The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19980826AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 26, 1998 REGULAR MEETING, 5:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CIIAMBERS 12:00: Site visit and worksession from 12:00 to 1:00 p.m. Christiania Lodge, 501 W. Main. Please meet at the site. 5:00 I. Roll call II. PUBLIC COMMENTS III. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS IV. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) V. BUSINESS J:10 A. 117 N. 6th Street - Landmark Designation W PC, w- a >04 zft'Cl,1-1-0 . 5:40 B. 117 N. 6th Street - worksession 6:10 C. 414 N. First - Observation Deck and Flagpole 0 1<~ 6:30 D. 920 W. Hallam - Final Development -7 - O 7:00 E. 516 E. Durant St. -Minor Development 3_,_~_~--- b) -7 7Â£i,~ ~le-,Â£-~7 7:10 VI. ADJOURN PROJECT MONITORING .oger Moyer 303 E. Main, Kuhn ISIS 514 N. First Susan Dodington 712 W. Francis 918 E. Cooper, Davis Meadows Trustee and Tennis townhomes 234 W. Francis 203 S. Galena, Gucci Melanie Roschko 918 E. Cooper, Davis ISIS 107 S. Mill Elli's bldg. Zona storefront window 706 W. Main 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 203 S. Galena, Gucci Gilbert Sanchez 1008 E. Hopkins, Bellis 414 N. First 303 E. Main Jeffrey Halferty 234 W. Francis, Mullin 414 N. First 701 W. Main 101- 105 E. Hallam Heidi Friedland 420 W. Francis Street 712 W. Francis Street 514 N. First CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: 334 W. Hallam (Poppie's), expires April 26,1999 123 W. Francis, Lot B (Vickery), expires May 13,1999 214 E. Bleeker Street (Greenwood), expires August 12, 1999 920 W. Hallam Street, expires August 12,1999 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Direc14_~4 FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 117 N. 6th Street, Landmark Designation DATE: August 26, 1998 SUMMARY: The original portion of the house was built in 1885 and at least two additions have been made to it, both early in the house's history. A shed which appears to be historic also sits on the property. The buildings and the site are relatively unchanged from the Victorian period and staff finds that three of the landmark designation standards: architectural importance, neighborhood character, and community character, are met. Staff has been directed by the Historic Preservation Commission to file an application for landmark designation because of their concern that the historic resource may not be sufficiently protected. An affirmative recommendation from the HPC will have the immediate effect of protecting the property with a "pending ordinance." The next step will be Planning and Zoning Commission review, with the final decision to be made by City Council. If Council does not support the designation or does not act on the proposed designation within six (6) months, the HPC application will be nullified. It is staff' s understanding that the property owner, Ms. Lynnie Coulter, is not in favor of landmark designation. APPLICANT: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission LOCATION: 117 N: 6th Street, Lots G, H, and I, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen. OWNER: Lynnie Coulter. HISTORIC LANDMARK Section 26.76.020, Standards for designation. Any structure that meets two or more of the following standards may be designated "H," Historic Overlay District, and/or Historic Landmark. It is not the intention of the City Council to landmark insignificant structures or sites. The City Council should focus on those which are unique or have some special value to the community: 1 A. Historical Inwortance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Response: This standard is not met. B. Architectural Inwortance. The structure or site reflects 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 building form or use), or specimen. Response: This structure is good example ofthe traditional Aspen miner's cottage, built in the late 1800's. It is one story with a gable roof, typical door and window proportions and materials. It is unusual in its relative lack of decoration (other than the porch posts) and the fact that its main roofline runs parallel to the street rather than the crossgable form which is more frequent in Aspen. 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 significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: The structure is part of the West End neighborhood, where the majority of Aspen's Victorian era homes are located. The block on which this house is located has three other historic houses, and adjacent blocks to the east and north are also primarily historic resources, making this site an important contributor to the character of the area. The characteristics of the site are somewhat unique. It retains a dramatic stand of historic cottonwood trees across the front of the site, as well as an irrigation ditch. It is therefore an excellent representation of the historic appearance of the neighborhood. E. Communin Character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation 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 majority of Aspen's historic resources are Victorian era homes. These resources contribute significantly to the town character by representing, through architecture, the lifestyle, values, economics, technology, and aesthetics of an important 2 period in Aspen's development. The cottage at 117 N. 6th Street is part of that historical record and its preservation therefore has important value to the community. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval of historic designation for 117 N. 6th Street to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, finding that standards B, D, and E are met." Exhibits: Exhibit "A" - Landmark Designation Application Ce: John Worcester, City Attorney 3 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPUCATION FORM 1. Project name Coulter 2. ProjeCt loCatiOn 117 N. 6th Street. Lots G. H, and I, Block 18 City and Townsite of Aspen (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning R-6 4. Lot size 9,000 square feet 5. Applicanfs name, address and phone number Aspen Historic Preservation Commision, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number 7. Type of application (check ail that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. x 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) Single family hnil=p (7 herlronm) r Approx. 828 Rquare feet. Shed, approx. 168 square feet. 9. Description of development application Landmark desianation 10. Have you completed and attached the following? x Attachment 1 - Land use application form x Attachment 2-General submission requirements x Attachment 3-Specific submission requirements x Proof of public notice (must be provided at public hearing) (Not applicable at HPC review) 11111111 August 19, 1998 Community Development Department; As Vice-Chairman of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO, 81611, 970-920-5090, I hereby authorize Community Development Department staff to submit an application for landmark designation of the property located at 117 N. 6th Street, Lots G, H, and I, Block 18, City and Townsite ofAspen. Sincerely, - Â· Â·Â· -- ..;-~Â£~ Roger M*er NT SCHEDULE A-OWNER'S POLICY CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY AMOUNT OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER PCT11879C2 09/02/97 @ 2:24 P.M. $ 1,100,000.00 1312-105665 1. NAME OF INSURED: LYNNIE G. COULTER 2. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREIN AND WHICH IS COVERED BY THIS POLICY IS: IN FEE SIMPLE 3. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST REFERRED TO HEREIN IS AT DATE OF POLICY VESTED IN: LYNNIE G. COULTER 4. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS POLICY IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOTS G, H AND I, BLOCK 18, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS AVE. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 925-1766/(970)-925-6527 FAX THE POLICY NUMBER SHOWN ON THIS SCHEDULE MUST AGREE WITH THE PREPRINTED NUMBER ON THE COVER SHEET. . 1 h Roarbg-Fork Rd \ .0 Pr-- \ - w Q-111&2212.-SL---r-- / 1 24 8\ f.\L 1.-A \ fi- -1 Plar: %/ 1,tty - 0 0-'* 1 5-~Ef ~ 1 2,~ -- ff "42 / ... VI#L nd -4 - ~Â·~ j / 25*5L b x b 117 N I -9.tpaL />\. Aspen, CO 81611 I â‚¬ 7â‚¬ter 7-ZI + *spen / P\-, e f 1 - V..<Zi. 2â‚¬84 6 -Â»4 -9-Â·Â·Â·27792Â» 4 \ 6 - 21 -F-1 1/ i X81---- 3 CÂ¥:+4\ij---3 -d Ke*mirarl 19Â«6 4 maaet 6441 1 r=-1-- 0,7 Â»flifi_I ,~ - X\N : i //\ 1 1/ \I Locur loN MAP>@ COU CrEGZ Car-rb.(:412. ATTACHMENT 3 RESPONSE TO REVIEW CRITERIA A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Response: The site is not identified with a person or even of historic importance. B. Architectural Importance. The structure or site reflects 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 building form or use), or specimen. Response: The building reflects a traditional architectural style in Aspen, using typical forms, massing, materials, siting, and detailing. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: The architect or designer is not known. D. Neighborhood Character. The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: The site is part of the West End and contributes significantly to the areas' character. The structure has had relatively few modifications and the site itself, with the large cottonwood trees and historic ditches, is a particularly excellent representation of the earlier appearance of the neighborhood. E. Communitv Character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation 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 represents the modest scale, style, and character of homes constructed in the late 19th century, Aspen's primary period ofhistoric significance. I . B 1%.4: - 12 :U=&? Â·4* C -' 'Â·St 1 24: LM... ' . 1 .. . 1 a e . ...... f..I I . . -1 43.5. 7 *:(Me. ..t.r. + 4....q - f. =:Â·Â·. 7>:t,~1Â·4'4Â©64* ~. 9.2 :1* p,4%#4 e j#mill,WAA::Mt,Â¥Â£1.,4.*4 W.& FA â€¢ ~'' .4Â· - ' R A .Â»:f a 1 4.- -â€¢â€¢Ak. - 7 4; 1*4'or ~L,5..< b .1 2. $ VOWâ‚¬.ED ,Â·49.<4 Â·6* tupx.* *~i&&â‚¬:0~- -*-fi~emi-.-1Wile'i~'1-~~,SathEEP- -;12&* Â£111"14*/.4. c,Le 73* m,c>1~2pt.1 4-- I ---. -rm 24 gr ..... M-- ./i/19*44*41Â· . 9 4.. 4 .... *'.: A, :.Jqv .: R *49-ikbi,0-~' ~S)~J/L< 4 ~ HE~ 49:Â»ji~Â»21:*f k,M' s Â£ - - =~ ~ 4 :. 5 - -- . .. 4 ...le..... . PA*. ' e Â· t 1 /7 1 Â·EVAA , - 1 1 f'64* ./.*Am*I.*eW'~).WI'.4 .. ..t I ' ' '' * , ./TE'dion/ME 1/ 11 Â· -k!*Nair.999 ,-Ell,Wit 7 ' Â·i h. L . Â· 3 1 I ...: 0 , ' r.Â· ~t Â·* 1 . 'klh 't ... P , t , 4 1. 41 N 0 It.. 0 /1 $ i .. 1 , 4 . _A~ , S 1 -4 , 1.+2* W , 11 .: 0 9 . 11 4 ' 1,1 .1 1, ./. 1 1. 1 . - 1, 1 1, 1 , 1 1 .. 10 9 9 .A... ./ m 9 . .1 It L - - 7...7.1-IA,~ 2~ , .i : - r. 1,11â€¢_. 0,:,rtl!,2- 4~Â« e.*. B -.- , Y Â»:Ef:74Â¥ Ites. FjPâ€¢fÂ·C . Â¢ 48Â¥Ae#*prAIMER#V 1.--1 1111 M 111111' rABV7W , 1 , ':7344.- /4 ' It 4, 1 ... 4:GE#Y , 3,â‚¬.f .i/.4~3 98.. .42,<2,6,9&5549*KirQ*6 '1 1 f'i'â€¢ /' " SVE* ta#T--V -/4.Â·.;~ 1~B#. ' , -'Z.. -Â·Â·.2,~ 1 1 1 1/ 1 6 --p /7 f ...,1 a~~7~34 1, 1 06 --/ . ~.44. 30 -/6--,JIG;Â»,1 3, 449 2 1 1 . t I 42=3 - I 1 ..LE-PLe- â„¢Â« a t Â£ , , h - , St ..t 1 14Â¥ ---,32,Â·Se;,m2,+ 1 t . 4 t..I - 1 , . 1 1 1 r ' \ $ f ....+Ak Ki 1 11 '11 4% . , IX J.... ....i> 1 , 9 .,0.m. ' . h.. = 2 2 #*64&116 A. .. .. ...~ F K..14 - 2 4. : , ,/8 Â· 0 -T..U .. 2 ~''Utiv *. 1 '., 9 1 -. .er .:24%44 . , ..Ch e-*2- 'Â·45 .3@3 -' Â· I Ji_ .*t:'246 ..1..~ >Â».:4Qi~~al)UB .,13-6.faill,&*>f % .Â· B,430.j -*:3:'t 9.-U?-_'304**i~i .1. :v . . ..,C . .,35{Bit*': "' :- 40:A~&*~*44 illt .9 -, C,i: i"El, i~~.Â· Â·~Â· I . *di~ 974 1*1: 14 -0.72 Â·.1* -0 r ,7â‚¬Â¢4 ,,f .,9 , â€¢mll..a.24'4Ge, j.2 .':1(1 1/8/Mailirsji/9/ ' ' z./-/'Â·:t.-/ 21'V%..fr#00. It; :St.,r. e . -1-2-V =.5./. , 0 , 94/2>4. .)*4;...~,. 0 -../-W -I--~**' #,03213440:5~il ' + d.<34 V 'el 4- 14424.434*7 4Â¢4* , /1 4 , I,f . 'r. 1 ' 11* :.4.4..Â·. 4 Â· A .3>-4 , .fkmiA Â· li 4 1 .,1. *. " N.4,4 4-,..I. 4.WyÂ·fâ‚¬aÂ·:z.... ~t~r'â‚¬,E'~. 1..9:,9~6ikiu..5,~:rfra':*il*t-k '-t-'f"~64-~W;JQW..,- :10. * * e C.<Del:''.0 \- MY"P~~*r .. 3 444 -*2... :, I , .-.,â€¢Â»â€¢~ â€¢54., Â·. 1. Court House, 10. Chris. Sanders' Brewery. 19. St. John's Episcopal Church. 28. Aspen Mine Tramway and Ore House. 2. Washington School. 11. First Presbyterian Church. 20. Citizen's Hospital 29. Argentum-Juniata Mine. 2. Lincoln School, 12. Christian Church. 21. Mellor Bros. Foundry. 30. Durant Tunnel. 4. Garfield Sch{,01 1 8. Methodist Episcopal Church. 22. S. Selden Foundry. 31. Aspen Deer Mining and Drainage Co. 11. Hotel Jerom,Â·. 14. Christ Church (Episcopal ). 23. Midland R. R. Depot. 32. Enterprise Mine. 6. Ronring Fork EliÂ·(Â·1 tÂ·ie Light CoÂ· 15Â· Scandinavinn Lutheran Church. 24. I). & R. G. R. R. I)enot. 33. Aspen Mining & Smelting Co. (Veterau S 11(,IdcÂ·n I.irivintiot, Works 1 6. Baptist Church. 25. Aspen Public Tramway, 34. Evergreen Cemetery. â€ž ... . Agiet CiÂ·oviÂ· Cr,mfÂ·ter, 4% , 1 f r f: 5 - AA -7-T 6.141 ~ LF / 1,2 r * di 1. 1 1/ 14'J 6 +6 /, --'71 t #x .J ..5. 1/i'fk *,12 44) J % 1, 1, 1 *02-*Lâ€ž1 .1. 1 J 4 F '-~ >t-Â£ f-Â£-1 ; LL J1;/l. , Wir .z~vi#*6- Â¢ t>41<ifyl,st'I.," 2 2 1/1,2 GILL ESP,2 Ap .ee - *I 1 r 1.1 1 1, d 0 F..7..911.0.'ihiET F~-7Â» 7.4 1,Â· 1 1 pl 1 /112 ' '0 1 4*14 4-:-42-, C 0041, *1 4 /% <4481*1 7 -Â»+ '.Â£ i,2/ # . 1~ 64+4.1 2 ft'~>7 07-I~~'-,â€¢-1 1,Â·S4 2 / *7,- I. r 1 r l- 1 f..1 i -I * Ant#Â·All r=Â»-- 144;7.2 XÂ· /3~62>/4/ -tÂ»L -- 7//9 j.i Jf i f 4 4 1 E-30 '~~--1 r.1 /4/ As Pr4-29 1,1.1441-1 j l --LS 0 7.'th,/trngj EMAE //./1 brib z -1 â€¢r I~~ =Â» Afl: /.7 4 -HdHEW Y;~ ;, 1 k g ZE-r pdf frpr~ - n.7~-4-AN" i .-13 4 t. L/ /ah m Mat ,i --C....../ 4 EFCOMR-2-1.141.1.1 Ill I r- --4-Â·2â€¢T â€¢ ABA / â€¢ CrÂ»21/g 1 -,1â€¢ . lal 1, L, f J ifi>ED LI- le[.1.Liâ€¢,2 f rl.7/,6+54,/96Ar+Y,FRME55/;0#M Tr:i 112) (2/9*v~-~2+LJ Â£ 14/ p L. -- 2#0 1:l , f7-7-,-42â€¢ ~~~ oLL.21 MALJ El . r --Â·45*~ q PT-ra-k,-*x 4 3 14{ *~'--th-3-<j k fâ€¢Na-1 1, 3:4%4/-41 /0/ ' Â«Â·Â·, Â¢JiliÂ£13413-ia' -10 j -*it ..* T,7,11.11""*11'1'1.21/ 1 FkijSifi4~j t F~l~'- -..C.=. al.:/1 0==2. --4.4/4 /6,74 7.0- <-4 . 7 .-7 / 41 k 1.1. ' 4 1 <Â· t â€ž a , 172Â»7*4 4,+L I .0, LF %1 3 f--Like)71- I - 6, t, .1" 110 /'#24 1 .1*)/,f fin-767 ..6. ..rE HALLAN , M â€¢ i./.LJ 0.1,14 21 -\ ' M'*e" ~' i ; * 41h,flolÂ«Rtsd.9 //4,1 2/ 11 X .- -0. .l 1 1 NÂ£2.01 8 u / 1.3 el., j Fl 1 0 2 ~ 2 /4/2 1.4129= v :0/4 T77 r . 6.1 1. tir. 2 ; le 11- , f ~ 3 lâ€¢ 49-7 r , l 4 r 44- e 81~/ I 4 4 6 4 ~ A . '; ' M; 'ls. (204 4 b,-r, 1 4 k $ f NO7 i * 04 4 J ~,F. Sckt ' 10 4,/ .4* 1 .re. f 9 4, k 1 1 9 4,2 0 4. I I A 4 L X 7Â£- 1- e * -V H' , I ' 5 2 / -' te, -,-ip - ry 1. . , d : & P . C ' '' ~ Y 1 0444,46 Ar, h 9 1 \P 4 â€¢ i , Â·Â· *4918 i 2 6 - 6 .C ; 7.,. A =.pi *fry/ 1.Al . 19,1 52 -*fLA'teÂ¥, / 41 4 g...7=,bl 4 4 t,32/. 2 1.#Ae +7/ 6-5 2 / r'/ M igÂ¢â€¢ 3 4 5 4 2 , 0 d .1 vi.* 9.7 2. .7 A r g~,z~ i.~ P/ 2 47 0 .... C.. --1 i -0. -* 4. I J â€¢5*â€¢â€¢1â€¢64' Elft ,â€ž . a Â¢1 2 te U., 1 - Z fle , , A h ., '- 1 ES,En,KS. t\ 2. 8 -\.00 â€¢r ... 4 *ul/t . 0 2% 4 4 9 I ..,/0 '" fi 4, I , 1 1 I I I .. /7 1 7 4 . J *,PU. J ... 9 la' --- mi 0 3 4 ,I.;2., 1. 4.- 0. , I ,,1 % / 11 /. 4 i . . 1 f >uy .-52 # C Rf,F -1-11#,- 4-Ma j ~L O x G 6.t; 4 =-r 6.- 41-.r=n_/ orn_Â£ 0 \. a o ---61 11 - Â· - lot. , . 92 toll 1 X@ 4 .# =na.rÂ· 9 4- -===--=#== == == ,9 - H 27 * # Of . - Cook) 1 Q . 9 ~ 162 91 . , 20 1 aL M '1 -ill tet # 1 \ 2 e. 4.V )fi. +, C > N K , -13-7 far=-7 rw-7-1--- 11 - i Â· .2--L ~, /44, .- 91 C 1 i -ir-.1 W lut a -e u 71 '1 il 4 xix , 11 Â§81 1---~ I. 11-/ EL ' N 1 x / 1 x n. .7 1,-4 1 IM- A _11 W I 97 11-- 6:Zs .IA 1 1 il W Â·- 9 J 0 /r 4/4 - - 1 -71 1111 ~ A I 14 x 1 1 f-7 \ m maÂ· 4-1 9 12 ~ *2 *64 1/ 1 *1 n ta 1 h 17 u L~rj-1 a WL 12Â£. -91 31- . m 0 -- 3(1!d.Ali--- 1.'z "~= .H.0 ~) aE 24 - 94 AZ a It ' Zar-7- r~ 2 1-1 Na , 11 74 11 PL -17 .LL... /0 -LL // 4 11~ .W .0 7 .0 ' N 'VA '1 a //' 1â€ž, l OB@ 1 -â€¢v v i. ., 7 01 N. 71:H -2.1- .- A ./ . 1 0... AaÂ»4943.i231Â«99Â· --t~41'j,~itifyrk :., '1'2 1~2-, 1-- 1=Â· f ; ELfiÂ» 2 Ip'. 1 .4'. . ./ 4 . 1.f .;9-4 -4..:f-Ng.%9.-11-1. . 6 , V -3 ,i'*42*,VIX<j-j,2'313-NiE-1 -t#:-1,~..:t~JO-'T,1Lt- ,'2 5 .2-1 '- ~ 7.- ~j',~: ,,'i. 48..Â·L'r:0 -4 --- I k .2 4.26 4 1â€¢ ' ' 21 1 2%341*WK P 2734-9 21 2>a- i:, i j M,>1441 i.:.' Â· qi â‚¬Â£ 4<06#tiÂ£4394 -i''*,21%***t -3-r- - - *3::4Â·91*re -949-.:~ ~4;35 039~2-9~1*~,4~po~-0-1- 4 2 .f*.7.4 I. 3:7 +421*MU,~Â·2Â«#dÂ¢Ci;-.2 :35'.1 P" 3151-%6.t,I ''4. .Â¥~-, '1. 1~ .... . . 44.â€¢ -, .4~- . ~41.- 41 3. . C'....4Â·:~4?'7*MEÂ«:,MAM-% ,~6 . '44...i:.4-r,-3, ... 1, , % .l 0 ' 2%â€¢ - -I- 4-:vi IA - :fi:Â·1~,~--t.-1 . .... N .L . r Â·, - 7, f#*'' ' <:1 2 . . 964 /+ - I , 2 03*J~ 1 4 AL<-IL.' R' 9 1 I I "r f:#,gf- 3~V?Â¥L<'. ..4 . p ,'42... 4.4,- . W..11.4//1/lillillin/lilli/6....22 4%4:201%11i , I .6 1,4 pda 13*t:4-1 ,<71 :*#Air<,3 -42.>.41?.,Cl:4'3)26:26 . Â·40' W.:. 43*11'"".#.4@3~.--.. ... Â· -' V....Ill '.-/ 44 . -' .4 -6,1 4.-Fe...il , C : r s'.~if.' 6,~)1?':3--2'-all. ~ Ut, F.: iÂ·<*40 -- 9...,i.,' - 0 -, 4 ,t I- : 1. 1% -- - 'Â·67'L , 17' 4 .v'A / ,& 4 f '.r.6 ':i,-5,1~3'44.'i' 0/3-421 ~'T:.t S . ' 4:-r:- '40,/4 + ...ter,)22'11,- *. f , AA 4 ..4- : -Â·L, rs .4.1-1 I 642"AUP Â·.Â·rÂ· 44-<~63â‚¬ 2~--4*A' A. 'Ff~,9Jibir. - ...W,A' ~r a.,-r. 1,U 43.' .4~ -3,L D~ *3:*:Â·~Â·Â·2-1 : 4-44411:481'lit-1-*4Â©ry. :-17.,2 r_ ~43(,%Â·,Fclâ‚¬4='1-i~ 3-'t.,tid .,-5 1 2- I-*J . 4 I *,rf Li ' h,1 ':3.Â£. 1:C- 4.1.Â· I~,%- rt:t.it.: f >4%44. ' t. -# * . '.*-$2 2 7,-e-Â£.~ -* -. I -r..Â» ..> , . '03..... *-- - I ... t.' C.t r 4 .7&,3-, 6 .1 ' s ~' ',14-1"ft-1 . 41, 4~, - 7 .. I 1. '. 6 1 9 ::,LiI.-Af~. bt 71'?i.~il.-. . 4% - 4.7 C..0 Cf.L#/*6 :4 . 12Â¥es t t.. C....20 # 4Â·. 0' - Izi:~Fâ€¢Â·if -4 :59' 6,, 3, Â£ , Nt&.4..t .i.72 -7 . ,Â·hthâ€¢:' 1 S 2#* '; :19 . 24 1,44} fbÂ· ..Â° ~*'-; Aft?i~;:,~39.it,3-Â·Â· -'j":.jitAR43.7-1 -3--fi.-1 -41, 33:24%~~~~.~rt,~4 4- 7: ...6 1 4- a , 1 -ff n. 4 I. M -.1/ 17 1 . I 1. / f. I <-I.&. .. 2 i t.Â·cu:,-62.:6;i :. 3.,4 ...5 ./ . & 1 f t .44'll/bb'-. I-%,1.3 JJ:A .. , 1 ' :<C,â‚¬â‚¬-4,*:r.2 4 + , Â· Ay-â€¢ i - 9, , 7 I p .1 , â€¢ 442Â·, 4, I 'ber ' 5â€ž L b ... . . ..1 I *. , .1.: /.:A 1 1 21*97-1- -,ek.:ifs.rFE, 32 -1-1.f :di jÂ»re o 4 4 /. '~, I '-~4 2 7 + 14:. ' , tip :.:fl' *A~* :..4'..:Â·ft*: 7--~-1-:4404..:l.92...-04Â·<,:~*:f'4Â·,t * *p *#TA' ' A.p '- .'i~e, 417 '' '1..2 ~ ;41 - . .w/ t ' . â€¢. ' 9 ... m., 6 % . I -4 ..t r 4 1 1 r -- f d.. r .1 . 24'2 -* 6~.*.2. 2.5 I r . A *2,3.0 ...... .:4.41'#./* 'di ) ''*:...1 :'6 .2.2:4 . <'?-,1.z .w ~- 2/4-i: Â·2.-4 .1 I ... ' . .*./ .... lai 1 . ... .96 I .*.I-.'...4f V ' . I , Ve 11 4 . 1-,414 7.1/1-2 476-~ :< / - e yÂ· ~ 444%-Â·''f f,-40:* 4,9 -6 - 1>4$ A, - I -9,17 My.13 . "j.. 242.-- - 2-).3 Ja 14?- , .r#f: 44 . ". 6 . / 91. 1.â€¢/ :r I , I 14:6364-*: . ..14'Sk ' .tk 1115 ./4 14.2 Â¢ ta 1â€¢6 'I- 08/25/1998 13:33 9258308 LYNNIE COULTER PAGE 02 LYNNIE COULTER 40 441 11Amlhe06 4 w?0 - A p alt (MA.),12 ka.un, Cubmdid. O-0 pf.NliDUS *P C. rMe.*in~ W-kvn uu, haul n\Aoll *fast,ukli 0-63 U)~Uln In.~ mit bdOWd, Ii-0uJ ry\Â»CS 9*-R ok apt 11 -7 A 04'L 91-. I houu-, Mkau,4~ Al RAd *tu- h.mit~ 14 (BAc.~1*16 060Nin iht 4-0 nt.~ 'yoÂ¢4. 4 +05 -linQ, I am Wi-thd im;./; Vi N-1 Cll<Aukt- appfiCAdiON QI +0% 4.KL )1.#*UN- FALS qu, -Ikt ME, not COAH flut, 40 016*t 400- \*Ad))\A&14 aff 11' (Adi 916 ll~4-i 1 32 6*bÂ·Â» a.. zao ant,- <C a m Â£499*994 +1* 054-0 4#2 ropul un% -11) affÂ¢DQ. Ck- tucta.4-,~ on- O- hitlÂ·Â·ovicag eik C/)18- a.10 01Â»lylÂ»Fbkit 11}U~~01* 14. CE kou, pu) diwlxUL+i 0-0 4.hok fuL baad Cak, b? 14266& d (0Â£4.h 0-/A- 0. CLe~tost Qf)4 (t'Co~b~evu r. CUV\04 1 V#elt 1*oylaAÂ«, ouN+~0* hab MdAÂ¢Wk *ll/f *MAâ‚¬*U~ *a)u/Â¥5. 1 100 t .{O(1(.3Â®ld -ID wa*,L~ 0) itts FY 44 * ADf- 4DD &4504- #141% ik UDU . Post Office Box L3 â€¢ Aspen, Colorado 816\|.2 117 North Sixth Street â€¢ Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone (970) 925-8756 Fax (970) 925-8308 APPLICANT: Aspen Historic Presdrvation Commission LOCATION: 117 N. 6th Street 4 ik o ACTION: Landmark Designation C/t k. Uâ‚¬A-> Â£ ~ To be eligible for landmark 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. It is not the intention of HPC to landmark insignificant structures or sites. HPC will focus (0'~~ on those which are unique or have some special value to the community. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Architectural Importance: The structure or site reflects 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 building form or use), or specimen. Designer: The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Neighborhood Character: The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenahce of that neighborhood character. Community Character: Th6 structure or site is critical to the preservation 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. . / 4 f 0 1 MEMORANDUM To: Historic Preservation Commission \\ agg THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Directorzâ‚¬(~ FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner diM RE: 414 North First Street -- Minor Development Review Observation Deck Materials Flag Pole Location and Height Landscape Wall Materials DATE: August 26, 1998 SUMMARY: The applicants, Johnathan Lewis and Roberto Posada, have applied for a Minor Development Review for three site features: the observation deck materials, a flag pole, and a series of low landscape walls near the bluff. Observation Deck. The applicant gained Hallam Lake BluffReview approval for the location and size of the observation deck. The Planning and Zoning Commission in the approval conditioned the final design approval by the HPC. The observation deck will be visible from the Hallam Lake area and the intent behind the condition of HPC approval was to ensure the materials used would be compatible with, and not significantly detract from, this view from below. Landscape wa/6. The landscape walls were also part ofthis Hallam Lake Bluff Review approval. These walls, however, were represented as dry-laid stone walls during this review. The applicant is now proposing sections of pre-cast concrete, instead of the stone, with the locations and approximate dimensions of the features remaining the same. Staff asked the P&Z if this change in materials would represent a substantial enough of a change to require an additional review by the Commission. The Commission responded by asking staff to take the request to the most appropriate Board but not to review the request administratively. Because the only change proposed is of the materials to be used for these walls, staff felt the most appropriate Board would be the HPC. The main concern here is the compatibility of the material with respect to the overall character ofthe house and site features. The primary structure does incorporate this same material in several locations, especially on the Flag Pole. The applicant has also proposed a flag pole of approximately 40 feet in height toward the rear ofthe property on axis with the Garmish Street R.O.W. The Community Development Director has determined the review for any site feature on a landmark property taller than the 25 foot zoning height limit should be reviewed by the HPC as a Minor Development. The concerns over this feature are that 1) it be compatible and complimentary to the house and the property in general, and 2) that 1 the pole material itself not generate any ancillary effects, such as loud clanking noises. Staffhas included a condition that the flag not be illuminated. The flag pole is slightly higher than the peak of the house (38') and substantially lower than many ofthe surrounding trees. It is also well within the Hallam Lake Bluffprogressive height limitation. Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Minor Development Review for these three items, with conditions. PRIMARY STAKEHOLDERS: ACES. Staff contacted Tom Cardomone concerning the changes and invited him to the HPC hearing. APPLICANT: Johnathan Lewis and Roberto Posada. LOCATION: 414 North First Street. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Minor Development. The Historic Preservation Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for Minor Development of a historic resources at a meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff comments have been included as Exhibit "A." A site plan and site section showing the landscape walls and the flag location and height will be presented at the meeting. A color cut sheet showing the detail of the metal tubing to be used on the observation deck does not duplicate well and will be presented at the meeting. ~COMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Minor Development with the following conditions: 1. The proposed metal tubing for the observation deck is hereby approved. 2. The landscape walls may be constructed with pre-cast concrete segments. Any substantial change to the location or dimensions of these walls may require an amendment to the Hallam Lake BluffReview. 3. The flag pole is approved in its proposed location. It shall be wooden and shall not be greater than 40 feet in height. No lighting of the flags is permitted. 4. The applicant shall record this Historic Preservation Commission Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per 2 page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. 5. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Minor Development Review for the flag pole, the observation deck materials, and the landscape wall materials for the Lewis and Posada Residence, '414 North First street, with the conditions outlined in the Community Development Department memo dated August 26, 1998." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments 3 Exhibit A Staff Comments Historic Development Review Standards. Development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, and all Development involving historic landmarks. No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met. A. 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 parceIs 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 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); Staff Finding: The low landscape walls are compatible with the redeveloped house on the property and with the Hallam Lake Bluff Review standards. The P&Z has reviewed and approved these landscape elements. However, these elements were to be constructed as dry-laid stone walls. The applicant now wishes to use pre- cast concrete segments similar to those used on portion of the building, both as interior and exterior features. Staff believes these low walls will be compatible with, and an enhancement of, the overall design if constructed with concrete segments. The proposed materials for the observation deck are very appropriate. They will remain visible from Hallam Lake, as it is today, but will better blend into the vegetative backdrop. The color cut sheet presents this blending very well. Unfortunately, or maybe as evidence of this blending, the proposed metal tubing is not visible in reproductions of this cut sheet. The 40 foot flag pole is higher than the 25 foot height restriction in the zone district, However, several factors mitigate the height of the pole and staffbelieves the element to be compatible with the overall design. The proposed location is substantially set back from public rights-of-way and is well within the Hallam Lake Bluffprogressive height restrictions. The feature is much more of a private amenity than a public display. If the pole were proposed for the front of the building, staff would be much more concerned about it's compatibility with the historic resource. StaffComments Page 1 The ridge of the house is approximately 38 feet. The placement of the pole does create more of an outdoor room feel to the landscape of the backyard and compliments the height of the structure well. A pole lower than the house may seem underscaled and insignificant for its purpose. A substantially taller pole may become a dominant feature and detract from the Overall design of the property. The adjacent trees are significantly taller than the proposed pole and serve to lessen its relative height. In other words, a 40 foot pole on a cleared site would have no backdrop and would appear taller. The proposed pole is wooden. Much ofthe concerns over a large flag pole is the noise it can generate when the metal attachments "clank" against a metal pole. A wooden pole does not generate nearly as much noise and is much more appropriate. For these reasons, staff is recommending approval of the flag pole as proposed. B. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development; and Staff Finding: Staffbelieves these elements of the applicants plans are compatible with the neighborhood and with the parcel. C. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parceIs; and Staff Finding: The elements proposed do not detract from the historic resource and do not detract from adjacent parcels. D. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Staff Finding: The elements proposed do not directly affect the historic structure and do not diminish its character or integrity. Staff believes these elements actually compliment the property and will compliment the structure. Staff Comments Page 2 OFFICE OF DAN KILEV Â· LANDSCAPE ARCH[rECTS AND PLANNERS Â· EAST FARMÂ·CHARLOTTE Â·VERMONT Â· 05445 Â·TELEPHONE: 802-425-2141 Â· FACSIMILE: 802-425-3288 Chris Bendon Community Development City Hall 130 Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 16 July 1998 re: I.ewis-Posada Property (414 North First Street, Aspen) Aspen HPC Review Chris, The accompanying site sections / elevations illustrate the relationship of the proposed 40'-0" foot high flagpole to existing trees, proposed trees, the roof line of the house (38'-0"), and top of slope. The North Elevation provides information about the pole's height from ACES (we believe it will not be visible), and the South Elevation provides information about the pole as seen from town (it will be surrounded by and partially obscured by existing evergreens). As I explained in our discussion by phone on Monday, July 13, we feel that at 25'-00 height (as per zoning code) the flagpole is rendered ineffectual and will be lost within the forest growth. At 40'-0" high, the flagpole will relate to the house in an appropriate proportion, as well as be able to establish itself as a subtle focal point from within the Lewis-Posada property. You will also find enclosed informalion on the proposed material for the overlook. The color xerox illustrates the visual delicacy ofblack steel tubing and wire cable, as well as its capacity to blend with vegetation. Constructed as proposed, the overlook will be less visible than the existing structure. Please see the Site Section Looking East and the North Elevation for intended appearance. Please let us know when you circulate this information to the HPC monitors (you had mentioned the week of July 20), as well as the schedule of review and approval. I look forward to receiving written acknowledgment of the issues which you noted and approved in our discussion last Monday, including approval of'the landscape plan (except for HPC review of overlook and flagpole), and approval of cobble surface on Garmisch St axis / garage parking / walk which parallels the base of the North First SL wall. Let me know if we can answer any questions for you or provide more information. Sincerely, U F sun Jane P. Amidon CC: 1 Lewis and R. Posada M Ememann / The Ernemann Group EXHIBIT~ APPLICANT: Johnathan Lewis and Roberto Posada i F* 3 <*9Â£ E-1 LOCATION: 414 N. First Str:et ACTION: Minor Review All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or development involving a historic landmark must meet aL'four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. Standard 1: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel aild with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historit 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 ~eet 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 charactdr with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be developmen~ in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under Cottage Infill Progran~ for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). . Standard 2: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Standard 3: The propÂ§sed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance â‚¬ designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Standard 4: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. 9, '. . . : - \ 11 1, . .1/ t, . , 1- 41-p 351.57-0 41.WI' . I 7 -1#0 .122 + .*ft-tt - .4 --1 ...:'... 1--* ->#- . : 4.1*,6.4.-*-.4 V Z 44,- ' 19/:. .4. 1 r~ e v' 4 . t . - L. ... $ . 4/' . . . . . 19 1 i P , Li .. b .S I.* - -6- J - -t .- _ i 11 E . 1Â·â€¢M...F Yl W 1 1. 94 ---ilim- . 94 ,;.1 4 - -IM- '4.-â€¢1 =".IG- B..16'Lit= U.:fil --I ~Ill- Ii: Lt T.T,-r '1 .;iw rl L .~ iM#* 2 ../IA .. 0. 4 . 4 0 r 0 ~ 1, I Â» . 0 8 . .. . g .' Â£-EXATBITT ) . MEMORANDUM tifi TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Directo<~~" FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner)~~' RE: 920 West Hallam Street, Historic House on Lot B: Significant Development Review (Final). Parcel I.D. No. 2735-123-03-003. DATE: August 26, 1998 SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking Final Significant Development Review approval as it relates only to the historic structure on Lot B, 920 West Hallam Street. Conceptual approval was granted on August 12, 1998, by a vote of 4-0, with the decision regarding whether to grant the requested 500 square foot FAR bonus deferred until Final review. With the exception of a few minor detail-oriented modifications, the Final application is consistent with the conceptually approved plans for the historic house. BACKGROUND: On July 8, 1998 and August 12, 1998, the HPC reviewed the following: â€¢ the proposed Partial Demolition to remove the lean-to structure attached to the garage (approved by a 7-0 vote on July 8th); â€¢ the requested On-Site Relocation to move the existing, historic house approximately five (5) feet to the east eleven (11) feet to the south/forward, and eighteen (18) inches up in elevation, in order to excavate a basement beneath the house, center it between the two newly proposed houses, and create enough space to move the existing garage behind the house (approved with conditions by a vote of 7-0 on July 8th); â€¢ the requested Off-Site Relocation to move the small shed structure to another, yet to be identified, site in town (continued to August 12th, then continued indefinitely); â€¢ the requested Historic Landmark Lot Split approval (recommendation) to create a new, separate lot on the west side of the property for the development of a new house while the easterly lot would contain the existing historic house and another new house (recommended for approval with conditions, and subsequently approved with conditions by City Council on July 27th); â€¢ the requested Significant Development (Conceptual) review --- including variances and a 500 square foot FAR bonus --- for the two new houses and the minor changes to be made to the historic house (continued to and approved with conditions on August 12th, with the decision regarding whether to grant the requested 500 square foot FAR. bonus deferred until Final review); and, â€¢ the requested variances from the "Volume" provision of the Residential Design Standards for several windows proposed on all but the rear elevations of the new houses (continued to and approved subject to conditions on August 12th). APPLICANT: Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC, represented by Glenn Rappaport. 1 LOCATION: 920 West Hallam Street; legally described as the east 1/2 of Lot M, all of Lots N, O and P, and a portion of Lot Q, Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is on the north side of West Hallam Street, between the Castle Creek Bridge (to the west) and 8th Street (to the east). ZONING: Medium-Density Residential, (R-6). CURRENT LAND USE: Single-family residential. LOT SIZE: The fathering parcel contains a total area of 11,048 square feet (.25 acres). As a result of the Historic Landmark Lot Split subdivision exemption, Lot A contains 3,432 square feet, and Lot B contains 7,616 square feet. Lot B is the subject ofthis Final application. ALLOWABLE FAR: The allowable FAR on Lot B ofthe 920 West Hallam Street Historic Landmark Lot Split is 2,352 (plus the potential for a 500 square foot FAR. bonus). This leaves an allowable FAR of 1,850 square feet on Lot A. REVIEW PROCEDURE: This Final application to the Historic Preservation Commission does not require a public hearing, but consideration of the 500 square foot Far bonus does. That is, final reviews are not public hearings and as such, do not require advertised, posted, or mailed notification, while FAR bonuses constitute variances from the dimensional requirements of the zone district and can only be granted at public hearings. The applicant would like the HPC to grant the requested FAR bonus with the approval of this Final application. If the HPC intends to do so, the Final approval with an FAR bonus can be granted at this August 26th meeting, but the FAR bonus would need to be re-affirmed at a public hearing on September 9,1998. The other two houses that were approved as part of the Conceptual application will come before the HPC as a/two separate Final Significant Development application(s). As the applicants are proceeding independently of one another, the effects of such an incremental approach (deferral of the FAR bonus to Final review, especially when there could be three (3) separate final reviews) has the potential to create some rather serious, practical problems for the applicants. Consequently, staff recommends that the HPC vote to approve the requested FAR bonus at this August 26th meeting and re-affirm this decision at a public hearing set for September 9, 1998. More discussion of this issue is included with the staff response to criterion "a." of Section 26.72.010(ID, below. STAFF COMMENTS: Section 26.72.010(D). Significant Development Review Standards The applicant is requesting Final Significant Development approval for the proposed development of an historic landmark lot. No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving Historic Landmarks shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met. Before HPC approval of a significant development involving an Historic Landmark may be granted, a conceptual development 2 plan (done) and a final development plan shall be reviewed by the HPC pursuant to the procedures established in Common Procedures, Chapter 26.52, and the following review criteria: a. 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 tofive hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC mqy 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). Staff Response: The proposed development is compatible in general design and site planning (layout and orientation) with the designated historic structure and the neighborhood. The historic development pattern of Aspen placed small-to-moderate size homes on 3,000 square foot lots. The proposed development would include two homes of 1,850 square feet (bigger than historic houses, but smaller than the vast majority of residences built in Aspen within the last twenty or so years) and another of approximately 1,000 square feet. The three homes would be fairly evenly spaced on 11,048 square feet of land, which results in an average of approximately 3,683 square feet of land per residence. The three structures would share a common built-to line (front setback), be oriented to the. public street, and have their garages and parking in the rear, along the alley. Staff supports the proposed changes to the design of the existing historic house as the house would be one of the only miner's cottages in Aspen to be left almost completely in tact. That is, the applicant is proposing only minor changes to the historic house, including a new door and window on the rear of the building (in a portion that was added to the original house in the 1960s), an addition of a roof/breezeway over the area between the house and the relocated garage, and the required lightwells on the east, west, and north sides to serve the new bedrooms in the basement (which requires a new foundation). Also, the applicant would like to remove an existing side door (on east elevation) from a non-historic portion of the structure and fill in the space with matching siding, replace the roofing of the house with new asphalt shingles, and cover the concrete slab on the front porch with wood decking. Staff finds that the proposed changes to the historic house are appropriate and compatible with the historic resource in terms of mass, scale and general design. The proposed windows and door on the rear/north elevation are, in staff' s estimation, appropriate in scale and vertical orientation and generally compatible with the miner's cottage; these windows would have wood trim matching that of the historic windows. Removal of the side door and filling it in with matching siding (shown incorrectly --- as remaining but nailed shut --- on the submitted plans) makes sense since, first, this portion of the structure is not of historic significance and, second, with the proposed interior remodel the door would open into a 3 . stairway and would not have a landing in front of it (the opening of the door would sit some four to five feet above the floor and would need to be permanently locked). The proposal to replace the concrete slab of the front porch with wood decking is consistent with the typical historic character of front porches and, in staff s opinion, represents an improvement from the current condition. As can be expected with structures of this age, the roofing of the house and garage is in need of repair and the use of asphalt shingles would not, in staffs estimation, compromise the integrity of the historic resource. Staff finds the proposed design of the breezeway connecting the house and garage, including the use of corrugated fiberglass roofing in a gable form, to be compatible with, and sympathetic and subservient to the historic resources of the house and garage structures. With the plans to put in a new basement while moving the house approximately ten feet forward on the lot and up eighteen inches in elevation (approved for on-site relocation on July 8th), new foundation walls will be exposed. The final plans indicate a desire to cover the exposed foundation walls with wood trellises in a kickplate-like design. From the elevation drawings, it appears that this proposal would serve well in complementing the simple yet ornate detailing of the Victorian, especially that of the gable ends, bay windows, and front porch bracketing. Also, moving the house approximately five feet to the east results in a jog in the sidewalk/walkway leading to the front door. As mentioned earlier in the "Procedure" section of this memo, staff recommends that the HPC vote to approve the requested 500 square foot FAR bonus at this August 26th meeting, and re-affirm this decision at a public hearing set for September 9, 1998. The FAR. bonus is an historic preservation incentive reserved for "outstanding" projects. Staff believes this proposal represents just such a project, but the HPC decided at Conceptual Review to defer the bonus request until Final review because some members were not completely satisfied with the proposed height of the westernmost structure. Under the applicant's proposal, the historic resources are being preserved almost completely in tact while the remainder of the site is to be used in a fair, sympathetic, and compatible manner. In staff's opinion, the height of the western!nost structure is unrelated to the floor area bonus request. For instance, the westernmost structure is on Lot A, to which the bonus (if granted) would not apply. Also, reducing the height of the westernmost structure would have no affect whatsoever on the amount of proposed floor area. These points are further compounded by the practical and procedural problems created by holding off on deciding whether to grant the requested bonus. For example, Final review does not require a public hearing, but granting of an FAR bonus does, and this leads to some timing related issues that could have the potential of putting an end to what staff feels is an outstanding project deserving of an FAR. bonus. It has also been staffand the HPC's goal to avoid incremental decision making, and the other two houses that were approved as part of the Conceptual application will come before the HPC as a/two separate Final Significant Development application(s). As the applicants are proceeding independently of one another, the effects of such an incremental approach (deferral of the FAR bonus to Final review, especially when there could be three (3) separate final reviews) has the potential to create some rather serious, practical problems for staff and, more so, for the applicants. It would be 4 unfair to make the applicants wait until the last Final review associated with the property before deciding whether or not to grant the requested FAR bonus, especially given the substantial amount of capital already invested in the project and its design. The project was seen as a whole for the last time at the Conceptual review level, and staff believed and still maintains that the project is deserving of the bonus. b. The proposed development rejlects and is consistent with the character Of the neighborhood of the parcel proposedfor development. Staff Response: The property is located in a neighborhood which is composed primarily of multi-family structures, with single-family and duplex homes to the north. Staff finds that the proposed development is consistent with the established character of the surrounding neighborhood. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Staff Response: Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development would enhance the character of the surrounding neighborhood, especially with respect to the adjacent structures and the relationship between these properties. Staff feels that the current proposal would not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Staff Response: Please refer to the staff response to criteria "a." and "c." above. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the Development application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit and/or Certificate of Occupancy. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered). â€¢ Deny all or part of the Development application finding that any one or more of the Development Review Standards are not being met. RECOMMENDATIONS: Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the Final Significant Development application as proposed, including and re- affirming the following: A. A variance from the minimum side yard setbacks of five (5) feet to allow for two (2) foot side yard setbacks on both sides of Lot B for the lightwells (the walls ofthe structures would meet the five foot setback requirement); 5 B. A variance from the combined side yard setback requirement of twenty-three (23) feet to allow for a combined side yard setback of seven (7) feet on Lot B; C. A variance from the maximum site coverage requirement ofthirty-five (35) percent (2,666 square feet) to allow for a site coverage ofthirty-seven (37) percent; D. A 500 square foot FAR. bonus applicable to Lot B. Approval of this bonus shall be re-affirmed at a properly noticed public hearing on September 9, 1998; and, E. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the Historic Preservation Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by an entity have the authority to do so. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the staff recommendations contained in this staffmemorandum, dated August 26,1998." EXHIBITS: "A" - Final application package 6 f -4 4 0(43 1 6 / 194 (7 0 t . ALLEY o pefferY UNE . SHEET INDEX . ARCHITECTURAL At. SHEET INDEX. BUILDING DATA, SITE PLAN m<086 -3 A2. DEMOL1TIONPLAN *FDCE I / 1-: i 1- 1 lifi -1 A 3. MAINFLOORPLAN A 4. LOWER FLOOR PLAN 1 1 :-1 1 4 1 i,1 iII] DOOR SCHEDULE WINDOW SCHEDULE 1! illi A 6. WEST & NORTH ELEVATIONS 1 , i i ir!' 1 iii till, 06114 LAI*Â£' -re FEMNÂ» 1 1: 1.' " V _, i |4 I |ijAI |11|i .22~râ€¢Â·~ PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ms:252, .~ 1-4 , -4. LOCATION: 920 WEST HALLAM STREET r weHTNEU, -'ll 41 ASPEN. COLORADO I REl LEGAL: ;LOT B, ASPEN HISTORIC COTTAC WT SPLIT. Crnt OF ASPEN f I .1.- - --2.a,JI.=imaL I .-i--. -* - ------ -- FLOORAREA CAUJULATION + r -=maeÂ¥1 .... ,MAIN HOUSE:,- . MAIN LEVELPLOOX - 853.3 /,t\ 4 LOWER LEVEL PLOOR:' 7 95.?S / 1 1 f -- 1 : ill- - . 4- -- j - 144.r- Â£2 0<ter* 41*$2% 1 0 / -- COT'tÂ»GE TOTAL: 990. S /21 (FELOUrED) 1 [1 -- . ... 5, I 2 2 -0 t- C C L - 4Â« - ~ 129911% Nfte Teke 10 â€¢EMAI". 1 + | | i#Â£67 ---- -2.-222-1.--...i- ..Â·-- Um,rwew DIRECTORY , 1 1 1 11.- -1- i 4 1 OWNER: i IiÂ·1 1 44 lolit.. .=trk=-= DAVID AND AMY GUTHRIE - ASPEN, COLORADO 8161 I 920 WEST HALLAM STREET, F - TY 1-4 011617,16 1.luc 9 X 18' P"AA#,t 6 -i TEL: 970-925-5521 I'n A 5. EAST & SOUTH ELEVATIONS A 7. GARAGE BLEVATIONS 1; 1 "AN' L.r: 1-1 :r 5 3 1 V GARAGE: . 4 ..* 42.: 1 1 -1#Â· Ch i A /- -/ f i o ARCHITECT: /2 f 4 / 4 GLENN RAPPAPORT ARCHITECTS 229 MIDLAND AVENUE, Â¥ BASALT, COLORADO 81621 -4 +y- P.O.BOX 276, ASPEN, CO 81612 - 6 - Â£ .t107,16â€¢ Miâ€¢;4~ le, ReÂ·uft , TEL: 970-927-0635 2222 b EXIerING evEWAL*. FAX: '970-927-0654 . E)(161-1,16 BEPPING FLAMTS -lb E*MA/N *T- FRNIT, =%5,054'PrA:Nlp /T\ - r A ft/,1 An . Wn; Umil-WELL E,ter'â€¢Ne WINDOW < ener!,16,Â»coR NAILED < -0 IZEMAKA . 1 - 1,1,Â·/777,m 4 jr-- -----4 C De,%,bU: / . r.1 NN'LACI. 27&10 ./ \\. 4-- 9 7 -U-=L==1 -4 a -Â». "1 .KITCHEN ~~361 4 C= 1 1 â‚¬ i - 22, , , 't '1 F .1. 664- 6=. _ - 1 1 ~1\.- 1.--09.- -.. ~ El 184'14 > -Ill-*49*diasmf.--I- ."mt# ENTRY Â¥ '1/41' Â·a . 1 * -1 , F- n-4 1 M - n- . t ' ~-:Â· Â·.32 - ~ L[;11% 49â€¢ CaNNE*12 REÂ¥ * GITION. 1 +136'42 , ~ '# ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~; . li 79 1 - O,1,1 -,0 31.w DI*4 - LIVING p J Kien- 10(*kew.- .:.' ''-r-* i .le~ =tu ~-2 =Wl -20[ te=. .. 3 msâ€¢e* ~ .,1 f UGHTWELL. LIJL.3 E--9 t~==â„¢-1 2 . .. ~ estz:W. i - Jâ€¢ger!* WN=we* c.,6, Â»10Â»*3 -18, Fam,LAN. UcAN. - ,. . ---i- ~~~ N-- -1 - PezE,66 UeRâ„¢SU. BUWW ~ Â·2. . -~~ 4 A; h LeÂ»t p/OUK /40 .. t Â· - 81#1*TING Aze -le *JUN. E -3 2 1 11 - -1 ' 1 1 / :, a ... -+ -Â·, L--1 L . 4 L Â· - 1 4-==1 , I ' veâ€¢OUSH 1 1 - ' ~n .3 LAUNDRY L RITCHENA 241;lt' I MECHAM(#4f * --4 L.P_G ' /-,1 | UlpMOI.14+1 r. - It , i i Aw#t,1 W* * . 1 1-*~ 125#*,VZ NoekS 11 ; % / ,11 r Â· P.12(11 . 1 1 '' \ 1 0 -7- 1.-------J 1 ! P. 1 11 14.-9 0 ' 1 F--- ~~~---1,~~ ~,~~~NE i /1 4 6 ~--- i'â€žL- L.) 211 I 11 1 1 I : J -1 ..?I ./4.-p - 11! Ex'ale .WE:*. \ . . I. 'll BED.EN - Â» 2.1 / : # CE'Â·'~DIOH / WA<. In'2Â· 48*'0W. l .0- $'WJM Â· 1 1 P.--=-m==L 6. \ ,Â«- PX!61-ING 12:. *MAI)1. . 926/4.1,1 E PEMOUG#IED. Fla ,Â·- FLAN , 03 60'Â·LE.'96 LIGHT WELL ' Â£ 1 Una or * i WINÂ¤SÂ¥ Aa:ve Di 1 MECH \ T.V. BATH - _ BED RM LAUNOMY iD BASEMENT- . T 7*' ' 2 '' /1 + 4=nome c2 t_.1 0 F*f 33 #Er #rm~E_ ~Â«-ME,rr \V' , i ..QLQSm: 1 HALL ~ , i ~10.er, . 2-1 re 021 Lf/ / V T.V. 1411. - 1 ' Ly ~ -- '&. 1 , '1, 't i j li UNIS =F WMA,Â£Â©w 1 A**a. MASTERmED RÂ®11 CLOSET MASTEF+GATH / ~ BED RM 1 LE 47 1 -1 1 1=Â«=11 C 1 - #M~46 - 03 1 C NEW BAGEMEU-r ,/ ' Â® 0*TNZEÂ· BASEMEMT- 10 A NFEW ~-- EGFE,De. UG*WELL CoNSTNUCTIoN , Le le *,- LaV. f 1 1*00 Â»nt.a -1.= * 4, \ - --4--. Err I 1*70 91140 . E_5+333*~,k~..,,_. ..._ 4-2~ ~ - 27*~7 ./ ...\\ 4=982=0~z= 4 u 9- Â· 22\ - .111 1..1 1 1 1 4 1 1 r .;;* il ! -=:42.7 1 + - flil T Wqâ‚¬TINS 5*42 -12, ; fli 1 Iii 1, , 1 $ Â·i-- - --21,- i 61! ' i . 4 Xy- - U-- I 1 800,0*D WINceN, ' 13â€¢-4&Â»4. i ,$' t.* -- - ! 1 i 1 0 0-4 -79- 1 r 9 1... ./. / 'I ' ./:.....':.. I I ./. I I ' ... ," . / 11 t , -{..... -9 I itt,1111,1,11,4 I r# 1 fv;re, -0 -rpetÂ«a O * C EÂ»M?hle HoUSE, -re BE mN.C~:TED * RAM- 10.. nr. Â» LIGHT-WELL BEL.OW. EAST ELEVATION -- $ I , '2344 1YPE SIZE DOOR ~/136_ 7 # W H THK FIN. MAL DOOR FIN. ERAME FIN. HEA[ // /4.g"JÂ©%22- : ~ il --r#P- ---- 40 "8#Xefal j 1 *<f *'.1. \Â¥f .0/.5.-/').IZCLE__Z=- 2 24(r 4,â€¢. 100 1 440 1/ -- 2 r -14 -- L~ -_2414 9-#fr --I 0 -- 5 02&41. 6.-100 1114. - 6 Â¢3-8' G'-W' t*4' -- 4. _ -29*6,2,~2- -*Â»41 OF.-+T---4. (1CI T1 7 91# G'-10' 114' ..-_Efj~ ~~ L__._I_nvolf] . a --- ---- Â¥f:9lf.6 ./ 1 7/0 it. 1 NI 8 2.'- 8' G'- 10' 1 44â€¢ - rk=4 714**v=ag~~ 9 17-, 4.-1.1 114â€¢ #3 -: Â·- - -- -2~ Â¢ 1 .- M 1- 1-1-1 I -- r 11 50# 6- 10 1 1* - .-/--/ -4: ,=,=,=;'* --- -1 U- ....41 . .... . -- *1 . [10%--'wepmlet 1 1-1 - -1 f - 1 C' D e (A-A-\Â« 9. L.- 0,-t, ct,lt ' N F N Le,RGalaCSTED "- 1 5- NEW ASPHAUT â€¢SHINGL2 --/ / 1 - -7.- --7... I- ' =Lit 11 It 4 4 , Â£ 1 < Â£5'FEN / - - - 1 - --4 - -- - 9 - 1 ==.-1 1 1- 1 11 1 .16 -- i' ti T , ,/.li i:,11 - ...IliII rf *.g Z/~01.,~2(--puT).LE E..Fllul.UE &6&2---L.I.i.O- ult- I> ----- -..1~ ! . Uaw WOOP 112*1Â·6}9 ; 01 ilia - - d -1 Meal BRAVT WiNPOW *CHEPULE * 6+ING,1-E 1 5, -- --~1-4 WINDOW MANUR FRAMESRE DETAILS REEMAFKS # WxH HEAD SIU- JAMB A - 9- - 2 1 '1 - B 101.22+ k'LBE 11.q x eâ€¢.0,4 P.4. C . P.14 &15& 51.4" D 441 x 344 MaMS WINPOW 9.H - 11 7.6 i â‚¬ .0,\ CAH. X~ _+ r.-un --- -- -- #1 - -------2-32=AX #8436 WINCâ€¢W. D. 4. - 11 F 15 16' 51-6 - G %3 rÂ»>TING 4101NG ALL WINCÂ»WS 12> RAVE LOW - 12 61.ASS * Wn:C> PIKAMES, li -/ llc Pe/4,4,1 . e----4 I - I â€¢: t. â€¢ I v v I Â· . . / 71./-- NEW Vvact:> T"/4410 - 1 1 1 1 0 mil NEW 36HTWUÂ·6d*u:W, , . f.'#04--3 OUTHRier..,05(fin:* <' W~Nifi*T 6*\\Mel - ~- -=1 1 , f. -- . - i 1 , 1 ... d - : 12.-1 -11 1 I r m.... 1 - i 5744Â®.W 22(146 i ' 1 T 0- 1%, .gMAI~ 1 -- w -4 1 1. t. / #EST ELEVATION , 14EW /911.661 / 14*ING,1-8 1 '. WrN Po W S C H E P -- ---- WINDOW MANUR FRAME SIZE # WxH A B Ket + 1<Qi.*,E P-G". 5'- crâ€¢ C t Lt. :5% 514" D .4-0" 4 51-e' - . 2-5,\ E 60' Â¥ 4-'-0~' . F 53 36' 5,-61 -- r G '95.92 --- - --1 r-- -1 1 . +-_ - H 1 [ F- 1 .F-111 -4.- 3 - - 11 [- --23 G__--_--3 .-4 EMIOTIN& 4;IMNG ALL WINCEpWS ]1 L_ ~ an --SI. 111:> F-1. . A.pl [2 4 j .24 -- ~ 1.41Â»~ NEW Â¥Wzl> .TABL61$ . . , 1 / 1 1 REW U691TWeUâ€¢,51&UW . I L- L # 211.11 NORTH ELEVATION 1 1 It ' EGRED ' ! 60PEÂ¢6 1 .1 1 1 /> I 'FAR / \ tte-.. lin Â· <33* 1115 i Iii 11 11 1 1 , i }1 111 i 1 1 i f i 1, , ' t: , 71 1 1 1 - 1 1 .1 1 1 iii 1 4 . 1 1 11 L.._1 1 i 1 1. NORTH ELEVATION 0&12.6,2 2 14,6 1 1-0,1 i 1 .\>X /4/ \% 4% / 1 \22\. - -I li- I}i = .) - 1,1 t - .2%2.4.L i,95/ 11 i %4 ..â‚¬L.. - ICTÂ»- 2!i. 4 , 1 1 , ! i i J I I' i iii 1 1 I Â· li Â·4 , 1 1 1 1----_.... --4 1,3 &1111 1 , 4[ i k f'/ /'ll 3 JVERHEAD ta:42 -Tb I !! 411% --- ..... -- 1 i %,/ ~ M81Â¤01 FISTIA#46 ar,$2. . : 1 ~ t 41 1 f j /' 1 12; 1 1 54 11 1 4.-i 11 1 Iii:i 1 1 1 li. :F.i li - 1 1 i i -. - I./- ----- - -- .--- .4-. - I I i i & i i i 2 Il 1 1 SOUTH ELEVATION 0.12405 1,45 Z to u ... . +14 -Ut APPLICANT: Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC LOCATION: 920 West Hallam ACTION: Significant Development (Conceptual), including variances, Historic Landmark Lot Split, Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, Off=Site Relocation, and Residential Design Standards variance. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) Significant development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet allfour of the development review standards ih order for III'C to grant approval: Standard 1: 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 areaby up to fivÂ¢ hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that Buch 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). Standard 2: the proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Standard 3: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significante of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Standard 4: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 1 r i P CJ THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Directot'32 FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 516 E. Durant Avenue- minor review DATE: August 26, 1998 SUMMARY: The applicant, Stefan Kaelin, will be opening a new store in the space formerly occupied by Christy Sports. As part of a remodel, the entry into the shop will be reconfigured and awnings will be added. The subject building is not historic but is located within the Commercial Core Historic District. APPLICANT: Stefan Kaelin. LOCATION: 516 E. Durant Avenue. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: The applicant requests HPC approval to removed the existing single door entry and replace it with double doors. New awnings with the store name are also proposed. Staff recommends a condition of approval; that the new doors and awnings match those used on the rest of the building if there is a consistent style. Additionally,sign permits will be needed for the awnings and any other signs proposed. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The proposed development improves the storefront character of the shop, which is located in Aspen's main shopping district. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The proposal will not affect the historic significance of any building. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposed development does not affect 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. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) â€¢ Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the proposal for 516 E. Durant Avenue with the condition that the new doors and awnings match those used on the rest ofthe building if there is a consistent style." ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name ~ + 6 TA v *Aiuv 79.0 SUP 2. Project location 5/6 E Att b MAA.+ Atpâ‚¬v C.O 2/6// (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning 4. Lot size 5. Applicant' s name, address and phone number 5 +6 FAM Ka AL; v Ej. 447 Ceopt. Av. Af (Dr/,// 9,1 -itâ€ž 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual 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 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) Co/kslas;AL - '28+Ail .9$096 9. Description of development application /4, E .wew" 06012 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 lilli111 ' Â£9#9*0 16 4-0 4- 1 70 41-1-7 09'AÂ«,4. Atrl (624430,~~~ 40 /4Â»-1 61,~40 l2, 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 + 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 application, fill out Attachments 1 and 2, include all 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"XlT' ARE REQUIRED. FOR GRAPHICS WHICH ARE LARGER THAN 11"X17," SUBMIT TWELVE SETS OF PRINTS. r--1 /1-_Eliâ€ž- 1 11. CIO - L <61%11121 1 1 I .7-/1/85//U 1.16.-/ , - NE,4 frkIN-Gl C \ 1 STEFAN KAEUN PRO SHOP GOLF & SKI 1-- - OLD DOOR _ i' Sa 0 . 7 r M vt + 2,4 .re + 2. 1 1 PEW DOOR FRONT ELEVATION - - -4 - 1, , - 'A 1-3LUT]-1,:-J DURANT GALENA BUILDING 0 5 51998 COM?AL, ~17,' ~3/3.12 1. 'ENT APPLICANT: Stefan Kaelin LOCATION: 516 E. Durant ACTION: Minor Review All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or development involving a historic landmark must meet allfour Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. Standard 1: 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," HistoriÂ¢ Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard andrea# 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 Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(13)(3). Standard 2: The propÂ¢sed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Standard 3: 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. Standard 4: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character'and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Â·73m STEFAN KAELIN PRO SHOP ~~ U NIT 102 - 103 074 p /*9 I -,F i.plhhi:S~ U n T---9 r---~ r--90.-â€¢ 1 o.w ,/% '1 4,4A/,9 0-W ' 1 e<V UJIC U'rrÂ»ajewiyn --- NEW ENT 2.ANC.E .--- -- I-.--IM - - 1 j 1 1 ) -------- --= 2-71 1 . 40 , . A.Â£ . 11 N C~Nq & 9,5 - 6 ,~ 7,1, a Â£0 Â£ 6 642 Rjet 47 E , ( 35 g,C k add (x_ll 1-'03 Ae--Cl~ A 0 4~r 3 \ in 62.Â« ic{1>- 01, j rh/D 4 7%},res Un- AC. 13â€¢UU U+ 1 C>CiL-,P j /7314*661. 1 0 r * KIL-X A / i H Â· d /Â·-M z 1 % / - , n\E W A L K 14-d e\: