Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.hpc.19950322
AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 22, 1995 REGULAR MEETING SISTER CITIES ROOM - SECOND FLOOR CITY HALL 5:00 I. Roll Call and approval of minutes II. Commission and Staff comments III. Public Comments IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:15 A. 520 Walnut Street, Greenwood- Conceptual, Special Review, PUBLIC HEARING V. NEW BUSINESS AVTL + oa Al' I 6:00 A. 232 E. Main Street, Amoco- Minor 9 6/q_ 0 €17 k h 19 6:15 B. 432 E. Hyman Avenue, Aspen Drug- Minorlvs *14.4...0 4 C 6:30 C. 205 W. Main, Chisolm- Worksession 6:45 D. Office Zone District- On-going worksession VI. PROJECT MONITORING VII. ADJOURN 14 A. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 520 Walnut Street, Conceptual Development, including partial demolition and on-site relocation, special review to exceed 8 5% of the allowable F.A.R.- Public Hearing Date: March 22, 1995 SUMMARY: On February 8, 1995, HPC granted approval to demolish an existing structure on the site, to relocate the existing miner's cabin, to change existing windows and doors on the historic miner's cabin, and to repair existing materials. A proposal for the new residence was presented at that time, but tabled. HPC indicated that they were not in support of granting setback variances requested for that structure, due to neighborhood concerns. The applicant has submitted a new design which is in conformance with all aspects of the R-6 zone district. Conceptual approval and special review to exceed 85% of the allowable F.A.R. is requested. APPLICANT: Gretchen Greenwood and Michael Ortiz, owners. LOCATION: 520 Walnut Street, Lot 8 and the north half of Lot 9, Block 3, William's Addition to the City of Aspen. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H, " Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: New Residence: The proposed new residence is to replace an existing house which has not been identified as having historic significance. The,house will be 2,854 sq.ft. and the miner's cabin is 281 sq.ft. Because the Commission was not willing to grant setback variances for the project, the applicant has made the building more narrow and increased the height. As in the earlier design (attached), the new residence has been broken down somewhat into the appearance of a group of smaller masses through varied roof forms and some projecting cutaway areas for decks. One story elements exist in the form of a glass entry vestibule and a garage. Staff finds that, as suggested by the applicant, forcing the building into a vary narrow envelope has created a less compatible project. The previous proposal had a better relationship with the historic structure, especially in terms of height. (Previously the maximum height was 25', now it is 30') There was also slightly more distance between the new building and the old building, approximately 4-7' more. Given the contentiousness Of the project and the neighbor' s concerns over setback variances, it seems that the decision not to allow variances for the new house is appropriate. It is staff's opinion that the entryway to the building must be restudied. The concrete pad which "connects" the house and historic cabin is unnecessary. Perhaps the space in the glass entryway could be better used or designed. This element seems to have a less successful relationship to the miner's cabin than did the previous design for the west facade, which played off of the form and dimensions of the historic structure. The applicant has amended the north elevation of the building slightly to respond to concerns about the unbroken length of this wall. Staff finds that this is an appropriate change. The east facade steps down to a one story height at the alley and is sympathetic to the alleyscape. On the south, the wall plane is broken up at the second level with a recessed deck, but is otherwise fairly unbroken. The largest window is a bit overscaled and should be reduced, perhaps to match the one directly to the west. The applicant also proposes to build a 6' fence along both property lines. Staff recommends that the height of the fence be dropped to 3'6" as soon as it reaches the front of the new house, to be more sympathetic to the street and adjacent properties. The design for the fence must be presented for final. j A site plan which shows any proposed light wells and access to the a.d.u. most also be provided for conceptual. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The restoration of the miner' s cabin will have a positive effect on the character of the Walnut Street neighborhood, which has just one other miner's cottage to represent the previous nature of housing in this area. Attached is a 50'=1" scale map of Walnut Street. (The applicant is to provide a map which shows a larger area of the neighborhood for the Ord. 35 review.) Most houses in the area are fairly low in height, although they have a fairly large footprint. The amendments to the west and south facades, discussed above, are meant to ensure the project's compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The proposed development, which includes a rehabilitation of the historic cabin, will increase the cultural value of this resource and its importance as a representation of a simple, typical miner's cottage. In addition, the development does not result in any demolition or attachment to the historic cabin. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposed development will enhance the architectural integrity of the historic structure by preserving the structure and original materials. SPECIAL REVIEW TO EXCEED 85% OF THE ALLOWABLE F.A.R. SUMMARY: This project is located in the Smuggler Mountain neighborhood, therefore both the general guidelines (Chapter 1 of the "Neighborhood Character Guidelines") and the specific guidelines for Smuggler Neighborhood (Chapter 4) will be applied. j The special review process is mandatory, as is compliance with the Committee's findings, because the lot is less than 9,000 sq.ft. The proposed project is 3,135 sq. ft. above grade. This is the maximum allowable F.A.R. for the site. STAFF COMMENTS: Please refer to the application for the complete representation of the proposal. Planning staff finds that this project is substantially in compliance with the general and specific neighborhood guidelines. Rather than discuss each guideline (including those which are met), only the elements of the proposal which significantly warrant further discussion are highlighted below. The applicable general and specific guidelines have been grouped together by subject. Mass and Scale Specific Guidelines-36. New buildings should be similar in scale to traditional residential buildings of Aspen. Response: As described above, Staff recommends restudy the west and south facades. On the west, the entryway should be reconfigured to be more compatible with the height, form and dimensions of the historic structure. On the south, the applicant should explore any ways to provide more physical breaks in the wall plane. (This may be partly accomplished through revision of the west facade.) ALTERNATIVES: HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Conceptual and Special Review approval as proposed, finding that the Development Review Standards have been met. 2) Conceptual and Special Review approval with conditions, to be met at final. 3) Table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain, allowing the applicant time to revise the proposal to meet the Development Review Standards. 4) Deny Conceptual and/or Special Review approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that in general this is an excellent and well designed project. However, in order to address some important aspects of the project that should be studied, Staff recommends HPC table the application, giving the applicant the following direction: 1) Restudy the south elevation, or the building form, to create more breaks on the south facade. 2) Restudy the west elevation, eliminating the concrete entry pad and redesigning the entryway to be more compatible in height, form and dimensions with the historic cabin. 4 3) Provide a site plan which shows all lightwells, stairways, etc. 4) The fence shall be no more than 3'6" in front of the new house and it shall be open pickets. 5) Staff recommends that HPC clarify the approvals granted on February 8, 1995 by specifically stating the variances which are to be allowed (see attached site plan). On the north sideyard, the setback provided will be 5'. The required setback is 10', therefore the variance is 5'. On the front setback, the applicant agreed at the February 8 meeting to place the house 8' from the front lot line in an effort to stay away from the existing cottonwoods. (These trees may in fact have to be removed in the future for safety reasons.) The required front yard setback for an accessory structure is 15', therefore the variance is 7'. j *+ LN (Al €57: I.-i-IJ i OQU#F 4-2#OR flry ·~ f - V 1, . I fj -Lf- 1 - -- .11: - :1 t ~\ - Q INX 1- *.-4 ·ll -1.l - ... 1/ t A L < A > 21 Z 0 1 It 1 „ 10.0 10-0 4 r- >\ -0 = 0-- 0 ALLEY 1-1Le ji ,0 795 1 L Hll x.1-~14,4 0,61 H,Ul 04 1'401 i.'271 ~ ~W ~t=~~M · H-'1 J 9-1-te ~ d 19Ack 5 *FA LAU-p €E 6 · 0 - 1- 0 l. I V ji .- - 1 --41/41 . 4, -- 1, 1. . 1 k -=.17 ..il 1 - 4 1 l 0 - 0 »1-LF v u 6'1 011 1 H Il ,4.11'22'57¤,d +1IU0« 1 .f I Y-l i l l i 1 7 1' EL- 11 N 416 4 0014 14»41 =1411 8 H MA'd , . t --1.-- - --- , -- -- -/9. . --.. 1. . ·. L - -9 - . 4 . ; C-- -f 1 11 4, 9---- 74 / . 1 .4, 11 lf /4 L __1_~_ E I El 1 ! I ' I i i i il n 1-4 i.!1 14» - - 27# li't , Al, J> 2 ; i - A F - 4 7 -li; Ali~ 1 f al~~hi~~~21~~El~~F , <It k - irili#--117/1QL, iff .---i~-0 ', /,«24 1 - .27 rililillif~/*Lpalilliliel-2-L3lill'lil~--t- 1 millisit fn IL@ b j '3 & 7 * - -1 ti ji ---- - -- 1 -~.4.4-D·· 4.,if#.44%-L· -- ·,-,-4 1 a D al- 44 FL E-\»+r- Lo M /1- 8 1-0 " ™- Fjo- /51 .4 1, 11,$14 - ' I 11--- $ iii ------- -- -----i. -- 1 1 1-+ 1 1 . - ; '1, 1 .j i 1 1 1 i 1 , 0 / *.gl - 91 1 1 1:/1 j· , ' (2' keNce 4 7*NCE 11 ill i D - i d-! - -.--g . . ~ I, 13: ' i? ~-- -- - i.lit 1. 1 .'h ~ :j li li lili 1 t - 1 1 |61 0«[0 01~ PzvrE lesl «007 04 EXO<r LO N 18 4 1 Le L 1/11 11 1 /0 = \-O -- -A- L t- -- - i 1 ----- U- i- - ---- ---I--f&----2 t -I-- e it f ~ . - -- - ----- - Il 11'* lip i i.: i· . : L-----.--- hi! lii:i'|; i - - No/EH pl,- e.v»-FLO »1 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 520 Walnut Street, Conceptual Development, including demolition and on-site relocation, special review to exceed 85% of the allowable F.A.R.- Public Hearing Date: February 8, 1995 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to demolish an existing structure on the site and to construct a new residence in its place, to relocate the existing miner's cabin to the west, to change existing windows and doors on the historic miner's cabin and to repair existing materials. The project is intended to restore the historic structure to it's previous appearance while adapting it for a new use. The new residence will be completely detached from the historic structure. The miner's cabin is in a fairly pristine condition and may be eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places. Landmark Designation for this site was tabled at City Council in October 1994. Neighbors expressed concern over potential variances and Council requested that the proposed redevelopment be presented before they vote on the designation. APPLICANT: Gretchen Greenwood and Michael Ortiz, owners. LOCATION: 520 Walnut Street, Lot 8 and the north half of Lot 9, Block 3, William's Addition to the City of Aspen. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H, " Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: New Residence: The proposed new residence is to replace an existing house which has not been identified as having historic significance. The house will be 2,854 sq.ft. and the miner's cabin is 281 sq.ft. Staff finds that the new residence has been broken down somewhat into the appearance of a group of small masses through varied roof forms and some projecting elements such as decks and the entry vestibule. The west facade is compatible with and sympathetic to the historic resource, in that it is approximately the same width and only about five feet higher than the miner's cabin where they are closest to each other. Similarly, the east facade steps down to a one story height at the alley. On the south, the wall plane is broken up at the second level with a recessed deck, and a variety of windows and material textures. The 5'x5' windows on the second floor might be divided with an additional mullion, although the dimens_ion @oes play off that of the paired double hung windows on the south elevation of the miner's cabin. The north elevation seems to have the least amount of variation, as the wall plane is essentially unbroken for it's entire length. Staff recommends this elevation or the building form in general be restudied in order to provide actual breaks in the modules which are created through the roof forms and materials. Finally, Staff recommends the architect consider detaching the garage to reduce the overall bulk of the house. The laundry area which is in the connector between house and garage could possibly be relocated to the basement. (No basement plan was provided in the application. The architect should supply one, and show any proposed lightwells.) Miner's cabin: The estimated construction date for the miner's cabin is 1890, based on style. From the Willit's map of 1896, the miner's cabin does not appear to be original to the site, but was probably relocated there from another lot in the Walnut Street neighborhood. The minor development review involves changes to the existing structure which are intended to restore some elements Of its former appearance and add some new elements to increase its usability. On the west facade, the applicant proposes to replace an existing non- historic double hung window to match others on the building and to replace an existing non-historic picture window with a double hung. The front door is to be replaced with a new door. Staff is in support of the window changes, (all replacement windows on the cabin should be wood) but finds that the existing door is historic and should be retained if possible. The existing door could be upgraded to improve security and insulation if these are concerns of the applicant. On the east elevation, the applicant proposes to replace the existing vertical siding with 4" lapped clapboards to match the rest of the building, to add two double hung windows (which a neighbor has suggested existed previously) and to change the existing door. Through the Staff/monitor process, staff would like to examine the structure with the applicant as construction begins and any sheathing or joists that are exposed to see if there is any evidence that the windows or horizontal siding previously existed. This is a less public facade of the building, so minor changes are acceptable. However, given the excellent condition of the building, all efforts should be made to be accurate in any changes. No changes are proposed on the north elevation. On the south elevation, the applicant proposes to replace the existing double hung windows with new windows to match and to raise their height slightly. The windows appear to be historic and staff is not in support of this change. The applicant should examine the possibility of restoring the windows and upgrading them with insulated glass or an exterior storm window if desired. The applicant proposes to retain all existing siding which is salvageable. The non-historic metal roof is to be replace with a rusted corrugated metal roof, and the metal flue is to be removed. Staff suggests that the applicant should consider retaining the flue as it is visually important and may be a historic element. Through the on-site relocation, evaluated below , the applicant. intends to place the structure on a concrete foundation, faced with sandstone and to construct sandstone steps. Staff suggests that the applicant may consider simply placing clapboards over the foundation. A sandstone foundation was used on some miner's cottages, but usually the more ornate ones. Most simple cottages sat on rubble or basically on the ground. 2. Standard: The proposed. development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: This proposal, especially the restoration of the miner's cabin, will have a positive effect on the character of the Walnut Street neighborhood, which has just one other miner's cottage to represent the previous nature of housing in this area. Attached is a 50'=1" scale map of Walnut Street. Most houses in the area are fairly low in height, although they have a fairly large footprint. The proposed new residence has a maximum height of 26'1". 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The proposed development, if undertaken as described under standard 1, with as much accuracy as possible, Will increase the cultural value Of this resource and its importance as a representation of a simple, typical miner's cottage. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposed development will enhance the architectural integrity of the historic structure by preserving the structure and original materials. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ON-SITE RELOCATION PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Under Section 7-602 of the Aspen Land Use Code, no relocation of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to section 7-709, shall be permitted unless the relocation is approved by the HPC because it meets the standards of section 7-602(D). Section 7-602(D): Standards for Review of Relocation 1. Standard: The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property. Response: The applicant proposes to relocate the structure in order to set the structure as far apart from new development as possible. The relocation corrects an existing encroachment onto the neighbor's property by creating a conforming side yard setback of five feet. A variance of three feet is requested for the front yard setback. There are large cottonwood trees near the west lot line of the property. George Robinson of rhe Parks Department made a site visit to the property and believes that the trees are somewhat healthy and have about another ten year life span. The trees are beginning to lean. The Parks Department recommendation is that the relocated house be at least 6 feet from the dripline of the trees. The architect has represented that the foundation for the cabin will only be excavated at the corners, causing less impact on the tree's stability, nonetheless, the cabin is proposed to be only two feet away from the tree dripline. In this case, Staff finds that the front yard setback variance may not be appropriate. At the most, perhaps a one foot variance should be granted to maintain 10' between the historic resource and new structure. 2. Standard: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structure will not be diminished due to the relocation. Response: The applicant proposes to move the historic structure to a prominent location along Walnut Street and to place new construction a reasonable distance behind it. 3. Standard: The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Response: A report from a licensed architect has been submitted, including a plan for stabilizing the building. HPC usually requires this information from a licensed engineer. This is a small structure and the committee should consider whether the information submitted is sufficient. 4. Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: HPC must set a value for the relocation bond. Staff suggests approximately $10,000-20,000 as this is comparable to bonds requested for similar structures. 5. Standard: The receiving site is compatible in nature to the structure or structures proposed to be moved, the character of the neighborhood is consistent with the architectural integrity Of the structure, and the location of the historic structure would not diminish the integrity or character of the neighborhood of the receiving site. An acceptance letter from the property owner of the receiving site shall be submitted. Response: Generally, Staff is not in favor of relocating historic structures, however, this building is not on its original site. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PARTIAL DEMOLITION PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: No partial demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to section 7-709, or any structure within an " H" Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless the partial demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the applicable standards of Section 7-602(C). The applicant proposes to demolish the existing residence on the site (to the east of the historic resource). HPC's role is to determine whether or not the building proposed for demolition can be sacrificed without compromising the character of the resource. Standards for Review of Partial Demolition 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure. Response: Demolition will be limited to the structure which is not considered historically significant. Staff does not have any information about this structure. It does appear that a miner's cottage exists at the east end of the building, but it is not original to the site and has been enveloped by the rest of the structure. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: A. Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. Response: Impacts to the historic structure are very limited as it is completely detached from the new res-idence. B. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel. Response: The proposed new residence will not affect the architectural integrity of the historic; structure. SPECIAL REVIEW TO EXCEED 85% OF THE ALLOWABLE F.A.R. SUMMARY: This project is located in the Smuggler Mountain neighborhood, therefore both the general guidelines (Chapter 1 of the "Neighborhood Character Guidelines") and the specific guidelines for Smuggler Neighborhood (Chapter 4) will be applied. The special review process is mandatory, as is compliance with the Committee's findings, because the lot is less than 9,000 sq.ft. The proposed project is 3,135 sq. ft. above grade. This is the maximum allowable F.A.R. for the site. STAFF COMMENTS: Please refer to the application for the complete representation of the proposal. Planning staff finds that this project is substantially in compliance with the general and specific neighborhood guidelines. Rather than discuss each guideline (including those which are met), only the elements of the proposal which significantly warrant further discussion are highlighted below. The applicable general and specific guidelines have been grouped together by subject. Garaqes General Guidelines- 12. Minimize the visual impact of garages. Response: As described above, Staff recommends that the garage be completely detached from the house. Mass and Scale Specific Guidelines-36. New buildings should be similar in scale to traditional residential buildings of Aspen. Response: As described above, Staff recommends restudy to provide more physical breaks into smaller massing modules, especially in the wall surface on the north facade. ALTERNATIVES: HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Conceptual, Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, Special Review approval as proposed, finding that the Development Review Standards have been met. 2) Conceptual, Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, Special Review approval with conditions, to be met at final. 3) Table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain, allowing the applicant time to revise the proposal to meet the Development Review Standards. 4) Deny Conceptual, Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, Special Review approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that in general this is an excellent and well designed project. However, in order to address some important aspects of the project that should be studied, Staff recommends HPC table the application, giving the applicant the following direction: 1) Restudy the north elevation, or the building form, to create more breaks on the north facade and to further break up the mass of the building in general. 2) Detach the garage from the house. 3) All new windows on the miner's cabin shall be wood windows. 4) Retain the existing door on the west side of the miner's cabin. 5) Work with Staff and monitor to determine appropriate alterations to east facade of the miner's cabin, using physical evidence of previous appearance. 6) Retain and restore existing windows on south side of miner's cabin. 7) Consider covering new foundation of miner's cabin with clapboards. 8) No more than a 1' front yard setback variance will be granted. 9) The applicant must submit a bond of $10,000 prior to application for a building permit. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCES APPLICATION CONCEPTUAL REV]EW Attachment 2 1. Applicant's Name and Address: Gretchen Greenwood-Ortiz and Michael Ortiz 520 Walnut Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303-925-4502 Representative/Owner: Gretchen Greenwood-Ortiz 2. Street and Legal Description: 520 Walnut Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lot 8 and the North one-half of Lot 9, Block 3 William's Addition to the City ofAspen 3. Attached to the application is a copy of the disclosure of ownership ofthe parcel as Exhibit A. 4. Attached to the application is Exhibit B, the vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. A neighborhood vicinity map showing the relationship of this parcel to the neighborhood will be presented at the hearing. 5. Attached is the written description ofthe Conceptual Development Plan proposal and an explanation ofthe development. The graphic representation ofthe proposed development is attached with Attachment 3a. The compliance with the Review Standards is attached as Attachment 4. J page 1 .. ATmCBMENT 1 IAND USE APPIICAEON HIM 1, pzweg:sc vapt GREENWOCD- CRT/ 2 RESIDE-Nca n hdhed= local. 59£) W A LN lEE fl- l-OT 8, AND -FrE NOTTH ONE - U f¥(-F of 667 9 BLOCK 6 (ixxlicate street address,* lot & block Ilmber apprq?riate) 926 %2~*2&i,- c KN OF ASPEN 3) Present Zoning /~- ~7 44 Trk Sha 5,(2 25 Sft ·-4. 51 ApgUgmres Hae, Maness & arns i /7)(Ctlett / CotrEE#2* 0£772- 52-0 Wal Ald-*t - ~ -fr,f>CA, CO. 8/le 11 - 925 - 9-504 6) Represdative's Nana, Miress & Ban # 4*272*9V £2£024'7£.0740 84*2 93-0 Welfull- St-' 4/kt 61415 - 4 501 ' I 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use Conoeptnal SPA V Concept]Jal Historic Dev. Special Revier Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline ,-. Conceptlxal POD - Minor Historic Dev. Stzeam Margin Final POD - Historic Demolition Mamtain View Plane - Subdivisirn Historic Designaticn Condc=iniumization :rext/Map Amer~Mit QUS Allotment Iat Spli.K/Int line. - GMOS Ex]=ption · Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses (rl=ber and type of existing· structures; approod,rAt, sq. ft.; r• mher of bedrocms; any previous aaprovals granted to the property). -7410 685-11Nu ST-fu CR-tail SITED = 4181 *59 - EUS#Nu mA-lk) MouSE u-/ 3 kd/0,71) , 1,10,8 5¥. 12 9) Description of Developnerrt Application -Rtd Euffl NO3 0, 214-7 59 · fh SU. ail U.LA£-CE 6*N, £ Lt-*Un- 10) Ha9*u attached the following? |/ ~Resporse to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents /~Resixnse to Attachment 3, Specific Subnissicn Contents 1/ Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application 1111111 SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of clear. fully labeled drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than 11-x17-, OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 11-xll" format. APPLICANT: MIC,fALL OCT}lf (of-EUTEN GREED l.lor-OVIT}1 ADDRESS: 58-0 WAL.Nl£r Gr. fg>EN, 00. 818 li ZONE DISTRICT: E-- u LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): 5,062 5 64. 6--· - EXISTING FAR: at 49-7 6,1. *. ALLOWABLE FAR: - - 3,/2 -5 6 0 79 0 PROPOSED FAR:~ - t 13, /3.5 QS A. 79- , EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commercial): NiA PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercial): N j a EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: r29 WD PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: 02 *0 EXISTING % OFOPEN SPACE (Commercial): N IA PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE (Commer.): NIA I li EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: prbdua\8*. 6? l - D \ k::R=@~Ndis. / E L 0 U PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Pmdga\Blea.Yltta 71 deL 'Accessot,adm /8 Lo PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: 409 9090 EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: ~ EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: / ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: .a SET8ACKS: + 9.0 aill,lkul oll u.uAIL}J -fvt .-1-IL Ww4 1 p/90>osed. EXISTING: /, ALLOWABLE: , PROPOSED: Front: & 4,- D Front: 10 Front: Reac Reac /0/5 ' Rer. Side: Side: Side: Combined Front/Rear: 40 9 Combined Frt/Rr: Combined Front/Rear: EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ ENCROACHMENTS: VARIATIONS REQUESTED (elioible for Landmarks Onlv: character comoatibilitv finding must be made bv HPC): FAR: Minimum Distance Between Buildings: SETBACKS: Front: Parking Spaces: Rear: Open Space (Commerdal): Side: Height (Cottage Infill Only): Combined Frt./Rr: Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): Attachment 2 Written Description of the Proposed Development The entire proposed development includes the relocation and restoration of a Victorian miner's cabin, the demolition of an existing two story detached, two family building and the construction of a two story, single family residence with an Accessory Dwelling Unit. The relocation ofthe miner's cabin with a requested front yard setback variance has been submitted under a separate application. In addition, the property has applied for Historic Landmark Designation, which is currently in the process ofbeing completed through the HPC process. This conceptual application is for the development review of a new single family residence on the property. The following are the zoning requirements on the property: ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE R-6 ZONE Zoning: R-6 Existing Lot Size: 45 Feet X 125 Feet = 5,625 Square feet Allowable FAR: 3,135 Sq. ft. Front and Rear Yard Setbacks: Minimum of 10 feet/No less than 30 feet 5 feet for the Garage at the Rear Yard ~ Side Yard Setbacks: 5 feet with a total of 15 feet Maximum Site Coverage: 42.5% of2,390 Sq.ft. Maximum Height: 25 feet Off Street Parking Requirement: 1 per Bedroom. 520 Walnut Street lies between Walnut Street to the west and the alley to the east. The main entry and front yard will be offWalnut Street and the access to the garage will be from the alley. In a separate application, we have asked to move the old miller's cabin into the front yard setback, by eight feet, so that this new house development does not physically touch the old building. This variance will allow the miner's building to sit apart from any new construction, as it has for the past 100 years. The proposed development will build a three bedroom house, with an accessory dwelling unit, for a total square footage of 2,854 square feet. The redevelopment ofthe miner's cabin will use 281 square feet ofthe available floor area. The total new constructed square footage including the miner's cabin will be 3,135 square feet. A two car garage and two off street parking areas will be provided on the property, in order to I meet the parking requirement. As indicated on the proposed site plan and architectural drawings, the allowable floor area, the front and rear yard setbacks, the side yard setbacks, the site coverage, and the parking requirements, all comply with the Zoning Regulations. No variance requests are being asked from the HPC for this development application. page 2 The proposed architectural design ofthe new residence has been developed to be sensitive in form, mass and scale to the detached Victorian miner's cabin on the property. The existing miner's cabin is a simple rectangular building with a gable roof and a steep 12/12 roofpitch. This rectangular form and gabled roof; unadomed with complicated dormers has determined the design direction for the new building. The architectural concept is to utilize the simple forms ofAspen miner's cabin architecture, yet modernize it for contemporary use. The building has been designed to create a building that is visually broken into four building masses (not including the miner's cabin) with rooflinks that serve to create a concept of a compound of smaller buildings on the property. The buildings are simple and rectangular in form, without typical Victorian detailing or accessories such as turrets, dormers, gazebo porches and bay windows. The roofline ofthe building is varied, utilizing simple miner's cabin architectural features such as a 12/12 gabled roof, a shed roof, and a flat roof The use of different rooflines in this design allow the building to appear as separate entities. The eave depth will be detailed to match the depth of a Victorian building of approximately 8" and the profile will be narrow to match the typical eave profile ofthe old miner's building. Like the varied rooflines on the proposed building, the building materials will also vary. The garage structure will have antique barn si(ling. The main building will have a 1 x 4 horizontal lap siding. The different rooflines will also have a variety of materials. The garage structure will have a rusted corrugated metal material while the main building will have an asphalt roofing tile. The variety ofmaterials will further delineate the building as separate forms, thus giving the appearance that the build _ was constructed at different times. page 3 [[im Attachment 3a Specific Submission Contents: Conceptual Development Plan for Significant Development to Historic Landmark 1. A sketch plan ofthe proposed development is attached as the following exhibits: Exhibit C: Existing Site Improvement Survey (This survey shows existing buildings, setbacks and encroachments.) Exhibit D: Site Plan ofthe Proposed Development (This site plan shows the proposed new building, the relocated miner's cabin and proposed setbacks and no encroachments.) Exhibit E: Main Floor Plan Exhibit F: Upper Floor Plan Exhibit G: Roof Plan Exhibit H: South Elevation Exhibit I: East and West Elevations Exhibit J: North Elevation 2. The conceptual selection of major building materials for the development will include the following: Victorian Miner's Cabin: The existing si(ling will be reused(where applicable) . On three sides, the siding is lx4 wood bevel siding, on one side, the siding is a varied width ofvertical wood si(ling. The old doors will remain including the old window ( ifpossible) and new double hung windows will be added to match the old windows . New Main House: The main house is broken into 4 building masses that are attached by varying roof links. They are as follows: 1. Entry form: The siding will be rusted metal panels with rusted metal roo£ The windows will be metal clad on the exterior. 2. Main house with two gables: The siding will be lx4 wood bevel si(ling and the roofwill have asphalt siding. The windows on the main house will be metal clad on the exterior. 3. The link between the Main house and the garage form will be rusted metal siding. The roofis flat and will be constructed out of a built up membrane with gravel. 1 4. The garage will have antique barn wood siding with the roof a corrugated rusted metal. The windows in the garage will be wood on the exterior.. page 4 3. The proposed development has been designed to be sensitive to the Victorian miner's cabin that is being restored on the property. The Main house and the old miner's building will be separated by 12 feet-6 inches. The form ofthe old building, the steep roof line and natural materials have established the direction for the design ofthe new structure. 4. This development application falls under category 'e', which reads: The development-of the -site of an Historic development which has received approval for demolition, when a development plan has been required by the HPC pursuant to Section 7-602(B). page 5 Attachment 4 Review Standards: Development in H District and all Development Involving Historic Landmarks a. The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel. The new structure has been designed to follow the same building form, steep roof lines and simplicity that is so unique about the old miner's building that -shares ihis property. b. The proposed development is consistent with the character ofthe neighborhood. The character ofthe immediate neighborhood is new construction as ofthe 1960's and 1970's, including large apartment and condominium developments. The two bordering properties, to the north and south are potential large sites for redevelopment. The miner's cabin at 520 Walnut Street is the only old building in the neighborhood that defines a sense ofhistory in the neighborhood. The development that is being proposed here, is to restore the miner's cabin and use these design parameters ofthe old building for the new structure, thus further enhancing the importance ofthe old miner's cabin, and establishing a neighborhood character. c. This proposed development enhances the historic and cultural value ofthe designated historic structure on the parcel. The new development does not physically touch the historic building that is on the same property, therefore the historic value ofthe old building is maintained through this development plan. d. The proposed development does not detract from the architectural integrity of the historic structure. The new structure will obviously be a newer contemporary version of a miner's era building. Thus the development restores and delineates the real old building from the newer construction on the site. page 6 GENERAL WARRANTY DEED Carl D. Reich, whose address is P. 0.-Bok 1 4 01 .PAL.t SA o t Le 3 1 Sals , for the consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00), in hand paid, hereby sells and conveys to Michael Ortiz and Gretchen Greenwood, as Joint Tenants, whoseaddressis 52)(D LORiouT SE, AZ:,et.~C) . 0 0 31 Gi l -- , the following described real property in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, to wit: PARCEL 1: A part of the NE1/4 SW1/4 of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., described as follows: - Beginning at a point from which Corner No. 22 of Tract 40 in said Section, according to the Independent Resurvey thereof, bears South 03°04'26".West 234.feet; thence South 45 feet; - thence East 125 feet; thence North 45 feet; thence West 125 feet to the point of beginning. ALSO KNOWN AS: LOT 8 AND THE NORTH ONE-HALF OF LOT 9, BLOCK 3, WILLIAMS ADDITION TO THE CITY OF - ASPEN. with all its appurtenances, and warrants the title to the same, subject to and except for: 1. General taxes for 1994 and thereafter; 2. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract or remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted as reserved in United States Patent record- ed December 24, 1901 in Book 55 at Page 116; 3. Right of way for pipes and mains across the Smuggler Ranch by Deed recorded March 18, 1885 in Book 24 at Page 59; and 4. Right of way for Pole lines and Wires across the NE1/4 SW1/4 of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. as set forth in Deed recorded January 20, 1887 in Book 29 at Page 582. Eytl 18/7- * A PC-r %51 9 . all reference being to the Pitkin County, Colorado real property records. SIGNED this 4)90 day of r¥\ A q , 1994. L./ 11 1 >44, / Carl D. Reich STATE OF ELLE CA DC.) ) SS. COUNTY OF ~-RT 14-j O ) A d - - The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 41 - day of 171 94 , 19 41, by Carl D. Reich. WITNESS my hand and official' seal. My commission expires: (SEAL) Jac~ 3.41/&-0 -k----*-\ Notary Publi5 4,. S. H.:2,2« /> ry *.-0~Ki/2-) tl ~Tr \0 .li /907Aed rtich\Zwd P 1.:01 10 <17~PUBLICJ' x4:%=©f- My Comm:ssion Expires April 22,1998 2 52 9 UPD COL . . 21\-4. -. l 1 * - - - 7 -:.. 0 '14 0\\ .. . AL.r--7 -12=&. 1 -- , L \ / G•aheia=,0 0 0 1¥.......~mo-W.B..a...BMM I . £F].u=I]a:/an= \W . . *-.... . . D- . l Gge i . 1 I. I : IIi' ./ /........ \ A - .-* 1 lil[Unh glim:8 [I[OG-m®li:NII!21 *Uta, ..21 2 . :Ek . . . . 2]111]11,031::3 111= 27L,LEd1 1*tib £..3 \3 -I - .4 / -*Il ' 1 41;;INT'111;i ,illIWI; [BWIB•~1451 [[IWI!I] . ' \1 memiiliiJ.1!NER [El!Im] i[!¥& IG¥111~~:,i~I~,'1',.:~:Ii mnrlig. ' · ... ..4 'Ii'W]15 !,TW]11· 1*11} IBWIHI' mlmI[ Jmj tR~!119 [m}In , .,· 1 1-- 1,1 8-L-1£.Tl'44 Jidli 1181111# t.[jill.Ii'.0122111:·:.:£.j ultutul . -- -- L . 01 1-Ellm; DI]*}!ifil®1] mimnrmrimill:![.m. 011WID. 011Oill. Ullim[HIEW.u -.-3 - mm09081,[imill:mgml:QI®m M!111,[Fug,WH*, 0121110~116!Wlm ., _ I QIL'iliI] =mlmglimImBICUEI]FlNEulmj Lbslp:u,111:1.w Wk'lli~1!dil® -- 520 -C 0 -1!Ulm] Em~·mimi [suim·miED lina» Gil!:r r-1 1211,11 11~1Jilll:Ut12.1 411111111J :wi:lilll.:tily#.11111~ihC:2-2- 1%1 -7 - - WALNUT w./1/94 2ill'!#ER 'Emi: 011 I ./ 1 S7rg~- -™.4111.-- .- - -*~ ! %111.Elli =Irl'Eipli'11 gE;Ell-%11Ii; 1 I -14*ilmit- --. . e Ll -I · ' '~-mmINR #MO L 2 12 : ; , -- £ 15* I . 6 GliK , i - · 1. 1. . 1 . Itt.19 . · I . 7.-/» * . 2011 / 6/T K - . 1 -- P-+1-9\3-l, 6 .\21 \ \ * 7914.3 \ -*-*--tj \ \ + Ul-- - \ 0 1 \ 1 - U - - Ch 1 \ \\ -\\L - ~ , ----- \ ..¥-I-- / 0-r i-- . L--- - -- , /1 / t, '' :/ , ,---* 1 1 , 1 1 e...... ''. r--l \ \ 11 . /, I , \ , I I / f, . / 17 \------- { 1 \ Ill I /, I .' 1 / 1 / \ I / / I /\ \ IBSON \ 1 1 /1 \ E / 1 I / it t 1 lA . \ \ 1 \\ / , , // / I I / ' AVENUE SOUTH O / I 6 I I \.0 O \\ CP ./ \\ t.-- \\ ~/1, I I A I. I . 0 9 (P O £ 4 I I 1 il el I I / t . \ \\ - CA 1 t '' \\ '' I I. -37 \ - ~T STRE- . .1 I. '4, 1.- < N ~4*1 -, : 7 . i . M ' f- 6 5,4/.....3 . : 24-3¥46 <t,Ob'L ' AT ' i.-~ 7- It, :-'-ty . ... I.,/ I 7 I I #. /: i. 4. ./.:,©h--LZE#.31:-2 10.- . - .ilka~¢~ ........ .... ., ..by ,A.~ >1.0.1 L quu· 4:7 1 iff¥;A tt4 «fr*~3.- '.. r . '1-1- -· · 2 -t,:21!lit,& ...A ·LA~ m.,t. 1 ...... ., .I 7324641.,3," .'r<14"24:/6.4#~r . Al:·. ·•- 1·-46*4.1 --A 1 1 ./ /:' 1, 1 , '.1 lei 1- »47, -~ ./.%~.--#. / 7 1 , -1 -\ AL NOFT' H . fra.Pry 1-Ir*- 129,0, ,i 0 32 . /~2\ 1 FVchmE - - . .. I'V I Clvgl'·N :.... . .. FLO HE+111,·10 6/92 4 Loil . - a=7. 00 MP-1 H 120'91 F.N 6+ Keprak,=14 Vtl;9 oFFI 4 ag ~-_ii_ 161/ ¢ 011*TIWI- pl<KiNB -·-: * 4¥»861 1 6 -1 ki 1 .. /1 ndly'ronare° 1 1-_11_ 11 -1' I i _ 0 2 - - -1 --1 4 1 1 1.-7 ~311 07 k 3 11 , IV\1 1 f ,/ U ~~ *u 11 l'f) & 1 Aka -1-A--1 2 *t 6 , 4 /P-1 V 141/ r. , 0 'lei '11 404TH Fkofffry LIN E- 1 ' FroHT 'e-tze ' »FFF®< 1 MerE, 1- 041-1 08 oF Hol.Kt# f 5 1 „ 90•:TBALK , / d, 21 12#»F »· RP, ' rfew/' 9,¥9 4*w«. · , i BWEE,a<-0 b\,7 6, Mh 09 0 Fu»1 4 20 0 1 N & pl»14,5. MI .--*,4. ' '-1 fr<H I Prl- 'P ' ~WHLNU- /a-n« . I ·i • 1 1 -/ 1~fr# I - ill-~ 5 7 [ A -VE+ T --- 1 -.-el- ---- -nuLLL u - 1.1 f«f--vi - --il~L~Jhuflil_J~rl (-3 4 40 0 C04 27 h 5/1 43~-M•,» 1 ilVICTOF'vH'·9 60> k t MINY*0 4 VIP 7 J 6,1:71 H 1. WCM-In C 0 - r--ir- -r-7.,t--7 %\ OV ¥ Mt'E'TI 0*·PP'.91 O 6*P»MI 'Z re·FF=*[ P L- .- . m DQI) O Cj131-7-' 4. 4 i 111 0 ~ 01 --rb, ..~~ - . |'2,5 L O " FBof#FTy 1.- INE- G . I 27Rk Mr 1 H FL- 2* FL» hi - 41Cm-8 ) -~ . Fe ' + 1 LO ' 0 I - EXH.1 Drf ' 9' . 1,4/-L-NUT A i .!019 1 H >63 1 0 -11 = 11 4,< ~7 H -411 =I,go~Ld -1,a»<3 1 21{'822 1 - 1 r-- --7 M 0 . ~7 3 44 14 21 9 4 1 H 143 Il . 1- i W.zI Obl 171 ~- 3 - l li 11 El- 0 1. 1 1-171 H21-171 . --0 8 J, 8 13><1 - a 2 k Il 2 'l 11 . , h r> .. 41 11 11 / ( RWON) 19, 344111>611 - - r ' 1.1 i ... : 19 ·! 11 i 1 1 .li - 111 · · il l 1 1.1.i ill - 1 1: i :1 111 15 : 1 1: 1 1 1! 8 I iii| i i 1 1 ...1 111-1 'f ul'111'~il lili iii-1-« ------ 1, 1 1 1 0 !! i 1 .1 i ' I-:1111 -- -- 1.1 1 , 1 1 -- 1 .11 1 11. :Ii Ii; 1:...12'MI . 1' - - -1- :1 21. ! 1.1 , 1 ' 1 1,i! ---- It ili 1 ?Ii' I .1 ;:1 1 - - -7-7 1 1 111£ 111 9. 111 11 - 1! 1 11 lili. 1,1 .lili 1 111 1 I i , ·· I i 1 ZE ZE- lili 111 1 1, 1 1 11111 1 VI , ! .1 1 11' 11 i i : . i ~ I :, i'i | li ~ Egl4-...~..91 : 'till i iz' 1 j * / ·I,1,-/1 1 I I | A•Ii!,F 1 1 1 1.- ..1 1 11, lili .. 1,1,1 1,1. .41 't:ili! 1-ill 'Ii!ji |'lil Ir ,.. 1.: + :.;-1 lilill:jill,1'11 Iii Li..,211 ill,-: 4 1 "·||1!.1.1 * 1 1 '11 . 1 1 . il i , LE'/_.....1 li 111'H'!11'.i!1,·t~14:, :1. ' 1! 111 +1.1..:.,j i ~ 11 1 1 0 !! 4:lili ill 1;11 P'.i,14 1.,11 - i-NER - - A - ,£==926=ch» - i ji li ....A - M- 1 i I--.. --*~ ~ 1- 1 i 1-111 . t 2= illi - ----- -1-- . ./0/ - i . - 14 1.1 -' 1 #t *TI.IHE ,-j. 69 t ,• 2**% -4:. -7, ; ~; id '~ ~~1~ b 1 · . .1 k t 7- 1...I 1. 1 1 Fl:11' 11 0 .. .-1 1, i 1. 1 . :: 1 1 ·-i. i f - 09 0 LI « H EL· E~»0»-T~ 1 0 h.1 - - 0) 1 1/2711 $ IL 011 1 1 1 0% HI AIT 'H' - , --- 7 f t -%@a- - ------I-------- - -- 1 11 1 - ' . 3 ·L*41:'.- * I - - E.en-_ELEE271€12!- . - 0/«F E- 4 e v»-I- 1 O N -- - 09: %511 =1 1 21 - a: 2/2= 1Le'l j , .. ··:·v -r-7 lillil 11 A £ ' .h>.7 , f , Ir'114 114)43 " ~ -; | 11'02; i v 4-0-1-IU5919-li-IIP-El - 1 1 1 1 lillii; 1 1 1 1 1 1 i' 1 1 M 1 1 !1 1 4 i ! 1 1~ 1 1 1- - 1 1 Iii 2.ill;.1~.1 - .: ''fil - lili 1 11 1 - ! '1 1! Ill - - - -- 11 -- .-&. . '7 J.-1. . Y , MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 232 E. Main Street, Amoco station- Minor Date: March 22,1995 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval for the installation of a satellite dish at the Amoco station. This building is not historic, but it lies within the Main Street Historic District. APPLICANT: Amoco Oil, represented by Antenna Pro, Inc. LOCATION: 232 E. Main Street, Lots R and S, Block 73, City and Townsite of Aspen. OTHER REVIEWS: This development will also require special review at Planning and Zoning Commission. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H, " Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H, " Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: Amoco wishes to install a satellite dish of approximately 3 ' 6" in diameter at the rear of the building. The dish will be 4'0" above the eaveline, but will still be below the ridge and therefore will not be visible from Main Street. The applicant has represented that this is the smallest dish that can be used. Any reflective metal on the unit should be painted out. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The dish has been sited so as to have the least visibility from Main Street. There is a historic structure on the opposite side of the alley, but there will not be any negative impacts on the resource. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development ~ or on adjacent parcels. Response: This proposal has no impact on the cultural value of any adjacent historic structures. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposal has no impact on the architectural integrity of any historic structure. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Minor Development application as submitted. 2) Approve the Minor Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (specific recommendations should be offered) 4) Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the Minor Development application as submitted, with the condition that any reflective metal on the dish or mounting pole be painted out. Additional Comments: ATEACHMENT 1 IAND USE- APPLICATION Feet - 1) Pr#JeeLI#isse . A PLD 00 1 *7 E.Li_ 1 7-E UMMU,fr e+4710/45 . , ;; pEd<Lpitjai 13 1- E . M A-I N . 97- r- Al P 54 3 00 - 21 6 / 1 . 8 LpOk- 7 3 , L PT A + S (indicate street 'address, lot & blade inaber, legal description Viere appropriate) 3) Present Z~ing /~1 66 4)1rk€i:za 44)' >C 9DL t - - DAVE 51dkaS « 5\ FF*1=E=t:>s'Bus=a. -baeigzza &10£a # AM Q ¢» p / L ( ~-5 j ~~\ 95-4 -4475- 3 1-0 D Er A.14-NADLPH- DR-- 6%1 6,4-GO; *LL &066@D -07#3 6) Represe[It:~ive'S Name. Address & Bione # /¢bilte»:*54,47. jLc,23 . (5#w'KNb.,0 9.© 1-45-1 9, 774-,17©* ter -*~I.; -De-uve,a-, 68. 9DJ23) (103~369-5-14 4 .. 7) :Iypd of Applioactim (please check all tbact apply): Conditional Use ___ Oonceptinl SPA Conceptiial Historic Dev. Special Review Final SEA -I..=/0 Final lii gtnric Dev. 8040 Greeilline ocnceptual ED . ~ wrnr Hi=t-nric Dev. . 1 Hi =toric Demoliti ril Stream urgin · _ Final B]D - Moun,1 1 11 ~lew Plane Siodivisim - nist=ic Designation Condomininmiyellrn. Teod/Map Amaldment . -- a«1S Mlotnient Int Splitl/Iot line __ (2433 Ebalvtion Adjustment - 8) Description of Existing Uses · (I,~ber and f type of existing stluctures; approodmate sq. ft ; XI=ber of bedrooms; aror previous approvals granted to the property). le-itu)CE 5 714 7-1 PA( ~_ 9 ) Description of Developnent Application \6[5714 LLK-nou DP 510<516/6-99 'DA-7-ELL/7-E. C.OMM tu/rowrrpbrs 9 95 7-En ~9£1£. ,¥rl'*e,fet BVet M-EAA A-•16 E-LE-vwrl DR 50#+LE P,2-,4 0 +N: 4 9 ~ 10) Have you attad,ed the following? Response to AttadmEIt 2, Minimm Submission Contents Response to Attadment 3, Specific atmission Contents Response to Attadmait 4, Review Stanlards for Your Application lillilli. ¢4 9 CD DJL - r 1 3. 1%9 81 }111\ 5 7-, , 1 1 1 1 i 1 ,30+0/*W·is »9-.7~E Z-Z-/76 9757-am )N»*L€ATiON 7Dp pF p 15 H AT 0% B ELD Ki p a A M D F-\ R-OD M. 11\ 1 !' ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / 1 !!1. XU It / I i li 1 1~ 11 1 . ~ . 1 '1': L Ill' · i 1 1 1 1 1 , /1 1 , 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 r . j'.0/ 11 1 1 1 1 1 , 1-*X i 1 Ii I - i I 1 1 4 1 ' '1 .i /272 1 1 1 ff f :1! 4 1 1 1 4 i l , i 4 1 1 , , I i ' 11 I !:i U 1 1 1 1 1 Irl. 1 j , 1 1 4 i i ~ , Ii,il 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 ; 1 Iii 11 f i i 2 9 5 ' 1 5! 1 i ' ; : 1 J . , 1 1 1 1 : :lili !1 ' i 1 1 l i 1 j /4.14 G CO D 1 L 6~45)NE-'59 SATELL-17-E ' 131 - 14 141 4 1,T. 25 9 9TE 01 1/46 »41- LA-7-}DA -- 12 i .-I - 1 ,-1- ~ -l i - 4 4 -- 1 /1 1 iff { 1 : .. . + 1 1 - 1 - . 1 j -ri, 11 D Ng %-CH ~ t-\ 1 1 if- 1 1 Ir , FSB 1134A BACKGROUND HNS now offers a "No-Hole Polpantenfla mount as shown in figure 1. The no-hole pole mount is suitable for the 0.75M, 1.OM antlfE'·2[ntennas only. The no-hole pole mount is intended as an easy-to-install mount that takes atrentage of building strength without interfering with the building roof. The no-hole i,ole includes a bracket assembly which attaches to a building wall and a mounting plate which attaches to a deck, sidewalk, concrete drive, or other suitable surface. The installation subcontractor supplies the mast pipe. The no-hole pole is available in two versions: standard or offset. The standard version has a straight mast which is typically positioned just outside the eaves of the roof (up to 58" away from the building wall). The offset version permits the straight mast to be positioned under the eaves and close to the wall (from 6" to 12") by the addition of an offset mast extension that supports the antenna. /7 - ROOF EXTENSION -- OFFSET .+ 13 7 ~ 3 4 1/4 2 .C 1 n ' 1 i MAST PIPE-*El $ (SUPPLIED BY W 1 INSTALLER) ~ WALL A MOUNTING El PLATE 0. E} I ¥ .AA-A.A--a.4-/AA.Al.AA..1~. AM- . ...............1 11 A A *0 .........• ........................ 11. .0.. ................ 194 .-M .......... . I€OXGBWEK*I-I€->IC· ............................. .............................. STANDARD OFFSET (HNS 9200347-0001) (HNS 9200347-0001 and 9200347-0002) PS31665 Figure 1. No-Hole Pole Versions: Standard and Offset 2 4096-348 PRODELIN CORPORATION 1.2M Ku-BAND Rx/Tx SERIES 1123 r f 1 0=L /, 2 k METEA , DETAIL D L L[NG E.1 OF FEED R[O Nkh. 1 C- St{RT EN] IF FEE[] R[[]- - 2 h Figure 5 14 ..ITKIN COUNT,' TREASURER 7.14/AL)646 h (j r, 1 20[0 31, .,12 ' 4,1/01 9/0 TAX - - MICE A>PP N, 1 4)1 09 ANA 8 (303) 920-5170 .'AX YEAR DUE SCHEDULE NUMBER TAX SALE NUMBERS LISTED YOUR TAXES ARE DISTRIBUTED In'ji' inah i - 41 6 urt' 3 - f#,1 -., , 1 BELOW INDICATE UNPAID i TO THE FOLLOWING AGENCIES , PROPERTY OWNER ft TAXES FROM PRIOR YEARS , TAXING DISTRICT AMOUNT CUNIJ[!c, C!. Alli)[. 1, 1,1 l A 1 U 902.04 P.n. Unx 341, UPLUSPACL 315.04 232 FAS] NAIP SIPLE 1 LI'!L (, 96. 4,/1 AL,Pt P. f U 81 f,12 COLO RVK 48.6/ 1)F 111 111.r'(1 Afl' f ij 941. 54 A bl' flil r' 2 #¥ . 21 1, ~ 451. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Of PROPERTY k TYPE ~ 1 VALUATION TAX Ahl' 411,15 53.lf· 1 T f A"13 1 fli·;t·il, 1 1 E O' A wil'' I) ACTUAL VALUE 6 u 1 , ('0( n wl'rill. A,JIN- 41}.i,7 ' B L K /1 1-l,T : 4 1 ASSESSED VALUE 1/4,290 3, c., c .1 - 4(1 A bli 1 41 4 9 0 (, L t' , ' NVION 31,1 Ill'J (} . i > 0 SEWER CHARGES CITY LIENS u.(jo CITY IMPRV. DIST. U. {1(1 MILL LEVY c 9.r, 0 1 Per $ 1,000 of assessed valuation FIRST HALF SECOND HALF OR TOTAL P , 4·: 12. 7 9 € *4\C.70 4 11,+ DUE BY FEB. 28 DUE BY JUNE 15 DUE BY APRIL 30 t r D 0 1,# WITHOUT STATE LEGISLATIVE FUNDING YOUR SCHOOL GENERAL, kl~IND MILL LEVY WOULD HAVE BEEN 42 .')P·'j INSTEAD OF 4.185 MILLS *-.=.-L--- --- - -- - -- -/--.*49 2EMi¥ TO PITKIN COUNTY TREASURER 54,0, 1 ?.t n I .1 1- T , Dll 2 {, 1 TAX NOTICE A ..4,1 ! , 1.111 11'.'Ac.·) n 1,1 1 1 (303) 920-5170 AX YEAR DUE 1 SCHEDULE NUMBER : TAX SALE NUMBERS LISTED YOUR TAXES ARE DISTRIBUTED "9 9 199 r, , -Af : , 1 /~ ·, 1 ·· ft 4, 7 11 fj . BELOW INDICATE UNPAID . Th TO THE FOLLOWING AGENCIES J tlit · .~ :i.·, r..... PROPERTY OWNER -2 TAXES FROM PRIOR YEARS t'.2 TAXING DISTRICT AMOUNT CONNER bERVICL uTATION ''IlkIN 12.91 CLANDL /1. CONNF R, OB°LP , P l 11 hPACI. 4.51 Pug i Ul i ICE RUY 149 .-Yll. f.,. (3 4 AL,PL,1, Cll ".16.12 .I)LU (1'VE < 1 r. )* 14 ¥ 1. ''i A: Il,1 ,1, 1 3 0 <It., 1:,I- , 1!.I 4.€ K 4 4 5 u LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY | TYPE VALUATION | TAX .'11 1.111''I .It. PHERCIAL/llil.11;41 ~ Ace/ce/8 /0,1,/r -: - L :1 21 .2,1 ACTUAL VALUE Ati';! 11 A' If L .il 3 r. LA[" ET. , , I -ZEMIT TO .-ITKIN COUNT ; TREASUR 40746/00646 001W1/CISCO TAX NOTICE r #14 1., L.-i)l i)$·: At;-2, (303) 920-5170 1 YEAR#*: DUE SCHEDULE NUMBER . TAX SALE NUMBERS LISTED YOUR TAXES ARE D; :094 lign~ i-Aps 0/ul-03271 BELOW INDICATE UNPAID TO THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY OWNER TAXES FROM PRIOR YEARS TAXING DISTRICT , · -.lt*%7(2444 ruP,JEU, CLAJOC .4 GPL SUPACL .0. DOK )43 32 F %...11 4111. SIPLET (,i';L hoPEN 00 21&12 ue L{! RV; Dr » ' Abl' f li·:i 6.24.1.EGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: 4. . TYPE VALUATION TAX . P P 1/ '- .... i 1 1 TY -AN'11 Ttlts'·!L· 1 i E OF Atil·~i. a ACTUAL VALUE b i; 1 , 1' B: t: OCK 73 LOT > ASSESSED VALUE r VRON S I A l T l; 7 SEWER CHARGES 4, . £10 CITY LIENS .EMIT' ~O PITKIN COUNTY TREASURI D rbill.cle TAX NOTICE . f 1.. i (303) 920-5170 1 4 DUE : ' SCHEDULE NUMBER . TAX SALE NUMBERS LISTED -*34 At;yYOUR TAXES ARE DC 1' 4 J j - ...4 1 6 ; f u ~ -4 4, 7 ,;t , BELOW INDICATE UNPAID TO THE FOLLOWING ?¢ U 2 ' PROPERTY OWNER TAXES FROM PRIOR YEARS TAXING DISTRICT , 1 lili' Fc /K DERVICL DIATiON '· ·i'. EL'...T'L h. CON=FR. MuLLT, ;; i +PACL :,1 : 1.·; :L C(' / 1 L O41EGALDESCRIPTION OF*PROPERTY TYPE VALUATION TAX '.. 'Arkfi,L/Lue,NE'' ACTUAL VALUE .3: , r h A 4 # 10' }L A;40. C2.1 r , f-; A I " Sl. ASSESSED VALUE 2,490 7 ,: e r p:I. 1,2 iLO OIL CUM[ t...Y SEWER CHARGES - - k'. 1 11 CITY UENS 1, 51 4% CITY IMPRV. DIST. 44.0-1 MILL LEVY - - Per $ 1,000 of assessed valuation FIRST HALF SECOND HALF OR TOTAL 37.<3 17.63 DUE BY FEB. 28 DUE BY JUNE 15 DUE BY APRIL 30 ITHOUT STATE LEGISLATIVE FUNDING YOUR SCHOOL GENERAL FUND MILL LEVY WOULD HAVE BEEN 5. b 8 5 INSTEAD OF :·,.138'-7 !.1 i Mi- L TiV' ru -0 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 432 E. Hyman Avenue, Aspen Drug building- Minor Date: March 22, 1995 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to enclose an existing deck on the third level of the Aspen Drug building and to replace existing windows in this unit as well. Please see the attached inventory form on this structure. It is listed on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures." The building was constructed in 1887, and the second floor was destroyed by fire in 1918. A second and third floor which are incompatible with the remaining portion of the structure (the first floor) were subsequently added. APPLICANT: Ransom B. Woods, represented by Ted Koutsoubos. LOCATION: 432 E. Hyman Avenue, Lots R and S, Block 88, City and Townsite of Aspen. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H, " Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: The applicant wishes to enclose an existing deck with sliding glass doors and to replace existing windows. Staff finds that the proposal has little additional impact on the streetscape or on the historic structure. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the 5 parcel proposed for development. Response: The upper story floors of this building are already inconsistent with the neighborhood in terms of their setback. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The current proposal does not create any greater impact on the cultural value of any adjacent historic structures. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposal has no impact on the architectural integrity of any historic structure. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Minor Development application as submitted. 2) Approve the Minor Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (specific recommendations should be offered) 4) Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the Minor Development application as submitted. Additional Comments: HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM State Site Number: Local Site Number: 432.EH Photo Information: ASP-CC-2-24 Township 10 South Range 84 West Section 7 USGS Quad Name Aspen Year 1960 X 7.5' 15' Building or Structure Name: Keene Block / Aspen Druq Full Street Address: 432 East Hyman Legal Description: Lots R, S, Block 88 City and Townsite of Aspen City Aspen County Pitkin Historic District or Neighborhood Name: Commercial Core Owner: Private/State/Federal Owner's Mailing Address: ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Building Type: Commercial Architectural Style: Victorian Italianate Dimensions: L: X W: = Square Feet: Number of Stories: 2 and 3 Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): U-shaped Landscaping or Special Setting Features: None Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material and Function (map number / name): None For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in the description as appropriate: Roof: Flat Walls: Brick Foundation / Basement: Brick Chimney(s): Unknown Windows: 1st floor: divided-light transom over fixed qlazing, wood frame picture windows - typical Doors: Divided light transom / 1/2 light / wood panel double entry - typical Porches: N/A General Architectural Description: Victorian Italianate 2-story Commercial; 1918 fire destroyed the second floor completely. Con- temporary addition to the second floor differs drastically in setback and typical 19th century roofline detail. Page 2 of 2 State Site Number Local Site Number 432.EH FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Current Use: Commercial Architect: Unknown Original Use: Commercial Builder: Unknown Intermediate Use: Construction Date: 1887 X Actual _ Estimate _ Assessor Based On: MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS Minor ___ Moderate Major X Moved Date Describe Modifications and Date: Second floor destroyed in 1918 due to a fire. Additions and Date: Contemporary addition differs drastically in setback and typical 19th Century roofline detail. NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA Is listed on National Register; State Register Is eligible for National Register; State Register Meets National Register Criteria: A__ B C D E Map Kev Local Rating and Landmark Designation Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register Contributing: Resource has maintained historic o L.1 - architectural integrity. 0 Supporting: Original integrity lost due to alterations, however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort. Locally Designated Landmark Justify Assessment: Associated Contexts and Historical Information: Built during one of Aspen's booms this two-story brick building was completed in 1887 for local business needs. S.W. Keene, owner of the structure, was one of Aspen's many mining investors. W.T. Turley, a well-known resident had his furniture store in this building for years. Other Recording Information Specific References to the Structure/Building: Pitkin County Court- house Records Archaeological Potential: * (Y or N) Justify: * Recorded By: Date: January 1991 Affiliation: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee - City of Aspen Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer/Planner ATEACBMENT 1 - IAND USE APP=CATIOI FEVEN ,. 1) prdlesrtiefe - U 0 0.41 E / 45 - - IMsted,-ls:£:2as. 411 E . Av **1 a ,r Ag©cv . Cop € (G (r 1.07 **CE.lock <'r f' V 1 (inlicate street'ahdress, lot & block ninber, legal descripticn where adprcpriate) 3) ~ Present Zoning ~/ ~_ j .. . 4) Iot Size 5 ca fz 5) ARSJ~£=ees'Bas:e, Wlizess£2*xe# ?2€- CH€-9 - 91 0-2999 1Ag1owr 1. ·(Jaaels 411 L %70*/. Asorv. Cor %(G r r 1 - 6) Regresentative's Name, Mdress & Ehone # - 7) gypd of 4plicatirn {please check all that gly): 4 00[diticral Use - Ococeptel SPA .-' eco··grtnal Historic Dev. Special Review Final SEA - Final Histaric Dev. .4 8040 Greenlirke C~?eptual ED ~ Mirior Historic Dev. -1. Higtaric Dginl iti on Stream Margin - ---/--0 Final FOD - Mxmtain yiew Plane u_ Subdivisicn___ Historic Designation Coraindnlimi =,tifn. Ted;/Map Ame!xlment - - ags Allatment Iat Split/Int line QUR ]Doemption Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses · (Izimber ani J tipe of existing structlir 0 aupradmate sq. ft.; Immber of bedroans; any previals approvals granted to lie prcperty). U o Rk to 66 clow .f $ w R£ s : Ja- w 4, -Al 9 862. 4 t' O,/ ef U Luildi 44. .. 9 ) Descripticn of Developnent Applicaction r/10 v g s\;4;04 al All, doO,t- 4Nll w :A, clow s L,(ti_ 4.ret ~ 02-IJ Aa~il U,vdrA fy;5 -f; '<5 ig ©Ack . 3.Ep)n-c~ U i YL L Rnlrd PA/5(4,(/*frl al,295 · 2. Gib-J f looti -a GARprt. Eli 10) Have you attached the following? Respaise to Att:admrnt 2, Minimm Sukmission Contents Response to Attachment 3, Specific albmission Contents Response to Attadment 4, Review Standards far Your Application 2- INEW .Iligul· 4lki< To Pic'FLACE FIXED 6 l N6l£ FAN€ - 0 --92_- 17--- 4*3*§9it 4-2 1 -43-_ 07 -___ . W i H Dow Y DW f 8 + r 11 1/ J 11 -1 \1 /1 119 - P '.: 1 r L 1-1 % .--0 ¢ < 0 44\ 1 Lmi - til<,TIHQ 1 8 KITCH[H b,8\ 11 0 1,4 1 ~1 Liv;45 20 0 nt 63< d 1 11 01*LF-*Sei r.-7 C fRW-TAWL. WINDOWS REFLACE EXIWTING <INGLE FAME- -,~ TED Ko U T to OBO 5 P~ti 4,9 E. Hy/AikH M. |411 , stoll 0/1/99 P.G. ~ NEW 8% * S' Ill D iNG GLA{ i 00083 - 14 5 Le€Pal; , C *Per r- ~#1 4 T IN e 6 C Ar #1 5 6Nr) CO LU AA.AS ~ 1 4.1 131 4- 1 , i / f l 1 e /; f r.6 b Nrw (36 ~c€ SL 4, OA- M™ 2)06 3 0 46 ·d~.02.- pti f 'b f y 1 . 3- 1,1 - ----- - --- 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1-1 1 11 EX,<TiNG 75>ALCCkly A FRONT ELEVATION 1/411 = 1 1-0 /' . . I /1 3 -A, ;, -3 2'f~< i S F /AM>. -/~ . p~// p. ~ · -3 , . ty<trit?4 1 COLUMU 80'OUO --N W. INSOL 6U45 . I SHEUr-POCK- t)(14r; EACE Ar- tal':fr- 0816 · w Au_ ibE-You o PIEW <LI OING 62 .64 6 DOOA- El('9-186 WALL- ANO------ ----- - ~ 1-SLAZ L•1 6-__BCMOVCU__-_ 6 wINDOW <ELT *YOUO i1 EitirING 8 1 6UkKDAA' L % 1: 1. i j 1 1-11 fi:1 - NEK' 502>VIA ou il,ECF25 | 114 - .... J L -, L :/1 EX /ST IM /3 F LOOP, SECTION 141 1/=4 /-04 TED KO UT<>OOP)04 REI, -49 6 INMAN AN. 4 1/92 20 N ALLEY BLOCK 88 2 1• 7.00·ti-/ 0,0 E -1 BUILDING 60 " Q R 1 - 0 1 S 2 BUILDING 2 . 4 Z STORY IRICK PS ZE 1 2 8 WILD,Ne /,TH IMEMENT 4 COURT/ - YARD ~ . - I 2 554 1 -D 5- 01 - -4 ... " O 4 0"t 0 3 HYMAN AVENUE MALL HYMAN AVENUE MAIL IN CONCRETE -. COR. DLK. 19 - 0 -fl 3 3 E 1 1, ".€, .Al" 4 04 00, 1 . CM,SLED -X- IN STEPS w. COR. ILA OS J Ho*,ZONTAL CONTROL Efff'- FEED- 91* - 7/t:· 00'$2 13.6..05.kI N' 101''£1 *330 A¥$11 4 »7¥4 01 *34 IWOM P•t Wlyl 0¥]AOD