Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.199007116,1-1 . -2,1,-/ I AGENDA 1 -'f HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE JULY 11, 1990 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM City Hall 5:00 I. Roll call II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:10 A. .Insubstantial Modification: 1004 E. Durant (Temporary off-site relocation) m 0-50 n 1-0 M l D 0 34 -t-o A 410 r O - At· h - 1»€ 5 1 9 e 0 , J) - 0 11~:01 5:25 B. Final Development: 215 W. Hallam OC h ¥ F li h 1 \ Cl ( I c, pf k-0 V. NEW BUSINESS 5:45 A. Minor Development - Wheeler Opera House Kiosk OIUL-Aoh b<C 6:00 B. Conceptual Development (Public Hearing) <232 E. Hallam AP/97€9454 - 15#-4\ 6:30 C. Conceptual Development (Public Hearing) 204 S. Galena St. - Sportstalker Building-961 5 - 6/570 -14.Clw C - C~oper, request for I .- 7:15 D. Pre-Application: 1006 E. demolition 7:45 VI. COMMUNICATIONS A. Staff update: Cottage Infill Program (worksession with Council scheduled for July 16) B. Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway Plan (Meeting scheduled with NAC for July 12) C. Land Use Code amendments 8:00 VII. PROJECT MONITORING 8:00 VIII.ADJOURN PLEASE REMEMBER: THE JULY 25TH MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELLED ' 41 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Insubstantial Modification: 1004 E. Durant, Temporary off-site relocation for foundation preparation Date: July 11, 1990 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting the HPC's approval for an Insubstantial. Modi fication to a previously approved development plan for the off-site temporary relocation of the historic cottage at 1004 E. Durant. The relocation is due to technical considerations discovered after the plans received Final Development approval by the HPC. Due to the tight configuration on the parcel, and safety considerations, the contractor has concluded that a complete removal off-site for a time period of approximately three (3) weeks is necessary in order for the excavation and foundation work to be completed. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff's principal concern is for the safety and preservation of the historic resource. The risks involved in moving any structure are high, especially a historic building such as this. The contractor has assured staff that no damage will occur to the structure during the move or while it is sitting off-site. Please refer to the applicant's letter attached. The temporary location is 2 blocks directly to the west, to the "Oblock" parcel, 800 Block of East Durant. That property owner, Howard Bass, is requiring a bond from the owner of the structure, for the purpose of protection against (potential) loss. Jed Caswall, City Attorney, has reviewed Section 7-606 "Minimum Maintenance Requirements" of the code and finds that the language in this section is specific to this project, and protects the City in case of moving failure. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval for the Insubstantial Modification to 1004 E. Durant, for the temporary relocation of the historic cottage for the purpose of excavation and foundation work. The off-site relocation shall be for a time period of three (3) weeks. If, at the end of that time, the historic cottage is not relocated back to its original location at 1004 E. Durant, the applicant shall request an extension from the Planning Office, demonstrating good reason, for a time not to exceed one week. The historic structure shall be protected against damage while located on the Oblock parcel. memo.hpc.1004ed.im ' 4, , C 1/1/elton Anderson & Associates Architects 21 June, 1990 'tele Roxanne Eflin --nut\'de ASPEN / PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Aspen, Co. ri f i 18* RE: 1004 E. Durant, Temporary Relocation off site Ve / =r k Dear Roxanne, This letter is an application in response to your letter of June 18, 1990. Please accept this application and schedule this matter at the earliest opportunity. Our contractor was ready to start this work this week and is awaiting approval. Please contact our office if we may provide further informa- tion. APPLICATION FOR RELOCATION (Temporary) OFF SITE of the existing residence at 1004 E. Durant to facilitate foundation work and to minimize structural damage to the existing struc- ture. This project contains numerous prior HPC documents which were developed for Final Development approval. Our response to the review standards for relocation is as follows: D. 1. The structure is being reused on its original site and will result in the continuing beneficial use of this historic resource. D.2. The General Contractor has determined that this temporary relocation is the best way to handle the new foundation construction for this project. The temporary relocation does not adversely affect the Final Development plan which was previously approved. The temporary relocation will produce a better final result in terms of the quality of structural work and in the quality of foundation work for the residence. D.3. Structural design review has confirmed the ability of the existing structure to be temporarily relocated. Copies of some structural correspondence are attached. D.4. The contractor will provide Bond requirements when furnished with the proper forms by the City Attorney. D.5. The receiving site is in a good location with easy access and is only one block away. We estimate three weeks as the duration of the temporary relocation to the 0 block parcel. Planning / Architecture / Interior Design Box 9946 / Aspen ,Colorado 81612/ (303) 925- 4576 * page 2 21 June 1990 1004 E. Durant Application Information included under F.1-6, page 7-33 has been provided during the previous application process. This revision from on site work to a temporary relocation off site is an insubstantial amendment to the Final Development approval. This amendment involves only engineering and technical considerations to better solve the contractors construction and was not anticipated during the approval process. The final result will appear the same. This request is a change in method of construction only. Please advise us of your consultation with the Planning Office and City Attorney. C Welton Anderson & Associates Architects TO: HPC FROM: Welton Anderson, representing Dr. Norman Nelson RE: 1004 East Durant Minor Development Application: Amendment to previous approval DATE: 19 June, 1990 This application ammends the previous approval for 1004 East Durant in only one area: Method of construction. Originally I thought it would be easier to simply lift the house and build a new basement while lifted, and lower the building down onto new walls. The general contractor we have selected hasreceived tentative permission from the owners of the 0 block property one block to the West to use that property temporarily to store the house while it's new foundations are being prepared. The contractor proposes this for several reasons. First, It will be safer than working under a hoisted house. Secondly, It will be easier to do the structural upgrading (primarily to the floor structure) on a separate site where he is not constrained by a very narrow site with basement construction happening below. All efforts shall be made by the house mover to insure a minimum of disturbance to the integrity of the historic structure. Your consideration of the Minor Development Amendment is appreciated. Your files contain all the supporting documents from previous approvals. We would appreciate having this matter heard at the 27 June, 1990 meeting. The contractor is ready to start construction at this time. Planning / Architecture / Interior Design Box 9946 / Aspen ,Colorado 81612/ (303) 925 - 4576 LE-4 1 , MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Final Development: 215 W. Hallam, Public Hearing Date: July 11, 1990 PROJECT SUMMARY: The proposal involves an extensive renovation and new addition to this vernacular 2-story Queen Anne, a near twin of its neighbor immediately to the west. During the 1960's, incompatible additions were added to this structure, along with aluminum siding. The proposal attempts to be sensitive to the original form and details of the facade, while incorporating a more contemporary addition to the rear. The existing carport will be removed, along with the drive and curb cut off Hallam. Access will be relocated to the alley; a new 2-car attached garage is proposed. The applicant will be offering the 153 sq. ft. detached shed off the alley for relocation. PROJECT MONITOR: To be assigned at this meeting LOCATION: 215 W. Hallam St., the East 1/2 of Lot E and all of Lot F, Block 50, City and Townsite of Aspen. APPLICANT: David and Elaine Sloviter, dba S. T. Robin Associates, represented by Sutherland, Fallin, Inc., Architects ZONING: R-6, "H" Designated Landmark (designated in 1986 with the condition that the aluminum siding be removed within two (2) years of designation. That condition will be met with this proposal.) SITE, AREA AND BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Lot area: 4,500 sq. ft. Allowed FAR: 2,861 sq. ft. Existing FAR with shed: 2,728 sq. ft. Proposed FAR: 2,808 sq. ft. FAR to be demolished: 1,010 sq. ft. PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: On June 13, 1990, the HPC granted Conceptual Development approval and side yard setback variation finding it to be more compatible with the historic resource. Approval included the following conditions, to be met at Final Development review: a) Complete FAR breakdown: Proposed FAR to be demolished and new proposed total FAR b) Partial demolition details and sequencing information C) Removal of aluminum siding. Test section shall be removed and photographed for Final review by the HPC. Clapboard (if any) underneath shall be preserved, primarily on the facade. d) Restudy of front porch. e) Restudy of 2nd floor facade gable dormer for purpose of elimination. f) Historic windows shall be retained and preserved g) Detailed information on historic doors, and plans for their preservation 241. Elimination of the 2nd floor facade gable peak window i) Exact materials representation made in application, and brought to Final Development review. j) Information and details on excavation. Letter Of guarantee or bond may be required. k) Detailed landscape plan, fencing and curb replacement details ~ Applicant's plan for "offering" outbuilding to community, for relocation. m) Support letter prepared by staff in favor of the encroachment license for the front fence 7(/W) -: Restudy for a new use of the (alley) outbuilding C« -/ On June 27, 1990, the HPC granted approval for an amendment to the Conceptual Development application, involving the redesign of the front porch and removal of the facade second story dormer. STAFF'S RESPONSE: With the exception of Conditions C, H, L and M, we find that the conditions for Conceptual Development approval have been met. The four conditions that have not been yet in the written application will be addressed at Final review. Our primary concerns focus on the following issues: 1) Excavation and foundation repair 2) Restoration of the original front door 3) Preservation of the alley outbuilding We recommend that the HPC consider these issues closely with the applicant at this meeting. A few minor additions have been made to the Final plans, which staff finds to be compatible with the proposal. Please refer to the applicant's submittal letter for a description of these minor changes. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the Final Development and side yard setback variation, with the compatibility finding. 2. Table action to a date specific, to allow the applicant 2 further time to study the proposal 3. Deny Final Development approval finding that the application does not meet the conditions of Conceptual approval. 440 0 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Final Development approval and the side yard setback variation finding such variation to be more compatible in character with the historic landmark than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. The HPC shall assign a Project Monitor for this project at this meeting. memo.hpc.215wh.fd h 6 0le \ ~09-.51.·C l/*-1- //7 f fri / ./4. 4 ': to; 9.0(\ //- '' r -. . / 2,t 1 Al j 9-fir 44 r, 1., -1:. 0,04 r C £ c C I w·e,wv / d t.-~14 1 -.6 4- r (1 J) 40-, -,0<J ~ .,// Otl-...L---a_,fO L L/3,71,9 i C..·-ucc--cl f FL/9 iny ti./3 -=-- U L- Ck-:3 *HL L Uk./ - c_- 0 ~c_. FL,»---0-u·--12 1. <ru- f c-t€ t, uc.- Jig«~_£,/6-6<J *·-/ /1-00<-·e-£- J--- 2.1-9 L CE)- Cu,_£_,0.~ 1 1 \ 3 L, 1 j o 3 C» 3 1 1 FINAL HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL SLOVITER RESIDENCE 215 W. Hallam Street Aspen, CO 81611 June 22, 1990 Response to Attachment 36 1. Drawings 1 thru 12 dated 6-22-90 are submitted herewith. 2. Drawings 1 thru 12 dated 6-22-90 are submitted herewith. 3. Not applicable. 4. a.) The building footprint is unchanged from The Conceptual plan. b.) The basement area well was increased in lenght due to Building Code requirements for light and ventilation. c.) The front entry porch columns were changed. d.) The front entry porch roof slope was changed from 6 in. 12 to 4 in. 12. e.) The skylight above the stair was changed from 4 x 4 to 3 x 6. f.) Velux roof windows were added to West roof above Master Bath and Bath 3 to provide light and ventilation denied by the Code requirement for no window in the West wall. g.) A dormer was added to the South roof of Bedroom 2. 31~ 2 51990 S 75°09'11" E 46.46 -- --I i BASIS OF BEARING i :10 FOUND- REBAR t|FOUND: REBAR ' L.S. 91 |W/At_UM. CAP ~ | L.S. 3092 .. 17.0 1 1 - A 1.0 0. H j COVERED CONC. PORCH N 1 --- 7-14 GRAV EL 79 I l / ~31 1 1 ~ DRIVEWAY ~ 1.0 O.H. 1 1 ... '11-//l// lor ... 1 , .... 0 1 ' //fl // TWO STORY .-1- - -2- - -42 --24 9 /~FRAME HOUSE // r CONC. O 0| / / / SToop 1 -5 1 -2 1 m COVERED 9- ~ GRAVEL PARKING 1 1 /18 1 Oil N -1__ 1 0 , POST, 4 x 4" (TYPICAL) | 1 1.0 O.H. .0 - - jo 0 1 ~ 1 1 1 j xes 1 1 1 -; 4' li ilI#lillillillif-j- / 1/ ELECTRIC t. METER \1-1Ji-ljil/lifill//il// 2.. 1 - _GAS-MTR.-< ak 1 X r -7 / 1 ~ ~ f-**~<A ~ 4 61 0 £ 1.9 O. H. 1 / co '- .. U 6, 11 2/7 / , /1 ·f O -- l f /-l--73+/&7/// ~ I I I -f - 1 , 1 X - 1 . ' CONCRETE PATIO Kr + 0.70.H. ~ z~ LL----r---r--------137 21 X ~ 0.4 O.H./ 1.9 O. H. X 1 X WOOD FENCE ~ 0.7 O.H. (TYPICAL) 1 - r------ -3 t2 3 lit! 4)1 Pa h X -- WOOD 6 1 1 F -* - £ STORAGE | SHED 1 4 (ka i»'cva) d.i 4 X \ 1 .46.46 TOLLVI o J wOOD FENCE N 75°09 11" W . - 3< FAINn: RFRAR W/PI AS CAP '' ELECTRIC BOX --1 r--,i-.te- ° 50' 49" E 46.40 . *1 F[»All r-,4 4 - . . .... 4 r'* 1 h'e.1,1 NE·ve 02(VEVOAY 7,€1- i. /1 2/le=-L- 1\\L-1//, i ; --I 4-2 1 y -3.4 ~~ 3 4 : 4 -mo "4 1 r.1 . . 1 / 1/- t- .. 1 - 6 i Acrip 1-EL] -1 'jt--*17/ r-7, --~ f*:El • ----1- Ir- j f- f /.i 0 - K- A- =4 =ft€* - 8 , - £ 1 1 TNT ---- /40- -- .i -*- 22·M.vA~ 1,4.:-4 AM...1/.. PE1+·/E- I r Cel»,-4 C:1-1.,--.15 -. IFI L 44-,49 + . W. 1. 4*46 1 1 eITE PLAN 0 - €171 6 12'«Dgcl Ul V.1 \ M V . t -* NAW-22 ~L Q/721.27 - 73 INQLICD .thi .CLI Xm j - '19>CE ADL¥-2/ CL 1 10 - t-Z- !~~~~0 'T,C7>11- . 7.Phad INCal /4,911·N . A r-* . 01 VAA . , C. , 7: i I . . ONI-1-(Nvn.i_ 1 - U u 1 1 ~ - ~ ~- - 1 1 4.1 ¥902.0 ' r - 2, L---- 4 1 / i1 , L ' 1 4 -.-<*).E 1 loN'Ed -- GDO« .A-L_# i S r·la.iS.OWEL Ex=r 783#m£95 -1Nr=tal.CZU '91·-4t:~rll 1~ i OU,>Co Ch -1 63£ 2 /'.1 -4.7VM/: 1 - ED - - / 1 -h 1~ X -2 1 b . / ' 1 , e: - L 31 1 Ot.LU + 91 FAI ZICI C.r, ad GY- [ Z A #<177/ ·· 3,f /» 4-5- ---I r."x" - , 6 9 -4* 20- e -I - 04 9.MIC:.277~77 - 2-\ =MA -*22-061 21+€2229 9'MI_15=,1->,g Ca-1-,CS'41-32 tr41 Cahko) 1 NZ> 3,@k f Oy©,042, 32 111,4 -IGST-) - 22 , 0.1 N/~AOk.5 /Zo=Ni/A '3 , - S-laN-1+40 *- 6-1,·NAA '20191.LM -9140 BAOwak, 0: -- - 621£0,1 11··401-1,~10\+GCD __ _ NI Vywelat (21- 9,11'976 *do#via.1.-)¢9 101,3 L ' 1 1 1 1 . 11 1 i 44 ZOR 6 MatiNA# A 1 330_ 32! k 5 0 Qt-4 1- 92 MIN,4 Jill 1 3/»VN 321 :1 li l i I -11 g o r.4 L.-65=taCI02 ~ </hy/164 ~-k.11-7 \\ V 1 r -r'711 7 j 1. 3 11 ' 1 1 911 1 % 0- Ill \\ A/Ide,N) M ~ 1 e-»1 -"24 62=121 460,0628.-9,1- 1 , 5 1. 4- a i / ~UNG 64044221 £ 4eas:*9 I r. , 7 0 ri H-1.579 R 11==i 1 --=u--7-e/gr-/8914,/6412 Ej/f&.9/2FJ-_r. '- - . C -7* 25 -t .Doges 'e=721 1. .1 -2202CM·;9-73'Ko\AEZ_L Li L ' 4 9....~I 111. 1 11 1// It / 1 I 1 41 1 h 4 1 1 jt 1111 1 | 1 - '1 L 1 1 -- -2- 4 I j ·I 1 1 1 / / 1 -// 1 1 -71 11 L J , 1 8,0, -- \St.0. L 1 PSM\0£-I-noN NoTES : : 1. R»t:,VE 97™ lit, Ca-efEC,-5*rr WI,>129-5 4 POX>·tek y,AL-CS # Fasps 1 ~Et*ove ZSH'/MNer; - STZ,26 BEnCK Fbe ME--Wre »44€T-1»14 -THICS> a.00£292 94.t-g '29-1. 5.1=. 4'f»,4_Sek€) .-_ -- ---- 7 TV--4- /~254095- Fef¥29531OrAx---IA 4 SLAS 04 42'·Pe- L 1.j j n , A-·t C E'RU 1 Fs'. A KEY.0 VE /¥VV -1 1 1 j Fit '* ~il \192 4-6 b 02£~UL -Scek:LE.- j Abux»r-lor·d 73 -F:EM,4, N :Ne... >¢ 4 - 2-,< #2[9 Wdto €rD•/E f ..u·lut:4 , 2 ./.'I• 6 'll ...Ul .,. - <<=# „,24 4 Fl,ze.NAE• b . :.+ -3.- I , --*•tcor/-*77ff n. I I 1 . L.0"Hl/PIHI"14 5-r . Apprnor' . E. . 1 .6 ... 0. *"9.0.,9.1- -taq.7/=..I 1~2=r...Pici>,E ~ .... ./4-*. -.-4.f * .44 .$:, -'-: 2.. r, · r -nvit#'--44 "tt ¥ 74£; hy., I . 4. 01 Ftase-rei--- '7, :' 4 - ' L - 2214*-3 EL -- A-&-U Ul-- - 1. - _t-* 4014 8&7H ~ 2-·~ E-- ,~UH. 1 03 1 229048--exa~MP-_S™·L•CfURS . 1 n 7- z E--le. c....2202=r «--7 RE>ev·E · -- 1 -'»,lov€ 1 tr 2 WINCZ»/ d ~ Bwea„ 40 1 4 f---L~ , 7 - 63</97-/6, MABNe¥ -4- - _ PLE€ A-«ZE 1296,·fr HAL - -- 1 1 22 40.0 pric< i 70 -ZE·MOL-Ino·,1 4*-1 Re,A=wee 0 WINCOve 2€7·Axp - &%49 46&21' - pELOCATE ¥9 =t-PLACE. +1 / REPI Op--1 ~1 R\·\ 42- 4-nrn H 9 CM 3 v F*ir,SU LIE.. vew/4,46:f lA Axz 87346 j Rer·-40./6 + . __1• 1 I vvINIZ>vv REUSE /\ k C.-6*»%~ -VZOA 4--* RErv*,~. Fte,04 4 SLAM U It " ,£/-- -th__3bdove €%011-6- St©a.UU,K. p<4«El,44 =F l EYST- fi-„£523€- 981/(SE |62 13 S.E + 3 50 54iN€e- Am'eop m. 0.--1=10.~ ~ 4,1' r-Ill-E" ~ . .~--zzz_~ ~ t=Dervrez -To kIC p€- 5£1NADvED --T - - 1 j 0 Ir , - ,~~TG; 10-1,-7 ' Au/AM*7146 - 1- TO ¤5 EMOVODL____~ ~ -7 WINCRAAAS T'¤ . , - Se ReMO~/SP -- 1 ..02- . 11 1 1 11 1 1 U- ex i s-r 'c. Fe>,ecri f 10 5.€ 2Er·AOVED /-----h) *<M:,1~ 4 A..Ut·1 9( CPI kki TO SE 'MEMOVED tgg- 7,-H S ELE·h/16-N -T- -Tb REM/411·4 -- - -ED 66 CE+AC,vet,-1. - :F>4193-r' 1-65; 1-IEEir 131.-t>'~~CrIO h.4 i 4 i :1:, t , ; f ,·£ 1 ,-1 94 4 7 t I . 1 1 i Ag .,. 1 6 . - r'. 'll./.1 1Jjb~IliIAIA* - , i ··ct • ' .+.2 /• 17-0 1 f ~. lili ' . . .·, T-| n.:..'..· .9e ~17" 3.-AY' !.1:-, 1.1'12·'·.·.' , 4 1 , ,~~ , ...1 4. 1. 'i . 1 1 ' . .2 2., L, 1 a==7/ 1 .6 1-2-fC ------ *5*Ve,r-4 8154.5.1.. d+41,-r,415.•( ir) ae-- lemoc,rep>--2-72:-2.72 ..<p,:rt CA=,CL.HI Ee TO ge- M,-10/g,9 1 ~00~ 0(Grt• m¥ crecr -ES K'*tNt 1 1--- - - - L H 1 44 Le. 466 1 ..27/ -[b REMAI h| _ - l 47 // ht /// 1 8,4-·grg wiND=44 -[5 -- /1 46134%£A&fu rb 1--- ew« 4 U tai -r'22 f.q tst-14 **fr'i:-·r' %2122%~4:,ve=- ~ 0 --~Um~$¤:&,cr=> f - - P.<M,1.4 -F'gota-r- ,•23¢ 75 -BE 26:vt©Vers> - _ 2,Wo F-e f ¢ 1 11 1 1 1 ---- e<IsT,4 WINCes:,ve -D Ret'-ilir--I _-_ __1 4 f i -f ,=t-a,2 9 r-1 _1_- F-~gr"4 d»-16. «125•£7' 409-1-1,»-1 0--'F-'6 140 ·tr,2,221- al-el EHI - ----- ..~- -Tb It>e K,MoveEP a.>C '«rl'44 0620111 ELE>•*t-lot-1 41 '49£~liviI.0 '1 ¥ - I , , ... r 0.:1.. .+! Id? .6 .11 id-- EXIS:« Seic= 6.+1»[NEY 4 . 11 r F , . A . -4 EXLS-T-~4 DOW/vrETC. -. ,; i , ~ ~; fZZ? - :rb- 66 g,Movep j ,/ f .1 V ' , ' , ' - Ill 4 .%»« a , . // »47 ATTIO \4- t----- -- - - --- - 1 -0- -- --- =.2* 4 1 /Wd 1 4 -- , 1 C =21 11 1 1 11 - 1 . r»P,4 1 W INC;*OW -tb ta 0%0 - -1 1 ----- -- 1 1€[- FWK- 1 - -----------#-- '--S-- ' -----7-11----- ----*- I i .1 Exts--rti chIE. 5Tter- €t,SM,5,47' -10 22 Flihic/VeD-- -- --- 1 AL (6rl E-4 Soor EL-2.1.31-101-4 4 - 1,4 11 - It- A . 84-1«rk, -D-1 0 84·a' 2.¥ E-LE-MIami-- -* --I--- ..1 ?t *1. EL a»eld,kl- * Oil -f /3 Be ) ftel-OCA-·»C:) . ex~ste eose freAACT'Wee -1-6 #5441-LN - 64,- th=Mee ··re · --, 5, 1»vt:7•~c> 7 f 0-0.·- 2-4-€; AE,04'E- 424 1 1 1 -1 i ' 1 \' 11 2 \1(1 1 -- 1- 3 1 1 A-71'14 -EN<- 4 -·- -- - -~ - - 7F- - -- ---- --.- -- - - - -..P 1 - I PLUE- -- 1 - te..1«rcl »l,UM, 1 / 4. i t::3' i k.19 -IC> mal ./ ~37«:>/CS' r 1 16 0 .-&/ I - 44'tr,-4 fL- Tz:> m€ REN / 26,2 %26 K 11 11 1 1 ~ 11 !1 - 11 -- - ---LIN---41.-_ii - 1 11 - / 1 V ) Rs_'E ENC Efrnv u/egn Ece=7-~ J RE,Mo,e 8 19021) ' 1 \ st- FLK r-t *.41€5rt=' 046 451-0(-r- APPif 14=,h.1 M,<1-91-~ d=.4Wbg--T- ~.1 p-r-+r'i~- | lbe<54 1 12, 66 leeplove=' -0 8,9 REMOveb n 4/E=rin-IUL 1 -120 gE- kE,10./ up »41«14 %,6..EST'~ Ete.>459<»1 .:r,Ub•Le .| - -2 - _fr'tfMI -1 4%\\ 3. .44' - , 'f f. Tr .1 ~ ¥ ' i - . '. A . . , 61 "KIE7-1 Bel o K 04 I rviNG,/6 --- --- ' - -> - ' ' 0 <*Trix. 91-tr .% · tew 4 - , I ..' '. e€XON" - -- - - ext"-,9 - 26. CE.A. 6.M 1 - - It[:apt - -CAP - F».IN-r- ; 4 4 - - ---- 18 L .t:.¢41 4, *14. --- r liz ' ' '!'-1 4.Ji /?,lt.. 2., 7 4 h i '71:,7 ~ '.. 76 1 1 4 --- 7.----I- . , ----- ... I -- 1'.0. - Y.G - l~ --EXIs:T-'8 ------- r .24&40. - --' :i''AL' . M.#re. - -I-- - - -- ----- -- - -- ---Il /VEA,J rg/,Zic ·1.1/ 41. , - - 1 -00+1MNer· : 1 - .. . ri 1-ul , Eig-1 - ---- I.5 IEEEU , FIx# __- - _ - 1£201 1.992 1106¥P __--_-- _ --- 11.-__1 - - S'.4.6 - - - .--FLE= I.==1 -- ==3 - 2 5,M·Gzr-ger-41.. -- C = .--,0/ 7 --- IM' ./ . 1 44 - i €,Eco•-0 Pt·€25;K -77---- rt--- -- - -1-2_12= =·1= -====Int-' _____~ 51-97777-77 u 1 . ler - 4 . ~.L: '11:202%429'FE: = El 1- 1 ' 4 r r»-1 3 1 I f. 1 ,2-_ .2 -=== 3,900 -I tri -- 1 90~11 F.G. 309 -- - I I: -8% - 2' [l~~a~a=J] --- w -,1 1 /1 --- - . 1-j ~i ] 1 3- il[U-11 1[-2-11 '' -- Illl====4==~:~111 ' -- -- , .- p,treT Fl·'tvp< . ----1 W-- -1-- - 4 - --- -6 - -- 7 -- 11. 0 j.,1 ~ r - ./ 4 , 1, 1 1 31 1 1 21 7-(7· F. 11 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - -- - 14-4 ~. 211 J - J .l ".,7:- .1 j ~ souTH € %41.1'-01.· - 1 1 )4,6 f.\. 1 \.1 1 p , 1 - · 1 ; .b. .r ..1 -4 0 - 1 - ~ 7 J w .r '1 /1 21. - -~ - wmu.jot*ws. EXIST,9 .CO.C....L-=---- 1=-1 i t cite e De-GUD , -r-0 Jv·~A·re ~4 eaST q ,-- RE,JOTE•ch N V --- . .4 1 W - - -~ EXIST'CD L.COrria-4, _2 -15, C¥. EX'=fe 4- •-- 1- 1 , €%26 4- U:•27;ALL- I Mic»E- .._ -L·- - - - . -------Irf--Ir hy '11 -~Ij-- --- /JU ---- ------------- ------ iii Ii]Lil 1 j I E 31 -14 , \ , , --- 1 :4:2444 +1 1-1 .11. 1 1 r L .T &0¢!511•40 -- +Jr l,~ 1_1 7 , - -- ---- 4 r * »r= 'r , 1 WI . -·.L.-CGN.+WUr:4v i.'· '' b'~"~~~ ~*''] ~ ' . 11 , 1. '' h,20:+Gic/joyvii) ' r r · 1, C '.4 -- -- - - - ... 11 - . , GiS;LIMEBC>1 + * r_.; ''; -~ . ------- * ---- - --1 -32-. - -1-Lp-1#-2-..4 (A-.4reoAC>J,AS,Ume4 ~1 *zOAL-12_21~-:- i ' 4 ~6-»- *,6.,e - 1 .4.4·,1, I- 0 96 WAHE 4 - 1 . ..'. '4 -r·' hh h ..1 -. ---v---~ li~~~~~-*7 k-+7--~ICI , -··1 .RE-Usec, Ill--·-·,1.- ·'7#t,rir·~e f,ekva ~,--T j .:~~:• '...4< 1 1. I 2 ./.7- 1. '/'' ' "fox ... . VI #4i:*. . 0 1 1 ' ·----- .. . TYPICA L. 1 --- l ·r• ~ -'AI *121'2:-1.-__ C /erisr=.· RITS-r. FL·t222 1 1 1 6.En,V rDZC+F 1 -·--/ mXC»4 COLUMble hS 1.18. er I , - ' 1 MEN[tes©N 24.-,Ck< f Geeeve ' ' ..3 ~ 11 1 €02:16,2 4Ft,IT' 17.>,de=9 - 1 Mite-1 NEL•./c,el.EANS, Ch X VB'- | ' 1 1 1 - 1-1- , 1 1 - 1 1 \1~ - 3 BAaervlf:,4 T Ar? T-$ ----- ..t. 71 I. If . , rtlj .:; 4,3~lifi¢4•'tilti,-alijij#Elytr.j:~· '.~ - r. :1 . , 1 1 · '. , 1- - g€-USED 2,=ka= *i#Ap .1#:til•4 7-€' , ~:;·yz* t r ,% reot-1 ove:le'f,·4AL- 65+4,NAN€~5 -- w•-0 -614 I h.141.20,4 la. 4- ~ ADe- •enh.IN Fthl~ St--1 -2 'f,-4,il<·i,li~i'-rh' "#jIDL ':.I·,3, -,f. 1, .14 -- -- - -I - . 1, 1 1' ~44, 2 '1 t! -- '1; !!%~ 2(l k, p; -- - - $ - . - ---- Aff--1 -- - 1- " '. , _Im--fill. p , -__ -__ - - .7 363 FED ~-r-2 =2=-------=r,~=5-1-- - - ., - 4:1 '. : f:6. y, ' IZZLE-7 1 2%* 1 P -1----- 4 414 -- *. Ajyyy,4'r I Ad · '' C. -2 tl#22 -- -f•*ap i -- *t Le , ~ u€«4 -- -- 1 -- --- - Fla ·S XQ H /030 -- - 1 -_-__-_ - -- J ------ -- -x- - 1 - »h ALL COE:,41 --- lD M»crt,-1 --1 . 1 1 Ex Ii-r- p q G -- - - 1 ALL WIND - - - |Tb M~r'CH 9331573:~22*--I-25,/fe- -ul~ --- NAvv 519 m n tvl.•acri E-' -1 hev' 1 020,50 - &*i Ill , - 4*9 14 'V'/6©D Col. ~ v-·~---]IEIUPJ-i- &2:liu - -- ns - -1- - -4 l .li i . . 2 of ' 161.0 4,140 €50. - ..r - , -- - I. - _ 1 .. . 1 3: IrAL· ·,1·,1.·Ch· ~ I.J.. ~, .:1 . 11-r 1 11 1 1 1 1 11 *'54 41 90 90'- '| 122* ti i ;i 10*> i W,> il _ _ -' _ _ _ _ _ - - ·-t - - 7-7, 2-W..11; . ¥ 4 1 ' 1'.9* 19 ' 4 I I |i 11 1' 1 1 E--- -- 4:34 ---77,7ifirtrifT-757'33.1 1, -·. 1 1 · .WI,·112~'v W,V'- 111 1 1 4 1'*f 44444'ji-·'•i#,t':2 4%:9114/'~j'I '~t~ '~~'~' '14,4$ i.,4 , 11 1 1, 11 L -- 4 -- _11_ .22 -11 1 1 1 1- --- -- -- 11 1 1 . _'--____u__a ·LA~ <,4 :~14{j¢titt£42ji~~ilt-.15.....4,&~. ,,5. -- - -zill-5 Ft-in=r-=« =:m-zi-- ,--liti--2- li» s .93 1 4<$?2*0,4*444™ 47,7 -7,77 7 - - -2--- Ed€21*Lkz-9-.--2-73.--3---Ilm - h - + 54'i. 'J' .4. 1. ~r,, 11 , , 11 141 111 11 'P 1 e lilli 111 1 11 .1 11'11 j '111 faff«//1 Ver·-IneF~ MAN,larl> 1 - \ 12 ; ".10#J- , i, 1,..~# VELUX 9-12 7, 1 1-3 41 -4 - i , * 4..(:, ..r: . 44, -- /1 , 2 '~~"MIlll r-c==-t. 1 ~:6 110150644 - 1 1 r Q .4.-.1 -- 5774 4 p=NQH . 4- I w#=--3 74 dt~RIM . *EF, 1 '41'Wit.MI I I *\ r - --9 , \ , /-229€.5-99329€79=ual 9 , L. -IC-rl.:*211-f--*i'F,~=-, / 072--1292.13Er~E2€7-- --:--t*-2:*~4 :.· 4. k ,!: ·· a t, i. ·'b·;/+Pi#144 '. e ' ' , -:31·IAL· ?41?h:01'00~ '01'ty¢h i. ---_ W -, \»97 62»·¥~to,·tze ·6\P\44~ . 4., 4 +44;f,4/garozk=,a 122 M--770-H 12,<1-1-14 --=- 1 I $ ' .rp +41/tp,4*,~~~'51'£212 Vt-I /4/Mt f , t D -- £- tb<ier& ----- F¥r*54 , 1 410 «Evill"90.2.0.?1 ..< /- c.=Ap-J~ pbs€,SFI 4-ii-- ~ Fl-op' 047rr < L , )1" ;011~F'-A.'t~·14: - i -------1 4 ' 1 1 VVEST ELL-E»'*rles*-,1 1: 1,~ 1.-1.=r •24" = 2-C). S : 2.3-141/,31//MO . - ·' , r: 2/Al TAT& 3.26Mt ¢'i f , 11,4.1 & CM. Mi I . '· . , -'~ ~ ~,1'4'FiBLA~P: 1 ..1. , . ..9 , r·.?itit.-t- f..11.Ui ' 0, ..9 i. i./ - 42443 .4 rr.du. ' . . I. i.u·' ... Cl , Hollogg -127 - ' 1-7- 1 0 - '· -FifT--1 ' 339 · '0 1 1 ..... j .M -I . = 1-1 - .1 11 .1 WOf_R_)-fk{ ,. -1-iii 13 4 ' 1.-/8 *HINCI , b 1 11~ 11 I , 1- ' 1 1 ~1~ 1 - =-1--==311 \ ~ f 1 : Il-· 11 M . ,¢2-Y« MA L --_it.____ __.._.-__ -_L-1_. p T ; ' .r, d .. :0 -4 -95 i 1 ? .4= 2.L Ig-4277 -- - rl + : 1 11 4/ -1 1 +A ' 1/ --' i. 16.- *f / Br L=.4 .,1, / 0 61 1 2[/2-, 1 2 1 1 · Ix\ , 1 e lf 1 r . 1111\1 /.--=11 . . i J , . 1 1 11 , 1 4 1 11 . i.4, '21 k\ , /:1 4 ~:'-:.tf'; 5,[02119'h*¢ 1, 1 10// 1 44 R.'.....: I *-I-jkj--2 »Ff. , ' 1 4 ..11:4,1'1*00'*14$ f 7 - 1 11. 09,111-1¥44»,in 3 , :4 '. 4....1.,t¢.!i*4421,4., 1 - 1 r 1 -# 1 r. 1 /'' -1 1 E 1 ; 1. 1 u--f-Ty z- Fur----10-- .7 911 1\ 1 14 1 1 0 1 1 rtk,C 1 1 1 e J , 1 1 1 -1 1 1 : 31 a k-11 1 , J.1 -1\ a 1 1=11- 9 1 L Ph I t-14% \ .1 1-0 ------ 9 Fli )%5 2,6 0 < IR~-C~ , ae= 1 , 0 1 e & . ~ -. 1. 40 - i &*14 +23 ,- %13 - 8' - _F-OIT-5 ' :~-£ E-: -i- c A_- ·ca'.- - i - -1- a-8 * . ~·· - - ·---- , date revisions I' - ... . ..' 4.1. 2.- J. ... .i.- ..... 1 1'..1 .1 '0/ ;2 - -7---7 ...4.'t--' 2, ·ix; 'st- A.<- 7€ ... 9 . AL•:;4921+ I, .:64. 1:4 .2-99· ..C-M =t - - . -12.7. u=1 1.-vt ..., I 4-1. d. 1 4 + ' .O.=; 5 - -31235.·13:rifl, ytit r 52 -ti.~~- - * 14.1- .S . co --1-*ps, 4-+70-- 7XNE·- ·, --:,f . 0. 1 ,-7 (0 ) 11 -I i.-eli -9 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Minor Development: 328 E. Hyman, The Wheeler Opera House, exterior announcement board Date: July 11, 1990 APPLICANT: Commercial Core and Lodging Commission, Jon Busch, Chair APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor Development approval from the HPC for the new exterior announcement board to be mounted on the wall of the elevator tower, facing Hyman Avenue. STAFF COMMENTS: The CCLC is requesting HPC's approval for the announcement boards. The board is three-panel, Of bronze aluminum, and is a manufactured item (see attached). The announcement board appears to be 1" wider than the wall area where it is to be mounted, therefore, Jon Busch of the CCLC has informed staff that they will be contacting the manufacturer to investigate a slight size reduction. Staff is in favor of the relocation of the newspaper racks from this location in front of the Wheeler to allow the announcement board to be installed. We are not in favor of the proposal if the newspaper racks cannot be removed from this location. We wish to see the racks put somewhere away from the historic structure. They are intrusive and incompatible. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends the HPC grant Minor Development approval for the proposal as submitted, with the following conditions: 1) All newspaper racks must be relocated away from the building prior to the installation of the announcement board 2) The announcement board must be of a compatible size to exactly fit the wall area on which it is to be mounted. memo.hpc.232eh 1*11 changeable letter announ ement boards b I free assortment of letters and nu ers inc u wiaos , 1 P". 4.-:7 -YEMA¥56*2.=mT.="7! .. PLJILIC LIBRAP4 BAL.)·14 ' - -1 ./ J 1.. 'll...... t- ..... - O ·.t• . CON'ERENCE 4 n.· •:I & I.-4., I. • EC•El- E 31 MEETING RooM · ~ =11. H SCHEDULE - L• .* m. n . C . - -- 33: CE' ./. J : I 1 ...... 1 A-1. 24'. le{. ' '--I B. 10]y L:$4. 6 - 34£ -2.-=5 - F' 0' -·l• . WOOD SERIES-INDOOR ONLY Aluminum series (shown with optional PLEXIGLAS® acrylic ALUMINUM SERIES- (shown with 1 optional letter panel) sheet header panel and 3 optional letter panels) INC)OOR/OUTDOOR • One, two, and three door units. ALUMINUM FRAME W000 FRAME Changeable PLEXIGLAS• • Glass doors and cylinder locks for complete CORKBOARDS CORKBOARDS Letter Panel PLEXIGLAS® Header Panel --* protect,on Indudes 300 Safety Doors specify 'HP' • Self scaling tan cork background or optional Size Price Sue Price Asstd. Letters/ specify ' Pe atter 1 MODEL # WxH Each MODEL # WxH Each Numbers atter model # model # changeable letter panels. • Indoor woodframe units in rich walnut or natural oak. One BDA211 18 x 24 $107 BDA311 18*24 $ 74 $47 . S 83 • Aluminum frame units can be ordered for indoor or Door B0A212 24 x 36 118 BDA312 24 x 36 95 57 95 BDA213 30 x 36 140 BDA313 30 x 36 115 67 95 outdoor use (see below). Two BDA221 48 x 36 185 BDA321 48 x 36 153 57 NO 109 Options: Door BDA222 60 x 36 205 BDA322 60 x 36 169 67 ADDITIONAL 135 • Oak frames: specify "OK" after woodtrame - 'laN?1 1 -60 x 48 _.2111uanil21. 60 x 48 210 81 CHARGE 135 model # (same price). - Three BDU~ -72-3036--280-~-B0A331- 72 x 36 232 57 145 • Outdoor use aluminum frame: speedy "OT" aftl Door B0A232 72 x 48 325 1 B0A332 72 x 48 273 67 . 155 ~ -4 model # and add 20% to aluminum frame price. ~ BDA233 96 x 48 385 IL BDA333 96 x 48 318 92- 195 • Colored letter background panels: specify · Each letter panel supplied with 300 assorted 44 *CB" after model #, no additional charge. For one letter panel speaty -LA- after Model # Fortwo specifi "LB-. For threespecrfy N.C. Ships UPS: 18" x 24" & 24" >< 36" models. ·Available on Aluminum Senes oniy Colors: Red, blue, brown, green Note· Concealed fluorescent light available-call for quotabon. IMANUFACTURING INC DA'/ ...1/4•NI. 5//INA' i.- S/STEMS DESIGN PLUM GROVE HIGH ••t•~•'ED . SUNDOWNER SKI CLUB ANNOUNCEMENTS L 11 :~:i 0.-at......... i \Ct.'LrY MLLTING 40#Di¥ 0·30 1 M P. 1..1. 'ILL]l#G THURS 7-333 P. M SICULNT COU~elLDANCC FR t[)·U i PM · GYM ~BDA422 #BDA421 ioOIBILL S \TURDAY 0/ W/ in qty 5/ADELRU INGH : PM £ f :, 5 6650 EEEB $0095 ' 41 50 in qty 1.., durabte black G L.r-".re-: ~ ~ enamel base OPEN FACE INDOOR BOARDS GLASS FRONT INDOOR BOARDS Versatile open-face board has extruded, satin modzed Glass enclosed, tam£er-proof lock and sturdy hinge pro- REE STANDING INDOOR BOARDS aluminum frame, permanent black letter back,ound (op- tect your message. txtruded, satin anodized aluminum tional colors-see below). Use indoors only. Assor#nent frame, permanent black letter panel (optional colors-see ,rdy anodized aluminum frames with removable of 44" Gothic letters and numbers included. below). Indoor use only Includes assortment of ¥•- Gothic ingeable tetler panels. Complete with 300 let leners and numbers. IN Vnumbers. BDA421 is height adjustable to 66". BDA422 Letters/ ': $ fixed height of 64. Both units standard with open face. Model # Dimensions Numbers Price Letters/ WIdth-Height Included Each 3 or more Model # Dimensions Numbers Price Frame Size B0A521 -24" x 18" 300 $ 46.50 S 41.50 (Glass Door) Width-Height Included Each 3 or more 3 t! 1# Description WXD 1-2 3 or more B0A522 30" x 24" 300 57.25 53.75 B0A612 18" x 24" 300 $112.95 $ 99.95 .A 31 Single Pedestal 20 x 18" $ 69.50 S 66.50 300 B0A622 24" x 30 300 131.95 122.95 8DA532 36" x 24 59.951 56.50 1 r Double Pedestal 24" · 18 164.50 159.50 300 B0A523 24" x 36 300 144.50 133.95 8DA543 48" K 36" 115.50 107.50 colored background, specify "CB" after mode' #. no B0A633 30" x 36 300 157.50 146.95 Mt,onal charge. For colored background, speedy -CB" after model #, no additional charge. Colors: Red. blue, brown. green. For colored background, specify "C B after model #, ers: Red, blue, brown, green ~ All models except #BDA543 ship UPS. no additional charge. Colors: Red. blue, brown. green f optional PLEXIGLAS« frame, specify "PD" after del # and add $29 tor BDA421 and $39 for BDA422 All models except #BDA633 ship UPS. D,ACEMENT LE1TERS AND NUMBERS ' PRICE ~ ~ OPTIONAL STVLF SIZES Per 100 1 %,d plastic letters and figures for use with changeable 1 16, 4.1 slo.00 IWOL2~tI BACKGROUND er boards align perfectly Assortments include entire ~ c' Ggr 10 13.00 ......,1. 1 Det. Numbers and punctuation marks proportioned ~ ® Ro-lan 7' 18.00 ..12.:,Jil COLORS 'eiuency of usage. Packed in divided compartment i 3 6,0 / 54, 1,2 4 1 12.00 'Colors White (Black available i j-on r-c·..te• ~ ~ro~wk green | Minimum order Is 300 leners and numbers of the same 77 s:ze Order by mail only . I ./ . 1 1 ./ , E levoA. 111,}tr ----...........'.-- - ~~~ ~~----~.M-,~t-Lui-uu.i- ... 1 ' i----1- lill li 1 1 f 1 - »U-- l lilli 111 - 1 1 1.L- Ill 111 1 I l l 1 1 1 1.lili , 1 W HEELE-B_ op €G H O lkS 6 -I---* .%-- -/4 I - 1 L 1 D a ..I-----1.---- ------1 -------- /- 9 8 8, - i; 31 · d U .--1 , 1 ill t I , 1 1 It It 1 1 1' *Ii-. 111('llili -- lilli 1 Illicit lilli ll 0 I - Ill 1 1 1 i -1.- i i r . 1 - 79. ....15/2 ' W 51*'. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Conceptual Development: 232 E. Hallam St., Public Hearing Date: July 11, 1990 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual Development approval from the HPC for the new addition to 232 E. Hallam. An FAR variation is also being requested. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS: The Development Review Standards are found in Section 7-601(D); the applicable Guidelines begin on page 47 (VI) Residential Buildings - Renovation and Restoration. Standard 1. The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot 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: Staff finds that the general design of the one story addition is compatible with the structure. It is not visible from the facade, however it is visible from the post office. The materials will match exactly and roof pitch is flat. The Planning Office does not find that the additional floor area is more compatible in character with the historic landmark. The addition is needed to convert the single family residential structure to a duplex (Ordinance #1 mitigation for duplex creation applies in this case). Standard 2. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: We find that this standard is generally met, with the exception of the FAR variation being requested. Standard 3. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: Due to the location of this addition, staff finds that the facade is basically unaffected, therefore, we find that the proposed development does not detract from the cultural value of the structure. 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: We find that this standard is generally met, however, as we are not recommending the HPC grant approval for the FAR variation, a redesigned, smaller addition will more closely meet this standard. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Grant conceptual development and FAR variation approval for the proposal as presented, making the finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark than would be development in accord with dimensional requirement. 2. Grant conceptual development approval for the proposal with the condition that the addition be rescaled to not exceed the maximum allowable FAR for the parcel. 3. Table conceptual development approval to a date certain (August 8 is the earliest), allowing the applicant additional time to restudy the addition. 4. Deny conceptual development approval finding the review standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC table conceptual development approval to either August 8 or 23 to allow the applicant additional time to restudy the size of the addition to not exceed the maximum allowable FAR for the parcel. The Planning Office does not support a finding for an increase in FAR due to character compatibility reasons. memo.hpc.232eh 2 STRYKER / BROWN ARCHITECTS June 20, 1990 Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Planner 4 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Roxanne: The owner and resident of the home at 232 E. Hallum, Linda Goldsbury, believes that her desire to convert her home to a duplex is compatible with the historic nature of her dwelling and is compatible with the historic neighborhood which bounds her property on the east, south and west sides. The planned addition is situated in such a way as to be nearly unnoticeable, from any public area in the neighborhood. It will be visible, however, from the commercial zone down the hill to the north. The addition therefore, has been designed to match the existing architecture on that side of the home. Based on my understanding of Aspen's "Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines" I believe that the proposed development: a. Is compatible in character with designated historic structures. b. Is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. c. Enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel. d. Enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. The following table summarizes the existing conditions and proposal for increase in building size. 300 S.SPRING STREET, SUITE 300 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303·925·2254 925·2258 (FAX) Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Planner June 20, 1990 Page 2 F.A.R. SUMMARY 1. Zone of property R-6 2. Area of property 19,592 Sq.Ft. 3. F.A.R. limit for duplex 4,669 Sq.Ft. 4. Area of existing home (F.A.R.) 4,398 Sq.Ft. 5. Additional area permitted by zoning code 271 Sq.Ft. 6. Additional area in this proposal 550 Sq.Ft. 7. Additional area requested from H.P.C. 279 Sq.Ft. Thank you for your kind consideration in this matter and I look forward to discussing this project with you and the H.P.C. in further detail. Sincerely'v , Cl &(/ &{At Olic~ A-4 Wayne Stryker A.I.A. WS:bm f 1 PRD¥*St>ES> ADDLION 1 - NE ' i '2 0 ·/ - 2<7\ PA-El- 1 j----77-1» - - / 4 f N 1 -4 1 Al 20 1-1 -.4 , 1 - -4 b i //1 f / ,2.- 1---9 7\ 1 F\\--- i f 0 1 1 / =E-E ..1 7// t>JAP FALE , di X. i t#-_ WMEL.-TIN~ \ ~ 1 / thai /, 1111\1 / i O,€K,•or,/4,4, . v 4 6-2,= /nf #31072/lry // · ,\~ H . 0 «l 1 1 -9 , G 1- - - 1-*Lp.sf,1, - - / 1 - 347 - '-1.-E h - -1.-1 1 EWOT-44 /RON PEN<41 1.2- Mic] - 1 T Lar - : v New G Fr, M /---1 0 --41 1-- V----/ F- - LJOILLOf __ i _ 131 Of ---- A.=-144 ~.--A-- R /4 11 - 8.1\ ~ ~~ ..h T-1 -, 912 FO 6 Elty Af:701 rION 1 1 / NORTH ELEVATION SCALE 1/8,1 - \'- Cr ' ' 40 L G„ , G - O" ,2-2 -.. 9*09O5EJD --- - - ~1 +DD/TON 7. . ..1. - 1-/ ·+41· 1;"Ut .. 11"lill -H+-t,H,~Il,,1,»,„14~,M"*Nivim .... .- --- IF--:1 1. .101 1- - t I 0 I i /4 -1 8 I - 11 - \ '4 9. ' 7 1 4/ . . 14 \ --- - : t - ...... 0 - . 3 Lawl *F- e*44 · 4 ¥ 6»: - 1-1 .--1 ...., **N~:~ _LOWER LEVEL PLAN - p<9~2-j~/~~~~~~~2~- SCALE· -'/00 = ILON =La:*24€54 = '6965 6<2, PC ENCLOUS tri:'%*~;&0-·' - 411 4.0.i- ./1 - 6, CZ " I It: 4. I -2-,5- e . to'-10. I 1,11" 1-22/ MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Conceptual Development: 204 S. Galena, The Sports Stalker, Public Hearing Date: July 11, 1990 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual Development approval from the HPC for the new addition plans to the Sports Stalker building at 204 S. Galena. PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: On November 29, 1989, the HPC granted Final Development approval for a one-story addition to the existing Sports Stalker building. A number of conditions were placed on the Final approval (a copy of a summary memo is attached for reference). The previously approved addition was for free-market and affordable housing units. On May 23, 1990, the HPC and the applicant met in pre-application to discuss new plans for the structure, involving the addition of two stories (office and residential); primary material were horizontal clapboard. The general consensus at that meeting was as follows: The east elevation is significantly improved over the plans approved for Final Development last year. Primary concern focused on materials, massing, the storefront and entire facade. The massing appears to need restudying with the goal of breaking up the strong horizontal elements and incorporating vertical bays for compatibility within the Historic District. Brick should be considered as alternate material to clapboard. Note: No effort appears to be made in incorporating the storefront into the new design; storefront changes for compatibility should be included. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS: The Development Review Standards are found in Section 7-601(D); the applicable Guidelines vary between section IV (Commercial Buildings - Renovation and Restoration) and V (Commercial Buildings - New Construction), beginning on page 19. Note: It should be noted that no changes appear to have been made on the conceptual sketches since the pre-application. Standard 1. The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent p'arcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. Response: 1) The streetscape and setback appears compatible to the district. 2) Massing: The massing is relatively rectangular, with strong horizontal elements. The third floor recesses help break up the mass, however, we feel that further study is warranted for compatibility with the three adjacent National Register buildings. As we have seen in the past, the District's two and three story historic buildings are comprised of vertical bays, the delineate fenestration patterns and storefront entrances. This proposed structure only contains a central "bay", with the remaining wall plane articulated by window openings. We are recommending further study here. 3) Scale: Under the category of scale, we include window groupings, third floor corner treatments, and parapet pediments. The appropriate scale of this structure is extremely critical in balancing historic and new structures on Galena Street. Staff recommends a restudy in this area. 4) Storefront: With this much effort going into a remodel of a structure on such a critical corner in the Core, we ask WHY a storefront renovation is not proposed. This storefront is not compatible with the Guidelines or the Commercial Core, and needs to be redesigned to be compatible both the proposed new 2-story addition and the district. 5) Fenestration: Staff is generally pleased with the fenestration patterns along with west, east and north elevations. We feel the corner window treatments deserve more study for compatibility. The groupings of windows are balanced nicely, creating (in our opinion) an appropriately symmetrical structure. We are pleased to see such a significant improvement of the east elevation. 6) Materials: The materials are horizontal clapboard. While this worked well on the proposed two-story building, the HPC should consider its applicability in this large a scale. A structure of this size and adjacent location to Armory Hall, the Brand Building and the Webber Block (all brick and stone) should be carefully considered for compatibility, texture, etc. 7) Architectural details: Staff recommends the HPC consider the finer grain elements of this proposal carefully. Due to the conceptual sketch nature of the 2 plans, no details have been called out for staff's review. Standard 2. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: We find that this standard is generally met, with the exceptions as noted above. The Commercial Core consists of a variety of 2 and 3 story structures; the proposed three story height of the new addition is not incompatible with the district. Standard 3. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: Due to the location of this structure, surrounded by National Register buildings in the heart of Aspen's downtown historic district, staff feels that proposal does not improve or enhance the cultural value the adjacent parcels, due to the design considerations as stated in staff's response to Standard #1. We are recommending restudy is many areas in an attempt to insure the cultural value of the surrounding structures is not diminished. 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: The Sports Stalker building is not historic, nor a local landmark, therefore, this standard does not apply. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Grant conceptual development approval for the proposal as presented. 2. Grant conceptual development approval for the proposal with specific conditions to be met at Final Development Review. 3. Table conceptual development approval to a date certain (August 8 is the earliest), allowing the applicant additional time to restudy the following areas: Massing, storefront, facade elements and materials. 4. Deny conceptual development approval finding the review standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC table conceptual development approval to a date certain (August 8 3 or 23) to allow the applicant additional time to restudy the massing, storefront and facade design and materials. memo.hpc.204sg.cd.2 4 AT.VAafiEND 1 IAND USE APPLIC:ATION P'CEN ' 1) ' Proj eat Narrie SPORTSTALKER BUILDING -70 9 j (5.-01111Ui. - ) Project Location Lots A.B,C of Block 94 City & Townsite of Aspen (irdicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) 37 Present Zoning CC CommprriAl Core 4) Lot Size 9.029 Sq. Ft. 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # Jerald Barnett POB 2635 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 fnl-376-R?67 6) RepreseItativers Name, Address & Phone # C. Wpltnn Andersnn, C. Welton Anderson & Associates, POB 9946, Aspen, Co. 81612, 925-4576 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Ilse Ocneeptual SPA X Ocnceptual Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA Fi.nal Historic Dev. 8040 Gmenline Conceptllal RJD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final FUD Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation Ckndcnini=i.zation - Tixt/Map AmendHErt (NOS Allotment Lot Split/Lot Line GMQS Exemption Adjustment 8) Descriptian of Existing Uses (rulber and type of existing structures; approximate sq. ft. ; number of bedrocus; any previcus approvals granted to the property). Existing one story retail structure with partial basement. Ground Level 5,982 Sq. Ft. 9) Description of revelognent Application Addition of Second and Third Floor. and Third Floor Penthouse/Mezzanine. Existing Ground Level Retail to remain at 5.982 Sq. Ft. sprnnrl Flnnr Office Level of 5.899 Sq. Ft. (5,056 net leaseable) Third Floor Housing Level of 51645 Sq. Ft. Ppnt-hmicp T.pvpl nf 464 91. Ft. TOTAL F.A.R.'(New) = 17,990 Sq. Ft. 10) Have you attached the following? v Response to Attachment 2, Minininn Sul:nission Corrtents Respanse to Attachment 3, Specific Submissian Ocrrtents Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application NOTE: Allowable F.A. R. (Special Review) = 2:1 or 18,058 Sq. Ft. Affordable Housing Total shown = 2,828 Sq. Ft. Minimum Affordable Housing = 2,708 Sq. Ft. SPORTSTALKER BUILDING CONCEPTUAL DEYELOPMENT PLAN June 1,1990 Response to Attachment 2 This project includes a second and third floor addition to the SportStalker Building at Hopkins and Galena. The·second floor provides approximately 5056 SF of new net leasable office space. The third floor provides 4 designated employee affordable housing units and one free market unit. The employee units consist of the following unit mix totaling approximately 2828 SE 1 One 1 bdrm. low income unit of 500 SF 2. One 2 barm, low income unit of 690 SF 3. One 2 bdrm. moderate income unit of 758 SF 4. One 2 bdrm. middle income unit of 880 SF The free market unit is a 2 bedroom unit of approximately 3195 SF including a penthouse/mezzanine level bedroom. ,Parking is provided for seven cars on site. Additional landscaping is included at the parking entrance on Hopkins. This project is designed to achieve the goals of the following review standards which are more specifically described in the responses to Attachments 3 and 4 of this application package. The building ts designed in a commercial wooden building vernacular style which has been adapted to our project solution. This use of a commercial building style is compatible with the commercial character of adjacent structures. The building further suoports the commercial character of the neighborhood through its commercial style and the addition of more office space to this area. The cultural value of the neighborhood is reinforced and further enhanced by the mixed use nature of this project which brings housing and office space to the area. Having office and residential spaces above the existing commercial space is prototypical of original commercial development in Aspen. This project enhances the architectural integrity of the historic district by completing the design and usage of an important corner site. This building reflects the diversity of early commercial development and acts to soften the impact of its neighbor to the east upon the surrounding neighborhood. This design enhances the architectural integrity of the immediate vicinity by an integral urban design statement and architectural statement. The massing, scale, and redefinltion of the block corner as a commercial corner all help to re-emphasize and announce this corner of a block which is a higher density portion of the commercial core. This project will communicate a more compatible image of this block on Hopkins than its eastern neighbors and reinforce the definltion of the original commercial core boundaries. Page Two Response to Attachment 30 Conceptual Development Plan for Significant Development in a Historic Overlay District. The attached site plan shows the street level and urban characteristics of the site. This is an important corner of the commercial core streetscape 2. The attached design is primarlly a wood sided building with wood windows and curtain wall construction which reflect a modern adaptation of early wooden commercial buildings. The wood bevel siding will be stained grey in color with contrasting trim. Copper flashing and prefinished copper metal roofing will be used at the roof. All wood sash windows are used with 8 revised wood sash storefront to be proposed at street level. UPDer level recesses in building messing are of wood curtainwall construction with green painted vertical wood siding to enhance the residential character of the recesses. East elevation recesses at stairs and the third floor exterior balcony are also areas of vertical wood siding. Both of these recessed areas are finished in vertical wood siding to add detail and color definition to the recesses, and to contrast the contemporary inner skin with the more traditional outer skin. Corner and mid-building setbacks are for articulation of the building massing and to bring more da'ylight into the building, The curtain wall at the second and third floor recesses is a minimalist framework of glass, 8 modern design element to define and enhance the recess and to visually separate the inner and outer skins. The east elevation has 8 recessed exit corridor over the office space and behind principal building wall. The "punch thru"effect of the stair openings is to minimalize the stair construction and to provide visual interest for this entry elevation to the housing units. 3. The proposed development successfully integrates a new corner building into the commercial neighborhood through the use of similar scale, type of use, and allusion to Historic building vernacular styles and materials usage. It defines the pedestrian streetscape and continues the facade alignment typical of the original commercial core. 4. The development is considered to be an expansion as described in 4c, This project is a significant expansion to an existing structure although slightly below the maximum allowable floor area ratio. Response to Attachment 4 a The project is tailored to be compatible in character with adjacent historic structures and to reflect the diversity of development in the immediate neighborhood. This building is 8 modern . derivative of wood sided commercial buildings which originally were quite common in the Pap Three commercial district. Compatibility with adjacent structures is also achieved bv moderate messing and a design which reveals the multi-floor and mixed use aspects of the project. Several adjacent historic buildings are of mixed use and are multi-floor buildings whose facades spring directly from the property line sidewalk edge. b. The development reflects the commercial character of the neighborhood and provides and extension of the existing commercial core fabric of multi-floor corner bulldlngs to this corner site. The existing building has often been described as appearing incomplete. The existing buildings appearance is of lesser density than its neighbors and appears as a minor commercial space. Providing offices and housing on this corner is consistent with the height and massing of adjacent structures and with the mixed use nature of the commercial core district. c. This building will enhance the cultural value of the neighborhood in several aspects. Reintroducing some housing into the commercial core will enliven this area with the full time interest and activity of residents living in the building. Office space closely related to City Hall and other downtown offices will generate more opportunities for professionals and business location in this area This project will enhance the perception of both Galena and Hopkins as borders of higher density development and identify tnis building as one which has evolved in its style from the heritage of early commercial wood buildings. d. This project complements the arch itectural diversity of its immediate neighborhood. Architecturel detolling of wood trim, cornices, and windows will combine a response to the Historic Guidelines with an identi fiable solution for the owner. A goal of this design is to yield a unique identity to this proJect while responding to the contextual design concerns of the immediate vicinity. This design is directed towards an attempt to integrate the vernacular language of commercial Victorian wood buildings into this district. Use of wood provides 8 softening of the color of adjacent masonry and visual relief from the emphasis on masonry on the other thru corners. Not competing with the masonry language of the Elk's and Brand Buildings or City Hall will simplify the observers appreciation of their masonry work. The architectural integrity of this building is in the fact that it w111 appear as its own style and not confuse the interpretation of its historical neighbors. Rather than implanting a current design trend or technology upon this important corner, this solution is meant to integrate a derivative historic vernacular style with modern uses. This building will provide a successful solution from more commonly derived technology with a flair for modern interpretation of wood construction. e. This design responds to the Historic District Guidelines through the following elements. 1, By seeking 8 modern adaptation of an early commercial building style the project seeks to P 00!? Four not alter theoriginal commercialcharacterofthisdistricl (¥. Commercial Buildings- New Construction) P 35. 9 This project reinforces the characteristic of strong corner buildings and the relationship of corners as identifiable places in the townscape. (Y, Commercial Buildings - Established characteristics) P 35. 3. The building continues the facade alignment of the Elk 's Building at the sidewalk edge. On Galene the facade at the sidewalk edge restore the important corner characteristic and hopes to re-unify the block in comparison with the eastern neighbors sunken courlyard and angled facade. (Guidellne Y , A, 1 and Y, A, 2) 4. The existina parking lot will have a low wall extension of the facade at the sidewalk edge to maintain continuity of the street edge. (Guideline ¥, A, 3). C v, The building's height 19 characterlstle of the commercial core, and regularly spaced windows on the upper floors arederivative of historic characteristics. (Guideline Y, B). 6. The distinction between upper and lower floor is made through the use of street level awnings and canopies as well as distinct detailing and massing of the upper floors. (Guideline Y,B, 3). 7. Massing of this building is appropriate for its size and corner location, Messing is artlculated on corners and upper floors to soften the visual impact of the overall corner. (Guideline Y, C), 8. This design does not directly emulate a period style but does spring from historic vernacular origins. It is a current design using vernacular materials and elements from the historic district. (Guidelines Y, C,4). 9. The storefront is being refined to provide a more transparent view in accordance with (Guideline Y,D, Storefronts). 10. This design provides visual relief from prominent masonry neighbors and screens its easter'ri neighbor from the Galenastreetscape. (Guideline Y,F, 21 4 ~ 9 \\CS fi 1 /«TE E k =9 1 1·--1 4---, _11 EF =3- a b ,. i. ·I lit l' i I - bl- ..1 L it u=.li..~/////0 --1 1 F 'lig./ L, IN:A~ '' 1,1., ·,4 '12-4 2 -t . lit>i-@*e. - 1' ~V~~~~2~*1~1 1™Wile.ke/RIV --- - ~~411'f~ - 18 4- 8[=3[-r] f - 9 19 --ht ag--?111101 =14, 1,1 =lii 1~=-... 1 Yimmkw- full IT li 'riri d 4 =L./4 62£:41 it.i-JE &6- :11 L .1 ,=in"¥.111[1~ 149/ d/,1,4, 111'Ii::trk' r:14, fil~ ~ /630 lyi -_ -~ ttll i k ~3:.01.2-2.(tu.~ 1.... . L R F- 6-~4#9 :*ME *:-Ht '10'*741~1 i.ti?%.1- . 1 »b:KIMP ... -- c wellon anderson archlt 5-,f--1 y.- .r, 5- 1 -29 -t<,Lit- . PLI N,' .I ,1 w l(G box as 8160 € Dire' C; 0 9 8 I ?6 .\Mul i... 023 i NI-L "/1 4 C 04· -M.if-77~\3-761 -24. I .-:~4 9/ 1 - C~# 1.- 4't - -i]!Ir-··~ ' - A--- 2»«1 1 \ .- 2 --- .IL_111-1 jok•~2 ' A P · 9 1 1 0-'- 1164 n .. 1 -cle~ ( 14-6 ¥10.v 1 -1 A.:io 1 L------1 A-;1'14 16% C ----1 - 4 --w--=-----rFiI =rf-#1.1 -2-F=F-==-t,trN-1M-=-313[--/7 + rlimp*24 F 449 -f--11' 'T 1 - #91 Apvhg2 L;42&4£3~ ,-~ --bg _: ~iL-i~-_~43-U --_---4 17 1 J 'Pet,9 In--1---E-r-- ¥ 1. 1. 11.1.. 4/6-- r-- r ,--7- -j l'i-- 11*f * 33 9-11 1 , L.2 m u - -31 01== 1 I I Ub=U ,-U -] r It 11- 7/ 7 1 *---- ==. Al-.1 .6 -67 2.--& 1 1--1 if rj 4 ~f 1 \27 -71- {--1-z-1 -1-1--„ ----r----14 -1-111/~'-' 1, 1 1 10 ,1 . 1 .-U 1 1 1 1 1 6 :- t.=.-n r,E?r 1%«11¥1 -- 11 J I 2„JIlE-~Ji~-f-~ 4 - ~ «11 4 2-*1 1. .6.r -- KEr,F: k©(.F= - ~· 7 h- ~ 9.1-7.4 - ..... i n 374+Lf 1-~-·--. - C J Il -- 1 1 B pEi, 1 -172 1-bjfltrl(-4 .:¥22 44 12'Licall ,4,/ 11 44\ 3 91-fF\-1 Y-K)< )52_ ,/ F.001-~ PLANJ <151 - archizeit box 9946 aspen, col 0031 9254 9 »1 A '·, r«/ 27 MA ..1 1 =*/1 -4 /fl· i N i 71 ,:01. 11 i k unt.~_+ Jl.# - - - w ... - 01'' 1 11-- - 7-un·.2----0.~9~-/ - f i //fl~Fly .. ..J>~\ If ...3-~ff--i -7 ----- - --------- -74~FT ml - 2- -- _ rr[ 7 il Ftp- =4 4 1 1, 1110-42- r · ~' + ---ill ~Il ~r '=7 - , r 1 ZE!~m:-* 4 1 it_-1«34 11Nld-11[UM[ll 11 MI '14 - %-ff-€9 *2*-r,6 96 K =1~.m L# 4 # - 9„w21 - vMTs ,# - z - - --= - 1 1 r-ll M - h - ! r=Ii -=-fl f ~- 2 2 '11 #/1 -~ ~f-- 1-11 P k- 64.+.4£.W--4 1 :1 1 ,) I'' " 1 . 4 , rio j:k--4 -,-·:--;iii H . . 67- .f:li... 11= .2 - 1 3. T 4.3-·:r~ 6-jii®-·ck«h-ll.~~-; / bl - .0 -7 , a ./ 11 -2 f l.t /4 L F 3 :1*. ly A LL.E 'C ! 1 S 1 1 4-141 1 - -1 . _.. -2 ...n-t-- 2-=--t_11 ---«21*-4»-9--n:, 11 F.- --· 1 96 7-44=--~91-9:1L,>141.---· . - 1 ' 14 11 -- - 14' . - - 1 - 1 - 111 .- C. Welt 1,2 F--c:-1. 1= 2 .f T'· f..41 V, E N ) archlt, box 95 7-,in'(>FR -r- 21.2:L.t:'0352. 51.Ul ..IT).INE aspen, ' (3031 9 -7 fr,K:' 7: 2 441.X bft<34. 4 f .4. BARK/Ne d 73 4053'>1 4 . 2--- - 1 / 1 y j 1 l- 11 Ul -1 rj .1 RETAL 5-[I)PE. 4 . 1 for V.10.- 1 . . 13>l ) 1 LD] r 5 1.-9 -7 ~4 C gr 1 1! 1% 1 ! 1 1 elton anderso 1 8 1 62.L. ENA. 51' r -,-4/' .-'51 925-4576 . niffliful,r S 4 , I ..---ti-.---Il- -- E,AL. 1.4-lti':./ 1-,2 :.,1 , PIEIR ~ r.rk„·1 2 -·' /' Vr- R.r,·, r- 1> i -- 1 · '·O... L b DR n 1 . 11 -In ( r: 1 -1 - 7.-~ F 1-.P UNFC .5 -6 U C. lEi i =71 -,MER-,=-:1 1--- -p , t.WING Rn, 1 . t.- 6 .-t .ff -__ 1 1 , 2 .4-' , · r r- 4 A Ki -·- ---4 . 114 r .. .. L f 1 2; ER & A ~t FAx· r€ . .1 1 ~ . r JEA- 1, rlt- 1- r ··· 2 ti#&--4- 4- , T - F-ilic,+Efi. £ r ,--;, 1 4 0-1 ji .-1 1 i , 6- ' -4 --- r 4· · : t.i 14. r#L t' 68.8 1 , ! i I I I *# 'b,br2..i 1 ,· I 2 -- 2 4 0- ; r - RE,Ktrn ~ - ..L' lf-f- . I l.'VIN,3 14. i 11 I K , I 1 111 I ./ P. -1_1..._ 1 ==1 9. 1.-4- -4 1 ;-I f -~ ~.><6 un' 1.5 86'J f,F: 1 1 !98' : 4 Un:- 1 2,1/9 :P- L. aMMAft, 9,1- 7 )\ ; Tr 1<11-e.REF! ! ·:Ur -1- i , 4-fr-+ ; I I £. r~en k , . 'I''i c -' n.h 7 + 11 '4 , Trf--9 ., I ~~ '1~~ 4, \ ;i, i.,€ , Ittr. 54 ~9-4 Y--14]. :< / - / .hr,Rrn .t\} r.· Eck - 2- 1. 1 1 I.1 1 . <3-~-1 ' . - , r b., 4 & 2-i }l k·< l.) F.... 1 ..0/ 7 9% 1 -1,73 IN <,N c. wellot i and 1 architect box 9946 aspen, Colo. 8 (3031 925-457t 9 MA: h.2.4 77 FIRA I . 4,>IN 11 y X 1 E41- 4 24'. 1 tht!-il-Hy A'· 11 1 2 Ir i ! '· r' Arrift l)" -fl ve.~ ~& - ]4 2_11-*af= 1 OFFI.' E 01494--U. T OFF-:C'.EE M l 906 « (41 6 0 59 0, 29 5 F 1 7111 11-\11. - -31-1----Ithl~--U#- '~ ~ 9-- 1,7 4-, , B- ~f JAw>YAL.011141 0122 1 ' 0 ' 6.t 4 Fi:£'+ i .. k 19 /2 ED. f· %11 - ··· 1.>A/l' -k: b L. !1 i / h., €6 7 j 111 11,1:inc,9. 14 75 ·u·M -- 9.prz.. 4 l ' 2/ -2 OFF1 5,·El |1|| )Gue#IN 7.'AL L / IL· u._7#< C /IN L.3 FLOOF-4.- f.p[/A[\1 <41 c. welton archbect box 994 asperj co (303) 975 7 h, 3. RH¢ 29 m. - /2/ 1 1~ CD MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Pre-application: 1006 E. Cooper, demolition Date: July 11, 1990 SUMMARY: The applicant, C. J. Rigsby, is requesting a pre- application with the HPC to discuss the demolition of her historic structures (cottage and outbuilding). She wishes to sell the parcel and feels its value as cleared land is higher without the historic resources on it. Please refer to her 1@tter attached. Staff has met with Ms. Rigsby, and explained that outright demolition of historic resources is something we are working very hard on preventing, and that numerous alternatives exist for her to consider in marketing her parcel. Ms. Rigsby has received information on the process and standards for approval of demolition. This miner's cottage and outbuilding date to c.1890. These historic structures are important in that they represent the historic character of the working class community in Aspen at the turn of the century. This parcel is highly visible, located on East Cooper (Highway 82), thereby making the preservation of the structures extremely important in the cultural and historic landscape of Aspen. The parcel is non-conforming (size), and historic encroachments have made building permits difficult to obtain (for Ms. Rigsby) in the past. The building department has turned over entirely since Ms. Rigsby attempted to renovate her structure, and the relationship between preservation staff, the HPC and the building department, has improved significantly since that time, in staff's opinion. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC begin a dialogue with the applicant, and help her brainstorm alternatives to demolition. No formal decisions are to be made at this meeting. memo.hpc.1006ec . CECELIA J. (SUGAR) FREW RIGSBY BOX 2175 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 June 15, 1990 Historic Preservation Committee 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Demolition/Redevelopment, 1006 East Cooper Dear Committee: I would request the opportunity to have a pre-application conference with the Historic Preservation Committee on June 27 to discuss alternatives with respect to the future of my residence at 1006 East Cooper Avenue. This old house originally had a five historical designation. The original building comprised approximately 300 to 400 square feet and, with several additions over the years of a lien-to nature, now comprises approximately 700 square feet in total. There is, in addition, a 300-square-foot shed in the rear on the alley. Approximately five years ago, when the City was requesting that the various non-conforming buildings come in for permission to upgrade, I applied to the Building Department to seek permission to rewire the shed near the alley in order to be utilized as my office. I paid for a survey, got the various approvals from the utility companies indicating they had sufficient capacities to serve the expanded use, etc., but was turned down by the Building Department. I also had plans for a second-story addition to this house; and, again, the Building Department indicated it would not be approved without a complete upgrade of the entire structure to current wiring, structural and insulation standards which would in total cost a significant amount more than demolition and reconstruction of an entirely new structure. I discussed with Bill Bailey Housemovers (affiliated with Thomas Housemovers) the possibil-ity of relocating the building. They have indicated that only the original rectangular 300- to 400-square- foot building could be moved and that the other added rooms depend for support on the primary structure and could not be moved in conjunction with the·primary structure as they have varying types of foundation or no foundation at all and would fall apart if * Historic Preservation Committee June 15, 1990 Page 2 moved. In addition, the building is located sufficiently close to the adjacent building that no machinery or equipment can be utilized in preparing the house for moving and that excavation and jacks would have to be installed entirely by hand resulting in a very significant cost exceeding $15,000.00 to move only a small part of the structure. In addition, all trees in the front yard would have to be taken out and all addit-ions destroyed. The neighborhood with one exception has already redeveloped as modern townhomes and neither this old house nor the neighborhood has any particular historical significance. Under these circumstances, I would like to raise with the commission the merit of trying to preserve a quite obsolete and unremarkable structure having no particular historic significance. The much more practical process would be demolition and reconstruction of a safe structure meeting current insulation and safety standards. Although the Code currently requires architectural design and ~ redevelopment plans before a demolition permit is allowed, this seems unwarranted. I am reluctant to incur debt to pay for the costs of an architectural redevelopment plan which, if demolition approval were not granted, would become entirely worthless. The regulation as drafted does not accomplish the purposes of the City, since, as you know, there have been incidents where redevelopment plans were presented, approved, demolition permits granted and the owner abandoned the redevelopment and put the property on the market. Since any new purchaser is likely to want his own design, any such redevelopment plan is a waste of money. As you know, I have lived in Aspen for more than 25 years, am hardly a speculator and this is the only piece of property I own. It is my residence here and,my sole asset. I will request that I be given permission to seek the removal of this obsolete and inadequate structure. I would. appreciate being put on the agenda for June 27 in order to have an opportunity to discuss these matters wi-th you. Very truly yours, Cecelia J. (Sugar) Frew Rigsby CJFR ch t 'il Ir Aspen/PitkinEBfa~ning Office 130 so lithltrafi **lks tree t aspen*#¢tg);ERNia'~8161 I June 18, 1990 Cecelia J. Rigsby P. 0. Box 2175 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Re: Demolition/Redevelopment pre-application conference with the Aspen HPC: 1006 E. Cooper St. Dear Cecelia: This is to notify you that the Planning Office is in receipt of your letter requesting time before the Aspen HPC on June 27 for a pre-application to discuss the demolition and redevelopment of your parcel at 1006 E. Cooper. I have reviewed the Committee's schedule for that meeting, and have determined that due to the number of previously scheduled agenda items and public hearings, the Committee will be unable to pre-app with you at that time. The earliest I am able to schedule your pre-application is the following meeting, July 11, beginning at 5:00 p.m., 2nd floor conference room, City Hall. I will assume this date (July 11) is satisfactory with you unless I hear from you in writing within five days of today requesting a pre-app date later than the 11th. Please be advised that the HPC will not be holding their regularly scheduled meeting on July 25. The dates in August are the 8th and 22nd, and both appear open at this time. Sincerely, 9 'n Q fb- Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Planner CC: Bill Poss, HPC Chairman Amy Margerum, Planning Director . Aspen Land Use Regulations (3) Scale drawings of the proposed develop- ment in relation to any existing structure. (4) A statement of the effect of the details of the proposed development on the original design of the historic struc- ture (if applicable) and character of the neighborhood. (5) A statement of how the Final Development Plan conforms to the representations made during the conceptual review and responds to any conditions placed thereon. +17/%-1 -3> Sec. 7-602. Demolition. Partial Demolition or Relocation. (f,d~,-4 <e* A. General. No demolition of any structure included in rtwA-St.t) the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to Sec. 7-709, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless the demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the standards of Sec. 7- 602(B). No partial demolition and removal of a portion of any Historic Landmark or any structure within an " H" Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless approved by the HPC as necessary for the renovation of the structure, and because it meets the standards of Sec. 7-602(C), or unless the partial demolition and removal is exempt because it creates no change to the exterior of the structure and has no impact on the character of the structure. No relocation of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to Section 7-709, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District, shall be permitted unless the relocation is approved by the HPC because it meets the standards of Section 7-602 (D)(1) through (4). When deemed appropriate due to the significance of the project, the HPC may require a Performance Guarantee in a form acceptable to the City Attorney as assurance that the demolition, partial demolition, or relocation will be completed as represented. 7 -30 Revisions incorporated through August 14, 1989 . --- B. Precise Wording of the Proposed Amendments to the Text of Chapter 24: 1. Amend §7-602. Demolition, Partial Demolition or Relocation. A. General, by deleting the phrase "or any structure within an MH" Historic Overlay District" from each of the first three paragraphs of the section; the section would then read as follows: "Sec. 7-602. Demolition, Partial Demolition and Relocation. A. General. No demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to Sec. 7-709, shall be permitted unless the demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the standards of Sec. 7-602(B). No partial demolition and removal of a portion of any Historic Landmark shall be permitted unless approved by the HPC as necessary for the renovation of the structure, and because it meets the standards of Sec. 7-602(C), or unless the partial demolition and removal is exempt because it creates no change to the exterior of the structure and has no impact on the character of the structure. 4 . No relocation of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to Section 7-709, shall be permitted unless the relocation is approved by the HPC because it meets the standards of Section 7-602(D)(1) through (4). When deemed appropriate due to the significance of the project, the HPC may require a Performance Guarantee in a form acceptable to the City Attorney as assurance that the demolition, partial demolition, or relocation will be completed as represented."