The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19900808AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE AUGUST 8, 1990 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM City Hall 5:00 I. Roll call and ,approval of July 11, 1990 minutes ,33 c rn el--1 0,-1 ,~4 5 grÂ·< C' L.-di-~ ,(LÂ£/ 'uj>j.7 1 MA_<1 II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:10 *.6- conceptual Development - 409 E. Hopkins Ave., Alpine Bank - Public Hearing/Â«Â»bur/fo (4râ€ž1/4-s- 524 - B. 4 conceptual Development - Partial Demolition 824 E. Cooper Avenue (/3/0/ ef-(:cu u boo. L VI. COMMUNICATIONS VII. PROJECT MONITORING VIII.ADJOURN HPC MEMBERS-I ATTACHED MEMOES AND PERTINENT INFORMATION AS MUCH AS I COULD LOCATE ON 409 E. HOPKINS - IT APPEARS TO ME THAT ROXANNE DID A MEMO. AS FAR AS 824 WHICH WAS NOTICED IN ASPEN TIMES ALSO I CANNOT FIND MUCH TO GO ON. IT MAY NEED TABLED AS I COULD ONLY FIND ONE DRAWING AND NO APPLICATION. THANKS KATHY STRICKLAND . 5 -1-1 0-u_La et: 11 4 0 >77\ t\( lk- 11-v, .5 D- . . 14 A-G ENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE AUGUST 8, 1990 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM City Hall 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of July 11, 1990 minutes 32 a r.,7 ,Â·,4-) O '7 ji oÂ·,Â·c f , uÂ·d<i /<-AU' Â«--*p; WrIU_.~/ II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:10 h. R - conceptual Development - 409 E. Hopkins Ave., Alpine Bank - Public Hearing f./.F/D/./â‚¬<, C /g, ,/+-3 - 31 A. - R. 4 conceptual Development - Partial Demolition 824 E. Cooper Avenue IÂ·'3/t)~' t<::~ -$L,- u j~)<3<g . VI. COMMUNICATIONS VII. PROJECT MONITORING VIII.ADJOURN HPC MEMBERS-I ATTACHED MEMOES AND PERTINENT INFORMATION AS MUCH AS I COULD LOCATE ON 409 E. HOPKINS - IT APPEARS TO ME THAT ROXANNE DID A MEMO. AS FAR AS 824 WHICH WAS NOTICED IN ASPEN TIMES ALSO I CANNOT FIND MUCH TO GO ON. IT MAY NEED TABLED AS I COULD ONLY FIND ONE DRAWING AND NO APPLICATION. THANKS KATHY STRICKLAND C. 5 -Â·1-k BiLL. e LÂ·11 4Io,hip, i ll-l''n, 5 D. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Conceptual Development: 409 E. Hopkins, the Alpine Bank parcel, Public Hearing Continued Date: May 23, 1990 PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: On May 9, 1990, the HPC reviewed and tabled the conceptual development application and public hearing for 409 E. Hopkins, Lots D, E, and F, Block 88, to May 23. The purpose of the tabling was to allow the applicant additional time to restudy a number of issues on the project, specifically massing, scale, height, storefront and facade treatments and setbacks. REVISIONS PRESENTED AT THIS MEETING: The applicant studied the HPC's recommendations, and has returned with a substantially improved infill structure, in staff's opinion. These changes may be summarized as follows: Setback: The central portion of the facade will be setback 8', while the two flanking entranceways will be setback 5'. This change is the result of a majority discussion of the HPC. Staff concurs that this revised setback is more appropriate in the district, however, we are not convinced 8' is the appropriate dimension. The HPC should continue to consider this strongly. 3rd Floor Massing: The result of HPC's discussion is the step back of some 20' of the third floor, which staff supports. The parapet articulation has not changed, however, it appears less noticeable when pushed some 28' from the sidewalk edge. The interesting aspect of this 3rd floor stepback is that suddenly the recessed portion of the East wall of the Collins Block begins to read through again, allowing light and views to occur (a concern on that property owner). This also aligns with the mid-point breaks in both the Brand and the Collins Block, when Birds-eye viewed using the model. Staff is generally supporting of these third floor massing changes. Storefront and Facade: Most importantly is the bay- articulation of the facade. Aspen's commercial core is comprised of a variety of buildings, but the clear landmarks are those that relate to their neighbor, their block and the entire district in rhythm and fenestration pattern. Heights and materials vary, but the one consistent element tying them all together is their ability to be different within their own set of vertical bays. The Brand, Elks and Cowenhoven Blocks are excellent examples of defined vertical bays establishing the pattern, with varying window and door shapes within. Staff feels the applicant has incorporated this vertical bay treatment very well within the infill context. The bays are defined as A-B-C-B-A, and relate well to one another, and happily to the one story Collins Block infill facade, a nice bonus. The finer details of kickplate dimension and upper window height have been amended, which staff supports. A wrought-iron railing is proposed at the second floor parapet, which the HPC should consider as a compatible design feature. The second floor parapet is articulate to relate to the 3rd floor. This railing is apparently necessary by code for the second floor deck, now facing north. Residential Entries: Staff's concerned at the last meeting was that these entrance doors appears far too "residential" in nature, and incompatible for the extreme commercial nature of the core. These have been redesigned to appear as almost mini-storefronts, complete with side lights and transoms. The HPC should consider whether the architect has - gone too far the other way now in this design - possibly a better solution involves less transparency in these entries. Alley (south) elevation: Staff's request to the applicant to restudy this elevation with the goal of having it relate somewhat to the facade has been accomplished. The 12 vertical double hung windows are paired. The window style and overall treatment of the third floor are improvements conceptually, in our opinion. We Still feel additional study is necessary to make some overdue and significant improvements to this alley as a whole. As this project will take up the majority of the alleyscape, we encourage a more creative and aggressive design solution to solve the trash problems. Sidewalk Landscaping: Staff feels that the general failure of "vest pocket parks" in the commercial core is due to minimal attention to landscaping, maintenance and other, pedestrian features. The loss of the previously proposed 15' setback and "plaza" space could only considered such if the core were to be losing a particularly interesting landscaped feature (not in reference to the Sculpture Garden proposed for removal). Therefore, the four trees proposed 2 at the sidewalk level are very necessary and should be carefully considered in the plan. Additional low landscaping treatments should be studied for inclusion in this setback area, to help break the pedestrian perception of hard surfaces the entire distance between Galena and Mill. SITE, AREA AND BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Due to GMQS competition forthcoming (application deadline is June 1), the applicant has not supplied the Planning Office with FAR figures for HPC's review. Once the GMQS applicant has been submitted, staff may be bringing the project back to the HPC for revised conceptual approval. EXISTING CONDITIONS: A number of uses currently exist on this parcel, which are all slated for removal: One story Alpine Bank building (non-historic) Sculpture Garden (waterfall and Meadow in the Sky sculpture) Garden seating area for the Smuggler Land Office restaurant Note: At the last meeting, the applicant stated they would be sponsored a code amendment changing Section 7-602 D. of the Land Use Regulations, adding paragraph #6 to include an "Exemption" clause for non-historic, non-significant structures within a historic district for demolition or relocation. At this time, no demolition application, per se, has been submitted to the Planning Office for the existing conditions. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Please refer to the applicable Guidelines, which are found in Section IV. Commercial Buildings - New Construction beginning on page 35. The Development review standards are found in Section 7-601 Of the Land Use Code. (Note: These were reviewed in staff's memo of May 9. Please refer to this memo.) ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the Conceptual Development as submitted 3. Approve the Conceptual Development with conditions, to be met at Final Development review, such as 4. Table action to a date specific, to allow the applicant further time to restudy the proposal again. 5., Deny Conceptual Development approval finding that the application does not meet the development review standards. 3 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant conceptual development approval, subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant sponsor a code amendment changing Section 7-602 D. of the Land Use Regulations, adding paragraph #6 to include an "Exemption" clause for non-historic, non-significant structures within a historic district for demolition or relocation. 2) The Final Development applicant memo.hpc.409eh.3 4 r ' -t-3 ki/,4'.tto- \350- C j AL/}13-- Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 9, 1990 rear of the building with a redesign to be approved by monitor and staff. Les second. Glenn: There are a number of discrepancies as to how the exterior stair on the east elevation works. Roxanne: With the number of discrepancies this needs to be tabled. We need corrected elevation, site plan and roof plans. Dennis: We are going to have to redraw the east elevation anyway to take out the handicapped ramp, could we make it subject to a redrawing of the east elevation otherwise the same motion. Georgeann: The problem is whether you go through the project monitor or come back. Bill: The plans indicate that it is not there. AMENDED MOTION: Georgeann made an amended motion that approval is contingent on approval of the correction in the drafting error changes on the east elevation to indicate the elimination of the roof and stairs so that the facade under the main dormer of the east elevation will only have windows in it and this needs to be approved by monitor and staff. Les second with all in favor of motion and amended motion. Georgeann is monitor of 132 W. Main. 409 E. HOPKINS - ALPINE BANK - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT-PH Charles reseated. Bill stepped down. Public Hearing opened. Roxanne Eflin, Preservation Planner presented the over-view of the project as stated in records (memo date May 9, 1990). This is conceptual development for an infill structure. A single use commercial on theÂ· main floor with free market and deed restricted affordable housing on the second floor and free market housing on the third floor. An auto lift is- proposed off the alley accessing below grade parking. Six affordable units are proposed for the second floor and those would be incorporating the previously approved Lane Parcel units. The existing conditions are slated for removal: One story Alpine Bank building, sculpture garden, garden seating for Smuggler Land Office. I have used the guidelines very closely in dealing with this large infill project. 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 9, 1990 We need to look at setback. The guidelines state that plazas or courts that break the continuity of the facade alignment should be avoided, design should maintain the general alignment. A court yard maybe considered if it has an active function or gives desired relief for the purpose of allowing historic landmark to stand out more prominently. The Brand Building and the Collins Block are on either side. The HPC should consider the 15 foot setback carefully and see how they function. In the commercial core there is a 25% open space requirement and this would require a cash in lieu mitigation of 10% of that which is a City Council decision not an HPC decision because this is not a landmark parcel. The alignment and rhythm of the face blend well except for the following: The bulkhead panel (kickplate) which appears to thin. The main floor doors appear too "residential". The second floor seems too narrow and thin and out of balance with the adjacent structures. The handing between the second and third floor appears heavy and out of scale. i A That the second floor windows servicing the stair tower on each 9 end are extremely narrow and appear incompatible. The parapet is too heavily articulated. The proposed building and awning materials do appear compatible. The Planning Office feels restudy of the massing is appropriate with the third floor, whether it should step back or remain as is. The storefront appears to meet the guidelines but we are recommending a submittal of more detailed storefront plans. The second floor windows appear too short in relation to the two historic buildings on either end of the block and need restudied. The alley elevation windows have no relation to the facade. They appear deeply recessed. The materials chosen are appropriate but we need to be careful of the texture Of those materials. The Hotel Jerome viewplane appears to be unaffected. From a cultural value we find that there is argument as to the impact of a structure this size and its effect on the two adjacent national registered buildings. The Planning Office is recommending that conceptual development be tabled to a date certain to allow the applicant further time to study the proposal and revise the setback, massing, height, 1 parapet and the second floor fenestration and submit a complete 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 9, 1990 application requesting demolition of the existing improvements on the parcel. No conceptual approval may be granted for the redevelopment of the parcel without the HPC's review and approval ' of a demolition or relocation application. Kim Weil, architect: The third floor needs to be of a certain size that makes it virtually impossible to hide because of its openness. There are options to moving the building back and creating a space in front which tends to set off the corners. We can also slide the building up to the property line and keep the third floor essentially in the same position which would give it a 15 foot setback to the upper floor. The windows will evolve and are not as critical as the massing. We can work with the fenestration. Gideon Kaufman, attorney: We have an uniqueness with the bank as a tenant. We are open to discussion, the moving forward of the building and the possibility of adjusting the upper level. If the HPC does feel we should eliminate the plaza then we would like to work with you on sponsoring a code amendment that talks about when the HPC makes you move and doesn't want the open space then the fee should be waived. / Kim: On the decks we are limited to 500 sq. ft. for each deck and the rest wood be roof. The mechanical will be hidden by the parapets on either side which are required by code, fire walls which have to go 2 1/2 feet above the roof. Gideon: Our intentions is to put the majority of the employee housing for this building and the Lane parcel in here. Gideon: We have presented the building with the plaza but if HPC would rather see the building move forward then the options become twofold or if you would want it moved back how far back. Kim:. If we move the building forward and some arrangement is made for the $250,000 that it would cost us to do that, do we keep the third floor as is, a portion of the third floor or create pockets at the corner? MASSING Charles: I would like to see the second floor go to its parapet height, get higher and move the massing of the third floor back so the horizontal capping line of the building would more align with the Collins Block and the Brand building and would seem more like a two story building predominantly. The third level would be set back from the street. 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 9, 1990 Glenn: There is a lot to be said for having buildings on the street. What towns are about is having buildings on the lot line. I would like to see it pulled to the property line and find someway to fund the $250,000. In general the density of this area can go one way or another and I am in favor of moving the third floor to the property line. Joe: I prefer to see it read as a two story building. If there is no way to accommodate that I would be in favor of setting it back the way it has been presented. I am not in favor of bringing the building up to the property line and leaving the facade unbroken up to three stories. I would prefer a two story that would be on the property line, have a strong second story line so that we have some consistency to the block and step back the third floor to the south of the parcel so that it would read to a pedestrian as a two story building. Les: I like pockets and feel it is not necessary to have the building come to the property line. I do have a problem with 40 and 42 feet. I would like it to read lower. Site lines from across the street are Still critical. Maybe we can drop the front down, set it back so that the mountain can still be read from across the street. I have a problem with the transition into the Collins Block, it is a little strong and needs set back, or a step down a little. No problem with materials but massing too heavy. Jake: I am prone to supporting the forward position and would be in support of getting an exemption on their open space requirement since it is helping an historical cause. I do feel it would have a lot of impact with that kind of height and would favor some treatment of the upper floor so that it doesn't read with such an impact. It might not necessarily take recessing the entire floor. I like the changing of levels and the up and down. I am not strong on lining everything up on a straight line. I support the idea of articulating the verticality that we see in the Brand Building, separation of vertical elements. I like the , indentation on the lower floor by they displays. Charles: If the second floor line stayed where it is on the street and it popped down a little bit from the Brand Building that would be an acceptable band. Possibly the upper floor reduced and set back so that it becomes a two story building. We would try and work to reduce the open space impacts. Georgeann: This building dominates the two buildings on the sides because its mass is SO great. I also think it is 6 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 9, 1990 tremendously horizontal. I would like to see the third floor pushed back or possibly the two sides of the third floor pushed back and the central section held tall so we get more variety on that street. The floors need lowered down a little. Do three stories have to go 42 feet high? I am strongly in favor of having the building pushed 10 to 15 feet back because the further back it sets, it allows the other two buildings to come forward and be dominant. Glenn: What is important to me is preserving a "sense of street" and hopefully preserving a sense that people live on the street. When you push the third floor back you deny those people a chance to live on the street. Trying to make the building read a little more broken up vertically might make it more honest about its use. Georgeann: Every building doesn't have to be a monument and I feel this one is turning into that. Joe Wells: The ground floor will be a bank. Charles: Another.issue is having building set back in this town so that you can see the mountain from the other side of the 9 street. Georgeann: In a plaza area people will stop and sit when going up and down the street. Charles: If the building did two things: Two stories on the front edge of it, three stories on the back edge and was pulled back somewhat from the street it might create a park-like quality and would make the other two buildings predominant on the street. Harley Baldwin: Keeping the building along the street is historically compatible. Use and architecture get tumbled together although that is not in your purview. My concern is what's going on from the historic building "out", then I am with anything else, its creating a big wall of masonry when you are inside the historic building. When you are looking out the window of the Collins Block you are looking straight into a concrete wall. It is partially helped by shifting the entire building toward the street. At that point the views are at least marginal toward the mountain. Georgeann: Pushing it back might give more sunlight and space on the street but it also severely effects the people in the historic buildings which is something to consider. 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 9, 1990 Roxanne: We want to see the alley cleaned up and they are of a great concern to the HPC. Harley: The fenestration and materials are terrific and a great start and I look forward to working with them. Georgeann: The client needs direction and we are split as to whether the building should be back from the street or forward. We are split whether the third floor should be back from the second floor or not. There are no unfavorable comments about the articulation going in and out of the front within the building plane of the building. Steve Briggs, representative for Alpine Bank: A retail store on the first floor would not be possible as we need all that space. Roxanne: I am in favor of the building being moved forward somewhat but feel we are not ready to make a decision. Glenn: We need to recognize that people do want to be on the street and we need to acknowledge that. c 4 Kim Weil, architect: In height we did not use our limit and the two parapets are a code requirement. We would like to take the advantage of both views. Georgeann: In general the mass needs reduced somewhat. Possibly the end units need dropped down in order to lower the parapets. The rising up of the parapet looks false. Gideon Kaufman, attorney: We need direction as to whether the building needs moved forward or not before we deal with the third floor. MOVING OF THE BUILDING - STRAW POLL VOTE Jake: I would like to see the building pulled toward the property line but it could be several feet recessed. If that occurs then the third floor needs pushed back. Charles: They can have between zero setback and 5 or 10 feet in the front depending how the facade solution occurs. The top floor definitely needs setback. Also reduced from the sides so that the Collins Block has a view. Glenn: I want the building on the street and the third floor pulled forward to accommodate Harley's concerns. 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 9, 1990 Joe: I would like to see the building set back from the lot line from zero to 5 feet. The third floor set back a substantial amount. Les: I could live with zero to five feet from the lot line. I would like to see five feet off the height of the building and the third floor pushed back as far as possible. The right side of the building dropped so that the Collins Block becomes more visible. Joe: Relieve on the right and left sides of the parapets. Georgeann: I would like to see the building ten feet back from the curb line. The third floor pushed back and the third floor sides diminished to soften the flow into the other two buildings. MOTION: Les made the motion to table 409 E. Hopkins until the May 23rd meeting to allow the applicant further time to study the proposal and revise the setback, massing, height, parapet, fenestration. Submit a completed application requesting demolition of the existing improvements on the parcel. NO conceptual approval may be granted for the redevelopment of the parcel without the HPC' s review and approval of a demolition or ' relocation application. Charles second with all in favor. 610 N. THIRD STREET - PRE-APPLICATION Bill reseated. Roxanne: Welton Anderson, architect is proposing the addition of a garage and an angled tower element. Les: Most of the tower is not visible and doing the 45% angle makes it interesting. Georgeann: This building has had so many changes would it matter if one more thing happens to it. Roxanne: Is adding the tower making the building worse and should the tower be angled? Welton: The house faces Lake Avenue on one side and Third St. on the other. The house was brought over from Cooper Street in the late 60's. The queen ann roof was taken off and a mansard roof was put on in 1968. In 1985 the master bath, bedroom etc. was added. To obtain the views etc. we propose to turn the car port into a garage and take a sleeping portion of the master bedroom and orient it such that the views are toward the mountain. There i 9 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF 409 E. HOPKINS AVE. - ALPINE BANK PARCEL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, August 8, 1990, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee in the Second Floor Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application by Alpine Bank on behalf of Laura Donnelley, represented by Bill Poss and Associates, for the conceptual development of the parcel described as Lots D, E, and F, Block 88, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. The proposal requests conceptual development approval from the HPC for the construction of a new commercial two story building. This application presents a revision from the previous three-story mixed-use building proposal. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office at 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, 81611. (303) 920-5090. s/William J. Poss Chairman, Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Published in the Aspen Times on July 12, 1990 City of Aspen account pub.notice.409eh.2 CUNNINGHAM INVESTMENT CO., INC. SUITE 201 121 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-8803 JUL 6 1990 July 3, 1990 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Committee Planner City of Aspen Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: HPC Conceptual Approval Review 409 East Hopkins Street Property Lots D, E, and F, Block 88 Aspen, Colorado Dear Roxanne, Pursuant to our discussion of today we are requesting that the aforementioned project designed by William Poss & Associates, Architects now be reinstated for public hearing in front of the Historic Preservation Committee. This project had previously been reviewed on May 9, 1990 by the HPC and final conceptual approval review was originally scheduled for May 23, 1990. We are now requesting that the public hearing and conceptual devel- opment review be scheduled for the August 8, 1990 HPC meeting. The appropriate revised plans are enclosed as part of the submis- sion. We believe that the concerns previously expressed by the Commit- tee relative to design on this property have generally been met as evidenced in the revised plans. We look forward to meeting with the Committee on August 8th. Should you require any addi- tional materials prior to the hearing please contact us at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, -7 1 .l I./..Cl-yÂ¢i~nA-ingham / President Cunningnam Invest-r~nt Co., Inc. IMC/cd CC: William Poss & Associates Architects Enclosure ABP.022 89+41% 92 illaills (5497 7 4 0 \0\J -T FIC; I .*ty l ~*i kil",tjll#*ery)* lid : . -' - I 'tr,1/*fr.,i: , / 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 July 10, 1990 TEL (303) 925-4755 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Alpine Bank Site/Donnelly Property 409 East Hopkins Street Aspen, Colorado Dear Roxanne, Please accept this revised HPC Submittal, including revised conceptual drawings, for the above referenced property. This project has gone through numerous design changes in response to HPC's concerns. We feel that the revised design effectively addresses both the review standards and the HPC guidelines. The revised concept in design of this property focuses on creat- ing a structure which is harmonious in design and scale with the adjacent historic Brand Building and Collins Block. The build- ing, as redesigned, is a two story brick and sandstone structure that will have five retail shop facades at the street level of the building. The second floor, because of FAR restrictions, will be second floor commercial space with a center courtyard area that is not visible from the street. Review Standards: A. The proposed building is set back approximately five feet, at the closest point, from the property line. We feel this setback provides the most compatible rela- tionship to the designated structures located east and west of the property. A strong historically accurate sense of streetscape will be created by the contiguous street front facade along this block of East Hopkins Street. In addition, the horizontal lines created by facade details and awnings on the Brand Building and Collins Block are also allowed to carry through on the proposed structure. Materials to be used on the new structure are primarily of brick and sandstone with '%4% ., 1 1 -' -t P 1- .* -Ji ... tÂ·Hi 6 #Es/* Ms. Roxanne Eflin July 10, 1990 Page Two complimentary windows, doors and storefronts. These materials are complimentary, compatible and historical- ly accurate to those employed in the construction of the neighboring landmarks. B. With respect to neighborhood compatibility, the major issues are height and massing. With respect to height, the top of the parapet is approximately 28 feet above existing grade. This height is a significant reduction from the originally proposed height of 39'8". Thus, it is approximately equal to the parapet height of the Brand Building and is approximately 4 feet below the parapet of the Collins Block. The new building's height is significantly below the 40 foot height limit in this zone. It is also important to note that the historic portions of the Collins Block are separated from the proposed structure by a one story building which acts as a buffer between the two larger build- ings. A number of buildings directly across the alley from this project approach the full height limit of 40 feet. For the above reasons, we feel that the two story design of this structure is very compatible with the predominate historic structures along this block of East Hopkins Street. With respect to massing, we believe that it is most appropriate to present two story facade rather than the originally proposed third floor facade on this struc- ture. Through the use of multiple streetscape windows and retail storefronts we are able to further reduce the perceived mass of the structure. C. The proposed development does not detract from the cultural value of the designated historic structures located on the parcels east and west of this site. The westerly portion of the Brand Building is currently occupied by a restaurant and other commercial uses. The property to the west of this site, the Collins Block addition, is currently being leased for commer- cial use. Therefore, commercial use on this site is consistent with the uses of both historic properties t. i.Â·d- + 4. E.- J F* Ms. Roxanne Eflin July 10, 1990 Page Three located east and west of this site. Additionally, the properties located to the south of the property, across the alley, are of commercial use and of very limited visual appeal. The proposed use of the property would not detract from the surrounding area and would quite possibly be an enhancement to the historic cultural value of the adjacent parcels. D. Review Standard D does not apply to this property. In summary, we feel that the revised design of this property, compared to that which was previously submitted to the Historic Preservation Committee is a significant improvement over the original design and reflects many of the concerns and objectives of the HPC as reflected during preliminary review of the proposed development. Should you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact either myself or Mac Cunningham. Sincerely, Kim Weil KW/cd CC: Cunningham Investment ABP.024 . F 6 7 7 . 8 ... r 9 9 10 10 SCI 11 11 12 1 (S PA) --. 4*8 PUB ~~ Â£111 1 1 1 1 NC (SPA) f (SPA) *8 RIO GRANDE PLAYING FIELD H j Ht H \\ 8 ./.... 1-il - PARKING LOT 1H 0 H i CDt *.CA ti 1 -31 1 1 Â« 44 E r - 1 O 2 CE N 6% * .......=.-er......... -- O ! Â·4 1 1 1 % 4 1 -........ i 1 i~ 1 ~ ~ H ~ ~lb 7 1 H I. 1 -1 [1 1 1 1 1 Li I 1 1 1-1 1 -1 lilli Vp / 1 E 2 0 OE 1 30 bE 1 400E I ifilti IASE)11;25~~0 9-Ei. ..322/t. -2.1 1 H i 1 ~14 -- al t . J ' 11 H - 'I.F. 1.-~L J - 1 51- 6 r 1 4 i_1-1-~ Lb 1 1 - 1(Et Â· (0: . H (Al -1 L i UP ' i H} Ch - .1 1 Ir - LL.. (/) 1 ---Il--Ill =+v,0/ 37 1,- LLUÂ®l-k~ -/F 1 F Y/3.84 1- Â¢ Â·.39 H % R --- Zâ€¢ Wâ€¢ 1 1 1 H 9. WAGNER 0 L/TR E. . ~JO~ER AVE. 13 t.- P O Ill lill 01 u'll\l l L f-111= cy (D.T. H.) Â· i i W MJ r-J - 831 NAH-S - L. s -ASPEN -ST. 0 -c- - ------ 1/ LIJ 2... U L , 11'/ a . ., )h#04%*14614#.bile,i: Â·~&Â· +FAir-~~ . k :~lidit,~~ 14444*0*91ith'41Â·il,~421&'ii~!;i?.~C'-**, ,Â·Â· -, ,".2-,te;;4tÂ·*:Â·[,1 i,j ,;Â·iÂ·,i jÂ· ,- , 4. 1% 44 1 f -:04:i.F#En'NTIEETI .Â· I.r; u~<n'.,.e;- ~iÂ·'j '1 U "r ' 1 u.Â·,t.~ lu 2 69 1, .2.- '1, .4, Â·':~ - k U f - 1*ter' '* 9*4-As : 1 . .. . i. -- 1 11 ' 41,; Â£,tâ€¢Â·949 . ilÂ·11'. 11 ...5; 1, . 4.4 . . ,. ,4 1 1 , - 1.2 60 i" 1~4 .1Â· 11#Â¥'Utk=â€¢'~-â€¢L41Â£ 41*1 K., 1 4444*f, 7 f . ' 1 +4. , 1 . /.4 , 1 :...t. ,\ 2 2.FI-~.ir2EUWâ„¢&8- 319 ., o. 1 .1...1 "A F.. ?/1,1 '' ./.&' n 'g'rjee'Vive'WiE' 11' 141 1 - f '-Â·f.i,rkfi,Â· - i [7'Â·) + . . . --1 . 4.- 1 Â· Â·. t.'7 i Â· u .'10Â· 1,1. el 'Â·f:i 8 4 r::. 1 91.- .: 1 4-:. 1 , 1;3,1 81 -33~jttaÂ· 14 9 1 1 Â·t 1, .I ' / A gly'' It It > 1 : 1 6 :: ,/ili .0, 8.0 ., i. f f ,DO :1 1 9 5/1// . 21 1 .2 , '. k L 4- 1.. i ..7-13-71253--kY - -,;Izld"--:FrE.4, - __ -fl--f==371 , -- 111 T~-~- r . i t':I'i...4/314- 1 ..r; 49'1249. :17FGFFzHT, 0,12,4,150% i ~ : , 49.;1~61- + 4' 6O6W46 blbd-K. 01Â·43:@MI Ir .6,12.1 3 1 4.03 5.'Hblp@-lfÂ·;9 Â·Â· I :.'' ~ '. 4Â·Â· >'Â· Â·iÂ·Â·Â·~~' ~ r . t'11'. 1. , 4 I '*12/i. 1 Â· 1 Jor./ Â·. 0*.4,/2. t. , Â¢ F .i .S..2 t. J -1 1 ~~ 1~4.:1*1 0 2 1 '- 8* *1 I ..N:f .i.h , 1 ' ~ Fbplola /-- -- rrÂ«Â»- â‚¬0 LAâ‚¬ 15â€¢ 2-6 IN FL*-5 =f.0.-liqi; , 11[- t.-f -4t.-=-f 441 Zi 11 I.- 1 1 4-4 i' p b 4 i 11 -11 2-.11 -4 _- "4Â· 0'Â»''A'/,Le' ~u #., . ip,.,4,â‚¬2*4:232Â¥ 4'~ u/ '4&Â£*zrittpli\A 77.-.,1~ 2. t _-1 ALLEY ELEVATION :. : P .1! -71: L :2.411 / 47 1. Â·Â· 1 1 2, . V . f 1 - - -'- I - - ----- ENIErIE -I-/IJT 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 P h ' :*:~f' 'i:~5%?Â·Rtil:<il.kr'.*2/glt WEST.iELE.VATIONS*&1**'-- 1.' 1. . 1 66'41 41 mpmmpitp.%.1,13(~#'Api Â· t'.' AL ' Â·~" ':A; ~0t[ I , Â·t~91~~1"fiÂ·i'lÂ·Ct ~4 4 '~444*:Â·~766 A $*M'"'*FflpfV*Â¥ii~:'7~4'4~1i~tili:liNÂ·FM:44~jt~fltl~,J,;,1,54Â·,T~1*f'W.*A â‚¬Et-~~TÂ¥47 , ~k ~. Pit#~i-i r#.mfft.f,~*:4...1; :..fif~twr 2,tLg -11~51 f.-4?..,1., tr-'Â· 1' 'i ~,- - j Â·'(':'!11Â£4 2, , , , :~- 101 litt dULV noplcut> j % . , 1!l- .B. ,:: u:;: 4Â·.4â€ž0,1Â·â€¢4~,~~ 144*94646"i...11.*,il& 6. ' \, ...x.,4 : :, 1. . 4.%>122/p,f~..4,~ d.3'11/4Â· ).* . â‚¬-I A,Â·1 , ... A 6 1 ' *.4-'.Â·Ii:.2.Â«t :-01~' '.:f & ' ... 3 0 I J Â·' .';lit;tÂ·+89'iÂ·A~'' //F I#. %/: I .~;r~ - '%-' & ' C' I 'â€¢ 17 ~3:0'-Â«/Aff-iÂ· ye, -%4-2 i - Â· Â·, Â«41- UNE>e'.7.....rÂ·t' 4%42 Â£ :i'!0'it: PAV!1 r'ti,q- l it.':i:- G >Â·Â· ' ,' 7 -1 ..1.'dt*';f,17.~2.j 119.4 Â·|1 4Â·. 4,424{ilijtiÂ·#1",J %4..j MIl 't ~ 1. .1 ....11 A, Â· '.i, Â·?.4/3 1Â·p~ 4 4- . I . .. 1%,f~,4 .40 ., 1 , ' 1,[ClipF '1 b id.'.-1- ..1 ...1,5:* . Â· IÂ·1'1:1.Ii- .9.; AÂ· !:Â·'41#1~6, :0 01,1.....Ii?.1 . ,~ 4. '2 2 3 Â·: ; .; Â·r'f"- ' d lt, b 4 1 1. . , ., 1 L ki>31. ~41 ',4, Ill 1 1 . *WA '.' 1,1 I. I .14*49?41 4 k . IP t.... Â¢ P. , - 1, . 1: " ..t.'#'. -4 Â·d i' 1 .4 : ! 1 .0, ; I & 4 ..1- . 1.11*64.9 11 1 ,.., 11,', Â·:31Â· f 4 d d . . 1 L At Â· ,. ft k:44,.2,~ :4 1 1 t. 1 . 1 f 9-/11< 11 . 1 41 : 4 j . 1 2-=======- l " C 47 . 1 2 72) 'Al Â¢9'47.' 937 =..1... E- 43,J. 4.>3Â«..v ~1*,41 0 1 4 Â·- 4 .-, 4.~Â· 27t , ---Â· > A . EAST ELEVATION A.WOE. . A.N kÂ·.2 Â·.... 4Â»44*2 :3*M~20-2,4.2,~ : #Â¢9 r,41 *,1'1' 71Â·8,1-*Â¢*T,44&-115&4mE-r--'ugtili-:4Â·'9*~442%14.5?i444*142'I"T,jewa44444%42-4-;'Â·=-Â·;~~~0=~-30i~'~~~~~ r " " 'YE .4..- ANiFidili;14#D,4900*0)4&#rsv"*PailÂ»3itilfÂ¢*3*9Â·41~:fi*40,A,imit vf'~i , . -0.~11_._iNLIIL..d-.u, 'IRL 1.ErÂ· , ' Â·-2 4.Â·j Â·L f.4-~-~ 1 r i r ' -1 TTE&!biMjulll-Ii-]FIFIP{libil D I[ [ll:LIL 1 1.1 U li il G f--1Filik--1-11 21-U tiÂ·2 '{f t}-114[-JU-EN-l[-114[-3- 1 11 FI- \ 1 / ir 1 ' dillmil-11]1121[illi]'11'1 41-1 0 ' &1 -t 1,1 1 1 1; 11 1 -7= 1 1. T-1 11 r F 7 -.4~ r/, ---- - -=r-1-7 !1 ; 14 J L-- ~1 1 Rt-1-3 *f . , i 11-f- I 6 1 11'11 m III 6 P 1! ====== 2---r 3- -----* 1 -Â·=â€¢ 4 -96=4 I il'D' I 1 .11 1 f-=-11 I k i i, 4 1, III 11 1 '4Â· : 41 4 1 :1 4 1 En- 1 ' 1~51-2--~ i i'- -2 I , r -~ 1. fit 9 *223 1~322[! A.1 1 ------1 12 -21 i __ 1 11 11 1 i ~ . 1 - L~ TCANI 446 7 , J -1 ~ 2.27 7%91 , 1 1 ,p-3 -- 71! 91 1 1 1:1 I - -1 Â¢= =4 --2 -In: ~1 ,~ : 4111 11 ' F - --9 # - J=1 ----'-- -'-- - ..:-- --- 11.- 11-1- Eli 1 - 1:1,/' M 11 1 1 11 11 3 - -ELa -4 1 14 1 . 6-2L.! 1 ;AG--25-3.---~ 1-=11.-14 : 1 i t-,Ir-: Â· 11 : i 1 1 1 1 :111 1 21 r-1 0-f-ID,LT--~.~31~16-M"Er=~1711~ -18 <__-3*240.-al-Ill[21>16 4Â· -1 32*~121 -1 I .0 1 .1 4/UN.. b:. .,. 1.; 44.1 ' 2...4 ... *WW 1 i ,*vÂ£*11*1:1. c Â·i:' :*i fi:4 41!#it~ty.'. i ..Â·.h;-+ t.,â€¢,di~r-.L~,b:. ..'ti'14'P=miksâ€¢ r-'r~-3613%.At#FEN,"MA'Ma,RM,M#MMBM,804,-91*14?!t) ;.& ':,; ., 7.4 Fl'Wimm"Er j ' : 1.-: tw,f:.GUE<.2.. 1/ki;.C'0'r *W .....' 1~1 411 fla'114 3' ' - '' **Laiklcul.L.-Â£/ , t:Â£**12461*961!Wik*% t A rÂ·- -'W. | '.,- il\=57 : m,/ . . - . -- < 'i,A,Â·175746 - *~i -- bÂ· ~Â· 12 -- 1. mliffINriligITE[ ' ' A HINF, i Nul; iii !KE! 1-,;-InE=== 2.=_=-- - id ., U --11-17-5=f'LeÂ·1=0 -111-2 Lit laÂ»7-:4 1 f 1 It. 111 11 1 1 4=J >=a; 1 t--04- 1-1=-* b=S=, 1 U-- f 111 111 !1 I 1 F 94 2- +AtÂ©groftâ‚¬ ~ CAh' 4Â£01 - -27 T+ F -*--1-1 =-i 6 1 IIi I 1 ........=--4 -1 11 V Sl i 4 mi i l, ! M--4Ell !1~ ~ :14 j , E- 19=j i k I r:va 1 8!p , * :_-l-_ 13-19]11 lili N :] Id ~91 iii I 1, 1, r - 1 11, 1 11 1 hi , 1 1 Â·j -394' Ii-71-I-gr, 2 i, 1~1-ztl-L~~, 5---.]- -p-,~r~~,~-2Â· k~-d-Â·--~~-f--r-- -- 2-1 ,#11 [4 -6 ~ A 11 1 1, 1 1 1*.=,et-A ' i . 1 . . 11--1.-11 '.=41 4,3. -1-RNFLZ'.72 wfA,.; 7-4-4 1 10 = I --, .,1 6 0 L L 1146 Et, -<IALIC - > HOPKINS ELEVATION 1 1 0 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OF 824 E. COOPER AVE. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, August 8, 1990, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee in the Second Floor Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application by Jeffry Swartz, c/o Duncan Street Investments, Ltd., represented by Ken Moore, for the property located at 824 E. Cooper St., Lot Q, Block 111, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. The application requests HPC approval for the substantial partial demolition of the historic cottage and rear additions, renovation of the facade and original portion of the cottage, and a new two story addition to the rear. The detached shed is proposed for demolition. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office at 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, 81611. (303) 920-5090. s/William J. Poss Chairman, Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Published in the Aspen Times on July 5, 1990 City of Aspen accountÂ·- pub.notice.824ec MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Pre-application: 824 E. Cooper Ave. - substantial partial demolition and addition Date: June 13, 1990 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: A pre-application conference with the HPC to begin a dialogue on the proposed substantial partial demolition and new construction to the historic c. 1880's miner's cottage. LOCATION: 824 E. Cooper Ave., (Highway 82), Lot Q, Block 111, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: RMF (Residential Multi-Family) BACKGROUND: This small vernacular cottage is located on a 3,000 sq. ft. parcel, which appears to be its original location. It is simply referred to in the Planning Office inventory files as the "824 E. Cooper House". The structure shows signs of deferred maintenance. Its distinguishing characteristics are the front porch, single gable 12/12 roof form, and typical vertical windows. PROJECT SUMMARY: Staff met with the applicant, Ken Moore, and the project architect, Barbara Long, on site to discuss the character defining elements of the cottage, and the general preservation goals of the HPC and the City. This cottage is extremely small, with an enclosed front porch, and obvious additions to the rear. The date of these additions is unknown, and will require research on the part of the applicant. Staff finds the structural analysis description prepared by Pattillo Associates thorough. A list of the structure repairs necessary (in Pattillo's opinion) to renovate the structure are included. These appear reasonable, however, staff feels the complete removal of exterior siding to confirm stud wall conditions is not necessary - this can be accomplished through the interior. The cottage is sandwiched between a slightly larger cottage (same era) and a c.1960's chalet-esque multi-family structure. Due to the size of the parcel and the small scale of the cottage, any new development would need to occur to the rear of the parcel. Similar to development the HPC has reviewed and Approved involving cascading/stepped back roof forms, staff feels this approach would be greatly preferred over what has been submitted in this packet, and would preserve as much of the small scale street character the cottage currently contains. The opinion of the Planning Office is due to its prominent location on Hiqhwav 82, the preservation of this small cottage is critical in terms of neighborhood character and image enhancement of the community. The proposal indicates a new two-story "Victorian" design, which eradicates the one-story cottage nature of the historic resource. We recommend that the HPC discuss compatible design alternatives with the applicant at this meeting. PARTIAL DEMOLITION: It is not clear to staff in this pre- application letter what the exact intent of the applicant is. We clearly do not support a total demolition this cottage. It is apparent that a number of alternatives involving creative renovation are possible. Any more than 50% demolition of the existing structure requires compliance with Ordinance 1, the Housing Replacement Ordinance. This requires either an affordable dwelling unit be included within the development, or a payment-in-lieu prior to the issuance of a building permit. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC take this opportunity in pre-application format to begin a dialogue with the applicant for the renovation and addition of 824 E. Cooper Ave. We recommend that the general direction to be taken shall be restoration of the front porch, preservation of non- deteriorated materials, renovation of the remaining historic elements of the structure, and a compatible small scale addition be designed well to the rear. No formal action is to be taken at this meeting. memo.hpc.824ec 2 97 I . X 2 0 0 -4 D Z D cA f E I >0 , 0 /TO t 1 / . ft// // /// //I / / 0 , ," conc.,,,'41,444 -,-' , .I 2 ... '(N. 14956'49" E..bc>0.00' b \ jz\3914Â«f~, 0 L z_0 k 1 4 45.6, 1 -1 / N ~ 1 1 ~~ (D~~ | 1 STORY wooD FRAME Fi i _0-1 PAR K 1 KI 6 7- p n r .,01 r LD ' w 01 r - 4-0 E 22 3 r-7 61 - 1 W P.... N , p m -CL n , . 1 - 12.1 i. 4.1 9.0' 1 1 . 0 -: n 4 E-- go m - W- . .- 1 L 1 -0 I m Ac - - 0 1 O A 1 12.7 1 1 o N /(11 0 m -7- M I - / I z ro / 0 --V 61 M I > 0 . 9 . (N. 14- 50' 49" E. 100.00') 0 '0 1- ,~,1,il,111 1,117 7,Iâ€ž1771,1,1,141,1,11,11,1 Illl 11 1,11117 1 1 1 1 11 1, l l 1 7, Al, 11 ~ ~ ~ 0: LODGE . k Uh ' 4 C 90 0 --4 . Â° #L- N i ' . < .. (,06 .Ot)- SPIKE ALLEY BLOCK 11] 3 0 KIE] AV '914,Â« D.t..4 AHEAD UTILITY l