The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19980225AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 25, 1998 REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5:00 I. Roll call II. PUBLIC COMMENTS III. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:10 A. 930 King Street - Conceptual, Lot Split - Continue to March 1lth MARY MOVE)31-0 004-1 16/UE, MELA#DE 23'~b B. 520 Walnut Street - Final Development MELANIT KAPVED -tO APPA.,vt, MARY ZAID 5-0 At'PRovuL V. WORKSESSIONS 5:50 A. 930 King Street 6:20 B. 702 W. Main St. 6:45 C. 135 W. Hopkins 7:15 D. "Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines" 7:30 VI. ADJOURN SITE VISIT: 4:30 P.M. - WEDNESDAY - 520 WALNUT ST. Meet at the site. 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 zannah 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 CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: ~~4 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 0 0 + MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Thru: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director ~14. Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Director From: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 520 Walnut Street- Final Date: February 25, 1998 SUMMARY: On March 22, 1995, HPC granted Conceptual Development approval for this property, a designated historic landmark, including approval to remodel the historic miner's cabin into a home office, and to demolish and replace the existing non-historic house on the site with a new home which would be completely freestanding from the historic resource. The remodel of the miner's cabin was completed and won an honor award from HPC in 1996. No further work on the cabin is proposed at this time. The new house however has not been built and the conceptual /A approval has been extended twice while the applicant prepared the final design. Staff has attached the review packets of February 8 and March 22, 1995 to familiarize the commission with the project. These packets are labeled as Exhibit B. This property is zoned R-6, like the majority of the West End, but has larger setback requirements because the neighborhood was located in the County until it was annexed into the City in the 1970's. Additionally, the lots are oriented east-west, rather than north-south like the historic townsite, so protecting solar access was a consideration in establishing the sideyard setbacks. When the project was initially reviewed on February 8, the HPC liked the design but were not willing to approve a requested sideyard setback variance, partly because of opposition from neighbors. The applicant came back with a design which met setback requirements, but HPC found the design less compatible with the historic cabin. The applicant received conceptual approval to move forward with the design with the understanding that the design should be more similar to the February 8 proposal, and no sideyard setback variances were granted. The applicant has provided a final design which Staff finds meets the review criteria. Staff recommends approval without conditions. Please note that this project is exempt from Ordinance #30, because it was designed prior to ~ adoption of the design guidelines. At conceptual, it was found to meet the "Neighborhood Character Guidelines" which were in effect at the time. No further discussion is necessary in regard to those guidelines. 11 1 4%*321-_/ APPLICANT: Gretchen Greenwood and Michael Ortiz, owners. LOCATION: 520 Walnut Street, Lot 8 and the north half of Lot 9, Block 3, William's Addition to the City of Aspen. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character 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... Response: The proposed new residence is to replace an existing house which has not been identified as having historic significance. The new house will be 2,854 sq.ft. The miner's cabin is 281 sq.ft. The property is 45 feet wide by 120 feet deep. With 10 foot sideyard setbacks required, the potential building footprint is rather limited, which forced the house to be narrower and longer than might otherwise be desired. Staff finds that the architect has made a good effort to break the new residence down into the appearance of a group of smaller masses through varied roof forms, changes in materials, connections to the form of the historic structure, and second floor deck spaces. Rooflines have also been kept low, particularly close to the historic cabin and along the alley. (Please note that Race Street, which is to the rear of the site functions as an alley.) It appears that an Accessory Dwelling Unit is not being proposed, therefore the applicant will have to mitigate for affordable housing with a cash-in-lieu payment, to be determined by the Zoning Officer. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The restoration of the miner's cabin has had a positive effect on the character of the Walnut Street neighborhood, which has just one other miner's cottage to represent the previous nature ofhousing in this area. Staff finds that the new house is consistent with the existing neighborhood and new development that is taking place in the area. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The owner has already completed a successful rehabilitation ofthe historic cabin. The new house does not detract from the significance of that cabin. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereoÂ£ Response: The architectural integrity of the historic cabin has been enhanced by preserving the structure and original materials. The new house also protects the cabin's integrity by being completely detached from it. ALTERNATIVES: HPC may consider any ofthe following alternatives: 1) Final approval as proposed, finding that the Development Review Standards have been met. 2) Final approval with conditions, to be met prior to building permit. 3) Table action, allowing the applicant time to revise the proposal to meet the Development Review Standards. 4) Deny Final approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends approval without conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to grant final development approval for 520 Walnut Street as proposed." Exhibits: A. Application for final approval. B. Applications for conceptual approval, dated February 8 and March 22, 1995. IV , fl MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 520 Walnut Street, Conceptual Development, including partial demolition and on-site relocation, special review to exceed 85% of the allowable F.A.R.- Public Hearing Date: March 22, 1995 SUMMARY: On February 8, 1995, HPC granted approval to demolish an existing structure on the site, to relocate the existing miner's cabin, to change existing windows and doors on the historic miner's cabin, and to repair existing materials. A proposal for the new residence was presented at that time, but tabled. . HPC indicated that they were not in support of granting setback variances requested for that structure, due to neighborhood concerns. The applicant has submitted a new design which is in conformance with all aspects of the R-6 zone district. Conceptual approval and special review to exceed 85% of the allowable F.A.R. is requested. APPLICANT: Gretchen Greenwood and Michael Ortiz, owners. LOCATION: 520 Walnut Street, Lot 8 and the north half of Lot 9, Block 3, William's Addition to the City of Aspen. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character 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... Response: New Residence: The proposed new residence is to replace an existing house which has not been identified as having historic significance. TheÂ·house will be 2,854 sq.ft. and the miner's cabin is 281 sq.ft. Because the Commission was not willing to grant setback variances for the project, the applicant has made the building more narrow and increased the height. As in the earlier design (attached), the new residence has been broken down somewhat into the appearance of a group of smaller masses through varied roof forms and some projecting cutaway areas for decks. One story elements exist in the form of a glass entry vestibule and a garage. Staff finds that, as suggested by the applicant, forcing the building into a vary narrow envelope has created a less compatible project. The previous proposal had a better relationship with the historic structure, especially in terms of height. (Previously the maximum height was 25', nowÂ· it is 30') There was also slightly more distance between the new building and the old building, approximately 4-7' more. Given the contentiousness of the project and the neighbor' s concerns over setback variances, it seems that the decision not to allow variances for the new house is appropriate. It is staff's opinion that the entryway to the building must be restudied. The concrete pad which "connects" the house and historic cabin is unnecessary. Perhaps the , space in the glass entryway could be better used or designed. This element seems to have a less successful relationship to the miner's cabin than did the previous design for the west facade, which played off of the form and dimensions of the historic structure. The applicant has amended the north elevation of the building slightly to respond to concerns about the unbroken length of this wall. Staff finds that this is an appropriate change. The east facade steps down to a one story height at the alley and is sympathetic to the alleyscape. On the south, the wall plane is broken up at the second level with a recessed deck, but is otherwise fairly unbroken. The largest window is a bit overscaled and should be reduced, perhaps to match the one directly to i. the west. The applicant also proposes to build a 6' fence along both property lines. Staff recommends that the height of the fence be dropped to 3'6" as soon as it reaches the front of the new house, to be more sympathetic to the street and adjacent properties. The design for the fence j 'must be presented for final. A site plan which shows any proposed light wells and access to the a.d.u. most also be provided for conceptual. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is 0 consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The restoration of the miner' s cabin will have a positive effect on the character of the Walnut Street neighborhood, which has just one other miner's cottage to represent the previous nature of housing in this area. Attached is a 50'=1" scale map of Walnut Street. (The applicant is to provide a map which shows a larger area of the neighborhood for the Ord. 35 review.) Most houses in the area are fairly low in height, although they have a fairly large footprint. The amendments to the west and south facades, discussed above, are meant to ensure the project's compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The proposed development, which includes a rehabilitation of the historic cabin, will increase the cultural value of this resource and its importance as a representation of a simple, typical miner's cottage. 0 In addition, the development does not result in any demolition or attachment to the historic cabin. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposed development will enhance the architectural integrity of the historic structure by preserving the structure and original materials. SPECIAL REVIEW TO EXCEED 85% OF THE ALLOWABLE F.A.R. SUMMARY: This project is located in the Smuggler Mountain neighborhood, therefore both the general guidelines (Chapter 1 of the "Neighborhood Character Guidelines") and the specific guidelines for Smuggler Neighborhood (Chapter 4) will be applied. j *he special review process is mandatory, as is compliance with the Committee's findings, because the Â·lot is less than 9,000 sq.ft. The proposed project is 3,135 sq. ft. above grade. This is the 0 maximum allowable F.A.R. for the site. STAFF COMMENTS: Please refer to the application for the complete representation of the proposal. Planning staff finds that this project is substantially in compliance with the general and specific neighborhood guidelines. Rather than discuss each guideline (including those which are met), only the elements of the proposal which significantly warrant further discussion are highlighted below. The applicable general and specific guidelines have been grouped together by subject. Mass and Scale Specific Guidelines-36. New buildings should be similar in scale to traditional residential buildings of Aspen. Response: As described above, Staff recommends restudy the west and south facades. On the west, the entryway should be reconfigured to be more compatible with the height, form and dimensions of the historic structure. On the south, the applicant should explore any ways to provide more physical breaks in the wall plane. (This may be partly accomplished through revision of the west facade.) ALTERNATIVES: HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 0 1) Conceptual and Special Review approval as proposed, finding that the Development Review Standards have been met. 2) Conceptual and Special Review approval with conditions, to be met at final. 3) Table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain, allowing the applicant time to revise the proposal to meet the Development Review Standards. 4) Deny Conceptual and/or Special Review approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that in general this is an excellent and well designed project. However, in order to address some important aspects of the project that should be studied, Staff recommends HPC table the application, giving the applicant the following direction: 1) Restudy the south elevation, or the building form, to create more breaks on the south facade. 0 Restudy the west elevation, eliminating the concrete entry pad and redesigning the entryway to be more compatible in height, form and dimensions with the historic cabin. 0 3) Provide a site plan which shows all lightwells, stairways, etc. 4) The fence shall be no more than 3'6" in front of the new house and it shall be open pickets. 5) Staff recommends that HPC clarify the approvals granted on February 8, 1995 by specifically stating the variances which are to be allowed (see attached site plan). On the north sideyard, the setback provided will be 5'. The required setback is 101, therefore the variance is 5'. On the front setback, the applicant agreed at the February 8 meeting to place the house 8' from the front lot line in an effort to stay away from the existing cottonwoods. (These trees may in fact have to be removed in the future for safety reasons.) The required front yard setback for an accessory structure is 15', therefore the variance is 7'. 0 j 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1995 Meeting was called to order by chairman Don Erdman with Les Holst, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer Linda Smisek and Martha Madsen present. MOTION: Linda made the motion to approve the minutes of March 8th; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS Amy: Dan Sullivan will be attending our discussions on the character guidelines. I have a schedule set up for each neighborhood for next week. Les will represent the HPC on the Entrance to Aspen. May 14th through the 20th is Preservation Week. The P&Z adopted the changes to the landuse code and I will get all members a copy. Roger: In some states and cities a CO is not issued until all encumbrances are paid, could you meet with the attorney's office to see if that is something that could happen with historic properties. I feel basically people are taking advantage of the situation. Jon Busch talked about the trolley schedule and will present to HPC at a determined date. 520 WALNUT STREET, CONTINUED CONCEPTUAL, SPECIAL REVIEW, PH Amy: This is a continued public hearing and there was a lengthy discussion o f the proj ect Feb. 8th at which time HPC voted to, grant the variances for the historic miners cottage which would be eight feet off the front property line and five feet off the north property line. The reason for this was to allow the applicant to construct a new residence and in no way attach the two structures. Because the miners cabin is an accessory structure it has a 15 foot front yard structure which would force the building together. One of the things we need to do is clarify the motion stating specifically what the variances are. On Feb. 8th the Commission felt it was not appropriate to grant any variances to the new residence due to neighbors concerns and gave the applicant that direction and she has come back now with a new design which has some similarities to the old one but is more narrow and taller. In my evaluation I felt there should be some restudy of the south elevation and there is not much of a break in the wall except at one point on the second level. This is a good illustration of why dur variances are important. While this is certainly not a bad project at all the previous design was more compatible with the historic structure because it was not forced to be as tall and there was more opportunity to break up the mass..I agree with the applicant in that sense. On the WLIam finding there is not as good a relationship between that facade and the historic structure as previously and that the concrete pad which has been added to connect the two should be eliminated. The applicant is also ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1995 proposing a 6 foot privacy fence on the north and south property lines due in great part that she has very little yard space and wants privacy. I feel it has been a general policy of HPC that toward the front of the property especially around an historic structure that the fence should be approximately 3.6 inches tall as the maximum and open in character so I have suggested this in the approval. Gretchen Greenwood, owner: As an architect and someone who has tried to understand what the HPC and City is trying to do with design guidelines for different communities and working with a lot of historic structures I feel particular sensitive to historic structures as I am going through this laborious process of land marking my project which is something that I do not have to do to make this project work. I came here the last time requesting a 5 foot setback variance and the hardship for that was based on the fact that the property is between two larger parcels one to the north and one to the south which I illustrated and will undoubtedly be a duplex property. To the north has a deteriorating victorian house on the property. I am going through the process to preserve the historic building and move it far away from the new construction on the property and try step the house back so that I have a five foot setback variance which is more common in my neighborhood than the ten foot setback. The neighbor to the north is five feet from my property and the one south is three feet from me. My whole intention was to set the property back to have some space and to follow some of the guidelines that are so well illustrated in the design guideline book. It states open space should be of the size that can be used or at least has significant visual impact as a landscape area, so I am unable to meet that design guideline because the neighbors were not in favor of the five foot setback even though I think for historic preservation or neighborhood design guidelines that it is a mistake to not have granted that variance. It is disappointing on the part of the HPC that they cannot recognize what is more important for the neighborhood than perhaps what the neighborhood feelings are. I realize that it doesn't follow the rules but it would have been best for the property to grant the variance. We now have a ten foot setback on both sides of the property. Many people in my neighborhood use their setbacks for trash and junk, storage and additional cars and that is a logical spot, which is more than likely to happen when. my husband puts the ski boat in that area and that is what happens when you have these kinds of setback issues. I wanted to bring that out in analyzing a property you spend time and it is unfortunate that it could not be understood to the - neighbors as it was a variance. I tried to design a house on this property without having any landmark property because the price is almost getting too high to pay because there is a zero benefit. The house I am proposing is the same width of 25 feet and it is only longer at the glass entry because in the guidelines I wanted 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1995 to have a clearly defined front yard and entryway. I like the contrast between old and new with the glassy structure. I have no control of what is going to be built in front of me and I am more concerned about the property to the south. There would be no design review to that property to the south. In trying to design this house I tried to visualize the effect @f what could happen to us if the other properties around were built on. We bought the property for the miners cabin and it is something that I have always wanted to do. In looking at the neighbors concerns and objections that we wanted to try and meet we have moved the house into its setback. I raised the peaks of the house in anticipation of what would happen to the south of me. I want to be up above any potential development in front of me. They raised their objections and I am raising my roof. The views could potentially be blocked and so thus with this design we are trying to put the entry from the old design at the north of the property to the new design of the glassy area on the entry of the south west corner of the property. The reason for that is to keep as much glass to the west and to the south. Our plans are pushing us to live on the property to the north and to create a buffer with a deck. This building conforms to all the site coverage, FAR etc. It is better for the miners cottage that we shift it away from the new property. If there is continual objection the project will not be as good. I desire conceptual and design approval so that I can move forward. The miners cottage will be used as my office and I am anxious to get the building moved. CLARIFICATION Jake: What is the status of the landmark. Amy: Designation will be Monday night and it is the last step and it is listed on the inventory at this point. Jake: Variances are conditional upon landmarks. Roger: If the bldg. is landmarked and the person on the south wants to build do we review it? Amy: We don't but with ord. #35 all residential development will be reviewed probably as a check list. Roger: Why should she landmark. Jake: Theoretically it protects the property. Gretchen: In order to receive a variance to move the building over to the setback I feel landmarking is the best solution for the property. I can build a house on the property' without seeing anybody here but I would be five feet from the building. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1995 Everything I have ever heard from any of these meetings is that it is nice to have the separation of buildings and it is to the advantage of the building and property and open space that HPC is trying to do. I agree with that. Roger: I feel if you are landmarked you should have some protection. Amy: If we do this check list we will take into account historic structures. Gretchen: All houses next to historic homes should be reviewed. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Amy: Where is the access for the ADU. Gretchen: I am still undecided about the ADU and I want to keep it conceptual. Donnelley: Could you review with me why you split the sideyard to ten and ten instead of 5 on the north and a larger on the south. Gretchen: I was under the assumption that the setbacks were five feet and I designed it five to the north. The zoning is ten and ten in that neighborhood and also one of the neighbors went ballistic. Linda: You re-designed your house and at the last meeting we, found that your first design was quite compatible and what was the reason for your change? Gretchen: One of the last comments that stuck with me was that I should be able to work with the ten foot setbacks as an architect. I also received a letter from my south neighbor indicating he was concerned that he might be in jeopardy and with all that in mind you gave me the message that I should go back and redesign within the ten foot setback. If I came within the setbacks I would be right on top of my south neighbor so I decided that I needed to change my potential view direction. The Board sent me that message loud and clear. Linda: Are you happy with this design? Gretchen: I would prefer to have a setback variance and have 15 feet in the front but I like the design. My husband likes the other design. Martha: I thought at the last meeting everything was clear on the cottage. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1995 Amy: It is all under the same application but the cottage is clear. Donnelley: You mentioned the neighbors concern about south glass in your previous design but it appears that the new south L has the same amount as well as a gable that is four feet higher. Gretchen: I want to maintain a south gable and I want sun and also I potentially considered what the neighbors might build in the future. Chairman Donnelley Erdman opened the public hearing. Jon Busch: Angie Griffith is the north facing neighbor and she is concerned about loosing her south facing sun if the applicant go back into the setback five feet. The approval for the 10 foot setbacks on the subdivision was due to the lots running east and west. I also reviewed the old plans and feel they fit in with the neighborhood more and I also realize her concern for her views. My other concern was the ADU and because the garage is five feet from the alley there really isn't much of a place for an extra car. Race Street is really an alley. Chairman Donnelley Erdman closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Jake: I feel there is some validity for the five foot set back to the north on the first plans submitted. The idea of creating usable open space is far superior than creating long spots of unusable open space. Neither of the adjoining properties are conforming. On the first designs my problem was the north wall and it is still one long continuous wall. I do not mind giving variances in the setbacks if there is a reason to do it. In a situation with an historical structure that has a modest scale the scale of the elements of the new building that occupy the same property need to also be broken down into a sympathetic scale. What I was hoping would come forward in your revisions was a restudy of that north wall and some study of the massing on that side and possibly bring back some of the forms to the 10 foot setback line. Give relief to the long continuous plane. There is a lot of playfulness in the decks and a lot of unique things going on in materials and the decks and windows. It is a very nice design and I am sorry that you didn't work and follow through on that. Les: My feeling at the end of the meeting is that you would work the north wall a little and come back and we split the difference on the five feet. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1995 Gretchen: It didn't work as there is too much circulation. Les: I would prefer the old plan if there was some way to make it work. Gretchen: I could look at it further but I need approvals. Les: We are getting designation and saving this cabin and that is important for the neighborhood. Martha: Are you staying with the new design due to the protection that you need. Gretchen: I got such opposition almost to the level of abuse with the five foot setback variance that I was not going to come back in and fight fot that as it is not worth it to me. Gretchen: It is very confusing because we do like the first design and I do not want to shade my neighbor and I want to be sensitive to that. Donnelley: It appears that in the present plan the north wall is a straight plane and one of the criteria of the guidelines is that these long planes be broken. It does not conform to the guidelines. Gretchen: It is probably workable at final. Donnelley: The first plan is recommended. Gretchen: I could take the first plan and move it into the setback but I tried to work staggering the building but it just didn't work. Roger: I concur with Jake that I would rather see usable space than unusable. I would prefer the first design also. I am not hung up on the long wall to the north as the landscaping will break it up. I would object if it were in the west end. It is not a pedestrian area. Gretchen: There would be certain changes made to the old design. Donnelley: Lets see if we can do a motion that would allow a successful resolution here. MOTION: Jake made the motion that HPC give conceptual approval to Scheme I of 520 Walnut Street finding that it meets Standards 1,2,3,4 and with the following conditions: That the structure conform to the 10 foot setbacks. On Feb. 8th variances were given 6 - ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1995 for the miners cottage of 5 feet on the north side yard and 8 feet on the west sideyard, second by Roger. DISCUSSION OF MOTION Roger: You are suggesting that the setbacks not be 10 and 10. Jake: Yes. The applicant is already sandwiched between two nonconforming structures. Amy: This has been tabled and Council was informed that there would be no variances. Les: I feel the neighborhood would be best served with a variance on the north side. Donnelley: If we can approve scheme A with all parts of the new structure falling outside of the ten foot side yard setbacks you could manipulate the roof form in such a way that perhaps you are turning the gable on the east side to the east and we could consider that a minor change and would not have to go through a public hearing. Les: I feel we need a monitor on the miners cottage. AMENDED MOTION: Jake amended the motion to add that the applicant can proceed with the miners cottage, second by Roger. Donnelley: Do you want to state anything about the north wall or breaking it up. Jake: I would like to see the long interrupted surfaces broken down so that the architectural elements on that wall are consistent with the guidelines. Martha: I also agree that the north wall is OK as is. Jake: There is no support for an amended motion. VOTE: All in favor of motion and amended motion. Motion carries. 232 E. MAIN STREET MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy: The applicant is requesting a satellite dish to operate their business. This is the smallest dish that they can do. It is located at the rear of the structure and the dish is a little over 3 1/2 feet and it is below the ridge line and will not be visible at all from Main Street. I recommended approval with the condition that if there is any reflective metal it should be painted out. 7 4 . THE GREENWOOD RESIDENCE 520 WALNUT STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ATTACHMENT 5 SPECIFIC SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: FINAL REVIEW 1. An accurate representation of all major building materials, such as samples and photographs, to be used for the proposed development are as follows and will be presented at the final meeting. 1. lx4 horizontal wood lap siding 2. lx4 vertical wood V-groove siding 3. 14 " x 8" Sandstone tile 4. Asphalt shingles 5. Galvanized Metal roof panels 6. Red Sandstone Flagstone 7. Black Clad windows 8. Rough sawn beams and columns 9. lx8 carved wood molding as the fascia detail 2. Finalized drawings of the proposal at 1/4" = 1'-0" scale are attached to this application. 2, L.!g22&211 0 3. A statement of the effect of the details of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structure and character of the neighborhood is as follows: The proposed development is detached from the Victorian Miner's Cabin. The East Side of the building has been changed since the Conceptual review, in order to reduce the size and mass of the new building next to the Victorian cabin. Instead of the office, the area is an exterior deck. This change has less impact on the old structure and is more appropriate for the historic preservation of the old cabin. The proposed development is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The character of the neighborhood is changing to larger duplex and single family homes, including large apartment and condominium developments. The north bordering property is a potential large site for development. The property to the south is slated for a large single family home and the new property to the south of that property is a duplex development The property to the east is a duplex development. The 0 development that is being proposed here, restores the miner's cabin and to use these design parameters of the old building for the new structure, thus further enhancing the importance of the miner's cabin, and establishing a neighborhood character. 4. A statement of how the final development plan conforms to the representations made during the conceptual review and responds to any conditions placed thereon is attached. Changes to the building since conceptual approval: 1. Two South facing gables running north and south have been eliminated to one single ridge, running east and west. During conceptual development it was stated by the then chairman Donnelley Erdman, that I had the ability to change the gables, since it did not impact the Victorian structure. The change in the gables is due to the future development of the south property. 2. An exterior deck has been added to the East Side of the building in place of the proposed office that was on the original plan. This change is due 0 reducing the amount of mass and building next to the old miner's cabin. 3. The office space for my husband has been added over the garage. Which includes an exterior deck to the south of the building. This change is due to the addition of the East Side deck that reduces the impact of the new construction on the miner's deck. 4. A 4 foot by 12 foot recessed space has been created to the north of the building as shown on the plans. This new recess in the building is an element that the HPC would have liked to see for the conceptual approval. Through more design process on the building, I was able to include the recess, and break up the building on the north side. 5. The exterior stairs at the garage have been included inside the garage. 0 41 .. , - 4 e WALNUT STREET 90 0 91 Ef 93 i 0 22.5 9-6 04 - 6 K 29 22.5 0/â‚¬ 95 0 - O / 00 Co . 1. 0 0% t 1 0 97 0 - 0 C , 6 11 1~Â®I[IlII 1,0 to C C Â¢P i ALLEY BLOCK 3 20. 0 i 0 E lillia 1 TheOrtizResidence ~r:2 7 1/4 1 -1 9 Â¥ Aspen, Colorado I ~~ Â¥ 16# ~ ~ 520 Wahmt Stmet 98 & Sâ‚¬ t Dd Erl E..1 1 0 - HA .IB 9.C -= D Â®Â® Â® @w Â®Â® Â®Â® Gretchen I, Ir-*Â· 444 Greenwood 04 , & A.00.11",0. r 9 y-6' Â· 1-1Â¥ 1 * r,-4 "-8 W -Wak- Strect ve e-Â¢ 0,r inr e nre 1-4 14 r-1 *PIACe/madoSiBil F= 07~-7490 . z - 4 . 1.1.1 i z .. 131 te' ~ -- ,-6- , A I 4.9-i J . , ..411 - - Â® 0, 16 1 7 VY \ 09 1 2-31 L 'r ~S Â® .iM=0"- s~~Â«. m. 213 Ir-1 T-Â¥ 2 V C.9.." ./C k .at,LO=Um_ 4 6 - t L . 9.1 E 6 Â¢-ir E-Â® 3 Â® 477 -*00. ~ .\/6\ -COUâ€¢11 -4 0,1 Slm 42 4 - CA " 1 . ...&"#I . 2 ./'I 1 ell /N . / b Â® 74 b. 1 r-r 1-4 54 T-Er 1.1 r 37 , 17-<r . 4-r 1 H 5/ r-V fire-ir-tr-1-re-tr-CM,4 -rr-IlÂ·-er-r'r-7 w r ry. â€¢ 04 74 Â® cbÂ® iÂ® =All& -r' =A ..B =C =D DA= = IMI= a -Â»Nm ~LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SUE: 1/40 â€¢ 60 0 A-8 88 0 :, . D 0 Â®r Al. .-lt 3-r 7-5, 7-,r y.1 , 5-1 -r-510 . r-,C . ->4 ,-- - -<E) 9 4 1 4 4 . 1 \ 4 A 4 Â® Â® 91- 4 J-4 7 4 Â®l 1 ~2 7 1 1 ..1 9, r.14* 4 CO l 4 0741Â® 1 1 4 4 Â· 4 R 0 Z f .0 1 4 Â®1 1 6 q 1.3 1 0 0 0 31 4 ~1 ji 6,-r Â¢ 1-1 4 '764 i 4 4 1 . 7 4 MY i Â®I . 67 1 ~ Â®71 =24Â® I 4 k Ittt \e'03 <-7 - >0<lum 4 Â® o | SRI Â®i .._,~ #A.-0 1. elf */ 01 I. 4 3 4 7 i. 1 0 -0 ltÂ® S 4 04. 0 0. 04 t-r 1 r-,r L W-Â¢ @ The Ortiz Residence il'11 00~ : ~ 5@Walmitatmet <D 9 Â¥ Aspen, Colorado 8 Of PLW=h 9,6 89= Vg 14 * 9 â‚¬ Â¢ tr f Me 'fee -WA .=D W-Â¢ 0-J I,/1 â€ž05 NÂ¥-Id 80013 1]A31 NIVI'l .r"/000.r Gretchen 81011 ==A =B -=C DD If) T Â® Â® Â® Â® Â® .-0. 9 94 + ey 94 54 E-Â¢ 5f â‚¬-7 - 84 .- T.et 74 T-Â¢ 7-W 7-6. 74 2-Â¢ s-r . 0: c c m:,0 ,0:10 00 0 Â¢ to ar . 4 Gretchen Greenwood & Amocat~ k Â® Â® 520 Wilmit Street 1 - -Â® Aspen. 0,]orido 81011 970-925â€¢4502 , i -I- z 3*2-EXI Il 1/ Y ix 9&925-7490 0 j i Xy Â® 1 171.Rs...78. 1 6 1110[N . Â® 1 U 0 30 Â® 79 Â®<- ,Â® rt 3-1Â¥ r-r 1 r r-r 3 -210 .* Q-Lh - = 5 Â«Emp b 1,rot' 34 7-4 Â¥ M -1 8 0 0,016 *A Â® 62 Â®.t . 111 1,1 11 â€ž7 111- - . - .1 . - - 11 lilli lilli lili 6b r. El , 11 In - *u %&* 11 1 1 111111 lilli 11'111'11,1111 Y 11111111 111 lll Illilll , 11111111111111 lili .1, lilli 1111111111111- - lilli111 Ill 0Â® ICPO PKNMODOUPPERUWL ,/8*T FRIP<I ,/64$ LOGS oÂ·Â·r 4 iii 61 Â·rkÂ·'r ilitililli Â®';11111 Â»Â»01 lilli lili 118.2 111111 6 EL 103'-4' r 1 1 1 1 1 1.101 1 1 1 ~t Â® 1-1 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 lilli .- .16 111 lllll11 \ lilli 11111111/1 \ lili'111 111& ~! 1 1 1 1 1 I i i i i i i ! C -01-118 3 1 11.. 1 11. 1.1 1 1 - T-TTT-1- 11 l i ll i C k | i|i|i| 1 i|111|11| 1 'j 4) 1) , :|1|~|~| |||| |||1|i| -'' Â® 4- 1 G L 4,-4 . T-9 4Â·-tor . 7-r c< T.4 . 31 4.-: 7-5 *-Or 7-4 7-4Â¥ 4'-4 7-4 7-* . U 9 9.-e 54 %54 t Â® Â® Â® Â® Â® Â® 0 Â® =A =B ==C =D SCA12 1/4-1'-O 0 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/40 â€¢ i'-0 108 DATENim lin mAINBE a=/Bi A-10 %88 h, i p D 9==A -~B F=c MD fÂ® Â®Â® Â® f TÂ® ..4 g e tr-, .4 15'-0. Â¢4 Gretchen Greenwood & A=Ooll* b& 10.0 510 Wohi Sheet A.'40....81011 UE'"41 =0â€¢ 1*1.-UE. -/.1.. 0 07/Wilm F. 07".7.0 T 80-1 ...alls 1%= ....1 1 8.0101 Â® Y Â® b c,ne.1[r mu rl GIWIWIats * Ron// * . ast.ED.0. 0 1 8/2.101 1 0-1 + - 181 6 - i z 8/9 ~r!01 6 Gl,1,9,101Â£3 -4,19.0 1 3/2.101 ..0802 1 I loor.OPE WMI 9 & 000'.0/ * 8*2 R101 -. A.!ULT 9.1Â¢IES . . 5 b I k Â® It=O.U. 1 1001.1 1 10.1 Z 17 k . ..101 M= ity - a 6 6 A-,1-0 6 0 .1.1 44 'll -OFULE. ..u" - ~Iwip:ilip_r, Â® -- ROOFOIÂ»=ID 1-,al.10 4'-r F-y 174 . e 60 94 #4 5-t . .4 0 0 0 0 Â® Â® 0 A LC =D SCME, 1/4â€¢14 Illm IM ~ROOF PLAN ... 9 scRI: 1/4. â€¢r-O ...1 0 m.. A-'In A I C Â» 1 0 al Ilm.,m- TOP. 1.1 Y Tor . MA. 117 6-1 4 2,8,AmAWC*=118 11000&010=01110*(**01140 IN.U== IN...0==D=119 m B Gretchen E.==ar,Al/ 31'11Â®00â€¢1(=910.) Greenwood 01218 RMIERS & A-ocom:~ k A~4O01.-81011 Fb 070493Â·7400 8 11 IXIUP WODWIG INâ€¢U* 10Â®mIS b Â® Su M.01 1.1. n.-0 g i /nEAST ELEVATION a 2 6 1 2 0 4 . . . . TOP 01 RIDGE BEAN - - - 16 190 4-lon - - m' / m - /1/./.U"'==M.4.=P.= 16 121' 4-8/10- ON.UOE'.WR=OD - m 2 "IR.Ims. te'.DRO...38.41.1.1011 L 121' 4-0 18- A - - A m. 120Â· 0-9/18Â· , ...=al.... A .&6 f=.In - - 14 *- - h R-.BATT TOr OF MATE EL tty 6-1/4. T. ..12.- m. 11 6-1 4 EL 118 6-,4 1 Â® Â® Â®Â® 1 6 . Â® Â® 1*.UP -0 Y a ./10*ID NG. flfOR-10) Noof P SCALE: 1/461'-0 . a M- 12,1 n. tool o- EL 100' 0- mgm i Er LELI Â® m 8 -- .//9"I am-li 4 1 9 ILLU LLU U U 0 - 16 -4 r)=~0 aEVATION A-11 I~~L,#Cor-O :aans:numm 089 ,S8 0 . P p: p. p. p. 9 q .a 61 4 4 4, 40 41 40 Is IM g . . EE 1 4 - li i Pg i i p. i p. .4 P p. 94 Ne 44 .4 i 1 4, ( < The Ortiz Residence ~~1~ 1 1:~Â¥:;:-1 520 Walnut Street "lilitti B, -----zmm=O (79;%?TION ZI-V @ 0 0Â® Â® Â®Â® 0Â® Â® Â®Â® A TOP 0, RIDGE BEAM A TOP OF RIDGE BEAN ,- â€¢L ~ W EL 126' 4-16/16- * EL 126' 4-16/16- Gretchen Greenwood (DW 74Â·~rz,~AM Lb. *11~ & Amociate. Inc. 520 Wahaut Street Aspe# Color- 81611 ATOP OF PLATE 970=925â€¢4502 iTOP O, MATE ./,i F= 970Â·9257490 VEL 10 6-1/4- VL- * El. 117 4-1/4. 1.,L~ OPEN JBOVE TO UVING ROOM -=.00. tv ce 0 8 - m.- " L - -1 11 1.-I . i gild 1-/- - - m;TRY -- 202 BALL 210 11===ROOM ' i 1 1 pjams *,nt 106 Â¢ 112Â¢N~RI!â„¢ full *'02Â£EF= SIAN OC ibo oc l.-lo SCALE 1/444 ~BUILDING SECTION A-A BUILDING SECTION B-B ZU 1/4' , r-0 a DA1EUmn 12/1 mAINBA =Cm>BA 0 A-14 %88 0 Â® Â®Â® @Â® Â® Â®Â® Gretchen Greenwood & Amootate. b. A TOP oF RIDGE BEAM 820 Walnut Stmet 41' EL 126' 4-10/16- Aspen. Colorado 81611 970.928/4502 Ax 97~925-7480 * TOP OF PLATE (11= m.9*LF= EL leoÂ· 0-0/8- /7 *-- = 2 1 44 , * TOP0PLATE h EL tty 6-1/4- V 0904 i 5 3 4 GUEST -MROON . e,= At *nÂ» I jij . 1 - I 6 ~=maimm w=&'AN GAIUGE ~ 200 5 * TO~~RTIMOD 1 '- EL 98'-4. C STAIRS TO IECHANICAI 2 STORAGE 106 00 -10 I Ill SCALE 1/4,10-0 a DATE =2 124 MA'11"n ~BUILDING SECTION C-C CHECm,BT ~BUILDING SECTION D-D .vme SCILE: 1/40 â€¢ 1'-0 SCALE: l/4Â· - M 0 A-15 utstreet %88 -lIE O MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 520 Walnut Street, Conceptual Development, including demolition and on-site relocation, special review to exceed 85% of the allowable F.A.R.- Public Hearing Date: February 8, 1995 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to demolish an existing structure on the site and to construct a new residence in its place, to relocate the existing miner's cabin to the west, to change existing windows and doors on the historic miner's cabin and to repair existing materials. The project is intehded to restore the historic structure to it's previous appearance while adapting it for a new use. The new residence will be compdetely detached from the historic structure. The miner's cabin is in a fairly pristine condition and may be eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places. Landmark Designation for this site was tabled at City Council in October 1994. Neighbors expressed concern over potential variances and Council requested that the proposed redevelopment be presented before they vote on the designation. APPLICANT: Gretchen Greenwood and Michael Ortiz, owners. LOCATION: 520 Walnut Street, Lot 8 and the north half of Lot 9, Block 3, William's Addition to the City of Aspen. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subj ect site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to.an Historic Landmark... Response: New Residence: The proposed new residence is to replace an existing house which has not been identified as having historic significance. The house will be 2,854 sq.ft. and the miner's cabin is 281 sq.ft. GL,6 i\- 8 Staff finds that the new residence has been broken down somewhat into the appearance of a group of small masses through varied roof forms and some projecting elements 0 such as decks and the entry vestibule. The west facade is compatible with and sympathetic to the historic resource, in that it is approximately the same width and only about five feet higher than the miner's cabin where they are closest to each other. Similarly, the east facade steps down to a one story height at the alley. On the south, the wall plane is broken up at the second level with a recessed deck, and a variety of windows and material textures. The 5' x5' windows on the second f loor might be divided with an additional mullion, although the dimension does play off that of the paired double hung windows on the south elevation of the miner's cabin. The north elevation seems to have the least amount of variation, as the wall plane is essentially unbroken for it's entire length. Staff recommends this elevation or the building form in general be restudied in order to provide actual breaks in the modules which are created through the roof forms and materials. Finally, Staff recommends the architect consider detaching the garage to reduce the overall bulk of the house . The laundry area which is in the connector between house and garage could passibly be relocated to the basement. (No basement plan was provided in the application. The architect should supply one, and show any proposed lightwells.) Miner's cabin: The estimated construction date for the miner's cabin is 1890, based on style. From the Willit's map of 1896, the miner' s cabin does Â· not appear to be original to the site, but was probably relocated there from another lot in the Walnut Street neighborhood. The minor development review involves changes to the existing structure which are intended to restore some elements Of its former appearance and add some new elements to increase its usability. On the west facade, the applicant proposes to replace an existing non- historic double hung window to match others on the building and to replace an existing non-historic picture window with a double hung. The front door is to be replaced with a new door. Staff is in support of the window changes, (all replacement windows on the cabin / should be wood) but finds that the existing door is; historic and should be retained if possible. The existing door could be upgraded to improve security and insulation if these are concerns of the applicant. 9 On the east elevation, the applicant proposes to replace .-- the existing vertical siding with 4" lapped clapboards to match the rest of the building, to add two double hung windows (which a neighbor has suggested existed previously) and to change the existing door. Through the Staff/monitor process, staff would like to examine the structure with the applicant as construction begins and any sheathing or joists that are exposed to see if there is any evidence that the windows or horizontal siding previously existed. This is a less public facade of the building, so minor changes are acceptable. However, given the excellent condition of the building, all efforts should be made to be accurate in any changes. No changes are proposed on the north elevation. On the south elevation, the applicant proposes to replace the existing double hung windows with new windows to match and to raise their height slightly. the windows appear to be historic and staff is not in support of this change. The applicant should examine the possibility of restoring the windows and upgrading them with insulated glass or an exterior storm window if desired. The applicant proposes to retain all existing siding which is salvageable. The non-historic metal roof is to be replace with a rusted corrugated metal roof, and the metal flue is to be removed. Staff suggests that the applicant should consider retaining the flue as it is visually important and may be a historic element. Through the on-site relocation, evaluated below, the applicant intends to place the structure on a concrete foundation, faced with sandstone and to construct sandstone steps. Staff suggests that the applicant may consider simply placing clapboards over the foundation. A sandstone foundation was used on some miner' s cottages, but usually the more ornate ones. Most simple cottages sat on rubble or basically on the ground. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: This proposal, especially the restoration of the miner's cabin, will have a positive effect on the character of the Walnut Street neighborhood, which has 4-- just one other miner's cottage to represent the previous nature o f housing in this 'area. Attached is a 50'=1" scale map of Walnut Street. Most houses in the area are fairly low in height, although they have a fairly large footprint. The proposed new residence has a maximum height of 26' 1". 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development 0 or on adjacent parcels. Response: The proposed development, if undertaken as described under standard 1< with as much accuracy as possible, will increase the cultural value of this resource and its importance as a representation of a , simple, typical miner's dottage. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposed development will enhance the architectural integrity of the historic structure by preserving the structure and original materihls. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ON-SITE RELOCATION PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Under Section 7-602 of the Aspen Land Use Code, no relocation of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to section 7-709, shall be permitted unless the relocation is approved by the HPC because it meets the standards of section ~ 7-602(D). Section 7-602(D): Standards for Review of Relocation 1. Standard: The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property. Response: The applicant proposes to relocate the structure in order to set the structure as far apart from new development as possible. The relocation corrects an existing encroachment onto the neighbor's property by creating a conforming side yard setback of five feet. A variance of three feet is requested for the front yard setback. There are large cottonwood trees near the west lot line - of the property. George Robinson of the Parks Department made a site visit to the property and believes that the trees are somewhat healthy 'and have about another ten year life span. The trees are beginning to lean. The Parks Department recommendation is that ,the relocated house be at least 6 feet from the dripline of the trees. 0 The architect has represented that the foundation for the cabin will only be excavated at the corners, causing less impact on the tree's stability, nonetheless, the cabin is proposed to be only two feet away from the tree dripline. In this case, Staff finds that the front yard setback variance may not be appropriate. At the most, perhaps a one foot variance should be granted to maintain 10' between the historic resource and new structure. 2. ' Standard: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structure will not be diminished due to the relocation. Response: The applicant proposes to move the historic structure to a prominent location along Walnut Street and to place new construction a reasonable distance behind it. 3. Standard: The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-sitihg. A structural report shall be submitted .by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Response: A report from a licensed architect has been submitted, including a plan for stabilizing the building. HPC usually requires this information from a licensed engineer. This is a small structure and the committee should consider whether the information submitted is sufficient. 4. Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: HPC must set a value for the relocation bond. Staff suggests approximately $10,000-20,000 as this is comparable to bonds requested for similar structures. 5. Standard: The receiving site is compatible in nature to the structure or structures proposed to be moved, the character of the neighborhood is consistent with the architectural integrity of the structure, and the 1dcation of the historic structure would not diminish the 4 integrity or character of the neighborhood of the receiving site. An acceptance letter from the property owner of the receiving site shall be submitted. Response: Generally, Staff is not in favor of relocating historic structures, however, this building is not on its original site. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PARTIAL DEMOLITION PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: No partial demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to section 7-709, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless the partial demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the applicable standards of Section 7-602(C). The applicant proposes to demolish the existing residence on the site (to the east of the historic resource). HPC's role is to determine whether or not the building proposed fdr demolition can be sacrificed without compromising the character of the resource. Standards for Review of Partial Demolition 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure. Response: Demolition will be limited to the structure - which is not considered historically significant. Staff does not have any information about this structure. It does appear that a miner's cottage exists at the east end of the building, but it is not original to the site and has been enveloped by the rest of the structure. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: A. Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. Response: Impacts to the historic structure are very limited as it is completely detached from the new residence. B. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel. . Response: The proposed new residence will not affect the architectural integrity of the historic structure. SPECIAL REVIEW TO EXCEED 85% OF THE ALLOWABLE F.A.R. SUMMARY: This project is located in the Smuggler Mountain neighborhood, therefore both the general guidelines (Chapter 1 of the "Neighborhood Character Guidelines") and the specific guidelines for Smuggler Neighborhood (Chapter 4) will be applied. The special review process is mandatory, as is compliance with the Committee's findings, because the lot is less than 9,000 sq.ft. The proposed project is 3,135 sq. ft. above grade. This is the maximum allowable F.A.R. for the site. STAFF COMMENTS: Please refer to the application for the complete representation of the proposal. Planning staff finds that this project is substantially in compliance with the general and specific neighborhood guidelines. Rather thin discuss each guideline (including those which are met), only the elements of the proposal which significantly warrant further discussion are highlighted below. The applicable general and specific guidelines have been grouped together by subject. â€¢ Garages General Guidelines- 12. Minimize the visual impact of garages. Response: As described above, Staff recommends that the garage be completely detached from the house. Mass and Scale Specific Guidelines-36. New buildings should be similar in scale to traditional residential buildings of Aspen. Response: As described above, Staff recommends restudy to provide more physical breaks into smaller massing modules, especially in the wall surface on the north facade. ALTERNATIVES: HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Conceptual, Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation,. Special Review approval as proposed, finding that the' Development Review Standards have been met. 2) Conceptual, Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, Special Review approval with conditions, to be met at final. 3) Table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain, allowing the applicant time to revise the proposal to meet the Development Review Standards. 0 4) Deny Conceptual, Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, Special Review approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that in general this is an excellent and well designed project. However, in order to address some important aspects of the project that should be studied, Staff recommends HPC table the application, giving the applicant the following direction: 1) Restudy the north elevation, or the building form, to create more breaks on the north facade and to further break up the mass of the building in general. 2) Detach the garage from the house. 3) All new windows on the miner's cabin shall be wood windows. 4) Retain the existing door on the west side of the miner's cabin. 5) Work with Staff and monitor to determine appropriate alterations to east facade of the miner's cabin, using physical evidence of previous appearance. 6) Retain and restore existing windows on south side of miner's cabin. 7) Consider covering new foundation of miner's cabin with clapboards. 81 No more than a 1' front yard setback variance will be granted. 9) The applicant must submit a bond of $10,000 prior to application for a building permit. 4- Â© SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCES APPLICATION CONCEFTUAL REVIEW Attachment 2 1. Applicant's Name and Address: Gretchen Greenwood-Ortiz and Michael Ortiz 520 Walnut Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303-925-4502 Representative/Owner: Gretchen Greenwood-Ortiz 2. Street and Legal Description: 520 Walnut Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lot 8 and the North one-half of Lot 9, Block 3 William' s Addition to the City of Aspen 3. Attached to the application is a copy ofthe disclosure of ownership ofthe parcel as Exhibit A 4. Attached to the application is Exhibit B, the vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City ofAspen. A neighborhood vicinity map showing the relationship ofthis parcel to the neighborhood will be presented at the hearing. 5. Attached is the written description ofthe Conceptual Development Plan proposal and an explanation ofthe development. The graphic representation ofthe proposed development is attached with Attachment 3a. The compliance with the Review Standards is attached as Attachment 4. page 1 . 16:mjACBMENI! 1 . LAND USE APPI:ICATICN FORM Â·a ~~dee,=GREENWODC>-CR-T/-2 RESIDENCE .. 21 pated=rÂ£Â£:as. 59-C)-WALNLC[- fl- uy[- 8,-AND-1Â¥18 NO#UU ONE-UALE: of (-67 9 8Â£15@21 ~ (inlicate street address; lot & block nuber appropriate) 91&1*?RV=ZREd, om oF A5PEAI 3) Pmsent Zoning /~-t~7 4 Â·icÂ£ size 5, egeS Sq.-19-. 5) Applicant's Name, Address & ame * 427/C091Z / 6%2161242611 Â£0Â£772. 53-0 U)CO n\,Ct S| -- ~ '-4,-prwit CO. 8 /lo 11 925 Â· 9-504 6) Repre=ltative' s Hane. Addiress & a=ie # 4*Z727237V 4?Â£6257/Pta9O0 04772 93-0 Weinui 91- *,Den 94.5 - 4501 . 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use Conoeptual SPA 2'~7t<'ai Histacic Dev. Special Review ,-' Final SPA - Final Historic Dev. 8040 Gceenline 00[Deptual POD Minor Historic Dev. ' Stzeam Margin Final POD - Historic DÂ°â€¢rul itim Mintain View Plane - Subdivisicn ./-Ill Histocic Designatirn C=lomininmization --- TactyMap Amend=it : GZCS Allotmert Iot mAilyrot line, GMN Exenetion Â· Mjustinerrt Desc=iption of Edsting Uses (amber and type of existingÂ· stmcbxces- approodmate sq. ft.; rtmber of bedificins; arY Previas apgrovals granted 150 tb~ properM- -1-WO EtlynNu ST,u tRuth[ . STIED = 418 1 - 59 Â·fl- Elly#Al# MALO MOUSE u./ 3bc))011' I,90-U 3Â¥. 19- 9) Des,nojyjam# of D//els,f,Â£rk. AvAJ~eQatign -ibild- Ell U' N le & / 24-1 99 1 J . . 9-t Clit U.LA~ 2Â£>Nt Â£ L{SUn 10) I?rY,lal attached the following? |" -laa<Irse to Attactment 2, Mininl= Submission 00[Itents /~aesponse to Attachment 3, Specific Sulmission Ocrrterrts V. Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application S.Illilli SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of *ar fully_labeled drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than 11=xlr, OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 11"xlr format. APPLICANT: mIC,ALL OCT}11 FEErate} Colâ‚¬Ek) loorD-omll ADDRESS: 580 WAL.NUCi- Gr. ADPE~ CO. 81(,0 U ZONE DISmICT: ~ LP LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): 5, 08 5 661 . 4- - EXISTING FAR: . a, aL+7 64Â· ft - ALLOWABLE FAR: 3, /85 6 4.19Â· PROPOSED FAR: .. '3,185 's.. fi- . EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commercial): NIA PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercial): Nj A EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: 629 99 PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: 4,4-0/0 NiA EXISTING%OFOPEN SPACE (Commerdal): PROPOSED % OF OPENSPACE (Commer.): NIA EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Pmcioal Bldo.: d?l i o,/ / Accessorv Bldo: /~ LO: PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Ploa\842~92 18578 64# L I kes=,Bar. / e LO PROPOSED % OF DEMOUTION: 409 9090 EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: ~ EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: ~ ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: .a SETBACKS: + w. Odtilk:ed d.{ (uot flk) fliN Jailia,Ad y ilige'*ed. EXISTING: & Â© D " ALLOWABLE: , , PROPOSED: Front: Front: /0 Front: Reac /4-L O# . Rear. /0/5 ' Rer. Side: 4'- 115' Side: Side: Combined FronVRear: 40 4 Combined Frt/Rr: ' Combined Front/Rear: EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES U . ENCROACHMENTS: VARIATIONS REQUESTED (eliaible for Landmarks Onlv: character comoatibilitv finding must be made bv HPC): FAR: Minimum Distance Between Buildings: SETBACKS: Front: Parking Spaces: Rear: Open Space (Commercial): Side: Height (Cottage Infill Only): Combined FrtjRr: Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): Attachment 2 Written Description of the Proposed Development The entire proposed development includes the relocation aild restoration of a Victorian miner's cabin, the demolition of an existing two story detached, two family building and the construction of a two story, single family residence with an Accessory Dwelling Unit. The relocation of the miner's cabin with a requested front yard setback variance has been submitted under a separate application. In addition, the property has applied for Historic Landmark Designation, which is currently in the process ofbeing completed through the HPC process. This conceptual application is for the development review of a new single family residence on the property. The following are the zoning requirements on the property: ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE R-6 ZONE Zoning: R-6 Existing Lot Size: 45 Feet X 125 Feet = 5,625 Square feet Allowable FAR: 3,135 Sq. ft. Front and Rear Yard Setbacks: Minimum of 10 feet/No less than 30 feet 5 feet for the Garage at the Rear Yard Side Yard Setbacks: 5 feet with a total of 15 feet Maximum Site Coverage: 42.5% of2,390 Sq.ft. Maximum Height: 25 feet Off Street Parking Requirement: 1 per Bedroom 520 Walnut Street lies between Walnut Street to tile west and the alley to the east. The main entry and front yard will be offWalnut Street. and the access to the garage will be from the alley. In a separate application, we have asked to move the old miner's cabin into the front yard setback, by eight feet, so that this new house development does not physically touch the old building. This variance will allow the miner's building to sit apart from any new construction, as it has for the past 100 years. The proposed development will build a three bedroom house, with an accessory dwelling unit, for a total square footage of2,854 square feet. The redevelopment ofthe miner's cabin will use 281 square feet ofthe available floor area. The total new constructed square footage including the miner's cabin will be 3,135 square feet. A two 44 car garage and two off street parking areas will be provided on the property, in order to meet the parking requirement. As indicated on the proposed site plan and architectural drawings, the allowable floor area, the front and rear yard setbacks, the side yard setbacks, the site coverage, and the parking requirements, all comply with the Zoning Regulations. No variance requests are being asked from the HPC for this development application. p page 2 0 The proposed architectural design ofthe new residence has been developed to be sensitive in fohn, mass and scale to the detached Victorian miner's cabin on the property. The existing miner's cabin is a simple rectangular building with a gable roof and a steep 12/12 roofpitch. This rectangular form and gabled roof, unadomed with complicated dormers has determined the design direction for the new building. The architectural concept is to utilize the simple forms ofAspen miner's cabin architecture, yet modernize it for contemporary use. The building has been designed to create a building that is visually broken into four building masses (not including the miner's cabin) with rooflinks that serve to create a concept of a compound of smaller buildings on the property. The buildings are simple and rectangular in form, without typical Victorian detailing or accessories such as turrets, dormers, gazebo porches and bay windows. The roofline ofthe building is varied, utilizing simple miner's cabin architectural features such as a 12/12 gabled roof, a sheA roof, and a flat roof The use of different roof lines in this design allow the building to appear as separate entities. The eave depth will be detailed to match the depth of a Victorian building of approximately 8" and the profile will be narrow to match the typical eave profile ofthe old miner's building. Like the varied rooflines on the proposed building, the building materials will also vary. The garage structure will have antique barn si(ling. The main building will have a 1 x 4 horizontal lap siding. The different roof lines will also have a variety of materials. The garage structure will have a rusted corrugated metal material, while the main building will have an asphalt roofing tile. The variety of materials will fitrther delineate the building as separate forms, thus giving the appearance that the building was constructed at different . times. -- page 3 0 Attachment 3a Specific Submission Contents: Conceptual Development Plan for Significant Development to Historic Landmark 1. A sketch plan of the proposed development is attached as the following exhibits: Exhibit C: Existing Site Improvement Survey (This survey shows existing buildings, setbacks and encroachments.) Exhibit D: Site Plan ofthe Proposed Development (This site plan shows the proposed new building, the relocated miner's cabin and proposed setbacks and no encroachments.) Exhibit E: Main Floor Plan Exhibit F: Upper Floor Plan Exhibit G: Roof Plan Exhibit H: South Elevation Exhibit I: East and West Elevations Exhibit J: North Elevation 2. The conceptual selection ofmajor building materials for the development will include the following: Victorian Miner's Cabin: The existing siding will be reuse*where applicable) . On three sides, the siding is lx4 wood bevel siding, on one side, the siding is a varied width ofvertical wood siding. The old doors will remain including the old window ( ifpossible) and new double hung windows will be added to match the old windows. New Main House: The main house is broken into 4 building masses that are attached by varying rooflinks. They are as follows: 1. Entry form: The siding will be rusted metal panels with rusted metal rooÂ£ The windows will be metal clad on the exterior. 2. Main house with two gables: The siding will be lx4 wood bevel siding and the roofwill have asphalt siding. The windows on the main house will be metal clad on the exterior. - 3. The link between the Main house and the garage form will be rusted metal siding. The roof is flat and will be constnitcted out of a built up membrane with gravel. 4. The garage will have antique barn wood siding with the roof a corrugated rusted metal. The windows in the garage will be wood on the exterior.. page 4 0 3. The proposed development has been designed to be sensitive to the Victorian miner's cabin that is being restored on the property. The Main house and the old miner's building will be separated by 12 feet-6 inches. The form ofthe old building, the steep . roofline and natural materials have established the direction for the design ofthe new structure. 4. This development application falls under category 'e', which reads: The development ofthe site ofan Historic development which has received approval for demolition, when a development plan has been required by the HPC pursuant to Section 7-602(B). 0 0 page 5 . Attachment 4 Review Standards: Development in H District and all Development Involving Historic Landmarks a. The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel. The new structure has been designed to follow the same building form, steep rooflines and simplicity that is so unique about the old miner's building that shares this property. b. The proposed development is consistent with the character ofthe neighborhood. The character ofthe immediate neighborhood is new construction as ofthe 1960's and 1970's, including large apartment and condominium developments. The two bordering properties, to the north and south are potential large sites for redevelopment. The miner's cabin at 520 Walnut Street is the only old building in the neighborhood that defines a sense ofhistory in the neighborhood. The development that is being proposed here, is to restore the miner's cabin and use these design parameters ofthe old building for the new structure, thus further enhancing the importance ofthe old miner's cabin, and establishing a neighborhood character. c. This proposed development enhances the historic and cultural value ofthe designated historic structure on the parcel. The new development does not physically touch the historic building that is on the same property, therefore the historic value ofthe old building is maintained through this development plan. d. The proposed development does not detract from the architecturalintegritv of the historic structure. The new structure will obviously be a newer contemporary version of a miner's era building. Thus the development restores and delineates the real old building from the newer construction on the site. page 6 1 //. IrD, L , 1 ---a .-W- 0 -0 Â· ~ i \ 1/ . , End.".8.'&'<. - i . i .... .-r.,1 1.-te, 1. . +17\ .-- -1 -*-,d Z 0-\ fâ€¢>6 1 0 . 9 0 I. Ble....~lit'Bil~mi=la'l~go 2 + NEr . . 3-- ' 491=. like Gep .. . r--~ .0 - .- 1 : i J . 2'- Â¥iD:W.~mm . .....--... a r : \ mim:il Â· , . . 01]1111Â·CED ]I ,Â·- ' ...0. , ' LO -- Ii. 0 --. 4 f-~ u;icÂ·7711:i .iifIWIN INnilii;?fAIIER 11101111 ~ ,â€¢ Â· \1 Â·1111]!miliis.mi}111& 1111]]Im [111]la gÂ¥[1] Illmitu i Â·Â· -- .... . I ~ 1Ell . ... 11. 1 ...... 6/ . . 1 - -.-35 . 4 0 520 -- 10;1111 mam.mum omml:lEg!111 {121111 011U1!11'UmillUâ€¢laUll! 81:211,1. !IM,@~Eli#109 in, mmE ma - WALNUT 89 9./.Im= 1 .im=. m Â· SZrE17- -41'ULAmA 07~!1*11.011'IF El#.11.litl@Â·%lili: -! F I Ul ..z- -- rma Â· -- . Ny = . . ... LI MM RliNJ mmi : : Â· .. r: E-El - 11 ?Â»BM i Â·Â· . - 1 1 - .-- 5.! IlÂ· , / - fliqmv rb m. 1 9 ... -- 1 4 ...4- , .-el --- --12.9Â°,* 0 rIL\/ 1-1 1 0 r-r- to .. ...21,?%21456*6Â£33,2.-1.4,+D -Â·.- . Â·Â· . . . ~ , -apÂ· ~5 . -,1991/9#Unral/*N .- =1189\:77. 41,/ 6... 0 . ~ ~ ~~~; Â·I' 027~- .4 U - --. \-r'-1# m 7-9\*4 -- O--- \\Â¢ 0 n \14 0 - - *----/ -MU- \ \\\ -.Â· - 0: . I , .- ---1 1- 1 t . 1. / Â¥-5,--7 .- 4\ .t . *..-- A- . -ar- / e 7 , 4 -, ) -- t \ / .e / , , 1 \ ' ' I 5 \ 1 I / ./1 % \ E - % 1 . I % : f , I % \ 104 - - . 2 . 1 L \ f % O 0 \\ \D \ /\ \' f ,% I ' I . . AVENUE - SOUTH , O \ i . 0 \\0 C \ \ \\ \ I. 0 \\ \\ 2 \ \ t- I , J . 0 1 % 9% . :\ 4 ,=1, . , ' t , I . '' ./ 0 - .//<t . -Ill.Ill-- -Ill-il-1 / .1 . / ./ 1 / . . /... 1 / 1 1 e . / . \ 1 . r CONC. 1 . . , HOUSE | - ' . DRIVE . Lâ‚¬,/ | A ---- 1. -.. -.. - /4 to - % 0 03 -- - --*L SPIKE -*-&0 W-- - L_7 7--Â· '1 / ------ 0 . -L- " O 30 .- 03 -1~.1-'.- .1-..: 1 . ~ '9- ENCRCACHMENT / ~ / ' O ..- ..-73/L , k. / S)- -11 --- *--$ N 90'00'00-W 125.00 _-, = ~ SIU KE - WI 84 -~&5 - 1 1 20.3,&, 4 . -I.-9 - 4 . /4/: i . 12.5 -1- - / - r <Sill,i --ir EAVE 115.4 ' 1. / 4 -0 , ~ 1~ 2.3 22.! 4 / '-7 -14 4 9 ~ er:, 2.0 . 1. 1 / / IN N / 1 ~ 1 STORY MI / 1., 40' HAL-06Â»rION' i i OLD HOUSE * rÂ«FLIBTLI g., 1/ DP Â»[Â«11*F 2 PARKING . /1911"44 ' 1 ii / a 11 --- 1, . / r . 4,;'*IN 1 1/2 STORY HOUSE 0.1 1< It.4. >O i 1 0 8 . 0/ - C -. 19 Ee ---- 0 ., 12,8 e ,-PEAK 114.78 ; Ul . f 1 - / Â· /.4 ,3.2 to.2 ENTRY Tall 100 2 .,00 v~~~~~~~1 ' 9 *~ ~ Â· DECK L. . I. .4 . - . I . 1: : I k. titi 24.0 , .4 ' +. b . 11 PARKING e . ..u.ur, \08 . r 4Â¥10 l.: I Â· .... / :2' ALUM~ 1 1 4 -/ 1. i â€¢. ... CAP 749 . --t \ .. // 9 CO 0 f I .--- - 1 4'le I. n -P-'"--1--/.0--r.~--m-- .- . 1-) 91 84 9184 N 90'00' 00 -E 125.00' A . 89 . ... HOUSE .. t ..: . . 1 /1 , ' i . .22/ti.*Ck: ~ '.1.. .: - .. .. Â· F ..7'4* > ' 0 . 4 11 i 93*.441Â»13-_25 4 Ull . 44. tMrreve*~:*~Â©0~ --7,'.Ii,i~ ,;. ,;~~~ .U t.:.- -2. . . I ...... ... t. i BE.-6 :. . .:1 m~ . . ......... 0 4- - f 200'00'IE ....) :s..............oo....2,4 ...................... 4 . ,//.AFF,Ke'l MP-fr~ 1,"/1-loN oF Holl*Ep,~ . f /1 . 0 j . ' H oFT-H . FrcFBÂ·Pry L.INs I 24 L0, Â© f . 1 0 02 1 48. -\41,0 L I . .. I -- , ------\\-- . 1 ... .. .. FP'/00/61+K . , .. 19 101QB|+N .. .. M INPÂ¢50*IN .. / . 1 11 i-1 H*w 'llflo 00iz 4,0 0 06 Flk, H . 12047 1 57*Pl 0.& FPRIG; 14 0178,vs Fc . eFFI op \ BA1 4. 09 09.K NMA$f ... : ... . 09Â·007 .. t- . S . -7- . .p-- Â· ~.1 39 J .. z.-1 -9 -I i 00 1 4 1- 1 621 - u â‚¬ 10-7 ---4 64 dit JL 3 1 16 112 ,/.X,r- f, --1 â‚¬ 2-2 -, s W ..r W it lir J 9 1 & ka C *t ' ' 0 4 ' 4#LITH FF,prp-Frry LIN E. ' FkÂ£pHI' Â»'$: P ' L /49\ v\,rb Locrrio,4 0Â¥ #414 7 P 1. / Â·,7-0 â€žN 91164' 120'F Â» RP, , 94~ i ' rfe,Er ' 4/-*9 41*,Â« 61*Kt),06- 0 Nt*.32 u t. /hArr' BEN 4 ZOHIN# PIÂ»Â»14 \ltv , 16 1 50, . 4.91 J. 1 .34. . I . 9..I. 44 Fy<HI bil- 'P -4 ....e'. i -Â· t k..1*'.41 6.,15.4 ~ R .te .54 J...4.- . 64 .... *dt. .4- 4 . - - 1 1 5 - - 3 . 11 3 1 1 F-\Ut.u_ L JJ. 1 1 r 1 All..- -31 J ~Â¢77 12-- -1 I.p,SCS-U lr.L CON I = 3 bray 7 ./ t \-~ 0 EFU MIN*F'* 7 Z Q (37 - Myer# Mpâ€¢- 0 6*P-MI e 0*PF=*! P 1 D Â·Elue' * Â»RU 1 lt-1 .1 f DIOO EfULP-1 7* * MA * 4-4 0 -=14 ,== , ---- 1 0 0 146 L O " rforMFTy '011.4 8- /Rh 'Vit IN Fl- 'OF Fl-,p- hi kewn$ Fe'.1 471 ED< HI b rr ' 4' - ... U.Y. I 'K. **140:l< - 1 1 G . J . 1 4 94 ~ 0 ~ ~3>4 B? 81 ~ f i 11 . . i LÂ»IN,> FM ll 1 -[ 1, 11 .-/-1- 11 1 FIHI NR F.M . 4 0-. h 1 .. R W L- --Irl il___ __1 -0 -*-I- - Â· U FF012 1,0>/FL FLoolt FLÂ» 14 \tzV Ke'l= it 09 FAH 1Frf ' F 4- % Â·.tic .Â·b.4-.-IÂ·â€¢Â¥>-I/&//IM--%n==/E-*--m 00 0 1.1 1 1 5 lili:14 ' i ; '' - 1. 1 Iii 1 .1 . 1 4 ,Â·ill i:.Â· i i ; *Â·,ill ' i':Â·11Â·1 1 1# IMIT! 111 1 1.1... ..1. 911:1'5141 Iii'1111.11111'HJ'I 11.. : 1 . lii''ll I b . 1 1 1',1 - 1 11 . . . 4 1, 11 .1. I. 1 . 11 1 1 Ill. 1! 1 1 lili l' 111 1 ill I 1 - 1 11 1 11 *11 .... . 1 1 . i 11 1 -- --- 1 - 0 - 0 11 , I h 1 . - 1 1 11 , -- 3 11 il li ':11 1 1 l. 1 0,1 1, .1-:i l 1 + .1 f f. f i.. ' 1 + t 1 1 1 1 Â·1 il 1 1 1- 1 1 . 1 $--Ill--I-- I- - I- - . 4 --- 1 1 ...i:' i ', i 1, '1: It 11. P 11--.1-7-----R - -.I-- - ---- 1 1111 lili:; 4 ---- -- - I 1,1 .. ..... : 1 1 91.: 1 11111 lilli' 1, ' i ' 1.! 11 . 1 1 1 ' 1 %1 1 -: .trwri 1 i iii 11 1, Di' 1 1 li i I li '! 'iii. , Iii:iii.1 1 ii 2 1.11 -- 0 1 ' J /-/1/0 1 ' lili 11 ! 'lili ial r i i ir 'i iv i,i lÂ·, 1 1 1 '.": '' t : 411 - M.vor- 71.0 /6- N - 10:H 1,11- '6' Non-H !4"= I'.0,2, 2.- /*i' i; &4.4Â· i~e~ .. -2.3611;$:a~ 0 ,!1; 1 1 .1 11!flf'111:1.1 11 C A 0 #\ : 1 ls, C\ 1 1 I *1 % 1 . 1 1 1 1, r 1 hi -I 1 i -1 1 1 1 : i . 111 lillillilillill t - - ti~~MEsi r . : .. : EE]-1-h==H-=-H i . P---4 /*40#444*44;44%4*/4*#ivwj"J#Hz ..Wthudialtiae#60.-* 0 0 U -r H E-1/0 E~V~~Â« 1 G K| A : 1/k, 11 3 1 5 011 0% HI *IT 'H' 0 -1 ...6*.C r 1 .2 â‚¬thÂ¥.441 + 36.1 - I -- 4 ..eâ‚¬- - ....=.181-fefzIX~ 2 - .-r '* 4 ' .ib' ' Â·4 4 . 44. 6 - ./. - j 11/ , it.. l' 1 41 I. 19 1 ti, Sh--- .1 37 . ' 11 6 1 111.1 Â¢97 , I,4 i=t lib t -- -------6--- I.- 111 r- lilli l~ QI'il- .lilli 2 6 -AM. --ul 1 It 1:1 1,1:1 -1--.---4- . f ~~ 1~'f~j~i':"( - - A < lilli 1 1 A T* Â· 4'/24UU Gi 1 t.... NA, 1 7; 4 Y.* b,t 16&3' * 444&8Â£1., ' - 24,7.1 6 ' $ .4 bi' .t'.t 1FT-THTFTTT -6 11 1 ! , , 1,1 ' E.U.--!i .2 2 2 li PRi:t '*4111- 41 1/fl.~~fjj 1, | '|'| ~| i tialmll* -~.#- -imjithilill Ci '|: il ha '/ .. 1 :l i j li , Â· 11 *li '? 1 111 11 ir=- 1 1 ..Ellmâ€¢11911 . ! . , i i Ill I ilbdili iii. i' dirilli_ 4.,,)-,8 "tililliiiÂ« 0 0 0 1,14 - 14- -4... P.*-- n .a , r. * t:h, 1, -1-03 M L 11 1: : -- 1 =:1 11,106 1 illi F - - 1 , - I. 1, - 1!al!!1!Ii:'I. Â·I! s Il - .- 1:;.,1 liti 1.1 1%!~ 4: 1 - - - 1 11. 1 . -I-- . 1 0 1 - i; B_Â£_EzEMLEZZE_QlzE AH I Drr 'JI :tÂ·k â€¢ â‚¬26 - EXHIBITS* AGENDA ITEM: 520 WAL NUT- EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION IN DEMO STAFF Me4O V Z. ~AnTA-CJW~/\Dtr 5 V 3. 11 X j T DRAW WGP * "In" means the exhibit is introduced into the record. "Demo" means the exhibit is used only for demonstration or illustrative purposes. WITNESS LIST* AGENDA ITEM: 5&0 WALA Ut NAME OF WITNESS: i. AMY 6U1-112{ E Staff Person 2. 4125,ellâ‚¬kl GREENWOOD 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. * Includes staff persons, but excludes staff attorney and board members. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director '~N . Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Director . FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: "Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines," Worksession DATE: February 25,1998 Attached is a copy of the design guidelines which were developed for HPC in the late 1980's and updated slightly in 1995. These guidelines are provided to applicants to help guide them in understanding HPC's historic preservation policies. While most commissions rely heavily on their guidelines, and cite criteria from them as part of their reviews, we have never applied them so strictly. Please read through the guidelines. There are many things about the booklet's style and readability that could be improved. We should also discuss whether or not it accurately reflects the position HPC would like to have conveyed to someone who is contemplating a change to a historic structure or an Mill project. They are an important way to be clear about our expectations before someone invests in a design proposal. Restructuring of the guidelines may be something we should take up as part of our new worksessions. rh hial J..'01 014 MIl r tle Â· H-01â€¢1 13-13,9 ~ --- 4- G - â€¢aisti *Nll AJ-WLI =U Huloe 0 424,A~ ~0 . .e 0 - 2 . 6 4 4 .1,;j + 1 . , '17 '/ 41/ 1 UPÂ«Â« 4 .i. 1~f ,~. 1 A . I ' 10\ 5, --- > 0. j Ekl â‚¬ > i' < > 15*r v " â€¢ill C48Cyl 2 N/ F lou-/ S .. , 1 . i . 0 1 -1 0= I IN~ ; d .. G 0 -4 . 1 - 4971* r 6 -.-- -1 . . r j . - 1 1]11 1 7Eil 0 r 1 . 6 r --ft 1 1 1 1 - i ---- -.i -- I-*-= - J "pr P - - , f p.404 3 -131 31 1 l'- r[- . ----I---- I. .. /1 ~ - I fl- - i|. r 1 1 - - -- -1 1 - *4-0+ FICOF'5411-7 1-1 N BÂ· 10,4 U O 4 'AfF'*M ..pu Fboo M rlÂ» N i, 11. 1 L,57 0 -2 - 1 1 1 -1-1 l -,1 ---------- 1.Ill/ 41 - .. 1, f : â€ž17/'!,2 + -- T k. iKA. .i'.Â·;~ j ; I_- il!14 F i 'lf,Â·- *f.2 h u ' V.A//,i D .. 1 9- j;ORAIN+ % . 11: . 1 - -- 1. i J k 43 4<i+: ~*>~ 2--I ... , . .--. I ---- ~ . --- 152 2.*, 7 - E-Eer -2 -2544_~~ 4- 10 /3.k ~ /20/ ~ 4 .- . 1 - /- r- - .9 -- 6 0 U/1--9 FL 9-v/-r- Lo KA . %61Loll r -1 + - 4 3 /'224 l - /f 1 01-li li .. i 1 11------__ ,1 - L ! 1 t 1 ( .1 1 - 9 0 hj, lilli 11 - " . - i.- 1 . 111 -- '1 , i! 1 . 0 1 L r- 1 . n U - - - .....1... 1 61 1 1 It i :t Â· ~ -- - 04'FIck 4| *4,8 - !11 t_ 1, il .1 i Â· I 4 ! !: t! 'i I i , 1 IlllÂ· ii li - $410.8+ 4 56.1 1 Iii: 1 1 H . I 161 0Â«F 01/ AP-7 1 0 hl ~Â«E 04, EXOâ‚¬ Lo N >bue -1 Le L 11 1 1 - 2 70 = i -62' 4 1 1 : lit;l te, / S . .6 - 4- - 1,111 I.* I 1 1 , -- .-. 111:It.Â·ii!: i , *i W.---IZZLELILIZE-qill--*i#=.-i--W-/------..--.3-.i- : , F:.7 Â· -- ' 1, 1}'. -1 i + '- :.6 - . foe. N o *EH_ 0,~- Bv~Â«10 9 U 411~ 1Lei ... lili, 1 !