The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19920624 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE June 24, 1992 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM I. Roll call and approval of May 13th and June loth minutes II. Committee and Staff Comments III. Public Comments/Staff Comments A. Jody McCabe - Aspen Historical Society Request for assistance IV. OLD BUSINESS 9 J t. â‚¬P, -/ 4 gft+25 5:30 A. 624 E. 46,--21- - Final Development V. NEW BUSINESS A. 627 E. Main - Minor Development parking variation VI. COMMUNICATIONS A. Followup from Council/HPC worksession June 15 B. Committee reports: C. Aspen Historic Trust: Pioneer Park Update - Les Holst D. Project Monitoring: (Please be prepared to report on the status of your projects) VII. Adjourn -re-.re L MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Final Development: 624 E. Hopkins Date: June 24, 1992 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual Development approval for the revised redevelopment plans for the parcel at 624 E. Hopkins. The parcel is not eligible for HP variations or incentives. A request for vested right approval has been submitted, which will heard on July 8 at a public hearing. LOCATION: 624 E. Hopkins, Lot Q and the West 1/2 of Lot R, Block 98, City and Townsite of Aspen APPLICANT: Joshua Saslove, represented by Bill Poss and Associates, as authorized by the current owners, Phil and Marian Altfeld ZONING: C-1. This parcel is not designated "H", nor located within a historic district. PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: Conceptual Development approval without conditions was granted on May 27, 1992. Over two years ago, the HPC granted demolition and redevelopment approval for this parcel, which resulted in the removal of the Ellen Kuper cottage and the subsequent resale of the vacant parcel. A resolution granted three-year vested rights was adopted by the HPC at that time. The contract purchaser wishes to revise the redevelopment_ plans, which consisted_of a three-story townhouse, finding that the design does not suit his needs. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The parcel is vacant, and is located between two non-historic commercial/multi-use structures. Three small Â· scale cottages exist across the street. STAFF, SUMMARY: Staff is generally pleased with the revisions to the original redevelopment plan, finding they meet the Standards. Since the immediate neighborhood' s historic fabric is eroded to the point of relatively little context remaining, reviewing this infill development was difficult two years ago, and will no doubt be a difficult task for the HPC today. No Design Guidelines exist for this type of townhouse development within a (C-1) commercial transition zone; therefore, only general urban design principals and the Development Review Standards may be applied. The architectural ques must be taken from the small , cottages across the street, and from structures within adjacent blocks, particularly the City Hall/St. Mary's Church block, with its strong roof forms and substantial massing. A general principal of design quality must also be understood when addressing the appropriateness of this proposal, and understanding how C-1 buildings are used now and should be in the future. REVIEW PROCESS: The Development Review Standards are found in Section 7-601(D). 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 a Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area, 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: In this unique case, we are reviewing infill on a vacant parcel. Therefore, this Standard does not apply. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: .This. is the important standard to apply when reviewing this proposal. The design quality of this infill building has the ability to strengthen the existing neighborhood character and perhaps set precedent, erode any quality that already exists, or be neutral in its statement to the street. It is important that a site visit occur to assist vou in making vour final decision. The architectural elements, setbacks, streetscape amenities, materials and roof forms that the applicant has woven into this proposal indicate the neighborhood context has been studied thoroughly. Staff supports the articulated two-story design approach, finding this to be ah improvement over the.original three story Version. The strong roof 'forms and slate tile proposed relate to the historic fabric across the street and to City Hall.one block west. We find the two-story massing and scale to be and appropriate height transition between buildings. We also find that elimination of the non-useable "open space" originally designed between the two buildings is appropriate. The open space is found appropriately between the sidewalk edge and the building's facade, which continues the green relief of the buildings to the street. We also agree with the alignment of this infill building, as it relates to both the KSNO and corner buildings. 2 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of a designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: The Planning Office finds that the proposal does not detract from the cultural value of the parcel or adjacent parcels. 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: This Standard does not apply in this case. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Final Development application as proposed, finding that the Standards have been met. 2) Approve the Final Development application with conditions to be met prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant to restudy specific issues of the proposal. 4) Deny Final Development approval, finding that the Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC gra,nt Final Development approval for 624 E. Hopkins, finding that the Development Review Standards have been met. REVIEW COMMENTS: memo.hpc.624eh.fd 3 ,=an mmu=- -- I JUN 12 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 303/925-4755 FACSIMILE 303/920-2950 June 12, 1992 Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Planner Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 624 East Hopkins Dear Roxanne: Enclosed please find our submission for review of the Final Development Plan for the above reference project. As you will notice, the project has changed very little from the Conceptual Development. The major materials are brick, sandstone and roof slate. The massing is also essentially unchange from the conceptual approvals. There were no conditions placed on our conceptual approval. The principal change from the conceptual approval is the bringing of the details on the exterior into focus. With regard to the neighborhood character, our philosophy remains intact. We are proposing a building which acknowledges the transitional zone it is located on. The overall massing relates to contemporary neighbors while the gables and vertical elements relate to the older structures across the street. Please review the drawings and schedule us for a Final Development Review for the 24th of June. Feel free to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Kim Weil Project Architect 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: Joshua Saslove ADDRESS: 624 East Hokpins ZONE DISTRICT: C-1 LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): 4,500 EXISTING FAR: N/A ALLOWABLE FAR: 2820 S.F. PROPOSED FAR: 2820 S.F. EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commer.): N/A PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commer.): N/A EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: N/A PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: N/A EXISTING % OF OPEN SPACE (commer.): N/A PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE (commer.): 25% EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Principal Bldg: N/A /Accessory Bldg: N/A PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Principal Bldg: 32 FT + /- /Accessorv Bldg: N/A PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: N/A EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: N/A PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 4 EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: N/A N-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: 4 SETBACKS: EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: Front: N/A Front: 0 Front: 24 + /- - Rear: N/A - Rear: Â· 0Â· . Rear: 12 + 5 Side: N./A Side: .0 - Side: 0. I Combined Combined Combined Frt/Rr: N/A Frnt/Rr: 0 Frnt/Rr: 36 + /- EXISTING NON-CONFORMITIES/ N/A ENCROACHMENTS: N/A VARIATIONS REQUESTED (eligible for Landmarks Onlv:character compatibility finding must be made bv HPC): FAR: IMinimum Distance Between Bldgs.: SETBACKS: Front: Parking Spaces: Rear: Open Space (Commercial): Comb. Frt/Rr: Site coverage (Cottage Infill Only): . T 6 - WI 1 1 ...lit...0(417(S 1 1 1 .. X. lioift . 10 1 005 EAST â€¢UN SIAEFT ASPEN COLORADO all TEEL /031 925=755 i KSNO BLDG. 6.-Â·IZ--9 Z. HPC. 19â€¢44- Â· 2510â€¢*3 1 1 - 1,1 El 1 1 - c;, I' t'~~,i' /'jg~=Q~ f. -' ~-f â‚¬43â‚¬A.- 47 . \ ~ -1#1 1 M Â· 1 I- 1 , EXFCE:Â£.c; N*. . . 96 - - -' ~ PLIVE-60â€¢IN' 4-7 C C --7._624 E. HOPK1Nt:11 - < LAU.1 (/ D :r-,12 .4*) \ â€¢ Â·Â·Â·i..,0.,11!M.ril â€¢*-, 7 4 \ \ mb#~i#f*L / MTL. FENEÂ« -- 68Â£7"3 -'' 1 - C - - i 1. 1 - _46~-Â«t CA.le.. S=442 -71 R 44 4 . u 1 .... -1-- I FBI .1. 1 F~ 1 , -1 1- 1 " A 1, 1/ g 1 1 .1 : LI -2 0 LIn 11 j,11-1, / :v 8/1 T# --3-De. Ame/la- \ 0 AD - , 040 1 ~ L-AU kl Al~'th ) ~ LAWK| ~ 624 2. HOPKINS . 1 1 1 0 :L . - 1-- 9 ASP'54 C,OLO~DO 1 - M 1 - .Â©42 62Mcple:+cr <LÂ»47- WELL .....0, 1.1 - , 7 71 . . -r UfIC>~-1 -- . i +C. cir) L - A - r---0 -fllf<- Â·, ' 1-79 4*-7~ \4~ .~ Dir. -87721 9/ 0 Â· ' o dE\1/-]9Â·'~51 ' \ \ 4 , - 1 U .- W. ;-0. 632 E.HOPKINS PAOJECT NE.6-j fLADEÂ·lic.L 1219.CDC DESCRIPTION e,TE- F./44 â‚¬27Â£ rl.â€¢~Â«1 - 03*/prOAL )4â€¢.1 'd SHEET NO All.11 G-.........Coart' pC HOPKINS AVE. A311V Dil of fÂ© re f 1 e (P 01**84Â¥-60Â£- ~.1,1,1 .1..,riates 605 EAST - STREET ASPEN COLC>AlDo *18. rEL (Xili //S./ /55 I.U. 6- 11-9.2 HN FINAL- 0 H + UNE - - 3 3- 1 f -- - -- 0 $ T - L- 4- 1-4=-=i- i I -F -j 1 1 ,â€¢,csÂ¢ I 1 IMMI- -Ne 1 1/ L ir- o L -2 . r '1 tgat 1 F 11. X las' 10 1 1 PX 61:Â»27. ,e,keE. efl. < i i ,~ 1-1 1 1 21 0.11.5 ; 01'6)+41Â»19450 * ' *U~ 54- 19 9 IC 01 - /~ -r- - 1 - 1 +IAL-4 1 _ ; 9/5/,1.I 5.1/0 TT j.=r ---- 1, 341 1 0 ' 1 ''il -1 UPi j , 22-1 10'IS' 1 11 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 - - -Fr-l__ 16 -ki=~~1 uwrWELL- - T '~ 1 /---- LBUTUGU- I %1146 grl. 624 1. HOPKINS 4 . r 2Â£2-EL.E.-1 AS.'51, C.OLO~~DO 6 11 )U-& 11.4~* 11.7 9 A- - -r-4Â·MÂ¥-7 L. I =-1 [22122-31 11 1 '7 8%1[ i Uhle. of 632 E. MifwAS -~ | | ~ 3 6 4-0, .3-41 2 -0' '5'- W ir - o. 1 .5-6 9-41 I . f T 57'- 6 1 p.oJECT WEW 2=bcâ‚¬UZE- 6 4 0 8 1 + 4 4 e -Â·:zc>.co DESCAIPTION 56â‚¬MENT 8.-4 5*Â»16+JT~ M.-AU 74 1. lie, 74 Â·- 1 '-47 SHEET NO AE.11 0-.U *.. A-OC-El 'C bil 43 Â® (3 (E) ~. i,id associ.11<'- Ir 0,44,4*MEWÂ·f-Mt 805 EAST 14-7 STREET ASPEN. ..00 ..1 1 ' TEL 1301 .S-~753 1 1 1 1 1.-Ul G -] 1 -12. Hft:Â· FNAIL LINE OP *- -TE .Z'lili 1 1 + - 16*# 1 12 1 1 2 \ 11 \ I - ,Â·-- c>MER /6346 11 1 O-ICE- 4-ac. - MID Krl. r_bn WL 1!21-1 110= 1 E bu = Rr- 1 1 f r. 5.4 : G.1, D 20.2.- 1 1 / 'JU 1. 1 1 1 1 - / 1 - , , \ ' m u Iii VE) - - - E-/1 ---4-1283eEJAIL il , 1 Â· EN-ref 11 1 1. 1 11 / 11 1 '1 69#6~6/4 lilli :11 1 A U Jill 8 - .9 - 1-- - - 'g.<RLL 2/,I,6/ L-AIELL 35L<*4 - 1 1 COM:646 / AY /14006.1 *04 - 11 3 480 - i li I ' 624 2. HO'KINS -i COLORADO 1 11 = 1 mece,â€ž1 i Doll -I- ---- 3/RÂ·â‚¬' - - 7 1 - el ct=ter ~ ' - -ANE OF BUILD $ AACN/E ~ 11! 1 111- '..10--m- [*1 1 - .1- I I ' I I It '11 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 S.o. 1 -1.41 -60 - d 3 8 111-5 . L .- 2 -- | PROJECT *7 - 84 . . kEU IZA,IC*ICÂ·Â£- .1 93 9) 0 . D 4 0 4 9130.00 DESCRIPTDON rÂ».4 L.Eal- FL,â€¢4 MIAIN LEVEL FLâ€¢*4 94. r.O. 40 - 1-0. SHEET NO A op Â¢P 6.doLE I-,U POSS 4 -coaTE' IC [el bil )6 83 10 1 1 'e,#Am..9,-*- ES EAST Aâ€¢â€¢m Sâ„¢EEr 1 ASPEN COLORADO 11. AL /30,1 925â€¢735 1~IUE CP K.*k,10 7 G -]Z- 12. . Hffc. F:NIAL... 1 1 -MT- 1 - 1 j 0 1,1 f Â»1'46 1 -#-2- evt#M i~ 1&/LUAXI-- E-' 12ct 1 -1 12=82 1 225â€ž Z.1.â‚¬f 12%29 ' # 'i u 95 *tip . 1 1 1 ..13 :11 - ---hl 7 Ug _~_ 1Â£19Â£EZ:'/b 1 1 Pr --9 1 $%91 1 11 3 '11 3 h rc 1 1 1 1 1 - L WE <- 12 , 4-7 4- 1 /7 , I~ 1 6 11111= 624 E. HOPKINS %lit e,020'1 , e X 2.15' 114 - F AS/Bi COLORADO .. ..==4 Ill #.9 - 11 1 1 i: 1/re - G'U,5' i 1 -70.Il.0 1 1 '. 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 , -|6|E 1 031 2...lop,<IUS - , , 9.0. s.4 3-1, 20.O, s,- e' 111-01 5'-â‚¬ 5-4" R 2 I -- - -. I & -a.JEC Nal_| 122â€¢SIDEUCE- 19 64 @6 444 9242.00. DE SCAIPTION UP,C LEALL -4 UPMEA LEVEL PLAN 744 - f -C' A - 1 -Oil SHEETNO A Â¢0 9 Aiza oeD C--1.0- ...00-1 .C - == 11 <91/Er LINIE C. 105 EAST k.â€¢AIN STAEET "" COLORADO "" 1 0 rEl. (3031 925-4755 .,0-0.r irmt 2,4IC' - 1 Issue '"TS-92-:: -14;in ~27---4--- dillwl!11}201 11!11 1 .1 Iii 2-12 .liff. i I 32'41 ''1 ' ':':.': ,- .,1 1 1 Itt'++ rk.r-, Â· 82,*M A T" 11 !.; :.~ !~71 @:1Â· 94*1 6 i_ -1411]412Â·1 1 *40'-10" I .....,.... --:11..;iN:i..,VI!111 H.1!'111'fti-j].: :! 1-J:iÂ·'t.51 14 --1 91'Dr.1 e r=41., 4 - St : ----- - I ''I --~- I /*11- 10. e A--B a.24/aL 0 - 1 -- 11 . --,M.4 . - ' r ., ~_L-4.-# -4 '' ~7~777 ; _____ MerÂ» -I -9 1 1 1 - - STONt ' - 1, - VE[,4. -- t-.Notly# 7 - 0 -Â·#c #Tjllt 9/K MWifi I ' i 11 1 4-4 - 1 11 1 - MUAL- R.haUG,Af - MtTAL, MEIA. 1 J ve,4 Bee 1 -1.11*0'.BAYÂ© - =8 1 1 1 - Mer,6- TI/' MN# _-- R ' 11 BAX/41921<6 t il ' LIFrEA LEVEU I /- ,-- 01/3 eroNG 030 u \ 1 "fle' qroN6 --- - 4 1- - - -- en,/8 - 1 1 \ 1 eele"P 28' / 1 1= -- 1 + A - 'If , rÂ»< 1.f-- .# .- 2%44- vthleeR 1 11 %512. - -- - - - - - - --- ATC~WÂ·t'*7 .- ~~ -61-0,46 - -Ill-I [] -- 7 T G..,Uee | - STON e - - 70" 0 ---- 1 .*& 1 624 E. HOPKINS lili, 1 'CE'Â· r L_i_ r,- - -- - MA LIA/DU &Â· i ,~5~51 COLOMAPO 1--- 1.IC>. 8~1â„¢0 I -- -- I 1! r, 4- i ,_ 1 1 -1- ' r- -7- 1 11 11 1 1 .r- -4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 . 11 1 ! 1 - 1 il -4-1 1 1 11 1 6,&*Meâ€¢IT i - Ed'JOA:rWN -- 3-44-Â· 1\jO S.-7 H eoUTH DWF,mtoewoe 9*1 00 DESCA,PTÂ©N NOK-rkt 4 eOUTH 01â€¢Bv~TION'e w..pe - SHEET NO 6%5.11 C---JI' -'ll -/0..... PC bil C 2 / .,1,1, ISSOC,dte. ~ 4Â¥-1.t- .os EAST ... STNEET TEL 003; 023-4.55 ASPEN COLOAâ€¢00 018, i 1 1 IS.J. A- 4 iii 44'Â· #A u 4-12-91 Hic. FINAL_ . E--f--Ttlf;.Â£6 ..# .'.... 64Â©51&40 --7 Â·Â· - 1 6.. , :37'- 10' - , 13Â« - 0 eLATE 5-E *% _ 1, I' 71=37' f, -2123Â»431 6.32 E. Wof'Klkit IM FEREâ€¢gouND -~ ME'lk I 27- - 641[>tilt+LE 4 MEr,4. ' 1 -- - - - 44 Â« 1 -_ 14. G.Mu-- - -- - ===== 2,Â©Â·46 BACA / NIFip- -- 1 - -- ---- - -- - -â‚¬ 5 - - I - ....Al H,112 - - .-- 1- ....4 META- kiuwa L - -- -< 44 Â» [1 - -i--- - f .4...1111 -,0 1 1 23 i k -- 1 7 1 1 1-4 L , - -4 k.-P , 12.-1 - - tl- 624 2. HOPKINS gi -- - -- 1 f - -| 1 , - i '44' u.ve- 1 1 7--4_* 9 20 E----| i 1 G--1 te f i ') -- 1 11 1 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 - 0 ape~Me4MÂ£ 1 11 6-- #a - - ---5---- --â€ž , .... 88.- 6.4 Pal,Ect NE-1 1~PEKLE 1210.00 DESCRIPTO. 5Â»ST- El-A/Kn 04 1/4' I i' -0. SHEET NO le it A â‚¬ Op r - - Aiey o.d Â®--4.-I-OC#'ll 1- -1. 1 -. Dil .L_E~'221 12:ee,/"00.0 -1 ~ftft"/0.47F % -i= 605 EAST MAIN STREET \ ' ASPEN COLORADO .6. / m 003; 92*/735 1 1 1 1 3 1 - I Issue - 1 4 -11125 HFC FINAL 9.4051:DhiE - . 1 : /25 - -- .... _ --- - -~. pri i r .49 R--4 1 - 1 7" 1 --1 --~ 1 1 --- ---~- .--733.1 1 - COSIONE - ~-2 -9612>ke -- -- - 1 J- IL- - - - -1 eÂ£c,- --- -1- 1 --3 -* *04<. 1 41l ME-k. 2,+UNde40=tif--- ---~1~~ MEk- Muk~,6 1 :1,1l _-- __ ' u k UPPER- 6.EVEL 7-M . 1 5.- .Ill-G 11 ---- -- - - --- --- - 624 2. HOPKINS _ _ . 13Â·1~-- 11. --- - - - - 16-=g - - 7 7 - '.2/5.1, C.01.-0.ADO T. rÂ·,91. t- --1 4 -- -- . - - _ Exlt'E .a,~08 7 1 e-~Me,Cr- 6*><El.- PAOJECT NEW RaPENCE 9220.00 DESCA,/TION WEE ELEWArION SHEET NO *505 -...-las,oc=n'll k 414Jilli IÂ¢*nmpuVr 1-1------ ~1 1-1 11_-11~111L 11_ 11 J Â£ 1-1 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer 4 Re: Minor Development/Parking Variation: 627 W. Main, public hearing Date: June 24, 1992 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor Development approval for parking variation for 627 W. Main (from 3 spaces to 1) APPLICANT: Jim Kepmner ZONING: "0" Office Zone District, Main Street History District Overlay, Designated Landmark PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Development Review standards are found in Section 7-601 of the Land Use Code. 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 a Historic Landmark. For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard.and rear yard s@tbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings 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. Response: Parking variations may be granted. by the HPC at a public heating provided the HPC determines the site design includes as many spaces as possible to meet the underlying dimensional requirements. In this case, the applicant is seeking a variation of two spaces ( from the required three), .providing access to the single space through the slidilig gate. The Zoning Officer has determined that any required parking space .that is block*d' by a fence is not a parking space (due to no access); therefore, the variation is necessary, or the fence cannot be built here. The HPC previously approved the rear privacy fence design (see applicant's letter attached). The use for the parcel is a single family residence. The applicant is wishes to build the fence at the rear property line both to insure that the patrons and employees of the adjacent businesses do not park on their property, and to provide privacy in the yard area. 2. Standard: The proposed development ref lects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: From a design perspective, the fence meets the Guidelines, which the HPC found last February when granting Minor Development approval. The HPC should consider whether the reduction in parking is compatible within this immediately neighborhood/block or whether parking problems will be compounded, thereby being inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: Staff finds that the cultural value of the structure will not be diminished with the parking variation. 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: Staff finds that this standard does not apply in this case. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the Minor Development/parking variation application as submitted, making the required finding in Standard #1. 2. Approve the application with specific conditions 3. Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy (specific recommendations should be offered). 4. Deny approval finding that the application does not meet the development review standards. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC'grant Minor Development approval for th@ parking variation. of two spaces proposed at 627 W. Main, finding that such variation is more compatible in character ta the historic resource that would- be in accord with underlying dimensional requirements. memo.hpc.627wm 2 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 303/925-4755 FACSIMILE 303/920-2950 May 15, 1992 Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Specialist City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 627 West Main Dear Roxanne: A problem with our building permit has caused us to change the configuration of the rear privacy fence previously approved during the HPC meeting of February 26,1992. At that time, we were under the impression that there was a variance in place to legally allow only one parking space on the property. This apparently is not the case. In addition, the zoning enforcement officer has ruled that parking spaces may no longer be enclosed with gates. Finally, I would also like to point out that providing three parking spaces on site would leave no useable yard in the rear of the property (see drawing one). Therefore, we would like to request the following: A modification of the rear yard privacy fence shown on our drawings dated 02/12/92 A parking reduction from 3 spaces to 1 With respect to the reconfigured fence, we feel the changes are minor. No part of this fence is attached to the original portions of the house. The construction of the fence remains the same as shown to the committee on 02/26/92. With respect fo the parking variance, we feel the principal issOe is compatibility with the historic structures. If we are forced to provide three parking spaces as shown on drawing #1, the alley is effectively expanded to include the entire rear yard of the Kempner property. By reducing the parking requirement to one, a separation between the house and the alley can be maintained. We feel this separation is more compatible 4...ill.=# ./1/ ,/2 1 '60 -*f Â» 4 AL .4-,<47 4 Â»drassbciateiâ‚¬ Roxanne Eflin Page 2 with the historic nature of this house and historic structures in general. In addition, since this house fronts Main Street and the side yards are minimal, the rear yard is the only useable outdoor space the Kempners have. Thirdly, I would like to point out the need that this property has for privacy. It is a very small house in the midst of larger office and condominium structures. It is important that, for this structure to remain residential, some type of outdoor private space be created. Finally, after speaking with Stan Mathis, who landmarked these properties, the reduced parking requirement was understood in 1983 as an incentive for the saving and rehabilitation of this structure and the one next door. I have included a site plan approved by the Building Department to back this claim. Our only attempt here is to make this situation a legal one. For these reasons, we feel a parking reduction from 3 spaces to 1 is justified. Please review this information and let me know if you have any questions. Also, would you please schedule us for a minor development review and a public hearing for June 13, 1992. Thank you. Sincerely, Kim Weil Project Architect CC: Jim Kempner . h -1 -29-0" M30Â·42 6<16-r: G~gApEE ,-r r -- - n -m, IN-- n -xr Irr-- rir-Ill Ki- AHY FEINE ' --62223] il:L j ' I M=u==x===U=un i. 'i \ I x Woot:, Ug , i lill!:AL=~li==111-- LE-:12~=Lilll 11 ---- - 2.G 0+12 I !1 lili: .. 1\ 11 Ill ~1111- 11 ,'_f 1,\ !Itt 11-----1-5 7-U M 1 11 111111'fll]I=fl~~77~17~1111~1'-----7------~' 1-="9Â·Â·frili~ 6%~ Wooty foer , 1,1 4* 1-4 2 12 04. vt/ CA)36 06,Â¢14 8 GEUR.6 1 1 1 It , lip-/ 1 1 r --1-r-21- *1014 10 HA:ral MMIN& 2 MOInG.1 1 1 It 1,1 - , ~Agi 1 11 1 - l _ 1 HENY Purf Fa:,p Haw#4 1 1 1 1 91#4625, LPFIH/1=12/ ES : 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 -1-0 /h OBACK YARD FENCE - PARTIAL- ELEVATION i ' 4_./ ug'- 1'-0' 1 '1 1, 1 :#4: i=0k--t -4)Â·Cm/\ 1 1 A A /\ A /\ (\ /\ /\ A A A-_1__14Â£ 1- -*i---I--- - 1_11 LiII <Ull.LI Il Ir-L,I.-U-1-LI.1_1_-1,-1-71 44-w-I-1-1--1-44.-L-4-4-I-[-41--w-4-4 4444 1 7 I 11'11111:4,4-1,4214 431>13-41 111111,1111111111111 lilli 1 1=01 .3-1 C, 1]1 ~~~~~ "6-! 029.L'r-Â·1,1181 'lilifil '';''i' ''ill||11 1 R '' 1,1.iN-\111,1, 1111,111111111111\111111111-~1 -Al 01 ill'lll'lll'll tt[344[L[14%1411114111111111111411111111'' \ \I \ 1 \1,4 Woop ry*ea-Kilu-lle ~ '45. ~b--Â»4Â· Wmop Fer-8- r.1 UTEP) \ r--=le Woop *OfÂ®036 W) 119*Ma,rE - Abv i Pe. \4 -3.11*66 4. LATol-1 -1YP g>hl- e. -524 CON) recÂ»16 C<~h *RONT-YARDEFENCE3 iPARMAL ELEVAT]01* 1Â·*,TE. FIEoutoe *-3* eF,~61 144 - -1/0 -4 1'-04 Â»122,1 qt,Kert -(rr,3 ' ~FlOJECT: OATE: Â£ SHEET NO. KEMFRIMIC-2*409542 - 4* 17,2. DESCRJETION: ~ ~ PR8JECY NO. l ::..3_--__--___-_FBELON_-_[2~t-All--6.--__-_ 1103 of ~ ; *9ikfhft 6*L #=F SCALE INCH' - 10 FEET 5 10 15 20 . 4-3 47 41 4/17 1 STREET - r. , / CITY <JO. 2 1 MON DISTURBED . -.. 1 ~~Â·Â·- l fil,2 DON A' 75' ' --& -~trcH HEDGE j +N- 09'11-W 0 NE BLK 25 HORZ. 75 9018 - r CNTL REBAR [6129 34-7-- BENT BEAR NG PORCH Â¥- .29 22. Is.- -AltfT -- ~ 1 1/2 STORY i 2./5 PENZZ LEGE MASONRY & WOOD ~ 0 FOUND SURVEY MONUME FRAME HOUSE 2 1959 OFFICIAL MAP 0 LOT A /3 RECORD DIMENSIONS C vi FOUND CITY MONUMENT 25 IS DZSTURBED FRO FLO T 8 i.- IN 1980 STEWART TITLE ORDER 9 /Â·45 ' WAS USED IN THE PRE ..ELL ~<~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 23/ POSTED ADDREES -627 b da LOT C 89 THIS PROPERTY HAS H I #C SEE BOOK 511 ~6 11 UTILITY BOX AT PAGE 178 AREA - 3.000 30.FT.â€¢/- 20 0 â€¢1 0 4 Â¥0 D O SET PROPERTY CORNER = *L - 1 1 / ir 1 - L 22,2 V 6- P C 1 - 1 6.11 - O FR-N ACY =kNCE l GRAVEL~ PARKING I MP R ? 1 m 1.lill LOT .Bl ' 44 -04/ 1 TRANSFORMER 1-hÂ· -41Â¥.6 1 1 j &64 1 f - 4825HES & TO \AlÂ·h . 4 4 LE F / Poll / P I TKIV r.11,4. F BLOCK 25 CERPIFICATION CH CO. 8 UNITED BANK OF DENVER, N.A. t- STATES Twar ruc- Dompworv -rerS,ACÂ·. IMOC.4 4/je - C - - I 7.-"I...----* . . 4% f \ 4 1 Ej' 9 ft - 12/2 'I If- ;L --- -- ---------*.--/--"- ----9 39[Vi-1 p CPI-lot'341.1 ; 1,72 EV,ra FN 1 -~140!9180- -- - 1 + 4 2 1 1 1 1 - E-1 ----- 1-- -- - 1 -12. . t--- -t 1.- 4 - i. Â¢01 - N.el .-- r - - - 4 - -'- ... , m & -6 1 -" ----41 , 3 -2.7 3 r fi - 4. 1Â¥-1. Â·-0. .. 1 1 ' , W 3 1 Â£*-- T.I 16 N Tar 1X - ' . 1-2 i IN.3 . . < ~rn--- lt----- -M-. ~ig Ti 2-; U i 1 , .- 1 2 ff -9 mi i= -1 41 1 6-ri 1-4 1. . --- 1 m 4 -4 - 14 - C 12 -1 41 Â» - C - 1-1 -7 . 1 2 - - -- n 4--- + I :- - 'Val-PE