The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19940622AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE JUNE 22, 1994 REGULAR MEETING SISTER CITY MEETING ROOM SECOND FLOOR CITY HALL SITE VISITS: Important!!! Please meet cn north side of City Hall at noon on Tuesday, June 21 for site visits to 303 E. Main Street, 715 W. Smuggler and 520 Walnut Street, or site visit on your own time. We will try to be done in an hour. 4:00 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGARDING TEMPORARY OVERLAY 5:15 I. Committee and Staff Comments II. Public Comments III. NEW BUSINESS </- h 1,993 64). /44,-~c $ 1 - /30,1 - k/1.149- 0.0 /34;4 ,<Lill/- 5:45 A. 715 W. Smuggler Street- Minor.* c->1 - A-,0 9 9 r A--,~-92~-,2 6:05 B. 5--orkshop ,0-y~L- IV. OLD BUSINESS 6:30 A. 303 E. Main Street- Conceptual Review, Public hearing continued from June 8, 1994 7:15 B. Review final draft of Neighborhood Character Guidelines 7:30 V. Project Monitoring 7:40 VI. ADJOURN /\ 1 \\ 4 J HPC PROJECT MONITORING HPC Member Name Project/Committee Joe Krabacher 801 E. Hyman AHS Ski Museum Aspen Historic Trust-Vice Chairman 612 W. Main 309 E. Hopkins (Lily Reid) 617 W. Main 312 S. Galena - MD (Planet Hollywood) Highway Entrance Design Committee Donnelley Erdman The Meadows (Chair-Sub Comm) 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer Park) Collins Block/Alley Wheeler-Stallard House 624 E. Hopkins 304 E. Hopkins 234 W. Francis 204 S. Mill - Collins Block 220 W. Main - European Flower Leslie Holst Holden/Marolt Museum (alt.) In-Town School Sites Committee Aspen Historic Trust-Chairman 824 E. Cooper 210 S. Mill 303 E. .Main Alt 312 S. Galena - MD (Planet Hollywood) City Shop - 1080 Power Plant Road 506 E. Main - elevator Jake Vickery The Meadows (alternate) In-Town School Sites Committee 205 S. Mill Larry Yaw 716 W. Francis 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer-alt.) 204 S. Galena (Sportstalker) City Hall 627 W. Main (residential-Jim Kempner) 232 E. Hallam ACES City Shop 1080 Power Plant Road St. Mary's Church windows Roger Moyer CCLC Liaison 334 W. Hallam Aspen Historical Society 409 E. Hopkins 303 E. Main 311 W. North Farfalla lights outside 210 Lake Avenue (alternate) Marolt Museum Karen Day Rubey Transit Center 334 W. Hallam (alternate) Cottage Infill Program 134 E. Bleeker 435 W. Main Swiss Chalet 311 W. North 304 E. Hopkins 121 S. Galena Martha Madsen 620 W. Hallam (alternate) 100 Park Ave. (alternate) 214 W. Bleeker (alternate) 132 W. Main 520 E. Cooper Unit 406 Linda Smisek 134 E. Bleeker 210 Lake Avenue 305 Mill St. Tom Williams 130 S. Galena - City Hall 300 W. Main - fence McDonalds Scott Samborski 702 W. Main - Stape - Conceptual Development approved Sept 8, 1993 220 W. Main - European FLower Market Final April 20, 1994 3/ 9- lu . 3 n~ u36'~ r - /li Ic et-kCL C I MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 523 W. Francis Street- Partial Demolition DATE: June 22, 1994 SUMMARY: HPC discussed an application for partial demolition of 523 W. Francis at the meeting of June 8, 1994. (See attached memo from Staff.) The result of the review was a condition of approval that the carriage house be lowered three feet at the ridge. The applicant is not in favor of HPC's motion, specifically and has asked for a reconsideration. To discuss this case again, an HPC member must make a motion to reconsider and add 523 W. Francis to the agenda. Staff recommends that motion be made and that 523 W. Francis be placed first on the agenda. Staff has spoken extensively with both the architect and property owner about this project and the impact of the HPC motion. Their main concern seems to be the decreased desirability of the space due to knee walls and whether or not the owners furniture will still fit into this master bedroom. Staff has sketched an estimation of the affect of the lowered plate height and attached that to the end of this packet. A shed dormer with an 8' height clearance has been drawn in just to show one solution for the furniture issue. Staff's recommendation to HPC for a lowered plate height was directed at decreasing the impact on the historic importance and prominence of the existing miner's cottage by not allowing the addition to tower over it. The committee may want to discuss how important that factor is given the distance of the addition from the street and the fact that it is somewhat obscured by trees, however, Staff still firmly believes in the intent of the condition of approval. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 523 W. Francis Street, Partial Demolition DATE: June 8, 1994 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval for partial demolition of the historic residence at 523 W. Francis Street. This structure was built in 1885, and is a Victorian miner's cottage with major additions to the east and south. A permit was issued previously for demolition and new construction to the rear of the house (see roof demolition plan) at the time when the HPC was not reviewing demolition below 50%. The applicant now requests HPC approval to extend the roof ridge on the permitted addition to the south, to demolish the roof and windows on the east part of the building, to place a new projecting window on the gable end of the house, and to put decorative shingles and new windows in the gable. The architect has accurately represented that only a portion of the original historic house still remains (see roof demolition plan.) All original windows have been replaced and the front porch has been changed or enclosed. APPLICANT: Lucy Dikeou, represented by Jake Vickery. LOCATION: 523 W. Francis Street, Lots D and E, Block 28, City and Townsite of Aspen. PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: No partial demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to section 7-709, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless the partial demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the applicable standards of Section 7-602(C). The applicant proposes to demolish 962 sq. ft. of the roof or 6% of the existing F.A.R. This fits within the Land Use Code's definition of partial demolition. HPC's role is to determine whether or not the portions of the building proposed for demolition can be sacrificed without compromising the character of the resource. It is not within the Board's power to review the design of the building addition, other than to offer comments. Standards for Review of Partial Demolition 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure. Response: The applicant has pursued several different routes in order to construct the additional living space desired. The house is all one story and only a small amount of site coverage is still available. The Board of Adjustments heard the applicant's request for a site coverage variance for construction of a garage in March 1994 and approved a 200 sq. ft. site coverage variance with the condition that no second story be put on top of that area. Because this does not solve the applicant's living space requirements, this application has been made for demolition of the roof and construction of a second story or half story. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: A. Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. Response: Staff finds that the new additions are not historically significant, however, they are of a sympathetic scale to the original house. The proposed new construction maintains the same basic dimensions of original gable end, but is up to seven feet higher than that ridge. Although HPC is not reviewing the design of the new addition, Staff recommends that the carriage house roof be lowered to the height of the side house and back house (approximately 24 feet) in order to meet this standard and to receive demolition approval for this portion of the existing roof. Staff also recommends that the applicant provide evidence or justification for the projecting window and shingles on the gable end. They are not inappropriate, but seem to be conjectural. B. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel. Response: The project does not impact the architectural integrity of the historic structure. ALTERNATIVES: HPC may consider any of thefollowing 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 approve the application with the following conditions: 1) The applicant must attempt to document the original type of window that was set in the gable end and try to determine whether fishscale shingles ever existed there. A decision on the new window and shingles may be made by HPC or by Staff and project monitor. 2). In order to meet Standard 2A, the applicant is to lower the carriage house to 24 feet at the ridge. Additional Comments: 1-+ " L_ ' -- Â·11 1- Â·i - t-; - 1 ~ gl_[-4 tr~ 1 -1,ilI~*-- - IT 111-F-- - - Il.L-i .. i J 94-4 - 1 - t r.1 Et__ _ R Â¥*â€¢rr- 41 Cle- (te,-r Â¥pre~ 0 0 6''Z-,14 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 523 WEST FRANCIS 11 I --- tril E 1 -7 - ~ < 1-ELTI 1it - ~ -- - -.1#--- --- --i-*il-~---1- --X-.--IX+I---- - ---- - 4 1 k 4- 1 R[ f* 1-T / E 90 - 00 MO . Pee k>T 6-26,94- PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 523 WEST FRANCIS - %Â£%U W "6Â· r\=6- \1. 0Â®4- M 2-10<16ow -- -9- 1. - 1 - -7 -1*lof- - - Ii&-f"-1 - - . 1/e D- -1- r-61 - :- -ln--J] 3- ---- ...ir 0 4 - 1 11 Fhdrr- 41 (20- (8. 4 f F.+1 0 f) PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 523 WEST FRANCIS . A f,/.2 1 - - ==97-7 / 49=42 , --1 1 1 . â‚¬ 4Â¢KÂ« Â» 1 . 9 11... - 1 -11 1 1 - 1 . 1 1 -r.ii I.Iyl! Il ;~1 11 11 11 1111 11 11 11 11 11 = 1' 1-- A !!1 1 1 11 ! 11 ic- . ill,11 11 1 - i Â· 4 IZE14.---L__I- E -- Mild*%#f- k- IiA i. 506-44- PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 523 WEST FRANCIS ... j --- / ..11UJ L!-1 11 11 Lil LAND USE APPUCATION FORM 1. Project Name: 23(k 25-0 U ~-6 /DENCE 2. Project Location: 633 8189'r PRAM) 613 . ASPER 6079 D W E Boic 48 (Indicate street address, lot and block number, legal description where appropriate.) 3. Present zoning zf? (50 4. Lot Size 5. Applicanfs Name, Address & Phone # l-NOF '23/ OF/J U. 444 gouro Cwoo (LIALLâ‚¬ , Dâ‚¬,NE-k. C A 9(32.,09 1 6. Representative's Name, Address & Phone # J AM 1./ 1 0,(c.dÂ» leo SO. SPR/1%14 crE, 4 6 9 -3 6 0 3 4 40 1 7. Type of Application (Please check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual Historal Dev. Special Review Final SPA - Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final PUD X Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation Condominiumization Text/Map Amendment GMQS Allotment Lot Split/Lot Line Adjustment GMQS Exemption 8. Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures; approximate sq. ft.; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the property). 41 ng LE FterA '64 Aunf,L - 19%6 74 1/4 92 4 CarrAW 9)1 -rpÂ¥ 9:8>\)Efuh~ LAric'E NON 1 H/STD/( C . A-DEW 77 43/6 4 6%13Â¢-M 9 638Â« 91-DE YARD V AR,/ 47?A . 9. Description of Development Application D.a r/10/1/914 APPRe< 9%64) op, r )65 -1-fls=00\L 2-001 A /6 4\LE %0<14 -erl. SE Â¢461 -*0008- Arrp i-nUFA 10. Have you attached the following? y Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents 1 Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents X Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application 1 - - ..I.- SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of clear, fully labeled drawings must be submitted in a format no largerthan 11"X17", OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 1 1"X17" format. APPLICANT: 1.0 09 -Di Kgou ADDRESS: 5-2,3 9/Earr- PRATJOI 6 ZONE DISTRICT: f- 6 LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET) 4.000 EXISTING FAR: 0249 39. ALLOWABLE FAR: :3{ 4,0,4-0 PROPOSED FAR: 4,2.40 EXISTING NET LEASABLE (Commercial): ' A) A PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (Commercial): /9 A r h EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: 1974 (38% ) PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: 0-43 0 1 4693 EXISTING % OF OPEN SPACE: 3,7 24 % 24~3 PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE: 3 4 10 EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: 9,23 1 12*Ii*\S \ !41 66 1071, t rr PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT:~4/7/9~ /3-7 / -3 1 54 s \ 4/9, 1 M \DP 0 1 Al 1- PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: 44iÂ°nfoot i GÂ°h Â¥*R, ; 1470 Ek.\AM.14 EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 4 PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: ~ EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: O ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: O SETBACKS: EXISTING: ALLOWABLE. PROPOSED: Front: 91,6 Front: /O Front: -11, E- Reac Rear /0 Reac 101 16 ,% Side: /0 f 5 Side: h 5 Side: /O, Combined Frt/Rc - Combined Frt/Rc 80 Combined Frt/RE 3>115- EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES, 1/0 5/PÂ£9,48/3 3-n 41)84'-r-, 7-47-was /O ~ ENCROACHMENTS: VARIATIONS REQUESTED (eligible for Landmarks only: character comoatibility finding must be made by, HPC): FAR: . UMâ‚¬ Minimum Distance Between Buildings: ~1/0 &41 SETBACKS: Front: Parking Spaces: / Reac Open Space (Commercial): \ Side: / Height (Cottage Infill Only): / Combined Frt/Rn .> Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): i . FRAL--1015 5TREET fourio. / 0-EÂ»;,4375 FOUMI> . - 575-09'/ r a 60000 u.5 0 F FT--v'~ w. 0 ?"U.e 4 it\ \Â£\ 1 1 44 \ 7 O ' StÂ·Ir.ROACM-ern C. - ... ---- - ----1~ .1 .*. -lill- Â·Â·ceo Â¥ Ent.L / i : ./ 1 '/ # 1 1 1 3 1 % 81 i - 0 '-AL.-il.$-5 - tr 1/..Na t] i M l li) .Â» '/ 0 1 6 * ~.i ~ ~ s~ ~ ; 1789% ~ , TV\/0 STORY ' 47â€ž 1 - f RAME HOUSE , 3 7 71 :' ~(,Fl*7==k~fi: EX.Ev 1.,â‚¬.tiÂ·./'LA'.Â«'ri)Â·' . ,Â·~ 1 14 i /; i 0 2 Iii; 1 , Â·Â· f 06 0,4 4 -I 01. 4. Â·. . 1 jf ~ f / ~ ,L .- 1 1. %/ I . \ /0 P . 1 - -1 - A 1//''/ l17.9/ ili f<,101.C *~- - Ill U ' 65 - - -* - - -- 1 1 0 8 2 ' LOT D LOT E ./91 --- Ot.1 0 - , ZA- A I ce-â€¢Le I ., - _..,5. 4 <,4-Zrn o 2 -RE - O. Â· 1'4 Â¢ tele. OED et 75* 09' 11- W 60.00 - ALLEY SO' 49 ' E 00001 M *66.OS .hl G 11.. - - 1944- IÂ«\\*11/.1 11- 4,4 ULAÂ«91 1 11.\ 7 44Â«44Â«9 &1248 , . r ~~/ 7 -- #- -fof >49 4 x 0 11\21. DEMOLITION , AND NEW ROOF c 4 -%-_LI~ xi_ AS PER PREVIOUS 2.,A. 1 % 1 1 ' I 1 PERMIT THIS AREA -*/ 1 -i - FLAf i- l.1 12 lili 07 2 - paSTING-NON-HISTORIC ROOF / / 'A .../1/ /,/:=fl///* I ~/ ~TO BE DEMOLISHED . il // - - jAPPROX 962 SF 1 1 1,1 , 1 , , : /6/ I. y ./*Â·51:943/57/36 01/ ,// /'/5/ .1 . t'-14 ~r~ EXISTING HISTORIC ROpF iN 1 00 REMAIN Â· 'k X /1 J- 4 1/ L , 1~..~*4. ' / / / 2 // '4/ / /1 11i ; / i <j ii i. i, TOTAL ROOF AREA 2275 SF tl) I j' 111' Fil 1 EXTERIOR W ALLS TOBE 172/J i ~- ;Offf~ $ DEMOLISHED OR MODIFIED i JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECT 925-3660 ROOF DEMOLITION PLAN 523 WEST FRANCIS ill /0\ t ' /'/NK -41 1 1 T 1 1 1- 1 1 1 1 l- #ll \1 lid 94- Ini 1 1 , /, 0/th i /4// h \1 / 2 4--3-1 / Â»59 ; 1 4 0./7. / 71 1 1.q r l - --- 4 0112*6_15<If.//Li_ 34 V/- , EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION EX'/97>Vf /vep,e-774 25Â£-2 u/. - - 4564 40 130 :tiftle'l.leptril " 1 9 Mot:21 r/0.Cp >lt lit 4/4 ~i<Â« 1 l Â·lili .--1-r k. 7//\ 1 4- 142Â»42 1 11011 i Â£ 1-' 1- 1 .J / l#ElksÂ£ 1 1 -1Â· 11 l J R *Â»1. 11 'W A r 1 L ]Ii TO 13-0 F.-p*lotj=p --z .-jf-/ ///->f. k_]3.-1 I I ... ii ./ EXISTING EAST ELEVATION 5<197/6.4 2.AST *Lav.. 523 WEST FRANCIS iNIA 1 74/40/9/ C #11 L.Â£1 1' , ... I.'. t v Â· ~~. I IfXISTING SQUTHELE.VATION - gwier>a:; eze,=1-A le,2 v --704-ir.Â·Â·t.oâ‚¬-fiEE-=E f U ' ~ 2Â· , 8 + 100 Â»'plÂ»lets flti e *Fm DArl e-1 523 WEST FRANCIS FRONT HOUSE , BACK HOUSE 6 :/ P' p# E 1 4 Fatpi E .al:/ ....//..... \ 943/ 1 - t lll r , : / ll' 1 ~ //l j /1/- lL-L / / I-i / I l.l/1/1 1 . j f.- 'IT/'ll ~ /i / / f/ --l / i / l /l - / ~~ 8 / 1 'i i AwNA - 1 AREA OF PROPOSED ROOF 1/////1 A 11 9 2.14 /1 BIRp HOUSE (t/Â¢ 1 .Ill/;1;1/1 i,i ij till i j /1//litil /1 1 j. t . ill//li,l//1 f /Jil -'-77 11,1/, / , / & , , / f /~ ' . :0 ,+CAFÂ®,At)E<B~k<N / , , .C PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 523 WEST FRANCIS 925-3660 JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECT 148\Â« emls: K>qwlÂ·447'84 1- Roof 15821 feevIOL.14 TEettl 'T~ - /11 . --- is 14*6/ 42,16*0'r - -=.4:7Â£914=24~- 3-- -72__-- UU 1 -1- - -- -- -- 4 -1- - -5L,=L - ifI-23-2-1-2-Effl---31.21.;99-6-*. + t_ F.--3. 123-_E t ---f(Liâ‚¬Ii' 31-~-i.m_A- 7.-72 (1.=.1.- 1 7 --0-*~Wir- L 3%Â·* V'- , -- --_ < ..<e,vÂ·-v. Ax,gr'.. -v, h , -- . f M,6.-49 0/e,U*.4 ; tt~-DÂ·,Cl . - - -P r-4-=Ar---r==1[-LE . -+ -- -. - .-- -. - .- 1 1\ 1 1 01214,NAL CONTA C,A 1 1 1 -- EXISTING WEST ELEVATION PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION A 523 WEST FRANCIS 6 - 1/ 94 19,14 SPECIFIC REPLIES REGARDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 523 WEST FRANCIS PARTIAL DEMOLITION 6-2-94 Cl. The existing residence is functionally obsolete; spaces are too small, inefficient circulation pattern, poor ventilation, bedroom windows do not meet egress standards, ceilings are too low. The proposed work is necessary to bring the house up to current livability and code standards and to avoid complete - demolition thereby preserving the historical miner's cottage. The new space required to bring this residence up to current standards is concentrated diagonally on site in the south east corner, as far as possible from the historical resource, which is located in the north west comer. This strategy mitigates any impact on the cottage to the greatest extent possible. The major new ridges run with the property rather than across it like the cottage reducing their impact. The new peaks on the volumes closest to the cottage are only approximately 4.5 feet higher than the existing cottage. The highest new ridge is 7 feet above the existing ridge. This maximum mitigation that is possible given the renovation requirements. The Applicant requested variances from the Board of Adjustment which would have permitted potentially less impact but these were in essence turned down. A compromise was proposed by the B of A which ultimately proved unworkable. C2. The demolition is confined to the portion on the existing house which is non- historic. The historical integrity and architectural importance of the miners cottage (rated on the inventory as supporting-lowest category) is not decreased or diminished because none of the new work is proposed in this application involves the cottage. Il_ -- 1 1_I 141[- LI I i ill it ~- T-/ 11 1 - - L -~--- 1-- t ' 1- _31- --r 00 0 0 00 -Â« 97 mo .- Peour 6.2.6-94 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 523 WEST FRANCIS . 919 lili 1,1'' r#111 112'jh\\ hi . .1-11-11 '1- 1/ P A-6-0 ---.-6-r>~01 // 1-\ 9 7--92\4Â»J-EX \ 4 _7~ _Ill 4/ 1 ..1[-11-r-1.~i~]-17/ I ~ 1 <1 h-~F-irm-lr~-Fir-Tr-rir-~r~~1~11 lilli; \ /,111 1 , 11 --==777- I 3;1-!111 1~.-11 311-C,~U ~'1!1 Te - , 1 -- 11 - 2 - - 41. 4-5, 1--1 _S L.Qi---2.-ME,661--Ij:EXI - 1 A k 5 + 56-14- PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 523 WEST FRANCIS -4 4 -=14 33%]111F111-1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 715 W. Smuggler- Minor Date: June 22, 1994 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to extend the main ridge of the recent addition approximately ten feet to the north and to extend an existing gable six feet to â‚¬FiE-65-di. This project has undergone two significant development reviews, one for the new addition in 1988 and one for construction of a garage and hexagonal dining room in 1992. APPLICANT: Ann Miller, represented by Gretchen Greenwood LOCATION: 715 W. Smuggler, Lots E & F, Block 15, City of Aspen. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H, " Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 24-7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H, " Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: During HPC's review in 1988, there was concern that the new addition was too tall and would overwhelm the historic structure. Several solutions were discussed, including lowering the plate height and allowing the addition to move approximately 3' to the north to make up for the loss of space. In the end, the project received approval with the ridgeline lowered 9", because the committee felt that the seven foot distance between the miner's cottage and the addition would lessen the sense of the new construction encroaching on the historic structure. Staff finds that overall, the 1988 addition was well designed and has preserved the character of the historic building as seen from the street. Moving this addition forward so that it sits on the ridgeline of the historic building will have a negative impact on the resource and is in conflict with HPC' s previous review of the project. In addition, it results in further demolition of the historic structure. Staff finds that extending the existing dormer to the east would be acceptable, due to its low visibility from the street. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: This block contains a couple of good preservation projects (including 715 W. Smuggler), one which has been accused of overdeveloping the site and one site which is relatively unaltered and is listed for sale. In terms of protecting what remains of the historic character of this neighborhood, it is not appropriate to eliminate the heirarchy between new construction and old. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The northward extension of the addition does jeopardize the value of this resource to the neighborhood and community by phsically and visually encroaching on the historic structure. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The northward extension of the addition will result in more demolition of the 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 the minor development approval, finding that the . application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the extension of the existing gable 6'0 on the east side, but deny the request to bring the main ridge 10'0 to the north. ATI:ACEIMENT 1 1 , IAND USE APPIIaTION FORM 1) Project Name Miller Residence Â· Project Incation 715 West Smuqqler - Lots E & F, Block 15, City of Asp'en (ir*licate street aairess, lot & block nmber, legal descciption where appropriate) 3) Present zoning R-6 4) Iot Size 6,000 Sq . Ft. 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # Ann Miller 715 W. Smuqqler Aspen, CO- 81611 925-2225 6) kpres~tatix,els Name, Address & 2=2 # Gretchen Greenwood & Assoc. . Inc. Gretchen Greenwood, 201 N. Mill Street #207. Asnen 925-4502 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use anceptual SPA X Conceptal Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA X Final Hi ctnric Dev. 8040 Greenline Conoeptual POD Minor Historic Dev. Stzeam Margin - Final POD Historic Deniolition Maintain View Plane _ Subdivisian Historic DesignatiÂ£n (brâ€¢hniniumization - Text/Map Amer*imerrt - (21$ Allotment Iat Split/Int Line GUS Exemption Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses (mmber and type of existing structures- approodmate sq. ft.; number of bedroans; any previous approvals grarrted to the property). Single family residence, 2,287 Sa. Ft. Historical landmark . . Designation, including four bedrooms 9) Description of Develginent Application Proposed development includes extending the main ridge of the house to the north approximately ten feet and extending a small gable to the east approximately six feet. 10) Iiave you attacbed the following? Response to Attadmierrt 2, Mininl= Suhnission Oontents Response to Attadrment 3, Specific Submission Cortents 1(_ Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application 1111111 I 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 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: Ann Miller ADDRESS: 715 West Smugaler. Asoen. CO ZONE DISTRICT: R-6 LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): 6,000 Sq. Ft. EXISTING FAR: 2,287 Sq. Ft. ALLOWABLE FAR: 3,240 Sq. Ft. PROPOSED FAR: 198 Sq. Ft. Added .- Total of 2,485 Sq. Ft 'ISTING NET LEASABLE (commercial): N/A .-ROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercial): N/A EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: 40% PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: 40% - No Change EXISTING % OF OPEN SPACE (Commercial): N/A PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE (Commer.): N/A EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Princioal Bldg.: 25 Ft. / Accessory Bldg: PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Pancioal BlÂ®.: 25 Ft. / Accessory BlÂ®: PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: 0 % EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 4 PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 0 - No Change EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: 2 ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: 2 SETBACKS: EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: Front: 10'0" Front: 10'0" Front: Nn Chan Rear: 25'0" Reac 201 0" Rear: Nn Chan Side: 15'0" Side: 15'(1" Side: No Chan Combined FronURear: 35'0" Combined Frt/Rr: 30'0" Combined FronVRear: Nn Chan EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ None ENCROACHMENTS: VARIATIONS REQUESTED (elicible for Landmarks Only: character comoatibilitv findina must be made by HPC): FAR: Minimum Distance Between Buildings: SETBACKS: Front: Parking Spaces: Rear: Open Space (Commercial): Side: Height (Cottage Infill Only): Combined Frt./Rr: Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): ATTACHMENT 2 Minimum Submission Contents for All Development Applications All Development Applications shall include, at a minimum, the following information and materials. 1. , The applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 2. The street address and legal description of the parcel on which the development is proposed to occur. 3. A disclosure of ownership of the parcel on which the development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the ~ owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 4. An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. 5. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic or model form of . how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the Development Application. attach2.applications ATTACHMENT 2 1. Attached please find a letter from the applicant, Ann Miller stating that Gretchen Greenwood is authorized to act on her behalf. 2. The street and legal address of the proposed development is as follows: 715 West Smuggler St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lots E and F, Block 15 City of Aspen 3. Attached please find the certificate of Title. 4. Attached please find the vicinity map locating the subject parcel. 5. The proposed development includes the extension of the main ridge at the second story, to the north by approximately ten feet and the extension of a smaller gable, located on the east side of the building, by approximately six feet. The total square footage added will be 198 square feet. The new building materials will match the existing materials. Drawings of the proposed addition are attached. < -__~ ~ GRETCHEN GREENWOOD & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~ ARCHITECTURE Â·INTERIOR DESIGN Â·PLANNING May 18,1994 Ms. Amy Amidon Historic Preservation Commission City of Aspen Dear Amy: This letter authorizes Gretchen Greenwood to represent Ann Miller in the HPC approval process for the proposed development that is attached herein. Thank you for your help. Sincerely yours, Ann Miller 201 N. MILL, STE. 207 Â· ASPEN, CO 81611 Â· TEL: 303 925-4502 Â· FAX: 303/925-7490 ATTACHMENT 4 HISTORIC STANDARDS 1. The proposed development is compatible with the existing building on the site, as the new roof line follows the existing roof line. The development of the smaller gable on the east also follows the same roof line of the gable. No site development is proposed in this application. 2. The proposed development is consistent with the Victorian architecture of the West End. 3. The proposed development does not diminish from the architectural integrity of the structure. The proposed development will look exactly the same as the structure looks now. 4. The proposed development allows for the old building to remain and be evident from the new proposed addition. - . C 1-0-1 90-4 1 â„¢\7-- 1 . - 1 1-1. , M . 1 \ \ FIGURE 111.2 9811*ENTORY â‚¬ik HIBIC,Ric S AND STRUCTURES : ~ - --.--~GEND -0- 3986 UP[) 1 designated. Exceotional Structure$ "PEN. cOL - -1 [7 1 11 not yet designated 0 . 4 EMI,91:[IL.st[194/21 2-*-4 -- desierâ€¢ated . not yet designated a -EPA-O 6TDE *-*Mâ„¢. FLA--1 ..â€ž.\ - ~tala..ait~Â£22 ,~b=J ./ designated â€¢ . - not yet designated o \ . .- I \ 1 0 200 400 Coiltrixâ€¢â€¢13 23&1!Em G - 4>0 : EX//UNDUM#0117(1363/12/3 --- \ .A.JU 1.,nan street 0 9 2 comnercd core 0 â€žSTOAC DISTRICTS UNDER CONSIDERATION 3.west bleeker/halam street / 4.halam take - ~ 5.community church 6.lift 1 / (32 2 1 1 Â°. 7f5 .t 1wg:sT-â‚¬MUWAKR\ . 00 -... .26 . \1\7 _ ....1 .. f -' ,â€¢-L.2 -%- unn' irri11~.,1 ~ \ -=5=~,â‚¬,;2~~~~=IET~;; . r Â· .i . + 4:2 d..lt . .- . 757 1 / 1]11,0323 . Â·Â· Ei[IN] Ii!;lt.1 1*k#*Â·--*-,2~22 e â€¢ 11 :1 '16./f/Q/A .. \ rn r- ' 1 ' ' L.us- ' JAU..1 po Ze,- ---I 1. Â£ C.* < Cliki-LLL| -. -- ~~~' f-~-iwn:~:riz~~ci ii: i [FiWI~11-11-1-.0: liul[LLI [IIICEt-IlÂ© -t~ 1~~19' . 4 .. ..h~ - - ..L .. lul!.i [b !1! illi i T[Ip . 8 . 0 - 44 [21212:11* Â· _111&11 1 111~111141 REN -114*_J [Lil.LI Illw.LI@ uniil H itels'92 4% 1 . -.-=... . m?Rim i trriniTI : [milrm. mini Â£1 .4 F. -02--.-=.4 t - / mÂ·rrrM ~Ilh' [Â§@31 i M ED i [Imilm ixwlm i mi#Mfi glmim 1 nImmi c 01$*il I oWE] I . A.5 UT [RF[[[1 1Â§1111-41 lill941*.11111101,6:11.j*ll.1~ 1**07'1.lili.i.Pliii[[ir'EFti! l!;Alillii[LtiLE'{lillilll{ 1 11!llilli -- M O - - *tl'~mq:Im 1Hum] [Egio.[IÂ®Im Liu[[11]. [imil] ~IJEF [BE[E 1-IG-1 mei ft %FFI '~EQ mWI[h * aT-u~m~triwi- 111[111111 Illillilll [111111]11: LIt .bl.!1 1 B _.2*IM [mili[Br [IEE -EE. Â®11Â® E[[E ly@El@ im]W %11!111,1-[=[[1 [I[WIE I [[EI] EFI[iz] iml-[~~ ~*RI.EN I. Aimi). - ~~ F [Tri,rn,4 1 -'â„¢U mil'r Â®Il]I[1 - u.u.lmIIÂ· 111~1~111] - ~~Â»Tr in--TTr, 1 fTTTITTul ' : TWIE - M E *!28: h[Et-iMEIMiliti#--_ f[[iIE] [[EE 0 - 1129~441 11#~1*Â·*JIB 2[i[I] liliâ‚¬1*1 ['jIWIE #*M - *i. - . -L rTTTI-1 ... Nty.\V72>0/ 14 1! A.,4 - N>-r i Iliwil -61~. 1.1 ' 'AN U.1 - I 1 WrT-LS b 7 - ti/Mttly 154 =11 i / j 2., Flj.' /\ - . G Ill. 19 0 + 1 1 7 W .9 r ( 1 1 0 0 1 1 . 1 11 iii J .1 - 1.-Ld 1 1_1_1 L BE j 4 erl U 1 rv ' Pre eL- 0>Â«7 ~ , 14 \/ XI -- 1- r.*! - I i 111 lili 1 1 1 4 L RÂ¥Â«7.9 f * 1 Â«r 1 H @ 24 -99/-- ~~Â« ...... 1- I-------1 - 0 - - i 0 - W- - -~ - - - -- - ....r- -- 1"I kE_ 0 - OI - lili 1 . - L-1- - i 11 1; -- >-- I d .=~-Emmy r,â‚¬ 10,6 Â¢ epmt- 9~70-_â‚¬_I E. 4 8, V>Â¢7 -ri, 14 I li ll 11 l il i ~- -1~ r--1-1- ~ I i r * i I i ~ , lilli .1 't f--IL -- - t- i I. - L---14 13 U E - 111 - E 1 119 8 Ni- 14-14 R~~ZIN . 1 - 111 1 1 1 \Ii-.---Al lilli Mi 1 1. t-+ 11 l i t 4 li ll i 11 1 R kil. 11 1 11 1 11 |11: ! I| li l li --1 j 1 1 El El R-7---3 '11.11 t==========1 CE=======1 1 11 i i ] l il li f Il 11- b Â·il- .1.--i 11 ~I li l i ll I 1 d 11 1 11 1 1 , 11 11 1. 1 4 E j + i!...4 1 J | ' "i 1 1 P i U 1 , p B 1 ~ 1 ~ - -,--.- .--- 1=======1 1 6 1 1 :' JIll ,Â· ..+ l 'i !, 1 i '1 & st 1 1 .i' 4-41 F==1 F=~17<i.a_. 647 >1 Â«.-7 2 2 011/0;6Â·<7 -57 r Â·-1 1 lilli 41 Â· -32 *,3 Y MEMORANDUM 1 3 4 To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 303 E. Main Street, Conceptual Development- Public hearing, Continued from June 8, 1994. Date: June 22, 1994 SUMMARY: The applicant requests Conceptual development approval to move the house to the west and north, to construct an addition along the east side and to the rear of the existing historic house, to construct a shed roof on the west side of the existing rear addition, to build lightwells and to relocate the existing outbuilding. This house, the Thomas Hynes house, was built in 1885 and is almost completely unaltered. The rear addition to the building is thought to have been built very soon after the house. This structure is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is an Aspen Landmark. HPC began review of this project on April 20, and tabled the w ~ application twice to allow the applicant time for restudy. Overall, the Committee has seemed to be in favor of some aspects of the addition, but requested restudy and more information on the railing, the roof form on the addition, the connection/differentiation between old and new, whether or not brick was to be used on the addition, details on the lightwells, a site plan and landscape plan and some justification for why the - house and outbuilding must be moved. At this time, the applicants seem to be in favor of relocating the basement stairway either to the courtyard area (on the south side of the building) or to the interior. The north lightwell could then be relocated to a less prominent area and the long shed roof which covered the stairway could be removed. There is also support for keeping a green, open lawn area along the Main Street and Monarch Street sidewalks. Typically, additions to the historic structure are placed to the rear of the parcel to minimize visibility. In the case of a corner lot, it is more difficult to conceal new mass in this way. For that reason, staff is in favor of the addition as proposed along the east wall and the minimalistic connection which is created between the new and old buildings. Staff continues to have very serious concerns about the impact of the tower element, especially - the height and block-like nature of it. (A few new studies of the , tower are expected to be presented at the meeting.) Overall, the addition should be "quieter, " using less modern detailing. Although most of us are probably quite familiar with the building, it is important that the board make a site visit to the property to fully evaluate the proposal. A site visit has been scheduled for noon on Monday or else please stop by on your own. APPLICANT: Niklaus Kuhn, owner, represented by Roget Kuhn and Jake Vickery. LOCATION: 303 E. Main Street, Lot A and a portion of Lot B, Block 80, 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 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... Response: This site lies within the Commercial Core and is therefore zoned CC. In this zone district, there are no building setbacks required and the height limit is 40 feet. The applicant has made an effort to push the development to the rear of the parcel. In addition, most of the new square footage is placed in the tower structure. In general, staff finds that impacts to the historic structure have been limited, given the possibilities for the site. Primary concerns are the height of the tower element, the visual effect of the lightwells and the proposed shed roof on the existing addition. All changes to the historic structures themselves should be very limited, given their great importance to this community. The current drawings show a gabled roof coming all the way to the front of the new addition, in place of the flat roof/deck originally proposed. Staff finds that this results in an overly complex design and makes the new addition more distracting than originally proposed. The applicant should make every effort to push the massing back from the front facade of the building. This solution is represented in the model. The lightwells have also been presented in greater detail. Staff finds the western stair/lightwell is not prefered in this location, and that the southern (front) lightwell is not appropriate and should only be permitted if a grate, rather than a railing is used to limit its visual impact. As we are all aware, this site is listed on the National Register, and it is HPC's job to make sure that designation is not jeopardized. While Staff finds the design of the new addition is excellent, it represents a very substantial change to this resource. This house sits on a prominent corner and the new addition will be very visible. The applicant has made a sacrifice by proposing an FAR (4,336 sq. ft.) which is only about 64% of what is permitted, but that does not necessarily make the change easier to swallow, as the mass on the site nearly triples. From a design standpoint, the tower is a very interesting element. However, Staff is concerned that it Will overwhelm the site and would like to see it lowered or somehow altered so that it is not so dominant, possibly by changing the location of the parking spaces. (The applicant has asked for a waiver of three spaces, with the intention of using the bottom floor of the tower as storage and maybe for parking in the future.) Staff also suggests that there be a study of eliminating the carport and, with the resulting space, keeping the outbuilding in its original orientation (gable end to the street) when it is moved forward. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: This house is one of a group of three Victorian residences along Main Street, and lies in the vicinity of a large number of historic structures. The proposal before HPC illustrates not what is typical of this neighborhood, but rather their future potential for development. 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: While staff is not opposed to the design as presented, the possibility exists that the house could be de-listed from the National Register if alterations to the structure compromise its historic significance. 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 architectural integrity of this structure will not be greatly impacted, because the new addition will only attach to the historic house along the roof. The west wall of the addition will abut the historic house, and no wall openings are planned at this time. The shed roof on the west Will result in a direct alteration of the historic house. 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: Once there has been a solution of the following issues, staff will be in favor of conceptual approval for this project. Until that time, Staff recommends HPC table the application giving the following direction: 1) The applicant shall return to the flat roof/deck option on the east addition. 0/c 2) The basement stairway shall be located inside the existing structure.61/~ 3) The shed roof on the west side of the porch shall be eliminated.2/ti 4) Lightwells with flat grates may be created in the courtyard area on the south side of the existing - _ building, but the area along the Main Street and Monarch Street sidewalks shall be green space t)/2 5) The applicant shall study all options for altering the tower including reworking parking, relocating or eliminating some of the living or storage space in the tower or even placing the first floor of the tower slightly below grade (this would result in a change in floor heights between the east side addition and the tower.) 6) The applicant shall study keeping the outbuilding in its gable-end-to-the street orientation. Additional Comments: 1 1 P h \ 0 , 4 1 1 ) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / 1 \ 1 1 1 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 20, 1994 handled. Should we be holding them to higher standards while an applicant feels listing on the national register is mainly an honorary thing arid maybe it wasn't fair to them. This has been advertized in the paper. The national register was created in 1966 and it is a national list of properties, sites, objects which have importance to the community, state or entire country. There are about 25,000 sites or objects on the national register. It is an honorary thing saying this is an important building. The only time there are implications is if CDOT wanted to six lane Main Street they would have to do an environmental impact statement on any national registered properties that would be effected by their project. I looked at some of the regulations that we have and Aspen is a certified local government which is a status the state gives us and allows to have certain grant funding. One of our responsibilities as a certified local government is that our standards, criteria and procedures be consistent with the Sec. of Interior Standards for rehabilitation. The Sec. of Interior Standards talk about things like not removing existing features and making things reversible. They are tough standards. We need feedback from everyone. What is important besides being on the register is that all of the buildings are in the highest of rating of significance and I think it is not out of line for us to be really treating them with a wary eye and also we should realize that if we were to approve a project that changes the character for the national register it could be delisted and it is not appropriate for us to be approving that kind of activity on a structure. Worksession discussion followed. No Minutes required. Ad so â‚¬=.2-e> t--1 87 1 8 1-6 , 61Â·,"1 l u,1 J -~-29> -- 303 E. MAIN STREET - CONCEPTU~L DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING Jake stepped down. Chairman Joe Krabacher opened the public hearing. Roger Kuhn: This is what I call home and if you grow up here it is hard to live anywhere else. What I noticed very quickly is the housing problems and it is really difficult. If I were to go and get a job all my money would go to rent. Luckily I have understanding parents and they let me stay home free. I have a finance and marketing degree and my goal is to open up my own business and that is the only way to get ahead in this town. I talked to Leslie in Planning and I was going to go through this process by myself but I figured it out that I didn't know what the HPC wanted. I was told that you need parking, employee housing etc. That is why I went to Jake. Niklaus Kuhn, owner: This lot is a lot and a half. Roger Kuhn: The original house is 1250 square feet. Roger: Is the proposal to move the existing house forward? 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 20, 1994 C Jake: Maybe I should summarize. Joe: You stepped down but since we are having trouble summarizing what is going en I have no problem. Jake: The existing house built in 1887 has 1321 FAR feet and the shed on the rear is 198 sq. ft. for a total of 1519 sq. ft. The proposed new construction above grade is 2817 sq. ft and the total FAR as proposed is 3879 sq. ft. The allowable FAR at .75 is 6750 sq. ft. The point that I am trying to make is that this thing is 2/3rds of the allowable of the FAR. Donnelley: We do not have a site plan showing where the outbuilding is. What is being moved? Jake: On the basement plan currently the little structure is encroaching and will be moved to the south west corner off the alley. The house will be moved four feet forward and two feet sideways. It gets pined to the west property line. Donnelley: It is clear to see that the new workings are on the east side. Jake: It is 1.5 so the total would be 6750 sq. ft. allowable FAR and that can go up to two to one by special review. The proposed is 4879 sq. ft. Roger Kuhn: The lot next to it is narrow. Donnelley: I consider the entire area as one lot as it is not divisible. MOTION: Roger: This is not a complete application and I move to table in order to have all aspects of the proposal clarified. This is not a complete application and was submitted to Staff late on Friday afternoon. It is unfair for us and unfair to the applicant. We are putting Jake in a position that is not fair; second by Les. DISCUSSION Les: Do we have enough information to give them direction. Donnelley: I will vote to table if we can discuss this for five minutes. Roger: I would agree that they need direction on mass and scale. Amy: Due to the agendas being so long we need to start discussing Â· this. We have a three and 1/2 hour meeting April 7th and one meeting in May. 5 ,~~ Historic Preservation Committee 4~ Minutes of April 20, 1994 Joe: We can throw out our comments. Donnelley: I understand the project and feel the articulation between the building is a good idea but I question the railing with a combination of horizontal wires and diagonal cross bracing. It gets very busy and gets competitive. I am not worried about the balance of the building and it is a good solution to keep the scale down on the a.3.4, street. All I am concerned about are two things whether you have looked into breaking away from minor victorian vernacular in terms of $Â¥.4 roof form for the long shed like addition, whether something else or another approach might further differentiate the old and new might be looked at. Just the treatment of the railing in front is busy. Programmatically it is a good solution to put the density back where we do not get the impact. It solves the owners requirements for spacial situations and keeps the employee housing back in the rear. It is also a nice way to keep the existing historic house separate as possible and it is a good way to start. I just had a question about the roof form and business in general. There is a plefor of these same kind of roofs which are 12 and 12 or approximately 14 and 12 in the whole area. That should not dictate us sticking with that same roof form necessarily. Joe: I like the program of moving it back but I am concerned about the connection between the new and existing and how it takes place. As a problem in the zone district with height limitations to three stories I guess if it is done right I am not necessarily opposed to that. It makes a grain tower effect at the back of the property. I agree with Donnelley that the long portion needs to restudied and with that rail on top of the one story flat roof it ends up to be a story and a half. That needs to be sof tened up. Tom: I think Jake has done an excellent job in achieving an overall composition in relationship to the house and to the garage as treating this as a whole rather than an historic building with an addition. I have no problem with the railing as once it is up it will not have that much of an impact. This treats the project as a whole which is important. Another thing that is good is that it alludes to the existing structure and ties in everywhere. I would also suggest that the long wall be a common wall with the adjacent building rather than have the additional complication between there. On 610 Main Street I feel it was inappropriate to have that gable dropped, again it wasn' t treated as a whole. Roger: The width between the two buildings is 2 1/2 feet and how will maintenance occur. Donnelley: It is 2 1/2 feet by 5 feet and you will be able to get between there and work. Roger: As you are looking at the new building and you have the new space to the east what is the space between the porch and the historical structure. 6 Historic Preservation Committee ~ Minutes of April 20, 1994 Jake: That is three feet also. Roger: You could still leave that space and connect .the new additiorY to the historic structure as one wall rather than have the strange roof configuration. Jake: In terms of connection to the house all you have is a vertical wall and I was trying not to interfere with that wall as least possible. There is a drainage problem and we will create snow melting areas. The option would be to build a parallel wall and drywall it. Roger: I would concur that the overall mass and scale is good. Jake: Can the Board give us direction to keep us moving. Joe: I haven't heard any negative comments. Amy: Are there parking spaces on the site? Jake: The owners decided to keep the garage as a storage area so there is only one parking space. Amy: The garage or storage area is what makes the tower have a third story and while we have a parking problem in town and HPC shouldn't just waive parking spaces away could that storage space be below grade? Jake: They are going to use it for a garage but we would like to ask that those two spaces be waived so that they have the ability to use it for storage. Niklaus Kuhn, owner: We want this to fit in with the existing victorian. Out of security reasons we get hit in the alley three times a month so we were finally forced to put in steel posts. I do not think it will even help if we set the building in three feet because the large trucks have to park because of the two restaurants in the area and there is a lot of traffic. What we would like to do is use brick on the new addition for security and also to show the difference between the victorian and new building. Joe: I feel wood works better but I wouldn't rule out brick. It is a three story building and maybe something could be done on the first f loor that addresses your needs. Jake: The roof on the model is a hip roof and the roof shown is a cross gable. Does the committee have any thoughts on that. They are virtually the same height. Donnelley: A cross gable is more of a silhouette against the sky. For pedestrian the solution you came up with is better for the massing. 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 20, 1994 Amy: I am concerned about the light wells right in front of the house and the stair case. Roger: We do not have a site plan or a landscaping plan. Jake: On the basement plan you will see the light wells and the stairs going down. One of the things the city has done with these projects is give the basement area free of charge so owners can use as much basement space as they can. It puts the development below grade but as part of that we need to lighten up the basement and that is what the light wells are here for. Joe: There is a new foundation going under the entire property so the house will be lifted up and moved. Jake: The house is moving forward and sideways and has an exist-ing stone foundation. Niklaus Kuhn: The foundation is rocks on top of rocks and the only foundation is where they used to make the root beer. They closed that up during the hippie years. Roger: Why does the house have to be moved? Jake: To maximumize the space to allow the store to go between the historic building. Roger: Is making space for a store a good enough reason to move the historic building? Jake: There would be no change to the house itsel f, not even on the inside. Putting the leasable space is the basement is preferable. Roger: You will jack the house and move it and you will need to have a bond posted in case something goes wrong. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended his motion to table the conceptual development of 303 E. Main to a date. certain, May 18, 1994 and continue the public hearing until that date also; second by Les. All in favor of motion and amended motion carries. Amy: We need clarification for Jake because I do not know what you are wanting him to bring back and this is a large proposal. Donnelley: The site plan is always required and in addition there has been some discussion that at least a portion of the building be rendered in brick. If SO we need to see the architectural mani festation of that. Niklaus Kuhn: To clarify for Roger why we decided to move the house, we felt that when you look over to the gas station or if you come from 8 Historic Preservation Committee ~ Minutes of April 20, 1994 the Main Street Bakery if you move the house a little forward it is going to be more dominant, the entire building. It will be renovated and enhance the building as you will see it on the corner first when looking down the street. Joe: I do not feel there is a great objection to moving the house. Jake: What I have onmy list is a) lightening the rail, b) considering an alternate roof and maybe more detail on the light wells. Those are things we can handle at final. Linda: This is a large project and we need time to digest it. Roger: Rock on the alley side would solve the issue of the vehicles. Jake: The general approach and height and mass are all shown in the drawings. Donnelley: We have been known to give conceptual and final both at the same time. Jake: We would rather get the conceptual. Les: The detailing will be the most critical part. I dislike the crossings on the railing. Your reason for moving the house forward is not historic enough. When it is historic you usually don't change anything. Roger: I would like you to look at not moving the original footprint but if it doesn't work because of the square footage and requirements for living that is fine but I would like you to just look at it to see if it doesn't have to be moved. You need to defend moving it or not. 204 S. MILL - COLLINS BLOCK MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy: On the Collins Block what is being proposed is adding a new window on the front corner which is the same size as the existing double hungs and there is also a window on the east elevation that they want to change-into a door. The window in front can been seen but when the building beside it goes in it will not be visible. Peter Kuntz, designer and preservationist from Columbia University. Joe: Why do you think it is more historically compatible to add an opening to this landmark property? Peter: It is mainly for internal use and the way the room works inside. Joe: I was on the committee when we approved this building and it 9 - LAND USE APPUCATION FORM 1. project Name.Â· 40Â·1*M (4 AM DOOM 146\ASÂ© Â¢503 E,AbrE MAIAl . 2. project Location: 2â‚¬) 3 #Aiff *A/A Â«n ./, 607--A 4 -95 A'847- 948 09 l.,000 15 , 2>L,OCA<- 80 61-EH OP K<PEA . (Indicate street address, lot and block number, legal description where appropriate.) 3. Present Zoning 66 4. Lot Size 41â‚¬00 5. App\\canis Name, Address& Phone# N (016. tok#J ~ to, 130>< 80/(0 kipoo 434-514'> 6. Representative's Name, Address & Phone # ,~946-f /LU/*U ~5 /17301 (/E~ J#rte \/i c,icÂ«t ;3Â®oH~-75-z;r- 97,â‚¬ ' 3460 J, 7. Type of Application (Please check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA X Conceptual Historal Dev. Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor Histodc Dev. Stream Margin Final PUD Historic Demolition i Mountain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation Condominiumization Text/Map Amendment GMQS Allotment Lot Split/Lot Une Adjustment X GMQS Exemption 8. Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures; approximate sq. ft.; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the proqerty). 2 EN DÂ·CM 77 At *(PA Un.) (k ( I 121 GSP j M\13 6011 3 6 % '8 459 bo i ur APP 60% I <&% 7- 09 1[iLENT- \)1'â‚¬73 AS 12 â‚¬+Mu 0#VI M â‚¬7Lcw k. 5/ 0 Ppt 66 , 9. Description of Development Application ADP)TZ,M OF A ZEÂ»lb Â»JO 0770(TM A-/2 54- 82 1344,4 *F 014 40Â·ejuD LE,0â‚¬Lr .14'2/5 449- 6 13Â¢-- 05)48/ Al< 1, M Pr on 2/25 1 +5 e lk/ELA. 0- 1> 0 LL EprS-e/Mert- 0Â¥ -27-115Â·5 49F, (pFF:>1.06 ( R Elkkl) 10. Have you attached the following? T _ Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents F Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents %% _ Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application 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: bj ) Â°F- ki~ 4 A ADDRESS: 6 03 -*Aer MA (10 476 ZONE DISTRICT: LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET) 4,600 EXISTING FAR: /679 ALLOWABLE FAR: 61 6 0 ( 1 *E f urrj PROPOSED FAR: 4 36 (d '6 - (926 k uÂ»J) EXISTING NET LEASABLE (Commercial): /39 6/2099 PROPOSED NETy*SA#~y~A[2~Â©09: 1 9 65 I 9 Poe; 23 1 6- , 6 E#6'1?lt EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: ft (l 6/903 -54 0/ PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: (19/ 3) (0 40/ D EXISTING % OF OPEN SPACE: 49Â£ A 6 0% PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE: 7/ *gÂ® 3>534 EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: \4.4 MIDPT-, 19 81'0Â«. . PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: "13 w EÂ¢23. 2565 M /DPT. 56 FEAK- PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: / EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: / PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: % EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: / ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: + FOK *oposED ar*- SETBACKS: EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: ~~, ~ Front: 16,6 Front: 0 Front: Rear. 4 Rear. 42 Rear Q Side: ~~ T&.VL Side: O Side: QIO Combined Frt/Rr: Combined Frt/Rr: 0 Combined Frt/Rr: 1 7*.6 EXISTING NONCONFORMITIESI ~Â¥7~0 .2.0/ 2,09<weE.4 (:ld * 2â‚¬31 ENCROACHMENTS: / VARIATIONS REQUESTED (eligible for Landmarks only: character compatibility findina must be made by HPC): 4 m Of:> Â·t~*00?1.=M tof- BA.Seyylâ‚¬m-F, m m AA'PDA OP N ET LEA676Â» De . FAR: Minimum Distance Between Buildings: / SETBACKS: Front: Parking Spaces: S /1 8*04\ Rear Open Space (Commercial): Side: Height (Cottage Infill Only): Combined Fit/Rr Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): 'm a /1 MONARCH STREET CONC C 100Â·00 ... .__ I. . -4,9.. . ~ 4 \24.25 '\ \ ~ ' - 5 24129~ ./ -/ o I. : . . .~_~-z_- &45Ar,--0.-il-0-225<-, .7/2, . % \.1 ./:I.-Â·;9 1 2 \11 7-Â«t\1 11 1-' :--4 i,Ib: i-Â«Â« 1. 4-~g Â«1~20.0. 2 1-\Â»E l 141\96\6Â«\:.\24<32 \9934:.:.4.49 4 E - Â°*~ . 11~Â«.IÂ«~~~~1~1 xÂ«x~1429 ~ Gl=-! n i ; I G.6 . Ft<Â»91 - 1 *.44&Â»Ul! 9 M\?3>\411 0 Â©142,1 ,1 100Â·00 -1 1 r f.~Â· Â«8?1114 ..40/t S 14Â°50'49" W i g, r:,1 1 1 11 , 5 N 303 EAST MAIN .. .. WALK Â·Â·Â·N 14Â°50'49" E .. 1 G ). 9' m C F EXISTING SITE SURVEY % ONOO M ,*X. ~~n 80*c NT 0 S 75Â°09 ' MAIN STREET - 7,Mâ€ž11,60.GLN Â£2Â·St' IN CONC. .~ . 1.316 with many 11 windows which had the characteristic stonework detail above them, popularly known as "eyebrows." Today, these can best be seen over the windows of the Hotel Jerome; but in the 1880's they were a common decorative touch. The building was first used as a four unit apartment house, rented to families. Prior to the days of indoor plumbing, the alley next to the house, was lined with four out-houses, cozTesponding to each apartment. During the 20's and 30's, Dr. F. S. MEKee, a local jeweler and opticÂ·ian, owned the apartments and lived with his family iii one of them. The end unit was rented by a government man sent to Aspen to validate reports that the mill- eral deposits in the area were paid out. As miners were driven further down the shafts, they found less silver and more lead; but a few die-hards continued to lease the land believing there was a fortune to be made here. Most of the units were empty during the succeeding years as men u'itll families, broke and imable to find work, left. The children soon followed. Only the businessmen, ranchers and the most stubborn miners stayed. In the early 40's, Jim Moore renovated the building and converted it to Moore's Motel. By the 60's, in response to growing deniand, the units were leased as commercial space to a series of small stores. No. 44 VAN LOON RESIDENCE, 1887 li'~'3. ' Af' t:\ t -1 f.. 4 'r. I .â€¢/ 4:' -- HU - 1 - ..L --0. 11!au"-,1-1 .. f,~:r 2 . .ir l *21 - 4., Like the two neighboring houses to the east, the house on the corner is long and narow, with sloping rooflines, a porch and a large window in 68 H ij the front. Fretwork and pseudo arches add a more individualizi. lann. The corner house is further distinguished by the solid stone foundation and basement area, two features often omitted from these early homes. Possibly the earliest of the three houses, the one on the corner was built between 1885 when it was first lureÂ·based from the townsite by Thomas Hines, and 1888 when the first taxes for improvements were paid. The assessed value of the house at that time was $450. Thomas Hines, with his wife Bridget, are recorded as the owners of the property from 1885-90, and it is likely that they were the first occupants of this weli-built home. Several years later, a number of improicments were made to the existing struchire, when Edward P. Rose, a dector and mayor of Aspen, pureÂ·based the property in 1891. Doctor Rose, who graduated from the Medical College of the State of South Carolina with the class of 1878, had been practicing medicine in Aspen since 1887. The house and property changed hands several times before being pur- chased in 1919 by Homer VanLoon. Mr. VanLoon had begun to work for Kobey's Shoe and Clothing Store ( No. 14) while he was still attending school. In 1910, after graduating, Air. VanLoon was offered a full time position with the finn and later became a partner. There were many bootlggers in Aspen during prohibition. Beer was - especially popular, though it often exploded before it could be sampled. When explosions reverberated from the basement of this house too, boot- legging activities might have been suspect. Howezer, the bre,v here u'as not beer at all. It was root beer which the VanLoon's enjoyed making but liev er did get to taste. During the depression, when so many left Aspen to look for work else- where, Mr. VanI-joon and his wife stayed. By passing a diffiailt govern- ment exam, Air. VanLoon became the first Welfare Director for Pitkiii Collity. Today the house is still owned by Mrs. VanLoon. It is a private resi- dence. No structural changes have been made, No. 45 ELISHA HOUSE, 1887 RITCHIE HOUSE, 1902 The last houses u'e come to on our tour stand now almost the same as they did over seventy-Ike years ago. Just across the street from the I lotel Jerome, the gray entlage, with the pointed roof, was the home of the Lawrence Elisha's for many years. Lawrence worked with his father, Mansor, and helped make the Hotel Jerome an establishment known for its warnith and hospitality, The house was built iii 1887, and only a cellar, kitchen and bedroom have been added since that tillie. 69 1 / iii Â»& i 1 2 ' #-3!!-{11 4 4 414 ..1 i,! 1 4' i1 . rt liEIEf ! r 11!14Â·* 1 1 2 Null" il 4,1;L Ul MIDill@ 4 L 1 1. i -- 1 # ' ' I ''p--'--- 9 1 1 - 1 1 ill r Â· ." 14 -r 11 -- 'iN |~Mil i i ~1 1. i 1 jiI-Ii:n 11 i pl Hill 4 1 i & C k -- - 1 1.111 11 1 jill lilli '111 1 11111'lu' 11 11:1 4 1 - 1 12 #16,-L--Â» - i â‚¬1*! 5,54 +F WELL MONARCH STREET El.EVATION (WEST) 5-1 0-94 ft l / 1 1 %42 1 i 1 -- - -1 . 02Â» N - 4 i 1 ! p 5 4434 r=:1*=U~i k.1 : 4~ - I~ - N IJ _1 11 1 1 - "--- 2--pii/ -- - pr..T i ': i -=Lit i 4---i i -i -IZTE, jA----4 41- -1.--41 1 11 --7- -0- P-- iti i Ht iNÂ»=i-:Â·41 :i - 11 i ! i----~- - j---iLL=lgi~ 1' . . 11 ' i - 1 1 1 4.4 -tÂ»= / .2. 922%1 --453 1:22Â£22 ;, ~ 1 11 1 â‚¬ Â·7-vtv=rl. 1 , /3- frall.L !00Â·1- - F:LÂ· ; - i 1 4- ft*,a-4Â»0 Wet !/ - MAIN STREET ELEVATION (NORTH) 6- /6-79 - lilliti -1 {.Tni- f- r.,3 474034 ' 1 ..\1 '41 I ru rÂ·===tht>.-- --1--I 1 -t=41~ 9 4 4 H . 1.-==== | 1 24% 11 2 t : ! ' ==-=. ! 11 . 544.0 4 Ut-A .. 0. -.-1111 ':9,1 21 / : -- -- Elli! 11 1 Â·IiÂ· - ==q,/' 11 A. B pitj:= r ~ j~ 1 c:*haze<Â« l 1 1 + 4 - Aj Â»71[NE -2-ETâ‚¬27- . iraidWN$7FT- '~:u Â» $ Agr 1 - It 1 2 1 h:-E Z~N,-3 7. A... 1 : MAIN STREET ELEVATION (NORTH) - '4 -20-71- j j j.i lilli 1111111111 1. 1 Â»f i I '1-11 1-\ 1 . i 1 1 11 1 ~ -i-/7 -9 1 1 1 -1- -------4 ~vp ul,45 <*X-7, 1 -1 #1,<14:4 vau Liwe /1 4 1 h -4 111 1 4 --Â» 856Â·,Par] 5,4 4-' I 4 peJOUg:'A -- PROPOSED SITE AND ROOF PLAN 5-16-94 - 1114 10 1 t , m/\ 11\ -AL * 4-Â« / -I e- Al/..1 / - 4 /\ jil & I I r . . - -- TH IRD FLOOF3 P_LAN 1-/ 4,0 L .. -- 8 1 1 1.--- -1 - 9 1 111'11111111 111 1 |Â·i 'f|Â·4 il! 2 -~~.. 1 !,!11!1 1 11 1 i:; i t Â·: ; il _ 11 . i ..i! 1 i :1'11 1 1 ./ 1. 1 f --t - -113 -3 . i - 1 3- ,TY7 i 1 '1 I k 1 1 1, 1 11 ~ - - .i..#il --I---I i SECOND FLOOR PLAN_ - - - 4 2 -- - - - - ... 1,3:EZEd -1-- ----- ----- ---- ---- ------- ----* 1 1 1 lifOF f 1 - 4 1 My/y - L t 1 1- --1 ; 1 1 1 -2 -r--- - 1 4 1 Ii:.' - 1 GROUND FLOOR PLAN / Â· 12) Â·'.1 3 U. F.Lt- ) - - . tr'r. 11 ... 1 r=-i 1 1 - 1 11 1 1 1 1 ----I--I--I-- -F- 4 1 1 . 1-1 R-- -4 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 - 7 --- 1 1 1----- 4-26 . U 1 - - - - BASEMENT PLAN _ . 1 j 1 - 4, ___11_ 3: . 1 I ' 1 1 : i '1 irillit ! f Er lil - +44 ' 11' i - :liff<I,]~ - . 1 1 Iii], 11 1 1 11-It-1 %11 d=lili' t' u : : 1 4 1 1.:-i e., Iâ€¢ : ~11 * ~ , 1 , I , 1 1 | A 4 1,1 1 6 i 1 1 * 5 1 il i 1 E- 1 1 1 .. .44(1 'X'' '.>fi :ef-: 1,6 2 1.147 1 , 1 1 1 8 1 i .. ! 0 i â€¢4 1 1 4 1- + .1, ./ 4. .-' - 1 1 1 =---======= 2 + 1. 4. 1 --- - - -- -----1 1=---- -- p=:==r! 1-*1--73.k - 4 ~# 0 11 '1 11 Â»==4,1 I k.41 ......1 ill '- / ' 1 Ii...........~ 113 ;U ........ ' 11 ;1 F---- -411 Iii ! I. -- :====A~ f - -- - *-I -- - ----- ./C~i'),7.-ItÂ·E n--'--'-r=-,t Â·// Â· i % â€¢ Â· ;:~ i*-! ir Ff#4*,1 61: s 1; ~I~.7Â«1 :itt ' 1, 1,/1-11:lit: '1 4*NO: i *1 ': 'IiI 111:1 i : :!.1 i' 11:i~1.11 9 !1.11 i: 4 Â·ti.I:'1 Â·; 11 i'.1 1, - :.1 ''11 il~~ 144-H E li~ 1 -01,-<Palii:,1 40.431;i lilli :1 : ~ i ~ i 11;: 4244 4 i 4' 1 1 Â·Â· 4 1 j i 1,1 11 1 - WEST ' SOUTH EAST @ 1 1 /: 303 EAST MA It' MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Neighborhood Character Guidelines DATE: June 22, 1994 Staff gave Nore Winter a deadline of June 15th to finish the Neighborhood Character Guidelines, which were then to be brought to HPC for adoption on June 22. The Guidelines were not received by the packet deadline. Hopefully copies will be distributed at the HPC meeting and can be adopted, with your comments, the first meeting in July.