The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19920226 4. - ' 1/ AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE February 26, 1992 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM 4:45 GOALS RESOLUTION DISCUSSION - Due to the length of the agenda, staff is requesting that HPC members come promptly at 4:45 for general discussion of the 1992 Goals Resolution. 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of February 12, 1992 minutes. II. Committee Member & Staff Comments CLG 1992 grant ap was submitted 2-14-92 Inventory Re-evaluation hearings set Welcome new member, Linda Smisek III. Public Comments 5:10 IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Approval of 1992 Goals Resolution, 92-1 5:15 B. Conceptual Development, Public Hearing continued - St. Mary' s Addition 03 _ 6441*1- M/i-) A 6:00 C. Minor Development -,627 W. Main--0 < 36'1 h.. it' 6)11 V. NEW BUSINESS 6:15 A. Conceptual Development, Public Hearing - 715 W. Sm~ggler, garage and parking variation 9,U , h, iÂ»-9. A-4 ' 7 9 0 /0 6:45 FIVE MINUTES BREAK 6:50 B. Minor Development - 204 S. Mill, Collins BlockO 27 ----~~ 1 6-1643 0 -Â¥ 7:10 C. Minor Development - 202 S. Galena,,Sport Stalker 7:45 VI. COMMUNICATIONS Staff: Location for Preservation Honor Awards Project Monitoring 8:00 ADJOURN TE-k.r MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Public Hearing continued: Conceptual Development - 533 E Main, St. Mary's Church elevator tower and vestibule addition (Public Hearing) Date: February 26, 1992 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual Development approval for addition of an elevator tower and vestibule, and front entrance remodel of St. Mary's Church. St. Mary's Centennial is 1992, and they are interested in having this addition completed in time for this looth anniversary. This is the 2nd continuation of the Conceptual Development public hearing. PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: At the meeting on November 13, the initial public hearing, the HPC tabled action and continued the public hearing to December 11, to give the applicant additional time to restudy a few significant aspects of the elevator/entrance addition. Height, massing, scale, fenestration, roof forms and materials are all considered to be areas where consensus had not been reached, and more design work was necessary in order the proposal to meet the Development Review standards. The HPC seemed to not object to the proposed general location of addition. The interior site Visit held on November 13 was necessary in order for the HPC to clearly understand why the addition is proposed where it is, as opposed to pushing it further to the south of the building, closer to the alley. The nave and sacristy would be affected if the addition were added to the southwest corner, the building has close to a zero rear yard setback, and the east elevation (Hunter Street) is considered the secondary elevation, thereby precluding it from receiving the addition. The project was continued again to January 22, 1992, however, the applicant requested additional time to prepare revised drawings, following comments from St. Mary's congregation. The Public Hearing was continued to this meeting, February 26, 1992. PROJECT SUMMARY and REVIEW PROCESS: The applicable Guidelines are found in Section IV. Commercial Buildings - Renovation and Restoration, beginning on page 47. The Development Review Standards are found in Section 7-601(D). Please refer to previous memos for complete review. All four Development Review Standards are required to be met in order for the HPC to grant approval. . Please refer to the applicant's letter as a summarization of the revisions. The areas to carefully review are the elevator tower and the front porch. 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 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: Staff feels that the general conceptual direction of the revisions meets the HPC's concerns as stated in previous meetings. The roof form of both the elevator tower and the front porch are relatively simple and appear to meet this Standard. Detailing and window form and proportion are issues that should be addressed at this time, but must be addressed at Final. HPC COMMENTS: 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Elevator towers have been successfully added to significant landmarks (The Wheeler and the Elks Building) in the historic district. From discussion in previous meetings, it appears to staff that the HPC feels this standard has been met with this proposal. HPC COMMENTS: 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. 2 Response: Staff's response remains consistent with previous memos: it is our opinion that the proposal as presented does not enhance the cultural value of the landmark, due to the visual impacts and general change in architectural character of the structure created by the elevator. We find that the front entrance porch is an improvement over the existing (non-historic) porch. These changes may be determined, however, to enhance the "social value" of the landmark, due to the potential of increased usability by the public. HPC COMMENTS: 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: Elevator Addition: It appears that by incorporating a compatible roof form on the addition, reducing its overall size and significantly reducing competitive detail, the addition may not diminish the architectural integrity of the church. We ask that the HPC consider the compatibility of the proposed windows and long, vertical detail proposed in the elevator addition. These are issues that may be reviewed in more detail at Final. Front entry porch: We find the revised entry porch to be compatible, however, the HPC should consider the compatibility of the roof form and increase in the non-conformity (encroachment into the public right-of-way). HPC support would be necessary, we feel, for an encroachment license to be approved by City Council. Please refer to Chuck Roth's (Engineering Department) letter, attached, regarding the expansion of the sidewalk and curb. HPC COMMENTS: The Partial Demolition Standards are found in Section 7-602(C) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The general provisions of Sec. 7- 602 allow the HPC to require a Performance Guarantee when deemed appropriate due to the significance of the project. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure; and 3 I 1 2. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. b. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure located on the parcel. Response: The applicant did not specifically address the partial demolition standards in the Conceptual Development application, and staff recommends this be done in the Final application. It appears that a relative small amount of original material will be impacted or destroyed due to the addition. HPC COMMENTS: ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Conceptual Development application as revised, with or without additional conditions, and require that the Partial Demolition Standards be met at Final. 3) Table action to a date certain and continue the public hearing, to allow the applicant time to restudy, prepare drawings and revise the model accordingly. A revised application must be submitted to the Planning Office no later than two weeks prior to the continued public hearing date. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. This action constitutes re-noticing and another public hearing. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant conceptual development approval with specific conditions to be met at Final, including meeting the partial development standards (Section 7-602-c). Standard #C (Cultural value) should be specifically addressed at this meeting to determine if the proposal meets it. V. - _~,LÂ·'t-Â·46Â£,<Fix= RJ>f~ L-f~,-,~*4.,0 Additional comments: 1 ) 1 r . V -A 1 .- L : 1 C L.i l / IC .,c,0k- p L rt-Â·t- t,c--u 4 --1 7, c f .c i u ,(. ,Â£ gl--15-- hpc. 533 em.cd-cont.26 -A- Et,-â‚¬_s- memo. 4 THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC â€¢ ARCHITECTS ANO STAUCTUAAL ENGINEERS February 12, 1992 Ms. Roxanne Elfin Historic Preservation Officer Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: St. Mary's Church Conceptual Review Dear Roxanne: As you are aware, we presented our designs to the parish over the holidays and have adjusted our conceptual drawings to reflect the wishes of the parishioners. The following changes were made: The entry porch has been refined by removing dormers to maintain a simple hip roof fam compatible with the historic structure. A curved gutter and snow stop has been proposed to control the snow and ice which could slide off of the roof. The stairs have been finalized with flights going only east and west. The priest will stand where the northern stairs were shown on earlier plans. There are few changes at the Tower entrance. The walk has been located away from the Tower for safety from sliding snow and a flat roof protects entrants without obstructing the existing stained glass windows. We have had a preliminary response from the city regarding pushing the curb into the parking lanes. We will ask for help from the HPC in our efforts to get this improvement implemented. We would ask for either a conceptual approval or a conceptual approval with conditions at our continued hearing on February 19th. Please call with any questions. Sincerely yours, 1 . l'heodore K. Guy, President THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC TKG/lk 91105 L9 Enclosures cc: St. Mary's Parish (Father Solan) 23280 STATE HIGHWAY 82 P O BOX 1640 BASALT, COLORADO 81 621 (303]927-3167 13 {.1 1. 1, , t. 1,14. ' ti g '4% JAN 8 /447- C itylâ€¢10~Knen i 130 ~~~reet Asp~.611 January 3, 1992 Mr. Bracken Raleigh Theodore K. Guy Associates PC P.O. Box 1640 Basalt, Colorado 81621 Dear Mr. Raleigh: I am writing in response to your letter of November 18, 1991. The city engineering department has historically been unreceptive to "elephant ears" on city streets because of snow removal and street cleaning problems. Both city staff and city council have historically been conservative in granting permission for construction in the public rights-of-way. I believe that staff would recommend to council against granting an encroachment for the proposed entry way * expansion. At first glance, our recommendation would be to construct the entry way on the church's private property, of which there is plenty at the northwest corner of the building. These comments notwithstanding, if you are able to garner favorable recommendations from the Historical Preservation Committee and from the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission, please contact me again. You do have the right to apply for an encroachment license to construct-the proposed improvements. Under current legislation, the encroachment license would go to city council for consideration. New legislation is in progress to remove encroachment licenses from council's purview. Under the new ordinance, the city engineer would have power to grant or deny encroachment licenses with appeals being heard by the Board of Adjustment. Please feel free to call me at 920-5088 if you have any questions. Sincerely, FUL-,-2 Chuck Roth, P.E. City Engineer cr/L92.9 4& recvc/ed paper j . 19 S. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Minor Development: 627 W. Main Date: February 26, 1992 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor Development approval for changes to the rear (non-historic) addition of the residence at 627 W. Main. APPLICANT: Jim Kempner, represented by Kim Weil of Bill Poss and Associates ZONING: "0" Office zone, It H" Historic Overlay District (Main Street), Designated Landmark PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Staff has determined that the proposal is a Minor Development review by the HPC, as stated in Section 7- 601(E) (2) (d) . We find that the cumulative impact of the changes is minor in its effect on the character of the existing structures. 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... cuLL-1- 0 Response: Staff finds that this staAdard has generally been met, with the possible exception of the Re,6** elevation transom windows. These appear slightly out of proportion, which the HPC may decide requires further study with staff approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. No changes are proposed to the historic portion of the structure. HPC comments: 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: We find this standard has been met. HPC comments: 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 proposed changes. HPC comments: 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 due to the changes occurring on the rear non-historic portion of the building, the architectural integrity is not diminished. HPC comments: ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the Minor Development application as submitted 2. Approve the Minor Development application with conditions to be approved by staff and the project monitor, such as restudy of the north elevation transom window proportion. 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: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Minor Development approval for the project:-64 627 W. Main as proposed, subject to a restudy of the north elevation transom window proportions. Revised plans shall be approved by staff and the project monitor prior to the issuance of a building permit. The HPC shall assign a project monitor to this project at this meeting. memo.hpc.627wm 2 Al'maIMENT 1 IAND USE APPI/CATICN EURM ) Project Name Â· Kempner Residence ) Project. location 0Â£.7 â€žest' Street; Lot B. Block 25 (indicate street ailress, lot & block nimber, legal descripticn where awrripriate) 3) ~ Present Zoning 0 4) Iat Size 30(10 9 f. 5) Applicant' s Nana, Address & Fhcne # Jim Kempner, Imperial Hollv Corpora.ti nn One Imperial Squard, PO Box 9, 9Â·ligArl Qnd Texas, 77487 (713)491-9181 6) Represerrtativels Name, Address & 2=2 # Kim Weil, Bill Poss and Assnrintee 605 East Main St. Aspen m Rl 811 (303)925-4755 7 ) TyPEE of Arplizatim (please chedc all that 2gply): Conditimal Use - Ccnceptual SPA CCOTÂ¥rtlu,1 Historic Dev. .-- Beviat Final SEA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Ocnieptual FOD Mimr Historic Dev. Historic DEmilition Stream argin - Â·- Final POD M,intain View Plane Subdivisirn - Historic Designatirn Cc=laninilmizat-i r,1 - Ted=/Mar *prvlrruff Â· QES Allot=Ert Iat Split/Lot Lim - CMOS Exalpticn AdjUS{inent 8) Description of Existing Uses Â· Comber and f type of ecisting struct:ures ; awrcodmate sq. ft. ; amber of bedroans; any previals agrovals granted to the property). One historic two story brick single family home with a. nine ypgr old additign 2 BR in historic home. 1 BR in a rici i tinn Â· Subdivision exemption was granted in 1978 9 ) Description of DevelogIErt Aiplication See attached sheet 10) Haue yal attached the follading? Y Response to Attachn=It. 2. Mininlmt Suhni~Sij,1 Contents Y Response to Ail-â„¢-*m,grrt 3, Srw'i fi r Sukinissirn Contents - Y Respcnse to Attachn~It 4, Revist Starxiards for Your Applintion 1[11111 1 liwi I 19 Â¢? andassociates 2.4 __l 605 EAST MA/N STREET ' FEB 1 8~ ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 303/925-4755 FACSIMILE 303/920-2950 February 14, 1992 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Specialist 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 627 West Main Street Dear Roxanne: Jim Kempner, the owner of the above referenced property, wishes to remodel the rear addition of the home. The main goals of the remodel are: 1. Make the addition more harmonious with the existing structure 2. Increase views from the master bedroom 3. Develop the roof over the addition into a roof deck In response to the review standards for development in the historic overlay district and development involving historic landmarks we would offer the following comments. Standard A: The proposed development is compatible with designated historic structures on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels. By removing the Southern portion of the mansard roof, we feel the addition becomes more subordinately compatible to the historic portion of the house. The hips that were created by the mansard roof were not compatible with the original house. With respect to development on adjacent parcels, the revised addition elevations will be more in keeping with their character also. 11 ~associates . Ms. Roxanne Eflin February 14, 1992 Page two Standard B: The proposed development is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Again, the removal of the Southern portions of the mansard roof will enhance the properly's compatibility with the neighborhood. Standard C: The proposed development does not detract from the cultural value of the designated historic structures on the property. Cultural value is this case derived from the character and use of the structure. Since, the character is to be enhanced and the use remains unchanged there should be no reduction in the cultural value. Standard D: The proposed development does not diminish the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure. The work to be done to the original house is limited to changing the South window on the second floor to a door and incorporating the existing sidelights into the trim, should enhance the architectural integrity of the existing house. Please review this information and the enclosed drawings and place us on the agenda of February 26, 1992 for a minor development review. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Kim Weil Project Architect . 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 303/925-4755 FACSIMILE 303/920-2950 KEMPNER PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION FEBRUARY 14, 1992 The project principally is a remodel of a recent addition to a historic two story brick house. Specific Elements are: 1. Removal of mansard roof on South 2. Addition of transoms over master bedroom window and doors 3. Addition of basement under addition only 4. Development of roof over addition into roof deck 5. Addition of a stair from the new deck into the rear yard 6. Conversion of South second floor window into a door 7. Enclose the backyard with a wood fence and associate MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Conceptual Development and parking space variation and sideyard setback: 715 W. Smuggler (Public Hearing) Date: February 26, 1992 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual Development approval for the addition of a multi-sided dining room off the southeast corner of the house, demolition of the (non-historic) 1-car carport, construction of a new 2-car garage, and parking space variation for the reduction of two spaces. APPLICANT: Ann Miller, represented by Gretchen Greenwood & Associates ZONING: R-6, Designated Landmark PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Development Review Standards are found in Section 7-601 of the Land Use Regulations. The applicable Guidelines begin on Page 47 of that document. 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: The principal concern of this project, in staff's opinion, is the proposed multi-sided dining room addition, at the rear (southeast) corner of the house. It is visible from the facade, and although small in scale, may be considered a competitive element of an otherwise vernacular miner's cottage. The HPC should carefully consider whether the location and basic design elements of this addition is compatible and meets Standard #1. The HPC may grant parking variations, provided a thorough review of the site has been made, along with a determination that a parking reduction is compatible with the site and the neighborhood. The purpose of the public hearing for variations is to survey the immediate neighborhood to determine any concerns. On this block, in particular, staff asks that the HPC carefully consider the impacts of having only two spaces on the parcel, when the requirement is for one per bedroom - four bedrooms exist in the home. Staff finds that the east sideyard setback is appropriate for the parcel and meets the standard. HPC comments: 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: We find that the proposal meets this standard. Alley- accessed, detached garages are found throughout the west end; rear additions are not uncommon in the west end. HPC comments: 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: We find that the demolition of the carport and new construction of a 2-car detached garage does not detract from the cultural value of the parcel. Our primary concern lies in the dining room addition, and whether another conical roof addition is appropriate on this small scale miner's cottage. As this structure continues to grow, we are concerned that the basic form of the cottage, and subsequently its cultural and architectural integrity, is being diminished. We ask that the HPC carefully consider these matters when reviewing this project. HPC comments: 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: As discussed in our response to Standard #3 above, we find that the detached garage does not diminish the integrity of the landmark, however, the dining room addition may. Please review the issues of competing architectural elements and compatibility when reviewing the proposal. 2 . , HPC comments: ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the Minor Development application as submitted 2. Approve the Minor Development application with specific conditions of the HPC, to be approved by staff and the project monitor prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy (specific recommendations should be offered). 4. Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the development review standards. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC table the proposal at 715 W. Francis, to allow the application additional time to restudy the dining room addition, according to direction given by the HPC at this meeting. The public hearing should also be continued to a date certain. A project monitor should be assigned this project at this meeting. memo.hpc.204sg.md i 3 \ k GRETCHEN GREENWOOD & ASSOCIATES, INC. ,/~'~~1~J~ ARCHITECTUREÂ·INTERIOR DESIGNÂ·PLANNING 78'4 -1- 1 -1,1/7 4 1 0 0 0 Rox=. pnno U'-61 44 Aspen/_ ... L A ; -I Coe:.:y * -L.6------s u_ - ace D 4 + 1, 4 n 012â€žâ€ž4â€ž- A.G.â‚¬4 HAND DELIVERED nvm,nno . Dear R-U....... I am submitting a revised application to our signif cant development application for the Miller Residence. In addition to the one storv gazebo addilion. the applicant - would like tc add to the property a two car garage of approximately 360 square feet. Presently. there is a non- conforming one car carport that has been built on the south property line. It is the intention of the applicant to remove the non-conforming carport and rebuild a two car , C_ c. 4-, 4 . ... .-0- n n --b ,-~ r- Ch rim.h a - proposed garage will be built five feet from the south property line and directly on the east property line. Therefore, we are requesting a side yard variance for the construction of the carport to the east. I I The garage design wi-_ conform to the V~ rÂ· + n -r - 7 -n a Â·r, rÂ· 1,Â·, 4 + c~ p -F , - -r a -6 # L w -6 -6 0/ 4 of the existing house. The size of the garage has been redesigned to a minimum functional square footage of 360 square feet in order to minimize the scale 0 - 4- ho 4.- 2 1 r.0 4 - r Drawings are enclosed for vour review. In addition to a side vard setback for the accessory garage building, we are requesting from the HPC a Darkinc variance of - V -- two spaces. The house presently has four bedrooms -'- Mc.-1-1 p ; cirro X- althouch three bedrooms are listed as true bedrooms. rn %. - _ Le size 01 : r. T,7 the lot and the original location of the house do not al two more Darkinc spaces. - , the applicant seeks a two e <n rÂ· U m -v, -, i n - 1.Ta-~ -- ance, an east side yard setback fer fine accessory garage bu.Lidinc only, and approval of the carace and gazebo addition to the 2 V - 0 + Â· -Â·r- - nouse. Sincerely, 444-, 4-la - Grek-chen Greenwoot 10Â¢hitect Enclosure 201 N. MILL. STE. 207 Â· ASPEN, CO 81611 Â· TEL: 303/925-4502 Â· FAX: 303/925-7490 1 AN APPLICATION FOR , MINOR HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT FOR THE MILLER RESIDENCE 715 WEST SMUGGLER STREET ASPEN, COLORADO SUBMITTED BY: ANN MILLER PREPARED BY: GRETCHEN GREENWOOD & ASSOCIATES, INC. ARCHITECTS 201 NORTH MILL STREET, SUITE 207 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-4502 IAND USE Al:'rl~1-CA~111.Ut r ul<Il *1?. , 1) Project Name Miller Residence - - .. 2) Project Iocation 715 West Smuggler Strept - Lots E & F; Block 15; City and Townsite of Aspen (indicate street ailress ; lot & block Ilmber, legal description Wiere apprgniate) R-6 4) Ist Size 6,000 Sq. Ft. 3) Present Zoning 5) Applicant's Name, Ac~ress & Phone # Ann Miller 715 W. Smuggler, 'Aspen, CO 81611 925-2225 6) Bepresentative's Name, Address & rhona # Gretchen Greenwood, Gretchen Greenwood & Associates, Inc., 201 N. Mill St. #207, Aspen, CO 81611 925-4502 7) ~ Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conoeptnal ILS.storic Dev. Special Review Final SPA Ftinal Historic: Dev. OorDeptijal PUD X Minor Historic Dev. 8040 Greenllne Steam Margin Final ED . Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane - Subdivisirn I{istoric Designation I .92 001*Kniniumization Teocti/Map Amendmeift - adaS Allotment Earption Â· Dit Split/Int line .-' GMOS Adjust]~ent 8) Descr*tien of Existing Uses (number and type of eocistingÂ· st:ructures; appraximate sq. ft. ; nuiber of bedrooms; anor Pmvious approvals granted tb the property). Existing Wood Frame ; Single Family; 3 Bedrooms; 2,079.Sq. Ft. Exiting Carport . 9) Description of Develcgnent Application i See Attached ADDliCation 10) IIave you attached the following? X Response to Attadnner[t 2, Minim= Submission Contents X Response to Attad=ent 3, Specific Submissian Contents X Izesponse to Attachment 4, Iariew Standards for Your Application . 1 .lillill f MINOR HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT T -. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS A. Letter of Consent by Applicant is attached as Exhibit A. B. The Street Address and Legal Description of the residence is: 715 W. Smuggler Street Aspen, Colorado Lots E & F; Block 15; City and Township of Aspen C. Disclosure of ownership is attached as Exhibit B. D. An Aspen Township Vicinity Map is attached as Exhibit C. E. Compliance with Review Standards 1 -. Compatibility with Design Structure The proposed addition is compatible in character with the existing residence. The gazebo addition is being added to the rear of the house that was constructed in 1988. The historic l portion of the building that was moved to the site remains to the front of the property. The proposed addition is a Victorian gazebo similar in details, building materials and color as the existing house. OAA..K A parking variance for pwo-- space0 is being sought with this application. When the existing development was approved by the HPC in 1988, the application and development plan only allowed for one parking space, due to the existing location of the house, that prevented additional parking spaces and the topography of Smuggler Street to the property and the topography of the alley to the house. At the time of the approval for the expansion of the residence, a formal variance was either not granted or overlooked through the approval process. At this time, the house has three bedrooms with one parking space for the entire residence. The house has always had three bedrooms witn one parking space. There has never been an appropriate place en the property to locate two more parking spaces. In addition, the neighborhood of Smuggler Avenue provides an abundance of available parking. It is inappropriate to locate any parking spaces on the North elevation because it would destroy the streetscape from Smuggler Street. The south side of the property is too close to the rear of the house for parking spaces . - I.U ruha 2 I A , location of two additional parking spaces would overwhelm the small property and affect the alley streetscape. The existing carport has provided a sinrrle off-street parking space since the house was originally moved to the property. The small backyard, which has been cultivated into a beautiful rose garden and a well-manicured garden, is in keeping with the Victorian nature of the parcel. The proposed parking variation is compatible with the original development and original approval of the HPC>. 2. Consistency with Neighborhood Character The addition reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The residences to the south of the parcel are historical Miner's cabins and to the southeast is a Victorian house. The traditional style of the residence being developed to the east, will be complimented by the charm of the proposed addition te the existing Victorian residence. The addition maintains the historic concerns of the neighborhood. 3. Enhancement of the Cultural Value of the Structure The proposed addition enhances the cultural value of the structure and adjacent parcels. The design of the addition to the rear of the existing house enhances the East elevation while not detracting from the original, historic look of the North elevation. The Victorian heritage of the original residence is further enhanced by the addition. 4. Enhancement of the Architectural Integrizv of the Structure The proposed addition enhances the architectural integrity of the structure. The Gazebo style addition is reminiscent of the porches of the Victorian era. The steep pitch of the roof, the detailing of the fascia, and the consistent exterior building materials does not detract from the architectural integrity of the structure. The Victorian style of the existing residence is enhanced by the proposed addition. 3 F. Specific Submissions Contents: 1 .. Conceptual Development Plan Review Existing Sketch Plan: The existing conditions illustrate the existing site plan, floor plans, and the elevations of the residence and the existing carport. The drawings are as follows Drawing 1: A Building Permit Survey prepared by Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. showing th location of the existing residence, carport, fences, trees and property boundaries. Drawing 2: Existing Architectural Site Plan Drawing 3: Existing Main Level Floor Plan Drawing 4: Existing Elevations; North, South, East and West Drawing 5: Existing Carport; Plan and Elevations 2. Proposed Development Plan Sketch: The proposed development includes the proposed site plan, floor plan and elevations. The drawings are as follows: Drawing 6: Proposed Architectural Site Plan The addition of the gazebo is to the east of the existing building. The new side yard setback resulting from the addition is 13'- 0". Drawing 7: Proposed Floor Plan The proposed addition of the gazebo to the existing residence meets the current floor arma-neguirements for the R-6 zone. The existing reside-- - 1 2,07 0 sq. ft. The total, with the addition, is~2,@6~-~ sq. ft. of F.A.R. Drawing 8: Proposed 211Va-fions; North, South, East and West F c & -~IX t-pcn V\l 4 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Minor Development: 204 S. Mill, Collins Block Date: February 26, 1992 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor Development approval for changes to the 3rd floor of the Collins Block and one storefront in the Collins Alley. APPLICANT: Harley Baldwin, represented by Rod Dyer and Associates ZONING: "CC" Commercial Core, " H" Historic Overlay District, Designated Landmark, National Register of Historic Places PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Staff has determined that the proposal is a Minor Development review by the HPC, as stated in Section 7- 601(E)(2)(d). We find that the cumulative impact of the changes is minor in its effect on the character of the existing structures. 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... Response: Staff finds that the proposal meets the standard, with the exception of the roof projection. The proposed skylights are low profile, although slight pitches are proposed for snow shedding. The "monitor" is clearly is out of character with the national register structure, and is counter to the original approval for the 3rd floor "loft" addition. When this project was originally approved, the HPC worked hard to maintain the two story appearance of the Collins Block, while working with the applicant to provide a hidden 3rd floor/loft area. A rooftop projection is considered by staff to be out of keeping with the original approval and the character of the landmark. Staff recommends the HPC deny this aspect of the proposal, finding that this standard has not been met. The storefront change proposed to one of the Collins Alley spaces will appear exactly as the storefront across the walkway from it, which meets this standard. HPC comments: 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: We find that the proposal meets this standard, with the exception of the rooftop "monitor", as discussed above. We recommend this element be eliminated from the proposal in order to meet this standard. The HPC has worked hard over the past few years to maintain flat roofs, devoid of much mechanical and reflective elements, visible within the CC Historic District. HPC comments: 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 be diminished with the addition of a rooftop "monitor" projection, and recommends that the HPC deny this aspect of the proposal, finding that Standard #3 has not been met. HPC comments: 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 the changes as proposed, with the exception of the rooftop "monitor", do not detract from the architectural integrity of the landmark. As stated in response to the above Standards, we recommend the "monitor" be eliminated from the proposal, finding that this element detracts from the architectural integrity, and therefore, does not meet this standard. The applicant states that additional "head room" is desired in the 3rd floor loft. We find that their proposed solution is not compatible with the structure, and recommend further study be conducted by the applicant for an appropriate design. HPC comments: ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the Minor Development application as submitted 2. Approve the Minor Development application with the 2 elimination of the rooftop monitor, and other such conditions of the HPC, to be approved by staff and the project monitor prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy (specific recommendations should be offered). 4. Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the development review standards. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Minor Development approval for the Collins Block at 204 S. Mill, subject to the elimination of the rooftop monitor. Revised plans are to be approved by staff and the project monitor prior to the issuance of a building permit. The HPC shall assign a project monitor to this project at this meeting. memo.hpc.204sm.md 3 ,, *rmally 1 - 1-/ 1 IAND USE APPLIaTION FORM 1) Project Name The Collins Block Building / 2) Project location 204 S. Mill St., Aspen, Co. 81611 - Parts of Lots A.B.C,D & E, Block 88, Aspen Townsite (see Attached) Cir*licate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning 4) Lot Size 8,321 s.f. 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone, Harley A. Baldwin II 205 S. Galena St., Aspen, Co. 81611 303/920-1800 - Dyer & Assoc., Architects 6) Representative's Name, Miress & Ihore 11 415 E. Hyman Ave. #205, Aspen, Co. 81611 303/925-7149 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conclitional Use Concentual SPA Concentual Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline - Conceptial RTD X X Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final PUD Historic Demolition Mbuntain yiew Plane Subdivision - Historic Designatian Condiminiumization Text;/Map Amertlment _ CM@S Allotment Lot Split/Iot Line - GDOS Eboemptian Adjustment Description of Existing Uses (rimber and type of edsting structures; approximate sq. ft.; rl-ber of bedroars; arly previous awrovals granted to the property). See Attached 9) Description of Development Applicatian See Attached 10) Have you attached the following? Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application 3 1111111 \1 Collins Block/HPC Paae 2 Attachment #1 - Continuation 8. The Collins Block building is a mixed-occupancw commercial. residential structure with the basement occupied bq a private diner/night club. the ground floor level consists of retail shops in the main structure and attached "Collins Allew" built in con.junction with the addition and remodel of the main structure in 1990. The second and third floor levels of the original building consists of two single familu residential units. Construction of these units was begun during the addition and remodel of the pro.ject but was delayed because of financial considerations. Also a part of the project is the "Lane Parcel" which has received a building permit from the Aspen/Pitkin Regional Building Department for a structure containing two Affordable Housing units. two parking spaces and trash storage area for the pro.ject. The Lane building is scheduled to begin construction in the spring of 1992. 9. The applicant seeks to make changes to door. window and skulight locations previouslw approved bw the Historic Preservation Committee in the "Collins Allew" and on the south and west walls of the third floor of the original "Collins Block Building". THEBRAND **** February 3, 1992 Aspen Historic Preservation Committee 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Collins Block Building Dear Members of the Committee, This letter is to certify that Rod Dyer & Associates, Architects is authorized to act as my representative before the Committee for the attached Land Use Application. Sincerely, A L----1 ------A Baldwin Associates HB/ws 205 S GALENA ASPEN.CGA ORADO 81611 30 3 920 1800 1. AX. 30-4 920 Â®02 ' February 3. 1992 Explanation of the proposed development of the Collins Block Building. 204 South Mill Street. Aspen. Colorado. 81611 The proposed development consists of the following: Elimination of two previouslw approved windows on the | triird floor. west wall. (see sketches #1&2) Replace two previouslw approved fixed glass windows with ,two 3'-0" x 61-8" glass panel doors. (see sketches #3&4) 3. Addition of a roof top Monitor for natural ventilation and light. (see sketches #2&4) 4. Change roof top skullghts to accommodate revised third floor plan. (see sketches #5&6) Change existing door and storefront at east end of 4<37retail unit #202 in the "Collins Allew". (see sketches # 7 & 8) 1. The applicant wishes to not install the two previousl w approved 6'-0" 3 4'-4" windows on the west wall of the third floor for interior architectural considerations. The subject windows would be replaced bg grew slate tiles to match the existing exterior wall finish. These windows are not visible from the street. This proposed modification lS compatible with the existing structure and does not detract from the architectural character of the existing historic structure. The applicant wishes to replace two previously approved 3'-0" x 6'-8" fixed glass windows on the south wall of the third floor with two 3'-0" x 6'-8" wood and glass doors to provide emergencg egress from the master bedrowns of the two condominium units in order to satistw the requirements of UBC-88. sect. 1204. The proposed doors are compatible in appearance and materials to the previouslw approved fixed glass windows they will replace and are consistent in character with other exterior doors within the project. 3. The applicant wishes to add a 5'-6" x 7'-0" roof top monitor above the master bedroom of condominium unit "A" to provide natural light and ventilation. The exposed exterior sides of the monitor would be covered in grew slate tiles to match the existing exterior third floor walls and the roof of the monitor would be fire rated cedar shingles. The exterior of the monitor would be compatible with the exterior walls of the existing third floor. The vent windows would be wood awning type units and the roof structure would be cedar shingles compatible with roots of this period. 4. The applicant has revised the floor plans of the third floor for both condominium units and wishes to provide skylights for natural lighting in areas such as bathrooms. dressing rooms, stairwaws and hallwags that do not have access to exterior walls for windows. Skylights would also provide natural light to areas where exterior windows would not be appropriate. The proposed new skglights will be glass "gable" type skylights of varwing sizes from 2' x2' to 3' x 5'-6" and plexiglass dome skulights in sizes of ----- , - .... to 6' :Â·:6' . All skwlights will be set back from the roof edges so as not to be visible from the streetscape. 5. The applicant wishes to change the egress from retail rental space #202 (Crystal Farms) to provide direct access to the 'Collins AllewÂ° from this space. The existi. nq egress door opens into the bottom of the stairwell to condominium unit "B" The proposed door and storetront changes will be accomplished with materials to match the existing doors. storefront and trim of the "Collins Alley" and will not detract from the architectural integrity of the existing structure. - Â· ,- 61 - . ..1~ .. 1/1 - -Uy/i.35 Â·1: 1 IF 11 - 9-1 --272 (@ 15-1 1.- . I. , : Ju 2 Fle, 1, 4 1111 f - - --DI. P . 2 *.. 1 I - - - I - lillil- 11-J ,-Â· 1 & . 42 ,<& 9Â·i- I ir=i 1 a. - 'AL . . , 1. I - % f P .. '4 L...1, .sE'. , 1 . , . 01 1 1.1 1 0 2 Â· r . S- I I ./ 9 * 1. .l - 04.. 1 ...01 4 . -.. , . 1.- . M , .. I .. ~Â· 'U -i-~4.CÂ· . . .11 - 1. ... - ..11 ... . 11 .1 '-1 1. .1 .<-, t 4 . : ...3 -- ~ 4 1 r.=41 -,4. ,. + . .:-'..; :- " J 4 . . p . 4/ . ~ .. 31 I - . . .. ,1 >. 11 1'/ft ... . . ./ . / .* - 6 t.,4 -/ -- . /1 1 :....f...h ......0 l -1, 1.i . Il!,p- - 4 - -.. .iI e- .ri - 12::C! 4 } , ~4-, , . ~ . . . .. I - Â¢ . 4.- * vt,:(.4 Â»Â«Â«44494Â«400+44Â«1, 0 ji, i..Â·Â·4 '-i - '............i +:-1 .12 -i.:i Â·--Â·> -,/<-i.h B. ' .................. ......f. A I r .4 ' .. .. S r â€ž.LK:, 2,~ .6 1 . . 1, - I '. .. . a .. - 4 bâ€¢t I I It'te,. /- .... 0 - lilli . 4. r ..4 .- L . .1-1-i - .1< -:*14-1... .4 .' , 7 . Â· Â·4 ..fat:if.Â£ 4.i7'S-~PJ Â· .P' Â·Â·- ,~<'-X.'~~mA '1' Â© ~ '~'-12- ' ..Â£ .. jtt.2 ;':.,4 :} i.... Â· " P .- 4 ,. t...r.'.1,; 4. "Â»5 ~â€ž . ~. ., *.. .r, a -. 7 C,Â· - C.: , ..- cuu=Â«,- *~ -- 4. t-r.4 -1~ - ~~<< ~ ~ ~~ ~".-1- ~,~~ - Â· -1 :,C *2 9.4./f .4-4,4, . 0:. -a~ 5 - .3 â€ž7 6 .4,4 6 -9 - ' . .-I I I ./ + -/ ' 1 /+ I. . ... I , I. . r .6.j, .7: .4 - - 2 5*.72 *4,-Â¢ 1- t- ft...Ar;--1 ..~ 6.1 4.'.i,-:1*0.:.,-4 ~~ti .. 4 -1 . &1 j k ~ 34 r; â€¢ .t , .* C 2 - - 14 5 4 *t I,25-1 * - -. . I - * k- . 3- - I. C.* :.. - .,1 ./ . * ,.- : $ .f - * I -Â· . f.'. .- - %.2 -St -f# al. Â· - ./ . . .. ... I . . - 4. 7,1 ...2 - - . ./ T ... , V 3 - .2,1 + I :. I, I. ..t . Â¥...t ... r. -11 1.0. >i_-- v . tly r. 1/-2.451Â·: Â·,14 1. t //~- .il' 42 Ap' /&- /6. Ii/ *C JA.~ I: ~ ..- *1 +~ -~ 7 1 -- -r . ..2 . , , 4 1 .: r > .- *i ~- .4.<r ,+Â·Ev L.: 4 3..1-1 i.'.ft/21%3..1.- 01â‚¬Â·~i-f-t:foit~GO-1Â·f ;i~i. /1 -- I - k -: : -i*I Â·41 r -4 1 . - .*. Â· I. - I - 1 . i.' *'f.-1 - -, .Â· ,- ,- . v ...Lt,t:,i,~.2~? ATL~f v-Â¥11-9 4*v-:-ilt - .h~ . i r - 11.-1 , , 15., fyil- .....J--24% ft- 3 -f -i-lfififil:Â«ttritfiÂ·Utk:=A-~~. :-- 3v-$ .~ i&*:f f 7 - +: :.~:~ iÂ· 'Ce /2-rt-:--i-4 ,.3:t,~='~.r'..*9~~~*~~11~~~= "I~~313?'. -- 2. - e m Â·-- F -:' C 4Â· *-4- '2Â·.r '~ 1.-:. 23.0,Â·.-295. .44< tgr:*3 :> c. u ':Â·.1. T 2.9'tk.Â· f- -â€¢ . 0.' 2' t .: - 0 + ti-.49-0 1 4 1:*-2-:.. .. ...4 F. ,-p ~5Â· 4.2-iâ‚¬~499.;Â·~47~.~~'Â·.6~ 1* 4.4.-Â·7 4 '~L,% , "; ...1,.t:< -'.'.:'.0. VE-1 -, 1. ' Â· - - + - ' .ap C I - p 4 a.,r - r 4Â·- . 0, -4- r - ' -1 9. . I . -r . , 2 1 - . 6 . 1 1 t.â€¢2 .-f- ..8, J_.~ ~63 '.X, . ... .. ai-, Â¥ I * U .Â· Â· ..â€ž V .. ... ... ..: 7 ..1 2 '' . . .7 ... '~ ..if.'2' '.-..2:~. ~ .T' .~/2.t-:*.t i-i 93.0,1, :*... 1< i 4 , f .. . 1-. . . 279272~e'Vi -h. :, . . . ..,1 hi :- 1 : k.1 i.1-. . r . t ., 4 . - 4 . 32--7 -4 7 1,6-1 41 -11-Â· 11 -'L-|_IL_1_ -1 ' . 1' 7--*-Â·r-Â·4, it-r,- Â·t~-7-=-- Â¥7=9Â»t,w- - mve-Â·-- 4 - 4.'- r./ f..1-*r-4- -- 7-2/L-*-4-*.--- -v- I - 1 1 -T- , r ,- ...ill ./C.-.Il:'ll.......r F.-==-C V' 53/.'.. 11 .: ' - 0 11 El , 1 ~~ ~ L._ - 1146Â· wi Atl 6,- Â·Â· t -7/Â»)0~*' 4-9 &>44Â·=~Nt--r Â·./.i.-~. + -t//..rr-IJI--*Â·1~2=124â‚¬*+49 /'24Â·Â·Â·40 *7 -2 L 11. .: . -4 â€¢--,rkÂ· -,112, - ...1*Ul;Â¢,-,C>>. 'tf _lrfÂ»,571.-i y Â·aM ~' ,4-z- 1 1- i...K'.:?-12.m_. ;- U 3] I , . 4 - . .1 . .1 ' 11 1 --. . r .. r -- . 47.3-0. 1.2 --tit-Â·,-ki'*.4.-de.'.7.k..7 1 - 4.:-1- 1/ :~0"..317 *t:,14:.<:, Jifit.- . ~:L (2>0zÂ»x 4112.,fill-3(04'4ii,q--9 - -9--,FI.ki ~-1-igr,t:gritit *2%<IiA ~ 4 4, 44 f /5.1 /1 ...44 -- v.... 4 - <13<*f@-:b *ti 941< *~ 9-Sk.,0,~ - : f.312 602..h., 2.-1. I *-: 2, L - 1Â· 1 1 42 n . -. - r. i 11 ...~ ...:i Â·: --ft 4-:r.- ,43:-,444'L ..:2 r 9 -2*:ZA. 1 -- -41 +iÂ·j I #4.%9Â·-Â·-;A'~ :r. + -0~.>fkt- ft ~6 1- 9-i l- id:.i,Â·%3-j.Fld. Â· . 5. I .. . 4 7 . . r. :. 1 #-4. *41*kKI! 1..u-~1>Y:_ --,- El*VArk>NI ArT+H IKPLfiiA,KON+*164Â»Egy T 32 -: :, . - PIJ't,4444 .-ititi-/*4-PKe\11#U51-glw:Â¥121519.Fil#W~+Maco 1% , - .- I '+11+I -----/ 4 , 1 V . 44 1 1.1.-- : .- I ..2.1 . 1 1 , . , .. 5. .. I. , v: -:,3, - -2-3 -=-t t ...Ly, hi_.ktr~1--.A.' -22 â‚¬ . - â€ž-Â·:. -iâ€¢'=fi .1--Avi--,1 7 fi-:2--t'--i -fâ‚¬j.=e-1,~ic -,iÂ·gl, zie#EK-6 t.....r'... '2-,42 ..:. V.t.L .' .1 71 L.6 1 >; --A *44-1 7 11, _-_ - Â¢â€¢,f .+ I .1-ht.-4 j,*ftÂ¥~1' r .'.re- : .1 Â». -,Â·-Â·r.- - - Â·- Â·,Â·-Â·Â·, : -4 -' ,-4 -Â· 9 64..14- .4':14.-74, 3--4.0.. '0-".-c--- 12 AnÂ· ri.44,0 1Â·3Â·41 4,40â‚¬44*. 24.2~.&,1.21kj4,14-44*,ta~; . . - 0 1 , j . M .I. 15 % 32 c- . 4.15 N P: Im SNEâ€¢ HAV 02 ~~-Flor[ Â»\~ *52Â¤: EP / *ls T 11,6# -PO E * -L- -~ :3 \ i~ou MMZ:+1 45%1,5Tll-tel 0 4. H Â· DAr 0#41HA 7 4,- Ul 90 . ; -111 -11 -Â· 13 1.1 -1 11-1,1 1 lai I 1.1 lilit'~1.1 1 111 111111 1111111 111 1-lili 1- . 3 'Wi z' illA 4 - x14, -- i\ - A NrE 1 Ill I-7 . 0,4 I k ~'0 #8 144 6 1Â£Â¥6 14147 ~_ sLATE TILES = 921*MA I H WND **1-12 :0 0 0 CD O mf>om 3*ME@ az 111 r- f042T IAL,vesT m 1-*vAT I 01-1 - 1-1Â·11197 0.=:M (reHT HOLIs Â© 646.58 7411- 11- OIl C \*91- tÂ»I Ha \VI H to\VS F#Hov*P) 77--2 O.Â¢ (-0 9 il - R 631910 2>8 Â»o ul m< m Om 7 I m 2 R. m 0029: & 0 0 -71 1% / 1 - 0 M \ Ul 4 4 L, 1 '1, . I 9- 5 ateR 74 1 1 1 nE '1 1 * 0 1 1 f . f 2 0(1â‚¬ 1&2:r 1 Eh Â¢ IM ) -LI_~ \ -710* #..---LC 161*,al,004 -) 0O0 %>0 , -4 , Emr Z M -E} f;+Fi AL eu rl-1- 4.evâ‚¬1 0 ,4 - TU Imp +=c,~ (m-11*Fbuse) 46;41-5 9*11 - 11. i 11 $ r,v i a 1.16 LY Arrtapvap tepr * Fc ) S A 0 I ~ 03 -k % SNOISIABE! 11919 00' a ~IL-926/â‚¬0â‚¬ Ltgre ope.1 100 'ued 1IV130 SalÂ¥100 4-- V . i - 1 1 //, 4--1 \ I " 11 04 & 11 - 2% -11 - 4 U 1 - l 1 1 1 1 Al i /IN \- / = / , 11 , - + 1] - , . 1-- = !! -3 2- E-1 6-0 -4 *- DYER & ASSOCIATES (2:1-LIt-16 151~K DETAIL ~A#~41 5. El-BV. SHEE1 ARCHITECTS Â¢52:4,12*11111 UHS SCALE >4Â·" Â· 1 1-0 11 NO. 415 E. Hyman Ave. # 205 DATE _ __ . 1 1.3.92 SK Aspen, Colorado 81611 024 6, HILL Â«F. DRAWN BY r. o. e. 1 303/925-7149 ~ A'ft@ H , a:2 814011 1 REvisioNs , 4- CasnÂ«O-1184) scz,12 4Â»LL- 861.10>/mnatil-ness f 1 f h 1 12,46T .@FY- ~~ 1\1 d I , X Ittpr rLAH - AS FREVI 01-19 Un' AFFIe/ep A H DYER & ASSOCIATES <:221,LIPIG PL,2:14 DETAIL EXISTÂ· R:DF FL,4-1 SHEET ARCHITECTS 22*12211 IHIUMS SCALE Â¥32.11 9 1 L â€ž 11 NO. 415 E. Hyman Ave. #205 DATE - 1-3- 91 S* Aspen, Colorado 81611 104 4. M I U.. Â«[. DRAWN BY 0,0.9 1~ 303/925-7149 '46 F'5143 QP 814 11 REVISIONS 1 1 j. b=11 11,. .IN, 82\ . U4*414 ~t-\3 ir=11 #aew.wr~jg: 07/ 17 |cal*Ir' 4) - 1,101 41 go rÂ·4, M HEAV *:zyr -pr 1 Hav 6.'*gl 1 f 4, / i I lilill' Il I 111>'31 11 . I kN Â»7.7-14 , 1 .7 / 1 1 1 1 - Fir rlÂ»+1 - 148\VÂ«fÂ»IRT- 1-mou 7_ _ - ' H DYER & ASSOCIATES 42914114* inu=sla DETAIL HE,402:Ff'Â»ti SHEET~ 1 ARCHITECTS 42112:'MIHIUHS SCALE Â¥5211 â€¢ 11-011 NO. 415 E. Hyman Ave. # 205 DATE 2' S.91 SIC Aspen, Colorado 81611 224 Â« r'| 1 LL eT' DRAWN BY g.op. 69 303/925-7149 , *'6 FE H , 02 81,5. It REVISIONS 2:3 6,& . t-fi,-pâ€¢J- r-* . 4. r -27. InG Z-ki' 8 1 7 ' . - -,11,1,01 i /77,- . - .- - I -5*'si.i.u-LU -~204%4&6 .- ...r --N.r.- 0,1 1.11 + - M. , I. . 1 .. .1 4, 111 A WTEÂ«-5.10.2.- v - 1Z .-4 - 2 -- 4 j 1*2. - 1 ri Â· ..; '1 f . -I - . /h , I .- . 14 1 - i'fi- - - I F & -47-01-2 1.- .i.. .fod.11- :t . 1 - 4, . ,0, (9 -- - 1 , . , -- =llk r. & 1 .lf , . -1 , - - . -I ':- 4 -- ..1. - 451 - . I It , ./ - 1. - - tr-'44r'**u,TÂ·' ' - - - , 2 --411 --, 1 , 1 1 - : 1 1 11;11 ....iski--4-1-ld-,In f., ...,Il I. i il --4.- - ..1 Â·,1 ;-- 4- :---1--e-- #-* 1.-1 -'~-& $ --' I 1w f. ~r, 1_-r - , 1 '' , 4 . -- -&. 1 I .. i.. f 1 . -ai 11 -' t./1-! ita, 1 1 - -4 - Â·--. .-1 .r . . -......:1 . - . /24 . --- . ' '-4-T. r 1 1 ' . - -;-7--IKE:-ffIEIT-r#~-~uj~to-, j! -1 i-i- 1-12-5 -f 1-1- ff- =.rl J , 54.! -*.9 1;il 1 - 11 4-AL - 1 jl N 1- . 2 6 111/ I - - 41 1 ..Â·L' 1 - .. 2 - I .... I - - Ilt y F: . lic .1 -- . - f - ~ . . ..1. . - - 11 I . 05). il 64' r - 1 4- , 1 - lit :- 1 .. .. h . . .1 It . ' -n . r.1 1 4 . d . ty it r=11- - PA <f'&6-'-r -- - , .. i g ' - ': Â· /76. 7 1 71 vil . Â· le ; i! {l Â¤ 541::.Der:7:tts<m O H , - :* i hl I. 7- I Â· : .Â· - 4 g C... A r r .1.4.r Y k A .,1 1 - '- M il -- -/ C 4' â€¢ ' f i Â£ El h- IÂ· Ed. .. 02 1 . - 1 .... r I . . I - , i. . p ./4 . . i . - Ef I'l; 1,. 'h:'' 41 5,-1 9** .,'*f' , 1 ' j 'll. . 4 -i 1.114.re-â€¢ 94â€¢4.k. f . i '' ' . - 4 - 1 .V... I - 1 1 4 1 , . 1 1 . . ..1 r 3 .- --...0 Â·C-- ti:Â·.*k ... ...: -: ...12 -r.2, 8 . ., 4 - .: I ... ' . I. , . . - ... f i - -- i . ' - - / r . . 4 4 , .- . ' Id .4 4 , I. . :-'-I j .' . I 1 . 1 Ill -- ir -9-1 4- 1- C- 1 ---- -1/71591â€¢5 rÂ¥.2i:Â¥,3~7Mltyr;Zt= . -- 14 AJ A â€¢4Â·44 , . I , 4 . t-.-- -... - -==-=In. I -11. '7 -, = - . Z) Stâ€¢34-XI. '4 Â£ --- -4*49-- _ . _ I C 2..1 "j , . .Z .4. 6 - . . .4 -=::-2-tru=-1 - 11 .*fA. &<859 , - -; 92-. - - =* -- ....,- --- 6 111 _Â® 4 -2-03=-7 1-* 11 11 Â® - - 1 '' .- 0 3.. M -'-Il - I , Ir ' I I '. I . .1 i.1 6.1 -1 It-W *,pqâ€¢â€¢14--- - 4.-4!: 01 â€¢ - 4 I. + * '. 2 . i , , I I. 1 . 1 4 I t 1. - - *.Ill.i.-i..-4-i...I-I.--.il--i-*----I..-i-.Il-.i-----I--1-.--i---0..Il.------Il-- -----tpir-5.1 Â£*ULIZIZZIZZI~ZEZZI~ZZI~ZZ~ZE 1 , 1' ' .6 - ,1 r.- 1 -----f- u , ./8 1 1 1---13=11 1 0 4 .... Â· .2 ' . - -T - % . ---- -2.-----.-'- ------v--4- ------- .ni -1 9 -1 f-1-4 \ l j - A I.- - F. 1 \ if 1.29 1 jj - -r'...A Â«,rt.-1 -4 - 4 , . 4 - -1. ,616â€¢-4 JU j ..Irrâ€¢4 4-- 76/0 ! 1 , 0 .' ' 1 11 I i .il ... i I 0- - L 1>3 ...Det 4. :1 1 . -r , a . e. f i Â¥36.27 Sr.-0 baâ€¢4 4 - 'L,r i 9 4. . . .1 , 1. 9- 1 + Â·r. - r -3 + A Â·Â· - 4 2.( '4 '. . D..4Â¥4.% u. 7.~1 - 4 ...m 'ilt h#,7 :.2. 1 1 r ....Â·4.7 -/ 7.- -- . 1.= 1 - ,jiâ€žty,jivit.3.9,-06--0-f t,~*:; A. i- 2: 9 ; 1Â·p- t i f:Â·231:376 - e . H i. - 6 1 4 Â·--- I zÂ· 4 .,$ 2 2 -4, s I ,2 - f- 31Â· . 0. '&0-'2 0 --f + 4% 2 , . I - t- - t . 6 - ,2. 4Â·4'4* te'- -1 1 2 - eÂ· ~ ~F- L , P .:3 - ;11 . ' - 14 1 2.1 4 f..1 i-t 1 Â·r 147 8 E ./9 4-'7 ' '. it irmâ€¢â€¢4 . . 7-624 3 -25 -- - -A â€¢ f A-4=4 +-4 -A; . t .. - 1 Ir -- 1-..... 4 4 1 . . 7 D /3 7-1- 13 Ii-0 -xÂ·Â». vi Ji\. I Â£ . -1 -/ . . I.: . 4 6- .../.2/6 2*J Â·Â·4*i'..,-â€¢~Â·Uâ€¢Â·-â€¢:,1.â€¢~eFÂ·* 114,/-'Ii/#'Al'f1&21b6~ht/4/#/A9O/~***/:6,- Lrj 'W./.,/1-:'~0...I-- No ,o zo LEGEND AND NOTES SLANTED TEXT DENOTES RECORD /NFORMA T ION ' FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED A SURVEY CONTROL POINT - -000 FENCE \ 1 - METAL FENCE li WEST O UTILITY BOX DECDUOUS TREE 94 5 SMUGGLER STREET / O EvERGREEN TREE &3 X &-< + 96 0 SPOT ELEVAT:ON BASED ON TBM 100 AT ENTRY BEARINGS BASED ON FOUND CITY MONUMENTS AS SHOWN N 75 09'11 -â€¢ CITY MONUMENT NE COR BLK 9 --4,4 2 / + 96 4 h C - - f 091 01. PIPE .96 7 Â®64; i 8 795 8 Af 7509' j i j C 19 9195 0 1 1 :1 11 1 1 -2 1 ..0 j '3 2 1 27*---4 1 75 09'11 ~90-00 ' cITY MONUMENT ~4 NE COR. BLK 15 1 1 \. It 1, g. HORIZ CONTROL 7,966 Â£ 5 1/ 1/ 0 1 ~ ~96 SK 1 TIS~ ~ r# 96 0 T-* MILLER 2 RESIDENCE EN . 715 W. Smuggler Sl. .' E 1 :id 1 2 ,10/ .fZ ..... Aspen. Colorado 0 2 41Dh 96 8 2- ------ 8 I 1 1/2 STORY Pit 97 EXISTING HOUSE * G .. SITE PLAN 1 0 @li 1 f 97 0,0, 1 99 ' 1 3 It . I v F 4* i 2 1 97 0 AREA 6.000 â€¢/- S F ~ ~.-27- ~ CAR 9 1 % 99 . 00 1 ~ PORT 9~. 5 5 7502'// 7 O / /, III 60. Co, 99.1 11/ 98 2 BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY 16129 0F O, 90. " LOTS E AND F, BLOCK !5. CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. EXTENDS ALLEY BLOCK 15 PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO *0 ALLEY pREPAMED'Â¥ CERTIFICATION . 98 S 1. JOHN HOWORTH. HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED FROM X FIELD NOTES OF A SURVEY PREFORMED UNDER MY SUPERv ISION DURING lim 1 THIS SURVEY VOID UNLESS WET STAMPED SIGNED THIS_S__DAY OF NOU. .1991 ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEER'S INC 210 5 ..... M JOHN t,WORTH P.L. S. 25947 . 0 .ox zso. Bil*:EE:i,&:RE:0!i~Â¥E:ai~Â·EPE:~Bil . SPEN COL OUD,O 1 Iliz ' 303) .2..1 6 ACT I ON BASED "ON ANY DEFECT IN â„¢15 PLAT BE CO-ENCED MORE THAN T/CE YEARS FICI T,â‚¬ DATE OF Dâ‚¬ CERTIFICATION SHO- HERON THE DATE JOB NO. CERTIFICATION IS vOID IF NOT â€¢ET STA-ED â€¢ITH MAL OF THE - MVEYOR 4/91 I8I58 S 1450'49 - -5.to FÂ»cate / 1 - pkick fktio 1 - 1,-t,r-1.0,; i.teLL 1 1 ~- DARDE,49 1 Gretchen Greenwood & Assoclates. Inc. i 201 North Mill Street 303-925-4502 Suite 207 Aspen. Colorado 81611 Ex/OT/NG FEN-2 L-1 c-,<rE,Tir-â„¢ Aolkâ€¢EMJ ~ O -C b& LUZ -EE 67(/9/A,6, rE=-+0 Em B i 4 41 2 Â°'Decpt - 21 2> M N '41 -4-1-1 \-7/1- 1 1,-|Ir-1~01.~ \ \ 'Aell - /44. : tr&=h=6:U T- 1- 2 -- W .-1 4, // Iii li E~ PECK L K A .. 4 J. /1 \ i -0 33 f 9 ' , / , ----al ' 1 0 â€ž Â«Â» EXIST'ING .L : 4 . 1- 'Ar,tte,ca r SITE PLAN 6>froft 2 CD,AR~8692 - 0 f J->r t .7 1 0 SCALE 03-,-2 JOB: l-_v DRAWN BY - DATE ISSUED CHECKED BY REVISIONS. N - 3. _ 21. . ff Ir--i. ,1 E-- r--7 i Gretchen ~-\L 1 1.24 1 * : Â° LEITIFI) U 4- Greenwood & Associates. lnc 201 North Mill Street Suite 207 L...cy'li Aspen. Colorado 81611 303-925-4502 r =C E-rerÂ·1 C/]= 03E. = 62 1% 4 1 'r E--~~ B 1 11 -4 i 1 1 1 - 1.0 07 REI 1 7=< 1 N Irl; ) : U-| A 03 1 0 - 1 _J 4/.5 11 1 [/11Kj 1 1- IJA 1 - 9 n '. Ii, / c EXISTING FLOOR PLAN SCALE JOB DATE ISSUEDÂ· DRAWN BY DIECKED BY MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN REVISIONS 1, 1 --- 1 1 1 1 1 ./ _-72- r_ r-'FA-1 - ..- 0 Gretchen Greenwood 1 & AÂ«ociates. Inc 201 Xurth Mi11 Street - Suite 207 1 - Aspen. Colorado 81611 i 1 .= 00 -Â« M ' 0 303-925-4502 /1 - - -9- -2-a~ - -J -1 25&5,2 ;5- 0 - -2--~2 -*-~~ --~- 11 - WAMWWWE 111Uullt lin M m icull I -- C > c< 6 / Luk 5 44 1 - -la NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION J 1 7 1 Mia~-MI 1 -- --- EXISTING ELEVATIONS j ' 1 E- --*==61 11 ; -9 1_4- '$.Mt "1 1 - SCALE -001 DATE ISSUED . CHECKED B) - =--- \ 71* LdÂ©IN IENUL _IliETEM Il[BIT, r f DRAWN BY ilclk=11~~~1111'r=----.=-=-~11111 REVISIONS: SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION - 8 VALÂ« 1 0 -n - 0 U .>fc:f'.4. /\ ,"-1-r-9 / 1 i- 1/Ir't;70Â·A 1-1%4., 1) Gretchen Greenwood 1 1 & A.-,clates. Inc. 2(N North Mill Street Suite 207 Aspeâ€ž, Colorado 81611 303-925-4502 4-op ff-â€žp ~|.3 er 0 B'Â»TI,-lel tpard# / 1 1 1 wÂ«r' 4 k 0-: ' W=+ Â· / 29--4 A i LAI+8. 1 1 1 / 1~ IAE:10-1 | ,~|~ \ *-5>7 Te / 2 /" 49/ \36 ', ~ ~ ~ ~-d | PROPOSED SITE PLAN Â£Â»,Art 0 1 1 1 1 SCIA L E r-1.-~ 0 5 1-0 2-0 108 DATEISSUED 0 - n _ 9 - -O - O - O . 0 - DRAWN BY Â· CHECKED * REVISIONS SITE PLAN 1 33AIEKIISaH NU~1218~nius %1 611 ~~ /1#47 1 Gretchen I Greenwood & Associates. Inc. 201 North Mill Street Suite 207 Aspen Colorado 81611 301-925-4502 13Â·Kiefirl* F#GE I = < 93 E 1 6 1 -r j R r. Zr~A I -- O 1 .C 1 #4#Â£ 4 0- - 0 .11 1-lotere~ PROPOSED 111 / - Per--2,-re4 0/Ur-|w OF 8=X'â€¢-t-icl.4 40,691,161. FLOOR PLAN â€žâ€ž,I P.MultÂ» -Ic;934*:9 Â»904-lori SCALE. JOB DATE ISSUED DRAWN A CHECKED Bl REVISIONS PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN J 9%#Yu .~. â€¢//mEâ€¢a G Gretchen Greenwood & Associates. Inc. 201 North Mill Street Suite 207 Aspen. Colorado 81611 303-925-4502 -. - LU MN W.M Dou E -CO EAST ELEVATION % 0 ma D: 2.2 /9,2â€ž &44+ . i / PROPOSED 1 ELEVATIONS *-26' ~ECE=-- rf~--h -- 11 1 +97641[1 -Â·a I ~Il r r -9 3 1 1 -1 .- 1 --3 -1 ./ 1 - - - - SCALE. 2--0--t-t-)433 f-4@t% 1 JOB: 11 lili DRAWN BY j 1 F ~Â·"Â· - Â· CHECKED BY. 1 Â·JJ REVISIONSÂ· lulu VIL- - ---2 ---- --- 00 ---i-4 -- - - 00 - 1 SOUTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION HaTIIW 0 1 / O jEIL:. 11 .0 91 li O b- - -1 O 0 1 = #174 1 16+ P 1---1 , 1 1 1 0 0 1 7-- 1 399 dE/=..12: 1 1 1 C =-1 1 1.-PN 0 9 1 1 1 t 1 1 2 L.11- - A i dia ap Â«1Â«1 HA j 1 0 -t 1 Â»fralpf- 1 - 1 - 1- - | for:f (3 Â«PF-AN-idl ,0:* Lefirl<:51 f'*riwi~ 1 r- 0 o L_-=_ - -I---I- -El- ----*.- -1--- --*- *---<.I --*.i- Crf' rerl-T LIMvi frof.Â»O 09'fa FL#41 !/4Â·r = 1 L O a J 1 <Ill----i- I - 1-- -- ------02--71 1 1 [10)-FU ~couircol I I ,\\ -' 1 -------4 40 3 -1 - f E. :MES \,gix[/lo 14 UL_ - ----- ----- - JJ --3 --3 L--- R- 1 1- -_____________.--____...2- GAÂ«10- 13-LEÂ»f lori r 2> p--f 1-1 850 Lir vacl~ ' 01-1 1:71--1,4//11 . flfil MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Minor Development: 204 S. Galena, Sports Stalker Date: February 26, 1992 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor Development approval for changes to the first floor (parapet and storefront openings) of the Sports Stalker, Phase I. APPLICANT: Colorado Cable Company, represented by Jerald Barnett. Glenn Horn and Sven Alstrom, representatives. ZONING: "CC" Commercial Core, "H" Historic Overlay District, PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Staff has determined that the proposal is a Minor Development review by the HPC, as stated in Section 7- 601(E)(2)(d). We find that the cumulative impact of the phased changes, in relation to the previously approved and vested plans, is minor in its effect on the character of the existing structure. It is important to understand that the applicants intend to phase this project, previously approved (and vested) by the HPC as a three story building. The changes are necessary due to new tenant needs. All the applicant is requesting at this time is approval for a temporary parapet to complete the first floor, and the elimination of additional storefront doors, which were approved originally. This is considered Phase I. 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... Response: Staff finds that the proposal meets the standard, with the exception of parapet. The width appears out of proportion with the one story storefront. We are recommending restudy to reduce the overall height of this element in order to meet this Standard. HPC comments: 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: We find that the proposal meets this standard, again , with the exception of the parapet design, which staff considers to be out of character with the neighborhood as it is currently proposed. We recommend restudy of this element in order to meet Standard #2. Full HPC board review of the revisions is necessary prior to the issuance of a building permit. HPC comments: 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 adjacent National Register and landmarked structure will be diminished with the construction of the parapet as proposed. We are recommending restudy as stated above, in order for this Standard to be met. HPC comments: 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 Sports Stalker is not a designated landmark, however, due to its location with the Commercial Core Historic District and close proximity to three National Register properties, staff is responding to this Standard as well. We finds that the changes as proposed, with the exception of the parapet, do not detract from the architectural integrity of the structure. We find that the parapet is out of proportion creating a "top heavy" appearance to an otherwise compatible store front, and therefore, this standard is not met. The strong horizontal line that this parapet creates, in addition to appearing out of scale in height, should be carefully reviewed by the HPC. Even though this first floor remodel is considered Phase I, Phases II and III may not occur for some time. The temporary aspect of this minor development proposal may become more permanent in time. We recommend further study of the parapet detail, with revised drawings submitted for full HPC board approval in the future, and prior to the issuance of a building permit. HPC comments: ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the Minor Development application as submitted 2 4 j 2. Approve the Minor Development application with specific conditions of the HPC, to be approved by staff and the project monitor prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy (specific recommendations should be offered). 4. Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the development review standards. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC deny Minor Development approval for the proposal at 204 S. Galena, the Sports Stalker, finding that the proposed parapet design does not meet the Development Review Standards. We recommend the applicant restudy this element and submit revised plans to for full HPC board review and approval in the future. Don Erdman is the project monitor for the Sports Stalker. memo.hpc.204sg.md 3 1 , Davis HornUE- PLANNING - APPRAISING - REAL ESTATE CONSUIJING JAN 2 81992 0 7.5-1- 2.0.- 1 -3--- 4 C.7)Â·-:fÂ© i January 28, 1992 Roxanne Eflin Aspen-Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 202-204 South Galena Dear Roxanne: Davis Horn Incorporated and Sven Alstrom represent the Colorado Cable Company (hereinafter "applicant") who own a leasehold interest in 202-204 South Galena Street. As indicated in my January 9, letter, the applicant requests Minor Development approval from the Historical Preservation Committee to construct the first phase of the previously approved Sportstalker building. The application is being submitted pursuant to Section 6-601 E. (d) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations: "Erection or remodeling of combinations of, or multiples of no more than three (3) of the following features: awnings, canopies, signs, fences and other similar attachments; or windows, doors, skylights and dormers. Erection of more than three (3) of the above listed features may be defined as minor if there is a finding that the cumulative impact of such development is minor in its effect on the character of the existing struc- tures. 11 The first phase of the project will involve the reconstruction of the first floor of the building including the facade. As part of ALICE DAVIS, SRA I GLENN HORN, AICP 300 EAST HYMAN Â· SUITE B Â· ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 - 303/925-6587 Â· FAX: 303/925-5180 Roxanne Eflin January 28, 1992 Page 2 this phase, the roof of the building will be reconstructed to support three floors. The following changes will be made to the approved plans: 1. Deletion of three small tenant entrances: 2. Addition of a temporary parapet for a one-story building; and 3. Temporary deletion of the stairs on the east side of the building. The stairs will be added when the second and third floors are added. The applicant shall demonstrate during the review proceedings that the cumulative impact of constructing only the first phase of the building will have a minor effect on the character of the existing structures in the site vicinity. As you requested in our pre-application conference, we are submitting the following support materials. Cover - Perspective; A-1 Site Plan; A-2 Basement Floor Plan; A-3 Ground Floor Plan; A-4 Site Elevations (neighboring buildings); A-5 North and West Elevations; A-6 South and East Elevations; and A-7 Storefront Detailing. Drawing A-7 depicts a detailed profile of the parapet illustrating shadow lines, materials and overlap. We intend to bring samples of building materials to the public meeting. Please let me know if you would like to see the materials prior to the meeting and we will bring them to your office. Attached for your review and consideration is a letter to Jed Caswell from the applicant,s attorney addressing the applicants right to submit a land use application for the subject site. Any questions concerning the applicant's legal right to submit a land 1 1 Roxanne Eflin January 28, 1992 Page 3 use application should be addressed to Peter T. Moore, the applicant's attorney. Also attached is a letter from Lacy Frywald, Vice-President of the Colorado Cable Company, authorizing Glenn Horn and Sven Alstrom to submit the application and represent the Compnay in the review process. Lacy may be reached at 925-6331. Glenn may be reached at 925-6587 and Sven may be reached at 925- 4576. The applicant is seeking to begin demolition and construction in April and is anxious to obtain approval for this application. We are anticipating a hearing before the Historical Preservation Committee on February 12 or February 28. Please let me know immediately if there is a problem with our submission which may jeopardize the review schedule. We will be happy to provide any additional materials which you feel may be necessary for your review. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED )Ot_ 0Â«n-_~ GLENN HORN AICP CC: Jerald Barnett Sven Alstrom . Roxanne Eflin January 28, 1992 Page 4 Legal Description - Lots A, B, C, Block 94 City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado Address - 202-204 South Galena Street