The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19891220AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE December 20, 1989 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM City Hall 5:00 I. Roll call II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:10 A. Conceptual Redevelopment - Public Hearing 624 E. Hopkins 6:00 B. Final Development extensions - 334 W. Mopkins e=,--4JJ-I-#- TAL 6- __ A A.~ - ;vi.AL u/84 V. NEW BUSINESS 6:15 A. Minor Development - RFTA Bus Shelter 100 Block E. Main 21 i)(\Lu oill -- //1 /1 li 3 6:30 B. Pre-application - 127 E. Hallam Communications: Project Monitoring ADJOURN by 7:00 p.m. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: 624 E. Hopkins, Conceptual Redevelopment, Public Hearing Date: December 20, 1989 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual approval for the redevelopment proposal for the property at 624 E. Hopkins St. PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: At a special meeting (continued public hearing) held on November 1, the HPC approved the demolition of the miner's cottage at 624 E. Hopkins, conditional upon the approval of the redevelopment plans. Also, during the HPC meeting of December 13, Lane Ittelson, visiting State Historic Preservation Architect, voiced some of his thoughts regarding the infill on this particular parcel. His primary focus was on the difficulty the HPC would have in reviewing a new townhome within this eclectic context. He suggested that until specific guidelines or review standards were created to deal with new townhome construction within the community, that committee's task would be difficult and subjective at best. He stated that he felt general architectural review for the city as a whole would not be a bad thing, and that the HPC may want to begin developing such standards, possibly using this project as a test case. SUMMARY: The applicant ha[s submitted revised plans based on HPC member comment, for the redevelopment of the site. The proposal requests approval for new construction only, and does not incorporate any portion of the historic cottage. The new design also does not attempt to replicate the front portion of the cottage as an entrance feature, as previously proposed. The single-family townhome is three stories, with above grade square footage at 2,820. STAFF COMMENTS: We find the general mass, height, scale and roof forms generally appropriate in this context. The location on the site preserves the two existing large trees and provides some greenspace visible from the sidewalk. The open fence proposed will not block the view of open space; an entry gate is proposed at the sidewalk. All landscaping features should be considered carefully, and presented to the HPC at Final review. The principal facade element is the two story curved, engaged "bay", with open air deck accessed from the third floor. We are recommending a restudy of this element for reduction purposes, in an attempt to lessen its dominance, and enhance the vertical fenestration features. The conceptual elevations vaguely indicate vertical features, which we feel are very important to accentuate in this infill design. We are requiring a significantly more detailed east elevation, and a north elevation, be submitted for Final review. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following actions: 1. Conceptual approval for the redevelopment proposal as submitted 2. Conceptual approval for the redevelopment proposal with conditions 3. Table action, finding that the applicant needs additional time to further study the proposal 4. Deny conceptual approval, finding the proposal does not meet the standards. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Office recommends conceptual approval for the redevelopment proposal at 624 E. Hopkins Street, with the following conditions: 1. Detailed elevations, site plan and landscape plan be submitted, indicating materials, exact fencing and entryway treatments, external lighting if any. ~~. Facade "bay" feature shall be restudied for reduction purposes 434'Â»7 97 c~3. Exact inaterials shall be presented at Final review, including fencing materials ~ 4. A detail of the lower level terraced light well area shall be submitted for Final review. The Planning Office further recommends that the HPC take the opportunity to use this redevelopment review to develop general guidelines for new townhome construction, both within a historic context and in predominately non-historic neighborhoods. These guidelines should provide guidance for architectural compatibility while encouraging creative infill design. The Planning Office also requests that staff, in conjunction with the Aspen Historic Trust, be allowed the opportunity to coordinate a relocation of the existing miner's cottage, without expense to or time delay for the current or proposed owner. memo.hpc.624eh.4 N , 9-1-f e wic 6 -7 A a 01 1-#1 ~<4 e 0 -7 6 2 \L- 111 4 â‚¬Â« 9Â«j f.1 / ATmaIMINr 1 f. LAND USE APPLICATION BORM 1) Project Name Altfeld Residence 2) Project location _624 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO. Lot Q and the West 1/2 of lot_B, Rlork 98, City and Tnwnsite nf Acppn (indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning C-1 Commprrp 4) Lot Size 4 500 qq. ft. 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # Philip anrl Mariann Altfeld p.0. Box 9170, Acppn, Cn A1612 (303)925-2082 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # Charles Cinniffp & Aggnriatpq/Arrhitects 520 E. Hyman Avenue. Aspen, CO 81611 (303)925-5590 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use -- Conceptual SPA X Conceptual Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline - Conceptual IUD Minor Historic Dev. 1 Stream Margin Final FUD Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designatian Condaniniumization Text/Map Amer*lment GW Allatment Lot Split/Lot Line Exe'Intion Adjustinent 8) Description of Ekisting Uses Â· (ramber and type of existing structures; approximate sq. ft.; nImber of bedrocms; any previous approvals granted to the property). At the H.P.C. meeting of November 8, 1989, Demolition approval was given for the existing structure pursuant to eventual approval of the redevelopment plan. 9) Description of Development Application Proposed with this application is a new 3 story residential building with full basement. The F.A.R. is 2820 Sq. Ft. 10) Have you attached the follcwing? x Response to Attachment 2, Minimmt Submission COI'Itents X Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application ,lllll \ ATTACHMENT 2 1. Refer to Demolition Application dated Sept. 1, 1989. 2. Refer to Question #2 Attachment #1. 3. Refer to Demolition Application dated Sept. 1, 1989. 4. Refer to Demolition Application dated Sept. 1, 1989. 5. The proposed development is in compliance with the review standards for development in the historic overlay district. The structure relates in mass and in setback to the neighboring buildings. It borrows its roof forms from the cottages across the street and from other buildings in the downtown area. With materials of brick and sandstone and a standing seam metal roof, it is consistent with the neighborhood character. ATTACHMENT 3a 1. Refer to the drawings submitted. 2. The building proposed would have a standing seam metal roof along with built-up roofing having gravel balast. The exterior surface would be brick with possible sandstone at banding, window heads, and sills. The windows would have painted wood sash. An entry gate and metal fence would define the building entrance. 3. The neighborhood in which this building is proposed to be built has been severely impacted in the past by development which has had little or no regard for adjacent buildings, this neighborhood or Aspen. In this context, it is most difficult to derive an architectural form which relates well to these items and is still able to stand by itself as good architecture. The building we propose derives 'its form from other buildings in town with its roofs relating to the cottages across the street. The exterior as brick, is in keeping with other similar structures in size. Brick also relates with the masonry existing on the adjacent structures. The design succeeds in bringing the mass of the three story buildings on the block down to two stories at the corner and also succeeds in minimizing this block-long impact to the one story cottages across the street and the adjacent multi- family neighborhood. We feel this proposed project will enhance the neighborhood and will be an excellent addition to the architecture of Aspen. / j/ :, LJ . I. ' .1 ---4.-ff-62414-444 VAI +2=jj-~Â·j Li 1 11\" caka 4 & 1 -- '71- - lit-,11 -1 Â· -/ 2- %15311:noor_. 4 11--- 1, , 1 2$ - ; ./21/21-22= -I\% -K.t~= 1 1 1 - 1 . =0 1 \ - 1 . 1- - 1 \ - ---1 - - 1 1 1 1 k 1. liux - 4(24=b Â·Â«=6*r-- I:uu. :-- i.. ,-,C~~1~Â·Ll-~ ' ~~t--1-1#4.;444-14, ~ ..-- -- -- 1 - , 11 11 j----Â·---11- .3-,-2. 1[4-Ii ..1.....tr--rr--_.-- '<' orÂ£612 - ..4 a.â€¢ u t f--p--ps,r J f . BASE EL[vATION 5 TUD Â¥ SC.+LE 4 //6 0 = IC ou f 1 L 1 li -29- 1 1 1 , \ 2 .-~ Â·'#7~.042 Ar j 9 -23.-9. -444*ff m . 312 \ 194Â»4 5 1 Â¥ V .4.1 ./-3.~= -9 - I - -,4 4.. '1, 1 4 11 < I J\,r 1 + 11 ...4 -1 . 9 ' ' .-. .1 614 1 1 1 -P.. 11 1 L Â·Â·tiv/1 + 4.'.iR /1, Ir- 1- 61 11 J / \rÂ«,2 1 1! j 1 ! 1 --.-EXT sTK"r. . . P- W // -=*--- [Hor IUM 2~91131 10 Lic<FECPT* 3.-49.4 =/Ill- A /3~- PfÂ·Â·596!140,1~ W>[>H 5'icr- j ) lit *Â· L.]_2~ LiT MASTEb--El ;TE 11 71 r - .f'l 0 .1/ 1 0 R.\ / fi 629 ': 4 1/ \ 1 4 t coN p FLo o F 4 145 6 Q. pr Â»144+1Â« *Â®11111}11}t I 1 .r --I .. 1 1 b .k -P g i U --9 NES-- 7 -1 r 1 0 -1 L - I O 7 7 1 7 0 Â¢ 11Â«21- ' -Yl 31 4-ITÂ®- 1 - CP # \Â§ \1 i I ,4/ . /-â‚¬35"-U- ?<L . reâ€¢.\ +11; r u, , 1 1 01 -..243<41? /~43>~t / 2.11 -1 i Â· 1 // 1\\ 4Â«2:33*4//Vir-2,- -- Y --'----4- -52:*A,X . 159480 Â¥ 1 1 W u=~ 0 7 4 E 66 T ti, O F E-1 NS h Vt , CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS R 0; .8 211 12- E PEN/El-OPMENT PLAN '3 ~m D 6 5FEN . COLOF-AD O P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 /9/1 Â· 3-1409 4 3.LVC] E.EVIS,ON . r &2599,2 litiL# Ai',T th:-2 ~~ ~-'~-~ \7-*-34367 NAZ*/LÂ·.4-5- ~ -----IXâ€¢41 f AÂ»C=>-1--- - - .- - . -- & .' f T 4 TAI S --791%7-9 EN=*SE218*#6 / 0, rfet; 144:* - C Pa M.K I N 4 ,/ 12 111 1 buTO<79. -Â·--- F NOf. L INE- 5 " h V' pe - --lig Ill-* - --i.- -- 1 - - ---WALE- (4 b ?06\ B -4 - !01 Â¢ h J 4- 4 1rf] f] --1 0- -4 *-Â·'Â·Â· ---u,Â· T E-hh-=L p i G 1 /' 1-1(1 MT WELL 11 - ' Mep ...jzzlzd--*-- S1| 2 10 &2 0 --~ ~~ m,TA *llr#- 1 ' 1 - 114\ 52 6 5 , -7 799 //,6 1 Â«I $2 --Be L EN Ti,T /> / ul- -Z. -13 37 \ -2.-4 >40 4 _1 Z 2 z 1 0- .,1 ; OI 1/ 1 :~th\ 6 P R IN A er 7---Â« F b Â°tÂ· 19 Lp 01Â· I D- O h 9 f/11 -4 S w T Ar wrL A---- f -\.11 e J Vt , L- #-1 <,r-2 - 1 111 p Z. #9 \ 1 /4 F >oNT Â·eM) 9 -.(44Â« 1 .+1 41 ft \1 4 ix.~- 71\ K ./ / 1 44\~lf 4- 8 0- M // ~ 4/ (A 1-lfi--7- i \>~ M T L ' 5- 14,5- t. -t, - '%44:a~11/ e OL < 0 0 a It A. 4 \ 1\ 7 t. clUV'0'1 Ho f 1%Â·11.16 C'T l,IC)10 w,~1<4 - CDRAWING 9-VI,LD DEC - 8 CoNCt,pTUAL -Â£]e NO 6110 DATE 11Â· 6 69 Q SOU N D F L 00 f- 4 1~,1 Â¢,G.Fr. (600 Â¢ Ct>Hte.)Â·._ _ SCALL Â· 1/E" . 1,-6'- ~1 9â‚¬ET NO. 51031]HZ)21V/SaLVE)OSSV Â¥ 333!NNnJ 0-UM-D 0655-526/EOE 3NOHd3131 21918 OCM10-10 3 'N3dSV 01,GE XO8 -Od Od../ G OlDO ' 7%432//Ettt=E 99//fl A \ \\\X>\ . 'Al,l / 1 , , 1 PLP AM, - : 14/1 C 64 LK UNPCY 1 li ' 2.8 F .0 'A L 2 5 1 -4 7 -- ~ 9 r 0 0 N p r Le - D/ ' == 3*40 SEÂ· co HP flh m 9 51[ 1= T M 1 A D P .4 - c T Â·Â·Â· L 1-m 233 1 . ~~~ ,plia. At, 00. 56 MILY KM - L D b FL LyA HT w - L' , I ---Ir - 2/-1 DE PAM. 3/f//7 ~ -31 t___~ Fill . -~74 â€¢/ 4,/ . :- 'l 0 til'' .4, 1 4 ) 31 , 1517 E- 4/ t\ < :'- N \ 14 71' ~ 66Â£ M LNT floot * 2 8 1 0 9 0 FT -- SOALK - 1 /8 ' - :f. 0 11 mzzr 6, MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: 334 W. Hallam St. - Extension of Final Development Approval Date: December 20, 1989 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting an extension approval for the Final Development of 334 W. Hallam St., Phase II. Phase I included the carriage house, which has been completed. Building permits must be pulled within 14 months of a Final Development approval, unless the property' owner vests his/her rights. HPC approval for the Final Development extension is necessary as Final was granted in June, 1988. STAFFS COMMENTS: No exterior changes are proposed; the additions that were originally approved remain the same. A full basement is now in the program, which staff is requiring a letter of guarantee on, and complete information from the excavation company on the details of the temporary supports for the house during the process. The basement will be used for storage, therefore, no light wells are proposed. Staff has cautioned the applicant's architect on any future inclusion of light wells anywhere along the perimeter of the original historic building. Since the applicant last received Final Development approval for the exterior changes to the house, the technical level of review of such projects has increased with both the HPC and staff. With that in mind, staff brings to the HPC's attention the west elevation of the addition. We found in our initial review that the second floor bay and ,side entrance were competing elements, and should be substantially reduced or eliminated. The Guidelines are specific in requiring the original facade remain the focus of the building. We feel that the large bay window on the west elevation in conjunction with the entrance below warrants further study. NOTE: The "Eugene Wilder" house is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Staff continues to encourage the property owner to consent to honorific listing. No additional criteria or restrictions are placed upon a property owner of a National Register property. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant approval for the extension of the Final Development approval for the property at 334 W. Hallam St., subject to staff's review and approval of a letter of guarantee and engineer's report on the basement excavation and temporary support structure for the building. We also recommend a restudy of. the west elevation ae_descxibed-aboye. meme.hpc.334wh - _22Â¢-ee=:7.:*C ~tryx -4.~ .t/ / r u DZ /4- ./Â»z~cyll,Â«r, L * 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN,COLORADO81611 TEL: (303) 925-4755 December 13, 1989 Roxanne Eflin Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office Historic Preservation Committee 130 S. Galena Aspen, Co 81611 RE: 334 W. Hallam Dear Roxanne, This letter is to request placement on the H.P.C. agenda for a review of the 334 W. Hallam Project. This project was previously granted final approval on June 14, 1988. We are asking that this approval be extended if it is in fact necessary to do so. I have been unable to locate mention of a time restriction i the Land Use Code. Regardless of that issue, we would like to get approval so we can submit for a building permit and start construction in the spring of 1990. The design of the project has not changed since previously reviewed. We also at this''time are requesting approval for a basement to be added under the existing structure. It would be completely subgrade so it would not affect square footage nor change the character of the project. Thank you. Sincerely, ' Got M:(41 6/Larry McKinzie NDK. 44 CATY Or heretj / 4 140 00' +1' w '00.00 ., 2 4 3-Ot.. , 9. r 64 h - S _[Il 1-Ill / $*W .luN#In la;trot 1 . ./ C r (10 -) 11 FEW N,PITIOâ€¢ 1 }trJ 11.44 tteuee i :t'Al/7 1 , M.1/ HOLâ€¢,6 \1+ \4 , 4 r =71 PHASE 2 -tj --~1~ 5 ,/ 1 ~,70,9 1 1 < cu~|~~~ ~ PHASE 2 L d . 1 . 7 01 4% = 1 3 11 11 C a 0 j CO 1-\1 1 11 41 ki-W Â»=1 --7 C I H M %, r. 100,60 I 11 , 11 ' .It 1-HIFP er,Bar 22\\1Â» -NORTH j H=yr-B: 6.,1** INFAÂ· fellÂ· TH;9 MAN /Â»- Fterl.....ff * .6-le 8.0,Â·ae 8,/Kfiâ€¢Je *0*7*,14. ' SITE PLAN A -It' 09' i ; w 193716 WV-le 1 0,*183%3Ms,%*518%10*:$**~egglits~~3#0*8%*3~38*,w#:8:%*85*1*wn:*AM#*21:*!044%3,&2*fjl*1Â· f f 1 116 1 Ki-",1 **'~'4:. 1 . Â£ . ' . 81 6 11 1 *17-FL%-- 17-- f. 11 '1 U l, 1 1 - ~1.L__.c, ABbREV IATI ONS 11 1 lu f 'PI - 1 - COCOMAT I fiT - SLATE T]LE , 4% M d _ CT - LIMMIC TILE Al i ~04 9/ I CPT - CARFET - . i, 63 1. 3.66'ED LIN '.4 L PGB - PAINTED GYP BOARD 1 .0;4,0Ng 4- H - 1 11 1 WD - wOOD ' Ft i ;7-- 77+7- --1 1 P , SC - SEALED CONCRETE - 0 , It. 1 1 / 1 1 V '23 Z.M 7. =fr.*V. 01 /4/77 1 m!47 I - <A- b d 1 N Oil J -2 M ~ AITLH#N/6/1,6 FE- 1 -1 FHASE 1 CARBAIGE HOUSE / ' i / 433 d - (COMPLETED]| t 1 -r 11 ---17-74-1 L - I. . ...4-*+_.D--41â€ž -_11 - E '-1 -P. 1221!1, A , I 'r'w'-01 h Ir, 1 1 'Pâ€¢ A=~--L 1 1 .~ ./ 1 r.un:. 11 7 1 47, , i ( 44,=ic- Â·,-v -...0 .,Cej Ut E Â¢.--. ='' ..i JI - - -- 4 1 . 41 ic.,O. -- 1 ~r aull 1 -rk -res _ ~ ~ of[--ILI 31 -- 89_Ty-1 1 28_7 ph'I"/Irtiltâ€¢Ir. .1 TTI ME_- EL , ~ 1 1 -"FU J Â¢66 PIN t -- k eÂ»-1 ELE' k. 1--- FTN Fl M ' AJ Â¥ELE'/ I fl:,wpot 4 (6 -1 -__ JQ -1- - 191-ElÂ·A==4 -~[, - 11!â‚¬.1 , 3 - 3 2-2, 1 -- 1 i B ' *-t -F' i rze-! lE-'1.4 - - ' .=*==EBEEI Fu__4[-~Â«_3 2 ---1, 1 -2 L " 4!j p. 0 777.r T I Â· 6 47Â· FL.>67Câ€¢ -1 I . Ae,V . 1 ~ ./ i ,Â·39 0-/ - --1 Â· AL . -< T ./El - -- 1 -ANS - 1 1 1 , X w.4Â£-4 1 ,& F -j g..1. JI--1 1 40.41 I - - - .,1.,9 I .-L I 49:lilli 1 7-9441 9'FLEV . -- I UED % 12 lili-,ZE , d 0 /1 2-â‚¬'__. _._ __._1 _ 7;â€¢6 _ 1 ..o __ __: 11,4 1 421 3.:1 O in 2 34'- I'/Z' i O DEC 20) .. 3 1/1,0-0,41. /0> -f- 1-- 1 Dy: 1-- -te- . " 44' 6.e-11- 1 + 'PHASe ble PHASE TWO G MAIN HOUâ‚¬,8 Imrm/Man/EXMA-AmmeMRN=Meekpi.#Nnew-* 23i=-Mq-M=-&:.W#&~**37 Â»:j=is.Â·Â·.,/Â· 42 2:4 >:iâ€¢E...p.p>,24i.tut*&32~:t:X9*y?Zin#im LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN v ---V~, I-.p .'".~1~~~". w.v.- 8.94** ***I:FI**42:4>ImikMmAr/*91./xÂ·:Â·*:Â·:Â·52*EQ<:3:*:i>*Â·Â·:Â·SAW:wi.:- 285:8*:B,&*f***6822Â·2%22421&:P.*aSk;03AGÂ©<S**ASI~>*RA* Â·Â·Â·Â·i =sp2a-2.Â£.1% 7F If 'Le ' la-1,1 GIl 1 . 1 ~ OUH//// /4/t /6,/'W -_.k__U--J- ~--- -F-- Ml 1 4- '.25221 [ 1 1[@11 1 NI 4 -f /2/ 1 -11 1 r - , MAe,TE,2. e,PIWOM L GUEeT eot,1. (214 t. R LE3 -R RE uer ~ b Â· ...2. A-6.-E.I. A. 71 =4Â· - 0 2/04.1.& 7. FKA,Â·GE. 't SI -v .4,<SL" Ms)/A=.6-- ~ 22* : I g â€¢+~.4..... 10 13 1 I B PHASE 1 A - CAAAIAGE HOUSE ' .4.::-Â» , It ./.9 - 1 '--__ -1 (COMPLETED) 1 k.r:'t / *~ v . 1 - Il 1 A..T<*71.1,*41 .11' -me XI:.If. K r--- ---- -- ~M bilf- 1 w, $ 4 - 2!b--*7-=7.-1 - 1 - U r . r . c r ,... -1 .4| 0.4 # '/3\.lin. 2.1 --9 ..11. 11 4 \.4 1 - .1 54- 3/J- f) a.Or =di FFE; KE, r F -- FINKDM tileT 1 6,4/. rr 0.1. ..64 + ~- 1, .=4.-9,10 1\ : ia, . PREODI N. â‚¬1 ----1 91 .41 1: 1 ' -O .1, UU , 0-Loy/T.V. PATH eutÂ¥'T XÂ®-1 r f./*-7/ 1 901 12= -' .fÂ¥- 0 6 56-w,1 99.0 r\,T u,or .1- /=9 -ta.- f47 1 ..ti. 7=1 1 ta*~Zl 't : 1 .. 41.101'IN f 5--- -fi'; ~ 4 H -' -i--+ 04 11, 1 31 3, 1 4'.60 k.pr 1 4,4,1-42QL.+T ~. / 1-1-7 1 k -Ir_- 1 4 4\ 11 1 1 J 0-. 1 I/' 0 J~ \ l . ; - . > I Â· / i. . 1 _- G. 1 41- -1. 66Â·.4 't Ifi I TV Â·,TE~20 /*/Er- â„¢OV,DE. CABLE 0/'-ET Dâ‚¬/ 4-ATED> Fowt/_,PÂ·â‚¬ AMD SPEAKER =EVVIFE SEE *vic. w.nor-1 . ' , ... 5..drl'll. 1 - k -1-- --1 =TE[-1-1 4 j Id 11-- - 460â€¢trÂ· ~ 4 - 1 2,1 /0 -7 F e I 16-1 1 11 1 1 1 A r 64 -- r - p -I.. 1 / PHASE ONE CA....61 ./.44 1 61,1 1...... PHASE TWO UPPER LEVEL FL R PLAN (9050 9) ,1 '9 ... 0%* Wa*%Â·.-v 11 6-) 1 1 1 f~ , 1 / ..25 1 1 1 i e. 1 /:>'' \ I I \21-. / \ 1 11 1 11 ,1 - 1 b' i \ / I dll /,1 1 1112 11,1 '6 1/11 \ / \ I / \ 1 4 UL.Ji 21 A ... 46- ----.W- *). - \ -- P r---rr " Â·, 71 , F . % 41 1 11 ~ 1,1. 1 .1 41 ~ 11 i : 11 1 ; 11 =, 1 Ill j n L .11 i f 41 Â·- 4, I 1 4 1 1 ' 1, 1 k--- -- - - ---.1 ) 1 L ill 1_ _ _ _ 1 4 T . C 'Â· 1 r litr-- ' './- --- L._ .. . 1 1 1 lid r ' ....6 ....'.u ./ fNciA-rff. r I Â· 9. 1 r. 04..... ...1 Aj i . 1 1. 1 ./ r- ... ... 1./. r j r 9' 89'41 9 {11 1. 0 1 'F+fir) r ----- --- - r t ctiffit. r I 4% - -- r- - --- --- - t 11 TE=-111 - .- 1 :4 3~i=11_ 1 I.LI 110 0 141. 1 .1/,0-i/4,/ =9/U .L--4-=11 4 .- T ..... 12% RN .107Â« - --er .---'--- --- ---1 1 .~.10 T Eug ,â€ž:, 1. 7 -. -.-- -f 7. t' . i./ 7 - 0.- 2-i_- -1~ ~ , ~_~& ~r- "'F 9 ' 1, Lrr Ili - 1 32 .1,-2~=. 1~ 1[ 1, -----dÂ· 1 uL -Â·14 ls'r .N .Dg 1 1 r ELEV ...O '--J E.LE~ 10-0. I 1 . , 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 I 6 1 1 1 1 1 .. 1 1 1 1 1 1 ?Wtar) 1 1 1 1 _L I Â· 1 T E.Ev< 84.-,. 1 , . c.~22,4,SE 2.11 - lk:.f' Cl~ I cx:.eÂ» ,(0*,-UMIC*. WAY mEY'OfÂ«) Tal- rip | 7 0 2:5: .zzf.4, "...60 Eu, izz.'Â·.4:; 0 \\44\ 1 1/ - '=17 - \1 4 -R -f 17. 4 J ft- 1 1F i '+F .11 r 1 1 ,~ -, 1 '.. -9 14 - 11 - 1-1 . 4 .-c '' ~ 1 414-1 - ~ , - 4 =Â·t N - -- --LLAY â€¢ ....4* ' 4/ ..1 0- 11.4 9.- 21, I IM - 11 11 1 1 --- 1 1 1: 11 11.: -- 7 - 10 FINÂ· 9- Â· 11 /.4 V ,"P. 1 -4 * /'61. ~L,=VI - * -EÂ¥Â· - 99 '- B i SOUTH ELEVATION - _ - - - r -1 .---~EL PHAIE 1 ir .- CAF*UCE ~OAE 14/4 ..2 .1/1. (CO,â€¢PLETED) ELL/â€¢ 2 ..1 A 1 ''/A V h . ,Â« , 66.-ty 124- 1119 1' 1 / \ \ . 4.3. 17/ /0/ ... ]Ilic ./ .X Â»>L 1 . -- - IJI e,nle tr,wc:URÂ·E , r. F 1 1 4 11~ 11 1 1 r . 1 1, / 11 ' 1 1/. 11 111 ~ ..7 - ":.! 9 14 -: L. 1 1 --11'1 41 NfiC ~ - 1 -*%2Â·NK.%---/ I ' ' .a*# r 1 ... 1 1 1 1 1 Ii.. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.- ~ST*~ 1 1 1 Â·~/3.*542&Fle~ - n-,2-liT ./.1 -91â‚¬:IT -'.., C F .LA22 A>1 ry*),1/1 3 4/ fi /4 -1Â»0 040.1 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Minor Development Approval: RFTA Bus Shelter - 100 Block E. Main Date: December 20, 1989 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: RFTA is requesting HPC approval for the bus shelter in front of the Library and the Aspen Clinic on Main Street. PROJECT SUMMARY: Approximately three years ago, the HPC reviewed this bus shelter, to be located in front of the Pitkin County Library and the Aspen Clinic. There was some discussion at that time about the type of design standards the HPC should use for public amenities, such as the bus shelter, which is very contemporary and functional. The shelter was never constructed, and RFTA is requesting approval now to build this shelter in the Spring of 1990. STAFF COMMENTS: We have begun to work on the Main Street Historic District Study, and the Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway Plan. Both of these will address design issues for public improvements within the context of the district. Therefore, our Guidelines as the currently stand do not adequately assist staff in reviewing this application. The shelter is steel and glass, with a bronze tinted plexi-glass skylight roof. Wood trim and seats will be stained a light brown. Its height is :..approximately 8 ' 10", and exterior dimensions are approximately 6' x 10'. A planting area will be incorporated between the shelter and the sidewalk. Staff is requesting more information on the landscaping plan at this meeting. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Minor Development approval for the RFTA bus shelter for the 100 Block of East Main, subject to the following conditions: l. RFTA agrees to comply with the Main Street Historic District public improvement guidelines, (when adopted), should alternatives to the proposed bus shelter design be determined more appropriate in compatibility with the character of the District. 2. The applicant fully describe the landscape plan, for HPC approval. memo.hpc.rfta.2 e-ilt.lic,<I]AliT.3-ilf . ll. di 11-irliril~1 7 >A g- St. .3 November 28, 1989 *429 Rafta Library Bus Stop ,< 2*44 '94~34 Project Description - na Rafta proposes to install a bus shelter at the Pitkin County Library on Main Street. The shelter is of minimum size placed between the Library and the Aspen Clinic. It = will serve those passengers who wait for buses at this busy .~421 location. ..%13 j ... 3 The structure is unusually transparent with steel tubular supports painted a bronze similar to the colors of the library. 7\ The wood glue-lams will be stained a light brown. The skylights ./1 are tinted bronze. There will be a small planting area between the sidewalk and the bus stop. .177*i 44/%40.*0 This structure is primarily transparent and will not detract 344 from the large scale of the Clinic and Library. The structure will be softened by planting. -1 X.Z= 4 "f.1 3.541 7 2Â¥73 29 A a .3 1 4 7/8. 7.14 994,9/I /43%4'.1 3%'" /94- /44 1 4 434/93// 2-/GJMU;Â») f~ 0. r . 9 4 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Informal Worksession (Final Pre-App) - 127 E. Hallam Date: December 20, 1989 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant has requested time with the HPC informally to discuss the revised plans for the new cottage infill structure for the parcel at 127 E. Hallam. A formal Final Development application will be developed from the comments received at this meeting, and will be presented to the HPC following the 2nd reading of the Landmark Designation ordinance. Final is tentatively scheduled for January 24. PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: On October 25, the HPC granted conceptual development approval for the project, with conditions to reduce the size of the garage/cottage dwelling unit and make specific architectural revisions, particularly of the roof form. The Landmark Designation process is underway, with Council's unanimous approval at First Reading December 11. Second Reading is expected in January. STAFF'S COMMENTS: Please refer to the applicant's calculations on the reductions, comparing the revised plans to those approved on October 25. The above grade square footage has been reduced by 360', and the maximum height reduced from 25' to 22.6". Along with these reductions, the applicant incorporated the HPC's suggestions to redesign the interior stairway, eliminating much of the bulk. The south and north elevations have been amended substantially, which we find to be more compatible in character to the (future) landmark on the parcel and the neighborhood. The second floor is now articulated as a cross gable, and the garage doors are broken up. Materials remain clapboard on the second floor. Clarification of first floor and all remaining materials much be made at Final review. Generally, we find the revisions to be compatible in character, and closer to what the HPC members had suggested upon Conceptual approval. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the HPC offer guidance only to the applicant at this worksession, for further design changes if necessary. memo.hpc.127eh.2 *Weatwi#MOF:-* - I , 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL: (303) 925-4755 December 7, 1989 Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservationist Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 S Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 127 E Hallam Final Development Plan, Work Session on Secondary Residence Dear Roxanne: Enclosed are preliminary sketches of our revised design for this project. Our revisions to the Conceptual Development Submittal include the following: A. Main House Renovation No changes proposed B. Secondary Residence and Garage 1. Floor areas have been revised as follows: 10/25/89 12/07/89 Basement 850 76,31 Ne-baeement- i*24- Ground Level 850( j'(2 3-4-2- dceÂ·e yA- 703 Second Level 8023 589 Total 2,502 sq.ft. 1,292 sq.ft. 4 011 * CLUct -e Cj'&164_ 2. Height 1, 99.3 -4 fa< , 10/25/89 12/07/89 mean height of gable 18'6" 17'9" top of main ridge 25'0" 22'6" 3. Living Unit Size 10/25/89 12/07/89 710 sq.ft. 589 sq.ft. I P I 1 71 A . 1,1 1 1 , - ./.- 1.WI- This letter is to request a work session with HPC on December 20th to review our revisions Of the approved Conceptual Development Submittal. This review will highlight our revisions based upon the HPC recommendations of October 25, 1989. Further changes will reflect input from the work session as well as developments which will occur in preparation of more formal drawings for review at the Final Development Submittal Review Scheduled for January 24, 1990. Sincerely, \ 1 >awn M A<berlitant . Sven Erik Alstrom Project Architect Enclosure SEA:lah T-,I W A .M VA , M. A J 1 C. Site Coverage 1. Maximum Site Coverage 30% 10/25/89 12/07/89 29% 27.1% 2. Min. Distance between buildings 10/25/89 12/07/89 9 ft. 11 ft. 3. Existing F.A.R. 1,370 sq.ft. 4. Proposed New F.A.R. 10/25/89 12/07/89 1,652 sq.ft. 1,292 sq.ft. 5. Allowable F.A.R. 3,352 sq.ft. 6. Proposed Total F.A.R. 10/25/89 12/07/89 3,022 sq.ft. 1,148 sq.ft. existing to remain plus 1,292 = 2,440 sq.ft. Overall massing, height and scale of the building has been revised. The living unit and entry stair have been fignificantly reduced in size. (The basement has~een eliminated.t~~~'he overall 1- building massing And height have been greatly redutect:, l~Qdj)n-49*A_11 /1/C The building has been redesigned in a more derivative Victorian vernacular with special emphasis given to providing the imagery of a subordinate structure to the main house. A wood shingle roof and more Victorian era detailing also provide more compatibility with adjacent buildings. With the solution derived from Victorian design elements this solution is highly compatible with adjacent buildings and is resolved with a flair for the building size. 60 LÂ·zi Nar>!.439 1<431Â»<Acy-Â·2 !/-:co 3Â»21-183)NO7 v -1 1 -I ......1 /r ://1..aÂ» Â· 427. 1 .. N .''12'341_- 'Â·<% b .~~ 1 ~41 -: r--1 i bÂ»>*4907 - c-,414*7 -2-41\4- i - rer-~1 0-14 'rl/J ~ i/1/ 2 =14'le ...c.WN/-44, 4 - Â¢ 1 2 1/ 9$4 4,6!.|042 1 -- ~: .2-Â£ i -PWDU 0 . r 1 1 Â«14 44 1=- - 1, tv wa / bl Plpe t , 7%- --_ _.-*_ffr er 'rb,HW, 3 - -orr/>05. i : ant- , 1 1 /02 1 /74 ill ' 6 1 , - â€¢ 1.- .3/ j 4 1,11- . :1 , 11 ; 4 J 1 L CONCEpTUAL PEVELÂ°rMENT fe/14,101â€¢4 1 2 -1 ' t:9.1 1 \ 3 >1 b.4 .i i 2Ck. 7% - . 77 3 1 1 1 -' - 1 1 1 1 1 6 ; , iIi : 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1.i 1 : 1 + 1 1 11 ' L-1 *-. --- - UT+-U B rh *-- 11 1- 8- c 43 5 N -= -1-41 1 - b. *- 1 1 \ 1 1 '- 0-0--'' 1 1 X 1 11_31447- 5- .- 1.Lit-6 + 11 ..11 6 ; ; r> d r 2 89 2- LIN va L. 0 - -1-t bÂ· r CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT KEVISION 11.7 81 1144 1 1 I f 1-1 1 1 -- 4rÂ· 1 11 1 -tu I 49 r F- /. 0 &1 1 1 4 1 ! ETC, i 1 1 4 r 1 --- 1 1 1 . L o w F r il' PvpL )NCEFTUAL PEVELO~MENT IKE061ON 12 17.61 - I . /2/ Â» *NX /2,/2124-4 494 b.i ~222.12.7--22- 12~ i I ! u -3 --Â·I E:91=1 - 4 A,-FE-z --4 1 1 Fl Â· I ; i il Â· -, i, i 3 6 0 V/,h T i OF 2 "r. I i'4%-1'-2, --- CON'CErTUAL DEVELDPMENT b<EVISION 1.7 ' 51 P 'b G Â· D ZI NO'GIA321 1HEWJ013AEO 7Â¥niNEONOP / 19 --r- 1774-9 4 9- --- 47Â· 1--4' a 8 -1 =----7- =, --==3-Â·Â·Â· ,-1 r r : !; lili I 11 ..,iÂ· !:!_ - F-rr-7-12 1-1= t= 'HÂ·Â· 1 ! 1-:1:.1 -71 - Elli.:! - U.. 2-1......4. Ll ; 2- f_ 1 -1- i _.2 1_312[ - 2 1-=_L - 1 1Â· 1! f F i =12 -ES-*1 9--9 il --%73 _1_IL-~kit.__j~~-29~-L_ mn 1 -Â·~ '~ 5 i It :1 1 .1 p 1(3 1 1 'L_,i ~=*=4 '_31" ' I I, 11 -- - :t-gr-4.- I .....r .4_....-:r~-tn---1- nb==L=L.~===U iri~ -CIvIl -: i. ~ . - i h F-Ii l' 1 31 . - -1 - 1 1 1 -1-- : 24 ur-n - 1 11 11 1 1 11 - â‚¬\C\ 1 11 .ri=l i l M - 492 ' 1 111/..44 LE -2.-_][= ' L-=1!--7 tw*C-99619 1_-1-3 ,------=\ ~e:> Ft 11 12322 EJE T - 1 [33[ 23 i --- --- -. 7---- + - -- ---- Â· -4 1 - ' 1 1 11 1 - -i 2----~==- -Ii--E LELIEJOJ ---_*-IL-_} LL -42 j_Li i_~iLu A ----, 1 i , 1 4 F- 2 24== '3.11 1 : 1=-1 =1= -. lt==L L_L-.... ~u.- R i ._iL-a=~~ r=i- 4-1 1. 11--1 _--1 4 1 .t-= 17'p- 0 9 3 T R ... ,\ ec ' . A - Â£'ONCE;TUAL 52/EL.<Â°ME.NT gE\/:410< 12 1 Â·51