The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19980211AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 11, 1998 REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of Nov. 12, 1997 minutes Dec. 17, 1997. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS III. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:10 A. 414 N. First St. - Final Development (Council and P&Z have been invited to attend for this item so that they may have an understanding of the review and the HPC decision.) '1% A,6 /-7- 21. . U- ,-pl Â£7/ El_ 6) A S f I An c \MU--1 L- B. 114 Neale Ave. - Conceptual, table to March 25,1998 -1 C. 214 E. Bleeker St. - extension of conceptual approval to April 8, 1998 O,9 - MAÂ»j D. 930 King St. - Conceptual, table to Feb. 25, 1998 V. WORKSESSIONS 6:00 A. 930 King Street 6:30 B. 240 Lake Avenue 7:00 C. 712 W. Francis St. D. Ord. #30 - information item 7:30 V. ADJOURN *Note: Please feel free to bring dinner since it is a long mtg. -ENote: Please RSVP to Amy for the site visits if you would like to get a ride from City Hall. Otherwise meet at the first site. ~'Note: Special worksession on Feb. 18th. Lot splits and moving buildings. 1991:i ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SITE VISITS FEBRUARY 11, 1998 1:00 - 1:20 Tipple Inn, 505 E. Dean St. 1:20 - 1:40 135 W. Hopkins Ave. 1:40 - 2:00 712 W. Francis St. Please RSVP to Amy for the site visits if you would like a ride from City Hall. Otherwise meet at the first site. Packets will be ready by NOON on Friday Feb. 6th PENDING ISSUES: Code revisions by asst. attorney to increase fines i.e. letter of credit. OJECT MONITORING Roger Moyer 303 E. Main, Kuhn 420 E. Main (not active) ISIS (not active) 939 E. Cooper (not active) Susan Dodington 712 W. Francis (stalled) 918 E. Cooper, Davis 132 W. Main, McCloskey Meadows. Trustee and Tennis townhomes 525 W. Hallam (not active) 234 W. Francis Melanie Roschko 918 E. Cooper, Davis ISIS (not active) 706 W. Main (not active) 210 S. Galena, Elk's building plaza 414 E. Hyman, Aspen Cooking School Suzannah Reid 303 E. Main, Kuhn 702 W. Main, Pearson 218 N. Monarch, Zucker ? 1008 E. Hopkins, Bellis Mary Hirsch Meadows, Trustee and Tennis townhomes 525 W. Hallam (not active) Gilbert Sanchez 420 E. Main Galena Plaza (not active) 820 E. Cooper (not active) 514 E. Hyman, Mason Morse bldg. 1008 E. Hopkins, Bellis Jeffrey Halferty 939 E. Cooper (not active) 132 W. Main, McCloskey 234 W. Francis, Mullin Heidi Friedland 130 S. Galena, City Hall )NCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: 214 E. Bleeker Street (Greenwood), expires February 12,1998 520 Walnut (Greenwood), expires March 22, 1998 414 N. First Street (Ernemann), expires March 26, 1998 834 W. Hallam (Poppie's), expires April 26, 1998 123 W. Francis, Lot B (Vickery), expires May 24, 1998 514 N. Third Street (Ringsby), expires June 11,1998 MEMORANDUM Ell TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 79 go -7... - THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director U- FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 414 N. First Street- Final review DATE: February 11, 1998 SUMMARY: Over the course of two years, the applicant and HPC have held at least four worksessions and several site visits, and HPC has granted conceptual approval for the renovation of the structures at 414 N. First Street. The project has required HPC to look closely at the qualities that determine historic significance, and has resulted in a decision that the property's importance lies in its association with influential persons in the community (the Browns' and the Paepke's) and not in its architectural character. The fact that the building which was constructed on the site in the late 1800's has been essentially obliterated by subsequent remodels, and the structural condition of the existing house have influenced HPC's findings on this project. Attached are final architectural drawings and the landscape plan, aIong with the conceptual review packet and minutes from HPC meetings for reference. Staff recommends approval with conditions. APPLICANT: Jonathan Lewis and Roberto Posada, represented by Michael Ernemann. LOCATION: 414 N. First Street. See application for a complete legal description of the property. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District 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 designawd 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 1 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 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: HPC has discussed at length the extensive remodeling which transformed the one story 1880's home at 414 N. First Street into the current building, and the resulting structural issues. During these worksessions, the Commission members used a National Park Service worksheet to outline which elements of the existing structure have historical significance or define the character or style of the building. The outcome of the discussions was a general agreement that the site has significance as a historic landmark less for its architectural character than for its association with people who have significance within the cultural, social, and political history of Aspen (one of the five criteria which the City uses to determine that a site is eligible to be a historic landmark.) While many other historic buildings in Aspen are associated with a person who has made an important contribution to the community, for instance the Wheeler Opera House, Hotel Jerome, and Pioneer Park, each of these structures also have architectural significance and retain the integrity of their original design. Similarly, some other landmark structures in Aspen are associated with important local architects, including 0 Herbert Bayer and Fritz Benedict, but those structures also retain the integrity of the original design. While Herbert Bayer was involved in renovations to 414 N. First Street, it is staff' s opinion that the existing structure is a collection of remodeling efforts which do not successfully represent the original building, the Brown family house, or the work of Herbert Bayer. With this in mind, staff' s evaluation of the proposed remodeling of 414 N. First Street has viewed the physical preservation of the existing building in a different light than has been the case in any other HPC review. What HPC has attempted to do in working with this applicant is to find a reasonable and appropriate way to preserve a quality or essence ofthe property's history. During the HPC reviews, certain elements of the existing house have been identified as particularly important to preserving the character of the former Paepke home and people's memories and associations with it. These elements were the retention of the west (street facing) facade of the house and incorporation of this wall into the new construction, retention of the carriage house, which is essentially as it was in the 1800's, keeping the main entrance into the house on the north side of the building, keeping a garden wall along N. First, maintaining the importance of gardens as a part of the property, and maintaining an overall sense of "mystery" and privacy from the street. HPC found that the conceptual proposal met these requirements. On January 14, 1998, the applicants held a worksession with HPC to discuss the methods 0 that would be required to retain the important west facade of the existing building. Part of the issue centered on the way that the second story was framed on top of the 2'but" 2 stud wall of the original one story house, and the structurally weak hinge point this creates in the wall. After an engineering study, the applicant determined that there are three possible ways to address the structural problem: 1) Sandwich the wall with large steel members which would be bolted through it for stability, and brace the wall in place while sections of the foundation would be removed and replaced incrementally, 2) Use the previous stabilization method, but movethe wall away while completing foundation work, 3) Dismantle the wall, build a new structure and reapply the old exterior materials to it. The first method has been estimated to add approximately $200,000 to the project budget, and both the first and second methods would require that at some point in the process the wall be laid flat on the ground in order to insert new structural members into the framing to bring the wall up to building code. The second method, moving the wall away temporarily would require enormous cranes and would be likely to damage large trees on the property. The second and third methods result in the temporary "disappearance" of the building, which must be preceded with public outreach so that the community at large will have some understanding of what is happening. In the worksession format, HPC indicated that they would be willing to accept the third alternative: taking the wall down and reconstructing it, using existing exterior materials. This is undeniably an approval for the demolition of the house, which is contrary to the stance that HPC has taken and may take on other projects. Staff is concerned with public perception of the decision, but it has been weighed by the group and does appear to be reasonable in this singular case. The applicant is encouraged to continue to explore any other feasible way that the west wall may still be retained as the project proceeds towards construction. In terms of the final approval application before HPC tonight, minor changes have been made to the west facade of the building since conceptual approval, namely the removal of the oval stair tower, the replacement of the stucco with clapboards, and the replacement of scalloped shingles in the gable ends with square cut shingles. Staff finds that these changes are positive and help to "quiet" the character of the building and the areas of the addition which are visible along the street. As shown previously, the garage structure will be retained as is and moved very slightly to the east so that it is entirely on the applicant's property. The proposed landscape plan is attached. Staff finds that the issue of most interest to HPC is the new fence and entry. The fence that is proposed is somewhat similar to the existing concrete block and stucco fence, but much improved in quality. Metal grating along the top of the wall is in keeping with the mesh that exists now and emphasizes the private estate quality that HPC has felt was important to the Paepke ownership of the site. The landscape plan also includes the addition of numerous aspen trees near the west facade and along the rear property line, which will provide a semi-transparent screen around the structure. Please note that the plan shows Aspen trees planted in the City right-of-way along N. First Street. Any planting in the right-of-way requires approval from the Parks and Engineering Departments. It has been indicated that a different 3 approach will be required because cottonwoods, not aspen trees are the preferred and historical street tree in the West End. Staff recommends approval of the design as submitted. The review has involved a thorough evaluation of the nature of the building and, staff feels, a reasonable decision by the HPC. It will be very important for information to be given to the public to explain why HPC has decided to "let go" of a building which has great sentimental value to the community. The message should be clear that HPC is as interested in protecting important resources of this century as the 19th century Victorians, but that this home has structural issues and architectural idiosyncrasies which affect the value and feasibility of its preservation. All conditions of conceptual approval have been met except for those included in the staff recommendation. Some issues with the proposal still must be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, namely built features of the landscape plan that may be visible from Hallam Lake. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood ofthe parcel proposed for development. Response: The surrounding neighborhood has numerous historic structures, and the idea of creating a Hallam Lake Historic District was at one time considered. The great majority of these structures have been remodeled as is. proposed for this site. One of the significant qualities of this property within the context of the neighborhood is its heavy vegetation and the notion that it is a private estate with a "secret garden." Staff finds that the applicant have maintained these qualities. 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: Staff finds that the proposal is successful in conveying the essence of the property's historic significance and place in Aspen's history. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The existing building is an eclectic mix of many periods of remodeling and different architectural references. Staff finds the building fairly undistinguished in terms of architectural character and structurally deficient in many ways due to the evolution from a one-story to a two-story building. These findings have led HPC to determine that a reconstruction ofpart ofthe building and replacement ofthe rest is the appropriate action. 4 0 ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any ofthe following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the Development application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the 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 Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant final approval with the following conditions: 1. The garage must be 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 prior to application for building permit. 0 2. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the garage, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. The bond shall be in the amount of $30,000. 3. All planting or other elements proposed within the City right-of-way along First Street must be approved by the City Parks Department, staffand monitor. 4. The applicant is encouraged to continue to explore any other feasible way that the west wall may still be retained as the project proceeds towards construction. ATTACHMENTS: A. Conceptual review packet and minutes. B. Newspaper article ofMarch 27,1997 0 5 132 g *2*Ii?lit gilift* 1 "044-33.:..%,49.4 Â· MEMORANDUM ititteÂ«49&Â£.2 0 6/"4.0#Â·:i-tistÂ»52'4 - --1 3.1Â»27212==25>21 TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission -aÂ·89 4#Ek':84:*4. '13.2?.2 tails Â·-1 -' THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Dimetg[ - - , Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Director r WA / FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 414 N. First Street- Conceptual, Partial Demolition, On-site Relocation, Ordinance #30 DATE: March 26, 1997 SIJMMARY: The applicants' request conceptual, partial demolition, and on-site relocation approval in order to remodel and make an addition to the existing building, which is a designated historic landmark. A rear yard setback variance (for the existing garage), floor area bonus. and waiver of aspects of Ordinance #30 are.also requested. Staff recommends approval of the application with conditions. 0 APPLICANT: Jonathan Lewis and Roberto Posada, represented by Michael Ememann. LOCATION: 414 N. First Street. See application for a complete legal description of the property. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District 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 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 0 dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section 1 b24-\Â»l~ Â£.twl-~ 1 /, exceed those variations allowed under the Cdttage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: HPC has held numerous worksessions and site visits with the project architect in the past year, and have discussed several issues, including the extensive remodeling which transformed the original one story structure into the current building, and the physical condition of the existing building. During these worksessions, the Commission members used a National Park Sen-ice worksheet to outline which elements of the existing structure have historical significance or define the character or style of the building. The result of the discussions was a general agreement that the site has significance as a historic landmark less for its architectural character than for its association with people who have significance within the cultural, social, and political history of Aspen (one of the five criteria which the City uses to determine that a site is eligible to be a historic landmark.) While many other historic buildings in Aspen are associated with a person who has made an important contribution to the community, for instance the Wheeler Opera House, Hotel Jerome. and Pioneer Park (aiso associated with the Paepkes), each of these structures has architectural significance as well and retain the integrity of their original design. Similarly, some other landmark structures in Aspen are associated with important local architects, including Herbert Bayer and Fritz Benedict, but those structures also retain the integrity of the original design. While Herbert Bayer was involved in renovations to 414 N. First Street, it is staffs opinion that the existing structure is a collection of remodeling efforts which do not successfully represent the original building, the Brown family house, or the work of Herbert Bayer. With this in mind, staffs evaluation of the Â· . proposed remodeling of 414 N. First Street which is now presented to HPC views the physical preservation of the building in a more flexible manner, with less focus on preservation of the existing building beyond what is part of the public view from North First Street. At the same time, staff agrees with the architect's approach which allows elements of the new addition to pop up along the street elevation, showing with honesty that the building has evolved into something new rather than treating the street facade as a false front. The applicant has provided as-built floor plans and elevations in addition to a written and graphic description of the proposal. A model will be presented at the meeting. Also discussed within the application is a study of the site and the history of the building prepared by the Ememann Group in 1995. Two copies are available for review by the Commission if desired: one copy in the HPO's office and one copy at Jake Vickery' s office. In the attached proposal, the architect has retained the west wall of the existing house and portions of the north facade, retained the existing garage, and proposes to rebuild the main roof due to structural concerns. A hip roof form which currently extends from the- main ridge towards the alley will be removed (leaving a portion of 2 the. existing building as a courtyard open to the sky), and a new addition will be built towards the gardens. For the most part, the existing materials will be retained on the areas of the building which are included in the remodel. The garage will be moved off-site temporarily to allow for the excavation of a basement, and when returned will be placed one foot north and east of its current location so that it no longer encroaches into the alley. A small addition will be made to the garage which requires a 4 ft. 6 inch setback variance. Staff finds the location of the addition appropriate (iI is additional storage for the garage) and finds that the variance has minimal impact on the historic resource or the neighboring properties. As discussed above, staff finds that the approach generally used on historic preservation projects. with the foremost goal being physical preservation of a historic structure, may be viewed with more flexibility on this project. As directed by HPC, the applicant has retained the west portion of the building and the public image of the building as a private estate. By removing sections of roof and allowing some elements of the new addition to be viewed, there is a subtle suggestion that the building makes a transition within the private area of the site. The new construction is modest in materials and detailing. and because of the flat roofs, has a low profile which does not compete with the areas of the existing building which will be retained. The existing house exceeds the allowable floor area for the site, a condition which may be continued, per Section 26.104.030(C)(1), nonconforming structures. This nonconformity is due in part to the fact that a large area of the site is required to be Â· excluded from floor area calculation because of steep slopes, and in part due to the sliding scale used for floor area which dramatically reduces the floor area accumulated as lot size increases. Because of the large size of the parcel and the significant screening of the site by trees, staff recommends that the requested floor area bonus be granted. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character ofthe neighborhood ofthe parcel proposed for development. Response: The surrounding neighborhood has numerous historic structures, and the idea of creating a Hallam Lake Historic District was at one time considered. The great majority of these structures have been remodeled as is proposed for this site. One of the significant qualities of this property within the context of the neighborhood is its heavy vegetation and the notion that it is a private estate. The application has provided a site plan showing existing vegetation and representing that one birch tree will have to be removed as a result of the new construction. The landscape plan for the site, which may or may not result in the replacement of some 3 existing trees if found to be unhealthy. will be reviewed by the HPC and the Parks Department prior to issuance of a building permit. The applicants' have expressed a sincere desire to revitalize the gardens, which are an important part ofthis property. 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: Staff finds that the proposal is successful in conveying the essence of the property's historic significance and place in Aspen's history. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The building is an eclectic mix of many periods of remodeling and different architectural references. Staff finds that the existing building is fairly undistinguished in terms of architec=al character and is structurally deficient in several ways due to the evolution from a one-story to a two-story building, therefore the proposal is not in conflict with this standard. PARTIAL DEMOLITION Section 26.72.020.C, Standards for review of partial demolition. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: (For the purposes of this section, "partial demolition" shall mean the razing of a portion of any structure on an inventoried parcel or the total razing of any structure on an inventoried parcel which does not contribute to the historic significance of that parcel.) 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 retain approximately 60% of the existing building mass and to add onto the building in the area of the gardens. This is an appropriate location for new construction and the areas to be demolished have been remodeled to a great extent. 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 applicant has addressed these impacts by retaining the majority of the building that is -visible to the public. 4 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 discussed in detail under "Standard 1" of the Conceptual review criteria. ON-SITE RELOCATION Section 26.72.020.D, Standards for review of on-site relocation. No approval for on- site relocation shall be granted unless the HPC finds that the standards of section 26.72.020.D.2,3, and 4 have been met. 2. 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: Currently, the historic carriage house (now the garage) encroaches into city right-of-way along the west property line by approximately one foot. The applicant proposes to move the garage off-site temporarily during excavation for a basement, and once returned, place the garage entirely on their own property. Staff finds that the very slight relocation of the building will not negatively impact the integrity of the building or neighborhood. 3. 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: This report must be submitted before application for a building permit. 4. 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: The bond and relocation plan must be submitted prior to application for a building permit. HPC must set an amount for the boil. $30,000 has been standard for a building of this size. 5 COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE #30 The proposal does not comply with several aspects of Ordinance #30 because it is a pre- existing building. The areas of Ordinance #30 which require a variance are: Street oriented entrance: "All single-family homes... must have a street-oriented entrance and a street facing principal window...A street oriented entrance requires that at least one of the following two conditions are met: the front entry door is on the street facade; or a covered entry porch of fifty or more square fee is part of the street facade." Response: The building entry is oriented toward the north, which is its historic condition and a condition which HPC requested be maintained in the remodel. Staff recommends this standard be waived. Garages: "The garage must be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the house, " and "All portions of a garage, carport or storage area parallel to the street shall be recessed behind the front facade a minimum of ten (10) feet." Response: The garage is an existing building and should not be relocated beyond relocation from the right-of-way. Volume: Areas where there are "...facade penetrations between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level of the finished floor: and circular, semi-circular or non-orthogonal fenestration between nine (9) and fifteen (15) feet above the level of the finished floor" are counted as 2 square feet for every 1 square feet of floor area. Response: Several windows on the existing house violate this standard, however none of these windows violates the intent of the standard, which was to. eliminate areas of glazing which span from one story to the next, therefore staff recommends this standard be waived. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any ofthe following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the Development application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the 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.) 6 â€¢ Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant conceptual approval, partial demolition approval, off-site relocation approval, waiver from the Ordinance #30 standards related to "street oriented entrance, garages, and volume," grant a rear yard setback variance of 4 feet 6 inches for an addition to the garage, and grant a 500 sq.ft. floor area bonus with the following conditions: 1. The garage must be 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 prior to application for building permit. 2. 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 garage, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. The bond shall be in the amount of $30,000. 3. A landscape plan. which is currently in development, must be reviewed and approved by HPC prior to submission for a building permit. The applicant shall address privacy concerns of the neighboring properties by making every effort to Â· retain a landscaping screen along the south property line. 4. Prior to final approval, the application shall be referred to the Engineering Department, Parks Department, Water Department, and other referral bodies as needed to identify any issues which may delay issuance of a building permit. 5. For final review, a demolition plan shall be submitted indicating which areas of the existing building will be retained with structural improvements, which areas are to be reconstructed, and which areas of the existing building will be completely removed. 7 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project Name: Lewis/Posada House: Remodel and Additions 2. Project Location: 414 North First Street. Aspen, Colorado Legal Description: Lots A. 8, C, D, E, F, G, H, and 1, Block 55, City and Townsite of Aspen, together with the northerly ten feet of the alley in Block 55 as described in Quiet Title Decree as recorded in Book 175, Page 300, Pitkin County Records, adjacent to said Lots A thru 1, and the portions of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 adjacent to said Lots A thru 1, Block 55, which lie within Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen as shown on the Willits Plat of 1896, recorded in Book 4 at Page 27 of the the Pitkin County Records, and an irregular metes and bounds parcel adjoining the above described lots on their northerly and eastedy boundaries. all of the above being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the easterly line of First Street, said point being S. 14Â° 50' 49" W., 10.00' from the southwest comer of Lot A, Block 55, City and Townsite of Aspen; thence S. 75Â° 09' 11" E., 294.08. to a point on the westerly line of that parcel described in Book 256 at Page 877; thence along said westerly and northerly lines of said parcel the following courses and distances: N. 14Â° 50' 49" E., 10.802 N. 33Â°03'19" E., 42.21. N. 07Â° 19' 05" E., 112.35 ; S. 70Â° 18' 15' E., 209.82' to a point of intersection 0 with a parcel described in Book 341 at Page 373, Book 381 at Page 294, and Book 382 at Page 272 B; thence N. 62Â° 39' 00" W., 161.33'; thence N. 74Â° 18' 00" W., 26.73' (Deed 25.73'); thence N. 82Â° 05' 40" W., 178.19'; thence N. 34Â° 55' 17" W., 130.87' (Deed 130.59'); thence N. 09Â° 26' 25" W., 210.13'; thence N. 40Â° 36' 53" W., 5.17', at which point leaving the westerly line of said parcel described in Book 381 at Page 294 and Book 382 at Page 272B; thence S. 55Â° 35' 00" W., 49.81'; thence S. 12Â° 24' 00" E., 242.09'; thence N. 75Â° 09' 11" W., 28.21' to a point on the northerly projection of the west line of Block 55, City and Townsite of Aspen; thence S. 14Â° 50' 49" W., along said west line of Block 55 and its northerly projection 184.35' to the point of beginning containing 1.536 acres & all in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. 3. Present Zoning: R-6 4. Lot Size: 66,925 s.f. 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Jonathan Lewis/Roberto Posada, 414 North First St., Aspen, CO - 970.920.2734 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number: Michael J. Ememann, The Ememann Group Architects, 720 East Durant Ave. Aspen, CO - 970.925.2266 7. Type of Application: a. Conceptual HPC b. Demo/Pardal Demo c. Ordinance 30 LAND USE APPLICATION - ATTACHMENT 1 - p.2 8. a. Description of Existing Uses Single Family Residential with Grage (one structure) b. Approximate Existing Floor Area (measured per Ord. 30,7-304.6). 8,223.6 s.f. c. Existing Number of Bedrooms 8 d. Previous Approvals Granted to the Property: None known other than two previous lot splits undertaken by the Paepcke family in order to convey land to the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies and to the Given Institute. 9. Description of Development Application: The development proposed is a remodel and additions to an existing single family house and existing 2 car garage. The application also includes requests for a 4'-6" rear yard setback variance for an addition to the east side of the garage and for permission for partial demolition and temporary off-site relocation of the garage to facilitate construction activities. 0 0 Elene- 108 Nighthawk 0 0 m 001!onwood L.,31. ,-AimBLVIC- Dr t. 4*, 8eor a n 'w Bunn B 900 0 0 43 3 o . 0 . ASPEN Solvation Of W Gb 4 0 2 9 a .wa 42 Ct 3: 04.46 2 COLORADO n n - 40957 9 0 3 C n i ~ 3 -3 c 9Jf 8 I Gilies ic St Y M -=-- Subject Property PO, ly & 65 p--14-3Â£ 9~ * 2 0 Â£44 -44 . : e'46 C "m % 4 4 6 0 4 3- Sawnui 4 * 0 . r f . 0.4 4 4 0 4 4 + :# 5 E Main St ucen st q C â‚¬ 4 r v 1 22 - - - Ce â‚¬-7 4, 4 + Go .11 61 0 3 8 4 41.52 q z :* ~2 a 1 + 1 * 1 - 0 * Abrâ€¢ 9 wrov 0 - -r 0 1> g Fli f Wesivicw Dr: f 27 4- u 4 1 1 1, ~16 vignÂ» e 1 + '>44 L c 4 C i E. t R %045 1 i t' - 1 0 f 1 1 82 1 1 1 1 / 1 1 1 0 1/2 MILE I I EGaffETL--Em 1 KILOMETER 0 1/2 N VICINITY MAP 414 N. First Street, Aspen, CO //27 Py ]104.3 01]srl ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM 0 Applicant: Jonathan Lewis and Roberto Posada Address: 414 N. First Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Zone District: R6 Lot Size: 66,925 s.f. (36,358 s.f. w/slope reduction) Existing Floor Area: 8,223.6 s.f. Allowable Floor Area: 8,223.6 s.f. (existing) Proposed Floor Area: 8,683.0 s.f. Existing Net Leasable (commercial): N.A. Proposed Net Leasable (commercial): N.A. Existing % of Site Coverage: 4.7% Proposed % of Site Coverage: 8.2% Allowable % of Site Coverage 20% Existing % of Open Space: N.A. Proposed % of Open Space: N.A. Existing Max. Height: Principal Bldg: 32 ft. Accessory Bldg: N.A. Proposed Max. Height: Principal Bldg: 32 ft. Accessory Bldg: 12 ft. Proposed % of Demolition: 40%i 0 Existing Number of Bedrooms: 8 Proposed Number of Bedrooms: 5 Existing On-Site Parking Spaces: 5 On-Site Parking Spaces Required: 5 Setbacks (Assumes Front Yard faces Hallam Lake and Rear Yard faces Alley) Existing: Minimum Required: Proposed: Front: 134 ft. Front: 10 ft. Front: 125 ft. Rear: 0 ft. Rear: (Garage) 5 ft. Rear: (Existg. Gar.) 0 ft. Combined Combined Combined Front/Rear: 134 ft. Front/Rear. 30 ft. FronVRear 125 ft. Side: 0 ft. Side: 15 ft. Side: (Existg. Gar.) 0 ft. Side: 241 ft. Side: 15 ft. Side: 141 ft. Combined Combined Combined Â£ Sides: 241 ft. Sides: 50 ft. Sides: 141 ft. Existing Nonconformities or Encroachments: Bldg Ht. 32 ft (existing) vs 25 ft. (allowable) and Side and Rear Yard Setbacks @ Garage (0 ft. existing). 0 Variations Requested: Rear yard setback (5') to allow addition to existing garage. 500 s.f. HPC Floor Area bonus. ATTACHMENT 4 SPECIFIC SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: CONCEPTUAL REVIEW 1. SITE PLAN and SURVEY: See Enclosed. 2. CONCEPTUAL SELECTION of MAJOR BUILDING MATERIALS: See Enclosed Building Elevations. 3. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The development proposed is the partial restoration, partial demolition and construction of additions to the non-street-facing (north and east) sides of the existing main house and (east) side of the carriage house located at 414 N. First Street, Aspen, Colorado. It is intended that the existing street facing (west) facade of the main house, the entire carriage house and the garden wall along the west property line be retained with only minor modification and/or restoration where required. The existing structure is a two-story, wood frame, 8 bedroom house with habitable attic, partial basement, and attached two-story carriage house containing a two-car garage and studio apartment. The structure was originally built in 1887 as a one-story bungalow style house with habitable attic and carriage house. The house has undergone extensive renovation and addition on several occasions since the tum of the century including the raising of the roof and the addition of a second story. As such it no longer is representative of the architecture of late 19th Century Aspen. (Please referÂ·to historical analysis booklet entitled "414 N. First, Aspen, Colorado, 5.8.95"prepared by The Ememann Group Architects for complete description of the subject property.) The history of the structure has not been one of formative preservation, but rather, it has been one of evolution. Innumerable modifications, some minor and several significant, have been the rule over its 110 year life. The current proposal is for development that continues that history of formative evolution; in this instance with interior modifications and additions to accomodate the new owners' needs. Significantly, however, the current proposal also embraces preservation in that it retains the fundamental mass and character of the house, most notably the facade and forms evident to the street. Therefore, the proposed development will have little, if any, effect on the surrounding neighborhood. 4. SCALE DRAWINGS OF ALL ELEVATIONS OF PROPOSED STRUCTURES AND ROOF PLAN: See 24" x 36" prints of proposed structure. 5. VISUAL DESCRIPTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT: See attached "Neighborhood Context Plan" and photographic panoramas of both sides of First Street. ATTACHMENT 4 SPECIFIC SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS for HPC REVIEW for PARTIAL DEMOLITION and TEMPORARY RELOCATION 1. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF THE STRUCTURE PROPOSED FOR PARTIAL DEMOLITION and TEMPORARY RELOCATION: The structure proposed for partial demolition is a two-story, wood frame, 8 bedroom house with habitable attic, partial basement, and attached two story carriage house containing a two car garage and studio apartment. It is proposed to temporarily relocate the carriage house in order to facilitate construction access to the east side of the main house. (Please refer to historical analysis booklet entitled "414 N. First, Aspen, Colorado, 5.8.95" prepared by The Ememann Group Architects for complete description of the subject property.) 2. REPORT FROM A LICENSED ENGINEER REGARDING THE SOUNDNESS OF THE STRUCTURE and ITS SUITABILITY FOR REHABILITATION: See attached letter from Monroe and Newell Engineers, Inc., Re: Paepcke House, 414 N. First Street, Aspen, CO, dated June 25,1996. 3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN and STATEMENT OF THE EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON THE OTHER STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY AND THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AROUND THE PROPERTY: The development proposed is the partial restoration, partial demolition and construction of additions to the non-street-facing (north and east) sides of the existing main house and (east) side of the caniage house. It is intended that the existing street facing (west) facade of the house, the entire carriage house and the garden wall along the west property line to be retained with only minor modification and/or restoration where required. The existing roof, however, has been deemed structurally unsound by engineering analysis (see attached Monroe and Newell letter) and will be replaced as necessary. The neighborhood context is one comprised largely of Victorian era houses, some with evident modification and significant additions in recent years and some entirely new houses of consistent residential scale (see photo panoramas of First Street). The proposed development retains the existing form of the west wall of the house and the entire carriage house. Only minimal modification will be evident from the street. Thus the proposed development will have little, if any, effect on the neighborhood around the property. Volt, Colorado Denver, Colorado Monroe & Newell Engineers, Inc. June 25, 1996 The Ememann Group PO Box 4602 Aspen, CO 81611 Attn: Mr. Michael Ernemann Re: Paepcke House, 414 North Ist Street, Aspen, CO. Gentlemen: As requested, Monroe & Newell Engineers, Inc. recently conducted m observation ofthe exisling house and garage. The purpose of the observation was to form our opinion of the current structural condition ofthe building in order to provide our recommendations for the reasonable restoration and/or preservation ofthe existing structure. The house is a two level building with a full attic and a small basement. The main level contains the living room, library, dining room and kitchen areas. The upper level contains bedroom areas. The attic levelis currently used for storage with approximately sixty percent of it having the vertical clearance required for habitable space. The basement contains laundry and mechanical spaces. We understand the house is approximately 108 years old. The garage is two levels with apartment space on the upper level The house and garage are both entirely ofwood frame construction with wood and stucco exteriors, The portion ofthe main level of the residence not above the basement is built over a crawl space. The foundation crawlspace and basement walls are stacked stone. The garage main level and house basement floor are concrete. A review of early pictures ofthe house indicates it has undergone several structural additions and alterations. At some time one entire level was added to the house and the current attic created. At that time, the structural system ofthe house was compromised with load increases and load paths different fromthe original construction. There appears 0048 E. Beaver Creek Blvd, . Suire 301 â€¢ P. O. Box 1597 - Avon, Colorado 81620 â€¢ (303) 949-7768 . FAX (303) 949-4054 to have been two separate single level additions to the south side of the house, one of 0 which is the connection to the garage. The exterior decks have been modified. The brick chimneys have been added and/or modified. Several interior partition walls ofthe house have been modified. In general, the condition ofthe house and garage is in line with expectations for well-used buildings oftheir age and construction type. There are floor areas which are out of level approximately 2 inches in ten feet. The treads ofthe stairs to the Upper level are not level, There is plaster ceiling cracking in several areas. These conditions can be attributable to building settlement and/or long term sagging ofthe wood floor amd ceiling joists. Our observation determined areas ofthe buildings which for safety reasons require extensive reconstruction, areas which are structurally inadequate, and areas which should be modified to assure continued structural integrity. Specifically, our findings are as follows: 1. Theexisting roofframing is unsafe and requires extensive reconstruction and/or replacement. Existing roof framing is 2x6(nominal) joists at 16 inches on center with some spans of approximately 14 foot horizontal Rip beams are single 2x6. Where roofjoists spans are shorter, thejoists are supported on questionable wood stud knee walls, many ofwhich do not align with beming walls below. In our opinion, it would be difficult to calculate a snow load capacity of 20 PSF for the existing wood framing (versus cuirent code requirement of 75 PSK)Â· Evidence ofprevious roof problems include some cracked members and 3/4 diameter tie rods which have been installed on the attic floor to prevent kick-out ofthe north building wall The slick ~ish metal roofng, which prevents the roof from holding snow, ippears to have prevented total roof failure. In addition, the reconstruction ofthe roofto gable ends on the east and west sides fromthe original four sided hip roofhas changed the loading to the bearing walls and foundations below. Some ofthe building settlement may be the result of this, 2. The ensting attic floor frammg is 2x8(nominal) at 16 inches. The joists span Rom exterior walls on the east and west sides to a centerline hallway which runs north-south in the building, The ma,dmum Span i8 approximately 19 feet. In our opinion, these joists are marginal for ceiling framing and are clearly inadequate to support attic or habitable space. They also provide essentially no support for the roof supporting knee walls above. 0 3. Ilte upper level framing appears to be 2x10 (nominal) at 16 inches 10 supported on the east and west exterior walls and the haIlway walls. The maxinmm span onthe east side of the building is approximately 15'-6 and on the west side is approximately 22'-0. Ciment code requirements would limit these members to a span of approximately 14'-0. In our opinion, additional support and/orjoist reinforcement on the west portion ofthe building is necessary. We believe the east side i, adequate as is. 4. The main level fiaming appears to be 2x10(nominaD jOiStS at 16 inches. In the areas ofthe crawlspace we could observe, they appear to be supported at intervals appropiiate for cuITem code requirements. Beams and cohinins supporting the joists mayrequire reinforcement. Footings for iuterior crawlspace columns appear to be large flat stones. These should be replaced with concrete footings. 5. The stone foundation walls appear to be 16 to 18 inches thick and in overan satisfactory condition. Based on good soil bearing conditions the wans appear to be appropriate width for the original construction. A question requiring further consideration is ifthe exterior crawlspace walls extend below ftost depth. Ifnot, they may be contributing to observed sloping floors, etc. 6. The roof construction ofthe garage was not visible. Assuming member 0 sizing similar to the residence, reinforcing ofthe roof is required. There is a significant bow outward of the south garage wall indicating deflection of the roof structure. 7. The upper floor framing inthe garage is 2x10(nominal) at 16 inches spanning 19'-6. These will require reinforcement. 8. The east side exterior porch framblg appears to have been reconstructed in the past. This ftaming may be adequate for residentialloading, but is not adequate for current snow loading. 9, Additionalinvestigation is required to determine the appropdateness ofthe brick chimney support framing. In summary, although it is evident that the structure ofthe house has endured an overload situation for many years, it is our opinion that certain remedial measures must be implemented to ensure not only safety, but also to extend the viable use ofthe house into the future. Ataminimum, itis our opinion that total reconstructionoftheroof is required. I.eveling and reinforcement of some floor framing is warranted. Minor 0 foundation upgrades should also be undertaken. Lastly, we believe that strong 0 consideration should be given to reducing the existing overload conditions by retoming the structure to the design loading conditions present when the house was Ongmally constructed in 1888. Thisisto suggest the removal of some or perhaps allofupper level floor areas, walls and gable roof and replacement with a roof and upper level configuration similar to the original, Our conclusions and recommendations above are based on our visual observation without any demolition to expose hidden framing, without materials testing and without extensive measurements. Modifications to our conclusions and recommendations will surely occur once demolition and construction is initiated. If you have any questions or comments, please call Very truly yours, MONROE & NEWELL ENGINEERS, INC. Peter Monroe, P.E. Principal 0 0 03/14/97 FRI 11:30 FAX 9709270597 SK Pelghtal Englneers 0001 S KPEIGHTAL ENGINEERS Ltd STRUCTURAL CONSULTAN13; 0 March 14, 1997 Page 1 of 2 Michael Ernemann The Ernemann Group Architects 720 East Durant Av Aspen, Colorado 81611 fax 925-1904 Re: Remodel 414 First Street Aspen, Colorado Dear Michael, This letter is in follow-up to our 3-6-97 meeting at the above referenced project site. On site with us were Steve Hansen and Jerry Cavalery of Hansen Construction. The following thoughts were discussed: We performed a walk-through of the main house. The roof structure was viewed at the attic, 0 and revealed typical rafter construction with too few internal bearing points. Members are most likely undersizes for todays snow load criteria. A tension system has been installed to reduce a spreading of the opposite walls, most likely signs of past problems. I would anticipate complete roof replacement Floor structure was for the most part, unavailable to view. As is lypica[ with these structures, floors were found to be out of plumb and sloped at some areas. The foundation is observed as grouted stone cobble, with evidence of water damage and previous patch work. Floors may also be best replaced as opposed to attempts to reinforce, as is also true for the foundation. The west facade can be maintained in-place, and will entail extensive exteMor shoring and bracing systems. The west stone foundation can also be maintained, yet structure loads best transferred to a new foundation system to the interior. I would recommend that a cantilever foundation system be placed at a safe distance from the interior of this wall. That distance will be controlled by soil behavior and depth of the new footing system. This will result in a backfilled crawlspace along the west side, to reinforce the old wall. Of course with any work of this nature, some risk of damage to existing systems must be accepted. 0 20 Sunset Drive â€¢ Unit #5 â€¢ Basalt. CO â€¢ 81621 â€¢ (970) 927-9510 â€¢ Fax (970) 927-0597 03/14/97 FRI 11:30 FAX 9709270597 SK Pelghtal Englneers 01002 Page 2 of 2 Based on my offices past experience, a process is feasible to move tum of the century structures such as this carriage house. This structure is a wood frame, two story, slab on grade building. The main level is a garage, with the upper level used as a study. The actual carriage house roof structure was not available for view, but appears to be a rafter and collar tie system, typical for construction of this era. Final remodel may involve removal and re-construction of the roof structure, to meet current snow load criteria. The process to prepare this structure for moving may involve; removal of the concrete slab, extensive wall to wall to floor bracing, and opening of wall siding low to allow access for moving beams. The extent of internal bracing will detiend on the exact construction type and condition found. The building will then be lifted by an experienced house mover, and moved to allow access to construct a foundation system. The house mover will then return the building onto it's new base, and final remodel work can proceed. This process is fairly standard, yet attention to temporary bracing is important. Please call with any questions. Sincerely, Stephen K Peightal, PE President cc Jerry Cavalery - Hansen Construction fax 920-3038 97018 Ll SKP/kkp O Modern addition to Paepcke house gets commission's OK By Sen Gagnon A:01"02110'Nalâ€¢~ E- ' An ultra=modem addition to the historic Pacpcke house at 414 North First Street was unanimously approved Wednesday by the Aspen Histaric Preservatian Commission. 'rhe project had been more than a year in the making, including extensive consultation with the commission. Ths plan was drafted by The Ememann Group Architects. Although the P=pcke house is a histort landmak the commission and Historic Presemation Officer Amy Amidon determined that it was made a landmark in 1980 more to honor the memory of the Paepckes than for any amintectural reason- The owner previous to the Pacpckes was D.R.C. Brown Jr., and his father, D.R.C. Brown, who owned Aspent fimt back as well as mining concerns and power andÂ· water companies. Originally built in 1888. the home was a one and-a-half story bung:low, which underwent numerous changes over the decades. Amidan said it now lacks "architectural inte#ity." "The house has avery confused ch~acte:;" Amidon said. "So we're looking at the project with a little more Bexibility that wc usually do. Thc addition is very modem. but it's in a very private part of the house that doesnk conflict with the neighborhoot" Architect Michael Eme:naon added that "the facads is remined because it evokes memotia, and that': what's important - not tho =hitacturc." Allowing the ul-modern addition was simply another. stcp in the home'g evolution, said Amidon and commission members However, the portion of thc home that can bes=by the public from North First will remain largely unchinged.Thc addition faces a -secret garden," as some commlmion members pnt it. . ~This is a very exuberant and visually exciting prgiccl;Â» mid commission mcinbo Gilbert Sanchel '-Ihe st,zy of the house is aIl about evolution and this ptoposal caffies that tradition on. My only disappointment is the addition is on the scaet garden and you can't ree it" Commission m=nber Mary Hirsch. with tongue in cheek, added that growing lights should bc retained b front of thc home. ;'If you really want the Pacpcke es@ence, pur the pink growing lights back, and the gemniums," she said. 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 26. 1997 414 N. FIRST - CONCEPTUAL - PUBLIC HEARING Assistant City Attorney David Hoefer stated that for the record he reviewed the proof of notice and it is legally correct and HPC has jurisdiction to proceed. In addition two letters have been entered into the records. NOTE: 414 N. First has eleven exhibits. Chairman Jake Vickery opened the public hearing. Amy stated that the site visit inside the house made it very clear the exact condition of the building and the changes that have taken place over time. Staff is recommending approval of the project including a rear yard setback variance of 4'6" to allow an addition to the historic garage. A 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus. Five other areas need addressed: Landscape plan, relocation plan, and proof that the garage can withstand the physical impacts of relocation. Referral comments are needed from the Parks Department if trees are to be removed and more information is needed about how the structural improvements will be handled. The house has changed from a 1 1/2 story bungalow to a 2 story building. The existing building has very little architectural integrity from the point of view that it does not represent the original building. Windows and different architectural elements of the building don't relate to each other; the building has a confused character. Staff feels the landmark status is related to the people that lived in the building rather than the building itselÂ£ The project can be looked at with more flexibility. From the street the house will remain as is. Michael Ernemann, architect for the project stated that they analyzed the history of the house to find out how the house became what it is today and to try and determine the historical value it might have. The house was built in 1887 and completed in 1888 for a man named T.G. Leister who was the first cashier for the Bank of Aspen. He lived in the house until after the appeal ofthe Sherman silver purchase act which occurred in Nov. 1893. It was then acquired by D.R.C. Brown in 1909. Brown was the founder of the first bank in Aspen. Under the Brown ownership the house became a summer house and it had 12 bedrooms at the time the Paepcke's acquired it in 1951. The second story was added and the roof pushed up. There were screened in sleeping porches on the easterly side. The total property was 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 26. 1997 0 comprised of 21 acres including the land which is now ACES and the Given Institute both of which were given by Mrs. Paepcke. Herbert Bayer and Fritz Benedict, architects made further modifications such as the small porches on the easterly side and a series of changes on the inside. HPC worked closely with the architects in determining what was historic due to the changes. The garage or carriage house has had minimal changes. The house has always had the presence of an estate. The massive west elevation ofthe house represents the public image ofthe house. Another element was to keep the low wall and entry trellis and the Bayer (German detail) of the kitchen. The carriage house and garage will be kept as it exists. The west elevation and primary roof will be kept. Presently all the trees have been kept. Dan Kiley has been retained as the landscape architect. The garage is quite small and they would like to widen it slightly and need a variance. He also stated that he wanted to remove the structure for a short period of time while they place a new foundation under it and move it back within the property lines. Melanie asked if the lap pool and workout space was all inside? 0 Michael stated that it was inside and totally underground and has trees all around it. Flowers and lower vegetation will be placed over the pool. Amy stated that the drawings are the current proposal and the model is slightly different. Michael stated that the street side will be retained but they would prefer the little gable if the HPC approves it. The roofing materials would be a product called astro zinc metal. Susan stated on the model the glass pyramid is still remaining and HPC recommended that it be removed. Michael stated that the glass pyramid will be removed. Michael stated that there are quite a few materials on the house as it exists and they would like to remove the stucco and replace-it with wood siding 0 but retain the banding. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 26. 1997 Amy stated Steve Whipple received a notice and asked if a screening wall of trees could be placed on the alley side for privacy. Michael stated that the row of trees will remain and a wall will be constructed to match the existing wall on the west side. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Gilbert stated that the transitions of materials have been handled skillfully. Regarding the gable that faces the street he would prefer to see the shed retained in the interest of historic preservation. Mark agreed with Gilberts comments and his concern is the structural engineers report on handling the temporary relocation ofthe garage. Michael stated that the site has not been determined. Susan stated she agrees with the comments that have been made and would prefer that the shed roof retained. Suzannah stated that she liked the idea that no more openings would occur on the west side. She has mixed feelings on the gable. The gable is more attractive but the shed is more true to the building. Roger supports moving the carriage house to the west and he would like to see documentation on how the trees will be preserved. Mary stated that she is also concerned about the report on the trees. Michael stated that he is working closely with the Parks Department. Amy stated as a condition of final she would like a report from the Parks Department. Jake stated that the research done was commendable and the project itself was well presented to the Board. Chairman Jake Vickery closed the public hearing. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 26. 1997 MOTION: Mark moved that HPC grant conceptual approval, partial demolition approval, 01Fsite relocation approval, waiver from Ord. #30 standards related to "street oriented entrance, garages and volume," grant a rear yard setback variance of 4 feet 6 inches for an addition to the garage and grant a 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus with the following conditions: 1. The garage must be demonstrated to be capable ofwithstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-sitting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation prior to application for a building permit. 2. 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 garage, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation; The bond shall be in the amount of $30,000. 3. A landscape plan, which is currently in development, must be reviewed and approved by HPC prior to submission for a building permit. The applicant shall address privacy concerns of the neighboring properties by making every elfort to retain a landscaping screen along the south property line. 4. Prior to final approval, the application shall be referred to the Engineering Department, Parks Department, Water Department, and other referral bodies as needed to identijy any issues which may delay issuance of a building permit. 5. For final review, a demolition plan shall be submitted indicating which areas of the existing building will be retained with structural improvements, which areas are to be reconstructed, and which areas of the existing building will be completely removed. 6. In addition that the hipped shed roof on the west facade be maintained; second by Melanie. Discussion of motion. Roger stated that he would recommend that #6 condition be removed as HPC is designing. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR. 26. 1997 Amended motion. Mark rescinded #6, second by Melanie. All infavor, motion and amended motion. Motion carried 7-0. Michael asked about removing the stucco. Roger stated that materials and removal of materials should be dealt with at final. 17 QUEEN STREET - CONCEPTUAL - PUBLIC HEARING Jake stepped down. MOTION: Roger opened the public hearing and continued the public hearing on 17 Queen Street and Conceptual review to a date certain April 9, 1997; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Roger moved to adjourn; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, ChiefDeputy Clerk 12 Historic Preservation Commission February 11. 1998 Amy Guthrie reported on the CPI conference attended by Gil, Mary Hirsch and herself. Ms. Guthrie said this was a technical workshop. She has some handout to be passed on to the Commission. Amy Guthrie passed out the latest draft of Ordinance #30, which will be addressed by P &Z. There will be a brown bag meeting with staff and P &Zto go over suggested changes. Amy Guthrie told the Commission she met with the chief building inspector, Stephen Kanipe, about 303 E. Main. The owner of that building had a deadline of April 1 to change the 14 items violated in the building permit to the city's satisfaction. minutes 414 NORTH FIRST Amy Guthrie, community development department, reminded the Commission this is the end of a long process about this property. This is a historic landmark and part of the west end neighborhood. This is the former Paepcke house. Ms. Guthrie said people have been invited to this meeting specifically for this presentation. The memorandum outlines most of the issues that have been dealt with. Ms. Guthrie recommended approval ofthe project as submitted with conditions that deal with relocation ofthe garage onto the site. The garage is currently partially on city right-of-way. Other conditions are landscaping and the west wall, which will be discussed by HPC. Ms. Guthrie said she is recommending a reconstruction ofthis building as the house is significant mostly for its association with the Paepcke family and not because of its architecture. The structure has evolved from a one-story building into a two-story building and is not consistent in detailing or style. There are serious structural issues. Ms. Guthrie told the Commission staff has asked the applicant to retain more of the quality of the Paepcke ownership of the site rather than the physical preservation of the building. Ms. Guthrie pointed out the aspects that should be preserved are the west street facing facade ofthe house; the retention ofthe carriage house, which is historic from the 1800's; keeping the 1 Historic Preservation Commission February 11, 1998 main entrance of the house on the north side of the building; keeping a garden wall along North First street; maintaining the gardens as part of the property; maintaining an overall sense of the mystery and privacy of the property from the street. Ms. Guthrie noted one item that has changed since conceptual review is oval stair tower which has been removed. Some materials have changed. Ms. Guthrie said these are positive changes to the design. Michael Erneman was sworn in by deputy city clerk Kathy Strickland. Erneman said the staff has forwarded progress on this project to P & Z and Council, both of whom were invited to this public hearing. Erneman said he was originally retained by the current owners to do a historical analysis on this property. A booklet was compiled on this analysis. This analysis explains how the building became what it is today on the site. The building was completed in 1888. The house was a one-story bungalow with a small attic space. The person who had this house built left by the turn of the century with the repeal of the Sherman Silver Act. This house became the property ofthe Brown family in 1908. It was used as a summer house by the Browns. The property used to be 21 acres and is now 1.5 acres. There were lots splits in order to give land to the Given Institute and to ACES, leaving 66,000 square feet. The Browns added the second story. Erneman said at that time there were hip roofs that skirted out and large sleeping porches on the east side of the house. There are 2 real estate brochures from 1951 when the property was sold by the Browns. At that time, the house had 11 bedrooms and was used by extended family. There wasÂ· another house on the property, the Potter house, which has been moved to the southwest corner of Triangle Park. This house was on the property when it was sold by the Browns. The Paepckes acquired this property in 1952 and began their own renovations. The first of these was the removal ofthe sleeping porches and the hip roofs. The carriage house was also changed, as evidenced by the real estate photographs. There was a shingle roof, which became a metal roof. The porches on the east side of the house were changed. Erneman said the house has gone through a very evolutionary process over its 110 year history. Erneman said they would like to continue this evolution. When the owners first began thinking about redoing the house, they had no preconceptions about what to do with this property. The applicants met with HPC to see what ideas would be acceptable. One idea was to 2 Historic Preservation Commission February 11, 1998 take it back to its original small form and build out into the garden. This was not acceptable. Erneman reminded the Commission there were field trips looking at the structure, filing out the National survey on preservation. The general conclusion was that the house had very few distinguishing architectural qualities and to preserve it for architecture was not warranted. To preserve the essence of the property and the essence of the Paepcke legacy became the issue. Erneman said some recommendations from this process were to maintain a north facing entry. The entry on the north side faced the street when Lake avenue when by the lake and by this property. Another issue is the history of this property being very private. The idea of maintaining the mass of the house as an obscuring device so that the mystery prevailed is one that everyone favored. Erneman said the essence of the property is not the house but "the property" and preservation of the gardens and open space made a lot of sense. The large window in the dining room should be preserved. Other openings in the westerly wall can be changed. Erneman said the applicants have agreed to retaining the shape and volume of the roof. There are severe structural problems with the roof. It is rated at 25 pound per square foot snow load holding capacity. The current code is 3.5 times that so the roof had to be rebuilt. The carriage house is pretty much intact and the applicants have agreed to retain it in its present form with a small addition on the east side offthe narrowed alley to gain access into the basement. The applicant has agreed to keep the west elevation intact. After these agreements, the applicants and HPC had 4 work sessions prior to conceptual review. There have also been sessions since conceptual to deal with technical issues. The design was presented to HPC at conceptual. One of HPC's comments was about the oval glass stair. This has been removed and becomes rectilinear. Another concern was for the pyramid skylight, which has been removed. There was a vaulted roof over the master bedroom, which has also been deleted. The overall architecture has been calmed down since the conceptual presentation. A metal roof will be retained. Shingles will be fabricated from the metal that are similar to those up there. These will be less reflective than what is currently on the roof. The applicants have been concerned about the number of materials in the house. The design team has tried to clean this up some. One thing is to change the shingles in the pediment to square-edge shingles. This continues the more 3 Historic Preservation Commission February 11, 1998 horizontally directed linear surfaces on the house. There is a band of stucco on the house that will be replaced with wood siding. The proportional break ups of the building masses will be kept with trim boards, but the materials will be changed. Erneman said for technical reasons, it has become impossible to keep the rubble wall under a portion of the house. The applicants will replace this with a concrete wall and restucco the wall so it is consistent with what is seen today. The roof will be to the height that exists today and exactly the same pitch. The chimneys will be encased in the pre-cast pieces, currently these are pale grey brick. These elements will continue to have a masonry appearance. An outstanding issue is the westerly facade. The applicants have addressed this as a technology issue. It was agreed in a work session that this facade could be removed and rebuilt, taking the existing siding and skin offthe building and trim, cleaning the trim and replacing it. The applicants felt this may be alarming to residents and are exploring other methods for this facade. Erneman told the Commission they have had asbestos tests done. There is a layer of building paper directly behind the siding on the west wall. If this paper is with asbestos, the wall will have to come down in order to remove this building paper. Erneman said the applicants feel this wall should come down regardless of asbestos or not. Ms. Guthrie noted she would like the applicants to continue to look at maintaining the west wall Erneman said currently snow does not stay on the roof; it slides offthe metal roof and does not create a load on the roof. The applicants are going to put in an insulated roof. Heat through the house will no longer cause the snow to melt off the roof. There will also be internal gutters on two edges of the roof and putting snow retention devices to hold the snow so that it does not slide off onto persons. This will create a much larger load on the roof, so the applicants have to increase the holding capacity because of the building code and because they do not want the roof to fall in. The north facing entrance is a difficult condition because it is the cold side of the house. The flat entrance is a way to protect people entering the house. Erneman noted in alpine structures, the entry is always on the gable end of the house rather than on the eave end. This entry has evolved over time and this is an attempt to solve its problems. Erneman noted they have retained a famous landscape architect from Vermont as part ofthe design team. The landscape drawings include his ideas. They are 4 Historic Preservation Commission February 11. 1998 retaining the wall along the westerly property line and will build a new wall along the south property line. This will help retain the privacy and estate nature. Erneman presented the drawings as part of this presentation. Moyer asked if any trim or siding on the west end ofthe house has been removed. Erneman said they are cutting holes through the plaster and have removed some trim for asbestos testing. Erneman said the elevation drawings show what the materials will be and where they will be located. The pre-cast goes on new structure, not old structure. Ms. Reed asked for any public comments. There were none. Moyer said he would approve the project as submitted, agreeing with items 1,2,3 in staff memo, delete the 4th, that the west wall should just be taken out, and #4 should be reworded that the west wall should be rebuilt with details retained to the existing scale and would include the original dining room window opening Moyer said the siding and trim on the west wall are not historic. Moyer said when he worked on the project years ago and removed some of this trim, there were no square nails. Sanchez said he likes this refined proposal and supports staffs recommendations and Moyer's comments. Mary Hirsch said HPC is preserving the historic and cultural landscape of this property and making it better. Ms. Hirsch said with work from the HPC and the property owners and design team, the community can be part of this and it will be exciting to watch the progress of the project. Susan Dodington said this project will be well done. She was concerned about the west wall but understands the safety issues. Ms. Dodington said there should be pictures or an explanation of what is going on with the property on the property for passers by. Heidi Friedland said she approves of moving forward with this project. Jeffry Halferty said the applicants and design team have done a good job preserving this site and it will be a great project. Moyer moved to grant final approval to 414 North First street with the following conditions; 1,2,3 as written by staff and changing #4 to state that the details of the west wall will be retained with the existing scale and to include the original dining window opening as it exists; seconded by Ms. Hirsch. All in favor, motion carried. 5 Historic Preservation Commission February 11, 1998 Erneman told the Commission their objective is to get the house back under roof before next year's snow season as the weather could cause a lot of damage to what they are trying to preserve. 6 - A s Â©74" i* -0 -2 -0 m nr I' 8 68 BE im -Ell I 01% M.lf' 4 il 11 IR 1 4 n Tl' 'FErIT 01 l It ll f 111 11 2 4~ Al , I. ... 11 East North rl -1 n 2_ F - , 1 ETTH-7Mrj--7 . '= IL-l? 6 pw-- - . 1*L-=ijl/2 r 34--& 1 =//#_Nly '11 : L ! a .m ' I, ! - ILAT ~~ i 0 9 . I.! 1,6+1 Ptl South Existing Building Elevations ruul_.1 1 0 5 10 a - . U U Â¥ V U W W W W # 11 U-11 U WW U W-U 61 WW WWÂ¥ w whiw wi e..9 / 1 , W. L. 78252 - \h - / 1 -1 -1 0 12. / 111 1-11 830 - / -1'DO W.L. Cz %42 --44- b:Â©tz- A. . E. S. -- 1 7%4-,22. \ /7 . , =7./h/, W.L.7826.4 T . = **w -1 W 11 4,-- i 1/w -Â· ~06-*t/. b.= 3117'/A -t-77 /1 1 7*6~#211/741 1 2.J , X ~ \1 - 040 4/ , :44, . 15. o x7837.1 CIEZ~ C :/-\4* X p \ nÂ¢ x - 7841.7x -~ ~ ~j ~ 1 ' 4,0 TRIANGLE P/~RK . ~22840-r- L x 7877.9 ~ \ k--ZIZE~% 33 I ZH-1+1-1 .-. --- --Â·2:EX . - ee i .pvt -7, 1 -- -/- ' ~-74 7{973::=:t~ -- 4 7.879.3 ... -, 1 - 1 \\ \X 0 *60 - 3 U ' tx b ./O 8%*i:?2 \1 '7883Â·7 r 2*53?1 . 1 :-: Â·- -Â£ x 7879.6-- 3 Â· - i{45*878.4 r pr "Lu 931 - - .\- â€¢>~Â·>XÂ·XÂ«â€¢XÂ·>XÂ·Â»Xâ€¢XÂ· ; 49..50= _ _ l_t C \ ....9 r. - -3-27 . x 7881.2. A ill r 3 -- \ j>\ C e ~- 4 1.1 r ~1\ 7882.9x .+ X 1 /. 33%%>:i -n Y -17879.42 1 /1 00 1 4 %4*Wa:. Â·X*X<*>:Â· 0 0 Al ...... ........V...> Il v Â»>X.>%%.X Â§2?7?: ......... X7881.2 X 10 43 exetÂ·>:Â· ......... 1, 1 - 1 1 ''' , '1 V. t,h 1: -/57,4 . thi i .. /. ~ Ve<y Ira : X IXÂ·XÂ· 1 - 0 - --1 - 31 - 1 1 .H - - - 13 - ft f -L --I h I Lit (2~ - ~-~ - ~ 0 1 ~ ~ - 4- Â·71+MÂ·, Â»MV -. ~! Existing Building 0 m m 1 ~ Proposed Building 1 X \ c n -- \-fr\\\ 1 ~3--GIVENUNST. ./~ O 7882.6 ~~ , rE] Entry L-10UfRu07â‚¬56 -- tr-0 EC.I ~ N< :RANCIS ST. <-4 x 7881.5 4222 ~ Parking , --nut .\ ---- 4- 1.-- , - igh borhood Blpol/Plhn / C ,/W-/ , p-' *r9.J-L--7-- 9 A\) . \ i lis. iII "fic/Lid:1/81"-i~....- ,=rp--5,"I- - Bai,77*ACS-,2 I 06 . r...... 1 .... Sto. Sto. * Ext Wd Sh. 6 1 Mtl. 0 0 Mtl. Mtl. Sto. ./...... ' ' MU Ext Sto. Ext Sto. : t Sto F~ - ' 2 1 ' , j l ~ Ext Wd Sh. = ,: - Ext Wa.- xt Wd. - -- -= ---27- Ext Wd77-- â€¢ *.--/-1- I - - .... ----I. 4 - : - - . - b ... . tW - i ~ ' ~ ---- ---- ----1-7.1 Ext Wd -- 1 1 ..4616 3 - t -- Â· er I. .-/*-- - - 1 ...1R ... .. 1 - 2 + r - .... ----- - 1 1 .49- Ext Sto. Ext Sto. Ext Sto. Nly Aj, 9- Ext Sto. Existing Stucco Sto..+ Stucco k5 Ext. Wd. Existing Beveled Wood Siding Ext Wd. Sh. Existing Wood Shingles Mtl. Metal WEST ELEVATION Stn. Cut Stone Panels 1/8"=1'-0"- n. . Sto. Sto. - LU Mtl. - Mtl .. - 07. . 0. :442 - . Sto. '7.-,..9- 1. Sto. 1 :14,*2 Ext Sto. Ext Sto. . lie.+ 13Â»1. Mt!. - 7- - . . .:4 e. .f 1 - ./ 8 ... '' Sto. Strl Stn. -- :.4-x 5,Â·.re .4. Ext Sto. Existing Stucco Sto. Stucco Ext Wd. Existing Beveled Wood Siding Ext Wd. Sh. Existing Wood Shingles Mtl. Metal NORTH ELEVATION Stn. Cut Stone Panels 1/8"=1'-0" 1 1 Sto. Sto. Mti.;.f Mtl. Mtl. ' 2 Ext Wd. Sh. '1 V tl. El -,1- -C Sto. , Sto. h==L Sto. 1 - -/ 4 - = - Ext Wd. - Mt! .. 1 + '-It-- 5 1 I ..3.1. -4. - f - - 1 . ....1 -"- 11 1-,4.-f........... 2 ' f f:593.97.3.- 1--- 1 ' Mtl... - ; 12..ic,-$1-9 . r -- 1. . A $ - .12: - 1 la m /4 f -- t. Mi 1 Stn .. Â·Â· Â·2 1 -, L -.... â‚¬9, 1 . - -0 E -,1 1.1 4 â‚¬ â€¢1.- y Ext Sto. Existing Stucco Sto. Stucco Ext Wd. Existing Beveled Wood Siding Ext Wd. Sh. Existing Wood Shingles Mti Metal EAST ELEVATION Stn. Cut Stone Panels 1/8"=1'-0" 4' 1%4*'3;L-'1* py:61 .4.....4....... I.': I. . ..% -,1.N --~: 4.. -6 4. Â· Â·,l ,4; Y b qi, iÂ¥. 4* rÂ»,9 r . 1 . . 1 . . /' --Ii '~*te 4. * 4#1 9 -1 .m .. 74Â«253843,2, R W W W " i *UL tn Ort A 5 â‚¬ 2. te .. Aa 0 0) 70'0~612[â„¢i~..M/#*.pd,'I.,L . =r 1 11 .Im 1 1 .tlk] 1 Pnt-!D *frli'U'MimimMIUM'.Ma"NE ..7. ...Â·-*-im&Â£Wdm'JIW~~ I lum- tjailp/14 . I , . 4 TA ': 2..Â·i...rli . 1%7~| .Â·8 > .,i.-46â€¢4â€¢.; Â·1.%.ax,lk.I -i .-â€¢~-IL- ill f I?*iÂ·jum/#t#7,4.zi#531. j E g. g.Â§ g 4:tl~ho...,â€ž.2,/ij!jof':t: - '0 --1 Â·I T lilli \~\ 0 0 2 2 . 30 E. 8 0 0 1 i '--' Ir 0 --T a i , k 2 06>r m/. - . I - -- i IICi ' Ut~ 8 '8 i â€¢ 1 M . 4 1 =I==i 1 t l 1 1 1 . CD 6 - 1. . .- 4. e CD a. 0 0 K 1 1 1 =....-,"Il= 1 1 0 - 1 P . i.0-,1-=i,9/L sieued euols tno selOUNS POOM 6 - Mtl NOI1VA313 HIROS - 1 RECEIVED O FEB 1 9 1998 LE ,COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT POLEHOUSE AOMEN / r, 1 WN EXISTING CONDrnONS MAP ..ZE -4 1 414 N. lat. STREET; ASPEN COLORADO LE 46.- MAX nA#mlm"\% Â· -00-- ".I' 4 0 1, r. -- 0-14... 2 ........ * ..00.....<.........r...FIXT. -1- /4,1 1-,0 01 -0,â€¢â€¢10â€¢OE= M 0Â¢094 ' 1:181@ -~--- -1 ----- ....... \ 0 U=@r 25% M1998 N W !111 \ 0 20 r I. U. C ---#* -i #'=h"- --1 -L / -CEEk.L - - h SMUGGLER ST. 4 0'c= --- ------ , ~ -I - a- r.~ 1*7%En::;61 \ \ 1 ..1~ * .."'= I~m---- 0 4- 12.- 1 - 1 - 5-I 4~~st STREET 11 i-- 1.10 4--7. * =ma 3 .C- 1 \It, M... 1-\ 1 9Â«/ - - , PI 1 .n--- Dr... 1 -~1-IM 2%11 Â»- GRAPHIC SCALE -- - 1 PROÂ£CT NO, ,(lar 1 -/- 20 1 -' 909 â€¢Â·\/t in 1.-7 Le j - --' c 7/P 967[70 i . 1 --=. - 1 s,Â«rr i i oF 1 I 1 GJFNEY 51 - /L . A %,230 / -4 1 ------------7/ tvs - N OR D # 11.- - ~ *i p 11 b PO REC 2 i.C-O FEB 1 9 1998 LE Abt-tiv , r. i ,vtâ€¢. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT POLEHOUSE 4Xti\, - e 1 44\ \ \56 \ 4 .084<\ , == '\ '<SK\Exa 1 1\4394 \ -f . ....... -atb. / =:m=Aa- 4.8, ; 0 erÂ·UGGLER OT. 0 - - 1 - __~bll _:/ \ 1 . . I ....1. d . . ... ./ 1 . 1.1.. . .L. 1.-11. 1. - 1 Â¢ 1.1 ..r 4 ., 91 1 -Ji lot ., 1 -iii 4 ~ili7~l ..--- .. 1 . â‚¬\ - IC=LIN Â«-1 - -~c----- , i ---Â£11=- i 3 , '11Â·11,11'lu'llul"Ull'VI'lull'4119:11,ET"1 i ---- r .F-x- 2- ==.â‚¬>1 6) 1 A *027 -ty'l=-=-Â·:. rl - l Ai~ -r. ,â€ž-w 12....A-&2:G ) . .84.A -- 10=a . 1.2,47.41. h:.. D 5.=as,WL --04135 0. * 22==Ant \213Â£ 53*4 \1 %:* 6 - IrEMAM 4,2.,3%: SITE PLAN 94?33 1 1 - 1 2'' 3 ' 4 . 51 Plo 1 1 W Y.ft 11 4 LIE . 1 A- 1 1 . 1 . 1 1 11 11 | POLEHOUSE 1 11 "/ < 1 ./ ------ 1 Â£' '' Â· AJ -I.-I 1 .1 . 11 11./.---Ill ---- 1 . 0 11 0 --'...0 m=ME. . 1 1 8 - 1 1 E e i.=* 1 HI=%*> .m== E 0 1 T 1 I ... .~ 22 . C 1 -- 1 Â· 1r L_------_ Ill 11 lt_----Ir'.~e.r t Â· 1 1 . 1 r-----. . 1 b b == 8 1 , ... . 1 @' 8 1 1 t Â· 11 E I e : 0.-== 1 1 . I 1 1 1 E . 1 20 +04. WALL/n . .... ce.1.-4.4. r.-17 1 - ./RE*-'.: -0 - 1,42,1 ne- i ....... . 1 - A 'It .... 4 7, A 1 11 8 M. 1 Â·Â· U , 1 1 . - .. - m .. 0 . .1 li Â·Â· 2 *Â£ 4 Â· -r..64 ... tr . - 0 . 01 . @ --J 1 29 Â· 111 . 1 0 1 11 1 If 1 ---- - -- ---- I -Â£/1/,1q./7 ..t.. liu 3 -F' 1 2- RECE='. 0..'...... 1 1 Ill il . 0-.a- 11 0 L i 1 Hi 11 -=:r B 0324%- D mr -* b _ -_ FEB 1 9 1998 u Â® Â® E 2Â£~e c Â® Â® Abrinn i ri ; ,-in I - 0 A COMMUNITY DEVELOPM 1 - .. / 0 0- I ic - ---- d . I. - -. E E E - I - ./ Ill=I'lili.- 'I-*I 1. 1 :A O 1.1 . 1 1 < 8 1 h ..L - m-...........1 . 1 b 1 - .* 1- - 1 I . .... -- / l : tif 0 1 B8 1 11,1 1, 9 im 1 1 - LOAER IBU.ROOR 5 t ..1 1 . LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1. 1 .. . 1/0-TW I s Â· 8 A3.1 1 1 1 93 ' 4 61 7 . I. â€¢4 .. ...t 4 ..4 .:t .'...1 BJQ - 4 LIE i 1 - 201 1 * 1 0 li 1 1 '1 E ki Â· i'& 1-=- 0 - 11 E--.ST POLEHOUSE - 6 < .... .4 2 0 0 â€¢v w , , Iri--*- 252 - - 1 9 1 =g=U ......... Â¢ 11 ....... 0 1 ............ r e. .0--: -===.9. 1. ig y i --/./.*..- i -4-6 .......... -00-U t -C 88Â©TOÂ¢ 1,1 C- -11 -=22/OR!.1*4LL -1. 11 ' ''!1 1 |: !!t t Ilill'"41'=1#9N , -I--L...... Iii :1 - - 1 1 1 -*CO.- 1 - 5 i 1 . Â· 11 2 + i 2 2 11 --ieim- I , i _-. -~i _L -- - 1 .1--,-... __ i 1 1 11 U--I...r 1 1 1 ==MA.. 1 1 I. i . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .... . â€¢ .1/ ... - 4 1 F: i .--..1 1 -00... -1 th..11 ---* -Â°.'-"- -J .1 .,l-=./.I / 1 r 1 .l I . IE i ---. y . . r *Â«-21.- i: 1 0--Â·It 0 - M.le 11 It F.=..... ............ :r # 1 1 1 11 1] -6=mol.90.- N -8.-RL- -Â·L.CLOS..... ........ . 11 0 J==~10 -- -4 .6 - - -mON. -- - 4 - 1- .1 1 3 __,t~,EgL!.!1&~~ . . 1 11 1 11 . 1 :1 1 2 41 4 .,~ :i E' & | i| I.'-- 1 . Â· 0- 1 1 4 ! , ! .i ....... 1 1-wl/"7// ///1 M.. 1 A li O it - - 4 - â€¢ . , m t 1 + If-11 -4' re , 1 ; 1 W. 4 4 , 1 - --- I - --- --- 0 11 1 - I 44 t r., 2 I ' -2 1 1 - 11 r-.-- - Eli & 1 . Hi - ~ 0. 1 1 1 11.url G 11 1 -- 1 -: S 04 , I 1 1 1 1 B & . 0 ... It 0- Â¥ NOTE, ALL rN,8410,2 LUALLS TO BE 0-- - 2>06 Uy Id GIF. BD. EACW SIDE. r - -- T, 1 '' 1 - 0 0 1 --14, R 4 :::6:. 11 02- :11'11 0 L 1 1 - Â¥02 ,= IY o t = 0 -- r 0 - d 19 4 *:1 I /1 r - k ,-7-- 0.00 -- "6- -1-,1- :-* I : .7' 4$ ~ - m 1 ... 1-, - T /1 8 1 --- W el l ...,1 1 - - - - 2 ..... . 2 17 1. 1 @* .1, - 1 - 4.1 8 e 14 â€ž 1., 42 ENTRY LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1- I.'-- 1 A . Â£MB./.- C C ./ C. I. 1 :.4 ...3...GE-WEr| E /3 . =--1 Â¢ B / 4 / J $ U I 1 1 C 11\ :, i....â€ž, [-U-1 i I 1 4 = 8,11.YLE,U ROOR --- -.- IE 4 1 04 4 .. RECEIVED I A3.2 FEB 1 9 1998 AS,-ca, 0.-,â€ž~:,4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ... .. W. t .4 - - -- p IU 1. ... 1 . 1 i r-- -- -- 1 It I ~ ~ ' tl t 1 11 i LIE ' 1 1 . 1 4- ~ | ~ ~-*6.A~- | POLEHOUSE = it T t - NU- 1 ..........0-- \ 4 .Y , T ~....== 11 N-â€¢a v -. 11 11 =r':=Ze== 1 9 --1 1 1 1 --e== ~12==12 : 4 b ---W-=60~'- -*008.. Â· 9 ....062.m/'Ill'.;-4/ --- 1-- - f â‚¬ 4-JAN . SE 4 1 L -- 91 i -A- 0 : T -0.- , 2 â€¢une. 1 --.I..1/.I. U 1 -t i "f , .i. === 9 ............ 2.//1 2 ~Il=~M=-.*,dit- -02 I .Ul t- te,se,Gâ„¢0,â€¢ 1,1 0 1 -ey .mfIEE!211..!52WAI.Lp 1 = ., . 1 b 9 -A. .... t. 1. ./ r I. , I /1- _ - - -- i i i _ -1 -t. . .. -M 1 0 .. 4 4 ma,maa,1-_ /./ ; 122 1 1 't ; 1 -4. $ â€ž.Â· 0 - -- -7 , 11 1 1. 6/k6+ 1 11 t-- â€¢5 0 ,â€ž...:.â€ž~t- 1 . r.,1. . . ..1, #4 Â¥ 1 . 1 k â‚¬ P - --1 8 .4 It E TV. 6 - 0 m W 20 3 1#=21 k 11 --- 6 1 e-r.- E I 1 Â£ 11 --f 1 1 ty k I 1 , 11 -/ 1 ... 715.-'- .----- ----- - W am --- U 11 2 - 1 1 1-1 --1,- 9 1 1 U,MaL_ = 1 1; 1 A. El- 1 i UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1- - 1 1 -- I E\ 1-- 1---1 1 1=~tzz~~1 1 ., r .9 + ---I- 1 1 1 i 1 1: 1 73 1 lili i millimilimill - LFPERLEUROOR 1 /9,1*1 1 1 .. F--1 1 FEB 1 9 1998 RECEIV:ze A3.3 I SO 1.-1 1 1 =wr- A-N / 9/1 Al,v COMMuNITY DEVELOPMEN1 ID k. 7 +-9 4.0 * e 1 f=--1 7 8 T Â®T f LE e 4> lei l - --- -- -4 ---- [1--11- - _-7 1 Â· 7-7-3. 1_ I 1 I.-b..=. =il IT - - 1 . - r --- -,m- POLEHOUSE 1 1 - L - J| * |; ............0,/- 1 T 1 9-Â·LE] 11 1 0 11 1 4/1.-4- 11 , 1. 1 1 R .....2.. 1 11 1 1 1 0 1 11 --In.. 11 11 1 , 01: V 0 6 -1 .-"....%- â€ž. r--1 , 0'--'- 9== Illu-------l---- /-===A. I--'ll/CO,/'** Â· 1 .0 - 1 ILl ; PARTIAL ROOF PLAN ...== 1~40 9 =E - P= 4- -1 .100- ./ 1 0 \1/ i \1/ 9 L- - 71 7 -- A k '- -- --- /K ? 6-- 4 .Â£ 7/ -/1 1 - 1-- h - O ~3>7--23-IT-133---7-QU-13>->7.....ta -3~ 0-4-- 0 0 el \ @ \. -4)e-- ,- 0- ~403~ i\ -3-F-- 4,4 4 h t :il /\ 1 ---- . 6 1 -1 - 1 -,3 i.*~-~ ~7Ii , :1 - --3----UpeQ-&4 -* T-tl I IL----~Â°1'+1 -4 19 41 - .el 0 -1-' 0 1.-.. i 0- T 2-1@ -4 - , 91 Â® 15 gr O Al 1 6 , 1\ ' ~,-~m~A~::6. ROOF PLAN 1 1 1 v 1 ~ //1 1 : --1\ 1 i - 1100-EVELROOR RECm"r- M,N I \ le 04 0 9 1 FEB 19 1998 A3.4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENI P]Q m1----5~AM.Zan,wa/- 9 4 f *a mprn--- Â¢ rl--1 71;.- ' -- ihil ~E /... 1 p ./9/ 2 1 1 - . ' e Ut'~'' 79,49 1 ...../..I- .. .Â¢ 4 1 wil) POLEHOUSE 'ciÂ·: ........0.-0.... . - - . -=3=-Irf-/Irt=-12<1;4=#)- C WA..... - IT - . . I --- ' 1.1 . le> 0*=EP- I --- & -= - - A r.--+I - - - './-4 ..1- -8.--lili- .-=2 r#7 -*litt*:- -- 1 --- fEE - -- - --=i==--- i ...r ...1.-=- 6 .. 0 . . 71 --------- ---- --------------- -I-- ------ --- --- ---.--0 -- I ' 0--- I.--*.--I-.-------.il-I.--Ill---I---0.--I-I.*-ill-t.~4'.idiâ€ž'â€ž- -- r .. ------ 1...... 1- . i --- I I - 1 1 r ... 1 - 1 ... , 1: . 1 . . ....I#716-2 1 T. 1 j --- 11 1 t 1 .9.-ZI- .D-~ j. - --- ------r- -------------------1/ ~ -- It O D '1 -om. 2 =02 1 1 11 11 1 =oa-- 1 1 -'...'..1 1 til i 11 It ..... 11 11 _LL-____.----L----------i---4-------------------------4--4---------------------------- it-- =-- - /..........0/ rJJ---------------------------------------1-4 EAST ELEVATION I PT . 0,0 , 12 1 1 + -la-GIC 1 71 }L ' 1 1 ' I. 1 1 1 , I . 1 1 1 - 4 1 , 1 r / J- --- =... 4 --3*2-4 --1 1.-EEE=-2 --' -Â· .ir.. i i.-1 - r , .. 1 - %-7--I - I-*---- 1 Â· E - - n.3 - - . 41 . - ... -- ---0-------------- 7 P~= fe- ..Â» -1 - . *--0-+-- 1---1--- ' I. .= 1==1==:=1 t.... -- ill - - --- il- --------- -ABU*eÂ£-" ' 11 It 111 1 It 11 1 1 ---- --------Ii--------IP ....0 1 --1---------- ------- I--11 1 0 ==Ai-------------------6- | ... BULON@aa,mONS | iii -- 1 WEST ELEVATION It . it 11 11 11 11 11 1! -----------------------------*;OU,ML- LA4.13 Li---------- ---- -- -- -- ------------- --- -- =-=L==L=---~=172_=17_17Ir 17_172_~dz_EET - ---I--------------i--I..--Il--------------lil---Il------------------J--- REren - FEB 1 9 1998 Abran Â· r "*.1. . Â· Â· Â· COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F T ..T 3 1 PO 1 ' LIE 1 T 1 , POLEHOUSE It /. Â¢ . 1 / . - + . 4.- - - Â· [2 2 -* : 1--' --- - - ----- -- --2 e - 7-I . = - ... 06- 2 2=-- - 12=- 1 2 . -1 i â€¢ 1.Â· 1 ! -- ....O . 7 -1 - - 6 - - 1 ~ . 3-, .7 09- - - i-L_.. *L 1 1 1 1 -- I. -.:-0-3EE 1 - 1, -- -- 0.== .--- ----' 0--- -,-------- -- p--- --- \ - ---- - .- ---Il---â€ž-1.- r.... O...Wel. Fty , Chi , NORTH ELEVATION - $-- .'.... T T -- 1 ---- ' 1 -I'll-..........I-'ll.....I .j. 1 1 1 , .ti , . 1 1 1 1 . . r-0~C 1 14 I I r L 2-1.3493%24:0 95Â·42-24.5 1 - i...':4Â· . 1 J+V .- , :. 11 44 7 . . i ......... -- -- - -- ----re~-or--- tt * Â· r - 1 , ,=10!1 : . m azep* ..4 -: 1 ,1 , 1 Lâ€ž i ! r t' 1 1 .6 - I. - -- t. T . I W.- ' .. -L Â· i 18â€¢A ,"e 2 ..r:el . Th -LÂ·â€¢~C ..... 11 1 1 r-1 , -----------....iti 1 1 1 A4 ROUTHELEYATION . REr.rf FEB 1 9 1998 Abre-,w Â· ,-,, airâ€¢ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . Jil@ 1 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 1 I THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Diregtop V Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning DirectorL;,44â‚¬- FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 214 E. Bleeker Street- Extension of conceptual approval DATE: February 11, 1998 SUMMARY: On February 12, 1997, HPC granted conceptual approval for the construction of a new outbuilding to the rear of the existing historic house. Section 26.72.010 (F)(3)(c) provides that an application for final development review shall be filed within one year of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Unless HPC grants an extension, failure to file the final development application shall make the approval null and void. At this time the applicant, represented by Gretchen Greenwood, requests HPC approval for a six-month extension of conceptual approval, to allow more time for study of the final design. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conceptual development approval for 214 E. Bleeker Street be extended until August 12, 1998. RECOMMENDED MOTION: 9 move to extend conceptual approval for 214 E. Bleeker Street to August 12,1998."