The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19950712AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION July 12, 1995 REGULAR MEETING SISTER CITIES ROOM - SECOND FLOOR CITY HALL 5:00 I. Roll Call II. Commission & Staff Comments III. Public Comments IV. NEW BUSINESS 5:10 A. 523 E. Cooper Avenue- Minor 0 K - V. OLD BUSINESS 5:30 A. 939 E. Cooper- discussion of garage doors and partial demolition of porch o A- At 5:50 ~~ 525 W. Hallam- Conceptual, Public Hearing continued from June 28, 1995 I'. 6:35 3#~ 130 S. Galena- City Hall windows 7:10 D. 406 E. Hopkins, The Isis- worksession/site visit 7:45 VI. Project Monitoring 7:50 VII. Adjourn NOTE: SITE VISIT TO THE MEADOWS ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 12 AT NOON. MEET AT THE PARKING LOT ACROSS FROM THE MEADOWS TENNIS COURTS OR CALL AMY TO ARRANGE CARPOOL FROM CITY HALL. NOTE: HPC NEEDS TO ARRANGE A SITE VISIT TO 202 N. MONARCH FOR SOMETIME IN THE NEXT WEEK. POSSIBLY AT LUNCHTIME OR 5:00. HPC PROJECT MONITORING 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 f . I Jake Vickery The Meadows 130 S. Galena- City Hall 520 Walnut- Greenwood 205 W. Main- Chisolm 610 W. Hallam- Iglehart Leslie Holst Holden/Marolt Â·- Aspen Historic Trust 303 E. Main- Kuhn 930 King- Cunningham . 939 E. Cooper- Langley Entrance to Aspen â‚¬ C. 3- 1 Roger Moyer 409 E. Hopkins Holden/Marolt 303 E. Main- Kuhn 420 E. Main 107 Juan Martha Madsen 132 W. Main- Asia 435 W. Main-L'Auberge 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 O 24 -rE-1_ MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 523 E. Cooper Avenue- Minor Date: July 12, 1995 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to install new awnings over the windows and doorway of Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory. This building is not historic, but it lies within the Commercial Core Historic District. APPLICANT: Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory. LOCATION: 523 E. Cooper Avenue., Aspen Grove Building, the east 22' of Lot C, all of Lots D,E,F and the west 25' of Lot G, Block 96. 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 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 awning proposed for over the doorway will match the existing awning at Piranesi in form, materials and color. It must be retractable in order to meet zoning code. The 'applicant also proposes an awning which is similar to the skirt on the one over the Chico's shop. This new awning runs the full length of the windows, but is only 6" deep.. It functions more as a signboard than it provides any shade to the windows. Staff recommends that HPC not approve this awning as the design guidelines state that awnings should be functional. If additional signage is desired, the applicant should choose a more traditional type of sign. Otherwise, the awning should be revised to match the awning proposed for the doorway. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the 4 parcel proposed for development. Response: Awnings are traditional in the Commercial Core, however the proposed 6" awning is not in character with others in the historic district. 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 resource. 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 for the proposed awning above the doorway and approve an identical awning to hang over the windows if the applicant desires. The 6" deep awning is not acceptable as submitted. Additional Comments: j J. ' I r-* 1 9 3 -> 1 \ pfâ€žâ€ž61 Â·r- - h 1 11 z ,& 6 1/1 - f I . - 4 16:x~ i~ - - - . 4 .--22'- 4 - 1 ....I,4 1'.1 â€¢ '4~44... 25 6 11/ee i - P k:3' -571 - 4. / J I l! /ula 7/ A ir - c,licog - 7....../1.- lb......- ArnM Atr'01,4- k.2 4 NTAc.G 1>61,1 u ' #ALIE' . ~~ 2-4--lmilifil - 1 GL)*TIOP 9 J oduÂ»-1- 11 -SL.â€ž f-- cA LAâ€¢../<sce- 1 / r t.oack M F,/ c-40 c- 64,.Â·re KY 1--RLU>, 1 . . 1,1 ) / N * 1 -9 /" 1 ~ f r 1 /1 L 1 2- 64 -91 FAs,134 lo i -7,4 LAlr 5 70 WOOD 1Â¢1Â· f 0~#- 764* 5 (+AS,WJ #2.'' 1 4 0.4 ~ 5924 /=D = $ f 11.0 6 6 *l, - l* f CA 4 V r 6#4 \ \N. 4. T .. .. ~AL *MAMS. 1 " SOVAr,-c 119' /410 17$18 - W ac.Pap 0- VIta\. L * \ Aw V IM 9- 77 rfi A Tc- R Awei A/6- A/r bAC-w_ o,s: AL<-0,/6. 1 63* FL.eâ€¢ A. *-1- Aw A , 00 (6 8&'rk-,4 Fi LAÂ· N iSS i \57Â· r ST / M G- 9 K/Of I f- 0-Es, MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 525 W. Hallam Street, Landmark designation, Conceptual Review, Relocation and Partial Demolition DATE: July 12, 1995 (Public hearing continued from June 28, 1995) SUMMARY: The applicant requests landmark designation, conceptual review, relocation of a historic structure and partial demolition of an existing non-historic structure. The house, the Horace Severeux House, was built in approximately 1886. Two outbuildings exist on the property. HPC reviewed the application on June 28 and tabled directing the applicant to restudy the design of the front porch and the design of the garage to protect the view from the neighbor's property. The applicant suggested that she might prefer a two story addition instead of the one story shown on June 28. A poll of the members indicated that most preferred the one story solution and that a two story solution would have to provide a greater east side yard setback. APPLICANT: Julie Wyckoff. Black Shack Studios is the architect. LOCATION: 525 W. Hallam Street, Lots C,D, and the west 1/2 of Lot E, Block 29, City and Townsite of Aspen. LANDMARK DESIGNATION PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Landmark Designation is a three-step process, requiring recommendations from both HPC and P&Z (public hearing), and first and second reading of a Landmark Designation Ordinance by City Council. City Council holds a public hearing at second reading. LOCAL DESIGNATION STANDARDS: Section 24-7-702 of the Aspen Land Use Code defines the five standards for local Landmark Designation, requiring that the resource under consideration meet at least two of the following standards: j A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of 1 historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado of the United States. Response: This standard is not met. B. Architectural Importance: The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type, (based on building form or use), or specimen. Response: The house is a simple Victorian miner's cottage with some alterations. The applicant has suggested that the building was originally a duplex, which may be supported by the presence of a pair of chimneys and a pair of bay windows. Portions of the rear of the original structure appear to have been removed and an enclosed porch at the rear of the structure must have been added after 1904. A historic outbuilding with it's original siding is located on the alley. From examination of the roof framing, the roof appears to have been changed from "parallel gables" to a hipped roof. Asbestos shingle siding has also been added. C. Designer: The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: The architect or builder is unknown. D. Neighborhood Character: The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: The surrounding neighborhood contains a number of significant historic structures and Aspen Landmarks. This structure represents the historic scale and character of the West End neighborhood. E. Community Character: The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: This site is representative of the modest 2 scale, style and character of homes constructed during the mining era, the community's primary period of historic significance. Conceptual Development 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 general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adj acent parcels when the sub j ect site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adj acent 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 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: The applicant proposes to add a new bedroom on the east of the structure, to widen the front porch, to add a second story a.d.u. to the existing non-historic garage and to relocate the historic outbuilding to the east. Some restoration work is proposed, although the applicant does not wish to restore the original roof form. The applicant has placed an addition to the east of the original house. The addition is not large and will impact a small portion of the original house (although an original window is to be removed), but it's placement may be somewhat problematic. It helps to create a private back yard and works with the interior lay put of the house, but it requires a substantial side yard setback variance. The requirement for this lot is a minimum of 5' on each side and combined total of 22.5'. The existing house is 3' from the west lot line, so a 3 variance would be required. As designed, the one story alternative provided a combined sideyard setback of only 8', so a 14.2' variance is needed. In terms of mass and scale, the addition is compatible, however, the front facade of the building will be approximately 65' long. Several of the surrounding houses have a similar width along the blockface, although most are new construction. The two story addition presented tonight provides an 8' east sideyard for a combined total of 11'. The variance required is 11.5'. (Please note that the new site plan still says 5', but it will be corrected to be 8'). This addition is exactly the same design as the one story alternative, except that the roof pops up another 6' to the ridge. Staff finds that this solution is not as compatible as the one story addition and that the large variance required is not as justifiable in terms of limiting impacts to the historic structure. An addition of this height might be more successful if it were pushed further back on the lot, but it does not work well in the proposed location. The front porch has been modified somewhat. The footprint of the altered front porch seems to match that . of the original porch. Some further study may be given to the detailing of the porch. The applicant wishes to add on to the existing garage and to place a studio unit above it. At 24' tall, which is 2' taller than the historic house, the garage will not be visible from the street. It is completely detached from the historic house and will have no negative impacts on it. The garage appears to exceed the height limit by approximately 1'. Under the Cottage Infill program, the maximum height of an outbuilding with an a.d.u. on the second floor is 16'. Under the new regulations, the 16' is measured to the point 1/3 of the way between the eave and ridgeline. There is no limit on the ridge height. The historic outbuilding currently sits on the rear lot line. In order to improve the yard area, the applicant wishes to relocate the garage to the east. It will meet the sideyard setback of 5', but is to remain on the rear lot line. A rear yard variance of 5' is required. The variances requested are: For the one story plan: combined sideyard variance of 14.2' west sideyard variance of 2' rear yard variance of 4' if the deck is provided 4 height variance to 16' under cottage infill program rear yard variance of 5' for shed For the two story plan: combined sideyard variance of 11.5' west sideyard variance of 2' rear yard variance of 4' if the deck is provided height variance to 16' under cottage infill program rear yard variance of 5' for shed (Note: no variance is required for the east/west expansion of the front porch.) 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The overall scale of the new construction as a one story element is in keeping with the neighborhood and creates an interesting site plan. Staff has been concerned with the long front facade, but this should be mitigated by the large existing street trees. The two story addition is not consistent with the character of the neighborhood as proposed due to its proximity to the street. 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 structures are unique and the proposed project includes many elements which will help it to more clearly represent it's original appearance. Staff finds that the two story addition, while simple in design does detract from the original design and character of the historic house. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Minimal demolition is proposed. ON-SITE RELOCATION 1. Standard: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and 5 integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adj acent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. Response: The relocation is not necessary but is desired by the property owner. 2. Standard: The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Response: The applicant must submit a structural report for Final review, or prior to applying for a building permit. The barn will probably require substantial interior bracing. If the structure cannot be moved, it must be preserved in place. 3. Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: The applicant must submit a relocation plan and bond prior to Final review or prior to applying for a building permit. PARTIAL DEMOLITION 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. Response: The garage is not historic. A small portion of the historic house Will be demolished for the addition. Staff finds that the applicant has minimized the demolition required. 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 garage demolition does not impact the 6 historic structures. The demolition of the historic house is limited in nature. B. Impacts on the architectural character of integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Response: The architectural character and integrity of the historic resource will be preserved through the new development of the garage. As mentioned above, the one story addition is more compatible in terms of massing with the old structure than is the two story addition. Residential Design Checklist The project is in conflict with two elements of Ordinance #30. Primary Mass: A primary mass is a building volume for which two of the following three characteristics do not vary: plate height, ridge height, wall plane. The floor area of a primary mass in excess of 70% of total allowable FAR shall be multiplied by 1.25. Issue: The existing house is 1,624 sq.ft. and does not vary in terms of plate height and ridge height. The one story addition is 648 sq.ft., making the existing house 71% of the building volume. HPC must waive the standard. In the case of the two story addition, which is 813 sq.ft., the standard is met because the existing house is 66% of the building volume. Volume: A calculation has been added which counts interior spaces at 2:1 FAR where there are exterior penetrations (windows) between 9 and 12' above the floor height. This affects the window on the east of the new addition and the windows on the north of the new addition. The architect intends to alter and lower them to comply with this regulation. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Development application as submitted. 2) Approve the Development application with conditions to 7 be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (specific recommendations should be offered) 4) Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. Recommendation: Staff recommends HPC approve Landmark Designation of Lots C, D, and the east 1/2 of Lot E, Block 29, City and Townsite of Aspen, finding that standards B, E and F are met. Staff recommends that HPC approve the one story addition as proposed on June 28 with the following conditions: 1) Provide more information about any proposed restoration/repair work for final review. 2) Limit decorative 49*ailing on the new porch. Flu 41/014_ d.-Lia....(447 3~~ Review the height of the garage. The applicant may provide story poles for final. review. O -war- Cdoj tijÂ· /O /d;~ ff>~ 4Â») Provide a report from a structural engineer for final review stating that the shed can be moved. The applicant must a bond for the relocation, the amount of which will be set by HPC at final. 5]l~ HPC shall grant the appropriate variances described on pages 4 and 5 of this memo. d c. u~ 0..,uÂ·~p-. 1~#ftzi-Â»--z- <% 4-L L-1- jÂ»r Ltic -14.fee- A o b U ~,d-bllf HPC shall waive the "Residential Design Checklist Standard" l.Â« ~~ dealing with primary mass due the dimensions of the historic /14 structure. The architect shall revise the design to meet the volume calculation. Staff recommends that HPC not approve the two story addition, finding that the development review standards are not met. i 8 1 07 ~Â«BLACK 06 95 SHACK STUDIO Historical Preservation Committee Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Aspen CO 81611 Re: Landmark Designation for Wyckoff residence and conceptual review for Lots C, D and the west half of Lot E, block 29. Original Aspen Townsite. 525 East Hallam Aspen CO 81611 Dear Committee Members, The residence at 525 East Hallam is a typical Hip Roof style miners cottage with a square floor plan and an applied front porch. It seems as though this structure was originally a duplex with a small central entry hall. The owner wishes to propose a number of minor changes which are intended to respect the original structure while preserving private outdoor space on the parcel. *Secondary changes are denoted by BOLD text. Presently, this site has a single family residence of 1,624 sci. ft. with two bedrooms and one bathroom, a detached garage of 250 sq. ft., and a tool shed of 243 sq. ft. We are requesting: 1. an east side and setback variance for a two story addition of 688 sq. ft. + a porch of 125 sq. ft. TOTAL = 813 sq. ft. This addition will respect a 8 ft. setback from the east side property line. The existing setback on the west side is 3.3 ft. This lot has a total size of 7,500 sq. ft. This implies a total combined side yard setback of 22.5 ft. with a minimum of 5 ft. per side required. Thus, we are asking for a variance of 11.2 ft. 2. a rear yard setback variance for: a) a 40 sq. ft. garage and ADU expansion. b) the relocation of the 243 sq. ft. shed to a position at the south east comer of the lot respecting a 5 ft. setback while maintaining the 0 ft. rear yard setback already existing. 3. a front yard variance for the enlargement of the existing porch by 24 sq. ft. This variance would be utilized in the east and west direction only and not used to move the front porch closer to Hallam street. We are also requesting to rebuild the existing garage with an additional dwelling unit (ADU) above the garage. j -garage = 312 sq. ft. (exempt from FAR) -ADU = 424 sq. ft. (net livable to 282.75 sq. ft.- half of which 141.38 sq. ft. is exempt for being above grade) BOX 276 'ASPEN C O 81612 FAX/TEL 303 920 1134 A BLACK SHACK STUDIO We realize that this seems like a lot of variances; however, the net result would be a collection of small scale structures with a combined floor area of 2,962.62 sq. ft on a site with an a#owab/e floor area of 3,450 sq. ft. We feel as though the massing of the proposed addition to the existing house is compatible with the original structure. We are also trying to preserve as much of a backyard as we can given the constraints of the program. We hope that the board will agree with our efforts. Thank you for your consi,leration. Glenn Rappaport, A. I.A BOX 276 Â«SPEN C O 81612 FAX/TEL 303 920 1134 L i Table of Contents l' i 1 fi.-_'i.~6â€ž,0-D \ j j 1 Existing Site Plan 1 3 2 Proposed Site Plan M Ja f-PEZZ:S: r-1 3 Existing / Proposed Plan -13 -tj'19 1 2 -1FLI 161 & f/Lcl. 4 Proposed Upper Level Plan 5 Exixsting / Proposed Eleveations 6 Proposed Garage / Caretaker Building i wo 4907 <al: 1 4-~ o v1 Wyckoff Residence 525 East Hallam Aspen, Colorado Historical Preservation Committee Conceptual Review Black Shack Architects Â· JUL 06 1995 Aspen, Colorado 4 . $ I .. 1 , 1.1 . 0 36Â£-al C aml.2 - 440â‚¬eet D .Fr X * 2 . f. 1 W i :t c " 9,75Â°22*'17/"E"-"-" -"*~- 75~ 00' 03: 30.001 ...09 N. . - 30.0<>, 1 5.00 Lot B Lot C Â· i . . 2 G>.6.D UEE .. . F..*.93 4 Â·i-Block 2,9 . 18,8' JiÂ·. Â·I.Â·.1 " ....,9 r SGu,le-sÂ·Gru Lra,te O Rouse 0 Scale: 1": 20' , m 0 J 1- 3.3 40.â‚¬ 2 e.yoplpâ€¢.Â·A 4 , F d.ele-ckel - *araje. a MA'r - - m 0- . - ~?9 0. 'm I U '4 Â£ 1 4 1 ... 24.1' - :%*ff 6 - shinli- - + 1 ~4 3<645Â¢64Â°1-1~"Wi~12",4,75{Â°6Â¢2~4 + CU.te,4.21..:..... â€¢ - C,Uicales sal rebil-r (bc.ap...N~U:er(â‚¬,24. L.S. 14111 I hereby certify that on May 20, 1983, a survey was conducted under my direct supervision of Lots C, D and the West b of Lot E, Block 29, City and Townsite of Aspen, State of Colorado. A single-story frame house was found to be on said lot as shown on this plate . The location and dimensions o f all buildings, im- provements, easements and, rights-of-way in evidence or known to me and encroachments by or on the premises are accurately shown to the best of my knowledge and belief, based on corners found in pl.*@e at the Northwest and Northeast Corners of said Block 29. Y ~ By: Sydg#g Lip#fcome P.L.S. 14111 . 1128 11 8*i 14111 :*, n â€¢ : r :â€¢51 q. " .... .t, . I - .... ~ i ? 149Â·ro-Ue;ke,4 Suweu .. 01 '' --: 5251-W@54:. Brâ‚¬allatk. 51:reEzE Â°-=Clslpe*liÂ·;Colofacto BY: LIN ES IN SPACE SYDNEY UNCICOME (LS. 14111) BOX 121 CARBONDALE, COLO. 303-963-3852 132Â©; CsÂ« 5 i q.5 2.3 .>/Ca~ 1983 SCALE:111= 20' e 1 4Â°50 49~ E Â· - 100 00 4 - /90.092 4%44,6 47,05 44 1 99 ht Â· 9,4660 , - 04011: 6 0 64(15 UNIC ................- 1 1-: -.i! 1 1 11.--'.-- 111 . ;2.- 1 - 1 PtufÂ· / F/*64*â€¢170 "5901 4HCO 1 . .1.- 4 . -=, 1 4 1- ZED.0011 ---~ r B.,r,11=0-1 9 itâ€¢[616/-4**mft 6 DAPTION ------ *. 1 1 1 1 1 RALLAM 40 ALLIEÂ¥ 1 1 1 , | 1 - mu=9&09& 1 1 'Â¥ 14 .r ' C... . -1401>4'c = ' Lx . I 1 - -- --J 1---2 L . 17 - - 1 2-6,2,4,---In--- - Il I I 111=-.--- - 1C---Â· ..........._ -_.. - i.............1t 1:. 1 -----7 41- . 1 . 1 11 il, *~~i_~J ---1-li .1_._7.N . 1- j - 2.:2.-1.r - . rgeorlterÂ·t- LINE . ----- ,&vier,6, tersâ€¢â€¢01,4 b /- . 126 L od reo ro,cp Â¢ ~ Â·rc F'6& W 1." 4 W G OJ 1'014 -~ 1.. i 1 - -IJ ti I . 4 i U 1 '. T F.. . 11 I.- I '25=0 -t -1 -4 FEd# *934; . 1 i 1 11' . 1 Â· ill.tr- 3==t - - 'i i f I i lili { 14- - -~11 . I + . 4 U+=. 112. I '11 I 3 1- . .F*v 1 1 E [[Ell>" : il L t . : N t r-1--7 11 - f=i-- - -_-It ' 11 11 . New F.,01.--= i 1 14' . 10 i QA .il : f BEW _ F~,4 <1 U.4 X RE W W 1 6 9. 0 r e x r ' 1. '6 1 1 O 0 12> I - f v A U. . le 1 . #001 -- 1, - 6~aux.,1.21 - 1 4 t 1.Â·4 ,Â· Â· Â·-----4 1 1 -1.1 I I 9 9.&14Â· Â»N 2,1 li i \ f 04 8 w 6*141- '46 - X N 6 4 -INi=*mt 4 1 6 6 0 f e k Als 124 1 1 _1 9- 9 0 0 E f,Art â€ž9:17 Â·% <6 -- *4- -- Tz--- A- 3. O 21-AOM 227 V 4 X - r' 0 1â€¢ 3 |9"13-61*-9 â€ž*ti *1 N f V.V v-! - VÂ· r V 1 - - - --r-=. -- - 4.- --~ -- ... --4. .- -4...n~=r.. =r=.=~ -- -- -- 1 1-24.- ...1 iI., J --0 -- +J,141 - I _ . \ / 4-clibx -- 2 F /1// -- ----*- -- -I...P . . - tt , - H V n O 6 . I #/ - 4 19: I > 4 1 9 4 . r. 9.9 .n 71 :r r d, 10 I - 1. I I. ---- 3.. r .f - 4 Â« - .- Â·Â·i| Â·â€ž=1--1 - 2.. Â· 1-TA-iT-j-t ;1111 Ilh..... 1/ 11 1141 11111-3 1 711- . INi i & . & I I.* k . .LI 1 59/1 . , 101.41<111 119 Â·21))Â¥-06-31417 O- 1 7 6 s )1. M 4, 1 21 0 Â¥1 2 -- r(9 1 2 7 MW 21 â€¢I B L f # - I -lr#.-.-* 111 11 EZZIEE_.-- ... _ .. ... 11 1 - 117-9- -iF W,1.4 dooM 9 . 6114#19 W<Â» 03113/gil IEEII - -* 6/ .... -- *02 01<MIH; 119/099 = -- - - ----- -- 1@NEÂ»-111 Jâ€¢ 4 W -31 M 1 r, 0 4 ' ~ M Â¥1 2 0 I O 0 i 9 - t *lild 0 - - aol +4 - T 11/91 3Â»â€¢- -:IT~Mr-Â·-Â·,"m- 1 , HO 1[3[J--UIJM' lili i , - 1 1 , 11 1 1 - i 1 60, - ii --zz~Ffi~#~-491 ' - -- â€¢Ill*11 OldÂ¢I,69 III-- --I..~ 1 f - 1 _ \ _1____*L. 4.-intlll Ill Iltt--==W O141'07 1 - - =r--iâ€ž----/8.:tral_-lia .13*ZE:iWL=Jilailt'1=7Â»7 --- 1*277%:~) 1 -- .----- .r..92/d./. - .. - - - ---- 0 - / ..11.111. WH=491.7. 1 1-- - - ---1X - \ -4--1 .. ~ -2-1 Pt)0*171 .. . 11 r Ll v 6 1--1. I. 1 L-3 1,; i Â£ i , 1 r CIN.,1.31 ~174Â®t# 141*9 3 0 MN,1 . "01+ 4 0 10 Â· 1,/07 9 1 1-1 ,,471071 19 LoU ~~~â€žr-~ Table Of Contents -- 4, --A- 1 Existing Site Plan 2 Proposed Site Plan 3 Existing / PlanProposed Plan 4 Existing Elevations / Proposed Elevations 5 Proposed Garage / Caretaker Building r' \ .:Â· 4 ret - *LKA --6/ J 0- lfAR, 5 4- OviL, â‚¬4Â©v v alll -&16&1 Wyckoff Residence 525 East Hallam . . Aspen, Colorado Historical Preservation Committee Conceptual 'Review *3lack Shack Architects 20 June 1995 Aspen, Colorado f Â· 1 ..1 . 1.1 1 1, 3:â‚¬.al lamc- 41<eet ' tE- . , W f. 1</0 K ' ' c - 575Â°af;'ir/"E- -- - 7Â£00' * -li 30.00â€¢ U .21 N. - 30.00' 15.00' f 1 1 . Lot B Loâ‚¬C - j 3 [.06 p GEE N 3.Block, 2-9 Â·61,.':i:i r b >8 6 . 0 1 1 Â· L 0 4 1. ., 0- 'lil < ir 3Â·3 40.3 - 0 '4 in h ~delo-cked -gara.~elÂ· - k ~ ~ /%3' - u< ' r A 9 0- o m N i i. 24.1' *f,R<fl .~2 - skeoli- .â€ž: 0-7. , 1 71 Â· i cK fie"75*,09' 1-10'4*2175t'8* , CU.le* ":" Â· 0 - Gutcales sal reâ‚¬,aâ€¢. (DEâ‚¬p.-Â·~ar(ted-/ L,S. IH 111 I hereby certify that on May 20,' 1983, a surv M was conducted under my direct supervision of Lots C, D and e West * of Lot E, Block 29, City and Townsite of Aspen, Stat of .Colorado. A single-story frame house was found to,be on s id lot as shown on this plate The location and dimensions of all buildings, im- provements, easements and, rights-of-way in evidence or known to me and encroachments by or on the premises ar ' accurately shown to the Best of my knowledge and belief, based on corners found in pil.*@e at th~3rthwest and Northeas t Corne of said Block 29. V ~ \ Syd* L ome P.L.S. 14111 . /*ae,STQ)~~~ 9.*,& ...... Q*i 14111 3*F 1. Nk ...f ' 1'1 :~Gr *rove,YwiL Sucrvelj 9,07: n!:?:... . 37- -; 35'251Â·- Wdist ~3Â·Ealla:< 56-2222 -. :..."11- (leve,05 2*Colo~cu:Ko BY: LINES IN SPACE SYDNEY UNCICOME (L.S.14111) BOX 121 CARBONDALE, COLO. 303-963-3852 | Ne; (-Sed g i i qs 23 2'Uaw 4983 1 SCALE:l"= ,$20' 8 .4 . '>t I + I . . . . . 0 J 3 , 1- lili -j,=..6.....2.12.1 -- ---r- 4 111 1 1, : 1 . I g*644*470 le,tf*r $1+Co --. 1 --: 2 1 IG . *11 1 , . 1 .... 1 *RD-014 -SINNU,6 - er.*f ; 1 ;5.01*FrroN --.---- + M.. < 0 54 I - 1/M-0- I . r \NN \34 1 - NEW 01"BRE -11 1 1 RAUÂ»1 :,6 N\Â« : ALLICâ€¢f 1 0 - It 1 1 1 - LJ'EM=* Mu/Â£)p 1 - - - . ~1- - -7 1451/--2(m..IWI-1,Witit"1M19. - 3 .. .. . =*=. ig-Lik- ---14&~1Â· .: :t t . . I. -. . -L==1-r . t.. . 06 - - .L L t 1 - _ -- 109141.16, 1,91.1,&1901* reoricerÂ¥ 1-161Â£- i - :32 0- 11 : 00 r; w ~f 0~ _ 1'00 ro,Ce Â¢ 1 Â·rc Pl.6.W - ~ 00.1.1 . 1% 1 ; 2,4 -- 9-. 4 , C. 004* . ----- .I I 9,1 4 1 1 2 9 11 /vi .A 9141 ... 1 4 X ---_.--- 4,1,r'DrsnE#--- --/ --.+I f .M * S 1. 1 i, .07,0 ... :0% '071 . ti , iti P R -<ji Â· Ir--IT - I J . A 0... U .i -. i :1.21 . 60 00 I I.--.-4.'/, :. ...,t .. J.4 -I. +It f ... * I .f I . - -12Â· I ~ 1~-1,~ 4 - Â· . I "42 r.~ Â· .. Â· - .... Â·ilivhf64,- t . tÂ· t;â€¢ Â·-- . Â·ImrÂ·Â·t * 1 - Â· Â¥ 1 -2, 4 C=Â£ ..It f .. .. I E r + + 1-+ 0::+ , +: . I . J at .. 10 I *1 .IV 6 1:r $. .: . 4 : . / t . \ /. - / 1 1. ~ -~r=tz]1=77 -T u 1.0,7'...llc \ irÂ·y,dnIftâ€¢' Â· Â·'Al .- i r. 1 w///,m, ty/,Al - -4 -7rFI 1 { 1 1 Â·Â·- 1 -J F ~Tf E.' 1- . 1 1] . -W W#C 11 2..7,0i-%31 Fitti u 224 -4 - pmem tesi 'i Â·-- : 5157%0:11 V.*1.i .-%: I--9 11 5%71 4 -1,2 -4.11 .9...741 //â€¢41 /Vf:0~1 -1 . 1 1 --râ€¢t Â· 41 11 . 0 K 1 6< 1 U & r4 6 W 5 0 u 1- A \N . ~/1 I. ' 1 81 0. . \ \ ./. i -I'l- .-I- - / Â»0=1.-1 , il 01 I-:. ---4---- f8,*..-... irm)irrr*-- / -\ j #1 . $ 1-.- . Ill T -- , : V , , 1 -3 - I . 'T .4 11 li L t i r 4 U U r -1 4 1 f . I -I ----I-- - JIll . t- . -1 6*,9 1- 'G- bM e w 4 6 W i E A k ST,NG, r Â° $ ~ wn *4 7 dof- 1- H Â· 9 Wto 6 0 0 e '1 @ 0- 11 1 .7 N 1 0 1 1 fl 91 2139 21 V. , 3 2 ,* 9 - 1 â€¢7 4 214 47 lio) 1,0 Apl3; .1-4 4 3 /.313 0,004 -\~ N Â¥16 1301 319'KNKe :; 0 1 00 i i- -~ 1>Ay; 1 04Â·640 l rÂ·-21-44 1-. - 1-- 9 Afff__.... m==r 1 & I -. 1 --i I , ' : f - ' -t -1 dll r.-/ i - 4 2 i Fr---:- 4 - Til - 6 .,-1. Ill! 31#-/. I , Pe; 1 601 7 -12ditb 1 6, o.rita L - - *i -- - 1/,/.aÂ«) . HaLÂ· ace Pl 03.LN'.8 3 - Il- b *019 2/Or 0313'Alls' M - 4 P==11 1 1 '- I.--91 /--- 1 - 1'02 1 sli <40___. 1 1---1 -- -A S I & -- , /9, 1 1 - _1 il ..-&_!1- m 013 vi )/2-I 01 IT- A:Â· \T .i 1- If ' Â· ~1 -# - .- 9. I wi__ i -- - 4- 1 :I --1 N i â€ž 367â‚¬3Â£=zli nAL .-/7 il - - #00. . 14,1 i - I-Ill- 11*141+19 ,0iflâ€¢AidipÂ¥ ----Â·---- -- ---- ----7~~ - 1,1 .1-- E- * 1 -1 - NOIDÂ¥/1 3 1 3 1 4 3 11 1101>VA,1 1)1 1113 ON 1~ F*12 13 h 31. Otc 92, 1 11 - 1 1 L-1 '11 1 Â· b . . i 4 ==rii ~~#All !1 1 0 . In\0167 2*03#'7 0313IA'30 -J- ..1.- ' 1 - 119 1 13- HlÂ¥51 --1901.1.*11 1 <10,/41 - On, n i i ~ -Lit .7 4 lul L.5 -Â·-4 1 1/, i Na - i -= . 1.13" ,41;1 1=0 4 , 1 -* 11 4 1 i 11\\ 1 lc-; MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street- windows Date: July 12, 1994 SUMMARY: The City of Aspen requests HPC approval for a window repairs on City Hall. Formerly known as Armory Hall, the building was constructed in 1892 and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, is an Aspen Landmark and is located in the Commercial Core Historic District. APPLICANT: City of Aspen, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, 920-5199, represented by Cris Caruso, Project Director. LOCATION: 130 S. Galena Street, Lots K,L and M, Block 93, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. 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. Because this structure is on the National Register, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission is required to apply the "Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation Projects." 1. Standard: The proposed development in compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site 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 a Historic Landmark... Response: Attached are drawings which indicate the condition of the existing windows. Staff evaluated all the windows in the building using the attached form and categorized them according to repairs necessary. Windows marked "1" are non-historic easement windows in need of repair or replacement. Those marked "2" are historic windows which were altered in the past with double paned glass. Most are in fair to poor condition. Those marked "2' " are' historic windows with their original glass. j Those marked "3" are window openings that are being opened back up and require a new window. The project, along with the brick repair, was put out for bid in August of 1994. Only one bid was received, to repair all of the existing windows, at a substantially higher amount than the project budget. The windows were also included in the bid packet for the roof and basement work. The general contractor who was awarded the City Hall job bid $32,000 for replacement of all windows. Staff (myself and Cris Caruso, City Engineer) have been working together for some time to find an alternative to this option. The contractor has recently suggested a system whereby the existing window frames and j ambs would be retained, but the sash would be replaced (including thermal pane glass). A jamb liner would allow the new sash to fit snugly in the existing frame. This would allow us to retain the historic woodwork, while improving the efficiency of the window. Several options are available: Replace all of the windows with new wood windows to match the existing Repair all of the existing windows. The glass could be replaced with double pane glass. Repair the existing windows and add an interior storm. The storm windows would prevent opening the window for ventilation. The HPO is generally in favor of repairing rather than replacing historic windows. The City Hall windows may contribute to the character of the building in terms of the dimension of the window elements and the appearance of the decorative trim, mostly on the south elevation. The glass appears to be original in many of the windows, but is not obviously a "wavy" glass characteristic of many historic buildings. The windows on the first floor of the west elevation have all been changed from the original, and the windows on the first and second floors of the east facade were all added in the 1960's. The Commission should evaluate whether or not they feel that the existing windows are distinctive features which contribute to the character of the building. There has been some concern on the City Engineer's part about replacing some of the windows and repairing others, and whether or not this will make the building look like a "hodgepodge." There is also concern on the HPO's part that the building has continuously received deferred, maintenance, which has in part led to the deteriorat?d conditions of the original windows. Part o f this proj ect will involve rehydrating existing woodwork as much as possible and repainting. Many windowsills are dry and cupped and will need to be replaced. It is the HPO's opinion that the best solution is the one proposed by the contractor, to replace the sash, but restore the other woodwork. The replacement sash must match the existing as closely as possible. The City Engineer should provide more information about the proposed system, prove that it has been successful in other applications and provide local examples if possible. The Colorado Historical Society's restoration specialist has done a site visit to the building and is in agreement that a solution of this type is appropriate. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: This particular block is the only block in town which contains only 19th century buildings. The window renovation is part of a larger project which is attempting to make bring this building into a better condition. Several original window openings that were subsequently filled in are being restored in this project and will improve the historic character of the building. 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: This compromise solution, which retains part of the historic windows will not detract from the cultural value of the 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: The existing windows are generally in poor condition, do not open and close properly. Many window sills need replacement in order to drain water away from the building. 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 the 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 HPC approve the replacement of the window sash as described above, after being provided with sufficient documentation of the system's effectiveness. HPC should also make a condition that the City undertake more frequent maintenance of the entire structure, inspecting material conditions and drainage systems to make sure that the building does not fall into disrepair again. Additional Comments: j Window classificatio..# St: E WIE )0 -- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / 1 L. 4 _--_i 1 North Elevation Window classificatioi,s fIEzE' L. -......, .= g== = =-E- 2~8~---&LJ---Iu-JJEAMILWIC).c' 1~---*.Le' E-EE-EE-i,-ii-111111,Milli -ga Soutih Elevation 1-. -Â· -+ 0- -I .- ... Window classificati P m ~ T-d;ikEE~ 1 E -4 74 !1[Ilill'7---""---Â·~--------*ilrirru- - g*gy Â· Â· --11]11/4 41Â·Â·111 . ~1 , 12 fi blf..........'- 1 = 6 1-W 1. C===1 1 e=.4-4~66.,==â‚¬11*trottidn - 1 -1 1 , East Elevation -1--.I-=11.-Tmi.-1.'llim-=glill'Il-=.-.-Ill- . Window classificati = -ill - - - . '111 1 1 1 1 , We*t Elevation 1 0 WINDOW NO. LOCATION CONDITION Paint Sash (rails, stiles, muntins) Glass Frame Sill Weatherstripping Glazing Putty Caulking Cords Hardware COMMENTS 0 OVERALL CONDITION Poor Fair Excellent APPENDIX II The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation 1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure, or site and its environment, or to use the property for its originally intended purpose. 2. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, site or its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible. 3. All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged. 4. Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a building, structure, or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected. 5. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a building, structure, or site shall be treated with sensitivity. 6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, wherever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other buildings or struc tures. 7. The surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic building materials shall not be undertaken. 8. Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archeological resources affected by, or adjacent to, any project 9. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural, or cultural material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood, or environment. 10. Whenever possible, new additions or alterations to struc tures shall be done in sitch a manner that if such additio,ns or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and intogrity of the structure would be unimpaired. -