The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19981209AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 9, 1998 REGULAR MEETING, 6:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 I. Roll call II. PUBLIC COMMENTS In. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS IV. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) V. BUSINESS 6:10 A. 930 King Street - Final Development 7:10 B. 117 N. Sixth Street - Conceptual and Final Development (public hearing continued from Nov. 18th) 7:40 C. 920 E. Hyman Avenue - worksession 8:10 D. AACP - worksession 8:40 ADJOURN LOJECT MONITORING Roger Moyer 303 E. Main, Kuhn ISIS 514 N. First 112 S. Mill St. Susan Dodington 712 W. Francis 918 E. Cooper, Davis Meadows Trustee and Tennis townhomes 234 W. Francis 203 S. Galena, Gucci 516 E. Durant 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 920 W. Hallam Gilbert Sanchez 1008 E. Hopkins, Bellis 414 N. First ~ 303 E. Main 520 E. Hyman 112 S. Mill St. Jeffrey Halferty 234 W. Francis, Mullin 414 N. First 701 W. Main 101- 105 E. Hallam 920 W. Hallam 240 Lake Ave. Heidi Friedland 420 W. Francis Street 712 W. Francis Street 514 N. First isa Markalunas 520 Walnut Street Christie Kienast 520 Walnut Street CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: 34 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 I I.FIX"/1/mit"*"#SHIHIN/EMI NAME OF PROJECT: CITY CLERK: STAFF: ~Â«Lt-<7 WITNESSES: (1) Oti_gÂ» j lz-~ L-â‚¬) (2)~43- /9/) LfayÂ« 9,~3 OUT~~-1-7,/,)0Â¥-\ Lb'ic L-1 -1-l-) (4) C ~t_fs /37, 69:*L 3 (5~ ~ U#&-vic* LUi--.11~ 15-GL~ 62.=.-.L~ bl-)i -- EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report Â£ LA (Check if Applicable) 2 Affidavit of Notice ( ) (Check if Applicable) 3 Board Criteria Sheet ( ) (Check if Applicable) 4 5 MOTION: VOTE: YES NO SUZANNAH REID YES - NO - ROGER MOYER YES - NO - MARY HIRSCH YES _ NO - JEFFREY HALEERTY YES - NO - SUSAN DODINGTON YES _ NO - GILBERT SANCHEZ YES - NO - HEIDI FRIEDLAND YES _ NO - MAUREEN MACDONALD YES - NO _ LISA MARKALUNAS YES _ NO - CHRISTIE KIENAST YES - NO - *ff EXHIBIT -~U 1/Â»932 [-1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director -iÂ·r- 0 FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 930 King Street- Final review, Residential Design Standards appeal DATE: December 9,1998 SUMMARY: On March 25, 1998, after several meetings and site visits, HPC granted approval for landmark designation, conceptual design, historic landmark lot split, partial demolition, on-site relocation, and variances for the redevelopment of 930 King Street. The project then went on to the Planning and Zoning Commission, who approved landmark designation and conditional use for the accessory dwelling unit, and to Council, who approved landmark designation and the lot split on September 28, 1998, after lengthy discussion. Prior to the September 28th meeting, Council and HPC met jointly to discuss Council's primary concern with the project: the location of driveways to access the houses on the site. When HPC granted conceptual approval, "Residence A" was to have a driveway off of Neale Avenue, and "Residence B" off of King Street. Council and neighbor's of the property felt that the Neale Avenue driveway was not appropriate, and it was decided that the two houses would have a shared driveway offof King Street. The applicant has amended the site plan accordingly for final review. In preparing the memo, staff met with the zoning officer and confirmed that the shared driveway concept requires the filing of an access easement between the two property owners, and that this easement will be deducted from the lot area for the purposes of calculating allowed floor area. The fact that such easements affect floor area was discussed in the Council review process, but the applicant did not make the required reduction in the project, which staff estimates to be approximately 100 square feet of floor area which must be eliminated. Additionally the architect included a full 500 square foot floor area bonus in the design rather than the 250 square feet that HPC granted, so that the design attached to this memo is some 300 square feet over what will be allowed. Staff chose to bring the project before HPC in any case for feedback on how the floor area reduction might best be accomplished in light of other design issues. Aside from that issue, the conceptual approval was granted with several conditions: a) a 14 foot frontyard setback variance for the historic house, an east sideyard setback variance of 5 feet for the historic house, and a 250 square foot floor area bonus were 1 Â»ibit h granted; b) restudy the fenestration; c) restudy the stone chimney; d) restudy the architecture of the addition to the historic house and the new house. Create a more direct compatibility in materials and design elements; e) provide a full landscape plan showing any exterior perimeter fencing; f) prior to submittal of building permit, a structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation; g) prior to submittal of building permit, 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. This motion passed by a vote of 4 to 3. The applicant has addressed the conditions in the attached final submittal packet. Staff recommends the review be continued, with HPC feedback on the success of the design changes, and on the floor area issue. The following items are attached to this memo; final application, conceptual application and minutes, and examples of other successful preservation projects in Aspen. APPLICANT: No Problem Joe, LLC, represented by Gibson Reno Architects. LOCATION: 930 King Street, R-15A zone 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 HI'C to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with 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: Through the many meetings on this project, several important issues have been discussed, including whether, or how, the historic house should be relocated on the site, how garages for the two houses should be accessed, appropriateness of the proposed 2 renovation of the old house and compatibility of the new house, and neighborhood concerns. HPC has approved the proposal in concept, and staff is in favor of the project in general. The existing historic house is 432 square feet and could have a 4,000 square foot addition made to it as a single family house. This is the scenario that was troublesome to HPC with the previous applicant in 1994. The historic landmark lot split approach taken here is positive for both the developer and the HPC because the allowed floor area is divided into two separate structures, reducing the visual impact on the historic structure and the neighborhood as a whole. Following is the staff analysis of remaining issues with the proposal. SITE PLAN As discussed above, the amendments required ofthe application in order for City Council to approve the lot split necessitated a change in the driveway configuration and a floor area reduction of approximately 100 square feet. The Council approval also required the new house to have a 25 foot setback from both Neale Avenue and King Street, making it sit slightly further back from King Street than was seen in the III'C conceptual approval. Staff requests additional information be provided on the character of the proposed front walks to the houses and the boulder retaining wall used for lightwells. The proposed six foot fence which runs along the south and east property lines should be dropped in height on the northeast corner, so that it does not block views ofthe historic house. Although the applicant has contacted the Parks Department to confirm that the tWo trees in front of the historic house will not be adversely impacted by the relocation of the house and creation of the new driveway, staff is still concerned. A tree protection plan must be submitted to the Parks Department and meet with their approval before the next HPC review ofthis project. NEW HOUSE. RESIDENCE A The HPC conceptual approval required restudy of the fenestration, chimney element, and overall compatibility of the new house with the historic house. The applicant feels that these conditions have been met by their further lowering of the height of the new house, lowering of doors and windows by one foot, simplification of the dormer on the front of the house, simplification ofwindows, and smaller scaled chimney. Staff agrees that these changes have had an overall positive effect on the project, however there is still not a strong compatibility between the new house and the old house. In terms of this review standard, compatibility is measured by a similarity in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan. The proposed new house is basically rectangular in plan, with a footprint of 1850 square feet. By contrast, the historic house's footprint is 435 3 square feet. While the applicant may certainly design a reasonably sized new home on the site, there are ways that that mass could have been broken down into smaller components, with a detached garage/carriage house, or other such elements which would have been more in character with the massing ofthe old house. Also troubling is the new house's strong emphasis on second story spaces, with the first story a confusing array of french doors, and no obvious expression of entry. Many of the windows on the new house, although definitely more compatible than in the conceptual design, are significantly larger areas of glass than exist in the historic house and reach from floor to ceiling, which is also not typical of the old house. Staff has attached drawings of several projects which have been successful in the HPC review process in the last several years. These examples show additions to historic houses as well as new houses on historic sites. They illustrate how new construction can reflect proportions and materials from historic structures without copying them. While staff does not recommend a redesign of the massing of the new house at this point, the windows need further study, particularly on the south elevation, to meet the concerns described above. OLD HOUSE. RESIDENCE B The applicant proposes to add approximately 1375 square feet onto the 432 square foot cabin. This is a significant increase in size, however it can probably be accommodated in a compatible manner. The proposed one story connecting element between the old house and new addition is effective, however more effort needs to be made to break the bulk of the new addition down into components which are more like the historic building. The gable end which meets the back ofthe old house is overpowering in scale. Again, examples are provided as an attachment to this memo illustrating an appropriate addition to a miner's cottage. The addition must appear to be a natural evolution of the building. Most successful projects have created the appearance of a connected outbuilding to the back of the old house. The image of a single large gable looming over the miner's cottage is what is commonly referred to as a "hunchback" and previous examples have caused the community to question the validity and effectiveness of historic preservation in Aspen. Staff finds that the applicant must study the attached examples and redesign this addition. Although this direction was given in the conditions of conceptual approval, no changes have been made to this structure other than lowering the ridge by approximately one foot and minor changes to the windows. Staff requires a few other items be submitted as part of the final review; a demolition plan indicating exactly what areas of the historic house are to be removed as part of the renovation, and a preservation plan, indicating how the existing materials on the historic house will be restored. The intention is to retain/repair all original materials and replicate those that are beyond salvage. No elements are to be added to the house that did not 4 previously exist. Also, cut sheets for all exterior light fixtures must be submitted for approval. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood ofthe parcel proposed for development. Response: The King Street area is undergoing significant redevelopment. Historically, it has been a neighborhood of fairly small, modest, single family homes. The applicant's choice to pursue a historic landmark lot split avoids creating a massive addition to the historic house and instead creates two homes which are more in character with the area. 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: This proposal goes much further towards protecting the historic significance of the structure than did the previous one, when the only option in the Land Use Code was to build one single family house. The allocation of FAR as proposed involves a reasonable addition to the historic structure, which can be made while still retaining the overall character of the house. 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: No additional demolition of the existing structure is required, beyond where the new addition connects to the historic house. The house is in a deteriorated state and will require a significant restoration effort. Detailed specifications for restoration and replication of materials where necessary must be provided. Staff has identified issues with the design of the proposed addition and the adjacent new house, which must be addressed for the next meeting. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE #30 Response: Windows shown on all sides of the new construction extend into the "no window zone." The applicant may either accept a double FAR calculation for the interior space associated with these windows, eliminate the windows where they violate the standard or ask for a variance, which is the course that has been chosen. Staff has recommended restudy of windows on the new house. A variance from this standard may be appropriate in some areas of the new home, but staff does not support any variance on the historic structure because the large areas of glass as designed are not generally compatible with the windows which are characteristic of the historic house. 5 ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any ofthe following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the Development application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to final review â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) â€¢ Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the review be continued for redesign with regard to the concerns expressed below and the required reduction in floor area. 1. Provide additional information on the character of the proposed front walks to the houses and the boulder retaining wall used for lightwells. 2. The proposed six foot fence which runs along the south and east property lines should be dropped in height on the northeast corner, so that it does not block views of the historic house. 3. A tree protection plan which preserves the two existing cottonwoods in front of the historic house must be submitted to the Parks Department and meet with their approval before the next HPC review ofthis project. 4. The windows on the new house must be restudied, particularly on the south elevation to address the following: reduce the strohg emphasis ofthe new house on second story spaces, address the confusing array of french doors on the first story and lack of some expression of entry, minimize the large areas of glass and floor to ceiling windows and doors which appear across the facades. 5. Study the attached examples of successful projects and redesign the addition to the old house. The addition must appear to be a natural evolution of the building. Most successful projects have created the appearance of a connected outbuilding to the back of the old house. 6. Submit a demolition plan indicating exactly what areas of the historic house are to be removed as part of the renovation. 7. Submit a preservation plan, indicating how the existing materials on the historic house will be restored. The intention is to retainfrepair all original materials and replicate those 6 that are beyond salvage. No elements are to be added to the house that did not previously exist. 8. Submit cut sheets for all exterior light fixtures. 9. HPC has granted a 14 foot frontyard setback variance for the historic house, an east sideyard setback variance of 5 feet for the historic house, and a 250 square foot floor area bonus. 10. Prior to submittal of building permit, a structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. 11. Prior to submittal of building permit, a relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, in the amount of $30,000, 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. Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated December 9,1998 B. Final application C. Conceptual review package D. Examples of successful preservation projects g: planning/aspen/hpc/cases/significant/930king/930conc.doc 7 November 11,1998 DAVID GIBSON Ms. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer AIA Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department AUGUST 130 South Galena St. RENO Aspen, Colorado 81611 AIA SCOTT RE: 930 King Street SMITH HPC Final Review AIA Dear Amy: . a.4 The revised final design of this project contributes significantly to the Acr.4 El,1.11 ~;$7 character of the neighborhood. 4 ETO'i ' 2/25*Â» This neighborhood, both King and Neale Streets are currently in a state oftransition. There are four (4) new single family homes on King GIBSON Â· RENO Street which appear to be constructed to the maximum floor area ratio. - A R C H I T E C T S, L.L.C. Â· Mixed in between these houses are structures that consist ofmodest 111 single family residences and larger multi-family structures. 210 E. HYMAN Neale Street has had recent development with a new residential NÂ° 202 structure adjacent to Herron Park and an addition to an existing ASPEN residence. COLORADO 81611 The neighborhood structures consist of a mix of one (1) to two (2) story structures, constructed of wood siding with some ofthe residences 970.925.5968 having stone as a second exterior material. FACSIMILE The revised final design for both of the proposed single family 970.925.5993 residences fit into the neighborhood character in the following manner: Residence "A" (new single family house) P.O. BOX 278 1. F.A.R. is sixty five (65%) percent ofthe allowed 117 N. WILLOW F.A.R. NÂ° 2 Residence "B" (Historic house and addition) TELLUR1DE 1. F.A.R. is thirty five (35%) percent ofthe allowed COLORADO F.A.R. 81435 The size ofthese structures contributes significantly to the overall mix 970.728.6607 in size of neighborhood structures. This project attempts to reduce the FACSIMILE mass and size by creating two (2) houses in lieu of one (1) larger 970.728.6658 structure. Amy Guthrie November 11,1998 Page 2 Residence "A" through the use of similar architectural forms i.e., simple gable roofs; vertical windows that are broken up in size; small scale siding and stone; the use of porches; hiding the garage from the street view, and keeping the building back from both streets keeps the building in-scale with the pedestrian. Residence "B" historically renovates a structure that is not only important to the neighborhood, but also the community. The historic house is sited to its approximate location, giving it prominence from the street and to pedestrians. The revised addition is understated with simple links that connects the "old" to the "new". The new addition is simple in form and mass with gable roofs; windows that reflect the proportions ofthe historic windows; materials that are similar to the historic house and buildings in the neighborhood. Both ofthe proposed houses will help maintain the pedestrian scale and overall single family residence feeling of the neighborhood. Resnectfullk, I 1 1 -L- 7 U --' ---,4 AudetE-'no, Â» cc: H. Cahn November 11,1998 DAVID GIBSON Ms. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer AIA Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department AUGUST 130 South Galena St. RENO Aspen, Colorado 81611 AIA SCOTT RE: 930 King Street SMITH No Problem Joe AIA Dear Amy: Following is a list of actions taken by our clients and us in response to ,-r.4 LE.11 <-----\ preml \Q,-0 c ----. the comments and concerns expressed by the HI?C, City Council, and ~-COW#*~>~CZEZE* concerned neighbors. m GIBSON Â· RENO 1. The site plan has been modified to provide for a single, shared Â·ARCHITECTS. L.L.C.Â· driveway between both houses and emptying onto King Street. 111 2. A 25 foot front yard setback has been applied to both the Neal Street and the King Street frontage of the western lot. 210 E. HYMAN 3. Height of the new house has been reduced by five (5) feet. NÂ° 202 4. The garage has been moved to the east side ofthe new house thus helping to reduce the massing. ASPEN COLORADO 5. The height ofthe doors and windows on the second floor ofthe 81611 new residence has been reduced by one (1) foot. 6. The massing ofthe south elevation ofthe new house has been 970.925.5968 reduced by use of a simplified dormer. 7. The fenestration ofthe tower has been reduced. FACSIMILE 970.925.5993 8. Fenestration has been simplified on both houses. 9. Fireplace massing has been reduced. We are cenain that after reviewing the latest design effort you will P.O. BOX 278 agree that our clients and we have succeeded in employing those 117 N. WILLOW NÂ°2 recommendations. ResnectfullCh TELLURIDE COLORADO 81435 970.728.6607 Aug4LE.-9~o, AIA- FACSIMILE 970.728.6658 cc: H. Cahn Gull:plf- E ATTACHMENT 13 ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant: NPJ Partners Address: 317 Park Avenue, Aspen, Co. 81611 Zone district: R-15A Lot size: 13,343 S.F. Existing FAR: Allowable FAR: 4384 S.F. Proposed FAR: 4(52,4 5.:F. 'AC.LUCMES 2-50 :5,9 cÂ¥ leâ‚¬*d> 1:Aâ‚¬~. Existing net leasable (commercial): N/A Proposed net leasable (commercial): N/A Existing % of site coverage: N/A Proposed % of site coverage: N/A Existing -Â°/wof open space: N/A Proposed % of open space: N/A Existing maximum height: Principal bldg:+/- 18 FT Accesory bldg: Proposed max. height: Principal bldg: 25 FT Accessory bldg: Proposed % of demolition: 0% Existing number of bedrooms: 1 Bedroom Proposed number of bedrooms: House 1, A" 4 Bedrooms/House .B" 3 Bedrooms Existing'bn-site parking spaces: 2 Spaces On-site parking spaces required: 4 Spaces --9: / e Setbacks Ekisting: Minimum required: Rroposed:House "A" ZS= PrÂ· Front: 11 FT Front: 25FT Front: House "B" 10 PO i; * Rear: 68 FT Rear: 10FT Huube A . I o Â·Pr. Rear: House "B" ; 0 PT, Combined Combined _ Combined Front/rear: 79 FT Front/rear: Front/reac **Side: 20 FT (East) Side: 10 FT Side: Side: 94 FT (West) Side: 10 FT Side: Combined Combined Combined Sides: 114 FT Sides: Sides: Existing nonconformities orencroachments: Front setback of existing Historic House, rear yard setback re: Smokehouse & Outhouse. East side yard setback 5 FT. and S.F. of Bonus Variations requested: F.A.R. related to Historic Landmark/Proposed Development. (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) * Existing Historic Smokehouse rear setback is 3 FT. Existing Historic Outhouse rear setback is 4 FT. ** Existing Historic Smokehouse side (West) setback is 110 FT. Existing Historic Outhouse side (East) setback is 11 FT. - ATTACHMENT 17 FLOOR AREA RESIDENCE "A" Garden Level 289 S.F. Main Level 1142 S.F.* Upper Level 1364 S.F. TOTAL 2795 S.F. RESIDENCE'B' Garden Level 127 S.F. Main Level 814 S.F.* Upper Level 728 S.F. TOTAL 1669 S.F.** DECKS (in excess of 15% ofthe total allowed F.A.R.) 94 S.F. HISTORIC OUTBUILDINGS 76 S.F. TOTAL FLOOR AREA: 4634 S.F. * Includes garage square footage in excess of250 S.F. ** Includes 250 S.F. ofbonus F.A.R. npjfloor.doc CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL MEMO, APPLICATION, DRAWINGS, AND MINUTE S A MEMORANDUM a.-ffâ‚¬t TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission L-~2*~*I:. THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Director~ FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer ~ RE: 930 King Street- Landmark designation, Conceptual Review, Historic Landmark Lot Split, Partial Demolition, On-site Relocation-Public Hearing DATE: March 25, 1998 SUMMARY: Several worksessions and site visits have been held to discuss this proposal, which involves landmarking the property, doing a historic landmark lot split, making an addition to the existing historic structure, and building a new house on the newly created lot. Variances requested are a front yard setback variance and side yard setback variance for the historic house and an FAR bonus. Staff recommends tabling, with specific direction to the applicant for areas to be restudied. APPLICANT: No Problem Joe, LLC, represented by Gibson Reno Architects. LOCATION: 930 King Street, R-15A zone district. 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 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 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 Iniportance. The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the 1 ft-Al#51;45"ligal distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type (based on 0 building form or use), or specimen. Response: This structure is a good example of housing built in Aspen in the late 1800's. It has a cross gable roof, front porch, two front entries, and detailing which was common to these buildings. 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: At one time, there were many miner's cabins in this neighborhood. There are two others in the immediate vicinity and their preservation is important to maintaining the character of the area. E. Community 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 structure is representative of the modest scale, style, and character of homes constructed in the late 19th century, Aspen's primary period of historic significance. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in 0 accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section 2 exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory 0 dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: As stated above, HPC has held several worksessions on this proposal, to give direction to the applicant and to review the request for an FAR bonus. From those worksessions, several key issues have been discussed, namely (1) whether, or how, the historic house should be relocated on the site, (2) how garages for the two houses should be accessed, (3) neighborhood concerns such as preservation of views. The changes that the applicant has made as an outcome of the discussions are detailed in their attached letter, dated March 18, 1998. In summary, the applicant has chosen to pursue a site plan which shifts the house towards the east. The two historic outbuildings are to be placed directly behind the old house and used as garden sheds. The new house has been set back from Neale Street so that the property owner to the north will still have clear views of Aspen Mountain. The ridgeline height of the new building has also been lowered by five feet. It must be noted that there is a problem with the site plan as proposed; the historic house is shown within the dripline of the existing trees, so that to move it eastward, it will also have to be moved back from the street. The variances requested for the proposed site plan are as follows: up to a lt~~ot variance on the front yard for the historic house, aflvefoot side yard setback variance on the east side of the historic house, and a 250 square foot FAR bonus (reduced from the original request for 500 square feet.) - - 0 Staff is in favor of the general concept of the proposal. The existing historic house is 432 square feet. The allowed FAR, which could be added onto that small house is just less than 4,000 square feet. This is the scenario that was troublesome to HPC in the previous approval in 1994. The historic landmark lot split approach taken here is positive for both the developer and the HPC. The allowed floor area is divided into two separate structures, reducing the impact on the historic structure and the neighborhood as a whole. Referring back to the issues which HPC has focused on in the worksessions, the first issue was whether the historic house should remain in, or as close to, its original location on the lot as possible, or whether there was some benefit in changing its siting. The HPC seems to be in agreement that the house should remain as close to King Street as it currently is. As noted above, if the house is shifted towards the east, it will have to move back from the street to stay out of the tree dripline. The alternative considered was whether the site plan should be flipped, so that the old house moves to the west side of the property. This idea seems to have a lot of merit because having the smaller house on the corner gives it some prominence and provides a more pedestrian scaled entry into the neighborhood. It would also have a good relationship with the historic house across the street, at 114 Neale Avenue. 3 HPC has held a special worksession on the topic of relocating historic buildings. The 0 outcome was a general agreement that HPC is interested in seeing historic Â·buildings remain in their original locations. If a house is to be moved, as a result of a lot split or other remodeling activities, the house should be moved in a way that maintains its original character (i.e. a lateral move rather than moving back on the site.) There are several factors that HPC may weigh, on a case by case basis, to determine whether or not a building should be moved. The goal is to place the historic house to its best advantage in terms of historic context, visibility and compatibility with surrounding development. Staff recommends in this case that the site plan as proposed be reversed. The nature of the site will be significantly changed with the renovation of the house and addition of a new home. The historic building may be lost in the new building mass. Placing the renovated historic house on the corner will however make it all the more important that the addition is successful, since it will have high visibility. In terms of the driveways, there appear to be three possible solutions. The applicant proposes to have a separate driveway for each house, one of which accesses off of King Street, and one off of Neale Avenue. Another alternative would be to have both driveways access off of King Street, which staff finds would cause pavement to dominate that view of the property. A third alternative would be to have a shared driveway between the two buildings. The applicant has rejected the third alternative, finding that there is . inconvenience associated with a shared driveway and that the easement that would be required to share access affects the maximum FAR allowed on the site. (This loss of FAR 0 could be offset by an FAR bonus from HPC.) Staff finds that the proposed driveway configuration is acceptable and maintains adequate open yard space in front of the houses. This issue seems to be an area for compromise in relation to other issues of site plan and architectural compatibility. The applicant proposes to add approximately 1375 square feet onto the 432 square foot cabin. This is a significant increase in size, however can probably be accommodated in a compatible manner. The proposed one story connecting element between the old house and new addition is effective, however more effort needs to be made to break the bulk of the new addition down into components which are more like the historic building. The gable end which meets the back ofthe old house is overpowering in scale. With regard to the new house, staff finds that the materials which are used on the new house but do not exist on the old, namely log and stone, cause a conflict and are keeping the two structures from relating well to each other. Window sizes and characteristics are also significantly different. Although the property is to be subdivided into two lots, it is still important that the new and old are strongly compatible with each other. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 0 4 Response: The King Street area is undergoing significant redevelopment. Historically, it 0 has been a neighborhood of fairly small, modest, single family homes. The intent of the recommendation to reverse the site plan and restudy aspects of the architecture is to help ease the transition in scale between new houses and old in the neighborhood. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: This proposal goes much further towards protecting the historic significance of the structure than did the previous one, when the only option in the Land Use Code was to build one single family house. The allocation of FAR as proposed involves a reasonable addition to the historic structure, which can be made while still retaining the overall character of the house. 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: No additional demolition of the existing structure is required, beyond where the new addition connects to the historic house. The house is in a deteriorated state and will require a significant restoration effort. Detailed specifications for restoration and replication of materials where necessary must be provided. 0 Staff has identified issues with the design of the proposed addition, which should be addressed for the next meeting. HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT REVIEW STANDARDS: The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of Section 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5), Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), and Section 26.72.010(G). Section 26.88.030(A)(2). Subdivision Exemptions. Lot Split. The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following conditions are met. a. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969; and Response: The lot has not been subdivided previously. 0 5 b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.040(A)(1)(c). Response: Two lots are created, both of which conform to the requirements of the R- 15A zone district. An Accessory Dwelling Unit is proposed for the new residence. c. The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.040(C)(1)(a); and Response: No previous lot split exemption was granted. d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. Response: The filing of said subdivision plat shall be a condition of this approval. e. Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the Â· applicant to record the plat.within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Response: The filing of said subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be a condition ofthis approval. f. In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. Response: No dwelling units will be demolished. g. Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. Response: The applicant represents that a total of two units will be created. Section 26.88.030(A)(5). Historic Landmark Lot Split The following standards must be met: 6 0 a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of 9,000 square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or a minimum of 13,000 square feet and be located in the 0 R-15A zone district. Response: The parcel is larger than 13,000 square feet and is located in the R-15A zone district. b. The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. Response: The duplex FAR which would have been allowed for the fathering parcel, which in this case is 4,384 square feet pills a possible FAR bonus from HPC, will be divided between the new parcels. The applicant must clarify exactly how the FAR is to be allocated. c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. Response: An FAR bonus and setback variances have been requested for the historic 0 structure. Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), GMQS Exemption by the Community Development Director, Historic Landmark Lot Split. The construction of a new single-family dwelling on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to section 26.88.030(A)(5) shall be exempted from residential Growth Management allocations and shall not be deducted from the pool of annual development allotments or from the metro area development ceilings. Response: An exemption by the Community Development Director will be processed following approval of this application. Section 26.72.010(G), Historic Landmark Lot Split. The development of all lots created pursuant to section 26.88.030(A)(5) shall be reviewed by HPC at a public hearing. Response: This meeting is a noticed public hearing. 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 0 significance of the parcel. 7 Response: Only a limited area at the rear of the house is to be demolished in order to add onto the building. 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: As stated above, demolition is limited. 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: Compatibility issues are detailed above. ON-SITE RELOCATION 1. Standard: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhoodÂ· and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. Response: As described above, it is important to keep the historic house close to the street, but there is interest in shifting it towards the west to give it the most prominence on the lot and within the neighborhood. 2. Standard: 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: Said report will be a condition of approval. 3. Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: The relocation plan and bond will be a condition of approval. 8 COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE #30 Response: Windows shown on all sides of the new construction extend into the "no window zone." The applicant may either accept a double FAR calculation for the interior space associated with these windows, eliminate the windows where they violate the standard or ask for a variance. Staff has recommended restudy of some aspects of the architecture. A variance from this standard may be appropriate in some areas of the new house, but staff does not support any variance on the historic structure because the large areas of glass are not generally compatible with the windows which are characteristic of the historic house. 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 final review â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) â€¢ Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC continue the application to April 8,1998, with the following direction: 1. Reverse the site plan so that the historic house is on the western lot. 2. The western lot may be accessed by a driveway from Neale Street, as shown, and the eastern lot may be accessed from King Street, as shown. 3. Restudy the architecture of the addition to the historic house and the new house. Create a more direct compatiblity in materials and design elements. 4. The lot split, partial demolition, and landmark requests are acceptable in concept, but are continued to April 8 so that the overall proposal can be amended. 9 ATTACHMENT 14 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name 930 King Street 2. Project location 930 King Street, see attached legal description (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning R-15A 4. Lot size 13,343 S.F. NPJ Partners, 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number 317 Park Avenue, Aspen, CO, 81611 920-1851 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number Augie Reno, Gibson,~Reno Architects 210 E. Hyman, #202 Aspen, CO. 81611 970 925-5968 7. Type of application (check all that apply): x Conditional Use Conceptual SPA x Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA x Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD - Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD x Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. X Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review x 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 9. Descriotign ?tdev.elogment apelication Landmark Designation, Significant Developmb Single Family Residences, on-site relocation of a Hrstorrc Building, Historic Lot Snlit, and Conditional use for an Affordable Dwelling Unit. 10. Have you completed and attached the following? x Attachment 1- Land use application form x Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form x Response to Attachment 3 X Response to Attachments 4 and 5 March 18, 1998 DAVID GIBSON AIA Ms. Amy Guthrie Aspen Pitkin County Community AUGUST Development Department RENO 130 South Galena Street AIA Aspen, Colorado 81611 SCOTT SMITH RE: 930 King Street AIA Dear Amy: tt* .a_' /9 I have enclosed revised Architectural Drawings that should be ~Irâ€¢â€¢4 nIZEImli included in our original submission package. The revisions include: z-Â·~-49. 1. Site Plan 7'*T 2. Exterior Elevations GIBSON Â· RENO Â·ARCHITECTS. L.L.C.Â· Regarding the Site Plan, the revised drawings represent moving the Ill historic house (Residence "B") directly to the East. The proposed front yard is ten (10) feet from the South property line, which is 210 E. HYMAN exactly what exists today. The East side yard is proposed to be five N" 202 (5) feet. Both the proposed front and side yards will require a variance. ASPEN COLORADO 81611 Residence "A" remains as originally sited. The Neale Street side is considered the front yard with a setback of twenty five (25) feet. The 970.925.5968 King Street side is considered the side yard with a setback of sixteen feet, eight inches (16'-8"). No variance is required for Residence "A" FACSIMILE with regard to setbacks. 970.925.5993 The driveway to Residence "A" has been revised regarding width. The revised driveway is ten (10) feet wide. P.O. BOX 278 117 N. WILLOW NÂ° 2 The proposed revised fence on the North property line begins thirty (30) feet from the West (Neale Street) property line running to the TELLURIDE East property line. The entire East property line remains as originally COLORADO proposed with a fence running the entire length. 81435 970.728.6607 FACSIMILE 970.728.6658 Ms. Amy Guthrie March 18, 1998 Page 2 The exterior of Residence "A" has been revised regarding the following: 1. The height ofthe ridge has been lowered by five (5) feet. In the original design, the ridge was thirty five (35) feet. In the revised design, the ridge is located at thirty (30) feet. 2. The fireplace chimney has been lowered by five (5) feet. 3. All of the original log roof outriggers have been eliminated. The fascias are now a more traditional one (1) by similar to the surrounding houses. Finally, we have reduced the amount of additional F.A.R. (493) by two hundred forty three (243) square feet. Our revised request is for two hundred fifty (250) square feet. These revisions are based upon the input we have received from the Historic Preservation Commission and the goals ofthe applicant. Ifyou should have any questions please contact me. psp~tfully/yoursj AUÂ©. Reno, *~~ *2&44/j k RECEIVED December 10, 1997 JAN 0 7 1998 ASPEN / Pt fKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DAVID GIBSON AIA Ms. Amy Guthrie AUGUST Aspen Pitkin County Community RENO Development Department AIA 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO. 81611 SCOTT SMITH AIA RE: 930 King Street Dear Amy: O\ .8-4 -9 I am submitting the enclosed application for the proposed -inell - w:77-0 â€¢--1 development located at 930 King Street. I am representing the NPJ Partners, LLC, the legal owners of this property. GIBSON Â· RENO Â·ARCHITECTS. L.L.C.Â· From the numerous meetings and telephone conversations that we iii have had, and the pre-application conference summary memorandum which is enclosed, the NPJ Partners, LLC are making 210 E. HYMAN this application regarding the following: N, 202 1. Landmark Designation ASPEN 2. Significant Development COLORADO 3. On-Site Relocation 81611 4. Residential Design Standards 970.925.5968 5. Historic Landmark Lot Split 6. Conditional Use - FACSIMILE 970.925.5993 As you know from our discussions, it is the intent of the owners to , historically renovate the existing house, smoke house, and outhouse that was once occupied by Joe Candreia, otherwise known as "No P.O. BOX 278 Problem Joe". 117 N. WILLOW NÂ°2 In addition to the renovation, the development proposed includes an addition to the historic structure, which would create a single TELLURIDE COLORADO family residence at the East end of the property. 81435 The development proposal also includes the development of a 970.728.6607 separate single family residence, which will be located at the Western portion of the property. It is our intent to seek a lot split FACSIMILE 970.728.0658 that would create two (2) separate parcels. I 1 Amy Guthrie 0 December 10, 1997 Page 2 I have enclosed numerous attachments for this submission which are listed separately. Thank you for your assistance in answering the many questions I have had concerning this proposal. I also want to thank you for your time in reviewing our requests for this proposed application Please contact me with any further questions regarding this application. %h,R**df t#L. 1 ,- / e 3------ T Au#ustÂ® Reno, ALA GIBSON Â· RENO Â·ARCHITECTSÂ· m attachments 0 0 ATTACHMENT 1 Landmark Designation Standards For Designation: Any structure or site that meets two (2) or more of the following standards may be designated as "H" Historic Overlay District, and/or historic landmark. STANDARD: A. Historic importance. The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. RESPONSE: The structure and the site were occupied by Joe Candreia, otherwise known as "No Problem Joe" from approximately 1952 until his death in 1993. "No Problem Joe" was considered one of Aspen's old local characters because of the words that he commonly muttered, "No Problem" when anyone needed his assistance. Another aspect of"No Problem Joe's" tenure was a vegetable garden that he personally tended to for approximately thirty (30) years. He was often seen sharing his prize crops with people that were just passing by. STANDARD: 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 specimen. Response: The house is believed to be an original Sears and Roebuck, ship and build cabin, which was commonly used at the beginning of this century. The smoke house and outhouse are structures that were also commonly used in an era that has passed us by with new technologies regarding plumbing and food storage preparation. 0 STANDARD: C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: This project does not meet this standard in our opinion. STANDARD: D. Neighborhood Character. The structure or site is a signiRcant component of a historically signifcant neighborhood and the preservati on of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood (character). Response: The house and outbuildings were very typical for this neighborhood during the early part of the century. During the late 19th century and early part of the 20th century this neighborhood consisted of very modest type structures that were meant to house the working class (primarily miners). There are a number of these structures scattered throughout the Eastern section of Aspen. This house and the outbuildings contribute to the publics' awareness of what once occupied this neighborhood that still remain today. STANDARD: E. Community 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 of historical or architectural importance. Response: The house and outbuildings contribute significantly to the character of the historic Aspen community. These contributions include being a vital piece of the "Silver Boom" fabric. While the West End of Aspen represented the wealth of the "Silver Barons" with all of its elaborately design houses, the East End of Aspen represented the work force. The structures on this property represent a period of boom and bust with the birth of the City and the quiet years that followed once the original mining economy faded. The 930 King Street structures that remain today meet four (4) out of the possible five (5) Standards for Designation. We request that 930 King Street be designated as an Historic Landmark. NPJLAND.DOC 0 ATTACHMENT 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT The applicant proposes the following: A Historically renovate the existing house, Smokehouse, and Outhouse. This entails keeping existing materials where they are deemed salvageable and able to be renovated. Where this is not possible, the materials, windows, doors, siding, roofing, etc. will be reproduced to replicate the original materials. B. Relocation of the Historic house, Smokehouse, and Outhouse on-site as described in the On-Site Relocation Section of this application. A side yard setback variance on the East side is requested to be reduced to five (5) feet in lieu of the ten (10) foot required. C. An addition of 1372 Square Feet to the existing 432 square foot Historic House consisting of an eight (8) foot wide one (1) story link that preserves the form of the existing house on the South, East and West sides. A floor area bonus of four hundred ninety three (493) square foot bonus is requested. e The two (2) story portion of the proposalis connected to the North side of the link. Exterior materials, forms, proportions will reflect those of the Historic House. D. A Historic Lot Split is requested in order to create two (2) separate parcels, which allows for separate ownership of the Historic House. A smaller addition to the Historic House is also beneficial, which â‚¬*e scale,of the overall building small. Please refer to the Historic Lot Spilt Section ofthis application.--- h C<Lf: S \ E. The development of a new single family residence consisting of 2795 square feet of F.A.R. to be located on the newly proposed Western lot. The proposed house is sighted to allow for a twenty-five (25) foot buffer between the two (2) structures. Keeping the Historic House relatively in its original location. The proposed house has been designed with similar forms, shapes, and proportion that reflect those of the Historic House. The East side of the proposed new house is designed with a one (1) story segment that runs the entire depth (North-South) twelve (12) feet wide. New materials such as log columns, architectural accents and stone are introduced to not replicate the style of the Historic House. This allows each house to retain it's own character and yet respect each other. Materials that will match or be similar will be the roofing and siding. The design of the new house is reminiscent of the turn-of-the-century corner Victorian, with its corner tower that relates to both streets. nRjhist.doc ATTACHMENT 3 ON SITE RELOCATION The proposed development relocates the existing historic house, the smokehouse and the out house on site. Currently the existing historic house is located with the Southern-most wall approximately eleven (11) feet from the South property line. The East wall of the house is located approximately twenty (20) feet from the East property line. The proposed development relocates the historic house on-site with the Southern-most wall at twenty five (25) feet from the South property line, and the Eastern most wall at seven (7) feet from the East property line. Currently the historic smoke house is located with the Northern wall approximately three (3) feet from the North property line. The East wall of the structure is located approximately twenty five (25) feet from the East property line. The proposed development relocated the historic smoke house on-site with the Northern wall at twenty five (25) feet from the North property line and the East wall at fifty (50) feet from the East property line. The existing historic outhouse is located approximately four (4) feet from the North property line. The East wall of the structure is located approximately eleven (11) feet from the East property line. The proposed development relocates the historic outhouse on-site with the structure five (5) feet from the North property line and the East wall being at thirty two (32) feet from the East property line. EXISTING PROPOSED S.F.SIZE LOCATION ON-SITE LOCATION HISTORIC HOUSE 432 SF Porch 72 SF South front yard 11 FT 25 Fr East yard setback 20 Fr 7 Fr HISTORIC SMOKEHOUSE 54 SF North yard setback 3 PT 25 Fr East yard setback 25 Fr 50 Fr HISTORIC OUTHOUSE 22 SF /X North yard setback 4 Fr 5 FT East yard setback 11 PT 32 Fr ON-SITE RELOCATION NPJ - 930 King Street Page 2 The proposed development relocates the existing historic house on-site fourteen (14) feet further back from the South property line. This brings the house into compliance with the front yard setback requirement and also with the adjoining structure located on the adjacent parcel to the East. By locating the house further back also give the house relief from being right on King Street. This relief will focus more attention on the house and will provide for an area to be landscaped. The historic smokehouse and outhouse relocations on-site are being proposed primarily so that each of the structures will be visible from King Street. Structurally all of these buildings are wood frame construction and are in poor to average condition. The structural frame of each building is sound and with care may be moved the short distances the development proposal calls for. In all of the buildings, new concrete foundations will be constructed. Before we move each structure, we will have a structural engineer review and recommend methods for any physical impacts that may occur during relocation. We will submit this information to the Aspen/Pitkin Country Community Development Department prior to any relocation. npjreloc.doc ATTACHMENT 4 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The proposed design for both of the residences comply with: A. Building Orientation B. Building Elements 1. Residence "A" has one (1) story element that comprises 100% of the building's overall width on the King Street and Neale Street orientations. This is accomplished with a verandah porch. 2. Residence "B" has a one (1) story element that comprises 100% ofthe buildings overall width on the King Street orientation. This is accomplished with the one (1) story existing historic structure being located directly on the King Street elevation. C. Build-To Lines 1. The proposed residences follow the common setbacks of the King Street orientation. D. Primary Mass 1. The primary mass for each of the proposed residences is below 70% of the total floor area. E. Inflection 1. Proposed Residence "A" is designed with a one (1) story element at the East elevation for a width of twelve (12) feet, the entire depth of the residence. This element is adjacent to the one (1) story historic structure. F. Garages and Driveways 1. Both garages in the proposed residences are at the rear of the property and while attached, they are not visible from either King Street or Neale Street. G. Areaways 1. All areaways for both residences are recessed behind vertical planes established by the portion of the building facade which is closest to the street. H. Decks 1. All decks in excess of 15% of the floor area for each of the proposed residences have been calculated into the total floor area. I. Garages 1. The floor area in excess of the two hundred fifty (250) square feet that is exempt has been figured into the total floor area for each of the proposed residences. J. Floor Area 1. The floor areaforeach ofthe proposed residences has taken into account: (a) Plate heights (b) Below-grade areas with exposed walls greater than eighteen (19) inches above grade and walls exposed through the use of area wells. IC Building Height 1. Residence "A" complies with the formula for roofs with a slope of 8:12 or greater. 2. Residence "B" complies with the formula for roofs with a slope of 8:12 or greater. L. Parking 1. Each of the proposed residences exceeds the requirements for parking. npjresds.doc ATTACHMENT 5 HISTORIC LOT SPLIT The applicant requests a Historic Lot Split per Sections 26.88.30 (A) (2), 26.100.050, (A) (2) (e), and 26.72.010 (CD. The proposed Historic Lot Split complies with Section 26.88.030 (A) (2). This property has never been subdivided before; will only create two (2) lots; and will only construct (2) units plus an affordable dwelling unit. The proposed Historic Lot Split complies with Section 26.72.010 (G) and Section 26.100.050, (A) (2) (e) if the property is designated as an Historic Landmark. 14#lot.doc ATTACHMENT 6 CONDITIONAL USE (AFFORDABLE DWELLING UNIT) An affordable dwelling unit is proposed for the new residence located at the Western portion of the property within Residence "A". The unit is three hundred seventy (370) square feet in size. The unit consists of a studio-type floor plan which includes: Living/Sleeping area Closet Kitchenette Bath The unit also includes a separate exterior entry. RESPONSE TO REVIEW STANDARDS: DEVELOPMENT OF CONDITIONAL USE A. The current zoning of the property R15-A which allows Accessory Dwelling Units as a Conditional Use of this zone district. The Aspen Comprehensive Plan encourages the provision of the A.D.U.'s within residences to help supply housing within the Aspen area. B. The Conditional Use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity. The underlying zone district allows for duplex development, which is an increased density relative to single family residential design standards. The surrounding area consists of several similar projects with existing A.D.U. 's. C. The proposed residence will have three hundred seventy (370) square foot studio A.D.U. The A.D.U. will be located at the garden level of the unit accessible from - Neal Street. There is a provision for one (1) parking space within the proposed driveway. The AD.U. will have no adverse effects on the surrounding properties. The Accessory Dwelling Unit is located within the City limits of Aspen and has access to all public facilities, transportation, and services. E. As a requirement to Ordinance #1, replacement housing program, for a new residence in the R15-A Zone District, the applicant must provide an Accessory Dwelling Unit or pay a fee in lieu. This AD.U. fulfills this requirement. F. The Conditional Use of the Accessory Dwelling Unit complies with standards by the Aspen area Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Ordinance #1. nRjadu.doc ~ ATTACHME*-4 # 9 9 2 , ~ L jlwrrs r- La \1 2\ \ 5 4 /2 930 KING 3 -345 6 7 ~PUD.) -T- 1 - 0 *2 -STREET 1 FRANDIS ST,~p/' Rge 13 1415 16 17 18 1920 1 4 B LD = =AI 0 â€¢41-2 4 u , 3 ' i, 41* - 2 2 7 ~8 9 10 11 12 ' -0 1 mP D 4 0 5 4 7 8 . U 12~ 2- 3 -15 -144/ 11 2 - ..... N.. 17--- ~ 41470 y G! Sul, A~LESS PA* p , 715 4% / 3 ~ *" RINGÂ¢' 0 ------ ----- (pub) 0 th-Ch ! (ij) , 1 r 1 / (P HERRON PARK QUEEN ST. -15Â·â€¢- 1:-H 1/4 P |700E PARK DDRNER, SECTION la__bj- -- Il/1:1/11~IIlq \ -- 1 O AVE. *~Fil L 1 \ I .- -LÂ«S ---- \\ 6 -- Fi:*1Â£!hi~ 1- 1 g E HYMAN AVE. .- ~ 41 0 C, ' ' ' ' ' ' 1 1 111 , 1 1 1 TT- 1 1 1 I t -5 --1 U I 04, p t, .0. , -<Â¢ 0 .41 , ... . b i. P .. 4 41- . 0 04, -= r. .4 I. 44 0 â‚¬3 rrk:) ..7. .Ae- , i f 0 / 4 ./ 1~~, â‚¬ 0, 1â‚¬4 - ' . ..7 L 0 -- -I "i. -- c4 ..,iwp - 'A -00--4*-1 - 1000.000.-- 4,. - *\ 1 1 1.- A 0 -t:ilill 4 - 1,1 ... Â¥ 0 r,5 - f ' il' *Im - / , SurstvtÂ©104 OF THE f!.07<TY a-!OWN AND DEMMIetz) EURVEÂ¥01â‚¬5 CEKTIFICATE 1, J/*â‚¬DEMBEK, HEREer C.EMT]FrTHAT ON MAKH 24, 1997 A VISUAL INSPMETIC]N WAE, VIADE UNDEK MY HEKEEN. bio 0-1*4GED Â¥'EME FCÂ»IC) SOCE.F'T AS aHOWN AND NOTED> NE:KID#. AU'IN[ 1]PMOrâ€¢5, INIC. frrs ~WIES) r g.*fR, Oâ‚¬rF Â· L.4 1! 54 4,71 1,% . . 0 - A. : NOTEet .. . 1.4 . t. LANPTITUL GL.PI<Ar#l-EL COMMITMENT Na Q 371 375 WAS f.8 4 'L * taiND: BLM iktmoN UDED IN THE r'MEFNK,IC,N OF 11-410 zuRVEr. 90 \ jf .7 1 MAO NOT CONFIRMED 115 ACCL-,1,â€¢06 -IC)FOGMAPHY; THEKEFOK, - 2.1DFOGEAA-rr 3HCÂ»4 5 FleM A 1994 SUm/ENEAND WHILE IT APKAKe, 10 DE leeTANTIALLY COMMECT- TWE OUMFEYOK U Â·: / Rk ~ 5 Â©HOWN FON CRENTATION FUMr:05Â£53 ONUr. . 4 -FO ENCROAGUAENT Or FENCE. E*unts reÂ£â€¢A LESN- DXCKIFTION: X. ... / 1,0 4 \ LAND T1712: GO'12WTEE COMMmAITMCNT AD. 4 37/575 ' 7 \ Feweg ttole --4 5(Unt, MANGE 64Â· Weyr 00 11-â‚¬ 0-!W M M. IN, crlÂ¥ or,â€¢31'CN, 6 -111CT- Crâ€¢ L,440 *rrUA TESÂ· 11, 1,â‚¬ 6.1&- Cr 5,DC!-ION 7; -TDWNÂ©*Itr [O 4$4. prn<IN Cousrry COLDRADO, 8211.6 +ACM= puLLY ge,CM.161Â£2 Ae, 0. :# i fOLLOWâ€¢5: ftÂ¢~~Â·INDS gr -rk WC,tr#rvi,Mr a,p+421< CFA.Â·TMâ€¢Cr OF L,ND â„¢SCKJ,bea Â«f 1. f L# ~ /1 \ 42* 1,4 Â¥5Â©Ct<. 04â€¢S R f/G,15. 2,12. cf 1~â‚¬ Prr,QM COUNrf leac,24,0, FIUENcZ, CORNEK 4 Het 11, E,â€¢ar,â€¢SPEN ,â€¢wma.t 10-46172: 84,bl,i, NOZâ€¢ 25'05'1~ 16(28 7, ..4 1 , --- 4% THENCE 9 26,062.'CXyW ice,51, frALDNel}42 WEST- LINE OF S,ND 11*CE 1 TWCNCE N<>1-57'00â€¢*W 1770) FTÂ·, FENCE N,9-19205 "W 10.,4, FI,Â· / -Tuet<Z. U-Â·40'104'W 3,4,01 FT., -TMENCC NÂ¥8'2'r'94*W 25.0,9 rc,Â· 0 , 4 * TWENCE Nâ€¢10â€¢15'12' W 54.77, FT.,Â· 11.+CM:c Nmoze'llâ€¢â€¢5 M.89 Ft f , / 4 NÂ¢3- yr 764Â£$â€¢CL o,920'51.Z 141.47 fr. lt, 7,41~ fOINT' Cr CÂ£Â£3â€¢INNINS, 114 N / 4. CD,â€¢rONWING, 16,*44 Â·00Â· FE MCIE OK LEÂ». t, # 4 9~ ( 04â€¢reb E 22:521) 2f (Me 150< 1750, ,â€¢SPEN, COLCÂ© - * 111/4 6 w N : wa nres '00, #i 4.//// 4447 *4 0. 94- :.:/il (W//NGLE 11204) 2610/to t:liE F A# M 4. 1 1 M 6. 13,343 3,2- rE f 4/ 1 4 i / N I lilli' 1111111 / .950 O 5 0 30 40 Â» 409:. 2 4, i fEL 74 / i .1. J "4 / TAUP-Â·e 0 *EZZ 0154,4 , eate OF BEARINGÂ· u.5.0.4 9.0 9*PENE -0 1/OPEN AZIMUTH: : . al.}AVEYOKS CEKTIFICATE SURVEYORS CEKTIFICATE; r 791â‚¬00 4 0 .-----' 5---.0 1 HEIKEDYÂ· CE,enreTHATIMID MAr 1 HERES,f CERTIFY THAT TI- 19 MAF' ,CU~reLY OE,9CTS A 50RVEr 1 1 -3 ONE STORY KUrMSENTS A SUKVEr NXIC*IED UNDET 14'05 LNDER MY 5UFER'/15 ON Cht JANLI<RY 5,1914, CF THE WCDO FRAME HOUX, / ./ y n kly sortKvleMON ON OCRODEX 3,1994 OF Fiâ‚¬FERIY 5HOWN HERMON THE EUtl.DINGS WERE FOUND It) te PER,SUAL.EZPM/m"3/N 44.\ . 2 f f e THE rmOrEK'rr OHOUN HEROON. LOCATED ENnRELY WITH THE AeOVE DESCRIPED FRDIÂ°eXTY EXCEM Ae 1 thi noOK 742 gr- 9 15 171 ' ' SOWN AND NOTED teRIC,1 THE lmâ€¢TON *ID 0Â»4ENSI0NS CF ALL 2 4 t PEATA~15-0 THIS STXLETUKE ,~ 00 -4 720 2 ,, .D EU#LOINGÂ®, IMPNXEMENT-5,545EMENTD, RIGHTS-OF-VOY IN MOENCE >InÂ»Â» \ 4' ALMINE SUKMEYB,INC.Dr.... ._. --- OR KNOWN 10 ME. AN[) ENX*:HMENTS M OR CN THESE / JAMED FE â€¢ang, FREME[55 ,â€¢RE KCCUIWELY SHOWN. ALL EAteMENTD Or M=CORD '24 1 ,:',1 I*15: .... Le. 9!84 At INOIC*TED Chi Prrk N CCOkirr TITLE, INC. TITLE POLICY (CASE NO. FCT-- 6202Â· 02 i, 0â‚¬1-50 964â‚¬*I l, 1194: MAYE Bet:N SHOWN +4Â£32CN, 5 lUE i Lartl:<p.2;19/. 1/2- i f ( ....le' 04 ..1. . AFNE URVEÂ·(3, iNC 0/: 4*4Â·120 ft RE*EK. OM Lb litÂ¥I Â£ *U 0- 1 0â‚¬'CE: L.9. liBâ€¢+ /40 0. t. +JK ......4- 2/2 - 444X 3 A + **ae OF 'te* C.R./'a: *- is RECEIVED c 7% ... , 442>X . noe , '4. 40.44 7,21 JAN 0 7 1998 ASPEN / 91 1 NA COMMUNITY DEVELCPMEN1 Alpine Surveys, Inc. Job No 13-90- 2 J S-vivid tÂ·DÂ·Â·64 OL 14-lon. 37.9 3Â·27:97 UPDATE Tme, 1 D...11 1.7.914 /R 44.9+ IMMO'EMEKIT.SOMVEr alâ€¢â€¢ 734 496(DCAT po.t Offic. 8. 1730 4 Â·71+ Alp,n. Colorado 81811 OF,VT,eCTOrl.*10.DITUATED IN-TWE SCUTH 303 9252688 7- 1 14 16'11'. St.*Er 7Â·27Â·44 0430 EASEMENT) 64 WISTOFTHE 61-W MM., alYOF,erEN, ATKIN CO, COLDIâ€¢W]O. HALF OF DECTION 7,10*hekNIP IO eCUTH %~Al[DE 1010Â·14 10=:TvirA,Hr 614 4 I t T\:v. -AMisti'l ~4:..1 -, LANDSCAPE LEGEND:' - ..9 /46 0// Exidng Decidiaom to Remain 4-31 New Decida- Tr- illiz'~3, -.;.i. 99 (203" Cauper -) _ 9+04 0%'1 __UC.~le,-21 r-~ B-der landicap r-iming -U -C 104.-i=EZ EF?'Ea Perennial Bed. B22â€¢1-1 30 F#? I A 1 Â· be sodded &< â€¢ All ir- not :hown to be paved shall 3 TRT,K, Etlir:; 1 WARAL<~<AA/1 N E u Pill vawÂ»f .- -I- .. 1 1 1 . .. i 0 . - 12 - 0-0 201 02 - 2 r t 1.92 y ' _ PAVED AUTO COURT - e I .43 + r TRK 15 A Co r.14.E#- 0. ~ - L 1 -J i ll 1 8 6 F M E' 1 4 H'gh 25 tÂ· 1 - PAVED - G REC =11- , N - .. I .:. AUTO C i W . D3 .e i . 1 '-14,~-~ . JUN : :908 L. 02 - , - . 'St. i .~ i . . 1 .0 -I. -- COMMUN 7Â· DS 22!A.15 1, Â· 6 z .* , Front Setback 25' NE IDEN U Â· r./ I .t . .. 1 . 1..1. .. - 1 --r g 7 ..1 t . Â·t 1 1 6 3 - t. - 4 .4/1.' 1 VI HOUSE . Â¢ 1:94528 . 4 - .- ..B" EX:,44.3 t. 4 5 . 12 4.- 7â‚¬. . 0 .. - . . Side Corner Setback 16'-8~ Â·~ i . I Â· l. u i BSON Â· RENC . - ... ,. T 73, ...1..1 1 A R C H 1 1 I C : 5 . . m 24 cotionwooT r....,- 4 . ..1 92\-, . ....cu=In: 1 - Â·917 ..... 1 Â·Â· tt_-1 1:1012,(1 ~ALLK . --I :161- KING STREET ... . 1.-Em , 4 . 11.6.-01.....02 14 4 lili 26\T E -FL Pol SLÂ·\9-Jâ‚¬c-1- -fc; M Fc f:1~5-4 i EÂ»J SITE PLAN /LANDSCAPE PLAN ...... I' lilli L Fil-~ 1 1 O . to 90 46 pr / 4\:ID Aft'ACV/ku - foe, irJAytiM Pert cÂ·N A1 . fol (7- POJES C,h.1 l-,1 -inTE>U 44 4/ 60 cÂ«41 2 / 1 ....40 - 06VNO'!03 NIJSV 4/:â‚¬. " 1 -1 - . 11 -- -- I --- . ,1 L_. . -- - 4: 11 . I - 11.*-- 1 - -'ll-.*.--I--.6 M rFÂ»L - LI , LLI 11 ' 'FE--112#la. El-]1 *1[EE_ 1 .- - 11 I. . . , -- 11 . - P=== 1 . 1 - ; i 111- 1 1 4 U - .. 7 '- I 1 1 1 Id .r . r. 0 - --â€¢- .'-- - 1 1 - 63 drU UgÂ»-(0 LA , P#*\Abl,0/ A -2 4.14* I. . 0 .0 . . .mi .. ..3 1, K z;. - 9.45 Ck*.*L r I. l - ,: - Â·Â·Â·. ~Â· Â· .Â·.A-2-la.-Â·Ml#44 9 9./81:' 41;Em 'f - 11 2 ..t*3 4 4 t-y .:,i.- , i ' lili lili A I I : 144 1. 1., S .,1.7 4 M; 9 ~i V ; .2 i ./.ill.--- i milof..1.1 16 7 . --0 .Pr~:. -.Vill.'- .49-. IT . 4--7- . .ia--1. 0 9. 4 + ...'.I.-.'--, I -- . LL ll~ , * i _11â€ž11- 1 11-ll_Â® E[ _ - - I.'-I--. 4............... ............ 1 I i . 7/ -.. - m Z = 27-1 1 --1 - _It - IM - ,-I -, . 4 - -L-J -- = I 07 066*~i I Â· il ' . L . Â·:4 1 ' 'U~4~/ 4 ~' ~ ~ ~~ Â·rt 1 aÂ» '1, 9, :4 4 U :1 4 1 :f Ill 11 61+1 x f @S , 1 1.- 4 , 1 . 5 -,1 1 1 - --- I. 4 . ?44+ ..6%.1 - 1Â·Â«* 3.4,4 4r43Â· ~ '*~ rE]Â·-V-- 14 . k. 4- 1/ 1 4 ll. t T - | - 3/444 i -427 -- :em ' e 40*L. r. 44**t ~1~W. ...' r . 1..14,1714%.41 iff.{1114Â¢'.il:.w.Â·r.ff:,13. :.T< ,.;<,44 ,:--,4.f'tÂ·(91: 77> :~h.Â·yiÂ·=.4*~.. Â·.:4.tÂ·:115;4k~~~j:4;:,4,,,'. 114':,'.1.4.. Â¥f .-il. :lf...... . N <7 1.: , Z &2443:-49*-MA#ZMpt#,f;,ER +KFI -t - -24 21. f.11~)1,1..0-:1-Â·.CE,Â·94%24~*+LAcw#Uj,Li;24 7.4/iNE:6;flif:li+&0:'.6. Â»TA,Y 794. pv 2 6.... 2.47 Jifi~~ r r 1 (14 I , --= 7,-,1â€¢,0 '1VidSV , . .---6-4 H \>2%,1 cd ti LA - imia 1 3~f ' ~ 2/ 9ZiE S;Ul ' % . 'Â·b'.*~ #.. '' Z V K < -. lia' 1/9/., 4 1 q .-14 d.4 0 .6/Jlid M 'M 4631/ 4 ~ ' t . 30 /7 2 .. '5 'Â· silÂ·. .:, 20 iffit...31 j.39Â·1*Â·iÂ·.~fift>,K:-4,Â· 2~9kX t-,f.Â·' k.. Â· 1 - ...O-L- -. . h .... . - - -- .I.. .. - :D, '11 . r-- - :nlili - / 1 ... r--------:*m~- 7 - i -;'=..i'.- I ] 3 9 t 1- -1 5/ 1 . 1 1 , 1. 1 - 21 lilill j.1 ... . . I. :lidilliwillilillillillilillilliggimillillililligi. 111\ It HI 5 .11 . 0 .. - . . - *a--47 1 / 1 . - , 1 - / 1. -- , r 1. 1 - I :-L -3 / 1 1- / DI ~ - 1 12 - T Â· I , -1 I - -- -f - 1 <:4 /"39.926 r--1 i - 1 . I . . 4 1â€ž===,1 E r/M E --- 439Â«.0 . . 1 Ed- Ual~Â»~ k r - 1 AL- . 1--4-. 7. 000 e 140 - 8.-8 0 W T . 1 , -5 r- --ir - --1 ~ il " '} <, -f-- -Tr---1 1 1 1 11 1 11 1, i 1 11 1 1 . 1 11 li 1 " +..JL - - -1~ 1/ a. I .~01.-14.:;A~,4,6:.at.-* . Â· f Â· =Â·A ....Â·7Â·t . . 1/14 4--*. . T---- . S. Â· ./ I -: .-9 . ~ .f t*+ .. ' J ' ' I:.1.,2.-1..i f' & / 1 1 1 .1 .: ' 'I ./A: 1 1 .. 1 .1 1 $ I I . , .al '.4.: 1 '7 . i LOO a 00 - - /- 1 I . 1 e .I : 6.-,ffi d 0.2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF March 25. 1998 a) 250 sq. ft. FAR bonus is granted. b) Restudy the fenestration. c) Restudy the stone chimney. d) Restudy the architecture of the addition to the historic house and the new, house. Create a more direct compatibility in materials and design elements. e) Full landscape plan showing any exterior perimeter fencing. j) A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation and whether the structure has been demonstrated to be capable ofwithstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and resiting. g) A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security in the amount of 330,000. 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. Motion second by Mary. Motion carried 4 - 3. Suzannah, Melanie and Heidi voted no. Gilbert, Roger, Mary and Jeffrey voted yes. 712 W. FRANCIS - MINOR Chairperson Suzannah Reid reviewed the east and west dormer revision. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the revisions, second by Suzannah. All in favor, motion carried. TIPPLE INN Melanie excused. Amy Guthrie, planner relayed at the last meeting it was recommended that HPC delay action until the Inventory is done in 1999 to see how it fits in the overall history of the town. HPC asked Staff to provide information on the status of the Tippler and if there was anything that HPC should have been involved in. They have their Growth Management allocation, P&Z 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF March 25. 1998 owindows. Clerestory windows, defer to the architects on the HPC. Majority comfortable with the design ofthe house. Some members disliked the garage facing the street and the long linear corridor. Concerns of the neighbors need addressed. Grant designation. Clerestory represented on the model is closer to what is acceptable as opposed to the drawings presented. Don't loose the horizontality ofthe rooÂ£ Concern ofthe height of the stair tower volume as it over powers the house, possibly adjust window portions or add a band. MOTION: Roger moved to continue the public hearing and table conceptual review, partial demolition and landmark designation until April 8, 1998; second by Melanie. All in favor, motion carried. Site visit scheduled at NOON, April 8, 1998. 930 KING STREET - CONCEPTUAL - LD - PH - Partial demolition - on-site relocation, variances Amy Guthrie, planner informed the HPC that three L f the five standards have been met. It is a modest miners cottage of the Victorian era. There are three issues: relocation ofthe historic house on the site; where driveways should be placed for the two houses and the third compatibility concerns. Staff is generally in favor with the concept of the program. It is a great way ~ that the historic landmark lot split can benefit everyone. The previous approval was for a single family house. HPC needs to give solid feedback on this project. A reduction in height was addressed. The FAR bonus was reduced. Staff recommends reversing the site plan so that the historic house remains on the corner site and this proposal places it on an interior lot and she feels it will be lost in the mass of the addition. In the proposed site plan they shifted the house to the eastÂ· but it is in the drip line of the trees and Staff has not received formal comments from the parks department but typically that is not allowed. Staff recommends tabling and to restudy the architecture and address compatibility but the lot split and partial demolition and landmark requests are acceptable. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF March 25. 1998 Sworn in by Chief Deputy Clerk: Augie Reno, Harris Kahn, Laurie Winnerman, Larry Winnerman, Jackie Kasaback, Julie Maple and her husband and Jim Mickey. Augie Reno, architect presented: At the worksessions the placement ofthe historic house has always been in the same position, never once until a site visit was the discussion brought up to relocate the house and that was not clear due to interruptions. The proposed driveway is off of Neale Ave. which Amy suggested. At the third worksession rotation of the house was mentioned but not by the majority of the board and option 5 was chosen by the HPC as the plan to go with. The goal is to preserve the house. After each worksession the architects determined the summation as HPC did not give any summary on what the majority wanted. There are site constraints on how the historic house would be seen, the lot narrows to the west. If the house were to be relocated to the west it would be much further away from the road than it is today just by the shape of the lot. The topography of the lot is different as it is higher on the corner. The proposal is to keep the house ten feet away from the street pretty much in the same location where it would be viewed as it is today. The corner house sits back further and will not overbear the historic house. Augie corresponded with the Parks Dept. and he indicated that the roots have been directed to the area of least resistance and he assured me by lifting the building up that the trees could be saved by the right technology in digging out for the foundation and the feeding of the trees. It is the intention to leave the trees. Harris Kahn relayed the partners intention as it relates to the project. He lives four houses away and he owns property on King St. He has been familiar with the site for the past 15 years. The intent is to make the site look natural and they aren't looking for anything other than what they are entitled to. Augie relayed that the historic house would be moved approximately ten feet to the east. It is still ten feet offthe property line. A variance would be needed. There is a five foot setback variance for the side yard requested. The house would get renovated and there is aneight foot, one story length between the historic house and the new addition. The old house will stand on its own. The smoke house and out house will stay as they are for storage 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF March 25. 1998 use. The new house sits at the west end of the property and the front yard is 25 feet from the Neale Ave. side and 16.8 from the King Street side. We are 7 feet behind the front face of the historic house. The driveway on house A is 60 feet from the corner and a fence is proposed on the north and east property line and splits the properties and the fence will not exist for the first 30 feet from the west property line. On the south elevation the historic house will be renovated with the original materials and what cannot be saved will be replicated. Materials will be picked up from the historic house. The new house on the west tries to keep gabled forms and tries to keep vertical windows and horizontal siding all to be compatible. The size ofthe new building is 55 feet in length by 24 feet. The Maples house is 50 feet and the adjacent houses are 53 and 90 feet. Mr. Mickey reported that his house is 37 feet long and the Maple's house is 40 feet long. Augie informed the HPC that on the west elevation the architecture was broken up by a porch and a one story element. A corner element was created by turning the mass. The mass is also broken up on the west side. The west side plane steps back. The breaking up also creates a view. The chimney is stone and the roof is broken up with small shed type dormers. The east elevation of the historic house stays as it is and there is a link . between and the gabled shape that sits behind the houses. In both houses they tried to put the garages away from the street view. On the North elevation the roof height relates to the historic house. Stone, siding and wood timber are proposed. Horizontal siding is proposed and it is compatible with the horizontal clapboard siding. There is no stone on the old house but in the neighborhood some houses have stone and some do not. Stone base is proposed. The fence proposed is a six foot high solid fence. Gilbert inquired about the glass on the historic building that faces east as it faces the adjacent property line. Augie relayed that the glass gives the view to Independence pass and it is the dining area. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEUTES OF March 25, 1998 Julie Maple wrote a letter in behalf o f her Father-in-law which,as included in the packet. One major issue is the driveway between her fath-in-laws property and the proposed property. She is not positive the en *eering dept. has given approval for the driveway and she requested thavhe application go to Engineering and have it approve as part ofthemnditions. There were three conditions and she has concerns about the haI*hip condition. There is a big visibility and safety issue for the driviay as people enter into the traffic and coming down that hill it is hardasee what is coming out. She also requests that the house be brought backg tile original grade. The dirt mound on the corner is not natural. Mike Maple, son of the neighbor. The most important issue is;eserving the views. He feels the lot split is appropriate because it reduce*he mass of the house and it has economic value. The Iot split is a tremalous windfall financially. In terms o f bonuses the code states that thiFAR is for the historic structure and this lot split would allow a 3200 sq. ftiouse and there is no need for the FAR. bonus. Through the years dirt hasien brought into the site for a garden and the grade should return toil normal state. Introducing a driveway into an area where there has not kn one is a safety hazard. Jackie Kasabach, concerned citizen stated she is concerned abo*this development as she lived in the west end and watched the deatbf the west end and now is in the middle of the east end die. When she wai down King street it is becoming a tunnel and all you see is mass. Thsice build up on the south side of the street have created enormous hazarchih the winter time. When you turn the corner there should not be a hlu mass. Jim Mickey, neighbor relayed that he is against the mass. Whemhe looks out his window he sees four houses being built. Laurie Winnerman stated that the views were kept open in ordeto respect the neighbors views. The chair, Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. 9 e. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF March 25. 1998 Commissioner Comments Roger relayed that the lot split is beneficial to the community. The neighborhood looses one monster house. The applicant gets to build two houses and HPC reviews the entire project. Roger is opposed to moving the cottage to the other side of the property. He also felt that the Eng. Dept. should provide a definitive statement on the driveway. He also had no problem with the variance but is unclear about the bonus. Overall project is quite good but there are concerns about the fenestration. The fence on the south and west shoOld not be solid but no problem with the north and east. Amy Guthrie informed the HPC that Nick Adeh is looking for something as a reason why the driveway should be on Neale Ave., a hardship or a preservation reason from HPC. The majority ofthe board felt that that lot split, partial demolition and landmark request are acceptable. The fenestration needs restudied i.e., the larger windows. There should be a strong compatibility between the addition to the historic house and the historic house and encourage that the new house have better compatibility than it does now. Gilbert felt that there is a stronger restoration if the house is closer to the existing footprint. If there are safety concerns regarding the driveway they should be addressed. Mary indicated that the applicant came in when the HPC decided to have worksessions which was time consuming for the applicant. The applicant and neighbors got caught in the middle of that process. She also felt that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. Melanie relayed that the bonus should only be given to exemplary projects. Her interpretation of the ADU is a fourth bedroom. The architecture needs more study and the house and rock fireplace are overwhelming. The back house needs broken up more and a solid fence is not appropriate and needs broken up. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF March 25. 1998 Jeffrey relayed that the architect addressed the concerns of the neighbors. He also felt that the two story walls need broken up. The plate heights are high. He feels the stepping back from the Victorian house is appropriate but has some concern about the competing gable end. The chimney is a large element on house A and needs restudied in its height and massing. Kbeping the fence back on the west property line to maintain the view is appropriate. The height of the ridges on the main house need restudied as it reflects to the street and the Victorian house. It was reduced but the relationship to the Victorian needs stepped down and restudied on the south elevation. Heidi relayed that the cottage is lost in the site on this project. The new house is far more dominant. The addition on the cottage is appropriate but the mass of the new house needs addressed. Suzannah felt that the right solution is flipping the cottage. The project should be beneficial to the historic house and she cannot support the current plan. The character of the addition to the historic house is well done. The driveway presented is a typical pattern. Combining the driveways is not to - the advantage of the historic house. On the new house a simplified roof shape needs studied. HPC vote on the FAR bonus requested: Gilbert - yes Mary - yes Jeffrey - yes Roger - yes Melanie - no Â· Heidi - no Suzannah - no Amy relayed that the variances requested would be 14 foot variance on the front yard for the historic house, a five foot side yard setback variance eon the east sidse of the historic house, and the 250 square foot FAR bonus. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC grant approval at 930 King Street for the Historic Landmark, Historic Lot Split, Partial Demolition and on-site relocation. Conceptual is granted with the following conditions: 11 0 EXAMPLES OF COMPATIBLE ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC MINER' S e COTTAGES AND COMPATIBLE NEW BUILDINGS ON THE SAME SITE 6-GILA- O I.A. 22Â»1 - Â· LUL-,11 126 re. 6.'EE=irdil:#'2 * r.. 1 6,â€¢IM/â€¢Â·89*44. 6414) 4/ f//A ./.\1%3 1 -- 71- \1 - L&. 545="al . . /7/ - FF;, VALÂ» tle. BcÂ»t A Â· . ~ Mel*- ec:<H. \Â»k . 1 LI,-i 'r -1- . Â·Â· ~ ., wi _8 -It_1 lEi--F 1-1-TÂ® 61' Ill--1- -101'71 -1 . . i r Â· 1. . 1.- 1 ~2 7 49'-00 A RY Â»1. . r _ 5 0 1. .4111= 1 f 1 Er-ir'Ill Billi & I i 1 1 .21 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 Ill Ill 1 1 1 1. . 1. 11 1 r~ __ - 1 1 1 1 11 a I I--7 1 1 11 -- 1 --1 r -%.-IT 111 1 0, u. Irs/ mp,cM. * 1 1! 1 . .. T Bele i 4 7- -- - - E. -- --1-- I.-/44042/1-1 906..*rle/M - - f>Â¢Al,&Â¢P â‚¬*Rtfkl' 54-EVAF01 ~ 4 -Af - CO'*41â€¢01 Â» - 030 15*1*2229/42 ;M:R.ornel , 11 20,40 PEPP .6,02 .*11-9 1 1.Oil ' 'r, **lp u, â‚¬.. I I. 1 ==1 - 1- . 4.....1 _j:~~~ 11. . f :1-1- - 1 I I I 1 99.!,M 9-1. ===== 1 1 . 6 1 1. . i .:". :litliji Il:. 4 . Â· i [2 --1 . ~ L.QL Â· LM Na, A 9 14'.00 - -1 I I /A&0,1 9 . 4 4â€¢42.~ae .. -- ..r . 1 1 1 1 -i-~_r , . r.-3, 21--1 7 ' r - '. T ! - L 1 -4--*/ 1 1 -t- -- 1 LfliGN .--3- -7 - 1 ---- 11t#222251Â· 1 I q ~ ' I i 1-Â®- --; ~4 - --- -t-T - 1. lie . 1 -925<22580 - 1 1-= i ] n j l. 1 --- 11 li c I . u. 11 . / 1 15 6-FLI 022 Ef i i Â¥1 1 17FICA. - :0':El . 11 - . .1. 1 -D,wr (uâ€¢rr A 1. 1 . i . 1 1 --- IJA--- 1 ------- - --- -9 9 ---- It ........r ... 6--t -- 200--0 4 99 11 - 6-U A 9 4 \/UPNP-MÂ£4292*+OKI 4 1 11 11. /#i I .--- - -0 ' EXHIBIT 12 .A /'<X\. \ \.~.H 1+4 'Al Â£ , ,.>:C-i. $...9:k *2.1,41.X.Â·21*~ - Dkr * 5 1 1 '7 - - --I-#-1 -1 1 \44 1 L --- - - -~ -Â« 1 + = -J $ --4 ....... 11,-.--4. - 1-1 F --1- Lum.-1 g A-1.-I i I -ij :77 '-- I! j . ' 1 1 14 1- 441 f ! lu 0-- 1 1. il I _ -l| Ltal t.~4[1.-L---1.. L t 4 " '' ; 11.4 . U Â·1 ./ 1 . #-4 ~~ ' ~-1~ r-4 kait~ ~1 1- , :11 . 1 1 =1 11; .1 1; h=24 1, 11 42 UTH 56 BVÂ»T 10 KI 9 T 21 , 1/\21*1 1 , 1.11,1.:' ! A /2Â« ---cs:f<jrLL 2-~L-, _ ~- 1 1 --.... 1 - 1 1 - t . ,>7+ 1 1- Â· 1 1- 1 1 4 4 !11 11 i - 1 i--1 +1 i: ~ Imt r r--- _t 1 :_L , 1 +Â· b i- I il - *11 1 li - * + . li ~ --"3-- TEIT~~773*b- I -L~ tri i : - - - --~' ' 2 1!: 1 il _!-9 Id~t , @ 1 7 1 - 1.L: 1 : 94~ 1 . &.Ill-/.I- . ........I-- 11!11111!lilli 'f !!' I Hill 1111 E ~ - , . . . lilli'.111 1...] 1 I | / ~ ' !,di#aE*Â£=hj~g!11!441141!-~==*4~* 107.., 1.1 . ,'1.69 .im//"43- -- -rE_ 7-=pri- --, le t ' 6*-1-. --4 -2 &*EQI-* itlf 1 6.-U 00 - 1 : Â· I . 6 31 g,+ 6 T 23 LtvATIDNI~ \10-2 70 lid 19 6 5 H..Â«T- P.Eelpel~Ice '1 01Â·11 re /4 1â‚¬ 0 1 - " 1 1 1 11-h 11 -1 r *cort n U 6 - 0 -1 I 4- 0 1 V 0 LIU 1 11-t-1 =~1~14\ 1 1, 1 Il<XA, 1 1 %32 \\ U h i .0,4 .Â· 5,1/ 7. /Al \ 0 / 0 â‚¬//A > - -hz 15 i 1 4 -7- ID \ km 11.- - 11 1 .1 1 ' 3' . 41 -* Cal Â£ 1*6~j~ 1 -F- 1 I ra, f i TTi r * -iF~.-f i-~1-] 1~r--~~~1 ' - 1-3! all- 1 1 F --i- 1 ,- 1 1 1\ . I <3.6 2 11'1111!.1 - A 11.1 ./ III , 1 *Iii 1 111 0 --- IIi: 11 --911 1 Â¢ -9 ill N..3 P. ./ Â»VEâ‚¬\ \ Ilf. \ 9-131 - EaxÂ·, -* if\ ,/ 22.Ft-11 1 1 FEE /$-1./Ii ' / -- EXHIBIT 13 - -l \4 2Â»J , #~Uit'tÂ·:Â· 1'';i,jÂ·~1%Â·--%112', ...1 ! 00 0 - 1. 1 01 1 9 Â· 1 -J . MaL,00LP -1 \ ... . I 4 . .. i. 1 .. 1 11 1 1 1 lili 1 1 1 1 --- --- --#.- -- Ill -T-- .-. 0--.i I -4- - bt at./J 4 1 1: 1 1 It 11 1 .1 S 'IA 1 1 1 1 1 F 1 ' 3 11 .1.1.11:i' 11 il d.'Jiiji": 1 - - --- - i 1 1 1 --- #i .. 7. Â· 1. P 1 111.W . il :G 1 1 I. 1 .. v z T~IJ[ -11-, ~ let-vit 111 11. iii \t=--Ii- =It irl I I 1 L .-11.-J' 1 IS - h P 11 1 N tr-4 1 1 It I \. IL_Iii \AgÂ»j ell -4 I i,, 1 lilli] 1 1 1 1 lilli; 1 1 1,11,-:ti 'llii; t i lilli 1 0 .. 1Â· ,:t ip i 1 1 i ,; i 11111; '' d.! i..1 1 j ' 1 :t Ilili!!1! 1 i 1 1 Iii:f : .!:111: }lili 1,1 'It ]11 .... u n, ..10 1, . 7. . I --$ *---Cl.--*m..--Ul- - G.1 1 lul :- 1. il , i i i ! i i. , 1 1 . . .... b . .. . ... 1 '. ... .. 1 , 1 111 i -7- i aill Iii 11 b ip 0 11 1 1 16-nul. 1 1 ~dIUL_ -a - - --Il..Il.- I.Ii- T-------- ---------T i - 41.19 1 4 e ..=42 : 126 ~.W , t~Â»Â«49~ 4:.ir . . 14.N-Â¥.E - .. ... . ; ...2 , i.k -7 -. I. i .Al. . i . 1 '50 1 Nek 1 06lf--1-124. 1 . .. _.1*Ell#J#URW~.11*Lt.. iii I & 11Â»X If Â· I.-. -IL----~ 11-11;-11 E-tt~-- r--mit=========1.rmTrrrTTTrrrE__-'-' Warf?QI 11 i.iM[Aill 1 0 ![TNIE] 11 111 1 W Itrrqlli~ .ni.immiwim-imm lillimmli iii:jill 'llgal- I~Imlili lili Ill limit:*146Wm!:U~IWI illill LIMPn i ,=u==77]17-n TZ<EMULUILi t' ll i fill 4 I lillillillillilmu=1 - - 1. I b l].11[1 Ill 11,11111 11! IN1111 1 Imul.1!i!11[1111 11~~~~~~~~~fEEEBEE,83 Uluxu.1 4Yrqll' . u-.altij~1 mil im=r T=I=t IM @18#i:jilltlflam#MMI itiill#*a].1~ il~-illittl 1.1111111111 .- - 11 ---.---. :..- llilitlli~~~1~~il#Illi~ lili#111-J{[1~litilII'ttltit[tt . I .. weer #N.>ewerk:2-1 - _ 47 Â£:*1-11 1%*Â»11014 . 1 . r-*-44Â· * ~h Â· ak 1 -Â«,ovvyx.,n~ .. Â£-m=en.....k=H-IRA]Im==~h,tmÂ»&=--t * 1-*111~ â€ž '~~~~~~11--M,11111111 1111 1 1 11 1 11....1,r[I.FiR 51-2~1,-12'17,4.â€¢'0 .. 1 . 6~Ec==20@Ac=-3 1 1 IFIA '1 1 1 ilRt1-1-lll;~Il Ill HWA . 1 1 li # il . Er--,=11â€¢-* 1.---4--A,XF*/~----6--6.--6-&.tnZ:1.-AL--L_L_-na.11 112=:11 111 1/:Cil IM/Ams&~mmaimeumwmp,Mi< 6 .\/1,/t,l - - ' .- n . . ~ 5241 -0.-. Â·11. .... ..-Il- . 1,-:a=======ZE=z===-1,1 ,.-Â· i inr --rÂ· r -,1,â€¢r" 3:.7=111 1 eÂ»-r - 131,Ev,derlÂ« . Â· 140*fli===EL~=el======L~ . ~ EL,EVAÂ·7-14* 1 <26>~L/d . Uat'~o~ 1 1 , R.la*.2 91~on at-rÂ©~e.ut '-tpÂ· 91 it v lop Vig>lÂ»le - .14'* IT ' * .,4 ~u; 1. 2 e. Â¥49 ' 13/3 -~49- 1 1 I ~ . 1 1 .,+ 7.1, it - - il *. Â¢221021 783{ 149(0 . , -1-- ---1 . I '.Ii- .I-- I.-i I.Ill .Il- , '1 (1=~ ~.t,~,t **I -Ill- . - . 111 1 i ' 1 1, A 1 - # 1 -I- .... W ; .............1â€žr * . ----t ..._ - -2 i â‚¬f - .. f 1 I 11 1 1 11 2:Arke. 1 11 . S 3 @1 11 . ---r---I -I-. I.- 1---1 , '' I li 1 E-1_-1 -, 1- ~~1 1-- ------- - - %7 1 - J I -I.- /7-------- ~ ~ ~-i 1 1 -11 I Â·1 . 1 . -â€¢Â·~----Â·--4 - - ... ...... -Â· - - ..... . __----_--._ - --.... . lili - , 11 8 *, - 1 ...4 1 - ! 4 I . 1 1 '11 ' Â¥ it 1 1 111 1 .. . m Â»-121 1 1 t=Uzz=t.*112- - ' ,. E , 1 './1 - 1 7 0/1 br,*1 E-1 6 - 1 ---I--.I.*- - . 1 -2/ 0 Jel e ------ .-. 0 . . . I 1 - ...1 10'NW 210â‚¬1 14 1 0.@ 1. 4 11-~1-1 1 it 1~ -,1.:: -W!' Â¥ ilpjfm Â·/ \ I .C. 4, 45 ' ~'' 1 WIA \ 4 4.9. E yoll.'47 2 3.1 - , PE /,2 .1.19191 I 11 I 2 1 -L, Iii lE[ - , . \ 4 1 . t Gl . - I LL..d.. ' - ~r-- . f 01 â€ž----. I j . >L I . . r . 4 . 81 0 D . . I . . 1 1 - - . , 1 . 0 -I 1 I. , 1 . 0 1 6 + Â·21Â·i -I ' '..' ' . I -, Â· i . I . . 0 ,. ?Â®1 't, - -AL..61/4/*ir/3./1 Â· $ k..1 -6... 2 4,1 1: t .. - . , .- , -Oi....1.-, 1 ' M"......... 'i.kf': FI .41.:r...42 , -I. 4 I . . I I :I . I I . 1.â€¢ 0 1 itibfÂ·trimmfilim"Millillill'll'll'll'll'll'll'll'll'll'll'll'll 6.--1:04 1-17.,12~.",1,--- . . S. $ ... 1 0 .- ., . - 1 n ~) 1/lE .t'31~~ r 7 , 11 th 4 l i,EÂ·Â· 1 1 . 4 fit,;1 -:-irri,4-:-1~ Â· - - 1 -3. r b .6--1-:-! i i i i - .- . =, 2.e. Ilt Lii i . Vtt -0..,1,t-Â·*ft .. . I r . A. . I . ...... ' . 1 . 0. --1 -.7 :,1 2.tÂ·< A 11 -4.2.p-+7,/-4-4 .. I '1 -'' -14- 1 41., .' 41 rt ~ ,-j/-1 --2 ll. 1./ > 'qi.: T i : -ji;; i , 1 li \Of 7/ ~Â¥*11' Â¢,Mirt 064 . f Tri-Li-4 , 1 . J /- 1,1 . 4. r ip .- 4. A , I --Bki--0 Â· MÂ» i '''i.2 -PWR,1 11*17 fVÂ¢#81,16 6 '41-1 . i ,-': i ii- 191Â£46 4 9 - .11 H : 1 1 1!i 1 -711 - 1 1 1 ~: I , 4, r.:15 Â· . 0 9 " l,cm M.12~r,1/ 1 i . i. b L -: i !1 4 1 Â·Â·-Â· i .~-4 ~ ~~ ~ ~ 19 1 il ~ilii! 1 '-, ., ~ Â·Â·1 1. 1, 1 .Â· f. ,i Y ., i / 4, 1 1 'LiÂ·- - . i c--ig i 14 1 - i'*. it 11 i i , 1 1 *009 v J 1/1 T,#3,1 i [' i : 1 1 1 --. fi Â·1 2 1 Â·t' 1 1 C Â·1-' i j 1 11- 1 -1.- 4 -- 11 1 .. fe Nt il -1 1 4.5 4 1 i 1- -4&6,0- . 1 1 . , - - 11 I : I . t b . / -R '7069> 0% P Mi ; ; t ~!i. i't io Â·---.Â·- , .. , i 0"17 6:Plf,6- , 7. i. . 1=.~22.-~~.4 Li Â·24 - i i. 1 FL a . --- r -+ 2 0. 4 e **i <f~ . ~- , i i. N--r - 1-1 101 4 1 I. 1. 11. .4 f. i 1. It 41 ' - -9 - ' t; 1 , * .1 1 , . -, i-~--- ---- -- ---- -- --1 Wt, Cft-VM M wl 1 1,1 4 t; ; i r â€¢ â€¢ Â· f Â· ' I -I u f ? .4 % Iii .. . <1' ' El 't . I 4 - 143 t':4 1 f 111 1 .- it - .â€¢M-=l/V** - -Â· ., t ':c:= : I .1 ... -..< 4 A. . - e v..:il--.--- .._2.--- 4,T.4 46111:64 . 1. 4 . .V - * ---4------- . . 1~1 . -t Â· (L .,4 i; Ii t.i - ..----I, , < d~li~ 6<-0.em'~ LA "; Â· Â· Â·Â· ~ - ~~ -i-=~ ,~ ~*:~*.it - W-Ut- .1. ., . I .1 1 ...'. , - ' 5 L. 6*LE .: Â·~4 -3.: J ...1 r- y . '1'VE'*u tls J . ../ / 5 - - 1 1 - - L , ~ .. 1 -- - - el ..14 4 04 6 : . \43 '# C -0 I 4 - 6 ... 4 13,7 E. CeaÂ«Â· UÂ»j Vt ocae vt44- F * Â£41 910 use) ~-. I'.A. Ir . :.4- 3 b - 9; ... ,- It //-7 +4 41/1-3.i. 1./attz> 1 . 4 hilli .IL_11_-----,-- + 14,) lilli- 1~11 4 +1*19 4 th I 4/1, r r\O I '4~2~/ I </.r ./-1, *4 9 i .i -7x J h. .2 41 .Wi 7 - - rÂ¢ mid ami . .2.6., 1 ... 4 .Ak . ~ . a 43% *f f . ... . 3/Al'.4.fil ff, *4-*10:/7-.~~6-1/1 &1 h -9, -.0//Jtt.1 4 13'I.*90,7.& 1 ... I , 10**b., '4 . . ~1 K. . ' t W .. ./ -0 /44 At. I K, 'r :6,4./.7.4 -- . I 4 .,9 r .4 I 9, ,-,- . 14 â‚¬ 4.-'.. W I , 7 j i Â¥ 64 4 ... . , 1 '1.'/ 1 . 'h 4.. 7; > - '4.40:'*A. 1 4 .A. ',$,1 :- 1 1-1 - i -9 7 1 .,9,". F. < I ... ~ -2 Â»52.14--< x 7trk ~ .7 / 3*NK I : 4,16. 1: .. 41 2,144'41Â¢ . W '1 Ok MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development DirectorOOM~ FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 117 N. 6th Street- Conceptual and Final Review, Partial Demolition, On- site Relocation, Variances, Residential Design Review-Public Hearing DATE: December 9, 1998 (Continued from November 18, 1998) SUMMARY: HPC reviewed this application at a public hearing on November 11, 1998, and continued the review to November 18th with the following direction: (1) revise the proposal for the historic house to include replacing the existing windows with historically appropriate ones as shown in the photograph of the house from 1980, (2) study the request for a variance at the back of the new construction to alleviate the neighbor's concerns by Using different materials, or in some way changing the character or placement of the west wall and area above the garage, (3) when the shed is relocated, ~place it at grade to lower its height to address the neighbor's concerns, and (4) provide drawings ofthe north and south sides of the historic house. Aside from these items, none of the other variance requests or design elements was of concern to a majority of the board. Historic landmark designation was recommended for approval by HPC and is expected to be approved by City Council on December 14th. The applicant provided the requested drawings and amendments for the November 18th meeting and addressed the HPC in a worksession format. The application had to be tabled again to December 9th to allow noticing of variances needed to accommodate neighbor's concerns and for some other architectural elements. Conceptual and Final approval are both requested at this meeting. Staffrecommends approval with conditions. APPLICANT: Lynnie Coulter, represented by Studio B Architects. LOCATION: 117 N. 6th Street, Lots G, H, and I, Block 18, R-6 zone district. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL) PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District and all development involving historic landmarks must meet all 1 l 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 coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with 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: In previous discussions about this property, the HPC stated that any addition to the historic house must be detached, or at least visually detached from it, in order to preserve the integrity ofthe cottage form. The project accomplishes this by placing all but a very small amount of the new construction in a separate mass, which has the appearance of being a second house on the property although it is connected to the original building by a breezeway. A generous yard is created between the two buildings, and the breezeway is far back on the site, so that its visibility from the street is minimized. All of the large cottonwood trees and other large conifers on the site are maintained, as is the historic shed, although in a new location. Old House In regard to the architecture, a small addition is to be made at the rear of the historic cottage, to expand a bedroom and bathroom space. This addition will require the demolition of the north and west walls of the back part of the house, as indicated on the attached demolition plan. The existing construction will then be extended 3 feet to the west and a new addition will wrap around it along the north side. Materials are to match those on the historic house, but the addition will be distinguishable because ofthe changes in wall and roofplanes. Drawings of the proposed modifications to the historic house show that three existing windows on the north side are to be restored to double hung windows as existed previously. On the remodeled area in the back of the north elevation, an existing vertical window opening is to be eliminated and two smaller square windows are proposed. Staff is not opposed to this because the area is being remodeled and the windows serve a bathroom, so privacy is desired. On the south elevation of the old house, the applicant intends to leave existing non-historic windows alongside the fireplace. Another existing window is to be retained and the 0 applicant will look for evidence of its previous appearance during construction and work with HPC to determine the appropriate action. On the rear portion of the house, the 2 applicant will retain an existing door, add a new window, and remove a window where the breezeway connects to the house. Staff has no concerns with the proposed west elevation of the addition on the old house, which will be new construction. On the east elevation (the front of the old house), the double hung windows will be restored and the applicant will remove the small gable over the entry, which has been built sometime since 1980. Also the front door will be rebuilt to replicate the historic door that appears in a 1980 photograph. New House The new construction is a modern interpretation of the traditional house form. The main volume has a traditional gable roof, while the other masses that are hung off of it have more contemporary roof shapes. By breaking the building up into these smaller components, the house relates to the character of the historic cottage on the site, which is also comprised of a series of masses. Windows and doors, and solid to void relationships on the new construction are also compatible with the historic building. The architect has indicated the materials on the drawings. Primarily, horizontal and vertical wood siding will be used. Metal panels and corrugated metal, and concrete will be applied to areas of the building further back on the site. At the November 11th meeting, it was suggested that some restudy of materials on the rear of the new construction be done due to the neighbor's concerns, and this has been accomplished for the final submittal. Staff finds that the project is very well done. The debate as to whether contemporary architecture or traditional styles are more appropriate when adding onto historic structures is on-going within the preservation profession. At the National Trust for Historic Preservation Conference in Savannah in October, several examples were shown of infill or additions which copy historic architecture. While these may be somewhat more comforting to some people's eyes because the character is consistent, it also confuses the history of an area, making it difficult to distinguish what is old and what is new. HPC's job is to balance the importance of creating this distinction and the importance of allowing new thoughts in architecture to be expressed with their mission, which is to preserve historic architecture and to ask that new construction be compatible at least in its basic components. In this case that balance has been achieved. The project requires several variances, which as a landmark the property will be eligible for. The variances are: a 5 foot combined front and rear yard setback variance, a 5 foot rear yard setback variance, a 20 foot 6 inch combined sideyard setback variance, a 2 foot north side yard setback variance, an 8 foot 6 inch west sideyard setback variance for the historic shed, a 3% site coverage variance, and a floor area bonus of 102 square feet. Additional variances have been noticed for this meeting to accommodate the design and to address the neighbor's concerns. These variances are: a west sideyard setback variance of 2 feet and a combined sideyard setback variance of 14 feet for a storage area and deck at the rear of the 0 new construction, a rear yard setback variance of 9 feet and a combined front and rear yard setback variance of 9 feet for the overhanging roof canopy at the garage, and a 2 foot front 3 setback variance and an 11 foot combined front and rear yard setback variance for a front porch. The setback variances are all driven by the fact that our setback requirements are based on the expectation that a house will be built on the center of a lot, rather than two smaller masses separated from each other. Also, the applicant has worked around some large existing trees and tried to create as much separation between the old house and the new house as possible. Likewise, the site coverage limitation does not accommodate a building which is spread out across the lot rather than in one taller mass. The floor area bonus is requested to offset the portion of the shed which is counted in floor area, as well as the breezeway. As mentioned at the worksession, although the project has the appearance of two houses, it is a single family home and is therefore allowed a smaller amount of floor area than if the buildings were actually detached units. On November 11th and 18th, the IiI'C members expressed no concerns with these variances. To summarize, after the November 18th meeting staff provided the applicant with the following conditions to be addressed: 1. Satisfy HPC's direction to restudy the west facade and garage area of the new construction to address the neighbor's concerns. 2. Place the historic shed at grade level when relocated. 3. On the south elevation of the old house, restudy infilling the existing window and replacing it with two double hungs in new locations by examining existing clapboards for evidence of previous appearance. 4. On the south elevation ofthe old house, retain the existing door. 5. On the east elevation of the old house, the double hung windows must be restored and the applicant should look at removing the small gable over the entry, which has been built sometime since 1980. Also the 1980 photograph suggests that the original front door had a pair of arched windows in it, and consideration should be given to recreating this door. 6. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation (the shed). 7. 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 (the shed), site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. The financial security shall be in the amount of $10,000. 8. HPC must grant the following variances: a 5 foot combined front and rear yard setback variance, a 5 foot rear yard setback variance, a 20 foot 6 inch combined sideyard setback variance, a 2 foot north side yard setback variance, an 8 foot 6 inch west sideyard setback variance for the historic shed, a west sideyard setback variance of 2 feet and a combined sideyard setback variance of 14 feet for a storage area and deck at the rear of the new construction, a rear yard setback variance of 9 feet and a combined front and rear yard setback variance of 9 feet for the overhanging roof canopy at the garage, a 2 foot front setback variance and an 11 foot combined front and rear yard setback variance for a front porch, a 3% site coverage variance, and a floor area bonus of 102 square feet, finding that 4 0 such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. 9. HPC must grant the requested variances from the "volume" standard of the "Residential Design Standards" for the windows as shown on the new house, based on the following finding: The proposal more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to. The project in general addresses pedestrian scale in a successful way, which is not diminished by these windows. 10. Submit a landscape plan indicating all trees to be removed and any new trees proposed to be planted. Any amendments to this plan in the future will require HPC approval. 11. Submit a demolition plan showing all exterior walls/features to be removed. 12. Contact the Parks Department prior to December 9th to discuss your plan to protect the spruce tree during construction. Be prepared to discuss your plan and Parks' opinion on December 9th. 13. Examine the siding on the old house. The HPC is assuming that you will retain the existing siding on all portions of the building except for the remodeled area at the back, where you will use new siding to match the old. Label your final drawings accordingly. 14. Provide all items requested on the attached form, minimum submission contents for final review. Include identification of all materials to be used on the exterior of the buildings, including things like light fixtures. If you don't have those selected at this time, remember that you will need approval before installation. 0 Staff finds that all of these items have been addressed or incorporated as recommended conditions of approval. One discrepancy in the drawings must be corrected. The site plan and elevations show a small skylight running along the main ridge of the new house, while the roof plan shows a longer skylight in this area. The applicant wishes to install the longer skylight. The application notes that the City Forester is only available on a limited basis at this time and may not be able to meet regarding protection of the spruce tree in time for the December 9th meeting. The applicant will be required to provide an acceptable tree protection plan prior to submitting for building permit. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood ofthe parcel proposed for development. Response: The character of the neighborhood is a mix of both mining cottages and large newer second homes. The applicant has prepared a model which shows the immediately surrounding neighborhood. From this model, which was viewed at the worksession and on November 11th and 18th, it is clear that the massing of this project is much more appropriate to the historic character of the neighborhood than many other infill projects have been. 5 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 historic significance of the resource is not affected. It will remain an excellent representation of an Aspen miner's cottage. 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 historic structure is being maintained in its original location, without even excavation for a basement. Restoration of windows and other elements is included. Modest changes are proposed at the back of the house, but they are one story in height and architecturally compatible with the historic house. The adjacent construction does not directly affect the architectural character or integrity ofthe house. 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 ofthe parcel. Response: In order to make the project work for the owner's needs, the existing house becomes a guest cottage (without a kitchen) with the main living space then placed in the new construction. To make the guest cottage more functional, a modest expansion of one bedroom and bath area is proposed, requiring demolition of the north and west walls of a portion of the house which appears on maps in 1893. The roof form of this addition will remain in place, but the exterior walls will not. Staff finds the partial demolition required for a small addition acceptable. The applicant also intends to demolish a small wood storage area on the lot which is not historic. Staff has no concerns. 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: It is unrealistic to expect that none of the original fabric will be affected. The architect has placed the modification to the cottage at the rear of the building and has designed it so that the roof form of the original construction will still be present. 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. 6 Response: This issue is discussed in detail under the significant development review standards. ON-SITE RELOCATION 1. Standard: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. Response: The historic shed, which currently sits along the alley, is to be relocated behind the historic house. This is necessary because the current location of the shed is the most logical place for a garage and the shed cannot be adapted to be a garage stall. Rather than incorporate it into the new building or in some other way significantly remodel it, the shed is moved behind the historic house and maintains it association with it. 2. Standard: 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. 0 Response: Said report will be a condition of approval. 3. Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure,- site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: The relocation plan and bond will be a condition of approval. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The project requires variances from the volume standard for windows on the new house. Generally speaking, the regulation regarding "volume" was meant to prevent large windows which carried from the first floor through the second, creating the appearance of large vaulted spaces and a poor relationship to pedestrian scale. Although the windows are more significant than others in the old or new construction, they still only relate to one story spaces. Staff recommends that HPC allow the requested variances based on the following finding: The proposal more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to. The project in general addresses pedestrian scale in a successful way, which is not diminished by these windows. 7 STAFF SUMMARY AND FINDINGS: Staff recommends Conceptual and Final Review, Partial Demolition, On-site Relocation, Variances, and Residential Design Standards waiver be granted for the project as presented on December 9, 1998 with the following conditions: 1. All 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. 2. When relocated, the historic shed is to be placed at grade level. 3. On the south elevation of the old house, examine the area of the existing window (located in the new hallway) for evidence of its previous appearance. Work with staff and monitor to determine the appropriate restoration action. 4. Prior to submittal for building permit, a structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation (the shed). 5. Prior to submittal for building permit, 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 (the shed), site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. The financial security shall be in the amount of $10,000. 6. HPC hereby grants the following variances: a 5 foot combined front and rear yard setback variance, a 5 foot rear yard setback variance, a 20 foot 6 inch combined sideyard setback variance, a 2 foot north side yard setback variance, an 8 foot 6 inch west sideyard setback variance for the historic shed, a west sideyard setback variance of 2 feet and a combined sideyard setback variance of 14 feet for a storage area and deck at the rear of the new construction, a rear yard setback variance of 9 feet and a combined front and rear yard setback variance of 9 feet for the overhanging roof canopy at the garage, a 2 foot front setback variance and an 11 foot combined front and rear yard setback variance for a front porch, a 3% site coverage variance, and a floor area bonus of 102 square feet, finding that such variations are more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. 7. HPC hereby grants the requested variances from the "volume" standard of the "Residential Design Standards" for the windows as shown on the new house, based on the following finding: The proposal more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to. The project in general addresses pedestrian scale in a successful way, which is not diminished by these windows. 8. Any amendments to the landscape plan presented on December 9, 1998 will require HPC approval. 9. Provide assurance of the Parks Department's acceptance of the tree protection plan for the large spruce tree on the south side of the property on December 9th or prior to submittal for building permit. 10. Retain all existing materials on the exterior of the historic house, other than those herein approved for restoration or replacement. 8 11. When selected, provide cut sheets for all exterior light fixtures, for approval by staff and monitor. Exhibits: Resolution No. , Series of 1998 A. Staff memo dated December 9, 1998. B. Final Application. C. Conceptual application. 9 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT AT 117 N. SIXTH STREET, LOTS, G, H, AND I, BLOCK 18, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 1998 WHEREAS, the applicant, Lynnie Coulter, represented by Studio B Architects, has requested significant development, landmark designation, partial demolition, on-site relocation, variances, and Residential Design Standards review for the property located at 117 N. Sixth Street. The property is on the inventory with landmark designation pending. The project involves a small addition to the existing historic house, restoration of doors and windows on the historic house, construction of a new house, connected to the old by a breezeway, and on-site relocation of the existing shed; and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.010(D) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 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. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character ofthe neighborhood ofthe parcel proposed for development. 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. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and WHEREAS, all applications for partial demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay district, must meet all of the Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.020(C) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 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 ofthe parcel; and 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. b.Impacts on the architectural character or integrity ofthe structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure; and WHEREAS, all applications for on-site relocation of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay district, must meet all of the following Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.020(D)(2),(3), and (4) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 2.Standard: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation; and 3.Standard: 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; and 4.Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation; and WHERAS, all applications for Historic Landmark Designation shall meet two or more ofthe following Standards for Designation of Section 26.76.020 in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 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. 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. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. 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. E. Communio, 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; and WHEREAS, all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.58.040 must meet one of the following statements in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated December 9,1998 recommended approval with conditions, and WHEREAS, public hearings, which were legally noticed, were held at a regular meeting ofthe Historic Preservation Commission on November 11th and 18th, and December 9th, at which the Commission considered and approved the application with conditions. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That significant development, partial demolition, on-site relocation, variances, and Residential Design Standards review for 117 N. Sixth Street, Lots G,H, and I, Block 18, Aspen, Colorado, be approved with the following conditions: 1. All 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. 2. When relocated, the historic shed is to be placed at grade level. 3. On the south elevation of the old house, examine the area of the existing window (located in the new hallway) for evidence of its previous appearance. Work with staff and monitor to determine the appropriate restoration action. 4. Prior to submittal for building permit, a structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation (the shed). 5. Prior to submittal for building permit, 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 (the shed), site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. The financial security shall be in the amount of $10,000. 6. HPC hereby grants the following variances: a 5 foot combined front and rear yard setback variance, a 5 foot rear yard setback variance, a 20 foot 6 inch combined sideyard setback variance, a 2 foot north side yard setback variance, an 8 foot 6 inch west sideyard setback variance for the historic shed, a west sideyard setback variance of 2 feet and a combined sideyard setback variance of 14 feet for a storage area and deck at the rear of the new construction, a rear yard setback variance of 9 feet and a combined front and rear yard setback variance of 9 feet for the overhanging roof canopy at the garage, a 2 foot front setback variance and an 11 foot combined front and rear yard setback variance for a front porch, a 3% site coverage variance, and a floor area bonus of 102 square feet, finding that such variations are more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. 7. HPC hereby grants the requested variances from the "volume" standard of the "Residential Design Standards" for the windows as shown on the new house, based on the following finding: The proposal more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to. The project in general addresses pedestrian scale in a successful way, which is not diminished by these windows. 8. Any amendments to the landscape plan presented on December 9, 1998 will require HPC approval. 9. Provide assurance of the Parks Department's acceptance of the tree protection plan for the large spruce tree on the south side of the property on December 9th or prior to submittal for building permit. 10. Retain all existing materials on the exterior of the historic house, other than those herein approved for restoration or replacement. 11. When selected, provide cut sheets for all exterior light fixtures, for approval by staff and monitor. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the day of ,1998. Approved as to Form: City Attorney HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Chairman ATTEST: Chief Deputy Clerk ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPUCATTON FORM 1. Project name 6 ov UT te- real DENCE Z Project location 1/1 N. 4 f x 111 Â«EFMNFE , H'799,1 1 GO ' (indicate street address, ici and biacK numcer cr mates anc bounds description) 3. Present zoning /- v 4. Lct size ~67 4% 5. Applicanfs name. address and phone number -677v>#5 Â£50*-786 111, NÂ· 4 1%.TH Â«1=ear , F-*.Fbox 68, peeht 00. 9,4,1- 6. Representative's name. address. and phone number 42>077 U/meNAV, 1'8(TH MDINit i &5[W;HO te, Prfur?'1054-729 12.0 141-b 7. Type of application (ched< at! that aooly): Conditional Use Concectual SPA 4 Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA . 17 Final HPC 8040 Greenline Concectual PUD -7~ Minor HPC Stream Margin Finat PUD -7 Reiccation HPC Subdivision Tex#Man Amend. -7- Historic Lancrrian< GMQS allotment GMCS exemoricn -7 DemciPartial Demo View Plane Condominiumizaticn Design Review. Lct Solit/Lot Line Appeal Committee - Adjusnnerr[ . 8. Description of existing uses (number and type cr existing structures. acproximate sa. 1. number of bedrooms. any previous aoorovats granted to the property) 4'/TE 6/(2 /2-/2,25A/TUN HA# A *iNG,LaÂ· 47DP.1, p.,4,1 e Move op Â®14, 6.P , Â»f g><And 9 &1DB#*6 4/lap OP tify:01 /04 4 Â·PÂ·: 1Â»46 A 44,96 MD,+00 606*80* 013- Afm/of -5,% 4 Â· P. k'*pep,71 _ 8 0 0 â€¢Â·Peâ€¢jn>f (68:D ASÂ· A 4Â¢Nke PArn i {>1 l26910)664:â‚¬ 9. Description of development application ocy,*Bu,Tzo,VÂ· zy- A New Mt>DI noN, fPâ‚¬Aâ‚¬Â·12-217071Â· DP THâ‚¬ 5,4411 Ne t'fog*,6, A â‚¬.IMALU PÂ©PrnoN TD T,te 6KATIN A Hot)413. Ne'IN 007\1 9774 CTUNg Bp h Fbeâ‚¬ZLE,WA-'~ Â£30 kINQUE!061' 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 Attachments 4 and 5 +-- f la XE 11111111 . 1 ATTACHMENT 5 - SPECIFIC SUBMISSION REOUIREMENTS: FINAL REVIEW 3. Details of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structure and character of the neighborhood. The front facade of the new house replicates traditional housing forms found in the west and Aspen. The main mass of the new house is pulled as far away from the historic house as the site constraints permit. The intention is to allow the existing historic house to be seen as a separate entity from the new house. The only connection between the two structures is a breezeway that will be screened in during the summer and have glass in the winter months. The proposal attempts to save as much of the historic house as possible. The only change to the existing house is a small addition to the northwest corner of the house that will house bathrooms. The size of the new addition is compatible with the existing house and the shed shape of the addition is similar in style to the existing house. The siding and roof material on the addition will match the existing house. The character of the neighborhood is a mix of both renovated mining cottages and large newer victorianesque second homes. with the exception of the small addition onto the back of the cottage, the historic significance of the resource is not affected. The new house uses traditional forms so it will fit into the neighborhood but still maintain its own presence. 4. The final development plan conforms to the representations made during the conceptual review and responds to any conditions placed thereon. Since the HPC conceptual review and the continuation we are responding to these issues and conditions. 1. Restudy west elevation and new construction and address neighbors concerns. These concerns were: a) Roof deck over screened porch b) Height of garage section and materials on garage d) Decks looking over neighbors yard e) size of windows in office over garage on west elevation We have restudied the west elevation, taking the roof deck off the screened porch and redesigning the screened porch area to focus more into the courtyard between the two buildings instead of towards the Buttermilk mountain view. The materials have been changed from a concrete base/colored Hardy plank board to a natural stained wood siding. We have cut a section through the garage to study the height of the garage/office area. This area was designed to be as low as possible while still accommodating the required program in this area. A different roof form was studied and found to be higher than the current form. A deck remains on the west elevation. To minimize the impact to the adjacent yard, aspen trees will be planted to screen the yard from the deck. (please see landscape plan) The windows on the west side of the office will be kept the same size as represented in the conceptual plans. These were kept because of the view towards the Highlands/Buttermilk area. 2. There was no number two on our memo. 3. Place historic shed at grade when relocated The existing shed will be located at grade when moved and placed 18" from the neighbors fence line to allow for no snow shedding on the neighbors property. 4. Restudy infilling existing windows on south elevation of existing house The existing window in the hallway will be kept as is and the structure will be examined during interior renovation to determine original window positions and sizes. If this information is different 0 than represented at final HPC approval, we will work with the project monitor and yourself to determine the appropriate changes that are needed. The window at the back bedroom that the breezeway terminates at will be infilled. (please see plans and elevations) 1 44 2 5. Retain the existing door on the south elevation The plans were revised to retain the existing door on the south elevation. *lease see plans and elevations) 6. On the east elevation, double hung windows to be restored and small gable over entry to be removed. front door to be replicated per 1980 photo The windows will be converted to double hung windows, per 1980 photo. Small entry gable will be removed and we will replicate the door in the 1980 photo as closely as possible. 7. Structural report to be submitted with building permit We are in the process of selecting a structural engineer who will submit the required reports with the building permit. 11. Submit Landscape plan with trees to be removed and new trees to be planted Please see landscape plan 12. Submit demolition plan with exterior walls to be removed Please see demolition plan 13. Submit a tree protection plan for Spruce tree The parks department has been contacted and a meeting scheduled for Dec. 2nd. The one wildcard in this is Steve Ellsperman, the lead tree man for the city. His wife is overdue and expecting a baby any minute now and might be unavailable for this meeting and might be indisposed up to the meeting on the 9th. If this happens he will contact Amy. In light of this possible occurrence we request that this doesn't stop any potential approvals and any plans for the tree be submitted with the building permit. 14. Retain the existing siding on all portions of the building except for new construction. All existing portions of the building will retain their existing siding. All new construction will have new wood siding to match the existing siding. (please see elevations) 15. Submit Material and fixture selections As of November 25th, the light fixtures for the existing cottage have not been selected yet. We will keep all the existing that we can ( unless they are deemed inappropriate for the location) and work with Amy and the HPC monitor for approval for the added fixtures before installation. (Please see elevations for materials) 2 ...+ 2% k I I 1 -/ff giggili Errr~ 41.4 .Oil , 46 .'':I'l ' '*'A -3/+I i //A 1-=Â¥40 It# 1,5 iÂ» ---22$54/ INE~%~ --lie .PIC' -53/~- - -3- -- E. 1 54 4 J fic .. kEES=Wi~~~~~~ ----- .. Sgtig' -~. limiN' 6 3 - Waittifil li + ME~*MMMI I. - - -~* -- Af N ..Â»E?Â« ZI~-~Â·~~ Ef:*Li~Ziw-*~d--1e.*GÂ»jj.Â·~ -~ ~-Â·~~r.f - C., 1 ---=.=772Â»=Er..#4 254 - '2_/9 22-2 -0-1.â‚¬ Z. illillilk' G=========1- '9 t - 3/147 12/ - 11===== t..1, illiliq â‚¬ 6111*il.... - -4Â»-r ============================== -~11 - 8 Emlll -IN ---I - 111 ~noil,0.1 , i h 9. I ~PE!11!1Â·M 'rf U y : -1;/F. I J ./I r f. 'I ./ .. 1 4 t I / I " 1,1, 11 '1 . im#'|-:.I f; - I 4 ' .Cl. 1 i . 1. ..1, -- 91- = Â¢ F 1 . 1 . . . .. k ~~' 1, 3, /13-#2-- a :f I M Fl''I.' Â· ...= =GLf i...i U . I Â·. - 4 Â¢111: -*Am...i//Wil 'hq 1 1 77*86:.. ifl.-~ ' , . 1-Â· 4192 â€¢,1 QI + A / - 1 1 1.1, . / L . . L. . ' : 94 , Â£13'Â·- 1, IFEEPER 7/1 , ,~JE- .4, = = id#,r., mwilim E rd 41# 1 i â€¢, iu=al-LE.j ~~~liLli -1 0 4 flfl~ - *.~*~ 4 - 1 . 1. Cl, - Ilr 1,11. : 1 Id 1 1 1 ' ./ f P i ~ K_al ' ' 03 11 / .,1 .2 11'f@.1 - 1Â·: Â»27% &/ 'A= " 2,1 it.Â· Â· â€¢. 4~ -W--~P --- --3,1470. , , 2%* Nt f/*Emii"11'- m , - rall--1 -12' ~ i. 1 P:~1- 7//MURN't' .... - ... 11 W~Ull~2#t i k------- 1 64 - 2.1=621=- --- It .4. L_J . f Im i amE/* 'ti , ' m- - -.-ik' 1 1 1 .1-r, i ~!Ill:~..,Ii.,didi.h,~~JI2Â· i, k County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION State of Colorado } SECTION 2632.060 (E) I, P G:-1 T Â·14 Howl 6 , 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 (ED of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached herea.by first-class. postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the 22'1'day of NON. , 199*(which is 17 days prior to the public hearing date of ta~#6. /1105' 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 E day of PeaWEER-1992 (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. - {PAA J ./.-'Y' - 1 1 // < Signature \ Â·21 t. r 1 .-1-11. Si~ed before me this ~96 day l Nor CAÂ· ,19â‚¬by 1#3 - '1, R u f-A tick,12 WnNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL 1 My commission expires: R/,F/073 . A v,q-e_la 3,34 a.ji~uÂ©y PUBLIC NOTICE DATE IMMEL_ Notary PUMIC TIME ; Â·) r" ' i i[ Ill' Ht'6111.I \ /7 .AWB.1.H,1 . PLACESSS..., 110 4 jlfil ; PURPOSE- .nk>Â· I \\I,WARk 21221122--_ - ~~~~4y.pul,iic's Signature , - .+ JEFF-1 'It' .1 /71.(. 6.*:144 ' Â·a:%*br,TH. - I 9-04 ATTACHMENT 8-3 I [HALAF ALEXANDER R & FAHIMA BOSSART TODD L BROOKS JOHN A & LORRAINE M 08 E HYMAN AVE 814 W BLEEKER ST E4 720 W BLEEKER ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 1 1Â¥ A f j fra 561 .,U T-Â· - . IRAI'Y LINDSAY KEVIN SIVART HOLDINGS LTD EPSTEIN MARC L REVOCABLE 46 F()RREST ST PARTNERSHIP TRUST #1 EPPERMINT GROVE 708 W BLEEKER ST 205 N 6TH ST 011 WESTERN AUTRALIA, ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO AVA NAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP DOLAN ANDREW C 50% MANGHAM NANCY JANE AVARIAN INN 735 W BLEEKER ST 1709 DAKAR RD E 925 CENTURY PK E STE 1900 ASPEN, CO 81611 FT WORTH, TX OS ANGELES, CA 90067 IEANS GRAEME COULTER G LYNNIE LONG RICHARD E & LOIS N 11 W BLEEKER ST PO BOX L3 PO BOX 1314 .SPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 CHRISTIAN SCIENCE SOCIETY RUIDENIER DAVID & ELIZABETH S FELD ANNE S ASPEN/SNOWMASS INC 409 SOUTHERN HILLS DR 1700 PACIFIC AVE STE 4100 734 W MAIN ST IES MOINES, IA 50321 DALLAS, TX 75201 ASPEN, CO 81611 HALLUM AUGUSTUS F & MARGERY UL iN VESTMENTS LLC GOLDRICH MELINDA L 35 E MAIN ST 706 W MAIN ST PO BOX 1188 SPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 CHRISTIAN SCIENCE SOCIETY EARSON MARK M & LEES M , OLSHAN BURTON D 1/2 ASPEN/SNOWMASS INC )2 W MAIN ST 5408 OLD LEEDS RD 344 W MAIN ST SPEN, CO 81611 BIRMINGHAM, AL 35210 ASPEN, CO 81611 LSHAN BURTON D 1/2 ' CITY OF ASPEN AARONSON JEFFREY CRAIG 108 OLD LEEDS RD 130 S GALENA ST PO BOX 10131 IRMINGHAM, AL 35210 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 LEVIN WILLIAM A REVOCABLE LSHAN BURTON D 1/2 HAYES MARY E LIVING TRUST 108 OLD LEEDS RD 209 E BLEEKER ST 1 PENN PLZ STE 725 IRMINGHAM, AL 35210 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY CROCKETT ANN R TRUSTEE OF THE OLSHAN BURTON D 1/2 E - ] SHERIE MATILDA PRICE LIVING TRUST OLSHAN KATHLEEN W 1/2 34 ...AIN ST#2 10898 MORA DR 5408 OLD LEEDS RD SPEN, CO 81611 LOS ALTOS HILLS, CA 94024 BIRMINGHAM, AL 35210 LUU TONG KHON MORRIS CHARLES R JR ELLER SCOTT TRAN TUYET LE ASPEN VILLAS MGMT ) BARKLEY CIR PO BOX 2785 814 W BLEEKER )RT MYERS, FL ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 DHEN RICHARD A TOPELSON ALEJANDRO D'ALESSIO ROBERT J DHEN ELIZABETH A TOPELSON REBECA D'ALESSIO JEAN M ) BOX 1806 5300 DTC PKWY #400 814 W BLEEKER Cut SPEN, CO 81612 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111 ASPEN, CO 81611 ]HAFFER WILLIAM H MURRY PAUL J UHLER FRANCES M :HAFFER KAREN W MURRY BONITA J 814 W BLEEKER :7 BRIXWORTH LN APT 7 814 W BLEEKER ST C-5 ASPEN, CO ASHVILLE, 'IN ASPEN, CO 81611 VI'AHI AMENEH TRAN HONG HUONG MANGONE PARTNERSHIP LP ) BOX 8080 814 W BLEEKER ST #Cl 12687 W CEDAR DR #100 SEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 8161 I LAKEWOOD, CO 80228 INNESOTA MATERNAL LICHTENWALTER GARY R HOGGATI' JERRY S nEL MEDICINE 350 HOUBOLT RD PO BOX 1776 15 DWIGHT LN JOLIET, IL HARVEY, LA 70059 INNETONKA, MN 55305 HEISLEY MICHAEL E J 1 Ch e,SON RICHARD L BAYOUD GEORGE S & JOAN LW GIES - HEICO INC C/O ) BOX 161930 3525 TURTLE CREEK BLVD 2075 FOXFIELD RD STE 102 JSTIN, TX DALLAS, TX 75219 ST CHARLES, IL 60174 JRTZ KENNETH T & KAREN MCMANUS JAMES R LARNER JACQUELINE L 1AKUR CUSTOM CABINETRY INC 285 RIVERSIDE 376 DAHLIA 0 WESTPORT, CT 6880 DENVER, CO 80220 656 S RT 59 IOREWOOD, IL 60435 EISLEY MICHAEL E SHAFER ROBERT C & ADRIAN C ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY O K J LONG DORWORTH- 620 W BLEEKER ST 04 DIANA DR 3554 QUEBEC STNW ASPEN, CO 81611 ENDOTA, IL 61342 WASHINGTON, DC 20016 MITTON JOSEPH & PATRICIA la INT EINBERG EDWARD M DAILY KIMBERLY DAWN FRANKLE DAVID 1/2 INT 68 HOLLY ST 814 W BLEEKER PL E2 1015 VOLTZ RD ENVER, CO 80220 ASPEN, CO 81611 NORTHBROOK, IL EICHNER SAMUEL L POLSE KENNETH A & JOYCE L r SUSAN EICHNER SUSANA STERN DE REVOC 1992 TST i .. - EEKER ST FUENTE PIRAMIDES 243 452 SCENIC AVE SPEN, CO TECAMACHALCO MEXICO CITY, PIEDMONT, CA 94611 53950 .. WOOD HELENA )MCICH WILLIAM ASPEN MTN RESCUE C/O AMBIANCE LTD I BOX 1498 630 W MAIN ST PO BOX 420315 a u DALLAS. TX 75342 ASPEN, CO 81611 .. rY OF ASPEN RYANCO PARTNERS XXX 1 WEIEN J ROBERT ) S GALENA ST 715 W MAIN ST STE 203 709 W MAIN ST PEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 8161 1 [SON WESTON T & SUSAN BAILEY VILLARI JOHN TRUST COSCARELLO ROBERT & ELIZABETH USTEE OF PO BOX 2941 515 E LAS OLAS #800 [SON FAMILY LIVING TRUST BOX 8472 ASPEN, CO 81612 FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 JOLLA, CA )UNG DONALD L RUDOLPH RICHARD E BERR LLC 1 W MAIN ST . PO BOX 3080 611 W MAIN ST PEN, CO 81611 CAREFREE, AZ 85377 ASPEN, CO 81611 NSDON S MICHAELE THROM ROBERT & PHYLISS 1/2 INT RUDOLPH RICHARD E IRKENHAGEN DAVID A THROM DOUGLAS la INT PO BOX 3080 BOX 2225 617 W MAIN ST CAREFREE, AZ 85377 PEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 0 INbDON S MICHAELE IGLEHART JIM KOELLE ALICE T W MAIN ST 610 W HALLAM ST PO BOX 2871 PEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 BIN DEBBIE JOLORADO CORPORATION i MCSKIMMING RD PEN, CO 81611 13.20.010 r==-1 Chapter 1320 TREE REMOVAL PERMITS Sections: 1320.010 Legislative intent and purposes. 1320.020 Removal of trees-Permit required-Valuation. 13.20.010 Legislative intent and purposes. The city council finds that trees provide important environmental, aesthetic, and health benefits to the residents and guests of the City of Aspen which extend beyond the boundaries of the property upon which trees may grow. The city council further finds that trees enhance the real estate values of property upon which trees grow and neighboring properties. Large trees are a resource which cannot be fully replaced if injured, damaged or removed. Property development and construction activities can result in injury or loss of valuable trees in the City of Aspen. It is the intent of this chapter to preserve to the fullest extent possible existing trees considered desirable by the Director of Parks as hereinafter set foIth. (Ord. No. 34-1995,Â§ 3 (part)) 13.20.020 Removal of trees-Permit required-Valuation. (a) Applicability of section and definition. The terms and provisions of this chapter shall apply to all private and public real property situated in or subsequently annexed to the corporate limits of the City of Aspen. The tenn tree shall include, for purposes of this chapter, all deciduous trees having a trunk diameter of six (6) inches or more, Querus gambelli (Gambles Oak) with a trunk diameter of three (3) inches ormore, coniferous trees having a height of sixteen (16) feet or more. Trunk diameters shall be measured in inches measured as closed to four and one-half (414) feet above ground as possible. (b) Removal or damage to trees prohibited without permit (1) It shall be unlawful for any person, without first obtaining a permit as herein provided, to remove or cause to be removed any tree. (2) It shall be unlawful for any pemon, without first obtaining a pennit fortree removal as herein provided to dig, excavate, tum, compact, or lili the soil within the dripline of any {ree in such a manner as to cause material damage to the root system of the tree. For puiposes of this subsection, the "dripline" of a tree is a cylinder extending from grade level down to a depth of ten (10) feet below grade, having a radius equal to the length of the longest branch of the tree, with the center of the cylinder located at the center of the trunk of the tree. (3) It shall be unlawful for any person in the construction of any structure or other improvement to park or place machinery, automobiles, or structures; or to pile, store or place, soil, excavated material, fill, or any other matter within the dripline of any tree. During construction the building inspector or the Director of Parks, or his designee, may require the erection of suitable barriers around all trees, including trees not included in the definition set forth at subsection (a) of this section, to be preserved. Roots must be protected from exposure to the elements with a landscape fabric. In addition, during construction, no attachments or wires other than protective guy wires shall be attached to any tree. 194-1 (Aspen 5/96) 13.20.020 (4) It shall be unlawful for any person, without first obtaining a permit for tree removal as herein provided, or approval from the Director of Parks of a project site plan, to pave, with any non-porous material, more than ten (10) percent of the area within the dripline of any tree. (5) It shall be unlawful for any person, without first obtaining a pennit for tree removal as herein provided, to intentionally top, damage, girdle. or poison any healthy tree. For purposes of this section "topping" a tree is the removal of more than ten (10) percent of the height from the top of any deciduous tree or the removal of the terminal bud from a coniferous tree. The terminal bud of a coniferous tree is the highest bud on the tree. (6) It shall be unlawful for any person, without first obtaining a permit as herein provided, to relocate any tree. If a relocated tree dies within two (2) years of relocation and is not replaced with a tree of equal value, the death of the relocated tree shall be deemed an unpermitted tree removal. This section shall not apply to the initial planling of trees obtained from nursery stock. (7) It shall be unlawful for any person to fail to provide the Director of Parks, or his designee, with written notice, delivered at least three (3) woking days in advance, of the time and date on which removal of any tree will occur. Written notice pursuant to this section is required even if a permit for tree removal, as herein provided, has been obtained. (8) Each violation of the above subsections (b)(1-7) shall be a separate offense. (c) Penalty. Any person convicted of violatng any provision of Chapter 13.20 shall be subject to punishment as set forth in seclion 1.04.080 of this Code. (d) Tree removal permits. (1) Any person wishing to obtain a permit or relocate a tree shall file an appropriate application with the Director of Parks, orhis designee. Such application shall contain such information as the Director of Pads, or his designee, shall requirt to permit adequate enforcement of this section. (2) On request of the Director of Parks and when necessary to adequately apprise the Director of Parks of the intended tree removal, said application shall include a site plan showing the following: (A) Location of proposed driveways and other planned areas of structures on said site; (B) Location of all trees four (4) inches or over identified by trunk diameter and species; (C) Designation of all diseased trees and any trees endangering any roadway pavement or slructures, and trees endangering utility service lines; (D) Designation of any trees proposed to be removed, retained, and relocated, and areas which will remain undisturbed; (IE) Any proposed grade changes which may adversely impact any trees on the site. (3) After filing said application, the Director of Parks, or his designee, shall review the application (and site plan if required) and determine what effect the intended removal or relocation of trees will have on the natural resources of the area. More specifically, the Director of Parks, or his designee, shall consider: (A) Whether the trees intended for removal or relocation are necessary to minimize flood, snowslide, or landslide ha~rds; (13) Whether retention of the trees is necessary to prevent excess water runoff or otherwise protect the watershed; (C) Whether themmoval or relocation ofthe trees will cause wind erosion orotherwise adversely affect air quality; (D) The condition of the trees with respect to disease, danger of falling, and interference with utility lines; (IE) The number and types of trees in the neighboIllood, the contribution of the trees to the natural beauty of the area, and the effect of removal or relocation on property values in the area; (Aspen 5/96) 194-2 . 13.20.020 (F) The necessity, or lack thereof, to remove the trees to allow reasonable economic use and enjoyment of the property; (G) The implementation of good forestry practices, including consideration of the number of healthy trees that the parcel of land in question can support; and (H) The adequacy of the methods proposed to be used to relocate any trees. Based on review of these factors, the permit shall either be granted or denied by the Director of Parks. (4) Where Conslruction of structures or improvements on any property necessitates the removal or relocation of any trees, the Director of PaIts may, as a condition for the approval of the removal or relocation, require that the owner replace any removed or relocated trees with a tree or trees of comparable value on the affected property. When in the opinion of the Director of Parks replacement or relocated trees cannot reasonably be accommodated on the affected property, the applicant shall pay a cash-in-lieu amount equal to the comparable value of the aggregate of all trees removed. Comparable value for purposes of this section shall mean a tree or trees of equal aggregate value and species to the replacement cost of the tree to be removed or relocated. (5) No trees shall be removed from city property except in accordance with Chapter 21.20 of this Code. (6) The mmoval of dead Wees shall require prior notice to the Parks Department, as set forth in subsection (a)(7) of this section and a permit from the City of Aspen. (7) In case of an emergency caused by a tree being in a hazardous or dangerous condition posing an immediate threat to person or property, such tree may be removed without resort to the procedures herein descdbed; provided, however. that evidence of such an emergency is provided to the Director of Parks within twenty-four (24) hours. (e) Valuation of trees. When, in accordance with this section, the value of a tree must be determined the Basic Value shall equal thirty-six dollars ($36.00) per square inch of the cross sectional area of the tree at the point where the diameter of the tree is measured. In calculating tile Basic Value, the following equation shall be used: Basic Value = $36.00 x 3.14 x (D/2)2 Where: D = the diameter of the tree in inches. (Ord. No. 34-1995,Â§ 3 (part)) 194-3 (Aspen 5/96) . I County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION State of Colorado } SECTION 2632.060 (E) I, |CE>11* flow le , 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 (ID 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 within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the'22"tlay of KIA/ , 199*(which is /1 days prior to the public hearing date of ~~19'le * 9 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 9Â®~h day of NOV. , 1992'(Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph ot the posted sign is attached hereto. 1 + SignatuIle - , 0141"i,3 4,4 _S=EsF=SY2- SigRed before me this L..31 ,-- day lk' ~ 215 1 Li> ir opvdocy--- 19*by k e A kÂ·11 1-Ll.k_j lâ‚¬ . I'l~ t SEAL . 1 1.4 '4. Â·Â·6 ~tiu222~I331f~~tuffwthr ~PUBLIC_NOTICE 04&(AdÂ« 3, Ruplit~/25 DATE_. '+4-: .2. r .- Notary Pu61ic <7 ) TIME__21_ 6,9 "\Ti'Â¢ 6 r PLACE.~ C -': t '0 PURPp.SE-T-â€ž.,..- /0 .r Â· Notaty Pu6lic's Signature i KI \At I h V. Ill I "/1 1 /1 1//( ' . - ./0/ 1 1 1% M k ' I 4 -!iL'.'-1.1-L----- 1 1 It W k c U Â·' t...,1.11} 1.'.1 \\1~14 Ulâ€¢, \III â€¢.1 IBU k(4 4 .'."....."....P C I.4 - I I ATTACHMENT 8-3 KHALAF ALEIANDER R & FAHIMA BOSSART TODD L BROOKS JOHN A & LORRAINE M 408 E HYMANAVE 814 W BLEEKER ST E4 720 W BLEEKER ASPEN, CO Still ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 j rEA , 19 5,!PL' P.+ T . BRADY LINDSAY KEVIN SIVART HOLDINGS LTD EPSTEIN MARC L REVOCABLE 146 FORRESTSr PARTNERSHIP TRUST # I PEPPERMINTGROVE 708 W BLEEKER ST 205 N 6TH ST 50 1 1 WESTERNAUTRALIA, ASPEN, CO 816 1 1 ASPEN, CO SAVANAH LINKED PARTNERSHIP DOLAN ANDREW C 50% MANGHAM NANCY JANE BAVARIAN INN 1709 DAKAR RD E 735 W BLEEKER ST [ 925 CENTURYPK E S'IE 1900 ASPEN, CO 8I611 FT WORTH, TX LOS ANGELEiCA 90067 MEANS GRAEME COULTER G LYNNE LONG RICHARD E & LOIS N U l W BLEEKEKST PO BOX L3 PO BOX 1314 ~SPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 CHRISTIAN SCIENCE SOCIETY CRUIDENIERDAVID & ELIZABETH S FELD ANNE S ASPEN/SNOWMASS INC ;409 SOUTHERN HILLS DR 1700 PACIFIC AVE STE 4100 734 W MAIN ST )ES MOINES, IA 50321 DALLAS, TX 75201 ASPEN, CO 81611 HALLUM AUGUSTUS F & MARGERY .Ul,~MESâ„¢ENTS LLC GOLDRICH MELINDA L 35 E MAIN ST 706 W MAIN ST PO BOX 1188 LSPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 CHRISTIAN SCIENCE SOCIETY 'EARSON MARK M & LEES M OLSHAN BURTON D 1/2 ASPEN/SNOWMASS INC 02 W MAIN ST 5408 OLD LEEDS RD 344 W MAIN ST ~SPEN, CO 81611 BIRMINGHAM, AL 35210 ASPEN, CO 81611 )LSHAN BURION D 1/2 : CITY OF ASPEN AARONSON JEFFREY CRAIG 408 OLD LEEDS RD 130 S GALENA ST PO BOX 10131 ;IRMINGHAM,AL 35210 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 LEVIN WILLIAM A REVOCABLE )LSHAN BURTON DIa HAYES MARY E LIVING TRUST 408 OLD LEEDS RD 209 E BLEEKER ST 1 PENN PLZ STE 725 ;IRMINGHAM,AL 35210 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY CROCKErr ANN R TRUSTEE OF THE OLSHAN BURTON D 1/2 E. 3 SHERIE MATILDA PRICE LIVING TRUST OLSHAN KATHLEEN W 1/2 34 AIN ST#2 5408 OLD LEEDS RD 10898 MORA DR ,SPEN, CO 81611 LOS ALTOS HILLS, CA 94024 BIRMINGHAM, AL 35210 LUU TONG KHON MORRIS CHARLES R JR ELLER SCOTT TRAN TUYET LE ASPEN VILLAS MGM'T 1 BARKLEY CIR PO BOX 2785 814 W BLEEKER ORT MYERS, FL ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 OHEN RICHARD A TOPELSON ALEJANDRO D'ALESSIO ROBERT J OHEN ELIZABETH A TOPELSON REBECA D'ALESSIO JEAN M ) BOX 1806 5300 DTC PKWY #400 814 W BLEEKER C-4 SPEN, CO 81612 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111 ASPEN, CO 81611 :HAFFER WILLIAM H MURRY PAUL J UHLER FRANCES M :HAFFER KAREN W MURRY BONITA J 814 W BLEEKER '7 BRIXWORTH LN APT 7 814 W BLEEKER ST C-5 ASPEN, CO ASHVILLE, 'IN ASPEN, CO 8161 I Â£TAHI AMENEH TRAN HONG HUONG MANGONE PARTNERSHIP LP ) BOX 8080 814 W BLEEKER ST #Cl 12687 W CEDAR DR #100 SPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 LAKEWOOD, CO 80228 INNESOTA MATERNAL LICHTENWALTER GARY R HOGGA'IT JERRY S ETEL MEDICINE 350 HOUBOLT RD PO BOX 1776 15 DWIGHT LN JOLIET, IL HARVEY, LA 70059 INNETONKA, MN 55305 HEISLEY MICHAEL E J 1 Cr] DSON RICHARD L BAYOUD GEORGE S & JOAN LW GIES - HEICO INC C/O ) BOX 161930 3525 TURTLE CREEK BLVD 2075 FOXFIELD RD STE 102 JSTIN, TX DALLAS, TX 75219 ST CHARLES, IL 60174 JRTZ KENNETH T & KAREN MCMANUS JAMES R LARNER JACQUELINE L ZAKUR CUSTOM CABINETRY INC 0 285 RIVERSIDE 376 DAHLIA WESTPORT, CT 6880 DENVER, CO 80220 656 S RT 59 COREWOOD, IL 60435 EISLEY MICHAEL E SHAFER ROBERT C & ADRIAN C ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY OKJLONG DORWORTH- 620 W BLEEKER ST 04 DIANA DR 3554 QUEBEC ST NW ASPEN, CO 81611 ENDOTA, IL 61342 WASHINGTON, DC 20016 MI'ITON JOSEPH & PATRICIA 1/2 INT EINBERG EDWARD M DAILY KIMBERLY DAWN FRANKLE DAVID la INT 68 HOLLY ST 814 W BLEEKER PL E2 1015 VOLTZ RD ENVER, CO 80220 ASPEN, CO 81611 NORTHBROOK, IL EICHNER SAMUEL L POLSE KENNETH A & JOYCE L r :SUSAN EICHNER SUSANA STERN DE REVOC 1992 TST c .. _*EEKER ST FUENTE PIRAMIDES 243 452 SCENIC AVE SPEN, CO TECAMACHALCO MEXICO CITY, PIEDMONT, CA 94611 53950 r WOOD HELENA )MCICH WILLIAM ASPEN MTN RESCUE 00 AMBIANCE LTD I BOX 1498 630 W MAIN ST PO BOX 420315 ;PEIT no ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS, TX 75342 ... rY OF ASPEN RYANCO PARTNERS XXX 1 WEIEN J ROBERT ) S GALENA ST 715 W MAIN ST STE 203 709 W MAIN ST PEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 [SON WESTON T & SUSAN BAILEY VILLARI JOHN TRUST COSCARELLO ROBERT & ELIZABETH USTEE OF PO BOX 2941 515 E LAS OLAS #800 [SON FAMILY LIVING TRUST ASPEN, CO 81612 FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 BOX 8472 JOLLA, CA IUNG DONALD L RUDOLPH RICHARD E BERR LLC 1 W MAIN ST . PO BOX 3080 611 W MAIN ST PEN, CO 81611 CAREFREE, AZ 85377 ASPEN, CO 81611 NSDON S MICHAELE THROM ROBERT & PHYLISS 1/2 INT RUDOLPH RICHARD E RKENHAGEN DAVID A THROM DOUGLAS 1/2 INT PO BOX 3080 BOX 2225 617 W MAIN ST CAREFREE, AZ 85377 PEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEDON S MICHAELE IGLEHART JIM KOELLE ALICE ' W MAIN ST 610 W HALLAM ST PO BOX 2871 PEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 EIN DEBBIE :OLORADO CORPORATION i MCSKIMMING RD PEN, CO 81611 1, I . I \ 1,1 1,21:1.11 1 1.1 1 , _.19.:c . I 1 .2-4..-062,â€¢~ - 1 1 E VM' 4 1 1 1162~ I 2/2 , Cd- -d?%*,jer 44* I .%Â·7Â¥21â€¢ ~.477 I f # i * .4.vibr' '~0.~':' i ',4l4; 14 11'll 'lipRI J ".Â·. 2 + 1 ~~<~/~/ ~4 r bi-*;~>~g-~; -ii~- ~ , 4. . . V .' t.'.-.'yy. 1-PJ?rk 374 1 '77 i ik - t. .... .. I Â· M I '< \.'. *JE: I : :.59 4-, . :, '1-4, ... 7 2.0 /. % 0~.1.3 :6..: ''P: - I t: 5 1 1 *2.J. 7,4<Â· 1.1 'i- . '311 4 ... - ]!,J-1414' *~ ' â€¢ 2. Â· I ~~ AN~UJ-,~Â·: f 0 '~' 11 1;, 1 .I " 422*a E J,11344ibli :; 1 14 i ./f ...XET 1/4/"*L.Z'. .. r f t /'EU'~ ' 1, 0, Ifc. & 2 47 1 1 . VE.,1 .L ~ I ~ , 4 a \ :-Â« 2.2tj~22- ./4 2Â£Â¥ ' 'I- I- "0=1 -- fl i...i 141 .Â· r.~ ./.4 i. '. , ='D 94/' .-' -3 \ . , 4 . 4 6*Â· : I. ..1 a. rp :. . tt '.111' 304.- 111 C I. / Â·1 Â£4Â· Â·. 1 *<#I - . !.5. b.tf: , Kâ€¢,i Â· . - 'I . . / .Â¥ t... Â¥ 1 - 4 .. . 'f, ./ , Â· -~- 4 - 11 Â·:r, .<1 1. I. - I . ~.I Â· I 4<El ~'; _.. 2 ./4 I Â·,r~Â· :45 44-24 ,-:7- r..,j~, ; ril '61 Â·Â· ~ ..1,-1 . '' li L / w.1-I.-=.-=...-5,: . j.,i 1 J,J'r:,1., 1~ 49.... 24:1144<1~l,4 <1 -7 ,Â£2-.. 1' r /-- S......21 I. -' WT-9 1 . ' r ' ~/-i:.VA :j; 14... 40 129 ta Â· -0 i0w3"'rip. . **' + -+' Wit* . 1 .. Ir 121 .li-:,~ '~ AME I 6 k:Tr 1 11~~ - ~-7 .....: .1 1 Â·1 ; r j'Â· i - 0 -4. 4661"-1 . .:10.1 I . 0 f +~9". â€¢' i' , â‚¬:..... ei ...~E .d , 29 B. . 2.. ... * . . '14, fliâ€ž ?. Ilf . ; Ff?-1 r..8.Â·11: Â· * Â·-4, C. ' 2 62 4 4, '-14 V. I i .7 ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Apolicarm (IfNN IE Cool*TEF-- Address: -F O . BOX LA, PAVEN , M. DIGIt Zone distct Lot size: 9000 4 Â· F Eisting FAR: _ APA/(Wl- 4.P. Allawable FAR: 0,0.0 4. P. Prccosed FAR: _ 197&1 6.2 Existing net feasaole (c.mmercal): DNA Proposed net leasacie (commercan: PNA Existing 94 of site coverage: 11. 1% Prccosed 15 cf site c.verage: .99Â» 0/0 Existing 16 of open scace: _ boee NoT prppct- No peeurgmeNE P==csed 96 of coerl space: bote Nor k?901- " 2, Existing maxtrnum heigrlt: 2-ncical ticc: /71 9" Accescrt :ICC: 2'1 4,4 Prc=csed max. heignr -2'7rlcical tidc: 4.Â®'-9" Accesscr, tide: 04 0 # P==sed,5 of aemcilticn: A/â€¢Na Exisang number alr bedrccms: 1 P=ccsed number of bedrcorns: 4 Existing on-site parKing spaces: 0 C n-site carking scaces recuired: 1 Setacks Existing: Minimum recuired: Prcocsed: FrcrE . 16 ' Frcm: 00' Fronr 4-0 Rear: 1041 Rear: 1 0' / 4 '*Pe#*6 Rear: 15' Comoined Combined Ccmtined Frcrir/rear: #â‚¬ Frorr[/rear. 90 ' Frort[/rear: 41* ' Sice: lol Sice: Sice: e' Side: 40' Side: 102 Side: 19' Combined Combined Combined Sices: 1,0/ r S\des 772 Sides: 9' Existing ncr:conformities cr ancrcachments: .. Variaticns requested:_ - 5â‚¬e-*PE,EM-104 SHEET - -- (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks. distance between bundings. FAR bonus of up to 500 sql. site coverage variance up to 5%. height variations underthe cottage infill program. parking waivers forresidential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O zone districts) Unib L-4 0 ATTACHMENT 1 - LAND USE APPLICATION FORM ATTACHMENT 2 - DIMENSIONAL REOUIREMENTS FORM: Variances requested: The variances requested are : a5 foot combined front and rear yard setback variance, a5 foot rear yard setback variance, a 20 foot 6 inch combined side yard setback variance, a 2 foot north side yard setback variance, an 8 foot 6 inch west side yard setback variance for the historic shed, a 3% site coverage variance, and a floor area bonus of 102 square feet. ATTACHMENT 3 - GENERAL SUBMISSION REOUIREMENTS 1. Letter of representation - See Attachment 3-1 2 Street Address - See Attachment 3-1 3. Ownership disclosure - See Attachment 3-2 4. Vicinity Map - See Attachment 3-3 ATTACHMENT 4 - SPECIFIC SUBMISSION REOUIREMENTS: CONCEPTUAL REVIEW 1. Survey and Site plan - See Attachment 4-1,4-2 1 Conceptual Selection of major building materials The Conceptual building materials are: Roofs: Main volume - wood or asphalt shingles to match existing cottage Office volume - standing seam metal roof Stair volume - wood roof deck Flat roof between volumes - gravel Living room roof - standing seam metal roof Conservatory roof - standing seam metal roof Dormers and porch roof - galvanized or rusted corrugated metal roofÂ·~* - -- Walls: Main volume - Horiz. wood siding, similar to existing cottage Office volume - Board formed concrete at base, Hardy plank siding at top Stair volume - vertical stained wood siding Living room - rusted metal panels Conservatory - Screen and windows (depending on season) between wood frame Fireplaces - metal flue, stained concrete body Additional materials : Columns - stained wood with metal connectors Stairs - Steel Railings - steel and wood Windows - Clad Windows 1 3. Written Description of proposal The original house is a single story gabled wood frame structure, probably built in the late 1800's or early 1900's. The house has a cross gable form, traditional to this time period. From the current window patterns, Chimney stack, and interior configuration, it looks like the house has been renovated and modemized over time. We think the back part of the house was not original, but was added at a later date when more space was required. We are proposing to add approx. 3 feet to the back of this structure and add a lower shed roof element to the street side (2 feet) to this element to break up the wall surface. The construction would entail removing only the exterior end wall of the house. The exterior side wall would be come an interior space in the new bathroom addition. From calculating the perimeter wall of the new addition and connection divided by the overall perimeter wall, the new addition on the cottage is affecting 31.8% of the existing wall perimeter. We are not changing anything on the exterior of the existing cottage, save for some new paint We are adding a breezeway connection to the new house. The connection will come in behind the original cottage structure as a low shed roof aild attach to the back of the original cottage. ( please see elevs.) The main mass of the new house is pulled as far away from the historic house within the site constraints to allow the existing house to be seen as a separate entity from the new addition. The only connection between the two structures is a breezeway that will be screened in during the summer and have glass in the winter months. The intention was to make the connection as transparent as possible. The breezeway is also set back from the front of the lot and existing house to minimize the view of the connection from the street Our intention is to view the existing cottage as a separate element and to make the connection to it as minimal as possible. The new house uses traditional forms in the street facade and will fit in with the character of the existing neighborhood. 4. Scale drawings of all plans, elevations - See Attachment 4-2 5. Visual description of neighborhood The existing context of the neighborhood is as follows. To the north are two and one-half story houses with Victorian ornamentation. To the east is a traditional two story Victorian house, probably built in the early 1900's. To the south are one and one-half to two story houses of different styles. To the west is a two and one-half story traditional styled house, built in the 1980's. (see Attachment 4-3 ) ATTACHMENT 5 - SPECIFIC SUBMISSION REOUIREMENTS: FINAL REVIEW This part of the submission requirements will be completed upon HPC Conceptual Approval 2 ATTACHMENT 6 - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS 1. Proposed development is compatible in general design and designated historic structures on parcel The front facade of the new house replicates traditional housing forms found in the west and Aspen. The main mass of the new house is pulled as far away from the historic house as the site constraints permit. The intention is to allow the existing house to be seen as a separate entity from the new addition. The only connection between the two structures is a breezeway that will be screened in during the summer and have glass in the winter months. The intention was to make the connection as transparent as possible. The breezeway is also set back from the front of the addition and existing house to minimize the connection. 2. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development The surrounding neighborhood context is comprised of one and one half to two story houses. (see attachment 4-4) The forms in the existing neighborhood are traditional gable forms with some shed roofs at porches and the occasional tower element. With the use of a traditional form at the front of the lot the new houses fits into the surrounding context and character. 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 adjacent parcels. The main mass of the new house is pulled as far away from the historic house as the site constraints permit. The intention is to allow the existing house to be seen as ajeparate entity from the new addition. The only connection between the two structures is a breekeway that will be screened in during the summer and have glass in the winter months. The intention w~s to make the connection as Â· transparent as possible to let the historic house be seen as its own entity. 4. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. The new house uses traditional forms at the front of the lot and 4 located as far away from the historical house as possible to not detract from the existing house. The breezeway will be made minimal to reinforce to existing house as its own entity. ATTACHMENT 7 - GENERAL SUMMARY OF TWO STEP HPC APPUCATION PROCESS 2. * Pre-application conference attended on October 28,1998 * Conceptual review application submitted on November 3,1998 * Public notice requirements - See below 3 . i 1 I 1 1 1 + , M 052 20 ... -- -. 2:LAL_Lâ€¢ Â· '= *C' 342#.IN'lati.... #A tz' 3~43, 01Â»Nt. -OK.7 'x .4. FE-k.~C.- A\~.3 5Â·,tÂ·C..ZIN~ . ZX,ZA 23. t>..Ju,vi !h.t-,v: CAF. 2 9=7=2 STREET SUMMOCK'O CErrIFICATE 1 Jub f *=13., =Er Er' 21-'- 7 4.r --6 'TAF <fFI ESE>Â·75Â· A 'mE- Â°EFF- 50 y YE ..JN .-.1 -- 191- Â·ft- 0- 1- .-40 1. ZUXACC. 7-E'.2,E =Z;â€¢Â« WCCC =MA.,15, 6961Â£ ._.,.0 -41 D-â‚¬2 WE#- mUNC t M. =:kill Scrzo =FT:gZ.Er ~,3.>- T.-2 :CLA>fer -- - r-u.. -,v'- ZEetâ€¢:ieEZZ ~'â‚¬7:Far,r 0 -,-dgj,AT~Ch Â·Â·NS ONÂ·'ELS.Che y AL- CL 11.2,451 .Dvt-p:c/Zl>,Â·ErÂ·â€¢re: Zaets/te>:15 Â«3 -2US:Â·-:2Â· CFÂ·.wkY Â·N Z.. 3'2~CZ 21.-<>Â·Cwki '33 â€¢4 4 N- F.N.C Lk---*EF&f~ 79Â· ar Â»d57>E:=:f Pf/MISS.AgE Â·Â·CZLÂ»-12: 5:0>,K;. ' 7. Â·Â· .d:Teâ€¢4,9 90.0,2 i~ 0'/ i AL,he lide,12< 30_-1-- 73**1.- 1 1 1 1 $ !! 1 +~ '7Â· 9 f? . t Â¥ ' -1 ---- ijt I . / ho75. ~~ 1 2.S, ALL,/ED ARE 1' ! i SCISV;40~25 1 UNUet:b ./27.0 Â· - - CTHERÂ·.vits 9-K.zi 20.77-2.,)43..*..ir,â€¢ T ,;EX- .,C f i ~ .7 7-t *LAE 0 r '07 22 Â·i/Ae 'Ste iNZ ~Â£ rler-l-:2.1 'R >.9 -1 4,//'fRAME i~ ... â„¢ ' Â·'* 4 ilÂ·f + 0 2,2 1 . ~. 4 L 1 63 : i . 1 1 i Ej. 8 4 1 1 - 1 . C 1 0-< 1 -- 8 4 2 r. 4 9 1 1 1 4 G H i . 1 t 10)/0. A . 1 4 1 - C,-2, :0 0 2 t. . A 1 026. .1 :5 %11 2K.-7 0 21.1-05 0 li / &UEDZ //TZ:' tr '*PI- .â€¢ o l/= 04- I le M.9192 u 'El.40 â€¢ ALUM 61, 4 N-m-01';to V Â°toÂ·SO I u-20 Dust mOCX 18 1 1 1 L . - - S....4 4.22.tO J'K ...... nt'. Job No t -O . 0. L .-,n Alpine Surveys, Inc. cran= 5.Co. 10 'Â·IND a- RALL,/ LCMG,H & 1, BICK ID, 4 . Post 011!câ€¢ Box 1730 IMPFZX/EMENT.OCR?er Asoen. Cale,gao 81612 Â·./:- I.A./ F'!TKN Ca.h,Tr, COLCKADO 970 925 2688 CiTY-AND *)whierTE OF ,Â«,rEM, Â¢ ~ 4 1 Â·T 42 2 'D *2, P/Â£4.50'41'E r â€¢ 09- SIXTH .. - ----1- ATTACHMENT 4-2 t.f: 2'Â·Â»>'24 4 3 9.0 .. 21 'i//fli:?fl !\ 7 .. 2 f 1, 1 - - Z . . . -3 0 0 . 1,1 . - I . . 1 = 2 1 W : i br STAE ET : 0 , O 2 Â»er&Â»C - U - - 1. .: . 2/-0. 0 . . 1 1 / A A A A ' 4 9 1 --<Â»-Â«>7-'U>Cue**CorrUNWOOMS ..Â·,9.Â·Â·'.5545- . 0.. . r-hi ,/'. '1;Eilli:lil. -13 3 . 1: .. 1 A557 1 V' k I i ,-1=ImmmINArm 11'1 Ks W 23 r r 94; X47 fill I Ifittltll. BUS-â€¢16 Gte STORy 1!1 , -1 41 PMAAE Mâ€¢VSE .-litiltilli -i COU L.T ER RESIDENCE : ~ 117Â·ag.,h~.lith .1.ce'3Jip,in cule,ad. S 4 lili'lli' : ..u: 4 4> ; - l -, - m' 1 O.â€¢- L,n/â€žCod/1, td. 970 925 956 I li Â·' i &234 iÂ· , 117 North Sinh Stmet . 1 Aipe. Coloi- 61111 ED ~M~ i A.,11-t= St-liBAL.13*k= 14.9701209Â«2 gs N. Mm sh- .19"12078= -1Â·.f Aâ€¢P- Coli.do 11.11 *.'I.*I.â€ž..... C==- 9.0- -4-ocka- t~.970,Z33088 2 1 -- p.0. 3=1361 0 1 1+, 0.- mi...2.-a= 1,00 911,2,3'0% 7 .1 111'LA/1111111. = m P.,c/'re S~O 1=1 0 - NII Ifflffli lili.#d/16- .U ' ~ P R.Ortary LtÂ¥9-2 Dam 10*ber-8 I 0 T-,14â€¢0:, aâ€žce '95774 Wicks-= 60â€¢m-icâ€¢thriaxiati- Ca=mite, E f Â· - , 0 4 - *r7 1 ~ 534 55Â·L Al SITE PLAN '4%>. . sire PLAN AZ BASEM1EhlT PLAN# MAIN LEVEL FLAN U UTTER LEVEL PLAN, ROOF PLAN 5.ALE- 1, m f.' h "//1 ELEVATIONS ''MA 'i'111//fill;illill,k - A1 Gort/166,3 - - li i i[**r +~ 1 1 1 1 i' l i Jitcar-.*4452. : , .... -il- I--.Il 1 0 I *1=== r K----'~ .1 . Â·=9 2111=1 \ 1!' M - UL= 11 9 0 - 4 -2â‚¬*FI 1 -4 * *- -- i -7 ' 7- - 4 p / ' 02 Tri i 1 N. j [*GE51-2~' i 4 i 1 47.3 I. . 1- J t E ' i i t i. bit '. , i.Â·or*,1-211.. 11 .-' | f.. 1Â·~9.â€ž -,0 -* ir--zi ' 1 d <,~6;j-3 - 11---U i JMt'Rm,- , 6\ UU 11*Mâ€¢ - -t-/ 0. r. 4, 1 5-f ---' 7--rld-Ntll--- *--~ 1 . i I In,/ l 9 / !Â· Ul.111 14Â·â€¢ râ€¢' Â· : I. r 4 -Miâ„¢L . 11 1 111 - Ut-_ 1 43 19Â© , 'E;'!i L==1 1-â€¢ ,- 4 1 - t-Iâ„¢ r- 1 1 1 - .1...7 4 Ad- 1 Haih el 1 1 i 1- JINJENLK: 1.-1 1 1 4 -- tg 1 . . t... 1. Â£- i.,=LA .' ---. -1 -6- --- . r p. 0 , 6 F r 7 6 I â€ž 2 to w 5 P- Le?36 FLK,4, U -MAIN LtVOL'PLAM - 0 0 = . A2 30Njoligy Wgi,noo 00/.0 0/,0 I I ...i it.t:s .ego ..1 .... â€¢ 0,0 0 04. 1....... ..8...1.1,1.....0 i I----- CO â€¢1001140/0 to,rowd 30"90183" Balln00 /5/Â·iÂ©Â· 0' f Yf *Â·[179&*r,4.. VT *_7.Ill -1-.,- T- 14-,91 7 T <4 1 L.-9111-2- -- -<-- 1.121 -li- - - . 1 6-6--i.1 312 -:77 T 1 0 -El ' T 1 7'111&04--1 .-r.-7 f 3 1., 4,5 11 1 killi \ 1 3 6.Il. ._1_:_.. --- 1 1\-1- 1 1 L 14- -f T . T. \ i 4. 1 ~____ L--*-1 1 / A 1 111 k 5~ M ~,-Â·~ <1~~M0L --1 El-~ 41 01 LI Ul Ill -- 11 ..i :\ 66 W --1 k-r=.% 6 cLITLE I. 0 1 " I 10 / 1\ â‚¬a :*1&31--~744Elthâ‚¬i 174 - 11UF=...tell .a . --=-I ill _ -relri-91%.94 11*. 6,1- r. Â·44.: . :~ ~ E 4 11!. â‚¬ % 11 1 -i. r J 1-0 . Aj u \ * 1 R. Ri>1 -0 ----'1 L 1 1 Int \--1.--1 1111 n.-1\..~2511 --- - - 4 '='47,Ji-=#Htnl=ah?*8===A=- i [ It-.1 'Â® U. 1 ilillit&Ati<+' , b .c--h I 1- 1~4 -L 1 1 4. r ./...- 1 %7 *21~ t. --i-L<-li--*1 T N Â¥1.4 2007 Nyl.1 166 El -i & t El 1 . E24--11 .. - h P 0 - < - -17- Â·â€¢ r.7--rart I tz I.~ !. R la.4 -- < . 2 .11 -Â· plid*mhil i 1 0 L --- M " ||!I Il i !. 4 2-_Lz ill: ''el i Â·,1 J / 2 -- Â·11!13<116111'i 1 1 ..1 1 1 .1,11,1 1 .1 ! T.2- -1 #- *,6 ~~TTi~ ~ ~ f 3 ci A T ill'' rl' 1 - - 111 t... lit 1 , 9 11 ..LU -uu..... .â€ži !11'la '1 11 1 tur r - -4 091 IF i hi 41 5.-:,-_-li--i- ill) i fi *<* 1 1 11 :11 5 -Er'49 1 , i . W 11 . .': 1 . 3 111 1 1414 19131 ini~d'ril T Â·- ' rr . TW- . - 7- , ~J 9 Im 14 Â·-'-"ll /lilli I 16VY 1 < ) 'rftÂ¥!TITr~~,|ilil &J-,~,~/ - 2#11113'Tri.gil:--il.Imirrirrk ili~ 0 m 1 5-91-11 . , 0 < J 111 111 6.7. 7 ' 1 0 - C.f r.. l-. 1 9 L ; Wea/gi En.----ld i22.1 kIC}1) LL. i 1 - (3 3 4 ~ ~ i~ Â· 1/ 4 2 1 --- - PROJECT s i il Â·i);1 0 --8 Â· cOULTER RESIDENCE arohtlecto ...1. .1...1 ..'... ..1.1... ...1, EL...100.6 1.4 110 0 920 â€¢ '*22 , mall lied,O 0 0 al@la mill â€¢om ....1.-I-- ---1 NOUWA@ 1 0 .168,4 00-,1 -,94 PBOPOSED +00/7/UN- \ EX/Sr'NO fx - - ---- -pr- - .! 1 ! f -~k - NEW SHINGLMA A /1 - - - 9*DING .TO AV~SH ~- ... EWS71,0 -----, -1 i - LK-k NBA/ tiVEEZEW*1,~ -21-EE .~0% 1 : b 33.*- -4 i 4- - -0.4 1 j J 1 --24 L., 1.7 - 'ir:in r - -7 ru-Ii I * 11 11_=2 1 . ~ 99 1 2---M I 111 Â£~-t Â» , 7 Cli : 1 1 1 . 4/ r / 1 Fly....7 1 t. 1, i \WHLL EXISTFNE - )~ -7NPIU- EKISMNG WINCON 5 - _ 44\MCC)61 64 DOCA/-- APPCZ.3 NEN NINI209VS S OUT H E L.EV~TIOH - COU LTER. RESIDENCE_- - 4 117 141 St'>CT.H. SIT 'aps# 1 60 ervD; O 5 AR.cHITECTS 533 N MILL ST ASPEN, CO, /1 / i , f l j \ .1 1 4- UNE: 0 PRoPOSED - i APPITiON (Ze/ONCE> r i 'tÂ» 1 - - LINE â‚¬r E><15-rible '31 f=---*. 1#* v 1 1 -- HOUSE . 1 -FEN SUP/NO &*el 9,:0= -SHINet;-ES ID /k,TCH 8<1511629 Af:Emlr .- , 1 . r . . 1, .14 , r !- 1 '' I'- H_ Mi--.- lk--Â·-+-41. &~52</577/90 9~60 Â£ A k ;1-.911 11Â»III-44 M: : C.REU=47=DD j ~ 292Â¢1~ 1 I PROPHEEC> NEW, EX/SM/'46 ,* AL, =*91/ u, 4 ~'$-CD,Ibl-AL=7(N t- Mepary UNE 1 COVLTER- FLESIDENOE 140 R.TH (DLEEKER- ST: 3 ELEVATION 117 N SID<Trt ST: +SFEN 1 co .. ST,210 5 ARCH fleCTS 535 N MIll- err ASMEN, 60. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Aspen Area Community Plan- HPC Element DATE: December 9,1998 SUMMARY: The policies and action items have been amended according to your direction at the November 18th meeting. Please review and be prepared to suggest any changes still necessary. A philosophy statement needs to be drafted. The statement included in the 1993 plan is attached for your reference. Mary Hirsch has been asked to create a first draft of this statement for HPC to review. HPC AACP ELEMENT, DRAFT PHILOSOPHY (needs to be turned into text) â€¢ Maintain and preserve a broad representation of Aspen's heritage â€¢ Allow history to inform alllevels of development (sensitivity to scale). â€¢ Use HPC projects as models for all development, and HPC ideals through allland use decisions â€¢ Preservation makes $EN$E â€¢ History is irreplaceable â€¢ The HPC process should include reason/balance and predictability and economic fairness â€¢ Government as partner rather than adversary â€¢ Higher density development is appropriate in town â€¢ Create better streetscapes â€¢ Ask the City to give HPC financial backing to accomplish these action items POLICIES AND ACTION ITEMS REVITALIZATION Policy: Create a more vibrant downtown, with mixed uses and a variety of building sizes. â€¢ Study what areas in downtown could have increased housing density in the form of mixed use buildings. â€¢ Study and amend land use/zoning regulations so that hindrances to creating traditional building forms and context are removed. â€¢ Re-examine the land use code so that Main Street and the downtown can be redeveloped to provide possible locations for, and encourage the creation of, small businesses and mixed uses. â€¢ Encourage the City to create "master plans" for key historic properties and to consider acquiring the sites or partnering with other entities to redevelop them in an appropriate manner. â€¢ HPC must stay involved in decisions regarding important issues such as "The Entrance to Aspen" and conversion of smalllodges to other uses. PROCEDURES Policy: Work to improve the HPC review process and learnfrom the past. â€¢ Re-examine HPC policies and review processes, to make them more clear, consistent, effective, and strong. Address the problem of incremental changes made to applications after they enter the review process. â€¢ Redefine and strengthen the terms "demolition" and "partial demolition" and their review processes. 1 â€¢ Study a code amendment that would require all requests for total demolition of a historic resource to be reviewed by City Council. â€¢ Examine internal permit review processes to avoid having another agency approving activities on historic properties that are in conflict with HPC goals (i.e. Building, Engineering, Parks, etc.). â€¢ Consider requiring public notice of conceptual and final HPC review. â€¢ Amend the application requirements to require models for all significant projects. â€¢ Require better information as part of application (photographs, etc.). â€¢ Require the property owner to submit a letter discussing the impacts oftheir project on the historic resource and neighborhood. â€¢ Get applicants before the HPC in a worksession as early in their process as possible. â€¢ Adopt mandatory training requirements for HPC members, including funding from City Council. DESIGN REVIEW Policy: Speak to more thanjust historic structures, communicate and educate, and make 5, the review process less subjective. Do not approve "copytecture solutions, encourage sensitive additions, and talk about compatibility in terms of "sympathetic, subservient, and contextural," not in terms of architectural style. â€¢ Study the feasibility of reviewing development on non-historic properties which are adjacent to historic sites. â€¢ Study expansion ofthe historic districts. â€¢ Review landscape plans and integrate landscape concerns (cultural/natural) into guidelines. â€¢ Discuss adding regulations for paint color. â€¢ Improve regulations on exterior lighting. â€¢ Create and adopt detailed Design Guidelines for consistency in decisions. â€¢ Create a better definition of"compatible." â€¢ Improve and strengthen the "Residential Design Standards." â€¢ Develop better models for massing of additions to historic structures, especially miner's cabins. â€¢ Incorporate HPC policies on difficult issues, such as the relocation of historic structures, into new design guidelines. ENFORCEMENT Policy: The review process is mandatory and so should be compliance with all conditions of approval. â€¢ Study bigger fines and penalties, denial of"Certificate of Occupancy" for violations of HPC approvals, and the possibility of a development moratorium on the site or revocation of any variances or bonuses granted to the project. â€¢ Require all contractors to take an exam to be "certified" to work on a historic project. â€¢ Require an architect to stay on an approved project through completion. 2 â€¢ Study whether the City has the ability to deny a "Certificate of Occupancy" when bills to contractors are not paid on historic building renovations. (The idea being that we do not want a disgruntled person to take their frustration out on the building itself.) HISTORIC INVENTORY Policy: Protect all buildings and sites of historic significance. â€¢ Eliminate the distinction in the HPC review process between inventoried, non- landmark and landmark sites. â€¢ Update the inventory to include more recent structures as appropriate. â€¢ Complete an inventory of historic resources in the County. Improve the County regulations to protect historic resources. â€¢ Create a preservation watch list to monitor demolitions of non-inventoried sites which could have historic significance in the future. COMMUNICATION, EDUCATION, AND OUTREACH Policy: Improve communication, education, and advocacy for historic preservation and create better tools to accomplish this goal. Raise community value and awareness of the importance of preserving our local history and having an HPC. â€¢ Improve communication between HPC and City Council through twice yearly meetings between the two groups. â€¢ Create and distribute informational brochures on the HPC review process and historic preservation in Aspen. â€¢ Contact community groups that have an impact on preservation (i.e. realtors, architects, attorneys) and offer information directly to them. â€¢ Hire an intern to create a history of HPC; a record of gains and losses including slides and photographs. This could be a useful public education piece and could also be used to train new board members. â€¢ Create a historic marker program to identify historic buildings and provide some information about them. â€¢ Support having a preservation advocacy group in town, outside of City government (Aspen Historic Trust). INCENTIVES ("CARRÂ£)TS") Policy: Maintain and add innovative ways to make preservation work in Aspen, such as the historic landmark lot split. â€¢ Investigate options for property tax relief for owners ofhistoric homes. â€¢ Review the floor area bonus which HPC can award to landmarks. â€¢ Study existing landmark incentives for effectiveness. â€¢ Study what incentives could be created to not redevelop a historic property. â€¢ Create greater cash incentives and grants. 3 â€¢ Study the concept of fa=le easements. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS & ALLOWANCES Policy: Rules and regulations should at least create projects which are in line with our other goals. â€¢ Study height limit measurements and amend them as needed to allow more traditional building forms, particularly in the downtown. â€¢ Study lowering FAR for historic sites through transfer of development rights or other methods. â€¢ Study appropriateness of current FAR allowances and how FAR is measured. Consider establishing a maximum lot size/maximum house size. â€¢ Study the concept of adding a new R-3 zone district, with 3,000 sq. ft. lots. â€¢ Consider establishing a minimum 1 st floor height for new commercial buildings to maintain the proportions created by historic downtown structures. â€¢ Delete the 25% open space requirement in the Commercial Core zone district, which defeats traditional building patterns in the downtown. â€¢ Consider allowing historic landmarks more relief from having to provide affordable housing on-site, since it requires more bulk to be added on. 4 Design Quality and Historic â€¢ Preservation â€¢ Intent historic setting is recognized as being a vital . component to our economic well being. Maintain- ing our history through the preservation of our To ensure the maintenance of character quality architectural resources has, therefore, through design quality and compatibility with - grown in importance as the responsibility of historic features. the entire community. The loss of our historic architecture through total removal or insensi- Philosophy tive adjacent development must be prevented. c Aspen is rich in late-Victorian architecture, which Policy gives this community its historic essence and sense of scale. Modern buildings woven throughout the I Retain and encourage-eclectic and varietal traditional townsite and along the hillsides create businesses *ng Main Street to maintain and an eclectic design quality that contribute to the enhance the- special character of the historic small-town uniqueness of our community. The importance of quality infill design within the larger Â·, district - , = . I - . 3 --M \ - mass=massSSSÂ®*S~SSEBSESNSRSESSESSS* SS@:sss:sm*$Â®SESS=ss:S@321*Ammm:* - - - =MAFAmminma=mil - =mi==11==am= 54_ - P A39~1/.- , REVISIONS a LANDSCAPE LEeEND: 1 A - EXISTINS DECIDUOUS TO REMAIN A A JOB NO.: DRAWN BY: NER DECIDUOUS TREES DATE: CHECKED: (2-3" CALIPER SIZE SCALE: FILE ID: COPYRIGHT Â© GRA 1998 - BOULDER LANDSCAPE RETAIN INS MALL 1 30'-O. -6' FENCE - - PERENNIAL BEDS 142.41' A~.Mt< -- e --Cy-6~~17 \waa-b1Q 1 . ~1/ 4Â£0--- tit--3 k 4 . I -- I . 1 0-0 1- = -- -- --4 ALL AREAS NOT SHORN TO BE PAVED ourwoUSE SHALL BE SODDED AND IRRISATED 24'-0" SMOKEHOUSE E----7 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 710 1 PAVED AUOT COURT ------ r--- 1 0 1 n 0 2~ 26'-0" | lA AnAAAnAAA ,~ ' . 25'-O, 01 1 9-7 1 1 11 ll 1 1.09 71 11 11 \NER RES IDENÂ®f --~1 1 1 / 11 11 10 --.aL-----1 0 m W / 1 1 - 0 '0 O. 1 1 1 L e' FE 1~ 11 1 -lir226-4- 1 11 1 11 -1 % 1 F- _ _ -% 1 11 -4 4 6 1 tllc I 1 0- 0.' 1 PROPERTY FENCE DETAIL 10'-O. ..... -'- SCALE: I/:2" = GO" IERE:ba.#--Â·~'.$ |VICTOk[AN HOUSE | ~ m 9 ' 1 9"- - 1 GIBSONÂ·RENO ARCHITECTSÂ· , 1 5.-011 /2-9- 9W L.L.C. 101 1 *33 *.* 0 :.3 44 L-----1 210 EAST HYMAN b.. - SUITE # 202 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 925-5968 650' ----------.-- ~ FAX (970) 925-5993 0 . 27.75' TELLURIDE, COLORADO P.O. BOX 278 117 N. WILLOW SUITE # 2 81435 (970) 728-6607 FAX (970) 728-6658 SHEET # SITE FLAN/LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" Al.1 ' SITE PLAN I - 81.31' 12[mLLS ONIN 0Â£6 OCIVMCIIC)2) 'NIE[cISY REVISIONS 1 L.M. || || JOB NO.: DRAWN BY: DATE: CHECKED: SCALE: FILE ID: COPYRIGHT Â© GRA 1998 REG. RM. 00 r 3 -1 1 1/ 111 14 b o.up _ ~ BATH 3 -- 1 11/ - = J =L F A.D.U. 1 LIGHT RELL - - - - REF 1 1 Â· r 1 -2 1 0-- r---- / --- 4---- L-___ 1- 1 i '; ILLJ~ATH 2 r - T/1-5- ~~j BEDROOM 2 Ma-==_ 1 L.M. = / 4% L= 1 *h 0 lk===11 f up 0 - BEDROOM 2 -' - 4--G r BEDROOM I = - 27- --1 L.01. BAT-1-2- - REG. ROOM = Â«1411 _ C 3 04 - 11111!/, I.VT_- lilli .0 lillil , 60'C=LI ., ) 6 LIE~ 1-r-7 -L Il - 1 UP 2 = rl m MECH BATH 1 - C Z L.M. - BEDROOM I 1 "19- GIBSONÂ·RENO - V Â·ARCHITECTSÂ· 3 U - m MECHANICAL ,-- L.L.C. ~ 1 / v \17I- 210 EAST HYMAN SUITE # 202 ASPEN, COLORADO 11 81611 (970) 925-5968 FAX (970) 925-5993 0 . P.O. BOX 278 117 N. WILLOW SUITE # 2 TELLURIDE, COLORADO 81435 (970) 728-6607 FAX eARDEN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN (970) 728-665 SHEET # SCALE: 1/4" a 1'-O" A2.1 GARDEN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 13EnLLS ONIN 0Â£6 'NPIdSV Â· % Â· ,Â·: I ' + I REVISIONS \ L.01. 1-=-1 JOB NO.: DRAWN BY: DATE: CHECKED: SCALE: FILE ID: COPYRIGHT Â© GRA 1998 eARASE ----- *---Ijf ON -e-_ 1 2 ~3 1 1 LIGHT PELL 1 1 - I I I ! LI 1 GARAGE 1 1 -: -' 1 C DVO i I = LAJNDRY Â»h M{Â¢.i. 1 1 1 1 1.Â®de \ It===41 ----1 1 1 1 1 99- 155 & 44 0_- 1 1 1 L.M. K-*- ~55j~k~ / 4, 1 1 G \11 - . 3 1 1 M.-EATÂ·4---- - 1 -- 11 41 C 1 1 1 G= -- 1 M.:_BAIH 1 up, O - 1 -- l f . C - /0 1 0-- 1 MID 1 - i o 1 0 1 - 4-j 2-Â»14, MUIP RM. N.ALINE>RY - \ 1 - L.1/,1. 8 61*ET HALL 1 1 \ MASTER DNS 4 1 1 -----1 1 B BEDROOM LIBRARY i - E-3 , - 8 - C - ENTRÂ¥ ENTRÂ¥ '- ~1--:~ - f~ ~, U U N Â»--<*JEt,A-Â©222 UP J . 2- 4 -/-2 -/ gr/"1 - w,ToÂ· - C L.M. M. BEDROOM I - /~ COVERED PORCH GIBSONÂ·RENO 1-1 Â·ARCHITECTSÂ· Di 1 09 09 09 POROH L.L.C. = 210 EAST HYMAN SUITE # 202 Dd D< ASPEN, COLORADO m Â® 81611 1===41 1-===41 (970) 925-5968 FAX (970) 925-5993 .0. P.O. BOX 278 117 N. WILLOW SUITE # 2 TELLURIDE, COLORADO 81435 (970) 728-6607 FAX M,Alk LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ~970) 728-665 SHEET # SCALE: 1/4" .1.0. All MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN Caa44 '1>42IcISY 2 JI-//7 -fl 4 .....:..99 1 W jE I Â· I REVISIONS I :54. 11 -1, 11 1 ... JOB NO.: Ul .1 O 101 DRAWN BY: 3 DATE: p}N. I CHECKED: I SCALE: 00 r-----7 FILE ID: ~ O L----2 -~ COPYRIGHTÂ© GRA 1998 3 r 1 1 L ===/ 11 .11. -- L-_EEIL _ e - -3 1 1 11 L._ - I o ",01 2/ - X -# h===Â£62 1 lir 0 711 1 k / i op~i~i* <_________ 1 1 1 1 / 1 1 I r ---- -/ \ 1 I leo C . L______ 1 1 111 1. \ - 1 1 - 6- L-__J ~- L- 11 2 1 ! 1 L .- DN o 1 1 = 11- ' ' r---i 11- 1 1 1 L__-3 - 11- 1 1 -0-- 1 //~k I / - 1 T 1 1 1 \ \ 1 / \ \ I Ap 1 V \ / \ 1 1 \ \ 1 / \\ 1 1 \ \ 1 / \ 1 r---1 \ 1 / \\11 1 1 . \ \1. 1 \\ 1 // n c-=2 O ~ C tf==Thrl / \ \ 1/ / \V / - / - \ 7 4--- // \\ // \ 10- < 1 \ . / \\ 1 // \\01 / 3 L 1 1 \ / / \\ DNâ‚¬] > 1\/ \ 1 \ // i - - 4 / 1 lill \ 1 I k 4 1 1 \ /1\ \ m 1 1 1 -3 0/ 1 : = \ 1 1 1 1 / 1 \ \\ = /7 1 \\ \\ 1 1 yRAWY 1 1 \ \ 1 1 U 1 //11 1 \ \ 1 1 /11 1 \ p 1 \ \ 1 / il , Ill {i 1, Ir-1, 4 ' I i XEZIN--'ur,n-,27'- 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 71 11 1 --1 GIBSONÂ·RENO Â·ARCHITECTSÂ· 1 1 111 0 III E El 1 1 | | L.L.C. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 210 EAST HYMAN 1 1 SUITE # 202 ASPEN, COLORADO C li -7| | 81811 1--1 (970) 925-5968 FAX (970) 925-5993 â€¢0 . P.O. BOX 278 117 N. WILLOW SUITE # 2 TELLURIDE, COLORADO 81435 (970) 728-6607 FAX .- j (970) 728-865 SHEET # UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-O" Al.3 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN aaag4 12[ERLLS ONIN 0Â£6 0700 'NEIdSY REVISIONS EXTERIOR MATERI ALS NER RESIDENCE "A" 1. CEDAR SHINGLE ROOFING 2. HOOD LOS COLUMNS JOB NO.: 3.2X CEDAR TRIM DRAWN BY: DATE: 4. IXA CEDAR LAP SICINS CHECKED: 5. STONE VENEER SCALE: 6. HOOD CLAD MINDOMS AND DOORS FILE ID: COPYRIGHT Â© GRA 1998 VICTORIAN RESIDENCE "B" 1. CEDAR SHINGLE ROOFINe 2. IX12 BOARD 4 BATTEN SABLE SIDINe (N.) 3. IX FASCIA, CORNER, 4 MINDOM TRIM 4. Ixe CEDAR CLAPBOARD SIDING 5. MOOD CLAD AINDORS AND DOORS E = 17 1 1 1 1 11 ' 1 1 -1 ---- -- -1 1 1 / -3 1 /1 \ 1 / 1 1 09 \1 , A IN \ 9 4 LÂ» 1: \ :I - 2.-2 + -1 . 2~ 9-73 91 1 - i A-- 1- I :T . 1 ///! 2 12 11 1 1 H i ..i- -H Â·{ \\ \ 1 1'*:'* :i V Ij j , ====== -====== ====== / i Â· j Â· i i 1 1 2 ' 1 4 Kild L 1~ .1 i 1 11\ 1 4 4 , 1 1 1202==LL.---4.-- ...L-11-]1-_31\~) 4 1 1 1 t . 1 -- -I-e:. - 1 ------ ----- 61-1----- ------ L.-1 ~-~----------------- ------------------ -=------------- - E 7- ..4 /9 // XEIEE' GIBSONÂ·RENO -- Â·ARCHITECTSÂ· 890 4Â·t * L.L.C. 210 EAST HYMAN SUITE # 202 ASPEN, COLORADO ,./ 81611 lit-5 11 (970) 925-5968 FAX (970) 925-5993 0 P.O. BOX 278 117 N. WILLOW SUITE # 2 TELLURIDE, COLORADO 81435 .Â·-4 (970) 728-6607 Â¥AX (970) 728-6658 SOUTH ELEVATION ,43Â¢ SCALE: 1/4" . 1'-0* SHEET # 1. A3.1 ELEVATIONS <44444 1,3ErMELS ONDI 0Â£6 C>C],~MOTOO ']>Â£EIdS'~ 1 1 1 REVISIONS E J L - EXTERIOR MATERI ALS 4 ._I.I.IZIL. NER RESIDENCE "A" k Â· d /- -7 \ tf--C 1 1. CEDAR SHINeLE ROOF'Ne .j 2. hOOD LOS COLUMNS JOB NO.: 3.2X CEDAR TRIM DRAWN BY: DATE: 4. IXA CEDAR LAP SIDINe CHECKED: 5. STONE VENEER SCALE: 6. MOOD CLAD KINDORS AND DOORS FILE ID: COPYRIGHT Â© GRA 1998 VICTORIAN RESIDENCE "B" i , 1_-33-.- V 1 11 =+== i 1. CEDAR SHINeLE ROOFING 2. IX12 BOARD 4 BATTEN eABLE BIDINe (N.) 3. IX FASCIA, CORNER, 4 MIND(Phi TRIM j 4. IXA CEDAR CLAPBOARD SIDINS n 5. MOOD CLAD MINDOPNE AND DOORE me - 1! li il r -1 jl.-!LIC I -6 , 1,-- - 3 rÂ· T EAST ELEVATION "A" i 1 - 1 SCALE: 1/4" â€¢ 11-0" 1 1 - 1 Il r--~ Il 1, A 1 1 [.31211-- 2-- fi Â·'-11//2~ Il.... IL ii i I :1-31.--jj ._ 2 12- 77 - 0 11 EX.,+6.-<sy , -- --1 1 4 -IL . b - -1 i 11 I '1 't _51 1 --- - -- - - 1 - L -- ----- GIBSON.RENO -.-2.2-3-J] Â·ARCHITECTSÂ· d A L,; + L. L. C. 1 1 ti ~11 , Ii! 091 : 111 i 1.! ~11 1 1 i 00- , 1-914 210 EAST HYMAN -1 SUITE # 202 i ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 925-5968 FAX ~- - - ~ (970) 925-5993 941 -6 i.. a : P.O. BOX 278 23-1 12-1~0~ -- --- -- 117 N. WILLOW SUITE # 2 n-Â»C * . 44Â·~4 TELLURIDE, COLORADO F 3 (970) 728-6607 FAX - (970) 728-6658 Â·A SHEET # .>'.1 16 .. 41 FNEST ELEVATION "A" -- SCALE, 1/4" . 11-0,1 A3.1 1:Â· :*03 ELEVATIONS 4aaaa lainLLS DNIN 0Â£6 C)CrVkIC)100 'NadSM ill1!IIlll REVISIONS trÂ».'=ril,l_..,l__L...L..!. ~ EXTERIOR MATERI ALS NEIN RESIDENCE "A" 1. CEDAR SHINSLE ROOFINS /. -\ 2. MOOD LOS COLUMNS - 4 1 ' JOB NO.: 3.2X CEDAR TRIM DRAWN BY: 4. IXe CEDAR LAP SIDINe CHECKED: DATE: 5.STONE VENEER SCALE: 6. MOOD CLAD MINDORS AND DOORS ll'llil FILE ID: l VICTORIAN RESIDENCE "B" COPYRIGHT Â© GRA 1998 1. CEDAR SHINSLE ROOFINe --- EE * 1 1 1 EE I f ==1% ===1% EE 2. IX12 BOARD 4 BATTEN eABLE BIDINe (N.) --.......1--.- -~-----. - 3. IX FASCIA, CORNER, 4 MINDOM TRIM i j 4. IX6 CEDAR CLAPBOARD SIDINe - l i 5. MOOD CLAD Al NDOMS AND DOORS - I:' 11111 1 1 1 Ili'!IliÂ·ili'ililii!111:lililillitt; I -1- -- I ------- - ''' ' 1'! 1!lifillij'!lili!111'illi 1 -EE-ELEEE-f Ul "4~-i-9-0-3-2-3-9- - E ~ EAST ELEVATION 0 0 SCALE: 1/4" â€¢ 1'-0" ~ r--1 r---1 -~ 11 1 R ON I- FE- LE- fll'll ! WIÂ¢:f . 11 * - == 1!Ii' .2-. 11111!i i I: 1 1 1/15*WEEEND== | 761~ i -2- fililili - 1 - tl-! , 1 1 1 1 =..Â·u iiii!1' GIBSONÂ·RENO 1 Ii 1 1 Â·ARCHITECTSÂ· .il "9 !,Ii i i L.L. C. , 210 EAST HYMAN -- -- -- SUITE # 202 -. --- --.-. ASPEN, COLORADO 1~ X __ 81611 Â¢ (970) 925-5968 - -1- 11 7[--11- 11 -11- , 11- 11 ...= -- ~432(7-2.--...3-1.-Ii.----- - - - - -. -- - FAX (970) 925-5993 . 0 . P.O. BOX 278 117 N. WILLOW SUITE # 2 TELLURIDE, COLORADO 81435 1 1 1 1 (970) 728-6607 I r---lr--7 1 1 r---ir---1 1 FAX 1 1 It 1 1 1 I Il I i (970) 728-6658 11 11 11 11 11 1/ 11 11 11 11 11 1/ li I / 1 I H I 1 SHEET # It 11 11 1 L__ _g' L ___j i 1 1 1 L__ _1 L__ -3 1 L________J L________-1 A33 FNEST ELEVATION "B" SCALE: 1/4" â€¢ GO" ELEVATIONS Caa<C 'NIZIcISM -7 7 .. N +1% + * k."* , Il--- 4,- 'el=h'. REVISIONS F Ai -4 , 1 # \ 1) 'Uk 4 EXTERIOR MATERI ALS %.1./ NER RESIDENCE "A" I. CEDAR SHINeLE ROOFINe 9~ 1 2. HOOD LOS COLUMNS JOB NO.: ' 3.2X CEDAR TRIM DRAWN BY: DATE: 4. IXE CEDAR LAP SIDINe - CHECKED: i 5.STONE VENEER SCALE: 6. MOOD GLAD MINDORS AND DOORS FILE ID: COPYRIGHTÂ© GRA 1998 VICTORIAN RESIDENCE "B" 1. CEDAR SHINGLE ROOFINS 2. IX12 BOARD 4 BATTEN SABLE SIDINe (N.) 3. IX FASCIA, CORNER, 4 AINDOM TRIM 4. IXA CEDAR CLAPBOARD BIDINS 5. PNOOD CLAD 1/NINDOPNS AND DOORS 1 1 . il 1 Â»---71 ~ l 6 -. 0 ----'/ C 'In.C-3.- 1 , 4 ,1 0 - 4- / Ff t! 11 2 : 1. /1 11 li .; - 11 1 / - ii li i 1~ 1 == r .' D 1 i t 1111 Ir--Irl~LN.. 4/ - 4 11 9 1 1 li Ill li 11 .AY< - --PIJ 1 1111 li 11 -= [fÂ« /A . - 1 1 1 1 1; 1.1 4 n - - -\1 - 0 +I-- Il.-i.I '-.--il -..0.- ,11 1 - - - - - --- i ! ~ i 1 / . - 1 .- 1 - r \ 1 il A i / -ql . -1-4 -/2 ---- ---- --- -- GIBSONÂ·RENO 1 unlj --Â· ARCHITECTS Â· 101 L. L.C. ' ' -1=-1 - - /2.rli T-M--- 1-W --1' r-~1~ -1-4 A=lir -7 - - ---- --- - - - --- 1 - -11 - < F(614-ti~FP- ~~ ~ - 1 LU _1__I- L..1.-4 1 EL U:-rEU...6--4 IL.1.-1.- 1.-211 1 -4-kril t 1.L.L...1-Tl_JU r,T- 1-_1_1 12 210 EAST HYMAN . -W tY-1 H rel 1 I Ii SUITE # 202 - ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 925-5968 11 A It 11 E 11 FAX (970) 925-5993 P.O. BOX 278 117 N. WILLOW SUITE # 2 TELLURIDE, COLORADO 81435 (970) 728-6607 FAX (970) 728-6658 SHEET # NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" â€¢ 1'-O" A3A ELEVATIONS iZE[kLLS DNIN OE CKIVNOTOO 'NEIdSY . lill1lil ) jrillitill, 0 00 0:. 0 CO 4-2-- C 1 a. : 11 CL 0 51><TH STREET - X 0 C I H 0 h Ul . 4, 1: ---- 1 ARI BAT I O N PITCH O B .1 ' 0- L O--0 1 n 0 - 0 (53 24-54 GOTT ON\14 0 OPS \ 1 . I:.-*11.- / 4 4/i /1.III\ rfulÂ«- 4.,mi i' 5, 1 +LA r. 2 . >C-TR \7 - i ! Â· 1. 7-4 4 - ' 1 1 11 11-1 : ' , 'i.- iliLlI ' PR-ONT SETe,ACI< --7 1 t Y 1 L , ~ 11 lili 111 1,11'111111111,1 luy . 1 Â£ C. 2 1 .-4 -111111 11 11 111 Ift 0-0 WI"plly'1~11111 'Ill'111'j'111111111.P 1 1:14 4. :1~,iii'~vili I'lilli 'D hi luk lili 11111~~11 1111'il ~41 111 -t--- Itt u 92-li k 1 1111 1 \1 ' I. 11 1 11 1 - 41 â€¢ lt l- i Fo t f f I f f l f 1 j,- = 4 4 EFFFA B .--1 0 12' 4 h 11'1 - 2 4- EXISTING ONE STORy PR-AME HOUSE -~ 4 4 COULTERRESIDENCE - U . 4 - 117 north sixth street aspen colorado 0 0 11 1 JI 111 Owner: Lynnie Coulter tel. 970 925 8756 41 0 4 4 f f. \ 04 r._.--=2=N # -6%/Br/NG 7/' 117 North Sixth Street 'N (3 TO Be*KIN Aspen, Colorado 81611 14 v â‚¬/ A (Tr ALL ages / 11 :.-1-1 1.9 1 7)929 FLAW e. 0.M.)0~~/ 11 lil Architects: Studio B Architects tel.9709209428 555 N. Mill Street fax. 970 920 7822 4'E 0-1 -4 , .i | 1/'lli l li.J 1 lau'13Â®F~ - - f Aspen, Colorado 81611 9 ' Contractor: Brikor and Associates tel. 970 923 3088 ~ ~ ~ Aspen, Colorado 81612 Contact: Scott Lindenau - P.O. Box 1361 111 1-4 LnlÂ· pack . ~. f Contact: Briston Peterson - 1 9/02 957-2'ACK -2 | ~ 111 /\1'Al /-1.7~... i 1(1 11 lilli u) BELOG+TED SHED> 653/VEW Aarvs 4349792& 77- <~,,Y1~2~1~PAMA /NAS FQÂ» /7ll 9--CL:==0~ L \U-1-1-- ONE C+ (i-J,1 - r F2. opt*-77 DATE: - . 5 22 0 - EX/ST/NS SHED> 28 October 1998 Gi T. WOOD FENCE Work Session for Historical Preservation Commitee TO DE KELÂ«Â·,AIED - - REVISED 18 MCA/B02*12- 117# 3-2 . . '111 lit / f I " il 111 1/ - 1/1/111111111111[Ii 92 + INDEX I /1/rilli 0 9 1 -t L SITE PLAN .. LANDSCAPE/SITE PLAN A2 BASEMENT PLAN/ MAIN LEVEL PLAN - 5(PLE - 1 n = 11 A3 UPPER LEVEL PLAN/ ROOF PLAN A4 -A6 ELEVATIONS - '/77-71/ilitifflift/to>A A1 NÂ¥ld 31IS 96 AON â‚¬32 ~, 3ON3 IS31:1 8311noo wooÂ·Iigul uedse @ q O!pnisl!.BUJ-O EZBZ Â· 036 â€¢026 xej 83*6 â€¢ 036 â€¢ 026 LL918 -00 uedse Â·is il!W Â·u 999 -I IR 14'1$ :t:jt 1-- ., 9 I. . . /0. â‚¬ CD ' 0 r , CD . 1 f= 1 0 1 H . \ : ) . - te /1 0 P 8 tr r 71 6/NE Mt'. - Shi.Irk W...1 21. Dlk/' 09 Nâ‚¬46Â¥ 19 Hl><19 N Ll I - f - - 42 7*= . 0 , 4. 1.13 6 , * 2 f. 4 A . it I # 3 D i. 44 rp,ypÂ· >5*Â·N i"""055*"<44 4%94Â£,R :"1* r %% 4 . 4 :1 1 f.} 1 4-/009 . . *BVIR/" ' , 7-1.44~ w'. it 1 Â¥ 11. 5 -- Â¥ I ." 1 C/J 1 - -.- + - -- 0 - 2/0/ 7 1 ~2 9 9 d O -2 c:/ l/ 7 q4,1 /-4aL 43.- 1 -4- m O 3- +4 CD 0 I-/ C.0 Â» ir I C C- IT 21 C Â£ : 1 i r , 8 1 0 - , -I - L-. - .-I. -. - 1 L -Â·.4 94 0 4 3 . 96 40 N <52 l1300Â·lieul uedse o q oipnis ilew-e 228Z â€¢ 026 â€¢ 026 xel 8Et6 â€¢ 026 â€¢ 0Z6 11918 '00 uedse Â·ls il!Ul U 999 19 HI-L>(19 N Â£ 11 , Fr ' M ' 74* . Irdy . 1 W I 4 ~ ighÂ¢? t â‚¬ 4 4 21 Â¢ & 4 . 5 Ag. M AW Â·. ' -ul 1?-aI.U raa-ID .. 0 , = -39**4 i . , 0.3.Al m. 1 4 , - B '- S.. hS 9 - t / ... ./-1.S TÂ·*al'.5.03' "7&** I P 9 #1*An 4- 9.*793# 'tkÂ«=F ' . i 3 ' 46&141 .,3. 1 -1-Â· %,L R% Â¥M F. 4. . '. 9 N ., f-'19 Â·*teme ~I- .t ~~fQÂ·, 22~ Â·.~*gIT==pr~;* #0**%Mu I. ti . le: 1,1 1.11 1 A . j . '4 . * 6 , - f. e &2,4 I *Wltge; *ets e ' 0***a)iN#ictÂ·:0~12.Â·~ i -1-4 'Al 1 - . M f Ut' 4 3 . 1 A ' 4 A . m '' ' Â·.Â· 03'4:n:,gÂ·Yi@Nt*>2Â».. i 0 .1 14 8 Â· 0 . 4 4 N f. Â£ A Â£ P. 9= a . 23 . Fti Â·4- #*Â£' ..1p.Ii... r:Â·.1 -â„¢â‚¬wy-~t~~~~/s ' M * P A U liLi 01 ti 14. - .s. j F 9 'Â·/ r- Â·10 f I. i Â£ 1 . 2 ..426 r *.--A.Â«44824*Â« . . ./ , ~1 ,>., ela I :. I I 4 ... M * f E . 4 t $, -1 - , V P- e r & 1,1 -r -r ! .. 11 ~ S 7. AP,4 400 /4 ~ go k . 1 0 (D 0 m '.. -_.- . vi- 1 &17_. 1,~V; 1.-1 1./711 - . . ... 1 -1 01 1 a 4 1411 - 1 1-40 A Â¢ -A 0 9 : 9 IL T 7 1 & i N RL 4~ -- . 13- 03 NadSV 19 +41* le N LII U.W- 110 U. .gy.0 (0 4 .!PI'+3 1!.Ul-/ GIl:SL â€¢ U<55 â€¢ ULb XE# 8676 â€¢ 066 â€¢ 026 AL9Ly -00 uease -19 11!W 'U 999 .i ..1,~. 1-2 -21=1=.1 .t;*0*4Â¢&3>[*4'L.02Â· +4 n Â· t. 7- 0% 1,!-71 I. #<.â€¢ . 4.14. .- â€¢.1-1 i . Â·. 24/Z'J. :.- ,&$4'#* 01Â· .., 0 . ~.. -'.... 4.~,1~1' .. - r 'll R 4 0 4 4 Of , , : .8 4 - Â» 4 . i , 1 . 1 3 1 . Â·19 01%; .4 1 J Ct W :* il . L r. *4Â·'tÂ·:07â‚¬*79 15.00*. i> ",42 "' ~CÂ¢Â·pttl : * 1 32 4. 0 I. . 4 / '4uÂ·aSE.ia .18 Â· ...t Â·Â·. Â£ . , . . . I r -- . f P , 3: 6 '4*Â·4. --- 4 9 7&Â· ......f 00 I - t& 4- #M'ya 4 $ 111.- 2 E... P .- 10.01 - - .. dilillillill i , 60* . . 2 1 4/a ' ...Â· ~ 9-- / If:w:"'/I ".4-,t. Â·30Â· I : i. -- . C/ZJ - - ------------0. - ---=-------I--- - iTI WAe I. I - - . 4&/-1.-4, I . - Ii.ts. 3, C fu 1 U) 0 (D .C 0 .- CO t." 6 0 NEUGÂ¥ 19 H.D<19 N ill laill........ , 9 1 lim= 4/:il:jilizililixillidi lillillillilihIA .mailil 1.11 - lill --Il-~ 1 . .1 EllilliTAM#:'4:::: /2. I.li.i .. l 1==i flF 42' 0 + C/-0 4. -1--t __1 f-#- 1--- AM* 1 LOBBUGATED> -Â· ON-VKNIZED STEEL LU w=P SIPIN,Er ceetrÂ©DÂ·Â·- -- 4% 1 - _.IF=*,11 -----------------+-------*- -- - - - - -- ---- - B 11 11-- 1 0 i J IL_ZEZZIZZI, H ~ P a --.1 1 --. -- 0% "4214 5 - 2 . '...........*-*#,1.4/IÂ¥-1,Â¥.i-IlÂ»-I.*./*I-/â€¢,--*Ilâ€¢-. - waip 721/6 - 1 .. - - ----*-----.-*--- 0 - 01Â«211*3 564/l OcRÂ·AGe=re> -r- /hET)41.- AR=)F GAUANIZED STEEL ..I- - ---1 , ~ ---- M.- MEEP BETAL PAN*LS ~ ' ' ---- - 05. 61-. aL, . 0 -2<.. __--~ 99/At#/5 2%19rlit:3 t, - i. r.11 A a .*-, 4 14 1 1 1 63/-60.â€ž=:A *s* i-â„¢ c ZI~, .; 51-IPINO .CE:z#Z--- fÂ» " 1 --- lAi 1 -1- -------4--- /0.-â„¢ 0 Ellitttl J â€¢I--4----*'- â€¢-4--~~a,--,#I.*---*I~-,-~.-*. I.,_, .., ~ 8.._*+_ .- V- ---- - 1180/ APPIT.1014 ce:â‚¬701412'3) Ul -/. A- Â·rOrâ‚¬Â·-Ct ~ ~ ill , 1 1-t t I Â·11 - - 1-{ R - 0 55' l. *922 1 -- - @El=LACE EXIST'ING 1 i- -==f I ~ 1 -t:-4 9 1 --.* m 44-I'll- - ul 11111 I 1,1 -.-'--1 ~ DOVELE HVN21 VVINEÂ©WS NIMPOWS */ NEW i IU . " Y---- CTYP OF 22 1 1 A.li u 1 --Â·Eli 1% \ 969'romap plkÂ»rr IÂ»OR- ro /AP,TE.H OP,16111,AL -2 EAST ELEVATION - 1 . 17-1 . I - Wep SPIPING 123.03.73 .. . .. ------- En -_-- i W*,2 SPIND-- erANPIN16 SEM--1- ---2-9- ir..71.-I--1-1-1 ---- /~ETÂ» L MPF / ---~~r) s c - i , 1 .~IL--- \ ~ t --- - -*I.***.I , 1=1 0 I --Â·.-..-4--I....*'-i/1*-4-.I~/-â€¢ -- - -* -- CHALVANIZED CÂ«KVGATED STEEL -~- Â·11 1 1 - -- 91'Â»1!2 INO SeÂ·AA METAL 82*= _ -- g.-*././.I'.I-.I-VI - ---- --- --- 712Â»SU/CEINT PANELS -0 FarED STEEL PKMELS - -7 -4 -> ~ ~~__~~0_.,-0-,Â·~.-p-- ~~ ~'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ '0~'~~~*~**~~*~~~~~~'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'~~~~~~~~ .' .1 11 1 1 .1. 1 il *1 -4--I----------------1 11 11 . . - - 1 1 . - - . ... .t . 4 I. Â·i r.Â«--Â· tÂ·E*Â»., 4 5 i ..1 . 11 1 111 ! ,- C 4 i L L.#0 . . 1 8 I ---7-- --1, 4~ 0 . . . . . 4 . I ... . 4 ..14 .,. co .4 - *0*ji.9 ~ 11\ -.MVSTED STEUL FANWLS J - 8:QÂ»D- PbRAED caly=RETE S_RUTH_Ell-YA-Il-Q-N_ A4 scale 1 /4' = 1'-0 " SNOtlVA313 Z # 30N3a 1. 19 18 ope,O]00 'uedse laails 4 lx!9 41JOU ZIL ulooÂ·itew uedse o q 0!Pnls 1!Bul 0 288Z â€¢ 026 â€¢ 0Z6 xel 82*6 â€¢026 â€¢ OZB L Lg Le Â·00 uadse Â·ls il!Ul 'U 999 *EL.-UI~* d. zix 9 /,233==1 :1 1 1.-I---'.--k----4.. #i .1 % . - --- 1- - - 1- 1 , .C + A - . 0 1 fr , t 11 , $-'-Ul Â· 1 2 --.*. - - ------- -. ----- i w. 111 Ilyl'J , 4- 1 -pn i Ii,i. i N tieeill. 1 I , i uÂ· iii Â·Â·Â· , 4-- / â€¢ - woop Â©171140 e 'Â·â€¢~'+9~'10l 9~â‚¬-*1 H 4 ' 4 - 1, K -- li ~ fi D LI : -zzr:n:;:-=*-4-*-*r=-*#:-A;E-#--=2-1---1 Ill EXISTING 0% ,-4-'*- , .7..1'.........4- %9 . 11 To Re#AIM - --~ .0#: 0& WOOP 6101190 - -'le,-'.>-A--+*....-*----f.,f.*.- k -- .1, 1111 li it ; ~W#.4- IN<-r.,%24.-V-'*.-'I.-t...I......1.~.F. -, 4-0.. ..... e-rÂ»PING fe/A ~~~~ ~~~~~V-Ir----.~~~~ 1--r-â€¢~~Â»N4---,Â» -.â€žw-*..4.----Â·A~ lil 1 2 MEDN- 12Â£259 - . I-~--e'....-,-'...------*.10-I'...-~r.....*...-'.'.-. -A. ---'... ---kih 0 !1 11 11 1} 11 2 1} !1 471 11 - 4 t . 4 1 1, tÂ¢ 11 11 1 - le 4~ 1 --=97==54===U.=:==4 01 it & 11, 1% 51 11 D Z li i b il ji lit il li 1 C . . 4 I , .10 .. â€¢Â· â€¢ Â·St { N i : i i Â· k i H 1 11.11 i 11 11 11.11 11 9 4 1,1 11 11 1 1 1 t! 0,/ H P 4 0 p . ' '-t"r . 4 ---.. i A ... , ' , -â€¢ :iâ‚¬ A,6 ig a u - Â·,/ 4. 4 11 U , 1, â€¢â€¢-- . â€¢ .1. . . . il 1 1- -= '1 'M. =Eati---*--41 ix----- ----- &Â»B;C> SIPIN16 - 1- 1 + ... ~â€¢~vÂ·â€¢'---â€¢4â€¢-4---Â·~"NW--Â·----' . . 1 ~1 11 tâ€¢ NÂ·6.15 4 . I ---0------ 1 .. W~ 91Â£21140 To . & -.~..#Im..'.- 0.--Â» ' -'.I-I.,m --.â„¢-.-t--,t;===~-'-.,/- .-- ; RJ:*41 EI:- L - NHrott eXISTIMe ....-t-.......-6---- ....1...V.----....Â».----1 , 1.-.---- ------*----.- - : 1 1* d E--- 'if Â·' .i ,; 52 f-r k !1 11Â·.11 i h !1 *1 ~ , 11 1, / /: d 1 , 1 1- 1, 1/ -- 111- /<.71 p,1-21--4 - .1. '. 4, ~t .I .# ~ a u * 14 U-A ul{ il [1 1~ 0 i{ 1 ' 1, * SL i a LU . i,_*-ji_.il_IL.li.Ji-i_li._il_Â®-11,31_11 1 ' ' --| 3 1:, * 0 11 11111 E-?.4 4-4 -I Fivfec> tarAL - FANELe WEST ELEVATION scale-1-74'=-1-'-5" 1 . 4.-#---------â€¢.-I'w.*.---I.Ill-*-.*t...â€¢.lu.....v.*4...... , 0/002 *HINALPS woop SlANG -- -I. - -- ~ -- 0 ._____ 4 I i -,=~Â»01 A~.~~W, 1,6,Â·*#*., 4** - ..15'. ..1 4 - 6,7:4>IMO eEPyÂ© ..,0,14,1 r..4-1. t ............A--- ....--- Â¥----- U~r.â€¢ +~-- -4.â€¢-*--,-*-- â€¢-~eÂ·~.4~~â€ž..â€¢~~,+.~,. NeTAL YOF - n. 1 4 00* 66 -- i Cm] i 0 9- - -- - B-VerEP Â«REL FÂ»MELS 1 1- WeD 6284 4--,4...-- - 4"29 31- F Â· -0 f #01 Ji p 1 1 1â€ž . qi 1 - . . 11 Â·Â· .1 0 " 1 6 1 -i.1 1 1! f 11 9 3 11 11 1 11 11 1, 11 h.t . - - - ''' .ss==rs-=---=r= In Ill}iI[-0 . f - 0 4.-IrÂ«'W- CIO NORTH ELEVATION_ scale 1/4' = 1'-0" A5 SN0I1VA313 wooÂ·Ilew uadse @ q 0!prlls '!Bul a ZEGZ â€¢ 026 â€¢ 026 xe, 821,6 â€¢026 â€¢ 0L6 LLgle Â·00 uadse Â·ls il!UJ 'U 999 L1918 OpEJOIOQ 'uedse leails fl 9V i,0-,L = ,17/1 eleos -N-6Ty-9--Nyi--33-5-Â¥116-5--6*FI-Â§r*-3-H-1-Â«6-5_ O , ' 2~9662144 234299 421 99013 44 0- 'AMÂ¢ZINI/yl EN*-1 0-- 1 -1 9*2 Â¢ <131Â·Â© â‚¬311 3 1 -2 --161'>62 a/Mpal -421 - SNUGI>El H:24waL 1 B -0 2- 1 . 4774 1 31 4111 p. EÂ»11<:rig 1 -9282.2 NlaN L--4 -1 , 0W1=last! NaN ~Icre nabl ' 1 - - -ElaNdeck:1 GE*1101 eNI-Late a/,Maz! ~---__u_-> L--- "OLL = '17/1, eieos 9-ETTV-A-37-3~-T'ISi131-3-3-70-3-Frry--6-N -0 . - 0 2=--6 i.- -*~~ (6184 Â©NUSI><Â·3 - C- - CE.woon-ft m 0 -1 1 ~L 0--Â«febl MdiWI AA* - ~ 4--zemt;C 612-Icave 1- â‚¬NU-â‚¬1><21 9/\OVÂ¢23 ---1 - t~ =Out 1141*>e -- 1 - \: m , 1 1 1, \ m 1 #914 1 5hl 1 14 1'><2 2'j 1 L1918 OpEJOIOO 'u edge jeells 4 tx!$ 4 ;Jo u Ltl . . . . V wooÂ·'le w uedse o q 0!prls liew-e ZEBL â€¢ 086 â€¢ 026 xet 88,6 â€¢ 026 â€¢ 0Â£6 1 L9 Le -00 uedse Â·ls ll!UJ Â· U 999 BONBGIS 11000 SNOI1VA313 . , 24'-11/2" ~-I'-8 1/2" It-lili 20'-6' , I ' , I 0 001t 0 m -1 le r A - r--1 ./ . I 8 11=-===11 11====11 . I i L rali -0- r I 0 6 p - A-0 r-- 44 - 1- @ 9= 9 i 15:â‚¬ 4~:.:':fÂ».Â·09Â·Â· 2<.~%~,11 fI < l1% 77 -m -- 9 - 99-- i @Â®~f CE= D. 1 Yv. 1 A N I t.. a L 1 I 5'-0 3/4" -1--1 4041 4---1 - 1 Id 0 X I I 26'-11/2" 2' 24'-11/2" ' I ' R t 0 0 0 0 0 18 1-1 11====11 Ly L - 01* M 2 1 - O I 11 C 0, I - 0 - IT 111 - 1 1 - I r I 1 __ -1 Â«/3- o CE' -------- I /-1 4.--P k L 44 @ I lit 1 i3 L I A Of STUUIUU PROJECT COULTER RESIDENCE architects TITLE EXISTING CONDITIONS/DEMO NEWFLOORPLAN DATE 98 11 25 DRAWING # A 2.2E 555 n.mill st aspen co. 81611 970 920 9428 f a x 970 920 7822 e-mail studio b @ soprls. net .. 5'-31/2" 38'-51/2" 42'-01/2" HOONCES ,>\026 CIEHGI-IOHECI 39 01 611Â¥M 3-LONECI SVE!31Â¥ amavHG x NÂ¥-16 geÂ¥1100 MEN NÂ¥-6 EMOH GNI.LEIXE 26'-3 12'-2 1/2" i, 9-, bk> 7\213 3920.01 4 .LIM!.b!2 BI Il'