The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19930825 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE AUGUST 25, 1993 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM CITY HALL 5:00 I. Roll call II. Committee and Staff Comments' 500 W. Bleeker, window repair III. Public Comments IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:30 A. 935 E. Hyman, U.S.L.M. Ute No. 4, Landmark Designtion, Continued Public Hearing -/32/0 -/log i.'L- r /O.* --1&4' OK V. NEW BUSINESS 6:00 A. 314 S. Galena - Minor Development Volk Bldg. awning 4*Â«- P 4 4- i 'V' L A _D ) 6 099 Â¥ 0 04 L,Q 6:20 B. 234 W. Francis, Amendment to Final Development approval, Public Hearing Â£1(Â· 4 ---il 6,<j f - c K---1 U 1 /0 -3 4.ffwn#Q 6:40 C. 702 W. Main - Conc*ptual Development, Public Hearing CÂ»--JECU- 0--J 547 7 1 99 5 7:10 D. 420 E. Main - Conceptual Development, Public Hearing 7:35 A. Project Monitoring a) Add conceptual date B. Sub-Committee Reports C. Neighborhood Character Guidelines E. Red Brick update ongoing 8:00 VII. ADJOURN hÂ»:G HPC PROJECT MONITORING HPC Member Name Prolect/Committee Add Conceptual date to all projects when approved Bill Poss 413 E. Hyman County Courthouse Highway Entrance Design Committee Character Committee-AACP 601 W. Hallam (app. liaison) HP Element-Community Plan Aspen Historic Trust-Board Member 534 E. Hyman (P.C. Bank) CCLC Liaison 214 W. Bleeker St. Mary's Church 533 E. Main PPRG 715 W. Smuggler Ann Miller 700 W. Francis Donnelley Erdman The Meadows (Chair-Sub Comm) 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer Park) Collins Block/Alley Wheeler-Stallard House 700 W. Francis 624 E. Hopkins 304 E. Hopkins 411 E. Main Cantina 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 Joe Krabacher 801 E. Hyman AHS Ski Museum Aspen Historic Trust-Vice Chairman 612 W. Main 309 E. Hopkins (Lily Reid) 617 E. Main 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 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) 232 E. Hallam 513 W. Bleeker 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) 411 E. Main Cantina lighting 132 W. Main Linda Smisek 134 E. Bleeker 210 Lake Avenue 305 Mill St. 13- A) MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 935 E. Hyman, U.S. Location Monument, Ute No. 4, Landmark Designation of Proposed Lot 1 of the Sund Lot Split (Public Hearing continued from July 28, 1993) Date: August 25, 1993 SUMMARY: On July 28, HPC opened a pub1ic hearing on the proposed Landmark Designation of U.S. Location Monument, Ute No.4. The Board unanimously found that the Monument has sufficient historic significance to be declared an Aspen Landmark, but continued the hearing to allow the property owner an opportunity to present conceptual plans for a building which will be constructed on this site. The Board's main concern with respect to this new building is its impact on public visibility of the Monument. At this point, HPC and the property owner will be able to discuss the potential " incentives" which may be granted when a development application is filed. A description of the dimensional variations HPC has the ability to grant is attached. Until such time as the formal development application is filed, HPC can state what incentives they believe would be appropriate, but the Board is not bound to any agreement. It is hoped that HPC and the property owner will be able to find a mutually beneficial means to preserve the Monument and to allow the property owner certain bonuses which may result in their consent to the Landmark Designation. HPC is advised by City Attorney Jed Caswall to recommend or deny Landmark Designation at this meeting, and not to delay the process any longer. Scheduled hearings before P&Z and City Council have been continued to the following dates: P&Z- Sept. 7, City Council (First Reading)- Sept. 13, City Council (Second Reading)- Sept. 27. Attached is Staff's memo regarding the historic significance of U.S. Location Monument, Ute No. 4, and its qualifications for Landmark Designation. f . Financial Incentives $2,000 "Designation Grants" are available to residential property owners from the City of Aspen, without condition. We recommend the grant be used for some form of maintenance. $10,000 zero interest "minimum maintenance" loans are available from the City to historic property owners who indicate financial need. These one-time loans are repaid at time of transfer-of-title or at the end of ten years, whichever comes first. The intention of the Minimum Maintenance Loan Program is to reduce the incidence of "demolition by neglect". Waiver, of Park Dedication Fees are allowed by City Council, which begin at $1300 for residential projects, and are calculated per square feet for commercial projects. 20% State Rehabilitation Income Tax Credits are available for Landmarks 50 years old or older. Modest application fees are -c changed to process these applications. 20% Federal Income Tax Credits are available for income producing properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Competitive "State Historical Fund" preservation grants will be available after July, 1992. Processing fees are waived for Landmark Designations. Small flat- rate fees are charged for other preservation project reviews. Creative Zoning - Residential Dimensional variations are allowed for projects where the HPC has found that the variation is more compatible in character to the historic resource than would be according to underlying dimensional requirements. These consist of: o Side, rear and front yard setbacks o Minimum required distance between buildings o Maximum floor area may be exceeded up to 500 sq. ft. o Site coverage up to 5 % and height variations for "Cottage Infill" (affordable housing) projects Two detached single family dwelling units are allowed on smaller parcels than permitted by zoning in some residential zone districts Parking reductions are permitted on sites unable to contain the required number of on-site parking spaces required by underlying zoning. Special uses such as Bed and Breakfasts and Boarding Houses are allowed in residential undmarks in zone districts. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 935 E. Hyman, Landmark Designation of U.S. Location Monument, Ute No. 4 DATE: August 25, 1993 SUMMARY: The Board is to make a recommendation on the proposed Landmark Designation of U.S. Location Monument, Ute No. 4. This monument, which is not included on Aspen' s "Inventory of Historic Structures and Sites" is potentially threatened with demolition. APPLICANTS: The application has been initiated by the Aspen Planning Department, at the direction of the Historic Preservation Committee. LOCATION: 935 E. Hyman Avenue, Proposed Lot 1 of the Sund Lot Split, also known as lots D and E, Block 35. PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Landmark Designation is a three-step process, requiring recommendations from both HPC and P&Z (public hearings), and first and second reading of a Landmark Designation Ordinance by City Council. City Council holds a public hearing at second reading. OTHER BOARD ACTION: On June 9, HPC made a motion directing the Historic Preservation Officer to begin research on the historic significance of this monument. On July 14, HPC unanimously passed a resolution declaring their support for the initiation of the Landmark Designation process. On July 28, the board opened the public hearing on this issue and continued to this date. LOCAL DESIGNATION STANDARDS: Section 7-702 of the Aspen Land Use Code defines the six standards for local Landmark Designation, requiring that the resource under consideration meet at least one of the following standards: 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 historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado or the United States. Response: In the summer of 1879, a party of prospectors crossed the Continental Divide from Leadville into the Roaring Fork Valley. They established a silver mining camp, first known as "Ute City, " and began staking mineral claims. As word of their find travelled back to Leadville, more settlers began to come into the valley. Some of them stayed in the camp through the winter, under threat of Ute Indian attack, to protect their interests. In order to establish a post office, receive the benefits given an officially recognized town and attract investors, the mining camp had to become a surveyed townsite. The first step in this process was accomplished in the early spring of 1880, when B. Clark Wheeler laid out the town boundaries. Over the summer, new residents interested in mining poured in rapidly. U.S. Location Monument, Ute No. 4 was established during this periodr in September of 1880. The monument is a Bureau of Land Management Marker, which are generally established when there is no official survey point within two miles. Ute No. 4 became the siting point used to locate a great number of mineral claims that were laid out on Aspen and Smuggler Mountains. Mining had a short "heyday" of only 14 years (1879-1893) in Aspen, but the extraction of mineral wealth was obviously essential to the founding of this town. Many of the structures and artifacts associated with this period and with the mining process have been lost. NO other such monument is known to exist now in Aspen. B. Architectural Importance: The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. Response: This standard is not applicable. C. Architectural Importance: The structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. Response: This standard is not applicable. D. Architectural Importance: The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: This standard is not applicable. E. 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 monument is important to the character of this neighborhood in that it has been the scene of various activities related to Aspen's mining history. Drill holes on the west face of the rock suggest the sort of miner's drilling competitions which have been documented in other towns occurred here. F. 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: Although this monument will no longer function as a surveying point, it is impoFtant to preserve its "integrity of location. " This site was chosen for survey work presumably because of it was visible and provided expansive views of the valley. It is a geographic landmark which is clearly connected to the early history of this community's development. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve Landmark Designation of U.S.L.M., Ute No. 4, finding it meets standards A (historic significance), E (neighborhood character) and F (community character). Additional Comments: / lar,+ --/ ..--ID 11 3 - - - --- -- my----- ~=,9. .. L 12.-dly -- M < 1 Y Irliff:ffl ---- id Tfirif79-.5 .' t'*46/41=ileâ‚¬44 %- MrÂ·,el 2, it i. 11 - ----*'4/ .#:* ~ 4 4. ~ Lija-,1 0. L .... >.â€žftÂ¢- 43.-11 b -1 L 1 :, ri 9% u 0 7 r pel ,:t -2- ' ./3 ' ' u 4 Â· iÂ· ~57',A--- ...01_.1 rl- 1 u -- 1.10 ) t.4- 4-----,~ t i~ C. f 1.t,- 1 /~ EL-==27-2-77=Â·Â·Â·Â·~+ ._L -,427=.LIÂ· .Â«4.1 11- ,2 . h....0 -- -4.-:.412.tok.ft'I.I.97,-4. 174 E- 1kxUL- -rl -r,FÂ· t !; I.Fj 1 1 4 :/I .-I i f iâ€¢' : 4 ) //.. Â· ~ , J. %. I. 1, 5, -. 4 it '1..:~,~--Â· ~j ~ L' -4 r 1, tilk... , , ,-1 =.0- 1 1-11 1 -1 1 /5 4 -1.- L,/ -- 1-1 Vrl A {4 6 1-ZEE-T- ,~ N Ot=Il-]4 2 LEÂ«Al-- 1 4-44 a -<24 - ~74 O UND CLI .PLE.X MAee ING ST-1-1 3\1' I"C 101 A LLEV - n I. C .. 10' - - 'll Â· 1 6.21 It' . FÂ©oftse-13' - - pu Fl,E.X '-. i) - 2 '=02Â¥ W IT--1 D..txÂ·D E MEN 7 ' 1 1 t 4 - Ii--- M . )'' Al A--) apv.â‚¬Â£62 Yant-,1 1 1 1 1 1 41 r , *' 31 14 . 4 ~Â·''l ' 2 68.7-E:ta- 1 1 11 EF FOR. 222 >NAULWAY 1 11 4-4-1 --- Fl 1 tiw# y.06 Â£- 4 , 1 1 ! OLU 1 4 /6 giÂ© 47 (111 FLO hi ds>Â·2416 ~/ 0 01\~D D U P L E X M a641 N.6 9-ro PY. r=101 k- :- i V >Â·1 'L. 1.1 D T t 0- 17- - al MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 314 S. Galena, Minor Development Date: August 25, 1993 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to replace existing fixed windows on the second and third floors with new windows which swing open. In addition, rounded awnings are proposed over the arched windows on the second floor and squared awnings like those already existing on the building are proposed for the third floor. New awnings will be identical in color to those in place. APPLICANT: Leslie Rudd, represented by Scott Lindenau, architect. LOCATION: 314 S. Galena, south 68 feet of Lots K and L, Block 95, City of Aspen. ZONING DEPARTMENT ISSUES: The awnings proposed for the south facade may be problematic i f they are not truly retractable. Fixed awnings over city property require an encroachment license. (The other awnings hang over private property.) PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H, " Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H, " Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: The building is adjacent to several Aspen Landmarks and is located in the Commercial Core Historic District. Windows currently in place are compatible in scale with those on neighboring historic buildings, and no change in dimension, materials or color is proposed. Awnings have already been determined appropriate for this building and have been installed on the first floor. Generally, surrounding buildings do not have awnings on the upper levels, but there are a few examples in the District, such as the new Katie Reid building. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Awnings are typical of the District and have been used historically on commercial buildings. This is a very active corner, and additional color or detail on the building is likely to make the space even more interesting. 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 does not affect the value to this community of any historic resource. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: No historic resource is directly affected by this proposal. 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 HPC approve the Minor Development application as submitted. Additional Comments: ATmCHMen' 1 IAND USE APPLMATION FCâ„¢ 1) Project Name \lout- 6 U 1 Dp i N 6- ) Project Incation GAUG-NA N Le d)? 6 y- 314 9. cretÂ·e NA (indicate street address, lot & block nuffier, legal description Miere appropriate) 3) Present Zoning 4) Iot Size 5) Applicant' s Name, Adlress & Bicne # 60% U.di Avulp 97 1 6< .4. 4 l\LON 4 00 ? EN , U â‚¬40(1 â‚¬4 Itprese~:aklve's Nane, Mdress & axxet 40Â·â‚¬TT A. l~(NDE NA U 17 0 17 1 4 E , *Atn 91 . Â» fed 1 60 6 l 0 11 7) Typd of Application (please check all that fply): Conditional Use Comeptual SPA conceph,al Historic Dev. Special Review Final SRA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual ED Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin -Ill.- Final IUD Historic Demolitirn 1*xmtain View Plane _u_ Subdivisirn Historic Designatial Corâ€¢hninitrni zatineÂ· - Text/Map Amarximent QUS Allotment Int Spli.t/[at line (2433 Exalption Adjustment 8) Desdription of Existing Uses Â· (undher and - type of Fyi =ting struch Tres; arr'X]orim,te sq. ft.; Iumber of bedroans; any previaE appn,vals granted to the property). per-Al G; Mla20, 41/ 1 69Â»,UE&7 9) Description of Develc~ment Application 485 12*22 U ~4,1- 0 Pe,2,46Â£0/7 W prtpp,9 1,4 dÂ·Ffue:9 1-3 MAG W/ 8)<1*1146-- W+h/PW W'D f Fel#4Â·or- /*te Awwle-6. 10) Iiave you attached the following? Response to Attadment 2, Minininn Sulnission Contents Response to Attadlment 3, Specific Suhnission Oontents Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application lillilli 11911 SCotl . de r a u f 0 1 1'/ e main S I aspen CO 816T2 i (] i , 1 1, . 9428 August 17, 1993 Amy Amidon HPC Committee Pitkin/Aspen P+Z Aspen, CO 81611 The client Leslie Rudd proposes to add awnings and operable windows to his offices at 314 S. Galena to reduce heat and glare intake as well as to provide fresh air to the interior. Window design or color will not be altered and the awnings are to be the same color as the neighboring retail shops within the same building. Currently, none of the windows in either floor are operable and there are no awnings. Scott A. Lindenau, Representative. The Fleisher Company (-Alt///Nerci'al Real Estati' 1/1 '\,pe// August 18, 1993 Mr. Scott Lindenau Studio B 303 1/2 East Main Aspen, CO 81612 RE: Alterations to Volk Plaza Dear Scott: This letter will serve as authorization for Leslie Rudd of Coulter Enterprises to: 1) install operable exterior windows to their existing space; 2) add exterior awnings to the building that are identical in color and design to the existing awnings. Scott, as the architect and direct representative of Leslie Rudd and Coulter Enterprises, you are responsible for informing me of any deviations from the above alterations to the building. Should you have any additional concerns, please do not hesitate to call me any time. Sin~ - Brent C. Sullivan, CCIM Property Manager BS:kl 200 Enst Muin Street â€¢ Aspe 11, Co/ormic 1 8 16/1 â€¢ 3().3/923--2/22 â€¢ hn 920 1 0 3 8 . LESLIE RUDD August 18, 1993 To Whom it May Concern: Please be advised that Mr. Scott Lindenau, of Studio B, is serving as my representative. Should you need to speak with me regarding this matter, please contact me at my office 925-5866. , Sincerely, 445 lit (1Â»L Leslie Rudd , (Prepared at his request in his absence) LGR/c Aspen City Government Building Department 130 South Galena St. Aspen, CO. 81611 A l . 1 1 0,4 1 -1------7-1--91- 1 r.. 1 /IN 84*45 aisÂ·'&,LC - -- -3-4,1. - PARIEZE LE,kn 2- 1 Uff_f'93Â»Â·/f ' . SEE E Led C#da.t :1+1114 r' 1, 9 8 1 . ii 'â‚¬5-. ! li , , â‚¬.=- 1. 3 04Â· 43 1 i-271 ~ 1461 1 11-". 'IL, 1-4 241 64 L 3 11 It)TE-.' L.JDOrd. rrede 1~*22+ 112K - Nola .' CÂ»o,<L AAS-R 4-7 - ~ ;* 3333 z-- - Â«05Â·40 s e AL= .., /1-,3 12,44'I'~.,ir' ' t f \j /<>'0777Â« i I ,<( 12 \ 4 , L, 7. % 1 4,/73'> 9 4 1 i , , \... L R.-Ug- - -> 1Â¢ i r ill J f Al. 11 . ' A-/1 0 1 /33<f-Â« 1 Ng ~I _Â£233.~ 1.4-T - 11: .497 'i'Â·,0 ,~\~A-1>LÂ·i '~qÂ·Â·i.1 --~~.-=i- i Irt A-(f>Â· . N. : 1 t====1 - t -*1.1 1- - - _~\1-,~ .C F 7 -- X "\ L -- 4 . \ R I a I |, 1. ~ 6*.'.79 4....~...4......- ' r:OL_â€ž =s_es=-4-4 H 1-- 8444 EA AR.v*8 .c~>,rÂ»J. 71, iÂ· 4 70--.-- ====2 - -01 1 1 3 1 --f :-- it I 4-4 ; 1 1 . 5 III b F ly' 1 ~11 ~- - ~1- 1- 62- 11 ~ :4 1 J L. 1 III /9 j. 1-41240 . 4324 r . 44 111 @i 1 ~11 4/ 1 1 - .1 14 9/1, 19 ~ 14.-9/ A-(?/ E i ib~\ 1 ; 11+4 li' |I 0 -''I'~~t~22'~ -------. 1 , 1.7- . . f--ST/. (2.2~ 1 1 11 li Â·4 L_ 6629 - 1 - - 1- - - joil 4.1-0 HA _ - t; rf ,F-io h Va '}N jtâ€¢175::)213.42Â·u 5/0 - Â¥* â‚¬ 12_' -4 95242-4â‚¬f 2-, ul li. 1.+-h' :. / . '1 1 O ' m '14 ; 4 UP 6 + 4 r 1 41 4 11 11 4 it Qi '4* 411 e 6 -/1 4 4,4/ 6 , / 1 %/le / ' W \ b 4 3 /2 Ar 04 9 l'Q 9.-b & 4 qi> *~4 14 % 1 0 1 -/ * 0 ~ f fit J J M E~ ~ ~~~ ~~'~~ ..~ ; ~'~J M 11-j-41 kji~~~ - r. !j.. ~:!.. El,jiflj:'.11~1~~::ijlll!1.;=~?f~; ;:'I,jitj~j~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ' ~~ e# .1 1 1!9 lili 1 : h.u!,P . 1111 1 i Â·/ Jill 4 .I 1 11 24 1 ': IL 5--1- 2 Y <TA 4, I L. .-|| g <% : 1.;lfu,1 ~;frfl,' i~,* ,, ~ 1 1 1' ~ ~ (,4) ~f '.) 43_.--fE' 4 01~'j t:. 1 ' 1 *~ 2 4\~t8'h 1 , 3,14., I I - Ill Â·4 /:Ut | 1 ; 1 hh -- ' .1 1k Mul , ~ -( 44 I. --27.--- I , 1 i ~C.Â·~~4-~-I- 11 .Ii!:;~1~f '1':..11 + lr-Â·221:252.-2-=--1 K 1,1 .ill 11.1 11 .1 ~~ lilli 1 1 1, 4 1 I!{ 1 1.1 1 1 11 1 i i i' 1 , 14 1 414 1 -1 1 i '4 1 1 1 11~ ,(1 1 11 11 i 1 1 ' ' I -- 4 4 ; 47 f' 1 - .._-._=5Errr:--1 1 (-1-. 11 1 - :ji! li 1 Â»/ 11 1 f ,.14 --__ _ __i-~ 1- A.it 3 h.1 G .4-3 r 1 . 111 1 / 40 1 E .11 1 4. 1 D itfit ; 1. 1 1 1 '' 11 11 a j, 1.- :.4,Â·Ill ,%14&l 11 1 18 * 21 0 M 1 1 :4 9 4- 1 :.1~ 1 1 1 :i~ 1 ]11 )11 J ,-- 1 - , L-1 I tic 1 . 81 4, 1 WiAÂ· -i /64 N gl V - 1 1 1 -11 ;11':4,1111 4--E-=-12.. -fh-. ---' - 6<Oc *4 ZE r. -,ri~:tan F- TA<) j **jeT AT dic<>*42 eyÂ·-06 6%46/10 . . . r~ b -72 7.7 3-Â· --3 ~IFÂ·-Ul f ---=-rf Â¢11 1 MIl y r f~W~6 4 81 1 4 1 05Â¥3*16- COP \14'b - - .2 -~ T ..RE ...I =Ir- 1 1 \*1~ ~~ ~i ' 1 Y i , 1 -~~ ~ ~ ~~ .-C-~ I.Â·72* 1TI V IT ; .T. - 7.21:U - 1: Â·Â·Ch Â·Â·1~4~Â·-r-Â·--1- , , , 1, 4- 2*042â‚¬. .*batz,r -- $7.22 haPES . ~ 4.- ' V - ,. Â·:.. j... ~ . uâ€ž-._12-+i_.12161'43. 1 . 1 .- p: *.-i ,(I:~8,1--~i Y cd,-~bj __ - T.1/14*.fu.'7 ' 31 , 3 i . -' & A-$ 1 1 4-*,1 . 1 Eys'll -- ~ 1- 2--- li 1 <17> 11 l 1 1.-- 11 sar- S 2/7 -2-*71; 7~ VE ~ 't 1.- *70?421 0(1.Lf : . eigloc PR \*-1.* $ - Â»*=E >62/210- , 'A 1. , I.-4 1 ....1 ~11........ ...1,41- 11 1 $ i' 11 1 P 1, 1 - '1 14 4 1 | 1 :1 7 1 --- i Â· i ~4(/2 /~i~- ' 6. 1 3. 4 11 ..1 ~ Ark 22>â‚¬1 4 1 , , 1,- 9 110 ~ 1 _ L Â· ii / I , i/- ../.10 11,1 4 .- -y/Sh 4 NIC. Oil- .. ~ , .1 --Â·..!t.z i. 111 It i 1 1- i 1, .' -11 'P-- I Xm#3%7,9,2kV - r 1 ) 77 - -1.:=-pp'~11 - - OUT t-Tot $ a -51â€¢-UL 14.-'21 4 tx 'ST# EL- f Â¥/A l--_ coveR..914 1 - 6/k La Col- erm} RE I Nol?2 1 46,02; *V LGE:,â‚¬770,4 A~- t OF: 4 Â·,d AÂ£2Â£44 1 TECT C ie-51 PLA; 1 j '. 1 4 1 .1 A - 1 ,497722-,1 - ..Â·Â»= \63 ~T f :1 to it 61-4.7 Ft 41 / / . --7 1 / t ; '-t--Â»m r- 2, i -- / 7 41-a 4 4-0 ''.1 ti, i 1 i i: 1 11 -<' 0.--- --Â·---------- 1.-------lvi,rtpow r; 1 11 111 , -4 0'511 3---.1.11 1 -i 11 - 1 live.liliilij'!11 - U,<16 81* tÂ» r (71 full, s n. i ?16!9â‚¬rtruÂ·Â· .6=.=J41Â£#4444 - - 182.44 l H.bÂ·67 ....1. IT=71 - - 4/ftp#17,4 2 0?bit 4 ANC =mtÂ¥.. 511111111' (*4 *' 9900, Mt ---rrr-.7- --1 --r.. ----.-'---., --+ .---.1 1:121+11 44+1Â» 3- ild.L==u r - -- - -- - 1- 11 1 i . 1 . . . 1 9 2-0 7 0 4 0 9 4OUTH E l G v & r 1 0 H #tt, i *0 M 0 TE 0 l, 4/rl f ri*4 d H SM [2 60-1/5(4 /t40 N-n,43-5 0% u.?CL :11 42'/*4 0 U . f-1 50 V/4 2, /..ifi;.'46-6 31# 300 4frp "f.2 '1*01\it. rÂ·' (10 0. Mt. Att r A t':'. .0,40. 40 4 / 0 .; 11, t.,4 h , ' 1-02 \' 4 Â· i i ;-tt'~ t>, 2; Wr 3 ATJ '111 4 b- i.4 L,(m. ! 4 13 .94Â·rf H ? 4,80 9/24 * POr 4 U t./1 \\ 1* f M 63 A >rcr,1/, /- w..'.0 6, Ililillii t.,Â·1;''h~. ~ EakÂ®trill.- - -- - ------ 1 . 1 4 2 - Â· - --- - - 0 rte *,t t. N. 1 1 1 t 'v,046 4*416Â· CAL'01 7 pff.lt, 11;1111 III.,11 Il + :r'T -Fullttittrt'1.8.0 1 2 lf) iIi ill fij j i~ ti- ili 'i:-Â· i L /Ph '~h ~/7Rt dfiJ_f 1 1 I~I ~ ~~~ -li *~~, ~- -*EL T 4 ' 3 - 329. r:al k ____~~~, I +7Â», It \0 Xtr .-.'--1--1--- 1Â·for 9%0'0959 400THW0';T \/8* C \0 0 m 01,111'i,i'. 1'2111!Â·-12_ 9 9 N 4-41 rittlvtÂ·Â·Â· 1-1 {1 - >IL: F K .r -715 4 0 0 52 0 41.,6 44.- 11 \41 r 1 k W ..Ill'.1/4.411+81,-6-4,7. -1 _..1 C LOVA TIC M --I-----*-*- - 1 t. MEMORANDUM f TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 234 W. Francis, Ammendment to "Significant Development" approval DATE: August 25, 1993 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval for an ammendment to the f inal "Significant Development" approval granted on May 12, 1993. Changes are detailed in the . attached "Description of Proposal," and new drawings. Also attached are the drawings previously approved by HPC. A setback variance will be required to approve this ammendment, as the addition sits one foot from the property line. This same variance was awarded by HPC at final review. APPLICANT: Quentin Vidor, represented by John Schenk. LOCATION: 234 W. Francis Street, Lots K-M, Block 44. PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: HPC granted final approval on May 12, 1993. Planning and Zoning Commission granted conditional use approval for the carriage house dwelling unit. DevelÂ®pment Review Standards 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H, " Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor areas, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Response: The "Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines" state, "Locate additions to original houses so that they do not alter the front facade." Although the entrance to the building is towards the west, the main public view is along West Francis Street. Placing the addition on this, the south elevation, has a significantly greater visual impact on the building than was created by the earlier proposal. The addition becomes a main feature of the building, and the new entrance door placed on this side creates the impression that it is the primary entrance, changing the orientation of the building. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The concept of converting this carriage house into an Accesory Dwelling Unit is certainly of benefit to the neighborhood and the community. There are not a large number of parcels which retain their outbuildings, and this carriage house should continue to read as an accesory structure, with its access facing the house and with a simple "main" facade which does not compete with the house. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: The proposal itself does not detract from the historic value of this structure, but the location of the proposed addition does impact public perception of the original function of this building. 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 changes proposed do not seem to have a greater affect on the architectural integrity of this building than those which were approved earlier. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the ammendment as submitted, finding the Development Review standards have been met. 2) Approve the ammendment with conditions. 3) Table action to allow the applicant time to revise the proposal in order to meet the Development Review Standards. 4) Deny the ammendment, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC deny the ammendment, finding that Review Standard 1 has not been met. Additional Comments: PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 234 WEST FRANCIS STREET AMENDMENT TO FINAL SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, August 25, 1993, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 pm before the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee in the second floor meeting room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application submitted by Quentin Vidor, 234 West Francis Street, Aspen requesting approval of an Amendment to the Final Significant Development Approval for 234 West Francis Street, Lots K-M, Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Amy Amidon at the Aspen Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO. 920-5096. s/William J. Poss, Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Published in the Aspen Times on August 6, 1993 City of Aspen Account : 79 V:1541::.ratiffÂ¥:; :47 - . I:-~ ~ Â¢11/ ' PUBUC NOnCE RE: 234 WEST FRANCIS STREET AMEND- MENT TO FINAL SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a publk hear- ing wttl be held on Wednesday, August 25, 1993, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 pm before the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee 'in the second floor meeting room Clty Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an applkation submitted by Quentin Vidor, 234 West Francis Street, Aspen requesting approval of an Amendment to the Anal Significant Devel- opment Approval for 234 West Francis Street, Lots K-M, Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further Information, contact Amy Amtdon at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office. 130 S. Gate- na St., Aspen, CO. 920-5096. s/WHItam J. Foss, Chair Aspen Historic Preservatton Committee Published in the Aspen Tlrnes August 6. 1901 <.Â·.12Eede'lÂ· 2... i:,fill- - 443 4 -... ~117 1 ~"e , . 't t. El V I :2Â· Â· Â· 4, ~ d~ - R11 L., 4.. '21 ': I. 5 '*4' h : . 1.4{.. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 14, 1993 the condition that the architect submit drawings to the monitor and restudy the fenestration on the south elevation; second by Martha. All in favor of motion and amended motion, motion carries. DISCUSSION Bill: For clarification Jake is concerned about the thickness of the detailing on the north and south elevation. 234 W. FRANCIS - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT Kim: The principle residence is going to be remodeled inside and the majority of work will be focused on the carriage house and the addition to make a bathroom and legal living quarters. Staff agrees with the request for a setback variance. John Schenck, Project Manager for Cunniffe & Associates: This house is at 234 W. Francis and is the Davis-Waite house and built 1896 by Governor Waite and he was the only populist governor. We want to keep the historic style of the house. On the main house the structural engineer stated that the house needs under pined. The interior remodel requires the roof to be restructured. The client also has requested an additional window on the north side of the structure. On the carriage house we want to make this deed restricted dwelling unit and that requires a bathroom and in doing so we will add a 9x9 ft. bathroom. We have it located on the eastern edge of the building on the north side trying to hide it from street view and keep the context of a small building. The cottage needs raised to make head room for a nice accessory dwelling unit and loft space that the client has requested. We propose to do that by putting in a stone base or water table under the existing structure and also building a new foundation. Since we are building a new foundation we are going to use storage in the basement. We also have a window at the western elevation of the carriage house. We will try to match the details and proportions of the existing building. A door has also been proposed to enter into the back yard. We will add a parking space even though it is not required. The total of the ADU would be 694 Sq. Ft. CLARIFICATIONS: Roger: You said you had roof modifications, will the roof be opened up or what? John Schenck: I am not exactly sure but if it does get opened up it would be replaced as is. Roger: The carriage house does not have a foundation presently. Does the existing house have a foundation? 9 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 14, 1993 John: The ground has sunk and has reached to the point of the siding. The structural engineer said the foundation is just sinking. Roger: You are underpinning from the inside. John: Yes, we will underpin from the inside of the original house and for the carriage house we would lift it straight up and replace it and move it to the side. Roger: You would have to have a bond and we wanted you to be aware of that. Martha: On the landuse form it says no-onsite parking? John: That is existing and we would provide parking and conform to the code. Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. Belinda Freischman, neighbor: I am thrir J = wity. this proposal and it is such a treat to see something that isn't lot line to lot line / in the west end. It is wonderful to have clients that want to preserve the old house. Our fears were that they were going to raise the little house and destroy our view of the mountain. Our house is a duplex and we face Smuggler. Our co-owners face the alley C..... we ao not want them looking at the parking. Esther Devoul: How far does the carriage house go on the east property line. John: One foot from property line. Esther: Where is the eight feet addition on the carriage house going? John: It is going on the alley side. Esther: Then in actuality the view from my place will not change. Public: I am also concerned about the parking area and the view from the duplex. John: We will preserve all the trees on that edge. Martha: I am not clear where the setback on the drawing is. John: The setback on the side yard is a ten foot setback. Our 10 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 14, 1993 addition is nine feet wide and nine feet deep. Roger: On the existing conditions it states that the property is non-conforming on the rear. It also states that it is two feet from the east property line and the out building is situated one -4.- -4- C--- +40 sin . r.oper.j line. Bill: It is more compatible to have the small addition closer to the property line and it allows more of the carriage house exposed from the rear and from the alley and other areas. Jake: What is above the existing front door? John: There is a door to the attic space and we are taking the little door out and putting in a square window. The three piece window would get a door in its place. Roger: How high are you raising the house for the foundation? John: One foot six inches. MOTION: Roger made the motion that the HPC grant approval of the conceptual proposal as submitted for 234 W. Francis Lots K &M Block 44 and to grant the 8 foot setback variance for the carriage house addition with the condition that the relocation review criteria are met at final review. That means you have to have an engineering report and submit a bond; second by Martha. DISCUSSION Jake: I would like to have a restudy of the divided light windows on the west side. They are casements, divided light and the proportions are different. Roger: I would put that in the motion but you cannot see them due to vegetation. Jake: When you have this much site area I find it a stretch to get a variance unless you have good reason. Roger: Because it is a non-conforming site it doesn't bother me. Bill: You also have to look at the historic nature of the site. I feel it is more compatible on the end and you are not increasing the non-conformity and it preserves more of the carriage house. Roger: Also if you take into consideration what the neighbors said the view plane from the condominium unit on the south side neighbor, facing the north side of the carriage house where the 11 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 14, 1993 addition is going on, the addition is kept to the back and it keeps the open space in the yard and their view plane is less interrupted. Jake: What do you think about the comments on the windows? John: I think they have some merit but do not know exactly how they would be dealt with at this point and we will restudy it. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended the motion to include restudy of the fenestration on the west side (windows); second by Martha. All in favor of motion and amended motion carries. Bill Poss: This is a good project, John'. COMMUNICATIONS Bill: The award week will be May 9th through the 15th and Roxanne has been hired to set it up. The Historic Trust will pay Roxanne $800. to coordinate the banquet and cocktail party and draw up a council proclamation and press coverage. She has also been hired to get our character guidelines going and Diane got an extension until June. A one day workshop with Nori Winter will be scheduled. Roger: I have a statement to make, it is our job to read the memos in the packet and we should not have to read them at the meeting, just ask questions and clarifications. MOTION: Jake made the motion to adjourn; second by Martha. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Assistant City Clerk 12 All-BY - w 1 - 51 - i r.-01 1 : .r-- . 12 1 il - 1 0~ i 74 Im -1* 1 L i 1 1 1 V -1 Dll.,7.~ , -3 4 -1 , \ . 17 e jimmimp 1 1 -11 1 4... 1 WY 9- - WEILL_ :.523[IM L 1 1 fl' t 1 '/ FP,Nt' 9 sp.NIF 1/- t L) v- a- , 91 13 &47* ,/'Of, e<3 d> A j L>/9 1 VI 3:k â‚¬336 ~ DiÂ»233- CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS A,1- 4 PÂ»Itle 520 E. HYMAN Â· SUITE 301 ASPEN. CO 81611 Â· TELE 303/925-5590 - FAX 303/925-5076 300 W. COLORADO ~WE + BO< 2863 Â· TEWRIDE CO 81 435 Â· TEUL 303/728-3738Â·FAXÂ· 303/728-6722 P'GRÂ» 9 1 4Â«"+20 Â© COPYWRfTE 1992. CH,RLES CUNNIffE ARCHITECTS 1 4, , 4 4 .# rqg i Â£43 â‚¬ 4 -'Itt-: ' Â·i'- 9:-~' -2.2- :-bzj/-7.'ir~dkdtg269 i A 11 t-- - - --- Â·Â·Â·'Â· '92'-,-'.-0 -Â·â€¢ ~--.Â·e:aâ€¢â€¢Â·t-,lp,ri-,'1~~01?kNAH,4,2â‚¬5'to: 0 1 1 0 i ' f 3 y / 78 0-5 1, 3 31% i 1/1 22)12. 3%5517,=:146320 CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS I. 520 E. HYMAN Â· SUITE 301 aPEN, (0 81611 Â· TELE: 303/925-5590 Â· FAX 303/925-5076 300 W. COLORADOAâ‚¬. BED(2863 TELLLE!DE (081435+TELÂ£303/728-3738Â·FAX. 303/728-6722 Wa 12>+ U. P~4"P'DI 5 O COPAIRITE 1992. CHARLES CUNNUE FACHITECTS kIL.SCÂ»4 j.Â· rk Aa_M-~ A -- 01 1 1 1 1 4 I 1 1 1 11 E P n G i r /3.0 7 1 1 9 0 . eeCF'014 A-A 4 ? 24 j J . ' 1 - E 1 i --/ 1 \ 0- -- *-61 , il 1 1 u 01 11 1 I -9 . 1 ' 2 1 1 1 0 h------- l I -7 4. 1 - V I Ck:9 12-4 1*61 WelÂ©E CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS I. 520 E. HYMAN - SUITE 301 - ASPEN. CO 8161 1 Â· TEE: 303/925-5590 Â· FAX 303/925-5076 2 3,4 Id.1 - PMA// 16 300 W. COLOâ‚¬ADO A/E Â· BOX2863 TEU-URIDE C081435+TELE 303/128-3738 FAX 303/728Â·6722 ija +epae , Câ‚¬XONâ‚¬)O O COP'ri,[mnE 1992. C ELA,RLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS -ra/\gil 9*1 .. ~ -- '- ---BL~.-21Â£Â«56'et,4,C-9. U L - 7 -, 7 -ZI. 1 0 ,Â«,' 0GDoy A-A - 11 AL DOI~ SEQPEr.JZ~ CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS B&Â£1 520 E. HYMAN Â· SUITE 301 ASPEN. (0 81611 Â· TELE. 303/925Â·5590 + FAX. 303/925-5076 2,4 l.4. f*â€¢194 9 300 W. COLORADOAVE Â· BED<2863 - TEUURIDE C08I435-1E1E 303/728-3738-FAX 303/728-6m Â»69â€ž , 040â‚¬MeÂ©o Â©COfâ€¢r~TE 1992, CW,Rt.ES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS % ) 1 1 1/\ .. 277 - 17-.2 . f I MI I 3 1 1 't: 'i 1 L* f''5~ ~1 Â· -, ~ t 1- -+ L \X ~- , L b ,4 1--- -- ----/ 1 --- I 11 / I[Il , 41-011Â£ 1! . FE Lof/ ~ 717-3 .. MJE. i- 1 9 Eâ„¢-LU - !!1 33 0m C l Ex/ST/da Boluc>:dd:I ' , 71 2012- *61 .RE-Pld:A CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS WE 520 E. HYMAN Â· SUITE 30{ Â· ASPEN, CO 8161 1 - TELE. 303/925-5590 - FAX: 303/925-5076 214 4 Pft'~rels 300 W. COLORADOAE Â· 80(2863 Â· TEUURDE (081435Â·TELE 303/728-3738 Â·FAX 303/728-6722 Aâ‚¬â€¢re-1% gle'l-oleÂ·Apo O CoerWRfTE 1992 CH,ARLES CUNNIFFE RCHITECTS We 4+14.49%1 /2 U Ajew , E><ISTIÂ®161 a.)1-UPI.-t461_.-___-___-----7&-- w t Z L ..1 ' '-1 < C" 0 ~2 3 85 14 - 2 LU 2 8 &4614 6-80'48. DHINGÂ·ll-ES Â·Â·--'--Â·) 0~~0~. 1 2 8 : F 8 @reit r- 7%14 1.4114[D , -- Â· 1 51 CPI #4 90 11Â»12:4-1 . d--- - i 6 -- 0 6><'ST- - /44. 1.- 1 X3 094 M FEMovâ‚¬3 - - I~ 3 3 a 26 -~i _~ _: _ _ l42472#34.- /GLe %1Ls -~3 6 4 â€žg/0_ 1_b~*4 -i-Â· -4/ Z u 0 < 1 h[Jurit*u~E~?r_ 11 1-- .1 0 n 11 11 11 11 11.-- y 11 It . . 11- 2 -. t=itt-~ ~ r Al-__/ 1 1 .;== - ~1 1 '-f -1 ~ H, r- - -Ill 11-2 *7 8 0 2< el a i 3 He,Id 5-ro ie vel-1 eff I.492~~Â· 1214*X/0â‚¬13 of- - - - v , 1 246 1 e 9L05-526/EOE XV:1 - 06 m9-82l/ECE *93 -8EZE-*/EOE EL SED O) O18AT131 )CO - / 0~3010) -m OCE 1 *3/1*31944 you vi r -2 11 I i ' 1 1 11 111 1 111 1 1 .11 111 2 ~111!1111 --1 Ii- 1 H , i I :L 1 1 1 i .i ' 1 ~ 1 1.- 1 , 1 ITi I ~t ill.,1 4 - - ''- 1 - 1,21 i -,- k -~- pj-itill li~-i--.---. 1 -.1. 1 2 1 1 4 1; i 4 ; 'i . 1 1 00 - R M- OF-h ; i i 11 lilli 111 1 1 - 1 Vpof- Pe@Diahop - CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS ~~~ 520 E. HYMAN Â· SUITE 301 - ASPEN, CO 81611 Â· TELE: 303/925-5590 Â· FAX: 303/925-5076 66+ U. FtÂ¥+b! S -2-- 300 W. COLORADO AE Â· 83<2863 Â· TELLURIDE, (081435 Â·TELE. 303/728-3738 Â·FAX: 303/728-6m *laj pe*te (0409+40 - - Â© COP'AURITE 1992. CHN?LES CUNN1f FE ARCH[TECTS r'$>WI At>t; H 401.130 ZZL9-86[/KE:XVJÂ·GELE-BU/EOE 3131Â·SE,1803 3013(IT131 Â· E98Z)d08 Â· 3'VOC]V3O-10) '8 00â‚¬ %1444 1 13 +41 512)11.,H)3'Â¢ 33jINNA) 53-WVH) 7661 311*MdO) 0 Or,ted>100 k.124 95' 9L0S-526/[Of .)0/3 Â· 0655Â·526/EOE 3131 - 1 1918 01 'NMV Â· IOE ELLInS Â· NVINAH 3 025 S.LI)3-LIH)UV 33=IINNn) SE!1UVH) .=d oldqi d 'Â»d -4 Od IA - 9-VUL \11 57 1 -8 1 1 kil 1 2/1 - - 1 27 11 31 / 1 X ' 1 U jâ‚¬>kl 1 0 -1 1 c 122 1,â‚¬fi llâ‚¬ I>gl 1-1319 / Â£ pO / 1100* \ 59.7 739Â» 9 1-101,9 Mal-1 - RIO 1-1-VAG ~ L442 ~a July 21, 1993 ARCHITECTURE PLANNING Ms. Amy Amidon INTERIORS Planning Office City of Aspen 130 S Galena St. Aspen, Co 81611 Re: Vidor Residence 234 West Francis Dear Amy, Please find enclosed an H.P.C. application for amendment to final approval of the Vidor Residence at 234 west Francis. We received this approval on May 12th of this year. Included are the changes and explanations for them. If you have any questions, please contact us. Since,Â·el v, rr T 79 -1I. lÂ·1~) ~DS chenck Job Captain CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS Â· 520 EAST HYMAN AVENUE Â· SUITE 301 Â· ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Â· 303/925-5590 FAX 303/925-5076 Project Location: 234 W Francis Lots K,L,M, Block 48 Aspen, Co 81611 I. Description of Proposal 1. Outbuilding a. Conversion of outbuilding to a deed restricted Accessory Dwelling Unit. b. The building will be raised 1'-6" and a new foundation poured (basement). The increase in height is necessary to accommodate a new loft space. The exposed foundation will be covered with a stone veneer. (no change) c. The existing canopy or trellis on the east side will be retained where previously a smaller porch was to be added. d. A new window will be added to the North side of the building. (no change) Where previously a door was to be added, there will now be a window matching the size and character of the existing window, which is currently in very poor repair. Both windows will have operable shutters. These shutters Will contribute to the privacy of the occupants, as well as retaining the historical presence of the building. e. A new bath approximately 9' x 9' will be added on the South side. In keeping with the design intent and the character of the site, this addition is located within the side setback, requiring a variance. This variance was approved by the H.P.C. on May 12th for the addition previously on the north side. f. There will also be a new entry door at the south side of the building with a covered porch, the roof Will extend from the bath addition. g. The interior remodelling Of the outbuilding will include the addition of a kitchen and a loft. II. Compliance with relevant review standards 1. Design compatibility with existing structure. The outbuilding will increase in height (1'- 611) and gain a stone base which is not uncharacteristic of Victorian design. The loft space which dictates the height increase, creates desired space without a large addition to the original form. The bath addition utilizes a shed roof which works with the existing gable without detracting from it. The Windows that are being removed at the south side Will be imitated at the bath addition in the same position in elevation. The windows will be replaced with a modern, more efficient window. These new windows will maintain the size and character of the original units as closely as possible. 2. Consistency with neighborhood character. The visible additions and changes to the Vidor residence have been kept to a minimum to reduce the impact on the neighborhood. While previously less visible from the street, the changes will be screened from the street and neighbors through the use of existing and new foliage where necessary. 3. Enhancement of the cultural value of the structure The proposed work to the Davis-Waite house will, increase the cultural value of the property in that the structural modifications will preserve this historic landmark. Turning a relatively unused outbuilding to an Accessory Dwelling Unit which provides much needed living space that Will not be neglected. 4. Enhancement of the architectural integrity of the structure The architectural integrity and Victorian character of the historical structure remains intact as the proposed additions are limited and unobtrusive. 5. Effect of proposed details on the original design The proposed details of the new addition shall have little or no effect on the original design of the outbuilding, as they will mimic the existing details as closely as possible using modern building techniques.(no change) 6. Effect of proposed details on character of neighborhood The proposed details shall have a minor effect upon the character of neighborhood. The details of the addition will blend in with the original design of the historic building. III. Effect of proposed design on Historical structure and neighborhood charactar. The proposed addition and remodel of the Davis-Waite house is planned to remedy structural problems incurred over the years and to create more usable space for the owner and tenants. The main house remains relatively unchanged on the exterior. Modifications to the outbuilding occur out of sight from the street. The addition of one on-site parking space is planned to accommodate the ADU although this is not required. It is the intent of the applicant to maintain the historic character of the building and to restore it to ensure its continuing presence in the Historic district of Aspen. The proposed development is illustrated as Exhibit 'A'. *. l_-1 WM LA'<- 34Â»*** 44*Â«.#m'911 21 Â·. 1.-<NI-1 ltv 196 -- 1.3.- .'-- 00 Ll , 1, .LÂ« .., _ir 41&. r# .239 1 -- 000 04:. 13 5447 01 lili 1. 1 4 1 - -- ------/0- -- --14;3 1- ---- -2 + C> / 111.-31'k=:1~J'Â»~/1Â§ Her.ZLI Â»i .-,Â·. 40 ' f 7,~05,%1=1 1.1 5 ff. a 1 - L_,1 . Â».*.. j 'tel 1 1 a UL- E--1 u _f--1 bs}21 ]11% 4 5 -4 1, @4 TI./ 1'1 111,11 i ,1 11 P NORTH_ELEVATION lili 1111111'll' ill'11 1Â· tu- b 1 - *Etu~-19-_ I lilli,1 111 1 / 'h~ I 7--- . :/4 1.111,11111!111 1 1 22 1 4411 -41-:6'1- ~ 7==1 --1 , -57eil-- ~ *22*j?~ Â«\11 L.-3 '~ Â·% 49 9., , I. 14 ' . sea,rup elyfir . Â«/ i I SITEZBQQE_ELAM 4 - lap ,â€ž-... ~ 5-2-=Tz,4 111 11 0 1 11 / 11 1 11 9/1 1,. 11 #14 Ui - 1--It 4 1 1 ,1 d 0 31 11 : , < ~ .. 11 11 11 .4 11 T .- 0 1 -1~ , 1. .1 \3 It .1 '2==== 41 4241 F - ~ -4 11 1. 11 / 1 11 11 ' 1 1. 11 ..0-â€ž,- 11 11 U.j f)RAWIN(. - I 11 11 <> 11 11 1, 1--------1 * 4 r--11 1 If WI N~) 1 br 'Al I â€¢ 'Â·â€¢â€¢ -cl 1- ./ ~ f Nr f UETERLEYELBLAN AITIC_ELAN U 1/4.-1.-0 1 A-- aUILDING_SECIKQM '1 .1 (. Sads S.E)311HDHV 3=MINNAD 53121Â¥141 Â¥.,Ch. 1.â€¢, 0, "-101 ml :i,L.C>)30:11~u $-W. '0. I**I~001 1- - /1 1 -0 . Ir f9 . - (i)~ 0 LE C]ED It 7- -0 - b U . chi o I f# p 2 7 Al n E / :3 /3 11 1, 4 . :Z 2 + + 4 ' 1 1 1 :m Ir--r- r--/\ le 11 1 <$ I Uvt> 1 MEE -, ) 1.*11119!5 4 Ff | ~ | | T ----4 131Â§22 ------------. i '!9 11 ~ e 11 11 â‚¬ 01 , 1 f 0 11 11 . f- I 7-1 4 7 r4 21 u a I 4 T Â£m 1 111:44 F r- 1 P C 1 47 -1 -3 i - - Â· 1 , 11 ;. - 1 -in r--1 . --, 1 .'Vi 9 N r1 - I Â£ FU Ati .1 .1,<14 CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS N a. :ti. /2-1, ./. CO â€¢,â€¢,I 'lit 101.2~,;.,1.. 1.1.: ... I ./. ./'...) I. *2/1 ~ULR~X (Â»~11' Tkt JOL-,d-, lu lor,â€¢.Â· V-NOLLOZIS-ON BA.SEM.ENT_PLAN NoiivArn,-ino's NOLLVAE-13 1 0 538 -*- 617 -4 B ~114 , -4 -- lip--- 9-0-4/ - n r..4 -I-- * Â£ Rf L ~ _~ - 6 rl,~ ~Â¥ V A -7, Al.Â·r.*â€ž 4-e=L>e --I.'VAOV 1 --I * ./.0 .1*7767-1 4/ 4 1#367..3. [18 .4 â‚¬ HI 11 ~ U11_i_=_ lili ~ . /21 5017-IT- e rew-,1 1-!A_L- , 0 twMVEr'mat G :*r' 64414- Â© 11...1... L *-1- c *-- -- 0 :!My G Exs, 74 WA- - 1 , / ..1.. /*\ OVe G 1~â‚¬14 1-â€¢I UA-1.- 4/ 4 ki *14:4- IIi. :yâ„¢ -'.-53,9 ...#..- -./ 1 I .... - i -11'Q, /2.-'.4-. (i- :1 r--1 -Â« 1 1=Â£ lail .,-.0 g * t=tr'- -2.-4(~17=-A ~ Â£0=*r' -LQIIELâ‚¬><Â·-.r - 13, 4.0-,4 -0 '9-d -- 1':rm.- lIlal I I 'l r-14â€¢â€¢ # I r~ Â·-1 7 p,Â·-1 /1~1~ - n ....DA. Tr'N.4 -41..& / *r ......Â» I-*1'%& am=Â·.. 1: ifi '-O 1 1 1 111 1111: 1 1- 11 8 1 . 1/ I - U I Y Â¢2) 3,0175 G 5*97124 1-Â»9-4- Â© JAM) G *El-1 2-* 6 i ,--4 0I7ki nÂ·rws... 'rwa, I p.u / , ./ _Gh . ......40 I... â€ž4 111 9 1 Il \ ~ 112 ls:*41 -e I ~ ''~ ' r- - ~ â€ž ,~-f, ~...*~ ~ i m.ttitaittitui. ~ 411511Ir- 1~{ '51 - W. 1 3'R=.4,1 R h Ptl.1 1 1 4 4 -*,O , .-.~.â€¢E.-r TrAâ€¢.- --~ wâ€¢u-, Ir--1- L7 . .11 i ~ ' --11 â€¢ . /1. n. cr V .1. W 4,D ,-6. 61/44â€¢, . = .Â· c.â€¢,1.g'll 'f'â€¢Â·I.. 1 "<,AUN{, Â¢252*te~ A. 1 WAL..2*mic UJM~.4 .â„¢ILÂ·~ r.w .... *1119 ~--Â· | ='.==1'Whp - n/.~L .0 v. 1. I. .6 FE-14-fill f--I' *re "9.0 1-*11 -7 | '' ' ~ ~ ~ ,)11 91-931 . . 1 1..16:6.1169.. 1 . 6 '--4- .1.[ -- U nc -hl"'~, 6 .. I 4 \ P. 4 .... 5 --3 ,"!NO 4 Sed'T-IOM (31-,4.4 WAW- Â© ttiÂ·t,U â‚¬43<yr 100 Ah 611+8 EXIOT,rr , 4- 0614 9 11.J 2â€¢6 WAL-1- @,l. ".1 ..1 0, Sl-3311HDMV 3331NNAD 5312!VHD 64 ...Â». I 00, 4.Ot Wâ€¢[D, h, 6,~ s~,10, 1111 Ill" C>J ~u" '0' Unt '....,,. , 08 '1. - A..A LA- //9111-11 1 + i J ~1~f]' ILI , 1 E Y u f/4 1------ --3 0 8 <gs: =T-- LU /1 3-1 r 0 - U Nof.TH ele-71014 90./Tit Â»BvAT |0 to i 9 1 1 1,1 - C lili ID 00.- - 4% 2 W 2 2 9 1#F FLA/41 CP #ftvors 1803% , 1%3<1-4 BLEÂ·vpâ‚¬TIO 14 6649K+ActÂ¢=- 1016= 9 4 too F - 7 1 1 k. 1 8 +E /6 1 1 == 1)1<AWIN(, 09 â€¢â€¢4â‚¬7 703 - . HI .45?- 2.. 1 SOLIT# tiv>â‚¬kpr' , Deâ‚¬T- AL-ev,9- IoN ./ I. .... '111[IN(, AB4 liffT r)* 1 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 702 W. Main Street, Conceptual Development Date: August 25, 1993 SUMMARY: The proposal involves demolition of an existing non- contributing building in the Main Street Historic District, and construction of a new office building with affordable housing on site. APPLICANT: William C. Stapleton Agency, represented by Joe Wells David Panico of Sutherland Fallin, Inc. and Gideon Kaufman. LOCATION: 702 W. Main Street, east 10 feet of Lot R and Lot S, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen. SITE, AREA AND BULK INFORMATION: Please see the attached supplement provided by the applicant. ADDITIONAL COMMISSION REVIEWS: Creation of new office space requires GMQS allotment approval. The project must receive Conceptual HPC approval in order to meet the deadline (Sept. 15) for GMP competition. In addition, the Board of Adjustments must approve a variance from the minimum required lot area (6,000 sq. ft.) to permit construction of an office building and deed- restricted housing on this 4,000 sq. ft. lot. 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: The parcel is adjacent to an Historic Landmark, surrounded by several landmarks and inventoried parcels and located in the Main Street Historic District. This design addresses the criteria for new residential buildings (given the residential nature of the area). The proposed building interprets "Shingle Style" - architecture, popular approximately 1880-1900, with a few r variations which distinguish it from an historic building, for instance the window design and the slightly irregular rooflines. It is important that this distinction be made in some way. The combination of shingles, clapboards, stone and glass give this building a lot of texture and will help it to fit into the district. Staff does feel that the long bank of windows along the east facade works against the design guideline for windows and doors which states "Large expanses of glass were unusual except in conservatories." This particular portion of the building seems to have a very different character from the other facades. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: As described in the applicant's statement, this neighborhood has undergone 'a transition from a primarily residential area into a mixed commercial, lodge and residential neighborhood. Nonetheless, the area retains the scale, materials and features characteristic of Aspen's historic houses, including steeply pitched roofs, front porches and small front yards. The proposal does address and incorporate these typical features into the design of this new 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 on adjacent parcels. Response: It seems that this new building may overwhelm the adjacent Landmark to some degree. The attached site plan does not show very clearly the relationship to the setbacks of the adjacent structure. Staff recommends a street front elevation be provided by the applicant. 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 proposal does not directly affect any designated historic structure. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any Of the following alternatives: 1) Conceptual approval as proposed, finding that the Development Review Standards have been met. 2) Conceptual approval with conditions, to be met at Final. 3) Table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain, allowing the applicant time to revise the proposal to meet the Development Review Standards. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant Conceptual approval with the condition that the windows on the east facade be rethought and with the condition that the applicant provide representations of the relationship between this building and the adjacent Landmark (706 W. Main.) Additional Comments: Â£11.-A--4-*IA - 4 h- - IAND USE APPIICATION FIEN 1) prijpj,-12151,5 40. 0Â« &0, (44,4 4 0 ; /[- C. i t*fe., *471 2) Rcoject Iocatini -7*0 2,24/ /lt*1 45&225 - (indicate street 2~dress, lot & block nunber, legal description khere appropriate) 3) Present Zoning &/M <(53~go~ 4) Iot Size 5) Applicant's Nalne, /"---1 & Ptme # 5>530Â£., ~ds,0,/47~~2/2,# d;:917 033 8:z<+ fj~ ; -.u -tÂ»wo f Â»1*4 U &2&4 1 155 1 o 6) I42pmsentativeis Name, Address; & Fbone # (,42<529063 44~4ft~~~ 60-2, NUkul Th''L Pbut I AzeÂ« ' 60 9168 9 -15- goRe) 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Oonditional Use Conoeptual SPA / 0:x*Deptual Ilistoric Dev. Special Revise MIni.SPA Final Hist=zic Dev. 8040 Greenline ,-. Concepbal POD Minor Historic Dev. . Stream Margin Final PUD Â· 22 -*Â¤:907*203- Demolition *4 L M:xmtain View Plane Subdivisirn - Historic Designation Condominilm~ization - kxt/Map Amendment (2Â«@S Allotment Iat Spl,it/Iot Line GiQS Exemption Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses (number and type of eodstingÂ· structures; approximate sq. ft.; Ilmber of bedroa=; any previous approvals granted tb the property) - 194&64 52<0+, &44, rew#Lute itd fwa Beaamiq 1,094& Â· )6 caxs-/dotÂ« hef -tu. pAÂ£c. #M YL.. Gf A '20 ge#s 9) Descriptign of Develogment Application .1 A .4 >vuo luhbu o f- MIL pth&4 otn. cÂ«fWb ofc~< butuÂ£cÂ« 741 6*44 Â° f -4 Al affU M blitu-UtrÂ£ 4,~ - MAN 14 10) Have you attached the following? / Response to Attact=ent 2, Minimum Submission Contents 4 Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents / Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application 1111111 SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of gle.ar. 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: 5-f.Dpe-- 14 Ta L pG, , &4 Oow,Â»i 9 593 Boâ‚¬2-4,1.'s ~,42Â«t c - ADDRESS: ZONE DISmICT: LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): 4, 030 99/E EXISTING FAR: AÂ·Â»4 * U,'-~,-1/ leÂ© 1 6 ALLOWABLE FAR: 3,000 b+12447/ 1,47 600 b., SpeAd '2-,;40 PROPOSED FAR: WitiUM, pu.&64 40/idsp A'pr> EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commercial): 01 PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercial): 601Â£6-14 , h#div 6#Â« App EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: z +WdÂ«,4 -1-, j Do 64Â·fc PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: A-Â· . d~-olat<- f 7420 84 7*=r i' No Fe,U fwawk,Mt EXISTING % OFOPEN SPACE (Commercial): PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE (Commer.): 140 N~,pet,W-tt- EXISDNG MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Princioal Bldo.: 000â‚¬"Ur.34Â¥/ / Accessorv Bldo: O"f 644"/R) PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: p~eggar. 24 g.*U*+ 1 02839â„¢4Â·Â· A/4- PROPOSED % OF DEMOUTION: 10 ODA EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 1 15Â£4Â©01*9 PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: w'd*NU-- I [put#1 600â‚¬f App EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: 3/ t soo 9'fc / 1 SETBACKS: EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: Front: Front: Front: 25) lo' Rean 4. ' Reac 1â‚¬.4 Reac /5! , Side: 3.5 '60//, g Sde. Sk//4Â·VE Side: 9 W/4.7. Combined Front/Rear: Combined Frt/Rr: /9+ Combined Front/Rear: AM. EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ 50/4 04,6 Â«s.1 pâ€¢,/ /2-=4- q=02,#de.24# ~ ENCROACHMENTS: welik#& *uthaakÂ¢â€¢tab,7$ 1 VARIATIONS #OVESTED (eligible forJ.ar*narks Oolv: character comoatibilitv finding. must be. made bv HPC): f}ort 1461- eÂ«WUp -(hy A=-4,-=-L .212**led-zh~7 FAR: Xlec. pâ€ž,-v,r,<.v Minimum Distance Between BGIdings: NA SETBACKS: front: ~~ Parking Spaces: DP. 6. 214,4 40 Rear: Open Space (Commercial): Side: 140 Height (Cottage Infill Only): Combined Frt./Rr: NA Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): /(,54 EXHIBIT 2 August 18, 1993 Ms. Amy Amidon Aspen / Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Amy: Our letter is to confirm that we own the parcel located at 702 West Main Street under the name of Stape Limited Liability Company. We have authorized Joseph Wells to prepare and submit the attached Conceptual HPC Application on our behalf. Please call Don Stapleton or Joe Wells if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, 91Â» 14.-6-L Don Stapleton David stapletoR Enclosures WILLIAM C. STAPLETON AGENCY CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT ~VILLIAM C. STAPLETON AGENCY, INC. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT August 16, 1993 Submitted to: The Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303/920-5000 FAX: 303 / 920-1582 Applicant: William C. Stapleton Agency 533 East Hopkins Ave. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303 / 925-1230 FAX: 303 / 920-1582 Prepared by: Joseph Wells, AICP Joseph Wells, Land Planning 602 Midland Park Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303 / 925-8080 FAX: 303 / 925-8275 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. CONCEFIUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR 1 SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT ( Art. 7, Div. 6 ) II. REQUEST FOR HPC APPROVAL TO DEMOLISH A STRUCTURE 7 WITHIN A HISTORIC DISTRICT (Sec. 7-602). IV. EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 - Application Form and Supplement. Exhibit 2 - Applicant's Letter of Consent. Exhibit 3 - Disclosure of ownership. Exhibit 4 - The Vicinity Map. Exhibit 5- A list of all owners of property within 300 feet prepared by Pitkin County Title. CONSULTANT TEAM Attorney Gideon Kaufman The Law Offices of Gideon I. Kaufman, P.C. 315 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303 / 925-8166 FAX: 303 / 925-1090 Architects Sutherland Fallin, Inc. 1280 Ute Ave. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 925-4252 FAX:925-2639 Land Planning Joseph Wells, AICP Joseph Wells, Land Planning 602 Midland Park Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303 / 925-8080 FAX: 303 / 925-8275 I. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT ( Art. 7, Div. 6 ) This application for Conceptual Development Plan Review for Significant Development by the HPC is filed on behalf of David and Don Stapleton, who own the 4,000 square foot parcel located at 702 West Main Street under the name of Stape Limited Liability Company. The Stapletons propose to demolish the existing residence on the lot and build a new structure to relocate their insurance offices to the property. The new building will also include on-site deed-restricted housing. Located on the northwest corner of Main and Sixth, the site is within the Main Street Historic District. The existing residence is an undistinguished building which is a remodel of a barn which was moved onto the lot in the 1940's and converted to a dwelling at that time. In the late 50's, the pitched-roof shed was added in the back as a garage and later, in the 1970's, a second flat-roofed structure was added behind the house. Although the 1986 Map Update of the 1980 Historic Inventory identifies a Notable Structure on the site, this is apparently a mapping error, since the designated Landmark on the adjacent parcel to the west is not identified on this map. In past discussions with Roxanne Eflin, she has taken the position that the existing structures on the Stapleton lot have no historical significance. A separate application has recently been filed to request approval by the Board of Adjustment of a variance from the minimum lot area of 6,000 sq. ft. to permit the construction of an office building and deed-restricted housing on the lot. A commercial GMQS application will be filed by the September 15 deadline for the proposed office space; the code requires that applicants for a commercial allocation for a site within an Historic District must obtain Conceptual Development Plan approval from HPC prior to filing for an allocation. Because of the competitive nature of the GMQS allocation process, the specifics of the existing and proposed development program are not included in this application to avoid placing the , applicants at a disadvantage with any other applicant for an allocation in the Office 1 zone who may not be subject to historic review. The proposed strcture is a simple rectangular building with the gable end of the rectangle facing Main Street. A cross gable is incorporated in the design approximately one-third of the depth of the building away from Main Street. A one-story roof element is attached to the front gable which extends out over the front porch to protect the entry and reduce the scale of the facade fronting on Main Street. The building has been raised up on a stone base by approximately 2' - 6" which is a common design feature in many historic residential buildings. Required handicapped access is incorporated along the west side of the building in order to maintain the natural appearance of the lawn area on the Main Street side of the building. Parking and trash areas are located off of the alley. A portion of the parking area is protected by an overhang which is incorporated in the design. The site will maintain the traditional pattern of simple lawn areas around the building. New street trees will be planted to reinforce the existing trees but no elaborate landscaping is planned. A. SUBMISSION CONTENTS: (Sec. 7-601[F][3][a]) 1. General Application Requirements (Sec. 6-202): (a) Application Form and Supplement are attached as Exhibit 1. (b) Applicant's Letter of Consent is attached as Exhibit 2. (c) The street address of the project is 702 West Main Street. The legal description of the parcel is the east 10 feet of Lot R and Lot S, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen. (d) Disclosure of ownership is attached as Exhibit 3. (e) The Vicinity Map, attached as Exhibit 4, locates the subject parcel. 2 (f) As required for Public Notice (Sec. 6-205 [E] ), a list of all owners of property within 300 feet prepared by Pitkin County Title is attached as Exhibit 5. 2. Sketch Plan of the Proposal: The four sheets of architectural drawings, attached, illustrate existing conditions and proposed improvements. 3. Conceptual Selection of Major Building Materials: The principal building materials of the facades of the new building will be wood shingles on the upper level and 1" x 6" lapped siding on the lower level, with glass window units with wood trim. The architects will discuss finish alternatives for the shingles and siding with the HPC at the hearing. The roof will also be wood shingles. The front porch will be framed with wood columns as shown on the drawings. The new building, which is raised approximately 2'- 6" above natural grade, will rest on a stone base. 4. Statement of Effect of Proposed Development upon Neighborhood: The Applicants request Conceptual Development Plan approval to construct a new two-level structure with a full basement on the 4,000 sq.ft. site, as illustrated on the attached architectural drawings. The project will include office and affordable housing uses. The site is within the Office zone district. The proposed project is compatible with the character of the existing neighborhood. The building will complement the adjacent and surrounding buildings, and will enhance the historic flavor of Aspen. The building design utilizes historic forms existing in Aspen, combining the historical form with contemporary materials, providing a positive addition to the Main Street 3 Historic District. B. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS: (Sec. 7- 601(D)(1)). The proposal complies with HPC's review standards, as follows: 1. Compatibility: "The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel, and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay District, or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between building on the lot, or exceed the allowed floor area, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements." The majority of the historically significant structures in the vicinity of the site are simple one- and two- story gable-end structures with steeply pitched roofs. Generally, the ridgeline of the roofs of these buildings is perpendicular to Main Street; the landmark structure adjacent to the structure is an exception. The design of the proposed two-story commercial structure is intended to provide an architecturally quiet structure similar in scale to the historic residential structures in the neighborhood. The building has been designed to comply with the established setbacks of the Office zone district and no variances from the dimensional requirements of the zone district are being requested other that the request to vary the minimum lot area to permit the office use on the lot. 2. Neighborhood Character: "The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development: The lot sizes along this section of Main Street are smaller than those of the residential area to the north and has resulted in more structures of less square 4 footage. The proposal provides for a suitable transition from the scale of the buildings on Main Street to that of the residential areas to the north of the site while maintaining the scale of the historic residential structures along Main Street. 3. Cultural Value: '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: The proposed building reflects the ongoing transition in uses in the neighborhood from the previous residential to commercial and office use, both in terms of architectural massing and proposed uses. This transition is being driven by at least two principal factors - the increased traffic on Main Street which has caused the area to be less attractive as a residential area and the shifting of local-oriented office and commercial uses to the area as a result of increased rents in the core. The design character of the Main Street Historic District is reflected in the new building's architecture. 4. Architectural Integrity of Historic Structures: "The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof." This standard is not applicable to the site itself, as the existing structures on the site have no historic significance. The site is adjacent, however, to a designated landmark to the west of the site and there are a number of contributing buildings in the immediate vicinity of the site. By adhering to the historic guidelines, the applicant has attempted to respect the importance of these buildings, while providing a new building with sufficient square footage for the needs of the applicants' business. Specific references from the guidelines to new infill buildings in residential (scaled) areas which have been considered in the design are as follows: 5 a. Maintain the typical size and shape of the historic facades. Depending upon the width of the lot, the fronts of houses facing the street were traditionally fifteen to twenty feet wide. Building fronts had vertical emphasis. An important element in establishing the pedestrian scale of the residential district was the repetition of similar sizes and shapes. New construction should include facades that have similar widths and heights to those found elsewhere on the street. Consider breaking up the facade into smaller components that resemble the scale of typical buildings in the neighborhood in cases where a new building is wider than the typical historic buildings. Consider ways to minimize the visual impact such as stepping the height down in cases where the height of the new building will exceed the norm. h Maintain the typical orientation of entrances toward the street. The primary entrance for the house traditionally faced the street. This feature helps establish the sense of neighborhood that is associated with the historic residential districts. c. Maintain the orientation and dimensions of porches. The porch historically protected the entrance to the house. The main porch faced the street running across a portion of the entire front of the house. This element should also be considered to better integrate new development into its neighborhood. d. Rooflines Relatively steep pitch is a characteristic of the roof forms and is an important element. Infill construction should make use of roof forms found in the historic residential area. The repetition of roof forms gives a strong sense of neighborhood continuity. e. Use ratios of windows to walls that are similar to historic structures. In general on historic structures approximately two-thirds of the front facade is solid. The balance to this facade is created by the placement of windows and doors. The proportion of solid-to-void is important and should be approximated in new construction. Â£ Use materials that are similar in finish and texture and scale to those used historically and contextually. This reinforcement of patterns and textures should continue to be reinforced by new buildings. Although wood and brick are recommended. 6 IL REQUEST FOR HPC APPROVAL TO DEMOLISH A STRUCTURE WITHIN A HISTORIC DISTRICT (Sec. 7-602). Under the provisions of Sec. 7-602, no demolition of any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless the demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the applicable standards of Sec. 7-602(B), (C) or (D) or unless exempted pursuant to Sec. 7-602(E). The applicant requests exemption under the provisions of Sec. 7-602(E); the application complies with the provisions of that section as follows: 1. The structure is not identified on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. 2. The structure is considered to be noncontributing to the historic district. 3. The structure does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district, and its demolition does not impact the character of the historic district. 4. The demolition is necessary for the redevelopment of the parcel. 5. The proposed redevelopment is included with this application for review by HPC. Sec. 7-602(H) of the code is titled Application for Demolition or Exemption from Demolition, Partial Demolition or Relocation. However, the language of the section only addresses the additional submittal requirements for a proposal to partially demolish- "A development application for partial demolition shall include all items specified in Section 7-602 (G) (1), (3) and (4)." The section does not identify any additional review requirements for an Exemption request. 7 When the revision of this section of the code was being discussed in 1991 prior to its adoption, the intent in establishing an exemption procedure was to allow demolition when HPC decides that the structure in question is not a contributing structure. To require that an applicant whose structure complies with the standards for exemption to go to the additional expense of preparing a report on the soundness of the building and its suitability for rehabilitation as well as an economic feasibility report to qualify for the exemption seems to be unnecessary and unproductive. If these reports are to be required, the applicants request that they be permitted to submit them at the time of Final HPC Review, after a determination is made regarding a quota for the project. 8 ~ RE: 702 WEST MAIN STREET CONCEPTUAL SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC NOTICE APPLICATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, August 25,Â·1993, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 pm before the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee in the second floor- meeting room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application submitted by David & Don Stapleton, 533 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, requesting approval of Conceptual Significant Development for 702 West Main Street, the East 10' of Lots R and all of Lot S, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Amy Amidon at the Aspen Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO. 920-5096. s/William J. Poss, Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Published in the Aspen Times on August 6, 1993 City of Aspen Account 11 4 '4 4 2 PUBUC NOTICE RE: 702 WEST MAIN STREET CONC El'TUAL SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT APPUCATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public , hearing will be held on Wednesday, August 25, 1993, at aÂ·meeting to begin at 5:00 pm before the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee In the second Iloor meeting room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application submitted by David & Don Sta- pleton, 533 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, requesting approval of Conceptual Significant Development for 702 West Main Street, the East 10' of Lots R and all of [nt S, Block 18, City and Townsite ol Aspen. For further 1nfor- mation, contact Amy Amtdon at the - Aspen/Pitk~n Planning Office, 130 S. Gatena St., Aspen, CO. 920-5096. s/Wllilam J. Poss, Chair Aspen Histork Preservation Commtttee Published in the Aspen Times August 6, 1993. 44.ire" *.*-*e*2, P'. 45'. 3 ArmaiMENT 1 IAND USE APPEICA:CION FOEM 1) Project Name 6 0-fAu, Dot Ui#A -AÂ» W ; /(OU't,1 o. S tapkf- A~fuieÂ»~ EXHIBIT 1 Project Iocatial . ~~ER- 0%24/ '4*, 95%Â¢3- P,it- 10' of- Le-c IL Â»J- j-of-<c , t>lodc l E (indicate street aairessilot & block number, legal description,here appropriate) 3) Present Zoning ~- d53'~'/6-' 4) Iot Size 4,tru157 7ft 5) Applicant's Name, Mdress & Phone # 9406-,d:000//Ah*AA2% =:597 031 â‚¬Â»ct= M*pAU fÂ»wk, Ar p<+2 U W Gll 9 159 1 0 6) Ibepresentative's Name, Address & Phone # c )osÂ«k bte)ls 4,0-21 Nu 6Â£4 *4Â£' ptact, I Ag,2 64 <1920/1 9 75 8080 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use Ocnieptial SPA 2~ ameptlal Ifistoric Dev. Special Revier Final SPA Final Histocin Dev. 8040 Grenline ,-I Oonceptual FOD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final IUD LJ~~9~h~59A~~* Demnlir -,- al 44 Mlmtain View Plane Subdivisicn - Historic Designation Condaninit=i.zation Text/Map Amendment (2,3S Allotmerrt --- Lot Split/Iot line - QI]S E=ption - Adjustmerrt 8) Description of Existing Uses (runber and type of existing- structures; appx:oodmate sq. ft.; rmmber of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted tb the pmperty). 2*4.t-4 slulk , Audt *44Â£ #J %4 30601009 Â®ddi~ . 6 0442Â·tiN hag -l~jau pU<-â€¢ A YL. - - W itt 26 7"s. 9) Description of Developnent Application 1Â»wolly*u 4- Aa W.A An. c"h+,An bu ,~64% Puj. 66â‚¬tÂ·* 444 of -* al 44 - 199{litr~~Â£ #4 - pet-Nte/24 b.c/504 10) Have you attached the following? / Response to Attachment 2, Mininl= Submission Contents 4 Response to Attachment 3, Specific altiniss ion arrtents / Response to Attactment 4, Ieview Standards for Your Application lili 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: 52Â»c- 1,04 173 L ad, h/v Oo~vuf*c<-1 593 augy- 44,~s \1 1 L 4724<2/-4 ADDRESS: ZONE DISTRICT: 0 -0. LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): 40309/2- EXISTING FAR: Appn x Â»,<2zt<, 7-1 i 00 57 6 ALLOWABLE FAR: 3, 000 84,4*rt AiÂ»60 k) Spead 02*,/1640 PROPOSED FAR: 609Â¢-6'66-li, Â»44* 4*he Apr EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commercial): .1 01 PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercial): 60/Mktj 4 , Â»taiÂ«~ 611-Â« APP EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: *ypsex Pw' 66GÂ« --1.-,/Do s.t ft A -1 Â· -894,-1-01*J 7/, .2,00 4-t PROPOSED % OF S[TIE COVERAGE: t-T Â¥Pr EXISTING % OFOPEN SPACE (Commercial): PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE (Commer.): tic> rd<4 ch r.e,--tt- l EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: pmdoa\8*- U,10,~~6Â·U-Wm 1 ADCessorY EkdaÂ· 6"t 6>uuac_/ PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Princioal BIÂ®.- 24- /7,9 *Â£,440- /Accessow Bldo: /F,f- PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: 1 0 0% EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 1 t>dkÂ©euts PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: uid*NU-- c fpdiâ€¢*4 *Uâ‚¬f APP 3/ EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: -6 ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: 2> / 1 000 Â·,4 ft 2 1 SETBACKS: EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: ~27 / PROPOSED: Mi Front: Front: Front: Reac 4.,, Reac 16: Reac Side: 3.6'40/ /'g Sida.Â· 5'W/6Â·7'E Side: eiw /6.7 Combined Front/Rear: Combined Frt/Rr: *f- Combined Front/Rear: 'NA EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ 1501-4 416 qads -Â»U re=,5 UrÂ»'4 ppefedÂ·~1 ENCROACHMENTS: lue,1046 -06â‚¬,2*baaÂ·ilyti./kli= 1 VARIATIONSREOVESTED (eligible for,Lanqmarks O ly: character comoati~ility tinding. must be. made bv HPC): FAR: //AP-:t:-- ~ Â·Minimum~t~eÂ¢~2Zlf~'h.7 NA SETBACKS: front: 2~ Parking Spaces: 4-c.. 2-e-Â£.,itte Rear: Open Space (Commerdal): 'A6 #4 Li t' -LAâ‚¬*t- Side: 140 Height (Cottage Infill Only): /*f- Combined Frt./Rr: NA Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only) ~'Ul- EXHIBIT 2 August 18, 1993 Ms. Amy Amidon Aspen / Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Amy: Our letter is to confirm that we own the parcel located at 702 West Main Street under the name of Stape Limited Liability Company. We have authorized Joseph Wells to prepare and submit the attached Conceptual HPC Application on our behalf. Please call Don Stapleton or Joe Wells if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, 133 e> un 991- Don Stapleton David Stapletoh Enclosures WILLIAM C. STAPLETON AGENCY CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT 1N A HISTORIC DISTRICT WILLIAM C. STAPLETON AGENCY, INC. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT August 16, 1993 Submitted to: The Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303/920-5000 FAX: 303 / 920-1582 Applicant: William C. Stapleton Agency 533 East Hopkins Ave. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303 / 925-1230 FAX: 303 / 920-1582 Prepared by: Joseph Wells, AICP Joseph Wells, Land Planning 602 Midland Park Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303 / 925-8080 FAX: 303 / 925-8275 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR 1 SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT ( Art. 7, Div. 6 ) II. REQUEST FOR HPC APPROVAL TO DEMOLISH A STRUCTURE 7 WITHIN A HISTORIC DISTRICT (Sec. 7-602). IV. EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 - Application Form and Supplement. Exhibit 2 - Applicant's Letter of Consent. Exhibit 3 - Disclosure of ownership. Exhibit 4 - The Vicinity Map. Exhibit 5- A list of all owners of property within 300 fee t prepared by Pitkin County Title. CONSULTANT TEAM Attorney Gideon Kaufman The Law Offices of Gideon I. Kaufman, P.C. 315 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303 / 925-8166 FAX: 303 / 925-1090 Architects Sutherland Fallin, Inc. 1280 Ute Ave. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 925-4252 FAX:925-2639 Land Planning Joseph Wells, AICP Joseph Wells, Land Planning 602 Midland Park Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303 / 925-8080 FAX: 303 / 925-8275 I. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT ( Art. 7, Div. 6 ) This application for Conceptual Development Plan Review for Significant Development by the HPC is filed on behalf of David and Don Stapleton, who own the 4,000 square foot parcel located at 702 West Main Street under the name of Stape Limited Liability Company. The Stapletons propose to demolish the existing residence on the lot and build a new structure to relocate their insurance offices to the property. The new building will also include on-site deed-restricted housing. Located on the northwest corner of Main and Sixth, the site is within the Main Street Historic District. The existing residence is an undistinguished building which is a remodel of a barn which was moved onto the lot in the 1940's and converted to a dwelling at that time. In the late 50's, the pitched-roof shed was added in the back as a garage and later, in the 1970's, a second flat-roofed structure was added behind the house. Although the 1986 Map Update of the 1980 Historic Inventory identifies a Notable Structure on the site, this is apparently a mapping error, since the designated Landmark on the adjacent parcel to the west is not identified on this map. In past discussions with Roxanne Eflin, she has taken the position that the existing structures on the Stapleton lot have no historical significance. A separate application has recently been filed to request approval by the Board of Adjustment of a variance from the minimum lot area of 6,000 sq. ft. to permit the construction of an office building and deed-restricted housing on the lot. A commercial GMQS application will be filed by the September 15 deadline for the proposed office space; the code requires that applicants for a commercial allocation for a site within an Historic District must obtain Conceptual Development Plan approval from HPC prior to filing for an allocation. Because of the competitive nature of the GMQS allocation process, the specifics of the existing and proposed development program are not included in this application to avoid placing the applicants at a disadvantage with any other applicant for an allocation in the Office 1 zone who may not be subject to historic review. The proposed strcture is a simple rectangular building with the gable end of the rectangle facing Main Street. A cross gable is incorporated in the design approximately one-third of the depth of the building away from Main Street. A one-story roof element is attached to the front gable which extends out over the front porch to protect the entry and reduce the scale of the facade fronting on Main Street. The building has been raised up on a stone base by approximately 2' - 6" which is a common design feature in many historic residential buildings. Required handicapped access is incorporated along the west side of the building in order to maintain the natural appearance of the lawn area on the Main Street side of the building. Parking and trash areas are located off of the alley. A portion of the parking area is protected by an overhang which is incorporated in the design. The site will maintain the traditional pattern of simple lawn areas around the building. New street trees will be planted to reinforce the existing trees but no elaborate landscaping is planned. A. SUBMISSION CONTENTS: (Sec. 7-601[F][3][a]) 1. General Application Requirements (Sec. 6-202): (a) Application Form and Supplement are attached as Exhibit 1. (b) Applicant's Letter of Consent is attached as Exhibit 2. (c) The street address of the project is 702 West Main Street. The legal description of the parcel is the east 10 feet of Lot R and Lot S, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen. (d) Disclosure of ownership is attached as Exhibit 3. (e) The Vicinity Map, attached as Exhibit 4, locates the subject parcel. 2 (0 As required for Public Notice (Sec. 6-205 [E] ), a Iist of all owners of property within 300 feet prepared by Pitkin County Title is attached as Exhibit 5. 2. Sketch Plan of the Proposal: The four sheets of architectural drawings, attached, illustrate existing conditions and proposed improvements. 3. Conceptual Selection of Major Building Materials: The principal building materials of the facades of the new building will be wood shingles on the upper level and 1" x 6" lapped siding on the lower level, with glass window units with wood trim. The architects will discuss finish alternatives for the shingles and siding with the HPC at the hearing. The roof will also be wood shingles. The front porch will be framed with wood columns as shown on the drawings. The new building, which is raised approximately 2'- 6" above natural grade, will rest on a stone base. 4. Statement of Effect of Proposed Development upon Neighborhood: The Applicants request Conceptual Development Plan approval to construct a new two-level structure with a full basement on the 4,000 sq.ft. site, as illustrated on the attached architectural drawings. The project will include office and affordable housing uses. The site is within the Office zone district. The proposed project is compatible with the character of the existing neighborhood. The building will complement the adjacent and surrounding buildings, and will enhance the historic flavor of Aspen. The building design utilizes historic forms existing in Aspen, combining the historical form with contemporary materials, providing a positive addition to the Main Street 3 Historic District. B. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS: (Sec. 7- 601(D)(1)). The proposal complies with HPC's review standards, as follows: 1. Compatibility: "The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel, and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay District, or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between building on the lot, or exceed the allowed floor area, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements." The majority of the historically significant structures in the vicinity of the site are simple one- and two- story gable-end structures with steeply pitched roofs. Generally, the ridgeline of the roofs of these buildings is perpendicular to Main Street; the landmark structure adjacent to the structure is an exception. The design of the proposed two-story commercial structure is intended to provide an architecturally quiet structure similar in scale to the historic residential structures in the neighborhood. The building has been designed to comply with the established setbacks of the Office zone district and no variances from the dimensional requirements of the zone district are being requested other that the request to vary the minimum lot area to permit the office use on the lot. 2. Neighborhood Character: "The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development: The lot sizes along this section of Main Street are smaller than those of the residential area to the north and has resulted in more structures of less square 4 footage. The proposal provides for a suitable transition from the scale of the buildings on Main Street to that of the residential areas to the north of the site while maintaining the scale of the historic residential structures along Main Street. 3. Cultural Value: "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: The proposed building reflects the ongoing transition in uses in the neighborhood from the previous residential to commercial and office use, both in terms of architectural massing and proposed uses. This transition is being driven by at least two principal factors - the increased traffic on Main Street which has caused the area to be less attractive as a residential area and the shifting of local-oriented office and commercial uses to the area as a result of increased rents in the core. The design character of the Main Street Historic District is reflected in the new building's architecture. 4. Architectural Integrity of Historic Structures: "The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof." This standard is not applicable to the site itself, as the existing structures on the site have no historic significance. The site is adjacent, however, to a designated landmark to the west of the site and there are a number of contributing buildings in the immediate vicinity of the site. By adhering to the historic guidelines, the applicant has attempted to respect the importance of these buildings, while providing a new building with sufficient square footage for the needs of the applicants' business. Specific references from the guidelines to new infill buildings in residential (scaled) areas which have been considered in the design are as follows: 5 a. Maintain the typical size and shape of the historic facades. Depending upon the width of the lot, the fronts of houses facing the street were traditionally fifteen to twenty feet wide. Building fronts had vertical emphasis. An important element in establishing the pedestrian scale of the residential district was the repetition of similar sizes and shapes. New construction should include facades that have similar widths and heights to those found elsewhere on the street. Consider breaking up the facade into smaller components that resemble the scale of typical buildings in the neighborhood in cases where a new building is wider than the typical historic buildings. Consider ways to minimize the visual impact such as stepping the height down in cases where the height of the new building will exceed the norm. b. Maintain the typical orientation of entrances toward the street. The primary entrance for the house traditionally faced the street. This feature helps establish the sense of neighborhood that is associated with the historic residential districts. c. Maintain the orientation and dimensions of porches. The porch historically protected the entrance to the house. The main porch faced the street running across a portion of the entire front of the house. This element should also be considered to better integrate new development into its neighborhood. d. Rooflines Relatively steep pitch is a characteristic of the roof forms and is an important element. Infill construction should make use of roof forms found in the historic residential area. The repetition of roof forms gives a strong sense of neighborhood continuity. e. Use ratios of windows to walls that are similar to historic structures. In general on historic structures approximately two-thirds of the front facade is solid. The balance to this facade is created by the placement of windows and doors. The proportion of solid-to-void is important and should be approximated in new construction. Â£ Use materials that are similar in finish and texture and scale to those used historically and contextually. This reinforcement of patterns and textures should continue to be reinforced by new buildings. Although wood and brick are recommended. 6 IL REQUEST FOR HPC APPROVAL TO DEMOLISH A STRUCTURE WITHIN A HISTORIC DISTRICI (Sec. 7-602). Under the provisions of Sec. 7-602, no demolition of any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless the demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the applicable standards of Sec. 7-602(B), (C) or (D) or unless exempted pursuant to Sec. 7-602(E). The applicant requests exemption under the provisions of Sec. 7-602(E); the application complies with the provisions of that section as follows: 1. The structure is not identified on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. 2. The structure is considered to be noncontributing to the historic district. 3. The structure does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district, and its demolition does not impact the character of the historic district. 4. The demolition is necessary for the redevelopment of the parcel. 5. The proposed redevelopment is included with this application for review by HPC. Sec. 7-602(H) of the code is titled Application for Demolition or Exemption from Demolition, Partial Demolition or Relocation. However, the language of the section only addresses the additional submittal requirements for a proposal to partially demolish- "A development application for partial demolition shall include all items specified in Section 7-602 (G) (1), (3) and (4)." The section does not identify any additional review requirements for an Exemption request. 7 When the revision of this section of the code was being discussed in 1991 prior to its adoption, the intent in establishing an exemption procedure was to allow demolition when HPC decides that the structure in question is not a contributing structure. To require that an applicant whose structure complies with the standards for exemption to go to the additional expense of preparing a report on the soundness of the building and its suitability for rehabilitation as well as an economic feasibility report to qualify for the exemption seems to be unnecessary and unproductive. If these reports are to be required, the applicants request that they be permitted to submit them at the time of Final HPC Review, after a determination is made regarding a quota for the project. 8 S nebular 950 nee ; neec be seen singly, or of masses of gaseous matter, or of 2. the part of a garment that encircles the neck; esp ., th, .ffil (Iled external galaxies 2. Med. a) a small, cloudy opacity on part to which the collar is fastened . /'irns < the cornea b) a liquid preparation used as a spray - neckÂ·cloth (-k16th/, -klith') n. [Archaic] same as CRAVAT ..Â« whe neb'u Â·lar adj. Nec Â· ker (ne ker'; E. nek~or), Jacques.(zhik) 1732-1801 n Creat nebular hypothesis the theory that the solar system was Fr. statesman & financier, born in Switzerland: father 4 k nt- sc once a nebula which condensed to form the sun and planets Madame de STXEL . a of a nebÂ·uÂ·lize (neb,ya liz/) vt. -lized', -lizing [ < L. nebula, neckÂ·erÂ·chief (nek'or chif, -chef') n. [ME, nekky'Â¢4, 1 K 10 miSt (See NEBULA) + -IZE] 1. to reduce (a liquid) to a see NECK & KERCHIEF] a handkerchief or scarf worn areâ„¢ i J'.1 Con fine spray 2. to spray (a diseased or injured surface) with the neck ne re< a medicated liquid -neb'uÂ·liÂ·za'tion n. -neb'uÂ·liz'er n. neckÂ·ing (nek,in) n. 1. Archit. any small molding arow dition nebÂ·uÂ·losÂ·iÂ·ty (neb/ya las,a te) n. [Fr. n#bulositt < LL. the top of a column below the capital *2. [see NECK,, ) want o. nebulositas] 1. the quality or condition of being nebulous [Slangl the act of kissing and caressing in making lov, :iCI' Uni 2. pl. -ties same as NEBULA (sense 1) neckÂ·lace (nek'lis) n. [NECK + LACE, 1] a string of be4 ,Â·r intl nebÂ·uÂ·lous (neb,ya las) adj. [ME. nebulus < L. nebulosus] jewels, etc. or a fine chain of gold, silver, etc., worn arot,4 itling 1. of or like a nebula or nebulae 2. [Rare] cloudy; misty the neck as an ornament Â·Â·,8 to 2 3. unclear; vague; indefinite Also neb'uÂ·lose' (-los/) neckÂ·line (-lin/) n. the line formed by the edge of a garme:t Â·rM v in 1 -neb'uÂ·lousÂ·ly adv. -neb'uÂ·lousÂ·ness n. around or nearest the neck :Â·n'(1 0 nec-esÂ·sarÂ·iÂ·ly (nes,0 ser,3 123, nes4 ser'-) adv. 1. because neckÂ·piece (-pes') n.1.a decorative scarf, esp. of fur Z Â·(.(1111 rt.( of necessity; by or of necessity 2. as a necessary multi a piece of armor for the neck 1,1,}rl <1' a inevitably *neck-rein (-ran') vi. to go to the right if the left nia b ,)5 i,ee' afecÂ·esÂ·sarÂ·/ (nes'a ser'e) adj. [ME. < L. necessarius < lightly pressed against the neck or to the left if the r46 -4Â· 2 1.11 u r necesse, unavoidable, necessary < ne-, not + cedere, to rein is so pressed: said of a saddle horse -ut. to guid, 9 - - :. i"xe give Way: see CEDE] 1. that cannot be dispensed with; horse) by such pressure of the reins , 4 ks th essential; indispensable Ithe nutriments necessary to lifel neckÂ·tie (-ti/) n. 1. a band worn around the neck under , ,Â· â€¢ iIi 1': 2. resulting from necessity; inevitable ta necessary resultl collar and tied in front as a four-in-hand or in a bow 1, 3. a) that must be done; mandatory; not voluntary; re- decorative piece clipped onto the collar to resemble 16 . Â·: 1 1 6 rt':InK th quired b) not free to choose; compelled by circumstances enecktie party [Slang] a hanging; esp., a lynching * ... voun M f a necessary agentl 4. inherent in the situation; undeni- neckÂ·wear (-wer/) n. articles worn about the neck, I ,â€¢.1 fill c able; unavoidable from the premises 5. [Archaic] rendering neckties, scarfs, etc. Â·41,Â·j !1' some essential and intimate service -n., 0.-Games 1. a necÂ·ro- (nek,ro, -ro) [ < Gr. nekros, dead body < IE, bi necessary thing; thing essential to life, some purpose, etc. : *nek-, physical death, corpse, whence L. nes, de*th ... , I nes!4 r,â€¢ Â·,Â· ' 271 : used in pl. 2. [Dial.] a privy or toilet 3. [pl.] Law nocere, to injure, necere, to kill] a combining form 0,4,08, , .. die (rio se things essential to maintaining a dependent or in- death, corpse, dead tissue Inecrologyl: also, before a voK Â·, u. I l.: petent in comfort and well-being -S YN. See ESSEN- necr- n. .1)1 AL necÂ·roÂ·biÂ·oÂ·sis (nek/ro bi 6,sis) n. [ModL. < prâ‚¬. 0 . ! , P necessary condition 1. Logic a consequent whose denial -BIOSIS] the process of decay and death of body cem implies the denial of the antecedent 2. Philos. an in- neÂ·crolÂ·aÂ· try (ne kr&14 trâ‚¬) n. [NECRO- + -LATRY] Â¥01*0 = Â·' 1"llflt dispensable antecedent of an event or proposition of, or excessive reverence for, the dead 1,/.tli neÂ·cesÂ·siÂ·tarÂ·iÂ·anÂ·ism .(no ses/a terF an lz'm) n. the neÂ·crolÂ·oÂ·gy (-a je) n., pl. -gies [ModL.: see NECâ€¢0 0 . .4: hv theory that every event is determined by causal necessity -LOGY] 1. a list of people who have died within & ceftâ€¢* lit /,1 and that the action of the human will is not free, but is period, as that in a newspaper 2. a death notice; obn- - 1/4, caused by previous actions and experiences; determinism -necÂ·roÂ·logÂ·lÂ·cal (nek/ro lij,i k'1) adj. -1,â€¢C'Fo'*44 -â€¢r ! .!1, -neÂ·ces'siÂ·tar'lÂ·an n., adj. calÂ·ly adv. -neÂ·crol'oÂ·gist n. . neÂ·cesÂ·siÂ·tate (na sesm tat') vt. -tat'ed, -tating [ < ML. necÂ·roÂ·manÂ·cy (nek,raman/se) n. [ME. â€¢490â€¢0*10 I necessitatus, pp. of necessitare < L. necessitas, necessity] OFr. nigromance < ML. nigromantia (altered by -- . r,1,1, 1. to make (something) necessary or unavoidable; involve tion with L. niger, black) < L. necromantia < 01.0** or imply as a necessary condition, outcome, etc. 2. [Now manteia < nekros, corpse (see NECRO-) + malÂ¢UU. AÂ¥ Rare] to compel; require; force the was necessitated to tion] 1. the practice of claiming to foretell the lut- D 11.11 agreel -neÂ·ces'siÂ·ta'tion n. alleged communication with the dead 2. black IiP , : r< x 'r neÂ·cesÂ·siÂ·tous (-tas) adj. [Fr. nicessiteux: see ff. & -ousl sorcery -nec'roÂ·man'cer n. -nec'roÂ·man'tiC 04 C 1. in great need; destitute; needy 2. that is necessary or necÂ·roÂ·phaÂ·giÂ·a (nek/ra fR,je a) n. [ModL.: 800 11**' 0 r. , essential 3. calling for action; urgent -neÂ·ces'siÂ· tousÂ·ly -PHAGY] the eating of dead bodies; esp,, the N adv. -neÂ·ces'siÂ·tousÂ·ness n. feeding on carrion -neÂ·crophÂ·aÂ·gous (ne krlf'â€¢ -u' neÂ·cesÂ·siÂ·ty (-te) n., pl. -ties [ME. necessite < OFr. necÂ·roÂ·philÂ·iÂ·a (-fil,E a) n. [ < NECRO- + Gr, *A nicessiti < L. necessitas < necesse: see NECESSARY] 1. the + -ISM] an abnormal fascination with death anda~ power of natural law that cannot be other than it is; esp., an erotic attraction to corpses: also no'-2 -' 91. natural causation; physical compulsion placed on man by (ne krlif4 liz'm) -nec'roÂ·phile' (-fil') n. -00'17 2 nature; fate 2. anything that is inevitable, unavoidable, iÂ·ac, neÂ·croph'iÂ·lous adj. etc. as a result of natural law; that which is necessary in necÂ·roÂ· phoÂ·biÂ·a (nek/ra fo,be a) n. [NECRO, + ~(0~ , '1 M natural sequence 3. a) the compulsion or constraint of an abnormal fear of death or of dead bodies man-made circumstances, habit, custom, law, etc.; logical neÂ·cropÂ·oÂ·lis (na krap,0 lis) n., pl. -11â€¢Â·04 -1010 or moral conditions making certain actions inevitable or nekropolis <.nekros (See NECRO-) + polis, d obligatory ffaced by the necessity to earn a livingl b) a cemetery, esp, one belonging to an ancient-4, ,~ .., ; what is required by this social or legal compulsion 4. necÂ·ropÂ·sy (nek,riip se) n., pl. -sies [see NICI,/ great or imperative need 5. something that cannot be an examination of a dead body; Poit'mI9./. -'' done without; necessary thing: often used in N. 6. the neÂ·crosÂ·coÂ·py (ne kras,k@ pE) state or quality of being necessary 7. want; poverty neÂ·croÂ·sis (ne kro,sis) n., pl. .ses (.sh) [ Mod!'; 41", -SYN. see NEED --of necessity necessarily; inevitably killing < Gr. nekrosis < nekrou.. to mak..31~/~ r NechÂ·es River (nech,az) river in E Tex., flowing southeast < nekros, dead body: see NECRO-] 1. the -9,iÂ» E Sabine Lake: 415 mi.: see SABINEt of tissue in a particular part of the body. al.:r~/ (nek) n. [ME. nekke < OE. hnecca, akin to G. nacken blood supply, burning, etc. 2 Bot. death O' /9jJ/ / ;. base *ken-, to bend, squeeze, whence NOOK, NUT] from disease. frost, etc. -ne'.crose (ne k,81'.MR- ,Â£ at part of man or animal joining the head to the body, vi. -crosed' -cros'ing -neÂ·crot'Ic (-krit'01) .IN,0J including the part of the backbone between the skull and neÂ·crotÂ·oÂ· my (ne krat,a rnE) n.. 2/Â·..~*~I~*~~ the shoulders 2. a narrow part between the head, or end, -TOMY] 1. the dissection of cori)ses 6 ing a -- -* and the body, or base, of any object Ithe neck of a violin, of dead bone --* I the neck of a gobletj 3. that part of a garment which necÂ·tar (nek,tor) n. [L. < Gr .ekt. 41:~0 . covers, encircles, or is nearest the neck 4. the narrowest dead body (see NECRO-) + tar, who 0 4000~ . part of any object, considered to be like a neck; specif.. Sans.- taroti, he overcomes) : hence. death, l> /* ~ a) a narrow strip of land b) the narrowest part of an organ drink was held to confer iminortal:t' ,â€¢.w# ,'the perk of 'he Â·:.,,.. ... 'he ner/e r : 1 tor,th' r, 'ile '3-tr LAW OFFICES KRABACHER, HILL & EDWARDS PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 B. JOSEPH KRABACHER TELEPHONE THOMAS C. HILL (303) 925-6300 JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, 111 (303) 925-7116 TELECOPIER OF COUNSEL (303) 925-1181 JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. August 20, 1993 Amy Amidon Historic Preservation Officer Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen Historic Preservation Committee 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 702 West Main Street--Conceptual Development Application Dear Amy and Members of the HPC: I am providing this letter to let you know that I am opposed to the granting of a conceptual design approval for the office building proposed for 702 West Main Street. I am summarizing my comments in this letter, because I will be Out of town on August 25, 1993, when I understand that there will be a public hearing on this matter. I have only today become aware of this project, because I saw a posted notice on the property. As noted below, I never received a mailed notice of the public hearing; and it is my understanding that the notice was sent to the wrong address. 1. Public Notice. Under the City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 6-205(E), the applicant is required to provide mailing of notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. My property is next door and is within 300 feet. The notice is to be provided to the addresses as shown on the current tax records of Pitkin County within 60 days prior to the public hearing. I am enclosing a copy of the printout from the Pitkin County Assessor showing that my address is not 415 East Hyman, No. 201, Aspen, Colorado 81611. Instead, my address as shown by the Pitkin County Assessor' s records i.s 201 North Mill Street, Suite 201, Aspen, Colorado 81611. This has been my address according to the Pitkin County Assessor for the past four and one-half years since I purchased the property at 706 West Main Street. Amy Amidon Aspen Historic Preservation Committee August 20, 1993 Page 2 I have never had an office at 415 East Hyman, No. 201, Aspen, Colorado 81611; and I have no idea why the notices were attempted to be mailed to me at that address. In any event, the conceptual development application may be considered only at a public hearing that has been properly noticed. The development application has not complied with the notice requirements for the reasons above, and I believe I am at a severe disadvantage, since the hearing has been scheduled when I am out of town. I will attempt to have a representative present at the meeting, but I may not be able to do so, since I am leaving the country later today for ten days. 2. Massing. I object to the proposed massing of the office building. First, the west side is a solid wall that is two stories high, it has no breaks or relief. The entire structure resembles a rectangular box, and the massing is inappropriate for the site. Second, the massing on the east side is also very heavy with little or no relief. 3. Height. The proposed office building is built to the maximum height possible in the zone district. My property, 706 West Main Street, is an historic landmark and I have just converted it back into a single family residence. The new office building does not respect the integrity of the existing landmark on the adjoining property. By allowing the office building to be built to the maximum possible height allowed in the zone district, it will create a wall that will block the east sun and will essentially overpower the adjacent historic landmark. I request that the HPC not permit the office building to be built to its maximum possible height. It should be noted that, while the proposed building is 25 feet high, that height is calculated from the mean pitch of the roof. The actual height of the building is 30 feet, which is far in excess of the one-story historic landmark at 706 West Main Street. 4. Front-Yard Setback. The proposed office building has only the minimum ten-foot setback from Main Street. This is inappropriate for several reasons. First, it protrudes from the setbacks that have been established by the adjacent historic landmark and the other properties in the 700 block of West Main Street. As a result, it seriously impinges on the adjacent historic landmark and essentially covers it from view from the east. Second, there is no relief provided from the massing of the front of the building through the second floor. The gable end facing Main Street on the second floor (which goes to 30 feet in height) is only 18 feet from the setback. There should be a "stepping back" of the front of the building so it does not overpower the adjacent structure. Amy Amidon Aspen Historic Preservation Committee August 20, 1993 Page 3 5. Cross Gable. The cross gable, which creates the most massive part of the building, has been positioned so it is on the front one-third of the property. This is inappropriate, and the cross gable should be moved substantially back, perhaps to the rear two-thirds of the property. Otherwise, the towering 30-foot height of the new office building will seriously impair the historic integrity of the adjacent historic landmark. 6. Siting. It appears that the office building is sited as closely as possible to the adjoining historic landmark. While there is a very large yard that i.s attempted to be preserved on the east side of the building, the siting of the property has been pushed as close as possible to the landmark on the west. The footprint should be re-sited so that the mass of the building is moved as far west as possible. 7. Floor Area. It is impossible to tell what the floor area is, because it has not been disclosed. For this reason, it seems that the conceptual development application is incomplete. It seems difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate the design of a building when the proposed floor area has been withheld. In any event, it appears that the applicant proposes to establish the floor area by special review. The applicant will undoubtedly be seeking the maximum allowable FAR by special review, which is 1:1, which would result in a 4,000-square-foot building (plus decks and other items that are not included in the calculation of floor area). This is inappropriate for this very small lot. The lot is substandard for the zone district because it is only 4,000 square feet, whereas the zone district requires a minimum of 6,000 square feet. To allow such a large project on such a small lot is inappropriate and violates the historic district guidelines. 8. Parking. It appears that the parking will be insufficient to handle all of the uses that are taking place on the site. Without knowing the exact amount of net leasable square footage (the amount has been withheld by the applicant), it is difficult to calculate the number of parking spaces. However, assuming that the applicant will be seeking maximum floor area, the net leasable will be close to 3,000 square feet. This would generate nine parking spaces. The application provides for only four spots, which is going to be inadequate for such a large office building. In addition, there should be parking provided for the employee housing. The result will be that the office building will generate more cars parking in the alley and on the streets in the neighborhood. The applicant should be required to provide all of the parking on site. Amy Amidon Aspen Historic Preservation Committee August 20, 1993 Page 4 9. Model and Massing Studv. I believe it -is very important for the HPC to require a model for this project. A model is required in all other cases by the HPC for significant conceptual development applications. The model should include the adjacent historic landmark so that a study can be made of the relative massing and scale of the new office building. I appreciate the efforts of the HPC to preserve the historic integrity and scale of the City of Aspen. As noted in the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the citizens of Aspen are very concerned about the loss of scale and damage done to historic resources by new construction. This office building, which apparently is proposing to be built to the maximum FAR, to the maximum height and with the minimum setbacks, is simply inappropriate for the site. The height should be reduced, the massing should be broken up, the cross gable should be moved to the north, and a detailed study of scale and massing should be evaluated with the use of a model. I appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this information. Very truly yours, KRABACHER, HILL & EDWARDS, P.C. By: - B. Joseph Krabacher BJK cha Enclosure as recited bljk~ltrs~hpc.01 1-ER . B. JOSEPH 001 DC)1239 ST-ATUS: A 2772; 124 45 a-]5 K HER. SI_SAIN SCOTT -331 NOR-[}Â·Â·1 MILL. STFEET. EUITE 331 ASFEN, CO 81611 C I TÂ¥ AND TCAASITE Or AEFEN EU<: 18 LOT: Q & W 2) ' OF LOT R. EE: 0550 FS: 0431 DOC DATE: 11/01/87 IXI TYFE: WD SA-ES PRICE: $ 1909 000 E}<: 0579 FG: 0951 DOC DA'TE: 12/15/88 DOC TYFE: WD SALES FlRICE: P- 1 .--1 I (.*p...) BK: C)583 FS: 0198 DOC I),ATE: 12/01/89 DOC TYFE: CCD SLES PRICE: $(J) HISTORICAL. ORIG EUILT 1900. MERCHANDISINS-LAND ACT: .33)33) AED: 87000 AC: O. (Xx) EF: O MFORVDISI1\)3- I MF'FIJDVEEZE 243-1- : 39000 ASD: 11310 AC: 0.09) SE: 0 TOTAL VALUE $98,310 YEAR EUILT 00 ADJUSTED YEAR BJILT 65 ASSESSED 01/01/92 LST CHANGE 02/1 0/93 Pitkin County Assessor 506 E. Matri, Suite A Aspen, Colorado 81311 Fit---L */2-0 3 7 K LAW OFFICES ' KRABACHER, HILL & EDWARDS PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 B. JOSEPH KRABACHER TELEPHONE THOMAS C. HILL (303) 925-6300 JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, 111 (303) 925-7116 TELECOPIER OF COUNSEL (303) 925-1181 JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. August 20, 1993 John Worcester City Attorney City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Variance for 702 West Main Street, East Ten Feet of Lot R and Lot S, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen Dear John: This letter will constitute my objection to the variance that was granted for the above property on August 19, 1993. I was quite surprised to find that a variance had been granted, since I never received a mailed notice of the proposed hearing. I have obtained a copy of the notices that were provided, and I am enclosing that copy. You will note that my address is shown as 415 East Hyman, No. 201, Aspen, Colorado 81611. This is incorrect. I have enclosed a printout from the Pitkin County Assessor that shows my correct address as 201 North Mill Street, Suite 201, Aspen, Colorado 81611. This has been my address according to the Pitkin County Assessor's records for the past several years since I purchased the property. I do not know how an incorrect address was provided, but I in fact received no mailed notice. Under Section 10-104(2)(b), notice of the proposed variance must be given in accordance with Section 6-205(E)(4)(b). That section requires notice to be given pursuant to Section 6- 205(E)(3)(b) and (c). That section in turn requires mailing of notice to all owners of property within 300 feet of the property subject to the variance. Since my property is located next door, it is within 300 feet. This section also provides: "The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than 60 days prior to the date of the public hearing." John Worcester August 20, 1993 Page 2 As noted above and as shown by the mailing notice and the information from the Pitkin County Assessor, my address is incorrect and there has not been compliance with the notice , requirements. I also note that Section 7-605 provides that the Board of Adjustment "shall not take any action on a development application for a variance pursuant to Article 10, in the H, Historic Overlay District or development affecting a historic landmark, without receiving a written recommendation from the HPC." The subject property is located on Main Street in the Main Street Historic Overlay District and there has not been any written recommendation from the HPC. In fact, the first hearing before the HPC is not until August 25, whereas the Board of Adjustment purportedly granted the variance on August 19. Therefore, aside from the defective notice, the act of the Board of Adjustment is not authorized, is an abuse of discretion, and exceeds its jurisdiction. This letter will constitute my objection to the granting of the variance without proper notice. Should you need any additional information, please let me know. Very truly yours, KRABACHER, HILL & EDWARDS, P.C. , By: B. Joseph trhbacher BJK cha Enclosures as recited bjk\ltrs\worcester.01 .- L~ 1 Fl - -Â· ==- C- -7=---- ---I.........................................-*...1/I./'//::::~~~~i~4/ 3 44*11/lt=k~ LLI -W KNMF UP |--- - "er-4 1--- - - 11. 11 1 lut -I mi~-*-I - ----- -- -- ----- ''A __ _ _ _ ___ --FLIM PSTE-2 - EALLO61122 1-- -- --- ---- 1 \ ~' -- - PE.Zi-th= *FUE 1 - - 1 focaw ' 1.lili 1 11-1 --1-- 7*24!KIZ, â‚¬,FNLE- 1 '.1 1,1, 1 1 ..1 11,1 ------- 1 1:2..t-i-fl'- 1 :Â· i: :,il" P i 1 111 1 11 11 ; ~ ~ 1 ~ 11- --If - 1 1 1 1 lili 1 1 lilli ' 1 it 1 1 1- 1- 1 1 11Â· 11 li.ill' lili '1! 1 1 1 - - 0 1 11: //i/"il E.-i i 1 1 11 lili FAZLIN,5 ef=*â‚¬2- Z -Uf -*~ ft>gc.1.4 - Ill li~ 1 1 lilli:! 111 111 i , . Iii 1 1;11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 --.-- -I-+I--------i ~;'. 1 111'll:[ 111 -- 1 1 111 i 11 l i l i lillir - 1 - I S42*Â·INA *FUE L I Al 2 --Ill----Il---I-------I--------------0--*-----=I---------I-=-I-- -Lor LINE j~ 2,4 1*TZ. ~h 71236 j E *10-1 Ndi Prraâ€¢-1 --h 0 51\/TH STREET 1 /21 STAPLETON INSURANCE AGENCY BUILDING SITE PLANI 1/fe'll= 1 1-Oil AUGUST 14, : 1993 SUTHER.LAND- FAU_I N INC. C>N 1 N {-TlV=t aNV-123#L-1-363 - â‚¬ 661 1 9 1 18 noolv HO -i i = if2/1 SNOI LIONCO UNI_Lai>CE 'ONIE-?Ing ADIN 229 -EDNV>Ing NI NO.1333 91(3 LF 111'Elkl 1 9 4-4 1 X I G / i_ tr~LIG UN L,14,1,*2 =gal 1 02:3 H NQU-03 1 -- O /I 9NI 01 I ng aam_ow 4. CEDMINaLICal 24 / 4161 S 1 A-2019 Z O N 1.16 IX'ZI - . 0 \1 Z , r- : -- -- ...L % /1-rE 02_ ; 0 -1 --- ------/-\\# *+44-1 Â· / 57N 1 4-7 i Fle -- f E- , ,*2Iale Â¥ 1 / 14 Phi LLÂ«XE! tli $ Le>z -37vz!47 â‚¬ 1 PHI_Â£91,1 >0 'I . 1- 1 m 0 33Â£12.L GOOHNal-127 Ill O A 4-- 73'Ned 04 U,Â»1>00 91 r,17rra-14 UN l.let -9 - - .._LAEE'.Ark-212/fi3ai2gE~F~~~~~ZI~_- -- - - -- - ill Ellurlatn -- - EME mniomccnicomorionT]1 11 1 11 11 --li-- --- Mm 1 1. - 1 1 1 1 1 r--- 1 1----t 1 1-- 4 L__1_ WEET ELEVATIONI NORTH ELEVATION STAPLETON INSURANCE AGENCY JUILDING ELEVAT IONE 1/8" = Ii_ 0'i AUGUST 16 1 1993 OLJTHEKLAND FALLIN INC. - I..-----I- ---- - --.1- - -/1- W. - - 14 LA'VUL 1 , - -2062*Â£Â· 5*4-6/ ----- -- -- - -- - - r DIJEED- - REECI- ------"- - EECIEEi[El[ZÂ¤CI3ECI]Â¤3 -0- 1 ~ -1 ; - 0 - 11 ~ iIi I. 1 1 -- ?- 4 1 --- . -- I -- --1 ---1.-- 1. F E-T fir in711EU-1 1 m M-1 11 - - LL=1=lilli:-11LL-11 -- 0. -~- - - 1 --- 1 1 1 1 1 4-_---_-1 t__d 1-----1 1.--+ 1 L-4 - -- SOUTH ELEVATION - -EAST ELEVATION DTAPLETON INSURANCE AGENCY bLULDING ELE.VATIONÂ© Ve= 1 1-011 AUGUST 16 ~ /995 E>U-134EELANO FALLI N I NCI. ~ Li) MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 420 E. Main Street, Conceptual Development Date: August 25, 1993 SUMMARY: The applicant requests conceptual approval to expand an existing non-historic office building in the Commercial Core Historic District. The new portion 'of the structure and the existing building will be faced with brick and sandstone in order to create a uniform facade. APPLICANT: Ron Garfield, represented by Kim Weil of Bill Poss and Associates. LOCATION: 420 E. Main Street, east 1/2 of Lot L and all of Lots M, N, 0, P, Q, R and S, Block 86. SITE, AREA AND BULK INFORMATION: See attachment provided by applicant. ADDITIONAL COMMISSION REVIEWS: Expansion of office space requires GMQS allotment approval. In order to apply for this year's GMP competition (deadline- Sept. 15), this project must receive Conceptual Development approval from HPC. Development Review Standards Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations defines the four Standards for Development Review. All four of these Standards must be met in order for the HPC to grant approval for the proposal. Please see the applicant' s response to the Standards and conceptual drawings (attached.) 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: There are no historic structures on this block, but several landmarked buildings surround the parcel. This proposal respects the materials, scale and block-like massing common to the Commercial Core District. In addition, the building is set directly against the sidewalk and features large storefront windows as are encouraged in the Design Guidelines. On the south facade, the building appears to step up in height towards the courthouse. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The applicant has made an effort to address the potential for increased pedestrian activity in this area. While Main Street and the Commercial Core in general have a lot of pedestrian traffic, the area from Galena Street east seems to be less lively. This is an important corner as it is located near several public buildings, a park and the parking garage. A visually interesting building which offers retail and office space could be the sort of anchor needed to reinforce the character of this neighborhood. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The building draws architectural elements from the surrounding historic buildings without directly imitating them or competing visually with them, and offers some unique details of its own to further distinguish "old" from "new. " 4. Standard: The proposed developement enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: No historic structure is directly impacted by this proposal. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Conceptual approval as proposed, finding that the Development Review Standards have been met. 2) Conceptual approval with conditions, to be met at Final. 3) Table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain, allowing the applicant time to revise the proposal to meet the Development Review Standards. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant conceptual approval for the project as submitted. Additional Comments: - IAND USE APPIICAOZICN ]FURM EXHIBIT 3 1) Project Manie Galena Plaza- 2) Project Ii=ltion 420 E. Main, east 1/2 of Lot L and all _al___- Lots M, N, 0. P, 0, R and S, Block 86 (indicate street adiress; lot & blodc timber,. legal description where- appropriate) 3) Present Zoning CC 4) Lot Size 7,900. 5) Applicant' s Name, Mdress & Phone # Ron Garfield, 601 E. Hyman, - Aspen, CO ' 925-1936 6) Representative's Name, Address 12 Ihone * Bill Foss and Associates, 605 E. Main, Aspen CO 925-4755 7) Type of Agglication (please check all that apply): Ooiditional Use Conoestual SPA X X - Cinceptual Historic Dev. Special Review - Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline ,-. Conoestual ED Minor Historic Dev. Stleam Margin Final POD - I{istonic Deolition Mountain View Plane . Subdivision - Historic: Designatirn Condaniniumization - Text/Map Amendmerit GM@S Allot]Derit Int Splitl/Int line, (NOS E~ayiption Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses (rtmber and type of existingÂ· structures; approxlmate sq. ft. ; rimber of bedroccs; any Fcavious approvals granted to the property). 1 level. + basement, office building 3.000 Rross s,f. . 3 level apartment building 5.400 gross s.f. 9) Description of Develqpment Application Addition and remodel of office building. See enrlosed drawings and description. 10) Have you attact~ed the following? Y Response to AttadlmentÂ· 2, Minimum Suhnission Contents Y Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Coatents Y Response to Attachmerit 4, Review Standards for Your Application .'111111 1.. 1., ., 1. 1 4 --L_ 1-~ 1 1 Y 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: Galena Plaza ADDRESS: , 420 E. Main, Asven CO ZONE DISTRICT: CC LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): 7.900 EXISTING FAR: 6.300 ALLOWABLE FAR: 15,800 PROPOSED FAR: 11,200 EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commercial): 2.700 PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercial): 6,700 - EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: n/a PROPOSED % OFS[TE COVERAGE: n/a EXSTING % OFOPEN SPACE (Commerdal): -0- PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE (Commer.): -0- EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Princioal Blda.: 12 / Accessory Bldg: 3 0 / Accessory Bldg: PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Princioal Bldg.: PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: -0- EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: -0- PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: -0- EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: 2 ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: 14 SETBACKS: EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: Front: .-O- Front: -O- Front: -O- Rear: -O- Reac -O- Reac -O- Side: -0- Side: -O- Side: -0- Combined Front/Rear: -O- Combined Frl/Rr: -O- Combined Front/Rear: -O- EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ open snace does not meet definitiong ENCROACHMENTS: apartment building encroaches into Galena and alley. VARIATIONS REQUESTED (eligible for Landmarks Only: character comoatibilitv finding must be made bv HPCh FAR: Minimum Distance Between Buildings: SETBACKS: Front: Parking Spaces: 1 Rear: Open Space (Commercial): Side: Height (Cottage Infill Only): Combined FrIA: Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): 6.-4./. 34* . . A 1 , . 11 --3-yf u.2.97-737- t 11 1 1 , i ) b i .11........ .. Â«0"44.1 i . : 8 9 10 ItÂ· 12 , 6 Sp Al 1 111 =*1.ZW_LI\41 At.9 ,(S PA) 1 ~.1'l:.4121# 2.-L; :,cÂ·f: tr.;Â¢iÂ·,.D'* .:'; 9Â·~),i~,11-j I. f i 3' :of:1,2 i~S: Â· w n Â·t.~, fl~~ ~i-ilt: Vi hi..~ RIO 'GRAh[)*'~;-t. --~7:-'zÂ·~,~tf,7 .1 1.~ 1; .,l. :,04,47,elÂ·' UW L,Â· r '1 1.-1Â·Â·- f.Â·5,4-Â·,tÂ¥ 0 90 It 12 :k '.. ' .4/. 1 - 1, P .'; 31/'OIl :41 1 ~ - - - 9.51Â· Vi~4 2. PARKIhG'.,'Cof ~Â·;' Â· :.., ,Â·, b.4 :iÂ·/ : : : 4 /4 ... I 9 ;fÂ·;.]49;. N. 6Â·.~Â·.Â· j li. ~t~' " ' 1 Â·\ 4 I ' .. 1 'C t. .09tr,0 , Â»r 0 1 :12 7.0 4.1 1 >rl../'' Â« - 1---1.. ~ 1"'4Â· Â·4..'2 .4 - 1 . .. i , . ,1v '4 25 :|Er:itÂ·'i<F34Â·4 't , puki Â·' ' Â· fl' Â·Â· 3 C i i...5. 4 42:a. 12 . 4 -Al. 0 5* Â·~Â·; /Â· 'lf.j:i(, 1 ., .., Â· i. 0, 12.1 2.-2 L.tflazt . 1 .â€ž44 - ,3 Â· , , 2 1 .. r,.7.-14 ~ !:, 1(11, 4 .7 1~ ' ~'' V 1 . .6 Â· 1 Â· 1 ,t â€¢ .i r... 1 ' 7'litÂ·Â·4 b Â·Â·'i AL# . .1~1}Â·t';'A ''4' - , ' 7* i:'614- 4, 1 . , , . ,~4 t'k' .'. 11: 1; 0,''.F.. 12 1 .: . 1 1., ... .: A. 1. 1 . r. Mt'rÂ· ' ' . V,,'if " . 41] I i., lipÂ· HERRÂ°7 -* 1 I 1. . ... i.':-~ ~ *, '.1 ,: ..,Â·.Â·AÂ· ,Â·Â·Â·Â· i . . ' I. 1 1 4 k ..1 3 ... 0...,1 4.4.,1 41 .Ift 12 4,"t, Â·,1 41# 2. 4. 1.-.. , 6 4 4 )i,, 1.~, 1 ; ~ Al#Li , 'l: 11 1. 1,1,1: 2 F f r .4, 1: ;-' ;iii; '' r . 1 1 1. : . .' - ..14 -- 1 g 11 1 4 ' , , 1: 1Â· 1 1.1 1, 4, , '3 '11 1 r... 5 1- It|'i 4,Â·1 Â·Â·Â· i . 2 : : 2'.i:; c. -It .31 2:44+ * -- a ./t L: 1 @/19 1 <1 2 1 0 /2-< F . , 1 2.q 1 1 {P~1.1 - , 1 1.1.11.. ; Â·. (61 1 't 406741/hi . ~ Â·~ i: 1 041 1.11 - 14 1 :\ 1, (All .1 1 \- 0 L - 1 I 'lilli , L, rig.fj i . 4 .... ., ~ 1.1 1:.: P: 1) i NI. 11 -11 6 1. 1 4 't . , . - . 01-t . Af .... . 1 I \ . ~St 4 . ....1--24-Â·- 1:;1(ki(,,k . 2/lp9/.3f\' 9.,fÂ·. 40, 9,1. 1 tti . '...Ir ', Ul ':911,4",2,1. 'I :i.j: 0< Unt-_ Â·: 'b 1, , ' IAL-- L_~ -. 1 2:2 ~~ * . . 1 9 490- 4 '. t. 11-22: 4 :Â·; 2*111 + 1 1!.1.4, : c ' 1 Â· ~ .' r-1-1-r- 7--rT~TJ 4 #-1 1 1 1 11 ~-1 1 11 11.1 11 11 Tchah.141.:,1.1 1 11.8, lili --If if* 44#93'. and associates y. 605 EAST MAIN Sl REET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 303/925-4755 FACSIMILE 303/920-2950 August 13, 1993 Ms. Amy Amidon Historic Preservation Director City of Aspen Aspen, CO 81611 RE: GALENA PLAZA Dear Ms. Amidon: Please consider this letter and the enclosed material a formal request for a review of a Conceptual Development Plan for Significant Development in the Historic Overlay District. Galena Plaza will be located on the southeast corner of the Central Bank property and includes the existing small office building located there. Our opinion is that this project should be categorized as an "expansion or erection of a structure wherein the increase in floor area of the structure is more than 250 square feet". Located on the northwest corner of Galena and Main Streets, the property lies on the edge of the commercial core. There are no historic structures on the property. However, two designated structures, the Pitkin County Courthouse and the rectory of St. Mary's church are located across Galena to the east and south east respectively. The remainder of the neighborhood contains the Local's Corner service station and commercial development, Central Bank, the parking plaza, the recently completed library and the Pitkin County Jail. Presently, the properly is underutilized. The office building contains only a temporary tenant. Our feeling is the Galena Plaza project will bring life to neighborhood and strengthen the Galena Street corridor as part of the Aspen Area :25. Ir:f- - ./VI ~ and associatest. L GALENA PLAZA August 13,1993 Page two Community Plan's transportation element. The design of the project was carefully planned to create a building which is interesting but low keyed. A building which did not detract from or try to replicate its historic neighbors. Instead, we feel we have created a project that compliments the variety of uses and architecture in the neighborhood. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is an expansion and remodel of the existing office building. Expansion will take place to both the east and north. In addition, a second floor will be added. Maximum building height will be approximately 30 feet. This is below both the maximum height limit for the CC zone and height of the courthouse. In addition, the southwest corner of the building will step down to relate the height of the bank building. Principal materials will be brick and sandstone. Storefronts will be made of metal. Street level entries are recessed from the building line. The southeast corner of the project is clipped with a quarter round bay above. On the upper level, there is a mixture of traditionally proportioned metal clad double hung windows and larger metal frame windows. The building contains a varied mix of stone and brick trim elements. Parapets will hide the mechanical equipment. In addition to the renovation of the building, the courtyard will also be upgraded. The railroad tie walls will be removed and replaced. New stairs will also be built. REVIEW STANDARDS 1. Compatibility in character with historic structure. As previously mentioned, the neighborhood has two designated structures, the courthouse and the catholic rectory. Since the rectory is shrouded behind trees and hedges, the courthouse is the major landmark in the neighborhood. Our proposal is compatible in character with the courthouse for a number of reasons. 'pr./"Ily#.4.-N#fi C ./... . .. 1 4#.p.... al and assopiatesi- 1 3.30,0-"Â·32.'piÂ·iftÂ·9.619: r:14,Â·fy GALENA PLAZA August 13, 1993 Page three First, the use of brick and sandstone as principle materials allows Galena Plaza to have a presence in the neighborhood without detracting from the courthouse. Second, the traditionally proportioned windows on the east end of the upper level allow this project to participate in and not disturb the rhythms created by similar windows in the courthouse. Third, the use of brick and sandstone banding give the project a more horizontal appearance similar to that at the courthouse. Finally, the concentration of stone at the base gives the project a sold foundation like that of the courthouse. 2. Compatibility in character with the neighborhood. As described before, this is a very diverse neighborhood, both functionally and architecturally. Our goal with this project was to create a structure that was interesting on its own without detracting from any other structure. Three elements were used to achieve this goal. First, since brick and stone are the principle materials, the building fits in with the neighborhood. A building of almost any other material would call too much attention to itself. Second, by stepping the height, we were able to make a transition from the two story bank building to the three story courthouse. Finally, as mentioned previously, the windows on the east end of the upper level were designed to be compatible with the courthouse. The remaining windows on the upper level are a more contemporary version of traditional proportions so that they relate to a broader range of the surrounding neighborhood as well as the counhouse. 3. Enhances or does not diminish the cultural value of historic structures. Since most of the uses in the neighborhood are of a destination type, this area does not enjoy the same amount of pedestrian traffic as other areas of the downtown core. Our hope is this project and its tenants will draw people to the area so that more people will experience the cultural value of the neighborhood. In this case that value exists in the enlightenment of Aspen's history as evidenced by the courthouse and the rectory. Also, any additional pedestrian activity in the area may help the parking plaza become better utilized. IE AR ~ arid associate, - GALENA PLAZA August 13, 1993 Page four 4. Conclusion. In closing, we feel we created an attractive and compatible building. One that will be an asset to the designated structures and the entire neighborhood. Please review our submission package and contact me if you have any questions or require any additional information. We look forward to your committee's review on August 25, 1993. Sincerely, t. KiFn Weil - Project Manager 93100813.LT-2 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 420 E. MAIN STREET CONCEPTUAL SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, August 25, 1993, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee in the second floor meeting room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application submitted by CBI Properties Inc., 1515 Arapahoe, Denver, Colorado 80202 requesting approval of Conceptual Significant Development for redevelopment of an office building at 420 E. Main Street, the east half of Lot L and all of Lots M-S, Block 86, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Amy Amidon at the Aspen Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO. 920-5096. s/William J. Poss, Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Published in the Aspen Times on August 6, 1993 City of Aspen Account PUBLIC NOUCE RE 43) E. MAIN STREETCONCEFTUALSIGH NIFICANT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION~ APPUCATION NerrICE IS HEREBY GIVEN thal aÂ·public hear- 1 Ing witi be held Wednesday, August 25.1993, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before-thet Aspen HIstork Preservation Cornmittee In the i second floor meeting room, City Hall, 130.S. 1 Galena Street Aspen, Colorado, to consider an 1 applkation submitted by CBt Properties Inc;. 1515 Arapaho, Denver, Colorado 80202 request- ~ ing approval of Conceptual Sightflcant Develop- ment for redevelopment of an otnce building at . 420 E Main Street, the east half of Ut 1.-and all of Lob M-S, B[ock 85, City and.Townstte.01 Aspen. For further information. contact Arry Amtdon at the Aspen/Pitkin-Planntng' Office, 130 S. Gatena St, Aspen, CO. 920-5096. s/Wlmarn J. Poss, Chair Aspen Hlstoric Preservation Committee Pubnshed in the Aspenmines August 6, t993. r--,1,3..1:OF '''Ml- 1/.1'..7.,t .. ..., 34.1.1,-4 /':74*1 E ,+1 -I I. . , '.t... ''19.- 9./. .. ...0 ,-- 1 1 1 -- 1 1 -- 1 1 ..-- < AUSTI N , 4 4 Milli=.4-ILIP--1 \ re,â€¢91.11/rly =rupf 1-fb 9/13 U / CK (6< le % 1 6 FvE,*ET- 1992, - 1 1211 0 (- Bpf-& I drrull I o â‚¬171>10 er,p i, r- I 0 1 1--i obacerÂ».1-Â· s/7= Pl/,4/4 11-- A<61,-<Fnvz '. h ~ Lrf 1 67'R 0/4 - -,1 U - 9/4 rr 1,0rrÂ· OUT- 08 | 67*.hu~â‚¬7*L, ~ STM. [Ki - PA f - Bi:>p-/A. 0 0 v e F. ep 0 faM WALM-WAV lÂ»veN I VIVDOFefouNP ft'P+NMe-- 16 gboats -1 1 #VE* 2- Â® STÂ¥PMS (48 1- PPNnÂ· UM rEs (t) S f. 2-881!ENCE 3,/+ 1 \ 0Â¥51- 3 (31 Stupie (40 1- DI>14Â¥, ON !TE , 1 1 1 Â® 1 19 14:G (PE<91AL UN133 | - Ff M D v A T EP (40'*t Lic,te; 1 ~ =61 D' lf- n M/Â·97'MIÂ° 8 5$ Lput, 08= 1 11; 68 \ 1 - Bpp-m + I 1 9*588~ PrrlcIA o.,NTÂ¥ HoGINâ‚¬- ofFice 1 1 - . pt.,ANVE?t ; r IL---7-37-7----P UNPmp-6-,-DUND f- 088Mr- REvt Aks 1.-1~ 59 5,61-0â€¢opsP- AN,BVE* 16 L' Aspmrl O Ct'hAPO 8,*11 ! . 3,0 8 12/5 -9/88 \7 \ 0 UAN 87-14367- 11.0 w 12-0,0' .52â‚¬2,-~ >,g 107-,4 uu--.2Â·u,7 .-- /*f L.7 4/9 1 /1-,< - (140- 9 '/ 'Lili I ' ~03~ #2*/*f* Fltopefrr / ' red/P/L>rry ST,pr / .. at I be, Autici~-- 1995 1433_ - / ...#*--.... Y *---- -T-- f A- 1- 1 1 92% 1 1 WASntle- CAÂ¢~Tle Â¢49 rfl' ---N:2 -0 -- 22 0â€¢MTD V >.9 1/ F 1-kz-+-7 $.-- --*. *I-- *-I- -*-# 1- - *-0 ...... - 0- 0. 6 5 + 3 1 1 /r-\ '75.0 - m>qen/+ Grruorvlkes: --?150-------- , .0 L- f 777%, L-or- /4Fer: 11-,ot _: .-I - 69' rus ove. 307 0 N 10+30 61:= 1 1- *- - -| ME PFVBZ,aph~65 : | 1 '1 / 1 1 1 4 / < N D,q-?t- '.Septa % 111= (0 1 / - 1 1 --T / e I .- Fâ‚¬:â‚¬!PeNCE ~ HI STD 8.10 BES,PeNCE= r i h i 96."40 0-â‚¬r,7- 1 1 (/- sT'p-r) 0 (0 9 I I 1 -1 1 , A 1- I ~smr,/p rrmIN cov/~r,- Moe}Â» 0Fmcar 1 /-1 1 1--- | ___,1 1 / pvwgr-: h 3/ NDefÂ·:r MBVISS K J~ - ....... 5,0 BA=r 64Â°fmp. r~yaMVE*16 **/-~ 50.0 ' MÂ° .50:1 / ASPFA. 04â€¢p-ADo 5,1.8 1 1 1--, 3 03 9%15.9/88 1 4 U UU,â€¢44 firf-551- S. D.Nv. 1 . -- 1--i 1--, . Ay STI N /1-l-7-' l 7 6 9 ID It 11 ID 11 ~~5/6.9 /P/L-117 art~pr 37 1 8 AU(*#ST- 19937 1 9 1 3- 1 00,01â€¢nrti. s r" F 11â€¢44 G AUUMH#fâ€¢rre ~1 TN-44 86- r-rl 0-KP-As-25 51~Erv5ll,Nt 794-9.0 P, 1 1 1 1 4- - --- ri 1 h. r - -7 3 1 6 /9 1 , N 'PrM ,94Nlej 10--101 it 11 ! 0 9% iD. U BU. FÂ« a I 1 FON ' Asr~prTE-IN C.fer ttoUS/M&-- aFFICE' Efru MA"1512- : 69 2 1 11 luBEFI- Nevt tls *T 590 2Â¥â€¢ST Go,ap- evmpi 06 19 16 1-- 3'03-9/5-9.88 Aefe/4,001-ap-AP' 6/6/1 1 1-- . 1 -- 1 1-1 1 -- [ AST/N -- 912 - - _ p,ovefry f 7-&Â»gl UM t- /-17 67-Tlpy + -4-11 <8 Â»06-991- 11937 1 . 9, 1 6 1 N I 7-n w N ttous EF T-OWN tio USEÂ· 1-0 W p M o VGS -ED %61 tio Bse 3- 8Â£34A 5 - 8PAA 3 -- 8Â·pfm 3- *MA 060'Â°mrnr~. 8 rrB FÂ»*14 (I-gr,It:r.) (5 - SPILY) C Z. 677 87) ( 1 - SEDKY ) (2 - 67,7,) (1- Sppr) ~ M'-refbfrrv& ~A i - 4 AmVN-0- 1 \)14PS,GN,tp ?MkÂ¥.4Â»- - v/v /7- 4471 0 07- <4- sfhems 1 0.1154-2 mtÂ¥7-8.y coup:r YAP-P ~214 369-f: 0 ' 1.-PVEN, '2- (6-7)72>Wt,#MISS: C ADAM. t-met- 9 (1) 8.1=. res;P51â‚¬5 la --. MVEL 3 >7 pe,-.Tiv*Ittogs 1 1 1. 1 1 1 ( Brmt=14 -UVING-LaEl) 7174 99 8%0.ima 1 Mivo VATEP 1 1 0 ~7,3,00- 3,900 â‚¬fo TOY N t~o Vâ‚¬EY ~ H IST-DILI C, F.es<PANCE- ToWM ttous& C /- sp Fr ) 1- 9 Frer Scrta f.=- to ' 0-STDAY) (t -gr,$7-) 1 0 1 ~ (S - ST,gy) (, - sT,T)~ 1 1 ' 1 1- 0 51 0 1- ,=924 A- 1 4- 1 1 I , 2681/pmmb CDVMPf HOUS/ME- fricE 1 1 . FL,AhNEVT; 90'Pep- B.-'Uup \ PA f M f N &,- t y M,EM- M Evl 'MS 514 *,Sto o TEF- AVEMOD $ 16 .-- As reN, 001/08Â·Al)0 8, 4, O 7-4 1 M' 929.9/88 ./.AA' E- A 0 . 6.67 Al r - 1 1.- I 1 1 03, I 1 + 3 1- 9 6 + 8 9 ~FPe'&1 LIT7 81-ZZPY , 18 Â»06-181-- 1 713 -r 1 I, I 7- - 0,1Â£8MvÂ·?u- Grrm- r \.en BA7819071,5 ~~ rep-Htle_ P WN~4 G-h 7- A e- 5 50 v /41-1 0 M t 79 1-9 Â· 0 1 1 /1 /0 11 - - lierqi/ 2446811.9-ID 1 1 1 P Cy, 10 2-a 1 re-: mxtr Â»sT,/FIT-148 CARY MoF=IM#-'TriCE i AA m 0 1 1- . 1 r~~â€žab z -2 DA + . Dn p-aMPT NEVI Ns -I= 57-0 ges~-- Ooofelk AV514 UG-1Â¥ 1 6 As,58.00!,D~-,03 814 11 1% - 1 1 . 3,on 929.9/88 05 9 d V,AM ST- P-5 5-T- 12-.0.\N. AVer</4 774 -' 18 Â»09*ST- <913, r.-5Â»918,1 Lrrf =rer r--'.-+- 00<*-5vrvÂ·i- s rr=Â· 8+14 --t~=2.-h I --= 1-6 - ............... 1 Aulwar#477VES PA - P PAP#$48 + 6+ILF,6/3 -I.-0-- ---- --*- - " - _L- P-LEA/,AT-10 RS ONE BEL'blm UN rlTS - 15 Viaâ€¢11Â·S (Â« 0011-r= Fuil FLA,ILD UV,N CT.BJÂ¥J AM-&FerIVET A EAST- 5:bEA/PTI'M (w'r-INE- weer) A. 401 1 rÂ·Â·h Â«1\\ 1 1 1 61' ~ 4% li ~ 5-PdaNG:zon r.tuÂ·7 , P 1 M'P-rer 84â€¢,1Â£, F=10' -=-4 Â·11! 2-0 ' O 5, /6, ' I L-,1 1 1 . 4 f /:=,P-t â€¢r -21 PÂ·sfet#rmÂ» câ€¢11Â·gr Pâ€¢val,46.-brf\CE PHP- F-IN 6- â€ž49':. 4 R 11 11 - I. UVAN GTHRPT , DDEFT- F BVI NG 7Â»ezr bee-0 e 7-1 W/V tto RSEES Bw, HASE,N O ~-8â‚¬(PE?VCE 618 EÂ¥\61- 0Â°758- AVEME'L AL-1--Ff-NATNe p NOP-TH- 51,85:\2â€¢r~laN (P'NN e--Govrt#-3 Aepa=/4, DOJ/'84*DO 5'Gl' - 30 9.91-9.9 1 36 1 1- ... k A 1 -7/-[ - iÂ· |04!Jeft"f' per.rMI 61419 ... 1 11, ~ 04*Aft-fm lewt,EVWL*'th-4-99115444'PA#4~ - 1 44,1//4 r 4<*331*4*5164 .00~0~ Sr-1,4 â€ž h~-22~EN*105 i.bkÂ»*69*~*2,Â·~~Â»14~942.417Â« Rplt-T---h..TWÂ¥~*193!2~14 ..6--% r./ . Jm- 16 4 ' . 5#4'94 - , A "hi Â· Â· 1 -, -/ Â· . 129,1_xpltff>Y'*49 ~U:3. -- r. 13&*,rq PH = .1 1 I . 41(40 -7-71 â‚¬eloe pat Â£**-& 1 Ill 11 4/1 /01 Li I - 1 Ul 11' t= 9./1\ 194 / â€¢Ad,4 645 f*L .==-1 7*96* Â· CouBTF+0426 --*- 7 tr 1*ANK , * 1 -. -- --- - 1 411 1 1 i ~ 1 ---I- - litil. 4 4 ---- 1451Â»16Â· 09*Oe 6~94,811 r46 1- FAARre 1 1 3 1 L Â· --- - 1 4. 1 - 2/ 7 1 i DL-' \ D .7 N \ /// . - i i ~ : i 1 41 I 1 Ail | |1.4 11 .1 1 - 1 14- 91 lili \ . 49111 14.- a "4 \*Â· 8 .6 #114 t" s 9<1 \ Ir-74. 44% #> . 0,\V wl, ., 0 ~ .--.-4.-4 %-,~.~r---, -'.,~ - -- M.- : 1-LUL:*-~ _ t ' r - - 1 - , A b S ~- 711Â»~ - *7 44 1,7. f \ v:; Â· /1 k Y \ 4.- 9741"K '44\hy 90Â·114 erfeeT '4 .Â· 1.1-.1/ 1 Dil quÂ· .AL_ERIA- D-Al- lai-- A 7/7 A Al 2/\1 . .. W?..1 C([DN([2IPFI[JAIL IBI]&& awniv L/ 1 Ed assocates STREET LEVEL Â¢ SITE PLAN August 13,1*13 NORTH Scale: 1/8"=GO" . .... 1 ) 1 I E -_aaÂ£tefe , A 6866 41'61*+Ij . - - El- it=+ ,=r:Â¢ 1, .0 - Aliv,0 0 , it ~ ~t .3 . 11.1- - i =L = 1 z 6,/*4 44 9,/ 1 I ..4 '1,-= la-.,2 1-----I _-24 3 vlifivl(6111 1 7-4Â« *--trt. m. A, lk- =14 lMFypr:F ~ 46*e' mt e |Lf 'F==-1- i - -tu - - dev. 1,/ 1 - . 11 1 --~+112r,LIT v-' 41! ur- - ----I -- - -_ ___ __ __ -- JT Â¢214 Up.Â¢ 0 11 37 ! r-- | 1 | -- 0,0* 00â€¢oe '~ I - 1 1 =1 h/leÂ¢+1, _ i.,/ 9<*In Ne COM M 61*1Â»* 'Â»06 P EMAI,QIHe 1 1 ..MI / -1_ 50/MIGUM .Â¥/l J T <- -~r U C -9 1'6Â»1-+T 1'~LANT 194Â»+IT 41~3*â€¢ee '*To,KAGE> 1. - Tru --*.----+ .------* # #-- <* i # --; .*- w-+2 1 1 I .... - uppm 1,0481- 1.OWES Le/El- h - h 7 I '. 1 \ Kne ..../... ./P... - .- M 61-1-2.-EN A 1 A 07 A 2/p Al 3 -*12 A 02(DNCEPTUAL DESIER - I /-1 L kiÂ·. r : ~i j.. Â· 6 ~.In.1.1&90/Â·afes FLOOR PLANS Scale: 1/8"=1'-0" Â· ~ August 13,161Â¢13 NORTH )/0/le;gy.: Â·,,. . .:. f,1.6,541 1~ - ' - - Â· .-Â· 2-.Â·: Â·'.u-Â·f:~3-f:.2,7.9-342 -.41.:y:243-UTÂ·~36.*. Â· a.... 31%929Â·4Â·04<Â·497-.Â·M 14.41**,w'.... , i.....'.41 4 1 W.411:*.44;IrÂ·,4 4,4. VÂ·-Â·. â€¢*.10 ... **24*Â·fÂ¥Â·2Â·4 -~t '. ~L?},~Â·; ~:'I.14.......i-:iikÂ·Corti~ eeÂ·i':.-:AX '-.. ~.:. :~- ~~.~~'~ ' ...~.wi...:Â£119â‚¬'37Â¥ix eCâ‚¬-Â·;-'-'.ty:.4-'2';74-'41Â·:.TP:j- 9-:6- ..?3.ffÂ·:' --:4 ,2134'74'4113%4Â¢ I"ww 9 3â‚¬0 . Â·EP~T<iÂ·4Â·. bÂ·Q: 4,.i -- . ./.&.1. ..71. ... .6. . . Â·Â· .. -,4 ,.Â·'â‚¬;1*4.in- -~ i 4 43'-fla : .. - - - ----- -=- ---t , ' i== lm' I- --1 --.%~ -1- =-- ..- .-/ i /+ .â‚¬. --=~._3~--*I---&=-*----*L*-*-*.----i= < 1 49*49*TOME . *--r-:Z- ----.'= ~- L..=T- 1 523*9â‚¬-9--9921 PEn~ ~ , Â·---1.11 4 NIL. dropeFFOril- 'F'*F 'ru,E liTÂ· FI+TUFS q 1 .! h Li jilt ~~.. 4 : 1 ~ 1...' 1-1 ==rz---lum::Â·/--LL--"-+1. A SE:~7:-7 + Pul.Â· e AEST ELEVATION itÂ·i,4 4-,402'. *4â‚¬ ' ~*fÂ·X -0 9,â‚¬5 N-1 US' mâ‚¬my- ' - . $4 Â¢45,4 - A... W'Â·,1 4,~ce're,iâ‚¬ TILÂ£ UUEE.Â·O.&110]IfihifILEEE[[IffI ------ ---- RU-lUE--TE L Me Tru -Â· -=9==-%/MJ.9--4,U:.~=-z*__ 1 4 11 lili q 1 < 1Â»Â» gru. FÂ¥*M 'PT â‚¬2' .P-; - ..1.-3 --:T.--~-/13.-=.. =.==FE--#-# .-- 1 1 ! J ! c --.Â·-Â· 4PtÂ·'DerTUME --- 11 13 ' iIi 1,12*IT Ft b 4, I -- . M-Il. 41(PEFF'GAT 1 .----I U: - 1,2.-Â·...7 7.-In-='"==.x- -- .*' L .-'# . . EABT ELEVATION EPTI[JAL DESI[(GN Â£=LEVAI IC/ND August 13,1,143 Scale: 1/8"= 1 '-O" 34.-'.btlr. 2Â· 111 .. ... -.1Â¥3 2 - - " .. . 4 ., -*R ,# fet I 1 . 3. I uN_ - 1/Im 1-1..... Ii.1~ 1 7/Ii. :lill'"moll,Immilmillimil'Milii:ilig 1,14:=;imil699",2,4.81'111 ==__ 9.m...... - - .Vill."- m~.....1 .... 0 6. 1-Y bil (ili,lul 1 . 2, /\ 7 1,1,/ .1/ A j and assocates