Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.hpc.19911113
AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 13, 1991 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of Oct. 23, 1991 minutes II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comments 5:10 IV. OLD BUSINESS A. 17 Queen St. Minor Development - site plan amendment V./ NEW BUSINESS 5:30 A. 533 E. Cooper, Minor Development - window modification - 5:45 B. 201 E. Main St., Main Street Bakery, front entry air lock (2 options submitted for review) 2 0, 0 - VE c ,- 1-« 6:15 \ C. 533 E. Main, Conceptual Development, Public Hearing St. Mary's Church - elevator tower \·3rN \- 8, l\W-L.-g LL-U 67 07/CC- VI. MISCELANEOUS BUSINESS 7:15 A. 210 S. Galena, Elks Building, Temporaory bunting installation 7:30 B. Signs attached to lamp posts, Inquiry by Parks Association 7:45 VII. DISCUSSION A. Project Monitoring B. Sub-Committee reports: Red Brick School - Bill AACP - Character Committee - Glenn Aspen Historic Trust Activities - Les County Preservation incentives (meeting with BOCC 11- 25) Staff Centennial Celebration for Armory Hall - Jake Worksessions follow-up - Bill 8:30 VIII.ADJOURN DATES TO REMEMBER NOV. 25 - 10:00 a.m. BOCC worksession county incentives Nov. 27 - 5:00 - HPC regular meeting Dec. 11 - 5:00 - HPC regular meeting Dec. 18 - 5:00 - HPC regualr meeting Dec. 19 - 5:00 to 8:00 HPC/AHT Xmas Party Jan. 8 - 5:00 - HPC regular meeting Jan. 10 - 9:00 to 5:00 HPC worksession with Nore Winter a--- 0- MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer ~6.-L-, Re: Minor Development: 533 E. Cooper - Bowman Block (Stein Eriksen Building), window modifications Date: November 13, 1991 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor Development approval for the design modification and replacement of four non-original windows and one door to the National Register structure located at 533 E. Cooper. Staff wishes to acknowledge the applicant's desire to improve the historic building through the modest changes proposed. We also thank the applicant for submitting an accurate and easily understood application. APPLICANT: Stein Eriksen ZONING: CC, "H" Historic Overlay District PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Development Review standards are found in Section 7-601 of the Land Use Code. The applicable Guidelines are found in Section IV. Commercial Buildings - Renovation and Restoration, beginning on page 19. 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 this standard, with the exception of the rectangular replacement window indicated on the east elevation. Although the window being changed is not original, staff questions whether the proposal is an improvement. The Guidelines state: "Maintain original upper story windows. The size and shape of these windows contribute to the character of the building front and create a visual unity when repeated along the street. In examples where they have been altered windows should be restored to their original character." The building is characterized by typical vertical, narrow, double hung windows, and staff finds the proposed replacement window to be out of character due to its proportion and horizontality. We recommend that the HPC consider requiring a restoration of the original window, or a replacement window to match the proportion of the historic windows, or at the minimum add a center vertical element to divide the pane into two vertical portions. We find the remainder of the proposed alterations 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: The neighborhood, defined here as the Commercial Core Historic District, strives to maintain appropriate proportions to strengthen the historic character of the district. Particularly in National Register buildings in the core, staff feels all changes should support and strengthen the character of the neighborhood. We find that this proposal does just that, with the exception of the east elevation replacement window as discussed above, under #1. 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 proposal does not detract from the cultural value of the structure. 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 the proposed changes on the alley elevation architecturally appropriate, however, continue to recommend a design revision of the east elevation replacement window. HPC COMMENTS: 2 1 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 met prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy (specific recommendations should be offered). 4. Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the development review standards. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Minor Development approval for the proposal for 533 E. Cooper St., with the condition that the applicant revise the drawings to indicate the large east elevation replacement windows design to be compatible with the vertical proportion of the historic windows, and receive staff approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Additional comments: memo.hpc.533EC 3 Arna DiENr 1 LAND USE APPLICATIEN FORid - 1) Project Name · Stein Erlksen Building 2) Project Location 405 & 407 S. Hunter and 533 E. Cooper Aspen, CO 81611 (indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description ,he_re appropriate) 3) Present Zoning C C 4) Iot Size 6500 5) Applicarrt's Name, Address & Fhcne # Stein Eriksen P.O. Box 708, Park City, UT 84060 (801)649-8401 6) Representative's Name, Address & Rxne # Vincent Partyka Lone Pine Construction, 720 E. Hyman, Suite 302, Aspen. CO 920-4284 7) Type of Application (please dheck all that apply): Conditional Use Ocnceptial SPA Conceptial Historic Dev. Special review Final SPA - Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Congentual R]D X Minor Hi.storic Dev. stream Margin Final WD Historic DE=lition M:xmtain yiew Plane Subdivisicn - Historic Designation ank=inimization - Text/Map Amendinent - (2*8 Allotment Iat Spliviat line ---I GM33 E,=Iption Adjustment Descripticn of Existing Uses · (number, and ' type of ecisting structures; apprcocimate aq. ft. 1 Iunber of bedroom; any previcus appreals grarrted to the property). 4 Residential apartments, 3 Offices, 3 retail stores, Approx 90000 9) Description of Develanglt Application Application to modify or replace some existing windows 10) Have you attached the following? X Respcnse to Attadment 2, Minin= Sulnissicn Ocrrtents X Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submissian Corrtents X Resporse to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application 3 1 111111 Attachment 3 This proposed development will occur on property with the address of 405 and 407 South Hunter and 533 E. Cooper, Aspen, CO 81611. It involves the change of two windows on the upper level on the east side (Hunter Street) of the building and the changing of two window structures on the south side (alley) of the building and the removal of one of two doors accessing the upper deck on the south side. On the east side (Hunter Street) the small operable window shown on the drawings will be replaced with a window unit that is similar. This is necessary because the present window is not functioning and is irrepairable. The trapezoidal shaped fixed window will be replaced with a fixed rectangular window. No new materials will have to be introduced. Any new material needed for patching will match the existing materials. Colors will remain as they presently exist. Because the building was just recently repainted in the last two months the color matching can easily be done. On the south side the wood window units and trim will match the existing wood window units below. The wood siding needed for patching will match the existing materials. This proposed development will be more compatible with the criginal design of the structure and character of the neighborhood because the windows that will be replaced were not part of the original structure but were part of a remodel done in the early 1960's. This proposed development will more accurately reflect the original character of the building. The geometry of the existing structure consists of lines and patterns in the horizontal and vertical. Therefore, removal of the trapezoidal window and the window with the cross lattice mullions will make the structure more architecturally consistent. The windows to be replaced are presently single glazed. The replacement windows will be double glazed insulated glass. This and the fact that the total glazed area will be reduced will contribute to less energy consumption by the building. Also the present glazing which exists in the south windows with the cross lattice pattern extends to the floor and is adjacent to operating doors is not tempered. This represents a safety hazard which will be eliminated and brought to compliance with the building codes by the replacement of these windows. Attachment 4 a) Elimination of the cross lattice windows on the south side and changing the shape of the trapezoidal window on the east side to a rectangular window will bring the building into better perspective and character with the surrounding structures and b) because the surrounding neighborhood consists of all newer structures with a more contemporary style, unifying some of the architectural details (i.e. a more consistent window style) would have a positive effect on the character of the neighborhood. c) The same reasons cited above for the positive impact on the neighborhood can also be argued for the enhancement of the cultural value of the historic structure. d) The proposed changes to the historic structure will be taking place on a part of the building that was added to the original structure and as such will bring this section of the building into better architectural compliance with the rest of the historic structure. F. $*4 - - -- - 4 1 ..0~ P I. 14 4 P ' 0, Ca . ' Aa ' - . - -t C ..~ ; s _ t~z 1 -- "7 - 't 7 I .i .'.* 0/,- . - .:./,6 il a 5 /55.Fli#€S' 102:$.. - . -i....7-I + t-4/--7 --_ _ < -2--3.-D=- S\,J Gr.00. Hu#4£* - G.\EN 6 9. Xek r ..:, 1. , 4. . r k 53 . .r 1- , r • 5 >i =2<*innlihAD . ==- --41.4.:,r,teeE-130Ke U 4 'f,4, r i ·· 1 1 -, -!LZJ.. I =,.Aeiyr.fir=€--r,2,5=,Elipp 1 -EFI J./42'£~WZIE~~C 5 - - 1 -gR 0. 1355 ,-i®f~ 1... -. 1. 1 I i 6, t*U#4'tvt. Sle,WiN, W,N©te·JS 0. 1<,- U. VA 4. 1,£ clen £1 I . 2493-1.--2~ ..-- I i y.42~ 4%2 56, - 44-4- V. ·s»€(22:4-3¢ ..t - 9*t122:I~7,-W¢:9~©K, 1.5.'11£22¥ 21%~23 »A *:*: 234,1Uk. . %344%' 4+Z 1&4 4*&.5/19"liz. -&+MIR . c =r-1*>/0.~*fk~ 121ut.t~Fil.F........... Ea - r.*alllllgilllllllm . 1 2.1-a - 1 - r ...Al.j - ~6041' ( Al'(1) S t Cl E 1 1.. r . I I .17 Yr - . 1, - I +47- h.. :21 £ 45, , -94 - 4- . 1 -44*0.*9*"Ir € .,4 ~ , -- I ' -' 7/Blegkm:At> 2 ' 1 -*'1. AL Mt --~20 €429 -' - g~b ¥Ny.. F z <+ 'T *0i*i· 431 , f 1 1, - 8 ' , - 14 -- 1-' . SoDA ( A 'la~ 4 WUottiL I ' f.,P. r -19.41·eluE.·-* 1, - :.: 9*441. 4 -- 2 2 2.4*FL· i >CE 4.C.. th.2 ., 1, i./ LA 49 3. , ~i~;·L~ »6497-~ OCkc<L V\CWJ O; 1. . -TZ,1,2 -1<»vijA -'#.3/96#,4-:f ':/..9.-''F~/1 84(AJ 'w fs#Ce:K X dE-• 1-\ or c -E- ~ + .62'- e .1 -41* p ,Er*©mi.~.4 .. 1 - 121*94,41 .. - 'i + N·. .·f - 44 - . .0. r . INF- . --, ~ . . -P- 1 - .' £ I- - j -1 6 , , " 4 1.L - . 7 '<40-- 4 . 4• * .4 - ¢*fer 71 / . . *rEJ.itilit.w - ¢14-9 - 7 11 - 944AAQ ... r - J 9 1.EM'- -- ----- -- -59€9:-2 it F I.-i ll- li W~F€ax. J_ 1 F=:0 1 ' '-i-% - - E 1 1 i r ezz=-3 -:-1 , 11 C-/ LL__- +-----I- U L 1-1 -- f .--7~ 1 E--7 r- i . 1 1 - 1 1 ! , , 0 1 J , 1, . 1 4.~--1-1----** .----&-1-- ~- 1 ~-~i~. 1 1 lila i I - 4. I , E •5 + E I Ev.4, o j 1 1 : j L 4 ! .. 1 . : 1 -6.Ex' S+,615 L- 1 1 Ut- W. N J o w s EL-1 1 . r=-1 1 tv L L-- 9 A . 1 1 1 ~ CEIZE] b i czz-r, - 1 1 J L- 1 1 fil ' i i -- +.r 1 1 1 1 0 ~~ j .-J r------- - 1 1 1 1 1 1 E As¥ t\£ v.-4 , 4, 1 . _2 4-~ UN t W _ __it L . _ i--. (Sc.1,4 jtk-El I - U 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I ill 1 1 1 1 1 0 ! i , i i . 1 1- --- \ 1.0 fos Erf 1 r 4 1 A ' I ---- - --A -. --- /4 'AX n \ / 2 1/ I Ti f -kil // 1. 341 p -\ 11 ' P. 'Afl >1 0 /5:5/ ! 1 1 ' ~ 4:t Nx y 11 1 /9 O./ .\ li . I /X. 21 /11 N. \ \-I. i \%9/ 4 1 , r j i 0 . 60 0 1 E l i v .-1-t L A ( A l l [,1 j QScRIE: 2 I Lo" ~ Ey i s + 441 '4 r-7 11 , 1 1, E---- - - .------7 f - - 1 1 11 0 1 f- 1 1 1 1 - - (Sc.Ic : K 1 1 #\ Sio,Al 72\ £9.410- = 1-0 ) 1% 0 .©6 sp J -... III - -- i f S L. lat~ + r - -- - 17=Ch-i 6--, b I. --- iI ; i f 1 4 U~ 14_1_ 9 i. 1 V H 3-- .F-527 37 : i 1 0. 1 - r------------ 1 . 1245+ 131 EVA 4.00 - \L- 4- En.- S-1 &·C·E..-t 1£144#5 (Cal",j.uf j --- _ _ 1. 1 iII 1 1 . 1 . . i -1---I £~Dh GE=TI 6=29:] 1 1 1 t 1 i 1 C==71 £-on-4 c--Er-n 7 i -- -: -=7-~-1 3 11 il -- - >~ t . i· f 31 i 1. 1 1----- it it I•54. E\£v.4 . 0 0 \L 4 En 64 a.ot-1 T /. 03 tri A lit•- r.'•4·t * 1 --- -r 1 0 . L__ - L-- 17- 1 =21 imp fe : L I -1 -.2. i 1 1 i 1 1 Fuu it CZEZE] Crm --1 C-=n /5-4- - 2 -17 ; f-- ~ - .-- . * --. -1 i 12.-t f : 1 ~-- ·-i -~i~~T ~~ i 0 1-1 - =- i i 1 ! 1 -- 14 , .. 1 : 1 i if . . ' ' .---i i 1 i li ! : 1 - i 01; 1 . 1. - -- --- -1 0 1 2 dl- 1 1 1 1 1- 1 li - . 1 I.54. El EVA 4, D.J . . *V. 4 En St a.&(4 =En:10629 -12.0~03 tof A| +EAN.+EL * 2 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i --14< ~ i - 1 1 1 -- . 0 - Soull E-livel,DA) (Ant7~ -~41,st, --reaposAL - '17 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer ~L- Re: Minor Development: 201 E. Main, Main Street Bakery, front porch airlock (two options) Date: November 13, 1991 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor Development approval for a reversible airlock at the front door/porch of the Main Street Bakery. Two alternatives have been submitted for HPC consideration: one is a clear vinyl and fabric system, the other is wood and glass with removable panels during non-winter months. Staff wishes to acknowledge the applicant's desire to improve the historic building's energy efficiency, without destroying the vernacular character of the structure, and its lively sidewalk edge contribution to the Main Street Historic District. APPLICANT: Sally Barnett and Bill Dinsmore ZONING: C-1, "H" Historic Overlay District (Main Street) PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Development Review standards are found in Section 7-601 of the Land Use Code. The applicable Guidelines are found in Section IV. Commercial Buildings - Renovation and Restoration, beginning on page 19. 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: Due to internal layout of the bakery/restaurant, the front door remains open often as people queue out the door and on to the sidewalk. The applicant is not interested in going through another winter paying the high energy bills, and is seeking HPC's assistance to have the problem solved. The vinyl and fabric proposal was discussed briefly with the HPC last year, with general consensus that it would not be appropriate or compatible with the structure or within the district. Staff and project monitor Glenn Rappaport met with the application earlier this year to discuss options, one of which was to move the actual winter entrance to the east side, or rearrange the bakery counters to eliminate the "out the front door queuing" problems they encounter. Neither works for the applicant. Another option was a more sturdy approach of removable glass (and perhaps wood) panels to enclose the porch as transparently as possible yet allow the original architectural elements to read through. The Guidelines discuss the need for transparency in porch enclosures, so as not to obscure any details. Staff finds that the second option submitted by the applicants does alter the visual character of this unique facade, obscuring the "duplex-like" double doors that are characteristic of the Terrace Style. We are recommending that the HPC not approve the second (wood and glass) option for this reason, and instead approve either a plexiglass or other Building Department approved transparent material, or proceed with the clear vinyl and stucco-colored fabric approach, which is clearly reversible. HPC COMMENTS: 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Staff doesn't find either proposal necessarily consistent with the character of the neighborhood, as no other building has this exact problem within the Main Street Historic District. Particularly due to its prominent corner location, adjacent to Paepcke Park, and close siting to the sidewalk edge, whatever airlock solution is chosen may be precedent setting for the neighborhood. Staff cautions the HPC to review this application carefully within the context of the neighborhood. 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 proposal does not detract from the cultural value of the structure. HPC COMMENTS: 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not 2 diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Staff cannot go so far as to say either proposal enhances the architectural integrity of the building, however, reversibility is a key aspect for approval. This building is the only "Terrace Style" structure found in Aspen, and the Roaring Fork Valley. Staff is not aware of any others even as far away as Glenwood Springs. The characteristic elements of this style are its front porch protecting the dual doors, modest massing and scale, stepped parapet and material (brick). Altering the integrity of the porch, and visually obscuring the doors negatively impacts its architectural integrity, in our opinion. We are also concerned about the building code issues surrounding doorswing and an all glass enclosure. 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 met prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy (specific recommendations should be offered). 4. Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the development review standards. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Minor Development approval for the vinyl and fabric airlock proposal at 201 E. Main, OR a fully transparent glass enclosure. Either must be fully reversible and utilized only during winter months for energy efficiency. Revised plans are to be submitted to staff and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. Additional comments: memo.hpc.201em.md.airlock 3 ATIX™EN, 1 C , 7 , IAND USE APPLICATICN ~ke[ 1) Project Name MAn &-f E€ 2£3 'C+- - 2) Project Incation 0-0 4 60 e H a., n 51· . As f£- NOV - Cots *itre c Gle A 74- /1-1 r-·" (ir~icate strek airress, lot & block 2imber, legal ~Escripticn bhere apprrpriate) 3) Present Zaning 0 4) Lot Size 5) Applicant's Nane, Address & micne # /11£1~'0 5-0= £2£4 e.~ ¥ 6-fe-, 9)0 i Ca &-1- M Al-- ~ Asr" 6) Rgiresentative ' s }*me, Adiress & R=e # 84 1 | (A Ea-,r-Mi-ti- D *11) Dins moo r ) 001 6. R,\A.In 4¥· a ijac- 641* 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditicnal Use - Conceptial SPA Ocmeptial Historic De:. Special Review Final SPA Final Hist£:Ii-c Dev. 8040 Greenline - Conoeptlial ED K Minar Histcric De.'. St:ream Margin Final POD Ri =fnric 1-Drrl i tian Phnitain yiew Plane Subdivisicn Histogic Desigretion Gizicininiumizaticn Text/Map Amerximrrt - QW Allotiert Ist Split/I£t Line - GUS Ehaqticn Adjustment 8) Descriptian of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures; apprcocimate sq. ft.; number of bedrocm; any previous approvals gra-ed to the property). -. 82·1<Le,~ - dit 9) Description of Develorment Applicatian a c:31 41>'ti 8-,·4 0-4- e=t€.4.tor G r-* 44 t ri c- Al' r- :coL, L 10) Have you attached the following? Respcnse to Attadment 2, Minimum Sulmission Conterrts Response to Attadurerrt 3, Specific Suhnissicn antents Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards far Your Applicatian . Minimum Submission Contents 1. & 2. : This required information is contained in the Land Use Aoplication Form. 3. Ownership of the property is legally noted on the Certificate of Occupancy (xerox included in packet). 4. Vicinity map included 5. Permission requested for a fabric and plastic air-lock entry at the front Main Street entrance to the Main Street Bakery & Cafe. The air- lock will be hung from an existing porch roof and be anchored on an existing porch floor measuring 120" across and 34" wide. No structural changes or additions to existing building are required. Fabric areas will be minimal (side pieces - front will be mostly clear vinyl) and will be of a color matching the stucco exterior of the building so as not to attract attention. Specific Submission Contents 1. See 5. above. 2. See swatch of fabric provided. 3. See scale drawing submitted. 4. We feel that the Drooosed air-lock will have little or no visual impact on the structure, since none of the historic architectural elements will be hidden by the air-lock, and that the character of the neighborhood will not be affected. 0 Jea, Uce,) filit c i AOUN i_i J. po 'cls L ~C/(tit vt ~ j i toi Jou). €/42 VG'( 1 0 1 · i U"dow / 4 fa6£,c 46 B qeaN . t 1 * Aeouy le(ge \*47(4 r f-1 4 -· · '-f.732%-, .«h 2 - 1- - -- - -- - -- =.r --T -9 737- ..k-- . 74 7/81//51.1/Arienz.-*i lit - 0 5· 54:FU:-iCWfrt:il ~~~2259~~- 1'-»4e~ ~ f S":5:Vi~/199#~Im1111111111111111Ull .- .. ...k-- -r .... Pt .- f : ~<·· ~7. 9 -61' is' i -.4- i i . rH ! i. Ilibill -i k - 9 -A =1- f;€2243 ~, ~41 ~ - :420 1 4 Z; 26 r . . - - .--.... 27./*14/Zrl:~7 - & IJ,73=921/5 -02>3C . - -- J . -. I 2<4 \ ..4? .12 . 4=. 4/5.7- Aff# 4 . ili·. . • ' lf-/7-Y_ .lf-. - . - -- AD. 92:1=*».12 4-72- ---- po'fe<.1. * . . 1 . 14 t.' I , · 64 '7 /7 '.A % . I' 1*4:223.1 I.-2-4.~- .-2-.·. .7 · U --; f ..r . --b 2 4774€0.0. fil *--40-; - -/1 AF/21 - fui .1 .. - igh-·. ti. · · ,4 ¥ -1 A- ·· M 4 1 1, 11 76 Er :. - I , .a ... I 41+ e.,7 I. th . 44,?-4 1 2 .It 1 4- A i . t.», It I. r , 1 - 7-- r ./*42--4 - - i 01/1 2--2 , . u -14 lek,*tif .4.- , 1 ' 6.4 I = . 514-5-F 1 3.4 I . U - . 34&41 : 0 11 1 - . -1., -6.4.X '4 ..=-41: .3 ....+--- *44: f>R, .--I . D { Cgq , t . -- 27 - a q a_ 4 ,- - . - C - I I 8 - . .I F : - 9 -- .1 - - I .-~i 1 I 1. 2 .22~ \ - 1~6 , - 2 --t< 3 -44,1 - - -1#'*INITI~~~H~r -1 ArIZAC}•UN.r i ~ LANI) USE APPLICAUCN FORM 1) moject Name flak sl 3La-L g.~ f Or€ 2) Project location 201 E. Hnru 64. 1Atc A- Aut- 1.#brk *- 79 (inlicate street' ackiress, 16t & block lutber, legal description,here apgrcuriate) 3) Present Zoning j- ~ 4) Iat Size 5 e.¥ AJorls 1 5) AIplic:ant's liane-, Address & mione # HA[-Aj St, -RAI<go.~ ¢ Af-9 poi b MMU V : 91€-6996 6) Representative's Name, Address & Ihcne 1 -2L /7' b»us„,OO,~ Do 1 E. MA 6, st. 92 5.694, 7) Vpd of Application (please check all that qpply): . Conliticnal Use Conceptual SPA Cono*ual Historic Dev. ®ecial leview Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline - conceptual ED y' Mi= Historic Dew. Stream Margin Final POD Historic Demolition M:*intain yiew Plane _ Stibdivisicn _ Histalic Designation Cor•kninilmlization Irxilidap Amenhmt -- QCS Allotment Iot Split/Iat line - GUS Eompticn Adjust:ment Descripti rn of Eristing Uses· (r-her and t type of eodsting structures; a~mxinate sq. ft-; Imizber of bedroans; an, previcKE approvals granted to the prcperty). CA fe /lhke.R.~ UJI 'A 1-20 EuT 1 - E*r|21,02% . 0,42 0,01£ EA-31- Sir| P- 0 oug AuT-LF. U)21L %2ri (EcoJA · 9) De~0pti on of Devele,glt Application lo ibelose -16 6 Me€ gjey ve~-fhh./2 14/4 A Ro,£0vA£4~ 4 b£ <€Abr>nA-I S~ROC~RAG 10 CREA-t* Ad ADR- 41. < 10) Have you attached the following? Respcnse to Attadmient 2, Minimmt Sulnission Contents Response to Attadment 3, Specific: aanission Contents Respanse to Attachment 4, Review Starilards far Your Applicatian 3 1 111111 Minimum Submission Contents 1. & 2. : This required information is contained in the Land Use Application Form. 3. Ownership of the property is legally noted on the Certificate of Occupancy (xerox included in packet). 4. Vicinity map included 5. Permission requested for a wainscot, wood and plexiglas enclosure to create an air-lock entry at the front (Main St) entrance to the Main St. Bakery & Cafe. The air-lock will be built within the existing vestabule. No structural changes or additions to the existing building are required. Specific Submission Contents 1. See 5. above. 2. See scale drawing submitted. 3. We feel that the proposed air-lock will have little or no visual impact on the structure, Since none of the historic architectural elements will be hidden by the air-lock, and that the character of the neighborhood will not be affected. jal I E. if~ 1\ I. /©32« / // K v Z ' , 9 0 1 2' · 01 L /~- f' 41 01 i 1 4\ 1 7 F : - 4 ! 1, ....1./1 1 Ill 441 I f i 1~ , -"c -x<~t 4/Am##r 0181.0 / \47 1,1,1,1,1:--rrt-„-i-Trilill'~11 j 111111!11%~ I lili 1 1 11 1 4 -4 \.Aff\(.G 4-1' 1-4 - 1 4 1% C r 1 4 - -- ~ - ----- t)¢ F ,@orlr 9000 1 , --- -Hopit¢· will'@w \F I X80 POOR 1/ A t < 1 9* 1 , I -t~ 60' 6,010, 44#M - 4- -- 8 - 1 2 1 m-4 I-- 4- - -6*Hrl 41?,00¢4 ------ -- - - -- . 0- \ C 1-i 1/ 1 I .. h . +LeD 00* 1 i, IE 1 . 1- - - r. 1I i ... 1 1 1< ~--1'wrIE # OVEA#14110 .J 2 0 - :/) R 6 -- 9 19 e ful¥ 2004 10 - V £ 1 4- / 1 11 -01 6 67N600 < 2/ Ak. 1 i - -ted, erve - --1 EX 1411 4 f &$ 4~ 6 X 1 4.~I rt l, C u SV A fi or( /1 9 41 • alls 1~1 ' ' 26* 1 i ?1 2 ,«AAN lili 6 4 .... Vil r\/4/ It' 1 1 11 14 4 ..44 ~-1w-4 04---,314- 11 111 1---"-m-------- ----- ->44;,/16* F>CIP,I.1 0 4/ i --- ---6411rti C -- - --\ 1-----446 N 70 :CRAir( . 1~ . re#22*50 9*-Ifple ~ v ~->- --- -- --4)(2 WP tzffi,f)&, f 8.f- / , -35 F ~U&#lit _ , ~/ ~ C 5/ 5 ----- --2% U,14'rn, prp, 70 1 - I-rk-- I REKDVAL, = 1 - 1 ==1©t ( 'l ?66 4*44 crl, 9,145 -.'. .. 1** I C - 22' en MOL ¢9. 911,9 (6 k L . \ // -,207667 MEY) Poog· M P Bo=D Al,f 02= #f R~1>61'0; + U 4 1 ,/ R 404 2 O 1 1 1 Vt Mt FWIC To 1=L t-- . 11 4Wlf15 #tpr, 1 . I r--Ii- - - -- -Wh d *PrE p T 0, ·ro 1 ill \ 1 AMGH GA&00 016 4 4 1 1/- 6 1 10159 P:66 WOOP MP / To *41¢H F, 41 4 1 1 4 EXC (00(.00@4, 1 \ , Vt·0?0460 VE'?fl 8/VGE 7 1. Art 12·070801) 66(WAfterl 0,/00 17/6 M 21 ~-9-3 -i--- r--T-- E-,i - -,1 -.[-7 .P. i -1-1. '-+ <--f-·3 4 6%>- W000 4111rtd COP 1 1- : 1 192-- irT < ---60642* *CH/Mp uAl,10 + MWW £00 Fl 40 PLA<l K~ 01 a ?>u# 6056 Mtv 0 00 61,Al\MI,· . 'i 1:11 0 -\NAit14(Pre Frp 1 Ill i -. 4- To MArCH 5,(1,0 916?0469 41 25 66GWAft#H ¥00 N S 4.-*C-< MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer £ Re: Conceptual Development: 533 E Main, St. Mary's Church elevator tower and vestibule addition (Public Hearing) Date: November 13, 1991 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 100th anniversary. LOCATION: 533 E. Main St., Lots A-I, Block 93, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. APPLICANT: St. Mary's Catholic Church, represented by Theodore K. Guy and Associates ZONING: CC - Commercial Core, "H" Historic District, Designated Landmark, within Viewplane SITE, AREA AND BULK CHARACTERISTICS: - Lot Size: 27,500 sq. ft. Allowable FAR: 1.5:1 = 41,250 sq. ft. Existing FAR: 12,500 + sq. ft. Proposed FAR of addition: 760 sq. ft., including deck and ramp EXISTING CONDITIONS: St. Mary's Church, a local landmark and potentially eligible for listing on the State and National Register of Historic Places, has received only one major alteration since it was originally constructed. The front entry/vestibule was added in 1966. The church parcel as a whole is considered to be one of Aspen's finest examples of Victorian-era architecture. Its symmetrical massing, scale and verticality, central tower element, roof form, fenestration pattern and use of brick and sandstone relief distinguish the character of this landmark. It is located within the only block in the Commercial Core Historic District that has remained virtually unchanged for 100 years, and is across Main Street from the National Register Courthouse. Since 1966, only restoration work has been done, specifically to the interior, which received a local Preservation Honor Award in 1989. The church is in need of an elevator for the mobility impaired and large enough for coffins, and has stated that a satisfactory interior solution cannot be found. 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). 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: The addition is proposed for the western elevation, at the north corner, which is prominent and highly visual from Main Street. The tower and vestibule with ramps and walkways project approximately 29' from the edge of the west wall, and are approximately 31' wide. The height to the top of the parapet measures 31.5'. Staff finds the size and height of the addition and associated walkways to be large, the location prominent, and the detailing somewhat elaborate to be considered compatible in character to the landmark. For these reasons, staff finds the tower proposal does not meet this standard. Staff finds the front porch remodel to be compatible and an improvement over what currently exists, thereby meeting this standard. (A massing model will be necessary to present to the HPC.) Materials: Brick and sandstone are to be the primary materials used in the addition, which we find general appropriate. Exact material samples, including windows, are required to be presented by the applicant at Final review, in order to make a final determination on type, size, texture and color of the brick and sandstone. HPC COMMENTS: 2 strong. However, staff finds that the addition as a whole has a sense of architectural importance that is competitive to the landmark, as opposed to subtle and recessive to allow the landmark to clearly read through. The parapet corbeling and balustrade, in particular, are detailed such that staff feels further study is required and revisions are necessary in order to meet this standard. Front entry porch: The 1966 front entry/porch (which encroaches into the public right of way) detracts from the architectural quality of the structure. (Note: This earlier addition was considered by the State National Register coordinator to be incompatible to such a degree that the structure was not included in the 1986 National Register nomination project. Staff feels that the porch's remodel may make the property eligible for the State Register, and perhaps the National Register.) A remodel of the porch is welcomed, and staff finds that the proposal does not diminish or detract from the structure's architectural integrity. 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 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. 4 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 added to significant landmarks (The Wheeler and the Elks Building) in the district. However, these elevators have been located on non-primary elevations , are of the minimum size for handicapped accessibility, and are architecturally unadorned. The Elks elevator tower is located well back from the street edge, and the Wheeler's elevator is overall significantly smaller and narrower. We find that this proposal is not consistent in character with the other two. We further feel that this project, if approved as proposed, may diminish the historic integrity and character of the historic district. Staff understands the church's special needs are different from both the Elks Building and the Wheeler, however, a thorough explanation of why these needs are not able to be met through the interior has not been submitted by the applicant. We have recommended that the applicant conduct an on-site visit to demonstrate the need for the elevator/vestibule addition. 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: It is staff's 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. 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: When studying the proposed west elevation, the architect's intent is clearly understood. The top of the buttresses and arch top windows are aligned with the brick relief employed in the proposed addition. The width of the addition is proportionally close to the width of a bay, and the verticality is 3 HPC COMMENTS: ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 2) Approve the Conceptual Development application as proposed, finding that the Development Review and Partial Demolition Standards have been met. 2) Approve the Conceptual Development application with conditions to be met at Final, including the Partial Demolition Standards and materials. 3) Table action to a date certain and continue the public hearing, to allow the applicant time to restudy the proposal in order to meet the Development Review Standards. 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 table action to a date certain and continue the public hearing, to allow the applicant time to restudy the proposal in order to meet the Development Review Standards. A revised application must be submitted to the Planning Office no later than two weeks prior to the continued public hearing date. Additional comments: memo.hpc.533em.cd 5 . 1 ...L A.ti~*JINJLL.1 1 1%. LAND USE APPLMATICN F[*24 1) Project Name .57: M A- Prs H A-/ TD & c.*%4 A*4-1,95 1-1-5¥ 4 TbtL »11 l/EVT-1896£ 2) Project Iocation Le>-CS .4,5,41Dle'l=,44;4~IJ BL.oK 1 03 crr¥ of= A.7 PEW. MA' #4 fT. (indicate street at~iress, lot & block nmber, legal description %hare et?prq?riate) 3) Present Zoning C- C- 4) Iot Size 47 78 00 Zeprt 5) Peplicartis Name, Nkkess & IR,]re i ST MA129-5 21++LDP- 60/ CoRy€72. 00 71 A-IN ,¥PD M PUTE72- 91*EET. 6) Representative's Name, Mdress & Phcne # TEE) 404' 4-Aisoc. 997 Bib-7 SA·Mt:r 1256,555-ASAEW 7) Type of Application (please check all that auply): Conditional Use - Ocnceptual SPA __1~~aciceptual Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA - Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline - Conceptual RJD - Minor Historic Dev. - St:mam Margin - Final POD Historic Demlition nxmtain View Plane Sdodivision ----- Historic Designation C.-1.liniumization - Text/Map Ameniment ___ GUS Allotment - Lot SpliVIot Line - 083 Eboemption Adjust:ment 8) Description of Existing Uses Ounber and type of ecisting structures; appruximate sq. ft. ; nmber of bedroc:ns; amr levious aarovals granted to the pruperty). ~Ht/Ct# 8*JD [266-rt-02-«r: 261,216,0/Uqt ok) 1-ZO©01>A FT. L 0 T 4- 1 2.50 0 2 XI St#J 4 Bo T H gu/LD, u<; 9) Description of Development Application 56©De Pl- #59 2 FLOoki \W ~200 9(k,PT. 00'r-51¤E -DECk A-ND H--A-pilic-er EAMP. EL-EVATORAUD V 66>7-/86)LE: 4 65 'bAFT 88£00/la.*'DE ADD IT(004-1.- GTDRAQE 10) Have you attached the follaaing? Response to Attachment 2, Minimm Suhnission Contents Response to Attadment 3, Specific Suhnissicn Ocntents Response to Attadmrnt 4, Review Standards far Your Application THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC ARCHITECTS AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS October 10,1991 Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: A Statement In Response To Attachment 4 Of The Submission Requirements For Conceptual Development Review Dear Committee Members: In response to Attachment 4: a. The project is compatible with adjacent structures historic and new. It does not extend into setbacks or streets. b. The project is in character with the neighborhood. -- c. The project does not detract from the existing building. d. As "c" above. Sincerely, T--1+ cy BracEEM-Raleigh / THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES, PC BR/lk 91105 L5 23280 STATE HIGHWAY 82 P. O BOX 1640 BASALT. COLORADO 81621 (303) 927 3167 THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC ARCHITECTS AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS . 1 2 2 .-71 August 21,1991 Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: A Statement In Response To Attachment 3a Of The Submission Requirements For Conceptual Development Review Dear Committee Members: The Parish of St. Mary's Church plan to have a 100 year re-dedication of the Church in 1992. They wish to complete their on-going upgrading of the Church faciiities in time for that re-dedication. We hereby submit this Application on their behalf for your review. The proposed Project will make the Church accessible to the elderly and handicapped parishioners and guests through the construction of an elevator and vestibule. This will also provide handicapped access to the existing ground floor Meeting Rooms. At the preliminary H.P.C. review the north/west side of the Church was approved for the elevator tower and vestibule location. The HPC felt the Tower should have a flat roof to minimize its impact. The brick exterior should be similar to the existing building. The height should be below the existing eave line, if possible. Our Proposal meets all three criteria from the preliminary approval. We have created an addition that works with the existing structure without either minimizing or compromising the original building. The Tower and Vestibule provides for modern needs and allows the Church to serve the Community in the future. Sincerely, 121:24:24 77 -ya b,-0 THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES, PC BR/pnp 91105 L4 23280 STATE HGHWAY 82 PO BOX 1640 BASAL T. COLORADO 8 1621 (3031 927 3167 UL MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Temporary installation of bunting on parapet, Elks Building, December 8-22. Date: November 13, 1991 SUMMARY: The Aspen Elks Club will be celebrating their centennial the weekend of December 14, and are asking HPC's approval to hang the red, white and blue fabric bunting (used on the Courthouse) off the parapet for two weeks in December. NO other exterior decoration is proposed (i.e. flags, etc.) Staff is seeking your consensu- to allow this festive display to occur, and we applaud the Elks in their centennial! We recommend approval, provided no hanging devises (hooks, etc.) are drilled into the brick. If hooks are inserted into the mortar, the mortar shall be repaired according to NPS standards for National Register buildings. Ed Irwin, building manager, explained to staff that they intend to tie the bunting on along the inside wall of the parapet. The Elks are renting the bunting from the county, and are seeking approval for only two weeks. Staff is also seeking HPC direction at this meeting should the Elks return with a request for an extension (perhaps through Winterskol?) RECOMMENDATION: Approval for temporary hanging of bunting as outlined by staff in this memo. TO: ASPEN HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMITTFF THUR: ROXANNE EFLIN FROM: ASPFN ELKS LODGE #224 DATF: NOVFMBER 4, 1991 RE: ASPEN ELKS CENTENNIAL 077 1 LI k~: 49& J J ¢4ny C The Aspen Flks Centennial celebration will be held the week-end of December 14, 1991. The County has loaned the Flks the decorative ribbing for the outside of the building and would like lo drape the two front sides from the top of the building for the iwo weeks from December 8, 1991 thur December 22, 1991. 1% 4 G.#c,wr-' Utt £©DIC A€*1,4 9.2 45€/6 r/-44 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee CC: Commercial Core and Lodging Commission CC: Bob Gish, Public Works Director From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Inquiry from Parks Association: signs attached to lamp posts Date: November 13, 1991 SUMMARY: The Board of Directors of the Parks Association has brought the issue of sign clutter on the lamp posts to light (sorry for the pun), and is inquiring as to policy either through guidelines, the pedestrian plan or streetscape standards. To my knowledge, no language or policy exists to prohibit the placement of signs on the lamps. Staff is interested in the HPC's opinion of the issue, and Will share this with the Parks Association, CCLC and Director of Public Works. RECOMMENDATION: General discussion and consensus on the issue. OCT 3 1 :Ri October 28, 1991 Ms. Roxanne Eflin C/O Historic Preservation Committee . Aspen City Hall 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Roxanne, The Board of Directors Of The Parks Association Ae expressed concern about the extensive use of the antique Parks lamps in the City for a variety of sign uses. The accompanying photos depict some of the examples of these Association signs. The haphazardness of the signs detracts from the character of the antique lamps. Does the City have any guidelines for the use of these antique lamps? Are the sign placements in conformance with Committed to the the streetscape standards of the pedestrian plan? preservation of parks, trails and open space We understand the use of the lamps for signs reduces in the Roaring Fork the number of potential sign posts, but we wonder if any Valley. sort of policy or public concern exists as to this issue. * Thank you for considering these comments. Sincerely,_ - - 14_(2 (11 Hal Clark Executive Director The Parks Association P.O. Box 940 Aspen, Colorado 81612 303-923-2693 *7 - 1 .. e . / 5 ¥6*rbi *,2 4 :21 -p 4 - I. .- • I· ;»Ate#A'KE aqi ':14· ' 4.24.4 0 5&1'v 76"r. 1 : 3.t. ·kikb4$ l..~»r .- W. . 4,1. '6 . U 1 9/4/4 1 . 1.. , 54 8 1 j/'//4- g -0. 14 0 .--po Y .St. - d . y. . 01%*1 4 i $ A1~2AI~A- 7. a .. . I. '. - 1 - --I.- .: +61.Hip/4#Wi. i , 1 ,.mil/:jfjoq/LE+53 - - -1-- - --.- .N »:: *.4. : OLA St- ;fk . .f-'ll-I- -- - %%14 1799 At ·44· a' C , -al '4 ~13.0 1 37'5 \ .---a----1-.- - 4 21 i + 2 -1/ 1.i 2 W.7 -:-1 - i. 4 I ' 1 /3/ - - - 0 2 ' 1/34/ / pg~.... t_ 1 - 2 0242.-4.-124*./-,r r · - - .- C .... . ...0 - / I. : - t. 4 -2--.- - :- I. . ' .li>-~ 602... ..6 . 4.2.5 ../ - I . . .. . - ¥ 11•·L-*·t ..77 . .- 1.·ov '1 0 D- _ 4--1». 2 7.. . ..t. 2 V 1 - •A -14-· n ... .r- . ~ S:. - ..1/. ' k.JI 2-,6 .2. 1 - - g -a -lt-·9' 6··r* h>z:~-€4~~,-Ar- .4----3. · ,-21 ·.- -1- -r -ta'··*,-40,~r'.Ild .,. .2- -17*~ 1-L 01 .11.1. lili.lim-1.1 - -*I.#...a- 6 - 39 .fr.=67";5 1~ - '68 . 1 FO -A. t..1.-* .- 4 . :- 2--3.- 1 : NO T~ P- - - I '1 +' I. I-:i# I 1 - ,!i . - -' -'#~- .*.-4-'-- -.*.W-*'- . ---=* .. --'-;# -' . X'f ..'·1,1. 5... Al 4 ./4 -t& 3 Bil - 452*.313* L. i -3. - 9. - < 06* . 4 . - 4.4. . I *./. # I. I *9. .rr r ra_=.i *-- t . I. 1.- .r.· i.*t; . 9.- ty A. C '- F-/- . . 1· ··· 4, 1,"* 1 I *2<5: t=~~ _% - -0 -, :74 10 ~1 ~- -9<- - . -t X3-0 - 57./ .. -/ , 446 L '-: I i .Afft:- . %.. --2 + I - . .J - ...r, .•.1 . I ..... . €=41 ,- e .. -. f. 7 - h :'.1 rt· ·.- . . I. r .3 3.44 - 'L'' 44 'I 4 -:4 4 t 4 ·tc.1, 2 1 , 1 r. .. 1»· I :2 1 46 i 4 ' ' r . 'l·· 1. \E. G - tit .· ..y,i<: ,«1'l:,;\J ,\ ,~.. .'.N<Wa:. 1-t: . \ a,b. . f.'27 1 TH......4- 4•1·£ A,% i., - . k. 4 4' ?\.1 · Al < - --- dr.- ijkk / 4 ...4> 1\11\ :42~1-Vt.¢r =~17,1 r-J . . 1-,4 ' . . ./il . ..t 4 . »,7 . .f*L· 1 0 * - ::4 -cc~i ---~, i h.whI 1 , 1.<4~-Lu>·411#. 1. /rl \ . 2,1 M- tk 2, 02 5 ~41 1524902'i· ~ Alt - ¥ 9 \ --€h-2, 6/ - 4 '<73*19@=i,tiN-*A. ST. I L...>,c: .. . , 7/ - b ./ . U 11"1.·4. I 73/,fls,E ---.. - 729* IM ' --7¥- i VE.,Alf .-;9:-45£ 1 ..3,-2 . h - f f -- I %/ 4 ..%741/- - A /:-, 61 -y ... t k.*' 7 -4 · 1:-t€ _ . ..I.-- -0 . / 1 37/ 1- I -.'paj--Il'---1*z.1,&*.V, i - .-4,<, :=4.1, \ '- . ISTOP ima ~ 1 . -- 3 -4»; 11.1«4 , * C li- 16* T 1 : t.i /* 1-<. Jr. i: 3 . :i . 41:. 6 - - . 74,15 r .A #_1-/~8. i 74 -, 1, ~ 1. · 2 3 15+--2 f j. . \ ,/' -...... . 1 ..:-..,i& 1. ¢.·i?i:'.2- ! ·: i··t- i" · 4, 0 - ·61 1 . Ti 79 / ./ 1 - & I. r:3*,rs' 4· -2. I J IN I ./ 44--, . :>f.DE.1.1 . 24....11·· ..444* ked '16 .... I /L .... , . . 4 .t\¢ 1:. .t : 1,1., , , ' 4'..' 2;-4 · 1 ~- + ,*IL 1. .,4 *,441'Y 4/1,11341@ft .2 94*~#alip' -f z*= 6-~* ---- ---. 2 0 11. .r,LA U.: '1..,k ., I : .. pi~" %7~~ FAVTDO N##Y E .7 '1 alt 'J , %<dill Eff. 1 ... , 1. 1 031 + **f 7, . 't. -t. C . mat , Ds .4 316, ,¢ 1. ..81 11 4 - , C - Icl. 4 0 . 1(2 .. 1 4 1. . - - .1~71•4,< ' , ·p . e*y . 4 c .·T1/immb7),:.i , ~t~ic* di,·,tir;,4~ fit - . 11""Ii/*V ; 14 . 1 1**Ii . I, ~ v.1 ~,J~£0~2. L'. ib ,-6--2'.4~ · , t,li #·~ 94#. ..,%+ 145 I . ' 40 7 : " i ¥ v. 7 r , ....4. ,, 44 - c r ¥0. - - 4, 4,4 »4065. 44*; 1 1.1 1,10 1 . .11 G. 4.2 *F «4, S+· ~t' 11 + It 1 14; d t -'ll .4,/: '* :~ I £ I ' '/#: ./.'I lilli /111 4 ., Yti<:, 6#.~ '.: b- s <Jf; R"ia:1-9 1 1 DE.1'1~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~*~ ~~ ~ 1 1, 1 41 i 11 ., ...i. 24 I ' . 1. i -02 4 f'.., ':.. . ..6 02% /'.4 . 5/K?MU~St**L I. ... . 1 P.N.% 4 . Id - -. , f..... ,US.0. 0 - • 4. 4 A. i - 1 1 Ch . . ..1 . . 4 4.. 4. .. :/-127NJ.1442'7~fru;V':,te 2474425'< 40-*tj '·4: :rf I ./ .' *.' I I ... - I I. ..C·fl¥ -· -30<14· 1 ; 1 -- i- == 4.:»...= wl- ,r - - e.- ---- -- . - 0- -- . .r ..4 -9, - --da + .....~4 . 3-· . .. - > :r -1<91 - 1 - .gia - t->A· s I ... 3* . ~2 -r .. =le- . . 4 3 -91.1 -27 le .251 ...... 1 ,92£237-i~01·i.lit@2&~bL4fl'L'., -4 1 ..1 4 ~a¥,2 - VE v ME:316. 4 f: 1%~ r.--i , 1 91 .i ZA - ..:. :E•liat g=,4,230,*c 44 4 Wl'.2,415.74+4/9.3&*,-1 cy?8#6«%;F, 10- #*4 ~ '12 :mr f ~-2~'<£192,-tz.. 4 Elf:~4~ 214 i*014;.*g .. re,(fidk·-~~~,4*, Sjjk?'litit 1 1.#f~7. - f , i " b--//~~.-/ *et 9:· 1 01_£13 3 62:-11-1&,err#.T.*.AL. *LI -0~ -- "1.24 2i'i1+ ¢ %*ria~ & Ay&-3-73=~G:~.0.~4. 'k. lit'.,•ill//1, 0/23/V itit#2=• ~r26(MI#ik... ._: i -rc~~12,-1,=:&<Yil ·~ '2 I. 1 Ill#....6../.*---12 I '. . tzIZI~mgs« 7 ..46 ..,e ' C.i. F.-2 \\£21347.4 1= 1?94%1.-#9 i - * 42 - C f '2 ./. •i'll I ,~'47 r ,,I :4&,:4:"dIC 1 -1-- .. :4•r 2,; C, .11-:22-2-4. ..2 U , . .//7 4/ . LL V -le 7, 2. . * 2 b. F. ' ' 4. 1 11 - 1 0 T I . , - '95,03 , u.. 'A". 4 -6.- . •€.au.bii- . ft- IL' 1. 1.29 .-I - ...A . : - -f U ;· ' ~ f. _ 4/1-4 1 . I ...1, ... ..lb... t. 1 -- , 9 iN -- 1.- =,1,6../-42*8 - €.1 i. , 0- 9--9---3 .822*T: 91 IMM'%*• . ·1>4 ' p ·7· -· - - 41 L ·* f ' .. .*4623 . i . · . --- .A··6· :.14.-·jh. 'Flt' 15> 75:2.1 4'.1,-'. - -'1< 1 ->1 4-4--At,~-I.7.~..-zt--·321:-·'A yx -7. g -r.,.„~- - - . .- - 4* ... 4.1.-7.· . : '-4.6.. '.... C ?M#,731£325 1-'r,-0~6>7'4.27---J·.'t-· -2- 2"* *47Af 'L . 1 : i* ' *275674-245#....~-*.w* i. mn[ 01 ,) r--- * : 1 Ir-- 063 =7-" .Ill 6 1 - H *. ..El .1 . * h .. 4.- 1....4.-,~ 9-22-,46-2.-.2.-=.-..; 2. - IP , I . - ' - x + .1 -4-- - - + 1- -- I.S. - A::*1,0-*6-ro,haiti-zEIT-4744-.3 -I -.: . =~-f.€.· i, . 1 r.e~.z-t-:P. u »Ailli# £ I ,=---·-*1-9.·04 .2 I- ·· I - 43*4-' -6 .. - ... .....5.- .15MF. - 1 . - . .1.... t : ./4 .i ' L.- S•• 11,. t * , ~7. 07 r J 4 1„61-27-1---7--I-T I - 1/ x 1 1*06 €3-NI. 4-9413,-¥14:.16<TEZI,. P~. :J laill./.dilit'~ it.all=/1".dild"i . .At P r -,<r-0 --41-Ujf*o~:f t ./.-+...Y-~ I . I M . 71 1 2-W 1 h r ·· 1- g . 7- 4 A. .,4. -*P--er - 89»)24,---,j ..... 4. .--bak --- 1 -2* E-Ji»« 4.-1 - 11 :55 i.j~ imt ..,1. ifpel- 1 44*:61/4328<-4*724.-p-··- 1/-d.1- 1 . f --- €*'.:r .1 2*;0954<431#tu.;-- ST. , ~*< * p:- -t·91 27'~2E**9*''~LE.RA , - .=- . -d---$ $ 4*r· » garm. S. - 4257'* .- .. --1 .. . -7. 4 4 U9>%41?k~~"--4..5,2:* -e.*01,1.1.-z-elDL. N ,. 2/*28.-pal - 2 . 1. . -~ %4\44~'.1,0 0\\ fi: fp V, - , 40 - - 4 £ A .C k.?449% 12.-I -... . i - . I.KI•2 12145.42 -· I 4. 5,-71. --· . 1 . V~54-k. 9 2721/ti;r,4- - -. . I . · . Cl.. :=3=-=C 11•- -· it¢.4-:,¤Irc r r . .t: o .2 .2 I .... ' pr·l .~ . tb 7 1 i,k#.. 4.5- . .r .9- 1~ ' - *A 5. Ifi .7. 1 . 1 . 470,2 5,2V-61 -I- I. I .+ < f 4-2/.4 1.7 ...;- . r - * 0 1 '* 14 '*- 45 4 -'</ 0.1 . I. f. - 4 -. , ¥ .F . -- .- ... 4/ . '' ' .4 :r . -1 0.- -- :./ u 1.9 ..,- ;.5.r.·' :-&.:.9 4, ER.64'-t I- * 1 3 2 , 6:(A-'-tr ;Sit le 'r ~r .. -. - 44.,2 +424 4*. w - - ~~6JJ ; i · " h,>44. ..11.'10'ZI I'll : --N e €92.40 1 'Bil . -1 1 . 45'- Jul I. . . .. .- 4.4.2 .--Ut t'·/ .G :4/ b- .-L==G- U,Lic' 1 4 1 -9-01• , "A r. ; 1 410 --eat 4 L L- b. T-** - -I-I.,3../.*.- -- I M. ' la 1. 1 1.imitifint ... 3% ... . r -24-4,-- i.-'-· - 1*40133,pre-293:ke=L - - >- 7 -=72-2 ..L- -- -Zif-,3/ 2-~I /-~17-4'. .-- - 1 : ·t .. 1 j. ... 4 T A- . 4 1 14·Lit»"4, + 0,4 . -. •. I A - •- '4 '....0 .. V..r'.:.;kff,-iki,-0 -; 7 27:9~ fl h --1 -1 i . : . 4.:- 2 Ck' 4 : .. - =9.- '23 . . - --1-1 I -:.-yuk)-t' -4 ---- ... 2 4.4 t. A -4- 7.)~=~6 ... ip -,· ~ -1/14;R.)2.4.04-: F. 1 7 4 · 4*t -+I ' I i....., * .59\71 - .. 4 6< 4 1 . I :ON.- 1 . . t. 1 4% t 0 I .../ i.-- ' 3 L • - , 4.- MUSEUM 6[. . , .-4% 1 . 4 .i' 4 1 : \. ./.0, A 1 '2 . ~i _f*1) ./ MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee CC: Chuck Roth, Engineering Dept. From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer L Re: Minor Development: 17 Queen St., site plan amendment, parking relocation Date: November 13, 1991 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor Development approval for the site plan amendment necessary in order to relocate one parking space to be accessed on Neal St. Note: The applicant was asked to have the site staked out, including identifying potential trees to be removed, prior to the meeting. As of Monday morning, November 11, this had not been done, therefore, staff's responses are based on the written information only. APPLICANT: Henry and Lana Trettin, represented by Geoffrey Harris, architect 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... Response: When Final Development approval was granted on this parcel last year, the HPC and the applicant discussed site planning and parking requirements a great deal. It was decided at that time that parking should not occur in the front of the parcel for two specific reasons: 1) Visual impacts to the front streetscape and cottage 2) Safety and access off Neal St., a sloping street with moderately heavy traffic Parking was specifically designated to the southerly portion of the parcel, accessed off Queen. Off-site parking on King (closer to the cottage) was discussed as a probability; this is a public works issue which the HPC has no specific review over. Parking and setback variations were granted to specifically accommodate the site design as it was originally proposed. Staff feels that the revised parking plan does not meet this standard, and recommend the HPC deny the proposal based on that finding. HPC COMMENTS: 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The neighborhood character with regard to on-site parking is eclectic, and staff finds that this proposal is not necessarily inconsistent with the neighborhood. 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 proposal does detracts from the cultural value of the parcel. Community wide, cars are most often relegated to the rear of the parcel, with parking accessed off alleys or secondary means. The cultural value of this highly visible renovation cottage will be diminished with the visual intrusion of parking directly in front. We also do not trees to be removed to make room for parking, which is the reason why on- site parking was only approved at the south end of the parcel. 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 the issue to be primarily site-design and general character related, as opposed to architectural. Therefore, we find that the proposal does not diminish the architectural integrity of the structure. HPC COMMENTS: 2 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 met prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy (specific recommendations should be offered). 4. Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the development review standards. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC deny the Minor Development application for 17 Queen Street as proposed, finding that Standards A and C have not been met. Additional comments: memo.hpc.17qs.md 3 PELLECCHIA · OLSON ARCHITECTS 0 October 28, 1991 Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 ATTN: Ms. Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner RE: Miner's Cottage 17 Queen Street Our Reference No. 8905.01 Dear Roxanne: Enclosed you will find two sketches pertaining to a proposed change of location for the off-street parking at 17 Queen street. By moving the parking space to the location indicated we accomplish two things: 1. We save some of the older cottonwoods to the north (or King Street) elevation; 2. We improve the entry sequence to the house from Neal Avenue. We will have the contractor stake the current approved location and the proposed revised location for the parking space. In addition, we will flag any trees which would need to be removed in either case. The HPC will then be able to physically evaluate the proposed revision. Fliank ' *ur assiance. Geoff,bEM B. Hat*fs Pell~5*ia Olson Architects, P.C. GBH:sha copies: Henry Trettin Lana Trettin Glen Rappaport Rudd Construction, Inc. File A Professional Corporation 1442 Market Street Denver. Colorado 80202 303 534-4114 i,bilin - -2 - 2~1, /// To E F -1 _01|9. 79165 2, s L.<0©101 l-AO t\F- - r:. .. RM' K.grhs'JING# VA,L- p'ofte.go PMOA-b|61 efkt ORAVEL- 4 / breee C Act ern Kle ... -- 'tvbUL-6 , *49\6*NOL)6 3- ~ - 6%,••:•b 4 4~Aug - rk>h/EWL Mi)<, , ¥ t/// 712-\' - 60*, --- 1 \,4 : 1. . 4 r d 4. Z -----. 47924'-0,1 fr.....1 . 7120%-6,1 .. I. 4 - lili 79 3,40* .. *792.e- ~-6-V\•b~-0 NEAL- +A/EUVE- 6\1-21- 64€-60 1 11 e¢-0 fO,PAP AL:112-C.h-U<r I»tc\AC4 98>4 = ~1 '- o H MiNE#- - 31.-UhAe- Ze> ooroele-e- 91/1/ FEU-0.001-·tiA' c:» t-\ Ae-CA·A \TE-Ort 1 -1 i 4 r#s** 050.CAA 1 IN ----- ---- 4.--'AR/ljf-+----- - " 14 1 lecee. L-g ¢Ae-g,;P ----LiA) -i't _3 ..ill} AE·mMU\14 64 *44+4- -~-111 - --- 1 1 f:, tr'% r*or,1.-g (3, C#Ung•Lu-NE- 01= r'*c,KJT- Ft*444 - ¥45-«¥t:•e·C> 1\NURL%. COTT,€421 245 0017001* i F\1\ ¥25.u-SCOMIA- Obe:OU »ve-CA\(VE.0-rt> -BOIN:2»M -1•0917 . PELLECCHIA · OLSON ARCHITECTS 5 September 1991 SEP -9 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Planner Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office -, 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 re: Miner's Cottage 17 Queen Street; Aspen, Colorado Dear Roxanne: Enclosed please find a copy of SKA-3, dated 5 September 1991, "Revised Building Footprint Location." As explained during our telephone conversation on Tuesday, 3 September, when Rudd Construction began laying out the new foundation for the Miner's Cottage a discrepancy was discovered between the actual location of the overhead power line crossing Neal Avenue near King Street and the location of this same line as represented by the survey prepared by Banner Associates. This occurred on 22 July, 1991. In telephone conversations that day between Wayne Rudd and myself the actual bearing of the overhead line was established and it was determined that the house needed to move 9'-0" farther sway from the north property line to satisfy the prescriptive right easement held by Holy Cross Electric. Shortly thereafter, on 25 July, I called your office to inform you that the job had begun, that the Contractor was about to begin Salvaging the existing sheds, and that the power line necessitated this location change. Your secretary told me you were on vacation at which point I called our H.P.C. monitor, Glenn Rappaport, to keep him up to date. He informed me that the Contractor had already contacted him about these issues a day or 80 earlier. I believe if you chack with Glenn you will find that during your absence, both our office and Rudd Construction have contacted him a number of times to make sure the H.P.C. remains informed of the status of the job and "in the loop." Should you have any further questions, please call. S in~ A J c/ /1 - .tit~ h. --: .,I./.-# Geoffrey B. #*Fis PELLECCHIA ILSON ARCHITECTS, P.C. 14· CC: Rudd Construction Glenn Rappaport H. Trettin L. Trettin Guy & Associates File A Professional Corporation 1442 Market Street Denver, Colorado 80202 303 534-4114 ./. eDVE¢- \Als .4, 40 (*710 c>A I \11.4 - 42=ve£ U.3 e. 4 7%2*c*er-b/E. gA<»Af E.•6*12 \ NEAL.k~AV~N L¥E. 0 1 E«\0 \\ \ - <=,2460-l.U.>r F'743 - - --U- . / Fte:€07 EOLOILA E\ 71\/1 -L-OCA-r-\C>,4 \~~ 1% \ -\ b./ f 1 \/ \i \\ N \ -2/ N \ - 3- 1 .»,Et \I \\ 4 \ + -*-97-tE - 13 /\ \ 0- 1 1 »-T 1\\ \ . x42. 149 1. 1,1 1 \ \ A.j 1 ..1:J::DE \ i U{ 1 1 121 :-t -kf 1 ld-0 - i /.C t. L. 1-<7:.f r.5. 4 Vi~, ~~ii' -~'45'j' ' ' --- 0 PEE :EFE:fihii:*333Ei:\ - 6. £:EE:E:. Efi:ESEEN~ - 44 0 KED>-- 4 - ./.V NE.-/ DO\l-0*.SCA 6.OCAn©NA boOT-M ecowew*f cr H-DAC.• h F•~nAL- 1-0.Cr- eLAN Ce /7 1*be£04 'brr: MepriA •bUS.J\NCA g..e>2/eao e.or L.ow·Jol FkZOT,A.N'T- UDC.:reN 9/5/9\ \ /,4.' = 1'- O 4 MINER'S COTTAGE LY 'f & 8905.01 PELLECCHIA OLSON ARCHITECTS 9 11 A- O .....l......