooms: I ~_/-/'~--z:Z~///1 Proposed number of bedrooms: ~ Existing on-site parking spaces: ] On-site parking spaces required: ~ Setbacks Existing: Minimum required: Proposed: Front: ~. ~ z~ Front: o Front: ~'. ~' '- Rear: o Rear: o Rear: o ' Combined , Combined Combined Front/rear: <~.E' J Front/rear:. o Front/rear: Side: ~;- c~' Side: o Side: Side: N~ ~.~ / Side: ~ Side: ,~/ Combined Combined Combined Sides: ~. ~' "' Sides: ~ Sides: Existingnonconformitiesorencroachments: 7'/ldNg- .//---Nd3MIv' Variations requested: 3 7:::~f2-/~,i/~ ~E.~,~ - 7 / ., r-o ' / (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq .ft., site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the cottage. infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R- - 6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O zone districts) 302 East Hopkins, Davis Following are our written description of this project and explanation of the ways it conforms to applicable review standards. SECTION 26.4'15.0t0(C}(5), Development involving a historic site or structures or development in an "H", Historic Overlay District, Review Standards. a. This project proposes to retain the historical portions of the existing house and outbuilding in tact. To accomplish this preservation, the rear non-historic addition to the house is removed and the existing outbuilding is relccated on-site to this area of the site. A new structure is then proposed to accommodate additional FAR on the rear of the site. The new structure is extended along the wall of the adjacent brick building on the east and onto a recessed area on the roof cf the historic addition. The architecture of the new 'addition" is derivative of and simplified from the existing house so as to not compete architecturally. A clear distinction between old and new is created. All mctodzed mechanical equipment and ductwork will be housed inside the new structure.. b. The character cf the "addition" is interpretive of Victorian character using more contempora~ materials and details. The addition is designed in a commercial vernacular to reflect its tccaticn in the Commercial Core district and its use for multi-use purposes. c. & d. The proposed development strategy retains the historic structures and places new development in a visually separated massing at the rear of the property. The third floor of the rear structure is "minimized' by a strong cornice at the top of the second floor and recessing the walls of the third floor back from the wall plane of the lower section of the building. Light wells for the basement level are avoided by incorporating low windows in the west wall, located under a window display shelf, which has the effect of skylightir~g the basement spaces. -: ALLEY BLOCK :'. HOPKKNS AVE. IMPROVEMEI~/T SURVEY '3OZ lf.~, VectorsPC/' Jake Vickem,,' Architecture Aspen 302 East Hopkins Streetscape 4/28/00 Photo: Charies ,-x, bbot: "" ,' ~'. :: '~ .t .....-'.-'-' ''~' '---'~ '-'.-'-7. ~-_',-~.,~' .~" .~ ..... - .. . ...... : ..... I. - ...... ~~~:~: .....:.. , ,. " ". ii .... " ....... ~.' ' i" _ ' ....... · ..""L.".:'::';-'.-":'::;:""~z.;'.,.,'.-;~,.;- 2"/':'-: ".::-:= '--j :'~'::' '" '""""!:'~"::"''""' '%: "7;:':!~"'~;""':'="T:~ ! '".. ,7 '::"--' i'::-":' :"' ::": .. ....' '!!: ':.-.-' '.: ....""...__.__:..: ::"'____.. ....:: ........,, ' ,.:. ..... ........::.,::--= J ,,,. "r' ....... ~ ";' ;""'""~:" ' . ~ ............... '-. ':'_-:.:r.= "~-":'-.:---.~..-.-..~:--.-:-' "-"--P"'!':: '-~':~:7i":' .::_':L:"-::~::7'_:i -7_.'! ':" ........~--"'~":-';"'=' --'-- I '~ ; I J PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION '302. EAzST HOPKINS ' J .... ~A-I<EN-ICKERY ARCHITECTS 6.30.99 --' -' I PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 302 EAST HOPKINS JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 6.30.99 . ........... 7:-""P'R*'O"P(bS'EI~GRO12ND'FEO'ORPEAN" 302 EAST HOPKINS dAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 6.30.99 PROPOSED SECOND ELOOR PLAN 302 EAST HOPKINS" JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 6.30.99 ,Y~"* I~ ~,t, PROPOSED THIRD FLOOR PLAN 302 EAST HOPKINS JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 6.30.99 ~,o,. ,,,'..o,, PROPOSED FOURTH FLOOR PLAN 302 EAST HOPKtNS, JAKE VIOKERY AROHITEGTS 6.30.99 'J't,"' le''~" "' HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM State Site Number: Local Site Nuanber: 302.EH Photo Information: ASP-CC-2-11 and ASP-CC-2-!2 Township 10 South Range 84 West Section 7 USGS Quad. Name Asoen Year 1960 X 7.5' 15' Building or Structure Name: A.G. SheDerd / Chatfield Residence Full Street Address: 302 East Hookins Legal Description: Lot K, Block 80 CitV and Townsite of Aspen City Aspen County Pitkin Historic District or Neighborhood Name: Commercial Core Owner: Private/State/Federal Owner's Mailing Address: ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Building Type: Residence Architectural Style: Victorian Miner's CottaGe Dimensions: L: x W: = Square Feet: Number of Stories: 1 Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): L-shaDed Landscaping or Special Setting Features: Mature cottonwood west side; wrought iron fence around yard Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material and Function (map number / name): 100 sGuare foot sinGle-Gabled, wood shake roof; clapboard with fixed glass and 1/2 light over wood Danel door For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in the description as appropriate: Roof: Cross Gabled; wood shingles Walls: Clapboard with horizontal wood boards at Dorch enclosure Foundation / Basement: Concrete masonry unit with windows to the west side of the basement Chimney(s): Red brick at center ridge Windows: 6 over 6 double hung wood with arched crown at front windows and west side; wood shutters Doors: Stained-~lass transom / 1/2 light / wood Danel Porches: Shed at entry on square built-up Dosts with simDle arched brackets General Architectural Description: Unique verGeboard detail and finials. An excellent examole of a tYPiCal AsPen Victorian Miner's CottaGe. Features such as the front ~able (steeo.Oitch) with ornate verGeboard and trimmed out with horizontal clapboard sidina; cross ~able with centraliv located chimney and front entry with oorch; and lonG/narrow double hung windows. Wood finials at each Gable end. Page 2 of 2 State Site Number Local Site Number 302.EH FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Current Use: Residential Architect: Unknown Original Use: Residential Builder: Unknown Intermediate Use: Residential Construction Date: 1883 X Actual Estimate · Based On: Assessor MODIFICATIONS AND/ORADDITIONS Minor Moderate X Major__ Moved__ Date Describe Modifications and Date: Exterior detailing modifications~ dates unknown Additions and Date: Cellar added and kitchen enlarged to rear~ dates unknown NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA IS listed on National Register; State Register Is eligible for National Register; State Register Meets National Register Criteria: A__ B __ C D E __ Map Key Local Rating and Landmark Designation ' ~ Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register Contributing: Resource has maintained historic or /! architectural integrity. O Supporting': Original integrity lost due to alterations, however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort. Locally Designated Landmark Justify Assessment: Associated Contexts and Historical Information: One of the very early Victorian Miner's CottaGes built (1883~. Built bV A.G. SheDpard, later sold to D.R.C. Brown who retained it in the family until 1898. D.R.C. Brown was involved in the develoOment of AsOen through his investments in mininG. Other Recording Information Specific References to the Structure/Building: "Asoen Early Days, HoDton & Schuldner; Pitkin County Courthouse Records Archaeological Potential: N (Y or N) Justify: Recorded By: Date: March 1991 Affiliation: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee - City of AsDen Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer/Planner L'Z6 2?.8 Z&C &~B 2~: II &~O 6~2 50g so6 3Oa SiP 312 Slq S~8 b2 ~.:05t~ &2~ ~30 382 3Zq~ ~ ~ ,~. ~. , ' ' ' ~ 7 ":' ~ ~ i - ~, 0 . 80 :~ i"i~ ~ ~~ ~ I , ,I~ l~ ,~ '. ~ ~ ~' ~ Z ~ N ~ z ' ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. JUNE 9. 1999 302 E. HOPKINS AVENUE Jeffrey was seated at 5:20. Lisa and Christie were seated. Sworn in: Mark Haldeman John Davis Heidi recused herself. Amy informed the board that a site visit was done and a worksession was held a month ago. The property is on the comer of East Hopkins and Monarch and it is a 3,000 square foot lot and it is a locally designated landmark. The house is in the original core of the city 1883. It is a very important house. The proposal is to remove the addition on the back of the house which was built in 1960. Staff has no concern with that proposal. They are asking to relocate the outbuilding behind the historic house close to the street so that it has high visibility and create a new lot for the commercial construction. A basement will be placed under the rear part of the lot. Staff recommends that the Parks Dept. be contacted concerning the trees and excavation. In terms of the architecture of the proposal the idea at the worksession was to make the historic structure separate and distinct. The proposal is to link everything together and Staff recommends removal of the link or at least the second story. Staff requests that the HPC study the height of the three story tower and whether it is appropriate or not. John Davis stated that the historic shed would be moved forward and if the attachments are hooked on from a commercial feasibility to be able to have that one space would be better for rent. If it is detached it can't. The recess is ten feet back. Commercial would be on the first floor and residential on the second. The historic house will not be moved or have a basement. He said the development is probably three feet from the sidewalk but there is a drip line. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JUNE 9, 1999 The shed would move east and a three story addition is proposed on the alley comer. The architect Jake Vickery could not present due to a conflict of interest. John Davis, contractor tried to explain what was going on with the site but he stated he is not prepared to do a presentation. Suzarmah opened the public hearing. John said what they are trying to get out of the meeting is direction on the mass and scale so they can proceed further for the next meeting. The fagade of the glass is not at the street level; it is behind the shed and isolates the little shed. The connector is 12 feet wide and will be office use. The new commercial building sits on the property line of the alley and on the sidewalk side it will be on the drip line of the trees which is probably three feet in from the sidewalk because the spruce trees hang over the sidewalk. The zoning allows retail or office use. There is one existing parking space and the proposal is to pay cash in lieu. The shed will have a basement under it. The shed is 150 square feet and will be used as an entrance to the basement and category unit, down below on each side. Jake said one option is to attach the relocated shed through the rear of the shed to the connector and in doing that the spaces would be able to be linked together and make that commercial space more larger and usable space. Sworn in: Roget Kuhn Nicklaus Kuhn Roget said his parent's project at 303 E. Main was similar. This house could easily be on the national register in its present form. If the improvements are done he felt it could never be on the register. He feels the parking space should be maintained, as they had to maintain a parking space on their property. On his property staff was very concerned about attaching 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. JUNE 9. 1999 anything to the building and they could not attach anything and this proposal has an attachment. He also feels the sidewalk should be widened like they widened their sidewalk. Nicklaus Kuhn, neighbor passed sound a picture of 1950 which shows the importance of the alley and how many houses were really lost. It is very important that what is historic is left on the site. The space between the sidewalk and trees is much smaller and if the sidewalk is widened the building needs to move back further away from the sidewalk. Roget stated that his carriage house is separated and not connected and it is a clear distinction between new and old. There is too much going on with that space. Chairperson Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Susan stated that the house could be eligible for the National Register. Maureen stated that there should not be an attachment to the house. She also does not like the massing behind the shed and prefers that the shed stay in its original location if possible. The third floor on the commercial is not appropriate. If the attachment goes away she would be willing to consider a third floor on the commercial. Christie agreed with everything Maureen said. Lisa has concerns about the relocation of the shed out of its historic location. At the same time to put another structure between the historic house and the shed and detaching the shed further from the house is not appropriate either. She prefers a two story addition on the commercial building in the alley. The massing of a third story is too significant. The landscaping should be retained. Concrete should not encompass the carriage house as it will loose its setting. The connection to the historic structure is a concern. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. JUNE 9, 1999 Susan said the third story on the commercial building is much too dominating over a one story historic structure. She would never approve the three story. The connector should be as minimal as possible, and not office space. Since the buildings are going to be connected through the basement she does not see the need for a connector on the surface. In this way it saves the historic house from being attached to the new structure. She would never approve attaching the shed to the connector as Jake suggested. The shed should stay whole. She would also not want that space to be used just as an entrance. There is also concern about the height of the new structure, connector eliminated and the shed stay whole. She commends the applicant for not touching the historic house. Mary relayed that she is willing to go along with moving the carriage house closer to the main historic structure in order to get commercial space. She also feels that the commercial space does not need to relate to the Victorian house as it is a new structure. She has no problem with the three stories on the commercial. She would like to see developers maintain the historic structure as is and work with the basements, the commercial space etc. and adapt the historic structures as they are. She does not like the connectors or the glass. Jeffrey is not comfortable with the shed being attached to the new addition. If a basement. is proposed detailing needs to be submitted so that it doesn't stick out above grade. The three story development is acceptable. A detailed landscape plan needs submitted. Roger said at the worksession it was mentioned that the second addition could be demolished and allowing the cottage to be moved and in doing so that would give you the freedom to design a truly unique building. In light of that he would move to table to a date certain with the following comments: 1. No problem with the height of the commercial building. 2. A model is needed. 3. The new addition should not attempt relate to the carpenter gothic of the historic building. That means in the type of siding and trim etc. He wants the addition to be totally different. 4. He is not sure about the linkage. It should not be higher than the cottage door and totally transparent. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. JUNE 9, 1999 S. The cottage should remain an active building. 6. How the cottage sits on a basement is of the utmost importance. It should sit on the ground as it is now. 7. The landscape design is very important. The new building with the concept of the historic false front on the top should be removed. Stay away from the Victorian as it does not relate. Suzannah concurred with Roger and the rest of the board. The only possibility for the carriage house is to be moved. The linkage needs studied. She might be able to accept a little two story piece on the back of the building that would set off the little cottage and not plug it into the u- shaped thing. She supports the three story commercial building. The third floor does need some kind of setback. The little cottage needs to be a functioning space. Maureen stated that often attachments are allowed to historic structures when they cannot be seen from the street. In this case, not only is it a corner, it is a primary corner in the downtown core. It is impossible for the connector to be transparent. She feels there should not be a connector as it might prohibit the building from being on the National Register. Christie stated that she completely disagrees with the concept of taller buildings in the core area. It does not go with the historic blue print of Aspen. It has always been said that buildings will not be taller than the opera house. That has been the history ofAspen. Susan said she objects to buildings being tall that overwhelm the historic house. She would agree to the third story if the connector disappeared altogether. Mary stated that she is not for the connector but to preserve what little we have left we have to go to three stories. Amy stated that the site is very important and the buildings need to relate to each other. The Board clearly did not support the connector. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JUNE 9. 1999 MOTION.' Roger moved to continue Conceptual Development for 302 E. Hopkins until July 14, 1999; second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried. Yes Vote: Roger, Jeffrey, Suzarmah, Mary, Susan, Lisa, Christie 121 N. FIFTH STREET - HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT Disclosure Jeffrey disclosed that Ernie Fyrwald contacted him initially when looking at the lot but he was not retained and in no way will his decision be influenced. 6 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION July 14, 1999 REGULAR MEETING, 3:UU p.m. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 12:00 NOON - Site Visits 332 W. Main St. 510 S. Galena Street;Elk's 5:00 I. Roll call and,approval of June 9' 1999 minutes II. Public Comments s III. Commission member comments and project monitoring IV. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) V. BUSINESS ' Rq jo 5:05 A. 920 W. Hallam Street, Lot A and Lot Bl - extension of conceptual approval. DRL 5:10 B. 135 W. Hopkins Ave. - Continue Public Hearing to August 11, 1999 1 P50 5:15 C. 400 W. Smuggler Street - Minor Development -7144- 0 942 7 4 5:35 D. ~ 302 ZE.,Hopkins - Conceptual, ~art~l Demolition, On-site relocation, 6:05 E. *TiFSFGalena - Elg@lluildingA:mendmelit <~f>-f~Â«'41-- . I 6:20 F. FM-W.1Â¥[alirSC=wor*session-tontlnneine-fitetie-**eal:HIg-m.JÂ» *19999Â£7*04 te- 6:40 G. 121 N. Fifth Street - worksession ,:05 H. Adjourmt> PROJECT MONITORING ger Moyer 406 E. Hopkins - ISIS 920 E. Hyman - Veronika, Inc. 930 King Street- NPJ 706 W. Main- Goldrich Susan Dodington 234 W. Francis - Mullins 421 W. Hallam Street 240 Lake Avenue- Greenberg Suzannah Reid 406 E. Hopkins- ISIS 117 N. 6~ St. - Coulter 414 N. First- POLE 240 Lake Ave. Mary Hirsch 420 W. Francis Street- Halperin 930 King- NPJ 920 W. Hallam-Guthrie ffrey Halferty 234 W. Francis- Mullin 414 N. First- POLE 920 W. Hallam- Guthrie 101-105 E. Hallam (not active) Heidi Friedland 420 W. Francis Street- Halperin 232 E. Hallam St.- Pace 117 N. 6th St. - Coulter Lisa Markalunas 520 Walnut Street - Greenwood 939 E. Cooper- Langley 240 Lake Avenue- Greenberg Christie Kienast 520 Walnut Street - Greenwood 735 W. Bleeker- Bone Maureen McDonald 920 E. Hyman - Veronika Inc. 214 E. Bleeker Brumder CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: ;4 W. Hallam (Poppie's), expires April 26,2000 123 W. Francis, Lot B (Vickery), expires May 12, 2000 214 E. Bleeker Street, new out building expires August 12, 1999 920 W. Hallam Street, expires August 12, 1999 735 W. Bleeker old house expires Oct. 14, 1999 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS 1999 1. 117 n. 6TH St. - Coulter 2. 920 E. Hyman Ave. Lot N Block 32 3. 435 W. Main St. Lot A-I Block 38 4. 930 King St. 5. 920 E. Hyman 6. 735 W. Bleeker 7. 234 W. Francis 8. 205 S. Mill 210 S. Galena .ISIS 406 E. Hopkins 11.234 W. Francis 12.234 W. Francis 13.424 E. Cooper Ave. 14.234 W. Francis (Mullins) 15.DEPP 16.834 W. Hallam 17.2 Williams way 18.531 E. Cooper 19.134 W. Bleeker 20.450 S. Galena 21.710 N. Third St. Â· 22.234 W. Francis St. 23.123 W. Francis 24.312 E. Hyman 25.930 King Street 26.117 N. Sixth 27.234 W. Francis .520 E. Durant St. .308 N. First Street 30.240 Lake Ave. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Joyce A. Ohlson, Deputy Director c ~ -1 RE: 920 W. Hallam Street- Extension of Conceptual Approval DATE: July 14, 1999 SUMMARY: This project received conceptual development approval on August 12, 1998 through the adoption of HPC Resolution No. 15. Series 1998. The approving resolution stipulated that a final development plan must be filed within one (1) year of the date of the approval or by August 12, 1999. This time restriction is also supported by the Municipal Code Section 26.415.010.C.2.*1). Unless HPC grants an extension, failure to file the final development application by August 12~h shall make the approval null and void. The applicants have filed a letter requesting a six (6) month extension of the approval for the conceptual development plan for the two new houses to be built at 920 W. Hallam that was approved through Resolution No. 15, Series of 1998. The applicant cites that other work commitments of the project architect have precluded preparation of the final plans. The HPC has granted extensions of time for other projects in the City when warranted due to hardship, changed circumstances or other reasonable situations. There are no "official" criteria for granting extensions within the code; it is simply a matter left up to HPC judgement and decision. This is the first request for an extension on the subject development and property. Staff feels that the request for a six month extension is reasonable for several reasons as follows: * The conceptually approved design and development plans are still in conformance with the design guidelines and other pertinent code provisions. * Conditions in the vicinity have not changed to warrant a reevaluation ofthe proposal. * The development is still compatible with the character and pattern of development in the neighborhood. * Only ten (10) months have passed since the approval and it reasonable that the final design documents could not be completed within that time period. The conceptual review packet is attached for your review. a, RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the conceptual development plan approval for the aforementioned subject property be extended until February 12, 2000 and adoption of Resolution No. , Series 1999 RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to extend coheeptual approval for 920 W. Hallam Street, Lot A, Aspen Historic Cottages Historic Landmark Lot Split and Lot B2, Aspen Historic Cottages Common Interest Community to February 12,2000." Exhibits: Resolution No. , Series of 1999. A. Applicant's Letter of Request B. Conceptual approval plans RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 0 APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL AT 920 W. HALLAM STREET, LOT A, ASPEN HISTORIC COTTAGES HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT AND LOT B2, ASPEN HISTORIC COTTAGES COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITY, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 1999 WHEREAS, the applicant, Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC and Aspen Historic Cottages East, LLC represented by Chris LaCroix of Garfield and Hecht, P.C., has requested a six month extension of the HPC conceptual approval for the new houses to be built on the property located at 920 W. Hallam Street. The conceptual approval was originally granted on August 12, 1998. The property is a designated historic landmark; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.010.C.2.a(1) ofthe Municipal Code states that "Applications for a final development plan shall be filed within one (1) year of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Unless a written request for extension is filed with the community development department prior to the expiration of the one (1) year and is granted by HPC, the failure to file such an application shall render null and void the approval of a conceptual development plan previously granted by the HPC"; and 0 WHEREAS, the conceptual approval granted by the HPC is set to expire on August 12, 1999; and WIIEREAS, the staffmemorandum dated July 14, 1999, prepared by Joyce A. Ohlson, Deputy Director of Community Development, recommended that an extension be granted; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on July 14, 1999, the Commission considered and approved the request without conditions by a vote of to NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That a six month extension of conceptual development plan approval for 920 W. Hallam Street, Lot A, Aspen Historic Cottages Historic Landmark Lot Split and Lot B2, Aspen Historic Cottages Common Interest Community, Aspen, Colorado be granted, to expire on February 12, 2000. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14th day of July, 1999. 0 Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney 0 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 0 0 GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. Re RONALD GARFIELD' 601 EAST HYMAN' 9&1Â¥ED ANDREW V. HECHT2 ATTORNEYS AT LAW ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 MICHAEL J. HERR0N3 JWLEIWT~9999 E-mail: atty@garfieldhecht.com (970)-925-1 3 DAVID L. LENYO COM100001Â¢be#ELOPMENT MATTHEW C. FERGUSON' 1;GiFighFWGIN KRISTI S. FERRARO4 CHRISTOPHER J. LACROIX 1.6 CHAD J, SCHMIT5 110 MIDLAND AVENUE SUITE 201 BASALT, COLORADO 81621 TELEPHONE (970) 927-1936 TELECOPIER (970) 927-1783 July 1, 1999 Via Facsimile and First Class Mail Ms. Joyce Ohison, Deputy Planning Director Members of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Facsimile: 920-5439 Re: 920 West Hallam Street- Request for Extension of Conceptual Approval Dear Ms. Ohison and Members of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission: This firm's clients, Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC and Aspen Historic Cottages East, LLC are the owners of certain property located at 920 West Hallam Street (the "Property"). On August 12, 1998 the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission ("HPC") adopted HPC Resolution No. 15 (the "Resolution") approving, among other things, a conceptual development plan for the Property. Section 3, paragraph E of the Resolution provides that an application of a final development plan must be filed within one (1) year of the date of the Resolution (i.e., August 12,1999). The architect working on this project recently informed me that due to his other commitments he will not be able to complete the work necessary to submit a final development plan in time to meet the deadline established in the Resolution. Therefore, please consider this letter as a request for a six (6) month extension of the conceptual development plan approved in the Resolution. Thank you in advance for considering this request. Please feel free to call me at 927-1936 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Garfield g[ Hech~ P~ ChrinaCroix cc: Ron Robertson M:\clacroix\Historic Cottages\HPC\Extend.ltr.wpd ExhW+"A" 1. also admitted to 2. also admitted to 3. also admitted to 4. also admitted to 5. also admitted to 6. also admitted to New York Bar District of Columbia Bar Florida Bar Pennsylvania Bar Illinois Bar Connecticut Bar Â® Printed on recycled paper m . I. A-- O 1. /--0 T Â· 4 11 1 6 -1 - - 0 4 i 4 15% ' ' t I . -1.Vix it . X , 4 4 04 4 %\ . I 0 11Â©y . r . -. I i I [ElÂ· i '' d.134~ 1 +~0. I . . 1 t . A ..e .1 1 /4.-- , ... /0./4-4, .-4 1 1 - 1 1. ' N ' - ~- ~t i -i~6~A=44:emilft ......# .. - ... I ./ k 4 * / r.-I I~~.'bc#1111 -EX' ' I â‚¬ .....4 . 1'~Â· Il'.il-1-21-8~94" * 4,Efjmmi#59.9-/1*it#i/a.Jrjijo. 1 1 A %-- 0: A-:*0â€¢... 12 i la 2 Im==24 ,:----CASÂ¥6 ---~ . -1 .t I =rl--1-& - A rT + 8.Â£-De: r -1 1 1Â·' -* f. 1. . 1% ., 9. t, Â»9= :. t IT=-13. . j --11=-2,16=26='24'Im -----1: =Il==01:k---- -+l[.lif= 14 - A--0--i.mellif#.-, - , 11# I L - 1 - d 2 Lie Jill 1: in. .2 - a 2 161 . 1~frPi.*J . - ~ 0 1 ' : .,..6413 >Â¥424*11]FA & Il 1: I .1 .. pf:trj.-*. N,<'/.<21~ ..4.,f....27 . iG~=2*2~24 . 8 Â¢ r o u T B G/L- eV A T t ON - vt 60, pfoa w. tt~WLAM. 91-0 W, 0*u.+AA. 362- , R. C. ROBERTSON â€¢ ARCHTTECTS - 0 10 JUL 2 ~ 1998 417 MAIN STREET, STUDIO 'A' CARBONDALE. CO. 81623 970 983 -Â®87 270,983 Â· 8956 FAX j . m AJA . JUL 2% - . . U-81 Â·-Â· Â· : ., --r- r:'-9/33 Â·'V 17.tâ€¢Za*..., .42 -'."Ii'' 4...,2+:. % 44.0 . 1 ,. ... . /-.I--- I -*.,9..&'./.-1. 1 â€¢ . *:Â· 4 -42,Â·-Â· Â·Â·-2.2+2.Ah'-4.Â·.4 Â· 2Â· - I , I .... f , I . 9 i . 1. I -- I 6 I . ,- ..3 .....C / Â·4;,- . 1 L - 1- F.f ft D-*a//81-T 1 ~ , Â· 1 2 -01 .f / / 1 1.2 1 -- 1 i . 511 lili. 1 : i '100 :/: . + . Â·Â·1 T t '' - ./ .* ~* ) * Â«=1'-tili{ t-~I~il--c~-1 -2+u- ~ ~ 7 -In - -r . 1 -- * ..6-* .....+ 2- ./--4 4 P Â· Â· . 41 0 7 -1 1 ~ . Ill ~ â€ž 1. . ..9 1 1 , ..4 . 9.-1. te- . , I -4 i 1 . . - - ,-100'--ID"'4:=:' .- : ' 1. . , . Â· ' Â· ' , / , 1 ... - ..4.. ~ i .1-I . 1 . I i Â· 4,- -4 1 / el ..1 0.+ .4 1.- . . - 1 1 1 Â·- .-; I ilm.Rk . Lit * 14 < 59 . .. 0. - . . 1 ':1 1|11 EL-11 . - - i - .. .â€¢ :P- â€¢ icÂ»...4-- .- -- e= - 3 1 :4 . I ' 9-1 - --- I ---/*j + I - lili+-- ' , 1 . .- - - - it. 111 . - *I- t. -- -* I./*.-I * - - . . e.:-=5' . R. C. ROBERTSON â€¢ARCHITECTS - . .... Â» JU\- 2 7 183% W.Wt 417 MAIN STREET, STUDIO 'A' < I . N DATA. CARBONDALE, CO. 81623 ~~-FAX F /61*V F-8-OAA Al.rt-41 Â· O to NALA New How se ON Lott 910 v..HA L LAM - 8-IÂ· . =. 1-Â·Â·Â·Af. W. . .ie g i .2.-/22Â·LL...2.. - . 1.. - - Â· ~Â·Nal- -12 - t.Â·:f-â€¢z ... 6,rÂ·-- - - -r f f) 0 >4 0 1 1 ~*A Â·-- ./4 i *74*444<mo#&%%<244 *1 .0iiÂ«il/b.At. 41; Â». 11 _tx , Â·.:.Â·:tt,.' A, i 1.4-" 4 *4Â· f V --7- i:~~a~f'; 1 ~ Imm#AAN,Â·1 -=.ar, r ~ ~ - - ~ i 1 1 Â·-'tu l=*Fl trrp 11:i 1,0,1.9'k ' 111 1 pfffiltiÂ·.1111 /*A i . : 7~24-.FT;-rÂ·! 1. , f / Â·04-Â· --rlk/1,2/4 LINS' , - :Â·1 16Â·1~i. kNJ 1 , A-)01 -J Jjj l-1-111_ ;14 -?1 -11 1 ===17-7+1-:Al , 2 1 5-1~/~*1;J*1~-Â£ 52...3*fut--7-2Ent+~itiâ‚¬* 4 - ' 3 4 1 , 6 - 11==ti n _.i"'1"'in-irwilt*-- < J 1 1 1 t~ Tr ' 7-1"lim-' EE-f-Yet_M~E 1 4~ 1//% 4 ~ -- -I ~- ' 22:41~t= 14 lil '14 ~4_-4.- Â·4Â· t.Â£*C-*- . 4. 4,-- 1.--â€¢ -2 ----&-W 1// 7L-*-99/9/#Ill///1 1 1----.-2 E- 1////12*1 r - /Ii"LI~U-=12"I'll --- --- - ....1 - 1,1UUU,4,1, 7. - i I - - -7.- 1- T . 1 -,1, 1 . ~-, 11*404&46-1.,le~ ' 911 4,1 1,/ 1 -1 1 :1 -----1--- -- - -1 1 - Lli-- ----_1 â€¢J O U T H.. 24- S -- 1- + p 4. ~~ 2 9 0,0 {0 1 -Id - It 6 :-Â· JUL 2 8 1998 SÂ® New Meurs c:70, LE>7- 8 920 MHALLAM A IP 4, co- f,2*45 Sop 8 . - -~ ~ t-:- 14Ci jÂ¢-:4%1 . 1 1 / h; . 1 5 /' 1 1,'~4414 ji.:1X -- qhil . f~%~ - .* - :. 4---- = _*_-: 44 1% iSh=--L~~~~0.,~x St: 0.-39. . 0 ; i -Ef 1 1 1 -rm~ 1 4 ; i _UL.12121.- ....: i 11-1,~ 11 . 1- ~ - f.ft \ 1 N,2-_r i Â»: f ".Th,11 2 5 - , - . i. 71 1 K. . 1 2 'TWION i . , ff- -2 i | i ~fi-i..1-f~. ii. I j ~ 21 U --- 4 i JI 1 1,22Ekii Â·; lk-irtl rl :~ ~ . l. 01 i i "i ;'llÂ·,''i 'i '1 lit: I. I 1 1 ! i. 2 i,lillitill' 1 AA. 1 k 4 , 1 , 1,1 'ijilillrIT i ' Ill.k -224"IEE7 14< / 1. A .1 lifi. --Mt,j '* t . 11'.1 . e.* I . ---- LL _ _t. L _Li ' i 1 1 6 Y Â· 0 - i- : . ~ r r Â· j i'*0 JSYLL ' / --d-rz .- ..--. - i . . -0 1 ,I-j L 1 +Ii .i , 1 ===== tr//Tr//71 i '14 'r i .i i i i . 36*05*Ntii Na-un,xxly-,2â‚¬I *~~*,~~~~,~;~,~~,~ ;_ I .1-'e<%300&.~LJ 1 47 ' 1 1 Ti 1.1 .la .1 13-1 - 9/,+AEB,jj.OKE=WHM;(2*--U--I . 1 : , e i N O 14 7-+H w â‚¬Â©T , 0 lo / R. C. ROBERTSON â€¢ARCHITECTS m 417 MAIN STREET, STUDIO 'A' - New 1404â‚¬ CH LOT ff CARBONDALE, Â· CO. 81623 920 w.t+AL Â£,4*1 970 Â· 963 0567 970 Â· 963 Â· 8938 FAX -/+-09,9 (59 - -15~598 m A.IA / 9,17.99,92 -- tar- el 4 -/2-49-9.2Â· 0 1 Cl i i 1 : -. 0 1 4eper r J - &*TWU. 3 1 --%1 1# r Â·. *= i 37101 IrÂ«41 0--4 W' 03_1 k 1 fi~ e r-9-7~; O1 1.--2:Sh 1 -cj// M Q 1-8 00â‚¬43 f NGh +1 . .1 BetbOAA- 4 0 .3 iii! 1 1. 0 08 , Iii!.ill- '31: 1 0 - -1 C .4 442 r 4--71, M 1 21 [3 17 ' 133 0/0, /Afb 11 1 . 11 CE.Ct. 1. 2Â£58- 1 O 1 =-te 1 Â¢ 1 -7-7 093. Afpl,6 --/EAM/Lj M Â£ / 9-/ â‚¬9 ~ 1 jifi; lit' ) - 1 |Alitililli i 6 1 0 1 , 5.4 *r e Â»1. 6--*--T. G-ACDO,4 0 PA-D O/AL_ A O P+7 A-,1 F-0 At. . e jUl 2 11998 R. C. ROBERTSON â€¢ARCHITECTS 4 0 10 417 MAIN STREET, STUDIO W / CARBONDALE, CO. 81623 NG,v Neuve 0, lc) 7- s' 970Â·983Â·0567 970.9.Â·Ses"AX /8499 FAA- < /853*242 NALA 6.5-18 A-LUÂ»60. A-P Per ,i Co. _ 84# Floorâ‚¬ O/4 toT A _930-*!ALLA-2 *r Pi CLO , 6.9Â·98 1.1.96PO. 4 1 - i . 21 - r D. 1 f 1..... - 1 4.-+1 1-- . . 1, . 1!. 1... 1, I . J . 1 2 ,! h 2! . . i . 1 1 - Â·:~U ~Inin 1 1 /'i:/ 1./ ..* ~~1/'Ilit Â·i' ''i -- I. _*-2.2*10 - - 1 2 1 - - . . 1 Â· ' .:4 1 1 . +t 1 . ,. A; 1 j Â·Â·Â·Â· . 1 6 1 - r-1-7 li {1!1 - '-3 + 1:' i i , I ill - 4-- - - i, 1 111 ili it - r--- - __... ...t - 4 - --7 y f :? . -1 1 F6--ild# 44-4~~- 0 1 I r lili - 1 . 1 1 . .1 . 1 4 R. C. ROBERTSON â€¢ARCHITECTS - - - - - - - - 4 -T JUL 2 71998 /7 417 MAIN STRE'&. STUDI:; 0= t CARBONDALE, .JO b .TA A C r â€¢ .. 970Â·983Â·0567 ,-I // 970 Â· 983 Â· 8936 FAX NA.LA , o to . Ac.. I-./....Ill.Ii-.~'.-.Ill- I. f V -r 0/4 9 -- , 0 Â« f 3 ,. 11 11!,i \\ t f.\ fl Â· ... Â·11~30' ' '! i 1 4. i r 1 111 ... 1 .a. 1 I '42==- . -il-' 1 ~1 -, I -1 2 ..4-73-: -- - : lf' 31./ i . 1 . 1,/ . 41 Ill iiI'' 7. 1 -1 - 1 . -: Ii, =m~'~Efli ~ 11 4 u. u- 41-JJ. 4-1 6 , f 3 . 1! 41&:Fig#*12#55*....1 1 1 1 1. i'' 1 -4 + * 4- 84Â· 4 4 4 4 u ':1 -- - ' . *11_~_. . *-: i li ilit- -n l.- 1 + -1 t --1 . 't 1 55*.1 1 _.3:~2-2 - -/.~ - 'd'//1 I ' .! ti , -41 . . _1111'r < i -#-0 â€ž , )11 l ticiA&=.6..-Airt#M. -t l ed;11 /iN~ ~EdR 1414*1 /4.-Â·-Al# M~*.~.,l 1 />/ FigÂ¢; A..4 - _ 1. l .4011.t \~4UI~~~~ ~ =E- --7~ 1 ' 1 4-- -0-I.--I.- 1 Jul. 2 9 1998 ---5, 0 e s T N D & T B. - . JUL '18 10 P C. ROBERTSON â€¢ARCHITECTS O to MAIN STREET, STUDIO 'A' BONDALE, CO. 81623 Â·983Â·0567 New Hou se ON LE)-1- 4 970 Â· 983 Â· 8936 FAX 920*Â·HAL LA M m A.1.A ---- -.----, P.~I- -N . 4 /VE< 4 6. 3- 98 7./Â· 5061,- 2.22.0,6K . r.-4 41 R - 8499 1 \ 1 . ,/-3 yaWS 9 4 . UGHTWEL L f /1 0 2â‚¬28. 1 1 11 1 1 lili T MW C \1 1 -' i i J L! H ,/'t Â·, 13 - 11-1- 1 , 01 '61 --------- 61 043 \ 1"~. 1 1 3.44 1 1 r- # El=.,y \ M I 0 2 \ 11 uly- - 1 40 . .--1 1 &' T , i 1 1 Eita==3 1 , 1 14-4-t,-4 = ( .j / ~L th'149 Â·,Â· 1-4 11 = UG*7-*9. - ly IT+ 1 ~1&7 \ '111. - 11 -\1 O / \ 11 \\ - i 1-3~ n W uv.Ke 1 1 t Vt ; E*9'OR E-G \ 3 l---le. 111 \\ ji 1 41!1 11 1 0 . - (1~1114~'~~':1~1~111'milill'~11:~.1 :1~1 1 . hi ,:il H! 1., ..; +Ii': t ..1, 11' . Â· Â·: .Â·+ n 'tilillilÂ· : i jill[: , 11,1 1 1 11 iii ~~~~~~~ ~~~| ~~~1!i:Ii il i ~ '': 10 11. Â·~liili!Ii'[I Ii:Bil!Ii i i,Ii!!lial' liial l 4 9 JU\. 2 189% N. 86 29 /14 e- N T G P.-C>u Al ID FLOO FL- Â· dh UP+TA; 9 2 0 10 Re,A, Hâ‚¬)0* C>,u LD-7- A R. C. ROBERTSON â€¢ARCHITECTS - - 417 MAIN STREET, STUDIO 'A' ~20 .4,Â£9942-Z /4/51 CARBONDALE, CO. 81623 - - 6.5 98 970 Â· 963 Â· 0567 /668 *1=Ak< /89 343 PAL A XFGA I C-D 970 Â· 963 Â· 8936 FAX ,#â‚¬~/42. m A.I.A. 1-8 + 41_ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director_,~04:) FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 400 W. Smuggler- minor review DATE: July 14,1999 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to add dormers to a historic outbuilding. The subject property is a designated historic landmark. HPC reviewed the proposal on May 26, 1999 and required additional information about the proposed design. APPLICANT: Larry and Sara Dodge, represented by Steve Weaver, Insight Construction. LOCATION: 400 W. Smuggler, City and Townsite of Aspen. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: The applicant requests HPC approval to add dormers on a historic outbuilding. The outbuilding currently has a non-original shed dormer on the south side. The applicant would like to modify the shed dormer so that it 5,2 \10 (41Â« 0 terminates into a gable dormer on the south roof slope, and to add two new gable dormers on the north side. The attached page from design guidelines created by Winter and Company, which are very similar to those currently being written for Aspen, discusses appropriate dormer additions on historic structures. The guidelines suggest that a gable dormer is most appropriate on a gable roofed building of this type, but emphasize that the dormer is to be a subordinate element. It should be located below the roof ridge, which is not the case with the proposed dormers. Staff also finds that the dormers as shown on the north elevation are wider than might be appropriate for the structure and that this condition is particularly exaggerated by the three easement windows. The design must be modified so that the gable dormers sit below the roofline. To accomplish this it is likely that the shed dormer on the south would need to be removed and that there should be two new gable dormers on each side. The dormers should all be the size shown on the south elevation in the proposal. The dormers should have clapboard siding that matches the existing siding on the outbuilding. In terms of windows, the dormers should have casements which match the size and proportion of the ones that have already been installed 0 although this would not have been the preferred window style. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character ofthe neighborhood ofthe parcel proposed for development. Response: The neighborhood has numerous historic outbuildings which have been adapted to residential use. The proposed development allows the historic outbuilding to be useful livable space by adding head height and additional light. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The proposal will not affect the historic significance of the buildings. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposed development will not affect the architectural character or integrity of the historic structures if designed as discussed under 0 review standard 1. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any ofthe following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the Minor Development application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the Minor Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) â€¢ Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the minor development application for 400 W. Smuggler with the following conditions: 1. The design shall be modified to show two new dormers gable dormers on each side of the roof. The dormers shall be the same size as the gable portion of the dormer proposed on the south side. 2. The new dormers shall be set below the ridgeline of the existing structure. 3. The dormers shall have clapboard siding that matches the existing siding on the outbuilding. 4. The dormers shall have easement windows which match the size and proportion of the ones that have already been installed. 5. All representations made by the applicant or applicant's representative in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 6. Any amendments to the approved drawings must be provided to staff and monitor for review and approval prior to undertaking the work. 7. Retain all existing materials on the exterior of the historic buildings, other than those herein approved for restoration or replacement. 8. No other exterior changes, beyond what is approved herein, may be undertaken without further review. 9. 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. Exhibits: Resolution No. , Series of 1999 A. Staff memo dated July 14, 1999. B. Application. C. Minutes ofMay 26, 1999. D. Relevant design guidelines for dormers. 0 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 400 W. SMUGGLER STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. - SERIES OF 1999 WIIEREAS, the applicants, Larry and Sara Dodge, represented by Insight Construction, have requested minor development approval for the property located at 400 W. Smuggler Street, Fractional Lots R and S, Block 33, City and Townsite of Aspen and Fractional Lots 18 and 19, Block 33, Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is a designated historic landmark; and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an 0 Historic Landmark. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated July 14, 1999, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found favorably for the application, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on July 14, 1999, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards, and approved the application with conditions by a vote of_ to _. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 0 That minor development for 400 W. Smuggler Street, Fractional Lots R and S, Block 33, City and Townsite of Aspen and Fractional Lots 18 and 19, Block 33, Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen be approved with the following conditions: 1. The design shall be modified to show two new dormers gable dormers on each side of the roof. The dormers shall be the same size as the gable portion of the dormer proposed on the south side. 2. The new dormers shall be set below the ridgeline of the existing structure. 3. The dormers shall have clapboard siding that matches the existing siding on the outbuilding. 4. The dormers shall have easement windows which match the size and proportion of the ones that have already been installed. 5. All representations made by the applicant or applicant's representative in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 6. Any amendments to the approved drawings must be provided to staff and monitor for review and approval prior to undertaking the work. 7. Retain all existing materials on the exterior of the historic buildings, other than those herein approved for restoration or replacement. 8. No other exterior changes, beyond what is approved herein, may be undertaken without further review. 9. 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. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14th day of July, 1999. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAY 26. 1999 0 Amy stated that a drawing needs submitted regarding the shed dormer before a building permit can be issued. Steve stated that recently the owners decided that they would rather do four dormers, two on each side on opposite sides of the building. There is an existing stairway and the space is unusable due to the roof line that goes to the floor. Amy stated that Christie's parents owned this house and possibly she could shed some light on the project. Roger clarified that the existing owners would like to take offthe existing shed dormer and put on four more traditional type gable dormers. Steve stated that they would not be obtrusive and would be the same height of the one existing. The owners are into the historical quality of the house and they want to do what the HPC recommends. The decision to alter the 0 plans is due to space constraints and they want to put a bed in that area. Suzannah asked about the proposed triangle window. Amy said if the gable is proposed she is recommending removal of the triangle window as it is an architectural complication of the building. Christie relayed that her parents owned the house for thirty years and she lived there for a long time. The reason the house was sold in 1987 is because the HPC would not allow her to put a dormer on the house. Her parents rebuilt the house and the shed dormer was there since early 60's. She feels the gable dormers do not go with the house but she is not opposed to the a shed dormer on the alley. The board was amenable to some kind of dormer on the house, preferably a shed dormer. The board also felt that drawings should be presented to the entire board as the house is a landmark. A statement was made having four dormers might be overpowering on the little building. 0 MOTION: Heidi moved to continue 400 W. Smuggler until July 14; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carried. 11 -64niL vt- O ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. MAY 26. 1999 0 different stores with awnings. She appreciates the character and historic nature of the town. Pictures were presented that indicated a lot of predominance of the white and navy in the signage of the different stores. She would like to keep what she has as it has already been paid for. She stated her awning has been blue and white for six years. Several awning are the blue with a brown or gold. Patricia stated that it is difficult because both Chanel and Polo have signature colors. MOTION: Roger moved to allow the tenant at Peaches en Regal to keep their navy and white awning which she has had for the last six years; second by Heidi. All in favor, motion carried. 400 W. SMUGGLER - MINOR DEVELOPMENT 0 Lisa and Maureen were seated. Sworn in was Steve Weaver. Amy informed the Board that the application is to add dormers to an historic outbuilding on the site. The property is an historic landmark. The owners have presented a couple options. On the south side of the cottage there is a shed dormer. They could match that shed dormer or they could do gable dormers on the back and change the shed to a gable dormer. Staff is recommending that the shed dormer be added because it has a lower profile and there is no reason to tear off an existing structure. Staff has listed conditions as to how the siding should be applied, what the windows should look like; they should be easement windows, and also noting that the decorative trim work should not be added. Steve stated that the decorative trim has been removed. 0 10 4 Standards for Roofs i *,2 1. .<,f ZOOFS, continued... 9 1,1 Roofs on Additions B Roof top, side or rear additions The roof form of an addition should be compatible with the roof form of the primary structure, in terms of its pitch and orientation. In planning a Gable roof: ~ roof top addition, one should avoid altering the angle of the roof and instead should maintain the perceived historic roof line, as seen from the f a _1 street. I)ormers Hip roof: Historically a dormer was sometimes added to create more head room in i attic spaces: it typically had a vertical emphasis and was usually placed f*31 as a single or in a pair on a roof. A dormer did not dominate a roof form, as it was subordinate in scale to the primary roof. Thus, a new dormer should always read as a subordinate element to the primary roof plane. A new dormer should neverbe so large thatthe original roof line is obscured. It should also be set back from the roof edge and located below the roof ridge in most cases. In addition, the style of the new dormer should be in Place a new dormersuch that the roofline keeping with the style of the house. is preserved, as in the sketches above. Gabled dormer Appropriate for: Most architectural styles 1 C- - i Hip dormer Shed dormer Appropriate for: Appropriate for: Most architectural styles Bungalows Page 101 Design Standards for Salt Lake City Udklk\-1- O , . m 8 0 4 - 11'22 tw litie ' 1,63 1/4 :,1-illillitlibili,ilitilli /' 6 1 08.- r * â€¢44/641â€¢ ull m ' 9/4+1 r * ' 1 li lic ' T .1 1 *hi: 4.. 11 . 1:111 -. .... 1!,ji/1111 1.1. I . , 2..4 . 1 > 0,03-2. . / -1 2 - AL .2 N-* . f . k.. . 4 51â‚¬ , '' 1 - ~ Â· ~4 2*.2 Â· 0' 5* B 1, . * .6 4 *Ariy - - t Â».!r..ag 4. 4 + rey Y Â¥ I '.1. 0 4 , '24 f 1 'Â· f-* . 1 46 I 01 Â· â€¢.WÂ¢ 1 . 7 i. 4 .Ful . - i /4 -t '04 , ,% 414,964 : -re 7 . u :41 .6 f f . t. b.4. / ... ./ . I J- ' 4 ... , I . / . 1 -. ,-0. 1/ 6 . ' 115.4, I % A J . 1 J . b . : ,.... : r r: .11 i ' - 2 01 '- r . 3 0 U I . ,. '1 1 - ' -- Â£ D i* 1:24 , '''l< 4 , 't . 4 4/14 ' el +ir 674' a . ., .,4 15 i .... 0 b. 1 . I f. f ''*t . . 4 4Â· . ., ~ rv,r,Â·0- eE~-0-90ule, CU Â¥ke *.9-) 1 dOLU-+Aer erÂ¢ C-Le.A-Qu, 15 r cu>u- AL fhÂ° â‚¬5 U.JUU- AL-UAL U.Zrs-/2 1*1% Lw /941 ~Â»WACL C~~L2 4614 74c-Uu :- lotll . 9.luia -Lid 6-. 'u.MA %Â®UL.u' Clu.ULL ILLULe-Ai 4 c:yo LD. S rn u..91(ec ... 143*&*gi 4&44#EM,#0/0,<â‚¬4~y:jf~ t'Â«Vi~~-,-:4 Â¥*ma.#BWA+V#),pv~#fi.4~U:41,41*13W , '*,2. Ii,~ 1.â€¢rrfh%. 4 - .. . 6 .'e. A I . . . . . a .. 4, . 1.. . .9~;4 . .~ 01 L.1,*f 136,9 1 r.. , . . â‚¬ I. ./ , , . '. U *ht R.1/ Al.-- . 1 Â£11 'W -- FL 9,- i ?rt)Â·, ,~ - .SAD I - ... - . . .411*CidA 514#442 . 412.296â‚¬21 0,4 0 :,- 54 >4..E 4,44/48*M+5.32/6 . t 49,110 . . , . . -- - #....Â¥â„¢7:S;. r .9 % . - -1*Ake =\ ~ ''43 Â·sv .rt ...r Ar'' 4, 1 - 7 142 . Â·AKe:glr'. rt 7!Â¥,Â¢1"C_ Irilift/~i~iti.Illilla 1 i 1 - 4 ''' ':Clt ' 1 2 F - 4 - 1 ... 1 /1 ilid*a . , ..2. 4 .! '00 //7-///*im.. -it , , 'ae 'A'Un' mer I & ;19~45â„¢ttr!.2,1Â·737|ir;'e- 41 ~1 2 40 1 1 r tfiti +10,1,1... I.. Â¥ r,, Â·Â· 04..,1.- . r.Â· ~ i.-0,Â·i.~gri: '14 0,0...D>,4l1*tr : .''i*4Â·: , 1.!.,~'f ~ .LÂ¢..:14.11.0..X. A.,11 :.Gi,& ; Â·.....2* jâ€¢.i CA 8. .vitn.. I . ,.-,.4- l P ./-- 49,7 4, -ah Jfil Â¥ t,lk $ bgf<Â£* 1 , 24 421 ; 46 Ho G u) 0 5 v.~u...540 a.1,9- le-6,\ce.1 4,- \4100 u>&&Â£;L /?-,rnba.......2 .6-~--9.0-uc..r Aka.AL_ Sc-L,~.e.ZAâ€¢.C 7 t~'~ e.~j-s - c_La-cÂ£ Lr ... RECEIVED /1 JUL 0 9 1999 .3 u_ Lc~ 2,19 q 9 oecl< A\â€ž1 Clind r-01&-Gui) 14.-P.C. CÂ©YArn,52,0-Ue{-St Abrciv / rt i r:IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (0~10 6,#EL (-4 ,Â«_957.dAA, 44â‚¬- FYÂ©y-Â°i a_.+ 4Â·00 u.3 S reullfÂ°-/ A* A/044Â«'s -lespt.U La_49-u, cl-u@&01_Ki.v /lÂ¢j~-U-tle Au,*~ Proliace 46 61-e_ CJ / Â· CLU-C[ 11421%4145 A~-3 62.14 4-4 4Â° Â·U-_4~~t- wi +U (*U- 1-er 4-4;s }wedÂ·k'~ ct-ke -AuÂ·GAL CL+ Ft&1.0. 5 YVi U-19 lee 6% 0 e-~. ivurÂ°~-~~,uj- 10 Â·,v*.2.. a.-4 Ldeu_~ J 40 -Â«u-~ 440,vu-2.j --Â¢cri- n.ina-u.j i,0,~ g-o~u , al i ue-d 4-Le-u_ i & .113- e,Ll 4Â« 40(u~Â£ cla-di Xt-l~ fa-46,u 4-Jed 44 e.te . c.f- Aa-oe- i More }A 4 crna--4-u,-u. a-6hct- 4-614 liouse 46,2.cc a.w.awdi Â£-lse. ' Lete G oac HL / ...LU- 4-G' *2/.9.ALL Â£Â» Â»0 ,/1 01ht O1rihib les s - i .2Â»~Or64,9- 4.6 M.u_ 4-tca.â€ž.0 0.-U-7 0 +4-tr -jus Â·#-uk_ .4 CluUL Of bÂ£Â£Â£4 , '9 U .uou UÂ«0.RAL. c_9_j uat lat.eu-) -AAA oÂ«e- of Lks' .lu1Â·ler~ dialso LE D.C. A-u.* + 3 E-t. 1'*Nte ou--t b.u-u/4.-Lu~ ux-a-,ve- dibeass,r~ u.'u a. boirr-~. c-2-1- SAS i F) jh* On tHAL aÂ£2~ ,n 468 savAL spot 1.-9- btaa QJ~uapto OCC:-6002â‚¬d, 0 ULÂ·k -9 0_1 rea*1 0~ MCM-- C-ell~ Crn 92 b.u-/d.22. cl 1- can not be- yn (16 e y,tore Â¥lon-Con.4 rrn)n, C.-~-~ U.1 4 ~< 11<rd.1.Â£ CL Uallatice. /ll~ /ula 44.u- c.oan- 21-e nte<l <~ rn,01;bs/du -43*cha Â»mal dermer Ac 44&. 0122L~ Wide ( 03 e f- 4-41-s bÂ£u-u,Ap )*r~ /98Â£ - 4 44 1-1-7, c I ;ijthed (toryÂ¥\ er e.*-ials ent-<u JousÂ·4 5-id e.0* 46..a \3LU-\ 651 CL laoâ‚¬ 420 objec-Ack- 4-0 61_ alne.A Aorrvl e.t e-u-442- Mo<4-4.- skde(42*) bu-+ a arn not in failer of la-ble- 10 Â£-YMers 0-u- 4<ul \DUJ 44.y (libl e. Aer-Yne-rs e.Â·0,Â£41.1 5. Sicle LI)i W malu_44TIS Ilecl Lu,tchi~ fY\Ore 1 rn j)04--AcuL+ 41Â£a-A,L -LF %,lu,-uU_ be CLU-d A e_'k-a.c'Â¥- -*rez 44.- L.U.U.Ge.. la-u-A vÂ«Ad Ucu.AD. 'S ~72-A Aol-#1 ers cy-,c 4/VU-lt 4-le. ST,/ce oLa_A -YW>re_ lit*+ auct euve- VUL,VYWOYfukelb, ,~11 0 id ba- en 4.Cu-c-+L~ a.c_ress -1(-4, St. 6-11cll< din~ bla-4 a. Â·14-6 3-0 1--rd UL ok 4-lu- CLQQ.L.% 114Â£. 1 . - _.- -: .. il Je_ we.4, tatd- 6.~ . Alook- 03; nder 91Â«i \.04- Ca-.LL h ' ~ 4-a~-"A/lo L. t< fi - -a-6*f-ciu.:fSL .~G-u.S _40 Al.6 4- /leeâ‚¬-4 L..L - O U.A- .0.~bj.ee-40,â‚¬- _C-4.4.-2led-LQ-_---32.-4-~ e.~ O-*t_Yot_ EN*~Â® Â©in.1-e_. --Tke- prin/la v,~a_*touse Â»nust-AkwlitÂ«,- -- __~38.mar~ 61Â£ 4-46 ~37-0 Yer44 Ocud Yn Ma ~ 4-0 - +I -- -4- ------- - - 0-ALA. 1 4An-ce-4.LLA , a_GÂ·*mble_ 3-0 r--Wlers _0*_ -4-6- f_ Â·_blYÂ». ar.e-_rÂ·>o Pr.Â£0-ApAql~late_~44-L-g u.,Ut, A.eArn-ct *ve-â„¢- 44_ *4_rn -242.11-euAL .- % 1 1 - - - -4*- _- t-~.).4~ .42_ * YA Â·yna r~- yu._fÂ«=_ C-Q- CS -40 hs -4.L#-SIA .bu-c\U~ $ 1* U- U a.u-:4 -ou.u.i cla-u.%(A .c.L.au.Qâ‚¬Q- .Le-' .Q>eLU4,+L & -- = ... 4-U.&... c-e-,u- f~4-4 bRL.~ _ au 40(oia .arl~<DErkÂ·kness ../4 bdue --- _ag, 4-4 e- Ualeaic_ e.ka-rad er - 2,-4 0-u-(2 1- ve-Â£1~fhdu.ed . . r . - - ....-I ---0 ..--r.I- I -â€ž ./"IP 00-lu.- L~OU- 7 . ' ...AÂ·._ ..~a. _,#.dint--76-,J. - - --. -J --- -*Le./.1/ \41 4..141 ) " 1 d-r-)r <'~- - \042. -tvarn Susa.u-al'Â·s.. boak, \,4.t i' ~,vilig j C~%Â¢--jks*=.. a.~_d - - :-_.(31/0,0, e.Â·Â¢Â·13?â‚¬Se6(utu-u._ u.6.13Â·w~ewica_ S 4-Lt. au-244.4, l.0IliLCuu 11.- AA,Luta.* Lat-- uyÂ£*s':4.6-Ae,Lul A-46 Â®f p-uuâ‚¬v UL_ Reiu- 44 . _ --_0-Cke-- 0-44Â·:6- e.%e-cre--4.6.v Â©41-- 4.6u- c_Lae.N-41-=- - " <Â·~A.uÂ«-pa-4Â·Ju- Â¢5Â§~leÂ·Che-8. CX:4-Â£424_ ck_cl 0-1- ~racess of- . : r @â‚¬~i~c~-~-~.ealuxes '-le,_ _s-u..s-4-k_.3{ke_e-y-is:~-in~ 40 r-YY, ) 64â‚¬qrb* ,Â· 4 a-kÂ· :rna-4649.0 - 0 â‚¬a_ _ \rD-ul-1 AL.s-~ - eÂ·KE s +u.ke.LU ., - , -2-2 t O -bLZ 1 1 -1 i 11 1 1 11 1 1 /--1.1/ 11 4 1 Ill 1 ' 1 11 1 1 1Â£1 1, 0 1 1 1.1 1 i blilli ]Il . 111/; 1 1 1 5 3 1 -) 1- 1 1 : 1 1 . * , 1 ' i I.1 i!, i .i 1 '1 1. Ill) 1 j 1 1 It i i - 1-fo Le '~111> 11 1 De~ â‚¬1 Ni.' ; 1 1. i t i' 11 079-71!1 1 11 111 1 d i W ----* - L li'rl! 1 1 j 1 1 Il/ 1, , -\~, A / i 3 :,1 f . 11 . j f ., j , - 1~ 1 1 lili ; fil ) r ,< 1 Tli' e .11 i i /1 1 1 Ic , 1 i: 3 i --i--- ---8 --- 1 1, 111 1 1 1.Iii I -1 1 1 i ix u Ail uff 1 f I'li i - 4 I ifil ~ 1 1 r *, 1 ' 1 -2- .- w 'Id-11 h ,.111'll i 1-i 1 1 1 1 i : i 1 1 I i_i 1 / | â€¢ 1.,1.1 -t III 't 1 . .--' , 1 t t- 200Â¥ --EY 7 -- 1 11 7 Ill :'.1 ' ./Ii- i-i i i ! i- 6 Â·. I '> X.-111--/11-~~~~~~' - 4 l ! ~ 1 -- --TF-7 1 p Itil Â·Â· 1, .4~ 1 E /1 1 1-111 lull f : r#.. 1 1!11 a Z - - i.-1 -- 1- 1-- 1 1 11 9 0 - .. 1 + .1 1 -- 111 ~ 111 11 ill i E 11 11 I .:4 1 rti-2-7 2 .. Â·1â€¢'-4 rt j h 1 010'W- N ~ --130~UN--1- 1111 1 1 )1111 , , , ,/ f/1/ '. , lilli .1 ''' 11 91 1.,1 le); 1 ':,: 1 1.1 I le - _.- . _-32<2. i i. W 11 --- --- -1 - 1 -3 111,1 1 1 - -\1 lili 11 - 1 NEW Doe M E.2 - 1 -_ - ' 1 ZILF _211_---- -7 - - 4 '*i 71 1 ~ 1, . 1 - --A -- X -tui ____ -#\ 9 0 0 99, 1/k,1 4 5 9 jâ‚¬ l./ PLAN / IR Â© Â© [p [*) 11=] A 040 0.,1 LO " NO~W < -- -DI 7-- 1.--1 1 \12 7 0 9 0 Ekle-r 00214â‚¬Q- _. 1 - 3000 A&*PRAL:r 4}4idALES COLOrt Â¢Â· NE,FrURE Ts MI Art H EÂ»fr. -- - 1 11 - - ['f- -- 111 - i >rfr[[49'01 ' A l E- -PH'l 1 -1 1 - - Ned 1 PELLAr' 2 - 205 47 /[i 111 1 1 1 ~ 1- - // - CAMÂ¥ TO MA:r,+1 E,lbir. 1 1 , 1 - ...4 iii li .41'11 4111 1, , .1 1 lk- -1 L 1 4.--- ----- .1 -3Â» 1-' 4 2 - - 1 *5 14 000 -rei M 511'111 - 4 11111! 1 ~ 11 il,FL - PA/r,31- w,4 11-E 6111 1 1 1 11 1 1 111'1 1 1 ..111}r Â· iÂ·Â· ( 1 11 - 1 i , L _- - 1 4 A 2 U n. - - - -3 $â‚¬i 1--* ,/ EX! .0-r , e Ek)66 v 21 1 17.-14 1.1.....1 , lidL--- - - -- F'.. - 11 1 - 4 ' I Ct f , 1 1 i 11'1"IN\'1'Ir"ilitj ;1~Â·r Nt'tal 3111*1:11'I,<111\\I,11-11-~1+littlf}11-1) 0 4111!11]i %41411'1<1tt~11{11!111ti )1 1 0%1!Tilli!,ilim]1 11) 1 , 1 111 1, 4 f.1 ~, 1 1 i 1 ' 11 1' 1 1, il 1 1 11 , j 2 111'11' q ~11 ! 11 , 1 111 t,111 51.1 1; 9 11'TI ~: 1 1.1,4 ! [''ll, ., 11L1:jill i .. qj i 11 1 a_*_ iÂ»Â·r. _ -u,v,Ac~ e Â©[!=OFT NI IM L IM VAV 0(0)0%[I 1/4*=1'-0" 4 0 0 Ul j sk'13 Lt-~<~ ~ 0 cb--tarÂ»L-Â» . ~~ f-~~*Â» 1\ 1 --a k.6. Fvr5-8Se> I-*3%5- -I 1 2/ Â»71441 1-X. '41 . I : 4Â·,:f' 3 %911230,0<Il ; f ' 1-9 U 8 - # 4 20 , 1 21 ele % - , 4 /~ ,Â·'11'~14,|, --1-% -k)- -- / - - - -/ 1- 4 \ 1 PIC=21*/1 1 9 '4 hlo 1 ..7 1 11111/ lili 4111111 21...4[2 11 1 1 ' 14 J. , / 4 lili / 4.1.~1 11/111 11 1 , E.----~,- â‚¬ 2]1 j!1 I .X t.26 + r ..L- 0 11 WI I 'J 1 11 -~4 14\ ''-MI-*- / A Ar /1!LK' 1- "' Fillwd 9,1 ili Yx / / C i Z., 9 1,41'11 1 11 4,1.1 \ 1 1/ 11 6- 1411 ~ 1 lilli' 1 1-k:60 7 01( 11 1~ 4 'ik v,- f~fÂ®~ -'24:9*54+If-Â· 1- ~:;~ * - u 0 9 1 \-V)0 W U %/2%, :Â· Â·Â· , 9 1 *44jf?*f )Nshil\ifkf>-i~~Ff>-.r, 71,.11 1 ~ 11~, ''1 1 1.:111 4 19 /1111; -6 - 4,1 11'lili 1 8 -- r.*.-..LICIA 1Â·~111 11~':. i ':,j' '11. 11111)0 -0 1 4 1 /11 -14,1, 11 r. 1 ..4/A 0 1.1 it 1 :i,i = 1!/1 43!il -~ - 14 %Â« 3193Fr~T-~ 1 1 ' i, All I. I ' -7-7Â¢777 ,* J 1 1: iV J'; 1 Hufll.;11!.: i f;:fl 'i f- ~~ cill ; 1 , -1 1 0 1 t . Sh .litil '' Â·- i 6 ' '" \ Il 1 1 1 -7. -1 1 11 ' 1~ f~ I -2 1 1 1 1.~ 1 1 1. i ls :11 11 1 L&--**z 141 0 2- -- --------~ 11\ -- 1 Â»//.21 1 :1 j' 1 1 1 \11\ <' 1 '.Ill 11 .- .4 i,1 1 2 111 I 11___ i M-- -# ..i- r. 4 4 - 111: p - W.==========- 4 f --- -W , 1 ''I L , 1 L UmÂ· j litÂ·~ ~ -Â·- -~-"-Â·-mu-2,_ai_ 1 1 1, 1 1,1' 1 1 r........./.-I.----~ ''__ g...=-ij, I /, - 1 U-- --' \,1 ~~- I lip' ; 1 1. -1 -lilli, .11 1 1 I 1,11.1 11 11 1 1 1 1 1, f''i F Â· 1 - Ill 1 - - i-- k 1 1 ' 1 11 li i 1 11 --1 1 , 1 1 01 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 a\Di ....ir-.I - . - - --- - 1 1 ,â‚¬%\â€žEgÂ¥4*4J~~CE-r-- 11 111 1, 1, 11 #\8 ----2- 1/}/rf\{VTYÂ¥%(fJft>rÂ«64*,vy -(viwLi ; ftiv ,<14*F6 1 1 \ 1 /, 9 1 /, 01\'tiff 11 1 1; :1. i ili i 1 9 1 111 1 1 Jl 11 1. 'Ii:!: 11 ..i'.1 1 1 --11 1 1)4 Â£11) f 14' i fl 1 1 1.] J:, IL---- 6/ 00 14 9- fjlt 46 ) 04 I * 9 BEVELED 4 1 011\| 4 - P'A l hi f 1-0 1/1ATU-1 - _ 7 300* Ac9914Al_-r 4214)NkEe ---W- / - ---- P .I i 1 -- ** I -- - ./ - %10- - NEW 0012-HEQ/0 4/ 727- 1/4/i - PELL A.' 3 - 'ze 47 - , -- 04 Â¥41 10 M CFG\4 - 91 --- ~ ~ 7 -=t .i - 1.-.1 - -- 7-0--CL / Â· /14 , 1 ' I - -- r i I - t-- 7 1 I - -liE--U 7 - B - - +1-- - A , Â· Â« 1 --- --- PLY Woer:> d, 1, 1 - C ~ ' - -- -- - - - - -Ii--1. I PDA-MENS -EXte-(146 --- 7 - -U - - 1 i, 1 ' i i f Â·1 - , L 1 11 -1, ------ d f . * 11 1 11 --+ 46 L 1... i"Iie"~1121Ii#IiÂ·~,ITr #I I<'liii'~ilI i"'11~lipiN'1111111111 11111E11'p111111111111)11111'11111 111111111~11ill'-111~1 11111%1~F111111'111111 1 1 1,1 I : fri-Fri jiti Ili ~ <141Ii ~1* r 1 ~'~1 1 LIF Tril'111111111 li'lliilll "I H d i I 11'1'1'H lili! 111111111 1111 11111111 8 lili lili 11'8411 11'11'11 It 1 1 I,'iiI,.'Â· 1 1 1 14 1,1 2 11 1 1 '1 1 11 : |J|' $~, '* li~' lit:1~''fil'i 11. 1 11[1 i 111 It .1[ i :, ~''llii' 1, 111 1:1 lili i 11/1,; 1, lit '1'1141:11'111 jill'J,1 1 11 1 Â« 0 0 \4 , 411 \ i. {14.*- 0 0%8(Â©[Â®VNI IM B.IMVAVO . I -. .... I ..Ii .- r 9 11 i Extâ‚¬r' 40Â»Â·46.0 RdoF Dol:-M Ee DEMONO -3 . --1& r-- - ---~ -- +7' PA -- . 1- / 1 & 44& 11 Â· -,/37=- PL~4OO O PANCL * 7. *BM--;77- i. i 84-Tr E %4 - pâ€žNT 2 * 6 OEVELED - -P M A-r GH \4 410/N 6.- PAINT Â¥0 4/ ir-Dll -11 1---- \ 1. r/' r 1 \43>L Pri MATE H -- 1 3 - 01 Lf -2.1, -A I \ , 7 - v 1 2:Â·Â· - i- -- - i - 1 * 4 402NETZ -021 M -- - . 24 1A-r W Wl -r â‚¬ Â£004 - 111-3 1 1 ' . 1---1 1 -- 11 1 1 -â„¢ -- 1; 4 r E* 160-F MENCE JÂ·, --4 - L 7-- 7_T.*- â€¢0~~ [T.-TE 1 LE) 4 i ' 2-- ---- - t 1 1.1 ! 1 i.:R & 2,114! It 1 It 11 1 ~ ~ . 1 1: I: , 4 1. r 11 A 1 11 ~* + ~ --~Elm--n--~Â·- -6=..ar_.11-7==4 2 - LL--0 i 1_~U d 1 * E < 5 4 I j 1 1 11 1 1~ 11 -4 ~ 1 1 Fill 1-1 d lili'1111 ~11111~ 11'111 1 ~111111 11111~111~~~1~ FT '111~ 1111111'Ill'~ 11 ~ 111119'11 ~1 ~1~7111~11111~1~1111~11111111'11'~111'111'111~ El~ 11'P~11/ 7111717 FFITI'l JIHI ~Ii-1-0 1 (FfilTETFTFI~7FfrtÂ¢rTTrrTFET[Tr~r77Â¢~*frrr'0rrrrr,-4.Â·iâ€ž-;-~- 1 1~ 11 '1 ' ' 1 1 1 1 + ! 11, . ' i Ni'mt. 11 1-~ ,{~li,Â· i ILM'Â· '.1 2 '11.- fill ; 1111 :I'li' 1: 'i Illi b li , 1 '11'11 1 1~ lili ii,Â· ' + ' 1 1 1 1 1 P,21111141111'11 191111111111111 11 1 l i l i 111111111111 r ~ 11111 l i l i 1 1 1 11 j 1 111 D 1 11111* Ae'Â®1 E-L'[*924b,6-0*1 ' j ' d % 11Â·L , i,ili ' " '1 11' 1, 1.b '11 1 1 ill: 11 11 1 19 11, 1 4, 1 11 4 lili 1 1/4. = 1 -67 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce 0hlson, Deputy Planning Directo4jlb FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 302 E. Hopkins Avenue- Conceptual, Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, Residential Design Review-Public Hearing (Continued from June 9,1999) DATE: July 14, 1999 SUMMARY: The applicant requests conceptual, partial demolition, on-site relocation, and "Residential Design Review" approval. HPC has held a worksession and site visit on the project, and continued the review hearing with recommendations for revision on June 9,1999. 0 This property is a designated historic landmark and is located in the Commercial Core Historic District. APPLICANT: John Davis, represented by Vectors/Jake Vickery Architects. LOCATION: 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lot K, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen. Commercial Core zone district. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District and all development involving historic landmarks must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC 0 may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in 1 Glit BAÂ» 4 0 accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: This house was built in 1883, which makes it one of the oldest remaining structures in the Aspen Townsite. Throughout it's history it has been used for both commercial and residential purposes. It is the only example of a "Carpenter Gothic" building in Aspen, defined by the steeply pitched roof and decorative trim on the front of the building. (Carpenter Gothic is the Gothic Revival style carried out in wood rather than stone.) The applicant wishes to add more commercial space above and below grade, and to add a new free market apartment. In a worksession held on April 28, 1999, the architect was encouraged to look at the idea of demolishing a non-historic addition to the house and moving the outbuilding closer to it, thereby freeing up the back part of the lot for a separate new commercial building. This would keep the outbuilding intact and directly related to the old house. The new building would appear to be on its own small lot, a similar concept to the historic landmark lot split. Staff finds that the suggestion at the worksession was an excellent way to remove the impacts of a new addition from the historic structures. On June 9, HPC reviewed a proposal which followed the basic concept from the 0 worksession, but attached the new construction to the historic structure. The HPC members expressed significant concern with the connector, with the majority of the board saying that they would not support it- that the new construction needs to be completely detached from the historic structure. Some members of the board felt that the new commercial space should not be taller than two stories, while others were willing to entertain a third story if the connector was eliminated. The idea of setting back the third story was emphasized. While there were some comments about making the architecture of the new commercial space quite different from the Carpenter Gothic architecture of the old house, staff specifically asked the board for clarification on this point. The board agreed that there does need to be a direct relationship and a clear compatibility between the structures. The revised design that has been submitted does not include an above grade attachment between the new commercial space and the historic buildings. The three structures are freestanding. The building has been made into a full three stories, with a roof deck element on top of it. The architecture has changed significantly from the conceptual proposal. Staff finds that the project has made progress in the sense that the connections between the three structures have been eliminated, however, the new commercial space still sits in the background of the historic shed, now in a three story form. It is staff' s feeling that the idea presented at the worksession to move the historic shed was to create a new building footprint on the rear section of the lot. The new construction was to be contained in that 0 footprint, not to connect to the historic structures or bleed over into the space that had been reserved for them. Staff therefore does not support having any new above grade 2 construction on the lot except for in the roughly 24'x30' footprint on the rear of the property. The addition of a fourth story element on the new commercial building is not compatible with the historic structure on the lot. While there has been an effort to encourage taller buildings in the downtown, staff feels that it is not appropriate on a lot which contains a single story historic house. A roof deck can be used on top of the building, but a covering over that deck is not appropriate. Staff also finds that the architecture has become incompatible with the historic resource. As was emphasized on June 9m, the property has the potential to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is very important to the early development history of Aspen. This is not the location for contemporary design. In staff's opinion the architecture proposed on June 9, or another design which uses similar historical references should be pursued. Because the property is a designated landmark, certain exemptions from Growth Management are available to the applicant to offset historic preservation restrictions. For instance, new below grade commercial space can be created without competing for allocations or providing affordable housing mitigation. The existing free market unit in the basement of the house was awarded through a Growth Management exemption, and is being transferred to a new location on the second and third stories of the proposed new construction. (The basement unit is expected to be deed restricted as affordable housing to mitigate for the new above grade commercial space.) Staff finds that these are important incentives and are an adequate compromise by the City to provide opportunities to develop on the site. Site Plan No trees will be removed or relocated as part of this proposal. The front and side of the house will remain grass, but a basement will be placed under the rear one third of the site, so the outbuilding has some pavement around it. The applicant must consult the Parks Department to confirm that excavation impacts to street trees will be properly addressed. Variances The property is located in the Commercial Core Historic District, which does not have any setback requirements. The applicant will have to apply to the Planning and Zoning Commission for Special Review to eliminate the on-site parking spaces. This has typically been approved on other downtown sites, where on-street parking is more appropriate. PARTIAL DEMOLITION Applications for partial demolition must meet all of the following review standards: 3 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance ofthe parcel. Response: The applicant proposes to demolish a rear addition on the existing house. Building permit records indicate that a basement was put under part of the house in 1958 and the addition was made in 1960. Staff finds the addition does not contribute to the historic significance ofthe parcel. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: The area of demolition is not original or significant. b. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Response: This issue is addressed under the conceptual review standards. ON-SITE RELOCATION Applications for on-site relocation must meet all of the following standards: 1. Standard: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. Response: The outbuilding is to be moved so that an appropriate location for new construction can be created on the site. The outbuilding will maintain prominence on the site and in fact will be set closer to the street. 2. Standard: The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Response: Said report, from a structural engineer or housemover, shall be a condition of approval. 3. Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to 4 insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: Financial assurance in the amount of $15,000 will be required as a condition of approval, along with a plan for how the building will be moved and stored during construction. The outbuilding willlikely have to be temporarily stored off-site. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The residential space is on the second floor of the new construction, but must still meet the "Residential Design Standards." From the information provided, staff finds that it will comply. STAFF SUMMARY AND FINDINGS: Staff recommends that the project be continued to August 12,1999 with the following direction: 1. All new construction must be contained within a footprint of approximately 24'x 30' on the rear of the lot. 2. Confirm all zoning and building code implications of having three detached structures on the site. 3. Consult the Parks Department before the next HPC review to confirm that excavation impacts to street trees will be properly addressed. Exhibits: A. Staffmemo dated July 14, 1999. B. Application. C. Inventory form. D. 1893 Bird's Eye View ofthe site. E. 1904 Sanborne Map. F. West elevation presented on June 9, 1999. G. Minutes from June 9, 1999. 5 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name 30 0 E, ppo PAINS 2. Project location :502 12, 44OFINA 6 46'FEM L-O-r K- l 61-.96 14- 80, -TOWN*[ 4 (indicate street address, lot and block num6er or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning C,C/ 4. Lot size 27, ODD ~' 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number 3,57 Z. EA,4-r +Pople, A/6,U.6 Â·Â·12#M ~C*M> ,96 -AcS i 9>Exox qfpre; 08â‚¬1â€¢APÂ® A/E dA-~ 8Agfur-80 2/6-2, 970* 933,1- 96/0 6. Representative s name, address, and phone number 72*8- 1,/~ 000Â·d7261 VEUR)(26 /-5\JA. los 56, SPR./Al C~ SE *b AS'PeÂ¢\ 9-4(oll I 910 02 915/-'864:, â€¢ 7. Type of application (check all that apply): M .Conditional Use Conceptual SPA >' Conceptual HPC , Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor HPC . Subdivision - Text/Map Amend. - Historic Landmark Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC GMQS allotment % GMQS exemption < Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review Lot Split/Lot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) E)(147- HA#E, -1-1070Â¢t,; t/Â£32,0 1913Â· 6,1-106- a rE-6 i )1.0131 N i ')5ET=> Patz â‚¬RIC)10 9. Description of development application FAR=rl AL 02Mtbrl-LEA Op yE NE NON, 41â‚¬ingr , +Col-TMn , '2Â£-l.8 CA~ 4 AF[-Ord,0 0/ fil OFT)/l&,ING A/BW )8337)72 972,12:71/nt (3 504 OP FF#barfl, 10. Have you completed and attached the following? Attachment 1- Land use application form Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form 0- Response to Attachment 3 Response to Attachments 4 and 5 974 LUL VE> /2.- ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant: 502. 20 *pjaul L.ul /4Akl 14)ic; â‚¬6,4â‚¬ Address: 9) O 2 5. M\64 Ils / Zone district: OC Lot size: 4,000 9 Existing FAR: 7. f 4-o Allowable FAR: 4, foo 15.477452t (3634. Proposed FAR: Existing net leasable (corrimercial): /, fllÂ© 620% 6 Proposed net leasable (commercial): NEr, c#.2 Mâ‚¬8 /6 3.4~"42049+ 13%0 0 Exisfing % of site coverage: VA) 845744G4-- Proposed % of site coverage: Nk Existing % of open space: It 93 + = 9>'bok Proposed % of open space: 95% 11Â£173=1â‚¬>* 1 116 .I * = z.64-Â©< Existing maximum height: Principal bldg: '14 / /=7 Accesory bldg: /3' Proposed max. height: Principal bldg: 34- Accessory bldg: Â¥22 Proposed % of demolition: 460 9- // 40 = /5. 9 R Existing number of bedrooms: 1 11Â£13QZ;/4 Proposed number of bedrooms: 3 BEDROOM 1 Existing on-site parking spaces: 1 +FA66 ( On-site parking spaces required: 3 67*524 Setbacks Existing: Minimum required: Proposed: Front: 9 5 't Front: 0 Front: 9.53 Rear: 0 Rear. 0 Rear: 0 ' Combined , Combined Combined , Front/rear: 9.5-2 Front/rear: o Front/rear: 9,5 Side: 62 0 ' Side: 0 Side: 01 Side: W 0 0,5 Side: 0 Side: 01 Combined Combined Combined . Sides: 0.6 ' - Sides: O Sides: u Existing nonconformities or encroachments: 2(/as),2. /2/\/trh.,4/ 6/2-4,/99 Variations requested: 55 ff.'3' Al â‚¬ â‚¬>pâ€žcâ‚¬4 - 1 909. REA UN l-ri 1 94 n- Al:>14. 1 Â¥0 4 064'J (>A AME-12.6~004_. (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.ft., site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the cottage infill program, paddngwaivers for residential uses in the R- -i *.Il.-I.- -I----7 6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O zone districts) dp 302 East Hopkins, Davis Following are our written description of this project and explanation of the ways it conforms to applicable review standards. SECTION 26.415.010(C)(5), Development involving a historic site or structures or development in an "H", Historic Overlay District Review Standards. a. This project proposes to retain the historical portions of the existing house and outbuilding in tact. To accomplish this preservation, the rear non-historic addition to the house is removed and the existing outbuilding is relocated on-site to this area of the site. A new structure is then proposed to accommodate additional FAR on the rear of the site. The new structure is extended along the wall of the adjacent brick building on the east and onto a recessed area on the roof of the historic addition. The architecture of the new "addition" is derivative of and simplified from the existing house so as to not compete architecturally. A clear distinction between old and new is created. All motorized mechanical equipment and ductwork will be housed inside the new structure. b. The character of the "addition" is interpretive of Victorian character using more contemporary materials and details. The addition is designed in a commercial vemacular to reflect its location in the Commercial Core district and its use for multi-use purposes. c. & d. The proposed development strategy retains the historic structures and places new development in a visually separated massing at the rear of the property. The third floor of the rear structure is "minimized' by a strong comice at the top of the second floor and recessing the walls of the third floor back from the wall plane of the lower section of the building. Light wells for the basement level are avoided by incorporating low windows in the west wall, located under a window display shelf, which has the effect of skylighting the basement spaces. 4 Aspen Street A/Icip <402- â‚¬ Al:r Maple-1?45 U U Â¥ 41 Aspen Stâ€ži, Gulde Â¥ A-CLh. ...H 67 Midl,ndA,+ .........................~....H67 t. .... A.*Av... .............6 0 AU,~d M Pt................-......H 7 e.4, / 0 1 ~ ~ 46 - ---.. East J - Aspen AI.câ€¢ in.......+,........,.............,........+Hl 62 St..........-Â·---Â·Â·Â·+Â·Â·Â·Â·--Â·Â·+Â·Â·Â·Â·G 1 O , Ali,Vist,8.............â€žâ€ž.......FÂ·2 3 MÂ©nâ€¢,ch St......â€ž--.-...6 H Mounta: Viewâ€¢ m........-... E 2 - ... Mul L-,1 CL & --.........IÂ· J -to 44,9. / ./ 1. . Asp en Alps M .......................H 1.7 Min ON M " -, . Bay St........................................+GO Nichol/in...........~............... G 6 Ne.ta A. ............+..................... H 1\ <%:23-441 7 0 ./.2-. \ . Â». Rd . ~ Blacke.chm...................EF 23 No,th St......â€ž.....â€ž..._._......F 3 4 e Â· ~ Â· Bennett enoch Ct. Pl IW...........E A S Ntel/hawk Di...................-.......E i â€¢rpt.,A , 4 . huvi ':f ' Sd '0$#Q 4.. 123 '204.11'Â·. ~ 'Â·&492 0~~4044 ""IZI:;9.~;*;i:~%*,44*~-' . 1 E Ble,ka, St GH56 0,igin,1 St -Â·.Â·-Â·Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·Â·Â·Â·-Â·H ' 6 Bleek. St.............................. G 3Â·5 0.,la.--.-......â€ž....â€ž.. -......6 6 c I p. *Ci, $ B. Blizebonnit 1 .2 Ovellook DI ., 9. L.7-246. ,< 3 4 \ Bunny Ln............................E 2+3 P..1 St..........................1 4 . H.6 I. ...dE- 1 1, -~Â·Â·t '~ td Not.411.6.w,br#,ownorn-don,up Castto C,oek Dr.............â€ž............F.3 P,ck Rd...â€ž............................... E 5 fe' Sno.,-n, Ct ) e or bird iii uril u/.4 Som, ,0.1,16 ma, b. Ca.,1. O..A Id _................G-JÂ·1,3 Mm# C F 4 e"IL ./0 L, .4---- i40=2.4/0 \11 4 sillâ€¢!0- - C 14. L-WI;iaer o' 7 * pmaw, P"Pow~ w '4"".r..den~ Contennial Of 16' Pitkin Me* Dr n E Chattiold Acl ....E 2 Maw Ln.._............â€ž.--.......f 4 To Awpon. 8'$â€¢fl 74Â·29 K C:cuil A. ..i.1 Pow' Plain Art FLO A e.} <-71 . A Cottenwood Lo f 6 auoin St.... Cbmt,nd St.----........-â€ž..H-0 P,imrole P.. 11 ' (~ Coopef A, H.4 5 Pupp, Smith St A t Truic. Cotionwood U ......................1.4 P,i'mid&................ C Orstal LIAI Rd 17 RE. St . Dl,4 + 5 / & 115 1 13, # U RW,/POS< 1~â€¢11~ain . * 4---~_f j~*1 'GJ <*.- Datest....Â· -----*--------------------- H-G Â· Rid But' Of n E, Dean St .5 11.3 Mouum Rd......â€ž._... D G 6 , ,t- D.Attli a, Dr.--...............H 2 3 RidÂ·* A. , n E' >25'L- la Di.w Di.-â€ž.............---.--...1 4 5 RS90/ St H 6 Dul.nt A..................................HÂ·4 6 R,dge Pl Rd F % ./ EaswoodD.......*-... 17 Rio Grand, M _.......â€ž.........G H S 7% Â» 94 lita f m ::41-***-0**~~~*- 7, 1 *42 1 +4 / 1 ' 4~ '~4, *-**f:Try<Ki-}21 0 Hive, Di â€¢ f 1 0 fLfl~474-41 %994'Jil- 14Â» 1-: Fieo Stlvern..........................6 67 R,veisidin..........................16 C Golon, St...... ...................... H 5 Roa,WFo,k R.....................~~.~ 1 Gairâ„¢,ch St ...................... G H+4 5 Roa:inglo,knd.............â€ž.....F 4 G,blonA......... ................. GH56 Ro**Ct.... ~...................G 1* Alaroon Creak Rd 3(0---1' -~-- Â·Â·i~* C F 1 ' ' ' j~~i- **sU~;4.f~ Â·*6 $ souu: Ad Ccr ZÂ¥:Sib .9 1 1 J )) i 3 -,7 1 1 Gâ€¢lbeit St....... Â·Â·Â· ......Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· H 5 S,bin DL.+ ..--*.DE I ~,4 S, 5 'fe, I F,10=4 1 Gdosp:* St. F 4 .......... 1 21 A j a\,a '%',% 9 Â·~0~Zm â€¢f ti: : .1 %12 1 Parr,7 F /k:te Â·-1 Â· '~,<4443 Â· Giov. St- - 112 Salbattencifâ€ž. ..............+. . /1 Hanam St. - Â·Â· - .... . G 35 Sa. 6Wt Ct....... ............â€žâ€ž.â€ž..6 iL\\.,6, 4 -.. '5#*197:1:hie Hanoi Hullow _ . . E: Sh.dgwood R ...................... lÂ· J 7 Heathe, li i GH2 Sdime St..........._.............. G H 41 1-9 - 2 Regan -, n ,- IL 17 .7. 4.*Ir- ., b 4~ $ .\ 7 I ---i-REP-' 't-MI 21--Â·; &' - Â¤ 1{on,ostak: &.. Hetden Di. ... ...... G 3 Shad*n........... ...... F G ~ Fo Al.woon L./Ae fitin,/,Ip'mit,444:4& 2 4 -4,mar ta Hopkin,Av........ ...............GH 3 6 Suvs, King 8..........................~.~. E ' : R: r D L 2.=.St , ~ Aspen *Â·*eio~il.9 b4*/L~ f Â· hd Â¥ her - t }lunle, C, eek Rd-.. ... .â€ž~....E F 8 Snuggli, St.Â·~...........~~ ...f G.3 - Â· Hyman Av. ..... ...G }14 6 Smuggic, Grove Md .~~..........~~ H 6 Â· . 1 i; 6/'4' Juan St...............â€ž. ...... .....H 4 6 Smuggle, Mount,in Rd......E H 6 1 40/4&-â€¢4, in JV 1 1 g.e, 1 t,erk 4 - 0 1*29 : f s.4 * 1- ~'24440-4.4 (44Â¥*e i t King Sl. .........â€ž.Â·Â·. .......... H 6 Sid St.................... H Gul=,1 StSÂ¢ 9.- 9 West t.-sU'*. i iI 44 44 , \ (.41 Si~li.....1+Mete,0.::li~~. % Lacel CL Ln..... ..HI.7 Sneak,in~........................_..F G take Av..............- ...............FÂ·G 4 S,:ow Ounn,Cl...........Â·-Â·â€žÂ·Â·Â·Â·Â·.Â·Â·Â·E La,kipur Ln.....~...........................HÂ·2 South Av..... towel Ln..â€ž...........â€ž.......* â€ž..... HÂ·2 Spring St...........................G H 5 ~ Asp~ Aw et lons Pme Rd.-*.....................6 5 0 Sfuce St.................--...â€ž.G 1.-c,i.Â£.02<12 3 . 4 2 â‚¬99 Lupi"Di 48 Summ,t St..................- --â€ž....,..H =4 Magnilico Rd ... Tial Ct......â€žâ€ž......._..............G 2441 1 Mbin B AH)5 Tebrin i Mapli Ln 46 h,COUM . .Fl Â» 1 \Wip, .11 - Margit M 1+23 Twin FWAR U 01.- \ 1, Ma:Ion CL D, F.1 Ute A. M I 5 V./ St r 0 72â‚¬Ie=:r Matchliss Of 4Hâ€¢ WIt** Av 1 M.yllow., P H.t.1 Win En d St.................-.H 1 La LAUCTION M,Surrwn# Arl H.1.7 W,lt,1,4 0, 1 7 4Â» M,adow Or 4 H.2 Wmoughby Wy 43 To 16Wn lakis vi independence Pâ€¢*2'~ifl M. o. Ad F.G.3 Wright Rd F A A a a .4 A 1 Mal OUS WEST Dax. Mc 1993 Al#p O US WESTD,â€¢. k. 1998 ; ALLEY B LOC K 80 . 575009'11"E 30Â·16 'llrllfti. ./ /ONE STORY/ / r lir=illi,- 1 'k; I 1 1 i -I 1 /i//// i/ ll -.94 01 I lili- i//ill-llii ~ / /ONE STORY / // . â€¢ ;,/ / / HOUSE/ / /~ 22 l lilil~ ~~ ii~r\ ll. b ~CONG SLA. H -11!11 1 :iLU-lilil l' 1 .. 3 - L . FOUND: - FOUNO: RUAR - Pt-Al CAP N 750 09' 11" w 30Â·16 RESAR - PLAS. CAP HOPKINS AVE. IMPROVEMENT SURVEY B SOUTH MONARCH N 14' 50*49"E 1 0 0 lEt Loastar MeGreaq 1-..-# fkm: C.#)1 87Â£13 j' 11 1 /\ IF=.7 0 1/F\J- M [D <. 1/ C./142.C.4 ... /1 L--1 1 c< l--N-L- 11 F,I.... 1 10 f 1 6/ _ 302 HOpK /,vs 1~22" 19. V, 4 Â»279 "47 Al 86/N e **674 -kng 1940. 9*F**rp bbwâ‚¬L ld:, *" 1947 Â«fiNA/42Â· Â»PA) 6.te, h. X '' -- I>42.-2 1 7.4 Â· -r T .4-1. 6 I '' 4 . ''43 r~-'63&I~)Â· -~g 'nk -2 ' + AL . 4 ) - 111- - 1 ' - t gli--P- J. lili,1,111.11,1111, 1% Â·7775770=097577 -1, -9 - 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 111 .0 - 5,11 - .i.j .~,1:~ 11 ..... ./4 , //,2 ic? 915 - -- -- 4 ------- 4.- al--- -*r 7.3//1 4- 2=c Ji- .tv - mu -- -1 .0 1 1 ..~L.434*.; .-- il<'4~- #47 *v .~ L:.'Â· A â€ž i\1- 1, *,f.f I. 4 kl*C:,;1Â»~4 j.; 5 '-944'1196.~ ,-i~(~~ -d=1-Lk.Â·,/4+ .. 2.<.t'*t. -59'.f,t,~: 3,;-?:~it~/t?7933 At.fpr'.rfr..751=Aff.Â¢52/El-:-41 ,,1 ... . , .'C' 'i ...0.- ..ti r. 1 ' Vecturs[1(/ Jake VickiÂ·ry Architectute Aspen 302 East i lopkins- Existing South Elevation 4/28/99 l'hoto: C' 1},irle:, Abbott/Digital At-t, ,Â·\>,ra Â© iP .. -â€¢ari---- .... 4 D / Â»4 , k \: 21 Â¢ 4 /17\ 1 2 I I , 73*k ..43.45.1:t..... t , I I. .LA~. . ' .,2. $ i I .2, .. Â£ 451 4 . 1 . I 4 '. - ..4 0 .1 r P .. 4209*92%*65:flli~~igiwi36/;1 7 L --~ 44)jovitp.&0~/,eze:XEW#~L $4 â‚¬ 27/ 4/' & 41* =- . 00 -4E- ' A=-~*3:.~, 7 .1711pk#~~F:~ .1.4 ; 0 - 14Â»- .A.-4<61-6 -ar w... A . 48*%9*Ma.i .' Ul>Jny _iÂ· -42 1-> 7 1 ,0.4820.1. 7,-1*Nisal . 6 I , k --26Â·EWEESimp---- -=- - j . . ./..4 -- tâ€¢ re -.. 4 -=-~ 1.6/, 1. . fli P 1. 11 i Ii I I "Ail . .L f ------ 4 4 . ' 1 .I Â·Â·1173? W ~ Â»'Seâ€¢' I ':ts- 1 44~. 46,49Â£,- 4 .. Nilk-- . -*.,4*Â· --.. 25 #Li'im~, 194,:7i'*''ti hit CA*:k-d -Â· ~Â·97*A L .. '. v A I. '49.-, -1 Vectory;11(/ hike Vick,ry Archill, ture Aspen 302 East Hopkins- Existing North View 4/28/99 Plic,to: (/11.1 tÂ·Ics Al,botÂ¢ / Digitai Arts A,pCn Â© 1 494 -6 ... r; \ \\1\ 111/11/j P ij I Il/1/4/ , ,_ i . Ir/. 4\1, \ . .4 Â· 3 20 yb *rk T . <:0 2 -4.64 1 . .,4 : * #..k. ~ c Btr:+- . ~~ 4 , 1, I \4)41~1 , I. A . , '1 I \,4. All p' i -41~0~Z-2- Â¥ ' k<Â¥41 ., . .P m)8222Â» .,% -- /& >k -. -~ 1~Ct r. 1 I \ N- .8 I ... 1. // , - - 4. liÂ¥ .:f:&4 / ---.. ---, 1 -4 . -r .-- 4.I - . 4 .- . r.' 61 *2 -1 r ~ -- --~ 1.- - .-1 -- r I -5 ...1 - -=t- U r: -1 . 10.*C - , Z :=t=llnÂ·=t=- - (ZET---- - 9.---- 2 j - 1 ? 0 1 lili ' --- - I ly. I N 1--- r ;.44?l L r.;11Â· .A' .,~ r.1 -f. -. -- a N 14 - \ 1 - 46-4- 4 .-4Â£7#33> \4~,-tfir,4|'C/ | 3L,0 \/i,-kiuv A rrhibuÂ·flurÂ·/ Â·\â€¢Â·.t,1,11 3(17 11.Â»;t Honk'~~,titli West Pt,rsni,Trive .1 /9>4 /90 PhotoÂ· (-h,li-le, Abbottl I~~~~ , th ,\Nt->en 0) 1090 r: 41~ r / M til // / - - ----Il 4 .-I - 4/1.=r~~~-~5230- '31/ 0/3/ - i.\ , 1 -,1. - 6~411.11--i - 1 119.My-al'.. f ... 1 I fill/..4 t â‚¬â€¢ / I - I 4 .M' 0 1 -Ii#) - - 1- - - 1 - --h - . 0 1 - . r,Â».i_ r :m :4 ~ , Â»r-Â·4 4 4 :.,. UP- ' 2 9-l 1% \ -. i.',../lt-7.* eli P- i R# \ t, il~Â· '4 5 37&Â»Ar ..11 . 1 1- 4i â‚¬ 4 - '1. 642 -N . I h. . #Wn' I , - W , aLÂ·.24. + Â·42 . 1 /7 VectorsPC / Jake Vickery Arclulecture Aspen 3()2 liasl I lopkins- Partial West View 4/28/99 Photo: ('11,ulcs Abbott/ Digital Art, Abp.'11 0 14'r ... E---9 -77':k---2'- :'*4, 7.6~t r 't i .AX . 1, ). . 1 9 ' 422--*: , 74 .3/ ./.4 . ; . 4.4 1 101 4, o i , ' 0~4 41 7 ,- 1.- 4 $ , , ... --1--'~'(farrt,2 ./.t iii j 1, I ' 1 4}i c:trfirt :- 1 1 -.1-,JÂ«f---k 1. - 'r. YA ,# . ' ' ..4, e t ' ' 74 / 2 -- f '# 19 1 \ ' r . b\ ./ ' ' littl IT P 2.141{ 0 . i Ate , f . , 41 -3- r- - 4 4.11 1. i \. * 1, 2:~,<4~4 1, , - V ... :Rt - 1, 't - ,~ 11 /1- --44 *i. lf/U .1 h " 24 -764 1.1 Â·1'91 1 1/.- & I . . I. .1\: Py .- 1 : L. .4 G 'in. 7 -1 - i \ - . U . Â·Â· 973, -5 HEDÂ» - *X,41 1* , #. -9 1-t.1 -I--*16-I#-- ~.(.,tit -- ~ ~ Pel.- . ;\ U<, j 1 - ...9-* , '1 . f Â· Â·y, S-hy ' Â·.-Â·*â‚¬*.---- :11. Â·' Â· Â·-.u r. 416 - . ix. 4 4.,4 1. .. 1 4 - - .1 14'...4 1 '.. '\ ; \ I Ar'77---7-------- ---. L--1- - AR-1*Â·:92 4 - -- - . --- % 1/ 1 7 -- 4 - ' C / ' "I,-;-; f '1 '1 A Â· 3 MJ., * '4 3*Atnv,b.tht.1. b.'41* r :1,-'A.Â·64*Lf. ' -' ....244 -12. -*--i-: . 4 -4.='4#42182â€¢'~~*'. ..4 3.-4-:rda-EWL.1-7#te1244,2.Â»%..1-â€¢ 1:-7>.Â·-1 i?Â·:.A.14â€¢ttÂ»-Â»g, .~ .4 2.-5. . ./'. . I.+- '.1.4 .LI.* #/4.,Q/'* ' I - i '---'/-. I': ...I...1..., : . - Vectorst'l'/ Like VickiÂ·ry Architecture Aspen 3()2 East Hopkins- Existing West Elevation 4/28/99 Photo: Ch.irles Abbott / 1 )1 Kital Arts Aspen Â© 1994 (\ ... 24,1 - . . m.F 4 '11 .. .,.Willi 4/y ' ' . .;F ''. 11,41:.. 01111, Â£ f.i 'top* i .1 11 -Imm,=11"1# 6,1+~ t'Â·.Â·,- '1 11 11 :1~ Ell 1,1 . 1 , . 4:.'O.Nt:# M Am :4:Â», Â· iali k f P.:12 :91; f. #. -I .4%84'A, .Mi;' 1-1 *8:Â· 4 .... 2..1 114.-, , 4iii'?tie.,6. 4 i'p: Â· 4 I ., .37 -r . .*&Â©6~t LÂ·?tri t.' I . I. / 2 - Â«24:,4... r b +1 Ek ~447.::;PM*B I'- 37: m t.lil */./1 .. .A ' 1 . 4.72.-hi ....2 . ' '...... 4~ l~ ~I . ....... 1 Â· /40/RE'.71-1,1~:,- 1 :225 Fl li~||||~ h'*-3 - ././ Â· tÂ·' 3.1 1 - i=dA / 94 FT-Â·4 ' 3/1,1,4 -2,#Mp - / ... I ....:.I' 273*%/1 . 61Â·Â· /.'Â·il L#,j,yfid . 1 t~â€¢194.t i . 1... , - 14'L 'Â·.'Â·wâ€¢,vuÂ·. 1,0'.' B . i.,I **iÂ·,1.:f ..21.13,1 9 4 ty ''' <t. Â£171Â«, - b t,Â·1*Â»f. fi~ Â·..rui!~Â·,t . 'NiÂ·1.4'La1:Â·''U'- '.flÂ·. .. U. 3_ . -f:.:..tÂ¥Â·.U Â£r' 1.62*!etic â€ži,1-5.-44- ' Â· ' . ~ ...'* 41. ..119.~ ,â‚¬ . 1: 1 r. .li , . -i:' 75 . Â· 1,/Ell:TE,-- U fert r . -~ 'â€¢Â·1 +3. :I :~r ..1â‚¬ 0 00 6..14011Â¥ . . 1 ..1 - . \-1. I \ 4 i :lÂ· 1 /,4 t.Â£ . . El' . Il i.r - Â·i . -. EXHIBIT ~ 1 740299 1 'F. h..4 i ' 37 11 1 1 1 1/, h h / - 1 40 1 418 14+FF LI 11 1 - 1 1 .s11,1.111~1111111111 dj /,1!111 1ili~'1~~1%14.11 - , 1 .1, I :0 44#41-3 I i. rir.- Â· *AR'r. 9 Â»560141 694 *1213 1 --- '--- t.. . i - 21 11 11 - -- Â·. 1 e, / 4 ------1-*- *- .1--- 11 - . - . N E....'El - --1 -- |i i , - 1 ~6 ~Â« - -,- .I ' 1: -i! ' ' ZI -*r-*= ic== lili lili 111 111 1 1 11, - - ,- 4 1= rtrit=m- U --- - 1 1 1 1; r I L 1 1 . 1 .1 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 302 EAST HOPKINS - - -dAR E-VICKERY ARCHITECTS 6.30.99 1 ; 92UE, *'9 C Lo'i . . 1 1 \ 1091 'I 'M 11Â¥93'j - 1 -- 1 BRJK. 1 (Af#Pr,MENI~ #oer 4 I 1 74- We W I E-4 + --1 0 1 8Â¥m , 1 1 1 1 -- -- 1 PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 302 EAST HOPKINS JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 6.30.99 46,4 , IL 0,1 1 - T -i Â· 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ur tÂ«rl . 4--1 1 1 1 Opt Â£ 0 1 01446 --- -- *044**Whip NEW i - -- ___ %#500(17 WofWI"4 -Ar-quoc.. i 0#16,6' Z F,(191'4 I 4 7 -*L *190 / 1 1 t 1 Y -__ -i - 1-1 j '*'*- 4 u.n/ MrAA#26+1 91.r . 7---PfÂ© POSED-G ROUND -FLOOBPLAN 302 EAST HOPKINS JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 6.30.99 0 4% 1,0 0 N 41~TRA Of# Mt .0 -- 1 fowÂ©â‚¬0Â· \ ~em#â‚¬74 1 1 1*4Â£2 - -- 2-, 41 1 4fy- 4-- F#F oF + i %*wir,4 #d)156 1 ge, UVU44' exisT. Lk'11 il,!il 12*U .9'ED I -- -I- PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN 302 EAST HOPKINS JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 6.30.99 14,0.11, Ott 1-- Â·d lt-L CLOWT gmt 840 1 1 1 1 60041. e - :111 1 lill , 01. + 30 - 27/ - -*I -- I â„¢WW 6 *NP Â¥1.*.. PROPOSED THIRD FLOOR PLAN 302 EAST HOPKINS JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 6.30.99 PEAK eELâ€¢ 9 -- U 1##*190% 0 1 PECA *02#1442 \ 1.1 :- "1 n 9-7 _,L_-_h--2bau 1-â€¢ i 1 0% - --1-- - -T - L_ 2 116*- 606,0 lu . PROPOSED FOURTH FLOOR PLAN 302 EAST HOPKINS JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 6.30.99 .. ADIAZInS iNOI-WOIAOZIdldll 11-3 11 3 1 k A 61 9 41 Z / 1 1 111 Â¢4 3 91 )9 Or 3 A V S N F NEO][-][ 1 /4. , dÂ¥0'6Vld IM Wrii,4 dÂ¥ J ~SY 16 #M Ilygle 91 Â·09 -_ ._,A Tril-,An.9 , N - 11. - -----illfillui--_. 1 a M Im ... , ' 14 1 V 9, 1 11 111 1 1 1 11 'Illi; 1:11 â€¢11 ' Iii â€¢ ' ,Â·,111_il.ili;,'l*. 1.-_Ill 1 ' 4 1 \ 1 4 4 1 /.O 1!: 1 1 ir 4..'LETIT./.t- - 6\ 1, It' , 1 1 AL:211 2- 1!.1.-j:[-!11111:1111]111; ,i,...1 4 4 1 r I 7)'/ - . 1 VE' 4-' 1-, pi F w~â€ž5,#~~ 1 1 L'All ill; 112, ! 1 11 \,9 't I.â€¢ 1.1 #1|1 1,1' 1 tâ€¢It| ''~ illl Itl 1 1 1, t 1.4.-4.,19. 1 ~ +12]IrT111111 M 1- ' , IJ -- ,, 14 . ' 23 - 4 + f :'Â· k: 1 -- --I- , i , i 11 1 J 1--il [ 1 , r 1 I 6* t 911/.17 . 1 1 tr. d=F==- 1 -1 1 -1 --.1 11 1 1 , _ A ..I- ~t~~~~*Ull- 1 1 6 â€žG) 1 ' -4.4 b r. =1 e ,3='. 44*4-1-1 - 1 74 - 1.,7-,1 '5 (,f ~\0 4/ 14 ' I ;1 -1 1 r , - -1 1 i.-144 . . 1 . .11 / It# i WL. 1 j ,s'I 1 K. 1...i ..,,1~ . .râ€ž ---- I . 1.1 1 1,1.4; . - 'Â· 1 Liff ~flkÂ¥=Ilr*Â·Â· - --l -, b i --- 1. 8 frft . 1 1 1 1 1., . 1/2 .- 14 1 1 m j I i 1 ==mE29:- -3-:4 - /- > , 1 1 VitrilÂ¢~t= -H 1 1-4, 8 1 -. '~Â£.1. 2 ' ';.4 . 1 - , | 1 1 +fn-1- 117+ 4+ b i 9 - z-I 4/6.' /,câ€¢,:15' - 1 1 1. - . -4 99 SOUTH MO. ARCH al-â€¢ -U--1.--f HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM ~ State Site Number: Local Site Number: 302.EH Photo Information: ASP-CC-2-11 and ASP-CC-2-12 Township 10 South Range 84 West Section 7 USGS Quad. Name Aspen Year 1960 X 7.51 15' Building or Structure Name: A.G. Sheperd / Chatfield Residence Full Street Address: 302 East Hopkins Legal Description: Lot K, Block 80 Citv and Townsite of Aspen City Aspen County Pitkin Historic District or Neighborhood Name: Commercial Core Owner: Private/State/Federal Owner's Mailing Address: ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Building Type: Residence Architectural Style: Victorian Miner's Cottage Dimensions: L: X W: = Square Feet: Number of Stories: 1 Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): L-shaned Landscaping or Special Setting Features: Mature cottonwood west side; wrought iron fence around yard 0 Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material and Function (map number / name): 100 square foot single-qabled, wood shake roof; clanboard with fixed glass and 1/2 light over wood panel door For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in the description as appropriate: Roof: Cross gabled; wood shingles Walls: Clanboard with horizontal wood boards at porch enclosure Foundation / Basement: Concrete masonrv unit with windows to the west side of the basement Chimney(s): Red brick at center ridge Windows: 6 over 6 double hung wood with arched crown at front windows and west side; wood shutters Doors: Stained-glass transom / 1/2 light / wood panel Porches: Shed at entry on square built-up posts with simple arched brackets General Architectural Description: Unique vergeboard detail and finials. An excellent example of a tvvical Aspen Victorian Miner's Cottage. Features such as the front gable (steen Â·pitch) with ornate vergeboard and trimmed out with horizontal clapboard siding; cross gable with centrally located chimnev and front entry with porch; and -â€¢* long/narrow double hung windows. Wood finials at each qable end. 9446 40 6 I Page 2 of 2 State Site Number 0 - Local Site Number 302.EIL FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Current Use: Residential Architect: Unknown original Use: Residential Builder: Unknown Intermediate Use: Residential Construction Date: 1883 X Actual Estimate Based On: Assessor MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS Minor Moderate X Major Moved Date Describe Modifications and Date: Exterior detailing modifications; dates unknown Additions and Date: Cellar added and kitchen enlarged to rear; dates unknown NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA Is listed on National Register; State Register Is eligible for National Register; State Register Meets National Register Criteria: A B C D E Map Kev Local Rating and Landmark Designation 0 1-1 - Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register Contributing: Resource has maintained historic or Il - architectural integrity. 0 Supporting: Original integrity lost due to alterations, however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort. Locally Designated Landmark Justify Assessment: Associated Contexts and Historical Information: One of the verv earlv Victorian Miner's Cottages built (1883). Built by A.G. Shennard, later sold to D.R.C. Brown who retained it in the familv until 1898. D.R.C. Brown was involved in the development of Aspen through his investments in mining. Other Recording Information Specific References to the Structure/Building: "Aspen Early Days. Hopton & Schuldner; Pitkin County Courthouse Records Archaeological Potential: N (Y or N) Justify: 0 Recorded By: Date: March 1991 Affiliation: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee - City of Aspen Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer/Planner ./ M--- * -- I - - I. .96-14 tr. .2 Â·:iN -Wrifir .t :5.1 rt,2424Â»~sÂ£~ .... 23 - . 9,& 'tr.' -bILLZC. - - 1. - -: -I=Sors -S . b 9 ti~<â€¢...-5Wee'2222-- 2,L. I L=~-Â¥:79 ~41~ ....ZP . .* P#fl:- *=4#~ 1 ..*.... . - .... 4 --~~Â·*2;6676- --- -4 1 Sir&1 --Â· ..ri.n~..-4 -g~5.â€ž*,..~.0-----~*5~355-2-1-r-3 ~ Â£* I - *-/81.YEd*'-e4- 2 -- 3 44 :. % 3/2 --I- . 7-.~1. ar'(Aj.*4 - 43, SA . i Ft,q . ' ---- .4- 1 '49 C - ' - - - ./<4971*- 1/ - . = i. ,-4 21- ... . . -44-7 - ' i f- 1, ' . .. 21 1 L. &154*.*117 2-12/-+1 y#irlt + J .- .* --â‚¬Â»~: -=2 Â». -5/4*ErÂ» 27, *- e:21,/U,~ . '4:ff//71,26.# 9,49,2. Â»& Â»* 7-/.li~~MLI -- - --Il. r X---- . I.AGIA+~27Â»91/44 .. 5=70 10 M - ec-t'.im#Aaff)*4171* % C. r.fÂ·-- *=- - *~E~..4 <....:,---<-16'~* . Q Y i .~~732:t.b;740 t,-,N. 1 '- * -7 e.kn= , , lr-70-# 1. 42 T j. A :,6/Ii:,59/A~Â£,gra, ..UPT; 1 , 6 -'1,42210.._.6219-032~Z:y , 4- - 7 .7 .' - J 1,9 3 r v I /4 - 4 -2- 31-.4=--v - -f= RFR 1 . 23.53 './-1- - m., -20 r . js/Mt- Ilicj liwmr-- / . . -,-31.,--4.Wtv ~~1~~Il=W,~11Ir&J~ i' Â·â€¢Â·ir-+ / I ,/- 1/ fogp/=*4--7~ e / r . / -1 5290.- 1 --9 4 i 217 dv Câ€žâ€ž1 Y*<7y -44- CD i '. /J: A,*. frA+#&4Â£(MT*/Al<BIL/1..=-=4.~itfq~.:721?3~ 4-,A14 ./.*r.V --I--& Â¥ b J . . i)~ 7. ' 12GA#-Muy 2$*JF-kil.f 1 - 7 3;; *' Pit' 4.2 . 1=15=1.-2 -' 121 1.1 11111 04#*;r- 33 '< 1 . ..1... 1 1 - illt.,ttltl~Iql ' i ti U - 2...I-/I'l- L.a.Â¥ .. 1 . --r-7 irt .â‚¬~f~f 1 3,Â»+f~ "-isill.1_~~C 1/#LI~'0 Â· Â· . 7 2~ 40,1 r-- 1Â¢1/dip.#1,7 -12#"liwit.2 I aÂ» v *=2 1 1 .~~t *- - k %1 I e - - .9. --d- ' I Air ,/Ed/,6 -n.. EN -6, U 1 7.Xi.Â£r,r ~... ........,/. â„¢ 1 411 6 -/ I. , 6 ..1 7 ~ 4~W:6.4.4/J - livrry 7,-6&9 4 1, 4, 4 p a :ils--14 . -'y '- E-- â€¢ 1 2*ZJ,7-1- *< .., .~ 1-11'114, %(t-ir-i-nÂ·Â·:.,_,_~ ...1 *52_2- L. E 1 - 1 5 r 4 . â‚¬1 Â»,fljoulâ‚¬~- ~1~-~ Â£Â· .*/. ' A,7 )- /11=.M.=1 -,27 0-fizi-* b. # --.Al--I-1.N -2=- . ./4 -Imer . -4 & 7,7 k :42 j./.fH1il J Dir- i y.e . -Ily.09,<SA,4 6/"6 1 1 -$4-:,97 W/4-LA 4-~MA--T~ip; 4-#603~44 4-10 . ,fek//la , -- ---Â·=UV 1 74. 1 4(2 .115:1 --I .+94,35/P,9-/r =I'l ' 9tl 7#7 44Â¢L.1 '" 04017i..375#* ;l-~.j&*.Aidi#*7 b-*Mar~~ 6 4)* Whs :*LF,4 Â·--4*14 / -4.-4:294 . 4-I~- 4 <420 .200, 4- -4, -Â·> ...,>-r>f>. ... -1 f. fl~7~7-* - 1 -,t- 4 4-v Â¥ . .7 . .21 11. J la A - _~*~~59~21.â‚¬t~<5%~S:fENX~Â» *- 1 Vve â€¢u, =.. - .- *8Â·:r J, U~7,IL~~VIK/*.g~Li~ibl~~~~~:*~-d#ErMt~V,~.1,#JI~*-C~I~#3911%&-2 .<5644*5f~ffi#2:49*Â¢~E.~~ 1 . 11 -1 i.,G=2" 1-a-., - h tâ‚¬Â·t'M[Â·'- ~ 9 1*r- Â·7Â· 1.2.= _ ~. . - 1-98- -- #4 *-'.2=-- I. . ''LeteÂ·=<NA-2,1 9,/Al/7~--0- IÂ·I- .1. f - 74-4 Â¥-Â¤AÂ·.22*fTâ€¢ - , ... -Ill .... ' 497 ~~03~ -- I -t,r, ...-_ )*92*-9- 6<E... ;W..' l: A' 6. Â· - ~r'3-4=479>ft@'91!~793: -4~41344263% ~.\\~Bl j~ .WE>71 Le>,2*-47'q,--4~~ al ~21 ..yi,-C, 41 . -,1 V... /423;#19:th;ElFFt#Lici#X124.FRipt~:.2/8--/7264%**frp&%*52,/dEErGSA.El/vi#1212/7/1/;9Etf,r/. . Â· ~i*50Â»,Zfâ€¢:SmaÂ·ojibrotti-97Â·0â‚¬*tra.-*e:ee*Â»ti-q:*pRAM<3*09-19Â«8Â«-7.9.4 55.44792,9.-'~fidfan?,37Â©3.t~Â»' --.-- A . *.f *-19:Fi' It *-e'~/ M%%-8&/~1 -7 6 1- 1 Â· M .9 ./-1- - O 79 211 {/ 1 ----3- 9 ,# I 27 = 21 q dpht 5* DioF'q Â«m.Â¥:1' --000,Nki-*C \ O#Jjiards. - --7 2 11 -I i...5 44.1 - 3 320 0 R b t. Â¢ E _ 1/ 1 /2 -- , A M:22214 . [*g-5~01-~ 2 :Â· 11Â· 60 ~â‚¬ -â€ž:E'y.,~1. Dar' Rm. L 1! 4 * 41' e. 2 *7Â·2411. :6. - -: .* I A= . I. I I . I.-1 7 n il % IKÂ·..104.442Â·Â£.0-icÂ·= 1 9.b In '22'+42 11 0.*. 1'.11 I ....1'02 #02:4 - - - ..1 . 2 , 0 0.~ N , 1 ~ Â·Â·Â·r 1. 1 - .... 4 11 JANI@Ls. ~ 4'~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ -atir 439 3 y -- i ] RAd{04 C 9 H 2 '1#.1 n ..F..1= f '. 1 Â·trurriec ..1. 0?/m -1 Bar ~~ 4 + c. rar/CA-- Â·- 11 J ts.Â·eti-ik- 6133'~11-0]i~Isr cl 3. *Lo 24 16 c 1.3 0, C:,4 0 2 Job Jud 009 200 Jl.03 2/0 3/2 3/4 3/5 3/3 927.0 322 324 6,325 3Â« '30 332 324~ 6 4 1 / i \ Ho-rAIDEROME. My.4 7.- 2 -"F,7,1 4 OD,9 . D.F1 U li :Â·P 5300'Li-bag- ft 11 3 9 +1 2 Le 43 - 37, 229 231 233 235 ~ 3, 071 :le '07 309 3;1 313 ~5.3/7 3:9 2 323 325 327 329 333. 333 335 J.. I. 24 acc: /\ rh r. .e $ e , i d j Cga/5 11 N 1 1 U.1 Â£ 0 4 / D 2 . ----0- -9 in 4 L. - r-7 L h --1 ~ 1=1 t. * 1 - 7 - it o ta P ~.! -. ~ 1? I X 0 - 8 G 2 . E F G H 14 yac. f A 4 K ; A [797 W,Ha 1 Cordie.- 53 17-7__7 71 - - 1 X < 1 ,-4 - --1 0 4 1 10 1/xt . 4 + W I 52 0 4 80 3 1/ < / %/ -r ~_11 160/77? /9 4-4- E -KLMNO GR 4 1 01 O 5 3 7---m 77 rT= r f i -- * - 1= 3-1 .1-Ii- X 67)r - - 0 1 1 1 I-T T Feed 1 \ - 1 2 - D - 13 j.! L=] 1 -2 : 1 f -D :1 -41= Hay 1 X 0, b Storaoe\ \ Vac. 4 ----- ----J i ja' -c\0,2 zz' ,~ L C 24 , DUO 302 309 306 300 310 3/2 3/4 3,6 318 31.) 322 324326 328 830 332336 (12472292*faiz) 6 '4 Pice - AV. 1 4-3 \ . 1 Clot _pÂ»ll Â£ l~-7 i 7 4- I -- 327 L Â£.9 2 9 2-1 135 E 9 303 303 3107 m.309 31/ W 3/1 317 3;9 32/ 323 325 327 329 331 =311 -3.31.-, ... 1 h , U - 2.. ... , 0/ C ~ 9229'0.72 ...2.;i --- o |t Z) 9 Â¤2'2 k 1 3 6 720.-lfi ,-5 D D VEr--I - *Ii Cl %1 2 , 1/2 ,.,r - i 1 2 -t ~ & ~.- ---12-1 E-,1~.fi . ~/2 % 1.18 .1 - 7 E 1/OP 1/0 /2 - T - - . , -FEE'243.15-43214 01 ;.01 901 %01 l.'01 60/ HI 81 Lit ai M '381971 lutif' Â°1 0/01\ h* *u o S. MONARCH ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. JUNE 9. 1999 0 302 E. HOPKINS AVENUE Jeffrey was seated at 5:20. Lisa and Christie were seated. Sworn in: Mark Haldeman John Davis Heidi recused herself. Amy informed the board that a site visit was done and a worksession was held a month ago. The property is on the corner ofEast Hopkins and Monarch and it is a 3,000 square foot lot and it is a locally designated landmark. The house is inthe original core ofthe city 1883. It is a very important house. The proposal is to remove the addition on the back of the house which was built in 1960. Staff has no concern with that proposal. 0 They are asking to relocate the outbuilding behind the historic house close to the street so that it has high visibility and create a new lot for the commercial construction. A basement will be placed under the rear part of the lot. Staff recommends that the Parks Dept. be contacted concerning the trees and excavation. In terms of the architecture of the proposal the idea at the worksession was to make the historic structure separate and distinct. The proposal is to link everything together and Staff recommends removal of the link or at least the second story. Staff requests that the HPC study the height ofthe three story tower and whether it is appropriate or not. John Davis stated that the historic shed would be moved forward and if the attachments are hooked on from a commercial feasibility to be able to have that one space would be better for rent. If it is detached it can't. The recess is ten feet back. Commercial would be on the first floor and residential on the second. The historic house will not be moved or have a basement. He said the development is probably three feet from the sidewalk but there is a drip line. 0 1 Ucindoks--- ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JUNE 9.1999 0 The shed would move east and a three story addition is proposed on the alley corner. The architect Jake Vickery could not present due to a conflict of interest. John Davis, contractor tried to explain what was going on with the site but he stated he is not prepared to do a presentation. Suzannah opened the public hearing. John said what they are trying to get out of the meeting is direction on the mass and scale so they can proceed further for the next meeting. The fa,?ade ofthe glass is not at the street level; it is behind the shed and isolates the little shed. The connector is 12 feet wide and will be office use. The new commercial building sits on the property line of the alley and on the sidewalk side it will be on the drip line of the trees which is probably three feet in from the sidewalk because the spruce trees hang over the sidewalk. The zoning allows retail or office use. There is one existing parking space and the proposal is to pay cash in lieu. The shed will have a basement under it. The shed is 150 square feet and will be used as an entrance to the basement and category unit down below on each side. Jake said one option is to attach the relocated shed through the rear of the shed to the connector and in doing that the spaces would be able to be linked together and make that commercial space more larger and usable space. Sworn in: Roget Kuhn Nicklaus Kuhn Roget said his parent's project at 303 E. Main was similar. This house could easily be on the national register in its present form. If the improvements are done he felt it could never be on the register. He feels the 0 parking space should be maintained, as they had to maintain a parking space on their property. On his property staff was very concerned about attaching 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JUNE 9. 1999 anything to the building and they could not attach anything and this proposal has an attachment. He also feels the sidewalk should be widened like they widened their sidewalk. Nicklaus Kuhn, neighbor passed around a picture of 1950 which shows the importance of the alley and how many houses were really lost. It is very important that what is historic is left on the site. The space between the sidewalk and trees is much smaller and if the sidewalk is widened the building needs to move back further away from the sidewalk. Roget stated that his carriage house is separated and not connected and it is a clear distinction between new and old. There is too much going on with that space. Chairperson Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Susan stated that the house could be eligible for the National Register. Maureen stated that there should not be an attachment to the house. She also does not like the massing behind the shed and prefers that the shed stay in its original location if possible. The third floor on the commercial is not appropriate. Ifthe attachment goes away she would be willing to consider a third floor on the commercial. Christie agreed with everything Maureen said. Lisa has concerns about the relocation of the shed out of its historic location. At the same time to put another structure between the historic house and the shed and detaching the shed further from the house is not appropriate either. She prefers a two story addition on the commercial building in the alley. The massing of a third story is too significant. The landscaping should be retained. Concrete should not encompass the carriage house as it willloose its setting. The connection to the historic structure is a concern. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. JUNE 9, 1999 Susan said the third story on the commercial building is much too dominating over a one story historic structure. She would never approve the three story. The connector should be as minimal as possible, and not office space. Since the buildings are going to be connected through the basement she does not see the need for a connector on the surface. In this way it saves the historic house from being attached to the new structure. She would never approve attaching the shed to the connector as Jake suggested. The shed should stay whole. She would also not want that space to be used just as an entrance. There is also concern about the height ofthe new structure, connector eliminated and the shed stay whole. She commends the applicant for not touching the historic house. Mary relayed that she is willing to go along with moving the carriage house closer to the main historic structure in order to get commercial space. She also feels that the commercial space does not need to relate to the Victorian house as it is a new structure. She has no problem with the three stories on the commercial. She would like to see developers maintain the historic structure as is and work with the basements, the commercial space etc. and adapt the historic structures as they are. She does not like the connectors or the glass. Jeffrey is not comfortable with the shed being attached to the new addition. If a basement is proposed detailing needs to be submitted so that it doesn't stick out above grade. The three story development is acceptable. A detailed landscape plan needs submitted. Roger said at the worksession it was mentioned that the second addition could be demolished and allowing the cottage to be moved and in doing so that would give you the freedom to design a truly unique building. In light of that he would move to table to a date certain with the following comments: 1. No problem with the height of the commercial building. 2. A model is needed. 3. The new addition should not attempt relate to the carpenter gothic of the historic building. That means in the type of siding and trim etc. He wants the addition to be totally different. 4. He is not sure about the linkage. It should not be higher than the cottage door and totally transparent. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. JUNE 9,1999 5. The cottage should remain an active building. 6. How the cottage sits on a basement is ofthe utmost importance. It should sit on the ground as it is now. 7. The landscape design is very important. The new building with the concept of the historic false front on the top should be removed. Stay away from the Victorian as it does not relate. Suzannah concurred with Roger and the rest of the board. The only possibility for the carriage house is to be moved. The linkage needs studied. She might be able to accept a little two story piece on the back of the building that would set offthe little cottage and not plug it into the u- shaped thing. She supports the three story commercial building. The third floor does need some kind of setback. The little cottage needs to be a functioning space. Maureen stated that often attachments are allowed to historic structures when they cannot be seen from the street. In this case, not only is it a corner, it is a primary corner in the downtown core. It is impossible for the connector to be transparent. She feels there should not be a connector as it might prohibit the building from being on the National Register. Christie stated that she completely disagrees with the concept of taller buildings in the core area. It does not go with the historic blue print of Aspen. It has always been said that buildings will not be taller than the opera house. That has been the history of Aspen. Susan said she objects to buildings being tall that overwhelm the historic house. She would agree to the third story if the connector disappeared altogether. Mary stated that she is not for the connector but to preserve what little we have left we have to go to three stories. Amy stated that the site is very important and the buildings need to relate to each other. The Board clearly did not support the connector. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. JUNE 9. 1999 MOTION: Roger moved to continue Conceptual Development for 302 E. Hopkins until July 14, 1999; second by Mary. All infavor, motion carried. Yes Vote: Roger, Jeffrey, Suzannah, Mary, Susan, Lisa, Christie 121 N. FIFTH STREET - HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT Disclosure Jeffrey disclosed that Ernie Fyrwald contacted him initially when looking at the lot but he was not retained and in no way will his decision be influenced. 6