The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19891025AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE October 25, 1989 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM City Hall Please site visit 127 E. Hallam 5:00 I. Roll call II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:10 A. Public Hearing continued, Demolition and Conceptual Development - 17 Queen Street update 5:20 B. Public Hearing continued, Demolition and Conceptual Development - 624 E. Hopkins 6:00 C. Public Hearing continued, Conceptual Development Asia, 132 W. Main St. 6:30 D. Public Hearing continued, Demolition and Re-development 801 E. Hyman V. NEW BUSINESS 7:00 A. Public Hearing-Vested Rights 7:15 B. Landmark Designation - 127 E. Hallam C. Conceptual Development - 127 E. Hallam 8:00 VI. COMMUNICATIONS A. Project Monitoring & Sub-Committee reports Adjourn 8:15 p.m. ,/79, il.2. 7-1 L LLÂ»u. -3 -Â·-fl/O--X' (/7//24 J U 1 1- 1 - /-<fil.Li-Â£,c,-1 C--47<flf 0--- I-~ j c- r~u-j--2-,ex--3 ) Lj -/7--1 # . AGENDA 0 A-j~-2. j 1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE October 25, 1989 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM City Hall Please site visit 127.E. Hallam 5:00 I. Roll call II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS 4 ce,-:~U 130///t / ,.7,1 t/2-*C. y, 7. 5:10 A. Public Hearing continued, Demolition and - Conceptual Development - 17 Queen Street update 5:20 B. public Hearing continued, Demolition and -/7 0 ~ Conceptual Development - 624 E. Hopkins /JA, : 7 +A 'Â» J 6:00 C. ~Public Hearing continued, Conceptual Development Asia, 132 W. Main st#JO,J E 1-6 1 0.' L / Â·Â·-f L r )0 0 1, a J L.le /~bl +t.-4.-4 430 44 8 Public Hearing continued, Demolition and Re-development 801 E. Hyman -/?01,433u~ 0/(~Uccrf/g~ 2~~f~<i#~- , 49. Â¢, NEW BUSINESS 7: A. Public Hearing-Vested Rights / 7:15 B. Landmark Designation - 127 E. Hallam C.li a ,/_-422-4,~ Avv K L. :t (4 k. cLAX Lue* e. f Or C. Conceptual Development - 127 E. Hallam * 1-A 49 i t/ . ADOW 8:00 VI. COMMUNICATIONS A. Project Monitoring & Sub-Committee reports Adjourn 8:15 p.m. Imi 97Â© I MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: 17 Queen Street - Revised Demolition and Redevelopment application - Public Hearing Continued Date: October 25, 1989 4 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: To update the HPC at this continued Public Hearing on their revised proposal which involves the on-site relocation of the historic cottage as opposed to a demolition, and a redevelopment. BACKGROUND: On September 27, 1989, the HPC reviewed an application for demolition and redevelopment for the structure. at 17 Queen Street. At that meeting, the applicant amended their request for demolition Of the historic cottage, preferring instead to examine an on-site relocation plan. The HPC tabled action until this meeting, to allow the applicant time to revise the proposal and report back to the committee on what action they will be requesting. STAFF COMMENTS: No additional information has been submitted to the Planning Office for inclusion in this packet to the HPC, however, staff met with Bill Bailey (Bailey House Movers) and Steve Peightal of Theodore Guy Associates (Structural Engineers) last week on site to initially review the steps necessary to insure a successful on-site relocation. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC review the revised information to be presented at this meeting, and table action one additional time, to allow the applicant to submit a fully detailed relocation and conceptual development proposal to the Planning Office for your review. We recommend this date be set for November 29 or the first meeting in December, on December 13. memo.hpc.17qs - - 1 1 -1- -7 f- 11 1 1-1 / It 11 t ----- 61-.5'..9.-4-1~..Im6&6; 11 - ITEE--09(4111111 1-1- 'i IL-- 1 1 1 1 r---1 --J 1 1 1 - i %- --- - 1 : 2, 1 -1.- 1 - ~ -- ~L----- - I-/ - - - b 'a 64/ --1---*Â·12~----3---- --- 1 ff /2- 69 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Demolition and Redevelopment: 624 E. Hopkins Ave., Public Hearing, continued Date: October 25, 1989 LOCATION: 624 E. Hyman Ave., Lot Q and the East 1/2 of Lot R, Block 98, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado ZONING: C-1, Commercial RATING: 1,1" , not designated AGE OF STRUCTURE: c. 1891/92; rear addition - 1949; front porch enclosure - 1963. APPLICANT: Philip Z. Altfeld, (proposed purchaser) on behalf of owner Ellen J. Kuper (formerly Ellen Condon), represented by Sunny Vann of Vann and Associates HPC MONITOR: not yet assigned APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Demolition approval for the single family structure located on the parcel, and redevelopment. PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION: On September 27, 1989, the HPC tabled action, to allow time for the applicant to revise the proposal to incorporate the "front (original) portions" of the cottage into a rehabilitation. A sub-committee meeting was held with the applicant, Bill Poss and staff after that time to examine alternatives in the infill design. SITE, AREA AND BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Lot size: 4,500 sq. ft. Minimum Lot size-commercial: 3,000 sq. ft. Minimum Lot size-residential: 6,000 sq. ft. (Note: Existing conditions constitute a non-conformity) Existing FAR (dwelling unit): 750 sq. ft. approx. Proposed FAR: Updated figures needed Allowable FAR: 2,820 sq. ft. Existing height: 16-17 ft. approx. Proposed height: Updated figures needed Allowable maximum height: 40 ft. Setback requirements: none (Note: The exception regards the rear/alley area) Open Space Requirement: 25% - 1,125 ft. A PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Standards for Demolition were reviewed in staff's September 27 memo, as well as a detailed discussion on the context issue. The applicant maintains that demolition, as opposed to rehabilitation, is the only option, therefore, the revised proposal amends the redevelopment plan, and does not incorporate physical elements of the existing historic structure in a rehabilitation. Staff reminds the HPC that the code clearly defines the permitting of a demolition: Section 7-602.A.: "No demolition 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 demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the standards of Section 7-602(B). The issues are very clear: If historic preservation is the goal, then a rehabilitation allowing a compatible addition to the rear is to be the end result. If we are not preserving, merely allowing the structure to be completely razed and replaced with a new structure, then the issues are urban design. If the complete removal is allowed, then the basic premise for its design is to be based upon our Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior Standard #3: "All buildings, structures and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged." This particular block, not located within a historic district, is extremely challenging to design an appropriate infill structure within its context. However, as our sub-committee meeting revealed, a total of five parcels may be affected with this rehab or redevelopment: the subject property, its corner neighbor, and the three cottages across the street. Therefore, being able to set an urban design precedent in this portion of the block is critical. Staff feels the revised plan does not yet meet that goal, however, comes closer than the original proposal. However, the intention of small, compatible "street scale" has been missed, we believe, with a replication cottage somewhat tacked onto the front of an extremely out-of-scale addition. We believe there are other alternatives which have not yet been addressed, that still incorporated small scale issues in the facade without fooling the passerby. Simplified details are necessary, and a more compatible transition into the "addition" would appear to better meet the Guidelines. Staff believes that the proposal's intention is basically good, and commends the applicant for restudying the issues, however, we cannot totally support the revised proposal as historic 2 preservation is dismissed as an alternative, and that the revised design not only incorporates a replication element, but then goes one step further by attempting to integrate a very large, out-of- scale addition to the cottage. The questions seems to be: What is it we are ending up with, what precedent is being set, and how does this proposal meet Council's and our goals? ALTERNATIVES: Many alternatives are possible for the HPC to consider in this application. 1. Approve the demolition and redevelopment application as proposed * 2. Approve the demolition and redevelopment application with conditions, particularly on the proposed redevelopment 3. Table action one additional time, finding that further study is necessary by the applicant on specific issues 4. Deny approval finding the application does not meet the following Demolition Review Standards: #1: Evidence of property maintenance #2: Rehabilitation to provide for any reasonable beneficial use #3: Relocation #4: Impacts have not been mitigated 6. Suspend action, per Section 7-602(E) of the Land Use Code (discussed in the September 27 memo.) RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC table action one additional time, to a date specific, to allow time for the applicant to restudy the preservation and rehabilitation issues of the proposal, and develop a compatible addition design appropriately integrating the cottage/entrance element. memo.hpc.624eh.2 3 1 'Â· ..... ---r-- ....- -....09.0.099...........29.4......IM,-4-t.'..1 0..r,. - r.-7-1 -<- 1 --- ' ' b i 4 '. 1 ' 1/ 1 2 i' 1 ' r 4 , b Â£ t l Weak R E . 1 " 11 . 1 11 11 h + U 1 11 U &4/L'IA.32*1\ li 1 - lillit'; -- i _ 1. 4 _11 5 i 11 . 1, 29 -/,f< it 6%44. 92< b .._11__.. ...- .4 , 1% ; 1 1 ~ li 1 1.1 51 li 1 - .1/4(1 1=-1 ..1.---. .A. i L /1 ~.- 1--/ 1 , 1 U 0-It 4 3 H 9 1. 114.- 1 A I i 1 ~~ 14:~ ~~ ~ i 1 1 .. ------ - 1- \\ 1 1. 1..i. ~9\ 1; 1 y>7 - -- .-i, r pl , i 1 , =z-1 * L ir *1-1 i t. f .1 I -_rt=1-- + t.-, ilt- . - / r- -Â·- - - -- - -- -1 --- 1, 1 1 \,4 1\ 01! ,/ 1: - . 1 -71. 7*. . iw==.kh=:1=1= 3 -,1 '- t 6 ..LEVAT ON ficALL A I /22 1, - 1. 0 ,1 rn I 1 - 07 -. A ../.1,\ \Â· It , 1 ,/ A \\ 4 11 15 1 1198 .i li 1 41 2,> 1 44 C . 9-+Â·--' - - -:.14 , ti . t ... :1 . 1. 11 - /.' I .: , 1 ---2.-/7Â¥r- -- 'MT-7 ul----Â·Â·411 , 2122,__t .1 L 'j *zA1-9 1 .. --. - r T 1- T H ~ 1 413, i T - T E-~. ut .-11 IJ i , I ' I.L i _Â»Cht:L-1-7~2--#L 1 I 1 - f 1.iÂ©i mn.n--*.Â·'.- -lum . =-=2=Y-~-li ~-It -=12[' L,2 4,Â·,rNÂ» 1 &...; - - . --I# 1 I < fj'liz'_'.1.Â· '2) 1 ... 1 ....r, 'll I 11 . .1 ' . 1 , *- L ./ 1 , , . r. 2- .y_ 9. 0 a 4-1 13 *,f f Il .i . . 01.1 ,/ I 1, D -4 â€¢ 3, '1 1 /1 , , 1 1 . . '1 1 - , d ,â€¢ . 1. t , t , 6 2 1 4,1 . B r -l fi-1} t ' â€¢ 2 4. 17 ' r. h i O L -S z - OCALE 6 0-*P Lei i j Â·1 3 - 1: i LAUNCeÂ« -: h 1-2 r i f h-3, 111 G / - -14 1 -2 . 4 ~ 4,3-, C A lat 1.11 .-I .-j I -7 li Ar= 7 1 li 01 8- OutiÂ© LL - . .. _1 1OT .al h. EE.9 0 11 . 11 1 1, '11, \' 4 656 0#5 -1 4 - r. 0 1 1-6=4 *,4 91 r C.t " r.u _ 4 :(4. i 0 A- 11 1 Â£Â£-tl*' 8-" ' !! L A o A L L O v.' L '; ; k. .1 0 ' i Â·Â· , 1 1, t, 1 (9 j.'il i'j 44 1 M :' li t 4. Cl 'h 1 , ..1 f -1 - 0 11 :1 11--1 .i p P Â· . L ..2 4 t.,0 7 4: 1 -- i L_- ]{ U r il bEt/M. 1 1 2- 11 h $ ..L i , i 1 1 4 i. 7 ; 1 -la H-K' EL. ! 2- - 1 1 11 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 A 6 :M E NT ?' L oof.â€¢ 9260 6* 5 Â£,CA-b . /t " Â·Â·Â·3 14 '3 - 1 1- i b A -f- h O 6, O 0 0Â° |-4 -11 - 1/ - It 1 1 1 J il\. 1 F. - Â· 0Â· Â·----4. + -7- 1 1 - - Â»!Iii , 2 i 3 1 --'..i ' -9 7 ./ Lj,/ <-{ t-(-0/- ~1~~ --) t.- 7 .1 0 1 . -i r- - '11 -p 1 11' , 1,11 4 1 ' ... -+ 1 -9 1 1 '1 - -IF_ A '-I U 1 -a 0 : , i .Â· - A 1-- Lt-qi fiFf J ts-_ __t.6-ru-m f ' .i P 7 1: 7~ C .. y P. A Zi j ,2 4 JI L 3 ' 1 1 i & -4 4 ji W J; I = 0- e ,Y ' 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 - O /. 1, I -Tri 0 -0 + 7 1 -i i n / '' ~ ~ -1 ! ~1 1 1 K - 7 - HiTT! , 1 I. 1. . .1, 3 1 -6 Â· 0 * 6 1,1 -7 g . 1 1 11 7- 4 1 il j '. //1 - 1 \ 1 3-I~ if 1 p 1 - . 0 1, 1 f \ y .Â»,3 ? 7.1 A-(2.- 1 T 1 / ' I 1 1-.M 1 1 E.. 1,4 , ... 0 I 4 Tr IJ 4/ -0Â» 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 ./. 1 -C .pr 1"01 1 - -7 4 2 , <0 .= -4 e - we 0. 4 - Gil 1 1 1 â‚¬41 Â» C r -- 1 -ea . 8- 4 . p. C. i . 2 0, r F .3 1. r â„¢ 2 1 I i? 1 1, .0 60 /2 1. 5 2.5- 4 0 5 4.1 4 4 '4 VE . CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 6 12 f. A D & \' E L o F K L N T p L A. 4 6. 0 , 2 ---- Â· -0 1â€¢ 0 { f. -- E.v 1 ~ L.'Ai~ Â· 0 5 9 7 0 i ON 4 33.6 . - f 3 1 * ~e ~:~~ i~_:A uc#31-------11 Hil~;~~. -4 - --- --11 4 \ 11 Ill 1 ' 1. t.-7 92=t - lal 7 11 1 k 1 ' 1 1, 1' -.-MMI-- 1 . 1-+ i- I f - r 11 1 P r,â€¢ D 11-4 1 1 1 -0 1-1 -1- 1 1 0, 1 11 1. 1 ... 0 1 liLi ' 1 it {<, 1 /.f- '3 ' 114 0 1 7 1 1 . - 1 .i: 1 1 11 1 k + -"_ " 1 4- i ..i . 1 i -* I .~ r Al. I 1 - . 11 -/ 1 r 1 ,} 1 \ 1 , ( r t U Z C A , - 9 1 , 0 '. .\ I . 1 0 . 12 0 '10 6 7 1- 5 Aff H 0 ?f Ki 5 A,VE . CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHmECTS 8 iii 3 EDEV :LOPMENT PLAN p 6 4-~ -gfli A SP E N 0 CoLOR,tpO P.O BOX 3534. ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 f - 11 705 x.- 4,All'. 079 0 131-9 ' .4 L.u.LI--1 -1.-1 - Â« .f Lug . j 7 + I 1 - 1.i it - r ~ 1 - 1 1 :r Er . 392 i DIc.. 1 "-+--ty--l r--- --1- 1 I w i tti: --1. 1 1 4 --.- 1 11 0 Q. 5 65 1,9 . i L . r- =21- -~ J - 2- 1 1 ... - r 1 .1 tl- . i E-- 0.. Â· tz-- . .-Ac-1=2 4 1 - E 1l 1< i 1 1 - ..2 - ---i#Eyi L 2 0-- A DE h1 .' 11 V 1 1 1 1 h / i \ / , / 9 LCON 5 , L o o P- 9 110 le. r SCALE */b " 1 11. oIl 1 .L/4. il B1j -JIT.-- M 29 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: 801 E. Hyman - Demolition and Redevelopment - Public Hearing continued Date: October 25, 1989 BACKGROUND: On September 27, 1989, the HPC reviewed an application for demolition and redevelopment of the property at 801 E. Hyman. HPC tabled action at that time until this meeting, to allow the applicant an opportunity to further investigate the existing structure to determine the amount of original fabric remaining, and to revise the redevelopment plan, which the Committee found incompatible with the character of the community and the subject parcel. At least two sub-committee "meetings" were held on site with member of the HPC and the applicant, and the suggestions coming out of those meetings have been further analyzed by the applicant. At the last HPC meeting, on October 18, the applicant informally discussed his significantly revised plans, which incorporate the outbuilding into the deed-restricted dwelling unit program, and incorporating some historic elements of the main structure into the overall redevelopment. Revised plans will be presented at this meeting for HPC consideration. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC consider the information presented at this meeting, and table action one additional time to allow the applicant time to submit a thorough, revised application. The HPC may wish to table action, and the public hearing, to November 29 or December 13. memo.hpc.801eh.3 1j-cT 2 0 City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Dept. 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 ATTN: Roxanne Eflin Dear Roxanne: As per the request of HPC this is to clarify my letter of October 16 (attached). Also, I am including an improvements survey for the 801 E. Hyman property which I feel will more graphically illustrate what we are trying to accomplish. Proposed item #1 - This would not change. Our intent here is to make the existing garage/storage building into the accessory dwelling unit. Obviously much work will have to be done to this structure to make it habitable. Every attempt will be made to save the original framing and siding. Proposed item #2 - Our proposal is to save the framing West of the ridge line and to incorporate this part of the original structure into the development. Only the framing is original. The other proposed items do not change nor do the actions required for any of the items change. I believe the only other clarification need is for parking. A two car garage would be part of the plan with space directly behind for additional parking. Both my client and I are very pleased with the direction we seem to be heading and look forward to working with you and the commission on this proiect. Sinc rely, 1 mi - A1% .1...f'.- anai, a J 1 October 16, 1 989 City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Dept 130 S. Galena St. 1 --9.1 Aspen, CO 81611 l ~ Attn: Roxanne Eflin Dear Roxanne, .Inhn Flmnrp and I mot with Rill PriÂ« anci Glon Pannannrt nn FIrtnhor Q 1989 to discuss John's project at 801 E. Hyman Ave. The outcome of this meeting was two fold. First, Bill and Glen made several suggestions on how we might utilize the existing structures on the site. We agreed that their ideas had merit if we could obtain the necessary variances and encroachment licenses. They asked us to prepare the attached outline to - be reviewed, discussed, and acted on by H.P.C. prior to any design work. The design work would also be reviewed by H.P.C. Second, since the HPC does not currently have the authority to grant the variances necessary to accomplish what has been requested, John would request that the HPC proceed with its motion to allow the house to be relocated (or demolished if this is not possible) by March 30,1990. John has pledged to Bill Poss to work diligently with the HPC in the coming months to find an innovative way to integrate the existing structures into a redevelopment plan. However, since the HPC does currently lack the authority necessary to approve what is envisioned and since the city's zoning regulations and ordinances are subject to ongoing change, John feels it only fair to allow him to vest his rights under current ordinances. STAN MATI[18 Sincerely, ARCIHTECTURE 44 MA_ AND PL,fNNING Start Mathis Post Office ec: Georgeann Waggaman Charles Knight Box 1984 Nick Pasquarella Joe Kraybacher Aspen Zoe Murphy Compton Chris Darakis olorado .1612 Charles Cuniffe Don Erdman 303/920-1434 Bill Poss r. , 801 E. Hymon Ave PROPOSED BENEFIT ACTION REQUIRED 1. Exist garage footprint Accessory Housi ng above grade Addt'l F.A.R. approval becomes access housi ng Existing foot print maintained that equals s.f. of Foot print rebuilt Accessory housing larger than accessory unit similar dimensions & required Parking variance hieght within 1-0" of Enc roachme nt license existi rig Setback variance 2. Scale & di mension of Mai ntai ns approx existi ng Setback variance existing portion of house footprint & height for public west of ridge line to be Along original maintained within 4-0"ofexisting length & 1'-0"of existing hgt. 3. Two distinct structures Same 83 #2 Encroachment along Original Curve will License be maintained but pOSsibly Setback connected by a fence 4. Front yard setback for Mai ntai ns existi ng setback Setback variance for each the primary existing structure and rei nforces orientation to structure & new structure along Hyman Hyman Ave. Porches See #3 Ave for the width of the existi ng serve to create that space FAA variance for structure (enclosed) & "a covered & experience that is intimate covered pot-ches porch"if deemed appropriote. yet selectively public. orientating to the neigh- borhood street. The neighborhood street is that street, ave, lane - smaller in easement size than the access is large. 5. Exemption from F.A.R. calculations for a covered porch running parallel to Hyman Ave, max depth of this proch to be 8'-0"&length 25"-0 6. Parking variance for 2 cors 7. Resolution/motion demostratirig the subject structures are not historical D m , m ..1 7 j % 1 1 0 0 4 9 -0 u' ~S. ORIGINAL ST. / ,9 10 3 (76 '8') 1 / Â· 3 2 X '4.477'i"~'*.n "w 1 1 1 i N . IiI ./ I 5 ' ; / r Â· i I /1, 1 Ve, \ \ -9 22 3 1 41 4 C--ij~ 1 7.-1 1, 1 l.rl N 14Â©SAA"EL cy.-Â·' OC' ) 1 . j ' Enp D /1 C-, i. 1' >-1 -la G . 1,1 23 7 LI 1 )0 39 (,G 4 Z -7 f. 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 I o j Pt,4 ~1 311 l. P- li 12 561 1 11 4 - r 0 ~~ ID fl I< D A W M 03 e 1 1 (D Â· 1 - P I 1 7 5'J u 1 i ' , liD e ' 32,0 4 i _J 1 di, -- li r tB \ -9 1 03 7-- z doll -1 -69 7 > 0 6 . ' f it,0 1 U 0 0 F Â· 4 2 - 7 8 ~-ff \ E. HY,~11 AV 1311V 0 ~A-*72 VALVE- __1 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Resolution: Vested Property Rights - Public Hearing Date: October 25, 1989 ACTION REQUESTED: HPC approval for three (3) requests for Vested Property Rights of recently approved projects: 1) 1004 E. Durant St., Unit #1 (Sandra Lohr) 2) 211 W. Main St. (Claire Newkam) 3) 135 W. Main St. (David Melton) The action is made official by the passing of a Resolution, signed by the HPC Chair. The actual Resolution will be prepared for your review at the meeting. BACKGROUND: Last year's significant land use code amendment created the provision for Vested Property Rights, whereby a property owner could "vest" his or her approval rights for up to three years from the date of the Resolution. Normally, this action is to take place at the same time the Final Development approval is granted. However, as this was the first time a vested property rights approval has been sought from the HPC, legal assistance was necessary to determine proper process and form. Therefore, the request is before you now for action. All the these plans have been approved within the last few months by the HPC. Vesting allows the property owner time to begin and complete the project under the provisions of the code that were in affect at the time the project was approved. Note: The Public Notice is attached for your reference. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC approve the Resolution granting vested property rights for the properties at 1004 E. Durant St., Unit #1; 211 W. Main St.,; and 135 W. Main St., Aspen, Colorado. memo.hpc.vesting PUBLIC NOTICE RE: VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS: HPC APPROVED DEVELOPMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to the general public that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, October 25, 1989, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee in the Second Floor City Council Chambers, 130 South Galena St., Aspen, Colorado, to consider the creation of vested property rights of three (3) site specific development pla-ns, approved by the Historic Preservation Committee, pursuant to Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described properties: 1004 East Durant Street, Unit #1, Aspen, Colorado, described as the East 8 feet of Lot L and the West 22 feet of Lot M, Block 37, East Aspen Addition Townsite, Aspen, Colorado, and 211 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado, described as Lot F and the West 15 feet of Lot G, Block 52, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, and _ 135 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado, described as Lots A and B, Block 59, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. For further information contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, 81611 (303) 920-5090. s/William J. Poss Chairman, Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Published in the Aspen Times October 5, 1989 City of Aspen account pub.notice.vesting RESOLUTION NO. 3 (Series of 1989) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE VESTING THE SITE SPECIFIC FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR 1004 EAST DURANT AVENUE, UNIT #1, 211 WEST MAIN STREET, AND 135 WEST MAIN STREET. WHEREAS, Sandra Lohr has submitted Final Development plans to the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee for approval for an addition and renovation of 1004 East Durant Street, Unit #1, Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Claire Newkam has submitted Final Development plans to the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee for approval for the renovation of 211 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, David Melton has submitted Final Development plans to the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee for approval for the addition to 135 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee reviewed and approved said Final Development plans at duly noticed public meetings for 1004 East Durant Street, Unit #1, on July 26, 1989, for 211 West Main Street on September 13, 1989, and for 135 West Main Street on August 9, 1989, and; WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee finds that these Final Development proposals constitute the site specific development plans for the properties, and; WHEREAS, Sandra Lohr - 1004 East Durant Street, Unit #1, Claire Newkam - 211 West Main Street, and David Melton - 135 West Main Street, have requested that the development rights for said properties, as defined and approved by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee in the site specific development plans, be vested pursuant to Section 6-207 of the Aspen Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee desires to vest development rights in the 1004 East Durant Street, Unit #1, 211 West Main Street and 135 West Main Street site specific development plans pursuant to Section 6-207 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen for a period of three (3) years from the effective date hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 The Aspen Historic Preservation Committee of the City of Aspen, as a consequence of its approval of the site specific development plan, and pursuant to Section 6-207 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby vests development rights in 1004 East Durant Street, Unit #1, 211 West Main Street, and 135 West Main Street for a period of three (3) years from the effective date hereof. However, failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Section 2 ' The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; except that the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of this resolution following its adoption. Section 3 Zoning that is not part of the site specific development plans approved hereby shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. Section 4 Nothing in this approval shall exempt the site specific development plans from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances of the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. Section 5 The establishment of a vested property right shall not preclude the applicant of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulations by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site specific development approval, the applicants shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. Section 6 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 7 Nothing in this resolution shall be construed to affect any right, duty or liability under any ordinance in effect prior to the effective date of this resolution, and the same shall be continued and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 8 A public hearing on the Resolution shall be held on 25th day of October, 1989, at 5:00 p.m., in the Second Floor City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee of the City of Aspen on the 25th day of October, 1989. Oft 1 Georgearyn waggaman , pre una rr As*n H.istoric Preservation Committee ATTEST: 1 4 Ctxet Li /.*--4 ,/ , L/,c -<C</ 2-__1-v~< , kathy Btrickland, Assistant City Clerk reso.hpc.3 RESOLUTION NO. (Series of 1989) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE VESTING THE SITE SPECIFIC FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR 1004 EAST DURANT AVENUE, UNIT #1, 211 WEST MAIN STREET, AND 135 WEST MAIN STREET. WHEREAS, Sandra Lohr has submitted Final Development plans to the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee.' for approval for an addition and renovation of 1004 East Durant Street, Unit #1, Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Claire Newkam has submitted Final Development plans to the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee for approval for the renovation of 211 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, David Melton has submitted Final Development plans to the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee for approval for the addition to 135 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee reviewed and approved said Final Development plans at duly noticed public meetings for 1004 East Durant Street, Unit #1, on July 26, 1989, for 211 West Main Street on September 13, 1989, and for 135 West Main Street on August 9, 1989, and; WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee finds that these Final Development proposals constitute the site specific development plans for the properties, and; WHEREAS, Sandra Lohr - 1004 East Durant Street, Unit #1, Claire Newkam - 211 West Main Street, and David Melton - 135 West Main Street, have requested that the development rights for said properties, as defined and approved by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee in the site specific development plans, be vested pursuant to Section 6-207 of the Aspen Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee desires to vest development rights in the 1004 East Durant Street, Unit #1, 211 West Main Street and 135 West Main Street site specific development plans pursuant to Section 6-207 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen for a period of three (3) years from the effective date hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 The Aspen Historic Preservation Committee of the City of Aspen, as a consequence of its approval of the site specific development plan, and pursuant to Section 6-207 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby vests development rights in 1004 East Durant Street, Unit #1, 211 West Main Street, and 135 West Main Street for a period of three (3) years from the effective date hereof. However, failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Section 2 The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; except that the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of this resolution following its adoption. Section 3 Zoning that is not part of the site specific development plans approved hereby shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. Section 4 Nothing in this approval shall exempt the site specific development plans from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances of the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. Section 5 The establishment of a vested property right shall not preclude the applicant of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulations by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site specific development approval, the applicants shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. Section 6 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 7 Nothing in this resolution shall be construed to affect any right, duty or liability under any ordinance in effect prior to the effective date of this resolution, and the same shall be continued and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 8 A public hearing on the Resolution shall be held on 25th day of October, 1989, at 5:00 p.m., in the Second Floor City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee of the City of Aspen on the 25th day of October, 1989. Georgeann Waggaman, Vice Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Committee ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Assistant City Clerk reso.hpc.3 9- 63 k MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Landmark Designation: 127 E. Hallam St. Date: October 25, 1989 LOCATION: 127 E. Hallam St., East 23.29 feet of Lot E, all of Lot F, and the West 1/2 of Lot G, Block 65, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado APPLICANT: Palmer Communications APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Landmark Designation for the c. 1884-85 cottage at 127 E. Hallam St., referred to as the "Patrick O'Mara House" (built by him in 1885). A Landmark Designation grant of $2,000 is also being requested by the applicant, which should be granted by Council at second and Final reading of the Designation Ordinance. The applicant proposes to relocate the structure on- site to the west, and construct a detached garage/dwelling unit (conceptual review will take place at this meeting). HISTORIC EVALUATION RATING: '14" PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Landmark designation is a three-step process, requiring recommendations from both HPC and P&Z (public hearing at P&Z level), then first and second reading (public hearing at Final reading) of the designation ordinance by Council. The designation grant is expected to be approved by Council at Final reading as well. HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION STANDARDS: The Standards for Landmark Designation are found in Section 7-702(A) of the Land Use Code. Any structure or site that meets one (1) or more of the standards may be designated as a Historic Landmark. Staff finds that the application meets both the criteria in both Standards E. (Neighborhood Character) and F. (Community Character). Standard E. Neighborhood Character: The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: Located within an area occasionally referred to as the proposed "Community Church Historic District", 127 E. Hallam is one of nine historic residences found in this one block, our greatest concentration of historic resources. It contains typical characteristics Of an Aspen Victorian miner's cottage with front gable and projecting bay window supported by decorative brackets, however, has an unusual cross gable which, unlike the typical cottage, flanks both the east and west side of the house with entrance and porch on one side. The preservation of this vernacular miner's cottage is critical to the block, the neighborhood and the entire community of Aspen. Standard F. Community Character: The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: The Inventory file in the Planning Office states: "The significance of this residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived in it, nor of .its architecture, although this structure is representative of Aspen's mining era. This modest single level structure is of historical importance by illustrating the family/home environment and life styles of the average citizen in Aspen which was dominated by the silver mining industry." RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC recommend for approval Landmark Designation for 127 E. Hallam St. memo.hpc.127eh 2 r . 62-02'1 6 6- 4Â·Â·LT E-Mb rr- 0 <t 7886.7x - 12 . 1-1-Au--A,1 -~Uk-rls JL__ Pr,- 7 ---- - ---- IX lol / 105 123 1183~ --~ 1 16 1 1 11 1 3___ ___ A - Â·s i~flf-IP ; x 7886.6 11 > T /1 r-Â» 1 1 . 1 i 1 Fi& 11 C Â£ 11-11- 1= . ) 1 w / It- 1 U./3 0/- 11 %/ - Er' f C d -- -7.2 gl y 2---1 t# EL ) .- - 0- Er L_-2 0-~-~132_23 UJL~~2-0/--- -- L ((//-- 1 .1 1 j ~K7890- L_ _3 \B-/0 . 7885 L_] 1 M E A -1 t V KIA 1 .1 1 -J 1 /0 1 = "0 ~tz 121.0 i _00+k-1- 1 11 1 1 1 1 11 1 4(ooto 7889.5 ' C n ;- i 1 -4 c Bl=ee-,92- . \\\\\-\--\h MI-41 'PA'Fili C.*L O r *LARA ft-00Â·56 12%4 Â¥ ASPEN HISTORIC SITES/STRUCTURES INVENTORY 1980 (05~ FG | 33 E. 1-1 AULAAA 61-Â· BLOCK/LOT(s) ADDRESS INSTRUMENT/DATE GRANTOR GRANTEE YEAR/TAX ASSESSMENT P- 57 Ex 341 \~1(9 \94 ~18Lon ofhASPEK) PATe,kid- O'MARA /885 / Co--ID 1%'1060 14-75 A OD j.lkle, 2*5 PAri-Qj tic_ O' Al ARA 304.-0 RILL-,8.-~ FE+03 1 - 40 *2000 1=:6+FIL (2/D \OCE- 22Â¤ JOI-1-,3 K I U.AKA JAAAERS #ACk \US +75- ITYi pfuve_WE-1-5 4 1150 GO,11)2-0. \1~86- JAMe6 M-A-(2.k/Uf, Weue-,<8.(glleÂ¥ E bÂ»p \114 1 87 -36,11 3 n~ Upao 0-.8. A I le 64, E- 51 612190 14- De-i.1 8.8, tleT) e 1*~cree-- ibi K.j3-05 WI) No/.8191 D..TJ ReycoLDS -IDA hA, (FÂ«Al 235 41'D j)Ly Z302- ~-IbA M. (Bcor>i k.)G ~Â·\76Â¤ RH -t--\-dee~ \,19 19*ka Heeâ‚¬,4 lAryÂ»~ 304Â·0 G Connoes 8,6. D Ird A j *4 CIFY .-112 EAÂ« \Al A . (ke u' 64 \Al P i ~03144 %;An rt ju>%62AA,)13-6 1~e-O 6{1Lt ~AO \90 9~5|57 14Â·Â·r )44(4* but-uvAL) rE>\01-AeD CAE- 5<A:PEL) LOD 9|10.1 18 R\CRACD PAR-SMADEL) CA)Â¥n. R Cl.)627 RESOURCES: 1. Pitkin County Abstract of Lots Books Grantor/Grantee Books Grantee/Grantor Books 21 Pitkin County Tax Assessment Rolls (on microfilm) RESEARCHER: VFECA O.kiew-PAJER.\ C-k.- JO \-1 4 80 CONCLUSIONS: I-\- Ap fEA-â‚¬-5 44Â«t -16 6 947*ucd-c-~ re- on F-4> upa-_0 ce-n st-r-u 04 ect 67 \694- b L~ Pel#daL -O 'Ma-ra_ - 121 / re 72- ROLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Colorado Preservation Office 1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 ARCHITECTURAL/HISTORICAL COMPONENT FORM 11 r. 4 -1 1 IMPORTANT: USE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GREEN INVENTORY RECORD FORM FOR F ~ FOR RECORDING HISTORIC STRUCTURES AND DISTRICTS. USE SEPARATELY FOR L.__a--/ RECORDING STRUCTURES LOCATED WITHIN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES. 1) Resource No.5PT-117 2) Temp No. 135 3) Name PATRICK O'MARA House 111 4) Address 133 East Hallam Street 51 District Name Community Church Historic Dist. I. INTEGRITY6 6) Condition: Good * Fair Deteriorated 7) Original Use Residential 81 Present Use Residential 9) Original Site * Moved Date Cs) Â®f Move: N/A -I /- 10) Unaltered Altered * Explain: Asbestos sidinq has replaced original aiding Ill-- Il.-0 JI. DESCRIPTION; 111 Building Materials Wood 121 Construction Date circa 1884-5 131 Architect/Builder unknown 14) Architectural StyÂ·lefs). Victorian Miner'% Cottage 15) Special Features/Surroundings: Typical characteristics of an Aspen Victorian Miner's Cottage: Front gable with projectinq bay window supported bv three decorative brarketc; cross gable (unusual in that it flanks both east and west side of front gahlp) enntaing the entrance to the residence. 16) Archaeological Potential: Yes NO -Unknown * Explain: III. CULTURAL ACTIVITIES: Key the resource type (ie: house, barn, shed, school, church, etc) to the cultural activity theme and sub-theme category associated with it. 17) THEME Residential 18) SUB-THEME Urban 19) TYPES Single-family . RESOURCE 30. 5PT-117 - -1 2-.90%...... 11.. a. 1 - / f 4,\\ 0 4 k 4 k:,11 '~ 3 Â·. ~ 10 _E~ 1 Â· 6-: 1 t< in V (1 V'1Â·24~h 724,732. .. ?f h,Z+22:- . hi p-â‚¬ n 6 6<r FuLL f .uir.. t. L . .* 1*A. 4* -_ .-- , yf,.r-re.u= -na,&mber 33 ~ -2- 4-41.- . . ,e 4 r .4 -S'- 4 . 26*â€¢?Roll Number - ALÂ·/ 1- f 120 je"h 3 t{ ';itti:~acade Orientation Front L .61. 9 - .. I. .. -. VÂ» 4 7 h #'m , , 74 liti. 45, ..4.. /,1 2 n *4~,244..91*~fe-}~~ <1% u 0 ..,-h#r. r #-,y <i M :4Â·k Whx'902hMSh.E.*-9-1----~,2.:,f, IV. SIGNIFICANCi: Assess whether or not. ttik râ‚¬sourdâ‚¬-Tm-Â§,TrT-tr~m,rcal or architectural merit by checking appropriate categories and justifyinz below. Include any relevant historical data. 20) Architectural Significance: 21) Historical Significance: Represents work of a master Associated with significant persons Possesses high artistic values Associated with significant events or * Represents a type, period, or patterns method of construction * Contributes to the significance of an historic district The significance of this residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived in it, nor of its architecture, although this structure is representative of Aspen's Mining Era. This modest single level structure is of historical importance by illus- trating the family/home environment and life styles of the average citizen in Aspen which was dominated by the silver mining industry. This residential structure is a good representation of a typical Aspen Victorian Miner's Cottage. It basically remains in its original appearance except for the change of siding. It has the typical front gable with projecting bay window supported by three decorative brackets with original fishscale detailing in the gable; a cross gable which unlike the typical cottage flanks both the east and west side of the house with entrance and gingerbread porch on one side. 22) List Any Associated Cultural Group: none V. REFERENCES: Pitkin County Abstract of Lots Books (title search); Assessment Card Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps RECORDER Vera G. Kirkpatrick DATE Oct. 30, 1980 V Â© MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Conceptual Development: 127 E. Hallam St.- Public Hearing, Date: October 25, 1989 - LOCATION: 127 E. Hallam St., East 23.29 feet of Lot E, all of Lot F, and the West 1/2 of Lot G, Block 65, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado APPLICANT: Palmer Communications APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual Development approval for the .on- site relocation of the main structure and the new construction o.f an alley-oriented detached two-story garage with upper floor dwelling unit. A rear yard variation is being requested. ZONING: R-6, "H" Historic Overlay pending EXISTING CONDITIONS: Existing FAR: Information needed Proposed new FAR: Allowable FAR: Proposed Total FAR: PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting applicable Guidelines are found in Section VI. Residential Buildings- Renovation and Restoration, beginning on page 47. The Development review standards are found in Section 7-601 of the Land Use Code, and are reviewed below (staff's comments follow): 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark... Response: Currently, the main structure is sited well to the east of the parcel, creating somewhat of a large gap between its western neighbor. The proposal to relocate the structure approximately 22' to the west appears compatible with the streetscape and establishing rhythm. This also allows the detached garage to be offset to the east at the rear of the lot. The Planning Office is encouraging the construction or rehab of alley buildings for dwelling units. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Staff has had one public inquiry from a neighbor voicing her disapproval of the project, stating that the alley is already too congested with cars. The applicant should further study the parking/alley access issues in this block and mitigate impacts where possible. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels Response: We find that the cultural value of the structure will be enhanced with its preservation and maintenance, and we find that the detached garage structure will not detract from the cultural value, provided reductions are made in height and massing. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does .not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Two small porch (addition) elements of the main structure are slated for partial demolition: one on the east and one at the rear west corner. The applicant states these are not original to the cottage. The HPC should consider whether the removal of these elements constitute a loss in architectural integrity. Please review the criteria for Partial Demolitions as stated in Section 7-602(A) in the Code. Our primary concern is with the height, massing and detailing of the detached garage in its relation to the principal structure and the streetscape. A lattice-type screen is proposed for the lower level on the north, east and west elevations, creating somewhat of a garden house look. Consistently, staff reminds the HPC that secondary structures are to be subordinate to the principal. The massing, roof pitch and detailing of the garage may compete too heavily to the principal cottage. We recommend that the applicant restudy the detached structure to reduce its overall height and massing, and detailing. Further, we recommend a massing model for Final Development review. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the Conceptual Development as submitted 2. Approve the Conceptual Development with conditions, to 2 be met at Final Development review, such as: C b Restudy of garage structure, to reduce height .a) and massing, and competing details in relation to the principal cottage structure 7 1 b) Massing Model Ht-*4-ef c) Performance guarantee letter regarding the on-site relocation d) Exact materials e) Detailed preservation plan for principal # gottage P .3 j 645*li. 3. Table action to a date specific, to allow the applicant further time to study the proposal, incorporating the comments and guidance form the HPC is a revised proposal. 4. Deny Conceptual Development approval finding that the application does not meet the development review standards. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant conceptual development approval for the application for 127 E. Hallam St., with the conditions as stated above. memo.hpc.127eh.cd 3 OCT-3 605 EAST MAIN STREET - ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL: (303) 925-4755 October 3, 1989 Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Planner 130 S Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Ro>:anne: Please let this lett Ar serve as explanation of the design proposal for the Palmer House property. I would like to do this by taking you through our process in developing the design. First, I should explain what the client's programatic requirements are for the property. The client requested the addition of guest facilities and a two car garage as well as a renovation and interior remodel of the existing Victorian house on the property. It is their intention that these additions to the property do not diminish the historical integrity and character- of the existing structure and surrounding community. The first step in the process was to analyze the existing structure, site and contextual relationships. The existing building is a good example of a typical miner's cottage of the late 1800s. The neighboring properties are all good examples of the historical architecture of early Aspen. This combination of homes has created one of the best historic streetscapes in all of Aspen. It is quite apparent that the neighborhood context was a critical issue to be addressed. The solution must maintain the integrity and historic character of this neighborhood as well as the existing structure. In the next step of the design process we began to develop design concepts. In the early stages of this phase, we decided against an addition to the existing structure. We felt this could only impair the integrity of the existing house by diluting new and old, as well as creating a new scale for this charming houseâ€ž We felt a more viable alternative would be to develop a separate structure on the site leaving the existing house in tact. The new structure would house the two car garage and the guest facilities. This would allow the existing house to be renovated and remodeled with only minor exterior changes. This concept allows the existing building to maintain its historic value. -"...V i.: / 04, .*Sy is '/9/*'Apt/VAVNE I . >2.0.6 ': 4anctassomatdsÂ¥.t For this auxiliary structure concept td work it is important for the new structure to be visually separate but complimentary to each other. The new structure should maintain a lower profile but not so understated that it becomes uninteresting or unsightly. The materials used should help create the identity of an auxiliary structure but be complimentary to the existing structure. These are all goals of the design concept. The most important aspect of the design is the siting of the new building. We looked at developing the new auxiliary structure at the back of the lot on the alley. Historically this would match the typical location of utilitarian structures. A good example of this is the carriage houses which are seen throughout the West End. Although a carriage house would be a good building type to immulate its size and scale can not be replicated. The space requirement of a garage makes this impossible. Our auxiliary buiÂ·lding would require a new approach. Our new approach began with addressing the context of the street. I looked at how we integrate this project into the rhythm and pattern of the street. (RE: A-8 Drawing) We propose by positioning the new structure on the east side at the back of the lot on the alley and relocate the existing structure to the front west side of the lot to align with the neighboring structures to the west. This siting would create a more uniform rhythm along the street while also establishing a graduated massing composition. The placement of the new structure at the back of the lot not only creates visual separation, but also creates an interesting opportunity in the design, that of a dual image building. A concept that addresses the need for the new structure to have identitp from two sides or a building with front and back with equal importance. The front side needs to address the Hallam street context, while the back addresses the alley. The Hallam Street context requires a more restrained approach to the design. A building that appears complimentary to the existing house but secondary. The new building is complimentary by its Lise of similar materials and proportions. It became secondary by giving it a utilitarian appearance, that of a "garden structure". This is achieved in several ways in the design. The building is kept as low as possible with the living * : 4,2-fe I ./ â‚¬ *.'elÂ¥ Â·~ I.~~6:F.'!I and associates* quarter placed in the roof and allowing it to appear only a story and a half high. The roof material is metal to make it appear more utilitarian. Latice is applied to the exterior to soften its facade as well as reinforce its garden structure image. Foreground landscaping would be used to only all.ow a filtered view of the building from the street. In regards to the design of the alley side of the building we have tried to look at the alley with equal importance as the Hallam Street side. The design does not ignore the alley but addresses it as a second front facade. We feel this makes an important step toward improving the alley architecture in Aspen. In conclusion I feel we have addressed all the pertinent issues in the design. I hope by taking you through our process you have a better understanding of our solution. Although this is a new type of project to be introduced . into the West End, we feel quite confident it is compatible with the goals of the HPC as well as our clients. Sincerely yours, ~ /-0 3 r 1/\Ad *~ LL#Â»v Andy Wisnoski F'r-ojec-t Designer 21:17 9 i t. 1 - U / 11///43WRI, r /// Fr/,l/F:AnÂ©r//kYf=U I~ 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL: (303) 925-4755 October 2, 1989 Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservationist Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 S Galeria Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 127 E Hallam, Palmer House Conceptual Developemnt Plan - Block 65, East 23.29 Ft of Lot E, Lot F, West 1/2 of Lot G. Dear Roxanne: This letter presents our concept for development of the Palmer House property and is a letter of submittal to Â·obtain the following: Approval for the conceptual development plan which includes: A. Restoration of the existing residence, including a new basement, interior remodeling and removal of non- compatible decks, roofing, porch enclosure and windows. B. Construction of a secondary residence located on the alley incorporating a arie bedroom residence over a two. car garage. C. Development of a garden courtyard between the secondary residence and the existing residence. The following outline addressds considerations for this review process: CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVLOPMENT TO HISTORIC LANDMARK OR IN HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT. (3)Effect of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structure and/or character of the neighborhood. The existing house is to be relocated slightly to the north to align it with the street setback pattern of 2.. if ~0 I andAssociates=: the three houses to the west on Hallam. It will be relocated to the west of the property to fill in the central portion of the pattern of facade spacing along Hallam. The new secondary residence is placed on the alley and to the east so as to least impact the pattern of facade spacing along Hallam. This spacing provides an open garden space for views of the adjacent restored home to the east. The relocation of the existing residence under this conceptual plan will not adversly affect the existing residence or neighborhood. Portions of the existing house to be demolished will conform to the STANDARDS FOR REVIEW OF DEMOLITION, Re: Ord 11, Sec 24-9.5 (b)4-6. Alignment with the other houses to the west will be more in character with period building placement and better reinforce the block street pattern than the existing placement. The character of the existing house will be restored by renovations to occur under this development plan. Modern metal roofing is to be replaced with wood shingles of a Victorian character. Exisiting wood siding is to be repaired and replaced where appropriate after the relocation on site. Review Standards: Development in H, Historic Overlay District on Development Involving Historic Landmarks. (a) Compatibility Materials to be used on the existing house will include re-roofing in wood shingles, and replacement wood siding where requirehl. Modern replacement windows will be replaced with wood double hung or wood fixed sash glazing units. Primary materials on the secondary residence are a zinc-coated metal roof and wood ship lap siding. The secondary residence is compatible in char-acter to the <proposed) historic designated existing residence through its rÂ·'Oof shapes, materials used in construction, restrained building height, small wood sash windows, and a ground level close to the existing grade elevations. (b) Consistency with Neighborhood Character Neighborhood Character will be enhanced by relocating the existing house to the west to achieve a more even rhythm of house facades ori this ttreet. The secondary residence on the alley will better define the alley as a boundary comprised of secondary structures. (c) Enhancement of- Cultural Value Restoration of the existing house will maintain the traditional size and style of Aspen residences reflective of the family lifestyle during the mining era which founded the city. (d) Enhancement of Architectural Integrity Restoration of the existing house will complete the restored character of this street of homes. Removal of aluminum replacement windows and replacement of contemporary metal roofing with wood shingles will return the structure to its original character. Repainting, additional window trim, replacement soffits, and improved wood trim detailing will help restore its period style. With respect to the DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INVOLVING PROPOSED HISTORIC LANDMARKS, Sec. 24-9(d)(1), the development of the secondary alley residence conforms to the following standards: (i) Compatibility The secondary residence i'ts similar to the existing house in its building form which is generated by a cross-gabled roof and similar roof slopes. Materials and trim will be of similar construction to the existing house renovation including windows, doors, siding and wood trim. Metal roofing which historically denotes a carriage house, stable, or other out building will identify the secondary residence as an alley building and relate the structure to functional characteristics of traditional alleys. 4.. 4 I.R..E ./24* U ./pi~ .-41261 Â·tÂ·' .4Â° 2 Â· Al ..i . *4 ' Â·. Â·Â·24'41'......:, ..f< 1, 13(*th/6*Nal4* - T ,.i?Â·Â· 12Â·'-*146.--4-g.2, L This project substantially complies with R-6 zoning and as a Historical Development will enhance the neighborhood character of this street. (ii) Consistency with Neighborhood Character The secondary residence is in keeping with the Neighborhood Character since its subservient location on the alley and lack of separate entrance on Hallam define it as a functional and outlying structure to the Victorian street alignment. By development of the garden courtyard shared with the restored existing house the secondary residence will further recede from the street frontage. (iii)Enhancement 9Â£ Cultural Vallie The secondary residence and garage will function as an efficient development of the property which are characteristic of sequential development of original homesites of the mining era. (iv) Enhancement of Architectural Integrity The secondary residence complements the character and value of the existing residence through the use of similar materials. The center ridge of the secondary residence is 70 feet behind the front facade of the relocated structure and only 4 feet above the ridge of the existing building. This height conforms with the area zoning (see Attachment) and has a minimal impact upon the overall site. The roof for'in and materials parallel the development common of later additions to a developed homesite. The development plan consists of relocating the existing residence to pr-ovide a better rhythm to the Victorian street facades and align the Â·house with those to the west. An east side garden court and lawn will provide a shaded space and buffer the secondary residence from streeÂ·t views. Careful attention will be provided to detailing of the renovated and the new structure to maintain the neighborhood character of this street. The existing -./. . .Z .*81 ~ and associates* residence exterior will be renovated and substantially remodeled on the interior. To integrate a secondary detached residence into the property by minimizing its size and by.placing it so as not to contrast with adjacent structures is the primary site planning goal of this project. The distribution of building masses across the site is necessary to develop a lower profile for this development. Please contact us if there are any questions raised in the above SL.lfnmary. Sincerely, 0*g 2076Â·2060*01 -> Sven Erik Alstrom Project Architect Enclosure SEA:lah ZONING SUMMARY Required Proposed R-6 Medium Density Residential Detached Residential Minimum Lot Size 6,000 6,829 SF Minimum Lot Area 3,000 SF per dwelling (in historic designation) Minimum Lot Width 60' 68.4' existing Minimum front & rear setback 15' front of principal building 00 rear ' Total 30' setback 51' total Minimum Front & rear 15' front Setbacks 10' 1'6" rear * Variation requested for 1'6" setback at alley for secondary residence/garage Minimum Side Yard 5' 5' west 15' total side yards 6'6" east * variation requested for 10'6" 10 '6" total total side yards Max Site Coverage: 30% 29%,1985 SF of 6.829 Max Height-principal buildings 21' ridge of existing (detached residence) 25' ridge of new Minimum Distance between \ 9' shown buildings 5' required External Fl oor Area 3,240 3022 shown allowable Off Street Parking 4 provided one per bedroom 3 required -1. -'-Â·a46~ 4. 9 9 ./i.E $'MI" 97 .f le, 3Â·/A.433~ER E ~~nassagiate* 1 0 1 1 1 , - c C.3; R 627im 2 1 NE 'CX.7.0.- i 1 1 9 11 - 11.-- L -. 1 ' - 6 ': -1.. -4--- 1 1 I N j' 1 9- r 1 1 i y 2 3, 9 U - t / 111 1 .19 ,.-... --, 't wy ! 1 % U.i -t. 11 0 ' pi - - r w . .1 1 11 (I F T 4 1 Â· 41 , : liT *4,3 1 . 5 m| V 1 1 1 Â£ 1. - lu Al---1 1 0 2-6 4 1 m , 10 3 i- 1 Vt, : I y' l. . -1 J. ~ 19 2-' | 1 1 III 1 1 W l J 1 . 11; ' 6 i . 0 --1 1 C i 1 Ij' , rÂ·- -- - - - -1 1 p j Â·t 11 1 1 -1 -- 1 1 + 1 , l 1 , 1 1 1 1 U 4- 1 1 i -4.1 4 Fl I i 11 1 1 ..<I~It i 1 9 1 11 1 1 3 1 1 : 9 41 1 t "1 - -- 1 + 1 r. 3.- 1 It-- 1 i 1 .n 1 :3 /6( -4- , 1- C 'IC -1 }=an-z- -----4:1 , 27 - CL--9 Â· ThÂ·-=Ht -*FI-JE---3L_______ ~tj .2 1 i LE- - 9 f --- . 1 3 1,4, I I I. 1 ./ 1 -' 9 2 7, k_=- 2/ e.- 1 0 2 UE 11 1 1 * toi a i 41 Z ./:2 3/, / 9/ 1 61 3 LU L C 1 1 |'ll CL-- //- ; 1 a 14 / 1 / 0 1 1 1- 23 - _L. . th 1 1 liu -9 1 , Z -IG 1 19 -4. % 1 5 - i. 1 41 4--1 0 3 ----- J. 1 1 I 13 â‚¬1 1 9 ./ ..31 i ./ -21 11- ' 1 0. i * - N Â¢ 0 0 aw I 1 -1 .,z-31 114.-Icl , . g -111 '6 0 1 1 - I 1 I i 4 I 111-191 2-3\ , L- 19 1 L., U. r) I al 3 Rid 4.i=r.==Uk--t t. , + =!11 U -9-3.97-oon_ -~Pre rl 1 N; 1 1 b V 2 4 1 ---T - 1.-1,1 i 1,1 1 1 1 '1 4 1 Â· 4 P-OVE<. /ru -7 1.- , / 5'AT h Â·. it' . _4 4 K 7-1 1 + il 1 91 1 11 f.-7 1 1$ . \- j i - tz--fl.*ril 1 -- - -r 47 J .1 DELDS-1011, ' '~ 1~. -IVING R:22'M , -t 1 1 1 Fl,-EM.-A.A.6 11 -- 4- Â·71 1 3 T.4- --1 - i' 11 11 T-F --- 1 9.-2-31 ~~~~ HALL ~ 1 I i =1-7-2, d - -- 1 1 i--1 4- - < ~ l_c L O* ET T -rt - 1 i L... '1 - PINING U ' 4 11 ---4.4 --j 11 1 41-EMEN ' 1 L V \--1 1 1 1 352~'L- Â«/ 6 - n.-~~ -~'St -r--p & ,f,9 /Th GROUND LEVEL PLAN tl .*I. I 7 14.-- -- 0 ~n -9 J ) 11/4,7. 01-3 2:3.2 <, -x,- ~ f X f Â·3 2-7 10_21 ~ i 0 0 / C 1 El - 3 B n -0 ~ BASEMENT PLAN Ex, OT ./am CHIMPNEY ~~ ~~V\0027 641#6656 81**49%0;Ad.~mb- ' i 9 I' n 1 ! , 1 ASPEN, COLORAC)081611 1 1, 605 EAST MAIN STREET (303) 925-4755 /4,1x 14" - ,~ 1 11 hh/A.44il, 1,rAVi 1 1 A ~FF I *, 1' . 11 I--- 1 1 - 24906%4444414 1- -F+ND 7 -- \11,0 1 1, d X i =TT Â» r. //%/f /34191+H Al F-:r'.,1 6 ,i /644 i P ' 1 1 i L 1 1 ,~44==tn.*4547-+UX _C--1 - 1 -- - J W V - -- -- ' -1 EX 'ST 4.,g>p-ON .O DE falovev . 1-. -'06L % EW_ - --Ill.- L- h z-i--SES 3-17- 1 .1*-- 2 K. 8 ---1 - <.- Fla>pl L.ING -- --I- --- 1 1 i f Â» 1 . 1 1 \ --- .-.- f i- ---- *ExIOT' AINCON Tri M EXIST: 15,6,Â·EMENT I EXI'ST w I kl pow p-grLALMENT WINDOW 1 , ~Th NORTH ELEVATION ,MEMOVF f EX191-. KEFLACEMBNT / WIN [POW 1 L 11 1 ~1 ~fyÂ« ___ 4=Â«t i M 1 1~Ii 1 :Ili '9 ~--b f 0 1 1 11 I 111- 11 4 0/ 94% 1 1 1 / in-L- LÂ«- .\ 2 1 i j 1 1 1 Â» k_j__1 1_j H U _ ~_ r _ ~# _1- U i I -ILL _011_LU-li 1 - - 30 MAILING )12-CHÂ· L-_1 -- ---- - - 04 Parlovep __ 1 6 - < . N 1 k 1 111 - 1 - 1 L -9 4 1 1 '1\ \\ Fl / 1 | 1 1 -t-7 -91 1 +CP 1- 1 -- - -- -- \ 1-- --- -- - - -- --a -- ---- -- --- - - -1 /'REMOVE /REMOVE REMOVE REMDVE E)'ler. *%'Â«r. BELf'LACEMIEr< ADDITiON EX 1â€¢STÂ· BEFLACEMKfINT REÂ°l-,ACEMENT WINDOW WINDOW 0/1N DOW N /- A /27 EAST ELEVATION N' C \11Â·-130/1/AM-,-UP 1==37 T *11 - / 4 fg Â«Â«Â«f~l- lf~_ - -- - --____- --_--__-1_~ 2,Â·------2~MNA, l-IT-1-rrn=rl-Tri=r- r-4-3 EX 07. 1 1 33 151<,CA EXIsT I -0 BE - F,*ItT CIZZLIZ~~~-----I----1 - -I-+Il--U.1---i-4-1- --- F>KINTE '*00 9 1 C-Q.v ----i-k-- - - VÂ»32 # - 421*11. - 1- 30< 6-INE -- _~LIZEZZIUUU=-2 1 --- - DWIR _,k-= I 1LI r-=~ 1 \ ; 1 3X â‚¬T CLEU-,Â«12 L. _1 + 20.69-*'.2.1 I _-6- 1 r k ILL1- 41 c \ f \ A REMOVE 3 DE 5>< 'irc REMOVED rEPLACEMEKIT -Â« 0 0- //lkloow 1 - ~ 1-1 -1 1-1 -1-1 .1-1-/1 12-E-L-,AÂ·LE 1 /// EX AT. t ' 1 / - .. ... 1 J f~Y~ZIL-=1 - TO "14 --*a-gal -7 0 In -7= 1 -1 ~1.0 l-IN E 2==-- - 3AOLeW 39 1 +C'.2.Â£50Â» 19 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 <1- ExIST CA-LNA 1 1 1 Â¢ CAANJ-52<LE ,movi~ REMOVE 0090-1- ADD:"044 ExisT, f-Ef,L.ACE.PIENT 0/INPOW 3-\int %1 1 C _ I d U i i- f-i r-) rl fi - I .-ill---- .+I------ -----.i---Il-i--.- i--- 1/ X 1 0 -0-9 12/MUL artklul# Wfm - - - 1 605 EAST MAIN STh -- - ASPEN, COLORADO 81 ' ' TEL Â·Â· (303) 925-4 - I -22 /0'Ki '11 1 j 1 ---- - - 1.ifi 1 1.t \ 11~11 ,V,49 \ I - 1/77 i:'/1:r,li':\ \ = PE/%1 laiD PASC,A ------ - - r) K .31 h i 9 i N DIC,A- I S 1 N E W W 4 20 M i' -9 1 V 1 I Â· ; r -7 IND DOD, 4) 4 C 11 INSUL. -SS 1.. 1, L. L (-Â¥9'CAN) 0 1 f lf4 Y-7c, l- Â·21 7 --1--- -li- - - 1 1 1 J /1 1 =*-213)-- 0 -- P 1 1 1 C f. s 4. 3 A.-/i 1 7% r l . 1 1 | WEIN FULL A 8'AssÂ»12%44IT 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 4 -4- 7 / 1 \ INU[-1 1 11 ELL- v n i :w, w x. E><-END Cr+Ih/INC 7-=U 172 - 1 i 1-7 1 N 12\ =-tz_ -.22= --T--=1---1--~ ' LhA --1*. - . 1=-11 / 21- .- - . Â«-~ WEN WOOD - 6 - - - 1 6- Ve_ES - ... C 1 -- - 4. F l J n - 1 -- - 1 \\r r Â·' E C - PA VT AID, SIDINe 1 F Il i --- M ' 4*i 1-14 1 11 F--1 i il 1 ,1 1 11 r L Jj 4--- f I. 2=-21=44 j - ... . 9.03~ LINE 1 -' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1.- 1 -1 -1 -1 7 - (4-5---'Â»c C <j -L,Â·ALIUL--*44~, ~L.tive-C --2~1.4-*, CL.~vl LH)l-9 4(3 /5\ WEST ELEVATION 1 1 / 45-9 t- 22.!L 7.- ul.L 1 1 1 ll '4\ , 1 1-- - --- - . -- it - -- -- - -- - ,Â· i 1, -. - - s 4 + 1~ ~ 'RA V -1 1- V 4 41Â·i L !11 . itÂ· - FI>QC - 1 1 , 11 13 ,-4 111 1 r 1 1 - 11 1 -6 I I ' : 3_- - .= /- . -~~"I ~ 3 . Â© 111 ,_-JL-it lai j .0 0 quy Wit' 0 V t Ij A J i* 1- 5---- \ , N R 12 - - e '] 11 11 ~ j.:Il l.212. 1.1...:Â·75. L- 4 - I 11 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 r L 1 1 L L-- ---- ' -Â·A ...6 - 7 L-/CP ~ I~ 3-1,kc~ LE ---1~ /7.--dru..6 Lt.,42_ .-.1-/LC-/ 2''rt, lt<--il- *LÂ«/ ______i~ 0881./aluÂ£r/Vtn"Yisim LAOI LLL Vt-l I /VI / L $ 2 6*>iN .'.#4' lA:436 11 1 ~1 11 -- U 222.1 J.=2 1 , --- i- -- ------ 0,461-4-Â»{1 - - - -- - -- -- . I / 6 I - 11 - +2$%15'2:,134'ff' - -- - -- b, ~.? D..11:112':*Ii**tiM - - - .: 1 r.?Kt~'14 :tfitg#,111 ;10,1 D~ . 1,4 1, , 14., i. 41. â€¢ f i. 4 - .-. .-.- - - - - --,-L/ -1 Â£ ff 4.1 t.;-:.4 i,1 :Â£:2 : 4 Â£02.4.9 4.:Ial:j '4 44,1 1 ~ 12 '0'4 -11G â€¢ t Â·. -Â·~ .~ ~--Â· ~ - . '1.11'j.,t. '.*Sid;.. ' **f.'rf.ViE NEW 329 , r -~ - .1.1 - ~ ; i.r *6'Â¢i .44%4 3 6 -r T 1 1 I I-- -- __ ' :f':Â·'[ } (5Â·?.)'j.~Â·;ai~{* 14 -I. -:* iÂ·:01 p~Â·i,i: tii.8,1 11 Â·~i , 14 4 -*44{1<Â· .1 ~i ffit; 1 1 ' ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 114, 1 1 8.;41 i .1 8143, : i ; Â· lr. Â·:i' kt~:. '.; $-C.Â·CtÂ·;'? ' 1 Â· NE. 1.146:..$ t. 1,Â¥.4:; 5 1 '3.1 - 52?.i", Â·17 ; 1 4.t}(0: ' 1 4-7 I -1- .L 9 I . 1,3.Ii '14.6 4:/r ; #..)4;; -L------- t}Â·:'!4Â·Â· 3 ES&'.* ? ? *442?Â· :1 It; ft , i. ff 5%(14': fl~ l?iil /41 SOUTH ELEVATION f:te lili:ty#?..41.1 1 , 3 1 - 1 -1 7.-1~-v x./t r b ,â‚¬. -1-le-,C~L - 2/ ,/Utt.-L 1-2_4_. .jokl_-t' 44Â·(,Li~-, L.1.2-/ L' /1 a %,. J>Â·*f * Nt :41.-4 t*:3. 1 - 1 - - . + - -- -- -- .--- - - ---- .... , - .1 --- -4.- ---1.-71- 1. '11 1 /Â· Fi ~t- t .1 1 1 1 ENTRY i 01' Â· 1 1 tr 1- - --- -- 2>ED,Â·-DOM --- ~ _ -:-0-/~no , 1 - ~ ST(*:Aas. E*-GJ 1 Â· r 11 - LiviIN e 1. r - - ----1 7-11 "Fil - - -1 - T I I - 21 N 1 1%1 e R.,7-maN. 1 1 1 - 11 ' 1 ./ 1 14. 1 1 - goof= 62 -9 VJ - 0 cc-2-1 UPPER LEVEL PLAN p , d I U C 64 5"iÂ«-92*) 4/, V. L.u- 3- Le-.60[.Â· .. %. C 1 + lid .9* - - 4 I u I===1 1 E Kner -- -g-ip _r AA 1 | 1- 36.kiet I 1- L I.1 , 11 1 11 0.113 Al*nui, 0 . 1- 2- 1 = .CO 5 A-02 v __ n [7' 11 1 i 1 ! "--1 n .- 41 r=-1 MRODF O,122;4-:MANe . TrF-Â· A /31 GROUND LEVEL PLAN f o (~ Ce- ubice-g__- ./L ci....c-*i--e-C_-- b mAik*m.Â£?fRA 605 EAST MAIN STREL ASPEN, COLORADO 816, TEL (303) 925-47. 1 i/ , -f /4 j- 1 - 1 4 1 1-y/ I 1/0 =i-- ~ L c UÂ»,1LALL+-- / I 0 11 11 L r\Â»Â»L , L - I. 122- ALE- 1 2-7LI.: 6 A 11 1 11 51 2 1 -. ' f_ L+-iti_ ~~Â«o_--- --14[to-#-2-- 71~~~- .- - 1- . . 1 1 1 1 1 1 BAGBMENT - LEvEL Fi-~WES~r ELEVATION 1142â‚¬*49:#.t~41, 7 1 1 1 7Â«\ .1 4,1 1 1 1 ~ff-- 11 i 1 ~It , 1 I lilli - -- 1 - 11 11 - 1 7 -=r-=r- - r rr ~ i 1 111 1 1 1 .- 1 - --- . L ~ !J 1 11 INSULA-ED 1 -- i IND, OVERHEAD 9Â«v<35 DOCK?5 -- 4 + 24 . -- --- -~Jo.1-4 - ---- 1 1 l I 1 1 "sEMENT LEVEL k -i~ SOUTH ELEV~TION < i 1 L LIZ- r 1 L 1 1 1 61-/1/ 1.2__-'15/C /1/6.L- --1/4 - 1,UJ 'c -fi . 4 ty F 127 EAST HALLAM 3 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 Issue: OENCED-uÂ«6- 9/25/51 -Dev..Oph/5 \- --t-.ILD/~-3 J- ... IT \ UN> t.. ~6. ,---4 + J I 11 f - - , 4 1 1 41.- . _ 0 \\ 1 1 1 lill i J 1 1 ..'t~F ./ 1 ~]2 01 L) ING 1 0 EHINO T FLLIS ND, --9-ELLIS T..*4 j .LG DRA-. 6 04 i ki Uu, h. I., DEP.0 r biL .Nt- NATA I T. *di~ 1,1Â£ :))41~UL !0~ Ght/ON,aE 13Â®*.C~,AL,Â«, LÂ·â€¢,~Nb..*~h A#â‚¬ 0...1//Ilâ€¢ 1/ A,Al,unC; SMAi' dt ....3 0. All SlitCH~â€¢DFABMICAi~DINMUiSSILSU~/Châ€¢â€¢liES ' kill. SO'Ne '..106 '.......SOIS /1[J ...'ll 4 -= 1 M 9/* 0......K IND,ENDÂ©:OST CARRIAGE 2 -7825-LiS ' 7- . -= 1% HOUSE ELEVATIONS 1 2 1 PASEMENT 1 <1 1 1 -BEVEL Scale: 52 1 1-01 1 1 11 EASJ ELEVATION 1 11 ~ I 1 --4---- --â€ž-------.--L.--La A.7 . 1, *'lill,â€¢U K.i,pi ./:, <-A%1;f~ 0., 01-7 . %*FekyÂ·.A 47 7 C ., ,14 c .-3 -Â»/ v ~ r- -f-- --- - -- -7----- 1 -- --A T 4 L~ -3 C - d Â¥ J L T Noll~A313 HlkION 4,1 11 1 -13AE= 1 1 ~ > 1 1 1 1914399* ~ ~ 4 -1 1 1 E. .-_ -._ ---- -] 61 -172:L 'CM - E- _f ...1-14+Iffâ€ž. 1 i k--- Â£ 21 P en-138.-Lawl Had Â·Â·Â· 11' â‚¬)NICIPS OF - 1 1. - - = ..1 - - =2=~1 ; T . vosvid 'OM - ..1-.- -- .--.4--1 4 1- 4 1 1 - \4 III , i 1 1 //) 1 ~Vt'Id~L) SSÂ»'16) ' 1. 'EnSNI '19= -1 -I ~ 1, SNX A,191 'CHI - r - C y 4.1 --Z.--T-L!~~~i~ ~~~3 1- r 1 r..1 - - -- --- 1 1 - - -- - - /07 T 1 34 2.-Â·41 2----tr 11 1 41__ .RE/7 1 1 Â®NI =Lvb '-1-74--2 --- - -Â· ~Â·-Â· ~| ~ ~ ~ ~40 -32]21=_1314/ 1 i 1 \ 1-4 ./7 1 1 1 1 1 j 1 1 1 1 I f . A,6Â°5%1 11.m#IMAJWM/Lfl r---u, X, ~~~ ~~~ S-TRUST 579Â»1 :504 5-95: 1--7 Liul,M=AA=' c-Â· -i:___ ~-=Â«glu]#it_-~ ti_~-~-~~ ~ffem ~~~~~~~_____~_ EX,ST 43 ' EX IST. 7-Q 52 S ~ Ne.4 | 45LCU,'.1,3 ' EXIST-,Ne RCS!35\IGES / 5500 413<91 EX i UTi Ne PESi DENCE .OUSS $21 46Â·1Â£'p.7 1 {t~Â· ., 2 d 1-4 C.:dfiCE-' l-/ cL---~ L._S~-2, e. ORAC,INAL GT. - 4/30Â« U L 1 + -1- - I"=-4 -- ' - CfR*â€¢34,0 -i*Ofr - 4 01:E.ZeF* 400<i.p,Â¢ ~_ _____- 1 1 Er----- +7 - 73,1 1 ) r. X i a>q,r, 11,â€¢rm- 61NE or o.cag I ~ Ef Â£*19'E 82* 1 +41 34 3-tu 1. .5 1te,*WUP A..iw - 1 ////- ; leÂ«Â£11Â» ~ ' 4-32 0 F Bu tce, N 4 -=- = -= ---- - 31.07 1 j \ 1 1 1 rÂ»6 1 _1_ J I 31_ 1 1 05Â¢ M 1 1 1 | AA.:Acte ~e/~0~~ hkew CONSTROGn o 1 &11 â€ž 126/6 050,6 .L--A r -"--41 ..=-- St GE.YA<p 31- -Ill-.Il'--* .-I ----1 i -~> , rÂ· VIA,p -1 . POL, \A; #f 7~ L AND PUNNING *> 12-5(25~ 5,\Te qi#AL-- TAN N ATH[Â§ 82!3Â· +t(198 _w, SCA-\Et*e[ 1 C JÂ©POST OFFICE BOX 1984 Â· 303/920-1434 zhU ASPEN,COLORADOâ€¢81612 -- â€¢ .Ill It - Fi 00* 1 '1-10 ic.1 ALLEY .HYMAN *4