Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.19911218Uti AGENDA Historic Preservation Committee December 18, 19 ~ 1 Regular Meeting Second Floor Meeting Room 5:00 I. Roll Call II. Committee Member and Staff Comments Resolution #13, Series of 1991, Recognizing out- going member Glenn Rappaport III. Public Comments IV. OLD BUSINESS A. None 5:10 V. NEW BUSINESS A. Landmark Designation, Conceptual Development, Partial Demolition, On-site Relocation and Expansion, Setback variations (Public Hearing) : 700 W. Francis 6:15 VI. COMMUNICATIONS A. Project Monitoring B. Committee Reports 6:30 VII. ADJOURN , MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 700 W. Francis: Landmark Designation, Conceptual Development (Partial Demolition, On-site Relocation and Expansion), and Setback Variations (public hearing) Date: December 18, 1991 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting Landmark Designation and Conceptual Development (Partial Demolition, On-site Relocation and Expansion) , and Setback Variations approval for the property at 700 W. Francis. In addition, the applicant is requesting approval to demolish the outbuilding (which is proposed to be rebuilt at the northeast corner of the parcel). 700 W. Francis is eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places, and may be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, as well, as it currently exists. Local Landmark Designation allows the applicant to take advantage of the 20% State Rehab Tax Credits, plus applicable local incentives; National Register listing would allow the applicant the ability to apply for Federal Rehab Tax Credits, should the property be considered "income producing" (i.e. rental property). Staff will review this property's eligibility with Barbara Norgren, State Register Coordinator, at the applicant's request. The Planning Office thanks the applicant for submitting a detailed and thorough application and drawings. A 1/4" scale model will be presented at the meeting. APPLICANT: Doug and Susan McPherson, represented by Gretchen Greenwood and Associates LOCATION: 700 W. Francis, Lots R and S, Block 15, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado SITE, AREA AND BULK INFORMATION: Lot size: 6,000 sq. ft. Existing FAR: 1,800 sq. ft. (approx.) Existing Outbuilding FAR: 427 sq. ft. Proposed FAR: 3,171 sq. ft. Max Allowable FAR: 3,240 sq. ft. Allowable Site Coverage: 40% Proposed Site Coverage: Not indicated Maximum height, main bldg.: 25' (at median pitch) 1 . Max. height, rear bldg.: 12' (at median pitch) Proposed garage (exempt) 494 sq. ft. Landmark Designation Local Landmark Designation is necessary in order to receive the setback variations requested, as well as State Rehab Income Tax Credits. The applicant has also requested a $2,000 designation grant from the City of Aspen. LOCAL DESIGNATION STANDARDS: Section 7-702 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations define the six standards for local landmark designation, requiring that the resource under consideration meet at least one of the following standards: A. Historical importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Response: The Planning Office records indicate that this property, referred to as the C. F. Saunders Residence, was built c.1890 for Mr. Saunders, owner of the local brewery. He began business here in 1885, erecting a plant at a cost of $23,000. The brewery (now ruins at the base of Red Mountain Road) was an important contribution to the social life of the mining class in Aspen. Staff finds the property meets this Standard. B. Architectural importance: The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. Response: We find this structure to be one of the finest representations of a typical Aspen Miner's cottage in our community. It has been virtually unchanged with the exception of the snow deflecting modification built into the front porch. C. Architectural importance: The structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. Response: We find that the architectural quality of this one 2 1 . I and a half story cottage distinguishes this structure as a significant specimen in Aspen. Nearly all of Aspen's Victorian-era cottages have been altered to some degree over the years; the Saunders cottage is one of the last remaining examples in Aspen where the structure has retained its original integrity. The ornate decoration indicates the property was built for an owner of greater wealth and social standing than the average worker. We find that the property, in it present form, meets this standard. (Please refer to the Inventory Form attached for specific architectural details of this property.) D. Architectural importance: The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: Our records do not indicate an architect was involved in the design or construction of this cottage. The quality of the cottage is in its original detailing and form. We find, therefore, that the property does not meet this Standard. E. Neighborhood character: The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: The contribution this small scale residential structure and its outbuilding makes to the West End is invaluable. It anchors an important corner, and features historic cottonwoods and an open, relatively undisturbed irrigation ditch along 7th St. It is vital that any changes taking place to this parcel do not diminish the contribution this cottage makes to the neighborhood character. The HPC should consider whether the proposed demolition of the outbuilding precludes the parcel from meeting this standard. F. Community character: The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: Aspen' s "miner' s cottages" are signatures of our town. The preservation of these small scale, vernacular 3 resources is critical to the character and economic vitality of Aspen. The particular quality of this cottage contributes to our understanding of our unique heritage, and of those who founded and developed our community at the turn of the century. Conclusion: The Planning Office finds that all Landmark Designation Standards have been met, with the exception of #D. Conceptual Development: Partial Demolition. On-site Relocation. Expansion and Variations REVIEW STANDARDS: Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations defines the four standards for Development Review. All four of these standards must be met in order for the HPC to grant approval for the proposal. In addition, the Partial Demolition and Relocation Standards (Sections 7-602 B and C) must also be met. Development Review Standards 1. The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot of exceed the allowed floor areas, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. 2. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The Planning Office finds that the proposal is not incompatible with the neighborhood. Rear additions to cottages in Aspen are common. 3. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on 4 the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: The Planning Office finds that the proposed restoration aspects of the proposal enhance the cultural value of the historic resource. However, we believe that due to the extent of the proposed addition, listing on the State and/or National Register of Historic Places will not be possible. We support Register listing of all properties within our community that are eligible for such an honor, and find that properties listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places as to Aspen's cultural value. Staff strongly encourages the applicant to reconsider the proposal in order to protect the ability now or in the future for the property to be listed on the Registers. 4. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: We find that this standard has not been met. The size of the addition detracts from the architectural integrity of the historic cottage. We understand the applicant's desire to expand this house to meet their living needs, however, we are unable to support the extent of the changes proposed, based upon the impacts such an addition has to the historic resource. This may be a case where a reduction in proposed new square footage is necessary in order for the addition to not detract from the historic cottage, and to receive approval from the HPC. We find that the basic scale, roof pitch and materials were carefully considered by the architect, and that an accurate model will be necessary to review prior to specific recommendations made. Staff reserves further comments until a model is presented. Partial Demolition Standards 1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure. 2. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: 5 a) Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. b) Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel. Response: The areas proposed for partial demolition are to the rear of the structure and are the least visible. The rear porch, however, is a unique future of this cottage; its preservation would greatly contribute to retaining much of the original integrity of the cottage. Staff will recommend that the HPC require a more detailed report of the demolition proposed at Final. Relocation Standards 1. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property. Response: The purpose for the relocation is to allow more space on the parcel for the new addition. The structure can be rehabilitated where it is currently sited. 2. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. Response: Generally, an on-site relocation of a cottage is not considered by staff to undermine its historic integrity to a significant degree. This is particularly true when a subject cottage is sitting directly on the ground with no cellar or basement, or not on a foundation. However, this cottage is different. One of the original and unique features of the cottage is the partial cellar. Relocation will destroy this cellar feature, an issue the HPC mav wish to consider. 3. The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re- 6 siting. A structure report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Response: No information has been presented to support this standard. 4. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond with the Engineering Department, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: The site plan indicates the new location of the cottage, 10' to the south (closer to the street edge). The additional requirements of this standard will be required to be met at Final. Financial security in a form acceptable to the City Attorney in an amount to be determined by the HPC and the applicant is also a requirement prior to the issuance of any building permit. 5. The receiving site is compatible in nature to the structure or structures proposed to be moved, the character of the neighborhood is consistent with the architectural integrity of the structure, and the relocation of the historic structure would not diminish the integrity or character of the neighborhood of the receiving site. An acceptance letter from the property owner of the receiving site shall be submitted. Response: The cottage is proposed to be moved 10' closer to the street edge. The HPC sh6uld determine if this relocation is appropriate to strengthen the established setback pattern of the immediate block and surrounding neighborhood. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Recommend Landmark Designation only, and table the remainder of the application to allow the applicant additional time for restudy. Areas requiring restudy + should be specified by the HPC for the applicant, according to the Guidelines and Development Review 7 Standards. The HPC should continue the public hearing to a date certain. 2) Recommend Landmark Designation, and grant Conceptual Development approval (with or without conditions to be met at Final). 3) Recommend Landmark Designation and deny the remainder of the application finding that the Development Review, Partial Demolition and Relocation Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC recommend Landmark Designation for 700 West Francis St., and table the remainder of the application to allow the applicant additional time for restudy. (Restudy requirements should be specific.) The Public Hearing should be continued to a date certain. Additional comments: memo.hpc.700wf.cd.ld 8 -·- HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM State Site Number: Local Site Number: 700.WF Photo Information: ASP-0-12 and ASP-H-17 Township 10 South Range 85 West Section 12 USGS Quad Name Aspen Year 1960 X 7.5' 15' Building or Structure Name: C. F. Saunders Residence Full Street Address: 700 West Francis Legal Description: * Citv and Townsite of Aspen city Aspen County Pitkin Historic District or Neighborhood Name: West End owner: Private/State/Federal Owner's Mailing Address: ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Building Type: Residential Architectural Style: Victorian Miner's Cottaqe Dimensions: L: X W: = Square Feet: Number of Stories: 1-1/2 story Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): Rectangular Landscaping or Special Setting Features: Rail fence with balustrade up wood posts Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material an Function (map number / name): Single qable 1-1/2 storv carriage hous with board and batten. approximatley 600 square feet; also shed roof shed. approximately 50 square feet; with wood shingled roof For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in the description as appropriate: Roof: Cross-qabled with wood shinqles Walls: Clapboard with decorative wood shingles at qable ends Foundation / Basement: Red sandstone Chimney(s): 2 - 1 at center front qable, red with corbeled brick; 1 at northeast side. brick Windows: One proiectinq bav at front (south) with small divided light around center liqht windows;·one-over-one double hung at side; one- over-one double hung tvve elsewhere; shallow-proiecting bav with shed roof with one-over-one double hung window. supported bv scroll brackets at east side Doors: 2 entrv at front: segmented transom over segmented 1/2 light over wood panel; transom over multi-light door at east side toward rear Porches: Shed at southeast corner supported bv turned posts with spindle frieze with decorative wood balustrade General Architectural Description: 1-1/2 storv Victorian cottage. This structure is one of the finest representations of a typical Aspen Victorian Miner's Cottage. The front gable has the typical proiecting bav window. in this case more ornatelv decorated with brackets; the cross qable with double entry (one for main use, the other for parlor room use onlv). An unusual feature with the entry doors is the trans, window over each (not present in most other Aspen homes). The porch has much qinqerbread detail from turned posts; wood sawn brackets and lattice work. Page 2 of 2 State Site Number Local Site Number 700.WF FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Current Use: Residential Architect: Unknown Original Use: Residential Builder: Unknown Intermediate Use: Residential Construction Date: circa 1890 Actual X Estimate _ Assessor Based On: MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS Minor X Moderate Major Moved Date Describe Modifications and Date: Double shed roof over entry mav have been replaced Additions and Date: NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA Is listed on National Register; State Register Is eligible for National Register; State Register Meets National Register Criteria: A B C D E_. - Map Kev Local Rating and Landmark Designation 1-1 Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register Contributing: Resource has maintained historic or 11 - architectural integrity. o Supporting: Original integrity lost due to alterations, however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort. Locally Designated Landmark Justify Assessment: Associated Contexts and Historical Information: This residential structure was built circa 1890 for C.F. Saunders, the owner of the local brewerv. who began business here in 1885. erecting a fine plant at a cost of $23.000. Mr. Saunders was an agent for the famous Schlitz beers, as well as for the well known Zang's beers. Mr. Saunders came to Colorado from Indiana in 1864 and located in Aspen in 1885. Other Recording Information Specific References to the Structure/Building: Pitkin County Court- house Records; Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps; Aspen, Colorado 1905 Directory Archaeological Potential: N (Y or N) Justify: Recorded By: Date: January 1991 Affiliation: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee - Citv of Aspen Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer/Planner BRIEF HISTORY OF THE SAUNDER'S VICTORIAN The Saunder' s Victorian located at 700 West Francis Street was originally built in 1885. The house was built for Mr. and Mrs. Saunders by Mrs. Saunders parents. The house was subsequently owned by many people until the Shermans bought it for back taxes. The house remained in the Sherman family until just recently when it was purchase by Doug and Susan McPherson of Aspen. The original small porch was enlarged to form the large porch that presently exists. It has been suggested that the newer, larger porch, with the same details and ornamentation as the original small porch, was added in the late 1940's f 1 43zf~ 492<Aff»<7 ZPAN .N.Z. 5 12.k t.Yer T.19 4. - 1 :. Ilt,J , 1 .32 ~1»9-44 --4 -ill k 9 ... /1.. 4.~24 -/1/....-- . , f CS- . Ant-4 , 1 C ..4 . 4 , . . .. -, I ':J '''Ill r' 4 ? t#,f ...4. Lk .. '· -. #12 5 2 =4€~ f f ? .C 1.2 . B ': I - 1 - -./. 6 r. ,. ..1 i·Z~.2, I , 'i'h . ..1 •£.4.•r - •iZit. 1 el?.r?yp~, r<: a'*221· ,-r 'Me 1. 44. 1 - . Al£811211:Nr 1 IAND USE APPIICAMEN FEEM .. Project Name Saunder's Victorian 2) Project Iocation 700 West Francis Street -. Lots R & S, Block 15, City and Townsite of Aspen 3) Present Zoning R- 4) Lot S 6,000 Sq.Ft (indicate street address; lot & block limber, legal descciption,diere appropriate) 5) Applicant' s Name, Address & Ihone # Doug and Spsan McPherson P. 0. Box 4412 ' Aspen, CO 81612 923-5120 6) Rpresentative' s Name, Mdress & Ihone # Gretchen Greenwood :Gretchen Greenwood & Assoc., Inc. 201 N. Mill St. #207 Aspen, CO 81611. 925-4502 7) gype of *plication (please check all that apply): Conditional Use. Conceptual SPA X ex~eptual Hi =tozic Dev. Special Review - Firal SPA - Einal Hist=:ic Dev. 8040 Greenline - Conceptual POD __ Minar Historic I»v. ... _ Stream Margin Final ED . - - Hist=ic Demolition Mountain yiew Plane Subdivisirn 81•=tnric Designat-irn Cor~kxninil=ization - Tect/Map Amendmeift - GM@S Allotment Int Spliti/Int line ' QUS ]Daaiption Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses (nuaber and type of existing· structures; approocimate sq. ft. ; nober of bedroc=; arly IIcevions apgrovals granted tb ttie prcperty). 1. Existing Single Family Victorian built in 1885; 1,800 Sq. Ft. .· 2 Bedrooms Existing Shed: Built in the late 1940's to early 1950's; 350 Sq. Ft. Existing Shed: Built in the late 1940's to early 1950's: 77 Sq. Ft. 1 9) Description of Development Application See Attached Application 10) Have you attached the following? X Ihesponse to Attachmert· 2, Mininum Suhnission Contents X Response to Attachment 3, Specific Shnission Conterrts X Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application 3 SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT I. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS A. Letter of consent by the applicant is attached on Exhibit A B. The street address and legal description of the residence is: 700 West Francis Street, Aspen, CO Lots R & S; Block 15; City and Townsite of Aspen C. Disclosure of ownership is attached as Exhibit B D. An Aspen Townsite Vicinity Map is attached as Exhibit C E. Compliance with Review Standards 1. Compatibility with Design Structure - The proposed development is compatible in character with the historic structures located on the parcel. The proposed addition to the historic structure has been designed to the north, east and west of the existing house in order to maintain the predominant south and east facade and original structure of the house. The addition continues the flat roof at the center of the structure and the very steep slope of the roof of the existing house. The use of the same slope and exact proportions of the gable end at the east side of the addition allow the addition and the existing house to share the same building height. While the new addition does not exactly imitate the original historic style, the gable proportions, roof height, eave overhang, fascia detail, window proportions, exterior building materials and general massing of the addition is consistent and complementary with the character of the historic residence. In addition to renovating the existing structure, the dilapidated shed to the rear of the property will be reconstructed. The existing shed was built in the late 1940's or early 1950's and R is not historic, but the McPhersons will maintain its architectural character. The new shed will be smaller in size yet maintains the proportions of the old shed and the exterior materials will resemble the materials of the historic residence. . M 4 4 The only variance being sought for the proposed development are setback variances. The development requires a west side yard 4 4 setback of one (1) foot and a rear yard setback of five (5) feet. The location of the shed to the northeast portion of the property requires a rear yard setback and an east side yard setback. By varying the side and rear yard setbacks, the proposed development is more compatible with the existing conditions of the original parcel. The large existing lawn to the east and south of the property is maintained with this proposed development and setback variation. In order to maintain the character of the parcel including the maintenance of the shed, the preservation of the existing residence and the proposed addition, the house is proposed to be relocated ten feet to the south within its existing alignment on T the property. This relocation allows the majority of the addition to be located to the north and west of the existing house and the shed to be maintained on the property further preserving the character of the parcel. In addition, the existing house and addition maintains its historic position on the west side of the parcel, allowing the expansive lawn, patio and garden area to u remain. The proposed development also minimizes the impact of on-site parking. No parking variance will be required, because the garage and parking area of the proposed addition has been located to the northwest of the property with access to the home from the alley. The alignment of the shed to the alley and to the northeast of the property further screens the garage from the historic development. The relocation of the shed is required to accomplish the parking requirements. In summary, the proposed development is consistent with the existing historic structure. The development has been sensitively designed to match the proportions of the existing house, without compromising the fine detail and ornamentation of the existing structure. The character of the parcel including the shed has been maintained and the historic setting of the house on the parcel has been preserved. 5 %" A j~f 59'< 2. Consistency with Neighborhood Character The proposed development enhances and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and the parcel proposed for development. The neighborhood to the west of the Saunders Victorian is characterized by Victorian Miner's cabins. The Saunders Victorian is different in that the house was built to reflect a wealthier lifestyle of the residents. The Queen Anne detailing, the ornamental porch, the dominant shingled gables facing Francis Street and 6th Street, and the location of the house to the very west of the property creates a stately lawn and are all indicative of the importance of the house in the neighborhood over its Victorian Miner's cabin neighbors. This proposal maintains the historic concerns of the neighborhood including the orientation of the entrance towards Francis Street, and the historic westerly location of the house. The new location of the house to the south further maintains the importance of the property to its Victorian neighbors. The existing trees that line the front and side of the property will be maintained along with the historic fence. In summary, the historic spacing pattern of the street facades .„~ along Francis Street, along with the historic lawn and the important south and east facade, will remain intact for the neighborhood. 3. Enhancement of the Cultural Value of the Structure The proposed development enhances the cultural value of the structure and adjacent parcels. The development plan is to restore the existing house including the details, and ornamentation. The addition has been sensitively designed to be located to the rear of the property off the alley. With the addition to the north and west of the property, the visual perception of the property is predominately the view of the restored residence, and lawn. Thereby preserving the cultural heritage and original building concept of the parcel. 4. Enhancement of the Architectural Integrity of the Structure The proposed development enhances and does not diminish the architectural integrity of the historic structure. The existing house including the ornamentation, details, historic stained glass windows, shingled gabled eaves and porch ornamentation will be AIA restored. Windows that are being added to the west elevation 6 proposed addition maintains the necessary massing and roof lines are in exact size and proportion to the existing windows thereby not diminishing the architectural integrity of the house. The of the old structure but does not copy the detailing found on the original structure. The detailing is only original to the old structure, so that there is no confusion as to what is old and what is new. By not copying the ornamentation on the proposed addition, the architectural integrity of the historic structure has remained intact. F. Specific Submission Contents: Conceptual Development Plan Review 1. Existing Sketch Plan: The existing conditions illustrate the existing site plan, floor plans and elevations of the historic residence. The drawings are as follows: Drawing 1: A Building Permit survey prepared by Aspen Survey Engineers Inc. showing the location of the existing residence, shed, property boundaries, fences and trees. Drawing: 2. Existing Site Plan 3. Existing Main and Upper Floor Plans 4. Existing South, East, West and North Elevations 5. Existing Floor Plans and Elevation of the Shed 2. Proposal Development Plan Sketch: The proposed development includes the proposed site plan, floor plans and elevations. The exhibits and descriptions are as follows: (Note: A 1/4" architectural model will be presented at the Conceptual Hearing) Drawing: 6. Proposed site plan by Aspen Survey Engineers 7. Proposed site plan 7 . ' The existing house will be moved on the site ten feet to the south of the present location and realigned with the west property . line. The addition will be built to the north, east and west of the existing house. The shed will be reconstructed and -built to the northeast of the property. The new setback resulting from the proposed development are as follows: Proposed Setback for Main House: Front Yard Setback = 13'- 6" Rear Yard Setback = 12'- 3" West Yard Setback = 1'- 0" East Yard Setback = 11'- 6" Proposed Setback for Shed: Front Yard Setback = 87'- 6" Rear Yard Setback = 6" East Yard Setback = 6" West Yard Setback = 391- 6" Drawing: 8. Proposed Floor Plan 9. Proposed Upper Level Plan The development plan proposes an addition on the main house - to the east, north and west of the existing residence. The overall square footage including the existing, proposed and shed square footage meet the current floor area requirements of the R-6 zone. The existing house and sheds are 2,227 square feet. The total proposed development when completed will be 3,171 square feet of F.A.R. The garage will also be an additional 494 square feet. 8 Drawing: 10. Francis St. Elevation; 6th St. Elevation 11. North Elevation; West Elevation 6th Street Elevation: On the 6th Street elevation the addition is located to the north of the structure. The new addition follows the same roof proportions, roof slope, and height of the existing building. A dormer in the same proportion and size to an existing dormer to the south has been added to the existing roof of the old structure. The shed is seen from 6th Street and has the same proportions of the original shed. The new shed is **11: 1 2 e + smaller in size and has been designed to more closely resemble the original house. West Francis Street Elevation: This elevation maintains the gabled ends and decorative porch entrance. While historical evidence shows that the house was originally built with a smaller porch, it has also been suggested that as late as the 1940's and early 1950's, the porch was made larger with the same details to accommodate the needs of the current residents. No modification of the porch to the larger size is being proposed. A small addition to the west has been added with a shed roof that sits back from the front facade of the house. All the details and ornamentation of the existing home will be restored. North Elevation: The north elevation is the new addition as seen from the alley. The roof proportion and height of the addition are the same as the existing house. The addition has steep sloping roof lines and dormers that minimize the massing of the structure. The garage doors are located to the west of the structure. The shed is located to the east of the property providing screening of the parking and garage area. 5 - residence with a small addition located to the south and the larger West Elevation: The west elevation shows the existing addition located to the north. Windows in exact size, proportion and detail have been added to the west elevation for necessary light, ventilation and egress as required by the Aspen-Pitkin County Building Department. f} 9 1 -10 ..7 1 . LEGEND AND NOTES .ANTED .]XY DENOTES RECONO'.0010-¢9•, 0 10 . 1 1' COIN ....G ..1 - ALLEY BLOCK 15 ~ o SURVEY MO-€NT . . SET 1001 013 0./.16 , Ill- -$-1--- -j-,-E-- - 0.DER ~.-ER 0001~4. DA.0 A. 13 1991 •AS US&011~ T~ PREPARATION OF THIS SU~VE¥ :1 1 1:€ 1-- -0 i + I . FOU~® 'WID--AD 'N ..... 1 (3 \ .,es i.c.o.c. ,„,o *-ow, • SET .14 ....... .,l 3%, ,- 0 -'. Ir ./. 4 1. 1/ A . .T....0.1 -0- .*00... \ ,»r,ouce 4 14 -19 +1 I ' 441 1 ' Id 4.1. i 212=¥ 091 A. £ R 961 w U.L L .1 1 / h . !0 / SAUNDER'S M 9 - I . .0.00 4 9/ VICTORIAN UY:72. 0000-0 0 ASPEN COLORADO B 'CO E 2 A .O 1 , EXISTING : SITE PLAN WEST FRANCIS STREET . I . I. L IMPROVEMENT SURVEY CERTIFICATION - '-39. -'2'9&1;•66 LOTS R * ' RY,~Er.676'&29*·'· .OCK S RE:734,"„~~'14(1,003*,7 C IT¥ M® ./1 TE OF .* M.VOR .al -*•'. ..•. Si,•,,1 .,Il MCPHERSON SURVEY FLAW,/LmKreM .9/*Ei:61 ASPEN SUR,rEY ENGINE€85 INC M. -,D~ i, co-/ I •,TI la:¥1- 1,·'1· 1/ COLOeADO /'11*. STATLE, „-- 1 £' O• 11 TO--IP 10 -w™, .Al~ 15 ~St 06 b€ 4.6 P M. COUNT¥ C.D« A- UC~¢4~ . NE 000 NO 2..3 M ./.·4,·f .... *rt> 0 : 6/V. 03 10 1 Gretchen Greenwood 1 f 1 -*Z E 07 5 5 SHED I an: // | TWO STORY HOUSEi \ % 1 <52 D6 80 . 1 1 EL O 1 :NrlaN SHED 1 0 11 'A-Tn. 1 MI ill'/1// 0 CD, \ 0 43 ' =MEE] - 00 NORTH SIXTH STREET ' 2 133kLLS SION¥83 11.0102 N3dSV .Pi ¢.0 r, 2 -2/ / 1-- 33Ir1 --7--1 - 9/ _-_----------1 / -' / ir El - - T --------- = 9 ¢ 0 4 7 1/ 4- ! 1 El--~7 1 i_ t-EL- i 1 6-1 , , -- '- Gretden r~~ZZ_1 ~' Greenwood - 4 i &·0 1 6.- F -11 · I A.*. 1.- ./ I i J -6 IL ' *,t~244%1, 1 L---- I L - 1-1 1 . I I - .02 2 4 ·LF -~ 16=-:=4~ -- mi ROOF PL~ FIRST FLOOR PLAN 2~ D Z EXISTING - ill------4 --FLOOR PLAN , DATI ~56CED -1/1 CHECkED A *=* SECOND FLOOR PLAN KIL./ 3 t i. 12 VIHOIDIA ~ 00¥80100 NadS¥ ~ ~ ¤ li. L NVIHO.LINA -£ 4' l 3 =11 6!.1 B 9.213<1 NOVS 1 11 12 2 € - 1 1, li '11 1,11!!!111 --r rir--1 111 A Inz- - --IlmIE« i-Eir-3*3 ~ 1 111 -411 1111 111~11 0< ji·111, litl +' 1IL-Ill 11 j 1 4==T 11 1111 1 „imAN"li =411411111 1 0[I® h 1,1 111111111 1 1 •L =-- i 1 -flickul 11!1 H 1 :r:r--: fll li ~,11.iFIJ~11;lil lilk .p._2- 1 4 -ltiFEFT- 1 \Lill'PH 11 1 . - 4 0rA~ |1 L H- 1*w*I·~.. ~'n 11,1.!;11 1:,1 1 , EL Gretchen ELEVATIONS . ar'03.0 #51.* NO,IVA313 Ina NO,1VA113 Hl i -f-> 0 -mal i . 3101- -4> St~ 1 E g - D- 1 0-67 If L_-JU 1,#19 29,2 F SAUNDERS Hilitt 01 ' 1 3 24 2 1 i 11 . 1 111 ASPEN COLORADO ~~~ ~ VICTORIAN 'i Et¥ , @ EAST ELEVATION NO,1VAI13 HI BON EXISTING A LEGEND AND NOTES 1·-10· ./.D '.T O€Nals .Ec.0 ,;FO~fulof, 9l 1 1~ CO•nOIAt~ D ~ FO4~10 11~~€Y •104.NNT ALLEY BLOCK 15 0 ....011.NMT TO . .t P.11 / ... mA~ Ti.1 -ANT¥ COMPANY /0-ITPENT FO~ .TLE .MKE 0«Dea NLNE. 0001.4,7 ..D Ju•* 1, 190¢ •AS ..0 1. T. PREPAR. oN OF tHI; S..E¥ FO,•ID •ou,®·/.AD . I...... I ./ .1. SURVE. /.TROL DEDS E~:ROACM 1~0 ALLEY AS SHO- ¤ UTILIT¥ 10.1 + + I./.-.I 2.14 %0 4 --/ ADOED VI / 47 11 \ 1- » Lu - L,4 or -i.fir~, -ritk:hIF., U.1 M -- Dr» cr 46]6.*p ,·wrnor, 4 ./. 0 9.1 €0 bf 09 1 - 1\ 8 8 \ SAUNDER'S WIll=lk .9. VICTORIAN 0000-° 0 ASPEN COLORADO 100£ M .O 1 •C*O PROPOSED SITE PLAN WEST FRANCIS STREET A .IL I I IMPROVEMENT SURVEY CENTIFICA~ION LOTS ' * ; ·,7&,1 n., :~,01,. 9~1;.cj:TE I ... Ill... .... I. I.T ....•E I , ...,' IS OF NE=. le®,UY LI. co-LICTI .~C*OAC•,~1,1, I ./.S OF -¥ 1. .1/' ll'll . -1.- . . 11~1'EY€:FC: cirr Al. to-"TE OF AS•EN AL 0 14 -/¥01 £- %9.4h..m. C,1-* Ali MCPHERSON SURVEY 11.4.1 =14 rED TIHI,---JA¥ OF '.. ._JF T. oatH •LS 25,2 ASPEN SURVEY ENGIIER'S INC u - 6 UM IuiW-m""T.v ,./Ya2 :&~:I.ar- CO-LISS 'I. MITION ..·SI·l......./Ill ....3. ,€CTION 1, TO--1, 10 SW™. -01 01 ~EST O' 11€ O'h ' M --- 6 :143'CDOEENREEr t-TY ..... m...1 -*- 7/.1 21.1 DATE JOS NO 11 -133¥JS mON¥¥1 -[SHM 0 0 000 O- 9 . u 6. 1.2 h---rl L C «F T O 44 - 11-//0 g 1 tip f- 1-/ \[ 1 1 - \4/ 1 5 h:r 1. Clv' . LL-5 ~ ~ VICTORIAN |i El, i SAUNDER* U|liti ZO ASPEN COLORADO , igs 0, 00 1331!.LS HIXIS KINON G•ed:n Greenwood 0 .....C * '4%: 902 8 -1 - . r E @ m 52° 1 fk> i 7 r--A es w : -0 % 17 0 g-- ··1# ..E===mes.1 PROPCEED = -1_1 i _ FLOOR PLAN 1 11 1., 1 =&./*ill 11~11 -l,1, ...... KI ~ 1.* PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN L 8 I Gretchen Greenwood I -4,1......11.-4 1 --- 7 4 0 kg 11 '31 1 *p O ¥gi 1 - 1- -3 0 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN ..7-tr=4+ - 0/1410' 4 /4///fi# 0040,-1. 1„11 ~10,6,1,11, 1 PROPOSED SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1 9 1 1 I8 1 111 I _--:imitemaillillixiablilEwiliMkre kiefmt,003 1 $ - -1-1 =EFimp,4-10 131·1--7- 11 Gretchen Greenwood . A...... 11. 1 - = =.= ./Evil#&~ 3001 pan,-A-WA "0139103 r 1 - -1 -- 11;HEZIX]- 2 . .1 ..1,1 ..1 3--t 6..an 1 90 kg 00: 3 WE 5r FRANCIS STREET El.EWITICN 52: / <9 8! 0, M 1 76-~fj=-~A~ - PROPOSED ELEVATIONS i--264 M _u.-1=jigij.. 611 * + = ==i:1 IMI-lpaa I ,('41' Mw,#--u--all@U¢ ***%*t-- tufl 11,n,4,LED FiSE CHECKED rr 4 ---- unlbION> SIXrH STREET ELEVATION I0 19 - - f --3-litilimillinlilli~~li~La<~Ifi~-liv~ElE.f<d~Arjlil Gretchen - Greenwood i ......I- 1 ImelHilll~Ike, le,En 1811199=,92,71„;Ri F...O 1~Im...11%'HI.N#.,p:5~411~~ lk============[=~==I========JM,41*'i'~'!lili.'i'·~ '111'p·'*0 02 8 IREEIEEIEEEEEEEEEEIEEah*==ri*='=*Er**~*1"Ii,lill~i '1 !Illb, ·:lilll,lidIP.4 ES@ 0% d Z20 1 NORI'H EIEVATIN 1 <Wi UD> 12 t . - PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 2 1-17EER /-«-·595 -37-7--921-2111 lili IER-Ell Ill 11 -1 - i-- trO" 1~'E73'Fli 01~.19~CED - - - - - 0~,4~N.¥ C. ED - *81!iKM WEST ELEVATION 11 20 111 11 Exterior Building Materials G. The proposed building materials will be the same as the existing materials and they are as follows: Foundation: Where possible, existing Red Sandstone will be salvaged and laid on new concrete foundation walls. New sandstone to be cut to match size and shape of existing sandstone and laid On new concrete foundation walls. Existing red grout color to remain and to match new grout color. Siding: Where possible, existing -siding will be salvaged and new siding milled to match. Shed: New siding to match the Main house. Trim: Where possible, existing trim will be salvaged and new trim milled to match. Windows: Decorative stain glass to remain. Where possible, the existing double hung windows to be reglazed with insulating glass. Existing frames and trim to be restored. Doors: Where possible, existing doors will remain. New doors will be wood panel with glazed lites. Garage Doors: Wood panel. Shingles: Where possible, existing shingles will remain. New shingles will match existing. Architectural Woodwork: Where possible, the existing ornamentation will remain and be restored. Roof: Main House - Sloping roof, wood shingles to match < original wood shingles. Existing and New Flat Roof - Bituminous built up · roof with gravel and roof drain. (This roof is not visible) Shed - Wood shingles to match original wood shingles. Masonry Fireplace: Although the exterior chimneys will serve < no purpose the existing masonry brick stacks will be rebuilt in original location and the original brick. Stone Patio: Red sandstone pavers and red sandstone walls. 21 R . n H. Statement of the Effect of the Proposed Development on the Design and or Character of the Neighborhood R The proposed development for the Saunders Victorian has been sensitively designed in order to maintain the integrity of the original historic residence. A shed will be built on the property to the northeast of the parcel to complement the carriage house character of the West End neighborhood. The large expansive lawn to the southeast of the house will be maintained further preserving the neighborhood and character of the Saunders Victorian. I. Statement as to Which of the Following Categories of Significant Developm€nt the Development Application Falls Under: . The development of the Saunders Victorian falls under the category of Significant Development (4c). 1 N N R 22 . . Al-„EOU~111£1 1 $·i ~ LANI) USE APPIICATION Fre: 7 f Project Name Saunder's Victorian . Project location 700 West Francis Street Lots R & S, Blo€k 15, City and Townsite of Aspen Unlicate stmet afressi lot & block amber, legal description Miere -. appropriate) 3) Present Zoning R-6 4) Iot Size 6,000 Sq. Ft. Applicant' s Name, Address & rhone # Doug and Susan McPherson P. 0. Box 4412 ' Aspen, CO 81612 923-5120 . ~ 6) Represcritative's Name, Mdress & Ihone # Gretchen Greenwood . 1 .Gretchen Greenwood & Assoc., Inc. 201 N. Mill St. #207 Aspen, CO 81611 925-4502 ~ 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Coniestual SPA - Conoeptual Hist=ic Dev. Conlitimal Use . Special Review - Final SPA _ Einal Historic Dev. . 8040 Greenline ,-' Conceptual r[ID .-' Minor Historic Dev. _ Stream Margin - Final PUD . - X Higtacia Demolitien Mxmtain View Plane - Subdivisicn Historic Desigrmt' _ Conchniniunization _ Text,/Map Amendment - (21@S Allotment Iot Split/Iot line - QUS E]oe=ption Adjustment Des=lption of Existing Uses (runber and type of ecisting- structures; approocinate sq. ft.; anrber of bedroans; any previous approvals granted t) the prcperty). Existing Single Family Victorian built in 1885; 1,800 Sq. Ft. 2 Bedrooms Existing Shed: Built in the late 1940's to early 1950's; 350 Sq. Ft. !1~ 9) Description of Development Application Existing Shed: Built in the late 1940's to early 1950's: 77 Sq. Ft. See Attached Application 0) Have you attached the following? X IZesponse to Attachment. 2, Minininn Submission Oxtents X Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents X Response to Attacti-it 4, Review Star*lards for Yar Application 23 , HISTORIC DEMOLITION, PARTIAL DEMOLITION OR RELOCATION l I. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS A. Letter of consent by the applicant is attached on Exhibit A B. The street address and legal description of the residence is: 700 E. West Francis Street, Aspen, CO Lots R & S; Block 15; City and Townsite of Aspen C. Disclosure of ownership is attached as Exhibit B D. An Aspen Townsite Vicinity Map is attached as Exhibit C E. Review Standards for Partial Demolition (4b) 1. Partial demolition is required for the renovation. The proposed development to the Saunders Victorian requires partial demolition. The existing Victorian house has two unusable bedrooms on the second story floor. The development proposes to remodel the existing residence creating two bedrooms that comply with the Uniform Building Code for egress, light and ventilation. The partial demolition required for the renovation includes the removal of a portion of the rear porch and the removal of the sloping roof at the rear of the house. The existing flat hip roof over the second story bedrooms Will continue allowing for reasonable use of the upper floor bedrooms. The addition of a dormer to the east further allows the building to comply with the Uniform Building Code. The addition on the rear requires partial demolition of the north wall of the home. The north wall will be incorporated into the new addition. 2. Mitigating the historic importance of the structure located on the property. The demolition to the structure has been mitigated by incorporating the existing architecture back into the renovation of the building. The new roof design more closely follows the existing hip and flat roof design and the porch will be added back to the building during reconstruction thus maintaining the architectural integrity of the structure. 24 /1 I FEN' Ell, E. Review Standards for Relocation (4c) 1. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site. The existing historic structure Will need a concrete foundation in order for a renovation and reuse of the property to occur. As outlined in the development proposal, for reasonable use of the property which requires an addition, the house cannot be used in its original location on the site. It is the intention to lift the house off the original foundation and move the house ten feet to the south in its existing alignment on a new foundation. This new location of the house does allow for reasonable development on the property by preserving the historic east lawn and the historic structure. 2. The relocation activity demonstrates to be the best ~ preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure. By lifting the existing house out of the ground a majority of the building structure can be preserved. There is no change to the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood as all of the building materials and structure will remain intact. * The structure has been demonstrated to be capable 3. of withstanding the physical impacts Of the relocation and resetting. A structural report demonstrating the soundness of the < structure proposed for relocation has been submitted with the application. See Exhibit D. 4. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond with the Engineering Department. Upon final approval, a relocation plan and a bond posted will q be submitted to the Engineering Department. 5. The receiving site and the relocation site are the same. R 25 / /1 0 . t * SINCE THE SHED IS NOT OF HISTORIC ORIGINS, WE DO NOT FEEL AN APPLICATION FOR ITS DEMOLITION IS NECESSARY. HOWEVER, WE HAVE PROVIDED REVIEW CRITERIA IF THE HPC FEELS OTHERWISE. Review Standards: Application for Demolition of the E. Shed 1. Structure proposed for demolition is not structurally sound. The shed on the existing Saunder's Victorian parcel is not structurally sound to handle a relocation to another location on the property. The shed structure sites unevenly on rotted wood foundation, and the walls and roof are showing decay. The walls and roof are in close state of collapse (see Exhibit E). 1 ... 2. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on site to provide any reasonable beneficial use of the property. The location Of the existing shed interferes with th redevelopment and renovation of the existing historic house. Due ... to the decay of all the building materials, no existing materials will be able to be reused. 3. The structure cannot be practically moved to another site in Aspen. The shed structure has to be totally rebuilt from the foundation to the roof due to the existing dilapidated condition. Since the plan is to maintain a shed for preserving~the character of the West End neighborhood, it is not practical to move this to a new location on the site and then totally rebuild the shed. A new shed will be built similar to the existing shed and to match more closely the architecture and finish materials of the historic house. neighborhood character as the shed will be rebuilt 4. The impact of the proposal does not affect the on anther location on the property. There is no evidence that the shed is historic to the Saunder's Victorian. It has been stated by Aspen residents that the shed was built from scrap material in the late 1940's to early 1950's; sixty five (65) years after the original house was built. The shed and its relationship to the parcel is maintained b building a new shed which matches the architectural integrity of the original historic parcel and preserves the character of the West End neighborhood. 26 6 - - Specific Submission Contents Application for Demolition/Partial Demolition and Relocation 1. The name of the structure proposed for Relocation/Partial Demolition is the Saunder's Victorian 700 West Francis Street Aspen, CO 2. Written description of the structure proposed for relocation/partial demolition. .. The Saunder's Victorian was built in 1885 as a wedding present from the bride's parents for the new Aspen residents, Mr. and Mrs. Saunders. The existing residence is a Victorian Queen Anne style home with shingled gabled ends, hip roofs, decorative porches, ornamental detailing, stained glass windows, bay windows and one dormer. The house was built to exemplify a wealthier and more substantial lifestyle than the typical Victorian Miners cabin. The house is presently two bedrooms and contains 1,740 square feet. There is one shed remaining on the property that was built in the late 1940's to early 1950's. 3. A report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the structure. The existing historic residence is structurally sound and suitable for rehabilitation. A report from a licensed engineer is submitted as Exhibit D. The shed on the property, while not historic, is not suitable for relocation or structurally sound to warrant rehabilitation. The shed structure sits unevenly on a rotted wood foundation. The walls and roof are showing < decay and structural failure. A report from a licensed engineer is submitted as Exhibit E. 4. An economic feasibility report. a. An estimated market value of the property is $400,000.00. There is no value on the Victorian structure as the cost of rehabilitating a Victorian is unknown. Without the ability to renovate and construct an addition, the market value is worth less. b. The economic feasibility of rehabilitation and reuse of this structure is unknown, due to the unknown costs associated with remodeling. 1 27 . , C. Not required. d. Without this renovation and new construction, the property cannot yield a reasonable return on investment. 5. A development plan is being submitted for significant development with this application. . . . . m . . .. . . 28 IAND USE APPIICATICN FOR€ 2 ) Project Name Saunder's Victorian 2) Project Iocation 700 West Francis Street Lots R & S, Blo€k 15, City and Townsite of Aspen (inlicate street ackessi lot & block Imber„ legal description vh,re appropriate) ~| 3) Present Zoning R-6 4) Iot Size 6,000 53. Ft. 5) Applicantis Name, Atiress & Ehone # Doug and Susan McPherson P.O. Box 4412 ' Aspen, CO 81612 923-5120 1 . 6) Ifpresentative's Name. Address & rhone # Gretchen Greenwood .Gretchen Greenwood & Assoc., Inc. 201 N. Mill St. #207 Aspen, CO 81611 925-4502 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply) = Conditicnal Use . Ocooeptual SPA - Conceptual Histocic Dev. Special Review Final SPA Einal Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline - Conceptual POD - Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final POD . - - Historic Demolitirn M:xmtain View Plane Subdivisicn X Hi~toric Desigraticn . ... Condcminiunization Text/Map Amendment GM@S Allotment Iot Split/Ict line - _ CMOS Ealption - Adjust:ment 8) Description of Existing Uses (nt=ber and 12?pe of existing· structures; approocinate sq. ft. ; Ilmber of b x1IXXXIS; any previ£US approvals granted to tle pmperty). Existing Single Family Victorian built in 1885; 1,800 Sq. Ft. 2 Bedrooms Existing Shed: Built in the late 1940's to early 1950's; 350 Sq. Ft. Description of Development Application Existing Shed: Built in the late 1940's to early 1950's: 77 Sq. Ft. See Attached Application 10) Have you attached the following? X Response to Attacbment- 2, Minimum Submission Ooatents X Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Oorrterrts X Response to Attachmerrt 4, Review Stardards for Your Application 29 1111111 .. HISTORIC DESIGNATION J The applicant' s request for Historic Designation is contingent on the approval of the proposed development plan. I. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS A. Letter of consent by the applicant is attached on Exhibit A B. The street address and legal description of the residence is: 700 West Francis Street, Aspen, CO Lots R & S; Block 15; City and Townsite of Aspen C. Disclosure of ownership is attached as Exhibit B D. An Aspen Townsite Vicinity Map is attached as Exhibit C ~ E. Review Standards for Historic Designation 1. Historical Importance The Saunders Victorian built in 1885 identifies a period of history in Aspen. This Victorian was built for a wealthier resident of Aspen. 2. Architectural Importance The Saunders Victorian built in 1885 is a significant historic Victorian for Aspen. The house was built with Queen Anne style details including shingled gabled roof ends, hip roofs, decorative porches, ornamental detailing, stained glass windows, bay windows and one dormer, to exemplify a wealthier and more substantial lifestyle than the typical Victorian Miners cabins. 3. Architectural Importance The structure and site has distinguished Victorian characteristics that exemplify the preferred style of housing of the day. 4. Architectural Importance ~ The architect is unknown. 30 . 11 4 5. Neighborhood Character The Victorian home occupies the western side of the parcel . allowing for a small yet stately lawn to the east of the house. This characteristic has remained through Aspens' history and is important to the preservation of the neighborhood. 6. Community Character The structure and site preserves the Victorian period of Aspen's history. 1 1 31 .. . Specific Submission Contents for Historic Designation . 1. Boundary Description An existing survey by Aspen Survey Engineers is attached to this application. (See Page 9) 2. Grant Request A letter from the applicant (Doug and Susan McPherson) will be submitted at the conceptual hearing for grant request. 32 ........