The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19910626AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE June 26, 1991 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of May 22, 1991 minutes. II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:10 A. Final Development - 716 W. Francis 3Â£(i' r-,25.~1 - ob c- 6%97,1~20,4 11 h 5:45 B. Public Hearing, Vested_Rights, Sportstalker Â·b.ell- 640,jl 4 4 n 5:50 C. Pubic Hearing, Inventory amendment: Request to remove 601 W. Hallam 30-L 0 4 0-922- V. NEW BUSINESS 6:30 A. Public Hearing, Conceptual Development, Final Development and Vested _Rights - 334 W. Hallam 6:50 COMMUNICATIONS: Report: In-Town School Sites Meeting report: Community Plan Update Newspaper racks in the CC district HPC member sign-up: State Preservation Conference Project Monitoring 7:45 VII. ADJOURN PLEASE MAKE NOTE OF THESE UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS July 3, 3:00 p.m. - ON SITE FIELD STUDY OF RED BRICK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL meet on site, please be on time July 9, NOON - In Town School Sites meeting (Glenn Rappaport, HPC liaison) - alternate needed to attend this meeting July 10, 5:00 p.m. - Regular HPC meeting, please be prompt July 14, Bastille Day - Aspen Historic Trust raffle drawing by John Bennett (fundraiser) - tickets are still available! July 24, 5:00 p.m. - Regular HPC meeting, please be prompt July 29, 1:30 p.m. - Regional meeting, Colo. Historical Society, Office of Historic Preservation Glenwood Springs, Hotel Colorado ' . 1- CO MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Final Development, partial demolition, rear and side yard setback variations and expansion of 716 W. Francis St. Date: June 26, 1991 PROJECT MONITOR: To be assigned at this meeting APPLICANT: Joseph and Delia Bellina APPLICANT'S REQUEST: HPC approval of the Final Development, partial demolition, rear and side yard setback variations and expansion proposal for 716 W. Francis St. The proposal includes the addition of a two-car attached garage, dormers, and an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). A $2,000 designation grant request was approved by Council, when Landmark Designation was granted on May 13. SITE, AREA AND BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Lot Size: 7,500 sq. ft. Allowable FAR: 3,450 sq. ft. Proposed Total FAR: ;4" 1 645 2,642 sq. ft. (revised) Max. allowable height 25' Proposed maximum height lD ' 6 " Max. site coverage R_.c 2 5*â‚¬2,625 sq. ft. Existing site coverage 3,683 sq. ft. Proposed site coverage 3,051 sq. ft. (revised) (Note: The applicant initially reported allowable site coverage at 4,875 sq. ft., which as a miscalculation. The proposed site coverage is a decrease in the existing non-conformity, which is allowed by current code) Parking spaces required: 3 Parking spaces provided: 3 Comb. side yard setback required 22' 5" Comb. side yd. setback proposed 11' 6" Side yard setback variation 11' Comb. front/rear setback required 30' Comb. front/rear setback proposed 24' Comb. front/rear setback variation 6' HPC PREVIOUS ACTION: The HPC reviewed the landmark designation (which was granted by Council on May 20) and conceptual development application for this project on March 27, 1991; landmark designation was unanimously recommended, however, the HPC tabled action and continued the public hearing to April 24 on the remainder of the proposal to allow the applicant additional time for restudy of the following areas: 1) Ridge line articulation (breaking up); this was found to be incompatible with the cottage as proposed 2) Rear and side yard setback reduced or eliminated 3) First floor footprint brought in 5' from rear lot line 4) Second floor brought in 10' from first* 5) Submit site plan indicating side buildings and structures to the north across alley. *Note: Staff questions this condition language. It would appear that the actual meaning of this condition would have been "10' from the rear property line" - staff seeks HPC's clarification on this matter. On April 24, 1991, the HPC granted Conceptual Development approval for the revised application, subject to the following conditions to be met at Final (staff's response follows each): a) Compliance with Partial Demolition Standards found in Sec. 7-602(C). Engineer's report and bonding is required prior to the issuance of a building permit for excavation and partial demolition work. Response: This condition has not yet been met. This condition is required in order to mitigate against loss should damage or complete loss occur to the historic structure during excavation and foundation work. The Engineer's report and an excavation/foundation bond requirement has been made a condition for the Final approval, and shall be in an amount equal to or exceeding the estimated cost of replacement of the historic structure. b) Compliance with Demolition Standards found in Sec. 7- 602(B) regarding the historic alley building. Response: The applicant states that "upon close inspection, the existing alley building doesn't appear to be historic". Staff finds this to be true, and defers to the HPC for final action regarding the removal or on-site relocation of this structure; we feel its contribution to this alley's character is marginal. The adjacent west neighbor's outbuilding is actually attached to this structure, and encroaches onto the subject property. The applicant is requiring this encroachment of the neighbor's shed be eliminated. c) Detailed preservation plan for the structure, including all materials and architectural features (windows, doors, porch, etc.) Response: Please refer to the demolition/preservation plans (A2.1). The application states that all the windows will be 2 replaced with new insulated windows. We are not in favor of replacing historic windows with new windows, particularly those located on important elevations. Other energy saving alternatives exist that do not require original windows to be replaced. Staff recommends that the HPC consider this carefully, and require the original windows remain and be preserved in place. We recommend the applicant submit a revised window report to staff, stating which historic windows will remain and which will be replaced, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The plans are unclear with regard to the preservation of original doors, if any exist. We recommend the HPC require this information be provided to staff along with a complete window report, prior to the issuance of any building permit. d) Detailed site and landscape plan. Fencing shall be detailed, and shall be open in nature. Response: This condition has been met, as noted in the drawings - (Al.23. The fence is open picket, which meets the Guidelines, and .ill be installed along the entire length of the west lot linc (to the front edge of the property) . We are recommending the fence not continue this entire length, and stop near the center of the west property line. e) Massing model indicating alleyscape Response: This is required to be presented to the HPC at the meeting, and shall indicate existing outbuildings and any encroachments. The massing model is intended to clearly illustrate the proposal; upon inspection of the model, the HPC may require additional massing revisions, should they find the proposal to not meet the Development Review Standards for compatibility. f) Material representation, including chimneys Response: Materials have been called out on the Final plans. The applicant will present representative samples at the meeting (windows, railings, etc.). The chimneys are brick - a brick sample shall be presented at the meeting. g) Clarification of east side yard setback request, due to lightwell Response: This issue is an important one for the HPC to consider and review in relationship to Development Review Standard A, involving the required finding for variations. A similar related front/rear yard setback issue is also a part of this proposal, and the two should be reviewed jointly. 3 Sidevard: Following staff's close review with the zoning officer of the plans, a much larger combined sideyard setback encroachment is being proposed than originally thought. The . .- R-6 zone district for this size lot (7,500 sq. ft.) requires a minimum of 5' side yard setbacks, with a total combined : sidevard setback of 22.5', which the proposal does not meet. A 1/-1 7 The proposed combined sideyard setback is only 11.5' - 4 requiring an 11' variation from the HPC. Staf_ .uels this is 1 1 1 far too great a variation for the HPC to consider being "more compatible with the historic resource. . .'I, therefore, staff o is recommending that the HPC require a significant reduction 4 ~pr ~ <'' in this variation request. This will no doubt involve the redesign of the easterly light well to be the minimum size for egress only, and a reduction of either the connecting space between the principal structure and the ADU, or the ADU itself. Staff is willing to consider a revised variation request for this parcel following standard procedure stated in the code, however, the applicant must make a compelling argument to support "character compatibility, as required in Development Review Standard A. We recommend the HPC require a restudy in this area, with revised plans submitted and approved by staff and the project monitor prior to the issuance of a building permit. Should a sideyard setback variation still be requested by the applicant, then a public hearing, properly noticed, is required for HPC's consideration under Minor - Development review. The initial application and consequent public notice did not include a request for a side yard setback variation, which the adjacent neighbors are required to be notified of. Front/rear yard setback: Similar to the sideyard setback issue is the combined front/rear yard setback, which was not resolved with the rear yard setback revision requested from the adjacent neighbor to the north. The minimum total combined front and rear yard setback is 30' - this proposal falls 7' short of that requirement. The architect was measuring setbacks from the front property line to the front wall of the structure, not the front edge of the porch. Staff supports the combined front/rear yard setback variation request, finding that by designing the addition well to the rear of the parcel, and within the compatibility guidelines, that the HPC is justified in making the required finding that the variation provides a more compatible addition to the cottage. The neighbor's concerns have been met regarding the northerly building footprint, and the southerly streetscape and established pattern is preserved. h) Foundation information (treatment, finish level, etc.) 4 Response: The plans indicate a brick face covering the exposed foundation, and a finished floor height slight above grade, which staff finds compatible. i) Restudy roof deck railing and treatment of south gable end Response: The applicant is proposing open wrought iron fencing on the south, and a more closed lattice screen on the north (alley), which staff finds to be compatible. The wrought iron, if painted dark and kept somewhat thin, should not appear visible and competing as an element. The south gable end is proposed to be covered in fishscale shingles, which we find compatible. Partial Demolition Standards The Partial Demolition Standards are found in Section 7-602(C) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. 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: A significant amount of the existing structure is proposed for demolition (42%). The applicant states that the part slated for demo was added on in 1967. During the Conceptual review, the HPC felt the partial demolition standards were being met. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Final Development application as submitted, finding that all applicable standards have been met, and that the combined sideyard setback and combined front/rear setback variations are more compatible with the historic resource than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. The applicant shall post a bond or provide financial security prior to the issuance of any building permit, in a form acceptable to 5 the City Attorney, to mitigate against failure or less related to basement excavation and foundation repairs. 2) Approve the Final Development application finding thath all applicable standards have been met, _and that the' -5_jg combined front/rear setback, variationad more compatible <06: with the historic resourcd than- would be development in 0r accord with dimensional requirements. -:che applicant-Atâ‚¬ <47 shall post a bond or provide financial *4uriâ‚¬*prior to '12%47 24 the issuance of any building permit, in /a fornf addeptable 17 Â£ -. ~~t,1 f <.to -the_City-Attorney, to mitigate again~t fell[Yllfejor less 1 1 =59 j ~'2 ~.;Irelated to basement excavation and foun~tion repairs. /8 0 /i' . f k 4- #L In addition, the follow-ing conditions shall.~to be met , 9-0-' / prior to the issuance of any building permit: Â« a) The plans shall/te revisdd to combly with underlying zone *listrict sideyard setback requirements; staff and the project monitor shall review and approve said plans b) f Original windows and doors shall be preserved; the plans shall be revised to ,indicate the preservation_24 thp:;e elements..7931,â„¢,7 22,0:s>- L c) The west boundary line fence shall be reduced in length, and shall not extend past the front edge of the facade. All , trees'~a~d shrubs/ndocated within the \ propqped build#ng footprint shall be relocated * withih-the pardel-/ 4) Table action to allow the applicalit time for restudy; specific elements for restudy should be identified. 5) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Final Development approval for 716 W. Francis St. with all the finding and conditions as stated above in Alternate #3. A project monitor shall be assigned to this project as this meeting. Additional comments: memo.hpc.716WF.fd 6 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Vested Rights Resolution approval: 204 S. Galena, the Sportstalker - Public Hearing Date: June 26, 1991 APPLICANT: Debbie G. Bullock and Grant Bullock Trust SUMMARY: Attached is the Resolution granting Vested Rights for the Final Development approval for 204 S. Galena, the Sportstalker. The HPC approved the Final Development plans on May 29, 1991. Vested rights approval for three years is allowed by Colorado State Statute; it protects site-specific development plans from changes in land use regulations (prior to issuance of a building permit) that might otherwise impact the proposed project. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC approve Resolution #3, Series of 1991, granting Vested Rights approval for three years for the site specific development plan located at 204 S. Galena, project known as the Sportstalker. memo.hpc.204sg.vr.reso RESOLUTION NO. 3 (Series of 1991) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE VESTING THE SITE SPECIFIC FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 204 SOUTH GALENA STREET, PROJECT KNOWN AS THE SPORTSTALKER WHEREAS, Debbie G. Bullock and Grant Bullock Trust, through representative architect C. Welton Anderson, have submitted Final Development plans to the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee for approval of the site specific development plan and partial demolition at 204 South Galena Street, Lots A, B, and C, Block 94, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee finds that the Final Development proposal constitutes the site specific development plan for the property, and; WHEREAS, the applicant has requested that the development rights for said property, as defined and approved with conditions by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee in the site specific development plans, be vested pursuant to Section 6-207 of the Aspen Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee desires to vest development rights in the 204 South Galena Street site specific development plans with conditions pursuant to Section 6- 207 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen for a period of three (3) years from the effective date hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Resolution No. 91- Page 2 Section 1 The Aspen Historic Preservation Committee of the City of Aspen, as a consequence of its approval of the site specific development plan, and pursuant to Section 6-207 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby vests development rights in 204 South Galena Street, Lots A, B, and C, Block 94, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, for a period of three (3) years from the effective date hereof. Any changes to the Final Deve lopment plans as approved by the HPC shall be submitted for r. ew and approval (prior to the issuance of a building permit or change order). Failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Section 2 The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; except that the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of this resolution following its adoption. Section 3 Zoning that is not part of the site specific development plans approved hereby shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. 2 Resolution No. 91- Page 3 Section 4 Nothing in this approval shall exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances of the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. Section 5 The establishment of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulations by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site specific development approval, the applicants shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. Section 6 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. 3 Resolution No. 91- Pace 4 Section 7 Nothing in this resolution shall be construed to affect any right, duty or liability under any ordinance in effect prior to the effective date of this resolution, and the same shall be continued and concluded under such prior ordinances. APPROVED by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee at its regular meeting on June 26, 1991. BV William J. Poss, Chairman Aspen Historic Preservation Committee ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Assistant City Clerk hpcreso.204sg 4 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee CC: Jed Caswall, City Attorney Amy Margerum, Planning Director From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Inventory deletion request: 601 W. Hallam, Vicenzi cottage, Public Hearing, continued Date: June 26, 1991 APPLICANT: George Vicenzi APPLICANT'S REQUEST: HPC approval to remove 601 W. Hallam from the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: On May 8, 1991, the HPC reviewed the application to remove this historic property from the Inventory. Following a lengthy discussion regarding the validity of the demolition permit, legal issues and code-allowed action, the HPC tabled action and continued the Public Hearing until June 2 6, at the request of the applicant. The Planning Director and the City Attorney both attended the May 8 meeting, and discussed in tandem with staff the options available to the HPC under the code. Please refer to staff's memo of Mav 8 for additional background information. DISCUSSION: The application before the HPC is a request to remove a property from the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures". All other discussion is appropriate during a worksession, or under general communication at the end of a meeting. To summarize from previous meetings, all properties constructed prior to 1910 that continue to have historic value shall be listed on the Inventory (established in 1980). 601 W. Hallam has been listed on the Inventory since that time. In order to remove a property from the Inventory, the HPC must find that it does not continue to have historic value. These provisions are clear, and provide the HPC with direction in order to make fair, consistent decisions in dealing with the Inventory. The protection of the Inventory is the primary goal of the HPC. The applicant argues that the property has no historic value, and should be removed (please refer to the applicant's letter, attached). The HPC should know that since their last meeting, the applicant has removed materials from the original portion of the cottage (clapboard siding and facade bay window), which are 1 considered replaceable. This partial demolition work is being carried UU L under the existing demolition permit, and has been reviewed by Gary Lyman, Director of the Building Department. (Note: Under the code language that existed at the time of the last demolition permit extension, George may demolish up to 49% of the structure without HPC' s review and approval. However, once 50% demolition has been reached, HPC has full authority to review the project, and perhaps require the cottage to be rebuilt in order to comply with the Development Review Standards for compatibility with the neighborhood and adjacent landmarks.) The Planning Office finds that 601 W. Hallam continues to have historic value, due to its representative cottage architecture, scale, character and historic association with the community. Even with the removal of clapboard and the bay window, historic value is not erased, in our opinion. Exterior materials occasionally require replacement due to deterioration and poor maintenance anyway. The Planning Office strongly maintains that decisions made by the HPC in this case are precedent setting, and will impact the re-evaluation of the entire Inventory, forthcoming. The next important issue to consider here is the potential impact a new structure could have on the historic integrity and cultural value of the adjacent National Register Wheeler-Stallard House, should HPC authority be eliminated due to removing this parcel from the Inventory. At 3,240 sq.ft. (maximum build out), the new house would be larger than the adjacent landmark, and without HPC's careful review for compatibility, the potential to diminish the cultural and historic value of the Wheeler-Stallard house exists. ALTERNATIVES: Should the HPC approve the deletion of this structure from the Inventory, strong consideration should be given to require a covenant on the parcel requiring HPC's full review authority for all future redevelopment. You should also consider requiring the applicant to replace the clapboard siding and bay window within 30 days in order to restore the cottage's character as an historic representative within the West End. The applicant' s attached letter states he is willing to have the HPC review mass and scale of new development. Staff recommends that the HPC not reduce its authority over the parcel to simply mass and scale review, and make a deal with the applicant. The close proximity of this parcel to one of western Colorado's most important cultural resources should not be taken lightly. The Planning Office feels it is the HPC's responsibility to act within the code, and require this applicant to comply, as we require all others to do. The HPC may consider the following actions at this meeting: 1. Approve the applicant's request for removal from the Inventory, finding that the structure no longer continues to have historic value. 2 2. Approve (as above), subject to the recording of a covenant requiring HPC advisory review or full review authority over any future redevelopment. 3. Table action on this application, and review the request for removal within the context of the re-evaluation of the entire Inventory (later this summer). 4. Deny the applicant's request for removal from the Inventory, finding that the structure does continue to have historic value RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC deny the applicant's request to remove 601 W. Hallam St. from the Inventory, finding that the structure does continue to have historic value due to its representative cottage architecture, scale, historic character and association within the community. We further recommend that this property be re-evaluated within the context of the entire Inventory re-evaluation, as recommended by the HPC and adopted by Council. Additional comments: memo.hpc.601wh.invent.2 3 "--fo June 20,1991 ~2 -1â€¢120-8~-/tt il TO: Historic Preservation Committee , ~ Aspen, Colorado 81611 , J 6 - 119 1 Dear HPC: Since our last meeting two events have taken place which have a bearing on my application before you to remove 601 W. Hallam from the Inventory of Historic Structures: 1. The Building Department has inspected the progress of my demolition of said structure and has confirmed that I have satisfied their requirements to keep my Demolition Permit active, alive and valid. 2. The only elements which had any historic value on the old part of the structure i.e. the bay window and bed molding, have been demolished along with the siding. Consequently I feel that the structure no longer has any historic value and that you are justified in granting my request on that basis plus the mitigating factors which we discussed at length. Note: It would be absurd and a needless waste of a habitable resource to force me to demolish more of the old portion of the structure in order to have it removed from the Inventory. By granting my request you would retain the option of relocating the existing structure, keep an employee housing unit available and gain something which is more important than the existing structure and won't have if I continue with my demolition - the right to review any new development with regard to scale and mass as defined below: A. Mass = Building designed so that it is not one big uninterrupted box type structure and will use appropriately pitched roof forms for residential buildings as opposed to flat roofs. B. Scale = Window and door dimensions shall be appropriate for residential scale. C. The above shall not reduce the FAR and height allowed by the applicable zoning at the time of building applications. In sum, I feel the removal of this structure from the Inventory of Historic Structures is justified because the 29% which had minimal historical value before now has ng historic value since only the basic shell remains and will continue to be needlessly demolished if a mutually agreeable solution is not reached. These facts together with the mitigating factors, fairness issue and the opportunity for you to have a Mass & Scale review sh6uld justify your granting my request! Cordially, f 1 ---7 'Â·62 6/ :,.' iÂ«'2 25-2,7~9:~ 1 George Vicenzi MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Conceptual and Final Development and Vested Property Rights approval: 334 W. Hallam St. Date: June 26, 1991 SUMMARY: The HPC is being requested to combine Conceptual and Final Development review processes for the project at 334 W. Hallam. The applicant is primarily seeking Vested Rights approval for the (previously approved) significant development plans, which expire on July 10, 1991; they are required to re-apply for HPC approval under the standard Significant Development Review process in order to be eligible for three year vested rights approval. Therefore, the applicant may either submit for a building permit prior to July 10, or re-apply for HPC approvals according to the code provisions. They have elected to do both. The same plans that have been submitted last week for a building permit have been re-submitted for HPC Significant Development review. Any and all new code provisions, put into effect since the initial plans were approved, would apply. Staff has reviewed the code to determine if any standards have been left unmet; it appears that the project still meets all the development review standards and Guidelines. We are recommending the HPC consolidate steps, and approve the project for Conceptual and Final development. We are also recommending the HPC approve the Resolution granting vested property rights for three years. APPLICANT: Frank Peters and Marta Chaikovska LOCATION: 334 W. Hallam St. ZONING: R-6, Designated Landmark, determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Place PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: On January 10, 1990, the HPC granted Final Development approval for the property located at 334 W. Hallam. This project originally began in early 1988, when the HPC granted approval for the significant rehab of the alley outbuilding (Phase 1) , and the renovation, partial demolition and expansion of the main house (Phase 2). Vested rights approval was not requested at that Final meeting. DISCUSSION: Staff has reviewed the plans according to current code standards. The only two provisions that have changed since 334 W. Hallam initially came into the HPC review system, is Ordinance #1 (requiring accessory dwelling units or cash-in-lieu if 50% or more of a structure is demolished), and the partial demolition standards. Ordinance #1 does not apply in this case (less than 50% of the structure is being demolished), and the partial demolition standards appear to have been met. The additions are not original to the structure. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1) Grant approval for the Conceptual and Final Development application, and the vested property rights resolution as proposed 2) Grant approval for the Conceptual Development application (with conditions), and require the applicant to submit a separate Final Development application to meet the conditions of Conceptual approval. The vested property rights resolution may only be approved at Final Development review, which will require re-noticing for the Public Hearing. 3) Table action to a date specific, to allow the applicant additional time to review and restudy specific areas of concern. 4) Deny Conceptual and Final Development approval, finding that the applicable review standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant approval for the Conceptual and Final Development application, and the vested property rights resolution as proposed, for the property at 334 W. Hallam. Additional Comments: memo.hpc.334wh RESOLUTION NO. 4 (Series of 1991) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE VESTING THE SITE SPECIFIC FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 334 WEST HALLAM STREET WHEREAS, Frank Peters and Marta Chaikovska, have submitted Final Development plans to the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee for approval of the site specific development plan at 334 West Hallam Street, Lots K, L, and M, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee finds that the Final Development proposal constitutes the site specific development plan for the property, and; WHEREAS, the applicant has requested that the development rights for said property, as defined and approved by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee in the site specific development plans, be vested pursuant to Section 6-207 of the Aspen Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee desires to vest development rights in the 334 W. Hallam Street site specific development plans with conditions pursuant to Section 6-207 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen for a period of three (3) years from the effective date hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 The Aspen Historic Preservation Committee of the City of Aspen, as a consequence of its approval of the site specific Resolution No. 91- Page 2 development plan, and pursuant to Section 6-207 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby vests development rights in 334 W. Hallam Street, Lots K, L, and M, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, for a period of three (3) years from the effective date hereof. Any changes to the Final Development plans as approved by the HPC shall be submitted for review and approval (prior to the issuance of a building permit or change order). Failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Section 2 The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; except that the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of this resolution following its adoption. Section 3 Zoning that is not part of the site specific development plans approved hereby shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. Section 4 Nothing in this approval shall exempt the site specific 2 Resolution No. 91- Page 3 development plan from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances of the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. Section 5 The establishment of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to 1:and use regulations by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site specific development approval, the applicants shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. Section 6 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 7 Nothing in this resolution shall be construed to affect any 3 Resolution No. 91- Page 4 right, duty or liability under any ordinance in effect prior to the effective date of this resolution, and the same shall be continued and concluded under such prior ordinances. APPROVED by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee at its regular meeting on June 26, 1991. BV William J. Poss, Chairman Aspen Historic Preservation Committee ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Assistant City Clerk hpcreso.334wh 4 0 1 LÂ·. 6,6 '1~ , r 1 0.,1,I 4.'i* 8 ",~i#, ,*42.~~~**T',f* 1 11 f , -6 14't.1 5 i' Â·',Â·! viÂ·lk#.:01:~fi?$ ~i--;:k#SKE 1.11*i -*, 11... .. 1... 4 -,0 :.,?Il''l:Â¢g}g.,4 U 2.,Â·Â· 5 -b,1 ; 41: ... 0.4.'444 6,4*1#54045154 1 . 1 . " 1 - - 1; 0. 14- 1 ..1, -4- Ziv .91'rlik#1,4&01: ' 1 1 Â·I'./:frj;jÂ· 111**G,g -oct1 {t Â°5*- ) rÂ·Ii,H 40 11*72,1 bel 804 90:i; 04# 1 ; i j': iph':f'4Â·#411; A'l t,)Â·ti!-1~4;.11 t,)- 0 94 D [7.~ ' i Â·'' ~. ~ '~4'...1: t.71 1 9.:2.i.:liwbi,~20,t':i:1,:-hh,4,I, 0 4''id...~; ..,L Eli.Lijâ€¢4/.'i~ 1 1 3 1 ~ '.' 'if:, Â·\ W~â€¢t' ,&Â£ 3,'C' p,fj.~33-â€¢4:' 7-16.1%1;1412Â·~~ 1 :Â· I .... t:Â· c ': ! 1'Â·:':i.~'lit.i:Vi-Â·i i> 'Â· ji,44;[t W 4 1 U.:'. a .= r...1 1 ,# 1,55< 513*.lfu, d 1 1 Â·tr, 1 0 u E-LEA,/-' '~ ~ A 0 / 03 \ 91- C 1 ' n ..Â· 2 11.:1 UNFi' Â·- \ 42:ZIYE#, 4 T UX, I | 1 4 E,<-14-1 I k,16 1 1 n -4 1 0 HEIN KPPITION , 1 ----- ----1 1 1-9 11-arri 2 4-ID FLY 1 =6 ; t.. MAIN }10096 1,4,4,1 11 3 - 1 PHASE .25 .10*'I.: 7: ' '4424,5. 11'll'-47-813 9 '...P /-'.. . i ./- 94 8 9 . 1..,TAR 4 ..,121:121 j 4.f>' 1 . L.-1.-- 2- - .-----1 x 8/4 9 & 1 44 1 EL<le'T INCE. , . Ex I OT Ft.2212 E.LEM , . . r.;0:,{: --it . ~, Â·*,..Â·i ' ~ ' Â· ~Â· 'Â·?' -+Ae'**UP ' t n i./. ... -------,- .-- --------- , 4 ~ ., 2 Â®TOAY I , : 7-1 &0 -4 6., 1-i ; *CY+e I 4 , 1 T --+ - ~-~ 1 NE[.1 1 CAR .y- 1, L Â·11 ..1:11.1 ; G'.... 33 JtÂ¥'td -4.Of''a*BIB# 11 C PHASEr 1 I ' 6-46 - . _ . ,'' C<Q/1|46/1 99_ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~'~~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~;42~t: 1222_rn_-1 PHASE 2 .- Â· t'Â· .:, * /4.:' 2.Â·4~,4,1..'tÂ· ,Â·...~~,;'~ Â·'..'* ...lp-'' ~ 1 1-7.-! 1. Â· 5-1 -E>Vt 1 1 \ 4 1\ . / 1 0-- - 4 V 11 EX. " O O 1 0,)/ 0 1 -- 11 - \ Â»l Â·t;:'' ~h:'- :i.' "5 hitt 11.t:'. 1 1 . 1 4 I li- i -_11 . . . 105 :1./,I.,9,- 1 2 + f, 4 44 116-621. ./ Ir.â€¢4- %'ittbâ€¢ i / 11 0%.4%. "76-1... ' I're:" ..F~ H il' 00' 4.1~, e 100.00 1. 5 ~ ~ ~Â·"l:f~.9 -'.-;:~~-Â·ii.> -';=:Â·iÂ·i,,:Â·,i:,~:i~Â·. 11 1 11 t>P'.14-Â·IC ~ li ' . 94#6126 ~i ,~ . 4 - gl- - .- I -,1 I ... -'.*.5 f .21 IN 21 t-,t~P r...47 , r r- 71_- . ... - C 1 AÂ«73116[2 FAIC>621 11'.ELEY . lig33/82.- 4511 . , 1/ C. 4"~Â»:1 FLAT- gal;F EDO-fc,Np , E..Ey 124'- 11 5/ 1 =-4-1 4<4~5 -444. W,ce[2 [PA.P2,~FE&-F /09' A' ~ 1 11.4<~4 WALL% 7 VE,2 14.)72 oul, BC'-. S Â«fy-T fl lili f.. . .. ~\44> 4.411 \ 1 r j F, t. . 1 1, -2.-- < gv14-6-0 LJOCÂ·2 -T--7 1 4 I ,Â·-Fi,r ./-pr â€¢ ~ . . 4 /1 4 / I , , f . 01' '- 1/ 01, â€ž . 4- 1 - - 1 IM . -- .- '.- --- ....... . ./ 11111 \ . /4, L---- 4- -- ----- ... -- - -- -- - __ \6121 6, . Or .4114/ f + . r.'le . . ic-1 .1 4 .,- 1/7. 1.114,7,Â»19 +446 / 11 1.- 1 17, 1 f i - A . ,-- 4 L b.-- t'11 p'/ rle! ' , "' 4 Â·Irplkid;- -- 1 -~ .3.. --- ---fliff--1.---fi 1 i . L.__ -U 1. - ' b -- 1 1.1 4 1,1 116, 1 Im.1 1 1 'f I r '111 :i (11) 1 1 14'- :- Ir, 14 Â· _, -==-01 1.2 4, 9 *-vi.c 1 ni 1 0 ; 1 1 9 i .*.' r - ' - . .1-__ LL - _Li. -1.1, 1- J- _L_- L_-___ 1 - 11 -- 1-7173 - It . r .----7- 5- *. '11, O F --- 1 I - E.L 1 *21 1 r- r.7- irr:\9 1 31'411 - -4 T '.Â«11..4 1. 1 11 6.9 1-- 1 '' 1 1 1 + , 1 11 1 11 - h lit " 1 1, +11 ,(14 2 li <16,) 11 , J I i .r 4.1 ' , ; - z: 34 11 \\ 1 4 ' 3 1/- 1 - d --- , -~-_~fi 11. t-+ 1[.-j Ji --s. ~- !1 i . .-79 1- Q .4 1/ 1 41./.01 4-31 11-34; El f---It] IR 1,1,112 Q'4' ~CZ .....f l.-a L.- . : 3 - --t - r Â· 4 r 43%4 14-re p Id 6,72 /12 I r,nuÂ· 11 06+1 0 i I. 1 TZ.IM ---r--9- Fh! 41<(O 12 609 '' 0 L.09 H 1 - ' | 6 6(%- 1 0 k.1 AL. 0 f 6764 rl 261 2927 -4 7 T 121 Fl 1 /1 t 1\24.~1112' EAST ELEVATION11 ; ., No (44 L 6 4 036. /11 r_- A . CASV (*4., . .& ., . h. 1 .. I---6/ i - 14' I. t , -7211~:3-:iti--11-- .-.. 12 -24_2 L~ I .â€¢ 1 'Â·':i '/'-' f . I '. ... -1, .t y,41,1,'21:i:-Â· /&24, -:I -: - -I. 1 " .54~I~'i :Ag 'rAâ€¢,16'it'l ... 1 614 Â·-,- IpÂ¥*14:.0.2 0*<34. 2 11-1 32!lijil~! >.'77 Â· .lu--Â· .1 - Â· 1 ' .>ED ''(5Â£/.1 11'*,r47,~6 1,I~bLIJ,11,1~11flijilli 1,..:11.1, ./:,\ ..: .11 . â‚¬ 29 ' 7,394-- 1 - J:r>yrifT tji;:,l,1, 1,4 7..;.',9Â¢h>~,1,4/0/1:,14-71 4 444:11 '4'."I r.1.1.1:1 11. 111*,L 43&|111,-!11/72 .1 'Â· Â· 1 .-,1 c 10) 1' (',1.ltrt-113 Nx w 3324Â· . 6 -; 1 -, /1 T; /4LktÂ·h | yr-==-- -L= iÂ·t-unire- 1~ . =--1-46. 4/j~'/' r- - A-22_11_- 2.23=11 . , EA 1 N \ 'F> 1, 1 \ , , Ing-:1.Ifie ..1.- -9-1 -- - ..-- -- f . il /~ 17 'f'' - ~1:.f,(,; 1,1-. ...:,;11,-,4-, , ' . -Â·----- Â·------- -- .... F ~-- ,~â€¢SI~,e~~ 1 -- / 4 / 41 ef/4/ h . . .. .... ..4- .1{\W424- 1 --*1-24 l . ,,,. <d, 1 7 Â·401Â¥4E5; )'Wt:4*Â·FAH-* $4.-1Â£134#4199 -,1 - -1. .....1 j f..\ 4, 1 . / ..1 U. . , Â·t . . -- 7 -- I Ute)17 912.<MIN/,V.-~Â· '; :Â·Â·Â·-Â· Â·, Â· .. I I 0 , 11,4. (tb I j536/ 11+B'*' 2~,-'re te:,p~/f.T Â·:... Â· ~ -1 1.* 1 . | AJALL- . I 41 1 ' th) 11 , . Al 11 9 . 1 1 --1 1. 451*10 Hip. 2-5.47,.Â« ''411- 0=4~6, Â·ail-43<4' ">~~~â‚¬~~, i:.Iitt.,..c .,Â· 6,,14 p ~i'..<~ I il?IÂ·.--7::~ ; .'-4,Â·\,-~, :,:,., -~ ~ / Ucoe.FOAMINGr 409''.41: 1.....,[.....1 'AO i .., ~,. - ~ 4.: 0~~~t-I.~~42"C~'~fiQJL~i ;~ 4 3-Â·'~ '601;Â·Â·-" ,'-:~Â·it:.-t;:t~~<.~fÂ·J:~~'ji~: F., : ' f i , 4. r - â€¢ 1 r . 2 4.4 0 r i -Aid.. *LAM. AND FOUR:*rkÂ»Jj'.'~:ft tYkYÂ·K)~1 , , | i -..w..:'sifts y = I ' : ,ill f L "11 1--,-HAI HETAL Fi-AÂ·6+11klA-5 -12>P' 04 Fict:..6 ,(666â€¢l - ~.. 1 LLE 1[1 7 /2.:Akx Fi,-1 w-r E.KIÂ«Tl Nor FA k|C>~ * r i CUT idc--Ors; 64-t lkICE.1-L.EL 1 1 ~ - 1 rÂ·â€¢r:-r-:-1-- 1,1-:;:~4-4 9,4.2- 50 ~.Â»0 11 80: El-Â·p 1267-6 Â£' i -- / 4/7 2NS~ /KE=LA:SE EXISTI,.14 -----i-.'.--1 a - :Li.!34320., 1 0,4...:Y ~ 1 R / 9/ / E ./ i . t ./ f ~~Â°Â«Â£/ WITA WEEÂ·ki WCOC:7 - T~/-..$-Ill.-1 2 1 < 01ILICTLE REQF ; S Nt,TE M 1 ./ 4/I> p..4 \ j /. / ipb. 16 17JILL-2~22 . ,--1 , - * E-KIESTIk]6 .- I~,2- --- 32--.2-4. - r. - A ---- ----- 1 INKIT EX'Â·MT'klor (Â·le C 1--- 0 - 4 ir ___--4-- 7*| M AND l...11 k.1 12(4.1â‚¬, 1 11 1 1.1 1 1 11 2 1 1. 1 1 11 ' RAI LIT Ex I errl klir 136 L_ J L i j <-- ------ , SIPING'r t-'1 - ! 1 j . r--1 1 / 1 1 11 _.---Ects;TILIG kilkilk)k|6 11 ,Â® 0% 11 To BEHAILI 1Â»Tfiwp--- 71 . ' zw, F.IW- FL-~PO;ZÂ· J .. - i LL :411 - RAIL ' a-: 0=-1 VIL-3 -4-3 - E.L.Â£,y I -ile Lul'.2 - - 1 1- 't-lih-1-1 -1 413 It .31- (3> / '2---- Â·- 77.2-I=LIZ _-~.n.Â·- ~- ~iÂ«----=r?-2-- - ! 72'2/,7ITT'' - -/ 1* 1 I>'!i.~Ji--1.- -- 1 | I---- -)-1 ~ - 5 1 FI"~ 1 r .11 ~ : 17 84 kITED t....1~t;' Fu-;ZAY 1 1 1 -- Ort-A 3. 1 4 c,r â‚¬rferT E- 14 .../ 2 22- 1 1 Ti=-=---rrr-.-~ 11 11 \-,~& 4- ~11/F- 0. 1 1, 11 9, 41) 1, fÂ».14're>O 1.10'C, 5,10- 11 0 4 911,1 9,1 1 5 11 \ 1.1 i' .1 i &|1 --Â·Â·Fk.IN-rer:> klÂ»t7 FAÂ·. e - b- ->i-~r__.=~311-:thÂ·ir Ah.,19 f;CIM ,.; .. A-6 9.4 .= ' tÂ¢Rel 0.4= =L ==24 .fl- -4.12,(41-- :-I'l,--2*c<9-41 1 -r.PP Â£:p~i. Â£16*48.1 - K - IfÂ£ --- ..r , CEÂ· GrEÂ·28,1-111,1.64/! - . 1 1 1*T Fl'11*2; Fla)= WS:P. 3 1 NV . 6 667.-4 344,- 6,1 - 1 1. - 1- 7 --7 - .PAIkrT EXIer[-1 kY.r i - 4-3-F - UtÂ»P COLUMIÂ·.16 $,/ .j "t .:.IT ,(33 . on 1 1 ..3 :..) UTH ELEVATiON 1 -I , ./.fÂ· . 1 .1 t.1.1 .1.-1 -r. 1 . . , I / 41 - , .re. ' . , r 1 - 11 - , ,. 1. 4 , . '' , '. L... . r , ..,rte..1. .0 tr I . â‚¬- . 4 91 .2 h .06 1.- . ' '-Â· $4Â· ~ A *rtit?10:;~343~-~*,)4-%?2*~-0 ' 0-,~:~.~,rthÂ·?shÂ·.Fidj.-4Â·%Â·p:.3','Â·~; r. , ..:,: iÂ·â„¢.v'p. rÂ·,ik Â· Â· . ::wrri, ,Â· rigÂ£/AB%,61-*4+NBLUC+VT'.; TZ.,O*1,~72'ib-X'P~#f ti 9.-1 ~ 6:34 -~Â·Ir--'~'-i:.Â·,Â» _ a-_.._ ' ------:.i---#a.--- i .-' 4---5 1 /1 t. '''Le - Â·- . 1 ifâ‚¬t*77 'Â·f Â· 0/20 f , , L ' . : ; t: '740.- --44<'' i..odz.lci~1;Â·t,4/ -/-4 ,illd; J . ... .. . - ., r" .,4..6.--A/..p -40---6.*-,I---67-4--'---*- -*4 x- v 93Â·,4149 At, 11.1 NÂ« 4.iry'.9.,;:1~~~*-Â·42Â¢Nâ‚¬ !** :' -4.66...4... 4, / 1 =11.- f i.:116/WigN,<~Liftvt'---2- Â£ . U.L '020.26 2,-10Â« 1 , . - - --- - V + It<.4?i**El%%1&~:::'2;, 77~11~0 ~~ ~= =:1 I~Ilit I ; .41-4,;9.c"' jEE, UlaC.fo- Â©11 1. 4Â®lili 2- 4; 1Â· 1 4.C- t., 1 rp?t== -1 Fr~Â» E>< K fil ' 'llk i:\e:v 41- .Â»' --11'i'... 4 71 11; li -122 4wlbitmEMP,Â»6191 1 - r - 1 ...1 ,% 1 ....., 66 1 1 2 MN#n574#duLAY#Â£ 21 ' +3414.k, 4Â·Te- .,1' ..., '1.:~Ii i.-rj"Â·iÂ·,~,-4,477.' , ..f.4.1,1'. 11 , : 1 1 0 I .' "- ' I ...... I ./ 11 - 1 0 1 1 .U 2711 -- 07. 5.:-1.1 - I . Â· '21,5 -1--- El. -I.--/- 4-.3...1'. itt -\ F:?l; I : *2>*Â£3;kit>':421:;961,.., 1, t i . p, â€¢ , 1 11621 /- - -===trizai:.-DUFF . rc -41--4*.6--4.,+ .:* . u:.: â€ž.: fr2f~..A,#45$~J~i , c. , 1 :reti/V , ---- - - 1 - - ' p-- Â·7 +7-1 i Â·21 - i r~--~11 c 1 9112 e wan , t.i; lit , ..11 , 1 11 P 1 -11 -3 21 Â£:40Â«11 :41-<11:Tir.'5; . d Ae.1 4 H I. E.-- > flt==1]kit -&-1~ -- 1~ 11 1 48% ,49,-M.;411,11 1,â€¢, 'ruÂ·.Â·IrÂ·.,#441 4 . 7 .0:li ,, . '' -,------ ---*.-.....p *rf : 'f;*03 1''Â·t)'., 1 FRÂ£ .t.-'f:.iti.~pÂ· ~Jt~ l;i Â· FÂ¥. . L-- 1-1-_ ' . il':74Â¥ 430'.:<is#.tÂ©:il.;1"U:flith,42:44'--9Â·44..'0 -Â·61...i..,-& ,-474,2Â·*-04 .; '.4 Â· / Â· ~~ -1 134 #Taff.Idz=>t>.PFilut-Â»- - 2-2 FeD FinzÂ·w:ep;Â·*.44'711%3.-1:'l iN.)94.'.Iff.)'fy:I'~ Â·Â·04Â·1. 4 09.Nred):lk,1801?7,5Â¢?4410.1467-3:Â·,; MiD .1.0 1,Â« Â·0Â·, 4, '' p L .n .,4 1.0 .,,.:,-4.1.< 1, Â· FI '1 , , 1 . 4 , .4 .4' rk! t.iÂ«:Jy~ IlltÂ©d:r IDE~F~ 1~~__. Â· 4.:., ' Â· ~~-1 TWEST ELEVATION ; June 20, 1991 TO: Historic Preservation Committee Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear HPC: Since our last meeting two events have taken place which have a bearing on my application before you to remove 601 W. Hallam from the Inventory of Historic Structures: 1. The Building Department has inspected the progress of my demolition of said structure and has confirmed that I have satisfied their requirements to keep my Demolition Permit active, alive and valid. 2. The only elements which had any historic value on the old part of the structure i.e. the bay window and bed molding, have been demolished along with the siding. Consequently I feel that the structure no longer has any historic value and that you are justified in granting my request on that basis plus the mitigating factors which we discussed at length. Note: It would be absurd and a needless waste of a habitable resource to force me to demolish more of the old portion of the structure in order to have it removed from the Inventory. By granting my request you would retain the option of relocating the existing structure, keep an employee housing unit available and gain something which is more important than the existing structure and won't have if I continue with my demolition - the right to review any new development with regard to scale and mass as defined below: - A. 1~ Mass = Building designed so that it is not one big uninterrupted box type structure and will use appropriately pitched roof forms for residential buildings as opposed to flat roofs. B. ~ Scale = Window and door dimensions shall be appropripte for residential scale. te-&i51-06,01 w ltÂ·L "&*c b/â‚¬< owl,te(, C. ' The above shall not reduce the FAR and height allowed by the applicable zoning at the time of building applications. In sum, I feel the removal of this structure from the Inventory of Historic Structures is justified because the 29% which had minimal historical value before now has 112 historic value since only the basic shell remains and will continue to be needlessly demolished if a mutually agreeable solution is not reached. These facts together with the mitigating factors, fairness issue and the opportunity for you to have a Mass & Scale review should justify your granting my request! Cordially, George Vicenzi 1 j 0 31 - ~0,} ,3/30 /(1/ 1 -cu 1 0 - 20- â‚¬ ATI:Aa:IMEi<?r 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1) Project Name Bellina Residence . 1 2) Project Location 716 West Francis St., Lots N&0 and the West 15 feet of Lot P, Block 15, City and Townsite of Aspen. (indicate street andress, lot & block number, legal descripticn Vpte appropriate) 3) Preserrt Zoning R-6 4) Lot Size 7500 sq.ft. 5) Applicant's Nane, Address & Phone # Joseph & Delia Bellina Suite 810, Ona Galleria Blvd., Metairie, LA. 70001 (504) 861-4903 6) , Representativels Name, Address & Phone # Cinderel'la Norris 925-5590 Charles Cunniffe & Associates 520 E. Hyman, Suite 301, Aspen, CO. 81611 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA conceptual ' Iastoric Dev.. Special Review Final SPA ~ Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline - _ Conceptual POD , ' Minor IÂ·Iistoric Dev. Stream Margin . Final PUD Â· Historic Demolit:Lon Mountain yiew Plane Subdivision Â· . Ilistoric Designation Chndaniniumization - Text/Map Amendment Â· (2429 Allotment Lot Split/Lot Line Â·-,GMOS Exeuption Adj ust:ment 8) Description of Existing Uses (Illiber and type of existing structies; approodmate sq. ft.; rnItber of bedrocms; any preuious approvals granted 'to the Â· - Propert~). 1 Residence, Approximately 2878 sq.ft. of existing F.A.R., 4 existing bedrooms 9) Description of Development Application . ATterationsÂ·and Addition to 2 story residence including 2 car garage and an accessory dwelling unit. 10)Â·Â· Have you attached the following? Response to Al:taCtuant 2, Minimum Submission Contents .aespcnse to Attactment 3; Specific Submission Contents Response to Attadment 4, Review Standards for Your Application lillill CHARLES CUNNIFFE &ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 520 EASTHYAIAN SUITE 30I ASPEN CO 8161 I 303/925-5590 CHARLES L CUNNiFFE AIA FINAL SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT STATEMENT OF EFFECT Upon receiving Conceptual Historic Development Approval , the H.P.C. Committee found that, in the proposed development , the renovation is compatible with the original style of the existing Historic Structure, while at the same time, scale and detailing of the addition further enhance the victorian character of the neighborhood. It was also determined that the east yard setback variance (at the light well) of 3'-6" is acceptable in order to meet the rear set back requirement of 5' -0" as well as provide adequate daylight and egress to the basement space. Through research we found the original structure was constructed in 1890 and additions were added 1967. Our proposed demolition of the nonhistoric additions, is required for the restoration of the historic resource and the impacts to the historic and architectural integrity of the structure have been mitigated. This was the general opinion of the H.P.C. Committee; thus we feel we have met the Partial Demolition Standards in Section 7-602 (C). Upon close inspection, the existing alley building doesn't appear to be historic. The materials are not of the vintage of the structure of the original house. Therefore, it could be demolished. However, if that becomes an issue we would be prepared to relocate the small shed to the northwest corner of the property. (See site plan) We propose to remove the existing porch, deck and columns along the west elevation, and rebuild it and a new deck using the original columns. Since we are adding new doors and several new windows, we propose to use new insulated windows which are the same sash profile as the existing windows. Since many of the existing windows are simple, one over one double hung, the overall visual impact will be the same. And more importantly, the character of historic renovation can be achieved not only on the exterior, but on the interior as well without unsightly interior storm windows. 1 CHARLES CUNNIFFE &ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 520 EAST HYMAN SUITE 301 ASPEN CO 8 I6I 1 303/925-5590 CHARLES L CUNNIFFE AIA Perhaps the issue can be decided by the Appointed Monitor, which leaves one final issue: the railings at the upper level deck. The south rail would be wrought iron in keeping with railings at the light wells. The north railing could be wrought iron or lattice or a more closed design of wood or metal to provide a screen from the alley. Again, perhaps this could -be determined by the Appointed monitor. We are hopeful that you find acceptable our resolutions to conditions resulting from Conceptual Significant Development Approval.