The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19980610AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 10, 1998 REGULAR MEETING, 5:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of April 22, 1998 minutes. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS III. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS IV. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) V. BUSINESS rtfi Ya-i,1 YV\-h\10% / A. 101 - 105 E. Hallam - PArtial demolition (continued from May 27, 1998) Public Hearing on Resjdential Design Variances 4--1 0 M- Mon, 4 0 4 -3 5 5.Ah ib fo B. 234 W. Francis - Conceptual/Final review of garage and breezeway connection (continued Public Hearing from May 27) 9 - 2- 0 /0 C. 70~i Â¥;~*p_ Final Developmentl - O -r /2 D. 208 1/2 E- Main St. ~- Minor Development - 6 0 - D /Â« Al-4/4 . 91-g 0.1 4 Ola- I l 3 1 44 4 & 2% E. 950 Matchless Drive - Landmark Designation - Public Hearing -2-0 - 2/(/ F. 420 W. Francis St. - Temporary relocation, Conceptual/Final review of window wells, porch enclosure and bay windows - Public Hearing -7,0- bk VI. INFORMATION A. Referral regarding Sundeck area development 13 _-4%3r~-93 21*21 - -,115-- VII. ADJOUkN 4 PROJECT MONITORING aer Moyer 303 E. Main, Kuhn ISIS 435 W. Main, L'Auberge 514 N. First Susan Dodington 712 W. Francis 918 E. Cooper, Davis 132 W. Main, McCloskey Meadows Trustee and Tennis townhomes 234 W. Francis Melanie Roschko 918 E. Cooper, Davis ISIS -7 0 4 1/L' AA. 0.- i Suzannah Reid 303 E. Main, Kuhn 702 W. Main, Pearson 218 N. Monarch, Zucker 414 N. First 1008 E. Hopkins, Bellis Mary Hirsch Meadows, Trustee and Tennis townhomes 420 W. Francis Street 435 W. Main, L'Auberge Gilbert Sanchez 1008 E. Hopkins, Bellis 414 N. First 303 E. Main Jeffrey Halferty 132 W. Main, McCloskey 234 W. Francis, Mullin 414 N. First 701 W. Main j o 1 - L 0 9- 12 14Â«le:- Heidi Friedland 420 W. Francis Street 712 W. Francis Street 514 N. First 0 -IDNCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: 834 W. Hallam (Poppie's), expires April 26,1999 123 W. Francis, Lot B (Vickery), expires May 24, 1998 514 N. Third Street (Ringsby), expires June 11, 1998 214 E. Bleeker Street (Greenwood), expires August 12,1998 0 0 EXHIBEZE ASPEN AREA RESIDENTS FOR " 4-1 0-9 F HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1 ~ JUNE 1998 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT and CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ASPEN 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF 101-105 EAST HALLAM LOT A BLOCK 65 CITY OF ASPEN UNDER CURRENT REVIEW BY HPC. Gentlemen: Enclosed are drawings from the HPC meeting packet for May 27. Also enclosed are some sketch "comments' trom that meeting and from the previous meeting of May 13. The attached drawings show the existing and new elevations of this Historic Building. Although it is not legally designated, HPC is required to review partial demolition{s) made to a historic structure. This property is on the 1904 Sandborn map in its exact current location.We believe that the proposed proiect exceeds what should be approved as a "PARTIAL DEMOLITION" and that the applicant should be required to make a full designation and HPC Conceptual Development application. Although the building has been altered by addition{S) in the 1 970-'s the front portion which is the original historic one story brick bungalow is currently intact. The applicant wishes to reframe the entire roof of this existing home to create a larger FAR and second floor. This will forever alter the original character of this bungalow. This proposal looks more like what they refer to in Denver as a "POP-TOP' than it resembles how to treat a historic brick bungalow. We believe that additions to this property could be handled in a much more sensitive manner than that proposed by the current application. The effect of the scale and massing upon the original brick bungalow is overwhelming and defeats the definition of "bungalow". We see no compellina reason why this should be allowed to occur. We encourage you to work with the applicant for a much more reasonable design which respects this historic corner home. This home as Jeff Halferty mentioned is part of a Historic "trio:' on this corner. Keeping the character of the neighborhood district and this house intact is very important to the goals of HISTORIC PRESERVATION. 0 HPC 10JUNE 98 Since the applicant and their Architect are both under oath we request that they each inform us of their full intentions with regard to this proiect and how the Owner was advised to develop this proposal and if it is not in fact a "spec house" proiect. We believe that a much more compatible design which respects the contextual design issues of the West End, of this "trio" of homes, and of the overall neighborhood could be accomplished. Finally, we request the committee to compare this proposal to other more successful designs and to establish the goals of how to add on to an original resource in a more compatible manner. We also believe that the volume standard of Ordinance 30 is not being met by this proposal (ESPECIALLY FOR A HISTORIC RESOURCE}. Please do not approve this proiect unless it meets the goals of the HPC guidelines with respect to oriainal Victorian architecture in Aspen. signed 3.066 #1~6~ 0 0 . We, the undersigned, agree with the sentiments expressed in Sven Allstrom's letter ~ and urge you to consider the implications. NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE 8. 6*34vrn- 65 4 % 7A=moaw Dr *15#LL* 4 Prn(,41, A frD *Seh 12- AL He,â„¢4 *Mn Co -BKi*p 8144*84 1 J .~'.0.1 44/ \59 - \ 24 4 0921<r WtfuÂ»< ---- ..154- 4.Â©-aL, 1243 13*RAy CtÂ· Â«al, 74;- b / , ~2) AVI D Hy/A A 63 1/ fhay #0Â£>6-SCA 2-\1 t Â· ~c~~%.g-Â£Â» k'~0~;01#â€¢9,-i HÂ·-aft Leg F l-ID 4 5 0,1 , \ (2542%66/04,7 0,1-- At\8#L J- Oeray 540 s. 64(e. &1-- U.// 1 (fl 1554<1. ~ro-vi 211 V\A\A. al ekAÂ«-Att J*A Ah l.aue g 8 %55 Metlecine (3044/ /sm 0 19/K d (4 UL P r 5 60 h J f C i v'LA t RA-me<fl AA/LKALIA*As 6124 -tu.714Ttl st frits,6 ~Â·Â·:,~1~ 8<14.*.Ab, d..,_0 Uaa-- Lai) Kâ‚¬ N 0,46% ATT" 1% i 0 ~IWGy) O ny, 4 J&2.. 084. i , 4 ./ 1 1 JoMNATEMAWN Jv# D.FfÂ·'0**Fu lq-f- FA-, 2.14/4 7 OR- U T-k.A N-27 p,te:-R 'Co 'MA P. 14. i j 4 U.6, 1-3/C--t-â‚¬-- Fl , R'rE 3 841 0 H R 'f ~UUg_ ANCLAÂ«- + :21% IB-6/2466 'Relev-Tul k-JJ- '22% bacti {AVWÂ·b TZD-ke-W Cr 44*-Chol \Ar.. Â·Â·-- :3681/ SÂ« /MS*rt /2/ s aAâ‚¬06*A (aj 9*jif~ 0 . DULLITS MAP 1896 *10 ' ' FNH)'el 4 50 V. 0 9 ?b 1' 1/ 1,7. 1 ; c f V 0 - Az+-FX# ;e ,62 0 ,/ / ~/RÂ°.-'NAr:..Â£14,47LylievA'.V z * 0 1 1 Ill h 0 k Afe.Ne; L/0â€ž7Â·9'37>47-/0 7. r.1.-1-- 1 71 502~47. 3,1 J 69- 4. , H /-1 L - â€ž f:-9/F D.3 1\L 1 / / i til I F Â«, z , UN OUS ... 1 1 3 - 1 r 1 *hi }e /6. 1 ,- , r , ... 42 ...... .*.. ./ I 42-L- , 1-1 191.41*1 0 f . o / 4, 9 -> / 4 -- . >44%â‚¬ dib. t ;4 -1_10. , 1, Â£ . .---122225. 9561,11%1-1 13 ** I 4 -< --\ 4/21 . Â£2 e r ' . '1 \ \\ 'A ChÂ·X . Mi- 1 -4 _6\ - I. :0 / a 1 . I ... 38 U i 4 .,4 / 47.----3 4~~Â·Â·~. - 1 1- .* 9 e ' DOM P '~ V /0 if-- I \ AS ,#m' c 4 .Ele Li-7162fÂ·d 6, 23*1- 41*441â€¢Cr~ 1 .3421. fil 34* 9 n - â‚¬ 7044 U RlilliliT::Vid,fLA:ttliY1 4 /-14--1, 10; 1,1~=11 - 4.. - < ft. <fip le ju-sÂ·.7 6 . 41 7 , 94 - ar)%/Uu/ e * W ii-0 482/~6*0a~~-Jrjrick 8,Â¥IUG LE 4*, 2 2 F-- Â· -----_~rf .12*Ub,~ / ~ AÂ· F, f -7 I " 4 t.,/ 1.- co,vac M - 47.11 5 3 j *-ar- I - ' 10 1 -r-2 -1 0 :r-Â· c. , '1 1 ... 67 6 ....,N,Re- , 2 -- A 1 1 ...,as~A Â©.Â·: &>ZBO.1,0-2 ~--1-[3121. -, 4 SK+/5*. ~ h +F 14 Im ' 1- 0 ...1 1. 1.1 ra# Pul,f.,NE' 1 hi / 194%164-Â·Ut-ihi 2 ~la ci. I . .- --- - I i IN â€¢ 1 T- 1 --Â·am 1 <,3 - -1 -1 L 4 b . 3*,=tÂ»d,Zf: 1 /*d /3~ i.. 1.7-7-=710 L.-Â£ J .A--J gli 4 bi:\' ''\ *u k . Â¥ 0/ L 11 }'1 JU I T . 4 D : .2 A C 4.. 1/. 4 N D-r- 4~ -2 . L A /,4 - - =Rd.-5/ Â¢ { R A 1373-2 1-" 6 jet71,1.*'.1 il 13~1[l 73 :,pr/Zy ,- m 23, t., L i i . ,JO - 4r- 0 ./-.. 119 ' 1.1~Â» 4,; 1 1 1--rnup ,- 1 {M,i , TFV-F ! E- 1- O . - - ' 81;30 47 ,.r 40&' O 0. -ly- -iXT -/ j =a.s Fy Â°/9/,9, / f rx.~792/ ., - F ,. O NTY OFFICES ./R#6 N / / / 1 19/ 1'-Prer,.I_ 4, I ~~Â·Â· 1 I - -' ; '0 I ... Â£Â·-177* 4 0 .2-la it 8.1 E 't '..% 1 1,4.t.#*/-- a '*Opt * i -*#L. r'F. 1 1 /Â°lammia#al 'L -'- '9'41.'Al PAZy") $ ,Â· 5 1 0/ 6 9 f i 41" ris3Â¥Â·,a=' 1 ~ ' 0 . k -1 ZIRkE 19'En) c 0 0 , 0.3*.1 I r 1,6- 1 , r42-1-Â¥ h./ / 77--Â·..__-- ' 2 . I / . 1 l\(ht 3, '' 7.-1 211 \1: .1 4 0 Ad-d. '' 0/ 1,1 :5'NiK,.Â·...A,f. JK ,~~h 141.Mij.*M 71. ; 71Â»,6. :, ' r--r- -4225-211 .F- A : -,5.- 1 l U~ d~ r 0/ J A ' tr /9 42*1 4 5.7 jAWp, , W J a ' y ' 'El f:Rr--Â·_. . 0 8 4.14 1. .9 + 4 1 . 1&9 1 -rib 4:41, ' ' 4"117-2~~2,4 1~~~~,7~,9~0m #ViSju, f *11-T Lifyi:~ E-'FulÂ¢9 I. , ;/ r Â»..5 4 - -4 I Ild ' / 3' L i~ 12* t 4*g~ i â€¢L U ~ IO!19~ 7~tbACEiP";~0:~~.4*1Â·'4 9~ 1 ..7.,40 , > j : 24@42-19#4/9,/. t' 1 911219*i~~.Als:Lir'/ /Â¥*Ell,"8762.~ --- 1,16 f ./~. t/1.7461-7f, 41 ,.4'ZA'.15' , 1,d 1 6 :.1 1- ri ./.f ob-Kl. 1 n. - 1 + A. -- / pusus Coty~ mom-b SVLN EFR/< ALSO:*A Al,br vt 1. A /*#AJ/7 P -9/Â·~Z 4 rrt*~62 ~~~ 0Nt - stoÂ« 83:al clu ba rl R BUNÂ© /tto (Al r-M /~' 1 Â£52,1.,AL.Mil... 3-- -1 kt 1 *u 141 4 r rb -- YAW 046 2 04 2-Â©a- 91 ev~ /6.l.2 roor *Otz-' AÂ»70~ - u .-' - it 14- -Adt &6424~t* 4~~-*1%54' 21< 4411 cALL fry p Al l/UA I ic P,*73{6 0~ 27Â£1Â«(i 9 -- -- * LCD 41*)/4 3547 -<04/.i- 3 -1 R 1 6 - 1 ci*kit A 'ft? 14 7 1 1 L.' l./ IN F - - 14,-f-=Ef v.+> ./ 1 + 3,1 7% a <Drig-0 GA a 4 _ I .23~ N 1 k ~ hikÂ®72.-- - ar FLQ.'F;L L A Ljow#,3/14 40 - - C#PultÂ©*UNE ap WA -P_ 4Â£=O 9. +ip 1-0 sfowc, r- I/i 1 1 1 j f i 0 1 1 4*49 1Â«2 , . .. A , 1 1 PPN# Dne 91 I \ \VAP[1040 Â¥v,u \90- 2/-1-90 il i A-Lil FR j-1.Wi\(4) 2494 -2277Â»24 CÂ»CZ % Od</ *054 Â«Â» P 142 W CIZPX+'a 3@ UN>/ CDh1215>(77 0 '71WJMdiAO) 11%/ 4 â€ž 0/4Â£ SULL , -7Wdly / 393/1.1-crD 222<1ND M A 432Â«07:31 70 1 -Â»71-L- gPM â‚¬441 1. li I /1 11 / 1 k 1 1 - 1 -21--- L j 1- Â» >09.H 3Elfs / oww t/' u 9 ~ ) r.6/- W 2.Le ~ lÂ«7-7+99 /+17'h 4h 0 .im 4 4 a t /6, :fe 4 t ...u ./ a 'ti,iR a 15%1 ST/ MU Ill --- 10 .... r./351,14% .... 0...= a I'r= 1 - <1.1 -44 8-9.-3 + a~~~k 1 t. TO. Kill' m~ST) ,-4 . . Â¢/4/\N , 01 C 1% 3 =Etz- 23 5 .". --X.- U= ..4.5 I---I'l/1 4 m.6'l 44 -2.124 ':211 - -#- a REST ELEVATION . ~ ~ ~~ ~, ~ ~ I 9-, 0-4 Â»C . m /t i 4 f Blmlt r- GIBSONÂ·RENO -/O I.$â€¢I .,9//9 li ! -4.-r 35X . .1 U4 ek .7 H '3 Â¢ ' *.6... ?t n % Ical DEE1 12 , Al OOCI* ' e 5 2 â€¢ 3 N 1 62 , EAST ELEVATION . Â£)1...0 4.0 Â¥ f ; 2. i ' EXISTING i ELEVATIONS 1 45 4 / PRo Po 12 b ' i.fli ' , , . 11,1 / a a a Â£4 , 8 1Â». 9 a - T 4; 4, =...... /2& ' 1 8}Il i31 CNI 4. I Uft30Â£] r=ri --~ I.I.- .61 t-91 P..1 1 Ill 1 .frimm"Â£4 7-7-JÂ¢ Al. . 6 lim 44*-4,;,=r~#~ 2.-- . . **Ir Lidl - 11-97?~2it -EE__3 * t:*f -11 4 Jhâ€ž'-Pfubhe' 2 iy ;11 - '45 91 1 I -- UZZL1~-â€¢iL=...i-'al./. . .. r- 11- .-1 " r----7 11- 11 , - , 14==.-"17==01 7.......,h .I IF Err- f*-1 i E-rri k 9*/ 6 2 11 11 1 11 t -1 tHit All[ 11 â€ž H P 111 4 1 e " 1" all"=.A ii i Wd 1 L=LIU It It 1 1 It 11 Â¤ 3 2 - 1 1 1. 1 L.-I L--1 L_.1 ~-in kNEST ELEVATION i n.i . ta 91-pRO pOdit>, ,~ TO mt-Cm-1 , 41- 7 - 21; r . 00 8 0 1 #?; ,=*= 4 \ 10 -Ammm#* 181 IEE E L!=11881 BEI , .4 ,-0/til-.==f ,r,/2.ir'JELL.~LliLLUU,/1'L.Luu . 0~2111 . 1,0 GIBSONÂ·RENO fl 1 ; el %21 1 10*<I; 'I-' i i 1Â·1 , . : -0.an'Â·Z= OF" :~~~~ ,- --~ "4 4 m f 6 14. 10..1-LI." C I :1-11- - i 4 2Â¥;%;GE; 0-,A.â€¢g;.IN; -1 .. .=Erâ‚¬frâ€¢rr ' ' " 1 --. '- - MMT* -. i i, it M.A= t 1 1 11 it It .. . ,2 1 It .1 11 11 11 /1 -i . . . It 11 11 it. 1 1 1 1 .... # 41:. 4 * .1 3 ------- - - .:i 1 ' 6-J L...1 AiOA 6-J 6.--1 ... .1.. <101 .17 /-1 EAST ELEVATION 1 r Â¢1 3 : r 11: 4.-_ mEVATIONS 0 Â·. . 21 ... a Â·+ Ntt. i. ' 4 0 / f dif S"*1 - iÂ· 8 4 43 I I a ' Z:' Â·t fil =.0 *cpac rr,co.' . a , Â¥*. . .+; 541Ili~41#34 - ....0- A ' ,Â¢, 4 Â·1 Rk..rh ...\ E-L 904.0 0 tÂ·â€¢me t 20., C â€¢ 71 f 1 $ .., C=CI- ./ i:+t L 'I. i L 'Â·4{ /,1/4 D-Â£*4 . â€¢Call RES. REES. 4 i:' --0-- '> 441 ---- II i. ,-14 # 4 4 I :21 - '4 12 4 I+ 1 : .4 '01 0 -1-1 ~6==& 13 149 'J .......C....} I qhHI,1110"11111 ~ * n NORTH ELEVATION t:.41 E t to 1 . U 4 4 %*15! 1 En ic 17 4 - ....: 2 Â§% i ...=,9 1 /0 1.0.e re,4. I. 4.4.I m 11,%69 [4 , 6 .' i; f CA 4,0 ' 4.34: t BUSH KRUÂ·[ -4 3+4: RES. RES -1 lillil .7 . te-9,2,139â€¢, . t.-. â€¢ / p#Afff* 021. - GIBSONÂ·RENO liE; f ,} , U. 1 Â·- 2 ,-- 7 1-1 2 --- :le'lili: 2.-0. -- I l I A 1 44 9 ..4-----1---- 444 1 17 -1 1- 4 4. 2 lbâ€¢. 4, 5 (I~ SOUTH ELEVATION Ult. 0% -X...0. 0-,TH EX,5r 5,â‚¬=3 N PORe,ACA*Â·27, ..... ---/... 111:i'.* 114% . 1, Â· Â·~ 1.4.*â€¢ 4 i 3.0 fi 4-4 - mEntwa , ELEVAnONS 44.. 40 0 0 21 10.28: 57 1998 - It :1212Dfb , /, tw* 1 4 Â· 61 a '4 43 ..-e I. 41 / A 4/Â¥re m..1 .... In . * . ./f\ - -.4 ! K,5 I'll'..1..US R Â£12--1 -etk 1 1 . 9-Â· - 1,464â€¢ .&22=114j~]6~A ~-1 _ -*m=f= 1 1 111â€¢,â€¢Â·9Â·â€¢ 1 C 1. 2% 1 \ - TO..LArl .....J && Â·Â·% +. -40 V.-- 6-= L, 91 p IP= 1 0 10 ..1 ...1-, I ii i Â· It 11 1 I 1 It . it 1 . It I m Â· 4"Ve Â§9 2 1 r To ,-e --9.h * I 11 1 8 11 1 /1.71-- . 11 11 - 11 , _ -i-- --_ -z11- 11 1 . 4 m L._ J L-J 11'211&=4=4111 N - 0< 1 _10 -â€¢a~ 'â€¢Â·4â€¢1 'AÂ· CA NORTH ELEVATION ' 4 Null 1 * /0#75 --- -+.-H.Frl E-1 61~ .._ ~ -~ Â·-,-- .....f 14% I i 0,41 Â¥41....1 -9 9 1 1 r 1 tq 8 r- : MAE 1 - Â©Ii. .r 4Â·k fulct. h | LULLEE Â· GIBSONÂ·RENO r.0"Cole=Ne / li 'j; It 1 1 4. - r--11 .4 - 114 kn,r. 1 1 .2 1 - 1 -- . d i 11 1 14 ./1/ 6 i .i... .4 V. t 1 ...... 1 , It .7 f L.. I L_J t u trryâ‚¬,91-1.1.4.- 0.- .}tutk~__ 4, .. j ... /-l SOUTH ELEVATION -- 1 1 1 01 , C 2 0,--- .- .I ...1 , ' A,t.OA / i . - 2- 1 /1/; .../7.- ELEVATIONS EU ,4'1~ ic (1421~,. r.. t, 7, A. A.<, 0 0 0 1HGOWERI H ON~I~I HSAH ~ =1 4' 92Â© ~ERRierrIMI MEMORANDUM 1142â‚¬r TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community DevelopMEity)irector Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director \ 2,--r FROM: Mitch Haas, City Planner~r 0/ RE: 101 and 105 East Hallam Street, Partial Demolition of structures included in the "Inventory ofHistoric Sites and Structures ofthe City ofAspen" DATE: June 10,1998 (continued from May 13th and then, again, from the 27th) SUMMARY: The Bush family owns the property at 101 E. Hallam and wishes to remodel the existing house and convert the shed along the alley into a garage. Because part of the 101 East Hallam re-model involves an alley shed that crosses the property line to 105 E. Hallam, the owner of 105 E. Hallam is also part of the application, but only insofar as the alley shed is concerned. Mr. Donald Krumm owns the property at 105 E. Hallam and is in support ofthe Bush's application. The properties of 101 and 105 E. Hallam are both on the Inventory of Non-Landmark Historic Sites and Structures for the City of Aspen. In general, the proposal can be broken down to include the following six (6) major elements: 1. Request to convert the 101 E. Hallam (Bush) side of the shed to an attached garage by lifting the shed roof by approximately 2.5 feet to allow for vehicle entry, removing and re-building the three walls on the Bush side using the existing bricks, and adding onto the back of the garage to attach it to the residence (this was approved; see "Background," below); 2. Request to move (bump-out) the existing, recessed kitchen wall (not historic) on the west elevation by approximately four (4) feet to the west such that it would align with the adjacent non-historic, existing walls to the south and eliminate the recess. The new wall would be differentiated from the existing walls by the installation of wood columns on both sides (the columns would be dissimilar from those in existence on the front entrance); 3. Request to add several new windows in the non-historic portions of the structure. The proposed windows on the south elevation would require a variance from the "Volume" provision of the Residential Design Standards; 4. Request to add a basement (the basement addition was approved; see "Background," below) and four (4) window wells under the house and garage --- the window wells would be on the west side, facing N. Garmisch Street, and would require a variance from the "Subgrade Areas" provision of the Residential Design Standards; 5. Request to lift the roof of the house by five (5)Â·feet at the front portion of the house, and add a hip form to it in an effort to re-establish the historical/original design and obtain more livable and legal upstairs rooms without adding floor area. This would also involve the addition of several new dormers as well as remodeling ofthe existing dormers; and, 1 6. Request to relocate/adjust the southerly walls of the upstairs rooms for functional and FAR. purposes. These requests require review and approval by the HPC pursuant to the Land Use Code regulations addressing "Partial Demolition" (Section 26.72.020(C), Standards for Review of Partial Demolition). If the subject site were a designated landmark, the proposed remodeling would be considered a "significant development," but the portion of the code addressing significant developments applies only to "development within an 'H' Historic Overlay District, and all development involving historic landmarks." Because the site is not a designated landmark and is not within the "H," Historic Overlay District, the partial demolition review standards are the only applicable provisions by which to review the proposal. BACKGROUND: At the May 13, 1998 HPC hearing, the Commission approved by a 5-1 vote a motion granting the following: â€¢ Approval of the proposed shed remodel as proposed for both the Bush side and the Krumm side, provided: (1) all existing materials that are salvageable are reused and these decisions shall be made by the assigned HPC monitor, and (2) the selection of roof materials must be approved by the assigned HPC monitor; and, â€¢ Construction of a new basement be approved as proposed, provided: (1) structural reports verifying the ability of the historic structure to withstand the intended method of construction are provided by the applicant, and the HPC approves the intended method of construction; and, (2) the location and amount of light wells to be installed (particularly the one proposed for the north elevation and the two northernmost light wells proposed for the west elevation) come back to the HPC for approval after further study, and provided that even if the HPC approves the location of the proposed light wells, a variance from criterion 26.58.040(F)(11), Subgrade Areas, of the Residential Design Standards would be required. At the May 27, 1998 HPC hearing, a variety of concerns were raised by the commissioners with regard to the outstanding (unresolved) portions of the proposal. While some concerns that were raised are not included below, the majority of concerns can be summarized as follows: â€¢ Virtually all agreed that the windows proposed for the West elevation's second story were found to be distracting relative to the historically significant portions of the structure, and should be restudied; â€¢ The columns around the "bumped-ouf' door are too similar to those of the historic Hallam Street entrance and would result in confusion between what is historic and what is new; â€¢ Most of the commissioners felt that the proposed light wells on the west elevation are acceptable, and all felt that some landscaping to screen the light wells would be appropriate and desirable; 2 â€¢ Some commissioners wanted to see the second story windows on the north elevation given a more vertical orientation and moved closer to one another; and, â€¢ Many felt that the glazing proposed on the south elevation (mainly with regard to the proposed shapes/patterns) was distracting from and incompatible with the historic character of the house; In response, the applicant has submitted new designs. All of the west elevation's dormer windows have been redesigned with reduced sizes (the new, smaller sizes have eliminated the need for variances from the "volume" provision of the Residential Design Standards with regard to the west elevation) such that the tops of all the windows would align, the symmetry of the windows would be increased, the spacing between the windows would be more uniform, and the tops of the windows would contain arched forms to complement but not conflict with the arched window on the historic north elevation. The glazing in the northernmost dormer proposed on the east elevation was redesigned to match that of the proposed west elevation. The modified proposal also includes redesigned columns flanking the west entrance, and these columns would not look like those of the front/north entrance. The north elevation's second story windows were moved closer together and made taller to match the existing double hung windows on the historic structure. Lastly, the proposed glazing on the south, alley-facing elevation has been changed to include double hung windows with separated, arched windows above. The redesigned windows of the south elevation would contain arched tops to match those proposed in the west elevation's dormers, and these windows would still require variances from the "volume" provision of the Residential Design Standards. APPLICANT: Alan Bush and Donald Krumm, represented by Augie Reno of Gibson-Reno Architects. LOCATION: 101 E. Hallam (the Bush property) is located on the southeast corner of East Hallam Street and North Garmisch Street. 105 E. Hallam is located immediately to the east of the Bush property. SECTION 26.72.020(a. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW OF PARTIAL DEMOLITION No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds all of the following standards are met. 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure. Response: To respond to this criterion, it is necessary to first sort out the portions of the proposal that require some degree of demolition. The following will address the remaining unresolved elements ofthe proposal. 3 First, the applicant is requesting to move (bump-out) the existing, recessed kitchen wall (not historic) on the west elevation by approximately four (4) feet to the west such that it would align with the adjacent non-historic walls (to south) but still maintain a jog of approximately 1.4 feet from the adjacent historic walls (to north). This new portion would be further offset from the adjacent walls by the proposed installation of a set of columns (one on each side) that have purposely been designed in a manner that would be compatible with, but not confused with the historic columns found on the front porch ofthe north elevation. The existing door on the west elevation would be reused on the "bumped-out" entry, and new windows would be added on both sides and above the door. The wall to be bumped-out is not historic, rather it was added during the late 1970's or early 1980's by the prior owner. The non-historic north- and south-facing walls that form the recess to the existing wall would be removed/demolished. To the south of the door and new windows, the applicant seeks to add a double-hung window that would match the adjacent, existing windows on the historic portion of the west elevation. In addition, the applicant would like permission to alter the design of three (3) non-historic windows on the south end of the east elevation. Staff finds that all of the proposed changes described in this paragraph affect only non- historic portions of the building and are requested in order to make the home more livable and to increase the compatibility ofthe new with the old. Also on the main floor, the applicant would like to relocate the door on the east elevation by moving it 5.5 feet toward the south. This would involve placing a door into part of the original structure (requires demolition of portion of wall where the door would be located) and filling in the space left by removing the existing door. The stated purpose of this request is to provide exterior access to the basement and to better reflect the original location of an historic window. The HPC has, at past hearings, stated that this change would be acceptable as proposed. Staff does not feel that this proposed change is necessary for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure. The exterior basement access is not a necessity and would run counter to the efforts to preserve as much ofthe historic structure as possible. Second, the request involves the addition of several new windows. To add new windows, the existing portion of the wall where the new windows would be located must be demolished. None ofthe proposed new windows would be located in a portion ofthe original, historic structure. Most are on the proposed remodel of the second floor, and the second floor itself is the result of a remodel. The other proposed windows would be located on the rear portions of the house which were not part of the original structure. Thus, while the addition of these windows are not "required" for renovation, restoration or rehabilitation, they would not affect the historic portions of the structure. Third, the proposal includes a request to redesign the roof of the house by adding a hip form to the front in an effort to re-establish the historical/original design and obtain more livable and legal upstairs rooms without adding floor area. This would also involve the addition of several new dormers as well as remodeling of the existing doimers. Originally, the house had a hip roof form and only one floor of livable space. At some point in the past, the hip roof was replaced with a gable form in order to obtain some second story living space. The applicant would like to re-create the spirit of the original roof form, but with a full second story of livable space. The proposal 4 . 0 would be accomplished by adding five (5) feet to the northerly portions of the second floor walls (on the east, west and north sides). This would allow for, besides the master bedroom, two legally sized bedrooms upstairs where there is currently one. No new square footage would be added, but the "pop-top" addition would facilitate use of existing areas that count toward FAR- but are currently unusable due to low ceilings. The "pop-top" addition would require that the existing roof be completely demolished, the new five foot tall second-story walls would be added, and a new roof with a sloping element on the north side (hip form) would be built on top. The applicant represents that the existing roof is not historic and leaks, and that roofers have advised him that it needs to be replaced. Staff feels that the effort to restore the original roof form (albeit at an increased height and with new dormers) while gaining additional usable space is consistent with the requirements of this criterion. Staff recommends that, as a condition of approval, the applicant be required to submit a structural report that addresses whether and how the historic building will be able to support the new walls. On the west side of the house, there are currently three (3) dormers. The applicant seeks to enlarge the height of the one closest to the front of the house, substantially extend the width of the central dormer while slightly increasing its height, and relocate the third dormer 6.5 feet further to the south and slightly expand its height. The existing donners were not part of the original house and, therefore, do not contribute to the historic significance of the structure. Staff does not feel that the proposed changes to the three existing dormers would be inconsistent with the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure. The design of the windows in the dormers has been ~ modified, at the HPC's request, a few times. The new/current designs should be reviewed by the HPC for compatibility with the historic character of the house in terms of scale and general design. On the east side of the second story, there is one existing dormer with a chimney. The applicant proposes to replace this dormer with two new dormers: one would be large and of a form matching the dormer proposed for the center of the west elevation, and the other would be of a size and form matching the smaller, flanking dormers proposed on the west side. The roofpitches on the dormers would correspond to that of the proposed hip portion of the roof. The chimney would be extended to reach beyond the peak of the new roof. Staff does not feel that the proposed changes to the east elevation's dormers would be inconsistent with the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure since, again, the roof form that would be demolished is not original or historically significant. Finally (fourth), the applicant proposes to move the existing south side of the master bedroom to better align with the south end of the existing house. While moving these walls, the applicant would like to change the existing south-facing windows to allow for better access to views and sunlight. Also, the south-facing walls of the study would be pushed approximately two (2) feet further to the west and 5.5 feet to the south, with new windows added to maximize views and solar access. No portion of the existing south side of the house is original to the structure, rather the south side of the house is completely composed of newer additions to the historic structure. In staffs opinion, these proposed changes involve non-historic portions of the house and, therefore, 0 5 have little bearing on the renovation, rehabilitation or restoration of the historically significant structure. 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 signijicantfeatures and additions. Response: Please refer to the staffresponse to standard 1, above, for a complete explanation ofthe proposal and the impacts on the historic significance of the structure due to demolition and the proposed relocation of the door on the east elevation. Staff is satisfied that the applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible, impacts on the historically significant portions of the structures with regard to limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions, as recommended by staff. 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: In staffs opinion, the only significant potential for major impacts to the architectural integrity, in terms of mass and scale, of the historic structure lies with the proposed pop-top addition. The details of this portion of the proposal are elaborated upon in the foregoing sections of this memo. While the north facing (E. Hallam) elevation would have a hip roof, the front would still maintain a gable end, only the gable end would be the result of placing what would, in effect, be a dormer on the front of the house. The new roof would represent a return to its original hip form and this would help to make the entire pop-top more compatible with the mass and scale of the historic portions of the house although, due to the dormers proposed, the roof would not read like a true hip roof. As mentioned earlier in this memo and in accordance with the direction given by the HPC, the windows of the north elevation have been revised such that they have been moved closer together and given more of a vertical orientation (like the historic windows). Given the revisions made to the proposed designs, staff feels the mass and scale of the current design is in harmony with that of the existing structure as well as with the historically significant portions of the house. Consequently, staff recommends that the HPC grant approval of the partial demolition as currently proposed. SECTION 26.58.040. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Pursuant to Chapter 26.58, Residential Design Standards, Section 26.58.020(B), of the Aspen Municipal Code, "an applicant shall prepare an application for review and approval by staff. In order to proceed with additional land use reviews or obtain a Development Order, staff shall find the submitted development application consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines." This Section goes on to state that "if an application is found to be inconsistent with any item of the 6 Residential Design Guidelines the applicant may either amend the application or appeal staffs findings to the Design Review Appeal Board [DRACJ pursuant to Chapter 26.22, Design Review Appeal Board " The HPC may serve as the DRAC in cases that already require review by the HPC. Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with the "Residential Design Standards." In staff s review, it was determined that the proposed designs violate both the "Subgrade Areas" provision and the "Volume" standard. Thus, the applicant is requesting variances from both of these standards (described below) in order to allow for approval of the architectural designs as proposed. Pursuant to Section 26.22.010 of the code, an appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards may be granted if the exception would: (1) yield greater compliance with the Aspen,Area Community Plan; (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or, (3) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Section 26.58.040(F)(11), Subgrade Areas The proposed design contains violations of the "subgrade areas" standard on its west elevation. The portion ofthe "subgrade areas" standard relevant to this project reads as follows: All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street facing side(s) of a building must be entirely recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the buildingfacade which is closest to the street. On the proposed west elevation, the three (3) northerly lightwells would extend closer to the street than the vertical plane established by the portion of the facade closest to the street. The southerly lightwell (under the shed/garage) would be recessed far enough back to not constitute a violation of this standard. There are, in staff' s estimation, reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints that would justify granting a variance for the proposed lightwells. First, these lightwells represent the minimum necessary to comply with ingress and egress requirements ofthe Uniform Building Code. Next, the lightwells would not function well on the east elevation due to the need/desire to maintain an efficient layout of mechanical equipment and storage areas in the proposed design. That is, the mechanical equipment has been located such that it would be efficiently "stacked" below the facilities it would serve, and the stairs down to the basement are located such that they would function with the existing floors and stairs above. Also, the area below these stairs is only useful as a storage area. Thus, these facilities need to be located on the eastern side of the basement, meaning the bedrooms and associated ingress/egress windows need to be located on the west side. Further, the property has and unusual amount of undeveloped right-of-way adjacent to it, and this right-of-way would have the effect of keeping the lightwells some thirty to thirty-five feet from the street 7 . t, * Given these considerations, staff recommends approval of the west elevation lightwells as proposed, finding that they are clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Section 26.58.040(F)(12), Volume The proposed design contains violations of the "Volume" standard on its south elevation. The "volume" standard reads as follows: For the purpose of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a building or portion thereof whose principal use is residential, a determination shall be made as to its interior plate heights. All areas with an exterior expression of a plate height of greater than ten (10) feet, shelli be counted as two (2) squarefeetfor each one (1) square foot offloor area. Exterior expression shall be defined as 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 thefinished.floor. Simply put, as it relates to the subject case, this standard requires that there be no windows (facade penetrations/fenestration) in any areas that lie between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the height ofthe first or second story floors (plate height). Given the lack of compliance with the "volume" standard, the applicant is left with the choice of pursuing one of the following three (3) options. First, the applicant could accept the two-to-one (2:1) floor area penalty for each violating window while ensuring that the entire building, including FAR penalties, would fall within set FAR limitations. Second, they could redesign the proposed structure such that the new form would comply with the "volume" standard, as well as the rest of the residential design standards. Lastly, the applicant could appeal staffs findings to the Design Review Appeal Board. Rather than accept the floor area penalties (the design utilizes close to all of the allowable floor area for the site) or redesign the proposed residence, the applicant has chosen to seek a variance from the "volume" standard. Consequently, if variances are not granted, the applicant would have to create new designs that would comply with the volume standard. If a variance is to be granted, it must be justified according to one of the three variance criteria outlined above. According to the pending revisions to the Residential Design Standards, the purpose/intent of the 'Nolumâ‚¬' standard"is to ensure that each residential building has street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions." Although pending code amendments do not hold any force in the review of current applications, staff felt this information might be helpful in understanding the issues/concerns that the volume standard attempts to address. Since the proposed design does not yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan, if the requested variance is to be justified, it would need to be on the grounds that either the proposed design is necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, or the proposed design more effectively provides street-facing architectural details and elements which provide 8 human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions than would a design that meets the exact letter of the "Volume" standard. In terms of site specific constraints, staff does not believe there to be any physical characteristics related to the site that would preclude a design that would conform to the "volume" standard. With regard to the proposed design more effectively providing street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions than would a design that meets the exact letter of the "Volume" standard, staff feels that the requested variance should be granted on these grounds. A "volume" variance is being requested only for the south elevation, and staff does not feel that this would have an impact on the scale of the structure in relation to the street. Also, on the facade for which a "volume" variance is requested, the noncomplying glazing resides in gable-ends and is broken ,up into separated windows (i.e., not a continuous sheeâ‚¬span of glazing), and these windows would be obscured by the roof forms and balconies in front ofthem. The proposed glazing is not typical of the sort of glazing that the "volume" standard was intended to eliminate. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the staff recommendation (below), as well as any of the following alternatives: 1) Grant final approval to the partial demolition application as submitted; 2) Grant final approval to the partial demolition application with conditions to be met prior to building permit issuance; 3) Table action to a date certain in order to allow the applicant further time for restudy (specific recommendations should be offered); or, 4) Deny the partial demolition application as submitted, finding that the application does not meet the applicable Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the following: 1. In the event that the existing building is to be lifted, the applicant shall be required to provide a letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 prior to building permit issuance to ensure the safe relocation of the structure back onto its new foundation. 2. The applicant shall provide information as to the current appearance ofthe foundation. This appearancomust be retained or recreated when the building is set back in place. The house shall be placed back on the new foundation, set at the exact elevation as the house currently sits. , 1 / C --7;i~ <22 cOl /4 Ce-Â«7.<20 9 3. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit a structural report addressing the capability of the historig to withstand the construction of a basement given the construction technique to be used. Â·yltâ€ž____ 3 4. Approval of the proposed "bump-out" of the recessed portion of the west elevation and the proposed double-hung window to the south of the currently recessed portion be approved as proposed provided the window trim design and materials be approved by the assigned HPC monitor prior to installation. 3. Denial of the proposed door (leading to the basement) on the historic portion of the east elevation-_ (~l-L- L L q.-2--Â·Â£ 0 i-~~~ 6. All proposed windows on the non-historic portion (southerly end) of the east elevation be ~ approved as proposed provided the window trim design and materials be approved by the assigned HPC monitor prior to installation. 7. All changes to the south elevation be approved as proposed, including a variance from the "Volume" provision ofthe Residential Design Standards. 8. Approval of a variance from the "Subgrade Areas" provision of the Residential Design Standards as it relates to all lightwells on the west elevation based on a finding that such a -variance is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. 9. Approval of the proposed second story and roof changes as currently proposed, subject to review and approval of materials by the assigned HPC monitor. 10. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a decision-making body having the authority to do so. ATTACIIMENTS: Exhibit "A" - Applicant's Revised Submittal Package, including: - revised elevations - revised project status and summary update (dated 6/2/98) - letter from neighbor at 123 E. Hallam 10 PROJECT STATUS SUMMARY & UPDATE: 6/2/98 101 East Hallam - Home and Alley Shed Restoration/Remodel - Bush Property REMINDER: There are 2 Inventoried (NOT Landmarked) Historic elements: a) Most of the brickfront Portion of the I* floor of the Bush house and b) The attey shed thatis on both the Bushand the Krumm properties. Per approvals granted 32!3198 the remaining remodelonly applies io the Bush property at 10! East Hailam. SUMMARY APPROVALS GRANTED by BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT at 5/7/98 meeting: 1. South side setback vartance for shed conversion :0 garage at 101 East Hallam and Soulh side Setback variance for shed roof to be lifted 2 4 feet at both 101 and 105 East Hallam. Allows shed Lo remain in existing location. 2. East side setback :ariance for shed conversion to garage al 101 East Hailam. Allows shed lo remain in existing location and new garage and associated foundation/basement east walls a 1- foot cast side setback. APPROVALS GRANTED by HPC at 5/13/98 meeting: 1. Lift shed roof 2 14 feet to allow for vehicle entry. Conven Bush side of shed to attached garage with cast window. 2. Add basement under footprint of house and garage. REQUESTED APPROVALS - APPROVALS SOUGHT Brom HPC: 1. Add 4 basement window-wells under house and garage. Minimum required by egressiair-space law. Sub-grade variance. 2. Move indented non-historic kitchen wall about 4 feet west to align with existing non-historic walls and add 3 windows to non- historic part of house, with approximately a 1.4 foot indent from historic brick section. 3. Move door on very altered. but historic east wall several feet south to access basement stairs and prevent falling into stairwell â€¢ Reminder: The existing upstairs is not historic. It was part of remodels performed in 1970' s and 1980' s. 4. Remodel non.historic upstairs. Lift only PART of roof 5 feet at peak. while adding hip element to re-establish historical design and for enhanced and legal upstairs rooms without adding Iloor area. Redesign and move 3 existing West facing dormers and add 1 East facing dormer to fit new roof. . 5. Move non-historic upstairs south walls for function: re-design windows. maintaintreduce existing heightl Volume variance. PROJECT CHANGES - based on HPC input Per Community Development HPC staff request prior to April work-session 1. Removed exterior basement stairs. â€¢ Per HPC Request from April work-session 2. Removed 2 proposed living-room west windows in historic brick section 3. Removed 1 proposed west light-well window. â€¢ Per HI'C Request from May 13, 1998 meeting 4. Removed 1 additional proposed north light-well window. 5. Removed 2 proposed dormers on upper part of west side roof. 6. Eliminated most of the 5-foot roof lifting and associated walls and roof sash - all lo reduce mass. 7. Reduced 3 dormers in height (West facing: North and South dormers. East facing: North dormer) lo reduce mass. 8. Redesigned central west facing dormer to fit roof. 9. Shortened and redesigned several upstairs windows to reduce mass. 10. Narrowed 2 Kitchen west wall door windows and arch window to accent historic versus non-historic. 11. Added existing posts to accent Kitchen west wall ency area and break up length. â€¢ OTHER CHANGES SINCE May 13,1998 HPC meeting: 12. Studv off Master bedroom on south end of home has been Iengthened to south about 2 feel for better function. â€¢ Per HPC Request from May 27, 1998 meeting: Adjust upstairs fenestration/mass/glazing and West entry columns. 1. Redesign columns on West entrance to NOT look like front entrance. 2. Redesign North facing windows - made taller to match existing and moved windows closer together. 3. Redesign all West dormer windows - reduced size (height variance NOT needed anymore - improves over existing which exceeds standards), height matched to other elements, increased symmetry and added arched upper elements to echo historic arches. 4. Redesign East dormer window on North end to match West side. 5. Redesign upstairs South walls - windows separated, height matched to other elements, symmetry increased and added arched upper elements to echo historic arches. Still needs volume variance (as would existing windows). Faces alley. Notice and Disclaimer. This report was written by Alan Bush, one of the owners of 101 East Hallam and an applicant in the approval process, who is not an architect or planner. While all information is believed lo be accurate and complete. neither is guaranteed. This is Iayperson's report of the proposed remodeI. Hallam HPC Project Status Update since May 27, 1998 meeting: Last printed 06/02/98 3:38 PM Page 1 of 1 ~ ALLERGY RICHARDS. JOHNSON. M.D. ~ ASSOCIATES ALLEN T. SEGAL. M.D. ROBERT N. LAND. M.D. SUITE 310 â€¢ EAST TOWER 13601 PRESTON ROAD AT ALPHA ROAD DALLAS, TEXAS 75240-4954 DIPLOMATES AMERICAN BOARD OF ALLERGY AND IMMUNCLOGY 972/661 -9197 FELLOWS AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ALLERGY AND IMMUNCLOGY FAX 9721960-2205 rj 744,1 , 11* " 99, 34/6(0,4,~*1/litÂ»4 412 3- ftft>111*# 2*490 1-4 1 14-Â·(-dt) t / 13040,40 1 136634-)./9,~fÂ»U-, . vt *Atipt-/61Â£00. . _ 1 16<rl- rv-- A ,-2-elttr/,030Â« I~Â»k ~-41~ LO,--C n Â»99277 1 - I .- 6%41(D~-r A 0 = ..2 3,= 1.-- =a= B. 2. D=. 6/0.1 C=CE- A- Scia: 9=LAâ€¢ - ...merÂ¥ *IU M 1/4.-1'-0- 94,1Â¢.1,1,1-1- 1 5/10 671"/201%'i PI/0/0& la--1 als,4 *111 1 ms. Baa X rns:Lmjin'.iÂ·. 10 TO. p e 1 .1 1.lili 1, 1 -1 .1 1 : I -1-- 1 -06. 1 ~. finu, i J- 4Â· 1 1 1 .Ir- - 7-21 PLATE MIZ/J 1. 07.-Am.=1. - ir-- / - ~ Mi -4-~ -; 11. 1 -9 -- 128 .t 0 70.-- 0=r, -'i'11111111111111 lili 1 1 4/4 74 - Me 1 07 6 0 M t,4 10Â· Rele Ber, t 1- 1 - - A- - . /1 no. cole. m- 1 Al_-1 -A,*@el PU - ~it .P -8.0. r I 11 y'll 1 ./=6=*im- L--1 x i *132 7 LU.111 1 lia I - NORT"M ELEVATION BUSH KIUM .p#+Ig&....1-11 4 1 m -1- CJ '-1- =.Reâ€¢es=.34. ... 1-~11 1 ' amIZI:- 2:2-4 i m*m R:FRFA- 1 =*= %13 1- i T.0-0.-a W A 111 /1 d j 1 1EttmM 2%2:.-5014 -lf I -it--- GIBSON -RENO _Â£*Ta 8-- 82-r, -]14 /1 02 1 1 â€¢41016*vICTIâ€¢ nt P 0-09 - X10 11/r //"AN - Â· -- "//4 COU.m Stoll 1 1 .. U == . =. 1 2 1 , 117 1 ...4. r , 161 L-J L--1 ~~~ SOUT'M ELEVATION A4.0 S. h - EIEVATIONS -- ~44444 lE[CIOWEIN HONE[ HEAH C:\_Projects\Bl.~sh-34.dwg Mon Jun 01 15: 58: 00 1998 -O. *108,1 0190 ./ 00 08.N BY- iN O.00 .91Â¢-es .telle nam 8//7.8 - SeD Â§71/11(71/0 Pgo,â€¢u 1 'GBOO EE 20> 11 1 1 ~ 1/40=1'-0- -Â© =* 1- 1-41. *1,01 2)1*rJ - TO. .1.*TE Imer 1 -- 1- j f 1. 1 2 1 -2 ' ir-1 r--11 1 L.1 -- r--------1 - ---*.1-- '2 8-02 Â®as,MI. --- LA -100-Bir---=r 11 11 1 1 ir rir ir -7 r r + 11 1 1 t 1 11 11 IN: 1" lim ,"1 11 - ,"1 11 11 1 11 11 I " It l,Â·~)UÂ«) 11 It 1 11 H 11 11 6,016=J 644- UL H L_JU N 1 1 11 1 11 1 1 9/0 2 / 0 -L 11 11 11 11 11 11 It 11 It It 11 11 racac'.P'.i, 9 ~ -- i 9=========-------------------====-=P 4-----------------------===2 9====--=--------------------------------r ~ L-27 MEST ELEVATION L--1 L-J L-J i U 0 --*IR:==Un- 2.0 r/e.(P Sleg Smrbtli MICÂ»Mt.2 8 -id GE Ba -0 ~=*g Ta mole amair.> 4 0268â€¢ --------- - GIBSON-RENO , TO. M-Ale MJ / \ Â·AlanITICÂ¥1â€¢ m I 66(1 a Puat Â®aer., , 123 - =========== I (010) 9.-6.58 - ... 11 - 11 117 N. Imil it ..0, Bax zm I I Solm, 1 11 11 it 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 It 11 11 11 11 11 11 It 11 00 It 11 11 1 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 1 1 ---I--------Ill-----I------------Ill-*I---Ill-I---------I- 1 1 -- ---------------------------,,---------:=======23 9=-----------------------------------------------P h A5.0 L-J L--1 L..1 - L- 0 /h EAST ELEVATI ON 1 ELEVATIONS 0 1. 0 177 HONE[(IISHH HSflE[ A: \Bush_05.dwg Thu Jun 04 11: 42: 33 1998 MEMORANDUM I 33 EXHIBIT To: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission %-4, ID -9 t Thru: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director From: Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director [Acting Historic Preservation Officer]) -, I)ate: 6110198 Subject: 234 W. Francis--Conceptual/Final Review and variance requests of non-historic garage and breezeway connection SUMMARY: At the last HPC meeting on May 27, 1998, the Historic Preservation Commission approved the partial demolition of the nonhistoric garage located offthe alley of this landmark property. (Please note that partial demolition applies to the total razing of non-contributing, non- historic structures). They did not give approval for the garage replacement, as they felt they did not have adequate information regarding the east and south elevations, materials, and site plan. The applicant has submitted additional drawings and information regarding the proposed new garage structure. ACTIONS TAKEN TO DATE: Please refer to the staffmemo dated May 27, 1998 for previous actions taken on this property. REQUEST BEFORE THE COMMISSION: The HPC is being asked to consider a conceptuaFfinal review of the new garage structure, the breezeway connection, and three setback variances: Rear Yard Setback: 2' from the alley. This requires the granting of an 8' variance; Side Yard Setback: 0' from 2nd Street. This requires the granting ofa 10' variance; Combined Sideyard: 2'-8". This requires the granting of a 12'-4" variance. The applicant's revised drawing packet includes elevations of all four sides, a site plan with roof drainage indicated, and floor plans. This package should be complete for the HPC's review. MATERIALS: The applicant has indicated on the attached drawings that the "siding, roofing, and trim to match existing main house, paint color as well". The roof will be cedar shingles to match the main house and carriage house. The windows are shown as double-hung. The applicant has provided detailed infoimation on these windows. The applicant will provide a sample board of the materials to be used at the meeting. NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT: The applicant will present a photo board at the meeting of what is in the immediate neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the conceptual and final plans for the garage and breezeway connection and setback variances for 234 W. Francis St., subject to the following conditions: 1. The garage will be constructed with the materials indicated and location set forth on the drawings submitted, dated Received, May 29, 1998 in the Community Development Dept.; 2. The proposed garage shall be granted the following variances: the rear yard setback shall be established at 2', thereby granting an 8' variance; the sideyard setback along 2nd St. shall be 0', thereby granting a 10' variance; and the combined sideyard setback shall be 2'8", thereby Â® granting a 12'-4" variance. 3. All conditions ofthe Oct. 8, 1997; December 10, 1997; January 28, 1998; and May 27, 1998 approvals must be met. 4..All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a decision-making body having the authority to do so. 5 $ alf 616,--4 lÂ»,Ut /1 4--07VUÂ«J-c.-U. 0./ Attachments: Exhibit A Revised drawings dated received May 29, 1998 giplanninwaspen/cases/hpdsignific/234wf/234garg.doc 2 04 4 -~k * 9 70 r-034 L k,%11 0Â«f-6-r C 0-- rcÂ« ~ J Un%-f & 6 o un.1 4 Â«-Â·--Clui l,l-2-) 6- cz 4-kJ .09*4 qi ~Jl y.Â·-~ -~'= 31~e, L.'.v-i_~ 3 j 1 - 1 - Mullins Project Garage 234 West Francis Street Aspen, Colorado 19 May 1998 Studio B Architects 555 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 1 2. Package includes: Floor plan Elevations Site plan RECEIVED MAY 2 9 1998 ASPEN j Pi 1-KIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. ALLEY --7 0 I /'--7*K92>904. 022â‚¬ 22:9-722;Â« Â£ 1 ,0WEWEÂ»*140 ,*453â‚¬7- i / FOF- PE&04#A*T~te-- fouNDMIGN 1 41*uu + 64â‚¬0*152 C*'fl/fi + L__5 (Vealpf 184*TiON) ./.4/ V J r -â€¢M-Â· 4 1 1 .1 1, . / / r\ I I {' , '' \ p \ A \ 7 /2.1, - â€ž-490â€ž/ v/// ' ' 41. ? , Q#:AQ,22 A-/ ~*â‚¬277'b,176.V 19\ / T / 14 ! 1 / .. \ 1 1 , 1 ' 1 /1. lit/ /1. -- \$ +..4 / \ 1 1 .; \/ i r-- 'f~ 1 / 40,0./ i =1 1 L / 4~24.11. PY,1- Foq. r\4 T gt>:07* ' 1 PWAP,2- f. Â· 1 StinbOZ i 1 1 Ll 4 / f~ Â· 1 1 /Â»10* Me if \6\ 1 L 1.--di 1 E- 1 1 --+-71 ------- P . I :-3 . G 41 41/ . EXISTIN 6 PEN LE V f- FKOF? 1_i N E C.W . ..,2 SITE/ROOF PLAN 1/8" - 1' 25? . ~* 1" AD. wr **9 -4 036 L 44 .. *t , 14201,4, 7 . ~All J . 94 d . . 4 .0- -5/ /.A b 1 - 4, \ 1 M - ~1- 1.. 1 - i% 0 4 4 4 1. 4 . **8 440 7 I 4 RÂ»' 1 -tÂ»0% 1 .ARACE ----71 - - 3, 0 ' 55*67 0- -ttd 443 fuL.5 / , -*- ,.,TAR A,-2. I~~12' ~ 41 972 V .. 4 * l ----- l. f== -- ' %9*'90' 405*78 . 2.425. 4 1\ 41 :B 910# /, / - & M . / \50. . -4 -4 92 . 4~ tr <vi r. .. Â»=/6=:9Â« 4 0 Agbyu *06 li . I . lea '0048 aA g,. . .- , 3 ~ 1 ECHANICAC ~ Â® - 1 Â« b eMBBLA#ru . , Lf t / . 16 : ) ' 7 A--1/ -3 \>55Â·--'5----Â·Chx.7--El-/*-*I>.*77/4,*I ~,24 ' AUd(-~%-1 - -41> . 7 1-6. (4100'64 i (93 -1 *.4. 0241,4,90*)Â·. Â· 4, /. E Â© a Y .\ , 0-1044#ty; 0,4 f Ct . hr . r/ - 14:. 910" + u 14' 0 j -TUL_-6~0094 . ... \ *:7Â¥* 0" 60**â‚¬Â£*00!:~ ~JA 4,42 A/ m@/ ' 14% &*u. i *~ 1 Ah' . 46% 1 !111, fi}* 0.-,> f...>AR'.0,31>1 ---; 4*~i~i=741- L~ - - i 1 1- 0449 -){ closli Â·â‚¬)1 1 +fpr_ maL<' /r .--6. / \A-, / , ... -1. 9. 93'.\/ Â· r# /1 1 8---1,1117~. ,2 -~*A/~~iÂ©rt P. , ..1. 11.4 ... k.,h \ 1 , 11 ., '..6 - . 0 / I ..EL . ./ 4 MImBQQM jigp#k / \All - 0 - '444%4 / .0 /. 0 4- 1 / V -- V . 1 Â¤ 3 ' : f ff * 4.<Awuwa u .. 0 KITCHA Â· 1 0 t 2-141// / -- 4 \ 1 .4 j \ , A 1, % .1. 1 1>~ , 4Â£>1, :\C \45 / \ Lt P >Â¢ I 1 1 / 1 â€¢1 0 4. [Â· ~loffk /,40* . 11) 0 4, 3-'. /7 7 24 / 2,%, -1.%5 31- - - -4 -N,19Â£-- 9 9 - --Nwt -A #PUM.Ide . 1 *,00-4 4-AL 'i Â· 1 . -W- 1/. . Â·04' * I. - /4 I ./ . 11- 3 ., 11 ~ -ir. M. Aim 0 M_A IN_FLOOR: PROPd S ED PLAN 1 / '4 " = .1 1- . - (Aj .... .. :=il- - /1Â¤*16.- /2*v/6- 91 1 7//-â€¢G-/ 8 9 1 7' /1/SM/ Alo : A (0 A to * 412%*E goNOnÂ«62:not 0#15Â£4 0)014*{ ~ 04-0 1 1 1 . .. p _/4901*f *Er,iNNG I r- .00,44128- 4. cq+MEDÂ¢:r , 1 NeD,4 929**- - .V , - .. 4 4 11, I 1 . 1 14% . 1 8 - 1%]-7 . . ..i . \ Neu 'NINDON .----- - r=kn 4% -' 4 ong e ofwai - t .Â· : 4106 OF W#tz,LL ---,TE~ 44-I Â·4 1- . 1 P 1 - OPUQUE:Â· _ /1 /-1 . L--1 ~: r-1 11 ~ 111 6 111 - 1 4 1 -3 114-4 1 MALING ~~=r===='=Â· 6ET 1/A-11 1 1 . , tool- oil -- .. . . .. .. 7 .......... ./... t.....:..... I . I fl ' 1. , ____4- I i , â€¢ 1 . 1 1. 1 i I.. 1 .1 --11 .::.i IiI'Fll. - 1 *.243- .. 1 ..1 J Â· 1 1 1 1 EAST: PR-OPOSED ELEVATION + 1 1 hill I 1 1'. Ill i i ---- 1- . 4 4 41 , Aâ‚¬*' 2.V#13*VioN ~ 0901$7'0 '07600402% \ 1- 77 .== u-------~--------7 A {D 1 . 1 . I I . 1 , - <*Tr~p '1 . 21 --- _~ p*,t,-4,7924 ~ _-___Amat-Z@[1~ELN!HEE- . WI Â©1 -290#15-62-74/jiEiaL/8/3Â£ ~'01.4 L _11_Â·-EZELL 4 - 11/ ' ...1 Â¢ -- r I TF~~~:fl I 7 ]Efo ri ---- 0 - /7 - 1 411*=ill - IE-1111%11 . 4 -!U! 119>111Â¢11 * Â· * I 4 .In r -- . I 945 @ 4&#te Â£ GARM, 1 - 1 r \ 00-1 . , - - . . .0 .. . 0... --, 0 ... a 0%. . 0 1 1 1 1 . -*A/Aws# 198)4 Kifefe -=L- *Quew,Re- MO INcogpoRM~ {N HeW -51-AA=rutte, WEST: PROPOSED ELEVATION l 1 1 1/4" = . 1 1 ..7---1 9 A 1 - VLI<< 402- WA-% \ *. 1 \ \ - ! r.-2 . 1 - .1 ' i - --4 - 0 f . I --- 1 -4- -9*80 *72*e - - It 1 . 1 1 1--- -- .-/ I -7-- 2 1 --- - -21 --- -I- 1 --- -I- -i-*pli-- -I..-- --*-- 'i--*i-.-I -.-Il 1- -- ---1-.- *-*Ii-- Il.-Ill.* .il.-P- -/ 4-- 00 0 -/1 0 NORTH: PROPOSED ELEVATION 1/4" 6 .1 '. 0 6-4 1 Â¥*r:- ru wrr~-5*cr*- - T .- 1 + 12 - - MA - 4,95 a. 1--.1 . . -NUU- I ./ 4 I t /L . i ul; Â· 1 -- / 1 1 -1 1- ~ - atplrÂ¢+ r 91/0 117 -- Wtmt _aÂ¢*ririo. /,Me - - Q!9 7 -1 Â·. *% ~a,Lo --**111:Ek-'0Â·Â· rÂ·r Â·Â·.hrÂ·+Â·===--4, 1 , 1. ...... .... 242 1 all!8 . 1 Â· 11 i t 1 SOUTH: PROPOSED ELEVATION 1/4" = 1' C . . Mullins Project: Garage 234 West Francis Aspen, Colorado 5 June 1998 Studio B Architects 555 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado Package includes: Proposed Upper Floor Plan for the Garage Details for windows and doors I . 4't ##4: 0, f. 972)09 ' 41 44 414 ., : Id-G. 611% 4.flit 1 + Al Al I----- ----*- .*--*--- --- I. r--7 'A 00/Ur-%14 6,urrâ€¢A J : 0 1 - 1 1 --- T 4% l BATIL .,/~â€¢~4'' . - , 'N<17 1 1' , ' O i N 0*441Â£772' l 0 1 i C Â» 1 .. 1 It . ... E 1 9 V:14>, yÂ« ji xÂ· ~ ~~ YA- 12/ 42- 7 ---:~lf-2 1 \ a--- GUEST BEDROOM 112Â®702 Â· Fi CAA Ny>e 1 1 J *4 5*: 6.1 . Norm.: 048#5 M.14+1 1 21%*go , =A I --- -I 1- 1 0~ / Â·L__ _-/. _1. Â· ~ 0 1 ' er 6 1 4,0, %/96'2 Â· Alli k/(Â¥4#t' r. 4/4 -1---- . 1 1 1 b<$, 1 . le- *wi. H _____ . A - 4 1 I * 4.-/ /,ae= 48604 r---- ' 1 \ Pole,4,26-- -- .1 / L_ -- ---t---j-f- - I.-*-i- I N .. ,\1 ~ r.1 11 1 -Â» 1 1 I. I-/\ 1 /1 1 1/ 44.11/' I / 1 \ rl. / 11 1 / 1 .--7 - N \ / 90"ek e -li P i FWE: YearY \Â»<noti 1 1 1Â£/ 3 \\ 039, / 1 T 2 Â¢ / 1 0 -$ 1 1 1 .. --4--- \ I 1 1 4 U .11 - 1 // 1.1 / I PR04,Â£*S 5 140% u *375;tw::4** 1 t =f--4 , 64> 722_le, *1776. Acct595 - _PM4184 Â»DJ E --- - - CLOSET CLOSET .*-FÂ·--- - . --e,â€ž-. ru . ': C>,4 Â· 7 3~-- _- Â· - *Ma Der*'0 i. Okoff ,/4. It OFE / #,Ml-~-__1 1 4441 UPPER FLOOR: PROPOSED PLAN 1/4" = 1' , UNLoF fol (PAN# or WL %4.112; 40**80 91066 \442*tr 4 41000 1$#5666 . 410# Â·9Â¥1#1â‚¬AAS . /. -. - 40* F.,4 PN-- -*- % MÂ¥woo. 0044- . 1 0%00.N@9~4 - -1 - Â·- 1944 9 14' ac.. PBRpm,OttdAA . 2 -- - --- Vloc>D .5,bue,UES M i *4 kr â‚¬*05*,139 +00)96- .4Â¢/4,7145 101409, 4 0,6. *04#13491 *of PrIzilesâ€¢ // W>1#88*OF M~Mle,Q+Ne 6 4.1 Â«:1 _~* RN,7-AS, 6* BrA)=r. -0--- - 4Â¢ 60* purINe,0 Dieck - 04 -.: / ----- 44 9 16.0.& Aâ€žPIS4- t / - , / DIMAA 1 'K+116Â» \ Ii--, -4. '. / ~ .- -- - *,419<80,1 eAFM# CrA \ - ---Zax , 0% -- - FLL ATT 664* FIAL e,7,2.--- - - Marki- PAP Â·g-*54*e '600 /8064744/ CoF) 1 - , .' 1, '1 t .. r ----U--\ 1 \ \ 1%4 41- - 6*/r/NUous 'veNT'lla?â‚¬W 3 0*0**9 dÂ»%4Â» ----- --- 1607* 04 #45%%4- feecal \\ \ \ \\ - - --- - We ee hocw=: Be(01Â£) .. -Ar\*,# 444 , U.EL op #Aria,25 8%(c>N Â£> 1--rÂ· 1~ 6-4- 1#NEÂ»hf UNIT- \ 21- , 0 * pe#,02 /4*,2 ,59@WE Â» 1 \ \\ 1% ;EX8*108- *WON"6 ~W!*4 - /**= 4$'W 90197- \ \\ 0% *086 Â«> * \ i ' fJL %=7&#lia D..6./74 -- 4*HAL Â®05**10 482#A < - 10.,Ab. WÂ¢40,6.6;Ekâ€¢Â· ' 46. 6 04**20) \ VIA/1 - B ' .,111FI H :i - - - - - --4- - --- - Bvill:UP beNA, AE: Â·s,tk:r. - 17 OF *)b FLOOA 4*'= Ae Aae:wa e /4.1 11. p,144 A COUr. 4~1. A. \ - - UNE. CP *067. Â¥10Â©A ~Ii #.1. : -- f Â¥16 @141Â©00 UIDAUklÂ»Jr / r Â¥ '* 4 -- but tr af.#vÂ» 4 f ~44'* 7Â¥<s /0 *.Rk':L \ Pk ,---- la' 4-,49*,2. f A\\ ---*09 1 40Â£01,4. W oF 11/6 FLÂ· e ./ W -, --1.---r f . 1 /7 9 '42 =*,2,ey= 42 76*El'X *0 00. 178 -X- \ Mt#$ 400 4 4 *002.. arm*Â«A Ve#/FÂ¥ 1#26 0/MAe/ON ____---- Â·-h *- f*ftiC #A#44*/6 ' U-~19\111 -- Dowrinuoutâ€¢ \MNT- 4101- 61,1 Wi#bl- -Â£2114*1 - - - If + 40#3 9 6,0,meR. 0= 1 ~,FE>Â¢A FZ>A PUP#iMNe. WEi'%Â«,46#/20*V&,4328:0*â€¢*r,e*73 i toi OU>(124Nb aNTAsrâ‚¬>8- MNP \ >9041612. *6#Â·1Â¥ Ace,2DW6(< Â¢- - Â£ t' ,Â»,OU<naÂ£) O/.EAÂ»Ch 20 AE: Or#00& Doce. wl Afft.1*ED \ ~ 5,0/Al> *9 -1Â»1 te**2 6444 /19 **/ 2 4 FIUM,Ne AD Nmaot #Mild' MORD 4 - FURR*> ~1.0/eltÂ» 6&Â¥*e. 1 .. - ,4 .i- /4 - - 1,--- - - t 9 4 ~ 1 th k M 06.vts,0 ket# ." .-- LINe OF #leW. lori-0 **I/O 0*k }*OR 6#le- #tanN* FU=DA tl)Â·4 FeR/*teD 244,0& t . 1.-------1.2 ------ -- - -* , 1.- - 4 (011.6 coRNEA OF *44>66) C-- 6#16Â· CORb 'teleAAD 4 ..;-4- ,1, - 'll. - V . I. 700 - S .4 7.-1 9 / E-JO. Fill 11 RE/NFOÂ»20 a,Ja itÂ» 1 1 /er en</c-T. \Ar Re#MIF..cOÂ«, FOLNON-ION 11 CouNmor GRN}44 -110 - . 1! *#* ----jj 7 .. 1-EZELL-_-2 ------ 0 47 N= i mw.79+4 +TORTH WALL SECTION: GARAGE , ' ....P .- I'l./.--\ . *'PLY*tk:2,9 Zat=*1 1Â®00 5+1-IN4466 ,-4 U: 4)* FE@4-:r eND08-- /44'49/60.4 *t- 72> R#,s,#45 i . n#7 + EN PLYWODO 12204_ -1911/ t 1- , r, 4 LA*26 of â‚¬ 01LAE 4172)8904 (af) \ \ / -wm i It u,4 . \ 1 -1291 BAP"Rev AD. 168)er. - // igp OF */44 Â£220,10$â‚¬ 6129&:8~&>2672ep ./ *ea M Pr a<ter. 01.EAPP*041/46 ke NeaGef> ADJA=417- WINEÂ»Ws X / I / ., I \ .ME~ Adma:p- 554<araN *4 1 .Â£27'0*0Ee t~/7~4 _ A Ul==m 1Â£ UNTEL )421 *nedor. 7 - - MA 4. k % -~ t Plav v.f/4 1 1.009,25 05 /61 *4 -1__---~3=k . \ 64\: =E<~ILJ~4 / 4 274Â«42 78*74,172$ in '*MIS *efugeg 72 - L. - - -- -- 1 Â»+1000 DEC.c * .%Â§4 /eleâ€že 9-/1-* 4 / k 00129634/ 40514,7-- ~_ 004 #4 02 * r e k 144 1-1,Â¥ 107 -4 143.i- A **11 r ! Â£ 4 Â·*t,169*&9 *20,9 ---r----c \ 0001â‚¬~ p,*048 Â¥4114 0113+26+/ da/A/12246 - 1*Â¥SPLM,\ (24 141-NÂ·leN .982â‚¬JAU.94 ...1 MA 1 441 20 05 - t : a~#'00'420 4/Â£)/A/* 4 ;0>/â‚¬472w #&909 95% 'WA-9, 11Â£ Â·9"19#U'/Ne - - - - - l . \ I . 1 1 h . / f 44 411,409* te 0.0, m U. BMT- 4,1-kÂ» 8 0,22- .toilet 0 ' ,zÂ»e ~~~jf~ 048647;,9,/ /e-M . Y}iâ‚¬ Od"0. ,A . t -: - - 1# 16,4 flooR._ *90â€¢*W $ *22 /4.=X / 4'it~22%4 1 , 'f./ / 1: ie - .1 â€¢ p 11*1 / M I 41 -40 4 /,4, 42#ki /NP/t- 8/L - \ Z- - . 4 - 0 &. :.m - I . 4.t> ~ 19,f~~~1vJ:fe2g&172 1 Ac;.LL 6..r HAILet> Â¥ 460180 119 el . 1 1 !: 1- PE311 M - . 1 I--*11' 1 Er- I . Ut UU4109 rA 41910=- :It li - \ 7/,119 ./- 6(!PRN**Nuoil,Ajir AL Nk. Â»Â«#V Â«r\\ -94 ___*wetz?est@ve Â£*44##29 - 1 --4- &~11.,4*#74-A,- -50#G -- 1 1 - .rt.. .*..Z I I. 1 93 -440*Al-%4~2%,hu~- -- - 11 -- 7 - 10.,1 .0. 1 411. 34 \16 *b*'2* 45 14,Â£* 1Â»n- --pL ,- Y#11 81Â·574 4*4+ E -3/2 0415-7,601$1/ 1\ .. -1113,â‚¬4~t'- NULPIÂ£54. f 14'Aceless 16/ 044. , fit A50%4Â£Â£;e~4***GiG 3 -1--i./1 It - 1. i , 1 - 1 1 // A 4-- 47-4. '1.. - 4 +44 it*-T it'* .3- Ttf A-'PE ' . t I ..i. 1\ 1 1\ 1 .4. . . Â·rÂ·i.2 e 0 . 2Â»9Â§99*29=- -1- / likr . -M#Ve/<pu . 1 r l. % -_oft*,G~Â· - - - -I- 1.. t I 44- .t 9494 4 1-F-144 - - ~ 4#*m,At& ~ M*W %444. r 2 0 tz L Â·*i#stÂ· 2 f| 49 -3 43 1 p/1 0 1 . 1 . MALL) ja:OF vagÂ·r 9 MUO 1*Ot 4 2 *_,â‚¬4*L*.25Er t....i 4 2* I A * 0 00 ' W ' 1 Wood Double-Hung Wood Double-Hung Windows Windows 7 ' I 3 2 .A ARO-In~EC~ Scale 6" = 1' 0" Unit Sections * E r Unit Sections SE RIES SERIEJ Scale 3" = 1' 0" ARCHRECr AS9-9 AS9-10 4-3/8' 4-3/8* _ ~ Â£ <2* U VENT UNITS VENT ARCH TOPS FIXED UNITS TRANSOMS (111) 011) 4-3/16" $ al / / /- - JE- h . h co) 21 3; s .5=51 Te-ZO- I .- A \L #,Va a 7 26 01 ~ 2b 1\ F-- \ A HEAD HEAD HEAD HEAD HEAD I 1/ i: 1//imp r-Url LU JAMBS E?15 1-3/4" -P fi-1/125* (44) - R<c Ll[qÂ»:al 940*1 ,122*1 - 1 L -X T - lir- e L mi Â».PrÂ«9 ~rb- i % 4 BE F t=1 â‚¬* JAMB JAMB JAMB JAMB Ng 26-3. PE - N 1 00 timt V h 1 00 - BE w 7 -1 -1 . P 1-4 - V Al k All dimensions are approximate. ..Eul CHECKRAIL A 16--4.- EEF-Knqi v. -4 -4 SILL - SILL SILL : 'Mit- SILL 1 5 4 . h . , 4 - Typical Joining Mullions I 41-5/320, ur (29) -- Al 1-5 Oll M 4 9 1 &/Al i 1-5/32' CO r -I - ~ #26 RE . = C\' I d z .L-1-10 Dll AR .. rl-> 2#54*11 7 1 6- A 4 .- ~~~~~~~~''~r- - Cl K 1.--1-D 9 7/2 4 7 1 7 9 E.1=j- CE- 2-I .-/ 11/16' 3 - Â¤5 1 *ha (111 9 -,- i Vertical Joining Mullion Vertical Joining Mullion , A * E- f 9 -- 4: 1 1 .r- 1 '0 VENT/VENT VENT / FIXED 4 SILL - 16* -11+3/16' M m ' W ' 0) 3 Horizontal Joining Mullion 1-7/8" BRICKMOULD 3-1/2" BRICKMOULD TRANSOM/VENT FRAME HEIGHT *t 1 f.. 4 Wood In-Swing - 4 Wood In-Swing French Door French Door P . Unit Sections Scale 6" = 1' 0" Designer Designer Scale 6" = 1' 0" Unit Sections SERIES Â· SERIE. t. - Varies 7-1/4* (184) Maximum 1 * De11-9 DC1 1-8 ~ 1-5/32' 4-9/16" All dimensions are . Varies 7-1/4' (184) Maximum (29) (116) approximate. 1 -1-5/32", i w 4-9/16* 2., 1 1 2 1 2 a 7 ' All dimensions are 1 (293 (116) 1 1 1 approximate. I 1 F. : 1 -- 1 1 - f. 23 * a l. 501â€ž121~ i ' i 1 1 A | el. * a Lot-9 : . 1 143]/f//31//-0//il -1 L 5 -' 4.8 . 4 641 6.- i . 02 igal= i G & 1 1 r. Â¥ A 15/16Â« 2-5/8' I * 1 (24) 1 (67) 15/16' 2-5/8* S. = . (24) 1 â‚¬ CE Door is available for wall thicknesses . ~Cl.2:t~'= </- ' CD 0 6 - from 4-9/16* to 7-1/4'. Dashed lines - 2 ' 1 indicate maximum frame depth for 9 2 Door is available for wall thicknesses 7-1/4' wall. w from 4-9/16'to 7-1/4'. Dashed lines 1 1 indicate maximum frame depth for .. , 7-1/4" wall. Â·ti I 9 -~-=~ Â· HINGE JAMB 1/ I , M f % 1-7/8. (48) , LU I I CD HEAD 1-7/8* * 52 , < Ul Â· (48) Z 4 U. 0 ' 22* .. , 1// 4 4 - I '*Â· ' 28 Â¢ . . 9 ir -U, . . .. 6 E 11 . f.. 1 e . . 9 . 1 1 co - 8 ------- 61_ . 0 I-t 1 -1 L rkmrn . . s. LIT & 9 4 -9 a : - 82'g Elf ! N 10 5 8 ~ N ~- tr, 1- ~ 4-a ------- --- ' 0.11 Â·Â· TÂ·. 0 rpr:,ir*H u u â€¢ 1 LOCK JAMB SILL ' 3 u / If/0/ ets I 1 ,1-&,6.* 1 1 1 r 1 1 2 : 3-27/32* Maximum 4-9/16" ' 9 4 1 1 (98) (116) 1 . 4 ......... *10;881'10 Jaudisau HlaIM 13NVd ~-li/Â£ 1 4 - ?.. Wood In-Swing 9[ 4 =======9& Wood In-Swing .11 04 Url , -French Door French Door =. N " ' 0" Unit Sections Scale 3" = 1' 0" D*Ile~ : !J]~c:!~I4~05 Scale 3=1 Unit Sections SER IE . â„¢ , I- DC11-10 SIDELIGHT TRANSOM DC11-11 VENT FIXED ' t E 7--- ~~Y~~<~x~ ~ ~~Pk ~ R. LÂ»22 DOUBLE PANEL DOOR . b . 35 2 ob -3- . 0 . CO C 4 1 1. 6 ' ' HEAD 4 9 6 i 3% I HEAD HEAD Â¥ 8Gl--7,fi -.4.-l f HEAD u 0 35 8 -. L,_ , < '-- EgÂ»-0 , (Er<* T454%44- 7 1 1 1 0/ Â¢6 - -1 ELI C LO ~7 Â· -fL 1 ACTIVERNACnVE ASTRAGAL JAMB 4- 4- t 1 . JAMB JAMB ! a JAMB IMI I -1 11 - . /4* - -2 - 9 \\ 3, ./9 \h\ - m- I. . \NX f = 2- 4% 9 2 (9 Â¥ FL i SILL SILL 1-2 1% -1- #K. SILL SILL 1Â¥,14 ./t. WL.71881)D Jau##Saa .9 L/8-9 P//4 31 rmmir-~ MEMORANDUM im Logici/2tlferill TO: The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission TIIRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner ~~ RE: 706 W. Main Street- Final Review DATE: June 10,1998 SUMMARY: This property is a designated historic landmark, and includes a historic house, built in 1894. The site is located within the Main Street Historic District. The proposal before the HPC is to make a garage, bedroom and kitchen addition at the rear of the existing house, alter the front porch, and add a patio on the east side of the house. The proposal also includes a request to re-side the house to match the traditional painted wood lap siding that would be used on the addition, but this aspect of the proposed renovation would probably not be done until some time after the addition is completed. At Conceptual Review (on April 22,1998), the unanimously approved motion to approve the conceptual plans and partial demolition included the following conditions: 0 (1) The applicant shall restudy the front porch and vestibule that was proposed to wrap around the east side of Â·the building (this part of the proposal was described as "inappropriate"); (2) If a larger porch is desired, the applicant should study the idea of replacing the existing front porch, which is not historic, with one that extends across the front of the house, as evidenced in the 1904 Sanborne Map; (3) The deck proposed on the east side of the house was determined to be acceptable provided, (a) there is no roof over it, and (b) the deck would extend no further toward Main Street than the double-hung window on the east side of the original house; this third condition also included a finding that the door, as proposed on the south side of the building to access the east deck, is also acceptable, although a single door, rather than French doors, would be more architecturally appropriate, and the proposed flagstone path may be build along the east side ofthe house; (4) The windows on the new addition should be more vertically oriented in order to be compatible with the original house (as opposed to with the newer addition); and (5) The west side yard setback variance of two (2) feet and the rear yard setback variance often (10) feet are both granted. Staff recommends granting of final approval with conditions, including a variance from the "volume" provision of the Residential Design Standards. e APPLICANT: Melinda Goldrich, owner, represented by Susan Furr. 1 0 LOCATION: 706 W. Main Street, Lot Q and the west 20 feet of Lot R, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen. On the east side of and next door to the Hickory House. ZONING: "0," Office, historic landmark, historic district. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) 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 allowedfloor 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 afinding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: The original cross gabled cottage is still intact, although it has been added onto in 0 a manner that has doubled its original size. The 1893 bird's eye view of Aspen implies that the house did not originally have a front porch. By 1904, a front porch ran across the entire front of the house. There was also a porch on the east side of the building and a small porch on the back. Sometime after 1904, the porches were all removed, after which a small porch was built at the entry, and additions were made on the east and rear sides of the old house. The applicant intends to retain all of this construction, and add a garage and bedroom to the rear, turn the existing porch into an airlock entry (enclose it with glazing), and build a flagstone patio on the east side ofthe house. With regard to the front of the house, staff finds that enclosing the existing porch with glass is not typically appropriate, but can be done well. Typically, the HPC has not approved enclosing of front porches because it tends to dramatically change what is meant to be an open, and often decorative feature of a house. After speaking with the applicant about the proposed method of glazing and reviewing the plans, staff is satisfied that the enclosing of the porch would be done tastefully and the integrity of the historic structure would not be compromised. Thus, staff supports the request to enclose the existing (non-historic) porch with glass, as designed. The wrap-around porch proposed at conceptual has been eliminated and is no longer part of the request; the applicant has decided that they do not need or desire a porch of larger size than that of the existing porch. Although it probably would not be done/completed at the same time as the addition, staff would support the removal of the aluminum siding and restoration of the original wood siding. The shutters on the front of the house should also be removed if they are not original, 0 which would be staffs suspicion. 2 The deck that was shown at conceptual on the east side of the house, has been removed from consideration. Instead, the applicant is requesting approval to build a flagstone patio, which would not be covered or extend beyond the front of the south side's elevation. The flagstone patio would lay on the ground surface and contain no architectural or other projections. The door proposed on the south side of the building to access the east deck has been changed from the French doors proposed at conceptual to a single door, as recommended by the HPC. Staff finds that the flagstone patio and path proposed to run along the east side of the house would not impact the building. Accordingly, staff supports the proposal to construct a flagstone patio and path on the east side of the house as well as the requested single door to access said patio area. At the rear of the property, the applicant proposes a small expansion of the kitchen and a single stall garage with storage. Also, a bedroom is to be placed above the garage. Staff finds this aspect of the proposal, in general, to be sympathetic to the original house, and certainly less impacting than the commercial remodel that was approved for this property a few years ago, or the residential expansion brought in by the previous owner. The proposed addition has some characteristics that are similar to the larger carriage houses which were historically built along Aspen's alleys. The single stall door and second floor porch contribute to the character of the alley and the design character of the addition. Since conceptual, however, the applicant has added a semi-hexagonal element, which would be similar to the kitchen/bath tower, to the roof of the sleeping loft above the garage. Staff finds this change to complement and be compatible with the rest of the proposed architecture on the north elevation while adding an interesting, and even playful, element to the alley side of the structure. During Conceptual review, it was suggested in the conditions of approval that the architect consider making the windows on the new addition more vertical in character than some of those shown (at that time), in order to be compatible with the original house, as opposed to with the newer addition. The applicant has responded by making all of the windows proposed for the new additions double-hung and as vertical as their function would allow (i.e., the kitchen windows are limited by the height of the counter tops). The only exception would be the three (3) fixed glass windows in the semi-hexagonal tower above the garage/sleeping loft. A variance from the "volume" provision of the Residential Design Standards is needed for these windows, as elaborated upon below. In total, staff is satisfied with the applicant's response to this condition of Conceptual approval, and recommends final approval of the window designs for the additions. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposedfor development. Response: The surrounding neighborhood is zoned "0," Office. At this end of Main Street there are still numerous buildings in residential use, which staff feels contribute greatly to the entry to town. Keeping this house in residential use, as well as the adjacent house, 702 W. Main Street, is very positive for the historic district and for the character of the individual buildings. 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 does not detract from the historic significance of the property or neighborhood. 3 0 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: Some direction was offered at conceptual in terms of actions that could be taken to improve the architectural integrity of the house, and the applicant has responded positively by incorporating and acting upon almost all of the suggestions offered. As currently proposed, staff finds that the final application enhances and/or does not diminish the architectural character and integrity ofthe designated historic structure. COMPLIANCE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with the "Residential Design Standards." In staffs review, it was determined that the proposed design contains one set of three (3) windows on the north (alley side) elevation that violates the "Volume" standard. The "volume" standard reads as follows: For the purpose of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a building or portion thereof whose principal use is residential, a determination shall be made as to its interior plate heights. All areas with an exterior expression of a plate height of greater than ten (10) feet, shall be counted as two (2) squarefeetfor each one (1) square foot of floor area. Exterior expression shall be defined as 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 thefinishedfloor. 0 Simply put, as it relates to the subject case, this standard requires that there be no windows (facade penetrations/fenestration) in any areas that lie between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the height of the first or second story floors (plate height). Given the lack of compliance with the "volume" standard, the applicant is left with the choice of pursuing one of the following three (3) options. First, the applicant could accept the two-to-one (2:1) floor area penalty for each violating window while ensuring that the entire building, including FAR penalties, would fall within set FAR limitations. Second, they could redesign the proposed structure such that the new form would comply with the "volume" standard, as well as the rest of the residential design standards. Lastly, the applicant could appeal staffs findings to the Design Review Appeal Board, or in this case, the HPC. Rather than accept the floor area penalties or redesign the proposed residence, the applicant has chosen to seek a variance from the "volume" standard. Consequently, if variances are not granted, the applicant would have to create new designs that would comply with the volume standard. Pursuant to Section 26.22.010 of the code, an appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards may be granted if the exception would: (1) yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan; (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or, (3) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. According to the pending revisions to the Residential Design Standards, the purpose/intent of 0 the "Volume" standard "is to ensure that each residential building has street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the 4 walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions." Although pending code amendments do not hold any force in the review of current applications, staff felt this information might be helpful in understanding the issues/concerns that the volume standard attempts to address. Since the proposed design does not yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan, if the requested variance is to be justified, it would need to be on the grounds that either the proposed design is necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, or the proposed design more effectively provides street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions than would a design that meets the exact letter of the "Volume" standard. With regard to the proposed design more effectively providing street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions than would a design that meets the exact letter of the "Volume" standard, staff feels that the requested variance should be granted on these grounds. Given the elevation for which the variance is requested, there would be no impact on the scale of the structure in relation to the street. Also, the noncomplying glazing does not appear to span through an area where another floor might exist; the glazing has a total height of approximately one (1) foot; and, the violation results from this one foot of glazing extending approximately six inches beyond nine feet from the floor (starting at 8.5' above the floor and extending up to 9.5' above the floor). Staff feels that the average passer- by would not notice the violation, and this variance represents more of a technicality than an issue of upholding community goals/values. Therefore, staff supports granting of the requested variance from the volume standard. If the variance is not granted, the windows will remain as proposed, but the room inside would have its floor area counted twice (a floor area penalty of approximately 230 square feet). ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the Final Development application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the Final Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit and/or Certificate of Occupancy. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered). â€¢ Deny the Final Development application finding that it does not meet any one or more of the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Final approval be granted as follows: 1. j['heenclosing of the fron$ perchisherebyapproved asproposed. artâ‚¬ LE-b' - t . 1, 67 4-4 Old?73 0 i L...7 1 57 -531- L- OL- 2. The future removal of the aluminum siding and restoration of the original wood siding is hereby approved. The shutters on the front of the house may also be removed if they are found to not be part of the original structure. The details of this work (residing and/or shutter removal) and the selection of the needed materials will be subject to review and approval by the HPC Monitor and Community Development Department staff. 5 3. The proposed flagstone patio and associated path, as well as the single door to access said patio are hereby approved as proposed. 4. The expansion of the kitchen area and the new garage with a bedroom above (including the semi-hexagonal element on the roof of the sleeping loft above the garage) are hereby approved as proposed, subject to the HPC monitor's approval of materials prior to installation. 5. The design of the windows on all portions of the new addition are hereby approved as proposed. 6. A variance from the "Volume" provision of the Residential Design Standards (Section 26.58.040(F)(12) of the Aspen Municipal Code) is hereby granted to allow the installation of the three (3) windows proposed in the semi-hexagonal roof tower of the sleeping loft above the garage. 7. This final approval shall include the granting of a west side yard setback variance of 2 feet and a rear yard setback variance of 10 feet. EXHIBITS: Exhibit "A" - The Applicant's submitted materials Exhibit "B" - Minutes from the April 22, 1998 HI?C Conceptual Review ofthis project 6 [6>01:81Â¥3] ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 22. 1998 Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Roger Moyer, Gilbert Sanchez, Mary Hirsch, Heidi Friedland and Jeffrey Halferty present. Excused were Melanie Roschko and Susan Dodington. MOTION: Mary moved to approve the March 25, 1998 minutes; second by Gilbert. All in favor, motion carried. 706 W. MAIN ST. CONCEPTUAL - PARTIAL DEMOLITION - RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS (PH) Suzannah stated that she was noticed on this property as a neighbor but it will not effect her voting decision. Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer relayed that it was not necessary for Suzannah to step down. Sworn in were Susan Furr, architect, Melinda Goldrich, owner. Two exhibits, the memo and affidavit of posting. Amy Guthrie, planner indicated to the HPC that the property is a designated historic landmark and it is also located in the Main Street historic district. The application involves the following: 1) Make an alteration to partially enclosing the front porch. 2) To extend the porch so that it wraps around the side of the building. 3) To make a garage and bedroom addition at the rear ofthe building which includes a request for setbacks variances. 4) To do an at grade patio on the east side of the property. The core of the house is still present but it has been doubled in size toward the rear of the property. The front porch had changes over time. The front porch is not the original porch and actually the building had no porch originally and by 1904 it had a porch that extended across the full width of the front of the building. Amy addressed the recommended conditions: 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 22. 1998 1) Enclosing the front porch with glass is not appropriate as it changes the character of the porch. She is also not in support of wrapping the porch as it is not an authentic characteristic of the building. These items should be deleted. 2) If a larger porch is desired a porch similar to the drawing on the Sanborne 1904 map should be used. 3) The aluminum siding and shutters are not original features and staff would support the applicant removing them. 4) There is a proposed deck on the east side of the house and staff feels it is appropriate but recommends that it not come all the way to the front of the house so that the front porch and side deck do not unite into one element. They should be distinct. The door to access the porch is on the front side of the building and it is staff s recommendation that they look at single doors rather than French doors to be consistent with the architecture. 5) The new addition has windows which need restudied to bring them back to a vertical proportion. 6) Staff supports the west side yard setback variance of two feet and a rear yard setback of ten feet. The variances are needed in order that the new addition have some offset otherwise the west wall would be very long. 7) On the rear yard, the office zone district requires a 15 foot rear yard setback so that the office could have ample parking but this is a residential use so the proposed distance which is five feet from the alley is appropriate. That is allowed directly across the alley which is the R-6 zone. Chair, Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing. Susan Fur, architect stated their biggest concern is enclosing the porch. They are willing to alter the porch as suggested by staff. To do without the entry vestibule would compromise the use of the house. The house is small and there is not a way to create an entry inside of the house without taking out a big portion of the livingroom. The factor is Main Street with the dust and soot. The intention is the keep the scale of the original house and it is still under 2,000 square feet. The vested approval was for a commercial building looming on Main Street and requesting the enclosed entry is a compromise. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 22, 1998 Melinda brought up the fact when she bought the house it came with vested rights with much more extreme use ofthe landscape. She is scaling down the project. The house is next door to a busy restaurant and busy street with RFTA buses coming by. and a line ofnews paper racks in front. Right no* there is no closet or anything you are in the middle ofthe livingroom and she is trying to make an intermediate use because there is no other entrance to the house. You can never leave the front door open due to the dust and noise. Susan Fur passed out photographs in support of the front enclosure. She also said she could do a six foot porch and continue it across the front and then take the center of the porch and enclose it with glass in some way or possibly set back the enclosure so that the porch reads across the front. Regarding the garage the door needs to be a few feet widen in order to make the turning radius. Susan Furr agreed with Gilbert on the east elevation that she could make the windows longer with a vertical mullion. Roger relayed if the porch was replaced like the Sanborne map he would look at a portion of the porch glassed in; however, panels are not appropriate, possibly a simple railing with glass behind the railing. Gilbert relayed that he is in favor of the shed porch and concurs with staff except for the front porch enclosure. He feels something could be accomplished to accommodate the applicant. He is sympathetic to a functional entry. The Board in general favored Staff's recommendations. In general they favored a vestibule but need to see the plans before signing off. This is a modest addition to an historic house. The massing is appropriate. Heidi commended the applicant for doing a modest addition and keeping it true to its original nature. Jeffrey relayed that the French door concept was acceptable as long as it had Victorian details such as being solid with glass in the top ofthe doors. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 22. 1998 Roger suggested that the porch be as transparent as possible so that it appears to be an open Victorian porch with possibly glass behind it. Chair, Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. MOTION: Roger moved to approve conceptual development for 706 W. Main and partial demolition with the following conditions: 1) Restudy the front porch and vestibule. Building a porch that wraps around the east side of the building is also not appropriate since this is not authentic to the original appearance of the house. 2) If a larger front porch is desired by the applicant, remove the existing porch, which is not historic, and building a porch that extends across the front of the house, as evidenced in the 1904 Sanborne map. The porch would need to be built to the dimensions shown on that map. The posts should be relatively simple in character and be of an appropriate scale, to show that they are not original to the house but are sympathetic to its detailing. Prior to reconstruction of this element. a search should also be made by the applicant ofthe Aspen Historical Society's photo archives to see if any pictures of the original house can be found. 3) A deck on the east side ofthe house is acceptable as long as there is no roof over the deck and the deck extends no further towards Main Street than the double hung window on the East side of the original house, so that the front porch and side deck are independent elements. A door as proposed on the south side ofthe building to access the east deck is also acceptable, although a single door rather than French doors is more appropriate architecturally The proposed,flagstone path may be built along the east side of the house. 4) Study making the windows on the new addition more vertical in character than some of those shown, to be compatible with the original house rather than the newer addition. 5) Grant a west sideyard setback variance of 2 feet and a rear yard setback variance of 10 feet. 4 . ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 22. 1998 Motion second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. 5 [@!Er"V MAY 26, 1998 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FINAL REVIEW 706 WEST MAIN STREET Statement of the Proposed Development as it Relates to the Historical Structure and Character of the Neighborhood We are proposing to make a modest addition to an existing 1699 square foot cross-gabled miner's cottage. The original house is still intact although it has been doubled in size over the years. We intend to retain all of the existing construction and add a garage, bedroom and kitchen addition to the rear of the house. We want to reconstruct the existing front porch to make a glassed-in entry vestibule that will retain the general size, character and openness of the porch as it is now Since most of the changes we are proposing are to the rear of the house, the basic appearance of the house from Main Street will remain unchanged. We wish to receive approval to reside the house to match the traditional painted wood lap siding we will be using on the addition but that aspect of the renovation will probably not be done at the same time as the addition. As observed in the staff recommendations for the conceptual review, the addition to the rear is in general sympathetic to the original house and much less impactive than the commercial remodel previously approved for the property or the residential expansion proposed by the previous owners. It has some of the characteristics of the larger carriage houses historically built along Aspen's alleys. A 10 feet rear yard and 2 feet side yard variance has been approved by the conceptual review so we can keep the two-story addition as far from the front as possible. The rear yard variance makes the setback equivalent to the residential setbacks in effect directly across the alley. Retaining this property as a residential property will only enhance the character of the neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhood is zoned for office use and the properties are a mix of residential and commercial, including a busy restaurant next door. Staff recommendations stated that retaining the residential use was "very positive" and found our proposal does not detract from the historic significance of the property. We have made some plan changes based on staffs recommendations regarding the architectural integrity of the house, which are explained in detail in our response to the conceptual review conditions. The changes to the property that we are proposing are compatible with the mass and scale of the historic structure and with the neighborhood. MAY 26, 1998 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FINAL REVIEW 706 WEST MAIN STREET Response to Conceptual Review Conditions Following are the five conditions for approval of the development and partial demolition plans for the residence determined by the conceptual review on April 22; 1998 and our responses to those conditions: 1. Restudv the front pc>rch and vestibule. Building a porch that wraps around the east side of the building is also not appropriate since this is not authentic to the original appearance of the house. \Ne have eliminated the wraparound porch. 2. If a larger front porch is desired, remove the existing porch, which is not historic, and build a porch that extends across the front of the house, as evidenced in the 1904 Sanborne map. The porch would need to be built to the dimensions shown on that map. The posts should be relatively simple in character and be of an appropriate scale, to show that thev are not original to the house but are svmpathetic to its detailing. Prior to reconstruction of this element a search should also be made bv the applicant of the Aspen Historical Society's photo archives to see if any pictures of the original house can be found. After considerable study we determined we do not need a larger porch and that the front porch as it exists compliments the simple, small fagade of the house. The historic long narrow porch would not reasonably accommodate the needed enclosed vestibule and the slope of the roof as well as the historic limitations would not allow the porch to be built deeper so that the vestibule could be set back; even though we are well within the front setback requirements. We have designed a glass enclosed front vestibule with turned posts and decorative railings on the exterior, and minimal trim around the glass, to give the impression of an open porch as it exists now. We searched of the archives and to date have not found a photo of the original house. 3. A deck on the east side of the house is acceptable as long as there is not a roof over the deck and deck extends no further towards Main Street than the double hung window on the East side of the original house, so that the front Dorch and side deck are independent elements. A door as proposed on the south side of the building to access the east deck is also acceptable although a single door rather than French doors is more appropriate architecturally. The proposed flagstone Path mav be bu#t along the east side ofthe house. We have deleted the deck and substituted a flagstone patio, which does not extend beyond the front of the south side of the house or make an architectural statement. The path on the east side remains. We agree that a single door accessing the patio is appropriate to the house and have made that change. 4. Study making the windows on the new addition more vertical in character than some of the shown, to be compatible with the original house rather than the newer addition. All the windows in the new addition are double hung and as vertical as their function will allow. (For example, the kitchen windows are limited by the height of the counters.) The only exception is the three windows in the semi-hexagonal tower over the garage/sleeping loft, which are fixed glass. 5. Grant a west sidevard setback variance of 2 feet and a rear yard setback variance of 10 feet. Our plans reflect these variances. The plans we are submitting for final review have only very minor changes from the first plans submitted, in addition to the changes outlined above. The exterior door to the rear deck from the kitchen and a kitchen window were switched and the semi-hexagonal element similar to the kitchen/bath tower was added to the sleeping loft above the garage. There are no other plan changes to the existing house or the addition. 7 0 6 W. 2-71 atn County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE Irr--= } SS. POSTING OF A PUBLIC HEARING State of Colorado } FOR A PITKIN COUNTY DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ><9f~4-p 31 1 1 * -L The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as follows: It 1. (112 r j fi 4 4 6 c ] 4 0, Ok , being or representing an Applicant for a Pitkin County Development Permit, personally certify that the attached photograph fairly and accurately represents the sign posted as notice of the public hearing on this matter in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the sign was posted and visible continuously from the i day of j vi , 19~Sto the ~ U day of JÂ»h_e, 19_.(Must be posted for at least 15 days before the public hearing). Applicint's Sigilature DATE,#422 ~ Subscribed and sworn to before me this t~ day of - PLACE 222Â°lt'~ 19 6195 by /,Â« O--~UÂ« - 1 PURposeavs,-I / U 0#40. 0, I#-=I WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. i ' My commission expires: Notary Public's Signature Address G 10 6 Al. Adth 9-1- [11111111111'll . 52 -â€ž,L i _-~ 407-J#*64< VA~'ANGS. - __A LUE Y 01-044< _ le_ he 17.0' 109' 2 ,-2 j l -EXCâ‚¬Or T;ZEE 1411 341)21 2 70 06 1286,OVFF-~ -+t--'-' * <.1 - NEW meNg. A 750 De 27" w 4 4---- 1 I 1 44# * ..=4- .....=.--.'-0 . -I-.- . 49-952 - 1 , 91 2304 2.08 N j berâ€¢*1< Ul / Pal el,E PANe 22645 0# *AU. 6, VAFANG# 1 . #WIFiry-1 0 /~-- TE,APEZEÂ·[7 4>LAZARZÂ¥ 1 4/ r j -'Â« -07- , / 1 1,4,1 1 # V N EW PENCe , ~ -Â«tfte-~17 \/ - 4.pÂ·-9**fitzi.'Â£2/4-~2:-'Â· Fia- i , ~ \- ; 11 E -,--1 / fÂ»Â»iÂ·Â·11*fÂ·8~tctÂ¥36- -- -- 7-I n 1 kEd ~ ~ /,9 1 1 , 11 6%1*r'A -82686 Â· _LI><CI~_ ~ . 46454.4 -APPIT/,1,411/4 N#* 12,44< - 127 REMAIN R .'44,3.'2';4,6 ..%Â·lkâ€¢"Y *m. 4.>40 1Y 1.4 3 0 F,74-Â¥ky.k:f?331: i: :Â·4:.Â·yaptiyl: a / ! -rLigNBP Foer . . T>Ov- . 4 i ' 1>2094.%,j- 4 t-j> 41 ':t f --4 -4 1 Ars-44*1:â‚¬**1*.A -&~ Al-9%%*2~ 4, / L.-1/1 EW 6,~TON# i. 0 3 1- 1 . j. XI 1 2 24 %,4.-4*j977Â·*0~ b*Â·lJt~442;1I- 1-i~ . Per\0 30--04*1*, (44*~1%%:tiâ‚¬:Al#Â·1Â·tiltif ~K i f I -i~ i m , -~ r I /- . - - - leal L-1 #4 / _31112NE12 122'E- BIA. PIA= 2." 2>< 2 27&1,l,14'7512~ . 2>6712hie1e' :7041~' A.T- IS H 712>( ViE-4,T-1 i:8261 46 8 ' - /f 1 1.4 - M3 1 . f..4': . FLA N V 1 E W 6##+15: 1,1 = 22,1 1 1 1 ' 2-lfla 9 1 i :-*-3-Â«-1 3 41 1 ..354 hil 1 . 9 8 1 3 14 Es<le,-1144Â¥ Mougg i / - \K 3 TO Per/HAAIN ir. , 111â€¢ 1 - 0 1-/ / â€ž-.1 . 1 . 3 1LID ~ . 141, 3. 1 1, f 4 -9. 1 . 315 k - D . U, 1â‚¬ 1 . . . *Sm\DN 1 th-arc GOEN 1312 eer Ar eNTIÂ£Â¥ VEÂ®Tlitul-a- 7*U - 0-2 1 .1.- PROFIE;zpf LINE EXT/6 P ENDE 0 - 4-- FBRA M 1277912 01= 1 FeeE,Pr- -reff 1 . / 1 213Â«7-6/ 1.2J -Â·62#E,4 V.1-6691[418 1- 1 Li~'231â‚¬2262>.0134:~ O -4 1-31 k.4 133 Â»rch.3/L , 1 \L /7.'V/Â» 1 _37 . NE+1 tbne< C 1 VEe-r,1,14 4* 13'ulur n i Â»3. 1 3 4 F MOM E, 1677146* t./1.-:f.. 84'r-Â·..4< 1 gly COVER.22 POPU>H 1 - 1 1 4 1 Tle hAA'F 7-9- lit- - 0 â‚¬PDAL.E ; 1/2>" e 1 '- / " N -0 e *275674 YA;22 -/ - m . 0 +UBVeY INPOTER.471061 Ve'rAINE.13 FRON. IMP'FOVEMENT eu ever er - *6- 6750 01'11" iE AÂ®PEN *WRVEY ENFINEEZ6, 1#C, 44.91' 1 1 0,7 27'1' 10.0 32 2 0 1 - . 6 1224 NA I l. 1 1 / 7 1 # 2*4 ~ - 1 2 2 1 1 313-42%7jll -1 6>Er-FAd. W E 'DT --- M A I H -4-r le 267 eli EET FURR / FOSS architecture TI-1-EÂ· GOLPK I O H 22* 1 PS Nt;12 1 OF* ' -blkSMA MURK/ 50* 424/ eNOW /469 4.0 BÂ»94/ 170-91:?Â· 25 30 FH OR WAX 706 NVEâ‚¬F 14*\M *TXEET / ASPEN, e 5.25- 9* \ 1, 3 y... t ~. pf - .j / ./ --- -9 , - 1 - 1- 1 / \ 22 C N 3 M g villl 11\ - .. 14 - WEI ,--- . h - -,7 45% 9 4 0 -Ll 1 . 1 17,1 -2 iy~ <2 0 9 I I < / r le O 0 #3 4 1 17 $ 2 11\0 t< til / M m \< 5/8-zÂ¢ 1%/ /1 4 7 - zoe g m i. / fA / - - 2,49<43- 35 0 it 33-, ~ 0 : PLUN >a )26% r 1 ,-I , Ul Â£ . 9 R 34~ a ///- 4/ANS EL' . -B-=' V Â£ P 1 94N 0 - N 1 4 0 - 0165 2 3 -0 111 N DLU34 . 1 ? 3 0, 1 1 *% / 24 (4 - i - / r I --35 - - n~Ft â‚¬ 1 1, 62-75 1 3 - 0 " 2- 7 N. ' /* 7 31 --. 4- 7 -W- E f : 7 Â£ 11 0 4 t. \ i d , 1 f , (U " 20" 9 . . /73 MF /1\\\ 1/// A , \3 1 Â£ 0 CO / 1 P .- / 1 2 ////1/ -41 . j M â€¢56 - i.---' - h \ 7 / J 0 7 8 / .- i / > . 0 \\\ 1 1 1 - 32 1 8002 1 / i 'i -S .Ill; illitt \(i/////C. , - Iii --: / / 'f ) , - ''' Â· I / r.h /4 F h . 0\ 1 i Z \ - 11 /. Z -06 11 11./ i,Â£ 1â‚¬ 1 - h 3-- W "1 1 11 1- 1. / 3 *m 1 ------------ -- a *0 rrl,01 1\ 138 4 v. 1 0 4-- -4 71*,till//1,1,11/1,1/1/#/\ i ~1711 , do 1, , *F, a 11 I -- 09 2. -11 1 4 'C ta 1 10 ZI 3 - k z f & (-4 Dz T at 1,- Ist W W <1 - R , 4 & -i U 39 0 i Â£ 1941 5. ~ f1. 4 In & 43 < U= f 4 1 /4 a 11+6 53 - U. 0 9 , 2 i 1 1 H -A- - 4 L -F- 6610 1 4 1 t- X 1 - / 1 3 0 1 k . 1 -- 1 N i \ 4 L F . 1 ic L t- 2 j. 0 4 1 , 1 4 U .1 C *1 0Â£-r r -I i ' 1 1 4- 5 r 1 4 ..1- 1 4 -1 4 .... .1-â€ž- i- D A 90 64 -7 i .A i . \5 . 1 - IrÂ« 1- > 3 99#0< i 4 3 1 X 2 U AL W , D 10 - 1 - 0. 2 ' 1.1 W 65 - 1 0 A - 1 . A . 1/ 1---1 L.--4 1 .1 ff F 1 2 6 1 1 , ~ 4 -t/-/Â·Aâ€¢~. 1 \\ 1 1. Â· .319. 6 11 1 - 1 \5 1 1 ze - =01 3 -0 2 ./ Wig - L SM 1 1 -411*92 021.4 + 4 . 1 . 4 40 0~ *~Q;~6211 41Â¥\4 -0*6 426 #4~ 57'26Z - 23 6 - 0Â£ 6 /99919 09 -*3'7\NAAON, / \'rÂ¥ 70,8 ~'2 :11\*J r 4 46PHAur *MINGLE* -0 646:rc.+~ 1Â£%1/6. rAIN,-SP Wal;F L.Ae *121Nd* - - 0><147-INC; A,Ouee- 367 H 026Â£â„¢ATIVB - - %611-'4 - BALL,197-6%28 0"'6 0# Ae Yelet ME- INDTALL EXTel BRALL'ET* - _ - 6dpe, TYâ€¢: 0951.LIN PY OWNET 1 - . I /- -Ill--Ill- W -- --- - Â»URLI - ----- - H '. 11 1 - 11\ - -~ -- - 1 . 1 1 1 -*I....I-=-I.... - --..'-'...-*,----.....---# -----I--- - --- .-. l 1 1 1 1 . 1 .1 i 1 1 EAer E bavA-rloN 1,- - APPIT-loN . -----7 e . 7-- 11 1 11 9 -9 -0 1 , 1 , 0 9/ 1 1 ---I-- 1 1 I . *LEEPING 2,1- 1,0/*2 1 - AL.0,5,2.-N 1 1 1 1 /1 L. 0 | 1 1 1 1 i I GAO Ayft,\ANOB .. 1 1 ErvioF -- - - i 1 1 1**Pfs OVE;4+6146' 1 / 1 7YR 91 Â£ 1, ..--___ 1 -127. FLY. 01-mEFING, UFF , el,FEEPIN,5, MFT- I m mi - -....4. - 1 =======~- C 1 - 1 1 4 1 1 1 - 1 , 1 1 i a \ ---p I 1 -I------ -1 \ DOâ€ž ' 49 1 ,~~ 4 - ~21 1 0 0 021 01 1 4 557/- 3. ~---01- -1 - 1 p" 4--1.- - 010200 urag --0 t-- L' ' 7" - - --'.EJEJEJEJEJ ~ Â»--Â»1 750" (0213 - IiI - 03/3/303/3 : b h 0, .1 1 1 7'70. 27"46 1 0 4 1/ , 1 \ Â£5, -0613 1 1 10" le" 6% 1 â‚¬0~1N Or 0 22' VANITY ~ I ks -1616~ #673$Â«, - Gu, 1 1 INEW 8,61hs 442 5427LE 1 - 4-7 1 1 1 UP,%12- Laval- 1 1 ./ 1 0 // 1 NOWnt re 1-EVAT-10 4 I I eNEET Tha 6 0699\0 7%412%9 68 SUSAN PUR</ 270*421 / ONÂ©AN Aeâ‚¬ 0,2 21*84 / 970-927-28'3,0 FR OW-PAK 90-WErmi#*TWEEF-7- leÂ¥'EN 40 -- t 1 9.213-98 1 C , Ir==111.'ji~m 1 111 41 111 11#==41111~==111 - Ill Ilf!11 Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill 1 . %>< 031Â»46r *touele 1 1 Pee - /N STALL a>er'a, a,ZAES=-re --- arl.45> SE#INP - L POST ANP FU 1L'60- 1 1 - - . 3<J' 9 2260;UTIVE -1 MA 1 1-&* - ,pgrA.1 1- 0 4 bÂ¥ Ov'* f.o. exr* reIN. *LK. - - 1- 1 1 I . .--..-IL--- 1 1 New PAINT <*CAPE 1-AP &(PINO Exleer *COINgr -TO XEAUN -rEAA/'VKA;211-Y A 601,026 10 WAJOR 8 KI â‚¬7F Gr - 1251=tuÂ»B '66/ ejoiNCR ~W AU.72:144 AD;Pl-noN lAi FUTUMB -4 ve,21 4 â‚¬ OWNEK NEW ENTRY VEâ‚¬m E,U LE-- Nveer El,EVS-noN APPEL+REANDE. -TO 44-TAÂ¢ j ECX-7/4 OFEN *VAOSH 0 . . 0 0 Â¥~ PÂ·#OF 70 N 41-U â‚¬>cr/6, 69Â¥Ab.\~ .. El F -1 l A T --1- ,Â·.- Â«4*- + i '9 f 1 1 -4 1 1 or ...7...e 4 ./ - - Â· ..Â· . :: - Â·Â·Â· ~ trÂ·-At' "Â· - 93<16-TirÂ·44 FZAQF -129 126/9.11 1 N 1 -14~ - i , 1./ -- .-- -27.2 ____ r 2%11 --- . FAE. .f fi i 1/ 111 -- . % ..Â· rÂ· , 2-....Â·u '. 1- . e - - 1 / 11 1/ le-B-49/4â‚¬,7~LACT e>crtr r Â«1-9 14 20 7â€¢KCH WOOF I 1 - -- 11 - . \ ____ 4/. $ 49Â· .. E=23 -- 7~ 141Â·f ' 7-Â·u Â·Â· *E;*t~kkt -t- . Bilâ‚¬,T'dr PLANTEK | ~.----- I *....-I.I- - i 1 NGW *IPINÂ£* ND PEÂ·le: 617121,104 Ic /9.:91~ FL..A hi ' lk'*IPS ENT'21/ VE*Tipul-5 - ~- At2:71-T-Im,4 -~ --EEZIET--578"-7-7--3"TAFFiEZ, F)141444 -17 MA-/41 Si<jerthLA 4 - - - - -- - ---1 New EN-ner veâ‚¬-rl'PULE *OUTH S LE-VATION FURR / FOSS-architecture -IM-LEEE.LEHABEIR@MAE 4 0,4 41+E gr 6Uetxk PURR / 80* 421 f #NOWN.&69 60 816154~ â‚¬71.0-023 -2.620 PIA. OE PÂ« -706, WeeT NAN er,zeer-/ Af>Per\, GO 5-25'18 03 L=T=-- EXHIBIT CE MEMORANDUM 1 AVO 9 g TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 1-1 THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Director ruÂ»J [Acting Historic Preservation Officer] 7-0., - l RE: 208 1/2 E. Main Street (Behind Gracy's)--- Minor Review DATE: June 10,1998 SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to fully enclose the existing courtyard on the northwest corner of the outbuilding and return it to its original form using existing materials. A new exterior door and a new window (both of which will be relocated from the interior of the courtyard) will be added. The enclosure will be approximately 60 square feet in size, well within the 250 s.f. limitation for minor review. The applicant is - making this request in order to increase the office space of the tenant, Tim Semrau, at this location. APPLICANT: Claudette Carter, represented by Tim Semrau. LOCATION: 208 1/2 E. Main Street (small outbuilding behind Gracy's in the alley) PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. The subject building is not an historic landmark, but falls within property that is landmarked (202 and 208 [Gracy's] E. Main) and is within the boundaries of the Main Street "H," Historic Overlay District. Though this building appears old, it was not included in the original inventory and is not considered landmarked. The only reference on the inventory sheet (see Exhibit "B") is "livestock shed, approximately 120 square feet". 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this 1 section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: The proposed changes to the livestock shed office are compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with the adjacent parcels within the "H," Historic Overlay District. There are no variances being requested, and the setbacks will not extend beyond the existing enclosed floorplan as indicated on the attached site plan (see sheet A-1 of application). 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposedfor development. Response: The proposed development will have little to no affect on the character of the neighborhood. The office building exists, and the small addition will just formalize the enclosure with a more substantial roof and walls. The existing door and window located within the interior of the courtyard will be re-used. The enclosure will be clad with rusted metal siding to match the existing along the north elevation. The west elevation will be wood-sided to match the existing (using materials from inside the courtyard). The roof will have a slight change in pitch, but will match the existing tin roof (please refer to drawing A-3 of the application). The zoning officer has reviewed this proposal and has indicated that there will be no net increase in floor area as the enclosure with roof struqture was already included in previous FAR calculations. Once completed, the change should be relatively imperceptible to persons who travel through the alleys. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposedfor development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The proposed change would not detract from the historic significance of the designated historic structures located on the parcel or from those located on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish *om the architectural character and integrity Of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposed development will not diminish the architectural character or integrity of any historic structure. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any ofthe following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the Minor Development application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the Minor Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 2 â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) â€¢ Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the proposed changes to 208 1/2 E. Main Street, with the following conditions: 1. The siding shall. match the existing rusted metal along the north elevation and the vertical wood siding along the west elevation. 2. The roof material will match the existing tin, with a modified pitch as shown in the drawings. 3. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a decision-making body having the authority to do so. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the proposed changes to 208 1/2 E. Main Street with the conditions recommended in the staff memorandum dated June 10, 1998." EXHIBITS: Exhibit "A" - The submitted application. Exhibit "B" - Historic Architectural Building/Structure Form (Inventory) 3 r L ' EXHIBIT JO Â¥ 1 6 AL<fa' - 0~ ~ 1 6-dip_-9 . ,. ** 14 7.-L .4 u . ...*:..tz g. I. t, EXHIBIT 1.-4 F)Â¢rt ,#, r ".A" . - 9â‚¬ME -LA Ieep-- I . dA,22= . I. Â· f.-4 â‚¬- --772-mr =0 4 11" 1 1 al Â·â€¢ 4 Â» 11" kiu 1. 1 .t -Â» /,1/':,f. l _i 'Â·liyl~!1' f ; -1 El - Â»U = *h= .-- 95 1 7Â»7,~-.2. 2 44 - 4'b- 4. 1 2 Â·.... , 1 24 + ./. I & t>7- Â¥54 - -- * 4 --3-- 42 0 / 9 L YAI, Â· 1/..--4.2.-' , D ' 1 R E EN CLot E 0 1.1 L , \ J ~ 0 k. '''.J 1. 427 I .. -.- - . I ., r 4 '4& 1% 95 7.-Â«t- 5 kÂ«lit-EÂ»Jg ------- 4-5. UL, ~ 7943fli=-2,:~ - 0Â£ e _2"AL= 2 1 re-.4 "Am /-1 E , 06-r- . 1 .hu 1 Al' 0 = . 4111 â‚¬. .Nir . 4 ih A %<-4 - -=-6- /4 .-. - ... & 6-R A cr s 0 ~- 1 ~ \ 4.1.1 ) 4;Â»emrau Building 4 Design 208 1/2 E. Main, Aspen, Co 81611 "plan/design/build" [970] 925-6447; Fax; [970] 925-6437 5/20/98 To; Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development From; Claudette Carter RE; Minor remodel of Gracy's office. Timothy Semrau, of Semrau Building and Design, is my authorized representative for the Gracy's office project. I am the owner of Gracy' s. Claudette Carter - CLU{_11 - + l l. l.Â·t 32 l, L.'i V );L ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Application Package Contents Following is an application for minor development review at HPC. Included in this package are: 1. Attachment 1- Application form 2. Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form 3. Attachment 3- Description of general requirements for a complete development application 4. Attachment 4- Description of specific requirements for a complete development application to HPC 5. Attachment 5- Applicable review standards on which HPC will base its decision 6. Attachment 6- General summary of the HPC review process 7. Attachment 7- Definition of minor development To submit a complete applicationl fill out Attachments 1 and 2, include ail items listed on Attachments 3 and 4, and provide any other information necessary to clarify the project. A pre-application conference is strongly recommended so that the appropriate review process and submission requirements can be discussed. In addition, other reviews, such as those before the Planning and Zoning Commission, which may be required by the Aspen Municipal Code can be identified at this time. A consultation with the Zoning Officer and Building Department is also recommended early in the application process. TWO COPIES OF ALL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS IN A FORMAT NO LARGER THAN 11"X17" ARE REQUIRED. FOR GRAPHICS WHICH ARE LARGER THAN 11"X17," SUBMIT TWELVE SETS OF PRINTS. ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. project name G/2/9-CY; O 99/C â‚¬ 2. Project location 20,R :/1- 2, A/!O, u , /4-SPe'lu R16ll (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning 4. Lot size 6 300 5 j~ 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number (.4,400971-e /-A <72' 4 D 373 FOP(21â‚¬ Creet &21, 84-09*Cr */62, (mo) 91,-9267 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number -7-7,4 54,1 mu, SPA,Â£#0 lot '/2- 2. Ma; *4. A-5 85 N 7,0-&99-7 Aw, 1/,5 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD >C Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision TexUMap Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review Lot SpliULot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) 1 R DON< 0 'fic e 9. Description of development application EÂ» C.2- O Â©e ze>u <7-nw 6- (Ine#TYArck G.D Re TL, w *175 92/6-/#wat. uâ‚¬ COA~) IT/DA) P-KI< 3, dr N A-Tee-( trur 10. Have you completed and attached the following? Attachment 1- Land use application form Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form ~ Response to Attachment 3 Response to Attachment 4 lili llllllll ATTACHMENTZ DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant: C LA-00 2-Tre CA-n:re AL Address: 1.02, ZOR, 2087,- E. MA/,0 ~/9 9-7-K 509 213 CfeeK RÂ©AO, , Zone district: B #sm-rl Lot size: 6 300 s p Existing FAR: 3600 54 PTÂ· Allowable FAR: 4.-~f~=--0- PAR- 9-9 0 0 Proposed FAR: 31.00 a#ze*â€¢* INr A.deÂ£ A-,oU,17,0.0 Existing net leasable (commercial): Re"Al N& Tkf 1ANf Proposed net leasable (commercial): . , Existing % of site coverage: 0 Proposed % of site coverage: 4 4- 9 Existing % of open space: -L Proposed % of open space: 1 6 /, Existing maximum height: Principal bida: Accesorv blda: Proposed max. height: Principal blda: Accessorv bldg: Proposed % of demolition: Existing number of bedrooms: Proposed number of bedrooms: Existing on-site parking spaces: On-site parking spaces required: Setbacks Existing: Minimum required: Proposed: Front: Front: Front: Rean Rear: Rear: Combined Combined Combined FronUrear: Front/rear: FronUrear: S ide: S ide: Side: Side: Side: Side: Combined Combined Combined S ides: Sides: Sides: Existing nonconformities or encroachments: Â·Â· Variations requested: (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.ft, site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O zone districts) ATTACHMENT 3 GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS All development applications must include the following information: 1. The applicant's name, address, and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the namel address, and telephone number of any representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 2. The street address and legal description of the parcel on which the development is proposed to occur. 3. A disclosure of ownership of the parcel on which the development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practide in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the development review. 4. An 8 1/2" x11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of ~ Aspen. 0 -0 60 U w AA' UM- - U 1-J ...----tl---_-MT+1 1.4,1431 =r LI f . 1 r . .--- --- ---- _.- W .6.-& i.1.A.K.-1.1 1 -.!l.A L L AN I Gi [b (P j . = @14 444 G Lai 0%44 -.4 ). Ol r-'-1 i Â¤ Ent'tu-fl ~ mu, 0 =U=0 . 0) f"~ w- ..-&- h B..,11118 22-! 41 84~mi*-1~Em..720 r.pi# .----Â·--- --,54.*q- oopeerl-1 71. 4 Arl 0-9[ 11 Â¢ râ€¢:9 . /-4= --1 L -- Joi \ !14 6. a L.-J Ma/_ . 4 -09 4, fIPM 0 1511 #[3 1Ji JE . WIll I 1 .1 /42==UnutÂ·-2, --/ b. ...CErk...11.--. i *G g. __ -0 - i,MA.,kbi,e/CL - W MAN Sr BMAN W GRM, 9 9 '22:399=15fr-_r (2===1-44.,ND~rl n râ€¢r~ t==4 ,-1 1 -0 11 F- J1 ~1 r|91 1 1 11 1 1\ , AiL'-U ti 1._-1 1. 4 ./.- ---=-- -#-I. - -~Id_ .= J O ----M]-6 L.[ 9'T-tri Â· 80093 3' . 11 1---CD.F. i I .'-:... .../+1:3;../-7, --0- -- i 4(6.J:~+~~IEE: Â· - r r....., 0~21 - W __ll. 42]ki LU ....=-41 .01,11,1_- .....----*.-'.~--- M 919-61 1515 22 11-___.-~ 355 1 13' '-1 Â¤.1 ~89~ 1 EL- A/'0<1 164-1 r--11 -1 er.--I. I _--44-r fi (huj ~, LA.LUL * Â¥Â· 4 t'ITMANAVE. . ri.., L[ intÂ©* OLILrE{ CE:-[4 li nd, 1']fl, 1 fi ~ L -1--1- Â«4216 a - n 1 1-1 , Flr Elly I a..Er.w L u '1< 0(4(fi b + ...Â« . Aa ... E.frm, AVE. v N 8,2 1 HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM State Site Number: Local Site Number: 202.208.EM Photo Information: ASP-B-27 & 29 Township 10 South Range 84 West Section 7 USGS Quad Name Aspen Year 1960 X 7.5' 15' Building or Structure Name: Turlev / Bowes Residence Full Street Address: 202 and 208 East Main Legal Description: Lots L. M. Block 73 Citv and Townsite of Aspen City Aspen County Pitkin Historic District or Neighborhood Name: Main Street Historic District Owner: Private/State/Federal Owner's Mailing Address: ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Building Type: Residence Architectural Style: Victorian Dimensions: L: X W: = Square Feet: Number of Stories: 1 Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): "U" Shaved Landscaping or Special Setting Features: Picket fence. not original Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material and Function (map number / name): 1-storv simple gable with concrete masonrv roof/vertical wood siding; livestock shed; angroximatelv 120 square feet For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in the description as appropriate: Roof: Cross gabled with asphalt shingle Walls: Clagboard Foundation / Basement: Brick for 202; unknown for 208 Chimney(s): 2-lat center of Main (N-S) gable; brick with corbelled ton Windows: 2 shallow-Droiecting bav with shed roof with one-over-one double hung window. supnorted bv scroll brackets at front (south) ; one-over-one double huna. tvoical. wood slider added Doors: 2 at 202: transom-over-1/2 lite-over-wood Danel 1 at 208: 1/2 lite-over-wood panel Porches: 202: Shed running north-south. ogen supported bv turned Dosts with arched decorative wood 208: Small shed. enclosed. supported bv turned posts and decorative brackets General Architectural Description: Both residences are typical of Victorian Miner's Cottaaes in Aspen. Examoles are double door entry front gable with proiecting gable clagboard siding. fish scale detail; two residences connected together bv 1 storv. flat roofed breezewav. The street faces off both buildings. and thev basicallv remain in their original annearance. The front gables with Droiecting bav window. trimmed in horizontal clapboard with fishscales in qable; a cross gable with centrally located chimnev. double front entry. turned posts and aingerbread detail on porch and tvpical long. narrow double-hung windows. ~ Page 2 of 2 State Site Number Local Site Number 202.208.EM FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Current Use: Commercial Architect: Unknown Original Use: Residential Builder: Unknown Intermediate Use: Construction Date: Lot L - 1891 Lot M - 1892 X Actual _ Estimate X Assessor MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS Minor Moderate Major X Moved Date Describe Modifications and Date: Additions and Date: Extensive rear additions. one flat roof (2021 and one shed (2081; 2 residences joined together; dates unknown NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA Is listed on National Register; State Register Is eligible for National Register; State Register Meets National Register Criteria: A B C D E Map Kev Local Rating and Landmark Designation Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register Contributing: Resource has maintained historic or - architectural integrity. o Supporting: Original integrity lost due to alterations, however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort. Locally Designated Landmark Justify Assessment: * Associated Contexts and Historical Information: Important as examples of Victorian residential architecture in Asven. 202 East Main was built for W.E. Turlev. Droorietor of a furniture. carpets. alassware. etc.. store (manv advertisements in old Aspen Dapers). He was also chairman of the Countv Commissioners. elected for three veras. and the Countv Coroner for four vears. Other Recording Information Specific References to the Structure/Building: Pitkin County Court- house Records; Sanborn & Sons Insurance Mags: "Historical & Descrip- tive Review of Colorado's Enterprising Cities." p. 124. July 1893. Archaeological Potential: -1- CY or N) Justify: Recorded By: Date: March 1991 Affiliation: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee - City of Aspen Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin. Historic Preservation Officer/Planner Turley W.E.Turley - Furniture and Carpets, Queensware, Glassware, Lamps etc. ; Undertaking and Embalming, Keene Block, Corner Hyman/Galena. 'Among the foremost establishments in 1ts Important branch - of trade should be mentioned that of W.E.Turley, established in the spring of 1881. The premises occupied are spaclous and well arranged. They are 40 x 71--feek.-_bagem854_.0ammp-~2*Rb,- -with.-an.Qther. basement_nextd~r. Also Mr. Tufiey is proprletot of the leading undertaking establishment in Aspen, which ; establishment is 20 x 32 feet. He employs six assistants. Mr. Turley is a native of Missouri, and is an I.0.0.F. and Elk. He is chairman of the county commissioners, and was elected for three years. He was county coroner four years. ' Uff Resource: HistoricaT and De-scrlptive Herter-of-Co -orado:s Enterprisink Cities published in Denver July 1893 p.124 - ..1... - - - -- - ... - .. 1-.- .-I- I-. .--- - -. 1. .' ... .... ASPEN MAIN STREET IIISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION STUDY name of building W , E, 1-0 2-LE Y iiame of builder, owner br designer ZoEEMa.in St. address S\k. 73 \01- M. block, lot Justification of the estimated date of construction: Research source Date of construction 1. Assessor Card 1868 .. 2. Assessment Tax Record 1892- 3. Sanborn A Sons Ins. Â· Appears on 1893; 189% nol- on 1990 Maps . 0< 1 826. 4. other (Bird's Eye; town maps, Aspen Times * ~ etc.) DATE OF CONSTRUCTION (explanation if necessary) differe,A- d well,ng appear-5 011 184 L 1606 Map 4- 1640 . 50 rnÂ¢4- frne. berh,012.n 9 64 1 4.1893 : .. Information leading toward ownership: Research source - Grantor, grantee records I : -..-I.'-I- .-..-I... ..... I I. .... . 0 .. . .. .. .. A; - - . 1 1 i: \CU-/ -1 i.Â£22-9_=13--Â·*- - -X..=14-1 __â€¢.. --9.-t-- --- 1 , -7 -91 24=r--=22 -=-2-1 ---.-- - - L -, .-1 hi c-; L i ,' tl 1 :4,/ , 1 1 ./- 1 ' 41/6 1 T f ~--4 ~ *24 *W i i t -EL,/f N.~ br i / 1 1/1./. --~ ------- U \ '. i Â£ 4 1 - 1 / MAIN <-Ey-Al ST: 789 9, /-:1. 1 1 f ./ / 3--trr. _ i - 2041 1 r \ '1 Lo ~ 1 1 air 14 1 j 22 1/1 - - 1~ 14 - 1 + 224-- ' -C 1- ~ -~ Aec ~ ~ K.lf ' i F 9 -5-fF- 1 7 1 L ~ - . f..~1 --11-~ 1 1 \Â« 44 (EtfÂ» r,r-- 140 _j~ 1_0-r I i 5 LÂ» 79( 4 - ..6 i 12:11 \ j / cpÂ·,p i N. 1 1 V t lu,,-'. tt /\1 WUMÂ¥,1414 /0 COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Colorado Preservation Office - 1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 ARCHITECTURAL/HISTORICAL COMPONENT FORM , |~~ IMPORTANT: Â°USE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GREEN INVENTORY RECORD FORM FOR '~~ FOR RECORDING HISTORIC STRUCTURES AND DISTRICTS. USE SEPARATELY FOR RECORDING STRUCTURES LOCATED WITHIN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES. 1) Resource No. 5PT-114 2) Temp No. 381 3) Name W.E.TURLEY House 4) Address 208 East Main Street 51 District Name Main Street Historic District I. INTEGRITY: 61 Condition: Good * Fair Deteriorated 7) Original Use Residential 81 Present Use Residential 91 Original Site * 'Moved Date Cs) ef Meve: N/A 10) Unaltered * Altered Explain: N/A II. DESCRIPTION# 111 Building Materials Wood 121 Construction Date 1892 131 Architect/Builder unknown 14) Architectural StyleCel. Vi ctori an Mi ner' s Cottaqe Special Features/Surroundings: Typical Victorian Miner's Cottaqe features of double door entry (main and parlor room); front qable with projectina bav window. horizontal clapboard sidinq, fishscale detail in qable: cross aable with centrally located chimnpy, torned posts and ainaerbread detail on porch. 161 Archaeological Potential: Yes No Unknown * Explaint III. CULTURAL ACTIVITIES: Key the resource type (ie: house, barn. shed. school, church, etc) to the cultural activity theme and sub-theme category associated with it. 17) THEME Residential 18) SUB-THEME Urban 19) TYPES Single-family te.. .SPTÂ·-114 -026, 25*Â·Â·.:1 19/243%34'ki ,9 RESOURCE NO.__=41-1-71 - - -Â· 7 -.. .,.C--.-::, 47.._2177,-* . I . r W i Frame Number . . U Roll Number 11 . 1. 91 Facade Orientation South 1-ront 0 I -I IV. SIGNIFICANC~ Assess whether or not the resouTce has any historical or architectural merit by checking appropriate categories and justifying below. Include any relevant historical data. 20) Architectural Significance: 21) Historical Significance: Represents work of a master _ Associated with significant persons _ Possesses high artistic values Associated with significant events or -*_ Represents a types period, or patterns method of construction * Contributes to the significance of an historic district The historical importance of this residential structure is that it was built for W.E.Turley, proprietor of a furniture, carpets, glassware etc. store ( many advertisements in old Aspen papers). He was also chairman of the county commissioners, elected for, three years and the county coroner for four years. The architectural significance of this Victorian Miner's Cottage is that it basically i remains inits origi nal appearance and the design materials and layout are typical of an Aspen Victorian Mi ner' s Cottage. The front gable with projecting bay windows trimmed in horizontal clapboard with fishscales in gable; a cross gable with centrally located chimney doubl e front entry, turned posts and gingerbread detail on porch and typical long, narrow double hung windows. 22) List Any Associated Cultural Group: none V. REFERENCES*: Historical and Descriptive Review of Colorado's Enterprising Cities - July 1893, p. 124 Pitkin County Abstract of Lots Books (title search) anborn and Sons Insurance Maps RECORDER John P. Stanford DATE__ 10/23/80 - INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES & STRUCTURES ANALYSIS Q[ HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE ASPEN, COLORADO iqeo RESOURCE NUMBER: NAME OF STRUCTURE/SITE/PROJECT: _-CI- /.+~ - t. i. A _CL /7 2 4 LOCATION: 19 Block- Lot ,-p 11A1 4 5 1 StiAeet Address RESOURCE INTEGRITY: 0= None,N/A /1= Notable /2= Excellent /3= Exceptional (Maximum - 3 Points) DEGREE OF SIGNIFICANCE SCORE I. 7-7 Historically Associated with Events of Significance to: . LOCALE 0123 . REGION 0123 . STATE 0123 . NATION 0123 SUBTOTAL 131 II. 7-7 Historically Associated with Individuals or Groups which are Significant to: . LOCAL 0 17 2 3 . REGION 0T23 . STATE 0123 . NATION 0123 SUBTOTAL 1 11 III. /-7 Embodies Distinctive Characteristics of: . TYPE/STYLE ARCHITECTURE/CONSTRUCTION 01)23 . PERIOD OF ARCHITECTURE 0123 . METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION 0123 SUBTOTAL 111 IV. f-7 Represents the Work of a Significant Craftsman/Wilder/Architect: . LOCALLY 0123 . REGIONAL 0123 . NATIONAL 0123 SUBTOTAL - rEn V. /-7- A Noteworthy Surviving Example of a Style Becoming Rare in the Locale or is Identified with a Street Scene or other Landscape 0~23 1,1 Possesses High Artistic Value 0123 E TOTAL POINTS 1 3 1 I . Ef i - 6 Points = NOTABLE DATE: , fi 4,41 J A CY 7-12 POINTS = EXCELLENT /7 13 - 18 POINTS = EXCEPTIONAL 4, 90 N/9,73~~,il/,92,9/48/45 * Â¢ 4 , .307 0:74' 041,27Â· .r iÂ·*FIR'i ie ., ' 52' . Ali#2 fi" 434*32 . ././W'//#.irmÂ·*&*4,â€¢Â·Â·MI// , 1~/1432# ''/ .~Â·.1*041//8/F~/j.rili'.:A 1.-Â©a- =1,1.. *1~ 6 Wit - 1 -Â» /< #WhIP- rfer inat~*-- 1114 -- 7/' wal.......B/.-.1 Fl Gaj #~illi -./ - : 1 '- BIL '44#AM/5/2// - StiltÂ·, I W - .... -/ N d â€¢Â· Â· .-1 . 4 0....\....: . 1. + I Â£ 7 - I.1 ... Â· RÂ·; 0,0Â·Â·.4,14" 04Â»4'Â·e~ 4~I . r 1,4 7.:.. f r . 4 72 1- CT /1, 73 L,-Ef-'c - ACEMENT COST RECORD-RESIDENTiAL -042 f -1 % . . ---I-- BUILDINGDESCRIPTION AN .--G..0.1 ] Pâ€¢/SiCAL Cotiti,110/0 7~~-GAUKO-*CAL-;RUCM 1.,M I 1 6 1. 1 1 1 4....4-Al'..' -NG;, -ra-liNIT,li- .â€ž ..0 Dâ€¢' i.4 ...Dâ€¢â€¢ 9..,1 .... Â£---4.-A .................. ARCA-#Iâ€¢ .WILOING ARIA ' 1 1 1 5,... I I , I,â€¢Â·. I I N ---11 1 -1 614 ..... 1 ...11 0.....9 1 IS.ecâ€¢ 1 la I A...09. 1 y 1,9 111 82-i'p i I ' ' ' I .. ' I I ' ' I Â· Â· --26.~ i i -12.~-LN-_ 1 6,4. V.â€¢.Ii 1 1 G 1 60,4 1 1,9 1 1 P.IiI. 1 Â£ 1 1.....0 1 1.9 -Ill---I---I-*.-I- . 1 , 1 . ---1---- â€¢â€¢IFO.h:ANN iâ€¢~01*14't 14; FLOORS ./12[1131/ i,1 Au.6,4 | No I UNIT I COST cost ............... M . i .1....>1 ./ I 1_1 1 1 ! al â€¢â€¢Ia:Â£- 1.1 1~~~ 12nL_IÂ£1.1-1--_12Â£2?. - 4bl-1~1212!Zf~ VITZ.â€¢~Ete;z--_ _.,- ,--* - 91.3.c ................ IC 19:. _11 1/ 1 ' tt~f:3%~2:~--1-i~'1 cll.::c;Iflm_---~.L ' _Zill ' *"""" """' --- ........................O I ... f I C.-C,/,I Tor#, .-------Ll..- .ATE .0,4,5r.:.T CCwPLTAT:CVS 1 F?zt--4- . ilie:REN~ttr. FIE@32-4-72 r <1 1 1 ..E. 0. . i..--*I- ....I=.1.--- 4 ~ 60*40/**bit __ 6/, 'TE. ~15â€¢Fcâ€¢.O. . i 1 1 .1 u......6 1 1 J!*W â€¢001â€ž . 9 .......... -............. ..... QUAN,11Â¥ 1 .-, - U.-1. 1 1 6.:0.99,2,â€¢â€¢ .............. [70. .,3.. 0 .....:........ .. .. LE:2.13-3531 T.4- -1- c [9â€¢,â€¢â€¢'I I I : L It,Â·.â€¢.o,Ii,. -- .- 1 Bl ........ ,-- . I ... . . . . .... 1 ... .... . ...1 . . .... . . . . . . . IM- -- 1 1 , I 1 Itâ€ž ............. ......... ..1. i '0,1.- i-vd--- _ *.- ..,4.... 1, 1,21 ./ATIN. * COOLI.@ -*..-I-- .i--..Ill- 0 . TA#Er $1.1 I ' I I 1 , b... 1 ./.0 BATI ..UGNS , Â· ..........1.... L... 1 1 0.... ... 1 1 , 4 8.1. 1 .1 $1.0.6 1 (â€¢10.'.ALLS Â· . 11_ flâ€¢,i,â€¢4 - . I. . 90â€¢,â€¢â€¢1 Â·Â· I.-J ... I . '. ... Ii-*.Il- .......4 - -.1.-1.. .. ,~~~'~0~~ i 10,< .2.:Â· Id, Iii:EI:fi:EE:: Â°06't.My!2!F:'L.3*,fE'!!29._ 01 99' , 1 './ I IA . I ......... -_- 1-Â£9*14.-r . /-- - C.1,1.0 ............. 'rE. 1 ...4 0. . â€¢11/|E==n;!L:- I lue. 1 ........ ..:-..g . liFTÂ·DE-2-1-1. -1-Il~-1 fryft-Z:i_iI[ 4-i.. . . --- ---I--/1--..9- -.I---I- , 1 . -*-1. .*- -- rEU'M....+ 4.-1Râ€ž 1 ' 1 Â· Â· - I. W.11,0 1 $1.~., 1 F.UNT tf'â€¢?t P'â€¢f'â€¢â€¢'â€¢4Â·Â·--U '- ;.- 4 [12*1.-411.1-t 241;% 1 - a - E.'.râ‚¬'. 1 . , â€¢â€¢'.Â¥â€¢."â€¢/ ./ 1 11.. .1,1.iur, 4.1 ..1. ,.Â¢.0....1.4 ! .. 1 0 1 . 11 1 1--I --- i 27"295'.39-fit,21.-- - is, 1.H . - '_Â· 1 . / " "%/'*. 1 | --. 1.4 . -0 -, " -' 4, . . .. ...... --il-..Il..=.* COMPUTATIONS Â¥1 4. . 17.1 4..- '911,. 4.-1 !_ ---- --------- ... - ,--. ...1 T.1.1 ./ 1 To,r, - 1 Irtâ€¢ ;,- v ,â€¢ Â· r ,--~'* 4â€¢â€¢4 0'75,; - --* ... t. f .. 4,,0,;r---1-~BB' 4, '31- :~ti ' 441' I ._ .Â£4 â€ž : 1,11.1:!F...444-Ll. -- . . ._â€ž-. ?Bly.:.'d . ..1 . is: /.,* I lili . -, ... --4-- -..... 9Â·:Â·LDe_.._..-L ---lill--- 1 1 111 1 1.- .930. . 1 . ..,1 h.i,th iâ€¢PROVEâ€¢{44 --' --+ - - - 4, 1 r...:.,~4%~*f:o~j4LI -.2.il=ate..~ 'red;:L- ...- . - __ - - - -- - ....... -- -I--j.. --1--r---r---------*. -- - ---1-- - . .... I ............#- - - ---6 - - --1- --- --- "O" - 1 ..1- 0 .401.0 Ad".1-.4, 1 .1 -2"RECIATION i h.,-c, 1 0........... ... i ......0 ~44â€¢,L:â€¢1.â€¢'â€¢, | A'"'"" ; 'â€¢â€¢' rir-r-u:;z-tr:=1=~17::Icul C...... t.:., .3-T.CT~~7~ - $ 60.1 -Nâ€¢-â€¢21-1211111 i. .41 Good 5 0 - 11 , 1 7'to ...Al 2 f 4. OVAL â€¢Câ€¢LO $ 65 .. 1 el ~l-[- - - . . t Chairman Aspen Historic Preservation Committee c/o Aspen Planner P.O. Box V Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Sir: As owner(,t) of the real property situated on Lots M L ., Pi in Block 74 Aspen, Colorado I/we request that the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee investigate the historical significance of said property for possible designation as an H, Historic Overlay District. Owner(s) --* Date: -4-$9 2 3 -- 16 d ; 0 1 - ID-6 - - 4 . mao '00.4 -. 51 8 4 2 -0 0 12 = O 5 03 6 M . M.te ~ cr m- E ~ -76- \0 11 0 l EXISTING OFFICE EXISTING COVERED ENTRY . ~2 CS 0.9 TO BE ENCLOSED b P li Ed CRETUQ.go 1- N 9 lip 09.\GINAL 8 ~W (CONO V'D 0,0 NORTH 0 -f Or~,ing 1 11 I i i 11 _R[~ UEE _DJ_ __ --..4/0 -1.- Scj Job 9 L 1. 7-6 4 7 -0 + Au 56ALE- ' Oate 'Revised ALLEr Sheet No. . , 0 14 1 0-9 49r526 (0Â£06) Quoqd sua Z/I 801 I I9I8 opeloloo Guadsv . . -23 4-2- -*- - 289 m M ,~ 202 E N 9% 10-\W gooF 24 â‚¬ -, -1 = -- :----1 4- NE-w B ooP TO BE 1 ~ -/- ST,gu. MATCH, wo- -ri N - --- r- i~ 5 \Â°Splfdto \.- v,reup 0 .s 1 4 .- 1-94 (1 0 !1 . . *,531 . -41, t. . U# 11 6 00 - vaiv- 0 g B f i E,1/ 5 ~ .NO- 914 I . 1 RUSTED RUSTED -:: RETA L <C .1.. I ' --. / I METAL t Â· 6- t 510*P'(r f - Drawing 1 1 3 ELEU + i Scale Job - I----I- -I--0---- -'I--= W....I--...;'6~...~.Il--'*.--- .6. .. d EXIST,N)(r /Fling- Date Revised O00& RELMATED existing to remain k proposed addition i ,#heet No. '1 . . (ENCLOSE- E*1 STING- NORTH ELEVATION COUATY/Â¥12-0 To R ETORA To 6-,IST,NG- (30,#orrlo,e t I J.. 'sap ptie Nuppl! 9 39472:tu I I9IR opelojoo 6 S . 1 - % t- â‚¬f.) 4 - N Ch 17337=22==223 28 N 13 h\\1111 , U- : i '00 43 g 1 . . 1 .- 1 1 , 0 1 t . 1 . + 1 1 . d 1 j 1 i Drawing 1 1 . I Iii ; .. i 0 1 - ELEVATION 'i 1 8-x / ST, p 6- ; 1 'Scale Job go STED h/1 5-'T* L. 5 10 J N 0- 1 ) i i 9,/6 " 580 -. Oate Revised ' LEÂ« } 57/ w 60 NORTH ELEVATION 1 FEÂ» C E t>451-ING - Sheet No. 6-ATE exiding building A -2 \ ' 4 ' I IgIS opEJOIc ,==tj,f/nfl ufilsap pul; Bulpilnq nuituas ~ Aspen, Colorado 81611 - 1 ill'llillillill'llillillillillillilill:"I'll"'ll'llill/'. ..=--1 1 semraubuilding-and design 208 1/2 east main, aspen, colorado 81611 414 phone (970) 925-6447/fax (970) 925-6437 , NO,Th NOTE: EX15TING ENCL05ED COURTYARD ALLEY WAS FORMERLY PART OF EXISTNG OFFICE f 60' Nelf EXISTING 2087, ENCL05ED Et M/41'.J COURTYARD EXISTING PARKING F' OFFICE ~--- LOT LINE 1 Crl GRACY;5 212 - <1 1.13 LU 0 0 CaL LU UD - CL Lu DZ 5!DEWALK MAIN ET FLEISHER COMPANY 3JN3CI 16' MEMORANDUM TO: The Historic Preservation Commission , EXHIBIT-1 THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director ' UzE_27 Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Director 74. FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner~~ RE: 950 Matchless Drive - Landmark Designation. Parcel I.D. 2737-074-02-003 DATE: June 10,1998 SUMMARY: The applicant requests landmark designation for the property at 950 Matchless Drive. To be eligible for designation, a structure or site must meet two (2) or more of the five (5) standards contained in Section 26.76.020 of the Municipal Code. Staff recommends approval, finding that three (3) of the five landmark designation standards are met. Â· APPLICANT: Alan Becker, represented by Kim Raymond. LOCATION: The property is located at 950 Matchless Drive, which is legally described as Lot 4A, Dunn/Bishop Subdivision Exemption, City of Aspen, Colorado. The property is on the northwesterly corner of Matchless Drive and Herron Drive, and is zoned R-6/PUD, Medium-Density Residential with a Planned Unit Development overlay. BACKGROUND: The site in question currently contains two (2) separate structures. The principal structure, or house, is a simple Victorian Miner's Cottage that was built in the 1880's. It is a 963 square foot, two-story, cross-gabled (L-shaped) structure with a corrugated metal roof, double hung windows with simple, decorative lintels, and a front porch with square support posts and decorative frieze. According to the Historic Inventory sheet (Exhibit B) for this property, the fixed glazing, picture bay windows on the south side of the house and the porch frieze are not original to the structure, but the dates of these modifications are unknown. Similarly the shed roof addition to the rear of the structure was an addition that has been in place for some time, but the exact timing of the addition is unknown. The other structure is a non-historically significant, 610 square foot building used as a ~ garage. *The owner is in the process of constructing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) above the garage. The ADU was reviewed and approved by the HPC on March 11, 1998, and by the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 7,1998. 1 . HISTORIC LANDMARK Section 26.76.020, Standards for designation. Any structure that meets two (2) or more of the following standards may be designated as an Historic Landmark. It is not the intention of HPC to landmark insignificant structures or sites. HPC will focus on those which are unique or have some special value to the community: A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identijied or associated with a person or event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State ofColorado, or the United States. Response: This standard is not met. B. Architectural Importance. The structure or site rejlects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type (based on buildingform or use), or specimen. Response: This structure is a typical example of an Aspen miner's cottage, thereby reflecting an architectural character that is of distinct, traditional Aspen character. It is a - two-story story cottage with a cross-gabled roof, double-hung windows and a front porch. The house has had few alterations and its original appearance is still highly perceptible. (Also see the "Background" section of this memo, above.) C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: This standard is not met. D. Neighborhood Character. The structure or site is a significant component of an historically signijicant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: While the immediate vicinity is not generally known as a traditional or historically significant neighborhood, a sort of micro-neighborhood of historic miner's cottages exists. Besides the house at 950 Matchless Drive, the three (3) other houses on Matchless are all Victorian in character. Two of these three, 920 and 930 Matchless Drive, are on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, as is also true of the subject ~ site. Thus, given that this neighborhood's character is largely defined by the existence of just four or five Victorian miner's cottages, the significance of each of these structures is proportionally magnified. Consequently, staff believes that the preservation of the structure at 950 Matchless Drive is important for the maintenance of its neighborhood's character. 2 E. Community Character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation 0 of the character Of the Aspen community because Of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: The structure is representative of the modest scale, style, and character of homes constructed in the late 1800's, Aspen's primary period of historic significance. This particular house is a strong example of the original appearance and character of Aspen's miner cottages. The house is highly consistent with the typical size and architectural characteristics of other Aspen structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. . RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the HPC advise City Council to support landmark designation of the structure and property located at 950 Matchless Drive based on a finding that standards B (architectural importance), D (neighborhood character) and E (community character) of Section 26.76.020 are met. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval of landmark designation for 950 Matchless Drive, finding that standards B (architectural importance), D (neighborhood character) and E (community character) of Section 26.76.020 are met." Exhibits: Exhibit "A" - Applicant's Landmark Designation Application 0 Exhibit "B" - Inventory sheet for 950 Matchless Drive 0 3 EGR=*1 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPUCATION FORM 1. Project name +50 0/[ AT-C UL-ES De. 4{grbr-Â·14 .Ar-6.; ts 00, A.rik 2. Project location R â‚¬D M *TEA LESS -C>12. *62!EN. LOT- '4-A ELOOL I , buNkl TalsI+09 <,0-~ SPLer (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning R (O 4. Lot size 9708 se er, tr 5. Applicanfs name, address and phone number ALAN 32Â£:LXER. P o. goÂ¥ ll;1 *toot>9 (~EE!,4 45. â‚¬! 050 TEL..91-0-423 -41*/ FAX A. 23-09Â·81 6. Representative's name, address. and phone number k'\ 0,01 gAVY'/1 b w 11 - YbE-614 NEIL,120 Box 14â‚¬8 Al:Pa/1 de . 81'il -rEL. 19Â©.12-liÂ· 2.2.6 2.- D Z. 61.k) . 15-14 - 8139 0~lo 8i L-(E) 7. Type of application (check ail that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceotual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. ,/ Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/'Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review - Lot Split/Lot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) \A l Â«rolz.\C- 5 612- Â· 1 GS SO Fr. 44Â©u SE- R %416 t=MLE NDAJ 141Â·47r~, 4. e,*2*AE &210 sÂ©rr~-u&%6 AS D A ILA U â‚¬ ]11 FC kfprzog *L- f:be- kthu ABot/E e A-2.M:te oN MA IL. \1 Â»d?'1 3 p 1 96 AfpfkvAL Foil Al'Su *13Â©VE AA?Â»A-GE ow APR. 9.1 Ill 8 9. Description of development application LANA *IA*Â·21 66\ Au PnoN 07 Â£ 638 Â·41(-rDTZ(.A+J M i METTj Hou56 WI+14- 'SOC) SCR 97 -Foor?- A-12-â‚¬A 150 Â»US; AN-lib t'.612,14 N'PencÂ»Â·1 eg-AArr " 10. Have you completed and attached the following? 906 Attachment 1- Land use application form 0 b/GE, Attachment 2-General submission requirements ~~:, Attachment 3-Specific submission requirements Proof of public notice (must be provided at public hearing) . MAPS AND TRANSPORTNION EZ 19 1993 3 01 - .â€¢UU -11- To 9 *34* p'non OP -r ~ift Rounng - Basait 1 - Basalt 5-50- > tz --IZE-1 e!*t' 44~.- ~ NFc~.=lk -s j~~ Fork CHRISnNE 1 1 STATEWILOUFE 1.92 45*im> -1.-4452, 'MS. 1. AREA 9Â»L-P='ira Carbondale ~-EAP "05 -9,Zokier C ?11 1 (32 ch:ibiuze. -E~C j~~0/ir)-6 Ljke P--4-Al - g.#1 ~ 2 6| 61 ~A~m#Al j-. s.~.*vv5~==~~~4â€ž=f.- 1 \ 3#I ; t=1~*G"~I'~dISI â€¢ 8 1- z 4<3-1 #: 1.a,= 1 mlb.JL, 11 Camon~COR o @Ting )~2<00- Pli,INg= Ct- rky * p..wh-- 2 ro-Â£* 11 , -PITKIN ~ 2,-w Rd 4 < ato<IllÂ¢â€¢dr- 41/191'-Flit'=N\ -i. w -am,# Â°Â«4*6219 r - 1 . -, White HUI - Vbx ..11/4/- - il~*la N im.. MI//li-*'C:fl C> AN 11\91 \ lot 0-- (.U-Â£2* ; A\\\ 7 0-1 \ ~Reas~ ~ TO \ Asoen 1 Ch(ParK t. 1<.0 1 9 4.,~_ n 1,3,Tiot ' , 1\.1 AN 7. M.4 1 011 Cfeck -C \ / A ? \1 N> C Â«4 4 Â¢04 \ \ \S ; ' i-i / P 1 ,<I,;'i@F~ 45 i -9051i L; Tent \ C \1 9 1 F Hallum 5 Not every street or road is .. =S: \ 43 ; named on maps or listed in street guides. Construchon of streets and roads may be in Â©9 L.'4â€¢ 0 16 1/ progress in certain areas. V \ 4,4. 4%* 8 . 4 - REI St n dp h 4.<D Sm,-0,-Re, Aspen it i J . 0 ,-I - i c. e f o te. 5DMATEVLEES $ 4 4 4- 04-4 4 2, 1( b ce 844-fnels St.----1..._.GM k,ai 6 Meadow Dr.......... H-2 Garmisch S t.........1..Â£.....G-H+5 Mendowood Dr ...G-H-2 * L._.G-H-5-6 Meadows R d FLO.3 0/4- ; 2 H-5 Midland Av.............._.--H-6-7 r A-2-3 Gillespie St F.4 Mill St.................... -I.G-[-5 4 4 ~~ ~-B EUÂ¢=-qi E+Dr-- G-H-5 2 ' â‚¬ ..f : :h Rd._............E-4-5 Homestake D:u...*...............E-2 Mt Laurel Dr 1.1-8 re; 4... 1 1.-w \ Dr F-F-2-3 Hopkins Av.....:*Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·--Â·-0-H-3-6 Nent Av 4.6 ~~~~ Al. . 4 44Â£. P.7.1 Hunter q' f H-5 North St F-344< Dr F-3 .......-5.E.6 Original St H-IÂ·6 Red's Râ€¢ n.0-1-6 4 n.H.4.6 Overlook Dr 11.4-7 . F& ...D-G-2-3 Juan â‚¬1 4 1 H+5 Park Av H-6 Ridge Rd r.9 Snow Bunny - 9~1 f j Juniata SU............... .............-H-5 Parkar H-6 River Dr 9-3 South Av -- -E-2 King St.w....-6..... 2-6 Pearl q, W.4 Riveâ„¢die Av .G-H-5-6 C â€ž............H-6 Lake Av / F-O-4 Placer In 1-4 Summit S r ..5 1 F-5 Riverside Dr..1.___.........1-6-7 C.6 -1 9 9 ..H-I-5 1.adaot~...................â€žÂ·Â·Â·Â·Â·-H-2 Power Mant RA R.G-3 Riverside q, 1 - Rd..................â€ž-....I-7 EaxitFine Rd.......... ...............G-5-6 Primrose Palh---Â·Â·-Â·.-Â·Â·-H-2 Roming Foa Drâ€ž.........â€ž--â€ž-I-7 Vine St 0-6 4-6 /1.#ine Dr......â€ž.. ........................1-1.8 Puppy Smith St.................Â·--Â·G-5 Rogring Fork RH .4-3 Walnut St G-A U//Magnifico Rd........................._E-4 Pymmid RA F-1 Sauer't R.' Watrâ„¢ Av 1-6 . -H-3-5 Queen St H.6 Salvation Cir.............._............E-2 West End St.................._ ...H-1-6 4-4,6 Maroon Creck Rd.....â€ž........G-H-1-2 Race SL................--Â·--Â·.-G# Silver King Dr......................._E-2 Wes,view Dr 1-7-8 St........- ......._-F-1 Red Buttc Dr....._ ............... D-E-2-3 Smualer St....6...............F-G-3-5 Willoughby Wy 0-F-3-5 To Twin Lakes. 1 5Â«H.t: ==al=-"..H.t-7 Red Mountain Rd...............D-O-5Â·6 Smuggler Moubtain Rd..............G.6 Wnght Rd..... - .......â€ž..............._E-5 Indeoerden Pass To/4cron A A A A ' A ALPHA MAPS ~ C ka 4n,1 Alan Becker Photographer 2 970-9234171 F= 970-923.0789 Box 119 Woody C=k. Colorado 81656 USA RESPONSE To: Attachment 3 - Aspen Historic Preservation Commission - Historic Landmark Designation, item 2, regarding 950 Matchless Drive, Aspen (Lot 4A, Block 1, Dunn / Bishop Lot Split) RESPONSE to Standards from Attachment 4: A. Not applicable B. The Victorian miners house located at 950 Matchless Drive was built in 1888 and typifies the traditional architecture of that era. C. Not applicable D. The three other houses on Matchless Drive are all Victorian in character. Two of them: 920 Matchless Drive and 930 Matchless Drive are on the HPC inventory. In addition, there are other Victorians nearby. E. The structure is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because many small Victorian miners houses were built throughout Aspen during the 1888 era of this house, and those which surviv and continue to be preserved are a reminder of the legacy of Aspen's history. Alan Becker 0 Photographer v 970-923-4171 F= 970-923-0789 Box 119 Woody Creâ€¢14 Colorgdo 81656 USA To: City Council May 11, 1998 City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado Re: Request for "Designation Grant" for Historic Landmarking of 950 Matchless Drive, Aspen (Lot 4A, Block 1, Dunn- Bishop Lot Split) Dear Sirs, This letter is to request a "Designation Grant" in the amount of two thousand dollars for the Historic Landmarking of my 1888 Victorian miners house located at 950 Matchless Drive, Aspen (Lot 4A, Block 1, Dunn-Bishop Lot Split). Thankyou. ~ Sincerely, 4-ac,izJW Alan Becker P.S. This letter is in response to Attachment 3 "Specific Submission Requirements" of "Aspen Historic Preservation Commission - Historic Landmark Designation" 0 . .Â· L .. 4 /1 t . 9 1 , it, d . ... ... i f: , ... t... ./4.15] . . 'Â· . 1 4, . ~ â€¢ , . t' ~, . i Â·- *,1 , * ./b::41 k.,13> , . .... 'la~hi. / .. ' lu\Â·+44 . Â· 152;57 ~Ewfit41*Mf64 --: 4 - - a /38. iiI 4,2- a 'a & 5 1 ' 01.,1 i. M t... Â» !'. '' â‚¬ 1. .11 49111.- . al.: j-sf- j 1 .- -,~ - 44 + m _1 1 1 1 0-U . 21 .... . , 1.- - ..1 1 % -Ils= E . 11.5-74..11 1,1, iii *~ .-12 4.- 1 . 'R'. t .ig . Â·.p. U 4,1 .. 15 11 1 1,1. Wt Â«34 .Â· reti 1.i Â· : 3W#~//~/~~~~~/~#~f,WIT*/M/94/,IM afgaik , 4 ,\11.1 / , 2,/.. . '. .se. 0 li1lM I * if 4:...Â¥4*,r ttl:*.'Â·:.r*~~b.1.' e.-â€ž'.im , ... I ~ 14. f. L 6--' -f 11. ':. : L.Z./? '1;Y'.91*. : ..1 / . Â· I 11 2....=â€¢505(mf#,46'UL"44'? t, 1 I -:4.245 4,0-*m I z.:.:'.: :. V. L.1./Â· ).1, I. 1 -: j .. . d~ , 4 . 't..r ...W' I .. ... 1 r . f. ., 3%4.4,%;0 It - -1 . -Â·Â· 2 -- P. 4 ... 11 4% ..21 . ..........-- 7.2---7..:.6 1 -'.'...... '..7..AM- Â°'1[]4 1 ' 1 .. .. b 4 I-' râ€¢ 1Â£14 + W . lili . 1 0 t .1 11 ..1 ' ! . .1 I ' 6*51.1, ; i I I L..Â»-~ .... ... 0 -- . I. I . I & 4 .' I Â·Â· - 11,4/ Â· . k HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM State Site Number: Local Site Number: 950.MD Photo Information: ASP-R-24 & 26 Â· Township 10 South Range 84 West Section 7 USGS Quad Name Aspen Year 1960 X 7.5' 15' Building or Structure Name: Full Street Address: 950 Matchless Drive (Gibson Avenue) Legal Description: 2 Alpine Acres City Asven County Pitkin Historic District/Neighborhood Name: Smuqqler Mountain Owner: Private/State/Federal Owner's Mailing Address: ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Building Type: Residence Architectural Style: Victorian Miner's Cottage Dimensions: L: X W: = Square Feet: Number of Stories: 2 Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): L-shaped Landscaping or Special Setting Features: Faces downvalley (southwest) setback in row with 2 other inventoried buildings Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material and Function (map number / name): West rear site +/- 400 square foot low gable. 2 car garage with clapboard and wood shingled qable end; new standing-seam-tvoe corrugated metal roof For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in the description as appropriate: Roof: L-qable with rear shed with old corruqated metal Walls: Clagboard Foundation / Basement: Unknown Chimney(s): Center metal flue at ridge Windows: Two over two wood double hung. front with simple decorative lintel; south end bav replacement with double light fixed qlazincr picture units Doors: Double arch light over wood panel - southwest norch entry; center front qable, decorative 1/2 light Porches: Front right entry. shed roof supported with square posts with decorative frieze General Architectural Description: Simple Victorian Miner's Cottage Page 2 of 2 State Site Number Local Site Number 950 FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Current Use: Residential Architect: Unknown Original Use: Residential Builder: Unknown Intermediate Use: Residential Construction Date: 1880's Actual X Estimate _ Assessor Based On: Building stvle MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS Minor X Moderate Major Moved Date Describe Modifications and Date: Windows (side). porch frieze - dates unknown Additions and Date: Garage and early rear shed -- dates unknown NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA Is listed on National Register; State Register Is eligible for National Register; State Register Meets National Register Criteria: A B__ C D E Map Kev Local Rating and Landmark Designation Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Regis Contributing: Resource has maintained historic 11 - architectural integrity. 0 _ Supporting: Original integrity lost due to alterations, however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort. Locally Designated Landmark Justify Assessment: Associated Contexts and Historical Information: The significance of this residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived in it, nor of its architecture. although this structure is reoresentative of Asven's Mining Era. This structure is of historical imnortance by illustrating the familv/home environment and lifestvle of the average citizen in Aspen which was then dominated bv the silver mining industrv. Other Recording Information Specific References to the Structure/Building: Pitkin County Court- house Records; Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps Archaeological Potential: * (Y or N) Justify: * Recorded By: * Date: * Affiliation: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee - Citv of Aspe Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin. Historic Preservation Officer/Planner .LORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Colorado Preservation Office 1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 {rn ~ARCHITECTURAL/HISTORICAL COMPONENT FORM - 1 IMPORTANT: USE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GREEN INVENTORY RECORD FORM FOR 1 Â· FOR RECORDING HISTORIC STRUCTURES AND DISTRICTS. USE SEPARATELY FOR <WIIIN~4' RECORDING STRUCTURES LOCATED WITHIN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES. 1) Resource No. 5PT-220 2) Temp No. 287 3) Name 940 Gibson House 4) Address 940 Gibson Ave. 31 District Name none I. INTEGRITY; 61 Condition: Good * Fair Deteriorated 7) Original Use Residential 81 Present Use Residential 9) Original Site Moved ? Date Cs) ef Mave: ? 10) Unaltered * Altered Explain: II. DESCRIPTIONf 111 Building Materials wood 121 Construction Date 1880 ts 131 Architect/Builder unknown 14) Architectural Style Csl Victorian Miner's Cottaqe ~) Special Features/Sutroundings:- N/A 161 Archaeological Potential: Yes NoÂ· Unknown * Explain: III. CULTURAL ACTIVITIES: Key the resource type (ie: house, barn, shed, school, church, etc) to the cultural activity theme and sub-theme category associated with it. 17) THEME Residential 18) SUB-THEME Urban 19) TYPES Single-family COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY -Preservation Office, 1300 Broadway, Denver, Co 80203 INVENTORY RECORD NOT FOR FIELD USE DET. ELIG. IMPORTANT: COMPLETE THIS SHEET FOR EACH DET. NOT ELIG. 1 E TZZ.Zr 1 RESOURCE PLUS EITHER AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR NOMINATED Il Jr.. J HISTORICAL/ARCHITECTURAL COMPONENT FORM. LISTED, DATE I. IDENTIFICATIONÂ· 1)Resource No. 5PT-220 2)Temp. No. 287 \960 3).Resource Name 944 Gibson 4)Project Name ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES/ ' STRUCTURE 5)Category: Ardh. Site-. Hist. /Archit.* Structure* , Hist. /Archit. District__. 6)(For Arch. site)In a District:yes-no_*;Name N/A II. LOCATION: 7)Township lOS ;Range 84W i .- 4 of - P of L 4 of SE kof Section 7 ; P.M. 6 . 8)County Pitkin 9)USGS QUAD Aspen ;7.5* 15_;Date 1960 Attach photocopy portion of Quad. Clearly show site. 10)Other maps 1-50' scale CooDer Aerial approx. 30 ft. x 100 ft. 3,000 sq.ft. 11)Dimensions mi m 12)Area sq.m(+4047=)less than 1 acres 13)UTM Reference: Cone UTM centered on resource may be given for resource under 10 acres.) A.11 13 1,13 l4,2 15,1,0 ImE;14,3 13,9 |4,0,0 ImN. B.1 , Iii 1,1,, DnE;} , lili, ImN. Cd 'WI,1,, ImE;| 11,|it ImN. 04 0 1;1 lili, ImE# il,1,, ImN. 14)Address 950 Gibson Lot - Block - Addition - III. MANAGEMENT DATA: 15)Field Assessment: Eligible * Not Eligible Need Data 16)Owner/Address N/A . , 17)Gov't Involvement: County State Federal Private-: Agency N/A 18)Disturbance:none__light moderate-heavy total-;Explain N7A . 19)Threats to Resource:Water Erosion Wind Erosion__Animal Activity-Neglect-yandalism . Recreation Construction ;Comments N/A 20)Management Recommendations Follow Design Guidelines V. REFERENCE: 21)State/Fed. Permit Nos. N/A Colorado Preservation Office 22)Photo Nos. - 287 ,an- file at (303) 839-3394 23)Report Title ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES/STRUCTURES 24)Recorder Vera G. Kirkpatrick 25)Recording Date Sept. 30, 19 26)Recorder Affiliation Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Offi ce 27)phone No. (303) 925-2020 2 RESOURCE_NQ- 5PT-220 0 . ... Frame Number 22 Â° Roll Number 9 Facade Orientation front U li ruÂ· /1 -- % - 1 - -- IV. SIGNIFICANCE: Assess whether or not the resource has any historical or architectural merit by checking appropriate categories and justifying below. Include any relevant historical data. 20) Architectural Significance: 21) Historical Significance: ~ Represents work of a master _Associated with significant persons _ Possesses high artistic values _Associated with significant events or _* Represents a type, period, or patterns method of construction _ Contributes to the significance of an historic district he significance of this residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived in it, nor of its architecture, although this structure is representative of Aspents Mining Era. This structure is of historical significance by illustrating the family/home environment and life style(.s) of Aspen's population. 22) List Any Associated Cultural Group: none V. REFERENCES: Pitkin County Courthouse records RECORDER V.G. Kirkpatrick DATE October SIn, 1 #Rn 1 l 1 - 1 1 1 1 2\ 1 Zor 45 1 ./ 1- f 1 1 1 1 1 44 / r / 11 i 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 442- '009 1 | 8.36 - A/3-7148'/5'2: ~ 1 l 75Â·60 / 1 1 Â£ Fil--lu / \ 1 / 1 4 3 1 'P / 1 42 / 1Â£31-4A Ill - Lx,rvN/'2/5+Ey- r 1 6 4 1 i /Uk/77>CU 502~VISION E: / 1 / 1 4*51/////M EXEMIFTION liA 1 1 1 9 - \ I k 1 77 n 1 \T//// At 7700 28. FE 1 47 & / \ /*/y 4 7.2,~ 722.11 1 lb::rE~~ Mi V i i 1 1 1 i \ 1 t 10548 / D- , ST:40'15*W -t= i \ \ /O >'40'5~r~* 20*'f 1200 1 \ CLI l / 1 1 / 1 1 / 1 1 1 1 / 1 1 / \ i i \ LOT: . \ HERRON DA/VE \ ALMNE ,â€¢Â©ge 1 1 1 1 1 l RECEvED ( MAY 0 1 1998 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I l 1 1 1 1 1 LOT 3 1 1 1 . 1 I ~ ALP/NE.1025 1 1 1 1 050 .30 40 5(pr SURVEÂ·,CR~'5 CEMIIFICÂ«rE. J 1 1 111 t 1 1 1 1 1 JAMCD 1. REEDER, 1-10â‚¬3rCEMnFr TWAT 1 1 ec*Lf. 1.=iol SUMMY or \Or AA, CU-%4/02*-Or 1-+410> VIAf ,â€¢011!Woor KI:F'Me,EN-FD A l 1 -ttele OF 51*Al>55Â· 'bOIDEÂ»/SO-4 ID<S,rrON, Crer Of AirDÂ·4 1 N37425!51Â£ eE[WEEN SWAND NW'COK rl-n<IM CaJNTY, COLDÂ«Co re,uotilMED 9/ 1 WEA, Lar 4Â©, OOrw m.penc CAB OH MEÂ©Â« ME IN APKILOF 1990. THETâ€¢0 510197*00 On 12707)Â· HaDDE AND GAMNSE WEME FEUNO 10 22. LCIATED ENT!821Â¥ WITHN THE BCLNCAter 1 - LNED OFTHEACOM 02,60 F,o:Â·mar 1 0 INOCATES, FOL)NE) MEDâ€¢g.,Â·CAP, Le, 20151, THE. 1.00â€¢IlON AND OVIENSION# Or' All- ~ UNLES:e OVOWN CTIHEAWE,2. WILOINGD, twIFF?OvEMEN15, ERÂ®EbAeÂ·Â·415, gle,-rte, Or' WAY IN S/!OENCE 01â€¢U<NOWN'TO 1 1 ME ANO ENIC,MOMCHMIENTe BY CaQWTHEDE miuM/*25 Alâ‚¬ XCLÂ»Jmr fesfe/% 1 /Â§1771Â»61 1 ALINE tumerb, INC. enliaL-U-- 1 1 9,=Erve. 0 i ' cpor-+44 ., g MAY -4 hes 1 1 1 1 - 10:. Â·Â·-' 1 - 1 1 1 1 . Alpae Surveys, Ac. s-- 4/98 Jryem R"".ilions 77/*. Job No [-ad 4.19.93 J-lt, IMFF<OVEMENT SL),MDr Ont OCKES- Polt Omee Bm, 1730 Asp-, Colo,ado 81812 LCrÂ·4A CUNN/515*407 SUBDIV,904 EXEMPRON, 970 925 2088 Crer or,ersÂ·-A, CCXCÂ»IDC). MATCH LESS EXHIBIT Attachment 8 22 0 County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26.52.060(E) I, * L-Ah) -EECJÂ« 121. , being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following Inarmer: 1. By mailing ofnotice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners ofproperty within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on thJ'5~~ of MA~ , 199 2 (which is 193ays prior to the public hearing dateofijUPE. 18 1414 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the':'~ day 0 of NIA~ ,199-~tothelatyof Juper '199 8. (Must beposted foratleast ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph ofthe posted sign is attached hereto. b r --1, =A-2'tu â‚¬y_.Li Signature (Attach photograph here) Signed before me thisL day of v 7>~rt> C*) Pe,U 7*Â¢4 E- 199_8 by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My Cymmission expires: 70~2#y 28, 2000 /3â‚¬ofÂ«yet <94 ~h...1/t Â£16% ;/llotary Public 037'jOTARY\,1- , f -t : . E La \ P U n L\3Â· P F ~/e, f t , h , ,/ab.3#~ . 51'F~/1.4-1/--/Jri Â·I Â·,/Â¥Â·Â·/w-G-i. 24>4~*-59 11.---e<*'fX.03-4%241.r.f~,~}l':.4 - ...1 if.*. 1%..~.7,1.. w. â€ž ... 1 ..... ./ 1 ..Itt 0. af.,4, - , ' 4 Jp ':i ~W' Â£ tp ' C y. 4.: '1*Wrt- , *t . Q-6,.2/*Ar/Minz f*, 1 *W/- :4 4. . -i 1.1 .,4. ' f ,4.Pt'fh,JAIÂ· ir- =1Â«Â·Fi'Â·â‚¬ ~ , - 1 - Vve., . 1 ... .: i & 1#3,&,<44,7*, Â·- l ..9.\.-n, ... -.4 .. . , 64# Â¢ . 2.54 i -4. 4 , 4 C .6- --= â„¢:ZE. - 4,- I - .bh 4 -- I --â€ž--- Le- ...3-- I - - - 1 /3/iptifitric ,i, - 7 r V 4 2 - Â·1Â»-.7&.-er . jyÂ·. .1.3& ..0 Â«-Â° V 3 7 J ~9~**8~ ~~2â‚¬*43t ..>I . â€¢ . ,Â· r ) I . ' /4,1 4 4 D j 014 ., r < N., JI, #,2 :W+AtÂ¢it':â€¢. : 4.29* 44 9 - 14 1 lk, f . 4 1.4 1 . 11 i i. lr. U)/ h 4 d 1 . 1 I ./%/11 4 - 134 : 1..' 4 4 . 6. I 1' 2- :*:4 69.,41 4,Â¢Ge A' '14.44? ..r 4 ' 9, *. 0,/1 I /4 , 9 * 4.r 4.9 2 7*/ U.lu 1 . 2 . , 6. ft .1 124,< 41 4 < 16.1 .24.1.,19 d ew -4 .Nh'.'i'. 2737-074-02-003 300' Radius List 04-Mar-98 Parcel Number Schedule Number Owner Name Name 2 / Address 1 Address 2 City State Zip Code 2737-074-02-003 R012657 BECKER ALAN K PO BOX 119 WOODY CREEK !CO 81656- 2737-07+06-003 R005053 BENTLEY CARL F 185 PARK CIR #C2 ASPEN CO 81611- 2737-074-13-002 R008639 BRIGHT GALEN PO BOX 1848 ASPEN CO 81612- 2737-074-90-326 M000168 BROOKS VICKI PO BOX 10281 ASPEN CO 81611- 2737-074-26-004 R012993 BURG H ROBERT BURG JOCELYN AS JOINT TENANTS 524 CONGAREE COLUMBIA SC 29205- 2737-074-90-130 R014344 CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL 130 MAPLE LN ASPEN CO 81611- 2737-074-11-002 R008687 COATES BETTY BYERS 1/2 INT COATES NELIGH 1/2 INT 720 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN CO 81611- 2737-074-11-001 R008686 COATES-HORN KIMBERLEE C/O NELIGH C COATES JR 720 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN CO 81611- 2737-074-90-328 M000432 COSTELLO STEPHANIE ANN 328 OAK LN ASPEN CO 81611- 2737-07+90-140 M000697 CUNNINGHAM JAMES MURRAY PO BOX 9333 ASPEN CO 81612- 2737-074-90-142 M000261 CURTIS DEBRA 142 MAPLE LN ASPEN CO 81611- 2737-07+08-001 R008757 DAVIS D STONE AND RUSSELL LYNN C PO BOX 8904 ASPEN CO 81612- 2737-074-06-005 R004864 DAY ANN C PO BOX 3815 ASPEN CO 81612-381: 2737-074-06-002 R005208 DAY ISABEL T & ESTER T PO BOX 8556 ASPEN CO 81612- 2737-074-22-001 R011813 DODARO CHRISTINE M 930 MATCHLESS DR ASPEN CO 81611- 2737-074-06-017 R009052 DUNAWAY WILLIAM R FARR TENA D PO BOX E ASPEN CO 81612- 2737-074-03-002 R005295 DUNAWAY WILLIAM R FARR TENA D PO BOX E ASPEN CO 81612- 2737-074-02-001 R012650 DUNN JOSEPH DUNN LUCY HALL 1416 GATEWAY ROAD SNOWMASS CO 81654-9211 2737-074-26-001 R012990 EISENBERG NORTON AND JANET 407 PARK AVE #A ASPEN CO 81611- 2737-07+13-003 R008640 EPLER-MUNROE KRISTIN AND EPLER PATRICIA G PO BOX 785 ASPEN CO 81612- 2737-074-26-003 R012992 ERB MARY ANN 8401 GREENWOOD DR LONGMONT CO 80503- 2737-074-06-006 R004863 FISHER CONSTANCE A 9 SABINE FARM RD GREENWICH CT 06831- 2737-074-08-002 R008758 FLUG DEBORAH 616 E HYMAN ASPEN CO 81611- 2737-074-26-702 R012991 HANCOCK LISA K HANCOCK JAMES D JT TENANTS 710 MIDLAND PARK PL ASPEN CO 81611- 2737-074-14-002 R009099 HATANAKA HOWARD H 980 KING ST ASPEN CO 81611- 2737-07+01-017 R009943 HICKMAN DELMAR R & CONSTANCE S 205 PARK CIR ASPEN CO 81611- 2737-074-06-010 R004766 HUGHES KATHLEEN M PO BOX 3930 ASPEN CO 81612- 2737-07+90-231 R016355 JANE TAYLOR 231 COTTONWOOD LN ASPEN CO 81611- 2737-07+90-138 M000730 KERR RICHARD 138 MAPLE LN ASPEN CO 81611- 2737-074-06-007 R004862 KRIEBEL KATHLEEN PO BOX 910 ASPEN CO 81612- 2737-07+14-001 R009098 LANG DONALD WILLIAM KASABACH JACQUELYN A PO BOX 4166 ASPEN CO 81612- 2737-074-00-021 R004259 LEWIS THOMAS E 100 ANCHOR DR #18 KEY LARGO FL 33037- 2737-07+90-001 R010646 LOEWENSTERN CAROL 251 S GARFIELD #A DENVER CO 80209- 2737-074-90-134 R014290 LUHNOW GARY PO BOX 2383 ASPEN CO 81612- 2737-074-06-001 R004630 LUU TONG KHON 435 E MAIN ST ' ASPEN CO 81611- 2737-074-11-003 IR008685 ILYON LEE PO BOX 10238 ASPEN CO 81612- 2737-074-90-132 R016349 MADDOX RICHARD W 120 DRAKE ST Â· DENVER CO 80221- . 2737-07+90-227 R015378 MAGILL REBECCA N 60% MILLER THOMAS F 40% AS JOINT TE 227 COTTONWOOD LN ASPEN CO 81611- 2737-07+00-004 R011952 MICKEY JAMES & MARLENE 931 GIBSON AVE ASPEN CO 81611- 2737-074-90-229 M000437 MILLER LEE 4909 S ALBION ST LIrrLETON CO 80121- 2737-074-06-011 099 MORK HALBERT L FAMILY TRUST 77 ASPEN WY ROLLING HILLS CA 9027+ 1 Parcel Number Schedule Number Owner Name Name 2 / Address 1 Address 2 City State Zip Code 2737-074-06-009 R004860 MOUNTAIN STATES COMMUNICATIONS I PO BOX E ASPEN CO 81612- 2737-074-06-008 R004861 MOUNTAIN STATES COMMUNICATIONS I 310 E MAIN ST ASPEN CO 81611- 2737-074-13-005 R008642 NARAT BENJAPORN PO BOX 4906 ASPEN CO 81612- 2737-074-90-129 M000757 PATTERSON KAREN & CHARLES 129 MAPLE LN ASPEN CO 81611- 2737-074-13-001 R008638 PAULIDES BROOKE A PO BOX 11023 ASPEN CO 81612- 2737-074-13-004 R008641 PAULIDES HERBERT B & CAROLYN F 160 CONCORD RD LONGMEADOW MA 01106- 2737-074-08-003 R008759 PAXTON MICHAEL R 10022 E SOUTH SHORE DR UNIONVILLE IN 47468- 2737-074-22-002 R011814 PETERSON SHIRLEY H LIVING TRUST 1909 E RIVER PKWY MINNEAPOLIS MN 55414- 2737-074-90-228 M000043 REYNOLDS THOMAS S FISHER MORGAN 228 COTTONWOOD LN ASPEN CO 81611- 2737-074-90-136 R015332 RUGGIERI LISA ANN 136 MAPLE LN ASPEN CO 81611- 2737-074-90-127 M000582 RYAN MARTHA 127 MAPLE LN ASPEN CO 81611- 2737-074-01-003 R004859 SALTONSTALL ANDREW C PO BOX 9802 ASPEN CO 81612- 2737-07+08-004 R008760 SINGER DAVID J B 1315 N BISCAYNE POINT RD MIAMI BEACH FL 33141-1705 2737-074-90-128 M000015 SMALLS RAY PO BOX 3197 ASPEN CO 81612- 2737-074-06-015 R005048 SMISEK LINDA L E 429 PARK CIR C-3 ASPEN CO 81611- 2737-074-90-032 R014105 SMUGGLER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIO 2737-074-00-018 R004446 SMUGGLER RACQUET CLUB PO BOX 8788 ASPEN CO 81612- 2737-074-06-012 R004804 SPECK KIM JENNIFER PO BOX 9912 ASPEN CO 81612- 2737-074-00-020 R004124 SUNNYBROOK COLORADO INC EDWARDS JOSEPH E 111 PO DRAWER 6250 LAREDO TX 78042- 2737-074-10-001 R008612 TARBET JOSEPH R TARBET BARBARA P 980 GIBSON AVE ASPEN CO 81611- 2737-074-90-126 M000443 TEUSCHER JONATHAN W 126 MAPLE LN ASPEN CO 81611- 2737-074-15-001 R009100 VAGNEUR LOIS M BROWNELL 60 FLYING FISH RD CARBONDALE CO 81623- 2737-074-15-004 R009103 VAGNEUR LOIS M BROWNELL 60 FLYING FISH RD CARBONDALE CO 81623- 2737-074-15-002 R009101 VAGNEUR LOIS M BROWNELL 60 FLYING FISH RD CARBONDALE CO 81623- 2737-074-15-003 R009102 VAGNUER WAYNE UND 1/2 INT VAGNUER LOIS M UND 1/2 INT 60 FLYING FISH RD CARBONDALE CO 81623- 2737-074-01-016 R009944 WAGAR RICHARD H 601 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN CO 81611- 2737-074-11-004 R008684 WALDRON K BRENT COATES REID & WALDRON CO 720 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN CO 81611- 2737-074-10-002 R008613 WIRTH PETER WIRTH JANET B PO BOX 9525 ASPEN CO 81612- . 2 V_ 0 r-mieinE' 0 MEMORANDUM ~ TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Director 040 [Acting Historic Preservation Officer] 9- f DATE: June 10,1998 RE: 420 W. Francis Street- temporary relocation, conceptuaFfinal review of non-historic porch enclosure and bay window, and new window wells SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking approval for the following items: 1) to excavate a basement below the existing historic structure (which will require the lifting of the main house approximately 4' in order to complete the excavation and re-placement of the structure on a new foundation. This is considered a temporary relocation); 2) to add a bay window at the rear of the non-historic portion of the main house; 3) to enclose an existing non-historic porch and install new windows in this area; and 4) add three (3) new window wells for light and egress from the new basement space. This property is a 0 designated local landmark. Only the front 2/3 of the house remains as a historic resource. The rear portion is non-historic as indicated in the staff memo dated November 12,1997. APPLICANT: Barry and Ellen Halperin, represented by Jim Columbo and Steve Buettow. LOCATION: 420 W. Francis Street. BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS ACTION: The HPC has reviewed this project twice in the last year. On November 12, 1997, the applicant requested approval of a minor review, partial demolition, and setback variances. The HPC approved a portion of those requests, tabling the variances, garage addition, demolition and reconstruction. On December 17, 1997, the HPC again reviewed the remaining items and approved them. (The original staff reports and minutes from each of these meetings is attached as Exhibit "A" for your reference). DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS: No temporary relocation of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to Section 26.76.090, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District, shall be permitted unless the temporary relocation is approved by the HPC because it meets the applicable standards of Section 26.72.020(F). 0 1 F. Standards for review oftemporary relocation. No approval for temporary relocation shall be granted unless the HPC finds that the standards of Section 26.72.020(D)(3) and (4) have been met. 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: The applicant is required to submit a structural report addressing the capability of the structure to withstand the temporary relocation. This should be submitted prior to building peimit as a condition of approval. 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 building is to be raised approximately four (4) feet vertically from its present location. It will be supported there on I-beams while the basement is excavated. According to the applicant, the same house-moving company that is lifting 234 W. Francis will also be lifting this house. A drawing showing this temporary relocation is required prior to building permit. This should be included as a condition of approval. Staff recommends that a letter of credit be provided in the amount of $30,000 to guarantee the safe replacement of the building onto the new foundation. The applicant shall provide information as to the current appearance of the foundation. This appearance must be retained or recreated when the building is set back in place. The applicant has indicated that the stone rubble foundation that is partially exposed on the south and east elevation will be recreated using the stone rubble as a veneer face on a new concrete foundation. The house will be placed back on the new foundation, set at the exact same elevation as the house currently sits. This should also be a condition of approval. As a general comment, the applicant must be aware that no exterior materials on any part of the historic structure may be removed without the prior approval of HPC, excepting those areas that were approved for remodeling on November 12, 1997 and December 17, 1997. Significant Development All development involving historic landmarks, or within 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. 2 Â· 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H " Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: The applicant is requesting approval for three items, which is why this project has ended up as a significant project. The three items are: 1) to add a bay window at the rear of the non-historic portion of the main house; 2) to enclose an existing non-historic porch and install new windows in this area; and 3) to add three (3) new window wells for light and egress from the new basement space. Please refer to the set of submitted plans dated received April 22,1998, attached as Exhibit "B". Bay window and porch enclosure: Please refer to the following drawings: A3.2, A5.1 and A5.2. Along the north (rear) elevation of the house, the applicant would like to install a bay window in the kitchen. The windows will be double-hung windows to match the new windows which were previously approved to be replaced on the house. Along the east elevation of the kitchen area, the applicant would also like to remove the existing covered porch and doors (please refer to drawing A8 in the November 12, 1997 packet) and replace these with two sets of new double-hung windows which will match those being replaced on the house. The rear portion of this house is not historic, and staff does not have concerns regarding this modification. The proposed modification is architecturally compatible with the existing house and uses identical materials. Window Wells: As part of the new basement and foundation, the applicant is proposing to install three (3) window wells, one (1) along the west elevation, and two (2) along the east elevation. The window wells will be approximately 6' deep, 8'-8" long and 3' wide. They will be faced with the same or similar foundation stone and will be covered with removable grates to allow emergency access. Please refer to sheet A5.2. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The proposal for the bay window, porch enclosure, and new window wells is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The location of these modifications toward the rear and along the east and west elevations minimizes their relation to the original historic structure. 3 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: Because the modifications are to be made to the non-historic portions of the landmark property, they will not detract from the historic significance of the historic resource. 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 proposed changes will not detract from the architectural character or the integrity of the historic structure. The changes will be minimally visible from the street, alley or neighboring properties. RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the temporary relocation of 420 W. Francis Street, conceptual/final review of a non- historic porch enclosure and bay window at the rear of the house, and three new window wells, with the following conditions: 1. A letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 is to be provided prior to building permit to ensure the safe relocation of the building back onto the new foundation. 2. The window wells are to be located as shown on the east and west sides of the house as presented on drawings A5.2 and SP2 by the applicant. 3. The applicant shall provide information as to the current appearance of the foundation. This appearance must be retained or recreated when the building is set back in place. The foundation will be faced with the stone rubble as a veneer on a new concrete foundation. The house will be placed back on the new foundation, set at the exact same elevation as the house currently sits. 4. The applicant shall provide a drawing showing the method ofthis temporary relocation, including the I-beam location and appropriate bracing, prior to building permit. 5. The applicant shall submit a structural report addressing the capability of the structure to withstand the temporary relocation prior to building permit. 6. No exterior materials on any part ofthe historic structure may be removed without the prior approval of HPC, excepting those areas that were approved for remodeling on November 12, 1997 and December 17, 1997. 4 7. All conditions of the November 12, 1997 and December 17, 1997 approvals must be met. 8. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a decision-making body having the authority to do so." Attachments: Exhibit A Previous staffreports and minutes from Nov. 12, 1997 and December 17, 1997 Exhibit B Applicant's submittal dated received April 22, 1998 g:/planning/upen/cases/HPC/panialdemo/420relo 5 Iral .Ek 1,1 i rr . A, 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission . r LU FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 420 W. Francis Street, Minor review, partial demolition, and request for setback variances, Public Hearing DATE: November 12, 1997 SUMMARY: This house was built in 1886-1887 and is a designated landmark It has had a series of small additions made to it, and some changes to exterior materials. The applicant proposes to replace the exterior materials on the house and to remove a storage area on the outbuilding and replace it with a carport. The location proposed for the carport requires setback variances on the rear and west sideyards. APPLICANY: Barry and Ellen Halperin, represented by Jim Colombo. LOCATION: 420 W. Francis Street, Lots N and O, Block 34, City and Townsite ofAspen. ZONING: R-6 Significant Development PROJECT SIJMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development involving historic landmarks, or within an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale, and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than 1 i i Exhibit A 1 I. ' e .2 Â· I W Â·1 115' &4 '~*4 i 3 'W /*.7 4 1,f I , 6 1 - . would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2); Response: The applicant proposes to remove the asphalt or asbestos shingle siding from the house and replace it with clapboards. Staff finds that returning to clapboard siding is appropriate. It must be determined whether or not the original clapboards still exist under the shingles. If so, HPC will work with the applicant to determine whether or not it can be restored. Otherwise, new clapboard siding may be installed. As part of this activity, staff also recommends that the shutters be removed from the house since they would not have been there originally. In terms of window replacement, staff finds that windows that are readily visible from the street must be retained, but the remainder of the windows may be replaced. All replacement windows on the historic portion of the house must be double hung and match the existing windows as closely as possible. No window openings on the historic portion of the house may be widened. Windows that must be retained have been indicated on the building elevations which have been modified by staff. The applicant should consider the possibility of replacing the multipaned window in the bay on the south elevation with a large double hung, which is more likely what originally existed. In regard to the railings proposed on the front decks, staff recommends that no railings be installed unless an exception for historic structures cannot be granted from the UBC, or unless there is reason to believe that they were there historically. If railings must be installed, they must be wood and should be simple, not turned balusters. On the ADU, staff has no concerns with the window and door changes proposed since this is not a historic structure. A variance from Ordinance #30 is required for the windows in the west end ofthe building. This is discussed below. The request for a carport on the east side of the building was referred to the Parks Department. They recommend that the carport be located on the west side of the ADU because of the very large tree on the east. Staff defers to the Parks Depaitment on this issue and recommends that the carport be relocated. This will still require the removal of trees, since conifers have been planted across the rear of the property, however the trees are fairly new (planted within the last two decades) and should be allowed to be removed or relocated. The new windows proposed on the north of the ADU must be modified to be more in scale with those on the rest of the building and the house (narrower.) 2 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The proposal involves modest changes to the building and some restoration, which will contribute to the character of the West End. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The proposal has no impact on the historic significalice of *e property. 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 proposal involves changes which will enhance the architectural character of the property. PARTIAL DEMOLITION Section 26.72.020, Demolition, partial demolition, off-site relocation, on-site relocation, or temporary relocation. No partial demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, shall be permitted unless the partial demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the applicable standards of Section 26.72.020(C). 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 remove a small addition to a non-historic structure. Staffhas no concerns with this. 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: There will be no impacts to the historic significance ofthe property. 3 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: The new carport, which cannot be constructed in the exact location proposed, will have no impact on the architectural character or integrity of the property. Ordinance #30 The proposal is in conflict with one area of Ordinance #30; the volume standard. 1. Standard: "Allareas with an exterior expression of aplateheight greater thanten (10) feet, shall be counted as two (2) squarefeetfor each one (1) squarefoot offloor area. Exterior expression shall be defined as facade penetrations between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level ofthe finished floor. .." Response: The proposed modifications for the ADU include small windows in the west gable end which fall into the "no window zone," between 9-12 feet above the finished floor. This is a one story building and staff finds there will be no impact to the scale of the building as a result of these windows. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any ofthe following alternatives: 1) Approve the Development application as submitted. 2) Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (specific recommendations should be offered) 4) Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. Recommendation: Staff recommends HPC table the carport review and approve the remainder ofthe application with the following conditions: 4 1. The request for a setback variance on the west sideyard is denied based on the Parks Departments comments. A rear yard setback variance may be appropriate for the new garage. The applicant must provide a revised plan. This portion of the application is tabled to November 26, 1997. 2. It must be determined whether or not the original siding still exists under the shingles. If so, HPC will work with the applicant to determine whether or not that siding can be restored. Otherwise, new clapboard siding may be installed. As part of this activity, staff also recommends that the shutters be removed from the house since they would not have been there originally. 3. All replacement windows on the historic portion of the house must match the existing windows as closely as possible. No window openings on the historic portion of the house may be widened. -Windewa that must be retamed have been ~Undicated on the building elevations Which have been modifiecr by( 84*E~ The applicant should consider the possibility of replacing the mult*aned window in the bay on the south elevation with a large double hung, which is more likely what originally existed. 4. In regard to the railings proposed on the front decks, staff recommends that no railings be installed unless an exception for historic structures cannot be granted from the UBC, or unless there is reason to believe that they were there historically. If railings must be installed, they must be wood and should be simple, not turned balusters. 5. A variance is granted from Ordinance #30, volume, for the new windows on the ADU. The windows on the north of the ADU must be modified to be more in scale with those on the rest ofthe building and the house (narrower.) 6. No exterior materials may be removed from the building without the consent of HPC. With the approval of this application it is understoed that windows except for those identified on the attached plans as modified by staff may be replaced in kind. HPC will work with the ~ applicant to determine the condition of the original clapboards if they exist. Deck boards \ and stairs may be repaired where necessary and replaced ifbeyond repair. No other exterior ~ materials may be removed without HPC consent. / ,Â£-. .1 e . Â·._ Â¥ j f LLÂ·t..1 ,â‚¬. . f Exhibits: opt....__-iL â‚¬{'' A. Staff' s memo dated November 12, 1997 B. Application C. Map ofproperty in 1904. D. Photo ofproperty from alley, circa 1970. E. Site plan and elevations modified by staff. F. Parks Department referral comments. 5 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. project name -IKI+FEN-1 12%1 PE+WE- 2. project location 420/ }4. F tH:44 '0-t?20%:f Â»?grt, UMâ€¢Â»ga (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning F-6 4. Lot size 660 2 5. Applicanfs name, address and Dhone number *FILT # AlÂ» ttAL Â«KIH 270* 94+ - 1 715 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number .:el.-â€¢:pÂ¥'02 INTEF+1*TWHAP, 1146 62.0 5 ~1* 4-1.119 4446 A. FECH / 'el-'PF'A 1910 25 4 - 96:de 7. T#e of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD X Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo Â· View Plane Condominiumization Design Review Lot Spli#Lot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) -196.&1HAL-6 %24Â¥11121' 4-61.14, 2127 4% ]6111* 9 9,<ler#, BEP Feoh#4. 0,1.1~ A. 313. *WGISÂ· 499 41= WI114 0HS, INECP BA, bd. 9. Description of development application 1-1Â·P412'ACPE- @Â¥ W-Elf 141HCVI.15 IN1114 PMA/* WIN t414 -846 44 VIE- 41118. 01&(ue- 0149 1-48#9, ~Bel,oe- @Â¥ 1400 Ar *4 FWAL-r Â·61Â·11HWA,-16 G I PINer W 191 All Â·1010121%- WAft:7 206915#ff-0. FE-p l*Ace. Eliticir MT 14,1.0- - 41612 4 *4 _ 1%*p M . 4 I *nt + 5 19166Â· - 106qp~4.6.4:41; 10. Have you completed and attached the following? ,/- Attachment 1 - Land use application form ,/"Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form 4 Response to Attachment 3 / Response to Attachment 4 Exhibit B 11111111 ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant: ~er 4- CLEH W/LLF:WAI+ Address: 4 2-= w, FAâ€¢49â€¢21 0 4<.F*%-r Zone district: 11:-6, Lot size: 69.0 4, Existing FAR: a. 6 6-1 <f Allowable FAR: 1% 46 4% Proposed FAR: 15-41 LF- Existing net leasable (commercial): W A- Proposed net leasable (commercial): Â»ke Existing % of site coverage: 4 9 9, Proposed % of site coverage: 44 1 Existing % of open space: 96% - Proposed % of open space: 4 655 Existing maximum height: Princioal bldg: 02 G' Accesory bldg: 19 -Â» Proposed max. height: Principal bldg: 2 â‚¬ Accessorv bida: 1 ,-6 11 Proposed % of demolition: 4,1 h Existing number of bedrooms: Proposed number of bedrooms: 4 Existing on-site parking spaces: +6:Fbi&. On-site parking spaces required: 2 Setbacks Existing: Minimum required: Proposed: Front: 10,5 1 Front I o Front: 1 A F Rear: - Rear: 1 â€¢ Rear: - Combined Combined Combined i 1 Front/rear: 16 9 Fronurear: 8# Front/rear: 1 0, G Side: -- Side: G Side: .... Side: q. 9 1 Side: 4 Side: 4, 0 Combined i Combined - 1 Combined I Sides: 11 61 Sides: 0 Sides: 4,9 , Existing nonconformities or encroachments: 1%*A AOW 66 (24 01/24â‚¬1Â·1Â·vIENT + .41 161041- 4:ic:76Â»,67 2110.-+MEN-r, Variations requested: DeN-n N WA-rl 044 ale 05*1â‚¬041 (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.ftâ€ž site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O zone districts) <1 It ?t Lau Laurel Di CT %% 6â€¢90~ -0~ i 04 i dz< elle '10 *-1 K/0.-7* E k Jt & 1.1 3 V c Z \ e t t,- ';Av,ou.,;,~ * F#6 . 1 Or:, f *94 '-, . IS 00'Uds - rÂ«----72' < h1 1 1/~j- ss '2 1 32 01.--r~r 4- S, /. f 9.- 1 .r E C // 1, 3 ed 2#+/ \.-/ i ER , OUS .4 1 c , 6*/f . *00 1 - - . /.4 c Â£,0 4 4/ 0, e j' f . 0*09 ; e U f .., a e 4 ... 1 - ,Â«li (â€ž.,040,Â¥ Poti * = 4 ~S 4 - ~ ~ m N Â· : *SilveZoi~AC es (3099?T.~- - ts 1/1. : 26 ~ ls, /2 2 â‚¬5/ 17090 4 4 ** . * /2 96~ is f ., 4 + .2 Mi'CeM 2 2 â€¢2 A 4 . Â£40 2 / f 9 //3 27/ e 'Sub I 4 4 41 - 8 4 4 92 4 6 /'. to C *. Â·, 1 ,Â· ' / ct {f . U. k - 1& 'S .1 24'/4 ) 1 -5 4 /8 9 :2â‚¬ 4 1/ 1 ~Z,â‚¬4,4 /'y' i i l-' "1 g ~ 9'8 4 S 4 . a 4. ts '9 -1 'S 4 4,4- -0: V- u.1 keus(.2/4. F:/2, SA R,ver or- 01â€¢Ct of L-/ 1.3>9 1,01 . 2,7 4(c.. \ go 1 10 400'.a - . h /power \\ 2 8 2 Casne Creek Or 3 % -0 22---- O,04---' . t.nt #f N -1 ~e F /4 1/f It Â»<3 4 0, m ' 6/V M..Aort Pl se >%'4â‚¬ 9* 76 - 3 .1<60 .9 + ~~ ~-- GiEprf* D.,kin Mesa ,/ 40 9.9,.. <-71.9. 'ft,!#pit, T,.7'4,40 I / 4 1\ . '.,6 000=:000 0,1 Â¢vf 9... I: ... . . fÂ· Â· Â· %2 10 i 0 '-/ 1 Q 1 \Ck 41 Y 841 ,â€¢4;0444 I :2 .. Dti 01"".43 X P . it 56 - ,U ; t'. c Â· 1 . .Â°olt :Â° -.- I - $4424 1' . .- 31IS 103r01:Id dVUU A.LINIOIA :r.>0 'a COLOMAO INTERNATIONAL, INC. 520 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970 925-7806 FAX: 970 925-3972 Proiect Information Halperin Residence 420 West Francis Aspen, CO 81611 Proiect Description - On the main house we propose to upgrade the existing windows with pella double graded windows of the same size, color and style. In the bathroom and bath on the upper floor we are considering changing the window width from 2'0" to 3'0". These windows are hidden from the street scape and therefore would not be noticeable. Also on the main house, we are proposing to take off the existing asphalt shingle siding and replace it with 6" horizontal painted clapboard similar to what is on the ADU. This would be typical of this time period and neighborhood. On the ADU building we are proposing to replace the existing tool shed and ski room and replace it with a one car garage. In order to make this 50's style building more compatible with the main house and neighborhood, weare proposing to make several facade changes to more appropriate doors and windows. r -10.4 Macir,Coir . 4 f. EXHIBFF E. / .21. s:.~--41/ ~-i/-,449~1 ....f-*449 , â€¢ GREG MOZIAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. â€¢ Landscape Architecture Â· Environmental Planning November 12.1997 Via Facsimile 925=3972 Columbo International Inc. 520 East Cooper Avenue. Suite 205 Aspen. Colorado 81611 Attn: Jim Columbo Re: The Halperin Residence 420 West Francis Street Aspen. Colorado DearJim; After a brief site inspection of the proposed garage site for the Halperin project. the impact of the garage structure on the existing spruce trees on the neighboring property appears to be minor. The surface root structure of the existing trees was not visible on the Halperin property, Your proposed footing design of the :aissons and grade beam with slab on grade will minimize any impact to the root zone of the trees. The hand digging for the individual caissons will also help minimize any impact to the trees. Using this method of construction I feel confident the trees will not be damaged. Please call with any questions or concerns. Thank you. Sincerely. K- 1 71 ' Greg Mozian. President m 117 S. Spring Street. Ste. 23 â€¢ Ascen. CO 81611 Â· (970) 925-8963 Â·I 11'12.97 Vt Â£11 10. 9 V 7/*NN-*,92--__ 1 -Ei;Im=, - 'j / /=?A#*752, 71-7-:/1-fc!Â¢*2437641 I t -:- >. y . ~ <=M/lountain (7441Â£ CAggi, 151=2. P.CD.Box 568 Snowmass, Coloracc 5 , 654 (970) 927-9341 â€¢ (970) 927-4C66 FAX 370) 927.9378 November 12 97 Columbo International - 520 E. Cooper St. Aspen, CO 8I 611 Ph. #925-7806 Attn: Jim Columbo RE: Halperin Residence - 420 W. Francis St. Spruce Trees Dear Jim, In pursuant to our meeting at the proposed garage site at the Halper411 Residence, I wouId like to make a few recommendations below= The footer system for the garage should be one in which wholes are dug by hand or a Casion supported footer. By digging the whales by hand, if a support anchor is found, the whole should be moved to avoid damage tc any large roots found. It is my professional opinion that this method of construction will not jeopardize the health of the existing 3 Spruce trees. Any other method of foundation. such as using a backhee, would cause unnecessary root damage to the Spruce trees. The person digging these Casions should take special care to prune any fibrous or smaller roots found while digging. I am confident that the trees will not be damaged with this method of construction. Sincerely, 64 Beet..2.4 Ed Booher MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer zE// RE: 420 W. Francis Street- Conceptual & Final, partial demolition, Ordinance #30, Public Hearing DATE: December 17, 1997 SUMMARY: The property is a designated landmark, and contains a historic house and an outbuilding/accessory unit which is not considered historically significant. The applicant originally proposed minor changes to the living unit and the addition of a garage stall on the west side of the outbuilding. It appeared through the review process that the proposal was likely to have some negative impacts on large trees which surround the area. As a result, the project has been redesigned. The applicant now proposes to demolish the existing outbuilding, except for a storage shed, and to build a new two car garage with an accessory dwelling unit above. Staff recommends approval as proposed. Please note that Conceptual and Final review have been combined into one meeting fof this case since HPC has reviewed the design in a worksession and because of the quality of the proposal. APPLICANT: Barry and Ellen Halprin. LOCATION: 420 W. Francis Street. ZONING: R-6 Significant Development PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development involving historic landmarks, or within an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1 Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and 01 volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: The new building retains essentially the same footprint as the existing structure. Impacts to the surrounding trees have been avoided. The proposed building is architecturally compatible with the existing house and uses identical materials. Staff finds that it is very well designed and will contribute to the character of the alley. The applicant is to be commended for redesigning the project to avoid impacts to the trees and for voluntarily providing an accessory dwelling unit. In terms of dimensional requirements. the applicant proposes to retain a non-conforming shed on the west side of the garage. This non-conformity may be maintained as long as it is not increased. A variance is needed on the rear yard setback. Although the existing 0 structure sits on the rear lot line, it is being demolished and a variance must be granted to replace the building in the same location. Staffis in favor ofthis variance. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: "Cottage-Infill" housing is typical of the West End and encouraged. Also, the applicant is providing on-site parking spaces which have not been present before. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The proposal does not impact the historic significance ofthe parcel. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. 0 2 Response: The garage is detached from the historic house and is architecturally compatible with it, therefore the integrity of that structure is not diminished. PARTIAL DEMOLITION Section 26.72.020, Demolition, partial demolition, off-site relocation, on-site relocation, or temporary relocation. No partial demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen,. shall be permitted unless the partial demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the applicable standards of Section 26.72.020(C). 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. NOTE:Demolition of an outbuilding is reviewed asa partial demolition. 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure. or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. Response: The applicant proposes to demolish an outbuilding which is not considered historically significant. 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 outbuilding is not historic. 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: The structure which replaces the outbuilding is architecturally compatible with the house. Ordinance #30 Staff finds that Ordinance #30 has been met by the proposal. 3 ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any ofthe following alternatives: 1) Approve the Development application as submitted. 2) Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building pennit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (specific recommendations should be offered) 4) Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. - Recommendation and Recommended Motion: "I move to approve the application for Conceptual and Final Review, Partial Demolition, and Ordinance #30 for 420 W. Francis Street as submitted on December 17, 1997." 4 COLOMD O INTERNATIONAL, INC. 520 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970 925-7806 FAX: 970 925-3972 420 West Francis - Aspen Historical Preservation Commission Conceptual HPC Final HPC Applicant Barry Halprin 420 West Francis Aspen, Colorado presented to: CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ASPEN HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMISSION 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 COLOMBO INTERNATIONAL, INC. 520 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 81611 ~ TEL: 970 925-7806 FAX: 970 925-3972 Project Information Halperin Accessory Dwelling Unit 420 West Francis Aspen, Colorado Project Description Regarding the Halprin Accessory Dwelling Unit, we are proposing to retain the existing Shed to the West. This will not impact the existing trees on the neighbors property to the West. We will convert the existing Residentual Unit to a Garage. In order to provide adequate interior space we will need to expand the East wall 2'-6". 0 The existing 5'-0" x 12'-0" Bay Window on the South side is going to be remodeled into the new Entry/ Stair. These functions require a space 6'-6" x 14'-0"as shown on the Plan. The slight expansion required moves the South wall 1 '-60 further into the Halperin lawn. We are adding a 500 SF Upper Level A. D. U. Unit. The maximum height of the proposed addition will be 17'-0" at the Roof 1/3 point. The existing mature trees in the East yard will not be impacted. 0 COLOMDO INTERNATIONAL, INC. 520 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970 925-7806 FAX: 970 925-3972 HALPERIN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT 420 WEST FRANCIS ASPEN, COLORADO NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT This proposed Remodel of the Halperin Accessory Building promotes the charactor of the West End Alleys. The existing acessory building is one of twelve present in this blocks alley. The A.A.C.P. encourages this type of development. Off street Parking accessed off the alleys is noted with the high emphasis and voluntary Accessory Dwelling Units add to the Cities rental inventory. This Project provides two off street Parking spaces that are currently unavailable. Specifically this Project responds to concern regarding the existing mature tree on the West neighbors property. There are also existing mature trees on this property to the East. This Project impacts none of these trees. In detail, the Project incorporates the existing shed into the proposed building. The existing Accessory Building is remodeled by converting the existing Rental Unit into a Garage and adding an Upper Level Accessory Dwelling Unit. The Design is accomplished using a cross gable 8/12 pitched roof with shingles to match those of the existing Main House on the Property. The maximum height of this addition will be 17'-0" at the roof 1/3 point. The exterior wall finish is proposed to be 6" horizontal redwood clapboard to match the Main House. The Windows will be wood double hung units to match the Main House. Overall, this Project adds several important elements to the neighborhood while imposing minimal impact at the alley. ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPUCATION FORM 1. Project name .I*1/FRA IiI FÂ¢410@06 2 Project location +00 W. F~MN/#5 4-F' *AS f PH , '5:,fl-,94,96 (indicate street address, lot and black number cr metes ana bounds description) 3. Present zoning 8.-60 4. Lot size 60,0 '57 5. Applicant: 4 name, address and phone number Blqt< 4, 6146,4 1444*114 910-644 0 2148 ~ . 4 6. Representative~s name. address. and phene number 49|00 NreO IN'FERÂ·INATWN *1-0: INg 91.0 62: 4wf@A Â·ew 1-rE 1/6 **FFH , 4,1., f.*#O 0,\6'll 7. Type of applicaticn (check all that apoiy): Conditional Use _ - Concectual SPA 4 Concectuai HPC Special Review Final SPA . Y Finai HPC 8040 Greenline Ccricactual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Reiccation HPC Subdivisicn Tex#Mao Amend. Histcric LandmarK GMCS allotment __ GMQS exempticn Demc/Parrial Demo View P!ane Car'Idominiumizarion Design Review Lct Solit/Lot Line Â· Acceai Committee _ Adjusrmenr . a 8. Description of existing uses (number and type cf existing structures. accroximate sa. 1. number cf bedrocms. any previous acoravats granted to the property) 6*Â¢0 f'G* 4+19 6%1011-[10,1, 6144440 . 9. Description of develcpment application 444 19441N.g, 6,414.rlrIA 1,1Hlf .0*,H>/#Ff@02 tb #c-~RE, A+HO Ufl:ER- 1-8461- eull.gr rvp. 61* K A A , 2, U . 10. Have ycu completed and attached the following? 4/' Attachment 1 - Land use application form 2- Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form . 4 Response to Attachment 3 4 Response to Attachments 4 and 5 11111111 ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Apolicarr ,~Â« * 21,1Â»1 +I,e,el H Address: +90 KI, Ff,41019 Â«t Zcne district -f-60 Lot size: _46*9 Sf Ecisting FAR: 24 67 44 Allawable FAR: -*z +0 ;F Proposed FAR: 8#66 df Existing net leasable (commercat): NA- Proposed net leasable (commercian: NA Existing 96 of site ccverage: 4 00 ./ Prcocsed % of site coverage: 46Â¢/3 t . Existing % of open space: 4 4 h Praccsed 95 of ccen space: 92Â·'70 Existing maximum heignt Pfrlcical ticc: *4 1 Accescr/ clac: i' 0' D Prccc:sed max. heignc PEncical tidc: e 5' Accesscr, bidc: 17 P=cosect 36 cf aemcilticrl: . *97, oF #04*49'12'f 01*24. Existing number of becrccms: 5 P=ccsed number af ted=crns: 410 Existing cr:-site carking spaces: N#NE, Cn-site parking spaces recuired: CH O Sertacks Existing: i Minimum recuired: P=xsed: i FrcnE 16Â· 4 FrcrIc 1 0 Frcnt - 16Â· G .Rear: - Rear: 12 Rear: ' Comoined 1 Camtined Ccmtined Fron#rear: 1*. 6 Frcrr[/rear: 30 Frcrrurear 16-E~ Side: / Sice: 4 Sice: - Side: 9. e' Side: 9 Side: 01.G' Combined 4 1 Cambined Combined I Sices: 1.6 Sides: 1 9 S ides: 1.0 Existing nanconformities cr encrcachments: +PlÂ·| 12*0,6 â€¢~Â· 416Â¥T,â€¢120 EN,>14*J.1 M EN-rs_ Variaticns requested: 4~NliN j.1*'TI#H 31; 40 @9*144 loriÂ· 13 94 401 4Â« _ (HPC has the ability ta vary the following requirements: setbacks. distance between buildings. FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.1. site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations underthe cottage infill program, parking waivers ir residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC. and O Zone districts) . - ~' 1 - 4- <19> C 1 4- // .- c --- -4 11\\ â‚¬46?0;4-*-1.,i - -3-S 1, Â«4424- -1// 1.0 i -/1 . ri- # \ \ Suver t f - \ %0 -- J ) 02/ . *.-. .49 /LA L , 4' 4 L# * A k..0-> \4>21\ -9 V.-- - + /4 / S )"Ak,Z-< -\ 6/ 1 4~ L, -\ 9 'Mour"11;4:w 01 jk .. , ------ L._344 O 5% %\ 4.047*2%1%/:0 Ad r--. --1 , ..pli f -4\ Ig;RÂ¥4 9 4-\ 4. 40/ 01*13unny Ct 4/7 'N â‚¬13/00%4\N/ \/ , b Â»2->$ 42 : Asoen . H . 0144 C.-77,/me:i, Ins!,lute ..:' 5 . 31 15 C-\\ G:=21. 2 ./4- i '4% 0 % 1 9 0 Tent Wood Duck t n Zo ~ ff Din . 6 Gmes le St it i. ----- j .\ 3 1 Ped Ct r.h' 2:t Goll Course v-4 ' ./6-L '/ /74 41 9434 2-; S.4 4 1 i - vt.. s t. , 9 /Â¢ 41 1.--- ne,S 1 4. d/ .0, 41 0 4 4 .6 14 -9 4 Race 4 0 G H //am St 6 3/ V - -9%9 -40 T --Â·-1 -- *â€¢ St Abe , S out Av ' na Creek Rd 1. - 44 3. 113 n A i / I m '16 \ ranct 46.M qq Sowmilt â€¢ Ho kin v aln St . --rry' 44\ ay St 03. C. 4-3 pk 82 % 4 '/4 0 , 30 2 4> #/9 ' LJ ( Q fc). _jiild : C. . 1 4 , - e t "OSP ki 1 Smuggler Mtn Rd 1 ./1 111)01< /\+ 7 . '01 f. -Ck_ -r' 4 10 b ---.. *eff6*YpiG:Lipg Afflfakim:li) hi> 2., 1 5.4. 14'Gb.ely 64 .' i Â¢ e.44--Cf* 04 4 na 4, 4 4 St I 64 4,/Lâ€¢,hgou, 6, ir As Grove p ~'. h '1 41 Â¢04,6 SuA,m#St PROJECT SITE . - F 9. 3 , , ~44~/â€¢4. CE. aiy' 4 I *1?: 04 4â€¢ M . 8 444 Â·YÂ· Dve.twe. f ,. 4 r I . \ 12 9: 5 1 .0 1 2 82 wiCINITY MAP 4 --, .>\ C g eon,IdS * euret Of L,ure V 11 -. ~ 016 9 | 442 0 011 8*N . AL 0 1 8 ' 1. /05 01 - '03 "1 1 1,$:L pl , 02 - -31., ui .1 Â¢ 4 4 1 ..s f -0 18--<1,1 P / r-r LU, --' 12 9 11,1 ,-Ill- . - ~i--l~ 11 .A---*4<-* H W N , 1 # 4 0 11# I....... 0 - 0 4- 41 0 8 1_i 128 9 - 2 0 'la-- ...1 / ..11; 0 LL 7'T 1 i Tip 1... -3 : - n -- tr 't lit ii j ''.~ 2 ~ a j -16. ri-./ 16k i 10 1 11 - - ,1. 11 1/1. g 3. 0 Lia 1 01 7 ~ 0 0 1.. ~75 1 -Â« 4 / 1 4 Le I .2 r M 11 \ 4 5 r~-'1 22 ~. ,T , 1 i ri -1 r-:r*EV7 r-- ... 11 0 4 l__ 0 1-fl--1 4 11 _- M 1.Ja a A. M 11 e al 4 0 01 , 1. Ll /* 1' 0 K 0 V. 0 -- - , 1 Â£ 11 T tr ' - "-' - 0 9 /75- 1,18111 r 1 01, 0 6 00''a 1 / . 1 , 11 - rp-; 11n_ 1/ I il_& 11 . 11 \V/ ..11 -' . 1 -0, 11 8. Â£ m Â»Â»u----is ~.M p'w.. Li u...b , 0/1 R L < 11 . 't A Il O,9 0 vy . .1.â€¢ I 1,6,2, i Â£7 64, 2 m 11* 11 9 ,#9 113< 1411 L t. S e === = Â¥- =S =8=4 =m â€¢~=4 =:= =% 2~ ,~1'=== tn =-6 = 1==S =E= =5 2==a ,= t= = ta neS =.=1 =2= 2~~- e = 14 =~2. *srn=1 * *esT '0 0.4 f AL# *19 4 e Â£104' N th , 4 11, * -2.0 . 11. 1 r 109 1 ,/4 \ hr- 34t,-*?tefll'Â· ~3%FJ~ -- ....> ,~ . , A . I . .. I 1 1. ......8,6.2.; 4* : 11.42'J , 4~27 10,1 1 1 .0 .0 ABBREVATIONS MATERIALS SYMBOLS LEGEND SHEET INDEX ABOVE INSHED FLOOR *FA ACOUSTICAL CERNG 11-E A.C. T . - SECTION...81 :.=== ADASTASLE ADA ALTERNATEALT. - -- ---- -Â· - ANCHOR BOLT U. ARCHTECTURAL ARCH. EARTH MASONRY WOOD BUILD'Â«/ /KI 8.41. ....1 SECnON 3.1 32,ANG 21'G. .Â¢tÂ¢ 'liliir 0-#-*Er ' * eLOCIONG al.Ke BOTTOM 0â„¢ ORAÂ¥,4- +. - ./ I -wAN E,OTTOM OF FOOTING IF. BUTLD'48 8.DCL UNDISTURBED CONC. BLOCK ww 1 . â‚¬.:E-ING 4113 -E.E. f..22 UN @m OY O,VMER El - 8ECTION NUeem ECS.NG .29 -EVEt -- 71 =_AN WALL ~ . -V 0 CABINET CABL (En.*acla. 13 CENTgUE CL CIOW#C TILE C.T. ><1 SECTK>M e ==CPOSED :PPER E/EL 2-ZA JUN 9 20 0 - ColuMN COX. u =C=SEED ..A:,4 .EVEL CLIC: =LJN CONCRETE CONC COPeâ‚¬CTION COIL GRAVEL SFUCK ROUGH 0.- CONTII.IOUS CONT. A :6 =SED :CU 4.JOR E DETAIL 16.1 AJOSED. 1:C, GARAGE f ".A :LJN - 083 DETZ. Dll DOUBLE DaL Elk=~ SECTION 4.2 220:CSED AOU .POER FLEC: DLAN , *02 '' ' 042 1. /1 i; ..C== 5 Sou-4 ELE'ANONS U-LU --1 HZÂ¢*~ EACH WAY EW El.EVATION EL I ELEV DOSTNe Exrd EXTEA'OM EXT. BACKFILL STONE BLOCIONG 0 51ST 5 .EST ELEÂ·VATIONS *~ FLOOR FLA. FOOTING FTQ. DETAL 'Â·Â·-:'/ls 19 a ELEVATICNS,PROPOSEE ./.&/TDN./O REFOSÂ«WE 19.1 F.POSED lOU ELEVAT-.NS EZZZ imaimm PAW U>LaME././/1/ A9.2 2:ccOSED ADU ELEvATIONS G< GMAGE GA ~ED".L . S.C 110 ECETING ACCESSORY uNIT ELEVATIONS ORâ€¢- GYPSUM WALLBOAFO GLWA ASPHALT FINISH ~*UITH=. aEV. MARK C FAIT FLOOR A11 SECNONS & DETAILS HOA=rALHORIZ- 42 ,22!08 ELE'vATIONS 1. 1 1006 0. HOTWATER CATER AW. I i 61 413 XERIOR ELEVATIONS IIK]GalloN INFORM- NSUAnON INGUL A14 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS CONCRETE PLYWOOD #Et Et. DOOR SYMBOL. l.) FINISHES INSULATION MISC. METTYPE LEâ‚¬AR FOOT LF. LIVELOAD LL 8.-riva. LONamIC-L LONGE mittat 7%&389 WN(DOWSâ„¢BOL 49 NOT W CONTRACT MIC. GYPSUM BOARD BLANKET NEW WOOD WALL 1 - CONSTRUCTION NTERIOR (2 -9.2 OPPOGITE app EL MARK 4> PANTED PTO. Pe.ORATED PERF. E=======1===N - C.1 PLATE PL Pt.TWOOD PLYWD. T *Ove{TYLINE PL PLASTER RIGID -Ref. REQURED REZ. METAL WeÂ«ntAI~Câ€¢1 ~~'Â·i - '~ Â· -Fg Â· ur RESLAT Rel Re,BED REY 0771 1 1 SHEET MErALSAL 8.luR StAt ' SQUAFE FOOTS.F. STANDARD STD CERAMIC STEEL- STEE..3 SIL ROOMNu,488 FE--1 THICK IK TOPOPMATETAL TOP OF LEDGE T.01. TOP OF WALL T.CUV. 055ff2r# | 1 1 1 NEW CONTOURS ToP OF STEEL T.0.8. TOWEL EAR U. 11WISVERGE TI-SV. TYPICALTYP. STONE EXISTING UM.Ess OnÂ·ERWISE NOTED U.O.N. CONTOURS VERFY IN FUELD V.LF. VERTICAL VEXT. SMOKE DETECTOR ~ im.. VINYL WALL FABRIC V.WA STAIRS SYMBOL - WATERPROOF Â¥%1'. WATER RESISTANT WA Fe- WIIÂ®OWWNO. WTTH W / WOOD WD. GENERAL NOTES .4324,1 1Â»4.i':Â·, PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.ALL CONSTRUCTIONA,Â® MATERI,~LSGHALLBEASSPECIMEDAND IN AmoRDANCEWT,HALL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS ZONING ANALYSIS APPUCABLE CODES. OFUIVANCES. lAWS. PERI,Gre. AND THE CONTRACT- 1.Ot.1~WMENTZIC)*INX 10.--UN DISTANCE BETWEEN BUCLONGS 2.THECON,RACTORSHALL/RESPO?GBLEFORTHEACCLIATEPUCEMefroPALLIEN SITE 0Â®oSF. .04*94 Â»41Â£>R,11 DENâ€¢rry RES:,ENT,AL ON TE 6071 FT CONSTRUCTION ON TIE SITEL MAX.ALLOWAKE F.A.8 ------3240 S E , r.6) ililliall 11 -MO'tiEN OPEN OPACE: NO) REQURERâ‚¬NT 3.TRECON,BACTOR SHAUVER~ALLONENSIONSNO SITE CONOmONS BEFORE STARTING EXISHIE F.A.R. 28ff.25 5 F VIOIIC MOCOADISf#*PWNCYAPPa,RNTHECONTRACTDOCUde,~ORS~WEB, THS 3.PS-TTED USES: 12.EXTER?,AL FLOOR AREA RAnO(F.AE, CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AlÂ«>eaSTNBCONDInoNS.NOTIFYTHEARCHITECT ATONCEFOR TOTAL AREA OF DECKS----389.61 5 F BSUE OATE IleTRUCTION ON HOW TO PROCEED. ~~R=oem* owaL,a IJACCES'ORY DVIELL,le UNITS: {15% OF 3240 S.F.Â·486 S.F. THEREFORE CECKS EXEWT! TO 4.SHOULD A COf<UCT OCCLA N CA SE,WEEN ORAW,489 AND SPECIP,CATOIS. THE -LOTOPÂ®00 8/.ORIREATER * ' aPECIFICATIC,48 81,ULTAKE PRECIDENCE. UNLESSA WFMTTENDECISIONFROMTHEARCHITECT TOTAL AREA OF GARAGE---------425.5 3.F MAVEANA.D.ul WlÂ«CHWal (321 0,ED FNEUrll=rED ,~8812,NOBTAINED WI,CHDESCR,EBACLARIACATE}NORALTWIVTEMETHOOAND,CR 4.11NNUM LOTGUE:0000 6.F. <INER 1,4 90*-10 FC,11( HOUS,le AUTHORITY. MATEAWA 250 S.F EXEMT :75 5 SF E .5.87 -5 SFI ACCORDIar.EACH RE,IDENCE,~LRIALOWED U,1-11.ULATAAZAPEROVVELUNG UNT: KINS PAR POR 51% OPTHEA.D.u @POSS AAEA S.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFRIC 108,1Â·ER OPERATIONQ 03 THE NTE To AREAS Pe,MITTED BY MAIN LEVEL le/ ENTRY-----91 5 8-E DET,al[Z, OffalÂ»Kal= 85 UPTO AMAa:UWOPI-- PER Ulgr THE! MOMEa,NERS ASSOCIATION. T,11 080Â£,dIED OV-U,011'- 9.,AMT UPPER LEVEL A.O.u Wili------516.5 9 18.0-LAGES: #THEJOBS,rE SHALL BE la,IrAINED IMACLEAN. ORDERY COFÂ«NTIO,i FFEE al DEERMAND U-010*FRONrAREARYARD: A GAA,GEOF UPTOBS,8,18 ALLOWEDPER 0 8.LIO UTTE AN *6411.NOT BE UNIMEASONABLY 840(JUBEâ„¢ED V.,TH ANY MATE:VALS OR EQUIPMENT. EXISTING MAIN HOUSE----2373 9 POR PNNCIPALOUUINMS:30 FT. TOTAL vmHOUT OOL,ma .... FAA EEACH eu~CONTRACTORIMMEDIATE.YON COMPUmON OF EACH PHASE OF MIS,HED, Vâ€¢ORKSHALL -HA 10,7. A#Im#JM EACHS,De M,0,1 23, WTO 500 9.GAARee ACCA Al*A Oot,im 1-OVE ALL.TRASH A,0 OEBRUB FES*RJTR~ moll HIS# HER OPERATION. AS O.5 FAAUUPTOTI SFOF F.L.E~~trWaGE AFFA OVEB 600 - 00<*tra Aa FUL FAAAPEL TJail*IMi SOE YARO: 7.ALL MATERIALS STORIDON THE SITE SIW.L DE PROPERLY STACKED AMD PROTECTED TO PREVENT 18 F.A R 3068.25 9 r 1;FraAcHe,Dell< DAMAGEANDDETO,ORATION. FALURETO PROTECTMATERIALSIUMBECAUSEFOAREJECTION OF WORK. UW-UM SITE COVERABE: SHEET ITTLE ATHS Calm,ACTOR SHALLDI ALLCUTTING. FITTIN* CAPATCHMGOF H18/1â‚¬RWOM TWAT MAY BE TrnE SHEET Relt. mED TO MAKE ITS SEVERAL PARTS FIT TOGEDâ‚¬A PROP ER LY NO 8-1 NOT WCANBER //fr PROJECT INFORMATION .,Ce la-a~ 1715-97R 0.-*JAUM HEIGHT: OTHEA WORK BY CUTT:Ma. EXCAVATUe. 011071Â«-ISE ALTERING TIC TOTAL WO,KOR ANY PART â€¢ EXECUTION OP WORK SHALL 82 DO,EWITH APPUCABLE MATERTIALS 80 THAT SURFACES DATE 09-15-07 offr. ALLPATC)119(1.REPAIR,48.01:REM,EW#OPMATERIALSANDSURFACESCUTORDAMAGED REF<ACEDWILL. â€¢ HALPERIN RESIDENCE UIC} PORTION OP TME *01* REQUIRING A 81409 420 W.FRANCIS STREET ~.Â¥04.Y . ALLSUCH ASPEN,COLORADO REÂ¥!8104 R -AD PORTIONS Or 8,1,LE& 140.~ ClitNeE DATE lÂ¥ OWNERS: BARRY & ELLEN HALFERIN 10.00*ENSIONS: PHONE : (970)544-1793 IWiLD,-ENSIONS StÂ·ALL TAKE PfUECEDENCE OVER SCALE Of DRAW- MALL 01-MeloNS AFETI} FACE OF STUD UNJESS OTHERWISE SPECURED 00&2401 HEIGHT D,Me,510NS AFE FROM RNISH FLOOR SLAB TO FACE OF Al,SH Cet,Na MATEFUAL UNIESe (THEWME SPEIRED DESIGNER/CONTRACTOR aN COLOMBO INTERNATIONAL i.CONâ„¢ACTORTO PROV,De ALLNECESSARY OLOCIONG. BACKB,0. AfÂ® FRAMING FOR LIGHT 520 E. COOPER ST ~ FUXTURES. RECTâ„¢CAL UFS. AA EQUIP,eNTRECESSED frEMS. AMD ALL 011*ER mEMS SUITE # 205 RE~JOID. ASPEN, CO. 81611 00WMam 12.WHERE LARGER STUOS OR Fl.*IA:Ma ALE REQUIRED TO COVER PIPINQ ANDOONOUTTS, 11{E PHONE: (970)925 - 7806 LARGEM STUD NE OR FURR,40 SMALLEXTIPOnâ‚¬ FULLat:VACEOPTHEWALLWIDTHAND FAX: (970)925-3972 1.ENGâ„¢ VA-E THE FURR1#la OCCURS. *eatti~; 13.PROVIDE All ACCESS PANâ‚¬.SABREQUIRED BY QOVERMING CODES TO ALLOCNCe*LED SPACES Â¥0109.ATTICa.ETC. VERFYTYPEREQUIREDÂ¥mHARCHITECTPRIORTONSTAUATION. ENGINEER: MAGGERT & ASSOCIATES INC. 580 MAIN ST. SUITE # 300 14.-ALL FIMISH MATERPLS GIW.L BE GIELECTED BY TIE OWNER. FUNSHED NO NSTALLED SY CARBONDALE,CO. 81623 CONTRACTOR UIÂ«ESS OTHERWISE NOTED. PHONE : (970)963-9643 1&ALLGEDADOUS AND 8ABROOMS TO HAVe 801.,O BATT 14@ULATONIN ALLWALLACEUNQS 0 1 AtÂ® FUORS. < HONJI IHSId'IVH ........... ............ .......... .......... ........... ............ ........... ........... :; R...... ........... ............ ............ ............ ....... ...... ...... ......... ....... F REMOVE W INDOWS AND REPLACE 7 MAF'H SET TYPE / tXISTING STYLE. SIZE & COER _ SET NO. 30'-9" Ch ' T 10'-412 20'-4 12 J i .........1 1 -. 2 BEDROOM ti *=41 KITCHEN 1 :Irm! TOOL -ILi i . ~. . SHED L ............-I--lilli. ROOM :: A i.- w i: DARKROOM Â«rÂ· 1: H . .. - EMOVE WALLS DOOR ~ LIVINGROOM . t 4 '46 - U l 4 - #\ to . 5'-6" 5001' 2',21 1/7 ~ 6'-6" 2>1 1/2" 9'-6" f f 1,2 REPLACE WINDOWS TO MATCH EXISTING STYLE & COLOR sA~FLOOR PLAN ADU FLOOR PLAN(EXISTING&DEMOLITION) 1715-97R SCALE.1/1' 1 '-0, w- ' ~ .109 NUMBER DATE 11Â·03-97 DRAWN BY REVISION RECOFv CHANGE CATE i - .. SKI - .- 1 4 .. ........ H~dUVH -440Hj/\I910DL 'MOD .,tkyÂ·.) 1, Â·Â·-Â· -'234% 9 dSV .... 3:Â·Ji d+Id3131 Niki'Â·9 ... .......... 23'-8" g <EXKKE)â‚¬1 1 I-ZI~: .............. 1 l'.1 4 4 - P \\-k ' ..1 A- i -1 Â·Â·]/ .4 +4 ..1..]/. 7 9.1 14 j-1441- t Â·-66 /'~1-y 22*~ .>4'.~.Â·Â»' , -.4..RQI Â·~ . , '' A |'A. 0 Â· .61 1' 1 .'-+ A 11\ - 2.-1. I 4 " Â·i- 1 7 1 1M t. .f 6 4 \ '1 /1 4Â·. Â·'.1- 9- - : 7 111 14+ A /t - , re, '. .% 1. . 1 ./: 1 8W PE 6.-0. 1 1 5 1 - 1 l j Wl E 15 i 2 1 O 1 5 619 . L--- -1 0 -C=====a e Q 3 FY a4$ . 490 N 1 mil 4 - -73 2 5 2 . 42= Â©0411~. i '*bilif*.- r 18'-6- 4.,Â·Jf *62 r.7 2 4 0 Bor -. Ill 1:. ' 11 . M Â£9Â» 4.f..3.1,- 40 i.. 7 1 1 4.- ~ Â·At'.q xe . A Â£ i 42 + X +224~~ryÂ·' ' . ,+It 74 1-@K~ 4. 8 *13>1913> 5 1 5 1 M , .. -i 3 91' 12 a COLOMBO < .. I m~ 553 HALPERIN_RESIDENCE .. .... it 5 5 . 420 W. FRANCIS 8TREET ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 'fÂ·xfg:Â·r . 10'-6- .W i 811/03 (a3SOclobld)13/8-1 NIVK nOv Nlkdad-IVH e.t l wooo Cal/61 awl=tw-4 1 \ iNG-Do ..........I-/4 .............. ............... 119 L9 ....'I.-..... 00VU0100'NadSÂ¥ 0 3.21 1% ......... 1331319 SIONVE!3'M 034 - .- :- 88 HONE[aISHlrNIFISIWr[VII H ............. m.3 w i to...IiI."r.... m.r.................. -2 8 11 :R : 41<61<514ka "............. L . 4/ I -9-.41 1 0 - LU CO M" C a. m j : 0. i Cilm 0 0 0 0 00- All 4 R p 0 84 --ll h (Â·11 CL ~ eD i.65ili&S,/ss: - 2 u e LLI TTiTT-11 __12 3 LLI J #-----------' C IIN" i 37 6 113 0- 0 8 6 D -/0 0 it; 2 0 CO -I'll , Z ... m /2 .9-,91 1 -9.9 1-1-1 CL r------1 J 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 EL IZI 1/Imvic | TOP OF ROOF RIDGE TOP OF ROOF RIDGE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + Tii Cs- - 7' 120'-0~ NEWRINGLES TOMATCH ~--83>~8 'do,~8 EXISTING 1 E / 1 TOP OF BEARING PLATE TOP OF BEARING PLATE 4 115'-6- NEW WOOD DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS 115*-6- Em 1 2 X8 WOOD FASCIA \TO MATCH EXISTING SLIDING lASS DOOR 2 X 12 WOOD HORIZONTAL TRIM , WOOD HANDRAIL TO MATCH MAIN HOUSE TOP OF UPPER FLOOR TOP OF UPPER FLOCR ------------------ 108.-r 108'-6- 6- REDWOOD CLAPBOARD EXISTING SHED TO MATCH MAIN HOUSE â‚¬C j WOOD 6*RAGE DOORS ~ SETTYPE SETNO TOP OF GARAGE SLAB/ GRADE ' TOP OF GARAGE SLAB/ GRADE 100'-0- 100'-0- Â£111 AIQBIB-ELEMAI[QN_(2BQBQSED) SCUE 1 4â€¢.--------__---_-_-__ -.-----*.0, . TOP OF ROOF RIDGE tTOP OF ROOF RIDGE 727Â·=h" ------- ----------------------- - ---- -- ----------- ------ -f l2, -6- A e 1 120'-0. Fs . NEW SHINGLES TO MATCH 8 [22%4 EXISTING ---------_________.___1~ TOP OF BEARING PLATE ,0*2,0.fr~____1=%~~ - 2X8 WOOD FASCIA 1 TOP OF BEARING PLATE 115'-6- I k==El liIIUEz===46 I g g 1 NEWWOOD DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS To 115'-6" ISSUE DATE; TO MATCH MAIN HOUSE 6- REDWOOD CLAPBOARD TOP OF UPPER FLOOR : TOP OF UPPER FLOOR -8 108'-6~ ' F - 1 4 108'-6- EXISTING SHED - NEW WOOD DOOR NEW WOOD COLUMN SHEET 11112 TOP OF GARAGE SLAB/ GRADE A.D.U. ELEVATIONS JCe NUMBER 1715-97R 100'-0- DATE 12-1-97 100'-0- DRAn. m S.B. REVISION FECED NO. CHANGE DATE BY 1 Â£11LSQUIM-ELEMAIL~LIEBQEQSED) 3 4 SCALE:1 l'----~-1'Â·Cr COMMENTS HONSI 133Wle 'N3dS e . TOP OF ROOF RIDGE ' 1 TOP OF ROOF RIDGE -1,2 -2 721 -Â¥ NEW SHINGLES TO MATCH , EXISTING - HEXJ%~ C 0 Â»' 115'-5" - 2XS WOOD FASCM TOP oF BE,RI NG PLArE ./ 1 TOP OF BEAR I NG PLATE 89= --------------------------:P----- 115'-6- 6- REDWOOD CLAPBOARD Â¤0 NEW WOOD DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS z83 TO MATCH MAIN HOUSE TO MATCH EXISTING '2 1 11: - NEWWOOD HANDRAIL TO MATO1 MAIN HOUSE TOP OF UPPER FLOOR i TOP OF UPPER FLOOR la--r- -- -0----------- 2 X 12 WOOD HORIZONTAL TRIM 108'-6. NEWWOOD D TO MATCH MAIN HOUSE NEW WOOD COLUM 6- REDWOOD CLAPBOARD TOP OF; GARAGE SLAB/ GRADE TOP OF GARAGE SLAB/ GRADE SErrâ€¢mg SET NO 100*-0" 100'-0/ LQ-11.-EASLELEJLAIIONJEBQEQSED) SCALE:M--1 -7 .. 1 Z 1 49Â· TOP OF ROOF RIDGE 1 1 TOP OF ROOF RIDGE r/121'-6- -.921 3._I.-_IC_____- ------ 120'-0- 1- 0 1 - NEW SHINGLES TO MATCH EXISTING TOP OF BEARING PLArE 61) TOP OF BEARING PlATE -- 115'-6- ~ 115'-6- ISaJE DATE 8- REDWOOD CLAPBOARD TO TO MATCH MAIN HOUSE TOP OF UPPER FLOOR - 2 X 1 2 HORIENTAL WOOD mIM 1 TOP OF UPPER FLOOR 7---t_._=4 *108*-r - EXISTING SHED SHEETTITLE AD.U. ELEVATIO,IS TOP OF GARAGE SLAB/ GRADE 1Top oF GARAGE SLAB/ GRADE .ICE NUMBER 1715497R 100'-0- DATE 12-1-97 100-0. DRAWN ElÂ¥ REVISION RECCRD NO CHANOE DATE al 1 A._D._LL-WESLELEMAIK~(28QEQSED) 1 3 4 SCALE:lMÂ·--1'-00 CeÂ»AMENTS ... NA942 M :Eii:i:i:Eii:i:i:iE $[JAIHUISH11-N[IlnialVH 133819 Vii=1'M 08* N3dSV ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF November 12. 1997 Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:05 with Mark Onorowski, Susan Dodington, Roger Moyer, Melanie Roschko, Gilbert Sanchez, Jeffrey Halferty and Mary Hirsch present. Heidi Friedland was excused. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the minutes of Sept. 24th; second by Suzannah. All in favor, motion carried. 920 W. HALLAM - LANDMARK DESIGNATION Hitch Hass, planner presented. The site has three separate structures and the principal structure was built in 1888. One ofthe structures was moved in 1940 and is currently used as a garage. In order to designate two or more standards have to be met. Staff recommends designation finding standard B, architectural importance; D, neighborhood character and E, community character are met. Gilbert was not seated for this item. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the landmark designation for 920 W. Hallam St. finding that standards B,D and E of section 26.76.020 have been met; second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried 7-0. 420 W. FRANCIS - PUBLIC HEARING Three exhibits - two letters and one affidavit. Gilbert seated at 5:30 p.m. Jeffrey did not vote. Amy Guthrie, planner stated that the applicant is requesting a variance and partial demolition. The house was built in 1886 or 1887. There have been a few additions on the west and north side of the building and some change of materials. Asbestos removal, repairing clapboard and window replacements 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF November 12. 1997 are proposed. Railings on the front porch are proposed and a low deck. On one of the out buildings at the back of the site a window replacement is proposed and Staff has no objection as it is not historic. A construction of a car-port is proposed and requires a variance. The Parks Department reviewed the car-port due to the impact on the large trees in the same location and recommend against it. Staff recommends restoring the siding or replacing it if it isn't in good condition. Staff also recommends that no window openings on the historic house may be widened. The windows on the front most portion of the house should be retained and restored. Staff recommends against railings on the front as they are not an historic feature. A variance from the volume standard on the windows on the ADU is needed. Added to the conditions are penalties if materials from the site are removed. Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer stated that the affidavit has been presented and HPC has the jurisdiction to proceed. Jim Colombo presented for the applicant. All clapboard that can be 0 0 salvaged will be restored. The unrestorable clapboard will be replaced with a clapboard that is cor sistent with what is existing. The single pane double hung windows are to be replaced with the same size insulated windows.Â· The window on the east may not be historic and is proposed to be enlarged to let more light into the bathroom area. Metal railings are proposed and the west window could remain the same size. Regarding the trees the applicant recommends hand dug caissons to minimize any impact on the trees in order to construct the garage. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing. Public comments: Bill Stirling, neighbor relayed to the board that he is opposed to the variance for the garage. The character of the west end is defined by the irrigation ditches, historic character and the blue spruce and cottonwood trees. The evergreen trees are 50 years old and 60 feet high and are part of what 0 0 defines that neighborhood. The other issue is open space within sites. Bill 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF November 12. 1997 suggested that the guest house be raised that is not historic and build a garage in that location. Colombo relayed that an existing structure exists in the location of the proposed garage. He also discussed the trees and how the caissons work. Commissioners concerns: Snow load onto the neighbors property. Use of existing shed without making it taller and eliminating a variance for the garage. The window replacements will be the same size and double hung except the one on the west elevation which will be enlarged slightly. That particular window is small and not visible. The shutters are not historic. Staff indicated that the bay window was probably a replacement window and typically you would see a double hung window. The applicant stated that he looked into replacing the bay window with a double hung to bring it back to the original but it is difficult to find a window of that size as it is about six feet across. They would entertain two three foot windows across. The board inquired about moving the garage to the other side but the applicant explained that there are several 30 foot trees in thatvicinity that would have to be removed. Railing issues. The code requires railings on porches and decks over 30 inches from grade and the front porch on the west elevation shows a railing closing offthe entry porch. The front porch and deck next to it do not have to have a rail by code. The applicant requests a railing around the deck which is not of historic significance. The Board feels that the railing impacts the historic structure. The Board is against variances for the garage. Gilbert requested more clarification on why the garage is not possible on the east side. They had no problems with the window replacements and siding. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF November 12. 1997 It was suggested that the railings be wood Where needed and none on the front and they should be consistent. Possibly do a hedge in the front as an alternative to a railing. The majority of the Board was in favor or tabling partial demolition. MOTION: Roger moved (1) to allow the applicant to proceed with items 2, ,_ 3, 4, 5 and 6 ofStaffs memo dated Nov. 12, 1997. 2. It must be detennined whether or not the original siding still exists under theshingles. Ifso, HPC willwork with the applicant to determinewhether or not that siding can be restored. Otherwise, new clapboard siding may be installed. As part of this activity, staff also recommends that the shutters be removedfrom the house since they would not have been there originally. 3. All replacement windows on the historic portion of the house must match the existing windows as closely as possible. No window openings on the historic portion ofthe house may be widened. The pella replacement windows are to be reviewed by Staff and Monitor. The applicant should consider the possibility of replacing the multipaned window in the bay on the south elevation with a large double hung, which is more likely what originally existed. A. Window on the east elevation can be replaced. B. Window on the west elevation which is an existing historic window cannot be changed. - 4. In regard to the railings proposed on thefront decks, staffrecommends that no railings be installed unless an exception for historic structures cannot be granted from the UBC, or unless there is reason to believe that they were there historically. Ifrailings must be installed, they must be wood and should be simple, not turned balusters. 5. A varianceis granted from Ord. #30, volume, for the new windows on the ADU. The windows on the north of the ADU must be modified to be more in scale with those on the rest ofthe building and the house (narrower.) 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF November 12. 1997 6. No exterior materials may be removed from the building without the consent ofHPC. With the approval of this application it is understood that windows except for those identified on the attached plans as modified by staff may be replaced in kind. HPC will work with the applicant to determine the condition of the original clapboards if they exist. Deck boards and stairs may be repaired where necessary and replaced if beyond repair. No other exterior materials may be removed without-HPC consent. Also that Staff and monitor investigate the siding after the shingles are removed and a good solution is determined as to whether the siding can be usedÂ·or a new siding is installed and what the dimensions are etc. The applicant, stajf and monitor work together regarding a better solution for the bay window on the south side. Roger moved (2) to table the variances, garage addition, demolition and reconstruction until November 24, 1997; Motions 1&2 second by Melanie. All in favor, motion carried. Clarifications: Jim Colombo asked that the HPC reconsider the railing on the deck that is not required and is not historic. He would like to put the railing on the non- historic portion of the deck to give continuity to the deck. The request was denied. -4 Windows that are to be replaced with pella windows are to be reviewed by Staff and monitor. MOTION: Suzannah moved to adjourn; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF December 17. 1997 Chair-person Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order with Roger Moyer, Mary Hirsch, Susan Dodington, Heidi Friedland and Jeffrey Halferty present. Gilbert Sanchez and Melanie Roschko were excused. 114 NEALE ST. - CONCEPTUAL - PUBLIC HEARING Assistant City Attorney David Hoefer received the affidavit (Exhibit I) of notice and HPC has jurisdiction to proceed. Chair-person Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing, no comments. MOTION: Roger moved to table 114 Neale Street and continue the public hearing to January 14, 1998; second by Susan. All infavon motion carried. 420 W. FRANCIS -CONCEPTUAL & FINAL - PARTIAL DEMOLITION - PUBLIC HEARING David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney received the affidavit (Exhibit I) of notice and the jurisdictional requirement of the Historic Preservation Commission and HPC has jurisdiction to proceed. Amy Guthrie relayed that the applicant will retain the existink shed and demolish the rest of the building and in its place will build a two stall garage with an ADU above it. It is a slight expansion but will not damage the trees. P&Z approved the ADU. Staff recommends approval and the ADU will make a nice contribution to the alley. A rear yard setback variance is requested. Chair-person Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing. No comments from the public. The chair closed the public hearing. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF December 17. 1997 0 MOTION: Roger moved to approve the application for conceptual and final review, partial demolition and compliance with Ord. #30 for 420 W. Francis to include a variance on the rear yard setback to five feet which means it is the same as the existing structure as submitted Dec. 17, 1997; second by Je#rey. All'in favor, motion carried unanimously. 920 W. HALLAM - CONCEPTUAL - PUBLIC HEARING David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney stated that the affidavit Qf notice has been provided (Exhibit I) and it meets the jurisdictional requirements and HPC can proceed. The preliminary site plan is Exhibit II. Mitch relayed that the applicant is requesting relocation of the garage structure on-site, partial demolition of the addition on the back of the historic house and to relocate the shed offthe site. The AH portion of the project has been withdrawn. On the site is the historic structure, garage and a shed. The garage was moved there in the 1930's and the shed was moved 0 there in the 1940's. Staff feels the partial demolition standards for the removal of the addition on the back and the off- site shed relocation have been met. The on-site relocation of the garage is recommended with a bonding condition and a structural report at the building permit issuance time. The Board asked the. applicant for the overall view of the site i.e. lot split etc. David Guthrie, potential owner stated that the design was for an AH component but that was withdrawn and the intention is an historic lot split with two small houses in addition to the historic house on the property. The historic house would need to be moved on the site. Mitch stated that the landuse code allows for an historic lot of 6,000 sq. ft. or more to have two detached residential units. With this lot being 11,100 0 2 Eâ„¢,â€¢ir S G S RE . *-- - St - =.0 64 0< ALLEY BLOCK 34 1 2=40/ 80.05*----I ----Â§1â‚¬99,11.E 527 se . i /4 j - 1 1/50 1 -264 , . 01 - i li 00 - r. j ir-4 ~=24=~ 234, VA ry h -Il- -, , r ~3'FeE 1.2%7 41*IN litiord 6 VI 0 4 p. 13*341 A - Ssi ,wtur' 3 P 11 - 4 Emr!!10Â·nu 'MLED,JE /.s 0 2 -0 i : 0.45 2 ir -4.- V -- MEETTITZE -- SITE PLAN - ICE] 10*ENDA ADDRESS 1715-07R 0.-t 420 W. FRANCIS STREET 4/19. 599â‚¬Opp ASPEN. COLORADO OR-leÂ¥ 81611 WEST F LEGALDESCRIE[laN 44 1 010 i CNNÂ«* 1 DATE I LOTS N & 0. aOCK 34 RANCIS STREET CITY AND TOWN SITE OF ASPEN PmaN COU,rrY. COLORADO /1\1 1 . 00-â‚¬NTS RECEIVED EMEe * APR 2 2 1998 HUSP23U ...... ASPEN i Pt-CRIN â€¢ . Â· 090â€¢0620 SITE a.,4. Â· . Â· COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 513NqUISHÂ¥[NI 00Â¥80 133819 SIONVEW 100.00' N14*50'49*IE 0 11'-0/ 8-1 15-7 .2 ' / SEE STRUCTURAL 8-51,7 7...... .. f k 8 . 4 BAI~Â£1 a BErn. Dep&/B..Ougaa. .r= 2. ABC-- O*"LE **E.-r.-09.8 .. 0/.ip"/23%*: e ./.-..... 10 //fl i. 224* 16. I'lgialliga~t* A 1 1 BEDE~M-1 (/pÂ·* 9 46 44 i 1 .N i ~01.1/2.5"\M 0 14'-r R 18Â·1001Â· jilt 4 i 'lt ./.%/L-J R - CL 78*//0/TONEWNEEB Â· ,--7- TOMATO. 0 1 "1 <UN h â€¢FOUgÂ»T~ON 'A'.Â·n, f CUEN . 1 /1141 3 1 71 11. 1--1... I j---1.Â£' Â¥l_1 J -- DCF- 4 =111-r.: -*-1 - - 4* - 7- Â« - -6-, Â® -1-LYÂ® 11 Â® u. St"R - =ah. 4 1--- - UN ff r 1=1111=11 . r-ip&- S - M ter*10-1/Z 411=11'e k . * 6~10Â¤M /1'L - pillÂ»11. 2 . ./A~ al'11=1111=. .:. .. - 1 4 E"k'; i v - ..0 121 11=111=11' :- (? i ..rj ....\5':/ e m-7-Ux=== -~*3 1 .\A 4 411=111= - 0 9,60 6 0 Â·, mT-,~. 1 711 .=11112'- . *- I.'ll- - Mmalliall Â· ..4 ..... 0 2:21.47 f 1*m-JIjfiLLE:irÂ£ttl- 4 6 ---1, 1 1 >:01 ur-uj:Â·' all!=11. 7--- .=-1 4 --18 6 111=11#- .- iÂ£ 04[.li -4 6 V g.â€¢ -17 6. -_21Â¤ .... .,I'.-Ill'.to"ac b 1 . 6 6- 1 ,-512 34142â€¢ - . . 1 -0.1 1 1//Ir. r= : r,r -' - K â€¢ 6 1 *1"180-0 i . : t 1 Â® red=,=,=3/;= : mil j ' 1 1 1 k : i QEECE i 1 : i Joel=m" 171687R , I FeD IWIFY EnST-8 CE.1,0 RE/0/0 8% 1., .01 0-KE 0*TE M 1 SN. I ' .... RECEIVED i 43.1-U Ar BASEMENT FT.OORPLAN 0350 9 .. 19 \Cy -~ APR 2 2 1998 ~ : :â€¢04*61'10,0,9*liMAw. - .. . :.:.:.47:.:.::.: ASPEN / PITritiÂ·Â·i COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 71)NgÂ«INSIHN[Il[SIJTIVH ()1( 133819 GIONVH:I'M OED l'.91,9 OOVWO-100'N3dSV - --IIi 1" 1 .......... ..........'. LIES 2,1 /1 CME,(FORINSLUTIONONEASTSIDE U ~~ Clâ‚¬CKWATEFUNETOAOU(DEPTH! Z: RecA 15Â« 1 ~ RaOCATE S-PANEL r41 4 pur,.pa.,Ape ON SEPARATE CRCUIT El ~ \ ~ 0109%448*fLATION INTO WALL CAVITIES \ ~ Â® mel DEr=TION SYST- Fod =2 Â© WEBTES=unrr,SY,TEM \ M 8@E ..a, \ 8% 1 * 321 (2-7 541* - ' Â· 6 U. LU f IÂ® i M *05 s <2> =1 1 2< Â®f 04--~ -4 4% 1 LJ 41 - i e . 41$)==i~~ tae-0 41*44(.6*R d \ los ~, \ p. DECK \ 19 Â® 867 n,PE 1 -4 4 - airm /--7 1 . lili 2) .=19 "4 6.,00-J ..31 .LE;64 - .K: Il - 4\ 61 Â»,p < 1 > ) -1. M#:206-= I --1 REI \Â» h - P Â®14, .1 3 = , L,-, Ak .,4. . 1-1 .- Fi A hif :=E @Â«A - IÂ® - /7 U 11. 11 i Qihilhal <k -/ Â® 0 1 1 WK. Il 1 116.m~Aa ON 0Â£00 AB- MIFI - + TO P DECE _JL A 4- 0.4. R/UK"Olot lC 1.IMING-BQQM , riril Â®1 ; k a,UJ-.nNO,41 -> a ]Â® 9 .....101 - 253 7 4 r E/,Emir mIE 7 r <. NEWMAN FLR . 4 171.,R N greS lie UP - '.7.5 0 - 4,0,1.0,Â£RBED(nâ€¢,c/,4 'e .7 ./. .t 1,0 OUIKE 0â€¢TE 8, C 31 ~01.,CE- EXTEF,OR 1 Ens'/0 ..1. 4 r w,LK 7 ' 'ni \ 1*We,TR,o#TE.SIFEETA,04â„¢*5 RECEIVED APR 2 2 1998 ?i-:Â·i EEiii ...... :i.i:iIE~. : MAIN FI.OOR PT.AN(NEW CONSTRUCTION) 4%\ SCALE.1/r 1.-01 \=3/ ASPEN / Pri NN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ia EDGEOFCURB ....... E:-05=97.Fle".: .... .... ....... .... ............. .... ........... T .0 0 LU U-10 /9 CO 0 33Z U. U.1 294Â· R W 9-2 1~-0' .2 @< ~L/~ BALCONY SETâ„¢PE Irita 1 0 1--71 0 Â®] 6 48 Iâ‚¬> ':: (::3 *Iti:,2:11~}ifi NEWV,ULTEDCEUNG '::i-:6:i:Â· {f.-'..: r Â· f &4=21 UN 11 L~~ : A mIMaggMA ~ ~~ Ao 40> 1/1441 Ha,6 1.*.MP ; :FR:*1:RAMF 22 *,ZIZÂ¥xn E; 4 ><Lzzil CL<L t. ::+1:13*z- 4 .'ift 0 1 1: ON S i 6 '--4 ISERIED'TB TO 2 1 7. '0 4 MI h BEDBQQM SHEET MLE NEW UPPER FLA e Â® - - JOG-em 171&979 DATE ' DRA- aY CEVISCN RECORD NO ]HAN<E DATE 3Â¥ IJPPER FT.0012 PLANCNEW CONSTRUCHON) 2~ A\ SCALE.11Â¥ 1,0. =27 mi COMMENTS RECEIVED APR 2 2 1998 : Â·090+sabu-A.&,â€¢k. Â· I ASPEN / PI i ratN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . I- 3:,NaaISHÂ¥[N I D , ALL EXISâ„¢B Wâ€¢COWS TO 0/fet.~ED -EMIM-Â®0-IN-i 39JE STYLE acaOR - '4 Â§13* - -41 Zig. - ~1 P Fe.CMEXEâ„¢G ASPHALT PEW V-80- TO SEÂ»IOU~BUCE WITH MATCH E]asâ„¢G T,mouom,our 00 4"Z_-3 ill - - Â· -- 92---lili --4.-68.61=Eal~ le#Di,E eas:,6 Am,IALT 4 ..k 00 8-@IME-Emâ„¢ r FIED,~00 CLAPBOAFE) easlve STE _ m.8. 11"'-... L.u .â€ž~ 0 49 u=â‚¬â€¢AL t. - a -8.-4- NORTH ELEVATION S Arc C 061 4*Dwl.)â‚¬_ . 1 - -I NEW WUIDOWS TO MATCH EDOST=G T-OUGHOUT E- Ii:iii.: e O Reâ€¢OVE 8-reâ‚¬ ASP,W.T 6.:.2. SIONG.REMACE WITH r REDWOOD CLAPBOAk aEVATIONS-NaS . . 171.m "11 08,12,97 - . REMOVE EXEâ„¢G ASPHALT ... ... :::MMEÂ®Â®%2 SID-GNMACE WITH ~ 4 h. f REDâ€¢000 CLAPBOARD z ::....?: a.: E. 0 00 9 1 M/UCE WOOD DIC-BAS RECEIVED A.ko-O eaST'/3DOORS - APR 2 2 1998 Eaalle aFe-1 GIIZE R~Ill* 19(ETÂ»Â£ DOORS ' Na:LM;E -,Mi .= f Acir'EN j PITKIN MUNITY DEVELOPME 14*AC-AS NE<lijile ~*Â£>Â»7 0 l~ Ho -41.E, COM ..... . l SOUTH ELEVATION A5. 1 - t )NWGIS~[H IHad i .1394+L \ I I.- 0 .- I * I I ALL SOSmNa-Â«XmSTO ME RBAACED -TH PelA Wooove== of THE SNE SIZE. SrU a COLOR --- - --- 20 0 -- -4 Z . - -. gral g< fâ€¢weâ‚¬OWS To MATCH BOSTIOG T},IOUGHOUT . . - t â€¢ 44Â£ -+1 -L.- - - I-=I -4.-2-=1~ 2 h U I \\ 0 60 6 Â®Â® eos,18 Doom 6 k â€¢ h -Â¢20..=Ii - 1 . -A t ...ACE E=Tle STEP ,, Fel.ACE 0-TÂ»la STEF .- a=me Nfle, GRIDE ABOVE EOST"g T EAST ELEVATION SIÂ»O.REPt.ACE,â€¢IH r ~)WOOD CAPBOAF[) mi---~ ~A/eu...O 4,0., L 4- C.4 J â€¢.2 .. - - e.v< ... *. <. - .+0 --Ill-- -I -,--I. - 1-0- - ---*- -Il--I.*...Il.Il --Il =Ill---Il...'.I 'I- 0- --0--- A - - I....il .=.... - -Il W:-:ir.-~ = 3 -- = E - lavwl~X)WSTO MATCH EDOSTINGTI<ROUGHOUT I + .... e e . :': :332"Bi":23*EE'.i.'.*.'fiE=EE.:EliziE.'=: C i:*:i:> 184:3 ...' . 4 4 -I.- *-Ill---I- - - EEVAnONS-EAW - .11' = - - -- 1715~7R =~08/12/97 \ Â· RECEIVED NEWDETAI.10NORAL, =O.AL I 2 -- 22 APR 2 2 1998 : T - -*. -- . - / b L r STEPS DOWN ASPEN,, 810-a.REPLACE WITM 00SnNG â€¢ANISH GRADE COMMUNITY DEVELCPMEN Ra,OVE OST,6 ASPHALT REANISH SOSTING DOORS f REDWOW CLAMK)Am NEW 06(K SLRFAI REMACE wOOD DIECKâ€¢â€¢G AS NEQU.D WEST ELEVATION - A5.2 ANNCIIN 133~119 Bl /18/1 . ........................................ I. ...'..AWAVAVAWm...'Â·.Â·W.'. 1 1 .11 3 1 1 1" 01 0 --7, : 1- '71 N.41.* INKI E-- 1 L ..: 11 0 44 409 4// U 301 11 A; 1 -il. 51 -BC- 4 -* ST, 0-= NÂ· 4-T_+, 4- 70#i . a'.11 r.>e. -L*- =========Â»========.==========m===== ===#=H== m =-=========== 1 li- % 114 Â¥11 00 + 0 40 0 4!2 400 \ 410 4/2 . ~Â· 500 5/0 . -- p, A- 1 / 1' 0 ~ LA J \ 4 1 V \ 4 11 1/1 0 4 11 2 \4 9 11 *- 0 0 -17171 1 1 LE ; 1-0< ij 17 J0 n ,/I# I o' 8 8% Â·8 8 11 11 - 11 113Â· 0 1 -U / 1 1 MC . C :/il--1 C 11 11 . 1-I. 11 [/ 4 1 44/ 11 & |'17 - 1 11 1 NY D'.7 R 11 4 1-1 + r.-1 Dr- - 1'Â· 33 u-3 5 w 1- 4 - 4 i77 , . U V " /L E. 10 11 DIT ~.-1 0 5 1 1-71 2 11 1 1 â€ž 1 .1. , F-T * 1 '1 0- %- U - .-/ 5 0 11 ir' 1 ,-11. 0 $ 7 0Â·52- 0 t! -- % -5 0 - 1 4/74% 1 4 p'/' 11/2//: . 4 . 1-1 6 1 4- 6. 1 00 1_1 1 + 0 '0 9Â¥\ 8 46-1 N % R V.\ H r-h- ---zi Â· H. 1 1 Fl 0 UU , 11 P 1, 0 #.I-I- 1 1.,6--24 - 11 0- /1/ 0 10 f 971 1. 0 0 40 1 4 /4 W Al 75'1 ~ ~ 20' - 40/ % Sol 00 11 1 0 N. 391) 0 - ST. ~ Â©h th eli W 0 i 11 If'- 143{yth-~:~f : t<.1416/24~/16=.//FA- L?~1~-7-7-~37-~ 9%.aVAASSO:*Ih~:2-/ALLAN , h ../ 2 :. 1 -1 939-* 4-, â€¢02+:?t ~ .4, fAE,RE .2,1,Â»,7 i.,?1.>4':4.r * :- *. i.i-1,+. :,.1..Â· r.?433 Rk .' .~ 9.... . 274(iâ‚¬1?431%.tay;Â·16.VAFT&3" 4.5 4 f.~'Â·:Â·.'4*~ Â·Â· ~ .Â·- 9 if:,"5. 3,7,It-907.:â‚¬}Â·r- . . al '2 Â·Â· '1-elÂ·Â·.Â·Pr / i'.Ai F , 4 mi/4 ~Â¢40(>~9&' :73 7..4~,>.4 iwia_L:#Fakf#kg#g* T.ff.1~~r-i f f Â·Â· Â·'Â·> '- ~Â·; i '. 9 'â€¢-1ihk b , 2.rfÂ·Â° .'PRWgi'OSi ~1.,.,.6043)1921{f.Ye'*m. {2, -7,3...j:P.....W121'f lk: ~-' cÂ·. ' j 4 1, ~I|~||~ L=~6 4 4 ;~'.:: , 1.4,/LL~Jj>60:.41'NIZ-=plll/4. 44. ..4. . 1- 4%6â€¢4 4 I.1)11. . l~ , . 1, )0 IlliUM .1 I ' ....91". 34.9, . P 7 H P.,P,r/EQ.:11.a .4.a, 4.:.Â·'kena.' 1. . -. -. 0 Memorandum THE CITY OF As~EN TO: Amy Guthrie, Community Development FROM: Kevin Dunnett, Park' s Depanment Reck THRU: JeffWoods, Rebecca Schickling - NOV :ikED RE': Barry and Ellen Halperin Application, 420 West Frahcis 0044(~84~/ 199' DATE: 5 November 1997 ELOPMENT I visited the site this morning and prepared the attached drawing showing the conflict 0 between the proposed ADU garage/car port structure and the existing coniferolls tree, to the west. It is evident that construction work shown on the proposed plans is,within the trees drip-line zones and will have serious impacts on the existing root systems. It is the Park's Department's recommendation to d6ny the application for the ADU building portion of the application. The applicant may wish toÂ· pursue an option with the garage/car port to the east of the , I . existing ADU building; however a tree permit and mitigation plan may need to be incorporated as there are several existing trees to the east ofthe existing structure. Please call with any questions. , $ a . i t 0 0 . Exhibit F . 1, 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET Â· ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 Â· PHONE 970.920.5000 Â· FAx 970.920.5197 Printed on Recycled Paper 4I 1 ; 1 . . 4 EX'STIN.6 *p M 4, -F/6-â€¢fâ€¢*eP 4*Â¢ m,7-0 or \ 4- - p,IF Wâ€žE- 0 r- I , 11'ees - 1 ... , fl -4 & L.. -- 4< Â£ 0 C f CO,/t 1 \ A f 6 ..F StÂ» P 14"DiA - loi lCNAÂ·. j . l,lifiA== 4 H. Lum re +18 -kÂ¥ $ 1 0 F N _UK--- - - + 0 41 8â€¢14,0 #44, IM~â€¢ vrel.u shrl-, ~ , * ~_ r 5 e A 4- . .0 --- -- 4 t.' tii 0 Ul 2% E -- <U-= =Z U-LU 9 a >to :4 2< ALLEY BLOCK 34 Be:Zi~/,1ZED,EaP8- VEL garTIME 8 0 2 /Gox / 1 f /Hoi&0 f , --- - 1. 2 3 0 W N . ..= 2 9,3 1 , 1%1 \\4 4 ~8 N il E LD: 0 % , Re- ' 484~ 0 t. A#44/4 GO P L 1: -- 1 i 17'14 -.1Â§--3 E:Â«12 LIA 4 6 Â°23/y,1 Ploose./ 1/i ; 141 Â£ Na'*' lk! 1 11, i . + 2-PA RefgL \AA7 444 \02/ SIEEr TMLE U SriE PLAN / V2 L~~V9 ~ ADDRESS JOI~U-R lnS#7R 420 W. FRANCIS STREEr CATE 09-1547 ASPEN. COLORADO C,W.4. 81611 ificic* MaLID N,1 0-â€¢36 OATE SY LEGAL DESCRIPTION 4 Ima N a 0. BLOCK 34 rriANCIS STREET CITY ANDTOWNS,TE OFASPEN MTKIN COCINTY. COLORADO 3 0 - -- STTE PLAN 4*h SCALE:10 10'4 ~_~7 ~ Â·_SPI:"RL Exhibit E 32)N51(11*1*1 Nl}lifid'IVH 74 OE[ht07[03 ~ 00Â¥130 Pno~- 100.00' 4848 . . AL e=Ima V~'90= TOBER0*ACED Â¥0â„¢PEUAWOODÂ¥0Â®0Â¥00*71Â«2808â€¢E SCZE.SIYLE.COLOR m 1 5152 i 0 . 1 = ! 1 29- , 1 995 I .7- \ -1 Ul UJ -1 *05 1 ----*. ~1 - ,@22&1- . @01 2< NE# WI~)ows TO 4.0 MATCHEXEn,IGTHROUGHO~ < -m 1- .- ... , =1 - min\" 1 *Unpe: Â·:-- - - .. l~ - - - ::..:::::.i.::.:.~.: ~,~.:..:~ ~ ..::; T E-A=wâ€ž- * . - - --le=nr-- 21==r- Â· ic=:1[r 11.. - Â·--- IER! lit==1 It=1111 In=:ll . .--- -7. 4\ - ... + ....3- *11*tiBI. 11Bt=211\\ 1[IECT- " li 0* 21 *EEEIÂ®/MEIS'JINC--- I - R89NISH SOSTNG DOORS A TOPEVWD. ODININGROOM 1.---- n . 4 a. ' 1 101,& easreasre . -. SUFF#CES.*SFUBOLIP"ED .. 0*MACE EmliNG STEP s61)48 AF-SH GRAOE F~,OVE BET.G ASPHALT EASTELEVATION SIOING.REPLACE WYTH . 6* REDWOOD CLAPBOARD t . 0 - . NEW wl,Ex~WS TO MATO{ SOSIING TW,OUGHOUT Iclim ..... La . Â·11.1312-/- . 0. - . 1..:i.BÂ®i.ifi.......,.: ... .. - - * - Iairlms ELEVATIONSâ‚¬&W 08.0 1715-07Ft " 1 - * ~ ~08/12/97 1 / 1-Â· . I ..A --- ... . , . I ..... ..*. - .- . . . 0. .4 4 i ia.â€¢a...:MAT*Â·Â· I.- IEVMETALHAPOW- SEEDETAL _ . - I - - ... * . EN DOWN ::.. - '- SEE DErAL Re~OVE e<ST-NG ASPHALT E)05!1NG &FIÂ«SH GRADE *Wrm Â· lavolaCKS-ACE ReqNSH EXISTING DOORS f REDWOOD CLAPBOARD *piA-womo==eAsm,39*Ame J.J.-tt ...1-:....... WESTEJNATION 10Â« - ,/)161(41644 40 -M .. 1 \ r - - *-4+. aftv4 \AD . . --- [ONHUISSIII NI . Att.Bamâ€¢,valga-Tole-U=D = Im,Pal.veonÂ¥,IÂ«*,vaoFâ„¢ES-E 0 SEZE. STÂ¥LE*cou]R . ~N i -- 0 0- ZI i 3 .-1 :51 k ;41 9 REMOVEÂ®OSTINGASPHALT Â· le,-00*STO SIDING.REPLACE WITH - ~TCH EOSTING THROUGHOUr r REDWOOD CLAPBOARD - â€¢ -r- la--1-11 . . REMOVE BOSTING ASPHALT SE}ING.REMACE WITH 1 5- RED'WOOD GAPBOARD 1 ,-- 1 FIEPIACE E]asnin STEr MEMACE EOSTIA STS' SUFÂ¥#dMES'#SF~QI'/"33 SLN-Â£2$.*EREK/WINED 808-8 81:14'M GRADE : Â· NORTH ELEVATION - Eimmp~-4 . , I ./-, 0 *.I-~ ..1 NEW WIPOO.s TO Â·0\ A MATCH efISTING THROUGHOUT REMOVE S,ETING ASPHACr - SOING,REPLACE WITH r REDWOOD -ARO /42/rÂ·tmz a-EVATIONS-NaS â€¢ 1- . I '08.1 17164/R - CATE 08/12/97 0 . Reâ€¢OVE EaSTING ASPHALT ... --- am. SONG.REFLACE WITH d 6. h r .____ i' -... LAA NEW DECK SUFFACE 61 ------ F-LACEWOODOGC-GASRenURED 1 : - E-/ .... RE-SH EX:STÂ»Â«3 DOORS - I -~STIâ€¢G-SH GRADE REFNSHEXEnNG ObORS . leUCEEÂ»STEÂ«aSTEP SURAN'/,ASP.EOU-O SOUTH ELEVATION -1-C Â°fli~\..Â»0% 77 Â·- ~~7 0 4, 2 L . 9 SIONV} 0(]VU 100'93dSV~ Wi* 2 0 0 M k 690'- 299 - 0= â€¢ I *.-*-*--0Â· U.ul --% *03 C< - ALLEY BLOCK 34 la â€¢Er rr,q SETâ€¢Q i 0 2 11 %1 W ---- . 4 ...... - \.i\. S f ma f i r.4.- .. 1. I M *N 8 /,4 E iM 1 ili' 44 0 1~~ ,Â©42 fol ..1 1 P 2 . -.-~or-Mt. 214 0 SmE OATH tai TO t E 1* Pr.42- 1 / i 9-1140 Iii 141 : ., 119*: , 1l s.trlms 60.00, SrrE PLAN L' '*'e~ 1715Â·0â„¢ . DATE 09Â·1547 ' ADDRESS 420 w. FRANCIS STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 01.-1. 81611 PEÂ¥/99/4 F~COO EDGE OF PAVEMENT Na. Cl-.ae DATE M LEGAL DESCRIFOON WEST FRANCIS STREET LOTS N & 0. BLOCK 34 CrrY AND TOWN SITE OF ASPEN E PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO ;RS 0,11â‚¬Mrs SITE PLAN * imilitlilifiqi:44:*41:13!r i: 2 Z , SCALE:10-104 \Ly . . DION~1â‚¬11% [}I NI}labrIVH 13391 r. . , Ai1 â€¢8m 09 2'-60 8130 8'-9" 541' 144" / 5'-1/ 5L11' il .41 - â€¢'â€¢/Â»5â€¢I":â€¢~ I.I:.IÂ·. â€¢*â€¢Â·IÂ·*Â·*â€¢*â€¢â€¢Â·â€¢,'â€¢.â€¢Iâ€¢l/!,5U,Se.....Iâ€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢-I - Â» 'r- ...................I- 1 m. - 1 4-3....7 I. . . I 11 i41--- 1.I . 1 3 5 4 t 4 0 1 1 ./ / 59 :341 5 N 4 ir-~1 :f in 4 *-7-9 % 4 ....1 Â£-Li ......% E :1. 311-22:32 Â§ u/ Â·47 3 % a i 4 i : 1 111 El 1-7.1 1 1 1 r-:w-.- .. .. I Zi 1 . A n-5 O 0% V. 0 A A' .1 P - :11 p 4-4-1 4 li P 11 4 â‚¬n O 3, C . .- *itrp ii 4 1-_Ld L.'- # Q III 3 4 . -3 :1 A j 9 4----9 0 mt#*C..~.~1 9 . -F- 1,2 9 11- 2'-60 13'-80 281 80 5'-11* 50'-9' 4. L 1 11345494* 0 1 1 1-1 01 1 1 *1 0 01 li -3i HALPERIN RESIDENCE mi imE ASPEN,COLORADO 420 W.FRANCIS STREET 81611 (NOILnoINE[C[ Â¥ DNLISDCH)RVIinIDE)'Id 32[AE[1 HOWOd r 0 0 I... ' t phi :111 t 19 ill 11 N 97,4,471 01 L ./ 0 11 / J =73 i f "*:*MeMÂ«44*Me~*Zâ€¢~Â·Â·,UUU~iÂ·*9Â·fRE-# au--Â·* â‚¬ F NA .1 / __ / M- 7< 1 t// 0 ===14 E ii --1 * ; El M 1 - 0 â€¢ Â£ am M j Ng i . , 4 Z ( Doom .) R .. , t, A 1: mis }*21 ulliffOT+ \ N 13'-8Â° 1665. ~ 12'-3. . . 0 42'-4a 1 it ' a R 2/3~ 1.-1 ----- F T -1 C. 1. 1 -1 li irS>'943> # " 1 6I 'COHOMBO r 1 11/,31 HALPERIN RESIDENCE L-~ 420 W.FRANCIS STREET J Ail - ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 .... ' 1 - (NOILrIOWE[C[ 32 DNELSIXEDNV'Id 2100'Idlm~ 19002038 OF WALL 5 - 0 0 .. I.'- BL' 10'-2" ~ p'-10 *El , 8% W = 05/ 01 0 ----- #GieZEURSUNN~W,&&1:2: . 1*4 -r-)* 1~ inm 8 4 . - \1 5 41 0 -2- 0 4 4 + 4 O 1Â·- 2 -~44-4% K Drr 8 1 ty?lud,uy..... 1- -44 30 f 1 8[I] 1 4 Ei 'D di Iii 3 h Z . LLO 0 1 0, 4 Â·Â· 11 5'-2" 18'-6. E . 23'-8Â° I I -3>IMS>IMB> 3 1 W 1 0 1 0 1Â§1 A.V.*,O .1 IIALPERIN RESIDENCE 11 Iii -2 -=- 420 W.FRANCIS STREET ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 EM Â· 1 49 (NOLII'IOWEICPFORILSIXH).NVE[d 21 HlyON 8 d TO MATCH 1 E -c.,c.....~0â€žmarze (K) al//WATguir,OADUÂ®EPT!9 Z U. ~ MITIEAK/lectiler.ATEC=culr ,- to Ul O r~lIalilIaiLA:IMITOWAUC,MmES \ 1.- 90 \ f = 99- \ UCE Z 32= 11.4 1 , sm__*:~ â€¢'r NEWSURF.eEONSTEPS LL r . LU \ L_23*__ 51M 74-152__REE~- - As RE,zmm Â¤ 4% =< C 11 509 92#6 W 1: \ A r W X -%4- or--+1Â»21 1 4 0 7 1 6 u 31 - p4~ g, u- --7-4 c I gil 4 1 DECK . aerâ€¢,1 1 1 '11 1 - r- Â«4:PM==0.- L_ 1 L Ra,OVIE EXISâ„¢G KITCHB, CABINETS 1 -11 _~ l~~NORYMUD 21 9~HEN kii-ITL~ COUITERS & FUX]RING f TZ--1,-/7 6 -a AEEFFE1W .-- 3;"~INASH P SVEM L__111- D - ..r r KF 1 1 r , REPLACE ALL EXTERIOR C....0 pcÂ· 2 -J 4 1 U 1,9 1 WUVDOWS TO MATCH - ~ . EOSTING IN STYLE. S[ZE - L---z_ &COLOR Fl CL 9 L 21 r. I * LIVING Er . 1. i 11412 512 ne->m . It \Ie PL,-1,99 84 41 E-1 . pINING \.A./ 1 NEWRADIANTHEATING BaOW ; /1-3 Q 179 4 10 Â»D . IEWWOOD FLOOR . m 0 0 d " -- Re,OVEEOSTING .- ~*44 Cl- b/--~ HEATING UNTr / 1 1.1.11/ ISSUECITE 1 - li --t 1 0 F DECK I HEW SUFFACE ON L.!1, -:---- NEW METAL RAiLING Â® DECK DECKS AS REQUIRED ---=2==7\ 1 g 22~ A = UNg . , IENDETAL RALING -4 9-=m PARLOR !0.1 R 117 4. D .**z ..IL DECKÂ®~ 1 8'04â‚¬/\ 1 rl ~.USTERS(TYPICAL) --0 AND IU,WER BED<TYPICAL) NEW MAIN FLR SPRmtl<LIBIG SYSTEM FOR IAWN OHIErlm,E - |7 JOB NUIAER lnSe7Ft I . k. k DATE 00-15-07 01'AÂ¥.4. 1 SlEPS 2 1.1. FE,MmON PI~,0,0 419 0-03 OATE MY c Fasm 1 Â· 4 , 1 a. 0 - / F.wher,Lleâ€¢ce REPLACEALLE<ill:HOR ~ 57917 - WIFOOWSTOMATCH / EXISTING / r 1- E NEN FLAGSTONEWALKWAY " -,~= k - - NEWENIRY GATE@ STREET FRONTAGE MAIN.ELQQR PLAN(NEW CONSTRUCTION), ~ . i-,09 SCALE:1/4:- 1' tory E .EE-..:f'.':.i."...*'.: ~ ED~EOF CURB 0Â£11/\10300 .. . l . 166. i. 47 4 NET TY,2 Iria 1 MI N 1 MAST-~R 1 - : 1 BEDR~OM 1 - O-22 - fI 1 Glr- A r=.' Â£ Â»291-lai -~' ~ 1| I~ /4-K-IN ~ & 4~ Ki Z=:3* r - 9 USE eaSTING ITS 5031 =6'k,~-- FROM BELOW : T.imr' / NS/ 91 />4.. O THROOM LL.-11 - -- --- - au,- 0 9 1 ...... h h ~1 4 i E -/'*Fle,FEEJe" ijt ..iSEE-W-GE i i. CLID , - L--54 ' 2 f-r U u y__1 Ism.EmATE TO 1 Y. 7. v ~ 1 T I BEDROOM !3 1 1 111 /1/Er,TTLE NEW UPPER FLFI I . I JOS//Amet 1716478 DATE 09-1 S.07 OR-4 81 F.-011 = Nal 04*MIE GATE Err ; UPPER-FLOOR PLAN(NEW CONSTRUCTION) * E SCALE:1/4-- 1,0 57 m E 1 00...Mrs AS . I-~ / ..... 912)NWIGIS3111 NI}ljld'IVH 1.gaH-LS SIC)NVHAM 024 1-9919 00VW0100 N3dSV W 011,1 0 0 0 1 214. 1 2,1.2 .. ma; 0 Elm dc 1241 34â€¢ 1 - f T. 4 0,3 471-9 03 % 0 41)>- 0 1 z m 3'?1_7 -# W A .- 1 4 1 -j k il +/L 184- 41. 1Â§1 1 2.-O~nER>!BO F 1 IM ill .,g 6 HALPERIN RESIDENCE .............. AN Â£*52 - 420 W,FRANCIS STREET 1 L . 1 ASPEN,COLORADO 81811 '' *9'4?r,i, * (~6=11.LSNOD A~RN) *619~1'10Â¥Ii<go-TOSEFet,am v..al.v.,00....câ€¢Ms,al b S. sng. cao. mE 002 20- 1. - 202 0 1 . 1 12 - U.Ul i Z =1 2< Â¢41 / Raâ€¢OVE s=rve ASPHALT NEW WINDows TO -1 800.REPLACE WITH - MATCH eaSTING TFIROUGHOUT r REDWOOD CLAPBOARD - =1 - -5122R~211~---~ . - .REMOVE JOST,NG ASPHALT = 00 -\ , REDWOOD CLAPBOARD SE)ING.REPLACE WrrH . 8 7 '. 4 = 9 F REMACE BOSTIUSTEP _ . . .. REFUCE E~rve STE, SURF~E.AS REAL..0 Sil"%~CE~AF~BOUIRED .. 00811â€¢GU-SH GRACE NORTH ELEVATION 0 1* + 2 . .C' 2:~ I . .: 0 + NEW WIDDOWS TO IAATCH ED#STINGTHROUGHOUT 10~OVE BOSTING ASPHALT -- S~)ING.REEPLACE WITH Â· 6' REDWOOD Ct#BOARD a.EVATIONS-N&S . - 171Som - 94= 08/12/97 RIEMOVE BOSTHâ€¢GASPHALT - - El:Â§02*Â®**jitififit:02:. o SIONG.Re'LACE WITH A .--- 3 TRs)%4000 CLAPBOARD -- === 4 - ?33ii:;iii}*6"I"/C"k z --47- - u --- - 00 1 1 NEW DeCK SUAFâ€¢CE -- -- I - i. -___ RIMACEWOODDEKINGASFIEQUIRED - 0- I - E _34 _ --: RaiNISHEX*mNG DOOREK . - E~TNG SRNISH GLUOE ING DOORS . 1~â€¢UCE=St.asrEP Sul-CaASREQul/81 SOUTH ELEVATION *.*-Â·: Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·-- Â·Â· Â·Â·Â· Â· Â·Â·; ' . - FlUISJUI Nlll AL=m..,....~,ve,REACE ZI Ul Ii'Mpeu.om..00,.sM,NESME 2:11 I . SZZLSâ„¢2*COLOR fil t ".1 - -1 Ul 1 001 28 . :41 GE 1 +11 229; ! El 113 +. i /2512- 041 205 @41 0 < Ne.vw.oows TO - - - Â· ....r--lite=r-- - MATCH ED-NG~n~OUGHO~r ~1~ - -/IME -0- f e E 'q&=521 Mm: I --- - --- - 11 . b - I .-1 -7. 4\ - ..â€ž =--Imlia' IlÂ¤=:a lirril .-j .1 + + le=11â€¢ - - '11--1.--E=:10 lit--------- --I u \ .. REFNSH SOSTIO DOORS -7 EIL-.1[E-777 .1 . 3 .. 1 1 -- 2. -1 1 0.,lACE~Snesâ„¢P St-%4CES.43 RED/.RED 1 -- MEMACEED~IWOBSTEP S.-ACESASREDE'RED EOST,48 *Feâ€¢SH GRADE REMOVE EXISTING ASPHALT . EAST ELEVATION EWITH 6' REDWOOD WARD .. Bmifir~= - r â€¢--â€¢-Â· -- - '- ~ 1â‚¬wwl,â€¢Dowsmo MATCH eaSTING TleOUGHOUT 191/1 2 - lam: 1-4 - -, -- -1 CEETTTne ELEVATIONSâ‚¬&W -- --F J== - -- 1712~78 1 .. . w108/12/97 . 4 . leÂ¥ METAL HANOMAL- SEEDETAL - -â€¢h-_LO.EL____~ --- ---- _ I in- I : I - - New STEPS DOWN ...1.- REMOVE EXETING ASPHACT SEEDETAL ~STING U-SH GRADE SIOING,REPLACE WITH Â· feÂ¥ DeCKSURF*:E -- . REF./SH E,Win"â€¢G DOORS C REDWOOD CLAPBOARD FIEPWCE WOOD DECKÂ»O AS RE:lille WEST ELEVATION iimillir======~Fy t.. _ Ul AU.eam,-=DO-TOâ€¢EieVC- 22 Â¥m",muÂ¥.00.-0-0....0 4 824=YZE.COWR .. 994 %8 0 i ,1 243 1 @01 2< - 41 7 .11 . ,<St-Mimt,Fr --I -1 =1 P==21111 0 111.-111 @\Ill, @\11~ . L __-_-ltr=---7---zp==~2 . 1 Â· 1 - . 1,- . 1:01-1.- e - -2- ~linf dri~K=in[ '011 : 1101EX:Sm- IFT . - Â· 1,1.-1~ -r It Â· Â· 11- Â· I~-lilli . i"'9-!Ilit-Il#Illl \]Ll- 6-Â»,Â¤ lt:ElÂ® till -1 ~ *TCHEOSIN,a 1- ./4,0006.0.AGED[X" 1-- ----, 'Fâ€ž111. -.~ KIE'IME. .a ...]111..1 - 3 L 11- r- 1-EXSreâ€¢G F.Imfs t . NORTHELEVATION EASTELEMANON a. . 1- e i. - . 0 . .. 1.0-%% CrL--- I. Â£VZ-/.--- - 7-2~b~~~= A---------~MA)~e fu, F-E2,0===-s-r~Wrfh;SN~~~~~======~~~~ E----jaMbl '-m==-* ~ '14--+Ze#* . . 5:--,--FEililti-11101 -Ii 1-Z~Z~*WAyi ...rmul EEVATKÂ»GCCITAGE 11\\ 11" .... .11- - 11 Â· 17!Wm - ~m~1~~- . 40MNTOCOURTYARm == 08/12/97 ---- ... -"---- I .. _---_ 11 Itlt:nim - I .nr - Iir---=1-1----1----1=====a6~ - . . SOUTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION . E*Ei,Fir=~ Â· . 2 ri-Ag -1 .. ..it pi 14-:i"lill'..k -- -- Ijwwligillillillillilli~ihila - 4. , rri l li 7 . 90-6 1 , i#L. 'A tJ ' County of Pitkin } DOTICE PURSUANT 1 SE 114/u_Za_ ~ USE REGULATION State of Colorado } U-.0,<,9*0 11) I * m Â£4~2*74 /1.-8 , being or representing an Applicant to th# City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class. postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property with three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, oIl the~- day of 07*1 , 199.~(which is .!3 days prior to the public hearing date of 47|10 |9)~ 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously I 91-- from the J day of ~1611 , 199_~ (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full (3 days before the hearing date). A photograph of,ihjposted sign is attached hereto. f r -\ 0-bo,fÂ»0 -Si*latur~ (Attach photograph here) Siime~[ before me this ~~ day '19*y ~amA Ch 614460 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL, My commission expires: 3 Â·/7Â·77 /busl â‚¬23â‚¬32.-AL 0 ( SUSIE Oj -. .- / ~51 â€¢IERN <76 nA Eigh091 - Notary Public's Â¥ignat?fe ~ IL./ My Commision 8*s 03-17-1999 300' Radi st for 420 W. Francis 29-Oct-97 Parcel Number Schedule Number Owner Name Name 2 / Address 1 Address 2 City State Zip Code 2735-124-24-001 R000919 318 FOURTH ST LTD 2425 BROAD ST HOUSTON TX 77087- 2735-124-10-006 R001445 518 W FRANCIS LPA COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PO BOX 76657 ATLANTA GA 30328- 2735-124-12-002 R000385 ADLER SAMUEL I AND BERNYCE UNITS C1205 AND C1207 3 GROVE ISLE DR MIAMI FL 33133- 2735-124-14-004 R000314 ALLEN ROBERT H ALLEN JUDY LEY 4545 POST OAK PL STE 251 HOUSTON TX 77027- 2735-124-25-011 R009557 BLAICH ROBERT I BLAICH JANET S 319 N FOURTH ST ASPEN CO 81611- 2735-124-10-003 R001032 CROWN-TAPPER PATRICIA 5 POLO CLUB DR DENVER CO 80209- 2735-124-13-004 R001291 CUNDILL JOAN REED 432 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN CO 81611- 2735-124-25-002 R001099 DIKEOU LUCY SHARP 25 POLO CLUB CIR DENVER CO 80209- 2735-124-24-004 R000857 EPPLER KLAUS TRUSTEE PROSKAUER ROSE GOETZ & MEND 2255 GLADES ROAD #340 W BOCA RATON FL 33431- 2735-124-24-010 R009399 EVANS HUGH H JR EVANS LYNN LOCKIE 1741 OLD RANCH RD LOS ANGELES CA 90049- 2735-124-13-006 R000330 FIVE CONTINENTS ASPEN REALTY EDWARDS JOSEPH 111 C/O 502 MAIN ST STE 201 CARBONDALE CO 81623- 2735-124-24-007 R000989 GALLANT MARILYN 617 VINE ST STE 1430 CINCINNATI OH 45202- 2735-124-10-007 R000527 GELL-MANN MURRAY 70% GRAY HARRY & SHIRLEY TRUST 30 1399 HYDE PARK RD SANTA FE NM 87501- 2735-124-25-006 R000542 GLENN SALLY RAE 504 W HALL.AM AVE ASPEN CO 81611- 2735-124-24-006 R001113 GORDON STEVEN CRAIG 520 S LAFAYETTE PARK PLACE #31 LOS ANGELES CA 90057- 2735-124-24-005 R001345 HALLAM LLC COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY CO 434 W HALLAM ST ASPEN CO 81611- 2735-124-13-005 R000248 HALPERIN ELLEN & BARRY 6883 QUEENFERRY CIR BOCA RATON FL 33496- 2735-124-13-001 R000297 HOFFMASTER THOMAS J 437 W SMUGGLER ST ASPEN CO 81611- 2735-124-13-002 R000275 HOFFMASTER THOMAS J & CAYE C 50% 437 W SMUGGLER ST ASPEN CO 81611- 2735-124-10-002 R001322 KENDALL RICHARD BECKER KENDALL LISA SEE 530 TIGERTAIL RD LOS ANGELES CA 90049- 2735-124-25-007 R008762 KEY R BRILL KEY ELIZABETH R 506 W HALLAM ST ASPEN CO 81611- 2735-124-12-003 R000747 KIENAST CHRISTIE A 406 W SMUGGLER ST ASPEN CO 81611- 2735-124-14-005 R000196 KOHNER ELLEN P HUNT ELLEN C/O PO BOX 8770 ' ASPEN CO 81612- 2735-124-14-001 R001465 MC MAHAN JAMES A MC MAHAN JACQUELINE 2 OAKMONT DR LOS ANGELES CA 90049- 2735-124-24-002 R001085 NEISSER JUDITH E REVOCABLE TRUST 132 E DELAWARE APT 6201 CHICAGO IL 60611- 2735-124-14-002 R000995 NICOLA BETTY B UND 1/4 INT LUBCHENCO NANCY N AND 621 17TH ST #1215 DENVER CO 80293- 2735-124-12-004 R001171 PERLMAN ITZHAK PERLMAN TOBY 21 W 70TH ST NEW YORK NY 10023- 2735-124-23-005 R001116 PETERS FRANK E PO BOX 9698 ASPEN CO 81612- 2735-124-25-012 R009558 REED CAROL PO BOX 2472 ASPEN CO 81612- 2735-124-23-002 R001195 RH ASPEN LLC C/O GARFIELD & HECHT 601 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN CO 81611- 2735-124-23-001 R001169 SCHLOFFER BRUNHILDE P PO BOX 941 ASPEN CO 81612- 2735-124-0+006 R001072 SFP 1996 PERSONAL RESIDENT TRUST 1/2 IN 8722 WICKERSHAM HOUSTON TX 77027- 2735-124-24-003 R000941 TEAGUE LEWIS TRUSTEE OF THE LEWIS TEAGUE TRUST C/O 4605 LANKERSHIM BLVD STE 32 NORTH HOLLYWOOD CA 91602- 2735-124-12-001 R001315 THALBERG KATHARINE 434 W SMUGGLER ST ASPEN CO 81611- 2735-124-24-008 R001233 THE NEST LLC COLORADO LTD LIABILITY COMPAN 620 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN CX) 81611- 2735-124-95-001 R012170 WALTON S ROBSON WALTON CAROLYN F 125 W CENTRAL #218 BENTONVILLE AR 72712- 2735-124-15-001 R000074 WELTERS ANTHONY WELTERS BEATRICE WILKINSON A 919 SAIGON RD MC LEAN VA 22101- 2735-124-95-002 R012171 WRIGHT STEWART REX WRIGHT EMILY GRAHAM 111 SIERRA VISTA REDLANDS CA 92373- 1 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 420 W. FRANCIS HPC SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL/FINAL) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, June 10,1998 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Barry Halperin requesting HPC significant development review conceptual/final approval in order to temporarily relocate the main house in place in order to place a basement underneath it, add window wells, and the minor changes. The property is located at 420 West Francis Street. For further infonnation, contact Chris Bendon at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5072. s/Suzannah Reid. Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on May 23, 1998 City of Aspen Account 1=YL a r.) FC>Â£'-1~~~ u 'U ITEM Memorandum To: Board of County Commissioners e Thru: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director~4 From: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Date: 3 June 1998 Re: Referral regarding Sundeck area development The Historic Preservation Commission met on 27 May 1998 to consider the Sundeck referral from the Board of County Commissioners. Thureceived a memo (attached) from Stan Clauson, City Community Development Director, detai<g the design alternatives referred by the BOCC as well as more general issues with respect to the new Sundeck structure as proposed by the Aspen Skiing Company. Attached as well is a memorandum from Susan Hayward of Cottle Graybeal Yaw Architects providing notes on the meeting. The notes accurately reflect the comments provided by HPC members. In summary, while the HPC took no specific votes, there was consensus on the following key points: â€¢ An historical replica of the original octagon building at the top of the Gents Ridge Lift was not recommended. It was felt that this location would do an injustice to the original concept of the character and site of the octagon. â€¢ A replica might be considered for some backcountry gateway type of location if that were felt to be consistent with the planning activities currently in progress for the Richmond Hill area. â€¢ A strong reference to the original octagon within the proposed new building was recommended. It was felt that this reference could be more -heme-literal than the gestures to the original fireplace and memorabilia as currently proposed. It might be achieved by bowing out the wall to the rear of the proposed building, repeating the octagon form. â€¢ In general, a lighter, more compact, more transparent structure was recommended for the replacement Sundeck building. Staff hopes these comments are helpful and would be ready to return to HPC with any further referral questions which may arise. ..m . Memorandum To: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission From: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director I)ate: 27 May 1998 Re: Aspen Mountain Master Plan Sundeck Referral Comments Summary. The Board of County Commissioners has formally requested that the Historic Preservation Commission provide referral comments with respect to the redevelopment of the Sundeck restaurant. Specifically, the Board wishes to know whether the Commission would recommend thatthe Aspen Skiing CompanyÂ·(Skico) be required to construct a replica of the original Herbert Bayer octagon structure and, if so, where such a replica might appropriately be located. While this narrowly-defined question is the subject ofthe BOCC referral, the Aspen City Council as part of their review of the proposed Sundeck had requested that the new structure be reviewed with respect to its bulk, massing, and use of materials. This somewhat separate question may actually be part of any response to the appropriate location for an historic replica of the original octagon, as one of the proposed sites for the replica would have substantial visual interaction with any new Sundeck structure. The original Herbert Bayer Structure and location options. The Skico, through its architects Cottle Graybeal Yaw (CGY), have provided a submission to the Historic Preservation Commission which consists of an historical and design analysis in book form as well as plans and drawings of the proposed new facility. The historical analysis shows that the original Sundeck warming hut was built in 1946 under the direction of Aspen architect Herbert Bayer. The submission indicates that the original structure was intended to be temporary. The structure was modified in the following year by Fritz Benedict with Bayer. A number of photographs are provided which show the original exterior form of the Sundeck as well as interior images. The structure was further modified in 1956, probably by Fritz Benedict. It was significantly changed in the 1980's through two projects by Hairabedian Architects: first in amajor renovation, then later in a restoration of the fireplace and roof structure*following a fire. The current structure bears little resemblance to the very simple structure which presents itself in photos from 1946, although some interior elements have been designed to reflect elements ofthe original. The current Skico proposal which is part of the 1997 Aspen Mountin Master Plan includes the demolition of the existing Sundeck and replacement with a new structure of a rather different character. The architects assert that the design of the new structure recreates elements of the original Sundeck (see the CGY Memorandum, dated 12 May 1998, "Current Proposal," p. 3). The alternatives on which the BOCC are seeking HPC's advice are the following: 1. Provide an interior space ~thin the new Sundeck Restaurant which recreates the character and spirit of the original Sundeck warming hut. It should be noted that, in a meeting with Susan Hayward of CGY, staff was told that this did not mean that a literal octagonal interior or exterior form would be created. Rather, this would be accomplished by providing design elements reminiscent of the interior, e. g., a central fireplace surrounded by fixed bench seating, as well as photographs and memorabilia documenting the history of the Sundeck and Aspen Mountain. 21 Reconstruct a replica of the original Bayer warming hut and locate this replica on Richmond Ridge for use as a back country center. It should be noted that there is no remaining historical structure of any significance and that any reconstruction would be a replica created with new materials from old drawings and photos. The architects believe that this location has merit as it would provide a relatively isolated setting in keeping with the Sundeck's original location and condition. There may, however, be issues with the intrusion of such a structure on the back country, which County staff has worked to preserve as a rural and remote district with minimal intrusions from structures and other development. 2b. Reconstruct a replica of the original to be located in the vicinity of the current Guest Service Center site. This location would have the advantage of placing the replica where all skiers could see it and thereby learn something more of the history of ski development on the mountain. Disadvantages include the issue of placing yet another structure in an already varied complex of structures at the top of the mountain. Moreover, the original building would not be in a location which reflected the original vistas it commanded, and the simple design might be lost or trivialized in comparison with that of the other structures. The Proposed New Sundeck While this is not the subject of the BOCC referral. the HPC may wish to take note of the fact that the City Council, in its review of the Aspen Mountain Master Plan, expressed concerns regarding the bulk, massing, and materials of the proposed new Sundeck Restaurant. While City Council members did not question the need for a new facility, several found the materials and design to be somewhat overbearing. One theme emerging from their comments was a desire to see simpler, lighter construction be employed in the design and materials of the new facility. The HPC may wish to comment on these issues as part of their referral to the BOCC, and may relate those comments to the proposals for the replication of the original Sundeck warming hut. Conclusion. Staff does not have a specific recommendation with respect to Alternative 2a or 2b. The HPC is invited to explore the benefits of providing an historic replica at either of the two proposed locations, bearing in mind that siting was a major component ofthe effective simplicity ofthe original. Staff strongly recommends that an interior space be provided within the proposed Sundeck Restaurant which recreates elements of the original design, and further recommends that the architects explore a design which incorporates a more literal re-creation of the original forms within the new restaurant. Staff also recommends that HPC consider a recommendation with respect to the bulk, massing, and materials of the proposed new building, considering the issues raised by the City Council in their review. Staff from the Skico and COY will be present to provide additional information on the proposed new development and on the issues emerging from to their analysis of the historical Sundeck. Attachments: Aspen Mountain Master Plan: Submission for the Sundeck Restaurant Plans and drawings CC: Bill Kane, Skico Susan Hayward, CGY Architects Cindy Houben, County Community Development Dir. Board of County Commissioners City Council Julie Ann Woods, Acting HPO May-28-98 03:35P CGY Architects 970-544-9382 P.01 COTTLE GRAYBEAL YAW .rchitecti MEMORANDUM ro: Bill Kane. Aspen Skiing Company via fax: 923 4375 Eric Calderon. The Little Nell Hotel via fax: 920 6301 CC.: Stan C[auson. Aspen/Pitkin Comm. Dev. via tax: 920 5439 John Cottle. Larry Yaw file FROM: Susan Harvard RE: The Sundeck Resmurant - HPC .Weeting iNce DATE: May 28. 1998 Meeting Date: Wednesday, May 27,8:30 pm Topic: HPC Referral ort Sundeck Restaurant for Aspen Mountain Master Plan 1. REFERRAL INTRODUCTION Stan Clauson 2. PROJECT INTRODUCTION Bill Kane 3. OVERVIEW OF NEW SUNDECK ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER John Conle 4. HPC REFERRAL COMMENTS 4.1 Re. Building Replica of Original Sundeck: 4.1.1 No rebuilding of octagon is necessary - either independently OR within new Sundeck 4.1.2 No re-building is necessary - especially in Guest Service Center location 4.1.3 No re-building of octagon on front side of mountain. An interesting idea to consider as a "back-country- building 4.1.4 Absurd to re-create octagon - but back country services need to provided for in some manner 4.2 Re. New Sundeck: 42.1 Litent reference fo original Sundeck better than reference to -spirit" oforiginal building 4.2.2 interior references may need to be more literal 42.3 Internal reference to warming hut needs to be more vestigtal - a stronger element which perhaps includes entire gatiery, not just fireplace area at end of Gallery 4.2.4 Building is too linear - should *'encompass" more ofview in different directions 42.5 Design (form specifically) seems too much likeother mountain top restaurants. Missing the "uniqueness" which is important to Aspen 4.2.6 Roofas a snowfield is nice idea 4.2.7 Building appears to turn it-s back to skier side 42.8 Transparency of existing building very successful - new building needs to retlect thil concept in some way - perhaps with cterestory style windows under eave of front side 4.2.9 End elevations are more interesting and successful than front and back elevations 4110 Longer version of building is okay, allows restrooms to move upstairs and building to encompass more view 4.2. It Creates unfriendly feeling from Lift 3 4.2.12 Stone and timber important and good materials to include 1 4.2.13 Stone. cortin. and timber all appropriate materials 4.2.14 Stone is not -connective- to site when site is covered with snow ./-/./0. 510 East Hr,lun Ateuo Suite 21 ASPEN, CO 81611 *1 970.925.2867 Ax ging25.3736 .mai tor aR omces: PO. Box :8,7 107 North Ar Street TELUmIDE. 00 81435 tel 970.728.3037 fu 970.728.3238 cgyarchitects@ PO. Box, 41 7 37347 U.S. Hwy. 6 Suite 200 AMON, COB1620 tel 970.748.1516 la*970.748.1518 compuservecom < < << <----~ ~ 1 L.JA 3 1 May-28-98 03:35P CGY Architects 970-544-9382 P.02 4 , 4.2.15 Skipatrol building should use same palette of materiats and appear just as permanent as New Sundeck 42.16 Restrooms need tobernoreeasily accessed !!!! 4.2.17 Scramble Servery needs to work better than what exists currently at Bumps 4.3 Other: - Request publicity on progiess of building design - specifically the demolition of the existing building- rn:â€¢pdocs:sundcck:hpcm:&9673.1 2