The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19900425AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE CUP, 1 l.- a %-- -R]t:Yam:@u 1990 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM City Hall 5:00 I. Roll call and approval March 28, 1990 minutes. Jin K e - 6 4 Jr II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. NEW BUSINESS 5:10 A. Minor Development - Paepcke Park Gazebo restoration CL.,r ' ' - ... t. V. OLD BUSINESS 5:40 A. Final Development-Guido' s parcelp,St- 1 U j 6:30 B. Landmark Designation and Amended Conceptual Development application: 801 E. Hyman 047.I'U.,j<_C - b . VI. COMMUNICATIONS 7:30 Followup: Board of Realtors luncheon meeting Update: Demolition and redevelopment of 624 E. Hopkins National Historic Preservation Week West End Historic District Overlay Project Monitoring 8:00 VII. ADJOURN 1 - AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE 611>. 1, Â£*v- 8148.4, 1990 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM City Hall 5:00 I. Roll call and approval March 28, 1990 minutes.Â»Ke, - 6Â«s II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. NEW BUSINESS 5:10 A. Minor Development - Paepcke Park Gazebo restoration / 1 V. OLD BUSINESS 5:40 A. Final Development-Guido' s parcel-9 4-2 6:30 B. Landmark Designation and Amended Conceptual 1 Development application: 801 E. Hyman 47*pÂ«e,>'U~-4 VI. COMMUNICATIONS 7:30 Followup: Board of Realtors luncheon meeting Update: Demolition and redevelopment of 624 E. Hopkins National Historic Preservation Week West End Historic District Overlay Project Monitoring 8:00 VII. ADJOURN Â«i D-K~ 44\ 1 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Minor Development: Preservation/Restoration of Paepcke Park Gazebo Date: April 25, 1990 APPLICANT: The City of Aspen, Parks Department APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The "reconstruction" of the Paepcke Park Gazebo in Paepcke Park, Main Street Historic District PROJECT MONITOR: To be assigned at this meeting HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE: The gazebo, a project of the WPA in the 1930's, is a locally designated landmark. The gazebo has changed slightly over the years, i.e. the removal of the bell in the bell tower. Its relocation to the park prompted a raised foundation with storage space underneath. A simple stairway with incompatible railing was installed. CURRENT CONDITION: The Planning Office is very pleased to see the Parks Department taking such a interest in the preservation/ restoration of this landmark gazebo, which maintenance is long overdue. Affectionately referred to as the "Leaning Tower of Paepcke", the gazebo is listing, badly to the east, and is suffering from neglect. SUMMARY: Approximately one month ago, staff and two HPC members (Don Erdman and Glenn Rappaport) met Parks Department staff George Robinson on-site to discuss the condition of the gazebo, and appropriate preservation methods. The HPC should be extremely clear in the direction given to the Park Department in this restoration proiect. They are willing to do what is appropriate, however, are not experts in preservation techniques and are asking the HPC for as much guidance, direction and help as possible to insure the success of this project. They are anxious to get underway very quickly. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends the HPC grant minor development approval for the preservation/restoration of the Paepcke Park Gazebo, with the following conditions: All existing materials shall be preserved (i.e. sanding as needed, new light coat of stain with protective clear finish applied over), with the following exceptions: 1) New dark stained wood roof shingles, for both main roof and cupola roof 2) New dark stained log columns (eight), in a width to exactly match existing. Care shall be taken to treat base and tops of logs columns to retard future moisture deterioration. 3) New dark stained log railing and log balusters, surrounding gazebo on all eight sides excluding portion for stair opening. Width of railing and balusters and spacing shall exactly match original materials as indicated in historic photo. 4) New dark stained log stairway railing system (handrail and balusters) 5) Foundation supports, as needed, to correct listing. Exposed concrete shall not visible from the exterior. Consideration should be give to incorporate foundation repairs with the correction of the flower bed design (refer to #6). 6) Altered design of current flower beds, which directly lean against gazebo, causing moisture to be retained around perimeter. The HPC should give clear direction to the Parks Department on this aspect of the plan. 7) Ceiling beadboard replaced where currently patched in, or removed to expose rafter system of bell tower cupola. 8) Consideration to replace or repair "lightning rod", which projects from top of cupola. 1.0 0 0/b e r.te-/ 9) The structure shall remain in its cuttent location in the park, with work being completed in place. A disassembly of the gazebo shall not occur. Compatible and subdued lighting should be incorporated, so that the gazebo may be utilized on summer nights as well as during the day. The current electrical conduit (silver tube) shall be removed and reinstalled to be as invisible as possible. iÂ· (~j Â¢ Q' 1flift-~-~~twp#~ t_ (Next, we need to wor-orra protective covering for the Boat Tow in Willoughby Park!) memo.hpc.gazebo MEMORANDUM TO: Historic Preservation Committee Roxanne Ef J in, Planning FROM: George Robinson, Parks Department RE: Reconstruction of Paepcke Park Gazebo DATE: April 10,1990 The City of Aspen Parks Department would like to reconstruct the existing gazebo in Paepcke Park. The main structure of the building is In dangerous condltion at present. We would like to save all original materials as posslble, without interfering with the structure/strength of the building. All new materials will , conform to the original design and structure. The bell that was originally in the top of the gazebo will not be reinstalled and the current design of the bell housing will remain the same. At present, the only changes to the building w111 be to match the original round railing along the sides and make the stairway conform to building codes using round railing. Also, we feel that for structural purposes, a poured foundation needs to be added for strength and storage below the gazebo floor. / I 2\' /} 1 ./8/03 y i:,~'~r~ 4 ,2 - -- - -- - 47" I' 3.1 I j [ -- -- 1 f --- 0 1 -.9 f , - -7 i 1- 1 -9/4. .1 /1 11 1/ 1 1 k= 61 . Â»14-36Â»4, 1 1 ,1 ,!1 11 11 1 1 1 ' 1 il r! 1 / 7-MI - 37*-Il 10/ 1 M it- 11 17 1 F 11 Ski :21 lilli lili ill I / .3 4 E-loo,- ~43927'ti.*tof:'fI~I.~I :-4-,.~..v Â· ./ .TJ@~097/ 4,0 Â·fi- C . 1 ' . 4,-'. t:& I ' el#'22.4.5.#b 4 5 ~ '~~ftÂ·11 1 1 1 . '. I - I. '-. --'-Â·-,/z . Â¢Â· 3.*.dug= 4 7 .1 1- , A ' ' ..49./. \-24 . i 1: Eli 1/1 , F Hi ..1, r. e. 1 2 =: _s=23 3011/~f=El+ -- ..4,* rj . 0 a: - ' - . 1 1- 11 I . trf:FR / 1~7 1 '.4 , 2- i- - m - F . 1 1-~*11 4 P. 1 6% -11 .. 1 0. 4.â€¢Â·44*ikÂ·,11:142,=~ L ' u - .RLL :q.,-â€ž29-49;'~ 2494&6 n 1.-Sh.4 - *:1'e Â·9148 .444 <.4.JÂ·.Aâ€¢'Â· 99' . ,4*4. I . .. 00?3:I.114' , k ift>,1,9,1, '4, 44 4, 0," 1 4%4444,j,: 01 f 1 q. . 1 "p''l*:t~,<+'Â·Â£ 11 , 14 1 111.. K ./ ..-/*I . 1 'I- ~~.7.'46-:2'.,-Ijj:-I.'4*Â£4*,Fl~:4~,tfz'?.21<1;~>~t.4<4-4 , ~*54.-'. . 0.47 '5~ 98&-e w. ,Â·f:,:Alâ€¢.'-'FRÂ·' 1-. -2~~ 9Â£-42Â£fi, ; I 11Â»â‚¬+S're, . fb.424 ~49'i~"*Â·i~;0~~~*1~0*ilfilti~~ P Â» rt 6 -4 4 , As~Â·pjet,#P#*14*M:W/J, Gvple>it~*4:51Â· Â·4*464*# . mELJW#5KkA - Utit:fÂ¢>-},?.4,414 , L '7Â·244~gâ€¢'i#~~~>K:.'19 ".4/ . . 41 1 E@~~~*4*IM4~tt*+~~~re~ 1,4- 1. .4,1 ....0 . G './tr 4%'. ' . ~Â· '~ 4,#410*Yrb#v .4, I,'.4 k*1-kra= â€¢-.La,CL - 5--1->41' . 0, . Roft kl C Â»tr- 41-1 4-fifF -Â»reu . -692-*z-*- His-kfi C , lic j u o k 6402.40 c trior 44/ 15 ic-k d.tiop. k Aqcle *rk . ty-Â·IÂ·'>21.0 6Â©74-03 ..:Â·4- r; .. . , . ... .:: - 1 , . 3 42 2 5 1 .. r..95.4. .2-k-. 42 *4, h. 75. ... 1 3.: - < V}.31/ 4 C Â· ret.1 'â€¢3-* I '44 ~..21. 4 . W AL, Â£ i.,v e ... 6 fe ' + .. K*,-46 ' I -I-+ . r ' 1 1,1* . ' t. #..fi~'mill 5*iill INA /1 - I ' . 1 ta e 1 5 22 --/ / -1,--r.L.. ..E -*-'te=W..5.;r => 15,5 .1. 1, ) .11'Me , 592==71= .- %-i -l T -i I --I /- : 4 4 ".,Lr=~0*04/-'.de"'I,Ji.'ri;ZP- - ... I o-'72%3 /1$&M,3 .4.%4 -2.. -- 1 * 2 -..(r/*"./'ll :Â· . 2Â·.4 i, '343*Ut 1 - ... C.N.rt 4 I 4 : *.. A.:4:. 3.--1,..p 1 i in -- f:.. - : i - , ....1 . ./. -- 1 - -, - W .f.1< 14443 L .1 m . -s:-Im.*hol* 4*244 1~'t~~*~1~~N~> -1~ .i." 41,7 4 91%~,&4': 9 -Uâ€¢~ -* D ... ./- 1 - - I . 1 1 ... 1 - 119 7- '-94>'u / 2/.AR*#1,1 LAÂ£b 1 AL I. ...##3 -5 4- 1, 1 id 5/5-1 i.a , . **i-~I Â· A ~--Â· ' 1 ->I.3--972 7 33-16164243- i t)-1.;*'Sp<Â·.29= â€¢14 4 - 1$*44,rair .f*Er< .,1 Â·-7, <7~C Â· - f .. - :t.'.- I .-.It - - I. vy ./ . .. - 7 -113y .4./1*TE .' $ I. rt U. 4 t. t>LI ./01 ./.*.-4 -6 & ~~ 2'* 4 - 1 m.*E...,4 1 =-4-Ali hy Â¥ , 4,2 "ll--'.-----1. t.XAki ./ -%- I -- 2 *p-1,4 1 9tte,Â»D Â¥1~ I_-1.-I i. U 4 L.1 # 4 0-2.--'---r-Aa i f! 3 2**fart : 31-**,*-& ../.-"..-Il -Ii' .....ie.ceâ€¢:-1 illillilillillid.:liti:zi,/1/4 *4Fillipe'lin / 11160 .Â·,- p.hAU.115Â£e -f 4 4 I & He.Mulfik Â· & + 7 9- I /' ' ,/ C,9 - - -r - 0 1 f A 21*316 --'i â€ž - 'tÂ¢ 1. ~Â· , . - =46,6 6 , rt 4,M,T yz â€ž2.6--1,5.f/>3Â®. 4 1 31' * , 3*40/ Â£ --I---1 3 - vÂ¥419..4,4--248/ . $1 4,4 2, r. L *r . ' \ AN/*1 1 il: 4 1.:1' Â·Â· * 1.1 (14'121 # *raa:8 *-7 .e/'/"&4..** '.Z, - 41* I ' 6447.,lf â€¢,Rr ..rj 6 941// -- .1-J -I V# .Â£7=--Fri~ , 3 VS<~'blt'.. Â·. W' 4.?t, 1,- 1. , tli R -- ...%/ail/gn . Ii---.- - - 4 . 4.-*.71.1 - /M . ~ . ~11 *py 3**6 m.- - :A '.1 4//r, 7-1- & 7 0" i ' 1. 1,//1 : -qi 1/":7/Px â‚¬ d&& Â· MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Final Development: 425 E. Cooper - "Guido's" parcel Date: April 25, 1990 SUMMARY: The HPC is being asked to grant Final Development approval for the Guido' s parcel, including the chalet structure , and the adjacent two story commercial building. HPC PROJECT MONITOR: To be assigned at this meeting PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: On August 23, 1989, the HPC reviewed and tabled action for a Conceptual Development proposal involving a third floor addition to the detached commercial building on the Guido's parcel (to the west of the chalet building). The plans included a new facade on the commercial building and a bridge connector between the two structures. The Committee found the general application was not compatible with the chalet building or the historic district. On September 13, 1989, the applicant returned to the HPC with a revised proposal, which received Conceptual approval with the following (condensed) conditions to be met at Final: 1. Chalet building preservation be precisely defined 2. Exact building materials represented at Final 3. Bridge connector restudied for reduction purposes 4. Landscape plan submitted 5. Commercial storefront plans be submitted in detail 6. Restudy of bridge connector; hide mechanicals there 7. Roof top plan be submitted 8. Existing conditions be provided either in elevation or photographs 9. East elevation of commercial building to be submitted Due to the number of fenestration design changes made to the plans since Conceptual approval, the applicant wishes to receive HPC's approval for the amendments prior to continuing work on the Final Development plans. On March 14, 1990, the applicant met again with the HPC to obtain approval for an amended conceptual development application, which the HPC approved with the following conditions: 1) Corner entrance (of chalet building) be restudied, with the suggestion that a gesture of the solid aspect of the building be retained in some manner at that corner. 2) The second revision .to the fenestration of the commercial building as presented (at the March 14 meeting) be incorporated into the final plan 3) The fenestration on the ground level storefront (of the chalet building) be restudied to ensure compatibility (with the character of the building) 4) ~e HPC supports sta f f' s preparation o f a re ferral / letter to the zoning department to retain the non- 4,~," conforming Guido family crest sign 5) -Landscape elements are to be restudied and all remaining conditions of conceptual (granted on September 13, 1989) shall be met at Final. STAFF'S RESPONSE: We find that all of the above conditions have been met with the exception of Conditions #1 and #3 - entrance and storefront level fenestration design on chalet building. Staff is recommending further study in these areas to make more compatible with the second floor. We find that the solutions chosen, in the form of large square windows and large expanse of corner entry transparency, are not in keeping with the mountain chalet style. This style generally has smaller, horizontal openings and a larger percentage of solid - to void. The difficulty has been in adaptively designing this first floor to accommodate retail, when it never has in the past. Possibly with the use of more wood tudor-like trim (similar to the upper floor), the two floors may tie together in a more harmonious manner, and the chalet style will be more apparent at storefront level. Staff questions whether simple divided glazing would help in breaking up the window mass, and tie the first and second floor windows together more compatibly. The chalet building's corner entrance poses an interesting design challenge. Glass doors are proposed, which we find appropriate, however, the side lights and transoms may be inappropriate in a building with such symmetry and substantial proportions of plaster walls. Possibly less glazing and more stucco (plaster) would be a better design solution, and we recommend that the HPC take this into consideration. It should be noted that the diagonal, recessed corner entrance as proposed on March 14, 1990 has been redesigned. The entrance is now on the same plane as the north and east walls, which staff finds to be a significant improvement. 2 The "Mountain Chalet" style is noted for its tudor influence (rectangular timber/stucco materials), low pitched roofs with wide overhangs, horizontal features (balconies, fenestration) carved verge boards, and cutout balcony and shutter detail. We feel that the amount and design of glazing incorporated here is not appropriate to this structure, and significantly changes the chalet character of this building. PLEASE REFER TO THE APPLICANT'S LETTER (ATTACHED) FOR DISCUSSION ON "CONTINENTAL SWISS" DESIGN IN RELATION TO STOREFRONT LEVELS. COMMERCIAL BUILDING: Staff finds that Final Development proposal for the commercial building and elevator connector appropriate and compatible with the district. ALTERNATIVES: 1.. Grant approval for Final Development as proposed 2. Grant approval for Final Development to the commercial building as proposed, and require restudy on the storefront fenestration and corner entrance as discussed by staff. 3. Table action, recommending further study be completed on the chalet building for compatibility purposes. 4. Deny approval for the amended proposal, finding the conditions of conceptual have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant approval for Final Development to the commercial building as proposed, and require restudy on the storefront fenestration and corner entrance as discussed by staff. Approval is subject to HPC's approval of materials to be presented by the applicant at this meeting. memo.hpc.425ec.fd :11/6 69<421 3 b J A k t j (e ,----- r j *flf \/0 3 a 1\1 A/C<:ic. U - U Or<..-D fi 11 1 va I V a Â»*em,1 . .r= = 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL: (303) 925-4755 FINAL DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL APRIL 13,1990 TO: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE OF ASPEN FROM: BILL POSS & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING, P.C. MICHAEL A. BAKER, P.A. RE: 425 EAST COOPER AVENUE, ASPEN, COLORADO "GUIDO'S" - PARCEL AS PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED Forward In an attempt to satisfy the remaining conditions as set forth by "HPC" on March 14, 1990, we believe we have met and have addressed these concerns in this Final Development Submittal. Ourprimary concern isthat our design solution forthe commercial building not compete with the chalet tudor styled building which is also being renovated under this HPC Submittal. Because of the relative location of each of the buildings to one another and additionally to the Cooper Avenue Mall and the proximity to Galena and Cooper Avenue intersection we feel that primary significance should be given to the "chalet" structure. We feel that this was accomplished with a softened facade for the commercial building while accentuating the chalet styling of the primary structure. We studied the present "chalet style" of the primary focus building and found that the use of any rectangulartimber patterns are virtually non-existent on the lower story of this building but especially detailed on the second story. This is consistent with Continental Swiss design features historically influenced. These features include stucco and/or plaster, stained wood (not necessarily painted or dark stained). Our solution, we believe through this renovation uses these features to accomplish a harmonious balance with history. Since the commerciai buiiding has previously met the issues and conditions of the HPC Board, we will not focus on this structure in this narrative of submittal, but will address the unresolved issues still before the HPC Board and this project as they concern the "chalet" building. F./-071 ""4 Sheet Al.1 -- Shows the relationship of the existing structures and the stair and handicap accessible elevator. Sheet A2.1 -- Shows the revised fenestration puncture locations and entry way recesses that were an issue for our H.P.C. final submittal. Sheet A3.1; States the use of materials and the relationship of Sheet A3.2; same with each elevation. Sheet A3.3; Sheet A3.4 Please review the above and herein attached drawings that we sincerely believe have addressed the remaining issues that the H.P.C. Board asked for our restudy and resubmittal. Should the H.P.C. Board require any additional information or comments prior to our scheduled agenda meeting on April 25,1990, please feel free to inquire from this office. 99~arn Po~ & Associates Architects 0 MicMel-ArBaker:- PA ' i. w .1 VI ~..~..1/ 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO81611 TEL. (303) 925-4755 April 13, 1990 Historic Preservation Committee c/o Roxanne Eflin 130 S Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Guido's - Final Development Submittal Dear Roxanne: Please find enclosed our Final Development narrative and drawings with regard to this Final Development Submission. The drawings included are three (3) sets of each as listed below: Sheet Al.1 Site & Roof Plan A2.1 Lower Level Floor Plan @ Chalet A3.1 Building Elevations (N&S) @ Chalet A3.2 Building Elevations (E&W) @ Chalet A3.3 Building Elevations (N&S) @ Commercial Building A3.4 Building Elevations (E&W) @ Commercial Building It is my understanding that this submittal is to be scheduled for the April 25th H.P.C. Agenda for Board Review. If anything else should be needed or required for this meeting, please do not hesitate in contacting me. /Reards, A -7 1/ 51 C Enclosure MJB:lah 5h - K r 16 60/Ins:,iullh//1 *L.ta -fit t 1Â£1' . **t 94 flhu o / ./- C:- r)' L 6-4-4.20 --2fir' YS 9/'ll - 4 Fq-ir - 4 ./4,1+ WIN LS r 41'10 .ti . , I @ '' 4 1 . 4 # 1, u/,111~11115~~~ i 41 B ' es, a .NU)0 + 1 ] 4 . P Â·1 i t. Al' ~; , Â· M 1-- 1~LA ,* '- r Ake ,]6; i v. 3 4 -1 ' 118 P t , , Â· . ...bilth/*.tryr~TA ~ 6, 1 4 . 1 1.1 liT f.: 1 lij. ..tir. !.it 46: 4 'fi , I , :/ . 14 4..,@Arld,l,:, m ~ Â· i;h..: 4 -44. t...111, it~. ..4 11~. 21.L.':1.18.1.:4.. .. .,4 , Â· I h >2. ~ ' idt-If t....f ! ~1 , Â· ni w 414 1614#b *- '~;:. 4#PLAMM'(49 ... r .1 1 'tk> 411*4 r 't./1.141:-:,2 1 3/B.* 1 g-i WitÂ· I .I~ .1014' , UPÂ· 412 . 3. : tâ‚¬04 , & 11â€¢Ihil'93.20' . 4 84:%2: 6114 i !11 Im . - 1 ....11 . 1.,C 1 i i illil 1 , 11 4 , p~ ~ri ~/P J.J ~; i rt i ' 't , A 4.441,7 :.'' lili 11 2.1 4 1 .LL , 4 c,+1 111. :Â·itii-k . li . '': I. Â· It , M -+ A ; . ,.... .Â· r Â·Â· i t. ' . ' 1 . 'F h .., T 1 1 - a - i - 44,4 - 0 0 / i --1--- - lIli .. {.Â·t~ X 11 ti f 1 1 -. \ 1-30_U 1 - =h , -*696=-2- -= -- w.. 3 ~. 7- , 1 1 ~ ~1111 1 .,111: 1 - --jl-/'/t- ,I, 4 . 11 i ' 49 J~ 1 / 0 1 -,1 1Â¥ &.r. 11 /7//1 f .. J -7 4,Â¥7 3 *ex - 40 F - ..1-6--4 ' - - .-3CIE~5\ -- 4 2-1 do .- -- . . ..1 1. -, -2,44 .. 4 : A--- .A Â· 9 il! r:.: 0 - %. - . - 4 k 4 ,4 - 5 *-4-.q-0.'It.# - p.; .- -7- - . -- ,--9-4 . - , mu ---9. . , 1.-r""*/".Ial/:SDisiffigrt,/./0..54=2:Â»- h. 4 , ..%...:. - - --M.--9-1-0 .-1,Â£ - 94 .*m~ - 4 1 ' 1 11 : 1 1 K 1 1 i r 1 1 T- 11 1 1 1 1 1 1- 1 1 1 11 J 1 1 10 1 1 111 .1 1 1 1 MIE.CH, EGUIr'.0~NIT 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 /353: 1 5 . f 1 .1 1 1 *ANX 1 . - .2-0 \4\ - 1 1--- 6 -- 4 - -i - ST UCC,O -~~~ WOMENG HALL K I TCHEN - 4'TUCOO ---; 1 -4 ~1 1 - 1 - -4 1 L I -- 2% El - -- ---3--.:---29 - -_rny__ _5 M i# t~~ ~~_4~-~43 ~_1 afttl Kff/g(%>6}~-~96~~5*'lit 5TUCCO 7 STUCCO -\ COLOR ..r C E-,<,47, FIN . - EXIST. gRADE v ARCH'T. 70 'EM.'Al. SANDSTONE 6EE SPEC. *ANO G ) - 1 r ?51Â«11< \ HALL . \ -1 0 2 2/1 2] U DJ 5 [ FAVepts __~ 4. , Â¢ SONG. 6->t . 1 NU#*EK 90(* buMJERS A$ SfEC. 4 6046Â· El-At, - - - 3. - - - -- -- M -- - - ./ -- --I -Il- ill- LlÂ¥-- J. ' ,:t:.1:27 1,:; i 7 1 1 1 1 : 7 1 : , .1, f i I Gi ? ' . J i i :, .TT li ! 1 : lil li 1 1 A - .wÂ· .,Â·. ;_.1.Â·'fÂ· ..4.: -' ' . 1 .2-' , 46 664 .. ,)39. 16, 1 -1 Shell 1 y ;91 /tv , 24..%: 1 1% At- 9 * W LALL 4 Â¥ j ... 21 lili y. m ... 3- - A-11 ~G,/ INÂ«JL., Â·1. i ; It 6 +F CONIC.. ALAÂ® 4 - M,ACKFILL- | 9 4 t. l Â»A - 5 =DN. WALL ~ g V.*Li r - - r.-vk. < .::c : -...7 -2,9<Â·4 - 4 0 ED N. ORAIN L, U -#SNS>/96&**f#/ myÂ·â€¢te#rey -- -- -- Alihmww# 23 WEST ELEVATION -- r--1------ ....6, t.0< 1 ST 11\.1 4 C) < BUBFACE- MITA E.MOVE EX,05: W!\DOW LOCATE , CONDEALED r-Â· k EW W, NIDOW Of EN I Ales. LIOHT Â°ATER EXIST OfENINGSÂ· SouBOE (1~Yf!) Cx- SKY-L 1 0*H-T trÂ·+ T < nE~rchip 15 , 1 4- , 1. -\ O -- Â· O Â· O 2 -Â·-- - -- r- LÂ» ---7- -- - il \\ 11 L==11 -5TUaa:P COL-ork -BY- -- 1 1---- --1 : TÂ»123 3 - r--3 ~1 ~291\4 1/.' .34 i/'-\<11 i/ \ . i 7-44 0.---2- 1 7- Z-J-. 1 1 '17=\ _- !1-1. LXÂ» 7 i C i 1, 1 10\ I Z i,A * 4 I A., l k i \ \ 1\~1~ 11 / -4 \4 1 1 ! , L- 1 . . /1 /\ ./ ~ , L_-_-3 Â· ' ,, r- 1 / l - ., . 9 11 2 \W-1 FO \_-/ /11 , 1 Lj J' 1 \2 M k / 1, Iii\ 11!Iii , :4 , J i i , 1 - ./ 1 - ./1 !1 /1 1 1 /11 \ / 1 1 - . 1 '\/' 1 ; I v I 1 _ L_1,Â£f-- - 4 i i L---w.- - J 1 .11 - ---1 1 -%70060 AUARIP RAIL Nip. Tkl M (MTI- .Li.bo) // 4 1.- 7 K) PAND . 5/5 PETAIL -~) 44/ LANDGEDNE CAF 1 1 J- C ; El 0 1- 61000 P124ME d MFL. 1 1 VI N 1- 1- 4-LAP CPOL 0, PELORATIVE 1 1 , Hukki 14149014 k/ DMA_. _. 1 ZNLAY (-TYF) ' ALAZED THETKMAL- 1 1 EGRESS EGRESS TEMFE-REP 6,1,AÂ·55 W I XRD O -W EÂ®RESS 7 1 WIN :DOW -----4- > crre.~ N: NDOW ------- > 11 1 1, 2- JJ 1 . .1 632 . , 1 0 3 - F h Z - ft SOUTH ELEVATION -. 0< 4 4 -1 - SKYLIGHIT * | DEN'ONg 1 | CONCEALEU LIGHT SOURCE (TYFÂ· ) Ill- 1 .A< ky ' MECH. EQUIP'KIENT ' ~ \14(ittl- 16 4-1 1-L \\Â»hÂ»\ 0 _1_ -*-- ~REMOVE EXIer. WINDOWB. LOCATE - 3 \\\Of?*%> 2 -r \ 4 %\ NJEWWIINDOW OF,NI'G. MATCH EXIer orN'G'. Crre) . it' *- - - 3-xb ---7 . 1 0 /1 1 j - 4 p 4 KITCHEN HA LL WOMENS KOOM o i ' 1 1% ' 11 4---4 -wÂ·kÂ« 2[64,4147:0310-1~~ : , -1{2 1 F, 4 KINYÂ«-(ing-/~ 1 -i.u,--U.b 131811 /1 - A.A / i b -3 i CANVAS o AWNING 1 1 1 i X - lat 1 \ rocco - - STUCCO 1 1 ~CH ' T, i Â£21 HALL : E *ADA 'AVERâ€¢b , 4 11 .11 7 111 11 ., 1 il !1 1 11; 12 * 1 1 1 LTI LITIE* RELOCATED i > ,Â· i -1 i i To THIi> AREA--- , \ SANE)STONE AAND \ !1 211 -11 9 0 0 1 - li- -----1 1 1{ 4"CJNGÂ·. 570 1 k - 1 - 4 ---------il-------Ill- 1 L_ i. 7 ./1 9 :' i '5"L 44*4 1 i.'' - >.,3-.\ A-\ h....XX 14...A \\ I.\ 1->-JJ..)â€¢.A-z ,-1.1.,>,1-1.\-11.>.3- \,4 \ \I-\.\\\\ \\\4\ \\\ e <T\TJ I I - - -- 9 1 Â·Â· r I â€¢ B .,P. 4 - 9 85 - , 43â‚¬~//4,Â«61 4, '19* v \ - .EL . -- CG,Â¥F? 00. : ?b 4 y Â¢i - 4 - 1; CO,C NL;U. Al ALL - B' FON. WALL .. 5 < - 840<FIL 4 c .5 4 COND. Sl-Nb P : ...1.- V , -1 L . f*y 1 A423,4 - Â»/(44#49./ % 7/44*+79 /11 WEST ELEVATION 22 - - ___ . --5. iÂ· 1 -1.-ir -=12......... . 2-* .. l'EC>H. CHIMINEY 4- CAp ~42/ Ae rER MED-1.1~EL. \ 6*fLIC,HT tls 9 *EYONIO N 24 6 f- AS Â£ . 1 \ I \ 475660 1 1 REVEAL ~ ... Â·Â· u - - I. t~~~~~~"~ - r 1,1, 1 III 1, --- 11; NEW wo, INEW wp, EN 9/9 . , NEW *21 1 W I N DOW WI INDOW 1 -WI NDOW - 11 It L 1 1 lit11' Eli !1 i, -1 11-12 7 -1 -[7177-2--~ - --_I-' 4, 7 <TUCCO - ~*5:ELIS \ EX i '=PE ' BRADE , METERS -'23 BANDSTONE BAND BE RELOCKT 613 -- --- 2 - - 1 - - -- Il -- -+ L-2 -- I - . mAQT gl g\/ATION OUKFACE MTD, CE?vlovEr 5*167 WINDOW. LOCATE /6.ZON.CEALEP INEW WINDOW OVENINGS - i DMT j WQÂ· FA'=LoÂ« fATcH EXILT. 01Â¤ EN I NGâ‚¬>. (TYM) .COURCE (TYM) 50. PETAII-Â· t~ , #/ METAL DAM 1 /7 ri=j r- 3 6 1 11 L==11 --: 1 --- - --- 1 -1 1 4 11 1- 1 4 i- 1 , 'tiTUCLO , i I > 4,:Tuata -1 i 2 ST UCLD ! 1 1--/ 1 Ue. A-OWER - i V - -- -- Alu,/4 1 TEC r 1 '' ' ; EX'X-Â· ITYF. v C T Te) il 1 - ' APÂ· 7*,1 1 ~1 - 1- ~1 ' L -2 L.- 1 J ..1.12=:r-=-1 5- C-- 2 - -1 , r------1 1 -T 1 1-2 1 - AA/hi tq ,-r â‚¬,Tucce 1<E-LIE,p- --x Q,â€¢~,1--r>NE ,Â»cr A),UN'1'6 Av/%,1: %6 -- 7 ~=3 -J- m / 1- i -- - V . 201--Â°-Â°--- 1 1 T==7 r -r i // 11 11 1 1 - 1 ./-~ 1 1. , ' ! I-/ i '*-9TUCCO - 6 MEL. , 4 2 1/ rhJ 1 -L+-2 ; LJ , 1256 0 -Tâ‚¬ , . . I - ETTE , 'CE ''1, i 1 ! 6 1 ) 2 , 1 1 1 1 + ---- li 1 tI '1 - - 111- - -----1 / Ir--- - 7 Â¢,AN: - Â£*ANIDSTONE *#wID SANOSTONE 2,Â»40 1 MATCH EXET Â£ KEr!-ACE MEFLACE EX Itt MITL. KOOF i SAUTTENS AS KEQ'E). â‚¬ 6TANDING MTL, SEAM MOOF: - --__ (-rf)\ â‚¬51Â°LACE EXIST WINDOW h i Wt NEW WO. WINDOW (Trf) 1 \ 1 \ . \ 1 1 ; 1 I N 1 1 1 , j 1 \1 I lili : 1 1 i 4,2 1 1 1 i - i 1 f : , 1. 1 1\ : 1 'jj, 1 1 -1\ 1 1\ 1 E E 'd . 1 1 6110 k , 1 \ 1 1-4 \ li !1.1 1\ 15'.6.' 1=-3 1 1, 4.- &===* 4 ! 991Â»Â£ ~SL, 1 1 1 M - . U 1 r . 1 11-111 i -7 1! ST fLAN I -i L._.4 4/1 L I 1 1 J, 1 1 1 1 ft\ .------------------1 1 - - - --- - - - NEW JLANTER LOCATIOrâ€¢46 - -- --- El 11 GATE -TO - CJ Elt -6 MTL. 3 [1 5 0 .~ DECORATiVE CEMAI N 1 NLAY (Trf) Â· - \ 6 9 ..1 -11 F ! \ 4 I j - 4;TUE-60 - -- ~ 9-AN-E. . 1 1 1 / 52 1 I v EJ U 1 -1- I 1 ~LANTEK Â°LANTER 27.-M- f - 4 4 L - - - -- 1 /11 EAST ELEVATION REIÂ°LACE EX.gr. MTL. Roof . - .... . e# L- L. .,- 2 -+1 _ L Â·21 M. r.,a ----i--1-----1-- - /4 â‚¬EYLACE EXIcâ‚¬. MTL. STAN 01 N: G 55:Ar 3 -13_-5 - ~OOF */ STÂ»[DING, M-L. 4 4-- .~ >1TL, RdÂ»M *4. LFED'Q ,~A'>~ 2. SEA MI â‚¬OOF _ C Tre) /1-/9 11 1-1â‚¬24Â« MATCH EX IST. 2- REPLACE r = 3Â«Â« bhUTTERâ‚¬~ Ag FER 0, - - I (TYf) 1 Fll - I L U/J \ 44314\L 1 . - 2 -FL i - L==3 X. J CEJEAL JOINT 1 1, , g#PLACE EX 6-E WINDOW ' i N~ NEWWD. WINDOW 11 J: 1 11 1 , 1 i I~ It,-1 1 1 1 '.- --1 71~ . r - r--1 1 U 11 * =1 O -M- $ < 2 - :_' + - - <,-1' - - Â· (Trn) 0 wa- 4 - w . 6257 - - -=-4 0/1 NDOW W 1--- , 1 1.!r . L - - -~ DuS#/V/4,6 1 1 r. P 1 7 1 + I I WED. Tg' MI -i - -,01 - ,~ Nev FLA\-r Ego As, Â·st'w u 04 , 0 n k. 1 0 0 -- - - -1-1 i 1 . 1 AWNI NÂ® 1 Ll n \ ' r-- --\ I ..t (1 1 1 1, P i Â£ 0 . 1 0 1 2 . Â· -_Â·C 1 I / 0 . Il- r r n r \/ i 1 . 1 1 . ' NEN FLANTER - NEW fLANTEA : BAND6TONE Â»AND \1 0,6+1[2570,-IE &44 0 ' 1 1 1 - E-><ISTÂ· SLAID E LEV, 79 1 12. 4 1 ~ ( V E R 1 F f ) u- MI- t- 1 1 1 1 i i ! - /21 NORTH ELEVATION > C A -AJ / 2 1 VAâ‚¬/ - 1-1 10 ' - 2.%. (Ve-5.1 Fy ) -- / 1 -t\\44% C 1- \ c' A-6.3/1 5-1Â»ND) kG SEAN 196 . U , MEÂ·TAL- fUZF~ 45 5>EC-'23 ~~552--- //// // ~<fil-~~fjÂ» 1 - Â«ErLACE E>Â¢147. MITL. I 1 1 Â»xx~ --- COOF W// STANDING MIT~ 0--- .E[-' /4/0/0Â« 4~ 1 -~ ' 20\944Â« BEAM MOOF 1 1 b - 1 1,1 // Xlutir \ L 1/ ,/7 11 1 4 3 11 -ki r-n 4 -/2 i 1 / j, - -- 4 11 It } p !1. - 1 11 Ir -- -9. 41 i i ~ h /- 1 1 1 4,1 11 '1 ;1 1 1 1 1: ! 120 L NEW 1,+ 4 1 1 1 1 --\ 1 -\ r- h 1~i 1 6-00-00 f >1 1 , 1- 11 . -2 -1 - ~ lit 1 1+ 1 11 1 f E 1 - --- - - r ri~ 11 Ir / TRI MI ~ 1 1 rol 1-- -- F 1 --~ \ STL, QUAR [P #BJL , H Eâ€¢/ fl-Adlkg.9 G VET. OECDâ‚¬AT'vE 10 i I - Â· 64-- -Â· --- 1.Ala O= 8UI 201 %Â·JG 1 i . , ./.57 - I $ _ AY < - Â¥6 ) 0-- ---- *ALE. 0% A 0 412*Dw ,f : / U .ID-Tud:00 1 92,#flrOUND FZE.75XED t 1 -641 M i 1 JOA'N-) - 3 ' L- NO, TRIM 3 12 - 1.-- - ExiesT. 603â‚¬ 12 FerÂ«PÂ·~, N i 12 . ..t 1 -EX:ST. 0-44-ER -1 6 TO 155 M-/OVED 1 1..' CONS. 6-OCK =ENCE Aâ‚¬OUNO 1 -71 L.TY 55*VICE METERb , (e,Yarr,!FASE -0 â‚¬>E "_Ae..-fRED 4- 9&, NTSC AE. 9Â°86 ' L.. 7-2 - - EX:5- 9,-AD EL-EV. 71 Â· 02Â·41 ~ C VEâ‚¬ ry) /1 j SOUTH ELEVATION -0 12,2 5.249vED - ---112_ -4 - ---- ,. (<3. 17 < A.D. 31/ 1 V. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Landmark Designation: 801 E. Hyman Ave., outbuilding Date: April 25, 1990 LOCATION: 801 E. Hyman Ave., Lots A and B, Block 111, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. Southwest corner. APPLICANT: John Elmore, represented by Stan Mathis, Architect APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Landmark Designation for a portion of the parcel directly associated with the c. 1892 outbuilding located at the alley, in order to take advantage of the FAR variation incentive. The purpose is to adaptively rehab the vernacular alley structure into a deed restricted employee dwelling unit. The applicant is also requesting a rear yard setback variation, due to the structure's current site location which encroaches into the setback. PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Landmark designation is a three-step process, requiring recommendations from both HPC and P&Z (public hearing at P&Z level), then first and second reading (public hearing at Final reading) of the designation ordinance by Council. HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION STANDARDS: The Standards for ' ' Landmark Designation are found in Section 7-702(A) of the Land Use Code. Any structure or site .that meets one (1) or more of the standards may be designated as a Historic Landmark. Staff finds that the application meets the criteria in Standard ... -__Iw_(Cymmunity -Character) . Standard F. Community Character: The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: The Planning Office finds that this alley- associated outbuilding is significant in terms of its typical vernacular architecture. This structure represents support buildings that were commonly associated with principal structures of the mining era. We find that this structure meets this Standard. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends landmark designation for the outbuilding structure and surrounding land area immediately associated with it. An exact legal description of the designated portion of the parcel shall be submitted to the planning office prior to review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. memo.hpc.801eh.ld 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Amended Conceptual Development: 801 E. Hyman Ave., principal and secondary structures Date: April 25, 1990 LOCATION: 801 E. Hyman Ave., Lots A and B, Block 111, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. APPLICANT: John Elmore, represented by Stan Mathis, Architect APPLICANT'S REQUEST: HPC approval for the amended Conceptual Development application for the new residential structure and the rehab of the c.1892 outbuilding located at the alley. The applicant is also requesting an FAR variation of 460 sq. ft. for the (to be designated) outbuilding located at the alley and a rear yard setback variation of 4.0'. The primary purpose of the adaptive rehab is to relocate the required employee unit from the principal structure to a detached building, while preserving one element of traditional Aspen character at the same time, also the purpose of the FAR request. The Planning Office supports this innovative Cottage Infill project, finding that multiple community goals are being met. PRIOR HPC CONSIDERATION: On October 18, the applicant appeared before the HPC informally, with conceptual ideas of a relocation, as opposed to outright demolition, for the principal cottage at 801 E. Hyman. The conceptual proposal also included the adaptive use and renovation of the alley-oriented outbuilding, to house the affordable dwelling unit as required by code. On October 25, at a continuedÂ· public hearing, the applicant gave an update to the HPC on their revised proposal, requesting that the public hearing and conceptual development approval be tabled once again to November 8 to allow time to develop the information for the Committee's review. The HPC approved the request. Conceptual Development approval was granted on November 8 for the relocation of the existing principal cottage and redevelopment of the parcel, subject to the following conditions: 1) The new location of the relocated structure shall be compatible and that every effort be made on the part of the applicant to provide the structure for an affordable housing use. Staff shall assist in the relocation process. 2) The Final Development application shall include detailed elevations and a site plan of the new structure and the adapted outbuilding. 3) The Final Development application shall include detailed information on the renovation of the outbuilding, including percentage of original materials being preserved, foundation repairs, garage door treatment, etc. 4) The Planning Office continue to pursue the "Cottage Infill Program" and that the applicant sponsor the code amendment addressing FAR bonuses for detached accessory dwelling units. The cottage remain and the original house be moved when an appropriate location is determined. Landmark Designation be sought to keep the cottage (outbuilding) on the property. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: We find that the applicant has responded well to the conditions of conceptual approval, and recommend that the HPC approve the amendments as proposed. The review and approval of a Final Development application is the next and final step, which we encourage the applicant to submit soon. Staff's response to each condition is stated below: 1) Relocation: The applicant has demonstrated a tremendous willingness to work with the HPC and the Planning Office to find a suitable new located for the cottage. Staff has received approximately six calls from interested people, however, nothing has been firmed up in writing. Both the city through Dave Mylar's efforts in affordable housing, and ACSD (Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District) have expressed an sincere interest which staff is working on. A relocation to a site at the new Patsy Newberry Park, which was discussed in earlier meetings, may not be possible, however, staff encourages the applicant and project architect to contact the members of the Eagles Club (Fred Crowley) to formally discuss this with them and enlist their support. The ACSD Board is still meeting on the subject; staff has been promised an answer within the next two weeks. 2) Site Plan and Detailed Elevations: A site plan has been submitted, which we find adequate. Detailed elevations shall be submitted for Final review. The revised elevations indicate stepped back massing and greatly articulated and appropriately pitched roof forms. A number of contemporary features are incorporated, which may blend well within the East Aspen context. 2 Staff reminds the HPC that new development review within this context was decided to be on the basis of massing and scale compatibility. We find that the proposed is compatible in these areas. 3) Renovation of outbuilding: The amended conceptual drawings indicate the partial demolition of the small eastern addition, complete new siding and asphalt roofing material. No information on foundation repairs has been submitted. We find that the general "col:tage" window design is appropriate, however, recommended that for egress and additional light purposes that "carriage house" doors (i.e. 432 W. Francis carriage house) be considered. The applicant may also find this to be a code requirement of some sort. Staff is concerned with the total removal of original siding, proposed to be completely replaced. It is our opinion in looking at the siding, that it is in relatively good condition, and that it should be retained and preserved. We recommend that the HPC require that the applicant retain the exterior siding, and windows as possible. Detailed elevations and material samples will be required for Final Development approval. 4) Cottage Infill, FAR bonuses, Landmark Designation: We are proceeding with a landmark designation application for the outbuilding, which will afford the project the FAR and setback variation needed. The Planning Office is in support of this project, and recommends that the HPC direct staff to prepare a referral memorandum to the Board of Adjustment for the other variances requested by the applicant (porch FAR and front setback variance, and open space variance for proposed privacy fence, unless alternative fencing/landscaping plans are approved). Further, an encroachment license from the City is necessary for the rehabbed alley structure. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Revised Conceptual Development approval to 801 E. Hyman, principal and secondary structure, subject to the following conditions to be met at Final: 1) That the applicant and project architect contact the members 'of the Eagles Club (Fred Crowley) to formally discuss a relocation to Patsy Newberry Park, and present their findings te,~the- Pjanning Office within the next three weeks. F*_theD 2 that the applicant continue to search for appropriate relocation sites on his own, and enlist staff's assistance were necessary. 3 0>3 2) Detailed elevations and information on foundation repairs shall be submitted for Final review. 3) Restudy of "carriage house" door design for west elevation of outbuilding. 4) Original siding on outbuilding shall be retained, unless applicant can demonstrate need to replace. Detailed information on new cottage windows shall be submitted. 5) Detailed elevations and material samples will be required for Final Development approval. 6) HPC to direct staff to prepare a referral memorandum to the Board of Adjustment for the other variances requested by the applicant (porch FAR and front setback variance, and open space variance for proposed privacy fence, unless alternative fencing/landscaping plans are approved). 7) HPC to direct staff to prepare a referral memorandum to the City (Engineering Department) in support of the approval for an encroachment license for the outbuilding. memo.hpc.801eh.cd C Cy) 1 J \ 'ht 9 0 Ju-Â» 61_-'L_~11- 1 67< C u.-a-Z:L--L---C ' 'Â·r i 31 A 4- /3 c , f-7 11_-1 A./U/L/, 1 4 Lj. 41 2 ~ - ) I#Ap <3 (4915<-Clis /4 4, 044-Â«AL f u<1(L CL,t f.,bri 1 P 4 ~ March 8,1990 (revised April 18,1990) ~ 9%~ Roxanne Eflin T Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St ~ Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 801 E. Hyman Ave Dear Roxanne, This is the application package for both historic designation of the resource structure and that portion of the lot at 801 E. Hyman Ave on which the resource is located, and an amended conceptual development plan for signi ficant development to a historic landmark, that is, the resource structure and site referenced above. In addition to the written description herein you will find attached the following- 1) Application form 2) Letter of authorization 3) Disclosure of ownership 4) Vicinity map 5) Drawings showing proposed site plan, floor plans of new structure, elevations demonstrating messing, floor plan of resource structure and elevations demonstrating the restoration of the structure. STAN 6) A mass model will be available for staff so as to aide in analysis N[\11113 of this application. ARCHITECTERE 108 The subject property has two wood frame structures, 8 two bedroom residence and o detached garage. The residence has been assigned a value PLÂ·MiNG of " 1" on the historic structures inventory. Under Ordinance 17-89 the Post Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) reviewed the applicants request to Office Box demolish the structures on site for the purpose of erecting a new single 984 family residence. No employees would be displaced as the seller was also spen Colorado the occupant and has since left Aspen. 81612 303/920-1434 At the direction of the HPC the applicant was to determine if the structures had any historic merit. After several on site investigations by . the owner and members of the HPC it was determined that the main structure was historic in terms of neighborhood, but not architecturally historic, having been totally remodeled a number of times, most recently in the early 50's. However, what was determined by the HPC is that the outbuilding along the alley does have architectural historic value in a vernacular sense. It is representative of the style of architecture found in many neighborhoods of Aspen, playing an important role in the historic scale and messing of that particular neighborhood. For this reason the H.P.C. feels it is important to seek the requested designation. The applicant has agreed to work with the HPC to help preserve the historic neighborhood quality of this site. There are certain actions that the HPC are requesting of the applicant that must be reviewed and acted on by the City Council. The HPC and the applicant have agreed to make good faith efforts to implement the recommendations of the HPC. The HPC has agreed that the applicant may apply for a demolition permit, however, the HPC has required the applicant to participate in relocating the main structure. The applicant has agreed to this condition. The following has been requested of the applicant by the.HPC: 1) Renovate and restore the existing garage into a dwelling unit restricted under the affordable housing guidelines and apply for historic designation of the restored unit and land on which it is sited. This designation is based on historic neighborhood character, 2) At the applicants expense move the existing house to a site provided by the City. 3) The applicants architect will provide documentation required for the building permit to relocate the existing dwelling. 4) In order to achieve the recommendations of the HPC to provide o transition between the commercial development on the west side of Original Street and the residential area on the east side of Original the applicant must apply to the City Council for the following: a) Encroachment license for the restored dwellinq unit. (See the site plan for the degree of encroachment.) b) Front yard setback var-lance of 7'-0" along Hyman Ave for a distance of 16'-6" matching the original house width prior to any remodeling; Front yard setback variance of 4'-0" along Hyman Ave for the width of the porch (approx 20'-07. The porch and entry on the new structure facing Hyman Ave help orient the new residence more to the neighborhood rather than to Original Street; Rearyard setback variance of 4'-0" for the restored employee unit. The applicant is appling for an HPC variation for the rear yard setback required for the proposed employee unit. The other setback variations required will be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments. c) An additional parking space is not required under Ordinance 1. d) Variance for open space requirements ot the recommendation of the HPC. A landscaped privacy barrier should be planted along Original St. and around the employee unit to provide a buffer between Original St and the rear yard of the new residence,and between the employee unit and the new residence. e) Floor area exemption, in addition to that requested for the employee unit (460 sq. ft.), to match the area under the porch roof along E. Hyman Ave. (approximately 200 s.f.) The applicant would like to acknowledge the positive spirit the HPC has maintained during this process and looks forward to a continuing positive relationship with the HPC. Please contact me if you require additional information, or have any questions. Thank you, Stan Mathis ATTACHMENT 1 IAND USE APPLIaTION KERM 1) Project Name 801 E. Hyman Regiripnrp - 2) Project IDcation 801 E. Hyman Ave (indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) 3) Present. Zoning RMF 4) Lot Size .6000 S.F. 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # John Elmore PO Box 1088, Aspen, CO 81612 925-2642 (w) 925-7460 (h) 6) Representative' s Maine, Address & Phone * Stan Mathis Architecture & Planning 105 S. Fifth St., Aspen, CO 81611 920-1434 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Ox,ditional Use Conceptual SPA - Oonceptlial Historic Dev. -- Special Review Final SPA X Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual FUD Minor I{istoric Dev. Stream Margin Final FUD X Historic Demolition nXIntain View Plane Subdivision X Historic Designation Cocidcminiumization laxt/Map Amerxlment (21@S Allotment Iat SplivIat Line GMDS D=:ption Adjustment 8) Description of Ebcisting Uses (Ilmber ard type of ecisting StIUChIreS; approximate sq. ft. ; rimber of bedrors; any previous approvals granted to the property). 1,124.41 Two structures on site: A' 9' s.i. 2 bedroom frame residence. and a 510.96s.f..garage/ storage shed. The property went through the subdivision process for a lot split. The residence currently has been assigned a rating of "1" on the Historic Structure Inventory& I 9) Description of Development Application The applicant wishes to demolish or relocate the existing residenre, an,1 hnild a new residence. The existing shed will be remodeled, and deed restricted as an affordable residential housing unit and aunly for an historic site flegignation for the area of the site on which the remodeled ARU will be ipcated. r I ~}LlitÂ·~ Clut 19,45(dick fler- , /tijll~ 10) Have you attached the following? X Respense to Attadment 2, Minimum Submission Contents X Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission exrterfts Response to Attactmnot 4, Review Starrlards for Your Application _-*2-2-33~3 ARQII[ECIURE AND PLANNING C POST OFFICE BOX 1984 . 303/920-1434 ASPEN,COLORADOâ€¢81612 011__311Â«241_ - 1 (3 0514[UAL-__MIEzEET-BLEK__114Â«Il_ OI - il, 6 3- 1 v k 1 - -- - ---- - - 2 6'W --%~ *-- - - - Â£112 01: - Â£ ! A E;J 4.-- - --- --~ - i \\ --Tri ----,~CZZLILL- - =L - -1 *-TR~T-Ece\/Arriold yed-0 1,-0,1 1 2 9- 4,0 ~-1 - 1 1 21 1 ~1:1 J[' i '1 - - 2 H i 41 1& R RIAN MATHE ~ 4?lili I u- AR{ImECIURE AND PUNNINt , ,~2 POST OFFICE BOX 1984 â€¢ 303/9204434 a ASPEN,COLORADOâ€¢81612 tiljc i I. 3'f il 1 --*. '1 6 9't A.7 u~~ 0 1If) El J Ul - &24_E--ilhea Al IZ - I 00 E LUE L 1 615" i - -1411-1Ak] 25-[-REâ‚¬ _ElfÂ¥ (NOR-TH) WE14 4=PRACT S.4 1 B 6, LE- ACDV-1 /8>â€¢. >C==FEEZI~ -Q=-2-' 91 / - + -=42>- iI - - - . /1 ant - -1 - 2- -1 / \ - -*fill-P-.---i-*i-*+.--~..--i-----Ili#-I- u- .1 Ip- - - ---- -- 2223*AI_.al=&34 EAST- ELEM . , ---- -- 1- . - - ....1. -A=11-__11 __L ' Il 1 11 1 It - -- -14-1 - 192Â«EL_--U=*- -61- ALLEY E-LE VATIold (boul-A) - 1/15" S "-CD, " 62/le.~<YL~~W -- jabivaLJQ*4 - EEâ‚¬~flfiED__-6*Â«55,29,Y_WEEC --- tUALE V~"0 |~1" 7 I. % E HYMAN AvE ./ 1\, 1 1/1 4 $ L / / 2.r ~ Uj Q Al U y n i m_3 -Â·1 1015"2 1 /22-6 14'-0, Dia e f f s.6 1 , 1 ! Fhz-fier'oÂ©covEPâ‚¬-2 h / poe<-A <PAte:>tuD i 0(-rEAD 1,4 To ('~ J UE.11Â·â€¢Mator' t*514/crl :., EX 13,4 101 - - - brpucruit E,<-mrâ€¢L 11 *Evac X -4-3 El O r # F;LoNT<*149 5,53SALA - cov CAED A:*01 1 o1 1 1 , 4 U/--1 rl 0 E q j -1 1 11= /#01 7 \1,1 / 1 11 f /-h F:*1,0 1 0 0 1 1 1 ~ /ME#J Fft-* 0 1-131 - 0 A- I r-11 7 1 1 3- L 0 10 L BLE:.2 42-Gr ~ AU-8*Â£12Â« 1 1Â§ '7- ~PWE,Lu Ae, 3 Il i 1 UN r -44 5*1L /14/3/morÂ¥ 09 tyler 4,- 773#4-9*91- . i It RE.612% YAN SCT BACF, 76,R~C,4 ov axly'r ~- ~~ 1 1 I 1-Â·14- --- .- Ple".100â€¢a 031'uaUVE EN*c'AU- El ifZI ON 2.0.0 3 51~N MirliE 47 COA. 11 0 801 E, HYMAKI * AROmECIUREAND PLANNI,Â£ il 1 POST OFFICE BOX 1984 â€¢ 303/920-1434 ~~ ASPEN,CO LORADOâ€¢81612 --5 1 ibe 45'lkÂ£> %2rrBAc< f. n O TQ 1 ~ 1,O1QI