Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Land Use Case.918 E Cooper Ave.HPC1-96
r Sec. a vu J '01 Tl € /11€x/~Cl H P CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET CITY OF ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DATE RECEIVED: 2/5/96 CASE # HPC 1-96 DATE COMPLETE: PARCEL ID # 2737-182-31-004 PROJECT NAME: Final - 918 E. Cooper Avenue Project Address: Sarne APPLICANT: John Davis Address/Phone: P.O. Box 966 Basalt, CO 81621 927-9700 REPRESENTATIVE: Mark Ward, Architect Address/Phone: 2945 Center Green Court, Ste. A Boulder, CO 80301 (303) 442-1201 PLANNING FEE: $0 # APPS RECEIVED 1 # PLATS RECEIVED TYPE OF APPLICATION: Exemption ilt}·:. 1 1.1,- HPC C]Yes 13No IP&Z C]Yes E]No I CC C]Yes [2'No CC (2nd reading) C]Yes C]No REFERRALS: U City Attorney U Zoning U Environmental Health U City Engineer C] Housing E Parks U Planning Il Other: Il Other: DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: DATE DUE: CLOSED/FILED DATE: INITIALS: ROUTE TO: MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 918 E. Cooper Avenue- Final DATE: January 24,1996 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC final approval to demolish an addition to the existing house, to demolish one outbuilding and to allow one to be relocated from the site, to relocate the existing house and barn, to make an addition to the remaining miner's cottage, and to construct a new unit on the parcel. Historic Landmark designation has been approved by HPC. Ordinance #30 review has been completed for Parcel 2, but must still be completed for Parcel 1 (the all new duplex to the east). APPLICANT: John Davis. Mark Ward is the architect. LOCATION: 918 E. Cooper Avenue, Parcel 2 of the Phillips/Gordon Lot Split, aka Lots O and P, Block 35, East Aspen Addition to the Townsite of Aspen. FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Section 7-601(D). Development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, and all development involving historic landmarks. No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale, and site plan with the designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an 'H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to a 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 500 sq.ft. or the allowed site coverage by up to 5%, 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 1 Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to section 5-510(B)(2). Response: This project received Conceptual approval, with conditions, on December 13,1995. Attached are the final drawings for Parcel 2 (the historic landmark) and the applicant's response to the conditions of approval. Staff finds conditions 2, 5, 7, 9,10, and 11 are met. In regard to condition 1, plans have been supplied for a mass and scale review of the new adjacent duplex. Staff finds that this structure needs modification in order to comply with Ordinance #30 (required for all residential development in Aspen), namely the large window on the east and west elevation, which violates the volume standard. In addition, staff is concerned with the location of the front door so far back from the street and the absence of an open porch element. A complete application for Ordinance #30 review should be submitted to the Community Development Department, which can then be reviewed in detail by staff. HPC may make comments regarding mass and scale issues at this meeting, or may wish to review the proposal again after confirmation on Ordinanace #30. Condition 2 has been met by indications on the drawings of areas where materials will be salvaged. Staff also recommends that staff and monitor be kept in close contact with the applicant during the progression of the project to examine what materials are uncovered beneath the aluminum siding. There may be trim materials or evidence of detailing which has been removed that should be replaced. Staff finds the canopy element over the door generally acceptable, however the arched form is somewhat heavy as drawn compared to other trim dimensions on the building. This element should be made to be thinner. Staff recommends that the applicant place an ad in the newspaper offering the shed for relocation. If this is not successful, the building should be photographed and disassembled. If no use can be found for it, the materials may be salvaged. There is no city owned location to store the shed. The bond must be submitted prior to building permit application. With the resolution of these issues, staff recommends final approval. As a note, the applicant's representation that 3% of the existing house is to be demolished is not accurate. The correct percentage of the rear lean to in relation to the whole structure should be recalculated and supplied to HPC. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 2 Response: A number of surrounding projects have been substantially out of scale and character with the historic resources which still exist in this area. The proposed development is more respectful of the historic resource and to maintaining a pedestrian scale for the neighborhood. 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: There is minimal demolition proposed to the historic structures. 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 architectural character of the structure and its prominence along the streetscape will not be diminished. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: • Approve the Development application as submitted. • Approve the 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 Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to grant final approval with the following conditions: 1. Mandatory mass and scale review for lots M and N, after which these lots will be removed from the historic inventory. Confirm that this project meets Ordinance #30 by submitting a complete application. 2. Keep staff and monitor updated and the condition of materials exposed underneath the aluminum siding. Staff and monitor will work with the applicant to determine what can be salvaged. 3. Reduce the dimension of the arched element in the entry canopy. 4. The applicant shall place an ad in the newspaper offering the shed to be removed by anyone who would like to preserve it. If no one is found, the 3 shed can be photographed and dismantled for use elsewhere or for salvage. 5. Secure a bond to ensure the relocation of the structures (amount to be set by HPC at final) prior to submitting for building permit. 6. An HPC monitor must be assigned to the project. 7. Correct the representation of the amount of demolition proposed. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 64 L 061. 04\ i \AA Vi·~;~ 0 1/1 tED* t.1 4 AmnaZE;T 1 I.AND [SE APPIIaTICN Fa;M 1) Project Nane 918 East Coo_Ile r Avenue ~ 2) Proj ect IDcation 918 East Cooper Avenue, Blocl III, Lots M, N, 0, P, Pitkin County,- Aspen, Colorado (indicate street address, lot & block amber„ legal descciptirn where apprrpriate) 3) Present Zoning HMF 4) Iat Size 120' x 100'_ 5) Applicant's Nane, Address & Bhone # John Davis, P.O. Box 966 Basalt, Colorado 81621 (303) 927-9700 6) Representative's Name, Address & Ebcoe # Mark Ward, Architect 2945 Center Green Court, Suite A, Boulder, CO 80301 (303) 442-1201 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditicral Use CCOCestual SPA ~ Conceptllal Historic Dev. Special Ikeview Final SPA X Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Concestual POD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin FiIial FUD Historic Demolition 14=xmtain View Plane Subdivisicn Historic Designaticn exxhainii m i ·7:ition ~ 'I™c*Map Annrxlmerrt .- GM@S Allotnent Ict SpliVIat Line, GM@S Eba~eticn Adi ustmerrt 1 8) Descripticn of Existing Uses (number and type of existing· structures; apprOXim,1-p sq. ft. ; ' Il=ber of bed=xms; ary previous approvals granted to the pruperty). Existing four detached buildings, two residential, two storage, approximately two bedrooms total, previous HPC conceptual approval with conditions. 9 ) Description of Develcixnent Aelication 1/4" scale floor plans and elevations of Units M. N. 0 and-P. relocation plan, site plan. 10) Have you attached the following? X Response to AttactmErt· 2, Mininlim S~mission Contents Response to Attachm~t 3, Specific Sahnission Obatents Response to Attachmerrt 4, Review Standards for Your Application 1111111 I C>'·/- fl-- -1*--2.--4 1, 4-1 ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM i Applicant: John Davis' 1 Address: P.O. Box 966 Basalt, Co. i Zone district: R/MF Lot size: . (6,004 S.F.i Total)|/ 1/2= 3,002- Lot 2 Existing FAR: 1,499 Totall : : Allowable FAR: 3,240 + 306 Bonus * 3540 Proposed FAR: 3,540 1 . Existing net leasable (ccmmercial): :Non p 1 Proposed net leasable (commercial): 'None ! Existing % of site coverage: :Lot 2: 2 19 % :Lot 2: 1 63 1 Proposed % of site coverage: Existing % of open space: Lot 2: , 81 % Proposed·% of open space: Lot 2: 236 % Existing maximumt height: Princinal blda: 19' Ackesorv blda: 15 ' Propesed max. height: Princioal bldg: 30 '@ peak.Attesscrv bldg:NA . Proposed % of demolition: 3.6 % , Existing· number of bedrooms: approx. 2 ! Proposed number of bedroorns: 3 above grade Existing on-site parking spaces: 1 ' 1 On-site parking spaces required: 4, (possibly 5- per. 'P' .and 'Z') Setbacks Existing: Minimum required: Proposed: o tp Front: 10' Front: 10' Front: 10' 10' Rear: 10' Rear: 10' Rear: : 10 ' 5 ' Combined Combined Combined j Front/rear: 20' Fronurear: 20' Front'ream o € 15' Side: Side: 5' Side.,5'3' Side: Side: 5 ' Side: 1 Combined Combined Combined ~ Sides: Side#: 10' each unit Sides:: 8 ' Existing nonconformities orencroachments:All existing buildings Eare encroaching on propertv lines or over. Variations requested: TTnit- '0' ; 3 ' sirle >-prrl qpt- hackfor; area-wells. Unit·'P'· 2' 5' rear setback,1': 10'dideyard setback , on east side for historic structures, 1' combined sldeyard setback. (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance betwebn buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sql site coverage variance up to 5%, heignt variations underthe cottage infil[ program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RME'CC, and O ZO rl e d Istricts) ! : ---------- 4'6" variance request for minimum distance between buildings on rear 30' of parcel. ' ' MWAWARD end ABSOCIATES Inc arohitioture and planning R,: 918 E.nt Cooper Avenue Th, following is an overview of responses to conditions placed for final approval. 1. Enclosed are plans and etevations of Units M and N, the duplex unit which demonstrate mass and scale M requested. I 2. The front yard setback on Unit P has been reswed to 10' as requested. 3. Sec plons for preservation of existing historic building materials. Th, canopy element ove, the front door on Unit P has been re-des[Wlei The design now is a painted metal arch which gets bolted to the existing historic building. It allows for placement of a street address directly on the existing wall plane under the arcb. 5. A 300 sq. ft. FAR bonus is allowed, the plans reflect this. 6. ~Ille existing shed will be diaassembled, and removed from the Bite and stored in the city for Alture ute. 7. A relocation plan for structures on site has been prepared. A bond to insure *location of the structures will be obtained befbre submitting for final building permit, 9, HPC hal waived the requirement for a principle window on Unit P regarding ordinance #30. 10, HF€ designates Lots O and P as hittoric finding atandards B. D. and E Bre met. 11. HPC rewmmends partial dumolition and on site relo,ation approval, the plans reflect this. 2940 Cont,r Grlen Court, Suic, A • lowk,mr, Colorado 90301 • [3091 440.1201 2.0/20d 290# :ON 131 :{11 Et':TI nH1 96,-BT-+4Iff WARD.nd ASGOCIATES hc *rohlteemure und pl•nnIng january 18, 1996 r. 1 The existing RMF zoning allows for up to a 5.400 sq. ft, single family residence, The owner has chosen to con:truct two smaller single family homes. The two Imallerhomes on Lots O and P are more in keeping with the de,ired neighborhood size and scate. This 8120 goes to the architectural character which i, more complimentary in scale to the existing historic structures Which arc incorporated into the design on Lot P. Lot O 6 similar in size and scale to Lot P and utilizes limilar litchitectural detallint With two wo,k Ressions and additional input from the planning,taff, ] feel we have addressed concerns in regards m wale ind design chamoter. The plans now represent at 1/4" scale all representations made at the conceptual review. Attached arc written responses ¢0 conditio•g placed at the time of conceptual approval 1, . h i 4 . 4 •L K,. ~J , O I*40 Conter *min Court, Gulta A • •oulcle/, Colorado 80301 • 0023 448-1001 kwuk,91.IL£02£03 2904 :ON lai :(11 2*:II nH1 96.-BI-INef 1--r 6%6 2 BUILDING *. ALLEY- PERMIT SURVEY - - - SECTD 15 i'•E ./. 77t•12*F<>'1'~E 3.- 9.11 2 ' WITH TOPO 1 1 OP,Y . / 81 :75/4.Gr - 7- - 4, u- L ' 29 .. .' 1 . 1 t . - -n-r -3.4 45.. /4 *'--./.00 · 9 6· - <N-. j -.L , D' - 7'. n.' f j"C 7 - 0 w L.- 1 Ill E Ir--- %44&5~*.6, - ' 17 1 1 440 1 2 9 -* .1 g /5 - 4 C ED-4 LND CAP 3 6 3 ./ 25947 -m E-· 2-~ f . APEN SURVE- INGINEERS 1,- 1 , 1.- . 12 0 Ba . ' 1160 N - 1 51: . n .* = LOT o ~- - V m u LOT N - o » U) .1 2: c 6•2 ' 5 OR Bor ING ~ AUND •!O4Uh€4,7 5 AL 2+04 4 - 1 Lt--1 --.4iNR li 1 - %' t 9.- 4 :·-7 0 0' .. /~ ~ NOTES: iz iNCHE5 :>c SNOW ON *OUND 11 .*,1 1 U AT T i ME OF hA,EY * 9 . O C BASED· ON -prE BENCH *AAN 54(,WN ~ 76 'OPOGRAP-i.CAL NFORMA-,0'. 11> . k < . M ---- l-le .rh -*..: 1 1 - - /12 '5 1 N. 3/0 FIC- i./RE'ENTS A-£ Stt - BE - 1 ji (f L.L. 'DRY '. t.v~·.." #jiL 'T P 1-%99.., x c . 31 Lrit #, l_~ Ill. 40 10 1.0 4 4 - EVER=t€£1, TRES : 11 1--t 7 I I. 47,1 3 2/4 1 .fll l -' 6 , h. Cl' 1 . i j T \ f 1 -Y · As•EN TREE '/#*- " C- . F IN F Lk , ..i. .. . - hi. ~ ~ ~~ ON' - Ival- f . . 175* « 1 * '-3 ..2 )- 2 •·rD• 14'WID ..1. .. . - ~ t z- - C *1 %- 2.-12> Tcp N CAP / -4 BENiC,4 WARK 1/UA#.5 ·00 0' F <-- -j----2-- --·-ib~J·~C -F .- - 2- - . , 1--1 r. 4 T /.I T7 '- i 0 -8 7 n T' T A \ 9 -10¥4. Lit. Ii.-' · U Lb, ' rl 1 i-' 1 1 9- 1 W O 1 p U A Q T '. Ant) 11· D < C 1 J £ 4/ U i L. 1 1 BLOCK Ill 24 3 7- IE.1 . , A 11'.) Ai I~ A Luin ~,4.u. AND P PITKIN COUTTY , 0000 -. . 1 .-1 . A 4/ > .i SPEN , C OLORAD O 0 , A D < & DUND 4© I Rit AR AND -AP '2'07 -R Cre,PY # L 1 \1 1 I h -7 ' 1 ./ . - T-1. A f /. - ¥ L.,2 CE blk\P= 1- OR b C EPT I P i CATE < DI :.1.1 0 < i HERIB' ZERT 'F, T,44' '•413 MAP 5 ; CRUE ANS, 47:t• 2'- *EEPti..,,a~ z 6.17 8 --Let.,k »1 . - DERFORMED UNDER w4 SumER', 510~ oh ~,Al~JAP'f : *Q: l % #43~-·1*A~ ~ S EV /+i. R I ./ t I 1 4 OAR'.11 0!-AL:+ '409·E· .NG 'IC L. ... -- 0 - .~ -~ +P~~ g.-.. I · ' . E ie i -7-42=4-Ef ... -/ l/Z>4 ~-- ./NUAP¥ 9. 99' r -0,~ -· A 05' $ 24303 U' 0 3 -; - 24303 ; 53# 0) < n mL...- CARMICHAEL SURVEYING. INC. h v..,9 DFi :A'.f. P.ON 9 ·ENOWMA. 3 00.08,00 6 654 (9-01 923-2794 -- 1 8 p c 10; 35 2 -6~~i ~e: ..0 0,¢dD ~~~ ~©~ r-,~ ·~2m,•rc, L,. JIll, bc S -C 1,1- tu4::.EL .·'/~6 r..2.T ,:r.4 ..•:·: :R, 0. ..0,1 a'te- yo. fir,• d.•cov.i ,•ci· .3.t '·-'C·'-,DA,-E· 00 6 : e,23 »C i Gry „i ~,©* be,ac' il, ~, 01,~ 116~ „1 ~ ir '¢, i ,1 r ~*, be ~ G„,an,*C :,0,, ./. e.:·'' cel.or i./.i ..r.0 :.41• DPAFTel '.2/wl LAU . i . N.Rui 96 , e., 91/ v-900 --U,· 2 Loal·aD. 0026-206-0 ejncloe:11 10£00 00¥80100 'W301n08 V 31 In S 'len00 N33WD WalN30 9,6; b13dOO0 ' S8301lne WO ~C· \PROJECTS\95-08\PLANS Thu reD 0! i• 38.37 1996 Pa 03 I.=/.'-/-11 , E . N " ti -1 , 1 7 4 v 'i ~ -LILLI ~~d - - LI I-T In r-;47-1 , 0 -1 1 . lap 11.71 0 E r rE 4/ » /3- 0 1. K .-4 r- «--.--- r & 9/ />41%42 O ' 0 0 L PO E. " I EL) 0| deh m 7=, 1 f -1 1, . || n (DK 0 0 PO I · C j 1- 4---b L--1 ' 11 --1 0 1- I FR \1K (P g i ,-4 11 7 r 0 0 ] 7 0 00 0 O K O K G € 0 0 rz K u. a 1 / R# , 1=531 \ m 0 1 r I 6 , m al „ 11 , In U. „ a 03 Pa % 1 1 11 1 =1 -1 - 0 111===. £ 0- I L 1 111% 11-»fl 4.----- - 1 . 19 IL. 1„ - 1 1 , N h -tnu~---- r--12»adm=91.IRY.„TRE 1 1• 1 ~ nl m m /4 0 |K Ld 1 ' 1 A ~ E 1 m °i r - 41 F - O 1 K 1 .k z N r~ ° 0 1 20 I kijF' r Ill I 0 k- 42<7=23-27 I /~ O 1 , 0 .- 0 N. - . 1 6 L-- - J 0 ~| 1 ~ ___________~ /1 0 0 0 8 0 0 K / 50 Iz mi /1 0 ~,==fe 1 L..11 1, .,.211 11:.....1.11 Ill. 1 » 0 1 11 llc- , ----4. N--91- 1 \U l . ''1 -1-3- . 1:y--(Wl --- il 1 - 114-,+9 . -007 --r -r -r, , , , JOB NO: COOPER AVENUE DUPLEX ~~ almlia M. WARD and ASSOCIATES INC ~ M 01.49/4 architecture and planning ~F f DATE: fill 918 EAST COOPER AVE. ASPEN, CO ~}~1 ~ ';'1 REV: 24 (LOTS M AND N) lim 2946 Center Green Court Suite A Boulder, CO 80301 Tel: (303)442-1201 Fax: (303)443-4698 0 pt 0 11 A 1 d hi 0 0 3 6 32Aa1 NIV NVEd 610014 1 2 A 2 1 hi @AA BEDROOM m 4/ 19,//~ :invos 2 CAR GARAGE 2 CAR GARAGE 91¥00 1 C \PROJECTS\95-08\PLANS Thu Fet 01 14 42.07 !996 il O 0 , 1 1 1 -1\ / L.- - K 1 - 1- 1 1 I 1 1 1 IK F--3 | | | ID L. --/ 3 0 1 i 1 0 Col I IE L «ff>I J h E» r-- - --- ---- -- -0--11 1- 1 -1 0 R 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 - -- L--1 0 1 0 1 L Iz 7 I 1 in 1 11-- - --- --1 / 11 -T ' ' 1 1 -11 11 1 U k U C Z 3 0 IK r L.== - 1===.3 0./41 U 11.t' 'J / 0 1 111 Z / 1/ L--1 1 1k C -r- 1/ r=41 Fijo- -- 2 1. f LiI1 L 00 00 1, 00 ---n 0 8 ~-·-- 1 -In - 1 r===7 / r 1 7 - 1< < 11 Z r--1 0 11": .: It|.2-- h (D Z 1 ---4- L 0 4 Z C I kh n Z 0 cianr 0 1 12.=.- „,+11 i n 1 1 1 1 1 M. WARD and ASSOCIATES, INC. ~ ¤ JOB NO ~ DATE & architecture and planning ~ 2 REV: l ~ (LOTS M AND N) r, 9 2945 Center Green Court Suite A Boulder, CO 80301 Tel: 003)442-1201 Fax: (303)443-4698 ~ ~ 14 WE - 21¥09 - 11./L /1.06 16 NOOT=I 1@AGn 612ddn N*ld 400 KITCHU - DECK ~4.*.4.4&.SM \PROJECTS\95-08\ELEVS Thu FeD 01 17: DO: 40 1996 e '0(/ /- 74_11-1734 1 1 - -0. 'l riti 4 r,- f : ' _. \R ' • .4 k: N. ' I · fr~911«1 ' \I 11 lili h \\ / ./' "/ 911 III A. 4/ r - \ 1.-11 -| L' 3{liffj ~i~ 1 J < El--JO . -1 1 .., t , )41 1 1 -0 02 9 > 0 Ir------- - .:21 , /BL . . 1 L-__te- 1 -470 7 -- FT li-NEU12/ f-L JI 23(] I ifED - 1 1 1, -47.-7. NLI ' .4- - - ........ I J - 1--4 1 'q-1 1 .. 1 -22@ 4% - 17 A 1 .--*-13»1 -- -:-3 7rf~77711 94 1-' 3*ir-30-1-'4 f -1n f ff--1 i u - b. Ll -1= 1| r - ..U ; 19352"1//EME; s ==- 4 - 1 f - - hpl,cr-'---- ~-lA- - . AP li --IN = 1. 44.3421 1 0 0 r - i. r ~\« 1- ., 3,0 , 1 1. 14 4. r- M C 1 1_ 11/4 IE=~ -1 E ~123 G - J . bf I 4 1-1 ~1 1 -E.:\111 - -N ·r' ''i 18 = · · 1 1 17-- :4 ..4 94-AN -- --14'~-fij-lf -- ILL- - - --- . 4 4 1, Ill / 1 A"# - U b 1 4 q 111 .cl-r v il 41 j *r~1172i ' -7..J 1 -111 r .-0 0 747 --yiho i-04]f un- 3 43'i r 1 1 021/1 -(- 1 -~ rn 19.22 , p.v .. 4 4 N\\\ .. ~r- El :.91 Ul T- 21 r -1.-21.- 1 *h 00 1 J --1 , . --8 ~--~ 1 -1 1 \SE 0-( , 0 ·L L L.1 2 1 \ 441« - Il] 1 1 32 > m ,- o --J 1* -3 imi //fy 0 9.%~1 1 1-1 =Ill - AL. 0 =Z f-- - -1 1 1728-3 17--7 0 7 / 'E pv 1 z · / 011 i V r j vvlHI =303[JI j i / i--1.--T--Tu-·\ 5 0 W *. --Tar~ .AUr~in-1. 1 1 4 % _----------_LJ10 L- - k C * - Ola - 2 18 Z 70 r url < ur f f 0 I 0 0 0 1 , (2 0 Z 0 0 r ¤ JOB NO: M. WARD and ASSOCIATES, INC. ~ 6 f COOPER AVENUE DUPLEX i AWA architecture and planning ~ REV: p- Fl 918 EAST COOPER AVE. ASPEN, CO ~1|11 ~ (LOTS M AND N) ~ 2945 Center Green Court, Suite A Boulder, CO 80301 Tel: (303)442-1201 Fax: (303)443-4698 ~, 21VOS 2 H 1 61 O N lai V lINt S 2016 15¥2) - 2-1/06 NOI1*A 2 1SGAA A212 61001 LOWeR LEVEL-90•-O" I MAIN LeVel-100'-04 SUBI-LOOR e LCV. • UPPER Level-110'_O" SUB/LOOR /LEV L - - --r- -- i - L 1-r~ 1 F -~0 ~ .r.- I I 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 "-___7 0 1 %in 42=7 21-J 1 1 A 1 2 1 - r .====31 r= T~- 34 3 1 C=== 61 9 1 1 '' /. 47 - 9 6=h 4 O K.-- /1 ' b lig 0 0 --1 -4 k ..~ 1 ..- 2- 87 11 / (11 .· r I F ffi a --- 4 1 --/ -1 1 1 -1 W ---7 1 1 < 1 .=66 m le 1 1 1 1 0 1.1. : 26 ¢ 1 =dj 8 -- 1 C==¥6~ - : 1 . 4, -fl -ZE- + 4 %1 y / 1 <ri u ' :% 4-· --01 1 1 - t 73 --11 - ./ 7-11 2 1. 1 - 0 - I .4 , I 1 03 1 1 1113--_ -U i 1 , 1. D L 12 r-1 L-Z~ e -. I.~ L-J 1, .61 ==4 1 ~ ~ir=t= g 1- ' ~~ 1 L__6== 11 01 g C. , -- 91 0 -0 I 6 ' =i P d Ul r. r d ·· 4= 1 1 6 3 4 -01-4 rl al -€ mit m Jos MID. R 918 EASI COOPER AVE W WA VVARC)andASSOCIATES ~' DATE /rl/1. REV. ,//1796 71 [,1,11 1 architecture g planning 1 ASPEN CUSTOM BUILDERS JOHN DAVIS 970-917-9700 440.,e01 4~ M '2948 CENTER GREEN COURT. SUZTE A BOULDER, COLORADO 80301 M M th ip|47d| _4003=1 - 51 4 - 212- E L R 71 L 1 i %1% i 1 64 0 4-1 -1 2 1 =1 L 0 ... 1 + 1 . -1791 8 --I 1 1 - h ¥ >9 Q 1 41%--14 ' 140 7 7 1-- t- 1 - --ii_I . , 1 1 - 02 -1 n IliO m Lli Zlt 111 .---------------- , N /7. 41 1 id '' i 1 -: 44 1 11 3=b=: -- L 4 m =:2 jl 11 Ir- 1* E g I CL 9 - 1 ..I--11 - - -1- -=97-31 51 71 te 4 10 C 3 4k 4 1 -- P _ 1- I El -=21 1 1 21 76 t I £ 1/ -. 1 14 1 d' 13.- ._ i 1- 4 5 &0 -t 21 :4'k fi 1 99 8 EAS I COOPER AVE ~ WA \NAAC) and ASSOCIATES Mi DATE 01/16 H Fc architecture s planning 111 REV. ,/zg/9. pf: ASPEN CUSTOM BUILDERS ~ JOHN DAVIS 970-917-9700 442·1201 2946 CENTER GREEN COURT, SUITE A BOULDER, COLORADO 80301 h k -9 1,4.0 H.0-2 ''0011/411 --E -- 1 J...1 Od ..•19 - - - - Ey•,7 but 1 l r-------- 3 1 1 ir< 1 1 1 t---1 fl . TZ=r-1 -9-- _11= 1 ' b L 1 1 . 1___.It= -1 1 .1 1 13 - E--- 6 I I. 1 Ti*--*-I- 1 U O , 47« .-2 1, 1 X \,1 \2 6 , I e 1 \1 + 2 I- 11 1 n -0 1, 1 11 > -0 , 1 -4, 4% \ 1 3 -- 1 3 1 Gil =E 100 j 1 9 1 2 ~-vl-IL_-r»r 1 1 1 3 1 1 L I 0-- -1 lili 1 1 L___ ---4 L_______4 -k.C 1 - 1 1 22 1 - - g 11 1 1 1 1 1 I l l 1 1 1 1 1 U G L 4-0 3' 250 94 111 .8 71 -4 'E~~ JOB NO. ~J W 918 EASI cooPER AVE ~ WA \WARD and ASSOCIATES W DATE ~,1/16 HZ ASPEN CUSTOM BUILDERS ~, ~i~ architecture s planning 7 W REV tze* 2•z JOHN DAVIS 970-927-9700 4•se.1201 ~ A ~2945 CENTER GREEN COURT, SUITE A BOULDER, COLORADO 50301 M _ fac® r N 92 J 1 00 1 4 1 9 AE 7 11'*+M U W 1 IT 6 3 B -LIE=_ --2 gh'/& ff\~ W/of_ -__ - ..7-14'/ft"GL·% IL·* -_ --·--2 - 1'* 5 -FIE'CeJK-Tr.ZILL_ r- r ~ , Tfr. - / K[j - J ¥ +3*,Flf,L=46 - 1 · E-5- 1.-L-J, 1 -1 ----- 1 4 -1. 1 - 6----· --- -4 f --+ #- 4 b 24're-uniZ-- 7- -- 1-- r 11 - --, . W .li i 4 4- 1 . -ar =zi- 1 , C : - 1 --4ee?Bet.*TLf-B«--Pyr- -1 -- <C -- lilli 11, i'~b I' : 2 -2 - -4- - -0 - - - - -- --- ~ MT-*4 86 -zzl- 2- 0 r--"-- - 12314&< 142*0 - - - --tly I ~- - 1*8·<2=2=31*f-ralpiNG .-7 .._*£13.8=Pe.RE:*IM N -1 1 11 ---- 4-3 115 1 11 14»11 . 0 . u « ] .-11 221 -2- 1-3.---1.-73311 lili lili 'E~-3 R6 1 --6*_. uptle•. 114 14 It G'.0 p ----.- -7 --4 11 1111'ki---2 4»Ja UU-3 7 lili 11-2-0.-2.- -rt- -6--2=-- 3 ~ 2=.-27_-]I| I __, _, - Ll: - I -J L--- - - 1.11 Uzzl v 791£el Cer i g 1- - 4 9 m -222- 1 OF'fq.TPO' 4 Table 0 ~4/ a sT G L E VA T 1 013.. ILLE ---_..f L._It _„ 0 -2- _ --2 2_2 2---LI--2._--_ __ - - __-_.....__-_ _ .. - - --_ _- .. . + - - . -- ---1- ·--~--- ------ -- --------------7----m -7-7--1-7- #r-XWLE -tot-x-eouT-RT VEJU29*m17+*- 22_ - 9.C - 40 --7 ..VE--FEE,-7-73~3--941,011-0' __..- . ..2-AL 21-!bt_.- .1-- 1-.~_1_- 1.22-_ 9#9•\40 9 93 - Z g ''00>1 1 0 //14- UNX\ L_-4 = U] 0) a - E~I-T--T---31~__ ~ 71 it L 1 F -340=3»97--»*UP« - 11-·000»7- 143=t----\»rN#4 ------- U>C 111 - =1 Ul O - Or- - -- - I../.-All . -* -.~-- C - ----~------1--~I--lI~Wilili-.I--pli-)--W~g-----1~-ill-----.- t ----_ _~-...0-0-66 -- zf7333333 - El--- r - --- - - -- 2-1 2 L__- *$ ~ 1 1 +-Ill- 1 -------U) }1 ---- 0< -I--- co ~ ~ -=7 - - --.- . 40\ 'r.10.,1~H a L E,V+T lold '0' a AST E L E V A 7 t o h·J _ -2.-2.22--2-_-2----- --JILI---2._I--2.-.-6-ifILL-22-- _..-_-_ ___.__..._.-_ CD_ 17_ c,c/Lil-------------1---".". -9,ful'-0 € c A L.6-1 - 9.4.. 11..1 19 ON gor 219 96/L'/I 3.Va 3AV 83d000 1RV3 'b. eb/b:/1 .A,W -11 - Jn,082! lina WO1Sn 10£00 00¥ U0100 'ki301nOG V allnS '1Wn00 NamID 0026-Z; / 1 1 i i ,.... . ---- A '»2=92-92~ , b 1 11 , - r - F ltill- 11-- ..· ' - Wl 0 1 1 ' --=:=4 k-=1=16 L-1 - - --1 - -1 0-7 -FULAWG 'A' , ---- -~ rt Ill E i , C : 4C ------- 1 - - 0 --0. -. -1_*JILP#*21 -'S 0 66 ---- - -- f *i-?14]f~ ~-- i - - De# Ble¥ B / 1 - _Trf---118*UIOkilpfri L_1 _d 1,1 1 --2 - 1 -UL/- ----- 2==e·rrTE_*FLL (00 11' "F==4 --111 111- . -41- --- -- I. -- -- .- .- 1 - - -------1 -F~ 7,----104---r------ -- *+ - I 4 -- --Ill__ »--- - i· 1 - --- - ------------- ---ir-/ C - m 0 aE _ - - -'10'- \JE %>-T ELE,V,k-r I •Ad --- - -- 40 t - EWU-EE-777---7-77-~77 -ec A L-2$ - Z dal==\ 1 , .1 0 % .0 ·----27---7 7--»U|UO|~9 + 1 . --. - / - V -- *eAYLUU 9#1410 n --- - 2 - D:7*4 ¥*4/_lie --- 2 -_._*p,Ne- ·ro ».-.til•~Uiu.ap --. -- 1 1 1 II ---- -- lt'.21'Z E'."ruE-~- 5$,1.*; 1 1 1 1 -1 4-------4--TAEIF»crioi,1 *11*66%6 2 114 %7~8 opmaiNG,S- --7 111 (- -«_ _1_ .2- -1-2__~ azF=160»re e.eE_tiwmt - -1188##F -23 -Re,Tp -2221 - - - - --- 1.61 - - &<471i-*49/mim - --1 -BE 'ELHA,62 -,813%-IWWM- > 11 /:3ES'-------1FtnIJCm~ _ -1- -_ --------- - _ IN*ut_- i-Nate )OMT 4 - 4131,441'81-2 412:116, Be-TH < 0 . - - -- - - + L-_=22-22-24- -I=-22.1 -_~ cr e. ' . 111 m , a. w o - ----- u«32--°9339=5 ----~ 1 -' O -101 r- . -=-:~~UkI~~IZIL-- ___-__-1-__....-----.--------------- -... 0 --6.- --- ·------- -------Ill--il.lill-r--0 r~ · - m.09.,4 ··9/•02 4. 12,4 - B#17 1 ~ I w u, T - N ohTH --- VAT I »2 -- --- -'f' EA37 - ELEVATI,2.r.4 - - < D> 41 - 11 0 < .- Ur-iN-E-=v~ ·- - €-c-;r-ZTE;,V#~D 0 CO Z O 2,H 96/,0 alva 09'21, 06/60, 'A 311 Jn:loe:11 'ON HOr 0£00 00.80100 'W301n09 v alins 'lu nOO N 3389 U 3 I ina woi N3dSV 0026-ZJ '--- --3 i 1 1 fa 1 9 T--- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 --- I 1 1 4 1 1 1 L__- 7 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 . L 1 11 1 1 1 - 7 1 a 0 e 1 1 ' 1 i V | 1 0 , 1 1 1 : ' 1 1 411 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 13 1 1 1 1 1 i ] 1 1 1 lili i L_____----1 \ 1 1 1 1 6 -* i i Li --2 -Ji - 1 PWA \NAAD andASSOCIATES W DATE 01/16 H M A f 918 EAST COOPER AVE ~~ architecture s planning , REV. 421,15· 2'2 E ASPEN CUSTOM BUILDERS ' 11 JOHN DAVIS~ 970-927-9700 442-1201 '2946 CENTER GREEN COURT, BUITE A BOULDER, COLORADO 80301 g A M €N Vad J 00 to 01 Ill.E: 1- C 4C 7; E 6 a m .8 7 - -I 71 - - 71 7 /1 - /'-0 -4 - 4~ 1 ~ _f.1-] 1--- RELOCATION PROCEDURES .0 4, 2 -7 *1 r CO 1 __ Ou ma) j -1 114 o.e i 2\ 1 \/ Ir £ A. Existing south side of minets cottage to be relocated to Ikt P. Possible 40 temporary relocation to Int O during construction of duplex on M and ~ ~ LOT M LOT N LOT O ~f-' B f N. Final location to Ikt P and incorporated as living room. B. Existing historic barn building to be temporarily relocated to Lot O during the construction of duplex unit on Uts M and N. Final location < to be on Lkt P and utilized as a one-car garage c. Existing addition to rear of miner's cottage, which is :ion-contributing, ; shall be demolished. --Ill- - 7 4 LOT P D. Existing shed, per HPC, shall bedisassembled, crated and stored on city 1 \« 1 lot. Each component of the shed shall be documented and labeled for 1 /C ' \ 1 E Existing shed is non·contrihuting and shali be demolished. ~ _ future reconstruccion ofT-sit. - -1 1 1 0 7-=- 1 1 ' 1 / 1 4/ 1. i = 1 A\ WO 1 f I N 3 U.1 0 4 0 ooz 1// 1 0 a L- 0 0 ¥- 0 0) *-4 ,,4/ -- - - E h % 1 --4 9 -0 -P_Uk=LE*ELL J- 2. tl-11 MaTLTH - - -- - BEL-OCATIO W P L.-A -1<1] - - --- + - ON gor ®1 4/L,/1 3.LWO 3AV E13d :/'Zi' 91./6//i -Aill 1 Loa,·8 OOZ6-ZE 10:08 00VUO100 'W341006 1 31inS 'lun03 N33H0 4(31.N30 9+60 Ins Wols N3dSV -I -- 1!:! ALLEY - EXISTING TO ~ ~ SE RELOCATED / TO #918 P NE[~I310 - - EXISTINGTO-6-E --* ___ RELOCATED OFF SITE 575·9'111 ---1 r OR DEMOLISHED 7 10.041 0 -1 1 1 1 11 -8 1 k---2 9--- \ 1 / 1 1 - -- - IL-R--1-En-r» 1 1 1 NEW ix' DI'll~IGE DRIVEWAY 11 11 cio 1 1/ .m i. - al IL__--1 gig .C -- 1 -- .·- AREA J 2 WELL 1 1 r 1 1 /\1 1 GAR. GAR. -71-611 - - < ~ 1 7 -- - 1- L -1 PROPOSED OF 1 - SINGLE - m D-----7 : <v FAMILY DEE 4-23] u= 11111--21- 18 FAMILY | 0[ r-----7 PROPOSED - 1 SINGLE %2 9 51-0 = 1 *1$ 1 - 1 1 LE 5 R ~ i L-L[h~ 5R- - 31 71 <l;= 1 95: -L 2 I r-/1 4 - 1 UNDER L=111 2.11 'k--A E' 1111 1- 1 1 EXISTING < 1 CONSTRUCTION i'n <;« 1 ' F DUPLEX (12/95) ' /Rav-4 ~ hakl~Cl~- ~ 1 ' 1 ' =8 1 ./1 1 E-L I 0 0 0 21 41 i.11- 1 1 X M5R MER L 7;-----~ .1 1. 1 .i-- 1 --2 w '48 ......,ill//"I%... Il' -14 L red 7 1-d / 4 1 1 1 NEW No-t k(P 1 6 TO 66 RELOCATED ~ ~ PORTION OF 1 1 LOT M f -TYP. WALK EXISTING STRUCTURE . CO / 0 TO #918 P N75111-W || 60.04 EXISTING =4 2 LU · SIDEWALK #918 OVI & N) #918 (0 & P) #928 1.1 m 96 533 O Mul EAST COOPER A E S I .- PLAN~ 04 co 0 L /1 X -1 SCALE 1/16"=13-0'3 46» 5-1]r 1 NORTH dER'?1 0 8' 16' 32' 641 ON 802 ABU 3d~K) -6.(COE) 'Xed LOZL-2»<£00) 1 1¥11IWEBAS 08 30NVNIOEIO \\ Ff--231 1 [TI 0 I FNE]11 O -T O 3 41=R J [F U.-11111 1 0 1-1-1 ~ 1&2 :642 1 7 'EA- , 1 0 00 bb 0 1 90 -0 - Fn~' Y*i ¥==7 ~ 918 EAST COOPER AVE. ASPEN, CO AN COOPER AVENUE DUPLEX ~ AAWA M. WARD and ASSOCIATES, INC. 4 ~ JOB NO: ]~ DATE: architecture and planning ~ ~ REV (LOTS M AND N) 2945 Center Green Court, Suite A Boulder, CO 80301 Tet (303)442-1201 Fax: (303)443-4698 ~ ORDINANCE 30 SUBMITTAL (Hi N ON ENI>(001 = n 9 L / L :27¥DS NO VAGJG 1 2 9 N JAV 1+9 . - ,9L (cd 9 0) E L€# . 1 1 f-'H-4]1-41-1 2 201 0 2 - 120 1 1 [TI o cDO] ~42 i 3 4\ 1 * El .- L \\ \ 0 [-2 12 r - \\ «1 0 - \\ 49 4\ 4\ 0 1 1 4\ 2 - 44% 1 43 -1 3 40 472 0 Al 11 1-11 qi - ~ ///fint 4 -Ii-.*I 0 81 - a 0 1 -30 i / r ~ aill [212-j {BE r-1 K 1\ / r.=30 1111 1\ 1- I - - u Ur- HI Nx n 6 31 1 1--7 1 -1-9 /9/ 9*El El »/ 111 41\ 2 / (D k CE 99 22-- l/ / 2-7 1 El i f--2.-»f 4\ = 3 Clo Er] 0 .09 [Wi 11 i·j 4/, 11 L 1/ f--1 111 1 Eful 44 i o l / 1 , -1 7 LE 0 U ft 0 3 EG 0 1 9 1 1 4- 0 4 -1-3 - -j A k & 15 1,2 27 3 18 M 18 'r- - zf .10-7-1, ~- JOB NO COOPER AVENUE DUPLEX -- AAWA M. WARD and ASSOCIATES, INC. DATE: ~ ~ 918 EAST COOPER AVE ASPEN, CO architecture and planning ~ REV· (LOTS M AND N) 2945 Center Green Court Suite A Boulder. CO 80301 Tel. (303*42-1201 Fax: (303)443-4698 ORDINANCE 30 SUBMITTAL = ,)9/L 213*OS NOILVA2319 ALA 0 93 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 24. 1996 MOTION: Erdman moved that the endorcement of Alternative H does not preclude the investigation into using buses and multiple passenger automobiles and an HOV lane in lieu of the light rail system; second by Moyer. DISCUSSION Madsen stated that the HPC did approve the concept of the light rail coming through town. Erdman stated that he would like other alternatives to be considered. Madsen stated that she recalled HPC approving the reso because without it we could not get the routing. . VOTE: Passed 5 to 2. Smisek and Alstrom voted no. 918 E. COOPER AVE. FINAL Vickery stepped down. Dodington seated. Amidon stated this was a final review and she was recommending approval wit conditions. There are four lots·two of which are not normally part of our review M&N but it was discovered they were listed on the historic inventory. At conceptual review it was recommended that mandatory mass and scale review occur on the new duplex and subsequent to that they will be removed from the historic inventory. Plans of the duplex have been given to you and it also has to comply with Ord. #30. The large window on the east and west facade does not comply with Ord. #30. This is a mass and scale discussion. Amidon stated that condition #2 is standard. Once the siding is off the historic resource Staff and Monitor need to be informed i f there are details there and it should be talked about at the site. j 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 24. 1996 Amidon stated condition #3, which is the canopy element that was approved was too heavy and that the arched element was heavy in comparision to other dimensions of trim on the building. Amidon stated that condition #4 states that there are three out buildings. One out building is the barn which will become the garage. One is of no interest and is not historic and it was approved for demolition and the third one was one that HPC had expressed interest in on the site but at conceptual HPC did not have that much interest in keeping it on the site. If that is the case then approving it for removal is appropriate. We could ask the applicant to put an add in the paper to see if anyone out there wants to take it away at their expense. If not, it could be photographed and salvaged. Amidon stated that condition #5 states that the applicant must secure a bond or letter of credit before submitting for a building permit and HPC needs to set the amount of that bond. Amidon stated that a monitor needs appointed for the project. Amidon stated in the documents it indicates that 3.6% demolition is occuring but that is not correct and the documents need amended. Amidon stated that the barn which is being retained has a chimney stack butting up against it. Possibly if the bricks are old they can be salvaged for another proj ect. Mark Ward, architect for the project stated that Amy indicated the canopy element was too strong of an element for the structure and he agreed to tighten it up. Ward stated that he included M&N units mass and scale for the HPC to review. Mark also stated he would place an add in the paper for the shed to be removed off site. He also indicated that he will secure a bond. Dodington asked why the original house was moved instead of kedping it closer to the existing lot. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 24. 1996 Ward responded that both the historic structures should be on one side. The house and barn are going to lot P. The thought was to put the historic house out at the corner by itself. John Davis, contractor for the project stated that the historic house would have to be moved regardless due to the lot split. Moyer asked if condition #3 regarding the canopy couldn't be dealt with by the monitor and staff. Amidon replied that it would be appropriate for the monitor and staff to deal with the canopy issue. Moyer asked i f the dimensional requirement couldn't be dealt with by Staff. Amidon stated that the applicant was prepared to answer the question. Ward stated that he feelt that the figure was a typo but he will calculate the square footage. Amidon stated that the relocation plan has to clearly indicate the percentage i to be demolished. Vickery stated that a street composite drawing would be helpful. Smisek asked what was the total amount of demolition. Ward stated that he would supply the documentation and reply to staff. Roschko asked if there were any guidelines regarding the duplex. Amidon stated that HPC has no standards written but felt that the neighborhood character guidelines could apply. General issues should be commented on that are related to the fact that there maybe a smaller structure next to it. Thure is a duplex to the west and the proposal presented tonight is to the east. Roschko inquired about the materials and what siding would be used. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 24. 1996 Ward stated that on the duplex it would be stucco and stone. I would say that 50% ofthe building is stone. Davis indicated that there is a stone arch in front. Erdman indicated that there is an ordinance #30 problem with the gable ends. Davis indicated that he addressed that issue. Dodington asked the applicant to explain what left and right meant. Ward indicated that left was west elevation and right was the east elevation. Erdman stated that comments should be made on the historic portion first and then discuss the duplex second. Lots O&P will be dealt with first. Moyer and Smisek stated that they were in agreement with Staff' s commets regarding Lots P & O. Dodington asked what the change would be to the canopy in front of the house. Ward stated he would change the fascia of the arch and make it an eight inch width. Dodington asked how far the canopy projected out from the house. Ward stated that it was 30 inches. Alstrom stated the only adverse issue was the square footage bonus requested. He felt it should not be used unless there was a compelling reason. The bonus was intended for single family residences. Amidon stated that the applicant is restricted to a single family FAR even though this is a duplex. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 24. 1996 Alstrom stated that the bonus was for a single family parcel and he would not approve it for this project. Amidon stated in the code it is written for any residential development. Vickery asked what kind of siding was on the garage and the house. Ward stated that he was not sure but when it was determined he would contact Staff and monitor and they all would do a site visit to verify what is underneath. Vickery asked what the differentiation would be in details and materials between the old and new forms. Ward stated by pulling them apart that would be enough. He also stated in . some cases different stain and siding is used. He stated that they proposed to use lap siding. Erdman stated Vickery was looking for something more than color regarding the differentiation between the old and new forms. t Alstrom stated that a different size in lap siding is sometimes used. Madsen stated that she is concerned about the entire block and indicated that it will be massive when all the development is done. Roschko indicated that she would like to see a differentiation between old and new as Vickery had stated besides just a color change. She indicated that she had a problem with the metal canopy and that it didn't fit with the house. Erdman stated that he would summarize all the issues. Erdman stated there should be differentiation between the new and existing ' building. Typically historic buildings would have less material to weather three to four inches of weathering. The new clapboard might have five inches. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 24. 1996 Erdman stated secondly in terms of the thickness of the eaves the eaves in the existing structure are thinner and should remain so, and that difference should be in the final work. Third, the corner boards are not as wide in the historic resource and the drawings indicate that, which is what the Board wants. Differentiation can also be obtained by how the windows are trimed out on the exterior. Erdman stated that the monitor should make note of the summary. He also commented that the all metal detailing of the canopy was too heavy. Erdman stated that the canopy could be accomplished by 3/4 bar stock. The canopy should be light. Dodington indicated that she is still concerned about the shed and she felt it should be incorporated somewhere on the four lots. Davis stated that they explored options with the Boad but they were not acceptible to the Board. He also indicated that in the motion it was mentioned to look at storing it off the site. MOTION: Moyer moved to grant final approval for 918 E. Cooper Lots O & P with the following conditions: 1. Mandatory mass and scale reviw for lots M & N, after which these lots will be removed from the historic inventory. Confirm that this project meets Ordinance #30 by submitting a complete application. 2. Keep Staff and Monitor updated and the condition of materials exposed underneath the aluminum siding. Staff and Monitor will work with the applilfant to determine what can be salvaged. 3. Reduce the dimension of the arched element in the entry canopy. To be reviewd with monitor and staff and I suggest that one monitor be an architect. 4. The applicant shall place an ad in the newspaper offering j the shed to be removed by anyone who would like to preserve it. If no one is found, the shed can be photographed and dismantled for use elsehwere or for salvage. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 24. 1996 5. Secure abond to ensure the relocation of the structure (amount to be set by HPC at final) prior to submitting for a building permit. 6. An HPC monitor must be assigned to the project. 7. Staff and Monitor to correct the representation of the amount of demolition proposed. 8. Chimney and barn to be examined and saved for future use. 9. Details to be determine to differentiate between historic and new forms specifically addressed after examination of original structure. Monitor and Staff to specifically address the space of the lap siding used; eaves, corner boards, window trim to be addressed with Staff and Monitor. Alstrom stated that window information needs to be documented. Staff and Monitor would require some sort of repair of the front windows and an interior and exterior storm window. Work on salvaging any historic materials. AMENDED MOTION: Moyer amended his motion to add #10. 10. If windows and architectural elements are historic they should be salvaged if at all possible. Motion second by Rosehko. Motion passed 5 to 2. Alstrom and Dodington voted no. Vickery commented that he would like boiler plate language in the future. David Hoefer, the Assistant City Attorney stated that he is in the process of doing form resolutions that will include all basic statitory and ordinance material that needs to be in resolutions in order for them to be legally correct. Erdman stated that the review of M&N is for mass and scale. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 24. 1996 Amidon stated that the Board should look at standard one; that the project is compatible in mass and scale with the surrounding structures. Materials are not to be disussed unless it has direct correlation to the scale of the project. Vickery commented that he could not do the review without the streetscape. Roschko commented that the drawings somewhat indicated that no trees would be left on the site. Ward stated that three large trees exist on the site; two are being moved on the site and one off the site pending coordination with the Parks Department. Roschko indicated that she would like the duplex to read as two buildings. The stone covering makes it read as one house and she feels it is out of scale with the small houses next door. Moyer requested a streetscape and model for the next meeting. Davis agreed that a model would be helpful for the Board. Dodington agreed that the use of stone makes the house look heavy. Erdman stated that the choice of material is not within the purview of the HI?C but the scale of the material is. The stone on the drawing may not be the same stone used and the drawing is somewhat inadequate. Davis stated if the Board looked at the side elevation it would look different. Alstrom indicated when a heavy material is continued from the first floor to the second floor it does get into mass and scale. He also stated that the project should conform in terms of height. Davis said the next door duplex has stone and the streetscape plan and model will solve many ofthe issues. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 24. 1996 Alstrom indicated that he feels second floors should have lower plate heights, 6'8' or 7' as it pulls the scale of the building down. Historic buildings usually have eight foot plate heights. Davis indicated that the second floor plate height was ten feet. Amidon stated that the review should include ordinance #30 requirements etc. Madsen stated she is concerned that the project will dwarfthe historic proj ect. She also stated that a model will help her see visually what is happening on the lots. Moyer stated that he was in agreement with a separation and the differentiation was good. He also stated that the concern is the overall mass and dropping the plate heights would address that concern. He also agreed with Roschko that a residentail flavor should be retained or incorporated if possible. Erdman summarized that the Board felt there should be some articulation between the two halves o f the duplex. That there be a reduction in the plate height. Erdman stated that the stucco gabled ends facing the street have a scale problem and it is the relationship between solid and void. There should be a scale consistency within the building itself. Erdman stated that there is a need for surface redesign rather than interior. Alstrom stated that he likes a duplex to look like a duplex. MOTION: Moyer moved to table the review of Lots M & N, mass and scale of 918 E. Cooper until further information can be provided by the applicant to February 14th; second by Smisek. All in favor, motion carried. 1 11 3iI 'AD MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 918 E. Cooper Avenue- Mass and Scale Review and Ordinance #30 review for Lots M and N DATE: February 12, 1996 SUMMARY: HPC granted final approval for the development of the historic landmark property on January 24,1996, but tabled the mass and scale review for Lots M and N (currently on the historic inventory) for more information. A model and photographs of the neighborhood will be available for HPC review at the meeting. APPLICANT: John Davis. Mark Ward is the architect. LOCATION: 918 E. Cooper Avenue, Parcel 1 of the Phillips/Gordon Lot Split, aka Lots M and N, Block 35, East Aspen Addition to the Townsite of Aspen. STAFF REVIEW: Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with Ordinance #30, Series of 1995, and finds the project in compliance, except for the two small windows set high in the gable ends on the alley facade, which seem to violate the volume standard. These will need to be revised prior to submitting for building permit. In regard to HPC's mass and scale review, HPC raised several issues on January 24th (minutes attached). HPC recommended that the plate heights on the second floor be reduced. They were originally drawn as 10' and have now been reduced to 8'. The ridgeline is 25 1/2', which is lower than most of the surrounding buildings. HPC asked for some articulation of the duplex units as individual units. The wall surface between the units has been slightly recessed. RECOMMENDATION: All remaining conditions from January 24th still apply to the development of Lots O and P. The condition for mass and scale review has been satisfied and staff recommends the project be allowed to proceed to building permit submission, with the revision of the rear windows to meet Ordinance #30. luo A \ 95 V 4 0»« - nUO 0 1 RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to find that the condition placed on the development of 918 E. Cooper Avenue on January 24,1996, requiring mass and scale review of the development on lots M and N, Block 35, has been met." ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 918 E. Cooper Avenue- reconsideration of motion DATE: February 14, 1996 In regard to the final review approval granted for 918 E. Cooper, Lots O and P, on January 24th, 1996, staff recommends that an HPC member who voted in favor of the approval (all but Sven and Susan) make a motion to reconsider the approval. In the reconsideration, staff recommends the following condition be added to the approval: "The applicant shall submit structural plans for the Lot P unit for review by staff and monitor. A clear representation shall be made as to how the existing framing will be retained and how any new members necessary shall be added. HPC expects the original framing to be retained, with new members "sistered" in as needed. Any variation necessary from the plan as approved by staff and monitor shall be immediately brought to the attention of staff and shall be approved by staff and monitor prior to the change taking place."