The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19890913' 1 /r AGENDA k HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE ~ September 13, 1989 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM City Hall WORKSESSION - 4:00 P.M. JOE DUNN 940 MATCHLESS DRIVE 4:00 P.M. - SPECIAL WORKSESSION: JOE DUNN ON REDEVELOPMENT PIAN OF 940 MATCHLESS DRIVE. ATTENDANCE IS VERY NECESSARY. 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of August 8 and 23, 1989 II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment 5:10 IV. OLD BUSINESS A. 132 W. Main St. - Asia, Conceptual Development, Public Hearing, continued (tabled from 8-23-89). Request from applicant to table public hearing again to 10-18-89 5:15 B. 403 S. Galena & 425 E. Cooper - Guido's Swiss Inn, Conceptual Development, Public Hearing continued, tabled from 8-23-89.4//''-LÂ«Â£.---~ 5:45 C. 211 W. Main St. - Alley Structure - Final Development,/ic*>Dejuics/ 6:00 D. 204 S. Mill St. - Collins Block,~ Phase II, Final Development Â·,jjFQ,OUÂ«- 1Â«oa-;hÂ·. 1- /KI:,-jui // / c GL_ V. NEW BUSINESS 6:30 A. 211 E. Main St. - Explore Booksellers - Conceptual Development, Public Hearing continued, (tabled from 8-9-89)-/ f/Â»7-2, 7:00 B. 201 E. Main St. - Main Street Bakery - Minor Developmentl~o.t>,-2 7:20 VI. COMMUNICATIONS 3 7-/4, ,.1 A\-1-t-l kbÂ·- te i E. A.Jif j,n Â°-- A. Project Monitoring & Sub-Committee reports B. Annual HPC Report (attached) C. Information item attached: Colo. CLG article /4>- Adjourn 7:30 p.m. Note: The Worksession originally scheduled for September 2 7, at 3:00 p.m. with National Park Service Architect Bonnie Halda, has been cancelled. The regular September 27 meeting will begin at 5:00; attendance is important due to the number of public hearings scheduled. Two demolition applications have also been scheduled for review at that meeting. Please be sure to contact the City clerk's office if you are unable to attend. kj s MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee CC: Sandy Stuller, City Attorney From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Joe Dunn redevelopment: 940 Matchless Drive WORKSESSION (4:00 p.m.) Date: September 13, 1989 A DRIVE, WALK, RUN, OR BIKE-BY OF THIS PROPERTY IS NECESSARY PRIOR TO THIS MEETING. The new structure is framed and walls are going up. SUMMARY: Joe Dunn, 940 Matchless Drive, will be presenting his redevelopment plans at a special worksession to begin at 4:00 p.m. This is in response to the HPC's requirement that the redevelopment plan, following the non-approved demolition, be approved. Staff has not yet received an application, which is required for formal review and approval. Therefore, this meeting is strictly a worksession to discuss the issues. Mr. Dunn has continued to build, at his own risk, which was understood at the last HPC meeting. Although staff has not seen any plans, it appears from the on- site inspection that the scale of the structure, evidenced by the framing, is not compatible with the three remaining historic (neighboring) structures. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC review what plans Mr. Dunn will bring to this worksession, and offer guidance for compatibility. Similar to a pre-application, the purpose of this meeting is to begin a dialogue with the applicant to aid design review at the Conceptual Development review. memo.hpc.940md MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Conceptual Development: Guido's Restaurant and Adjacent building - 403 S. Galena and 425 E. Cooper St. Public Hearing, continued Date: September 13, 1989 LOCATION: 403 S. Galena St. and 425 E. Cooper Ave., Lots E, F, G, H, and I, Block 90, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado ZONING: CC - Commercial Core, "H" Historic Overlay District APPLICANT: Guido Meyer, represented by Kim Weil of Bill Poss and Associates, Architects HPC MONITOR: not yet assigned APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual Development approval for the revised plans, which indicate the complete elimination of the previous third floor addition. The revised plans include the of bridge connector between the two buildings, a new facade stucco with terra cotta and wood trim for the building at 425 E. Cooper St., and the enlargement of the chalet-style restaurant building (403 S. Galena) on the rear of the second floor. PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION: HPC reviewed Conceptual Development plans for the proposal at the last meeting, August 23, 1989, at which time action was tabled to allow the applicant additional time to restudy the proposed third floor massing and the connection between the two buildings. Prior to that, a pre- application with the applicants was held with the HPC on August 9 to begin a dialogue on appropriate and compatible design issues. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Development review standards are found in Section 7-601 of the Land Use Code, and are reviewed below. The applicable Guidelines are found in Section IV. Commercial Buildings - Renovation and Restoration, beginning on Page 19 of the Aspen Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines. A line drawing of the Chalet building is found on Page 4 of the Guidelines, indicating the importance of the Mountain Chalet style in Aspen's architectural evolution. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark... Response: We find that the proposal generally meets this standard. We are pleased with the elimination of the previously proposed third floor addition, and find that the rear, second floor addition to the Chalet-style building is compatibly designed, taking into considerations the important character defining features of the existing design. We recommend careful preservation and restoration of the Chalet building, a potentially eligible landmark structure. Further, we find that the general facade application is subordinate to the Chalet building, and appears to be compatible in materials and fenestration, without being too similar. We recommend that the Final Development plans indicate more specifically all details of both buildings. The Planning Office continues to remain concerned with the design of the bridge connector between the two buildings, primarily due to the roof connection. The setback provides good relief from the principal facades, and the revised model indicates plantings will be incorporated as screening. While the need for a pitched roof to shed snow and allow for head room appears reasonable, our concern lies with the interruption of the roof form of the chalet building. Staff feels the applicant is very close is this connector design, but its very size may need to be reduced somewhat to accomplish the goal Of a more quiet (invisible), and compatible element. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The Planning Office is very supportive Of exterior design upgrades, especially in this sensitive area of the Commercial Core and the mall. We feel this standard has generally been met. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: Staff feels the cultural value of this parcel is in the Mountain Chalet style building at 403 S. Galena. "Guido's Swiss Inn" has long been a landmark in downtown Aspen, and has changed relatively little in form over the years. Its architectural elements represent a distinct style and thinking in lodge development, common in Aspen during the early 1950's. The preservation of this structure and its unique elements is critical to the Commercial Core 2 Historic District. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: We find that the addition to the chalet building is compatible and generally meets the Guidelines. The break in roof form allows the original portion to be clearly distinguished from the new. We feel that the bridge connector's design still needs more study. Perhaps a smaller design will mitigate the impacts we feel are made to the Chalet building due to the roof connection. Staff feels that the architectural integrity of the Mountain Chalet is in its simple rectangular form, low roof pitch and horizontal details. We are not yet comfortable with the connector's ability to not permanently alter the architectural form and integrity of the Chalet building. The facade changes proposed to the 425 E. Cooper building are relatively straightforward. The upper floor fenestration pattern, however, changes the style of the building from one of no style to somewhat Victorian in nature. Three pairs of double hung windows flank the center portion, consisting of four narrow double hung windows covered by awnings. The storefronts are designed in typical proportion as defined in the Guidelines. The awnings indicated on the drawings do not allow staff to determine if transoms are included, which should be clarified. The materials have not been called out for the storefront system, the attached elevator structure or the connector, a requirement for Final Development approval. Also, it is unclear if the awnings encroach onto City property (requiring an encroachment license), or if they are retractable. This should be clarified in the Final Development application. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the Conceptual Development application as submitted 2. Approve the proposal with the conditions (staff's recommendations for conditions are stated below) 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. 4. Deny Final Development approval finding that the 3 , l application does not meet the development review standards. A denial would constitute a re-notice of the public hearing. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Conceptual Development approval for the project with the following conditions: 1. All portions and elements of the Chalet building being repaired, preserved, or restored shall be precisely defined in the Final Development proposal 2. Exact building materials shall be represented at Final Development Review. These shall include the Chalet building addition, the connector, the elevator structure, the facade of the 425 E. Cooper building (storefront and second floor), all other elevations, and landscape treatments. 3. The bridge connector shall be re-studied, with the goal of further reducing its size to mitigate impacts, both visually and architecturally, to the Chalet-style building. 4. A landscape plan be submitted at Final Development, indicating how plantings will visually screen the connector, and how the mall areas will be treated. 5. The storefront plans shall be submitted for Final Development review in much greater detail. Clarification on all elements (i.e. transoms, awning style (fixed or retractable), awning material, signage, doors, glazing, trim, etc.) shall be submitted for review. Notes: memo.hpc.425ec.2 4 i ./L/k. 1- t Â· L-,â€¢ 8 0 Â©00 010 CA #14/(41/0/00. - -1.21 . 0 - I --- - a i f t :' 1 ! f 10, !, i : -1 [7.71-t 21~1 T.....1-111]-in-NT p ' ~7: 11 1 -I-TTIfl~-~JT â€ž-9t--1-- Fi~ -rn-T1 11 1~ illl"~-Id-(.~i~I ~I I'~ 1/-VT-Prn-r-734-1-fr,TI.f~~7--I~~~f~ -- Pil!:' Â·! 1 1 1 1 1,1 1, //i J ~,Â«111 11 . ., ,1 ~ : 1 p 1 Vt' 1~11~//~Ah.Ki.Zi 1 1 1 1 1 1 Â«, / 11 11 1 111 11\\2 \2\2 i 1 1.1 1 . / 1 1 1!.I . / 'It J ''f \i \ 1, : , i lihi-il I ; 1 11 11 1 1. 1 4 11/Ii 11 1 : 1 i .li 0/4/ /1 11 1- . 1 , li 7, 1 1 14. 1, 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 14 'fiffi~3(~=1=-ff Â«q=~ai~~.=pt=Â« 1-111-1----1 ~ 1 1 1 i :11:11 lili '1:11! ; 1 11 11 1 .4 1.,1,1 9- i.l1 1 1 11 1 lili III'l , i -- --- --7 I . i 11 . :i 'Ell i !11111 11 1 , 1 1 187 1 1 1 1 1-_--1 Â· , L---~77---T-- . 1 1 1, 1 ;1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 11 11 1 11 l i 1 1 L_-1. 6-- t-1 4-4 li 111 11 il 1 1 il .1 li ..1 ; 1 11,11 1 1 .1 18 1 Iii. 1 - 11. 1 1-1 1. -11 11 h 1, 4 6 Y f] 6 VJ 47 A 9 -T 4 L 6 4, UN 1 -T 4 t=\ G-Â«Â»-1 L . 0- (1 -I- l 1 6- 0 6-V 9411-\: Ow Mit -_t'_o'~ 1 0 3-3 Â¥-7 dic 3 3 DIC 1 1 4 1 4.3 71 ~ 2 < RJ -777 -1 I U <91*- J 4 14 9 2 ..I - .-7 0 > 1 , - ~4 4 -t - - - - --t~ 4--f--i~ ~~j&-71-414, 61 - . I 3 1-t. 11, 1 -11 /44 li J ~ tl ... 2/>t -, #2X 1/ 1 1 - -- --- ..1 1 1 1 1. /1 1 4 1 1 t.."-/f / 4 \ - -- - 1, IF-I -- - t- - 1 Ill 1 -- 1 1 4.- 1 i/ , T' 0 *P .1 Al Cl . ..1 j J 1 \ , f 1 . - 7- 1 \ -- -- -2 1 1 -- t --- - - i < 3 1 1- -- -! -7~--1.----7=54,1-~1- U 4-1-4 p l f 6 2- , 1 4 i j j f 1 f % A - t ' r. \ 1- ' 172 . - - I rl 1 931 11 'k> , '1- -â€ž-2------- -=72 G I - _- -21.11-ZZ -I--*4 1 -.3\ \ 9 1-TE.L. 11 - J 4. --- -4 ---,---,1 1 L.20 --il - i t1 -- 1. -. --9.- - Fl /7 1 1 /\1 (1 R.C. Robertson ARCHITECT P.O. Box 1378 Carbondale, CO 81623 303-963-3945 91*k (09 Ga,Â·Â·u 6- C *5 [144/Jel 40 U ruÂ« 046 Â»cltru O'~ RÂ»id ak %' 4 lo Â· 446 ~t;f-- ~4Â·*,-,~ %11- 21 4144 047 1 - 4149 %46 4 Fl-? 4.' AULA,1/\A 8 4 Allt 42*rAJ--01- e\-+At (14 U./a m ~ A /h -t k.m./UN - C~ faÂ» O~A~l/-eA-~ *6 44Â»,1 1 uÂ«Â£,cf +LE. /kÂ» 4-0 44- Â»tÂ«Lk 4,6 AP+1.4/p- U 11( 4 . 1Â»eÂ·Â·~,.- 48-L 4/Â« ofÂ»F . fAeÂ«9 I 4 Â«90, IE / :-4 J- 0 0 ' 4J 1 0- t/ bil N 28 NE. -= 1 -_ /'-A -7-7 -1 1 1- Â· C - ' Vu l 11 C- MrL. Sou, 0 L /CON (Z ,-. 21 .. /2 \ - - 4 - % 1 /%//A1.7>- "' 1 Ent Â¢ 1 /91 . 2./4 11, --= 51-1 - ZJ'Â»44/ -! E ----- T - .1 --4.---,I -- K- + .414141'... ./ . ''5:*ix 1 1 1,-29:32 7- -==~21 Zis&/ta.*K ' 2__3-/~_Â· 1.~i~y,6. .%. 17-7-11 *--liN 1 lil' .T- --â€žf-- ---- ----u-- ' ,~Â·f/~0 9 -2#m'.94*Â«49/ 1 7 --1 -, 1 1 --T, 11 l' i i T--f" i â€ž -' riÂ»,4 .'; A- Â·47>Â·;iÂ«Â·.44 , I- +v ' I 1-'4 v. 5.# ..1.-Lbij-/.iÂ»,MR' /f ~. 1 1 1 1. O 1 '1 1,1 ' Â· 1 Â· 4 11 rE=#.==41 1 r# 1 *Ppfu~F . 24(>~:f :, i .1 1 41 e 11 : i i il ' ill~!, t ~&h'ff'~ 21. :1 t. , â€¢'t ' ' - 1 11 41 11. I I , 1, 4111., 11| Iii ' ; 'Al ' I . I ~ .- I i' , .' &r.Y// 1 12* // . ... 0/ 1 I f&4. 7-'1 '29'~~0:jâ€ž p:/,0..,D'-40- /40,24.5:j .942 9/AL&,*LW ///41341 0/}Kv - 11;9*9&-wmuthÂ»LB-, 31-,Â»ML17 r . 4. !11 ~1 4[2 +74,99%7 ' ./.4, IN / 10* Â·1 , I 1 y.,2.-f/1/0 #2 1121Â£54% 10/, 0-Ii, : ' %64 , + LgAL'f,VLMhl . 11,i] 0'0049 1 0 11 117/ 1 - 1 lk.*44:44' ' ! , 11 1 ': 14.4 Â».1 Â· 1 , ,,â€ž4 V 7 1, i, V' .1.-vT<),%4 ,==. ----- . 1: 11 1 f/,3745.><47.'y 1 1-4Â¢9% *41996, 11 Â°1157631-----+1 L -11 11 ~1, I~ iff 1~ , ] 1. f\11 U/, 7 Â© 1 f / i 1.. ..1 -,1 1 u --\\ 1 V f 1 N --- - -7 1 \ D -- f///3 ----~i-~-~---1~ /.1-3-44Â«1 1 1 1 1 1---'f fidff'54Â·.4/4 grg,L 't, ,"rE&*=I-,2-7 1 T---T-- f " " 11 H , ?i ' f -0% p 5/ 7 1 K'' v' . , ;3'jr ' il 11 4 . li d 1 , 1 1 1 1 Ill Ld __-_i I 1 1 1 - --- 1#1-.:i?~11?j?ji}Â§41141, 1 1 .4 "ApH*,L#M-- 1___-- -__ -,_- ____...._-i_ _-_.____ _-_-_.___.-<-_. i.. ,r.. . 1 1N31/\1dO13A3a3EI S,Oalne NOUV/\313 H.LEION A--1 1 , 11 111 - 44. 50 -8 1 0 3, 1 0 03 0 _32 --E +E;r. 0 -1 .-r=*90- i**FE ' 1 1223: i l - y 1-e.4- 14,11"Mil'lli illii'fl'inli ,, ? 12,4-9/ '67/,d//P.- Â«72/4 -~ .'.4..1.' 11 i. , /7 :5:22415 I , ,Â«1 4 ./.19 - 74,9 1 [,2 "il,1 1 9 7 /; 3.7 1 5/2 7/ 3 .%91 TX , Â«>017 'i *l 'f /Â·Nr 11{fj 737%17.=7- . 410,//60/ C, / :, 3, 111 1/1 i , Â«:32Â·li #4*4.~ I 3 PÂ»/941: 1 1 ./4 ?19Â» ' , 1 --1 f.. 1 111:25, gly/9 7=pfa 1 7.. 403 -1-===-41=qu--4, 'iii iltt 4 if ''if 057.94 1 50 2 ........4-t.-~ J 'â€¢ r 1 i XI I. ' 43 024 -_ 6 0% 1,/ *ip,4. ./. ':af :. 4/ tÂ· h 1 3< 0 r k_ ,-1 0 :461 \ 4 -jj 0 -1, 1 \ A .1 1 1 .24... 1 1{1 4 ~ P ''94 / 1 I ' : \A \ '\ 1 J \6 1 \ -====2 2 1.1- 11 ' AA \ 4 > A 59 /'.:i.1 / , #t 1--1, 1 1 34 / 1 11 El L/ -0 1, .A\ ' A 1 !1 1 7// li 1 5011 GUI[,0'S REDEVELOPMENT 1 Eli SOUTH ELEVATION ~ Â«-7-- * w 10- . 6--#I'".'Z.A'/ . Et,t~ 041#. ~ I.% ~1.~r .41\ 1>\. \ .3/ / 9 9, STUCE 01\11'll f P~]1 ~ hil D. -cz . Vi L 2 6\ 10 111 k 291 '-1 1 1 =79 t,Lf -1 Â·--tif Â· i 1 _1 - 1 At v --1(6 -- 5 - 19 t - 2 1 --i 1 1 1 '-t -11 1Ly) , 21 3 1 L==-=a=*==4 ' ti 1 -11: 1 . 1[ 1 7- T ' f I =212=4- 1 4 C, , 1 . 77 , 1....1 1 1 2 60 9] 01 Ul Â£ EL c f r M /9.<11 U L l/1 0 if) GUIDO'S REDEVELOPMENT EAST ELEVATION 4 1, 1 It F (/A#1 6.19.01 \-\0.0 ...r.Ki......// 1 - 1--'-law*kt,AÂ» v'lvfvvt,l'.1-~,- u~~ 1Â«6 ~ Wl.41 'd 24---. t-' r ~ -Â· ' â‚¬ al.evact wi-- LÂ«Â« @â€¢an _, , u.mli u ..1 '- 0 ----~-- 91- tu -At 0 him r G 8 .1 -1 U.ii . . 1, I. 1- . .....-4.- - -- juill.- - 1 -- . 11 lim A K 56 1 1 E- 1311 i-- .--5- 11 - I I L F 6 A d ' O 08 9 71-4 O - 30 18 1 Ill Â· r-n 1 .-7 -1' r ... , C 1 1 .1/ I tu ' 01 L (.3 > r- ---- - - -- 9 - .. -- 1~ GUIDO'S REDEVELOPMENT 7 1~11 BA SEA/'ENT LEVEL .2 =2 r-,.i.-- 1. 10-0 1/ Ff 2.0. V 1 " 1 ,-TO .1 0 31 1 i1 1 10 1 PAM-KI It 61Â°Ar - 0--3 C , EXISTIN& PA-rID I AND Pl_ ANTE,F:4 ~ ,Â¥ 1 -.Ii. A--- n Â«3 1 - -- pn 1~7~ 1 --1.1 4, F mel-ERE> 11 1 ur UP TRASH < ---- DA YARP BETAIL SERVICE UP EN *- r--An , 11 FLEV, IRETAIL C MEN -1 - 1 ------ --1----- -----En=- ----- -- -------- 1 ---K-*- V . ---\ 3140F> ~ ~ -- r------SEEEIE- MALL 88\2195 x -----p ZEE**EF====ae. aMi-*f - ----- 1 f 1N3~Id013A303EI S,oains 13A31 11VIN 1- 1 1 -f m I li -1 1 1 -11 1 1 10 1 --1 1 , 8 k #11 1 TI L_31, at- 1 L -r ' 1 6. i f' 1 0 . 7 - e O-3 Zm GUIDO'S REDEVELOPMENT SECOND L EVEL 1900-Iva RESTAURANT ~ ----EEL E>NIS{lot-1 - G., 1 l,AF<KET 14 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Final Development: 211 W. Main St., Alley Structure Date: September 13, 1989 LOCATION: 211 W. Main St., Lot F and the West 15 feet of Lot G, Block 52, City and Townsite of Aspen ZONING: " O" - Office Zone, "H" - Designated Historic Landmark APPLICANT: Claire Newkam, represented by Ron Robertson, architect HPC MONITOR: not yet assigned APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Final Development approval for the remodeling of the non-historic alley structure, currently a dwelling unit. A rear yard set-back variation is being requested. The existing FAR is not being increased with the remodel. PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION: Conceptual Development approval was granted for the alley structure on August 23, with no conditions. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The changes that are proposed do not increase the FAR of this structure, however, do allow for more light and headroom in the sleeping loft area. The window changes are minor and staff finds these in keeping with the existing structure and the historic main house. one alternative may be to reduce the amount of triangular glazing in the gable peaks. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the Final Development as submitted 2. Approve the proposal with the conditions, such as a reduction in the amount of glazing in the gable peaks 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. 4. Deny Final Development approval finding that the application does not meet the development review standards. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC approve Final Development for the proposal at 211 W. Main St, granting a rear year set back variation due to existing encroachment/non-conformity. memo.hpc.211WM.AS 2 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Final Development Review: Phase II - 204 S. Mill St., the Collins Block - NATIONAL REGISTER STRUCTURE ONLY- East Wall and Second Floor Loft Date: September 13, 1989 LOCATION: 204 S. Galena, City of Aspen HPC MONITOR: Donnelley Erdman APPLICANT: Harley Baldwin, represented by Joe Wells APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Final Development approval for Phase II and III, including the National Register Collins Block building (second floor loft and east wall) and the infill construction. PRIOR HPC CONSIDERATION AND APPROVALS: Final Development approval has been granted for (Phase I), the restoration and preservation activities to the Collins Block building, and Conceptual Development approval has been granted for both Phases II and III, with conditions. All previous approvals Still stand: the complete preservation and restoration of the building's facade and secondary walls, openings, trim, balcony, storefront, etc., shall be completed, the exact rebuilding of the east wall usinq salvaqed brick on the outer and inner most surfaces, with a substitute core material in the inner layer OTHER BOARD APPROVALS REQUIRED: The proposal still requires the submittal of a complete application for approval from P&Z for GMQS Exemption and either subdivision or lot line adjustment, including the adjacent parcel, now owned by Harley. DISCUSSION: STAFF IS ONLY BRINGING PHASE II BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AT THIS TIME FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL. THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION INVOLVING PHASE III WAS NOT SUBMITTED ON TIME FOR COMPLETE STAFF REVIEW, AND WILL BE SCHEDULED FOR THE FIRST MEETING IN OCTOBER (October 18). East elevation: A sub-committee involving staff, Bill Poss and Donnelley Erdman, met with the applicant and his architect at least two months ago to give direction on the design of the raised parapet wall and windows. A number of alternatives were discussed such as the number, size and placement of windows and how the top of the original wall (to be rebuilt to exact measurement) will transition into the built-up parapet. We find that the window proposal presented for Final approval is not compatible, and we recommend the number be reduced to three, that they are aligned directly over the lower three, and that they are reduced considerably in size. After discussing the transition treatment of the original wall into the built-up parapet with the State Architect, we feel that the proposed corbelled brick delineation is not a necessary feature to serve as a visual break between old and new. Two new narrow, double hung windows are also proposed, on the northern portion of that wall. The HPC should consider whether these new openings alter the subordinate nature of this wall to the principal and secondary facades. Staff is not uncomfortable with the design of these new openings, which are necessary to provide light into the interior space. Rooftop: As previously voted on by the HPC, no mechanical equipment shall to be located on the roof above the top level of the parapet, and no rooftop access or outdoor living space will be created on the roof. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following actions: 1. Approve the Final Development proposal for Phase II as submitted 2. Approve the Final Development proposal for Phase II with conditions, as recommended below in Staff's Recommendation 3. Table action finding that additional information or further study is necessary 4: Deny the proposal finding it does not meet the conditions of conceptual approval RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Final Development approval for Phase II of the Collins Block, 204 S. Mill St., subject to a redesign of the east elevation parapet windows, reducing the number to three, centering each over the three below, and reducing their overall size (width and length), and with the elimination of the brick delineation between the original wall and the built-up parapet. hpc.memo.204sm.fd.phase2 2 i tÂ· ,-P - 6 Yi, I L. LA Doremus &weLLs an association of land planners 1 '149 f.: C CJ September 6, 1989 Roxanne Eflin Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Roxanne: Enclosed is our revised Final HPC Submission for the east wall of the Collins Block and the infill building. As we discussed, the rear shop spaces in the infill building are not enclosed in order to eliminate FAR square footage so that we can qualify for GMQS exemption by the Planning Director and proceed to building permit. When we file for the balance of the project, storefronts identical to those shown previously will be proposed for these shops. In light of the present condition of the building, it is crucial that we be able to proceed to permit, so that the building can be enclosed prior to winter. After meeting with you yesterday, Harley expressed concern that because the elevator is in the infill building and since it is probably required to serve the basement, that we may be prevented from getting a building permit if HPC is unable to approve the infill structure until the third week in October. Do we have any alternatives at this point? , ~-gards, / I 73%2 j 11- / ~,Joseph Wells, AICP /4/ JW/b U 608 east hyman avenue o aspen, colorado 81611 o telephone: 303 925-6866 I. INTRODUCTION This application, filed on behalf of Harley Baldwin Associates, requests Final Development Plan approval by the Historic Preser- vation Commission for the east wall and rooftop addition to the Collins Block (Phase II) and for the adjacent infill building (Phase III), located on the north 80 feet of Lots A, B and C, Block 88, Aspen Townsite. The Collins Block was constructed in 1892. It has served as a rooming house and a commercial building, housing from time to time a mortuary, a hardware store, and other retail establish- ments. The building is a designated Landmark structure with a rating of "Excellent" and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The building presently includes approximately 11,500 square feet on the 7,200 SF site. Existing FAR square footage is 10,297 square feet and net leasable is 9,371 square feet. Under separate cover, a request for verification of the existing square footage has been filed with the Planning Office. As a result of the removal of the existing structures in the yard area, the project as proposed in this submission results in a net reduction in FAR square footage of 22 square feet, to 10,275 1 square feet. Net leasable space is increased by 6,607 square feet, to 15,978 square feet as a result of the full basement to be constructed under both the existing building and the infill structure. The applicant intends to pursue in a future application an increase in the existing FAR square footage of approximately 2,000 square feet through the addition of a second-floor loft addition internal to the existing Collins Block structure and enclosing of additional shop space in the infill building. These future additions Will not require any further exterior modifications of the building other than the addition of shop storefronts identical in appearance to those illustrated in this submission, as illustrated in the original final submission filed in July. In order to complete the review process necessary for these additions, however, applications must be filed for review by the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council. Because the time involved in processing these reviews would preclude completion of any of the proposed modifications to the building in time for tenant occupancy by the winter season, the applicant proposes to proceed with final HPC review for the exterior changes as proposed in this submission. 2 II. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL CORE HISTORIC DISTRICT INVOLVING AN HISTORIC LANDMARK (Â§7-601F.4) A. A Written Description of Proposal As previously discussed during the review of the Phase I renova- tion proposal, the applicant intends to preserve and to restore the existing street facades and all of their elements. Deterio- rating or hazardous conditions which presently exist are being remedied through the work that is presently underway on the building. The sidewalk loggia, which was added to the Mill and Hopkins Street facade for pedestrian protection in 1963, is being retained. The east side of the building was originally designed and con- structed assuming that a separate building would be constructed on the adjacent parcel and therefore does not exhibit the detailihg of the street facades. In fact a one-story structure was previously located on Lot C in the past. Along the upper east facade of the building the applicant pro- poses to continue the existing street parapet detail. A sandstone cornice course is proposed to be added to the street facade parapets to conceal the third floor structure from view 3 and to strengthen the vertical termination of the facades. The proposed structure remains well below the Main Street Mountain View Plane as a result of the reduction of the rooftop addition to only 14" above the parapet. In the area of the existing yard area, the applicant proposes to replace the existing commercial space with small shops accessed by a courtyard off of Monarch Street (Phase III). The storefronts of these shops will incorporate elements of the adjacent building in their design to create an imaginative space which will benefit pedestrian activity on Hopkins Street. The shop fronts will be painted wood in muted Victorian tones (as illustrated on the attached information) and awnings and fixtures typical of the period will be included. The paving materials for the courtyard will be of a herringbone brick pattern with margins of exposed aggregate concrete. Landscaping will be limited to potted plants, hanging baskets and window-box planters because of the intimacy of the plaza space. 4 B. General Application Requirements (Â§6-202) 1. Completed application form is attached as Exhibit 1. 2. Applicant's letter of consent in attached as Exhibit 2. 3. The address and legal description for the parcel are stated on the application form (Exhibit 1). 4. Disclosure of ownership is attached as Exhibit 5. 5. A vicinity map of the subject parcel is attached as Exhibit 3. 6. Compliance with relevant review standards [Â§7-601(D)] The project complies with the review standards of the Land Use Code, as follows: a. "The proposed development is compatible with designated historic structures on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels." The applicant's proposal to restore the Collins Block storefront and upper facade (Phase I) has been highly commended by the Planning Office and has received final approval by the HPC. Damage to the architectural details is presently being repaired, surfaces cleaned, and the original glass and hardware are being retained. 5 The rooftop addition (Phase II) has been limited to 14" above the parapet as approved conceptually and is set back from the two street facades a minimum of 15 feet. The detailing of the infill building (Phase III) has been simplified as required at conceptual review to be more compatible with the historic Collins Block. b. "The proposed development is consistent with the character of the neighborhood." Phase II received conceptual approval subject to no rooftop access and further study of the east facade. The revised east elevation submitted with this application reflects changes resolved with the HPC Subcommittee subsequent to Conceptual approval. Staff previously suggested that the infill structure's storefront is appropriate in scale. Staff recommended the use of a combination of principal facade materials, not just rusticated sandstone, and the use of a more simplified parapet and window treatment and these recommendations have been incorporated in the proposal. 6 The courtyard concept previously approved has been retained, incorporating small storefronts accessed through a central arch at the Monarch Street sidewalk. c. "The proposed development does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures on or adjacent to the site. As previously recommended by Staff, every attempt has been made to maintain the Collins Block in its current form without significant alteration which might negatively affect the character of the historic structure. The Planning Office has previously supported the role the infill structure will play in the district and in this block of Hopkins Street. The block presently has little continuity in setbacks and the infill project will help reestablish such continuity. The sculpture garden in mid-block provides this block with ample "open space", in Staff's opinion. d. "The proposed development does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of designated historic structures on or adjacent to the site." Concerns raised previously during conceptual review by Staff regarding the third floor addition and the infill building have 1 been addressed through a significant reduction in the height of the third floor addition and through a simplification of the detailing of the infill building. e. Applicable Secretary of the Interior Standards The Planning Office previously referred to a number of national guidelines in its review of the proposal. While these comments generally focused on the impacts of the third floor addition, some Of those comments are also relevant to elements of this proposal: i. "Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure, or site and its environ- ment, or to use the property for its originally intended purpose." The rooftop addition as approved has now been reduced to such a degree that it represents a minimal alteration of the building. A one-story infill structure is proposed for the vacant lot currently used as a lawn and garden center. Staff has found that this addition will require minimal alteration to the Collins Block structure and meets this standard. 8 ii. "Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural materials, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood or environment." The storefront restoration activity proposed in Phase I will repair and replace deteriorating elements and has received final approval from the HPC. The proposal for the infill building (Phase II) previously incorporated a very traditional "Victorian" storefront design which was too elaborate for this one-story structure in Staff's opinion. The applicant has restudied the facade to incorporate compatibly-scaled features in the design. A small detached one story structure previously occupied this vacant lot and there was relative consistency in the relationship to the sidewalk of structures along this block of Hopkins. iii. "Whenever possible, new additions or altera- tions to structures shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired." 9 The height of the rooftop addition as approved by HPC has been reduced to 14" above the existing parapet and set back from the street facades a minimum of 15 feet. The more ornamented design of the previously proposed infill structure has been simplified in order to not compete with the Collins Block. The proposed materials are brick and sandstone tiles, painted wood kickplates and windows, fixed transoms and small divided sidelights surrounding the storefront windows. C. An Accurate Representation of All Major Building Materials Samples of the sandstone tile and brick to be used for the infill building, as well as trim colors proposed were included with the final submission originally filed in July. D. Architectural Drawings Architectural drawings of the Phase I project as approved at Final Development Review and Phase II and III as approved conceptually are attached as Exhibit 4. 10 E. A Statement of the Effect of the Proposal on the Design of the Historic Structure Refer to IIA, Written Description of Proposal and IIB6, Compliance With Relevant Review Standards. F. A Statement Regarding Conformance to Conceptual Approval, Including Any Conditions The HPC granted Final Development Plan approval for the renova- tion of the Collins Block (Phase I) on May 10. Approval was granted conditioned on the following: 1. Submission by the applicant and approval by staff of the written guarantee addressing structural damage due to proposed foundation repair, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The applicant has submitted a revised guarantee for the City's consideration and a building permit has been issued by the City. 2. Original arched transom glass panes in the Collins Block are to be retained as required. 3. Mortar Will be repointed where necessary in exact duplication of the existing detail as required. 11 4. An additional condition of final approval required further study of the east wall. The applicant has worked with a subcommittee including Bill Poss, Don Erdman and Roxanne Eflin to<resolve the detailing of this facade. Four small arched windows are proposed in the recess to provide light and ventilation for the second floor loft and two larger windows are proposed in the northern portion of the wall closest to Hopkins as shown on the east elevation. Brick from the original east wall, badly damaged by roof drainage, have been carefully removed and stored for use in the rebuilding of the facade. On May 24, the HPC granted Conceptual Development approval to the rooftop changes necessary for the proposed second floor loft addition (Phase II). Conditions of approval included no pedestrian access to the roof (which has been precluded in the plans) as well as further restudy of the east elevation, as discussed above. This application requests Final Development approval of these exterior changes; approval of the second floor loft addition internal to the building will be requested under a future submission to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 12 . I .11 E. HOPKINS AVE. (IS 00 1 2-AMI h - (-I ....8 ~ _1- i~_ 1 -rf 3 w ..0 VALVE / OvEliAANG np c-- - 71 PAVED ~ ~Â·COLUMNS 90 â‚¬,6 CALC ~VAL. 'Cl.JNOX EE C N 1:CC'.11. w. go z:1) S ./. E O.: - -1 eo S. TO RECORO r./4 0 C 1. 0 AL DISH. 1.IZL9 ' BAOCK CO< C â€¢4 1/ k'Ch ME~TE) 91 L) ORAIN r aRICK WALL- .A N O. E. ON W t./5 1 'T-=-1 -- 7 .kIC) NO|'t 1 1 1 1 OIllt 01 r ' ./( 2 STORY /Atick 0 | EDUÂ»JG ....0 1 0( 1 S/o/~6EL C-Len MARD I 1 A B 'C D E f 40 --1 W /1111 00 1 :: 1 F Â£ 3 5 /0 1 / 11X â„¢ 1 - 3 1 Z 13-1 .'. / n ME.AL -121 1 SE' e./irl. L,NE ,8 : ze> ra AIRELEMELIT COR IMPROVEMENT SURVEY - /~7 i 19 71Â¥LE LINE. DISCP ELÂ¢,Aid 7 | : 02't IN E /~ ~ RE'. 14= 9 1-1 003 0,1 0. 4 43. 1 1 1//1//4 (..5-09''I"Â«) i -3 HARLEY BALOW IN -3OCÂ»- , 'I 17Â«~~N ////7//ft,Tr'i i IF ~. I -I *..- CF p Â¢L ,/ I ./ / / ,4 L Jlf .ma 4-1 ' The North â€¢0 2â€¢â€¢t of Lotâ€¢'A. 8 64 c. Rock'11. Clt, d IN.lt, of 8f - ..pen (excuting thit portion of Iald Lot C convâ€¢Yâ€¢d by quit Clali Nd O0.â€¢ r,cord,d tn Book 207 at Page 423 of Pltkin County R,cord*) 9 0-),LoiNG r,3Â·1 And a Parc~1 de,cribd u. . Ii.-rUS 3/ Â· C-1 1 C,-,O klinclng at Gersâ€¢â€¢ No. 1 which M & Southâ€¢-t corn,r of Lot 0 10 1 .U Block 81 02 the City and Te,r-lt* of A,pen. ed tb, South-/t Coner of et E in â€¢â€¢id Bl,ock th,nce running iling the South Quids.ry of Lot g in a #st,rly dir"U" ' al,tanc, Of 24 "R to Coroor No. 2. I (K,1 0-$,11-W) 6.0 OVER / thuc, running in a Northerly dir,Â¢tion parallel to thi IWot loundary of sald Lot O a di,t~all of 20 2-t to Corn'r .0. 3. ALLEY BLOCK 88 th-,c, rurnlng irt La Za*tâ€¢rly direction peral:~1 to th, South Bound~rY of ..141 LoW D and E I di~tanc, 02 41 f,lt to Corner )40. 4. ti-ac~ running in I ......rly /1//ction p.ral.1 to th' gut boundary of ./id Lot E a distarle, of 20 f~,t to Corner No. 5. th~nce running la I W**terly dir*ction along thi South Doundary of laid .t I I dletanc~ of CERT!:['Ili.â€ž1 17 fâ€žt to con-r No. 1. thi place. beginning; ed DOES 'FRE'v CON .. ..T TRI' CUf:VEY WAS FIELD 1/89 // 1'.IC GPOUND OF THE : u. -:Es, IFEE-Witr.. ,1ND 13 .01.AECT BASED) ON â„¢C l. ZVOWN J i .... ...A' - 1./UND. +O 1,611 .... 6/1. NO The South Twâ€¢aer (20) f,et of th~ tast ThLrie*o I li) f-t of Lot CC,Fu! 73. 61â‚¬r -3 1â€ž ..Er. ~OUNLAPÂ¥ LINE littend T 10 Block 01. CitY Ud :-c,it. 64 lip..: 7,/,2/Â·EÂ· S. 0Â·Â·'EG. [r'I[.'In - I 2 7 -nd D 'ELD L EXCEPT AS Â·Irip. Â·0/. . .MI â€¢. ./..Ut'll/D LIlli CO-Fel T. .E Or, L -U' ~2. '' ~ I~~~. . . "ci,"41- r' "ECRO Â· Th''South 71"4 1 20) f"t " t" E-t TI,"tÂ¥ /1- (21) Â·f-t of Lot -uâ‚¬ IÂ·. ,â‚¬'Â· OR *' I rUIi.DJÂ·G. Gâ€¢ATE. -7Â·_.Â· 2. E- Â·~-Â·41 ~40 75RWA.os CNCROAC}4 INTO letter,d D- la Block 11. City Ladd Town,lte of A,pea. EME C .0.,1. 5 Or- 1. â€¢Â·,. 5 -. -Â·Â·I Z. 60Â«â€¢ 1+Â·S +11.'I. A. S,â€¢[,â€¢4,1 Iâ€¢K] cr,4-râ€¢'NING : 0 32-1 t S.% 6 c. ...FEB - Eâ€¢00&-01' L:ZEÂ· -- - -J /Â· -~--~ Y.-:---:7. 8 CO-1--"I. CITY AND TOWNSITE O, ASPEN. L./.EAS Â·Â·..E :.3 l-Â·, CZ-Â·:Ct:Â·- I JÂ·, .7-11Â¥- Â·r .0/ ... cls' /0. 1 PCT-27Â·+I. .:El . Â·- '-: .46: ~'1 ./E PFEPAhAT [ON OF 'HIS GUR,TY. CAL.5 -Â· ~ 'E-Z. -: r..OP-70'Ff'DVIDED f,V THIS ColirrY Or PITKIN. STATE Or COLORADO Ke,erÂ·- ..NEn'rr/Y ~~LT~g'93 BEâ€¢*T':4 F,ASED C~ -â‚¬ Â·Â·C~--E-" IEr,â€¢fE~ laCK Â·le (ALUM. DISK :-3 ANC W. I: Â·ZE -2.EÂ® -2 -f NCm-'llâ€¢~37 CCF,r' ULOC' 01 Ast'en Survey Engineers, Inc. 'I-K 1â€¢1 5.EET ... t *IO 3. GALEMA 'T. rK}TICE, ACCOROING TO COLOSAOO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANÂ¥ LEGAL- . IICX 230. ACT ION -SED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SUIVE' L.IN THREE YEARB A'/EN. COLOIâ€¢00 '1'12 1 A~TE~ .ou FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. 1/NO EVENT. MAÂ¥ ANÂ¥ OCTION .ASED UPON ANÂ¥ DEFECT IN .W[/ Elu'Â·'â‚¬Â¥ - COMMENCE. â€¢ORE - (30,1 ,15Â·,1,0 TH- rEN YEARS FROM T- DATE ./ TH, CE...'CAT 10' ..IN 'CRECIN. JOB NO. 19022 Z 1 -7 Cloj%-%\*1*32=3, , ENT., 11 S. M I LL ST. (7110) CI~-777;-VII-DInZ--F~E~~E7-~7I-57-1:-E-7Â£91-*)70-L~E=7=7-7--8 :I i ,".a' '11 .1. MI 1 ~ li i Fi L --1 1 ; lifil ~~11 it 1- 3 iNG'Â£ 7.:4 Â® OF-"'Â·---râ€¢ -4, 01.1 14#j 0 1 El '1111 41 Â£1- : 114 @ iii ~ 1 41.1 * 1 t. 1.141 1 !1 f .-_-UL 8 Â»===:. 6 [1 _ 1 N 1 1 -1 -1 1-4 --k Z 1=-C- - 1 - - --- U==2==~= lp,11,0,0-1 0 7 1 1 4 .--- R r . -- ---- ---- â‚¬ 4 _ <Â®~it k--26â‚¬EaiLIJ--6==41-434~ - 4, 1 . -- U 1 1-1 -3]p- ' Â· -i----L--7-10[-~------i- Lâ‚¬y--r--IEFF:Ik-del -7.---7-7 , i.i , 6, ' Â·U ' i . *~11 '11 - 2 1:216&-3-=isekip-<DIEE=riIA--07;F--6227 - - - 1 'r~11-11: J Li-------*. |' 11 1 4 i, -1Â· - ~!'~1 11 1 1 1.- -1 4.-- --- - -.... , - 1 111 -- --- -- ----- - 11Â® 1 6 - FÂ· C'... ....Â·â€¢L Â° --- LUEÂ£Â£.6,43e*~tnt-==: =2- J-= F /, 47.--4-,-1- P 2 71-:, 1 Â·â€¢n:'90'Â·- f~ :,Pt#'11 F 13-1,â€¢r Â·Â·A.-0 .11- d, a 1 - - 11 t.it r ; @3 1 44*â€¢.4 r''f i}rA7Â·â€¢ArÂ¥.7 tl' -- - -- -- I _- --- P==1 7 F====1 r=F . Ir-Â·-,-41 .1 . 1 1 , , 1 11 4, Â· 1 1 billi .1 11: 1 , .1 11% + , IL_. _ - ai ; 31 IL_ -1: 1 IL--1 Â»=C - A-----*.- A-- --11 1F--- -11 1,7........ 1 ~-..-1 ---It i~ , 11. 11 â€ž 4 6 4 : ill ' '' , 13 11 1 , , U L LJ L--1 L---j L_ -2 L_-1 Â®2 08 ; 000Â»00-4 :; -_- --~rini-280-opm~ En-1 i nnonnn.- =03 1 11]1 -~ k w d-UNLLO i L i 1- I 11 ek ,U UL.~U 1 ~19Â«U Uij ' UJ[juli' Â° _-_- il Alonon i { i 00001 PIN A - PU-33 471 1~ 11 il ! v 8 111 11 7.1. L-111 1 LL ~ B 111 1 Ill 1 1 ---/ 1 It 1 11 1 - 111 i 'i L_-1 --...LL--- 1 1 L--1 -- E--1 [-1 '0--3 -"--9 r-1 r---4 0 011 ~1 4/1 -Cht==-=ni - --- -- E----1 r-, [23 -6.6.&.IM, 0 6 - 04 / kle 1.r E k 6 V AT' 1 0 '-1 1/4. . 1 I. 0. - . Ll EL. .1 4 2 9 .~1 4 1 1 1 -4 -- - --U 11-rILZTITErcrucrutru=unuu= U ZE -U =UU.=06 P --1 1 1 E-1 r-- ~--il L--11 , L--Â·.Â·=-4 1 1 0--4 p~-7 -! ~jaul rr/TPA77rrmf 2_3 i j L.U -. - 1 1 1 1 9 , 1 1 1, , 1 r.-."H&-1-d' KAV,"Â· Â·:d ..4 7 1 1 0 4 1- 8-01".4 - 6.... F p...4 , - ' -4{Tr innoll -or'r'Il[Tlf.L--=#-. =4(linFDAIrif'Al 11 -1 11 11 . =4 m= 1....1 .1 1- = ==-L L =,1 1, 11 1- iii::!, L hl! 11.L 1= = == i = 1- 1 =6==i.7 =~ -6--4-=-,-, 1 7 - 1 1 1 1 4 - 4 11 A- , I 7 --= bn ~=-~ = -Â·== Â·Â· ---- , 1 ~ ,Â· * A-r---: r. -- ,. ~ , __ 1 j E -7 = ==n~ f-- F- TE_J_zi~r--- = m . -7 7..- 1 5 -1 1 4- ' I =Â«--= 0 =4, r---r,-9 -1 --_,_ ./- --t==11 1=1 1 1 1 1 I. 1 1 1 U 1 J. 1 1 1 1 60 - t -4 5 5 6 0 c . A- / M o A-r 1 2 6- - Va-r, /,1 l/...= 1.... 1 1 4 m 1 P.U 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 W 11 1 a n,1- Â».A -3- # 1 PE 1 111 3,/ 1 1 iE ,9. 1 3 1 4 6 11: 15 2 JF a il } s JIll Irl, f i ' tl , I~ 11 -4-- - 11-___.- EE 1 Â· ,=2 =1,=dj r==. =.-,1 -LUU -, 1 4 4 -j .1 7 1 1-1 1 91.j V . - -2 - 1 i : 1 1. r - i 11 1 1 ..7.MI~ 1 14 4 - U 26 L--4-4 1 1 - Ii': 9 , 1 1 1 02 I -=- 1 Flron' 11 181 1 , i i ' ' hi =COLLINS BLOCK_--_._ _____....__-_ Storef-ron-t:-14016 1 1 11 1! i. 1 11 1 \ / 1, 1 : 11 1 _- = .- --4 '* A ..=41 4 r .A in 2- 04=--3104 X-733-i 133-1 4 li -'3 131 --- -- Mr li != :r C,~ 11;fl U 5 111 1 1 l ill: ~" 1 ~ mt 1 . i' :b, 4 4 0-,EL_JL C Iii 11 1 4 1 1 4 !1 11 1 1 All! 11 11 -1- 1 1 - â‚¬ f= Collins Block . Storefront N92 -- 1 /! 1/1 1 , | t -of 92 ----L- -L- i :2 4 L j l< -3 1 '1 C J j 1 ' 1 , . 00 1 11 !1 .1 follins--Block-_z__-- .._ _ Storefront N93 -- / 1 1 1 11 - 2 -jp=-3= 244-4447 4-43 FF 1 9 F 3| ; ~,5.11 F~' 3 ; N :5 9,1 D Fil B il 1 I 1 1 k il k ~ 11 1 19 p 4.-1- 63=3 UU=iÂ·d LIL, i l 11 1 4 : 1 1:, 1.11 ; :11 ; 1 1 il :gr fo 11 18 1 lEi ' 1~ . 11* 9- - Collins Block Storefront N04 Iii t.:... 0 1 <Y r \...~ =1 . tk 4- -4 , F 1 9-li @ 3 1 f 6 75 7 -....-- 1 01 r .O 0 \4 - MUT[7 / 11 - -LLUIL L I 1 f. 1 FiT J fl - 1. r 6==44) 42 o 8% eâ€¢-f/*- ~ F . - ..r.. 6/./.I-.I P - 0 - _6_ - 7 .... E r 43 0 L.:*L _44-* -7- D- ..I-â€¢- !4,,9â€¢1 Se- *4 -- 1 6, - & - 1-' 0 02-- 1 9-*1 6 0 r L ."â€¢ 6.-- - 1 - AÂ·3 4 0 1 U . . - - 5.1 1 - 4.. =4'r-'...c...r- 44 11 --r,-1 - - 4 4-fâ€¢ 4.-4 â€¢ 1 -p Z i 'f r-- r | I A.44 1 64.0 1 -0 7-Â»-3 r j . 4 . ' _17 *. I. ~ til/-7/ : 4 // 6.â€ž 1 1 -7 , : 66â€¢Â·rÂ· 4 S / (1,3 # M.â€¢r- 7 -- 46 -- - 0 1 r - -' *.h./4- '-/4~ --I -*CM-r.. 1 9 p ~ - ni.*I~rew. ~ ... ~0~ u.. 9.-fÂ· 94.1,3 ' '' $ p ... ........'...$/......: ...... | -T --~....1 ..1....1Â»4 -/ . .4,- . . A .4 . -- <6-/4,- /6..... -'-f .... - 1 - ' r M - fâ€¢06Â·f,Â·fl"t 1 = 4.9..4 : (ik . 2 1.â€¢ ....Â¢........ iâ€¢-0/Fc .1/4- / 6-lt 1-WA-r- *-"-t-4, /N-â€¢r-,1 IN' fl/"91/Â· *I W~4 /4/AGÂ·â€¢Â·4 1- Mf- - . I | -of 4.4 '11'.AT, Z.-4 0 â€¢ t- P'/ 4' 17F- A lyâ€¢ Â·4' 1 9-'-rÂ·-- ' J A-ri r,1 "â€¢.//*'6 /4/LIâ€¢Â·-I.4) 410 1 15-1.-1.Ar 7 ..1..1. . 0.1 0.1 .4. -1.*-----+ 9 .....rer ./ K... -6-0..1.21/1. 2- Acit S..-. l 7 01 " . V V i K L .... I . 0 il . 1 6 -â€¢r, 9./.1.e L . Jk-Lj - - 9 t.hil, SO 11$ r '4.,W../ 45......c.Â·riol ./ 15.,4.1 : Srâ€¢-64 ..1 râ€¢'h./4 fr fl 1 ...... - 0 -4. /4-*l 4 -U#=*4- % 8 'i - -441 7 , 9.4â€¢-6-r. G.Ir F.â€¢ ... 1,11Â·....vant... .re r. 1 : - ".0.'-1 -r .ziâ€¢Â¢91 0,1,1,4 Â£ U e 6 6 . . Lit 'f-â€¢-1,4'll-61-1, 1,1*'."illl a.-<1 - Aâ€¢0'â€¢M.alpt-â€¢9 -'â€¢11 tbâ€¢Â·Dâ€¢-Iâ€¢Â·~r~tU 1 16 1 -Ur'11, â€¢~rÂ·v,=7'81/LA' 17 --W'< 9'4"1 7 '} . r., 1,6. .....rl'.1 ...1 6.-r' r....1 Ot'Wopu... . I I f r f A 1 - . ... .* -- o N <in -0- 11'.Y 11, 14.9 1 - ... W. P. . ..06 - It.l flrâ€¢2, 30 -O. /1 , 3 7'Â·8Â· 1....... r[ - - QD lili' ' L____ I j i ' - IMI,â€¢e 1 ! 1 | 1 -2 7//1 L_ -- -J 1_ _~UÂ»-41 --t . c ZT L I r=r 1 1 1 . T 1 '50 r -_ -1 -- -1-{3>1 - f T i i.'a 1 f L_ . T ~ 19.41 u k :i ie + + 4 - 1 1 - 1 Â·11 12 I - It=...4 . L. - i i tfi L--EL _ 1 1 4 l T l â€¢-,1 - 1 1 : .~ --t=-, T u 4- , N t4 1 | 11 ' t=rft-ft[~- F ~ 1. 1 1 i - 4.-- - -i -*. - i P''' 1 ' 1 1 tizzizhilizkt_-5,4 +- 1 6 233 2103 -#-:~1 1 4. .1/flr 1 7 1 -- 04--7/0 -9 - 1 . 4 h...4 -- =-22 - 9--- --#li 1 1 1 i -~ *444- 1 34-- VA.*1 1- , -r i 1 . : It N 21 - .....4 91-g 6---4 2>00Â«-n - 0~04-1 --4 -* F 1-1 - - - 1 3 04 1-3 2 n 1 1 Et @ 0 4 0 (.% FÂ«:<.7 ff 79 2.1;1 1 1- / 1 t, / 1 i 4 - 4- 1 ./ 1.r 7-h 0/ 739 1 . - b/Oft..0-N 6 â€¢ 0 4 - 0 -1 - ----1 ,2~1= =zinf~~ / u L__Â¢ fw..1 7 3 .0, rt O L.v... (4Â·â€¢. 1,40 .. S 321,#9516. ---/6 7 1 1-- A-- 1 (.0 -0. 3 04. -. 2.8 .-â€¢ , -1.0. 1.,0 -. 5... 10'. C.â€¢ I I = .L. r.,1-_- 1 1 0/1./ S......... 1 1 .. . 1 71.8/ 0.'â€¢r'â€¢44 ,~44.ra--r e...,2.-r ADD,1-1--1 -x A... , g... 1... 6. fA-â€¢d'*Â·f L.,1,~7â€¢ -1 0% 1 e-/ Â£ A %.I#*'./. 3 1 3 - C 06.â€¢11'.1. N ~...4 -- 0 C. I-'rÂ¥Â·-Al M 1 40 47 1 3 j o , t <,2 I ~cop ~L-AN ;0 :g . Col--â€¢.1. [bgoci â‚¬ I r- h + -4 9,4 r.9. (~rAUGfudi O cl <4 A... -A... A... .... *4'Â·Dâ€¢ 74â€¢ Y..Â· 140,-c: ,1.v.O'- d'IiA"~- c . 0. 1 > ...4 r. p â€ž., r..... C./Alâ€¢- 4-79 ,- Alll lrIâ€¢â€¢r-Â· /7.,// 61.-1-w,3009'~ Proposed Total FAR: 3,830 sq. ft. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting applicable Guidelines are found in Section VI. Residential Buildings- Renovation and Restoration, beginning on page 47. The Development review standards are found in Section 7-601 of the Land Use Code, and are reviewed below (staff's comments follow): 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark... Response: This structure has received many alternations over the past dozen or so years; most of the building is not original. This structure has evolved to meet its commercial needs, as the proposal indicates. An enlarged kitchen is necessary to accommodate growing clientele, and consequently, more rear deck room is needed for seating. All of the changes are taking place at the rear of the structure. The footprint is being enlarged to the south only, and we find that generally the perceived scale of the structure is not affected from Main Street, the principal elevation. We find that the proposal generally meets the Guidelines and this Development Review Standard. The expanded storage area simply brings out the existing south elevation wall a few feet. A row of horizontal windows is added to the main level (south elevation), which the HPC may consider inappropriate in relation to the historic verticality features of the structure. The window placement is evenly spaced and does not diminish the overall fenestration pattern, in our opinion. The new upper level deck is expanded, which covers 2/3rds of the entire width of the structure along the south elevation and includes turned spindles to match those existing. All proposed materials will match existing. A new rear entry stair will access the southwest upper level doorway. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The immediate block contains seven historic cottages in a variety of conditions. Explore Booksellers has been recognized for many years as an adapted historic cottage and strengthens the historic integrity of this block and the Main Street Historic District. We find that the proposed alterations are not inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. 2 24 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Conceptual Development: 221 E. Main, Explore Booksellers, Public Hearing, continued from August 8, 1989 Date: September 13, 1989 LOCATION: 221 E. Main St., Lots D and E, Block 74, City and Townsite of Aspen APPLICANT: Katharine Thalberg, represented by Randy Weedum, Architect NOTE: You received this proposal in your meeting packet for the August 8, 1989 HPC meeting. This item was tabled at that meeting and continued to this one due to the applicant's failure to property notice the public hearing. Staff has received word from the applicant's representative that public noticing has since proceeded according to the Code. PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: Some of you may recall the Minor Development approval the HPC granted for this structure on April 26, 1989. The application was for a 237 sq. ft. enlargement to the rear. "Future Plans" were noted at that time, involving the now proposed kitchen, deck and storage enlargement. The applicant elected to not apply for a building permit on that Minor Development approval, waiting instead until this time to do a larger expansion, the proposal of which is before you for review. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual Development approval for an enlargement of 686 sq. ft., involving an expansion of the main floor storage by 490 sq. ft., and second floor expansion of 196 sq. ft. (also containing the rear stair exit) and 111 sq. ft. of deck. No variations are being requested. ZONING: "0", Office, "H" Historic Overlay - Designated Landmark within the Main Street Historic District ADDITIONAL REVIEWS REQUIRED: As an expansion of net leasable is involved with this structure, requiring a GMQS Exemption application be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Existing FAR: 3,144 sq. ft. Proposed new FAR: 686 sq. ft. Allowable FAR: 4,486 sq. ft. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels Response: Staff finds the proposal does not detract from the cultural value associated with the architecture of the designated structure, as very little of the original fabric has been retained. We find that the cultural value of the structure is not SO much in its historic architectural integrity, but in its adaptive use. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: As previously stated, we find that the addition generally does not detract from the architectural integrity of the structure any more. The expansion of the existing lower level storage space to align with the upper floor balcony appears to be a logical solution to an internal space problem. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the Conceptual Development as submitted 2. Approve the Conceptual Development with conditions, such as a restudy of the south elevation main floor windows and the storage doors on the east elevation; all conditions are to addressed for Final Development review. 3. Table action to allow the applicant further time to study the proposal, incorporating the comments and guidance form the HPC is a revised proposal. 4. Deny Conceptual Development approval finding that the application does not meet the development review standards. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant conceptual development approval for the application for 231 E. Main St., with the following conditions: 1. The applicant re-study the south elevation windows, main floor, for compatibility 2. The applicant re-study the storage door design, east elevation 3 3. Exact material representation to be made at Final Development review. memo.hpc.221em.cd.2 4 EXPLORE BOOKSELLERS ADDITION The following is to address Attachment 2, Paragraph 5: The proposed addition contains approximately 686 square feet. We are expinding the southeast corner of the building going back to the fence at the parking area. We are expanding under the existing deck at the southwest corner and going about 5 feet from the fence. This addition contains 490 square feet of back area and storage expansion on the first floor. On the second floor, we added 196 square feet to the southwest corner of the building and replaces the existing rear exit stair. There is 111 square feet of deck connecting the existing deck area to the existing stair. An addition of 110 square feet of deck was created by the expansion of the loom below. The F.A.R. is .75 to 1, allowing for approximately 4486.5 square feet. We now have approximately 3144 square feet of floor area and will increase it to 3830 square feet. The deck area allowed is 15% of floor area, which is 673 square feet, of which we have only 224 square feet of deck with the new deck area included and will increase it to 445 square feet. The setback on the sides are not changed and the rear setback is 15 feet; we are approximately 20 feet back. RW:A2Z 6/21/89 A I 1 9. Description of Development Application The first floor addition will be storage and back room space of approximately 490 square feet. The second floor addition will relocate the existing prep kitchen into the expansion and will contain approximately 196 square feet. That will bring the total square footage of the building to 3830 square feet. Zoning allows for 4486 square feet. Also included is an addition of a 221 square foot deck. The total deck square footage including the existing area is 445 square feet. Zoning allows 673 square feet. EXPLORE BOOKSELLERS ADDITION The following is to address Attachment 4 and Attachment 5, Paragraph 3: The property is in an office zone and is part of the Historic Overlay District. The building addition does not extend into any setbacks. The design of the addition uses the same materials, colors, etc., as the existing building and its massing is compar- able to existing elements using the same detailing on railing and ornamental treatments. The addition is consistant with t"e character of the neighborhood as it is in keeping with the exiscing Victorian design of the existing building. The addition does not detract from the cultural values of the designated historic structures as all the work is located in the alley and the back side of the building, and the architecture is complementary to the existing Victorian design as well. The architectural integrity of the existing building is not diminished since all new material will match the existing. The architectural style is in form and massing, reflective of the elements of the existing structure. This Application is for all anticipated work. Since the expansion is over 500 square feet, a Full Historic Review with a Public Hearing is required. The first floor addition will be storage and back room space of approximately 490 square feet. The second floor addition will relocate the existing prep kitchen into the expansion and will contain approximately 196 square feet. That will bring the total square footage of the building to 3830 square feet. Zoning allows for 4486 square feet. Also included is an addition of a 221 square foot deck. The total deck square footage including the existing area is 445 square feet. Zoning allows 673 square feet. RW:A2Z 6/21/89 \ ' Ill I it, '1 1 11 1 1 . 1 ill 1 1 11.1 . . 'A>'tz.1"-5 3-j=*tI123.kÂ·tdlf:;tÂ¤~~:~;* ~~*~rÂ·>rf.:s4f' ef)6..,42&!b:;~ .**43>0~~4QSt*e a 'JU'~Â£> ';' .CP;i; ; R ~'k;f' ~lf 1: 1 + fÂ·~f~5 ~,f L:D'.1-11 1 - .i-42 3 797+E# 1Â¥;*- 14-Y -,f.f'.44*-A#+Al*6.~;,.folfo,t*~~4-6 ~:4.4*7*1~Â£%/4/,5-90g#*T:#mid*6*3,iM4~2/ 41~~4.~35k~Â£+~~.34/i.~*~4-14~ f TY 1 1 0 1 Lf .2 43 { .e--1 , m _ _J 0. f , I 7 0 ' , - . i ' 9, 1 . i -- .-1 r < 1 f. 1 .-- iz 1 410 , > I f s O. M T. -1 --1â‚¬-1 - 1 r- - -- x N E W DE C K - I i Â· / E-* 1 57- ING DECIC. \ 1 . 41 i . - r 0 -11 J i 1 f /\ 1 . 1 + 1 11; 1 . '4 -- 1 - -/- r % /. //// ----3 -- ,;, Fk R. f i - / A E-ki ST Iri' 6 EXPLIZIE-9 56 0 I L 94 I U 70 EL\ l S -r- 1 k.1 G BLDU 4 1 -- a . or 1 11 DIS PLAY P D A 2 -1 . I i -1 - -0 P (Al - rt 1 I Â¥ 3 P F 1 1 1 Eye-COMD FLOOR Â·FLAA 1 1, al 5 CALL /0-0 .1 er,-FVTIVT-7/*/97--7r-Z-e-::---~0"~ -:-Fli-- 3 -1--"-41>;~*_-< 0 702.- 4 4 -I:,r . . . 1, 41 - 1 *99 1,107 , ' 1 Plc -- . 3 - 4 1 / A J 0 1 -=1 .0 - --4-t--==Yb'L-- 4 , k r e'Â·~4 . 8 = 0 1/ . # !11 L 11 k TO \Id , 43 11 - r |~1 4 0 - - 1 d Z lilli 1 .1, (3?jj j <0 4- . 7 4 Ma 1 14 1 1- - 7 , % 32 It 0 ul ~ . 1 - 1 r d 1 J .4 t fli 2 0 J 4 1 ; 14 Ul iC)3' 1 1 1 9 - T J 11 St fet 1 2 N d , zi 33 - 1 IN - 16 l , 1 1 4 1 ... 4 0 ~', 1 ft. 11 1 r , 11 9 V1 -1 Clj f I - 4 1 3 Lj J '. '3 -1 Z < ~/ i ; ~zj 1 01 0 -t J j . ,, h h 1 ' 3 1.- 2 , 4 . Â· ., 4 . 1 4 I 0 5 ff z J k 40 - 1 Â¥ 4 0 A- - 1 4, - d i â€ž \4 0 1 f 4 1 j 0 2 U â‚¬> ' . 4 W - I l 0 L o r.1 1 \ -7 ' XI .. -1 0 -10 2 376 c.. k~ ~ R... M . -- ' . ; t 5. 0 e - ' 1 0 1 0 , 1 1 S ' a Â£ - - 1 -4 + R h 6~. .â€ž 1 . 31 . 0 - r--A #11 4 1 . . L.- 0 A 31 - 9, 1- r. 1 1 11 11 - (Â© 4 //-jff) i 4 7 ,-11Â·- , / 11 1 . 4 f'l - UL 1 /4 e 40 5) 1 - W %.1 1 tk Â£ f 4 , 6-5 Irt "675 V" , 1, '97 .. . 10,/ 2 1 61 . .4( *elt. 'I" ' W01- E-*i %-r-, N G APD ~,01 I Â¥ L-KE[Ki J Dul,1 19. 81' C 6 06*4Â£ D' f 3 â‚¬ EL C o c- At ED j r 0 A 24.7--': I K) E P 4 1 N. T.F. , / .10 1 11 . ' I i h Â· C I ' 1/ 1 . I. - '' I -C' I / 0 1 0O 1 1 . U L '1. 1 0 3 }ULE 1 --- -- 1 1,1, 1 ' DPNG, REMARKS -- IF ' -- - 2- ... RELOC+MÂ·t.. j 4/' 6 7/9' 1, 1-4 R.~~0 I hi 1 F V % ELO<.Al- E- ' * -_-_--- _ - _ - < c/4 3/4 MA K VIN Â· .. 5 44-0 \03 0\- . 4-- . . 1 K 3 - 0 1, 1, A CD -1/ 2 U A RV 1 N.J y , \E h 1-\ N -11 44 , 1 1 --i- 1 1 4 0 1 60.6*11 1 7 1.9 9 96 2 5.19 0 2 KIS -T- iN Cp SulLPIN Cp U * 6 4 3 8.1,0 4 1 0 .1 . 1 / 9- k,1 4 1 tu 47 02-867 0 SITE FLA N 0 1 SCALE I g )0 40-,5/ .. D.001 CL- . Il 0 9-- I.---1--I.- t.,1 11 - 1 /#/.9\ 1/â€¢ , = i 1 1 * .4, 44. {tt 1 1 j \ 4Â« T- ...:h Xq#/ --2. v 7-- 1104 1 1 1,1 1 Ji- ~ -- - l 1.- f i R 1,2 1 11 -- 111 L Â· 7.- U U U ND " i f,4 i F 7 -_ -_ -- -- 2 --1.1 -11 31''ll ----------- - - - T .0 0 1 -- -- . 1-- 11 1 1. --9.- 1 C-) EAST L LE VAT ION S c- A L E 1/~ " Z l- 0 0 V 1 r. 1 /10-1-4/1-- . i .1 /57 / f 1 //, \ 402Â«61 1 E 1 - L- - -- -4- - 1 . 11 tÂ· , f .i--- - - . i- - -----I- - -- - --i--Ill 1 i i--I -----. i#- -.- .- - . -- 1 - Vj EST EL EU. -, - f- 0 ' 1*,1,=..:..3.-4,232,~.ciurlfl< 1'2~83-2.t-:FIR.2.rT iMIZ<991%&,i42';2.to'"Lpil~|1*.m*M 1#* ' Â·.: 'Â·IÂ·/' . . CD /13 1-- f ~~ d Â·- 3*-' <1-. Â·eiÂ®3Â·- Â· P Â· , 9*?%31Â·~ ~ rÂ·4 90.93.5 ' Â· 4-411 2 43*>141-, 91:t. Â·, . Â· id''*19 :'. 111 d % 1. FI 91 9 ?iÂ·t â€¢; 9 7 ty ,Â·m+. ' >,â€¢~' .' M.446.,9 1:40'~%%3012*.~r.q 46'eÂ¥~44::373 abm**C ...17*e m-4â‚¬4~24 ,..Â·:fi~.1~912:.~,~AÂ·. 4 t~~a.**r.rl>41 Vy~*~8*LT#, ''39;49 ~~dÂ¥99'4*b?X?t?':i+"iÂ¥. **44Â¢Â» iÂ« ~14=a- :.4,â€¢lipaÂ·: 1'â€¢ 4.0 Â·Â·,4104Â¢. *fÂ·. ..MNÂ·,t ;Â·:Â·ltÂ·glifY 7 -â€¢ 45.Â·, it'(>Ff**94/7 6,-Â·fURS- ..214+: -I t/L U ..1 . '4 . A.: :2'/23374Â·Â·16 2 :442 -9*43'77.... 04.ir'63Â·hÂ».9.9 . 334.i< .. 544 Â· 9/94/4:. r ' - ~+2 .., t.... r**A''~ 9, 4?>Â·: -*Z-.t'*143,41:6>-911; 4* Â· Â·tÂ· 4 144.66 1 .â€¢ 4~3~~ Â·*â€¢ '11Â· . ~f/~142 '~ 79%31:*10 24( 174,41 *.:t...4761 2 4%*964â€ž642.:Ti.*Â· - 1 e.....27:W,rt.8# 4 (:i..:7%*49... " 4* S z %52~~i, IWIAY.i;i..:4'~ Â¥3 ' t *:4 ;giÂ·,> 71 r..4r g:e- i 6Â«1332-%.4. 2~ c ?%1 77* p:/lifÂ·.:"P ~ t.14.-634~:141- r. . .. p W......44 Â·1 N Â·Â·Vi'Â· j 4 Â·'910 4 Â·1 i ...4 ':5. r elt c..r~i~.~~ 44-Vir,91, â‚¬f 4' .. , f 4..i,/Mitq':..4,7 0. . '*EWAÂ»..,14'..K. 'litblfwin'ivir/,4,9.Lf kler<Â»0.77, : 441,44%.tr:/4:d.jit0Â¥ *3*t'l:Miftittf 1 2/89*0401.4.2 â€¢Uâ€¢ '11,"'â€žVIE' ~'Â¥DjlÂ¥'t a:* 05.i;*?J 'a,?4*~.1,-,r,7 Â·4 -â‚¬t; 0..i... 4 r*./= -U/t.t s..ek"ht, -46 ..ft :f: .---' ~'i,54% ,~r-LE)ew :.fy. C Â·:Â· Â«ty-*02&Â·. 1%7 4:f *it.~ 92Â·4.:.F'f ''.~9 9 L WEL: 4.j . 6.1,1 1. .:1Â· g . 9/,4 . .01,1,3:fu.,$40:14:!'.,4. P 07#beÂ»&41/,140. C Â· t., I f I . ....O, . '17*4, 1.. 1 4, l N.k . 4, 1 ) q. r > '1. i , 4 -'.7*â€ž1'. â€žt *-r 4 - 2 '1'. 4 41.0 &4 44,1, 9 , -47@ltiete; f44<i,..: r;:44 93.7,AL, 446* 4, 10?04' 444/.' -/ 41*6 '.'jk..1-, '' ..7,;'*'' 4'aÂ¥..7,49Â·rÂ· 4Â·ir~~' a49 -4 m .. . Al y f V 4 *. . Â«7 6 2/ 4 .- MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Minor Development: Mai_n Street Bakery (formerly "Little Cliffs") 201 East Main St. Date: September 13, 1989 LOCATION: 201 East Main Street, City of Aspen APPLICANTS: Jane and Bill Dinsmore, Sally Barnett and Julie Wyckoff ZONING: "0" Office zone, Designated Landmark, located with the Main Street Historic District overlay zone. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting minor development approval for an enclosed walkway/corridor, connecting the two buildings on the parcel. The size of the connector is 7' 6" wide, and it fills the 51" gap between the buildings. The appalicants are also requesting to change the alley elevation door from one large sliding door to a two smaller hinged doors; the openings remain the same. j PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: Little Cliff's Bakery was landmark designated in 1986, subject to the condition that the stucco be removed and the original brick exposed within one year of the designation. That condition was never satisfied. Since that time, the Cliffs closed their business, and the building stood vacant. DISCUSSION OF THE DESINGATION CONDITION: The condition of the already deteriorated stucco has continued to worsen, especially over the last couple years. Fortunately the condition Of desingation was never met. Staff has studied the problem on- site and with experts from the State, and we have determined that the removal of the stucco is not an alternative. The stucco has cemented itself so well to the face of the brick that the hard surface of the brick is destroyed when the stucco comes off, exposing the soft inner portion of the brick (imagine a loaf of bread)> Inner brick detertorates rapidly without the hard protective surface. Therefore, the only preservation method for these two buildings is the continual maintenace of the stucco, carefully patching holes as they develop, overhaul the roof draining system, repair the parapet and flash, to prevent any further water erosion, the major culprit. Brick sealant has been found to compound the (brick) deterioration problem, as does paint. Stucco patching is the only answer (at this time), and has been discussed at length with the current applicants. Staf- has made this a recommended condition of approval. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark... Response: We find that the corridor design meets this standard. It is is small, subordinate, reversible, and recessed. A small (6x12) roof pitch has been discussed by the applicants to help shed snow, which is acceptable to staff. We find the request to change the alley elevation door is compatible, however, we request that if the door to be removed is the original, that it be retained in storage for the future restoration of that opening. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: We find the application generally meets this standard. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of the designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: The Planning Office finds that the cultural value of this landmark is that it is very unique to Aspen and in Colorado. It is unfortunate that it ever received a stucco "finish". This building's style is described in "A Guide to Colorado Architecture", produced by the Colorado Historical Society as follows: "The Terrace Style is considered to be somewhat unique in Colorado and dates from the late 1880's through 1920. These structures are basically one or two story brick buildings with a flat roof and corbelled cornice. Many have individual porches at the entrance. While the most common cornice treatment is brick corbelling, occasionally a separate cornice with brackets or parapets at the roofline are evident. The basic flat- roofed, rectangular form predominates. " 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: We find that the proposal does not diminish the architectural integrity of the strucutres. 2 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Minor Development approval for the application for 201 East Main Street subject to the following conditions: 1. All stucco surfaces be professionally patched where needed prior to this winter season (November 1 recommended deadline), and continually maintained. This condition replaces the condition Of landmark designation. 2. The alley elevation door be retained in storage for potential future use and restoration. 3. Any structural defects shall be remedied as soon as possible, in accordinace with Section 7-606 (A and B), "Minimum Maintenance Requirements" of the Aspen Land Use Code. All brick walls are to be maintained. memo.hpc.201em 3 -7- minor Historic Development We believe that the proposed openings to be made in the walls of the two buildings, the construction of the enclosed approximate 16 square feet connecting corridor, and the patching and cleaning of the exterfor of the buildings are minor Development of an historic structure as defined in Section 7-601 62 of the Regulations. The connecting corridor will be constructed in the narrow separation now existing between the two buildings and will not be observable from the front of the property or the sides of the property except when looking directly into the small separation area between the buildings. It will have a very minimal effect, if any, on the original design of the two buildings and will have no effect on the character of the neighborhood. A scale drawing of the connecting corridor in relation to the existing buildings ts attached hereto as Exhibit 3. Section 6-205 A3 provides that a Development Applica- tion for minor Development for an Historic Landmark shall be reviewed by the Asben Historical Preservation Committee (HPC) pursuant to the procedures set forth. Conditional Use Section 6-205 A2 of the Regulations provides that a Development Application for Conditional Uses shall be reviewed by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (the "Commission") pursuant to the procedures set forth. Section 5-213 21 of the Regulations provides that a restaurant use is a conditional use in the Office (0) Zone Districr for structures that have received historic landmark designation. 02 have been advised by your agency that a Ir- -*MA.7.'.1.1 Â·-1 Ttlil - 31]14'Ill! i 1 'rl!44%444' ----- ----- ---- -- -1 , I 1.1 1-1.4,1 V , 1-11/1/I,1 : I zip; 1-1 . ' _1,1,T,I~ rÂ·.1-+ 11'T'' ~' ~ - -___. l*1~ T~(*I,l:*gi ~ r= -- fl _2~I-41,1.,L~1,1.1,!TI - - 44tt~1~1,1 L IR==73- - E-1 1 UL' 1 2 lilli ~ T-,I,-KJA,;,1 1 ' 1 ITITIT-1 1 -AH.& Fr~ -Ll 111 It ~11 . 1 ; 444!69 1 1li[1 11 1.1 ~ -- 744!1T T.111,42,4 t l r-I_223 . I I r. 1 1 , 111'.m. i Y , I Â· J.1.1,/ - ' 4/:~,r. Id-_--~~ Li C =22=J [_122221.3 - 1-r-III ----U :iÂ·-i<(__~ -1 + -1- . -- -- j *~ildI~1'IltllÂ· a.,rr'Wor- /--- EtÂ·.15-1-INC, --7-1,44/'T' . -- --.-_~_-_- ---_. - , 1 L-- CIZE=ZZE] propsd 97Â·ECT E LE,V/),-1- I Of 1 0-Q BA KE: RY -77-0,-,pg L'OEIL MUEAL- L-,f>,-/7 194- b>40-1 i Clfi/- L. ca-i,=-,it 6.70 L>â€žJjc~p 1 j u 'Fi/1 -5/- 664Â¢-1/ Lt i (LapÂ£ ji<,~r,c)<Â£,C -ZA~** rve/,7Â£/7/4 4, 3/ Ar 6,:6402 77//7 4 - 73 .t to n Â· 1 rt'' 1 ~~1 C A# 142, i,F) CON-,1Â¢-,- T dai,1 1 --ter'-1 N-5. 11Â¢ 11Â£!cu,1 eall, i >i J<(41.41-, ' rh'.r.,,/) â€¢20 (414221 < 4-/001,0,7 4 ~12,11 l.~11 -J Â£8,/Li,-7 tilf) 4.' -1 e,1, -, 12 i ,//~ LA,-I .: 4, .Â»' u. t. I. tr -_in_i/r,7' 7~/2,- 65:Â£-;c ~~906Â£-> /i,iaâ€žl -11-,Â£ ,4 bitj,d/--111~~~~/fb,Jo,~_- -5, m , 1,4-. 40 -th -4 0 497, 21:1). ' 3.1,, =La,J cone, v.h ~''-w,I w,Id) ,~5.ju- J,e,-jiV'. Lideâ€ž~.s Je Sti~ -4 l ' _1-,i>Y: lt .,c,1,7,-"l -4, ~-4.ul, cr,le, q-lu /t).~W , awachÂ¢J -/o q-.,bi /6, C *21 0 f j/,Lt / x L :/7 f ' Lic,yh#t,/4-,4,2/Fk,>6 4-J ilfÂ« 4 41-7,15(.con.,/ lâ€ž)>14*i-24{ 4. 1, 44 2 /4 ,~ ; li#, - I, 161 r 4-rin 31,1 }ci,7 >.tic./. 0.- I, I,-: 1, 1, .-t- a > in C lusÂ·k, - -fri' Â£ 7* i1 lf,ticq /11 b / 1/7 7 3,Â£01-16â€ž5 1..> a-Â¥4- de VS.Â·,-:, f ~ Il'i J.Li' l.4, '7~ .P, 1,0 ) 1-' in.4 ~ 44-4 Le' ) 1 0 - l<, U'Â£ C.el ,4â‚¬,26 *re-z_q,- f,11-K c.i /<34 -AD -1/,e /S- fl,4 50.1.L.\L ji h,,e ,tiÂ·,77 2-lib~ - 1 ' --jic.~,~~~~t-~t , 46 . , 7 2Â£,6,/ 1 A (20 1 31Â£ f{,aek- it,le w,-/6 i.~ ass 2,-e 1 21 k.'.7~ LA// 1 2.,12 Bl .r>, 2/ 4 jÂ»~16> i'/ , 1 /9 j.ekÂ».- ezjka' 7*0 091 1 JORTH EL-E\'Al-ION o[ 13/31< E--RY 4 ''.;â‚¬C"uwbt>'*Br - 9, 3 ~taâ€ž,gul .Sdb --- 5,~24*EEEFIEER ~'.I . L.tIJZEZZCn:zz- :r----- Â·Â·Â· ---ltl-1-/. _ _~__ -Â·--- --*-- I. - 272--I- i.1-LE - 2.J-U-JI,'-----21 ...\ .. *tmÂ¢Â¢~01â€¢Ir- .U .UV P L.&~Amkude// ..ELEâ€¢2210"*.'t#* ' --.- Lifinill floill I][Hilli[ \ , 1 . ----~ Il Crvi- Cl- --'-- 11 t , 1*\44}/1, liwry*,4, I .19:MAA 50~~ i fzctit&6'.bt, 13% .. 1,9 / 51 ,â‚¬' 11,4 t. 9/4* 44%.tw~ I .Apla V R/Â· 6 i V- ' [ ] U [ 1 (Hln " D -,r- 1 NU) E.4.=7 -70 1.-1 - 4.09*k&-30(93%,11#r:4*Â·kz_ ,-. <Â· 72%2, Â·,MR#*16 F#%~7 4Â·AWflff/r 2 ..4 - EZE . c.-~11, 7 3; 1 B e. d. ( 1 c \J R B Â£ O u 1-1 [: R bA ' *.. â‚¬~YAL ;6%~%5 6,-,c kir d [A Ul '. A..:.. '1<41 1(rkiWT Vij>lil<&~4 im251--4409.,1--------------------.1/7 IÂ·-10.35 ' -1| 3 8 5 IDEW Alr, M N ?31.1 4 Â·*i, 4,4 .,fel-* * .. 4. N. 4 *. F-LÂ·oâ€¢'ic E rorti.%14,40 -4 L_9.9-_ FOUND // CAP -sHri.f,5 ~42 :*~9*- ~ ivj T NECAP Â·sizmts,;Â· Z /,U U. ..\ 32 2, -4-92Â»r-f '01 j ClÂ¥-*Uy r L kippchjrli/*dt -- 1 r , 1 & 1 5 2 ' 11Â· M \ .1Â«14,41 *-= BUILDING 4.. G 'r Lf,V"t,4/ f /tj (30< ., A 4 4%2â‚¬.r /. - 0 + 1 -*Alitti /N;40143$9 ~'4<-~j-(4:2~,2 '3 -ff FÂ» - Il<%44 r 7% I FErICE S 1 41" b~Fi-40,1-{ 1~~_ .,iritf<'fl- '982 6 ~ *,ji,Â·ti, L ~LA~ |1 4 35, A , jit ~03Â«j*4 ,1. }Lit,Pdj~Na /t;'r,,C ,('re~ - J 53. b",1Â»r.TB -O.1 N I 0 1 4 ; ~ /4 2, 4--r ' .- 2., 1- 0 41--V Â¥ f 4.1.- , I 'l , ..1; 0 4 09 Flower- , 2 517 111 9 .T'- l < 43* 2601 1/ Â¢>Ega 4. l~/-3 731 A>KO-,1 : ~f ~ -i<ite N_r- 0Â·j :.I),11 (_.Al ~Â§,2 . -t ,~~c.;=:~~~~ ~ ~ $ - 1 1,J 7 5 30 , I 4 0 1 5 4 -"6431,75 b 1 1~W 1 'j(' \1! â€¢Â·"]h - -2-z-r Â©r. awir:/92 -2 ~i~ b 4- 5 ir,...r - + 1 1 - I -=1.-1.-2-7. r--ZE--2 1 ' ,-op Ise J 1 :ZIZI-X=ZLIZZ_71 ./I r j- Col , â€ž1:'r 13 --0--/ 2=-=ur-: q _En I- 2 1-_7-= -g- -Â·n_z 21 -n_r-z-===2 07. -1 07[N & i# C.; ==22-===-13 -- ----. - 4 E AK- 29â‚¬2112=7 But L D , rl U *-2--_1-Â·ILIL--1 cli/.2.-r Pâ‚¬Â¢7,1 - -1 EE-G=1-Eky-CÂ· 2? ~U-â‚¬-i-Â£-4 .. - .- ~.1< f.4-X<.4 Â· J.<r,G\vir LÂ· . Â·Â·,~ot,~*arr.p-e#WR**Pret#RANÂ·<>3.-Â·f'-3~43 ~ fÂ·~Â·Â«Â·Â»t,Y t 4/ 14.. - g * . .4- ~69:~*Mi---*i #T~ -7$tic-29' VV~ - *. - -4 3 ... 7 - 4<<A--/...... /4 %4 - - 6. t 2 rilm 24\ ----41 [4- - , 61 N.- V % --4,- I 2.1 h 'Ask . I b 1 4141.07*Â¥~k\9441 -391 *. /4 , .1. t.' 7 - - < 5Â« 5- : '' 1 ./,45/4..3 141Â£2,-i/.7*'.... < 4 -1 f. .~ JI / 1 - -NÂ·'' Mt 0 ./ % , <4 / -9 'll r < 5 ' - * -af i ./- .* .-*- J ; =. 644.1~<~4~ - / 7 ..-4 ; - I :C- 124 M 'Â·T,Â·/I ' I. ' .* ,r' ' '1.1.-- 1,41:l -4, -~ 37:.1 ~f,1 ' 4 6 - , 1 , - A' 137._ t, & Â«44-1 ti 1 43 le 24* 1 I 1/ -- I> lili.. 4/ C -fi- . -.- *-2. 'ty:, Â·2:r;S--rfi- -4 --~ 1.-r ,0 9.1 -1; 1-tÂ·~Â·. ; ...Ar...4<96.*74# S.:, / 1 ... r. 41 14%, . 1-0 1 -uÂ·.1.,10/1 - -3 --37 d i64 $ -, /-,mli,â€¢aig,k, -3<JO<*516.,12.. v J Â£464:O+UWRZE.. e. -\AlK- / Â»Â«fri-'. â‚¬204*t*,;424/ 4 / 0 'laim:r . ' | 2 ~41 Il , . ..4 3 itallis#lia' r--7 ,.I/-1- *.-- - 20: # /719â€ž -- I P - u-Â·.-12*11*ZIT 4*7*JF~Vfj(&f#- fkgia,0,2{liF~id'*0,33Wi<r-â€¢4- ~~~~~kndlh ~-' .1 2 IMNERI F e.r-. -~--) 1 61 ..y A-- 7%-9Â»2617&<t: 0 Â»'y-' -r- -Ur =d RE ,===61-1 .tr 01 * ' -y 9 -Viwit'C'zy'ft Â£p- 9163(&1Â£133 .1 1= i ~Al'h-p-L2-4 -I.'/4,4:,25,ili~-~ ,f - ~,. r Â·-- ~Fr I -i, 269,4. A .-r-\I y' Up,kia.14 -, 21 3,5, ,-r &~31[ L ==74 1.5 610522,9 r,0. Â¥1 .. 2 +3*92*&*i T *4217 9%Â»"-Â¥ELÂ»Â«24Â« =i... --- ---- 9 1&.5~446#/34.f 4-Al ,-1 - -I'.'-.1 â€¢ I 1----- 7- , 21&12 ' . 451'4 #1 4 7 ''' ~ -401%1, c i - - P. .L 11.- *}*..19 7.0,Â·Â·,-Â¥7 - :1&1*/*6_2Â£-11/ila- t '_2122-6 340:~ _171 -- --- U .------ i /&Â· - tri-"ff---*- ---4....Ii"'4*ZIB~:~:~IT. *- -------1-1- .. -This illustration showing a brick facade is NOT ' feasible solution r surface treatmen~ and Etc- - - ----â‚¬-1, ---=7* '-CO: the current stucco 1 be retattled to c ! r - - LS- - - 1 1 : â€¢42 0};I~t8-1 a deterinratinn h r Â£ r P c *ill.$../.....'.,Fl~:$.....I-- /\A /\ 1 04 n EL 0 *10 44%58#0 . 641*c~ i 1- r- C U R 6 4 6 u T T E B..?:i~3>-00:. 9*27] RE*21 24Â©216*44Â£ -. .A-Dall99!442*JÂ¢# pi,e-r- 01Â£.-T -1-,â€ž-~ . 1/7-,lopureu/21<; Ln Ul . 51DEWAL 5-10.35'-4 3.8' 4~, *xrr N 150 - 69 + - 4 \ . Af * 41-* 1 *_4' 4 Â¢ t_.Â¢. *- *. 1 * h ./D:El- 9.9' t.0 - -1,10/N HE)66 (fa-1.- 9 ~'h-- REOAR 1 /1 r,7/ATIF FOUND / WITH CAP -41 I. r. C / 1 -.-9- -7- c - 1 CAP -- E- A .. .. ,-1 . s-Â£ Z--/1 AL.ON-2-0 : CLASAY,â€¢-4< .. I. . ... BUILDING + .... Co â€¢CAâ‚¬ rE A - â€ž -366 5 GRAp=p AG A FENCE 4/ 91.8' 1 4 35' SPRULâ‚¬ (~ d R Aâ‚¬-N I J 1- - c LANDZ>CAPE or + 4~ 81*& Â£ in #04 x 1- b N '9 -Gi E 13AKERY Â¥~CLW~.r- BC V WNMWK 0 . sE , *flpjie'.9,r#v*v ~~*â€ž+ 2_ - 96 1 25 17 4 -4 24 tai \W =1- U R._ .- Â¥ O O WU 0 7ZECEN 7- A-*>peri ON ~ 14-0. f 3 p. R-1- Coce__ 75 30 -3 SEN)â‚¬5â‚¬_ 0 PROPoSED CORRIDOR b 15 .... . N:Â£322=23Â£2 .. . r 1 1 --- - - 0 . 1 L-----3-075 -'7 1 -4\40 - Z 11. I. C Oul-.5106 1, L 0 iket:ZER- . - ... ''\ Â«P / . . The corridor will be 51 Inches wide covering the ill' width of the gravel ared between front and rear . .V . C- 1 ~ Â· - structures. 140 4 K . 612-*val_ BUILDING . - The corridor's width of 7 feet 6 inches is the. L. disntance from the far left edge of the replaced C< AA*Â» Â· door to the tar riglit edge 01- tile replaced willdow. -- V m Â· 1 f f , K ... REE 34.15' 1 . 1 11 . 11 , i 1 1 1 11 1 Ill , lit -14 - 111 .1.1 N f 111 2- 1 1 _a_Â· i LlÂ· Â· . 1 1 -r- . .1 1. 1 ./. . CURRENT DOUTI-1 ELEVATION ef FRoNT- BLDF. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 t - 27129(.~55,16#.SE;~ iDJ6/ ..lilli. ...9.,8 6.- 'A.. 1 ... : RM-.*5~- I tÂ·iN# 4. 4 *A99$1.-6,+4 0 1 -If-9.349 6 .7.6.ge- 97 â€¢UP' 4.2 0 U.ZE .01&1 4 42 4 I â€¢87 Â·41 CORIA,Dok. 0. .C O PC N ING- -:36)1721.â€ž &046-41> r - -3 -:c:.5.vsÂ·.--16:.6 9 al-2Â·Y:t>.:. i.z ~:9.90-63:.SÂ· J142741. .. , 14.- 0-5.-1 41).%,6>Â·it-P ' 2Â«Me..fA.69-59 ' 2. Â· *.'2 - 3~- Â£)2Â·.> ~-'t,4.. Â·3 Â¥5Â· /Â· 2 5.:3497Â·53*... :6:>...p-Â· 1 PROPOSED 5OUTI-l ELEVATION ef FRONT BLDG 6...41.9*61==:b:,0 U. 4 6/,=6&21;,Ap/5-4. - --*-* .--.- . .14'<4:Â·41- I i W'Â·Â°'6:47--0-06*Â»Â©Â·)17 L AN I 4/'.. :l UT-4 . 1 11 -- 1.- IT I T I-- 41Â¢>C4 0- . 4 -- . I .....1 0.491>91.!49...4. 0 . 1.'k' ' - 1/1, i i lil I 1 III 1 ! !1 CoRRIDe FA - ., IlliÂ¢ ..r ' 11 1 i 11 .# 9 4-4-2 OPENING :24. ..'' i.*11__-_-1 li _ 9 4,Â·i, 9.Â·n...,..50, 1454.;: - . C C. 4 .0-4.-462.2/ -2 41 :A'.G Â£. -li ~ 15%/2-%88131 Â·- 0/139.: S:'91:fic:.c. 41*&,ft:322:44:.:A 3.19:. d 1---1 1 V , 6Â·15 ?iÂ·,93%'29 a~,ft - -- - -- '7 F.. 0.,as: 41) t<Â©../.. 4 9.2.1 1.91Â£: 196 %:6. 2 -1 7 I ~r 1 - . 3Â«<,Â»VE?rsÂ·21, :5.-Â°-4 4 /0 YO- -4. 6. _.i Flew hinged door opening from the center. Remove door with portico roof and adjacent window. Similar painted wood construction. NORTH SOUTH Construct corridor opening in Same area. Replace tin with glass in one window. p R o Po_5 9: D ELEVATI ONS OF R.EAK BLDG. VO. 4.j. Â· r, (, .*..3433:.Â·<dS Â·30Â§: -3 5 . 86'4.g 3249.9305}tE-3 .... - t.â‚¬1 )1.eh, f.:446.2.....:e Â·3 - 15--- . -4..7912%41.- . 1 *i&43%Â«94?3 - 1 Â»Atir .23:'-1/.2.,b. :10 4....t/.Â·9:89'ato.,3 1.131.96. ..., 4, ~ 9 ,...b .- -twtÂ·c,61?&?474*641 4,9 , , At,23-2 I - -- 9 a .IrÂ· 2%Â·1Â·13 .3,7.- .. f .39Â·234?40,3-- Â·Â·>Â· *figeifit 64:26-4.-2,3<= >29. - - ELL _ 1 . 4.:(1-49...04: 1 1 Â·fÂ·kÂ·GAIN--' -- --- r- -4 - -- 4. 1 4.0. I . + i.<..4 vr g...694 29:1.- ----- I 1 . 2=72-1-44 4?'.O - Sit.. -f:020-2.e#:42-*Ni 94)ffir ---- 223 [f] 11]El -i---z.2-0.-- &1 4. mved<9:=:F id G I i , 850'46;i 'ZjviÂ· v Â·Â·Â· . ' ...... . fle'ley:. U 1 1 1 J-63. ~.>tf 953,/.:~4/4.t.:.- B.T. .p 4 V.MVV I Lp 4. F) R.~ .D'.,Ci. ;" 484*)2*1/1. Â·67.0.-b,?i:#,Ff!:.1 %6 WÂ·:46,31â‚¬4 â‚¬),ILS'C $ 4A,im"; Â·,?7'4Â· -- 43:12:, ac.-9.9d-pt:.. i -170Â·,,523?Â·Â·.1 4- I ..â‚¬.1.Â·V..re-:.9-0:1 EAST 1Â»16 ST Po Changes No Changes *.41*74>Â·$Â·e f-. t.s-Â».59Â·:-24Â»=4- - .----Ill.- 1-/2. c Â· â‚¬/ 29.Â·./- - t/46..,i:gift {sy}2.5 . . -"W- 2.*----.38,0*1.04fi*'4'2.~<,'14~'~.Â·- =- - ' -T-v - - lilli ER-ir -7-m-3-3 11 '1 i 4â€ž1 4 1 11 11 -1-~~ . :74,02Â·:29.4...1. -- . F" 1 11 F f .. 11 1! - 2â‚¬Ut U= 11 1.1-1 H._ - - - F . - â‚¬hÂ·:,-1..1 .DJ - 11_1 ---- -AeÂ·Â·Â·37Â«. - 2 -tÂ« ' - 1 ]JI .05â€¢ w.Â· :.19-'18,9-G fAIG ~-R-il- ~ 1--"p j u j r 4-0 /44'A r ,-'.A c. 1 1 11 1 11 11 _ labeÂ· 0 (4- M. I '. 48,Â·... 00 --- 1 19, 4, â‚¬199.2 - .A:./ 1-C, 1 1- 1 IT ...jar.:â‚¬- 14 15 Jol-Â©Airs,6.Â·A,2-Â·C' j ! ijn jj 9.42 9 hiw.95*79.Ne:i -1 29,1.3. 1 6.e Â¢ rk . a / - f i o.licÂ· i .0 - 2% ..4 : P I ..0..el ... 06.47.t t,, R 1:e .2. :.=34:..%24.9.e Â«et - f L - - - - s .. ''e:'.-.&. 9 crtxÂ» 4 8,2.Se c...O -c -635&9*5 Â·7 â€¢t :fre. - ---1 NORTH SOUTH CURRENT ELEVATIONS OP REAK BLDG. t... 4/ t. f . 1 01243*-254.2&*4â‚¬ 09Â£26/6 -Pija#â‚¬274:FfÂ·b?Â·. . 6 1 4<...1 - " A.':.-'CXW <&,lf.i~- 1 33.109<Â§-174*742 **A;2-9022Â· U 1- le~oe- 4.14%:69Â«1'. 6.:69-(9 33<:06-c~--Â°fi ':'ST~:43:.:5*04' 64:342â‚¬*'.-eÂ· - 23.Iiâ‚¬43*fi.4:3:.95:= .Â·, .CA :4.# .~ -~ 56 W-13Â· -954Â·>42Â·m:-6-â€¢t?Â·52 ' T- . .- 1 ~ - -1 ...0-3-0 24.1.2. --- - .-*7.-2,6.17.S: i 1 - 1=*.= m.j -.- -Ii--- -I-il.< ,---- --t#i- - 7. 9, - 1! 2.2 ./ - I .! 1 EMIt .jÂ¢/Â·-692Â»" Â£1:04. --Ii- -i---~Il- 23:{4... 9 EL]1 00 :/ i.:Â·PÂ·.'02:2-c:t,e-G 3 3.ef;/D .. -fib,2542.907;13Â£444 . fo/~ ql "/4-Ii ..;32't:fj.61:. 11 - L_ atf iriF!44 ,*4/1 - 916*:Â«Â·9Â·'3~-:269.4 -1 r e; 9Â·239.-65 *. i.63.ZE, .4/4Â·.9,Â·5 1.'4'W. 9.22 ?174 9.1.- 657f:C FC ~~43-1<~ ..5,- W.Lk 3050:B. 1.4 .A; 2 4 t. f?..fu y.,: Fâ‚¬*42 Â·â‚¬*,Â·:Re.ty . 6*.IN,/1 Q...33.- Â» 9.56:49,0*.: Â».4--99.94â‚¬~M 9- 3 -â€¢ .... a ....9 :6- g b' i - .,iNÂ«'0.'2â‚¬2.'g'.6 .1 51:04'.2696:46 =7.2.,.7- 264 EAST WEST 'lili i MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee CC: Amy Marjoram, Planning Director Bob Anderson, City Manager Aspen City Council From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Annual HPC Report, 1988-89 Date: September 6, 1989 Attached is the FY '88-89 Annual HPC Report, prepared in accordance with the criteria established in the Certified Local Government program for the State Historic Preservation Office. It has been a busy year! I look forward to your comments, questions and suggestions. 1988-1989 ANNUAL REPORT October 1, 1988 to September 30, 1989 Aspen Historic Preservation Committee and the Historic Preservation Program for the City of Aspen ### Prepared by: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office Aspen, Colorado September, 1989 ANNUAL REPORT of the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee and Preservation Program 1988-1989 INTRODUCTION: This annual activity report has been prepared under the criteria of the Certified Local Government program, administered by the Colorado Historical Society. Each paragraph addresses the aspects detailed in the CLG manual. This report also provides useful information for the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee (HPC), City of Aspen, and the general preservation community. Individual analysis of the activities may provide direction for the future success of the preservation program and heritage awareness in Aspen. ### 1. Maintenance of qualified committee members: Aspen's HPC meets the qualification criteria necessary to maintain our CLG status. The Council-appointed volunteer committee continues to evolve into a highly professional group, demonstrating technical and practical skills in the art of historic preservation. The By-Laws call for ten (10) members: seven (7) regular members and three (3) alternates. Currently, only nine individuals are appointed to the Committee, consisting of the following: Bill Poss, Chairman, Architect Georgeann Waggaman, Vice Chair, Architectural Illustrator Charles Cunniffe, Architect Joe Krabacher, Attorney Donnelley Erdman, Architect Chris Durakis, Building Contractor Leslie Holst, Citizen-at-large Glenn Rappaport, Architect, alternate June Kirkwood, Citizen-at-large, alternate Resumes for all members except the newest, June Kirkwood (August, 1989), have been submitted to the SHPO in accordance with CLG criteria. 71... The following HPC members have resigned or were not reappointed to the committee: Zoe Murphy Compton, Interior Designer Charles (Charlie) Knight, Retailer Nick Pasquarella, Citizen-at-large August (Augie) Reno, Architect 2. Number of frequency of commission meetings: The HPC meets the second and fourth Wednesday of every month, beginning at 5:00 p.m., Second Floor Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall. Up until Spring of this year, the committee met on the second and fourth Tuesday. The meeting date was amended to Wednesday to allow better participation from both committee members who work and the general public. Special meetings are called on occasion. Worksessions are called often, usually taking place in the afternoon, one or more hours prior to the start cf a regular meeting. 3. Additional local properties surveyed, inventoried and designated: Number of "ski context" structures surveyed: 8 Number of structures added to the Inventory: 4 Holden-Marolt Barns Site (2 structures and ruins) Opal Marolt House 17 Queen St. 1004 East Durant St., #1 Number of new landmark designations: 12 Holden-Marolt Barns Site Opal Marolt House 320 West Main St. (Smith-Elisha House) 1004 East Durant St., #1 514 North 3rd St. 406 West Smuggler St. 430 West Main St. 210 South Galena St. (Webber Block) 309 East Main St. 315 East Main St. 706 West Main St. 100 East Bleeker St. Note: This brings the total of Aspen Designated Landmarks past the 100 mark, to 102! 3 4. Number of reviews and alterations, new construction, or demolition requests: Alterations: 30 New Construction: 3 Demolitions: 5 Explanation: One currently in process One tabled One illegal, now in process One with approval (administrative action to allow time for relocation to be examined) One not requiring HPC approval (demolished just prior to the adoption of Ordinance 17) Other (Insubstantial Modifications or Exempt from HPC review): 21 Relocations managed by staff: 4 outbuildings/sheds 1 log cabin 5. Consistency of design review decisions with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for rehabilitating historic buildings: Applicable Secretary of the Interior Standards are used to review all National Register properties (stated below). In addition, all projects must meet the local Development Review Standards and the Aspen Development Guidelines. Project: Standards Utilized: 320 W. Main St. (Smith-Elisha House) 1, 2, 6 413 E. Hyman Ave. (Reide's City Bakery) 1, 2, 6, 9, 10 432 W. Francis St. (Samuel Hallet House) 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10 204 S. Mill St. (The Collins Block) 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 525 S. 2nd St. (Shilling-Lamb House) 2, 3, 9, 10 201 W. Francis (Bowles-Cooley House) 1, 2, 6, 9, 10 4 6. Number of nominations to the National Register of Historic Places reviewed and originated: 6 320 West Main St. (Smith-Elisha House) 210 South Galena St. (Webber Block) Holden-Marolt Site and Ruins 920 West Hallam St. Castle Creek Power Plant Boat Tow Ski Lift/Willoughby Park via the "Ski Context" amendment to the Multiple Resource Nomination 8. Educational activities or programs conducted: a) Training manuals were developed by Staff for all HPC members, consisting of dedicated sections for information On the following: National Register program, Secretary of the Interior Standards and Interpreting the Standards, National Trust for Historic Preservation technicals and "Information", Colorado Historical Society, "Preservation Briefs", CLG program, RITC, local code provisions with Development Review Standards and newly adopted ordinances, preservation incentives, Development Review Guidelines, architectural graphics and terminology. Room was left in each manual for individual member meeting packets and notes for on-site reviews. b) Staff assisted in the curation of the Aspen Historical Society winter exhibit, and helped promote the events to the HPC and general public. Staff is in contact on a regular basis with the archivist from the Aspen Historical Society on preservation or related history issues, including research for National Register nominations. Staff also meets monthly, or more frequently if necessary, with the Historical Society President and sub-committee on the development of the proposed Holden-Marolt Ranching and Mining Museum and ruins site interpretation. Staff has been the city liaison responsible for the Council approval of the long-term lease between the City and the Aspen Historical Society for the 2 +/- acre Holden-Marolt Site. c) A large on-site review with the HPC was conducted in February, 1989, physically reviewing completed, near- completed and proposed projects (approximately 12 total); van transportation was provided. This type of group review is proving extremely beneficial to staff and the HPC members alike. 5 d) "Preservation Forum", the highly successful annual event held during National Historic Preservation Week (May), was attended by four HPC members, and approximately 50 interested community members. The focus was on Affordable Housing VS. Historic Preservation and Compatible Architecture. e) Preservation Week also provided the momentum for an archaeological site study at the newly Landmarked Holden-Marolt Site. Volunteers were coordinated by staff, and the one day on-site study was conducted by a regional Archaeologist from the Forest Service. f) Aspen hosted the Statewide Preservation Workshop, July 28-30, 1989, which was co-sponsored by Colorado Preservation, Inc., and the Colorado Historical Society. Preservationists from across the state were in attendance, as well as individuals from Wyoming, Kansas and Iowa. Guest speakers included Nellie Longsworth, President of Washington, D.C. based "Preservation Action", and Colorado State Senator Sally Hopper. Topics included architectural compatibility, "action planning" for landmark review boards, state and federal tax credit legislation, UBC and UCBC codes, and preservation incentives. A design "jam session" was well attended, and District and National Register property tours were conducted. Over 60 attendees participated in this very successful conference. g) Staff conducted a Half-Day Workshop/Training session on August 31, 1989, designed to orient new HPC and Aspen Historic Trust board members. This included handouts and discussion on the history of the preservation movement, National and State issues, and a complete overview of the preservation provisions in the Aspen Land Use Code. An on-site review was conducted on compatibility, physically reviewing 16 of the HPC's most recent development projects, and their neighbors! Van transportation was provided. h) An HPC educational/public awareness brochure is currently in the process of being completed (camera- ready), and will be going to press within the next few weeks. This will be used by the HPC, staff and the Citv as a tool to reach the preservation and development community to assist them in understanding the importance of the program and "the process". i) Six (6) "on-site" project reviews have been held, for special projects requiring significant time and effort. These are generally held just prior to the first review meeting of the proposal, and have proved to be 6 extremely useful. j) Staff attends meetings in Denver and elsewhere throughout the state on historic preservation issues and reports to the HPC. k) Staff submits articles and information to the local media (radio and print), and converses with local press on a regular basis. Most HPC meetings are covered by the two local newspapers. 8. Compliance with all conditions in the agreement between the Certified Local Government and the SHPO: Staff is in contact with the State CLG coordinator bi- weekly, at the minimum. Copies of all HPC meeting minutes are sent for review, and special project applications are forwarded for comments and guidance. Required reports and special projects are submitted as required, with time extensions requested where needed for proper completion. Due to the heavy performance schedule of this year's CLG contract, final National Register Nominations were submitted past the due date; other required products were submitted on or before deadline. Staff meets the requirements for the planner position. 9. Submittal of minutes of the local preservation commission as required by Section III: All HPC minutes are sent within three weeks of each meeting to the State CLG coordinator. 10. Attendance of commission members at training or informational workshops relating to historic preservation in general or preservation commissions in particular: (Please refer to #8 - Educational Programs Conducted) This is an area needing the most attention by the Aspen HPC. Most members do not or cannot attend workshops and on-site training sessions. Most do attend worksessions and on-site project reviews scheduled just prior to the regular HPC meetings, which has proven extremely beneficial. "Preservation Forum" during National Historic Preservation Week (May, 1989) was attended by four HPC members. Four HPC members attended the Colorado Preservation, Inc. Statewide Preservation Workshop held in Aspen July 28-30, 1989. Three members attended the on-site project review in February, 1989, and one attended the most recent half-day training 7 session held on August 31, 1989. All committee members are notified of special programs and workshops throughout the State, and are encouraged to attend these and the National Trust annual conference. The Committee and staff feel more direct involvement from the Colorado Historical Society and National Park Service would greatly enhance our ability to effectively manage our heritage resources. We have benefitted in the past from visits (one, actually) from the State Preservation Planner and State Historic Architect. Our request for a workshop with the architect from the National Park Service architect has apparently been approved, with a visit expected soon. SUMMARY: Aspen's Historic Preservation Program has made gigantic leaps this year, with the formation of the non-profit Aspen Historic Trust, the consensus for two significant advance planning projects (Main Street Historic District Study and the Re-Evaluation of the Inventory), the complete revision of the HPC By-Laws (not amended since 1974), and the passing of four critical ordinances: Ordinance 6, Series of 1989, amending portions of the Land Use Code that needed "housecleaning", and clarified the review process. This ordinance also put into effect the Minimum Maintenance Requirement provision, with its $10,000 zero-interest City loan for economic hardship cases and the Council "Call-Up" procedure for the subtle review of HPC decisions. Ordinance 16 and 27, Series Of 1989, amending the preservation incentives, allowing significant exemptions from city exactions, and much greater flexibility for commercial-oriented development projects involving a historic landmark. Ordinance 17, Series of 1989, "The Demolition Ordinance", which significantly strengthened the demolition, partial demolition and relocation provisions of the code, requiring review and approval by the HPC over the entire Inventory. The penalty provision demands a five year ground sterilization through building permit moratorium for illegal demolitions or relocations. Prepared by Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office September, 1989 CLG.HPC.annual.report 8 ADDENDUM TO ANNUAL HPC REPORT October 1, 1988 - September 30, 1989 Staff applied for and received a $13,000 grant through the State Historic Preservation Office, for the administration of the Certified Local Government program. These are federal pass- through funds, under FY '89-90. This is the second consecutive year that Aspen has received the highest percentage of grant funds in the State, and the fourth year the preservation program has received any grant funding. Out Of seven Colorado CLG communities and only $49,000 to divide among them, it appears obvious that the strong continuance of Aspen's preservation program is a priority with the State as well. The products contracted for under this grant are as follows: 1. Report on the Main Street Historic District Study 2. Report on the Re-Evaluation of the official Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures 3. Preservation Plan for the Holden-Marolt Site, including a study for the proposed Ranching and Mining Museum, as managed by the Aspen Historical Society. Each year's grant contract contains a Performance and Payment Schedule, with deadlines assigned for each "product". It is anticipated that staff will negotiate these deadlines with the State CLG coordinator for 1990. CLG.HPC.annual.report.addendum MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: FY '89-90 CLG grant Date: September 13, 1989 Again, congratulations to you for helping manage one of the most successful historic preservation programs in the West. The current issue of COLORADO HISTORY NEWS contained an article (attached) by State Preservation Planner, Chris Pfaff, on the grants that were awarded. Aspen is, again, top of the list, and I don't just mean alphabetically! This is the fourth consecutive year we have received grant funding, and the second consecutive year we have received the highest percentage of funds awarded in the state. J August 1989 A A 7 CLG grants around the state BY C}11115IINE PFAFF, Director, Preservatic,n Ilatining ~ IX CEImFIED LOCAL GOVIERNA:i.NIS (CIr,) were ment of the area have been outlined. 1-he completed Tellit?ide recently awarded matching grants by the Colorado context will provide information on the properties asso- With its grant Tel Iii ride will complete t he revi sion o f i ts Historical Society to continue with their local preserva- dated with the di fferent themes and will include criteria design guidelines, a process that began in 1987. In lion efforts. Approximately $53,000 was distributed for evaluating the significance of those properties. conjunction with the completion of the guidelines, a among the six localgovernments thal applied. Applica- training session will be held for the landillark Commis- tions were reviewed by the 0 ffice o f Archaeology and Aurora sion. In addition, amendments will be made to the Historic Preservation (OAHP) and evaluated on the As the most recent community to become a participant commission's training manual regarding review proce- basiso fcrileriaestablished by the OA}IP in accordance in the CLG program, Aurora will use its grant money to ditres for proposals involving historic structures. with National Park Service guidelines. The new proj- conducta cultural resource survey of approximately 36 For more information on the Certified Local Gov- ects are as follows: square miles. The area includes the land imrnediately ernment program, please contact Christine Pfaff, direc- swrounding the new Denver airport and newly an- tor, Preservation I'lanning, at (303)866Â·1678. Aspen nexed portions of the city. Funding will also be pro- ilie city of Aspen will conduct a study of the locally vided for the development of a three-year work plan for designated Main Street Historic I)istrict. Zoned for the city's preservation commission. / P, office use, this primary entrance corridor into down- town is the current target for adaptive-use projects I.ake City involving the historic residences that line the street. -Ille towlioflike City will purchasemarkerstoplaceon The study will focus on the impact of the o ffice conver- foursignificant historic structures located on the Lake sions of the historicstructures, the Compatibility of new City Historic I,oop" walking path. In an effort to pro- infill and additions, and the streetscape improvements. mote the history of the community, the town and the ,-,~1~~~ ~,~- -7.~~ The city will also reevaluate and update its historic Hinsdale County Historical Society are developing a structures inventory. walking tour guide for visitors that highlights key his- f, : F. ~111'rl,Ill .b-- torie sites and structures within the I,ake City Historic --Â·Â·e,Ezz:=~ _ .~â€žgâ„¢ Boulder District. Boulder, continuing its ongoing cultural resource sup vey program, will inventory the remainder of the High- Denver land LAwn and University Hill neighborhoods. The Denver's share of CLG funds will assist in the prepara- '.A,El le i Â·=els#:-.'A Â· city's growing inventory of historic structures has en- tion ofa report on Inwer Downtown. When the historic ~ ' ----:-'6~-==------- 2 1'1"1.-1 6 : r/, abled it to identify individual structures and districts warehouse area was designated a local latidmark dis- eligible for local landmarking. Dicton March 7,1988, the ordinance calledfor monitor- lk>tilder willaisocontinue with its innovative project iiig and evaluating the effects of the designation after ~4*3~8~Â·*gg:Â·.:-6 r :*~fE#di#40Â£~4 -1 of developing a historic context for the Boulder Valley, two years. Among other things, this project will evalii- e a planning area thatextends beyoiid the city limits. To ate theeconomic impact which maybe attributed to the Boulder u'ill continue its nfighborhood sunÂ·tvs, (unded thyough d Cl-G grunts, 10 Un,1,4 hhton.- propeiti,Â·5 wA. 0% A..u nt 93 1 date, the various themes identified with the develop- historic district designation. University