The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19891129. \1 AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE November 29, 1989 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM City Hall SPECIAL WORKSESSION : 4:00 - 5:00 RITZ - CARLTON HOTEL, ADVISORY REVIEW - 4:00 WORKSESSION 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of Nov. 1, 1989 minutes II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS ,/ &* 4 9 f .f4 ' 5:10 A. Public Hearing Continued - Significant Development - Addition to 620 W. Bleeker St. (to be continued to Dec. 13th) B. Minor Development - sign approval for Kentucky- Fried ChickenÂ« 0+ 07, cE_ 5:20 C. Final Development - 2nd floor addition - Sport v Stalkercu~ev-L-~ 5:45 D. Public Hearing Continued - Conceptualk- Redevelopment - 940 Matchless Drive 'Or P.Wul-Ut 6:30 E. Public Hearing Continued - Relocation and- Conceptual Redevelopment 17 Queen Street V. NEW BUSINESS 7:30 A. Public Hearing - National Register Nomination- - The Webber Block - 1 ... B--- 1 -7 e 04(2~4 . -A c kf F- 13) i 41- , c e--r -h VI. COMMUNICA~YONS: 7:45 A. Project Monitoring Staff Report: Maroon Creek Bridge Pedestrian Walkway/Bikeway Plan RFP 1 - le \ 2, P.6 Cottage Infill program Goals meeting - Dec. 13 with Reso for Jan. loth 0-/ l ?40 - Schedule for 1990 meetings HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING 2nd Floor City Hall November 1, 1989 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Joe Krabacher, Chris Darakis and Don Erdman present. Charles Cunniffe, Leslie Holst and Glenn Rappaport were absent. 624 E. HOPKINS MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to table 624 E. Hopkins to the next meeting on Nov. 8th. Don second. All approved. 132 W. MAIN STREET - ASIA RESTAURANT - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT Public Hearing opened. Roxanne: The applicant has come back with a revised design. Bill: Lots K&L were landmark designated in 1976. Roxanne: The entire parcel is not designated. Staff is recommending approval finding that it meets the guidelines and that the following conditions should be met at final (see attached memo dated October 25, 1989). The south elevation needs to be reviewed as it appears to be off-center. Windows are recommended to be narrow, double hung and paired. Kevin McCaskill, architect: The door was meant to be in the center of the gable form. We were considering using clapboard for the siding and the windows double hung paired together. I feel it fits well in the site as the site is narrow. The zoning setbacks make the building envelope even narrower. Dennis Green: The site is 1 1/2 lots, 4064 sq. ft. Roxanne: This is one parcel and it is not separate lots. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Don: This is a professional solution and the model has greater delicacy then the drawings. I have no problem with the square double hung on the front facade as it takes away from it being replication. Bill: The over hangs should be delicate. Joe: My only concern is the height and it is a little taller than both buildings on either side of it. Kevin: We wanted to raise up the front porch to follow the lines of the existing building. t Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 1, 1989 Georgeann: The height seems to be appropriate here as it is a taller, thinner building that way. I also don't mind it be taller than the other two buildings. I'm concerned about one things, the employee unit in the basement. The window/light well is shaded by the next door building. Kevin: We agree and possibly the employee unit will be shifted to the existing building. Roxanne: I have a concern of the treatment between the two buildings. Georgeann: Possibly do a deck in the space between the two buildings. Chris: I like the idea of the raised front porch as it carries with the theme of the street. Bill: It would be nice if we could get the employee units out Of the basement and office space could be rented. Possibly remove the employee units to an attic space. In the future the use of story boards for each district that show all the buildings on Main Street may be helpful. Roxanne: What about the porch columns as they will make a statement at street level. Kevin: Possibly square but not turned. Don: Square but built up. Bill: I like the building without the railing. - Kevin: The roof will be cedar shingles. Dennis Green, attorney: We are hoping that you will access that this building needs to stand on its own and after we get approval we will then look at the existing building. We may move all of the employee housing to the existing building and make this entire building an office building. In that way the employees Will not be in the basement. We also hope to improve the existing building, new cedar shingle roof and repaint it. etc. Possibly we will do something with the front entrance. Georgeann: In regard to the color selection, the two should be treated in a harmonious but slightly different fashion, neutralize the unit between them. 2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 1, 1989 Roxanne: There needs to be study on the ramp. Dennis: Where the ramp is located is the main entrance for the elevator. Kevin: It may turn out that the back is the right place for the ramp. Roxanne: There also needs to be a study on the posts and some pattern of a railing around the light wells. MOTION: Don made the motion that the conceptual development approval be granted for 132 W. Main Street subject to the following conditions to be met at final: a) Exact materials representation. b) Scale of fascia's and roofing needs to be studied. c) Possible relocation of employee unit to an above grade situation. d) Restudy location of handicap access ramp. e) Study porch column details. f) A massing model be resubmitted including the Asia structure. g) Develop site plan including the existing Asia buildings and incorporating alley and other exterior features and landscaping. Joe second. All approved. COMMITTEE AND STAFF COMMENTS Roxanne: On the Elisha one skylight was approved that was more square and not as big. We did not approve the skylight on the west elevation of the main house. We approved one on the north elevation and the applicant decided that they did not want it there. Since they already had it they would like to put it on the carriage house. Bill: How does the board feel about skylights on the north elevation and adding one or two more. Joe: It is an alley elevation. Chris: There is a need for them. Georgeann made the motion to adjourn. Don second. All approved. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 3 MEMORANDUM 150-89 TO: P&Z COMMISSION HPC COMMISSION , FROM: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager tul /. DATE: November 16, I 989 RE: MAIL RECEPTACLES/KEY TO CITY HALL It has been brought to my attention that you have expressed an interest to either have a key to City Hall or have mail receptacles placed at the north entrance to City Hall. Unfortunately, I must decline both of your requests for the following reasons: We have found that the release of additional keys to the building compromises security. It is not that we do not trust each of you--we do. But keys have a way of getting lost! In response to your suggestion for mail receptacies, this not only presents an accessibility problem but is also a safety issue. We have not yet found a way to do either safely, securely and appropriately. The front entrance to City Hall remains open until 7:00 p.m. daily. If you are having trouble retrieving your packet information, it is my suggestion that you work directly with the Planning Office to have them: 1) deliver the packet to you, 2) mail the packet, 3) have another commission member pick up the packet for you, or: 4) have your packet dropped off at the Police Department where you can pick it up 24 hours per day. It is important that we try to keep City Hall as secure and safe as possible. I hope these options satisfy your needs as well as ours. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Thank you, XC: Mayor and Council Amy Margerum, Planning Director Bill Efting, Acting Deputy City Manager 1 1 THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE invites all HPC "ALUMNI' to share in 'A TOAST TO PRESERVATION A special holiday event honoring 17 years of HPC dedication Celebrating the Past, Present and Future of Aspen' s historic preservation program. Deccember 19 - Tuesday, 6: 00 - 8: 00 p.m CASH BAR, hors d'oeuvres. BENTLEY'S atthe (historic) Wheeler ! RSVP - Roxanne Eflin, Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 920-5090 "' 'e 1 kil.. .1 % L r:3 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD: HPC Advisory Comments Date: November 29, 1989 SUMMARY: To assist the Planning Office in reviewing the Aspen Mountain PUD, staff will present the Ritz-Carlton Hotel project to the HPC for advisory comments. PREVIOUS ACTION: The project was reviewed by P&Z and Council last year, receiving approval from Council in the form of a Resolution. A recent court action found the Resolution approval process inadequate in this case, declaring all previous approvals "null and void". As a result, Council has directed staff to review the existing PUD to determine its appropriateness. An ordinance for approval is scheduled for First Reading before Council on November 27 with 2nd reading and public hearing scheduled for December 18. BACKGROUND: The HPC was not included in the review loop in any capacity during last year's approval process. Many individuals voiced their concern, questioning why the HPC was not allowed an opportunity to address in advisory capacity even the most critical issues of compatibility with community character, scale issues associated within the village context of Aspen, and basic design. Therefore, this meeting is designed to obtain the Committee's comments on the project, which will be used to guide the Planning Office comments in its forthcoming presentation to Council. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The issues to carefully consider in reviewing this project are as follows: 1. Its ability to meet the criteria of the PUD regulations beginning at Section 7-901. The Review standards in Section 7-903(B)5 - Open Space, 6 - Landscape Plan, and, 7- Architectural Site Plan should be particularly reviewed. (Note: These are copied and attached for your review.) Staff Comments: HPC's expertise, particularly under the criteria of the Architectural Site Plan, is most important in this review. The criteria in section 903(B)7 states: There shall be approved as part of the Final Development Plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural consistency in the proposed development, architectural character, building design, and the preservation of the visual character of the City. It is not the purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly enforced that individual initiative is stifled in the design of a particular building, or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon the appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and proportion of the building with each other and surrounding land uses. Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion. 2. Its consistency with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, which includes the Historic Preservation Element, adopted in 1986. The Comprehensive Plan is used as a guide and not as strict criteria. Staff Comments: The Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element was adopted in 1986 to integrate historic preservation within the entire context of community planning. The small scale "village" nature and historic character of our community is critical to maintain. Staff would like HPC input on the following goals and objectives in the HP Element in relation to the Ritz-Carlton proposal: 1.F. Encourage new contemporary commercial and residential buildings to be complementary to neighboring historic buildings in scale, form, materials and other elements. 2. To maintain Aspen's unique small town character and scale as one of its major attractions to residents and visitors. C. Encourage the preservation of Aspen's community scale and small town building massing through open space, growth management and land use regulations. 3. Its overall contribution to the community in the form of community compatibility, consistency with village scale, and intensity of the use. 2 t Staff Comments: Staff feels the current proposal is inconsistent in character compatibility and consistency with village scale. Height, mass, scale, style, proportion and detailing do not relate to any architecture in Aspen, or western Colorado. We find the proposal does not contribute to the traditional character of Aspen, and that design revisions should be considered by HPC and then reviewed by City Staff to determine the feasibility of those changes, given the current structural system already in place. We specifically seek HPC input on ideas for ensuring the project fits in with the current scale of traditional Aspen and does not detract from the overall goals of historic character for the community. The HPC should consider the relationships to landscaping, materials and texture and the rhythm of solids to voids on the elevations in the advisory review. Staff will also be considering how the proposal ties into the proposed Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway Plan and how the general pedestrian flow from both the Commercial Core and the Main Street Historic District relates to the hotel. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC make advisory comments in relation to the PUD criteria, Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and other issues as stated in this review memo, to advise and assist the Planning Office in the project review. memo. hpc.ritz 3 I 1 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Minor Development (continued): Kentucky Fried Chicken signage Date: November 29, 1989 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting HPC's approval for the revised (and reduced) wall sign above the arched entrance of the structure commonly referred to as Local's Corner. PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: At the meeting of November 8, the HPC did not approve the sign proposal, finding the size out of proportion and character with the Commercial Core Historic District. They recommended the total sign area be reduced significantly, recommending at least a 40% reduction to a total of six square feet. The rooftop mechanical equipment was approved at that meeting. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The attached letter from the applicant states the 40% reduction has been made in the wall sign. Revised plans will be submitted at the meeting. Lettering and lighting: The actual lettering material has not changed from the previous proposal which is brass laminated over 1" sanded plastic. The applicant will bring a material sample to the meeting. Two lighting schemes were proposed (indirect and backlit): the HPC appeared to more favorable to the backlit sign. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC - - approve the revised and reduced wall sign for Kentucky Fried Chicken, approve the lettering material as proposed and decide upon an appropriate lighting alternative. memo.hpc.kfc Ms. Roxanne Eflin November 16. 1989 Historic Preservation Planner CITY OF ASPEN 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 re: Kentucky Fried Chicken Signage Appl l-cat 1C,r-i Review Dear Roxanne: Thank you for -your letter of November 15, 1989. Pursuant to your request to receive informat:On regarding our "wall sign" before tne November 29th meeting of tne Historic Preservation Committee. I have enclosea the following information and figures 50 a.s to explain our sign Droposal. 1) As mentioned this morning. the correct notation to the over-all length in the architectural drawins is 20-, not 10'. over the soan of a 30' arch. 2) Based on the initial calculation of a 20' length times a l' height divided by two, (per Asmen sign code regulations for individually cut-out letters), the following is aoolied: 20' x 1' = 20 so. ft. divicied by E = 10 sa. ft. 3) Since the actual oesion. (sname vs height vs width). C,, of tne letters is a Kentucky Fried '-Â· i e ken rade rilark:.. it is r:ecessary to inc oraorate a eduction in all asoects of tne size of the sign, 4- 1-% E sign couldn't oe 12 feet long ano 1 , ;~.., ~..i : --- . .1 1 all, thereby not looking like tne trademark signage C c. 1... 4) Scott (Crow) has worked out tne necessary calcula.ions so tnat the sign can be reduced to aoorox:mately 60% of tne initial Drooosal. (or a 40% reduction). with a final result of 6.1 souare feet Dy aoslying tne above formula. This letter outlines our intentions, and we hope that ou feel more comfortable witn our amolication based or] your ommittee' s recommendat ion. Sincerely yours, ~carletz Norris Aoams Vice-r'resident SNA/sc 01< DJ Ct- 1 3 d , MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Final Development: 204 S. Galena, The Sports Stalker Building Date: November 29, 1989 LOCATION: 204 S. Galena St., Lots A, B, and C, Block 94, City and Townsite of Aspen ZONING: CC, Commercial Core Historic District APPLICANT: Barham, Inc. (Jerald Barnett) and William G. Bullock, represented by Glenn Horn and Welton Anderson HPC MONITOR: to be assigned at this meeting APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Final Development approval for the construction of a second floor to the Sportstalker building which will contain one (1) free-market, two-bedroom apartment; one (1) moderate income, two-bedroom rental unit; two (2) low income, two-bedroom rental units; and one low income, one bedroom rental unit. OTHER COMMISSION REVIEWS: A ordinance adopting GMQS approval for the one free-market residential unit will be presented to Council for First Reading on November 27. PRIOR HPC CONSIDERATION: On March 28, 1989, the applicant met with the HPC in a pre-application to begin a dialogue with the Committee on the proposal. The architect presented two sketch plans at that meeting: one was dominated by a stepped back, mansard-type roof; the other was very similar to what was approved at Conceptual. The general consensus by the Committee at that pre-application was that a stepped-back, mansard approach did not adhere to the Guidelines in this particular case, and that the second floor addition should match very closely the first floor footprint. On April 26, the HPC granted Conceptual Development approval with the following conditions: 1. A roof plan be submitted for approval 2. The glass rooftop element be restudied in an effort to make the skylights as minimal as possible 3. Restudy the east elevation balcony and stairs, indicating detailing and materials, restudy shielding of the balcony and balcony rail, and restudy stairway alternatives. 4. Exact materials be submitted for approval PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Development Review Standards are located in Section 7-601(D)(1) of the Land Use Code. The review Guidelines may be found in Section V. Commercial Buildings - New Construction, beginning on page 35. Guideline V.5.4. states: "Select designs that do not imitate historic styles found in the district". The HPC should carefully consider the 2nd floor detailing in relation to surrounding landmarks. STAFF COMMENTS: We are beginning to address the issue of contemporary building integrity and impacts that additions may have on the architect's original finished product. This particular 1950's structure was dramatically altered a few years ago (reviewed and approved by the HPC) to provide for a more compatible storefront. Therefore, we find that the original integrity no longer exists, and that any further additions should be master-planned to respect the surrounding landmarks. Staff generally agrees with the applicant's approach to provide a rectangular solid second floor to this one story non-historic structure. It takes its form from typical commercial two-story Victorian box-like architecture, generally flat surfaces with relatively little relief and projection. The existing maximum height is 16'; the maximum proposed height is 29.5' (well under allowable). The maximum height to the parapet peak is 35'. CONDITIONS OF CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL: 1. Roof Plan. This has been submitted, indicating the free market unit penthouse plan, roof deck and mechanicals. 2. Rooftop glass skylight restudy: The HPC should carefully consider the visual impacts of a rooftop addition of this nature. The applicant states it is hidden behind the parapet, however, it appears to staff that this element would be visible from Galena near Aspen Drug and the entrance to the mall. It is designed to be an extremely transparent space for southern light and views. The roof deck is approximately 4' 10" below the top of the parapet. The HPC should consider the issues Of rooftop access carefully, and weigh the impacts of such development in the Commercial Core. 3. Restudy the entire east elevation: balcony, railing, 2 4 1 stairs, materials. Revisions have been made, including a zig-zag parking level storage unit design, underneath the balcony. Staff feels the changes made to this rear elevation are significant improvements over the previous proposal. Both stairways at either end are broken near the middle with a landing, include decorative metal elements on the railing and lighting at ground level. The canopy, running the length of the balcony, is wire glass. The fenestration and door opening pattern appears repetitive and simple, which may be preferred on this elevation, however, the HPC should consider whether a restudy is necessary. 4. Materials: Wood overlap siding is proposed for all elevations. Windows are wood, paired double hung, with arched wood trim lintels; roofing material appears to be metal standing seam. SUMMARY: This particular corner is extremely important due the surrounding historic landmarks: City (Armory) Hall, the Brand Building and the Elks Building. We feel that the basic massing and scale of the 2nd floor is consistent with the character of the neighborhood, however, we Still have concerns about the effect of detailing and the gable parapets in relation to the adjacent landmarks, the visibility of the glass skylight/rooftop design and rooftop access. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the proposal as submitted 2. Approve the proposal with the conditions as recommended by staff and discussed in this meeting, to be approved by staff and the project monitor. 3. Table action to allow the applicant further time to study the proposal, incorporating the comments and guidance from the HPC in a revised proposal. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Final Development approval for the proposal at 204 S. Galena, subject to the following conditions to be approved by Staff and the Project Monitor: 1. Architecturally strengthen the cornice or cap at the top of the parapet 2. Eliminate the arched trim over the paired windows 3. Provide more landscaping at the northeast corner bottom stair landing to screen the parking lot 4. All exterior wood materials shall be painted 5. Windows shall be wood, double hung memo.hpc.204sg.fd 3 â€¢. Â·74Â¢KÂ·49 e .... P,64 -.-------7-Â·'#MPARk,3.t 0 i.42* r r lf---3: 6.44Â· Â·Â·~-' 04.Â·*.aRE-Â£1Â·1''iI'A,la-..-.,a-- 1-Â· L. 1. ..Â· Â·, ..<-'- (9-1 Â· r . - .Tly Art~Â®991,ki ...Â·.:Â· ~111.9.. r 1:Â· 22Â·Â·Â·. ..., Â· . ,. : 4 â€ž..5/Â·r I....t==â€¢ 1 , L, 61.3,1.1.. 2, 1 4-7--fdy. â€ž7. Â· ' -1 1 . 1 1. . Ill '' 1 4. 1 * , -i---I----- - 0 - ..... -- b. 0 1 - 1 r=:=. Tr . 1.----- - 1.- .1 11 1 L_- _1 '1 . L Ql ' . Â· Â· Â· -re, 6.*L- . 1 /-h - - - i -- F*,7 *GI' Ft- uy -t' 1!4--1 - - ----1 ~ i Di t. / -- 1 - 11 4 - - --- 1 '1 3, - 1,1 ' 1 -1. 1 I ' ; U '0 . 0 il ; 1 1~ iii' (1 41 . 1 41 , 1 1 lilli Jill" 1 11 1 1 qu Â· - - -j >rn-----i Â£177_rÂ·-- Â· --: i~ =to-~ .~ -- - - PWf. f**0Â«3-02.2- . 7 , 1 0 =,58, Bat t'~i ve- 5-r ELEVA-BON *44 Le, 1 19,Â· 11 i tk' ' S I , Â« I.- . r- ~ H , /2-A 'k 1 3 i - Â¢50=--2.In.-~ 4 - -- - --- - Â·Â· 1 1 - - \4) t 1--------- 1 It - - === ==== ... ..-i 1 4 t.- - -- ..-1 . h.'--J -I.-/ M.. 16 lili / \ U) 1 7- ch - IN La Itt- .-- . L . 1 -I .,L /1 2-11/--1 4/.u. ~ ~ lEAlÂ»-74 - 1 1 . . .c ' Wi/Ad'* : Al (./ 1 IL 1 i -11 . 1 ' 1, 11--7 ... - i I' '' ./- +I...I r 1 .,. a . , ..6-41=27 -2.-f,=tt=liz=L.2-2-~- 1, S.An. Â· . c. 4 - ' .....0 : L. Â· 4. . . . , ... *'Â·Â· -.,.r ...Â· '-1 ..Ut?tr-ta_ti EK'*nd}4 . - . ).if- ~ . SapposÂ¥ 19 UOSJapl*' 11- . 111 111 1 - lin-4 -I-* 00Â£)/- 'Ety!14'..T<Ric. 4 . 1 ,. .Ie. 149*1*YA -- ' --- ' - - -- --r- --- - *7*.- -v Ib~l , '.~fÂ·X';0~, '-: 1"65 4/~~ *pi<~<44~~ p P' Â·' 49~'.,1~/9-r..7. 1 .- Â·. 1 4.Â·'.42.U*44*4':'' ;' 1Â·21 --L 3 Lib f Â·.KÂ· f.-Â· ~3. T ' -f 5 43 . f V .'CÂ· 4., . 1, ., .L-,# z,%, r JfÂ·, ,-t; .. Â« â€¢Â·' .i'.1~:,IW' fl : 3, '1 . i 4 .- Â· 1'< C 4,1/&.I Â·: - iÂ¥ /1 , * ' ,$'5< -.- ~1. Tilt:Â« p /.-I ...$-I-' .4 % -.3-32%~ 1 4#94,1-61.- . ~[.., .;f . ''09>~ Â·'3Â·'3;~~ . I .. ~~~~~~ -'~ ~Â·.â€¢,f;.%;~;~~.~;:~**~ ~ ~~ t.--. Â¢it-.... 0.. 4.'. ..'/- 1 ~ -K ;. . . 'Â¥**<#--JT- .~-1 -ptÂ·-u~-Â·Irtnt 2~-:..7:Â·:.- 7 -=r- -=-.2- 1~-9:-I-Â·-r-t~: =d=Â·=te,ra.=Â·. -~z~&/t--~-~--EÂ·Â· - I -- -!! % . 1 , 1,4 Ar .2..34.<41 ty ' 1 ' -- 1 11 1 - - - - - - -= L 11 :T......... *-'.r. Â£ 11 1..... . Ffx- \VIL!/ Â¢5,1,e,6 z:/+30#V -_ . = -1 - 1 t. .- ... :- 1 -7 I i ii- 11~3 i==1 9 2 2-21â‚¬1--i- ==71 t7 LKI -0 0 -7-- 7 -=4 1 - 11~- . -1 3 Ell=--]rl ki- 3 n- 1 4 Â· 1 r-7 ----7 I - 'I - - ! - LE;Mzpywr I - 1 1,1 11 7 1[ I 11 NA 1,111'1:!11 lili, â€¢' 1!iti,li, . , Â· . .11 74~4 . . 1-Quew z,~p,ucit guL ~ - ful 11~4~ --- i - (-0:# -3 A 0 1 3~- 2 .--21 -77..<hâ‚¬:bi'$7\ 1'%_ Vi-- - .....-- -- ---. -- \%.I;991FF9<Jfrrk/X - , ... 1 t.. 6 . - . . I [- ... - 1 4 fÂ£.4, 9 94 iz 4, 1-1 , - -- --k - -- ../ - 1 - 1 1 , 17 CAW BLEVATION i.- i I E-- 3%9 : /../2 &$.- 6;~ --- -GEn 1 1 - C:m A" . in.1 1 [/ ---- k Â·' , I ' I,~ , 1.44 . 1 \:b,.,---Â·4~1 f,1[ â€¢54/05 041/qw .- - - - . -. 1 1 3 6 .. a --6 4.#Ad, 415 -1- 9.'Â· f. - fetff/144 -0-0 40--0--F _=LFf-----t ~ ~1 : 1 f . 1 I ------ t/ ' .#I ~M. '..1 L ~1 -0Â· -- --F--- ,- . 14> U *2 44 -1-%-- 1 7--â€¢al r. W - . - .... -*606.0-L aNt mqi'*4:,2-'. v N8;V:<L T .f~ ,Â·~- - -Â·i ~ Â· ~,~ Â· ~' ,I,, - ~jlit -7r . ' I. 58 jil<% 1 %=12:21 r .. .. . ' 61 0 ~1Â· 1 I. ,. , .: I 'r~ . I . P +4 1 , 7â‚¬4 . 1 4 Â· Â·Â· Â· Â·~; Â·,Â·.0~ -2~-IC:~11-44:1/41~Lu ------ -~ -~- - ... ..eyl:.. '-Il- 40 . . . V .1 - P ...r,- 1, ' . .th 4 - --. .. ..FA . , '.1 Â·94Â· " 4. r ' ' >A;4't..Me, -3. . 4 r I. . . 9 .U ': . ; 5,~292. 'tÂ·-42*Â» 4/ , ...1 ./ 0 . 1.\ 4 - t-*/ , 4, Pr.: 1.6.7.4,â€¢.4.4.--4=4.-1. : 1 .: 1., /\ * 7 \ I.\ >15 / 1 9,4// \\\ / 4 . / 1/AW ~4284 1 1 0 , 7 A \ 12 Â£ 1 2. N ' ~- 1 $ 7 d 1 I \ \ \ 1 1 \ I \ 4 1 , U--1 1 1 1 I 1 h 7,4- -- - - --- -- -- - ---- - - -- - -- ---- - --- --- Â«- - ---2 1 ] //%4 A . I f. i-H It 1 1 /1 '0,(57 1 L --2 4 -I'll<'.... 347 + Louu I r##1442' LA'te 1 14 06*EL g ~ -1 - -, ArpÂ« & 1 ';'3 1,41 'il t~:r __. 2 to,F Ii I ' 1% ~' 7 ' 1 11 11 --- ------ ------------- 1-- - 1 2 4 1 1 1 r . d q . 1 2. ii , 1 11 , li ' 0, 4 11 1 lili . ' 1 1 1 1 \\ Lib\ 1 1 \\ 1 / 6- . i 1 4 - 1-J- ~il... i 1 . . 1 A\ /0 1 vt\. - Xii h 1 ... .1 1 \ (N--1/7 24-94 , _ --9- i + A . f 7 1 1 --- /0 1 / Vt lit 1 I I 1- Â·Â· 1 -10> ~>t .... I . 1 A. . . *,4 luf:.L .. i:ili 4.7,4 :111'~4 4 . '. 2. 4,z. f 4-- , . Gi-6200140-----~wl-ZE'K--7CAN--7 ---- -7.2--.'- ' -- - FU IN-:- - 11 sapposÂ¥ 19 De" 26 (COE)/09. 0-**0 , : 4 : *1 ..:N S-''4~~13'ANC #NWT/*74*tÂ· , V i.. ~ Â·I .M MT:42 biki'.048k10*4Â· vulee'.15 -4. Â·-- 4 1(f 13Â·~.-Â· ,*'Â·.Â· -#- --' rM n~,3.LL-- - .1 -t'..c- f. P ~V<,3 Â·-iÂ¥44â‚¬'*42~ Â· f~Â·i-1.ki-Â·.49?;'t.*:?**tÂ·~ - -2 1 Â· tÂ·-' 01/7.f..., 3 :3.CÂ¢'-i?*''lk,4 - 5 *. iÂ·uk'..-,-'7'91 h?.22.43 *kirr.#48-%44 ct ~~ . â€¢44 *'/ **,11~,â€ž~,1 1 ~ . . ~ Gh . .-==_ _.rt-~=-_-i 3 8, - 1 1 I 4 ' .1 4 . 11 1 406. . 1 . // 0, 2 4 * C 0 M)= 1 0 1, 1 2004-1 r--k / 1 GUS ''PN Irt.Id -7.4251 ~ tr,273 *r"All 1 ==3 1 11; 1 i f-=f- --- _ - 114,\ , 0, .4 1 1 1 73 9/2 +050 1432*92 1Wit,rn4 T 1 + 1 4:.3 1 1 ---3 \ 5069â‚¬12 J & 1 \ \ . 1. 1. f.1 2-- 1 1 L 'C- 104 r,~t01-171 ~eâ€¢...'' 2 â€¢ 4 44 , O*fwa / . r-n 1, '-h 1 ~ 1 .4.oL -14 f - * k /1/ -TE-1 -.--- - F \39 f dr 1 1 r 204 PlatÂ«1.-rl 100 /91L-rÂ¢71 - 1 -- i 73!: 1 .1 - --- , IL' ' 1 + '1.11:; :S I rif_/ _11 11 1 r 1 1 1 It o 3[J o_J !\ 2 1 1 i .--4 +01 1,1217â€¢01,0 9 ,/- 1 C.---41* [-2.- 11 ,0, P 1- 'CO Â·20 1 19â€¢Irtul ii ' ---1 - - --- .19 >f , 019 74*r?L I71 &7 L ' 1--=2=:- 6 44 *40 ' 9 03 | 04 4*Ar-1 1 1 1 4 1 -11 1 -4/11.7 - 1 1 44 0,24941 161 191-1-1 To| bypint-1 ~> -1 . : ==iN--- 2 01 .,1 _ --4 1 ,+ f 1 9 6,4 v=Â»Â·2 --1 =al D> v- 1 7 Â·--1 i 11 - .7 1 .U< 1, - 1 , 1 1----Dr--d TIT; ,0.. 0 _~- ---"O iu.-" EZO,=-LIED-,..a â€ž! - k=Â»7-IL-==d t,r.r---izz -z_-~Â·---~~ ... rr---7--- 1 1 1 11# -44 1, 1 Ital A r w:ngpl -1 r,El 11),1~ \ ~344 1 L 1 . .r, 1 1 I li lit, 1 . 1991 13>0\ /wn- 0 1%,01794 Â· i "AlÂ£ f /X,/A V/VA Â· , / ...1'. p/l z. <w*#.A#74#r)9:wf Â£ \ ..,le . . 4 . / I. N . . A. . 4 / 0 44*. .. 1 '' I . , . ...1 ... I' ,Â·',--4 -Â· '0*..494'4'.i.. , .~ ~ 61[\1 2 IN .[23*d V sapposÂ¥ 19 Pladgy DÂ«33Â¥9 '9 4 t ... .. .. r.3 / 1 '1 1 1 ,-523 1 1..... 1 ..43 i . 4 1 1 1 flil'; Z i. f S , it . i Â· i ! 1 !1:; P . a, - --- --- rat'rt _:Z--t:.-Zat--2121- 1 11 - U. 1 Â· .- A-- -1-t- 2 ~-- r:-'-i 1 1 -~- i 7,-1 1- 1 --, 1, ' ' ' '' i 1 1 1 :4 W... & .2,9 1 ..1 1 vull- ; \ ij m 1 1 1 -- --tâ€¢h 1 Â« ===1* 1 7} 1 / 1 2 1 . 1 Hf I Ill-~j ' 1.- 1.4 J ; 4 ---7 K 4 Â· 1 - 7- 7 : L - 41 r - -1 r -f-3 0- 7-- - - 1 -f----1-2-C -tto 1 6 - I -7 iÂ·: 3- - if~:*1-3~Ai-71 ---- 1 1 1 1 ~ : 3------- -1 1 --Â·ZZI~ -n__ -- 1 9 - --CL 0 - LL = 1. --1 1 J â€¢ , 1 1 . .#.i I -j--I *-- ' 4 1 I 1 357 1 ! r Ab . 11 1 ! J hi . - --.' H i 1 i il t Â·i 14 1 1 1 I - 4 k dl C 14*tion Aiderson & Assodates ePORT 6-RAL-Kne APARIMENTe BEEP 204 5. 64LBNA ASPEN 2=91'.1. 8~n'n.e.'. -/(303) 926.4576 Â·I -1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: 940 Matchless Drive - Public Hearing (continued) Conceptual redevelopment Date: November 29, 1989 SUMMARY: The applicant has revised his plans (facade elevation attached) and is requesting HPC's conceptual development approval for the redevelopment of the parcel at 940 Matchless Drive. PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION: On November 8, 1989, during a public hearing, the HPC unanimously voted to table action on the conceptual redevelopment proposal to November 29, for the following reasons: 1) The HPC found that the proposal did not meet the Development Review Standards or the Guidelines. Tabling allows the applicant more time to seek professional design or architectural assistance to revise the proposal. 2) The applicant did not meet the requirements for public notice. All applicants are required to make public notice according to the Land Use Regulations, and produce the Certificate of Mailing at the beginning of that hearing. The applicant stated he would do so for the November 29 meeting. 3) A sub-committee of three HPC architects agreed to meet on-site with the applicant to examine alternatives to mitigate the impacts of non-compatibility already created. The sub-committee's was to investigate the structure to determine if simple changes could be made to improve the exterior in its relation to the character of the neighborhood and the adjacent cottages, without demolishing the 2nd story already in place. The meeting was arranged for Monday, November 13 at noon. The sub-committee's task was to review the project on-site and return with recommendations to the HPC for official action. SUB-COMMITTEE REPORT: On November 13, HPC Chair Bill Poss, members Glenn Rappaport, Donnelley Erdman and staff met with the applicant on-site, and reached the following recommendations for HPC action: 1) Appropriate changes to exterior detail may be able to soften the impacts of the two-story massing and extreme "gothic" style roof pitch enough to eliminate the need I '' for the total removal and redesign of the 2nd floor. 2) The redesign of both two-story stacked "hour-glass" bay windows to eliminate the steep pitch, the middle "return" and the enclosed bottom bracket would be more compatible. The bays were found to be incompatible in character and proportion. The design changes would not effect the interior space. The recommendation is to frame in the bay to create a more vertical element, reminiscent (though not replicative) of the Italianate bay on 334 W. Hallam. The lower brackets should be exposed, contemporary in nature, and should relate to the porch columns. 3) The total removal of the first floor porch overhang is necessary. A small gabled porch/stoop covering should be designed with two very simple support columns. These should relate to the bay brackets. 4) The removal and redesign of the facade dormer window is necessary, as the out-of-proportion window currently in place was found to not meet the Guidelines. The opening size may need to be changed. This window should be replaced with one wood double hung window, or two, slightly narrower double hung windows. Correct proportion to the dormer is critical here. 5~ Narrow trim (shadow) board should be added to the gable fascia (lx3" recommended). tj :rj'AL,4,4 C ASS,1121Â£%4. 10 59*44g b .14. ,4.4Ut~~ 4,1.NIANd'fi -3 ut-i.-- 129Â£0<' r 0.--6,-lct-rd't- /9--1 .C râ‚¬-'' _6/v-][AL.Lt.6.Lt.4 L .--,L/' ct--' Flâ€¢'1*-L., \ 2.,03, 5. STAFF SUMMARY: Although staff 'finds the,/2 nd floor addition, window shape and type, roof pitch and double two-story bay windows out of scale and character with the (previous) historic cottage and the adjacent historic cottages, the sub-committee's suggestions are reasonable. The facade sketch (no scale indicated) submitted does not present a clear picture, although, it is obvious that the applicant has addressed the spirit of the modifications proposed by the sub-committee. The sub-committee did not focus on the rear elevation/gambrel roof form as a particular concern. A gambrel roof is not in keeping with the traditional roof form character of the Aspen community, however, the sub-committee felt that this is the least visible portion of the structure and have recommended no changes here. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Conceptual Development approval for the proposal at 940 Matchless Drive, with the following conditions to be met at Final Development approval and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy: 2 1) Final Development plans shall be professionally drawn, to scale, with details clearly defined and all materials called out. 2) The applicant shall submit detailed drawings of the front porch for approval, including columns, stoop, door, and materials. 3) The applicant shall submit details of the two-story bay window for approval, including materials, details, trim, brackets, and windows. The HPC shall determine if the bay windows are more appropriate as double hung rather than fixed pane, as proposed, and shall make this recommendation to the applicant at this meeting. 4) The facade dormer window shall be changed to one, narrow double hung window, which fits proportionately under the dormer eaves. 5) Fascia trim shall be included, as suggested in the sub- committee's report stated in this memo. 6) A landscaping/site plan shall be submitted memo.hpc.940md.2 3 ~atÂ·34., 1 To: Roxanne [flin 11/27/89 Aspen-Pitkin Planning Office 130 S, Galena Aspen, CO 81611 FAX 303-920-5198 From: Mr. & Mr5. William G. Peterson Christine Haas Dear Roxanne: With regard to our telephone conversot ion this afternoon pertaining lo the two-,tory structure ot 910 Motchless Drive, we would like to go on record objecting to this structure built by Joseph Dunn. It ' 3 3 i ze and scole ore totol ly incompot ible with the Uictorion homes adjocent to it. This new structure is out of synch with the area and thus detracts from the Uictorian charm and atmosphere created by the already existing homes. We deeply regret und oppose the fact thot this structure was allowed to be built using o very incongruous style of architecture with regard to the adjacent homes. Sincerely, Mr. & Mrs. Williom 6, Peterson Christine Hoos 920 Matchie53 Drive 930 Motchle55 Drive Aspen, Co. 81611 Aspen, CO, 81611 i i 0 6 i \# - 1, it. 4- 11 V j 1 i - ~_2'AAWK ! ,1 ,. I j O Y ' CltiA/3 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: 17 Queen Street - On-site Relocation and Redevelopment Public Hearing Continued Date: November 29, 1989 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual Development approval for the on- site relocation of the historic cottage and the redevelopment of the parcel to include a new residential structure. The relocation plan is a revision of the original submittal, which requested demolition approval for the historic cottage. 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 October 25, to allow the applicant time to revise the proposal and report back to the committee on what action they will be requesting. At the continued public hearing on October 25, the applicant requested action be tabled one additional time, to November 29, to allow the architect additional time to develop the revised proposal. The HPC voted unanimously to continue the hearing to November 29. ADDITIONAL ON-SITE REVIEWS: Staff met on-site with Bill Bailey (Bailey House Movers) and Steve Peightal of Theodore Guy Associates (Structural Engineers) in the middle of October to initially review the steps necessary to insure a successful on- site relocation. A letter from the structural engineer is enclosed in this packet outlining the relocation issues. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The revised information attached for your review includes the following: Conceptual elevations for both structures Floor plan for both structures Architect's narrative Letter from the structural engineer The Development Review Standards are found in Section 7-601(D). The applicable Guidelines are found in two sections: Residential .. Final Review. The setbacks and spacing appears appropriate. The parcel's unusual shape creates a narrow, long building envelope, requiring creative design solutions to fit the building into the topography, an important feature of this parcel. Height in relation to surrounding parcels and the cottage is an important criteria. It appears that the architect has kept the height relatively low, which is more compatible with the cottage. The architect's narrative addresses this Guideline in relation to breaking up the facade into smaller components to include facades that have similar widths and heights to those found elsewhere on the street. However, when reviewing the conceptual sketches, it appears that while the forms are articulated, the west elevation is one, long unbroken plane. This should be clarified at this meeting. On-site parking has not been addressed, and should be significantly minimized. The conceptual sketches of the proposed new construction are difficult to analyze when reviewing ornamentation, roof forms, fenestration and doors, ratios of solid to void, and materials. The Final Development application shall include detailed elevations, site and floor plans and a massing model. Standard 2. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: We find that the preservation of the historic cottage clearly meets this standard. However, when reviewing the conceptual sketches of the new construction in relation to the character Of this particular neighborhood, consistency is difficult. The character of this neighborhood may be described as eclectic, with a mixture of historic, old and new. As staff has stated above, a thorough analysis of how the new construction meets this Standard cannot yet be determined by the Planning Office. Standard 3. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: We find that the preservation and renovation of the cottage will greatly enhance the cultural value of the parcel, and commend the applicant for their interest in this project. Standard 4. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Our concerns are focused on the necessary steps to 3 Renovation and Residential - New Construction (beginning on page 47.) The Standards for Relocation are found in Section 7-602(D). Standard 1. The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels with the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Response: An application for landmark designation has been submitted by the applicant at this time. Cottage: We find that the restoration/renovation plans for the historic cottage meet this Standard. The orientation to Neal St. has been preserved. The spacing pattern between the old and new appears compatible. The new siting for the cottage appears to be ideal alternative. To preserve as much of the clustered setting as possible, we recommend that the applicant consider relocating the outbuildings (or at least one) to the vicinity of the new site. The applicant has not addressed fencing or landscaping in the application, which staff recommends be submitted for Final review. On-site parking must be addressed in the site plan as well. Materials must also be fully described. We recommend a wood shingle roof for the cottage, with the alternative of metal over shallower pitches (i.e. porch). The existing materials must be preserved (as opposed to removed and replaced) where ever possible, particularly the windows and the porch. The Final Development application shall contain detailed preservation and restoration plans for the cottage, including the porch columns, chimneys, etc. Although the HPC has no purview over color, the Final Development application shall also address paint as a material. Staff will discuss the relocation activity in its relation to the Standards in Section 7-602(D) below. New Construction: The Guidelines state: "Creative design expressions of modern design solutions are sought, rather than recreations of 19th century architecture". We find that this proposal certainly addresses this statement. The challenge for the applicant, designer and the HPC is to insure that it remains compatible with the cottage, yet speaks to its own time. Landscaping will be a very critical element of compatibility. The two distinctively different architectural styles can be separated yet linked with effective and innovative landscaping design solutions. We recommend a detailed landscape plan for 2 insure a successful relocation, and the preservation and restoration of the historic cottage. The architect's narrative stated a "systematic dismantling and reconstruction" would be necessary. This is not the case, as previously agreed upon by the HPC and applicant. Please review the letter from Theodore Guv, Structural Engineer, attached. The following issues must be clarified: 1. Demolition of porch elements 2. Demolition of chimney 3. Demolition on rear additions 4. Excavation plan The Standards for Review of Relocation are found in Section 7- 602(D)1-5. Staff finds the application has met these standards, however, per Standard D.4, a bond is required to be posted with the Engineering Department, to "insure the sale relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant conceptual development approval for the proposal, subject to the following conditions to be met at Final Development Review: 1. Detailed elevations, site, floor and landscaping plans shall be submitted and approved, calling out all materials 2. Detailed preservation plan for the cottage be submitted and approved. All original materials shall be preserved where possible; restoration shall only occur when material is found to be too badly deteriorated. Documentary photographs and measured drawing shall be submitted. All elements and materials to be repaired, replaced, removed, restored or preserved are to be discussed. Removal of porch and chimney shall be carefully done; porch columns shall be preserved, (as well as other details as noted above); porch shall be restored. Foundation information shall be submitted. 3. Relocation time frame and physical move details shall be clarified. Excavation plan and general information shall be included. Staff recommends the applicant consider relocating at least one outbuilding to cluster with the cottage to strengthen context. 4. All other site improvements, such as fencing, shall be 4 .. addressed and detailed. 5. A massing model shall be submitted for Committee review and approval. 6. On-site parking shall be clarified, as well as garage/drive orientation and egress. 7. All variations shall be specifically requested in writing. Note: A condition of Final will be the bond posting as described in Section 7-602(D)(4). Final Development review cannot take place until the Landmark Designation process is complete. memo.hpc.17qs.2 5 , MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Landmark Designation: 17 Queen Street Date: November 29, 1989 LOCATION: 17 Queen Street APPLICANT: Henry and Lana Trettin APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Landmark Designation for the entire parcel on which the c. 1890 cottage is located in order to take advantage of the FAR variation incentive. A $2,000 designation grant is also requested. HISTORIC EVALUATION RATING: " 4 " 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 the criteria in Standard F. (Community Character). Standard F. Community Character: The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: The 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. This residential structure is (' L a good representation of a typical Aspen Victorian-era miner's cottage." STAFF COMMENTS: This is the first time the HPC would be recommending landmark designation for a parcel which will be predominated with new construction. Staff has met with Assistant Planning Director, Tom Baker, to discuss this in relation to the variations requested. We feel that it is appropriate to recommend designation for the parcel, provided that the incentive benefits focus on the historic resource. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC recommend Landmark Designation for the entire parcel commonly known as 17 Queen Street. memo.hpc.17Q.LD 2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 29, 1989 3) The applicant shall submit details of the two story bay window for approval including materials, details, trim brackets and windows. 4) Facade dormer window shall be restudied to increase its apparent verticality. 5) Fascia trim shall be included in detail as suggested in the sub-committee's report. 6) Landscaping site plan shall be submitted with the final development plans. 7) Three windows to the east of the first floor entry shall be restudied in an effort to increase their apparent verticality. Georgeann second. VOTE: No, Les. Yes, Bill, Georgeann, Joe,a Chris, Don, Glenn. Chairman closed public hearing. Glenn will be monitor of the project. 17 QUEEN STREET - RELOCATION & CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT Chairman opened public hearing. Roxanne: The applicant has also submitted an application for landmark designation. This will enable them the flexibility that they need on the parcel to relocate the miners cottage and not have the FAR impacted. Staff's recommendation for conceptual includes a more clearly defined plan (see attached records memo dated November 29, 1989). Anthony Pellecchia, architect: The idea came from the need to retain the historic structure, be compatible but contemporary. The wall or facade on the west side will be a combination of concrete/gray sandstone or masonry wall with stucco/sandstone. The idea of the facade is for it to be sensuous to texture and scale and inviting. We responded to the character of the street and the collection of building elements. The square footage of the house is 5755 below the allowable. The porches penetrate into the setback zone and one of our rationale is the relationship a porch has to the curb line and the street. Lennie Oates: We will be asking for a variance for the porch. Queen street will be used as the front yard. 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 29, 1989 Roxanne: The entire porch encroached into the setback. Georgeann: Do you have enough space in back so you could pull the building back to avoid getting the variation. Anthony: The structure is also on the setback line. Don: In the plan you indicate linkage between the new construction and the existing structure but on the model you don't. I would like to see that carried out because the linkage between the two is important and should be subtle. Anthony: That will be refined in the landscape plan. Lennie Oates, attorney: In terms of the use of the historic structure at the last meeting it was our intention to use that as an accessory structure. It may be that as things develop we may want to utilize that as a residential purpose. We made a commitment to keep the primary structure but the other out buildings are available if someone wants them. We are going to have six bedrooms and will need six parking spaces. Georgeann: I have concern that the building get minimum utilities for preservation. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Glenn: Making the little building a viable part of the plan is important. The placement of the new house at the top of the hill is appropriate. There is a certain relaxed quality of the site plan, the way the buildings are spaced and if the porch variance is crucial I would favor it. Les: I would like to see a little more commitment to the old house. Don: It is a clear and simple scheme and all the units have their own identity and the massing is nice also. Anthony: The house and materials are not ostentatious, relatively simple. Joe: The applicant should be applauded for saving the historic structure and the design is very appropriate. Bill: I am encouraged by the proposal. The pavilion approach is the correct one and you do connect all the scale of that is going on in the neighborhood. I would recommend that it not get 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 29, 1989 too bold, its contemporary nature in itself is going to be a bold statement. I would like to see that somehow the older house is connected through materials and colors and be tied together because you are making a statement of an older house and a very contemporary house. If it is soft and quiet it will come off that way and the landscaping will tie it together. I would also be supportive the variations they are requesting. Roxanne: My question to the Committee is the garage and the entrance to it. The majority of the house is on Neal Street. Bill: This is a contemporary solution and there will be a courtyard effect that works with the contemporary nature of the design. Bill: For the record the Committee is in agreement that it meets the standards outlined in the memo. Chairman closed the public hearing. MOTION: Joe made the motion to grant conceptual approval for 17 Queen Street subject to the recommendations set forth in Nov. 29th memo (see records). Georgeann second. All approved. LANDMARK DESIGNATION 17 QUEEN STREET MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to recommend Landmark Designation for the entire parcel of 17 Queen Street. Joe second. All approved. WEBER BLOCK-NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION - PUBLIC HEARING ELKS BUILDING Chairman opened public hearing. Chairman closed public hearing. Roxanne: The windows will be redone. Board in favor of national nomination of Weber Block. COMMUNICATIONS Joe: I am monitoring 220 E. Main and I am requesting an architect from the Board to assist me in determining if they are building according to what we approved. Bill will assist monitoring 220 E. Main. 9 $ I MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Schedule of HPC meetings for 1990 Date: November 29, 1989 Please note your 1990 calenders for HPC meetings on the following dates: (2nd & 4th Wednesdays of the month) January 10 January 24 February 14 February 28 March 14 March 28 April 11 April 25 May 9 May 23 June 13 June 27 July 11 July 25 August 8 August 22 September 12 September 26 October 10 (conflicts with Nat'l Trust conference) October 24 November 14 November 28 December 12 December 19 (to be moved from December 26) hpc.meetings.1990 . 1 NATIONAL CENTER FOR PRESERVATION LAW 1015 31ST STREET, N.W. 0 SUITE 400 0 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20007 0 (202) 838-0392 ~HEM IDENT EXECUTIVE DIRECTIH }'Al'I, F, >1(21)oNot-CH. JN.. ESQ. STEPHEN N. DENNIS. Lbo. PREWERVATION LATV UPDATE 1938-39 October 2, 1989 Virginia Trial Court Holds Applicant Bound by Zoning Change Which Added Parcel to Historic District Prior to Demolition An issue which must arise with some frequency in cities and small towns involves the enlargement of a local historic district and a property owner who owns property originally outside the district. Often, such an owner had developed plans for a structure on the property which had not been carried out prior to the addition of the property to the district. Must the owner change his plans to conform to new requirements imposed by the inclusion of his property within the historic district? A Virginia trial court has ruled in Abingdon Internal 4 Medicine v. Town of Abingdon (decided October 21, 1988) that an .,N,j owner who had sought to develop a lot across the street from its professional offices for offstreet parking is bound by the requirement that it request a certificate of appropriateness from the local Board of Architectural Review even though the property had not originally been within the district. The owner requested in April 1987 a certificate of occupancy to permit it to use the parcel for offstreet parking. The town Zoning Administrator did not believe current zoning permitted offstreet parking at the location, and denied the certificate. The owner appealed this decision to the local Board of Zoning Appeals, which reversed the administrator's decision. Nearby property owners appealed the board's decision to the local circuit court, however, and the trial court eventually affirmed the board's decision and entered an order in December 1987: Neither the Zoning Administrator nor the Board of Zoning Appeals nor the court was presented or dealt with the issue of the propriety of razing the house although it was apparent that was an option being considered by petitioner. In early February 1988, the Town of Abingdon expanded its Old and Historic District to include the property. The Zoning Administrator had previously returned to the owner his preliminary site plans and "noted several revisions that needed 9 to be made to the preliminary plans": THE "PIESE=VATION LAW UPDATE" SERIES IN MADE POSSIBLE IN PART BY A GRANT FROM THE J. M. KAPLAN FUND. IAND USE APPLICAEON FOIM 1) Pmject Name Trettin Residence 2) Project Locatian 17 Queen Street, Aspen, Colorado, legally described as Parcel I of the Boundary Agreement Plat thereot recorded in Flat dook 13 aL Page 30 uf Llil-LLU ls of Pitkin County, Colorado C inlicate street address, lot & block mmber, legal description wkiere appropriate) R-15A 3) Present Zoning 4) Lot Size 24,000+ sq. ft. 5) Applicant's Namp, Address & phone # Henry & Lana Trettin, 777 Faraway Road, Snowmass Village, CO 81615 (303) 923-2171 6) Represerrtative's Name, Address & Phone # Oates, Hughes & Knezevich, P.C., 533 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 920-1700 7) Type of Applicatian (please check all that apply): - Coniitional Use - Conceptual SPA - Conceptlal Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA X Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline - Conceptual POD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final IMID Historic Demolition Mourrtain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation - Cor*Eminiumization kxt/Map AnÂ»rrir-It - (NOS Allotment Iat Split,/Iot Line - GUS Deuption Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structllres; approximate sq. ft. ; r,-mber of bedroans; any previous approvals granted to the property). Existing historic single-family residence of 9001 sq. ft. to be relocated on site. (See attached Site Plan.) Application for landmark designation of site and historic demolition pending. 9) Descriptian of Develormprrt Application In addition to relocation of portion of historic structure on site, Applicant proposes to construct a new 5,800 + sq. ft. residence on Lhe slle Lu be used a~ LIi=1Â£ fautily home per the redevelopment plan s-hmitted herewith 10) Have you attached the following? Yes Response to Attachment 2, Minimm Submission Contents* Yes Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Colltents I Yes Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application *The Minimum Submission Contents were provided as a part of the Historic Demolition Application. PELLECCHIA OLSON AKCHITECTS November 18, 1989 Historic Preservation Committee Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Sirs: Enclosed you will find a letter from Stephen Peightal, P.E., of Theodore K. Guy Associates, P.C., outlining the necessary steps to be followed for bracing and moving the existing miner's shack at 17 Queen Street. We submit this letter as a preliminary performance specification to ensure a successful operation. Accurate measured as built drawings will be prepared as part of the Building Permit process upon approval of the historic development application. ~flfe~ ly"I! Geoffrey #Fils *fp GH/lh Enclosures A Professional Corporation 1442 Market Street Denver, Colorado 80202 303 534-4114 PELLECCHIA OLSON ARCHITECTS November 18, 1989 TRETTIN RESIDENCE Responses to Specific Requirements for a Final Development Plan for a Significant Development to a Historic Landmark or in a Historic Overlay District (Attachment 3b). Requirement 1: "A written description of the proposed development. " This project consists of two parts. The first part is the systematic dismantling and reconstruction of the historically significant portion of an existing miner's shack on the subject property. The structure will be moved to a new foundation located on the northwest corner of the property near the intersection of Neal and King Streets. The second part of the project is the construction of a new single family residence of approximately 5800 square feet. Requirement 2: "An accurate representation of all major building materials, such as samples and photographs, to be used for the proposed development." The SE materials will be described at the committee meeting on 29 November, 1989. Requirement 3: "Scale drawings of the proposed development in relation to any existing structure." Please see attached location map, site plan, and Neal Avenue elevation. Requirement 4: "A statement of the effect of the details of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structure (if applicable) and character of the neighborhood." The restoration of the existing miner's shack will be a dramatic improvement from its current dilapidated condition. The scale and massing of the new house has been designed to reflect a collection of smaller building types and to not overwhelm the original structure. The shapes of the new house are fully in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Requirement 5: "A statement of how the f inal development plan conforns to the representations made during the conceptual review and responds to any conditions placed thereon." In a spirit of cooperation with the HPC and the community as a whole, the Owner has reconsidered total demolition of the miner's shack and is now proposing to relocate the building to a new foundation on the property and to restore the significant original portions of structure. A Professional Corporation 1442 Market Street Denver, Colorado 80202 303 534-4114 Page Two In addition, the Owner has filed with the City Council a Request for Historic Designation of the structure (3 November 1989). This response satisfies the need for preservation and maintenance (long overdue) of vernacular structures within the City of Aspen and the need for some continuity of context within individual neighborhoods. The new house, while fully realizing square footage areas allowable by right from the zoning regulations, consciously minimizes its bulk by maintaining a stepped, predominantly one-story configuration and adopting the typology of a linked collection of small, rural building shapes separated by courtyards. THEODORE K GUY 1SOCIATES PC , ~ ARCHITECTS AND STAL URAL ENGINEERS October 24, 1989 Leonard M. Oates Oates, Hughes & Knezevlch, PC 533 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Trettin Investigation 17 Queen Street - Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Oates: At your request I met, at the above referenced sile, with yourself, Bill Bailey of Bailey House Movers, and Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner. The purpose of this letter is to ouUine a proposed approach to moving the existing -miners- cabin. Please refer to my structural observation letter of June 26, 1989. As mentioned in my previous letter, the two sections forming a -T" shape is recommended as the original dwelling to be moved. Due to the unusual construcUon of non-stud walls, extensive reinforcement will be required to survive the moving process. The first rcommendation is lo have the existing structure properly documented as to detail and construction. This Includes a photography and recording field measurements. A builder retained by the owner will need to access the dwellIng to open several areas of floor, ceiling and walls to observe and record condition. At the owner's direction, our office can document the dwelling and work with the builder to prepare for moving. The approach to preparing for and moving this dwelling are proposed as follows: 1. Document existing T - shape massing. 2. Builder to open sections for observation of frame condition. 3. Engineer to detail required reinforcement work. 4. Builder to demollsh east kitchen unit, north storage unit, and lwo porch elements and the deck. The north grade will need to be excavated down to 18 inches below the rloor level, for approximately 4 foot width. The mover will need access to all sides of the -T- shape. 5. Builder to perform reinforcing work as detailed by Engineer. This may Include adding studs to Interior of all walls, and sheathIng completely with 1/2 Inch plywood panels. Depending on findings, this plywood sheathing may be added dlrecUy to the Interior walls without added sluds. A lIght screw pattern will be required. Also interior cross bracing will be required to make the dwelling rigid. It Is also anticipated that wood rot will be found at the north end of noor joisls. If found. floor sheathing will need to be removed al those areas and floor jolsls reinforced with spliced 2X or microlam lumber. Stiff rim joisls or added beams at the interior base of walls will be required. Il is ach/ised that the existing masonry chimney be demolished for removal. 23280 STATE HIV'VAY 82 PO BOX 1640 BASALT. COLORADO 81621 13031 927-3167 I ./ Trettin Investigation October 24, 1989 Page 2 6. A new foundation, located by the owner's Architect and designed by the owner's Engineer. will need to be constructed by the Builder. It is my understanding this is to be located up the hill at the north end. The site will need to be cut down north of the well, at the road, to allow access on to the site without Interference from the overhead power lines. 7. The mover will lben knock access holes in the foundation to place steel beams just inside and parallel to foundation walls. The crawlspace may be so shallow as to require hand digging to place these steel beams. Seasonal impact on the movers work needs to be understood. Snow and frozen ground will interfere with this work. Sheltered areas such as the north side will hold snow and frost after the rest of the site has lost surface snow. Flexibility for timing will be required. 8. Structure will be lifted with five beams spanning north to south. Two additional beams will be placed below these, and spanning east to west. The structure will be moved west onto the road, north up the hill, and east onto the new foundation. 9. The front porch element. on the west side, will then be restored or rebuilt as necessary to place back onto the moved dwelling. This entails a recommended approach to moving the structure. Should you have any additional questions, please call my office. Sincerely, +Efj~ Stephen K. Peightal PE THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC SKP/Pnp 89536 L2 cc: Lana Trettin Ralph Braden