The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19901024AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE OCTOBER 24, 1990 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM City Hall 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of Septeber 12, 1990 minutes. II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:10 A. Conceptual Development - Public Hearing, 824 E. Cooper 4~Â·-9. i c l, L, 1'2~= 6/U L &.L.~-4--t. - Q U l*'c #L.9 1--\C-<LL-~ V. NEW BUSINESS 6:00 A. Minor Development, Public Hearing, Request for parking variation - 208 1/2 E. Main Street VI. COMMUNICATIONS A. Project Monitoring (Project assignment list included in packet) B. Staff report on National Preservation Conf. ADJOURN AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE OCTOBER 24, 1990 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM City Hall 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of Septeber 12, 1990 minutes. , II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:10 A. Conceptual Development - Public Hearing, 824 E. Cooper - 1 Aiti e. B .__ il, ~ 0 1 4-/.//9 fky-- h C ... 1/*16 6,4 m - C--7.Â«11.~2 f~Lt. 2(u - V. NEW BUSINESS 6:00 A. Minor Development, Public Hearing, Request for parking variation - 208 1/2 E. Main Street VI. COMMUNICATIONS A. Project Monitoring (Project assignment list included in packet) B. Staff report on National Preservation Conf. Â·1 ADJOURN ---1-1041&-14:Â·-6-~ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Conceptual Development and Partial Demolition: 824 E. Cooper Ave., Public Hearing, continued Date: October 24, 1990 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual Development and significant partial demolition approval for the proposal at 824 E. Cooper Ave. LOCATION: 824 E. Cooper Ave., (Highway 82), Lot Q, Block 111, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: RMF (Residential Multi-Family) PREVIOUS HPC CONSIDERATION: The most recent action occurred on September 26, 1990, when the applicant returned to the HPC with revisions required from previous meetings (described below). The conditions of the tabling action were as follows: 1) Restudy the massing, at the link between the old and new; provide greater relief between the new constriction and the historic cottage 2) Provide massing model at next public hearing 3) Simply facade fenestration and transoms 4) Restudy alley structure with intent to preserve Additionally, staff requested the applicant meet one-on-one with HPC Chair Bill Poss to review the latest revisions for determining if the general direction in fact meets the conditions of the September 26 action. Bill reports that after an hour of study, he feels they generally do. Additionally, he has recommended some additional revisions which the applicant may be presenting at this meeting. A summary of other meetings is included for reference: A pre-application was held on June 13, 1990 with the owner, Ken Moore (the architect was not present at this meeting) . The Conceptual Development application was held on August 8, 1990; HPC tabled action at that meeting to September 12, which was tabled again to this meeting. The HPC had significant concerns with the proposal, and therefore tabled action to allow the applicant time to restudy the following (in particular): (It should be noted that due to staff's time out of the office prior to August 8 meeting, no Cqnceptual Development (detailed) memo had been prepared for . the meeting.) 1) Provide relief and differentiation between old and new: the new addition is positioned too close to the original cottage, with no transition occurring to reduce overwhelming mass in relation to the cottage. 2) Massing and scale in general appears incompatible with the historic resource; no articulation 3) Proposed fenestration (windows and doors) is incompatible with historic character 4) Alley context not preserved; general direction was given to restudy retaining small outbuildings BACKGROUND: This small vernacular cottage is located on a 3,000 sq. ft. parcel, which appears to be its original location. It is simply referred to in,the Planning Office inventory files as the "824 E. Cooper House". The structure shows signs of deferred maintenance. Its distinguishing characteristics are the front porch, single gable 12/12 roof form, and typical vertical windows. At least two shed roof additions were added to the rear early on, in typical .style. PARTIAL DEMOLITION: The Standards for Partial Demolition are found in Section 7-602(C), as follows: "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 renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure 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 or structures located on the parcel. STAFF COMMENT: Staff finds the structural analysis description prepared by Pattillo Associates thorough. A list of the structure repairs necessary (in Pattillo's opinion) to renovate the structure are included. These appear reasonable, however, staff feels the complete removal of exterior siding to confirm stud wall conditions is not necessary - this can be accomplished through the interior. As more than 50% of the existing structure is proposed for 2 demolition, the applicant is required to comply with Ordinance 1, the Housing Replacement Ordinance. This requires either an affordable dwelling unit be included within the development, or a payment-in-lieu prior to the issuance of a building permit. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS: The Standards for Development Review are found in Section 7-601(D), and the applicable Guidelines are found in Section VI. Residential Buildings- Renovation and Restoration, beginning on page 47 of the Guidelines. Standard A. The proposed development is compatible in character with the historic resource located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site... Response: Staff is finding that not many changes are being proposed since the HPC last reviewed this application. The basic nature of the proposal is the same, and we Still find it incompatible in scale to the cottage. The cottage is sandwiched between a slightly larger cottage (same era) and a c.1960's chalet-esque multi-family structure. Due to the size of the parcel and the small scale of the cottage, any new development would need to occur to the rear of the parcel. Similar to development the HPC has reviewed and approved involving cascading/stepped back roof forms, staff feels this approach would be greatly preferred over what has been submitted in the revised proposal, and would preserve as much of the small scale street character the cottage currently contains. The opinion of the Planning Office is due to its prominent location on Highwav 82, the preservation of this small cottage is critical in terms of neighborhood character and image enhancement of the community. Standard B: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Over the last few decades, Aspen's East End has received substantial incompatible infill, disrespectful of the original cottage scale that was once prevalent. The neighborhood is eclectic in scale, massing, and architectural style. Due to this inconsistent character, the East End itself does not provide clear direction for appropriately designed additions, taking their clues from neighborhood precedent. Therefore, within the context of this "neighborhood character" standard, we find that the proposal is not necessarily inconsistent. Standard C: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of the historic resource located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: The cultural value to the community of this historic resource is in its historic integrity in the form of scale and 3 materials, as a typical example of mining/family life pre-1893. ' We find that the value of this small cottage to the community will not be enhanced with a large-scale addition to the rear of the structure, as proposed. Standard D: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of the historic resource or part thereof. Response: The Planning Office's response to this standard remains the same as stated in the September 26, 1990 memo. Staff finds that the proposal does detract from the small scale architectural integrity of the resource, due to the proposed size and location of the addition overwhelming the cottage. In addition, the demolition of the rear additions takes away from the historic architectural integrity of a "working class cottage" . The Planning Office is not opposed to additions to small scale cottages, however, we ask the HPC to carefully consider this standard in reviewing this application. CONCLUSION: Staff remains concerned that the proposal is large and out-of-scale with the cottage, and a reduction in mass and bulk is appropriate. However, the small, narrow lot and underlying zoning allowances are two major problems to keep the new addition scaled appropriately to the cottage. With these considerations in mind, to preserve much of the original scale of the cottage is probably the best the community can expect. The applicant's goal is clear: to achieve as much square footage on the parcel as possible, and still retain a piece of the small cottage as a facade feature. The Planning Office supports all attempts to rehab, renovate and/or restore our historic cottages. However, we find that instead of an addition to a historic resource, this proposal puts the historic resource into the position of becoming the addition. The new construction massing and scale does not respect the cottage, in our opinion, and we recommend that the HPC again give clear direction to the applicant in what is appropriate in the way of an addition. Appropriate, compatible additions to one-story cottages are very difficult to achieve well. We appreciate the applicant's site constraints, however, numerous examples exist throughout the community of successful additions. Food for thought: A somewhat dramatic alternative the HPC mav want to consider discussing with the applicant is the on-site relocation of the cottage to the rear of the parcel under the provisions of the Cottage Infill Program, and allow the new construction to occur at the street edge of the parcel. Staff is not necessarily supporting this idea, as original locations of working-class cottages provide historic reference to the community and the street edge, but, preserving the whole cottage 4 form in detached fashion may be a preferred alternative over an out-of-scale attachment as proposed. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1) Conceptual Development approval as proposed 2) Conceptual Development approval with conditions to be met at Final 3) Table action (either to a date certain or not, to allow the applicant additional time for restudy) 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that one or more of the Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC table Conceptual Development approval a final time, to allow the applicant further time to restudy the proposal in its relation to the Development Review Standards stated above. memo.hpc.824ec.3 5 BARBARA LONG AND ASSOCIATES POST OFFICE BOX 8603Â·ASPEN, COLORADO 8161 2Â·30 3Â·9 2 5Â·6 880 OCTOBER 10, 1990 0-! i I HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE C/O ROXANNE EFLIN 130 S. GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 RE; SWARTZ RESIDENCE 824 E. COOPER AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO DEAR SIRS; AS PER YOUR REQUEST ON SEPTEMBER 26, WE ARE SUBMITTING REVISED DRAWINGS FOR THE BUILDING DESIGN OF 824 E. COOPER. THIS IS FOR THE CONTINUATION OF OUR APPLICATION FOR THE PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND RELOCATION OF THIS STRUCTURE. AS BEFORE, WE INTEND TO MEET THE CRITERIA AND STANDARDS REQUIRED BY THE LAND USE CODE. WE HAVE ADDRESSED THE COMMITTEE'S COMMENTS AND BELIEVE THESE SOLUTIONS TO BE AMICABLE. AS PER YOUR SUGGESTIONS: 1.) THE FRONT ELEVATION HAS BEEN CHANGED TO REMOVE THE SUNBURSTS AND THE TRIANGULAR TRANSOM WINDOW. THE SIZE OF THE FRONT GABLE AT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN REDUCED. MUTTON BARS HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE FRENCH DOORS AND HAVE BEEN REPLACED WITH A SINGLE DIVISION TO ALIGN WITH THE DOUBLE-HUNG WINDOWS. 2.) A SHADOW LINE HAS BEEN ADDED AS A DIVISION BETWEEN THE EXISTING COTTAGE AND THE ADDITION. THIS HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED WITH A RECESS AT THE EAST AND WEST WALLS. TO FURTHER ACCENT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OLD AND NEW THE NEW IORN FENCE WILL SURROUND THE EXISTING BUILDING AND TERMINATE AT IT'S REAR WALL. 3.) TO ALLOW FOR THE POSSIBLE RETENTION OF THE EXISTING REAR SHED, THE DRIVEWAY HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE OPPOSITE (WEST) SIDE OF THE NEW ADDITION 4.) WE WILL PROVIDE A STUDY MODEL FOR THIS BUILDING AND THE ADJOINING STRUCTURES AT THE OCTOBER 24TH MEETING. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR INPUT AND COOPERATION. SINCERELY, BARBARA W. LONG BUILDING DESIGN Â· SPACE PLANNING Â· INTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL DETAILING - ----7/elle] 1 & r' 1- 1 1 /5:~ r Ill 146.. \ lit MM , .. -#- /AM . ~~_.21'~ . -----, - 7-- - 1 - 1 + - - r. 1 . V--- -- - f' - -- .-- -t21-2 2 22 '12 -3=f 4 - 1 -- - -I 1 I . 1 -- -- 1- - 1 1 - --- .FISM:- -- - --- - ~k , 1 -- 0 i 1 3 , : 1 . 1 4 1 1 1 , 31 ~ r~ ~ ' i.1 --- r-*--4-- --r-- T 1 -7 1 -9- 9 - - 5 1 *i H L 1 - i 0 2 !1 k -1 11 - d # 2 i r :' 9.-4 - -3 -# Â· 91 1 1-li 4---~Ium L L * -~ ]3~~ i# r:-6 . -__* -- IIh , 1 1 1 7 11 7 [ f 11 1[-it-;,Fiii ! " r U - f-F H il[-*ri- ' ~ * ~ + 1~ 1+- 4t ~ 1 4 81 -11 - 4- UHAL~ EMIN#~i*FFF#*-filll.' b.:= 8.- i I â€¢11 , 8 â€¢11 11 111 6 11 11.i-11 U i: 11 11.11 iâ€¢11 Ul Il, * tâ€ži li i:lk Ell 121 1 :0 4 I . d i i.,Al I 9.0 47-0 4 |4~ 1 wd.1-t' E.LE.V,~' fr~ 4- *r-o J .. t i . 11 9-+Als il *-44....14/14.- 4 -1.- 2--Â·-3--0 .-k.lil ii 1 f f 1 Iff f 9 3/ t' 1, 10,4,4- f /7/ li 111'Ki 1'~i 1, r.L ! 1- lilii 9 i i i ik 11 1 4// .1 1*~i'ili j #-N ri Â£ 1 1 1 11! /3/1,1/ 2/1 1.11 Â·Ill i:11!1 - .~"-1 $ 1- 1 1 4 1 1 ,21 1 , .1 1 Â· 1 1- : 1 4 - . /4, , I - i .l I il ! 1 11. 1//, 1 , i . r , 1 11 '1 1 1/44 ir Mt l! M. 81 ; 1 1! i ; l 3 f 11 40 3 1 1 .-- -1 1 1-tt 0 - 1\ 4-'*M -1 1 3 - 11 . t; r : 1.1 i *EEZEZE+ZgIA 17 i 1 1 U 1 1 "1 Ix' i 1 11 i I i ~ Â·: 9 i i '~ 1 I ,-t 1 1.-* 1.- ... r-, 4 -,-,4.-u .... .~I.--i..-1.- . - 1 1 14,\ 1 . ~14-~1 4.11 p, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.4 1 1 \ U ...â„¢.~r~-/ 1 - 1 1 %\1 1.....1 \0 i . 1. i. 1 1 1 . i , i 1- i~'.-, -1 i : , ~ 4 . 1 -lilli 1 1 : i , ' 1 .2 ~ : ' i ; ' il ' .Ii 1,Â·t i i ,[i ~ 1-Â·* i i l i ~ i- r. I-tÂ·i- 1 2 ; ii f i 111 1#1 :1 1 . 1 1 11 A... Lf - ,-4-4 41---- 1-4- : 1. 11 r 1 15' L- .4.- _-_-Ntt . 12 1.. 2.- -4=lt: .-/- ,Â»19> Â· ./ * .- -3-ZZLIZ~ZI-Z...---2-21-1---ZEZZL- b i Jb' ar 4,71.jâ‚¬Â·e- E-*,-rA] P 9 - , , 1 11 --------- W[ -- --Â· Â·--- --- --- Â·Â·Â·- -----------Â·--- ----- -------- , - Ill j :1 1 f / E---- . /0/ - - - - --- -- . ---- ------ -7----0Â«2173-37- 1, .2__2222~~--Â·1 1 i 0 -- 1-2- ----I-----<I-----,-------------- 1 1 Mi - .Int=1 ----2-- -- . --GE:41 Ll-44== 4 ---I---12 ti-- L_-1 :.- 21--t-J----- C_ A- =t. 3 U , 1 8'Pl ID , . 1 - I 1 0 1 1 1 i , 1 f k '1 * --5 l#+ 1 4 4 -1 - - 1 1 1. 1 F~ix.'47/ 7-- - ~-- -f- t..,_ _ --_ --_---.- _-- -_--.---___-_- __ -__ ---- 1/...ill . : I T-- + Â·1:' - ~ ~Â· A r 1 ~~ ' ~' ~ t .i , , f.,~--1----- .--- -- --- -- -- -1--+ .----------- .--- - .---.------ -- .-----------+-- ------9------- --------. ---- ------ --- -----------U. ------ - ---- ~ I .1 -lt 1 2 Â·4#- , ' r U'il_ i' 12Â· 4' 1 , 1 ----...4- .-â€žMI---- Â£ --_ls. _- -- ,T 1 11 11 1 11 1 ! Â· :kjuD,#F WROD 4- -1 1 Rarc tuftÂ»fla_| -~-rl./ r .2 '1 1.1 f/-. . 0, ~ lu, 1 --, . , Â«4Â«-Â°rf'O J J/16* T~ -t, --- 1 . / 4 \ t I .3 1 : 1.344.*... - * = agie.41. 1-77 JL /5.. ,/la- ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~" ' Lida, Â°F- EN*19 1>144, Ere.-Â·rOF: C;'2.7 1; z. Â¢ 'f ./ ,(2/i--- 13. - i ~iff:=F---42.Â«4 ' J f. . --r 1 - - F , 1 I N h If -6 -- 1 ... 9---9 t- * # 2 11 -- - ---1-- LE=017/21,01.1411'~Ilty4104:. t~ t - - - - 01-{ 1-71 1 d ? a Ii i: D~ Â«1 1 ..... \\.1 -- - ----- . N 4'- -â€¢1....71.' .1 - -~At k i \ A \Â· ...-1- 1421----------- ----.----- --- C lAi- 'Â· 1 . i r--j / - 1.1 1, 1, pi 9 r .---6-I-*-*-I+96- U: -'*. -' --/*--'---- -----I -I M .--i in li 1 1 4 , --I- FLU=-2/ d - # - .--- 4 34.22-*IEE~~ 174.- - 147- 1- 7 11 li :=n =: .1 6 ----7- f .-2 I -. -- ; 1: 1' 5 ; F B :t : 1 !' C I Il 4 2 T:73 it 4 4-1-0-11 +-41.1-, 11.J: 1. 47.......,2. i ' E 51 1:1Â£ 2 rilit -- . 1 1 4 * 1!.# i ltid. i +~ 6 '1 Et.~it_ t.-bl-22.1-li tti... [ 0:132*-14=trzz.4. Li~]1 li -2-12{14Â£-ffit==1-=ff : JA L . !,4 1 : 11. i '14 - A.11 r - - - -- --1 1- .-1 - i 1 1 T. 1 -- .---- -------- - -7-- ----el-- Ii--I- r -r--7 -C- 11 11 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 FtÂ»'1 ELE [.1 ;61, 14 . 1,11; d 101,16" 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 27Â»3 11 11. 11 ; 1 11 I li L- LL---L--~ ~ 1 4--t ,-- - 2 24 .- - - 1_ All-162-j FE.II@Fr) 1-: 1 L- 2- Â·Â» t. 1 or tr-ry 5 1 K 4 i.4 5 . E 4421 t?Ali ar . : b ' ...t. f Ki 0/ . 1. '' t~ ..2:- *i, ' 1 4 0.1, : 5.1 , . 1 j / . -41 11$-! h 14- 1 4.,1.Ae 43 . ' . : , 0:77 -=#;.frr 1 , -ikÂ· i E \ 1*=._20 7 -2 N ;: a. , . 114 Lonitb~= .9 ' 1. ~ aL k -2 I. . 1 E 1 . :fr L' i~ 'V-/i TE : / . i -------iÂ«, 1-1 . .r--1 1 1 ~ r.-13 Â£ -.L-&/ / i - 1. . 4, U $ 9 Tlt : 7 n .Â· 9- ' ..2 1 :i _a?420- . -/f, 1 -L m. 1 -act - .4Â·. r. r 4< ~:n r.,i: ..A l. I E.El --' -T-- 1 lit./ _ ' 7.r ! . .li': 1 ; Iti E - 1 -72& ur. i m- _ r l ./ , , .31 ' 4 4 19Â·1 I, . $7 1 Â»: 1 - rt' 4 0 41. JÂ· 1.:'f ; - 14 ' 6. lie 3 -1 lue,1 f #XE"te, Met. ....2- - ' 1. 14< I . f. - /2 i 12 tV 1- ri ' 1 . , Â¢ 4.. 4 1 4 7 Â·Â·.47<,Â· -;- 1Â· .,;3.~tir A 4.. , 1 . i . , #Â£ 25.~AM#' 1-13'-Â·bt.Mbw- -' J , 1.. . .ff- . 7-Tf+- ~- 1 4.1,44.9 *Â¥-â€¢r-,4â€¢*AF ptittit.E, Â· mul / ! I , i mpv - 24 2 t .4 9 3 -lh---- F . 1 . i. A - I i 11-L 1/ L 1 /1 1/ I.-I-/=I - - .-- 1 , -~LWi~. N- -- -~-' - , f e. r 48. . 1 . Â·14'1:t -- r . P M & t:.. 1 Â· r ' tâ€¢.1. r --, 11. J, I ...0 6 1 41 . * OF 41 - - I , . ir i ' - '/ -- ' .4 Et , It . . .1 V - t t,-i . 8 , .+ 1 -Tr 3. H -I .22 4 1 2 # O 1.-7* t 1 ; " 43 -1Â¥ ~ I -7 . .1 1 0 -~ ~.7 -' '/a.-Mi,nl ''' . , .~ ./ 1 I r 1. 1 '.4Â» '. l -, U// 7-- /1 1,1 i 1 3 Â·. -it . - 11 1 - 32 I- 0 2 , --4Â·2Â·f~ 1 - !L'. , /1 11 1 1 , - m If. H , '~ # j . Â»--EÂ« , . ~1. 1> 1 . , 1 --7 192/"F,Er 1 -1 'q>in?1 4Â» 441921 i l 7, 7 0 IL 1 - -77Â»4 at,1 1 1(E/- - 77:rm - ..1 E 4:2; a. 1 11 -----1 f â€¢ f 1 : 1â‚¬Â·f, . 1 . L' . - 1 > k, 1 1, r - - 0 - C; CÂ·L le 1 1 p : ...C; 4 , 'k. 4 r i /3 44?v Ri f. \ 1 1 9.i: 1 ' 6% 1 lit . 1 . . 1 .0&. IÂ·â€¢9 Ol ..., 1 ' 1 12 1 - M..hme ta Â·f .Ft.* ' i /,4-r ., f . 1 . 2 J \ ' . 4, : - r. i r //- 1 11 1, . / // \ ./ 4 -L. Ati > .4 -11, ,- /3 0 . 1 /F:===q-,4 -Tr 1 1 1 , 1 9 1 1 1 . + ,--1"m-1 ri . 4 .. 1 4 1 3 I *1 44// 4 4 . 1 4 r 'E . " p' ' "- 1 ' 1 1 -- 1. 1 1 r - 1 1 Elk - Y â€¢. Â· ,.. 5-a. 41 'f 4 1 11 \ feeDs, JÂ«_ ~ 81 I wIn . --~VI 1 / 1 . -1. 1 1 Ag'.de-v-. In... .4, â€¢,0-,Â·",4 - - . a ,- . 5 L.--- ----- t:r444 ; j â€¢6'â€¢61*l â€¢t-* 1 1 ---U 3- 1 . I 1 -L---2~1 :la it.79 - 131 r-4 a : 4//.44-//3/22 - 04 / 0 ,~~2_ -~Rit . '.. 297 2' . - \ / 4//-1_ ./-- - ./.t ' I I. -. 7/9/miwitell . 1 , 2<â‚¬. 49 1 %2. r.,1 tÂ· 4 1-rio. 1 1,1 . .1 . 41 1 9 1 1 ./1 1 / 1 1 A -+ - - .*---0,-*--- ----* -1 --7 4 & ' K. 111 / h '2Â·Â·rAL..=:4;1:mt* 6-YL- 1 1 11 //// 1 -- ./ f j 7 -"1 1 7 1. -1 1 11 11 \ 44=Â·~ \r , j 'Z- &:19. i -/ 1 . / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . I I 1 4/ \Ne /1 -#46 1 0,1 id\ /,1 1 V 4I Al 1 Â« ----- jFT 1 - Â£- 0 : 14 I 01: MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Minor Development and Parking Variation: 208 1/2 E. Main (Public Hearing) Date: October 24, 1990 SUMMARY: HPC member and architect, Glenn Rappaport, Lessee, is representing himself on this project (which is allowed under the Land Use Regulations). Glenn is seeking to convert a 273 sq. ft. alley-oriented outbuilding used as storage behind Gracy's into an office space for himself. The changes are minor in nature, and involve no increase in square footage. Due to the increase in "net leasable" on the parcel, a parking variation of one space is being requested from the HPC. ZONING: "0" Office, "H" Historic Overlay, Designated Landmark parcel APPLICANT: Glenn Rappaport, Lessee, is representing the owner, Claudette Carter DISCUSSION: The Development Review Standards are found in Section 7-601(D)(1). The applicable Guidelines are found in Section VI, Residential Buildings - Renovation and Restoration, (E) Alleys and Parking, page 51. Standard 1. The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structure 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. Parking variations for landmark parcels are allowed under Section 8-104(B)(1)(c)(2) which states: "Parking shall be provided according to the standards of Art. 5, Div. 2, and Div. 3, if HPC determines that it can be provided on the site's surface and be consistent with the review standards of Art. 7, Div. 6. Any parking which cannot be located on-site and which would therefore be required to be provided via a cash-in-lieu payment shall be waived." Response: The Planning Office finds that this proposal meets this Standard. The replacement materials chosen are appropriate, and the new windows proposed for the north elevation do not negatively alter the character of the outbuilding, in our opinion. We bring to the HPC's attention the use of corrugated fiberqlass fencing material to screen the entry, and recommend careful consideration of this or a substitute material. Standard 2. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The applicant's desire to convert existing historic outbuilding space into usable office is highly desirable to the entire community, especially within this zone district. Standard 3. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels Response: The Planning Office finds that this standard has been met. Standard 4. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Our only concern is the design of the entrance fence, and the use of corrugated fiberglass. The applicant argues that this material is appropriate in vernacular alley settings, and, that it is found in a few other locations in Aspen (i.e. north alley in 700 block E. Main). We recommend the HPC carefully consider this material for appropriateness with in the Main Street Historic District. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may approve the Minor Development proposal as submitted, and grant a parking variation for one space; approve the proposal with conditions; table action to a date certain to allow the applicant additional time to restudy specific elements; deny Minor Development approval. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval for the Minor Development proposal at 208 1/2 E. Main Street, and further recommends that the HPC grant a parking variation for one space according to Section 8-104(B)(1)(c)(2). memo.hpc.208em 2 Box 276 Aspen, Co. 81611 September 20, 1990 Aspen Historic Preservation Committee 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Minor Development 208 1/2 E. Main Street Dear Committee Members: The proposed conversion of an existing wood shed located at the rear of Lot M, Block 73 (now called 208 1/2 E. Main Street) into a small office will not involve any enlargement of the building's floor area. A small entry courtyard will be introduced on the west side of the original gable roofed portion, which will reduce the floor area from 273 sq ft to 224 sq ft. The shed now encroaches into both the rear and side yard setbacks (to the east and north) of Lot M. 'I'here is no request for a variance other than for the mitigation of the single required parking space. 1t is felt that the proposed addition of three windows to the alley elevation (north elevation) will not detract from the shed's compatibility with the rest of the structures which already exist on its parcel or its immediate neighbors. All the work (remodelling) will be accomplished without raising the original structure or changing its relationship to the ground plane in any way. There are a number of small scale outbuildings in this alley and it is felt that the proposed development is consistent in character with this "neighborhood" while preserving and revital- izing a previously vacant building. Since the bulk of the structure is not affected by this proposal, it is felt that this development does not detract from the cultural value of the designated historic structures located on the parcel. Any new materials that will be introduced will be chosen from the palette which already exists on site, such as corrugated metal roofing, asphalt roll roofing and clapboard. In this regard, it is felt that the proposed development will not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of the existing shed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ///1/1 11. 241 Glenn H. Rappaport GHR:gc 6 12 /1 0 3 1 ... I - . 1 - -- - I ALLEY WAIL SCT: REBAF ASTIC CAP 2707 0.-- 5 75*09'11-E 09 70 a/13.6-1 m PLAy>TIC L.S. 12-/07 Iu -'- 1.2,0 1~ 7/WCOD DHED/~ 1 #1,2/Â«~1 3-05 7 45 I Fil 3-_337-3,-f'L,O='n In 37 9 / n 34 PROPOSED ~:iDe 01 ADDITION Lh 06-4 /77 1/ b 0/ / 0//// jl//J ///1/Ii/- 101 1 Pull, /~ uÂ·NE NOR f / / FRNVE nout,E/8 -/ // FRAMEL HOUSE~Â© 1 /// /j i / 1//l /1 -23 J//// j / / / YT 9% 4 --- 1-/111 1 //1 1L-i, : A-19 / |t...1 1 i ' 1 1-â€¢ 0_1j //ils ' Li4t 11 1" I l l i u 1 i- : .- 33-1 10 LOT K LOT L LOT M N -15Â°09 0 i t- vv 89.10 A/1A. 1 0 C *1- , N 14Â°50'49" E 10000 \\482 ~ 0 001 M.6*.OG.*1 S "d'fl-,1 K W 1 ..3 0. 14 19 MI 3. 51*1 11 1 an 0941-407 IN(92%1 9,9 H 3015 1 , 91ru. MO 99...Ja =1==L- il - 111 /Â« - \~47 //3/. 111 // Â»/1 9 1 1 40.,1-.% > 5-,0 5,1.ut>%\ x 3 0 r t 4/* la 6 /'4 4199 j M 03 70 9 t i n ' 1 0 , r, ----- 9 19 1 30 oj ' 1,L DO '0 01 200 3 Ciff Y 11 1 |klew MIET,4- R.0Â£,F IMG -1 1 Z ils Flka.A Ex,41-9 --- U # u v 1.â€¢ U , . % I i *<iâ‚¬rk. =- /' 1.-1- 1 * 41 tÂ»W - 0 & f 6<6 - 16 26 5,0, 46 | lb' [Le-M,11).1 fr-of 60260 _A._4 4.__f_ 91,1 -1,0 " N hh. 114 Evi' METALÂ· FaMOVE r A 60 4 0 Â·F C ENS< 04 b /1200? , 4082 E-002 \3/1,1 115 1 i ~b- - irth , -- - i 1 Illi,%11!blill' :1 11 111 . 1 111 11!lili h It : 1, \Ii /11'] . /11 1,1.:1 '4 MI JL, 1 =~2=1- - _ urd--t==L P':1 ~ I \1 1 :}1''li le-# 1,7.r,0- EU 1Â»61 ?5 5 84Â«6 N Â· .I t. 1/4/4 1')2.,pUS ' i i.1-Â·1 / 112 2.EMA,k' .4 1 lAw A N (r Wirl c,ov/ r :1 .9 1 1*'1'Cu Plv'QEe 1.-1 1*5 1 Li- t'2,Â¢K,=iÂ¢>1 ../15*14l-455Â»~ \9 ~ 1 1 1 2,1 111, 1 i 11! I 4, ; - ---r I hi E \W 1.9 Â° 7 0 6 6 0 aw-re~ 641-B KIa 1 1- 14 74" 1 j n -1,2, Ck h R & 7 ) . h li Â£ p Ellitil. U.WUPU U u . 11 / ' mil pli -___ ___ . d t - - 0 0 g. h ..A === I \ 4 4 h ,\ NEW - p - --- - -- _ N. ~E I<Wefc 1--=- 4 L PUNIC. 4 0.- f{ \-- - --- - -7 ~ A Gwier ... -7 Z 00..6 , 4Â·rÂ» Avisâ‚¬p ~ \ bLEÂ·5 -4-- - --- // 166Â£1 V . 1.......--9/.-==E] 01 11 p 1,0,1 ' ocultrYALL# i '0 , . 9--9- o F o 9-6 - D w & e f #fy id VAL No B w.,r tr \ 31=JUILE / or, ofogil I N,16 5 04 -rk. 'Giot /AND 0 oK Â£444 - MEI'al- - p.6/1'3 Â·SuN' flu-iNG FRorl A,F ADJotter FAOFOSEP 60 U74 % i,- i. O 4 AL--a 1. ibeA fi Drl Fl v F w i u Dow - -9O6FPED UF U PENINGÂ¢3 -7----~ ~~'N. / 6 M r,1 V A 1 + -1 j f l Aor->rd \NoOp 9 U B 01 1 16.- i 1 r- . i / E & 1 5 < 1 Â» U f L. N d 1/k 11 â€¢1 1,12 W f S k)'F 81 IG,9 7 1 = f f---4 # L F.664-:-U-=In=LI e- r ING'â€¢' <rZE#68 / - Ooeft k. I OFF ' od--/- - c.our<9 4-ep 1 __1 1 .1 f 1 1 1 . 9 q . Foo-r>16. E 1 65,1,0 r 913%469 = 214.5 55. j . - - --- ----,- -----1 -- -1 Dourry/12-2 - is,5 if. 1 .0 - 1-3 06 5 5275 9.F 1 / 11 1 1 " /3 -\'Cl