The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19910424 1 AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE April 24, 1991 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM 4:30 - 5:00 SPECIAL MEETING: PRESERVATION HONOR AWARDS SELECTION AND REVIEW OF PRESERVATION WEEK ACTIVITIES 5:00 I. Roll call II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:10 A. Conceptual Development - Continued Public Hearing: 716 S. Francis --1 f ~ p CL Â»4.-1 J x 4) { 01,3 - L.Â»3 5:45 B. Final Development - Rubey Park Transit Center-'Bfpprob m..y â€¢ 6 r YN - 1.-1 3 6:00 C. Clarification of Final Development Motion for Sportstalker Building j-) 4-l F< 0'uo~,D f cot,POT-711Â«u-â€ž1:2-u - 9, ,-,04.0/-14/,-4, ~-~ Ula,k/- t u.u,~ 2/_-Â»-1-1-4 0 V. NEW BUSINESS 6:20 N< Minor Development - 501 E. Cooper, Independence Buildings display cases 252 4 - /0"1 - /5 2 y.:, i g ,C.4--/ 3,- .2 6:50 B. Minor Development - Guido's Restaurant (building awnings)-905 L 0Â¥i 1 4 no G '4 'a Â·n-- bun- L '3 +13 7:10 C. Draft Review: Revised Historic Preservation element of the Aspen Area Community Plan 7:30 VI. COMMUNICATIONS: A. Project Monitoring B. Committee member comments 8:00 VII. ADJOURN MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Conceptual Development, partial demolition, east sideyard setback variation and expansion of 716 W. Francis St. (Public Hearing, continued) Date: April 24, 1991 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: HPC approval of the revised conceptual development, partial demolition, .east side yard setback variation 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 is also being requested from Council. LOCATION: 716 W. Francis St., Lots N and 0 and the West 15' of Lot P, Block 15, City and Townsite of Aspen. APPLICANT: John R. Beatty, represented by Joseph and Delia Bellina. Charles Cunniffe and Associates are representing the purchasers, Joseph and Delia Bellina. HPC PREVIOUS ACTION: The HPC reviewed the landmark designation 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. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The subject cottage is a vernacular two story, built c. 1890. It has received some modifications over the years, particularly in the form of a rear shed and exterior stairway leading to the second floor. The porch has been extended along the western perimeter. An historic outbuilding is located at the alley (this structure needs some work). SITE, AREA AND BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Lot Size: 7,500 sq. ft. Allowable FAR: 3,450 sq. ft. Proposed Total FAR: 2,642 sq. ft. (revised) Max. allowable height 25' Propased maximum height 17' 6" Max. site coverage 4,875 sq. ft. Proposed site coverage 3,137 sq. ft. (revised) Parking spaces required: 3 PROJECT SUMMARY and REVIEW PROCESS: The applicable Guidelines are found in Section VI. Residential Buildings - Renovation and Restoration, beginning on page 47. The Development Review Standards are found in Section 7-601(D); Partial Demolition Standards are found in Section 7-602(C) of the Land Use regulations. Note: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended landmark designation unanimously at a public hearing on April 16. Council will hold the Ordinance's first reading on April 22, 1991. Development Review Standards 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Response: It appears that the revisions meet this standard, with perhaps the exception of the balcony/roof deck railing between the main house and the ADU. Staff finds this design slightly competitive with the historic cottage, in that it attempts to mimic the railing on the front porch too closely. Perhaps a cleaner, more simply designed railing (planter?) would meet this standard. We are recommending this be restudied for Final review. Basement: Please review the changes proposed to the basement plan, and subsequent lightwells. Staff finds that these lightwells are generally compatible, and do not compete with the 2 . cottage as they are located near the rear of the structure and are not a feature of the historic cottage. Q: Will the finished grade level of the structure be raised above its current location? How will the foundation be treated? The Final Development application should address these questions in detail. Sunroom/Breezeway: The previously proposed breezeway/connector has been eliminated with the revision of this space to include a mudroom and storage space. The ADU remains attached. Variations: Per the request of the adjacent neighbor (north of the alley), the footprint has been revised to meet underlying dimensional requirements. An HPC variation for rear yard setback is no longer required; however, it appears as though a side yard setback variation is still required for the rear light well on the west elevation, as it is larger than required for egress-only purposes. The HPC is required to make a finding as to the relative compatibility of this setback variation, which staff supports. The rear yard setback is now 5' (for the garage) and 10' (for the dwelling unit), as required by code, which eliminates the original request for zero lot-line development. A parking variation is not required, as three spaces are included on-site. Streetscape and Landscape Material: We find that the streetscape is generally unaffected by this proposal. Landscaping has not been addressed in the Conceptual application. A landscape plan will be required at Final. Fences: Staff recommends new fencing consistent with page 49 in the Guidelines. Rooflines: The HPC was concerned that the ridgeline as originally proposed was not compatible with the cottage. It appears to staff that the restudy of this element required by the HPC now meets this guideline, and appears to meet Development Review Standards #1 and #4. The existing shed dormers on the west are proposed to be eliminated, and replaced by gable dormers. Two new gable dormers are proposed for the east. The need is functional, and their roof peak is well below the peak of the center roof ridge. The HPC should consider whether these dormers are appropriately scaled for this structure. Doors: We recommend all original doors (if any) remain on the structure, and that new doors be compatible though not replicative. This detail should be clarified in the Final Development application. 3 Staff is pleased that the revised conceptual application eliminated a significant number of the small divided lights. We find that with this revision the proposal is more compatible with the vernacular cottage and the character of the West End. Windows: As with doors, we recommend all original windows and glass remain on the historic cottage, with storm windows installed on the interior as necessary. The application does not address the preservation plan for the original windows, which will be required for Final review. The windows proposed for the cottage unit are in-keeping with the small cottage scale of this ADU, with the exception perhaps of the south facade gable window, which appears slightly out of proportion (too tall) for the space. Staff asks the HPC to consider whether the east and west elevation dormer windows are also out of proportion for the space - these appear to match the first floor windows, which by their nature, have the ability to be slightly taller than the upper floor. Perhaps as little as a 15-20% reduction in height of these dormer windows would bring them into compatibility with the dormer proportion. Porches: It appears that the original porch has been either extended or completely remodeled. We recommend the applicant provide clarification on this issue for Final. The new proposal indicates a projecting porch element on the west to allow summer outside dining with the benefit of garden views. The HPC should consider whether this impacts the character of the facade; staff is neutral on this issue. The conceptual sketch does not detail the porch column design, which will be required for Final. Materials: The proposal calls for horizontal wood overlap siding, which we find appropriate. We recommend that the HPC consider whether the addition of fancy-cut shingles to the qable end of the ADU is appropriate, or whether the siding treatment should simply carry through to the peak. The gable end material on the dormers has been revised, eliminating the shingles and carrying through the siding material, which staff recommended. We find this treatment to be more compatible with the small scale, working class nature of the historic cottage. The applicant is now proposing wood roof shingles throughout, as opposed to asphalt, which staff finds appropriate for this cottage remodel. 4 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The changes in footprint due to the rear yard setback revision were made primarily due to the a neighbor's concern. We find these revisions to be appropriate in character and to meet the needs of the neighborhood, and are pleased the applicant was able to adjust the design to meet these concerns. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: We find that proposal does not detract from the cultural value of the parcel, with the exception of the demolition of the historic outbuilding. We recommend the HPC consider the merits of this alleyscape in terms of its contribution to our community's overall cultural landscape, and (at a minimum) suggest mitigation measures for any potential impacts here. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Partial demolition, excavation and the preservation and remodel issues must be more completely addressed in a Final Development application in order for staff to determine if this Standard has been completely met. 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 5 structure located on the parcel. Response: A significant amount of the existing structure is proposed for demolition (42%). The application is not clear on the. defining the age of the additions proposed for removal, or the level of importance they provide to the architectural or historic integrity of this structure. These issues must be clarified -prior to an HPC approval for partial demolition. The HPC should carefully consider if: 1) the removal of these additions is required for the renovation of the historic resource, and 2) the impacts to the historic and architectural integrity of the structure have been mitiqated. We are recommending that this issue be addressed fully at this meeting to provide the HPC ample information in order to address the Partial Demolition standards at this meeting. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1) Approve the revised conceptual development application as submitted, finding that all applicable standards have been met, and that the east sideyard setback variation is more compatible with the historic resource than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. 3) Approve the Revised Conceptual Development application, finding that the east sideyard setback variation is more compatible with the-historic resource than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements, and requiring that the following conditions be met for Final Development review: 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. b) Compliance with Demolition Standards found in Sec. 7-602(B) regarding the historic alley building. c) Detailed preservation plan for the structure, including all materials and architectural features (windows, doors, porch, etc.) d) Detailed site and landscape plan. Fencing shall be detailed, and shall be open in 6 nature. e) Massing model indicating alleyscape f) Material representation, including chimneys. g) Clarification of east side yard setback - request, due to lightwell h) Foundation information (treatment, finish level, etc.) 4) Table action to a date certain, to allow the applicant 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 Conceptual Development approval for the revised proposal at 716 W. Francis St., subject to the conditions as stated in Alternative #3. Additional comments: memo.hpc.716WF.cd.2 7 CHARLES CUNNIFFE&ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 520 EAST HYMAN, SUITE 301, ASPEN, CO. 81612 303/925-5590 CHARLES L CUNNIFFE, A.IA April 10, 1991 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Committee 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Roxanne: Please find enclosed amended Exhibit E Drawings which reflect the following recommendations of the HPC at March 27 meeting: 1. Exhibit E-1 through E-7. Plans and Elevations which reflect rear and sideyard setback study as well as study of Ridgeline and East Elevation fenestration. 2. Exhibit E-8. Revised proposed conditions. 3. Exhibit E-9. Site Plan indicating setbacks and planting. 4. Exhibit E-10. W. Francis St./Smuggler Block Site Plan indicating buildings surrounding 716 W. Francis Street. 5. Exhibit E-11. Residential Property Appraisal Record documenting the 716 W. Francis Street property was constructed in 1890 and additions were added in 1967. (See lower right hand corner on back page). Please call if you find any omissions or have any questions. Thank you, ~51*toM kblio Cinderella Norris CN/ph CHARLES CUNNIFFE &ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 520 EAST HYMAN, SUITE 301, ASPEN, CO. 81612 303/925-5590 CHARLES L CUNNIFFE, A.I.A. EXHIBIT E-8 BELLINA RESIDENCE PROPOSED CONDITIONS Lot Area 7500 sq.ft. F.A.R. Allowable 3450 sq.ft. A.D.U. 520 sq.ft. Basement 62.4 sq.ft. Main Level 1452 sq.ft. Upper Level 608 sq.ft. Total Floor Area 2642.4 sq.ft. Maximum Height 17'-6" Parking 3 Spaces Allowable Site Coverage 4875 sq.ft. Actual Site Coverage 3137 sq.ft. - - EXHIBIT E- 1 1 ., 1 â€¢ RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY APPRAISAL RECORD 1/64 - 1/84 Y OR TOWN (ABA) SCHEDULE NO. /- /09 g (DAI) MAP NO. (DAD TAX AREA (AAA) PARCEL NO. 2 735- /2 4 - 05 - 4 (VAR) (VAC) (VAD) (DAB) TWP RANGE (DAA) p:- . SUBDIVISION BLOCK LOT(S) , SEC 4 SEC TWP NO t..2 9- 7'St; ' . f , .rh P -Â» Pe fi LK N + O + WIC P I | (DAD) SUB NO. ~DAJ) NEIGHBOIiHOOD 1 U [ lei<) SCHOOL DIST. ,, I ' Y ADDRESS 7 1 6 Â£1) Ut: '14-~/r/.1 - -- *,22 (BAA) ADDRESS (HAC) (HAE1& (HAF) (HAI) (HA8) .-6 Â· ... (CAC) (CAD) (CAE) BOOK or PAGE TYPE - OWNERS NAME MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIP SALES DATE (HAH) Clerk': No. DEED DOC. FEE ~ ' 4 777 //-%5' 49 9 -7/L If/ 25,00 (1028*111/ (brlte. 1.21-9 < 6 lib 991 0 0 0 m 4-40*ph \d ' . (bllevia 151* . * XID,kle.faivie, l,A 7060:3 4Â·91 #141.32 MID '49.cD i (VAE) LEGAL DESCRIPTION 4Â¥ifittlÂ¢93;~91!Â®illill{REMARKS:FIt**14{Of:QI f:+Tt :*}iitl!1rul*%. (Ct, 2735-124-08-003 1 1-AFS. (HAK) ON SALE Vetrified Soles Pric. Codi' r , jollil R . -/Rd--216907/7,d.- r,7 613'i'N 14 : Ed.Il INA, â‚¬02'Fl# . 32-1-I UUM'W!.9 014. 1% glo $ n LA 1000 UFA) ON LAND * F LOTS N AND O Â· 0 f..9.1 T . 15 FEET OF LOT P 15 FEET OF LOT P , Â»lia :-Al'TRIBUTESM:}4. -'i.43 11,1:Ir k...fRE.1412:*:F**!#*W{liIA#j~ELAND i,VALUE CALCULATIONS Ity,faMM*015:.411#4(15~421~~21?#?41-1,*' lfâ€ž*,f#**Â»Â»11*#,e*43*2:CORRELATION -*1*ik4;Â¥~f-82~ 4 JOA lEVEL (G8E} BASE UNIT SALES ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ADJ. BASE TOTAL " DATE SIZE VALUE SIZE TIAAE LOCATION OTHER Composite UNIT VALUE LAND VALUE COST APPROACH $Â· '34%-see z=-sE-oo n JOB MIGH MARKET APPROACH 1 $ -52,&000 198.â‚¬2>0 1 -LE 7 5 00 4 M'42* mmet j /5,4 1 1 1 , 30< .EEP 000 1 7/<2222 'DO tow 6000 4 S,tr 1 9,0000 , 1 ,- /50 0 20 ( p o Uck ..F\ .05*eo *ag-Â·000Â·91*:re~ti#?ACTUAL:lvALUE';10#t*15* P!,1 45~30; ASGESSED 'VALUELÂ· JOE SLOPNG r ' (GBO) (FBC) 'DE Hltil 1 Â£77'T- & 'Ri Ad -4-1 /20,occ) /8aâ€¢o O YEAR LAND IMPE TOTAL LAND IMP& TOT; JOH RET W.. 4~72 . ::1:Â·kittUÂ·t:*i,i':de;'1?41:iNS&*tl#tuti~ IM *!41; 21(Fâ‚¬ost 4!APPROACH 4,1,14 ld-Â·141:H:! 'i:;tÂ·:143*034#-*:62,9'ike-*f.fc %991 4#LK# 99~ea i.2sver <2 4R~4Â·e 4k+Â·0Â·'r 54-6 eEPRf5EN REPLACEMENT AREA (HAM) 1 DEPRECIATION (HAN) I JE' TA,IVE SHAPE V DATE COST NEW FACTOR ADJ. RCN % GOOD PHYS. FUNC.'-NORT RCNLD LAND VALUE TOTAL VALUE 1../GIA. SHAPE 1-55 115 760 7-S 9690-0 115Â©00 311%10 *14 /80#00 Â¥5000 z,E.or, 18 wquo 17,00 49.66 ,/ 1X CUL DEÂ·SAC 19% - 96?zo , 720000 z.~.c ow Iâ‚¬R? ' 70 COO 95*ago t:79-too / G 23 200 /5100 49[0 JEO CORNER LOT 1989 /80.-1 Tea>c> *50,5 27Â«16 '4150 41 1 V JU viEW NON -; Â· 0'Â·, "--~t-'146'44 .Â¢i44,* AlÂ«**Pt#ffrELIÂ¢:484pvt MARKET APPROACH 1(*FER '*Ei:Â·4*.44*qE#21UtiÂ«414*Â¢813*,31 '4...;&2;*fÂ£1:Tâ„¢MiÂ® i: 0*E â€¢*Â·f#'I~*Â¢**2*iÂ· REMARKS 24.'114,#.4.%# 44'we:PrtÂ·CtÂ· 1/ 1. ST FRONT 40 6AA.A GE INC). VALUE ADJUSTMENTS ADJ. VALUE SUBJECT SUBJECT NG (JAA) USE SALES REFERENCE NAME/NO. Per SQ. FT. e 04 0, 7/0,1' Per SQ. FT. Sq. Fr. Area INDIC. VALUE Res M J E- R -1 7- H &4/6 50 -1356 11:73%00 ICESSIBILITY 4,1,1/0 -2=2=-5,9,0 rq~'PuBLIc l.594 6Â«6*o ob ~ PRIVATE /9 8 93 - 33/5,061_ YEAR.RCUND |~ / 86 OOD SEASONAL. 29 7. SoO 1 .4 _426-1 1 Â·NÂ», ) 41 0 01/' r 9 f 0 - --ACK-- 1 7 00 x7894.8 S MUGGI~E R 0 0 -n /-Â·v~ 000 4 -9-0 0 c 7 - r-- 4 1 C - -X - -14 %8---- 74Â«1 (11 0--=-..4\\ Â· 7 -21~4--- lo~r 01 l--J 11 '' 7. 11 x 7901.3 Lr79OO--~Zi~ FRANCIS x 7901.8 rn-~~7 4% ~ I .-r\ f j 4 - - 1 4 l O, 3 / / -2 1 C Â©EX- - \ r, \ _ -n iÂ« -3 W. FRANCIS ST. SMUGGLER BLOCK SITE PLAN EXHIBIT E- 10 ~ H 1 N 3 A 3 S <SIXTH c>!apf- LHINel-!EG 1 911/3 TrF e WA:,p,3. 9.!UNe -to L=74Â»04 \36 _ r,95., 7 - Ii --obeeÂ»rive P--9â‚¬x \@:><1â‚¬T,Ne .1. 1 1%90% %*- 111{~*gul - -.-Iii. . & LI' m 1%111'flf Elli E[r-1 - 1 Ii'1111'Ill E MUE,93 - _ El- 4 1 @i r *p=====i .- It . .- . - 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1 l - ,-f - -4 t 1 - -2 1 - .1 1 t -- --C--- -I 1491 0:7klepgucmâ‚¬i~ .-- 1 a / NORTH ELEVATION EXHIBIT E-3 1/8-=1'-QZ_ ~ KIEPA CAÂ«fURT\ON--1-- A- 2%14-[Ible ATFUCT'122 62538*_ a-1 INGLEG F Tre e 90094 / 1 - lilli 111 Iii 11 ----1 N 16-1/L m'Goler 11'! 14 11!11 1 EmE 11*11[IL 1 lk=- t 1 - 3 47 4%4 E=:1 - ~10 - 1 1 ' Hen t:,Coi2Â¢; ~tly' i d lil 1.1 1 A. D. u. 1 i-1 6 -d 41 1 1 -14-1 1 TT 4 -6 - + 1.-- .-. - - 1- 1 4.--1-1 rl f L.__HEM ablgraug,014-___-1. Ll *-Il--- 1/VESI_ELEMAIRON_ _EXHIBIT_Ez# -1_/13---1'--- Re,04 Cohier*UCTIOAL. E>gaTI Ne Â«RIToF.8 1 -1â‚¬-- DEPAB. 4HINGLEL; C- 1 HAU ~ TKF. e Woop<:6. / , \0/ n NEH FAILihle To -1 0 X. MATCH E ><IGTI N G, /~ l Â»==4 - 4-1114/LEG To MATCH exate -1 1 - 111 N - OL,&.Faskpcs 11/2Â¤--IM TO Hâ‚¬C-1-1 Â· -:- ex, erlk' G- - a TRT@a tr 3041-9 7 l- a El El- - ~1*EMERÂ¢*0239, - -1_~ 1 1 1 1 +1- 4- - -- --- -----1 1 -1- - -- ---- 9 1 9 4 --- SOUTH ELEVATION EXHIBIT E- 1 1/8-=1'-O- , -.Ck)*F- eul\Nel.EG -' -Icl . ( -?92Â· 6 *40094) \ 14 1%00@1- Â· 0 QUUM - . Eli -, . 0 E U TO MATOE 1*|*TI Ne 1. 111 1 11 EFU~~11 1 1 5UAT HELL I 1 4-7 11 1 1 r-11 ~ p 41.- c-LI-la==Â»E--2--2 -t -*.-- ---1 --- ---44 te><larible Â«FicTUF-B -CONZITPLOT\O'A -e 1 . NE'/4 1 1 _EASTELEMATION _EXHIBIT E-2 _11 8"=1'-0 " .O--. 1- =.*3 D'-I- < =. =-- ---AV -ld 1='60-1 =1 73Aa,--NIV11(F-- - / 7 1 - 100Â·eli- -. ' I' I U W 1 11 - . r .4-7 1 - 311 . 2.-i--'=Immet 1461521 eNIAM . ' 23" 1: 71 0 S . 4 L SHIHIR . fit 1- d 10 . . 1 . 231*3rl ' 0~6 Lanle li E-r'-41 1 1Â· 1211 L I . J-7- 0*tioll,1 â‚¬ 1 - 1. V[ 1 ~ Â£ Abll vu' 0 1391.i-r=-1=1=Lr====~=- lut-- 120 1; -4 - , 1 . ik-41_AL-4~=4 \-1. R.%73& 111 ,}alarlnyl Â·211*41,6 - f'77, plood appl -I .n .O Â· Â¥ 6609 0-4 otanle 15563.SIEF,g=,TC-.- 1 1 -4 2 '51979126 - '. iÂ· 5 't:-K~ ~o ~ i U 40 -,41 0 HONâ‚¬14 .- -71*M,7 9, 01. #1= i I na J 1 1151M I, 0 4 eleÂ»*Ive . .:0 1!-14'11 -L) 11 .0 1 4 1 0\ 1 11aki Â· Jr=z,~ I ,~.1 lt-te Il +Ebir- 44k--"...=::::4~==1- aeUL| 8 -~,2/,vglgf- --d//1//,9,/4/.1 rk 3 4- Â· , 0 - - I .11. I -.::Â· 2~~~~~~~~~6~=::=a~ 1= ko. e - .F -I-- -I-/. -I.*.*.* -I. .1 -- 1 00' Col 16.00' + ..0~2 - 9 le le'- &11 -------t- - lu Ju ~ A ereÂ»016 -9 Iii- goetz 0 1 46.03 : I.R.,l j'/ / r,n - - -I-1 - 41 t.... 7.4~.....1 -Â· -1~I ~~ / W A L 4 Wi / /, /lf 11 INELL r XibU<~,44-4~Ti~~ 16,~ DHT140illi- 1.1 ' .-T- / - r 1 * 1 - 209 X ** al//ia -ImI2- 1 OPOK- itÂ·= - - 1' . Chel- r-- -1 4-I L --1-/Val # 1 11 1 4-1 L,CT ' F < r '#1 I feAT Â»l 22-1 1 .192- 6BT130Â¢K GITTINe, hizg*~ ~ 1 4 DECK -19[ 00~> I j 1 HAGTÂ·Efi- 15'EÂ¢212Â£701Â·1 L \\ 1 TIT ~- L---41 - Â· i rEEZE, -1 N (4*4 TO ~ DE:[0Â£570l u- ' 1 - \ JÂ«~\\\. L 164 00 . -I-/I'll./ 0- .- UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN EXHIBIT E-6 1/8"=1'-0~ ,00.00 t 0;)O 00%. 1 -r - ------.-i- .-. -- L 1 CO.=251 1 h La 9I - --â€¢ rt - *-,a-1 n â€ž4 1.+ , Â£ ...t E- 4- 4 0 1 9 F -.\- li~,-- 1. 3 Â«1 4 - 1 6 1 0 -1 ~ . Â»1 r.1 1 1% 1 , le- a - 9 -41 1 1_ EL L 119,4 1 1 14 E.<41 1 i <76_ . fav-r-Fle: . 1 r â€¢. 0/wo . ..1 + if? 1 .U f: .23* 2 ES -- 113 1 FyÂ©4--4 u ---~ 1 2 4 r - 14-1 U Vt Al CL B A 0 -23! 0.1 2 - 5 y '31 <-il> ft k- 1 1 r# Â¢lEI 71 1 -. P V Tv , 1-!1' 4. JO 1. El 5 ; 42 1*2-2 -=r-t- --7/// I M 42-L ===â‚¬-ill 1 2 91 _ 0 81- 72-1 0 T-09 - E- 1- 2 f 3 41 1:/or Et t-i .. < n - -1 8 -11 111 r- . Trt . - O - - 1-1-L . , - r 1 4-1 - . r r --r r.-/ 1 1 1/4 . :U it m I il 3 31 I I 11-0 ,--------1 1.--t 10 0--- . 1 -11 il I 1 11 ILL 1 11 1+ Â· re 11 1 . +11 . . i I LU 11 - 0 . 1- ----1 1 1 60-- - 11 .- -F- -- -- .-I -- 1 CO,001 f-7 . /1 .it Ueur INELL n / 1 - I...I 1 0'.0, ip e FA' 61OE:-) FlÂ»Irbila Orfe .Â»6 51 1 , 4 1 b i: 1: I! 1 'â€ži el lo' !411}I 1! 1 !! 1 'liltith Hh ut 1 '141 1 !~ii!14 F (!-1 i , r- 0 41 1 I - - #-3747 Â» ra -t 1 !1 ititti . tilittlt - _ _ e<iert re Mol)â‚¬8 : ; 11 ill j i li ITUT[Fi-A tiFFER- ititi 'iii! i:':4 ;1 1,1.,11 f \Â« 1. - *Sle:4 illitti,4 - 11:I'Hili , a 2 1-U 11 1!,Pll; 1/ UD 1.-1. 1 :t '/ . i/\ â€¢e- 4 LAND - i 14 9 .tâ‚¬ihip :1!;1:lili -------- illijii ; i }!111 --- 111 -.--- 1.1 , 11 -*--0--.-gl -#1- I.-*.*.-i- i 111: 11 1 1 -+--------*- i'!Â·!!~i' 3 .2 z.. U' lip i i 110 - -Ii --- -IVEJUII--*11 --- - i AM<kbij '-Plof'/R/<1 - i.:,1/j; 1 16 1 : t r I - - - - ---------------*---------------------*--- --- - 1 ..1- 1 RI DEOf</ ; l /1 ~ 7 1 P*Â¥ Pirpeee ;1 ./. 11 1 1 1- 1 0,- 04 0 - 1 4 .la i \ i i 0 Â£1 1 - -3Naus l , C r a- 1 1 \\-- <-~94;~ / 1 at] 4 - 1 1-= 1 1 41 % +15% I z -- --- FS #4=_ 4340(32 79 -- t.-*.* 4&TYM#L aw- ellâ‚¬ - 4 J cÂ» b --J .reE>' r - - -4. A- > 1\. c Z 76 *.*-MEL,irÂ·375*-tr \ 1 - - --- =7-LTAo w iwrE--1303'-----_ -i-1- 1 99 9[~_S:diz~~-=-=-==---- :Etip,4.6 1,= Id-O " 140"-1- - - V py /4 , 4 e/-7 , J.1 3. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Final Development: 419 S. Mill St., Rubey Park Transit Facility addition Date: April 24, 1991 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: HPC's Final Development approval for the addition to the Rubey Park Transit Facility LOCATION: 419 S. Mill St., Lots K, L, M, N, 0. P, Q, R, and S, Block 90, City and Townsite of Aspen APPLICANT: Roaring Fork Transit Agency, Dan Blankenship, Director, represented by Gibson and Reno, Architects ZONING: Public, "H", Historic Overlay District PROJECT SUMMARY: The proposal is for a 9' expansion of approximately 435 sq. ft. of the transportation terminal northward, which is necessary to increase internal office space for personnel use. The materials will match the existing structure exactly, including color of brick. The applicant has requested that the north elevation windows be slightly elongated over the conceptually approved plans. Staff finds this request to be compatible with the structure and district. GMQS exemption by Council is still required prior to the issuance of a building permit. PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: Conceptual development approval was granted (no conditions) by the HPC on March 13, 1991. STAFF COMMENTS: The Development Review standards are found in Section 7-601(D). Staff finds that the standards have been met in this proposal, which has been designed to match materials and massing of the existing structure. We recommend that RFTA incorporate additional bike racks and/or bike storage facilities in this expansion, and that the design of these features be submitted for staff approval prior to installation. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Final Development approval for the addition proposal to the Rubey Park Transit Facility at 419 S. Mill St. memo.hpc.419sm.fd ATIMIIMINJ.' 1 IAND USE APPLICATION FORM ' 1 ) P.-09 ect Name gue,EY FAizAC- TBANS\T FAct LITY ADUmoN 12) 14Â© j c Ct I.ocatioil LoTS 14, Lt M,161,0,7,61,12Â·Â¢ S iN e>Loc \4- 10 , Aepew Colo BACe . 4-19 9Â©unA KA\U- W. (jolie<ate street address, lot & block nuntier, legal descri ption whern , 3 I I)r-u>[Dr-i ati ) 3 ) l'regnt Zoning 4) Lot Size 270 X too' '4 AID[)1 icant's Name, Adi ss & Phone # 14, DAN E>LAU.W..8&19441 il tagecron , 20Ay-\\44 yotz-K- TRAUE,rr- AGrt,wor, 00'3\ 96;ivt c.6 (2,eN-1-62. De\Ve Â»6Â¥'Cs U ,CO. - 6122- 1905 6) Representative' s Name, Address & B*:ine # 671 12,Â·SoN ~ 126*10 Â· AlzcHErE<35 415 5. Cooma Ave ; Asrâ‚¬U COL-012.ADo 516 11 - 9 25-9965 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA - Oonoeptual Historic Dev. Special Review ~_ Final SPA ~ Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline - a~nceptual FIJI) - Minor I listoric Dev. St_rcum Margin _ Final IUD Ilistoric Demolition Mountain View Plane ___ Subdivision Historic Designation D1*irminizmlizaticln ___ 1-'ext/Map Amendment GMOS Allataont Int Split/Int Line - (NaS IDImlptiort Al j Ustimenti 8) 1)09>cription of Existing Uses (number and type of ecisting stnlatilrus; ElpprOXimite sq. ft. ; number- of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the T)I-7421rt)'). (bNE) RF-TA 1-Bell'WAL Epul LDILIA Al- \034,06-F- 0567 roy- FAa-eou RIA\31 kki AlzE,A AND cli,Ic-â‚¬> AUD LELK#*- Aer=A toe- Mt=TA fi~12â‚¬0WaL 9) Description of Development Application Â·EXPAMD -1-AE> 14.623-14 5 1 06 OF 1-MEr -TMEM\WAL Uoexilly~k-D Et" APPRoxiMATEL>r q 1- oIl FLUS AcÂ© A ST:Kdz- -TD A kleW 1-or[- 5Â¥AGG 414\CU iÂ«To e:KfAND IUTo 114% All-10 95456 ovET -THâ‚¬, EX191-lkid~ 01=F=\C.6 *FA<:26 - 11+19 AWEA kit L.Le:6 rb(2_ PENEONGL USE ORI LÂ¥ 1()) I L ive you attached the following? 14=;paae to At-LactmEnt 2, Mini Illiln Slilimi SS ion COntibiltl; 10Â»sporse to Attactinent 3, Specific Sulmission Contents IUM:porne to Attachment 4, Review Starxiarrls for Your Application , ,-- GIBSON & FRENO Â· ARCHITECTS RUBEY PARK TRANSIT FACILITY ADDITION LOTS K,L,M,N,O,P,G,R & S BLOCK 90 ASPEN, COLORADO 3/21 /91 FINAL HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT 418 E COOPER AVENUE â€¢ ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 â€¢ 303/925-5968 â€¢ FAX 303/925-5993 -.- GIBSON & RENO â€¢ ARCHITECTS -TABLE OF CONTENTS- VICINITY MAP DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN PHOTOGRAPHS OF SAMPLE DRAWINGS OF PROPOSED CHANGE 418 E. COOPEFR AVENUE â€¢ ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 â€¢ 303/925-5968 â€¢ FAX 303/925-5993 lili 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 lili E. HYMAN AVE. 1- m I 0 0 0 0 0 4 E Q VVAGNER J 2 W 4 PARK 2 COOPER Ill AVE. H ZE12 0 14 3 8 I . [n %*42**1*1 al 0 114 ~***jii.i:i~ DURANT AVE. --------- -iII - I Â« VICINITY MAP 1"=200' PROJECT TITLE' SCALE DATE fLI IDEY FARIC (*FTA) "l 100 1,222 -91 DWN BY' DRAWING NO L FA.14, 0.- GIBSON & RENO Â· AFRCHITECTS PACUECE NO. 418 E COOPEA AVENUE â€¢ ASPEN COLOAAOO 818,1 9011 L -DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT- The proposed development is located at 419 South Mill Street which consists of Lots K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R and S in Block 90. It will be an addition to Rubey Park Transit Facility. Expansion of the 'north side of the terminal will add approximately 9'-0" to the existing building. Within this expansion there will be a stair added to access a new loft area which will expand into the attic space over the existing offices. All of the expanded area will only be used by RFTA personnel for offices and locker space. The total additional square footage is approximately 435 S.F. -FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN- There were no conditions placed on this development at the Conceptual Review. The Client has requested that we consider making the windows taller on the north elevation. This is to be looked at and should be finalized prior to the final HPC Review. This elongated window should not change the appearance of the north elevation significantly. ALLEY BLOCK 90 / C "/i \ ti Â«Â«Â«49Â«0 %-@j@Â«Gr (1- i-- --3 1 J 1 ----- 11/ 9- - 22/ 4 jÂ« -_-__-_ ~Â» G I @- @1 2 11 -// - 0- L- - 1 ------1 60 1 __1*41 EftÂ« 0 - O 01 Ob_ 6, 6, 0 1--1 0> 1.-0 SITE PLAN <~~ DURANT AVENUE O' 10' 20' 30' U Â£-421 1 1 M i 1 - i \I . 0 J W 0 1 0 +24 Z f - NT'64 05 1 - 47 - - 1 9 Z . 11 \\ 0 11 ' 00-*3 -7- I9. 17 01 0 I- 11 -Â»_ [-4-1191 _ - - 1--- 8 -1 7 r Y 1 t i.-/11 , -1 1 42 -- 11 -12- 1 7 1 2 3 1 1 J --7 1 -LL -Li J - "D to - 0 0 .0 -1 ff 0 - I le) W 11 5 1 ~~JEE -- M,ch-r,10-1 L~ Meohir,le-1 .Ing,â€¢..A 36Â·01- 71 N4ld U001=3 I OFT PLAN .91. . L , D .. . 1 /'- 1 ./. fit 1 ' 1 1 f Â· 1 ' 1 -- Â·' d 1,#ii 34Â«=ui~::~*=:==~t*F~V . ~ ~ . 1 . i i i l '~ illi! , , 't T i 1 ! 1 !- LUZ _1 -2~Â·Â·2_- gil -- i , I ----3---- " L .: 1 EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION u C..1/r I.- zpppol'IrÂ·E r'Aia ./ .1-0 7 7 Accrrle,J- 0 4' 83 12' le' - 1 - - BUILDING SECTION 5412:J '\CATT.. F-.4 &:,ucu.& L - v. --1 h 4Â«10 ilillillimb- ill ' ........il.,1/ 1 1 ..9..1,"1 1 6 lilli - , =..,f:U %1 'i W 4k9LS~0~2~~t~~~~~~~~ METAL ROOF VWOOD VVINDC),A r - I LALLLV: .74.-4-4*' 4 .-4 > 0'.1 ' ' I 4. ' Â·Â·.:-fi:.r" 29.*4 , >4 -..241Â¥4 'D* Wh .2 3 2.2 Y 1~ 2 7 4 * 4: , 3-:. *,Â»t.-.1?$4.4*.'- r I p, ..1... 4#UA/64.4 . 4 ; ' 04.4 .4 : I. A. 1, * BRICK . 1. ---- ----- 1 --- Â· it - 1 6 -U.44 . ..th, m- r , ..tar U_LiZeriLL I .a , . I. - 0:, - ED*Ill - 1 -I-,--- - --- k - - r Ypti *44;:i:KI#;REE,iN - 1. Ci- ..t' .arlilill.--~ METAL ROOF Fb / t;O#I#JI'.ti.* Â· Â©-c *ti. VV CIC)Â¤ VVINDOVV -, 1* * I'..' . -- 1 32*PIAIR<-- . 4 . *-1. e r 1 7/.r.*904Â»rE-- --Al-IN- BRICK LIST OF POTENTIAL NOMINEES eligible for the 1991 Preservation Honor Award; An example of previous categories: Historic residential renovation Historic commercial renovation Residential infill (new construction) Commercial infill (new construction) Cottage Infill Craftsman or Preservation Pioneer Group effort Public project Landscape preservation or conservation effort Church restoration/renovation Preservation or restoration of an historic object or artifact Historic residential-to-commercial adaptive use project Potential nominees (recently completed projects): 430 W. Main St. - Beck Residence Main Street Historic District, residential conversion to office 328 W. Main - the Cooper Horse Main Street Historic District, multi-family residential 204 S. Mill - Collins Alley Commercial Core Historic District - retail infill 210 S. Galena - the Elks Building (Webber Block) Commercial Core Historic District - storefront restoration and elevator tower addition 501 E. Cooper - the Independence Building, first floor Commercial Core Historic District - storefront renovation and "infill" storefront The Gazebo - reconstruction Object - Main Street Historic District 400 Block E. Cooper - Guido's Restaurant and Commercial building Commercial Core Historic District - reconstruction and renovation 208 1/2 E. Main - Rappaport's office Main Street Historic District - adaptive use of historic outbuilding to office (note: this project was not complete at the end of 1990) 135 W. Main - multi-use (office/residential) Main Street Historic District - residential addition to adaptive use office building 211 W. Main = Claire Newcombe's Main Street Historic District - renovation of multi-family residential structure 432 W. Francis - Hernandez residence West Erid - residential renovation 1004 E. Durant, #1 - "Little Jewell Cottage" (nominated by Welton Anderson) East End - residential renovation 260 Lake Ave. (nominated by Welton Anderson) West End - new residential infill 100 Blk. S. Garmisch - new infill residential (North west corner of Garmisch and Hopkins), nominated by Stryker-Brown Architects Special Category - Preservation Pioneer Elizabeth Paepcke: For her contribution to the preservation of Aspen's historic and renaissance-era character, and to the "spirit of place". Ramona Markalunas: For her contribution to the preservation movement in Aspen (founding of the HPC and historic districts), early national register nominations preparation, preservation work at both Ashcroft and Independence townsite, and years of service on the board of the Aspen Historical Society. Mayor Bill Stirling: For his years of service to the community and consistent support of the preservation program in Aspen and interest in character preservation throughout his tenure. Additional nominations: Category: Notes: honor.awards 2 .1 , 7 : - ?~00,0.1. 940..: Pri J . 1. %ill-/ 2Â·- . loevf.4114*.-*J:..A C 1/1/elton ~clerson & Associates Architects . April 16, 1991 Roxanne Eflin, Historic Planner ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 103 S. Galena Aspen, - Colorado RE: NOMINATION FORÂ·RESIDENTIAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1004 E. Durant Too often recently a residential "preservation". project has involved one o f two solutions: One, buildidg over and around a miner's cottage until it is overwhelmed by new construction; or Two, dismantling the cottage stud by stud until it becomes a defacto demolition replaced by a new house. 1004 East Durant is the last miner's cottage left on Durant Avenue. The owner explored removing the roof to add a full second floor but was .convinced that that approach would drastically alter the character of the cottage. Ultimately, the house was temporarily relocated while - a new foundation and basement were constructed and finished in the same sandstone as previously existed. The end result is no dramatic change is the scale Â·or character to the house but a doubling of the amount of living space. The windows and siding were preserved and reused. And the color is going to be changed this summer. The original cottage consisted of only 4 rooms totaling about 600 square feet. E -2 ~ .44'Whiz-* . f T, 1 / - k r 4/11111=h - E- ....4 I 6/6/--- p .- - .1 - , I i ..lilli 1 'GE -1 - 11/1 - 1 1 23 <Ilit I 3) 925- 4576 1. Planning Â¥ , */.. I . . C Welton Anderson & Associates Ara*ds April 16, 1991 Roxanne Eflin, Historic Planner ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 103 S. Galena Aspen, Cplorado RE: NOMINATION FOR RESIDENTIAL INFILL,0 260 Lake Avenue The new house completed this winter on the vacant lot at 260 Lake Avenue is a simplified version of a tradition- al Aspen 1 3/4 story Queen Ahne style house. The front is highlighted with a two story angled bay without ornamentation. This is flanked by a simple porch to the East. To the west there is a large setback to the garage with a single carriage house derived door. The shape of the lot was the most challenging aspect of the project since it was wide at the streeâ‚¬ and narrow- ed toward Hallam Lake (in the shape of a pork chop). To use the neck of the shape, the Kitchen and Master Bedroom wing is treated as if it were a later addition to the back of the house. At 260 Lake, there are no turrets, towers, spindles, or . gingerbread, just compatible materials to those found in the historic houses in the neighborhood. The colors used are very subtle. I did have fun with the chimney, which is also done with great detail and in a subtle color range with brick matching closely the stonework color. The overall height is much less than other "New Victorians", due to careful scaling of the framing widths used and to t el . _ _ --tr-~ 101 .: r . . 1 ' - f >i ./- 0, - .1 /-12 j 0 4 I - . Planni .---- 303) 925 - 4576 .. 11. -SH PRESERVATION WEEK ANNOUNCEMENT - PRESS RELEASE For Immediate Release Contact: Roxanne Eflin. 920-5090 "CELEBRATE YOUR HERITAGE" DURING PRESERVATION WEEK 1991 (Aspen and Pitkin County, April 22, 1991)... Citizens throughout Aspen, Redstone, Pitkin County and Colorado will join thousands of individuals around the country to celebrate National Historic Preservation Week, May 12-18, 1991. The 19th annual national celebration, whose theme is "Celebrate YOUR Heritage," is being cosponsored by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee, Redstone Historic Preservation Commission, Aspen Historical Society, Aspen Historic Trust and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Preservation Week 1991 will commemorate a special anniversary for the historic preservation movement. Twenty-five years ago, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 became law, creating the National Register of Historic Places. Seventy-five years ago, the National Park Service was established. "Preservation Week is not only a symbolic celebration, but a call to action," says J. Jackson Walter, president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. "It is an opportunity for each of us, joining together, to celebrate our nation's rich and diverse heritage." As part of the week-long celebration, citizens in communities nationwide Will be honoring National Register or locally designated historic sites, structures and districts. Aspen's 108 local landmarks and two local historic districts, and Redstone's National Historic District, local historic district and individual National Register properties are to be congratulated for their contribution to the irreplaceable, beloved character of our larger community. In all, Pitkin County boasts 35 National Register listings: five National Register districts, twelve private residences, nine commercial buildings, three public buildings, two bridges (the Midland Railway Maroon Creek Bridge and the Sheeley Bridge, located near the Aspen Art Museum), one church (Aspen Community Church), one private residence turned house museum (Wheeler-Stallard House), one mine (the Smuggler), and one object (the 1936 Boat Tow). Owners of each of these significant National Register properties are encouraged to display a silver ribbon in honor of the 25th anniversary of the National Register of Historic Places. (list attached) In Aspen, Mayor Stirling will read a proclamation to kick off the 2 week. The fourth annual Preservation Honor Awards and Preservation Forum will be held at a reception on Thursday, May 16, beginning at 6:00 p.m. at the Wheeler Opera House. This year's honor awards offer a few surprises, and are guaranteed to be the highlight of the week. In addition, a series of "B.Y.O.H. Brown Bag Lectures" ("Bring Your Own Hors d'oeuvres - We're on a BUDGET!") will be held Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday evening beginning at 6:00 p.m. in the lobby of the Wheeler Opera House, the 1991 National Register host location for the week. The B.Y.O.H. Brown Bag Lectures are sponsored by members of the HPC, professionals in their own right, and feature a variety of different topics, including "Compatible Infill", "Open Space within the Built Environment" and "Painting with Victorian Colors". "Preservation Forum" will consist of a brief presentation from HPC Chairman, Bill Poss and Historic Preservation Officer, Roxanne Eflin, on the draft of the revised Historic Preservation Element, with time reserved for community input. Numerous handouts will be available on issues ranging from design guidelines to the Colorado State Rehab Tax Credit program. The Preservation Honor Awards, Preservation Forum and the Brown Bag Lecture series are all free; the public is most enthusiastically invited to attend. Please contact Roxanne Eflin at the Planning Department at 920-5090 for additional information. 3 The Aspen Historical Society Will be offering a free comprehensive walking tour, led by tour guide extraordinaire Larry Fredrick. The tour will leave the Wheeler-Stallard House (620 W. Bleeker St.) at 10:00 Tuesday morning, May 14. Larry offers insight as well as a unique look at Aspen's history - this will be a tour not to miss. Plan on two hours. Call 925-3721 for more details. In Redstone, the historic Redstone museum will hold an Open House on Saturday, May 18 (contact Marie Willey at 963-3159 for hours), and the Board of County Commissioners will also proclaim the week. The National Trust for Historic Preservation, chartered by Congress in 1949, is the leader of America's historic preservation movement. Its mission is to inspire all Americans to care for their heritage through the preservation of historic buildings, objects, places and communities. ### pr.npw.91 4 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and Council Thru: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager CC: Amy Margerum, Planning Director From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Proclamation: National Historic Preservation Week May 12-18, 1991 Date: April 15, 1991 SUMMARY: Attached is the proclamation prepared for your approval and reading on May 13, to commemorate National Historic Preservation Week, May 12-18, 1991. Preservation Week will once again be celebrated nationwide this year. The national theme, "Celebrate YOUR Heritage" is a challenge to proudly display our community's rich heritage. A number of special events and educational opportunities have been scheduled in honor of this week. This year celebrates the 25th anniversary of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which established the National Register of Historic Places, and the 75th anniversary of the National Park Service. A list of Pitkin County's 35 National Register listings is attached for your reference. Locally, we will be celebrating with a series of "Brown Bag Lectures" (a "bring your own hors d' oeuvre" event) on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, May 13, 14, and 15, beginning at 6:00 p.m. in the lobby of the Wheeler Opera House. HPC members will be presenting a variety of topics from infill design to color. The fourth annual Preservation Honor Awards and "Preservation Forum" will be held Thursday, May 16, 6:00 p.m. at the Wheeler; this event includes a reception in the lobby. We'd like to thank Bob Murray and the Wheeler for serving as National Preservation Week event headquarters this year. Each evening's presentation/event is free and open to the public, and provides an excellent opportunity to openly discuss the protection and preservation of our community's irreplaceable historic resources. We have a surprise in store for this year's Preservation Honor Awards - one you won't want to miss. RECOMMENDATION: Read the attached proclamation into the formal record at the May 13, 1991 Council meeting. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: memo.cc.nhpw.91 PROCLAMATION City of Aspen, Colorado Incorporated 1880 WHEREAS: Historic preservation gives Americans a deeper understanding of their unique and diverse heritage; and WHEREAS: Historic landmarks contribute to the economic, social and cultural well-being of cities and towns across the nation; and WHEREAS: The year 1991 is significant in historic preservation history, marking the 25th anniversary of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 75th anniversary of the establishment of the National Park Service; and WHEREAS: The protection and preservation of Aspen's historic and cultural resources is of primary importance to its citizens and visitors alike. Aspen's heritage is the soul of our community; and WHEREAS: Preservation Week 1991 provides an opportunity for citizens of all ages to maintain, preserve and celebrate our national diverse heritage; and WHEREAS: "Celebrate YOUR Heritage" is the theme for Preservation Week 1991, cosponsored by the City of Aspen, the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee, the Aspen Historical Society and the Aspen Historic Trust in Aspen, Colorado, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Mayor and Council do hereby proclaim May 12-18, 1991, as National Historic Preservation Week and call upon the people of Colorado to recognize and participate in this special observance. By order of The City Council Attest: This 13th Day of May, 1991 Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk William L. Stirling, Mayor npw.proc.91 MEMORANDUM To: Board of County Commissioners Thru: Reid Haughey, County Manager CC: Amy Margerum, Planning Director From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Proclamation: National Historic Preservation Week May 12-18, 1991 Date: April 15, 1991 SUMMARY: Attached is the proclamation prepared for your approval and reading on MayÂ· 14, to commemorate National Historic Preservation Week, May-12-18, 1991. Preservation Week will once again be celebrated nationwide this year. The national theme, "Celebrate YOUR Heritage" is a challenge to proudly display our community's rich heritage. A number of special events and educational opportunities have been scheduled in honor of this week. This year celebrates the 25th anniversary of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which established the National Register of Historic Places, and the 75th anniversary of the National Park Service. A list of Pitkin County's 35 National Register listings is attached for your reference. Locally, we will be celebrating with a series of "Brown Bag Lectures" (a "bring your own hors d' oeuvres" event) on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, May 13, 14, and 15, beginning at 6:00 p.m. in the lobby of the Wheeler Opera House. The fourth annual Aspen Preservation Honor Awards and "Preservation Forum" will be held Thursday, May 16, 6:00 p.m. at the Wheeler; this event includes a reception in the lobby. Redstone will be celebrating the week with an Open House at the Redstone History Museum on Saturday afternoon, May 18. You are invited to attend. Each of these events are free. 1991 marks the loth anniversary of the creation of the Redstone Historic Preservation Commission. They are to be congratulated for their excellent volunteer efforts in protecting and preserving the unique heritage of the Redstone community. RECOMMENDATION: Read the attached proclamation into the formal record at the May 14, 1991 Board meeting. COUNTY MANAGER COMMENTS: memo.bocc.nhpw.91 PROCLAMATION Pitkin County Established 1881 WHEREAS: Historic preservation gives Americans a deeper understanding of their unique and diverse heritage; and WHEREAS: Historic landmarks contribute to the economic, social and cultural well-being of cities and towns across the nation; and WHEREAS: The year 1991 is significant in historic preservation history, marking the 25th anniversary of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 75th anniversary of the establishment of the National Park Service; and WHEREAS: The Redstone National Historic District is one of 35 National Register listings located within Pitkin County; and WHEREAS: The protection and preservation of Pitkin County's historic and cultural resources is of primary importance to its citizens and visitors alike; and WHEREAS: Preservation Week 1991 provides an opportunity for citizens of all ages to maintain, preserve and celebrate our national diverse heritage; and WHEREAS: "Celebrate YOUR Heritage" is the theme for Preservation Week 1991, cosponsored by the Redstone Historic Preservation Commission and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners do hereby proclaim May 12-18, 1991, as National Historic Preservation Week and call upon the people of Colorado to recognize and participate in this special observance. By order of Board Attest: This Day of May, 1991 Chairman of the Board npw.proc.91.bocc .-4 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Minor Development: 501 E. Cooper, the Independence Building, exterior display cases Date: April 24, 1991 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor Development approval for three exterior wall-mounted display cases on the west wall of the Independence Building, just above the basement stairs. LOCATION: 501 E. Cooper Ave., Lots A, B, and part of C, Block 96, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado (condominiumized first floor only) APPLICANT: Independence Partners, c/o M&W Properties, (Tony Mazza and Frank Woods), represented by Michael Ernemann, architect ZONING: CC, "H" Historic Overlay District, Designated Landmark PRIOR COMMITTEE ACTION: Last year, the HPC granted approval for the storefront level remodel for the Independence Building, which included a new storefront opening immediately adjacent to the area proposed to receive the three new display cases. This remodel and new storefront addition has since been completed. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Development Review standards are found in Section 7-601 of the Land Use Regulations. The applicable Guidelines are found in Section IV. Commercial Buildings- Renovation and Restoration, beginning on page 19. The Development review standards are found in Section 7-601 of the Land Use Code, and are reviewed below (staff's comments follow): 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark. Response: The Planning Office has carefully considered this proposal relative to the development review standards, sign and storefront design guidelines to evaluate the appropriateness of the introduction of a new element or feature to a historic structure. - This application is unique in that it is not considered an addition to or remodel of a building (i.e. storefront or display window), but an attachment (Sec. 7-601.E.2.a). The Land .Use Regulations are silent in their definition of "display cases" under the sign code, so some confusion exists as to the whether the HPC has the ability to grant approval for a development activity that is not specifically allowed, and whether the sign code criteria prohibits such display cases to be permitted. Staff has-reviewed this application under both design guideline criteria of "sign" and "storefront", and we f ind that neither are met with this proposal. 1) As a sign, the three display windows do not meet the sign guidelines 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 (beginning on page 43, attached), and clearly do not meet the sign code on size alone (20 sq. ft. is allowed per business; combined, these total approximately 55 sq. ft.). Should the applicant wish to pursue the applicability of these display cases as a "sign", based Upon the historic precedence that "large wall signs once existed on this building", then size requirements would have to be met, as well as placement, materials and lighting. The display cases are modern in both design and material, and are not original to this building. Defined as "sign", it is possible that the use of would might meet size requirements. 2) As a storefront, the application does not meet the applicable guidelines under "Commercial Buildings- Renovation and Restoration" as follows (beginning on page 19): a) Storefronts: these display cases cannot substitute by definition for a "display window'I, which is an integral part of an overall storefront system of defined proportions. The location of these display cases appear to break the established, symmetrical rhythm of the storefronts. b) Windows: Windows are openings, not merely frames for displaying merchandise. Even though the cases contain a frame and transparent glass, they are Still an attachment and cannot be considered a window. Staff would like to note at this time that we can not support additional openings into the storefront level of . this landmark building, based upon the development review standards, should the applicant be considering this alternative to achieve additional display space for this building. 2 . c) Materials: The proposed display cases are framed in steel, a new material introduced to this building. We question whether this material is compatible and appropriate to the cast-iron/brick/stone Independence Building, and ask the HPC to carefully consider this material detail. Furthermore, these display cases conceal original portions of the brick wall. Staff reminds the HPC that this building's west side originally contained only one modest- sized storefront at the southwest corner. Part of this building's unique character is found in the balance between elaborate detailing (cornice, north storefront) and simplicity. Constructed by "Burt" Brown (D.R.C. Brown's younger brother), founder of the Aspen State Bank, it originally housed the Post Office; it was not designed to contain retail throughout the first floor or basement. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Our concern lies in the precedent setting nature of this proposal, and in the fact that display cases are not indigenous to Aspen's historic district; traditional signage is. A proliferation of display cases throughout the district has the ability to significantly alter the character of Aspen's Commercial Core, in our opinion. The Zoning Officer reports that similar display cases currently in use downtown have been in existence for many years (prior to the creation of Aspen's strict sign code), however, he does not support the installation of new ones. He also reports that code requirements state that a new permit is necessary every time a display "sign" changes, if in fact this is considered a sign. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: We find that the cultural value of this building lies in its unique architecture and contribution to the historic commercial character of the core district. The display case proposal presents a somewhat discordant element on this building, which may detract from its cultural value. We find the simple use of creative signage to bring attention to the below grade commercial space is a better, more compatible alternative. 3 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The Brown and Hoag Block, known today as the Independence Building, is one of Aspen's largest, most dominant historic resources. It is one of four remaining cast iron storefront commercial buildings in Aspen. The Planning Office finds that the display case proposal diminishes the architectural integrity of this landmark, and recommends the HPC deny the application. The HPC may wish to offer alternative signage suggestions to assist the applicant in bringing attention to the basement space. A number of changes have occurred to the west elevation of the building in the past half dozen or so years. We spent a great deal of time reviewing the appropriateness and details of the storefront addition and first floor renovation over the past year. Staff continues to review lighting details proposed by the principal first floor tenant. To add precedent setting display cases to this building would be considered incompatible to the historic nature of this building, in our opinion. The opportunity exists to incorporate innovative signage that meets both the sign code and the design guidelines. The Planning Office fully understands the applicant's desire to bring more attention to the basement level business, however, we feel that use of attached display cases to market merchandise at pedestrian level is not compatibility with the historic nature of the building and has the ability to set a negative precedent throughout the district. We remind the HPC that the development of below grade net leasable square footage is an incentive for commercial landmark owners; the development of this space is completely exempt from GMQS competition and impact mitigation. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the Minor Development application as submitted, finding that it meets the Development Review standards. 2. Approve the Minor Development plan with conditions to be approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building and/or sign permit. 4. Table action to allow the applicant time to restudy the proposal in its relation to the development review standards, sign guidelines and sign code criteria. 5. Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the development review standards. 4 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC deny Minor Development approval for the application at 501 E. Coo#er St. on the basis that the proposal does not meet the Development Review Standards for the reasons stated in this memorandum. Additional comments: memo.hpc.501ec.md 5 of a cornice, a design concept that should be expressed in new construction. 3. Bright-finished metal for either window frames or storm windows is considered inappropriate. F. Materials Existing-buildings in the commercial core are predominantly brick and stone, . which is typical o f almost every 19th century mining community that experienced a fire during its history. 1. Use building materials the are similar in texture and finish to those found historically. The majority of historic commercial buildings are brick or stone. Both brick and stone have distinct textures, and establish patterns along the street. These materials are important in establishing the scale of the buildings. This pattern and texture should continue to be rein- forced by new buildings. The use of variegated brick or stone is encouraged for infill construction in the commercial core. Large brick sizes are discouraged. 2. The use of wood siding, shingles and panels may be appropriate in some locations. Wooden commercial buildings may be appropriate when the softer appearance of wood would serve as visual relief from the predomi- nance of stone and brick, but would still reinforce other streetfront patterns. G. Signs Because it is such a prominent part of the business image, selecting a concept for a sign is one of the most important design decisions for a building. It is also important to consider what type of signs would be appropriate for the build- ing. These include the following: Signs that are flush on the building Signs on the window Signs that project from the wall Any questions on signage should be directed to the Zoning 6 Official for a determination of compliance with the sign code. 1. Position signs to fit within features of the facade. t So they do not dominate the building that they are trying to identify, signs should be carefully located. ' Due to the pedestrian orientation of the district signs should be incorporated into the first floor design of the building, and in the case of historic structures should not obscure details. Avoid covering the molding or windows, and use the sign to emphasize 43 .U 1 . architectural elements. These elements may include the storefront opening, the entrance, and other outstanding feature of the buildings. Individually applied letters placed on the exterior siding rather " than being contained within a building detail are discouraged. Â· In cases where second story signing must be used window signs are considered most appropriate. 2. Align signs on an individual building with similar spacing, size and lettering. This will help to unify the building composition. If possible the coordination of signs for several businesses in one building is encouraged. 1 3. Keep the number of signs to a minimum. Wherever possible consolidate sign information. Where more than one business is located in a building consider using directories. Signs should not overpower other facade elements in size and they should relate to other signs in the block. 4. Select letters, styles, and signs which do not over- power the building facade. The personal scale of businesses is an attractive characteristic of the historic district. colors that repeat or compliment those of0the facade. 5. Coordinate colors with the building front. Select When it is possible also try to coordinate colors with adjacent buildings. Brilliant luminescent or "day-910" colors are strongly discouraged. 6. Design lighting as an integral part of the sign. If lighting is applied to a sign it should be placed in such a way that the light globe is not visible to the passers-by. Mounting hardware and electrical ducting for lighting must be integrated in the sign design. For exterior lighting use incandescent lights. An intense glaring light, produced by bare flood lights with out reflectors, is not acceptable for illuminating signs. 7. Use sign materials that are compatible with those of the building front. Due to Aspen's seasonal extremes signs must be of high quality durable materials. Where glass is used it may be gilded, painted, sandblasted or etched. The overall visibility through windows should not be obscured by applied graphics. Solid wood may be carved and finished to serve as sign panels. Brass letters and numbers may also be used in signage. Internally lit signs, imitation "stained glass" and fluorescent colors should be avoided. 1 | 45 ATEAlliMEN.r 1 Exhibit 1 IAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1) Project Name I~DEPEN)Elâ‚¬E BUIU)ING CalvERCIAL DEVELMENT 4 2) Project location 501 E. Cooper, Lots A, B, and Part of C, Block 96, City and To,nsite of- Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado (indicate street address, lot & blocik Ilmber, legal description aere appropriate) CC - 6,770 s.f. 3) Present Zoning 4) Lot Slze 5) Applicant's Name, Adiress & Pt,orhe , M&W Properties, 205 S. Mill St., Suite 301 A, Aspen, Colorado Â· 925-8032 6) Representative's Name, Adiress & Ehone # Michael Emenarn, The Ememarn Grolp Architects 720 East Durant, Aspen, Colorado 925-2266 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual POD X Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final POD I{istoric Demolition M:xmtain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation Conclaniniumization - iVxt,/Map Amendment - GMQS Allotnnerrt Ict Split/Iot line GUS Exeption Adj ustment 8) Description of Existing Uses Â· (Ixmber ani type of existing s'truct]res; approodmate sq. ft.; amber of bedroans; any previous approvals granted to the property). 5,580 Gross S. F. Retail on -Street Level and 3.500 Gross S.F. Commercial & Storage on Basement Level. (Upper two floors are lodging use under separate ownershiD and are not part of this Application). Previous Approval to remodel June, 27, 1990. 9) I>escription of Development Applicatian To add display cases to existing west (Galena Street Mall) farade to serve Basement commercial space. 10) Have you attached the followim? X Response to Attachment 2, Minimim Sutiniss ion Oorrtents Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Oontents Itesporse to Attadmient 4, Review Standards for Your Application The Ernemann Group Architects PO Box 4602 Aspen, Colorado 81611 303.925.2266 22 March 1991 Ms. Roxanne Eflin, Historical Planner Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena St Aspen, CO 81611 Re: INDEPENDENCE BUILDING COMMERCIAL SPACE DISPLAY CASES Dear Ms. Eflin: We respectfully submit this letter and accompanying exhibit as application for HPC review of the proposed addition of commercial display cases to a portion of the existing west (Galena Street Mall) facade of the Independence Building. SUBJECT PROPERTY: Independence Building 501 E. Cooper Ave. Lots A, B, and part of C, Block 96 City of Aspen Pitkin County, CO 81611 (See Exhibits 1 & 2) APPLICANT: Independence Partners (Owners of the properM c/o M&W Properties 205 South Mill St., Suite 301 A Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-8032 (See Exhibit 3) APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIVES: Michael J. Ernemann The Ernemann Group Architects 720 East Durant Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2266 (See Exhibit 4) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: The proposed development consists of the addition of three (3) display cases, 3'-4" wide x 5'-8" high to the existing west facing street level facade of the subject building. These cases would be mounted to the surface of the brick wall directly above an existing stair that provides entry to the basement level commercial space. The tops of the cases would be aligned with a transome bar that is consistently evident in all street level storefronts throughout the building. (Please refer to Exhibit 5). Page Two 22 March 1991 The cases would be constructed of a steel frame painted dark gray to match the gray color used elsewhere on the street level storefronts. The hinged glass doors to the cases would be framed in mahogany finished to match the dark red mahogany entry doors recently added to the building storefronts. The cases would be mounted through small spacers to mortar joints in the existing masonry wall to ensure that the integrity of the masonry wall would remain undisturbed. The cases will be illuminated in a manner to prevent visibility of the light sources from street level passersby. The viability of the basement level in this building for commercial/retail uses is considerably diminished by the present absence of street level facilities for the display of merchant's goods or services. Is is therefore requested that the Historical Planning Commission favorably consider this request for approval to install the above described display cases that would enhance the commercial viability of the building while enriching the streetscape of which is it a a part. Sincerely, -. Mict'jAel J. Ernemann ThdErnemann Group Architects encl. r'.14 7..1. li i. i I | ii Â·~ - --1 pi-1 2.-_-_121, ji 1 1.1 r . .1 ~ 1 1 ,1 1 i j 1 , i - 1 -W--- -'p .-I-0 J_I. I -~T '11'' i i. 1 i Â·1! 11 1.1 1 i' 1 il i 1 11 . i L_. i. 1 i ' U il 1~ 4 lili . - E--7 ---. - li :1 . Â· i 1 - . 1 1 i --. -------- 1 .- 1 -- --- 4 5, / ime.imt 2.--/ -3 , 1: 7 - - 4-JO -- 1 1 :1 1 1; i-/ It- p i - 1 1 11: - - R- - 2 . . ! i 1% I 11 1 Â»- -1[ i j It M. ; *9 1 1 11 3 .-1 . Itt t11f f 1 f 1 - 1 1 1 ~' 1- '7:Al - -1- 1 - M= 1 1-1 11-11-1111- lili Ill 1 -- ---Illill---1 P. .-, .-' . . Y 8Wwoe>ED DRPLAY CPÂ©ES _ INDEFENDENCE 21)1001/5 - PARI-\AL \,VEST ELEVATION _ 14' , it .011 6 -08 . hl:'8,11- , 114 1 ExtiC BLT 5 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Final Development approval - motion clarification and . amendment : Sportstalker Building -, ---- Date: April 24, 1991 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting amendments and clarifications to the Final Development approval motion that was made on this project at the April 10 HPC meeting. Please refer to the applicant's letter attached. DISCUSSION: Planning staff has attached a copy of the approval motion for reference. It appears that the applicant wishes to primarily .amend the mock up/detailed drawings potion of the motion, with HPC's approval, to provide clearer, larger scale detailed drawings either in place of, or as a supplement to, field mock ups that were offered by the applicant and approved by the HPC. The applicant also wishes to seek clarification on the roof top "personal paraphernalia restriction" portion of that motion. They have discussed the enforceability of this with staff. We recommend this issue be dealt with in a broader context of a -rr- - comprehensive study of the Commercial Core Historic District, perhaps beginning later this year ("From Rooftops to Moats")! - Finally, the issue of "color intensity" has been requested to be - further- discussed. Again, staff maintains - that due to the - significant location and potential impacts of this building of the very essence of the character of the historic district, the HPC has full review over color intensity issues. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC reserve 20 minutes to discuss these issues with the applicant, and amend or clarify their previous motion if and where they see appropriate. memo.hpc.204sg.final.clar SPORTSTALKER APRIL 10, 1991 MOTION discussion of conditions Condition 6 is the storefront Sven: We submitted a metal door. Roger: The other doors are wood painted. Condition seven I'm concerned about mechanical on the roof. Roger: Is there a landscape plan for the decks. A condition of approval would be that the orof could not be used except for the decks. condition 12 13 is the model trim to be more narrower Jake: What about the keystones as they are masonry Joe: How many parking spaces. Sven: 7 MOTION: Jake made the motion that HPC approve the final cevelopment for 204 S. Galena, the Sportstalker with the following conditions: 1) Additional detailing for storefond section including profile and materails be called out specifically, like on a working drawing level of detail (shaded) be submitted to project monitor and Staff prior to applying for a Building Permit. (wood glazing -and wood doors) - 2) All mechanical equipment and other objects on the roof and the deck be kept below the level of the parapet. 3) Reduction of the width of the trim line of the circular windows on the third floor as well as the .People raddling papers and motion could not be heard in full!!!!! 4 0 -Meck up of third floor window, siding and trim done prior to building permit application to be approved by Staff and monitor. fkxcc .\(,-\ Ck ) a.u-'-'~. ' C.3 4-04 -, f o ,--, Fr j (4:/\4 ;71.C )681efl ) M//ck l,.& cli Joe second the motion. Charles: There are too many things in this motion that are vague to make a final and I would recommend tabling. The floor plan does not reflect what the details show. The columns do not show on the floor plans. It is not fair because this application is not complete. - 1 V 4.-flitt-- Glenn: I feel manipulated by this presentation. I would like to see a f-i*4*hed col*ed rendering so I could get a sense of the solidity of the building in general. Charles: Have a completed set of drawings. AMENDED MOTION: Jake amended the motion to state that the . . UL.... 5.. ... applicant must return to the full committee and demonstrate that - he is meeting the conditions that he previously stated. Joe - second. AMENDED MOTION: Jake amended the motion to include a rendering 'k<'- of a typical storefront bay but going up all three floors and ' 1 showing elements. Provide addition details such as columns etc. Model should include recess bay on first floor and also colors. Joe second. All in favor of motion and amended motions, motion carries. Glenn: A quarter inch scale of a section of the vertical system. Sven: That is no problem. Charles: Consider simplicity of the base of the columns. [11 1-2 + LE u W !41 * 1 9 11 41 C M/elton Anderson & Associates ~~ APR 1 218*chiteds J U . -- iC> April 12, 1991 Roxanne Eflin, Historic Planner ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado M--- --- 3--L--.-1' --TU RE: SPORTSTALKER BUILDING, 204 S. Galena FINAL DEVELOPMENT HEARING,- Revised Condition Language Dear Roxanne, This letter is to request scheduling for this project - on the April 24, 1991 meeting agenda to cleanup language in the conditions of Final Approval of the April 10 meeting. Applicant wishes to revise those stated conditions to meet his presentation of May 8. This improvement in language will enable a better presentation by applicant. Revisions are also requested by the owner for changed economic conditions which will be elaborated in the meeting. We are planning on submitting a revised application on i April 26 to meet the schedule for the May 8 meeting. We have not yet been authorized to proceed by the client beyond the April 24 meeting. This letter is prepared before a printed text of the meeting minutesÂ·of April 10 has been made available as to exact language of the HPC conditions, therefore please review the general nature of these requested revisions. Condition 1--No revision requested, additional drwgs will o c-eur. Condition 2 - No revision to language, model will be revised HPC shall more closely review previously sub- mitted drawing A-6 Roof Plan. Condition 3 - No revision to language, drwgs. will be revised Condition 4 - For the April 26 application and May 8 meeting applicant will prepare additional drawings to meet the intent of additional detail requested for this condition. We would like to modify this condition to language requiring, "a partial enlarged detail or elevation of a "slice" of the building." and modification of the current model on 1 struct- ural bay to show the cornice, columns, horiz. band, etc. in relief, approx. .20' bay width. Additional detail of this area is.suppplemented with 3/4" colored and rendered elvation required under Condition 6. Planning / Architecture / Interior Design Box 9946 / Aspen, Colorado 81612/(303) 925- 4576 SPORTSTALKER, April 12 .- Condition 4 - continued. In conference with HPC Chairman and Owner mockup requirements shall be reviewed by... ~~~ committee as necessary in Final Approval motions I. LApplicantiof fered.:mockup availability Tonflt--32=72-1-1-23_---- Â·- ---- :--Â· -Â·Â·._T. Â·2 -: .JÂ·12Â·:431.:v:.CE'-rÂ·.r': 1.1. .O --, E-... .21Â·-7:Â·.. -Â·trztl--~r. p.-1-Â· ..1 1'......f--â€ž -__ April-10 to--extend an -offer" of obtaining -Final- Approval.-TOwner-requests-exact size- of --- - __ mockups or their requirement to again be reviewed at Final on May 8. r - - Condition 5 - Revise language to recognize HPC limited review of roof. Direct committee to review Condition 2 language. Condition 6-A large colored and shaded elevation of the storefront bay to cornice with third floor windows will be presented on May 8. Language should be revised to require a scale larger than 0%~ 1/4". 1/d - 4 + Condition 7 - No language revision. Additional storefront and -- ,metal and siding details will be provided. .A sampleâ€žpresentation board willÂ·be provided. Â· Condition 8 - Color Intensity, will be reviewed by Condition 6. HPC review here is not well established but 4 - - this applicant has always closely reviewed the HPC GUIDELINES. Condition 9 - No language revision, additional detail will be provided. - Thank Â·you for- your review of these conditions and project approval process. 3%12>?1 goE;/Tz:>74 Sven Erik Alstrom AIA Associate Architect - - . r --*~13qi" 1,- . r*.9-,---Sr--. -r'-49=#~rÂ·T--â€žvie.,.1*199-.2~Mv-7:-9..r-1-1.%1,7,!' 9-tr,Nr7'1~lp.*in,wi.: - 1w0,43%+199,Mif,Top-1=1::,Iln:, --7- C 7 i -,< h .42Â·al/ ... I ' 4. .6.1,1 1 r 'v#*.rb. 'tt --1 - MMâ€ž-= - -212..I 8 ..1 4 f 60 - . I:' 0 9 a 4 . -. 6- ... -* D -. . a I . 0 - 0- I 0 6 0 0 - - - 0 .. 6 . - 1. . -4/' , I . , .. .. .. L â€¢ -0 0 . .. 6. 0 9 . . . a . - I .. .-. .- : L 6 . . A - 6. 0 ... 0 1 0 I ...m......... - 0 J . - m---. -A 0 0 -1 . A - . Ivilled .,S 6 â€¢0 r:.. i.1 61"7'11 41 g ..t 41 9 r byâ‚¬ ~ .2 <14 Ii.Wil./.Ill/*.lib l<. 4.? 1 4 -. - . 7 1. PUL -l D.1 - ' -'d.-1 6 4-Â·-0.451 : <1'26 Â· Â·6. 4 , ',~r'.A< Lr, 414:'f'114.Â·'A. .'4. 4 1. i -1-1----- AL- 13. Imar#.r~,Ii MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Minor Development: 403 S. Galena, Guido's Restaurant building Date: April 24, 1991 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor Development approval for a retractable awning (8' 6" wide x 39' in length) over the south balcony seating area of the restaurant building (second floor). APPLICANT: Edgar Wettstein, owner ZONING: CC, "H" Historic Overlay District PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Development Review standards are found in Section 7-601 of the Land Use Code. Awning guidelines are found in Section IV(E) of the Design Guidelines, page 25. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark... Response: Staff finds that this standard has generally been met, with the exception perhaps of color. We recommend that the HPC consider an alternative color that more closely resembles the body of the building, to allow the awning to blend in more with the architecture and theme of the building. This awning is highly visible from areas immediately south of the district; the applicant may find that a lighter color (off-white) may provide a more translucent cover, still providing some wind and rain shelter, while allowing ample light to penetrate. The HPC may find that this color alternative will provide a more compatible and subtle finish to the south elevation of this building. The awning guidelines reference their use at storefront level, and on second story windows, however, are not necessarily addressed for use above-grade to screen a balcony. The HPC should consider whether this application is appropriate in the district, and what precedent is being set should an approval be granted. The Guideline states: "Consider using awnings or canopies to provide color and depth to the facade. On many storefronts and upper story $ 0 , windows awnings are appropriate. These awnings should match the shape and width of the opening it is covering. They should not obscure important details. The awnings should also be aligned with other awnings on a building. Canopies are appropriate only on the ground level and should match the width of the storefront. Awnings or canopies made of aluminum, fiberglass and other rigid materials are not encouraged. Awnings that do not serve as useful sheltering from sun, rain, or snow are not encouraged." The important issues to consider in this application may be prioritized as follows: 1) Is the use of this awning compatible with the building's design itself? 3) Does the style, type, texture and color harmonize with the building? A medium intensity terra cotta color has been chosen - is this compatible? 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: As the awning is retractable (for ease in use during the summer), and located at the rear of the building, does its use interfere or diminish the character of the historic district? Staff is mixed on this issue, although we don't necessarily find that this awning is necessary inconsistent with the district. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: Staff finds that the cultural value of the structure will not be diminished with the installation of this awning. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The Planning Office asks the HPC to carefully consider whether the awning's proposed location creates a competing element that obscures important details or creates a discordant element on an otherwise thematic "mountain chalet" style structure? It is our recommendation that the metal easing be attached at a location as to not appear "tacked on", in order to appear integrated with the horizontal members of this elevation. This metal easing should be painted a flat matte finish to blend in with the trim color closest to it. 2 ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the Minor Development application as submitted 2. Approve the Minor Development application with conditions, such as: a) restudy of the awning color to blend in with the body color of the building t mount the awning easing integrally with the horizontal trim wning easing shall be painted to blend in with trim color d) no drop valance 3. Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy (specific recommendations should be offered). 4. Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the development review standards. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Minor Development approval for the awning application at 403 S. Galena, with the conditions stated in Alternative #2 above, to be approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. memo.hpc.403sg.md 3 n r p ,= rr [1 r /7 re APR 1 1 1991 Descriotion of Levelooment Agolication f We are asking You for Dermission to instal a awninc which is fully retracteble. The owning will be on the 2nd floor of Guido's building above the balceny an the southside (towards R:beyoark). Guido's fassade is a combination of stucko ano wood. The wooa is mainted in a .dark creamy brown. The housing of the awning will basically match the Dainted wood. We don't see any problems with the comnetibilitv within the historic district since there are all different tynes of awnings in use. In edition to that the whole southfessade in that cityblock rebresents more the architecture of the "new" Asoen. The same tyne of ewnings has been used until last suumer on our building WPSL of Guido's. We need thrnt awning since we arp serving restaurentguests on that balcony. Iii sumnertime tilt:i temocriture in l!-ie full sun eas,l\' reaches 50 - 7C degrees which can be harmful for Deonle. At the moment we don't see the need of a valance on the awning. We still would like to ask Tor permission to mount E valan4e in caspi -there is a need for it. In that case we voult go to the smallest size of 6 inches, which is agor. 3 inches more then the awning will Snow aithout volance. All the dimensions are given on the graohic and the photo. , â‚¬ 1 1 1 11 i iiii! '1-: ,tl, 'Â· I 1 4 1- .- Â·U 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 : i.-. .2,?<101-1]95- -...._.-_-_j-- -1. - >-- NEW.6'-1' 2<.39' -- 1 1 1 i 1 \ /1 1 1 1 A UJ N 1 A ,1 e , 1 1 1 1 i 1 1:i 1 1 -1 ./ 1- 1- j j - -1- 1 1- j 1 I I ' 1 1 i: 1 : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 2 1 i 1 !1 1 1 1 1 1 -- -4 1 +2 1 1 4 t i-1 i i i 1 lilli 4 1 Â· Â· U â€¢ 1 - i!:1!!!Ill'11!- 11. ., 1.1 , , '-,4,\. -4 , I 1 1 + U r â‚¬- 4 . ' ' 1 1121- . 4 t ~ 1 Â· , L. . 1 .. ..4 1 .1 -1.- - ... ; 1 1 1. -i 1 4.!,1.- 1 1 1 1 1 1 Â·,4,642;UNCQGuSU<Rilitit,GUSNG<Â®iti<;4*titmtitkkmt;(8:44449>b~u,9do<<DE f,;.Â·044>(R,44(Hift>4>'24500'Â·t- Iti<idGUUqUUM;Â·-N'k,%02>29<Â§066(,r.<.<,tk,w:<;8400:494%44$.Â·ii:mit':,Rimet,4Â·,RU;titu;OR' <44,:4:thii, 1 /1 T W. , 5 ..9 , . i...; I ..1. . -1 6 --,11/IFI , f . Â· '' 1/ F1/; 1 , ,... Â· . Â·: Â· 2 'ir â€¢t I 1 '. I 4 I.I.... I. I I . ,. . ,4..2,~ . 1 . 'fi â‚¬Â·f ..... 1 24 1 2 1Â·. ' . .. â‚¬ fy.... ~gÂ·~1Â·i 2. t,{ . . I . ... C I : . ;3Â·L Â·: r Â·'. . .-j... Â·P.Â· Â·Â·. *.. . . . .* Â· 2.: .:. i.i Â·,ifL i,i,J. 1~14 1- fT.' rh~* t-Â·Â· i :Â·1- - Â¥ 49 t. Af .. F i 1 0-4 *11 . '.f- ' i~- Â·'.Â·~ ~t--'; ~ j' . Â¢-t ;4' Â·Â·Â·Â·~~'t' i ' 4 tt ' - . . -hi . . 4 â‚¬ 14r : . . L. f '' Â· Â· I . . 1 :Â·4 1 0/ .~ I. - 1 . S H A D E W I T H A V 1 E W ..4 . Â· ~~ ~~ ~ . ~~/~~~~~ Distinctive lateral armawnings Where you Â· ': 73Â·' - -- : v need shadeandaview. No frames to spoil your view orbump yourhead against. Just clear ** ,#*fir~STI unobstructed shade that allows you to create an outside room or simply shade any patio, balcony, â€¢e Â· Â·terrace or deck. Choose your awning fabric from Unitex'S -.t. . hundreds* of colors and patterns in acrylics, 0 . %58.-i<Â· * fi 4 . 1.- synthetics; blends or PVC coated. Add braid, ~ 31932? 361-75Â»Â» Â· --1/ Lca- 0 . designer edges or printing to give style and flair 21**am/a.*te*11,fi Zi,-*&&7 to your home or commercial building. - 11/11-2,1- .4 -'2*33Â£g - .-I; ~ .~ Quality thatisunsurpassed. Easy installation - *--4 ~R-_--Cl,<. 24.,-4. ... 7 -Â» . Â·. ~ . by trained installers. Maintenance-free card. All Â·Â·- Â· Â· .. Â· ... . ' . . .these features add upÂ·to an awning. of value and * . f : - ' i . Â· . , ~ ... - . , .22 .*- . . . . i. -: .. : ~ - distinction. f I I I I I. - . . I Â£.-' :.. - :' I. *. I. . : Â· . Â· - Contact your area, Unitex.representative ; ~ Â· *- ~~ Â· .Â· Â·Â·:. Â· ~ .L PERIOIA. 46= * 7 7 - 1- * ~Â· ~today for information regarding the Latdral Arm ~ SYSTEIVI'**1 ,4,44*.LUE:=.*.:,.#a~ii:~#LAwning.mid*Â£1?m:ma.Syateniiawd#gÂ§#-fr-..=.e*6 .: --c:.D'- reÂ·<-;--i-, '4 . :3.,F.. :> ... Â¢3- P'Â·~~'La~l +~-' ~j ''> ' ~ ;a Â» - â€¢- W WÂ· 1 - .. Unitex West,Corp. Hdqrs. Unitex East Unitex Southwest Unitex Midwest Unitex South uniLEXÂ® Baldwin Park, CA Pawtucket, RI . Arlington, 'IX . Indianapolis, IN Ft. Lauderdale, FL California (818) 962-6282 Â· Rhode Island (401) 7216000 Tekas, (800) 772-5311 Indiana (800) 445-5965 FL/US (800) 7580890 : LATERAL ARM - . National (800) 45G6282 National (800) 5567254 National (800) 433-5000 National (800) 843-6236 AWNING