The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19950426AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 26, 1995 REGULAR MEETING SISTER CITIES ROOM - SECOND FLOOR CITY HALL 5:00 I. Roll Call and approval of April 3, 1995 minutes. II. Commission & Staff Comments III. Public Comments IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:15 A. 435 W. Main Street, L'Auberge- FinalÂ«- V. NEW BUSINESS 5:40 A. 205 S. Mill, Chanin's- MinorCÂ« 5:50 B. 434 W. Smuggler- Partial DemolitionÂ»* 6:05 C. 834 W. Hallam, Poppie's- Conceptual Development, Public Hearing /7/Â¢- 6:35 D. 316 E. Hopkins, Howling Wolf- Conceptual Development, Public Hearing 1-4 9 1 0 - 7:00 E. 935 E. Hyman- discussion 7:20 F. Selection of HPC Honor Awards 4- 0 CÂ»Â»YU--- J 3â‚¬- -Â£ fj . 7:30 VI. ADJOURN HPC PROJECT MONITORING i HPC Member Name Proiect Donnelley Erdman The Meadows Collins Block/Alley 624 E. Hopkins (CD:3-8-95) 220 W. Main- European Flower 930 King Street- Cunningham 330 Gillespie Jake Vickery The Meadows 130 S. Galena- City Hall 520 Walnut- Greenwood 205 W. Main- Chisolm 610 W. Hallam- Iglehart Leslie Holst Holden/Marolt Aspen Historic Trust 303 E. Main- Kuhn 930 King- Cunningham 939 E. Cooper- Langley Entrance to Aspen Roger Moyer 409 E. Hopkins Holden/Marolt 303 E. Main- Kuhn 420 E. Main 107 Juan Martha Madsen 132 W. Main- Asia 43-5. *r Main-L' Aube :sge 706 W. Main (CD:4-27-94) 702 W. Main- Stapleton Linda Smisek 229 W. Hallam- Pinnington 316 E. Hopkins- Howling Wolf 939 E. Cooper- Langley 801 E. Hyman- Elmore Sven Alstrom 624 E. Hopkins 4-12-95 Barn and historic house approved final Susan Doddington Melanie Roshko ' j Jeff McMenimen - L) -4 9 'U 5 -)/n 5-h 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 3, 1995 1 Meeting was called to order by Jake Vickery with Linda Smisek, Les Holst and Roger Moyer present. Martha Madsen was excused. 232 E. MAIN, AMOCO - MINOR DEVELOPMENT John Worcester, City Attorney: I have been reading cases and I am aware that the FCC has passed regulations that make it clear they are preempting the field in terms as to what kind of zoning regulations are allow?ble for satellite dishes. There whole intent is to make sure satellite dishes are permitted so that we can go into the information without unduly local ordinances. A case involved the City of Dearborn in which a private residence wanted to build a ten foot diameter satellite op top of a 20 foot mass. I cannot think of anything more obtrusive than that. The courts struck it down saying that the FCC has in fact preempted this field. The only thing you can do with the locality is pass regulations that effect health, safety or aesthetic. But clearly you cannot ban satellite dishes. The federal government will not allow it. Federal court says cities are subject to a federal court law suit claiming damages if the city prevents someone from putting up a satellite dish. That is a concern to me and I am here to answer questions. Les: I talked with someone from Sante Fe and they do not allow them in the core area district. John Worcester: Then they have not read the case yet. You can have reasonable regulations that relate to health, safety and aesthetics such as if the city engineer says the satellite dish will fall on someone in a certain location. The main purpose is to ensure that everyone can put up a receiving satellite dish so that they can join the new era. Jake: Could you not make a requirement for aesthetic mitigation such as it is OK to put it up but you have to find a place where it is not obtrusive. John: It appears that you can have reasonable regulations. Jake: Even though they could hook up to a phone line. John: The FCC wants to make sure if they want to hook up to a satellite that they can even though there are options. The federal government wants everyone to have open access to satellite dishes. Jake: Then everyone can have one regardless of the needs?, j John: Yes, that is correct. Stan Caluson, Community Development Director: It is similar to a handicapped ramp. This committee could never say that a ramp would F not be allowed. You could detail out the balusters or something ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 3, 1995 like that in the approval. John: The case was a ten foot diameter satellite dish. If we got an application for a 15 foot dish I could do some more research. Stan: The APA has further information if you need it. Les: Red Mountain does not have satellite dishes that are visible. Jake: .This Commission makes findings as to whether things are compatible or not compatible in the historic district and then there is a mechanism for an appeal which-would be to Council then the courts. We could deny it and send it to Council and they would override our finding due to legal issues and perhaps allow this thing. Amy: This is a minor application but Jake makes a good point that we have four development review standards and you have to find that all four are met and that it is compatible with the neighborhood and the historic structure. How do they make a finding as they are not met even if legally there is some reason why we cannot deny it. John: You could state that it doesn't.meet the standards but that you recognize that the FCC has adopted the regulations and therefore you cannot deny the application. Jake: They would have to follow the sequence of appeals and go to Council. John: There is a document called exhaustion of administrative remedies and they can show that in federal court for whatever reason. I do not want this to go to federal court. Stan: Possible you could set some conditions. Amy: This is the only satellite dish that has come in within the last two years and I feel it would be good to get some information as probably the back yard of Dearborn is not an historic district and we do have aesthetic regulations in our historic districts and I would like to know exactly how far we could go in terms of what we can approve. Jake: The concern is the precedent for the invasion of dishes in theory. t Les: I know if someone sees this thing coming up we will start seeing them marching in. The problem with the little satellites coming in is that the cost of the larger ones will go down and they 2 4 . ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 3, 1995 will be available. I know they will not put one next to George Washington's house in Mount Vernon. There has to some guidelines somewhere. Amy: P&Z is not going to review satellite dishes as a conditional use, it will be a planning director signoff. John: Let me find out what reasonable and unreasonable is and I can have that to you within a week. Jake: Possibly they could propose a screening around it. Roger: Is it going on the east or west end of the building? Jake: West corner. Roger: That corner is not very visible. Amy: I did suggest if there was reflective metal that it be painted out. MOTION: Jake made the motion that HPC approve this application for a satellite dish based on the information and recommendation of the city attorney and this not be a precedent and we seek additional information at a later date on such installation. If there is reflective metal it should be painted out; second by Roger. Motion carries 3 - 1. Les opposed. MOTION: Jake made the motion to adjourn; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 3 Iii Al MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 435 W. Main Street, L'Auberge- Final DATE: April 26, 1995 SUMMARY: The applicants request Final approval for a development plan which includes a 206 sq. ft. addition to the existing manager's residence (previously approved by HPC), an 84 sq. ft. addition to the laundry, construction of 12 new guest cabins, and a reconfiguration of the site plan. The proposed F.A.R. is approximately 1/3 of the allowed F.A.R. for the site. The existing cabins were built in the 1950's. Although they have not been listed on the Historic Inventory, they do contribute to the character of the Main Street Historic District and do represent early lodge/ski chalet development. APPLICANTS: ALH Holding Co., represented by Gibson and Reno. r LOCATION: 435 W. Main St., Lots A-I, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen. ADDITIONAL COMMISSION REVIEWS: This project has been awarded an allotment in the Growth Management Quota System process. The proposal will also be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments for setback variances. Development Review Standards 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 an H, Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard, setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor areas, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Response: The applicant wishes to expand the number of lodge rooms available on the site and has used the existing small cabins as a model for their redevelopment proposal. The intention is to create a small "village" with pedestrian paths that wind through the lodge. The parcel is surrounded by historic resources, with the Christiana lodge to the west, a Queen Anne house and Floradora across the street, and another Queen Anne house to the east. The applicant proposes to retain the existing cabins in their current form and decorative treatment. Previously, the proposed new cabins exhibited some elements of Victorian detailing. These have been removed and the cabins are now very simple, with about five variations in siding and material treatments. Staff Still finds that the two level cabins have a somewhat problematic relationship to the street in terms of window height, in addition to the fact that the cabins closest to the street do not have visible entrances, aside from cabin number 11. As discussed at Conceptual, Main Street has become less desirable as a living area due to traffic, however, if HPC is to support a variance to move the cabins close to the sidewalk, they should be concerned that the cabins turn their back to the street in some sense. The architect's intent seems to be to focus on open space interior to the lot. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The architect is exploring options for decreasing the overall amount of paved areas required for parking. A landscape plan has been submitted. The project will make a positive contribution to the character Of Main Street, especially in terms Of retaining the scale of a small lodge. 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 adjacent parcels. Response: The proposed development does not detract from the cultural value of a designated historic resource. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: No designated historic structures are directly affected by this proposal. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the development proposal as submitted. 2) Approve the development with conditions to be satisfied for Final HPC consideration. 3) Table the Conceptual Review with conditions. 4) Deny the Conceptual Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant final approval and support the applicant's request for front setback variances at Board of Adjustment with the condition that the cabins closest to Main Street are revised so as to address the street with an entry. Side entries are acceptable if they are emphasized and clearly visible from the street. Additional comments: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994 MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC grant partial demolition approval to 202 W. Francis lots R,S, Block 48, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colo. with the following conditions: (1) That the applicant understand that this is a design review and that HPC request that the Board of Adjustment look closely at this project. We find that the variances requested are encouraged, that the Board of Adjustment grant these variances for the fellowing reasons: (1) In opinion this is an excellent.project of prese-rvation of an historic structure and the blending of the structure with a new design. (2) That FAR is in fact being reduced. (3) An employee housing unit on an upper level is being provided which is certainly unusual in this community. (4) We find no problem with the fact that one parking space is being asked to be withdrawn and that we feel this is a strong project in the goals that we are trying to achieve as the HPC and the blending of old and new; second by Les. DISCUSSION Jake: I want to go through the variances one at a time. As I understand it you are reducing your site coverage. Gretchen: We are going from 50% to 49%. Jake: It is currently a non-conformity and you are reducing the non-conformity. The HPC supports the reduction. Jake: I will add a few thoughts for the Board of Adjustment. It should be stated in the motion that HPC approves demolition of the non-historic elements. The applicant will return for more detail review. The applicant will return for ordinance 35 review. We also need conformation of the legality of the partial demolition and interpreted by the city attorney. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended his motion to state that we approve partial demolition of the non-historic element and as far as the other items they are inclusive except for the legality. The legality of the demolition to be finalized and reviewed by the city attorney; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. Jake: The applicant is reducing nonconformities and improving the situation. '435 W. MAIN - L'AUBERGE - SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT PH 1 Amy: This site was previously called the Swiss Chalet and is in the Main Street Historic District. At some point this site might 4 4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994 want to be designated historic as the cabins were built in the 50's. It is zoned office and the applicants are proposing to do an expansion which includes the addition of 13 lodges in the character of the existing detached lodges as well as 206 sqft. addition to the existing manager residence which is previously approved by HPC in addition to the laundry. This project will be going on for a GMQS allotment competition. The lodge may at some point have historic significance as its detailed as a chalet style architecture and I think it should stay that way. On the two story - cabins proposed they reference victorian architecture and also the windows are six feet above the street and you do not see an entry way so I propose a restudy of that and eliminating the victorian detailing. Also proposed that the two story cabins be located at the rear of the site. I do support the applicants concept that they stick with detached small cabins because that is what is compatible with what is on the site. I feel personally that the design has become complex with a lot of.roof lines and possible they combine some of the buildings into a single mass to give variation on the site. I also though we should support the applicants request at P&Z that the number of parking spaces be reduced. Some of the cottages actually have two parking spaces and . it turns the site into a parking lot. Grass-crete should be used where possible. Beyond that I will let the committee discuss it. I recommend tabling with the conditions I described realizing that the applicant does have a January 13th deadline for GMQS. Gideon Kaufman, attorney: We have had discussions with neighbors and have taken into account their concerns. It is zoned office and in the growth management plan we plan on doing a conditional use to allow lodges in the office zone. David Gibson, architect: The managers Michael and Tracey Haisfield are here as resources on the operation of the lodge. There are a lot of pedestrian amenities on the site and they will be retained. The existing cabins have a lot of character and river rock fireplaces. We tried to space the buildings and make an interesting rhythm. We are using corrugated roofing. The urban cottage fabric of Aspen has changed to a larger fabric on Main Street and it has happened on every block except ours. We have 1/4 of the allowable build out and it occupies a full block. We had looked at keeping the cabins and maximumizing the office potential of the site. It would propose 50 parking spaces and would require eight or ten employees. Upon doing the drawings it really has a distressing scale change to it so we backed away from that option. We are proposing 13 new cabins. There are two fountains that will be visible while walking through. In order to vary some of the height of the buildings we have been proposing 1 1/2 story buildings for the two center cabins and along the back. We are flexible in our designs and the neighbors concerns. We will remove the cabin to the east #22 and would propose 12 instead of 12 5 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994 cabins. The site coverage would drop. Neighbors asked us to increase the set back 10 feet which we are agreeable to. I understand the concern about staff reducing the height to one story and I feel this commission would not like that. If you have a vertical monotony you wouldn't like it. The height difference that we have proposed gives a little relief and variety to the procession down Main Street. The proposal for the existing cabins was to simply add trim and window boxes and alternate batten from ten inches to five inches. I think it enhances the cabins but . again we are open to leaving them exactly as they are if the commission feels it is the thing to do. Gideon Kaufman: The items that the neighbors had concerns about were first the elimination of one unit Â·hnd in addition to that there will be no development or parking in that area to preserve it as open space. We will also preserve the majority of the lilac bushes that exist back there. .One of the larger cabins will become a one story cabin. There will be limitations on dogs for guests that reside for less than 20 days in particular units. Trash pickup will be maintained in its current location, south east corner and monies will be escrowed for the paving of the alley in the event that the City allows it to be paved. Linda: What are the larger units going to be used for? What is the height to the ridge? David Gibson: Deluxe units for an alternative choice. The plate height would be nine feet with trussels which would take it to 12 feet. Martha: Are you asking for variances? Gideon: We are going under a PUD and because it is a 27,000 sqft. we have the ability to ask for variances through the process. Joe: The plan calls for variances along Main Street. Chairman Joe Krabacher opened the public hearing. Herb Kline, attorney: I represent Steve and Cheryl Goldbenberg and I submitted a letter which outlines the details of those changes. Cabin #21 would be set back 10 feet from the property line. We are in agreement of the changes. Francis Plache, architect: I represent the Scott Condominiums and in the past there has been problems with garbage and at time the dumpster is over loaded and it is all over the street. Also we have had dog problems. In the proposal it is recommended that the parking be reduced and we have some concerns about that. Are the units going to be long term rentals. 6 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1123. Gideon; It is run as a lodge right now and we haven't thought about it. Francis Plache: What I have heard is that there have been three cars at one cabin. In the summer there have been cars up along the block and we would like that addressed. Bob Throm: I have been in Aspen for numerous years and believe that the project before you is more of what we should be doing. We can't all stay at the Ritz and Little Nell nor do we want to. I have know the Haisfields for numerous years and they are a good family and local people and their kids ,are going to be running this. You should be just as excited about-this project as the last one. Gideon Kaufman: I am submitting three letters, one from Charles Israel 522 W. Francis and the other is from Kathleen Ryan and the other from Art Burrows Bond communication who all are in support of small lodges. - COMMITTEE COMMENTS Donnelley: I feel this is a very good project and would recommend approval and feel the existing cabins. could be cleaned up just as David suggested. I agree with Staff on the two story cabins being not so explicitly victorian. I also agree about the elimination of cabin #22 and #21 moving back and being one story. Jake: I just have a few comments in general I would like to see some variations between old and new. Donnelley: Is the elimination of #22 going to eliminate the parking spaces that were adjacent to it? David Gibson: It would eliminate one space. Les: I have always felt that the small lodges were the heart and soul of Aspen and this is wonderful and is a good project. Joe: I feel it is difficult to evaluate a project like this from an historic perspective because I am not sure how historic this is other than it being small cabins. Generally I feel it is good that the applicant has about 1/2 of the allowable FAR on the site. When you come back at final I would like to see the differentiation between old and new. 1 Gideon: Are we talking subtle or significant differences? Donnelley: There are significant differences when you get near the 7 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994 buildings than when you read it from the street. They may have to do with fenestration and detailing materials. We are not asking for different building forms and it is something that David understands. Tom: It is my opinion that Aspen per'se is not a victorian town. The unique qualities and charm of Aspen are based on the variety of styles and periods whether they are wonderful architecture or not. That is my feeling about the first time I drove into Aspen. In that regard I wish the project was- less rigid in its organization and designed and detailed more to now. I wish the Main Street composition was less rigid like a soldier, less repetition. The facades of each of the buildings are identical so it makes it look like soldiers. Jake: I support Tom's comments also. If this project falls short it is the relationship to the street. Part of guidelines are to provide linkage to the streetscape. This is our main boulevard. Amy made comments of hooking the units together. Roger: I feel this is a good project and my concern is the landscape, streetscape plan. I would encourage you to open up the center court yard to the street in some manner so that there is a connection, a community. I like the idea of the single story and possibly one or two could be masked together. Allow an inner plan along the street with benches or something. I have no problem with interesting detail on the cabins. Linda: Possibly shift the open space from the corner of the property to make it centrally open. Gideon: That was a situation worked out with the neighbors to try and mitigate concerns and impact on the duplex that sits over there. Roger: Our concern is for the entire community not just one neighbor. David Gibson: This landscape only shows existing trees and we will have a landscape plan that shows all the trees. There will be numerous materials added. In stead of a fence we want to do hedges, shrubs. We want to have a soft space between the buildings. This is the only block in town with an interior. By virtue of that it will beacon people to go in. One thing this does is shield the cars from the public. Amy: There is a sign permit also and want to situated by the manager residence. It is four feet wide and three feet tall. It i seemed a little over sized to me. 8 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994 ( 4 MOTION: Donnelley made the motion that the conceptual development plan for 435 W. Main Street be approved with the following conditions: 1. That cabin unit 22 is removed and 21 is set back 10 feet from the property line. 2. That all new construction be differentiated in a very positive and hopefully contemporary way from the existing structures. 3. That the detailing of the existing cabins not be significantly altered. 4. As many parking spaces as possible can be surfaced with grass-crete or a similar porus .and non-hard surface. Motion second by Joe. Gideon: I was told we could not use that. Amy: We discussed this in the Planning Office and a certain percentage of site coverage could be grass-crete. Jake: I do not support the proposed setback from Main Street. Our guidelines address the maintenance of a setback and I feel the setback is too close. I feel cabin 13 and 14 should be located . somewhere else on the site and the setback be reduced. You are basing a setback line on one cabin at each end. Gideon: I would like to address that. Main Street has gone from a street that had some traffic to a major thorofare and the desirability of rooms on Main Street has greatly dropped. One of the things we have tried to accomplish is the orientation toward the center so that we were able to get some kind of feeling inside. Jake: P laying around with the buildings and joining them might get you the same density and still contribute to the streetscape for the pedestrian. Gideon: It is a balance in terms of what we are trying to do. Roger: If a neighbor and a developer have a private agreement, that limits our ability to make suggestions to move buildings around and so on. I do not think that is something we necessarily want to allow in the future. We certainly should listen to the neighbors and what their thoughts and requests are and if we can do anything that is good. The way the discussion is going with the regard to the last unit may not be in the best interest of the project. We need to be very, careful with that. We need to do what ' j is best for everyone. 1 Joe: My thoughts living on Main Street I know what it is like and 9 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994 if you move it in you eliminate the advantage of the interior space and it is that great of a benefit to the community to have another five feet of green space on Main Street when it screws up the center of the design. I do agree with Amy's comment about the windows but I think we are at a conceptual level right now and it has its back toward Main Street and one of our guidelines is have a pedestrian feel but I feel that can be handled in other ways than changing the setback. Is it a better benefit having 5 feet more on Main Street where nobody will be walking out there. Linda: If they can give up a unit for the neighbor they can give up a unit for the streetscape. Gideon: We are at .36 FAR and this is d small project to begin with. We did not come in with maximum. Once you start cutting units it gets complicated. Linda: You cut a unit for a neighbor and we are saying that this is very dense. Donnelley: I feel there is a misunderstanding and I also disagree with Jake. This is a unique block on Main Street and the scale of all the development on this block is very small. Everything on both sides of this will develop out in office scale, with residentially detailed. I am not concerned about it being pushed out and also not concerned about the benefits to accrue to the interior because Joe knows full well even if you set back another three or four feet it would make no difference in terms of the traffic impact and traffic noise. Joe: There are so many good things about this project: They are at about 1/2 of their FAR and the height is under 20 feet and I think there are a lot of positive things. Martha : I do not feel we have been given the benefit of a landscape plan which will be supplied at the next meeting. David Gibson: We will have a model at that time also. The breaks of the masses exist already. Les:~ What benefit to the neighborhood have you received by pulling out #22 cabin? Gideon: One of the things I have seen in working with public bodies is trying to deal with neighbors and solving those problems, then here is the situation that you get criticized for working with them. , j Neighbor: We have lived there for nine year and the past neighbors all had children playing in the back yard with lilac trees and more . 10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994 i people walk down the alley rather than wait out front and I know that because I wait for the bus. The alley is really beautiful and it is like a residence. I feel it is appropriate that cabin #22 was eliminated. It is such a neighborly thing for them to do to listen to our concerns and become responsive. Tom: I am a neighbor and I live across on Third and Main and feel it should have more contrasted masses, a neat composition and I also catch the bus there three times a day. Jake: Maybe the real street is the alley rather than Main Street. AMENDED MOTION: Donnelley amended his motion to recommend studying the Main Street elevations especially the story and 1/2 massing and looking at the opportunities for making a combination building; second by Joe. All in favor of motion and amended motion. 316 E. HOPKINS AVE. HOWLING WOLF - MINOR Amy: They have brought in the information on the airlock and submitted a drawing. I proposed approving it minus the turn post at the corner and it should be as simple as possible. Roger: What is the problem with the turn posts? Amy: Because it is adding victorian detailing to something that doesn't have to be detailed. It also interferes with the porch. Donnelley: I agree with staff and this is to be considered a temporary addition and those vertical elements should not try and replicate. Paul Levine, owner: We wanted it a very temporary structure but visually pleasing. Donnelley: If you wanted to use half round post that were plain all up and down that would work. Tom: The airlock will be removable. Stephen Levitt: It will probably be constructed of small little brackets. MOTION: Les made the motion to approve the request to construct an airlock to 316 E. Hopkins Ave. with the conditions that the airlock be as simple as possible and be in place between Nov. 1st and April 15th; second by Roger: All in favor, motion carries. 11 / 6-44.., 6.,A- 4-Â£..UU.-CLE11.14 1.latel 1) Project Name L' AveERGE__ Â· 15 2) Project Ioattifn 4-35 W. MA,N 677 , A'SAN,4 65. Lars, A -77#A u I atocs 38 (indicate street aliress; lot & block nmber, legal description Were appmuriate) " 3 ) Present Zoning O OFFLE 4) Int Size -271+Czeg_&1. 5) Applicant's Nanie, AL]dress & Pt=he # ,~'L,4 t*}UP#Ne 64, 0 445 WÂ· /1,40/4 91*Eer> ASPEN. Co , 925Â· 8297 r K AuF 11*1 4 0~ErrER504 9 *~er*ti,Â®FN%:3' ,Â©r= & 2*X~#l G/ P60â€¢4 1 Kefo ARCANTECIS, /NE:,pe.4.CD t â‚¬ GLe . 81 (2~~Â· 0240 E 14Â¥11*0 Ate* 207, 45FEN , 60 . 925Â· 59<28 7) Type of Aaolication (please check all, that arrd,19 : __ Conditicral Use Conoeptual SPA _ Concephial Histaric Dev. - Special Review Firal SPA ,~ Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenl ine Conceptual POD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final POD Historic Demolition - Mauntain View Plane Subdivision - Historic Designaticn Condaniniumization - ibxti/Map Amendmerrt GM@S Allotment Ict SpliVIct line, _- _ 42>61 c Avneâ€¢,dene Â»0 el:33 E:mmption Adjustment - \/0-1-4 noe Subak/,*son\acati'ovi - --Ghcrogalrne~nt Ux=encd . 8) Description of Existing Uses (nunber and type of existing structures; approoamate sq. ft.; amber of bedroans; amr previous approv=, 1 q granted tb the prcperty). NINÂ·FE GUE.tm CAR/WS ENS-1- C-an,+L '01,21% SFJ , Pus A . 02- R. MAWAGERS' RESâ€¢/ PENCE W/71-ti COVEREP PAÂ·R.Kj *3- CrOT-At /774- 5FbÂ·, PLUS LAUN PeÂ·/ 4 0%-Fice (*TAL (17 97 h C GRA.,O 767*C- 4<24-7 SF ~ 9) Description of DevelogIDerrt Application FRO PoSE -ED ADD 906 ef -70 MAIJAGERE; FiES:>( CE,UCEE 64- Sp -TD LAo tippe-f AND 1'2. NEÂ»J (40 FSE CAew t\19) Cre 4.14*. Sf= 1 453* 92 NEW CONal-Rl](mod, W rrl# N/uoR. O,8-*)(3126 -70 EN 977,Â·/G 01-6//46. 10) Have you attached the following? Response to Attad-mrnt. 2, Minimum Submission Corrtents Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Oorrterrts Response to Attact-mret 4, Review Standards for Your Application ...SX>, 1 ' April 12,1995 DAVID GIBSON, AIA Ms. Amy Amidon AUGUST Historic Preservation Officer RENO, 130 South Galena Street AIA Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Final Development Flan: L'Auberge Lodge SCOTT 435 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 5MITH, AIA Dear Amy: :...51 Please find our final Development Plans for L'Auberge Lodge. A. /-4 wl,Iill ---ES*ill~/- ~ .n The Preliminary Approval granted by H.P.C. on 12/14/94 carried the following conditions, to which we have adjusted the designs as follows: GIBSON * RENO ARCHITECTS 111 1. That cabin unit #22 is removed, and #21 is set back 10 feet from the property line. Response: Cabin #22 is deleted, and cabin 21 is 210 E. HYMAN set back 10 feet from the alley. NÂ° 202 1. That all new construction is differentiated in a very ASPEN positive and hopefully contemporary way from the COLORADO 81611 existing structures. Response: New construction is developed and 303.925.5968 proposed in the following ways: a. Victorian detailing, trim and gable end FACSIMILE treatments have been deleted, allowing 303.925.5993 the forms and volumes to read more prominently. b. Contemporary exterior materials have P.O. BOX 278 been introduced. These included: 117 N. WILLOW 1.) Board and Batten siding NÂ° 2 2.) Corrugated metal siding & roofing 3.) Plywood and Batten siding TELLURIDE COLORADO c. Five different exterior treatments have 81435 been shown for the 12 new cabins, giving greater variety and interest to the overall 303.728.6607 development. FACSIMILE 303.728.6658 Amy Amidon L'Auberge Page 2 3. That the detailing of the existing cabins not be significantly altered. Response: The detailing of the existing cabins will remain unchanged. 4. As many parking spaces as possible can be su,faced with grass-crete or a similar porous and non-hard surface. Response: We are presently researching . alternate structural paving systems which permit grass to grow and become established in the auto storage areas, including "Checkerblock", "Grasspave 2", "Geoblock", "Grassroads Pavers" and gravel systems. We will utilize such a system in the majority of the auto storage spaces, as shown on the Landscaping Plan. 5. (Amendment to original Motion Conditions) Study the Main Street elevations, especially the 1 1/2 story massing, and looking at opportunities for making a combination building. Response: The 1 1/2 - story massing of the two "E" cabins on the Main Street elevation have been given finish materials which helps to visually moderate their 11/2 - story height: the lower 1/3 of the cabin is clad in vertical corrugated metal siding, while the upper 2/3's is sided with Board and Batten siding, reducing the perceived verticality. A combination building already exists adjacent to the Manager's Residence, and no additional multiple buildings are proposed amidst the existing cabins, due to the larger scale which would intrude upon the historic cabins' context. ' Amy Amidon L'Auberge Page 3 Finally, the Plan creates a small-scale interior "Village" on the property, complete with a cobblestone "street", walkways and fountain, garden areas, and spa areas. The Min Street elevation is recessive and open and is made possible by the front setback variance, for which we need and would ask your strong recommendation to the Board of Adjustment to permit and urge this variation. In summary, the Development Proposal is consistent with the approved Preliminary Proposal, and has been adjusted and refined to incorporate the five conditions of approval as given above. Respectfully su~*d, -40 AL David F. Gibson, AIA enclosures 2/_ 4 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 205 S. Mill Street, Chanin's- Minor Date: April 26, 1995 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to change an existing window to a door and to create an outdoor deck with railing. This structure is not historic, but is located within the Commercial Core Historic District. APPLICANT: Paul Chanin & Mill Street Plaza Associates. LOCATION: 205 S. Mill Street. 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. Section 7-601 has recently been amended through Planning and Zoning Commission, Resolution 6, Series of 1995. 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 subj ect site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: The proposal involves changing a window to a door and installing a new railing around a roof deck. The door and railing will match those existing on the building. Staff finds the modification Will be compatible with the existing structure. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The proposal provides the opportunity for added liveliness, which contributes to the character of 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: The proposal has no impact on the historic significance of any historic structure. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposal has no impact on the architeclural character or 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: SUPPLEMENT TO ATTACHMENT 4 Development Application for Exemption from HPC review (Please attach supplemental information, i.e. sketches, samples, catalogue details or any information which may be of assistance in approving the development activity. Please provide a detailed description of the proposed activity.) Applicant's name: &,4,4 Â¥Â·ReAo Ago,\rrias (mv :so:m- Sm,-r+A Address and day phone: 2 /0 E, +4Â¥MA N *.Ze'2- AepEN Property owner: 12â‚¬6TAU2ANT : PAUL'GWANIN 181.1/LD(N@:MIU 57: PLAZA 260(DIATES Is applicant authorized to represent owner in this application?_*ES Address of property: 1206 6. MILL- STÂ· ASPEN Name of property, if applicable: r,Ilu. STREE'l- FLAZA/ENAN INS RES-IBURANT Is this an Individually Designated Landmark? NO Located within the Commercial Core Historic Overlay District? VES Located within the Main Street Historic Overlay District? Na Does the proposed development meet the standards specified in Paragraph #2 in Attachment #4? Explain in detail the proposed development: CoN FERS, eN oP 254-4 S,li FRa><:>P- -c>Ed*1 -10=2 6-*re Fa-lof- SEAriNG: AREA , rr,te ' Â¥*ILL- trr. Â¢LA*LA fâ‚¬TAIL APE)/77074 ''lblELolA) -THIS t>ELK. 061(MUM)-7 9,MoluEES> A 820Â¥- DEAÂ¥- ANVE Of' 11Â·1â‚¬ OFRKMNAL- F ,-ANS < j vLY il,,1992~ A N.EAL) 92:e>f;L WILL NE APDEEP M 8, 1.sTIN(317 MANEÂ»W OpeNIN(35 OF- -r+2= faaSTAVAANT (VA LL- fi,A AeÂ£,EES. i h NEW SHÂ©,tr 6,u/IRPRA/L U-)1 1-L 196 401:iâ‚¬:P 074 -râ€¢p e #. 1-Ht E-%-,sTINâ‚¬r ptL'14 PnfLAper (UAU-(TE, VAR-TCH FREIST)NGo ILAILA A-1- -TNEÂ· mu- 91.1 fl-Agi) , Thank you. Planning staff will notify you if further information is requested. exempt.app 1 ....i Â· Â·I!: . .7 .7 -: ! 1; 1 r 1 r ) ..Al. i 1 4 4 1 , 1, i ~. ~ 104*-fir:f.-i-- IL , 1 - iuM e 1/ 1 --321 -I --. - 1 - 5-8 1. li 101 0 it -- - & - 1 COAT alâ„¢V - . // 1. . 1 r i H 1 1 l.9r-=1-- 11= o Â· :Â·~~ & , -" 1 1 -1_1_- _1_1_1 V- 0 Â«f~1. ; Â·11;:'7:Z'Fl:=i ,Â·5.*Ct... . 11.1:'...'!1 !.11 .:LYHEELE:-f:.191. _I..-111.4jjj Mele #*151~ WINDAVS.Â¢-6.6 . ,- If - % Prf=:===~ 1 + .. '. .- 6-4-/ M* :al.4.uâ€¢44.40* - 0-800.1= t. 0000.0....:d nmnon-Â·- 1 - - I I. . . ..5-141'vt.1/1.41 1%1.. WÂ»,tx=WG 1 3 : Â· J .. '5 4- ,.-4.t- I Â· ~~L_.--:. Lkwirn&.5181,(1.1,- 3--0 0. -1 0 -71.- : U 1 ' ~- ~- ~ 6 --Â· ---r - --4 1 - - --1----'----Â· Â·Â· Â·-- Â·- p I 9%-8- 9â€¢VIA#Wa,Am - - . 11 1, -644; BVINf~PRAG -- Â·.Â» = iNEWN>f-4 .- - . -- Â· 4#681 i P-6 -Mi-Naâ€¢.4/6 .----- . --7-3 I-I Â· f.44 ' ~ 4 .nu,w. I -5 -ri juIL=He--62:-1 . Ill. 1.4, $10-0 prz:* 1 -- E. r ' 4-- 1 -4 - -- I 8â€¢R*Wl. -re,Nre. -09Â£'Pip*LCEPIN4% - - - -- 1,0 1[@imil -ImmiIiI UÂ¥==Fr:11 JF-fa - = - - r/45 . extâ€¢r&. C:*utH , - - 1 gICÂ·- , . 1 : EP-FUE -1-= --= BAW/"KI M*6. -:3.-â€ž.- - :s- - =2737 ~*EEiif**i :-337.*~m:*mmm:- -=*~:.m:_ .= 4. 1â€¢ MAI.,1Â»1,1 - - .7,4 E '4 N- MED,4- Â»4&4 ./ =:~ a m PARTIAL NORTH ELEVATION 9 -c*4 *,aws Y % '*#= 9 tr,fa - / m h.-1.-O. CE=,Al.Nam: Â·i 9, L- 11 Â·Â·Â· 1 i 41 :' 11 O .... 2 1 : ' ' 1 /*li,bib..â€žâ€ž1,40/,//,d- liliâ€¢ad-tel.,al- 1. 7 <wom. COUMTYA.0 '11.OW C 9 ..... ..1.-- Mid* e.-- IM /d,iâ„¢ Idi* â€ž/Ini El x- Â¤.Â¥ WALK-IN i 0..Am.* â„¢0-/CO..-*/...*-/-*lbâ€¢ .- I. . I 'll * .... ....Am. 00001'. 4-19,15.----*-9.-â€ž4.-a}Â»A-*- ~L tE~ ' 1.akâ€¢diblo..Ad/.wi,0..,,. HALL L/MIN IMMI S<15*1 1*p 4 ....................1,-1........08. 1. 44: t a'.'*LF./ 12; 9 7~ 0 - - rÂ«hz=I T- 'â€¢bâ€¢e-.-1= Im.'.I.- '*"ll -$- SHA DI'lu"'., 1 - 4 9 2 - - #*. 6/*..-.- ~0<.uoo~-=*=. lf,- . 1 *.* - 3 Â¢ ~ 1.1,/di.11' - - 0 1.1 1 Ill 0 m .1 MAIN OININI r 74 KETCHIN 1 0 9 JOC ~ ARBACALCULATIONS - LU f Allow*nuAREAC,~rrnatl MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA Z & (Mn.L STREET PLAZA) - 36,000 S.F. 2 gil DBCKS, BALCONIES. STAmWAYS. . mi AND TERRACES NOT COUNTED ASÂ¥11 13% X 361000 . 5~Â» S~ ~ ~ EXISTING AREA OF EXTERIOF. 0 1: â€¢ANG:LIEÂ¥ ROOM I 91 .."VI DSCKS. BALCONIES. STAIRW/.YS. ARIA AND TERRACES (PER LANDUSE REGULATIONS DEFINmONS) . 1800 SP , PROPOSED NEW AREA OF DECK BEING ADDED - 344 SP SHEET Not . ATIOhi TOTAL NEW PROFOSED AREA Tr '' 11 OFDECKS.BALCONIES. STAIRWAYS. ANDTERRACES . 3.144 SF W i.722 wrn.1 4T or NmW -mk 1~WCES ~~ WCPING, A Â£060'w o.,o R.T.,Â»ecÂ·*ss *1 -11Â·rh ' FLOOR PLAN . r-----9 p.â€¢A-r $Â¥IL Wâ€¢4,44 watâ€¢ 0,N,BKTDO 1,0,4 '~1%-Â·'~ IUÂ¤k'LiZtLA~ rl.... PLAN m . - ./.,00/ oaveoloo r-V- 93 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 434 W. Smuggler, Partial Demolition DATE: April 26, 1995 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval for partial demolition of a non-historic garage. The demolition will reduce the structure from a three car garage to a two car garage. The historic house, the Peter and Johanna Larson house, was built in 1886-87 and is listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. APPLICANT: Katherine Thalberg, represented by Tom Hines, contractor. LOCATION: 434 W. Smuggler, Lots K and L, Block 33, City and Townsite of Aspen. REVIEW STANDARDS: No approval for partial demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures shall be permitted unless the partial demolition is approved by HPC because it meets the applicable standards of Section 7-602(C). HPC may use the redevelopment plan as a basis for their findings. Please note that Section 7-602(C) has been recently amended through Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution #6, Series of 1995. 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure. Response: The applicant wishes to reduce the size and height of the structure fairly substantially. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: A. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: The project does not directly impact the historic resource. 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: Reduction of the amount of space devoted to the automobile and an increase in the site's open space will only have a positive affect on the character of the historic resource. The applicant also proposes to break a long garage door down into two doors. As a recommendation, it mar be appropriate to reduce the width of the fascia slightly, to an overall width of 6". ALTERNATIVES: HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Partial Demolition application as submitted. 2) Approve the Partial Demolition 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 to be offered). 4) Deny Partial Demolition approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve the application for partial demolition as submitted. Additional Comments: ATrAC[*dENr 1 Â· IAND USE- APPLICA,EN FURM , 1) Project Name 11Ft L..2 12 Re - 2 â‚¬AAD Â£>E L ) Project Incatign l.-1 3,4 1~JaST 6 AALLCD(bLE-R ASPE- W l,A-4 2,4 2 , Al=forÂ», 11. - (indicate street address, lot & block n=ber, 1â‚¬al/des&=iption Miere appropriate) 3) Present Zcning ~-' ~ 4) Iat Size 91 EDO 91= 5) Applicant' s Name, Acklress & Fbone # K Â«n-la 21 U E- ~11Â·A CEE !267 14 34 W err Â· S AAkeeL-2-4 A-Lbea) 4%15 -66>/4 6) Beptesentative's Name, Address & Bxne # 1 071A 4-1- 1 Aj g C ~Hoy Sk)I /00'06 232.,i JeE 1-lu. , 'E:, AJALÂ·--r J CO 32-7 2002 Of) 444- 9490 64 7) Typd of Aplication (please check all 11mt giply): Octxliticnal Use - Conceptual SPA -----=- 00Ewyrtnal Historic Dev. Special review Final SPA Ill- Final Histoic Dev. 8040 Greenline anceptual ED X Mire Historic Dev. Stream Margin Â· - Final POD Historic Demlitirn lemtain View Plane__ Subdivisicn Historic Designaticn - Text/Map An=~nent - -- GAS Mlotment Iat Split/Int Line - (243; Exampticn Adjustment 8) Descripticn of Existing Uses Â· (number and. type of existing structures; aEr,in,ate sq. ft.; nmber of bedroans; anor previous appravals granted to the property) U 1- RES'DE)002 , )- AAR.eÂ·Co E 4 IBEBTWOAA 9 -2- EA,\ O 3 56 ~ 4 AbiTID,KJ CAA 42.ikI UTz-9 / 11\)IDE k\A}A\/ l r l 9) Descripticn of Develq=,It Application -13425 0,upREAJT (bA RAMS E- -Â¥-A\<324 I ut> -170> 9"Ar 44 (2Â©0'A n /O -EHE- L.crr- E~~l.dA )1512. ti)-A O~T-S 1\A A RIm OPEd 237,ACE- 1 n li-r- A.JE-P-Â£25 -rn 02.6-TA) 0 /\A l U. 09-1/71 10) Have you attached the following? TPARKI 9 8 . Respcose to AttadmErt 2, Minimum Subnission ocntents Respaise to Attadmient 3, Spefific Sirlission Corftents Refponse to Attachment 4, Review Stardards for Your Application [11111 SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of clear. fullv 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"x17- format. APPLICANT: KATHARINE. -i#Al-262 G ADDRESS: 434 \AJEST SALL*Â©LER. . 45-DEA/ ZONE DISTRICT: 52-6 LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): 7,500 s p EXISTING FAR: 3 2 FT x 21 pr z 672 5 P 7 ALLOWABLE FAR: PROPOSED FAR: 30 7 x R j AT r 490 s g EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commercial): Allk PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercial): 44 EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: 672 s p PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: 4-2- 0 5 F EXISTING % OF OPEN SPACE (Commercial): PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE (Commer.): Clh EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Princioal Bldg.: .1/ 0- / Accessory Bldg: 19 Pr PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Princioal Bidc.: / Accessorv Bldg: 14 Pr PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: 672 sp _ 420 5% - 2525'= 4 6,77.-sg : <37% EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: (V, PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: --- EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: J ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: 4 SETBACKS: EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: (10 0\~Cph Front: Front: Front: al Rear: Reac Rear: Side: Side: Side: Combined Front/Rear: Combined Fri/Rr: Combined Front/Rear: EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ C, Flol 10 ENCROACHMENTS: VARIATIONS REQUESTED (eliaible for Landmarks Onlv: character comoatibility finding must De made bv HI'C): NO 4â‚¬- FAR: Minimum Distance Between Buildings: SETBACKS: Front: Parking Spaces: Reac Open Space (Commerdal): Side: Height (Cottage Infill Only): Combined FrtjRr: Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): C \ f. 1 4. 4.-i 1 .2-ZI.- A \ '' 1% ; rl . 1 \ 1 4 \ 4 -I- i -t 1 h 0 02 - 1 \\ i Â· ~- JJ 0 *' \\ 1 ; 1 , ,..411 , 1 lA :.' 1.1 1 17. / f 11:i >Dr ', A 1 0 . 20 5 1/ r : i '61â‚¬ 1/ 1 zi 1 f F , 11 . 4,4 U - 6 1, I lili: 1 r . r . 1 O 11 0 C M 1 -/ 1 1 3 -1-J , 1 ) ..1 C 'i. \,4 , v p~ 7 0 -*'Â·.,1 N 0 -4. 9 8 1 1 - - 1 -1 1 - 9 1 - (21 . F 4 6 , 1 11 1-'t 112- 1/ 0 1 l. L-1 7 C 3/1 973 aL LON 1 gz â‚¬)04 /.1-S I ?91- 4* , -1''i<.. , , 1 ,/1/ P # 11,1 1, 1-Â·-- 4 9 -- 1 il 'Xj 1 112/ l ' I.- i' . f / It/ t. 6. i , 1 L.1 1111]11/1/11 1.Â« f. lai ~1// / - 0 1 V / 7 12 1 14\\./ .:/t, . 1 1.1,4 i. 61 , IIi 1 \\/2 i \ 1 .4 0 i~ 1 ,? p , .,4 X i , x 4. lillil'.111,5 /\Ilil \ 1 t 1 9,1 3 \3 1 1% 4 . 1 -=- 1 . U. 1- t43 - - 0 7 \ ,\0 jap \ '11 'lili'/1 /'L'/,11] 11 I.: 3 Ext Sr i AJ 6 -PE apÂ© SE'ID CbZâ‚¬:ul.GE , ' xi ean+ ELEv4-r [ ED>N i -- 20< i ST-i UCD Cl . ail-4 4 ' ------- ~ 252,;9.0,NJ -2,7 -12>AA ..Pri WES Â£~! 4~95.- - /Â»\ }i \ --rD (32_2.-EÂ·LeeÂ«TRAO 1. --- 27---- . e // t. 1 - L ---71 . 1 YA -- ----- t /A\ -0 EX \SE/NG 43 lubOU) .TD 7/Â» // ZE -3 1--OC- 17-E.In> - - /7~64 / m -- / - / 4 ) , - . 3Â» - 1 - - 1 27- 1 r- . ) 4 i /-- 012.E rd - - 0.1 -- 4\. 2 I .=- 04 m. 4 - 4 ~47-E ... De , . 1 -/Â«Ar-k u 33> OCSLK . . J,/1 - ?. 1\ i k ,/,K \...fil-~. 3~ . 0 - - 1-1... . .- . 9 - - r 1 r -fi.. .- --/ 1 , . 04 7 V. , / - 6/ n. kiÂ· -9. -7,Â¢iy-:'=L.w~~2 1 â€ž22222Â·Â·-C- 513~. - . Â·â€¢.r F~~-~ 19 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 834 W. Hallam, Conceptual Development- Public hearing Date: April 26, 1995 SUMMARY: The applicant requests Conceptual development approval to construct a second story addition on top of an existing wing at Poppie's restaurant. The addition is to be used for an employee dwelling unit. An increase in F.A.R. for this purpose has been approved by City Council. This house, the Nellie Mcelimont house, was built in approximately 1889 and is basically unaltered, except for additions to the east and the rear of the building. Most of the original detailing is intact. This site is a designated Aspen landmark. APPLICANT: Michael Hull, represented by Jake Vickery. LOCATION: 834 W. Hallam, Lots K and L, Block 10, City and Townsite of Aspen. SITE, AREA AND BULK INFORMATION: Please see the attached information, provided by the applicant. Development Review Standards 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H, " Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to 500 sq. ft., or the allowed site coverage by up to 5%, 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 5-510 (B) (2) . Response: According to the 1904 Sanborne map of this parcel (attached), it appears that the one story addition immediately behind the 1 1/2 story house is either original or early enough to be considered significant. (The map also shows that two outbuildings have been demolished and the existing porch appears not to have been original.) The presence of historic windows on the west, and also the form of the mansard roof also suggest that this is an old addition. The proposal involves demolishing the roof of the historic addition, but leaving the rest of it intact. The employee unit creates a second floor at the rear of the building. Staff finds that theproposed addition is compatible in mass, scale and general design with the original structure. The ridge height of the new addition is slightly taller than that of the historic resource, but this should not be evident from the street. The architect has retained a sloped roof form over the one story addition for drainage and to serve as a "railing" for part of the deck. This element also reflects the historic roofline. Staff's only recommendation on the project is that the Commission and architect evaluate whether any more distance can be placed between the south facing gable end and the historic house. The proposal sets them only three feet apart. A number of setback variances are requested, mostly due to existing conditions. A parking variance of two spaces is also requested. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Only one other historic structure, 920 W. Hallam still exists in this neighborhood. Both buildings are well preserved and are very important visual markers as one enters Aspen. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: Staff finds that the proposed addition will not diminish the historic significance of this site. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The architect has established a fairly simple material palette for the addition. This is appropriate as the historic structure has a number of prominent decorative elements, such as projecting bay windows and unusual dormers. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Conceptual approval as proposed, finding that the Development Review Standards have been met. 2) Conceptual 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 Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Conceptual approval be granted with the condition that study be given to the distance between the historic house and south gable of the addition. Additional Comments: '-, GO.H. -=- wÂ¥FRAN=C ES=- == = - = == ====== = == 13 73 ~ lai - L__- / 1 D â‚¬ 52 [17 L_.1 1 8. C. D. E. .. G. H. l. A, L 10 x 1 ELI ILLI [LL 23] [L / r (OLD). X L Â· At. O. .. O.-.6. K. l. X. 77 - ---i--1 1* 1 11 7-71- L M k 12 x.1 834 1.= d22 816 800. 3\2:707 3 53+ LAN' 142\ aA- W HA LLA M @ LM (=101- 817 805 801 * 1 X ix D 1 \-7 D D / 0 f- -TT-4 \/ 0 . 8. f . M V C 6 B. -7-=1 3><E! 1 / WI - -'ficâ€¢.r -v k~/*- - 11 ---P32*VT-- 1X 1X L.1 *1->f/,7 1 K, L, M. N. 0. 2 Q, R. 5. K. L la di 't dk Dx nx ,\ 0-7 HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM State Site Number: Local Site Number: 834.WH Photo Information: ASP-E-18 Township 10 South Range 85 West Section 12 USGS Quad Name Aspen Year 1960 X 7.5' 15' Building or Structure Name: Nellie McClimont House Full Street Address: 834 West Hallam Legal Description: Hallam's Addition to the City of Aspen City Aspen County Pitkin Historic District or Neighborhood Name: West End Owner: Private/State/Federal Owner's Mailing Address: ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Building Type: Residential Architectural Style: Victorian Cottage Dimensions: L: X W: = Square Feet: Number of Stories: 1-1/2 + 1-story rear addition Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): Simple Rectangle with Rear Extension Landscaping or Special Setting Features: Front (north) 3 mature cottonwoods; side (west) 5 mature cottonwoods; wrought iron fence; drainage ditch 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: Simple gabled with east shed; asphalt shingles Walls: Clapboard with wood scalloped shingles at gable ends Foundation / Basement: Unknown Chimney(s): Center, simple red brick Windows: One-over-one double-hung with 1 type shallow-projecting bay with shed roof with one-over-one double hung window, supported bv scroll brackets at front and 3 shallow-projecting bay with shed roof with one-over-one double hung window, supported by scroll brackets at west side, hipped attic dormers west and east sides Doors: Front: 2 paneled light/2 panel wood Side: 2/3 light Porches: Front: simple gable. open over entry, turned posts and balusters and simple cut out frieze and brackets General Architectural Description: It basically remains in its original appearance. A two-story structure with a gabled porch entry. Other than the linten-head dormers, no unique or elaborate details embellish this structure. Additions have been made to the east side of the entry. Simple front facing gable cottaqe with east side 1 story porch enclosure and rear 1-story gable extension, flat roof rear extension. Page 2 of 2 State Site Number Local Site Number 834.WH FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Current Use: Restaurant Architect: Unknown Original Use: Restaurant Builder: Unknown Intermediate Use: Restaurant Construction Date: 1889 Actual X Estimate _ Assessor Based On: MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS Minor Moderate X Major Moved Date Describe Modifications and Date: Additions and Date: Side (east) porch extension, shed enclosure, rear hipped roof extension, rear flat roof extension; dates unknown NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA Is listed on National Register; State Register Is eligible for National Register; State Register Meets National Register Criteria: A__ B C D E Map Key Local Rating and Landmark Designation Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register Contributing: Resource has maintained historic or 11 - architectural integrity. o Supporting: Original integrity lost due to alterations, however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort. Locally Designated Landmark Justify Assessment: Modifications do not impede character of this building, which along with its site features, presents unified face to street. Associated Contexts and Historical Information: This structure is historically representative of Aspen's early mining era. This modest structure is of historical importance by illustrating the family/home environment and lifestyles of the average citizen in Aspen which was dominated bv the silver mining industry. Tax assessment records show that improvements were made to Lots K&L of Block 10 in 1889 by Nellie McClimont (also shown as Agnes) who sold the property to John Bolam on 06/10/91. John Bolam's name appears on this structure on the 1896 Willits Engineering Map. He sold the property 08/05/11 to Hatte Johnson. Auton and Ludwick Skiff owned the property from 05/10/38 until 1972 when this building was converted into THE GOLDEN BARREL restaurant. Other Recording Information Specific References to the Structure/Building: Pitkin County Courthouse Records; 1896 Willits Map Archaeological Potential: * (Y or N) Justify: * Recorded By: Date: March 1991 Affiliation: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee - City of Aspen Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer/Planner lu-'llkilelciâ‚¬1 -L YO'll / u , . - LAND uSE APPLICAECN F[EX 1) Project Name .9FF1 85 12- M 9~09 6% - 45 7 I-17 01 Â· .-. - Project Iantial 634- IM . 1-*(lA,A,â„¢ 2-13012.3-04/0 01/ . (indicate st=reet address,' lot & blbdc amber,. legal description diere approgri.ate) 3) Present Zoning ~Â· ' ~ 4) Int Size G Â£5'CDC) 5) Appliarrt's Name, Address& Hione # M,\UÂ·IM'& A-u &(/ ~ 13*PL -100*5 - 834 98, - 14&006* 9 65 - 3-6 7 57 6) Represeritativers Name, Address & Phone # . j Ate '\1 101.0274 'bkik- )00 9 9 A U 4 925- 4460 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): r7 Conditional Use- i Conoeptual SPA -2(_ conoeptlial Ilistoric Dev. Special Review Einal SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline . Conceptual POD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final POD - Historic Demolition Mountain yiew Plane Subdivision _~__ Historic Designatirn Condaniniumization Tkxti/Map Amendmerk (21@S Allotment Ict Split/Iot Line. - QUS Ehauption 4.., 7 Adj USbrent 8) Description of Existing Uses (r,=ber ard type of existing- structures; approximate sq. ft.; number of bedmons; any pmvious approvals granted tb the property). I. 4 5,2 00-8 Â¥*41 1 N f 58 -z,5- FAW S F 12â‚¬,1111 E.A+713 9) Description of Development Application 000 971 + 9 M p 6014Â« U N rp- 10) I{ave you attached the following? V Response to Attachment. 2, Minimum Submission Contents -4 Response to Attachment 3, Specific Subnission Ctatents - Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application 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"x17 format. / APPLICANT: )01'1 1 NiÂ·AtÂ» 41)'1 -4 9ff<-/1 / f. r \1-4 .09Â· C Â·-Â·~p , " 11 1 ; ' f -7 ,4 / ..4 -2. 1 ADDRESS: 36 4- 09. 4-14 60% th. C 1-'te-1 ./ 3.37 :./t--1. Â£ 0 ZONE DISTRICT: 5 /)00 e- 6 LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): . . .F-- . - / / , 1 /7 4 EXISTING FAR: ALLOWABLE FAR: 4 7/3 0 PROPOSED FAR: -JIV~ #1 f EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commercial): 9 X { 91 ' 4 , 9 4/\ - 040 * 01,1 1 c fÂ· /4 11 9%- PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercid): C )5 6,1-6~1 1 ,/.Â·0~Â·E,~ EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: Fez,090 Atil,eFA/. PROPOSED % OF S[TE COVERAGE: M 4 3 (+Al ' /1 323 EXISTING %OF OPEN SPACE (Commercial): . 1 j A- PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE (Commer.): M O kl-Â·10*i) 46 EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Princical Blda.: -9 0 0.0:7 , Accessory Bldg: 1 6 PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: princioal BIda.: <50 / Accessorv Bldg : - F.1 A *-1 PROPOSED % OF DEMOUTION: 1 091 /?11 M, H'75>lucid I- 7 EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: -O.- PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: ./ 9,1/ ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: /4-/ SETBACKS: EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: Front: 4 5 Front: 4,0 Front: Rear: & Rear. 10 Reac - Side: ; 01/ g Side: 10/6 Side: Combined Front/Rear: 91 Combined Fri/Rr: 5 6 Combined Front/Rear: EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ 1Â»0, 91 Ant) 420-&40(6 ENCROACHMENTS: Ythâ‚¬\ 4- 9,9 0 >9 VARIATIONS REQUESTED (eligible for Landmarks Only: character comDatibility 1nding must be made by HPC): FAR: f.2 f . Minimum Distance Between Buildings: A)6 SETBACKS: Front: M (5 Parking Spaces: -1, Rear: 0 Open Space (Commercial): Idc Side: N C. Height (Cottage Infill Only): N 072 N Ond Combined Frt./Rr: - -G,/ S b Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): 3 oins 834 West Hallam - Poppies Bistro Cafe APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT - SUPPLEMENT (attachment #, Item #) (2-1) see attached Owner's Authorization Letter (2-2) see attached Legal Description (2-3) see attached Disclosure of Ownership (2-4) see attached Vicinity Map (2-5) Compliance with relevant Review Standards: This proposal would add an Employee Unit above the rear portion of the exisitng flat roof.addition. The new unit would clean up what is already there and be derivative but subordinate in style, design, and treatment. It would allow on site housing for an employee family in such a way as to not disturb the existing historical resource. The existing original structure would remain totally in tact. The new unit is to the rear and side of the existing historic resource. There would be only minor demolition of some roof structure of the addition to make way for the new unit. (4A) The roof forms and general massing are similar to the historical resource in shape and proportion but smaller in scale. Detailing will be related but thinner and lighter and will be clearly distinguishable from the old. It is compatible in character to the historic resource. The requested parking variation of 2 cars would keep cars from obscuring the foreground of the historical resource. The alley currently dear ends and provides 4 spaces. ... (4B) The neighborhood is multifamily of recent vintage (contemporary vernacular) to the South and West. The Forest Service SPA has several non- historic one story structures immediately East. Except for the two story dorm, the rest of the block is wooded and undeveloped. Poppies acts as a neighborhood anchor and identity marker. The placement of the new square footage in a "secondary" massing is consistent with HPC directives. It emulates and is compatible with multiple structures occupying other similar historical parcels. (4C) The proposed addition is to the rear and side of the existing resource. In addition, its placement preserves and utili.zes the existing side yard and side yard, trees, and irrigation ditch. Preservation of the structure in tact is far preferable to adding on or corrupting the historical resource by adding to and modifying its upper level. ~ In this manner, the cultural value is maintained. (4D) The architectural integrity of the existing structure is kept in tact with the addition clearly separated and it's own architectural element. No demolition of the resource is required and only minor demolition of the roof of the non-historic addition is required. (3A-1) see attached survey and site plan (3A-2) Materials will be similar to existing but lighter and smaller proportion. (3A-3) see statements above - paragraphs 5 A thru D (3A-4) This project falls into Category C: erection of a structure greater then 250 gsf. POPCR02.WPS Page -2 September 13, 1993 Amy Amidon Historical Preservation Commission 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 AUTHORIZATION TO REPRESENT Dear Amy: The purpose of this letter is to designate Jake Vickery, Architect, (tele 925-3660), as my representative to act on my behalf concerning Landmark Designation and the addition of an employee unit to my property at 834 West Hallam. 41) Sincerely, Michael Hull, owner 22 714 I 1 834 West Hallam In 3 2 , ' i . . Aspen, Colorado 81611 1.-- 1 0 C. 1/.1. l.' L/'.1.4.1243/74 %24-5 P-,2.â‚¬-3 00 1 9 j ..b L .'11 1-1 4 1- L -'-9 - f ic AM 19-- f- AF. ../ \4Â¥/ %10.13 ele-*.3 .3 --O,- >PALÂ» f 1 4 re - ..60.00, j - -r-X 0 35,7, - 0 *, "47 L ; t, 1,1 ~- o b 1-st,flt Frame ry bul\(1441~ - , 4 e 0 0 Scale:'526 1 0 > 0 7.0, - 1 :f g.d 1 1 0 - 0 1 2/. - F~ :0_01= ~\~1 8.7, '4 9' 0 / f Lot= k /f / -- A P / 7 6 .0 441. 1 1 71/3 J ~ ~-Cai AL#Fibdoo 0 /11,1 4 i'. t .... .~444 - NOTES e - indicates found rebar and cap 0 - indicates set rebar and cap marked L.S. 14111 The real property described hereon does not lie within the limits of a 100 Year Flood Hazard Boundary. W, Legal Description: Lots K and L, Block 10, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. r , I hereby certify that on August 16, 1993 a survey was performed by me on the , parcel of land described hereon. A two-story frame house was found to be on ~ said parcel as shown on this plat. All easements, encroachments and rights-of-way in evidence or known to me are shown. This survey is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and beliaf. By: 69dngÂ¥ Li~come P.L.S. 14111 /1 -:Gr,ipv*ove'YVie,AL Su*rvell 8 34 W. 3-â‚¬0.'. a FL -sâ‚¬veekj i - .. ... 1. . I. As ipe,A. Co o,rte o A.:fl ;ijp} BY: ONES IN SPACE ... SYDNEY, LINCICOME ( L.S. 14111) BOX 121 CARBONDALE, COLO. 303-963-3852 Ill Al,13 4 99 3 SCALE:I"= 20' . 1 - -- -C) 1 -- - 1 -- 0 -- @- 16 . 1 - --I - -1-lv - .t , - .1 1 1 --- -1}All- 40.D 1 , 1\1\\ ' inÂ»= 7333 1 1 1'' . 1 , N41.- H1 80Fkrl, J / -- Â©cler'HA 91'MUFC .. / ... 1 I . \11 1 I 1 ii .....1. < .1 9,14*~ 44<,4. 91- il,1 -- 1 1 1 . 1 .t= ELI' D711*1 Â«19Â« I4Hf-xy 4 . * 6 & 1 27 I - I - - 0 - .-0-*-.---*.'.-.I.-'ll-- 0 - I . . T. 00 1ME .- -r- JAKE VICKERY EX. SITE PLAN 1 1/ 100 SOUTH SPRING ST. 03 POST OFFICE BOX 12360 ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 1 5 7 1.5 TELEPHONE / FACSIMILE (303) 925-3660 Al Il .I 4* --- - rÂ«19 el/1 rlÂ«008 APc>rllOH 13_242 1/49-ptl. 01 VI ' . J 3 1 . lili 1 11 --- 1-1 1 1 - , 1 I. 1 . - 7 --h . 1 . t- 1 69*WL- *r'Â«> . â€¢9*52#,40 6 14*14. . Cy*Â»b- eprt*-- - - 1 1 . ; Â· 1 4. r- EX BASEMENT PLAN - et 3 7 5 - prril* 4[HFLÂ«EN Â»PPITION rilli JAKE VICKERY . 15. 100 SOUTH SPRING ST. 03 POST OFFICE BOX 12360 ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 JAKE TELEPHONE / FACSIMILE -- (303) 925-3660 , .\11111-+1 -- . . "->r'-â‚¬CS'~Vi,_ - 1 1 . 7 1 35?IHIHA i / . i ' - Â¥ r iT -4-4**<u E - pcv.* v*z3-v :.*-H fl 11 z i i ./. â€¢ / 191: '-: 1 .=---- - i 7 ~, 1l 1 7 L- ----- f , -L- 4 - 0- , . .9 -1 I Â·Â· Â· -' 1 â€¢ 1 Â·Â· ~ .i .ri \ . ------Â·----Â· Uil 1.. t' -0-- - --- - - 1% 3 - . . 1 , . i 7 Krtz HEH. - - - 4 _ t:)lili H# ~122:2:'M 1- I , -- . i . *12= 214 38==:-Â»4- 1AfÂ· 4 2 -2.-2184 4 1 . 40:< . EX. LOWER PLAN ' 61 3 prflÂ»---_ EMitÂ«EK f _AlÂ»170Â£7171 JAKE VICKERY 1 2. 100 SOUTH SPRING ST. 03 POST OFFICE BOX 12360 ' , ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 IAKE (303) 925-3660 1~ 17|13 ------- . TELEPHONE / FACSIMILE f-12,9-Zp, r . .-2 M i Â· rk -7~ ., .. + -=-1.... . Uttl . 1 11/ 1 7 1 1 ...7 . 7Mt - . & 4 ..J- -t - -:. I . 2\ 1- t* _L 4 It . - I tz 13 11--tki 7 Ellf|1'PE- #FIGE -1 1 / 1 P -1 I . 1,1, i i -:-'-:i'+r . t-/ .// ' . 3..<.4 .,<.1 .2...1 EX UPPER PLAN - - O / 3 19 @:>FF;;'1 5@ EM Fte-12 Â»PITIOH- - 1 JAKE VICKERY . Ixi. 100 SOUTH SPRING ST. #3 POST OFFICE BOX 12360 ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 ]AKE ---1 IT 115 - -- TELEPHONE / FACSIMILE (303) 925-3660 C . . .0 . / 1.01 L 2/Â« 1--- Ill , + v T=-1.-ZI~i'-4~:9~ 1 1 _L_16 1 1:G, Â· LA _ IU -- 1 1 Pi , .' . 4 EX, SOUTH ELEVATION 7 6 44# - 1 1 - 1 1. . h - i ..! 1 - 1 -1 . - JAKE VICKERY 17. POST OFFICE BOX 12360 100 SOUTH SPRING ST. 03 ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 -EX WEST EL EVAT leN TELEPHONE / FACSIMILE (303) 925-3660 Â· - Â·- -- r- 01 9 1- 1 17- ~ 1Â«ior_ i- __ - __ uÂ»wpro\RE-- ---cadh ...â€žeÂ·cr-C A-vornkÂ¥77,4-1 . .. 4 V 12.1\ ,. 14: . - I .A r . 1 . , - i .1 . EX. NORTH ELEVATION . 1 . E - .Il r 'LU n 1 1 U U I . 11 ./ t' I I tb ---- I - 16-1 - . ---- JAKE VICKERY 100 SOUTH SPRING ST. 03 EX. EAST ELEVAT ION Â· ~ ~ ~~ POST OFFICE BOX 12360 ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 IAKE TELEPHONE / FACSIMILE (303) 925-3660 -dill-~14 --- -- PZFF-2 3:6 .-31-Fbrett~A-rio H L> 1 - - P I 1 1 19 1 - iti 1 . 1 Ii: 11 1 I \ . !i NORTH ELEVATION -1 31Â· h . . 0 Il. 1 1 -1 ! 1 , 1 /264 1 1. 1 i - 10~ - 1 1 1 ..11 i- 1 1 1. i - 1 1 . 1 - - EAST ELEVAT ION ril JAKE VICKERY -1 1 100 SOUTH SPRING ST. /3 15Â«riA ERI Â»r-855 +90 11304 1 4 POST OFFICE BOX 12360 ASPEN. COLORADO 3161 Z A K. g -------------~ TELI/HONE / FACSIMILE - 1 (3 03) 913-3660 Illia--1.~i f ... 772:.3/1. . I â€¢â€¢ . . . . '11 - .. il !1 - .: 1 f Â· r-- 0 , ... I. i 1 . 03 ~ 1 --r . 1-[ 1 .2 23-11- - 1 -(121*1% - -- I, 4 - SOUTH ELEVATION afl, - g. / ! /. 11 ! 111 i 1\\ - _ â€ž/ . ili ~ i~ |~~-- 1 /64 - --- -i-,illillit Ud li !!Ili: i.:i 11!l;I / i Ullf, i -Cul: 0 1 1 , It - I ..1 1 ;i!!i!.i 1 1 ---ICE - 0 - , 1 ' ill 'll i. 1 li ill '!1 = 1 L=-2 ===1 . 1 1 L GE - -EE- .1 - - . - JAKE VICKERY . W E ST EL EV AT.[ON 1 74/ !00 SOUTH SPRING b.03 POST OFFICE BOX 11360 A .K . ASrEN. COLORADO *1611 I~ Il ~10-~ -- -- -- -- ~3*~EE]-En__-â‚¬ElE-kIEE_Â»221I0â‚¬IRL= ~ (303) 9/5-36.0 TILI/HONE / PACSIM:.1 -- -- t U -I-*...= -t . \ lilli l,4! l ,/11//77-9Â«91/-/////////// Â« 4Ifillit Fi)#ifillfIiifi ; Ull '321 ' 941- 1 11#11,1611 gr/ji/l fillic 1 -11/1,11. VA~//RAA r '1 l '1 1 1 ---I- *.I.-I.--i-* ill.I- *I.-Ill- *I-*..-I-- -- -- ~. AaeÂ«-6- 1~*R_ 99*f- Â»08 4 41 4 .~F Â»52-18Â»Ty E- 4 3 VICKERY 11 1 1 11 8 2* 13 31/1 /!10 = 1-0 RCHITEE-ir~ , f - ---------0 -rl 1' 1 1 -- -.2- FteRA.4 1 - 1Â»--t- - -Â·P--1 ------1- 1 -I 1 11 1 4 -I-.1 1 1 - -1 1 1 2221 1 1-9 - 1 â‚¬ +ItÂ¢k.- 1/ -- $9/3,-- Â· - P - -0 11: !1 ! 1- j EZE . 1 112 U 0 1. 7 11=0= 1 11. \ .1 11 1--4 23-Lifilith/4.JI-- - 1 :/ t r L 1 1 1 - - - 1-1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 r- Â» NX /1 - ---- -FPQ~602< 272-ruyrl - 0-FU.4. T-1.60â‚¬P:--1,5. In' c. rt.254 k .*Â«1 59:z-.~ .St)4â‚¬L.491'8-_....Agi~-~51 . ~ JAKE VICKERY 100 SOUTH SPRING ST. /3 POST OFFICE BOX 12360 El ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE / FACSIMILE (303) 925-3660 1.(11/11' 1 k. 1(kIK) - 1%4 . . * I ..& . &Â· tewa I , 17 1 . .4: Â· ../ / .. i 1 ... j. ~-6- - -1- .-. .- N ' \1 'P~~7==mg__~ r--1 34--Â»;1 1 ~_______~~ t-i -i k-14Â·+ ,~~~~~~~~~,~_:, T/NImIITIIIEI~IMIEEE~WEEEMi1EE-iihi : . -' I S 0 UTH ELEVATION O 1 3 19 . - ~ Â·2r7HM I lilli.1 1.1 L V i r-Â·4+ 1 - -.; 1.1 1 :1 1 1 , 11 0- =2~ i Mi~ f 11 lAi 1 / 1 till . 1 1-l j~ill 111 1 1-'J] 1- 1 11 li 1 - 1 1 - 1 4 . 1 i. ~ ./.- 1 #. 1 / W E ST EL EVAT: 1 ON ri'"I JAKE VICKERY - 1/1 too SOUTH SPRING ST. 03 - POST OFFICE BOX 12360 0157<9 ASPEN.COLORADO 81612 1 A .K I _4~-17 ~-11 - -*~- -- ilillumil TELEPHONE / PACSIMILI (303) 925.3660 \ \ . \ \ -- 0 . NORTH ELEVATION 5 -4.-A 1 #i? 7 9 * 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 ! 1 - 1 -3 -1-2 - 1 'i 1 3% 3% 1 , - I. - 11--SM= 1 r-1 1 Ul 1 0000 N 1 EAST 2 1 U \/ 4 - f 0 k I 1, iwillill/ JAKE VICKERY 100 SOUTH SPRING ST. #3 Â»rÂ» 4446<96 Â»polf\04 1 2. POST OFFICE BOX 12360 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 JAKE TELEPHONE / FACSIMILE (303) 925-3660 1 Ill |40 1 43 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 316 E. Hopkins Avenue, Howling Wolf- Conceptual, Public Hearing Date: April 26, 1995 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to add a carport with a seating area/deck above. The deck will include a bar, storage and one bathroom, which is required by code due to increased occupancy. At the ground level, the applicant proposes a new cooler, trash enclosure, and parking. APPLICANT: Two Schmucks Inc., represented by Paul Levine and Steve Levitt. LOCATION: 316 E. Hopkins, Lot O, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen. REVIEW PROCESS: All four development review standards must be met in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: In general, Staff supports the concept of adding an outdoor seating area in the proposed manner. Only a limited amount of space is available in front of the building and seating at the rear of the building must be elevated in order to accommodate parking and storage needs. The proposed deck is fairly substantial in size, and the addition of elements such as a covered bar area and restroom, a solid wall as a railing, and siding used at the ground level to screen cars add to its bulk. Building code requires the addition of another bathroom due to the increase in occupancy. There is not enough j space to locate this bathroom at grade. The applicants need to have a bar/service area on the deck, and an awning/canopy is proposed in order to protect this area from weather. The height of the canopy and bathroom roof are 19'4", approximately 3'6" taller than the historic structure. The applicants propose to use a solid wall as the required railing around the deck. The reasoning for this is that the UBC requires railings with a 4" spacing and it was felt that it would be a very busy element surrounding such a large area. Staff agrees, but recommends that the siding be interspersed frequently with sections Of railing in order to allow some transparency. In the area of the elevated platform (for bands) the railing will have to be 8" taller. Siding is shown at the ground level as a means to screen parking. Staff suggests that this is unnecessary and should be removed. The canopy proposed over the bar area may be visible from the street. More information about its form will be needed. In addition, it seems to drain onto the neighbor's property, which may not be allowed by Engineering. Five parking spaces currently exist on the site. The proposed ground level plan shows these five spaces in a configuration which is not acceptable to Zoning. Some spaces are stacked, there is not sufficient area for trash or access to the dumpster and the new cooler does not have enough clearance to open. The applicant must restudy the situation. HPC does have the ability to grant variances for required parking spaces when appropriate to the site and neighborhood. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The deck will primarily be used in summer and the applicant has suggested that plants and other elements will be used to soften it. Staff does not anticipate that it will be easily visible from the street, except for the canopy. Any effort that can be made to make the new deck more "pedestrian friendly" from the alley should be considered, for instance using all open rail in this 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 adjacent parcels. Response: The applicant has made a good effort to preserve the integrity of the original structure, to limit alterations to it and to physically separate new elements. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposal does not impact the architectural character of the resource as viewed from the street. The structure will no longer be easily visible from the alley. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant conceptual to construct a deck with the following conditions: 1) Restudy the parking spaces and functionality of cooler and trash enclosure. Parking variances may be given if justifiable. 2) Redesign the railing to be a mix of siding and open rail. 3) Address drainage issue with canopy. 4) Remove the siding at the ground level. 5) Provide information about the construction of the canopy and any proposed plantings. 6) Study any ways to soften the deck from the alley. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCES Application Package Contents Attached is a Development Application package for submission of your application. Included in this package are the following attachments: 1. Application Form 2. Description of Minimum Contents of Development Application 3. Description of Specific Contents for Submission of your Application 4. Copy of Review Standards for Your Application 5. Public Hearing Notice Requirements Summary 6. General Summary of Your Application Process Generally, to submit a complete application, you should fill in the application form and attach to it that written and mapped information identified in Attachments 2 and 3. Please note that all applications require responses to the review standards for that particular development type. . The standards for your application are listed in Attachment 4. You can determine if your application requires that public notice be given by reviewing Attachment 5. Table 1 of that attachment will tell you whether or not your application requires notice and the form the notice should take. Your responsibilities in this regard are summarized in the cover explanation to the table. We strongly encourage all applicants to hold a pre-application conference with a Planning Office staff person so that the requirements for submitting a complete application can be fully described to you. Please also recognize that review of these materials does not substitute for a complete review of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. While this application package attempts to summarize the key provisions of the Code as they apply to your type of development, it cannot possibly replicate the detail or the scope of the Code. If you have questions which are not answered by the materials in this package, we suggest that you contact the staff member assigned to your case or consult the applicable sections of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. appcover 11! ., V T <1 *~1'5 ~â„¢'L rÂ«3~ 'W I r,1 /JU 6/3\Â« c-zf -9-1 ~ . dll j 7 3 14 re7 Â¥ 7/iÂ°-f r' 11 Â©r' Â¢ 77'Â«edÂ· i'*b) 7 11 . 01 te f,377,9 3 - 7-4 r + u px p +'j- 'rl f'N- 03 0401 ecip J <0 Clf #kir#<;4 v>Avil 1 +30 t 1~ to 17 1 f -# 1 7- 1 e 0 /\ Â»fl T-073 1 *A,0 7 "fir---"-" 1 1 ti-*10 3 u.-- I . f 11 1 ., VII rÂ° 'v, 1 1-1 * Â°14 r 1- ,dc 9 1 - -Â·419'693 1 nf 74 liv r,rel 'n,7 11 7> -17- M~r71\0 0 9 /14 6 1 7,9 El ---Â»1 T flwj~C N Â°rl /1'r# 2 111 - iii 1 i t : --- -ew/ 4, r> de P ~ 70 SIA -37+ J-pur r.6 3 -10 Â»Ve L 1 7 72( 97 7*9-~1 1, 1 J 7 7- , 77 9+ ff 7111 .c, 3/5(f Â»r~nr'tl ll 9-AÂ° ~ j,4 71 r~0 1 7Â°7Â° 70-) r<' -7 9 ~7/ 'rl 'r' Ci,12< 6 1-Â°9 T -b A,I I ' 34 /!17 n <10 3 9 Â¥ lerm - 0-lk 15 9 -ree,-P 1-1 0-41 7-19, Revt >1 r irÂ° r,1 -) i)01 7,]- -00157 f (1 -firÂ·Â»2--4 '-1.rps T-Â» mÂ°lÂ°-1 1(79 rl"213 DC.~ 12 1- 21 5 -0 r, ZL /-t -,0/ 23-2 y C'tÂ«3 5 -<*ft /9 'ap- r,co 27 Â¥ 4 r) f 0 ru,-00 0+ & .9 d >1 1 H 91,8> ~ 97 *18Â§~7/ Ch M 19 0 1 07 30+79 <$110193 7 11 1 4 -lm-,O rU+ 2Â£0 6 4rd' V ING W,VI -j,â„¢delolf >73- a,VI 5-,1 #t~61.73 - eâ„¢'I_ 1 c-O ,n),5 1 )i$ tt~Â°1 v)10), 4 T~ 27 -1'97 l ril -Â°'AP.10/+5 -,1-51.j~ ' j o <24 der"lf r'3 '4 45 1 joy U#f fne,/4,9 C"ll- 'fI *01Â°5- ---j l-Ll_-01-1, Clet) 1 119131 . 03 -iJ .4 7 1 , 7 (v Â»Car-ki - -3- 9 1 9 -t 1. - -- -- - 4-35-0-11-.78 -'11 -99-4- -- - . -1*,i el-'â„¢1<3 or,A r -afÂ» f-Â»TÂ» ' DYER & ASSOCIATESÂ· ARCHITECTS . 209-S Ventno: AVL Aspe; 81 Fi I '"ll â€¢' ~1 r. I L.A, C<SES! HA, ' 303.'926 7149 -- DAFFF~,#Pâ‚¬CÂ« fiA 17 71* 1.6w L 11451 U:1 r 1*P f!24 44= ; 91-â‚¬ 1 11 514Â» E 1-WF'KI Nâ‚¬ AVE i Â· 1 Ae FEN 1 00 615. 11 *b< Ik 1 4.0[2912~f ! 1.1 - i - f 1," - Wp *fgAME %11*144*+77 1 f 4 45291-1312. P11-11 Hal %1654% 1 : Nci 1 i ' 1 1 1 - PROJECT N 1 60 I 6 DRAWN B.+ 14Â»to 1Â»45> 44(*46 - - -- -- -- -- -- 1-----1 - M .5,< *A i CHECKED B, IdEP|- 42~~ - i ISSUE DATE -4 Â· Ift. 16 PM ive -up , -1*1,1*1<,9 SH-=-1 TIP - E 41* PLA N EjQRCVGf *lt--1 pC.~ SHEET NE SITE FLAH ,Â§511 - 11- 011 - eli>- OF SHEETS - C+Mca ----2 f--ILLL- _21-17_JU;U,4-Hn- r--'- -- - - -Â·-Â·- - . I - 5,40%*Folfrair#%-Aâ€ž.,;,Â£ >31** m--2-'l 41 hz:22#imt - ~/ 99- IFIVYI3Â¥1rT rlkâ‚¬*aks*~ 5(1â‚¬11* ]>4 H Av _ DYER & ASSOCIATES 1 3 - 0 ARCHITECTS i . 1 209-6 VentnoÂ· Avt. Asper' Colora:30 8161 ' r 1 iT ----- r- r 1~Â§661'7 303 925-7149 1 %-1 1 . - - 62226 66 -PUHFW[15't '. KIN*j:*ecsâ‚¬ *I 0*Prlp '' i dv41 =3-- utr -f -' Y FEPFA 1 --1 - 4 -(101* lavu l H:31 \vag / U . \\ i - i ,, 1 / \ 5 top E. 1-1,1< 1145 AVE Aereri, 6 aiopi i 4 -1 CL:*LUE'H<:31 ti 1 Â·Â· Â· Â· - /-1 . *PKI HÂ£31~~~5~*g *2 ~ 19Â«1 t.*194*- 41:e' .4 1 - Cl \ -- \. . 4-HE>9 Â·piervELL- __ -- 1YÂ¢ HM Wi>E 4 - 4 - ex'â‚¬114:91 -\ / a / d;OveF- f<*El'//t.4 1-1 .. ,- " -'JILL ' IN. 9165716 FNII<.1 44-1*::e*+ 1 1. ; DRAWN B. \ . 1 F . PrEPE 1 FARr MJ HÂ«*PCE,e 4 CHECKED BY I , ' ISSUE DATE 1 -/ 2 4 , 4. t i 17 13 Â·Et ~ 04 2 1 SHEETTITLE . 4 ' 1 , t 491 1=7 U HE:> 1Â»*1, f I . 1 1 it. 7LAH 1 4, 6 4.LD.- ; 41- e 12 60" 1 1 1-,0,1' , h 1 1 ' 4 17 e L zp ti i % f Â· SHEET No. 46670 H P LEVEL. FLA 1-1 !411 . 1 L 011 A 1--- [--- -.- .-- 1 F OF SHEETE - -. -I-I- & - . ,Â·.,1.-Â· . Â·r Evi:.-1:12;Â·Ir.4--3-...... Z.r. Â·4â€¢B6MW*a;â„¢2;2~45~~2~ 1 i ' - 8-45-2*Â»tri*1~-~ r__ -- - raÂ· Â·Â·: ~; DYER & ASSOCIATES 6) 0-\ 0 - 1 4 ARCHITECTS / ? 1 209-S Ventnor Ave 2 .LiÂ»C-==1=~ 1 \N / , 1 .'-/ 1 L 1 ; Aspen Colorado 81611 f 41*OF'*TE 5 303/925-7149 2 j. 1 /1,1 _- 1 ./1 11 a -- i -* - -----I 1 - ..-- 1/ I\\ 3 0.-- 3--21 frurl ls- f -[i"UL' HA \\bl F / , 31,0 B 1*1<1 Ne AVE ..A #,1 -*1 Mr#H, og a. 16, 11 3 0 0 - - ~ - 0 >11-16 Or Â»*Ht rei - ABA* -0 - - -7 %5~H 7-7- 0 >7 1 - li Fl H 11-1,91 00# - Faer 4'F I ~6614- -% i PROJECT NO p 18#i-Giv J ' ~ c:'IlaÂ£:71 ES i t- . ! ~ DRAWN BY 1 -- 6 3 -1 :li--P.rEF, 1 --- ~ CHECKED BY 2 4 Â¥~1244>6*7 _/ t ISSUE DATE - i rtÂ«fl~-1-.j i UL 1]SHEET TITLE . :*144 L*VEL _ _ 10 MI-Â·A-H----2-1_-_02_20-2 -- -- i Mi SHEET NO- . tt t ./.. # 1 \-i. 2 11 3 - -Al-. 9 ii TOECK LEVEL-FLAIH ~:OF SHEETS i li : 2~ -LÂ·r--'-rE-1Â·--4.ULL=1Â·'11411. t.7 ' 4.6 4*.M%%REP - DYER & ASSOCIATES ~ ARCHITECTS Â£ 209-S Ventnor Ave Aspen. Colorado 8161 303 925-7149 Ash/H1Ha â‚¬:TR~;67Um& A 92;VE *4*21 ---------~~ T146 Â·146*,/6 1 Al UM.F Al:ELâ‚¬A Â»----21--~---Ii--i--I.*------.**-*Il--Il.-I--I-----.-Ii-li---I-ill.-q--Il-I-.---I---W i - _*i, 6 1-DFAI tie AVE 1 A.G.FEH ) 42:2 6 lap j l \\ 1 1 -I - V i , 0--1 , 1- â€ž '------ 1 1 I Iii. i --1 - PROJECT NO 0-3 N - l a y 1 e . 1 . -------f- M | 1 : ; DRAWN BY 3 ' 1 -~ply<* e.vEL- LvaN i I i : F. PYIELF- g 11 1 ! r 4 1 21 H:91 - 941H.*7 : CHECKED BY i 3 _i 111 1 ~ ~-- 2,0 +1*1<Gale (TYK> / -0 1 ISSUE DATE ;1 lili; lit -4 2 1 4 4 - 19 -113 9 - a ---1 - --1 3=7=r--".'.-0."'""-, 1 0,Â«- ~1,0/Â»Tle A I 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 t -2 -1 -1 1.4 -1-1 4-4--L-t -1-1_Â£1- -1- 4-----1 L---4 1---4 . L-- -4- SHEET NO. A-12.1 1 ; OF SHEETS +.6.... *:414. *29. -dt'ttal DYER & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS = 209-S Ventnor Ave Aspen, Coiorado 81611 303'925-7149 DAÂ»>gY./ 965*Â« 1 ' 1 1 -FGS 1 .1 flf-#Aw,ira teur -. \* 6, P*VGU 44~77 +.-- -- --J 4 11711-11 - Â»1 HTely - Â®14 6 1,|CM'KI INS AVE 0*~ CAT- teÂ».1 1, 1 AE,F:*4/ 0:2(SIC. 1 i It *t--. 1 *+ W!7 62:*Hele. --AepE, er.Â¢73 2- 1-1 1 1 0- 1.:-1 47Â·& 4,~ capL.ul M He, PPOJECT NO i 9 156,66119* *FÂ»CES (TriÂ£4 L.0 _ __ i DRAWN BY - 12.2(5 1< i CHECKED BY ISSUE DATE - 11-4.-1.1 Â·10 1 ?Of;.8FLitl.â€ž0#q"~ko IN 1 SHEET NO. <T-1-1--ELE-VAT ID r.-1 411 = 11- C:211 1-161.2 i OF SHEETS 1 , h I 1 4 - 1 , .. - AÂ»/1411-ka -grglk=1-LIKE -Ale,VE Mpe'â€¢12. -~ AlzE,k .~ ~ 1 j 1 **14Â·T-1141 flue>sea. *De ~ =ar *HIN468: rÂ»N274 26, * TC:' râ€¢li,gtH 2%4. 1 1 1 â€ž.- ~ - -P --- 11 /1 1 14 2- - ~ ~ h li ii ' ~ il ll ~ R '' 1 u l i. \ 1,4- 1*VEL 9,2:7 1!-- - 1 ,1 1 : 1 9.+111 ---I- - 1 ti': 1 1; ':.- I.. -' -l' 11 1; 1 1~ 11 11 11 11 lillill -0 6.,041%10,5221.5 Â¢rrm 1 f i ?Ii i --- ..7--11 11 ~ ~ li 11 i' 11 ill i 1111 1 R 'rt 4 i, 11 ~~ !, ~ 10 11 11 1 -4 1 + 11 11 1 11 11 1 1 r-1-11 t-t- Â£-1 *1-1-r -1--1--'-1 1 1 1---4 L---4 1---4 2-- -A EAQIL;&622:I:12:1===~===========~==11,-i:1Â£1_ 1 .4 1 k.loTTE : 06>37 7% 66406 3 ' HOLLAND & HART ATTORNEYS AT LAW / DENVER 600 EAST MAIN STREET TELEPHONE (303) 925-3476 DENVER TECH CENTER ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1953 FACSIMILE (303) 925-9367 COLORADO SPRINGS ASPEN BILLINGS BOISE CHEYENNE JACKSON WASHINGTON, D.C. CHARLES T. BRANDT March 21, 1995 Ms. Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Landmark Designation - U.S.L.M. Ute No. 4 Dear Amy: Kentco, owner of the real property on which United States Location Monument Ute No. 4 is located, wishes to resolve the 2 issue of designation of the monument as an historic landmark. I have reviewed your file on this matter, and while there are references to Ute No. 4 in surveys of mining claims on Aspen Mountain, etc., whether a rock, even if a survey monument, is of historical significance is questionable. In thinking about this matter, it occurs to me that members of the public viewing the rock would have little, if any, reaction to learning that the rock has "historic" significance. Even if a plague were to be placed so members of the public could read a brief history of the rock, I do not believe it would have the same impact as a victorian residence or commercial core historic structure which not only represents the architecture of an important era in the Town's history, but may have been built and occupied by an individual who played an important role in Aspen's development. None of these traits can be attributed to Ute No. 4 For these and other reasons, I submit that the Standards for Designation set forth in Sec. 7-702 of the City -Â·/ Â· .CE.Â·Â£. Land Use Code are not satisfied. In addition, the rock presents a serious impediment to the development of the property on which it is located. The United States Location Monument can be relocated under federal law and replaced with a brass cap in an area which is more accessible by any surveyor who may still have need to tie to the monument. For the above reasons, should the City proceed with historic designation, it will be without the support of the property owner HOLLA-ND & HART ATTORNEYS AT LAW Ms. Amy Amidon March 21, 1995 Page 2 who will object to historic designation at any public hearing held for that purpose. Please let me know if you intend to pursue this matter by having City Council adopt the previously drafted designation ordinance. Thank you. Very tW~~;y/yours, 1/ 1 Â»LS Charles T. Brandt for HOLLAND & HART CTB/pal CC: Richard Kent (via fax)) POTENTIAL NOMINEES FOR ANNUAL HPC AWARDS Renovations: 330 Gillespie 229 W. Hallam Red Brick School City Shop Juan Street Affordable Housing 316 E. Hopkins (the Howling Wolf) Individuals: Carl Bergmann The Smuggler Mining Company (for tours given to schools) Contribution to Aspen's more recent built environment: Robin Molny and Fritz Benedict (for the pedestrian malls)