The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19890228AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE February 28, 1989 - Tuesday 2:30 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. FIRST FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS City Hall 2:30 I. Roll Call and approval of February 14, 1989 minutes 19,1 C , Q~let Y 6 S II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Minor Development Review - 435 E. Main, Kentucky Fried Chicken V. NEW BUSINESS B. Pre-application 430 East Hyman, Woods Building courtyard remodel, Carnevale Restaurant (formerly Toro's) VI. COMMUNICATIONS Discussion: Historic Overlay District Expansion (memo) Report from staff on 2-21 Field Study Project Monitoring Reports Special Committee Reports HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall February 14, 1989 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Nick Pasquarella, Joe Krabacher, Chris Darakis, Donnelley Erdman and Charles Cunniffe present. Charlie Knight and Zoe Compton were excused. Community -Service pins were presented to the Board in appreciation of the volunteer work they committed to during the past year. MOTION: Joe made the motion to approve the minutes of J8n. 24, 1989. Charles second. All approved. COMMITTEE MEMBER AND STAFF COMMENTS Roxanne: A draft PR brochure will be distributed at the next meeting. The Heritage Celebration Committee will meet to discuss National Historic Preservation week in May. The primary activities that HPC will be dealing with are the Second Annual Preservation Awards and preservation forum. At the Council meeting Mary Martin requested that Council look at a large district overlay. A work session was scheduled for March 6th and we will discuss the issue at the next HPC meeting. Tuesday, Feb. 21st 2:00 p.m. the field study is scheduled. 435 E. MAIN KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office made presentation as attached in records (Feb. 14, 1989 memo). The proposal is for the slide store front expansion of the building currently known as the Local's Corney for a Kentucky Fried Chicken. The amendment to the application specifically states that there is going to be a canvas awning. The store front expansion will be approx. 75 ft. with a seating area and interior remodeling. Kentucky Fried Chicken will take up approximately 1480 sq. ft. Three new windows are proposed on the front elevation and three on the alley side with a required egress door. In looking at the whole building it is very flat. An alternative might be to have the architect restudy that whole elevation. Staff recommends that HPC approve the application subject to Staff and the Zoning Officer's review of the signage and that the Planning Office receive letters of approval from all business owners in the building. Robert Ocean, architect made presentation as attached in records (Letter 2-9-89 ) which outlines specifically the proposed changes. The building is a modern building not an historical one and the changes are minimal to the building. Historic Preservation Minutes February 14, 1989 Clarifications: Georgeann: When the walls are pulled out what material is going to go around on that space. Robert: The client would like to see that area glazed/anodized aluminum. Bill: Is the glass canopy plan to cover the brick arch. Robert: The storefront is merely extended out so that the brick coursing that is there will remain. We are also proposing a canvas canopy that would help protect that walkway. Roxanne: How far does the canopy extend. Robert: Three feet, the whole arch. Roxanne: The door to the vestibule serves as an air lock already. Robert: We would be moving the existing store front out and doing a canopy. We would match all the brick so that it is uniform. Chris: My concern is parking. . Roxanne: The parking on site is what is required for that building. Kentucky Fried Chicken only requires three spaces. Commissioner comments: Georgeann: This is a contemporary building and quiet building that is not supposed to interfere with historic buildings in that area. I feel this is over elaborate designing in a quiet building. Donnelley: This building does have its own character and is a product of its time. Making this "gesture" disqualifies the building and doesn't add much benefit to a future user. Joe: The design is very busy and I am not sure why all the windows are necessary. (seven new windows) I am concerned about the glass facade being filled with signs. The changes should be more simplistic. Chris: I agree about the windows except with Nick and Willies. 2 Historic Preservation Minutes February 14, 1989 In order for them to move over there they have to have more than a metal door. Charles: I see the rationale for wanting to do it but I don't see the need. This proposal "fights" the quiet arches that are on the building. Bill: I think we have to be protective of this building even though it is new as it is a product of its time. The arches are the strong architectural feature. Windows will be needed for those shops but maybe they can be more horizontal in nature. I don't have any problems with the alley side. The arch popping out bothers me a little. The sidewalk line will help pattern traffic. Georgeann: When the square windows come in so close to the arch it weakens the structure there. Response: Robert: I tried to re-create the curve and rectangular rhythm on the facade of this building. There is a lot of square footage taken up by the kitchen and this was a way to animate the space. It is just a short extension out from the building. Nick & Willies needs direct exposure to the street. We could reduce the height of the windows. I need some clarification of what you would like changed in order for this to work. In terms of the vestibule popping out, the steel and the brick work go hand in hand to me. Donnelley: The two most prominent bays are the arched bays and pick an element that doesn't "fight" so much. they do have a horizontal element within that bay. You might Charles: Some how you have to respect the height of the arches as being the predominant element. The two square window parts should remain less predominant. Donnelley: The archway on the left has a better relationship to the solid wall. Bill: We agree with the functional aspect that you require transparency to see what is going on. More study needs to be done on the window shapes and how they would compliment the arches. Georgeann: I would like to see more study on the awning that you are proposing, more of a relationship of the awning and the popout. 3 Historic Preservation Minutes February 14, 1989 Roxanne: We require examples of the awning material. Georgeann: Before you come back you need to present the additional information to Roxanne to review. MOTION: Charles made the motion to table the project at 435 E. Main until the applicant comes back with more information. Joe second. All approved. 432 W. FRANCIS-THE HALLET HOUSE-HERNANDEZ Charles Cunniffe stepped down. Roxanne presented a letter from Ryberg Construction regarding the foundation (attached in records). Roxanne: At the last meeting the Committee was supportive of the overall renovation philosophy. There was concern about the number of changes and the applicant has restudied those changes. The Planning Office recommends that HPC approve the project conceptually subject to the 15 conditions. Richard Klein presented the changes on all elevations. Richard: We will have an excavation under the entire house and will report in detail how that will be accomplished at the next meeting. On the Main Floor, Francis St. we propose to utilize the existing door into the livingroom as the main entry into the ; house. Where the old door is we would replicate a window. Around the outside of the house there were comments about the window around the bedroom. We will keep that same window that faces Francis St. We propose also to keep the circular stained glass window as is it presently located. We do not have sufficient light in the room by minimum requirements and we would like to change the windows to double hung. Due to the massive trees on the side it doesn't impact the house that much. We pulled the garage back from the alley property line five feet for adequate snow plowing and jogged it into the setback. In the dining room we left the fireplace as it is more historic. We are still proposing that the closet shed addition be removed in order to open up the court yard space between the old carriage house and the new house. There was concern about the original openings on the carriage house which are boarded up. We would like to utilize two of those openings to let light in through the alley. The other two would be left boarded up on the outside and refinish the walls on the inside. On the second floor we would utilize the hay loft doors into some kind of window system. We 4 Historic Preservation Minutes February 14, 1989 still would like to keep the shed dormer as it is not visible from Francis St. and Fourth St. On the main floor we talked briefly about the need for a light well for a recreational use in the basement. We will have a full excavation under the entire house. In elevation the roof form resembles the old roof form and we have taken off the shutters. Possibly we can look at a more appropriate bracket. The bay fell of in the 70's and is being replaced and back on the house. The old door in the log cabin doesn't work in the plan but we would like to use that opening for a window. We will take the flue through the chimney but it would be slightly bigger in size. When we lift the house we would like to put it back six tp eight inches higher then where it presently is so we can get proper drainage around the house. We would regrade the house so you literally could not tell that it is different. The garage doors would have one row of windows and panels on the lower. Roxanne: I still have concern about the shed dormer and it is visible from the corner and I feel it is inappropriate. The rest of the proposals on the carriage house are appropriate. Public Comment: Tony Whaley: I would like to address the Board to approve the plans. The Hernandez are sensitive to the needs of the community. I would like to see more young parents coming into the west end. Dick Durance: I would hate to see this project turned down due to a little detail since they have gone to great lengths already. Leslie Holst: I have the same consideration as Roxanne about the dormer. I don't think you can let something go by because a tree is covering it as trees can die. You have to ignore the trees and deal with the building. I am pleased to see this going in the direction that it is. I also feel all the other issues like siting should be dealt with before a final permit is given. Discussion on the 15 conditions in the recommendation by the Planning Office (memo Feb.14, 1989) Richard: We will need to go to the Board of Adjustments as we are over on FAR. Board and applicant agreed on #1. The Board will recommend side yard setback variation. Board and applicant agreed on #2. 5 Historic Preservation Minutes February 14, 1989 Board and applicant agreed on #3. It is the applicants intention on Francis and Fourth St. to take old materials (shed boards) and reapply it wherever possible. Bill: Before any siding is removed you should go over it with the monitor of the project and Roxanne to make sure the Board knows what is happening. Board and applicant agreed on #4. Bill: A sequence on how you intend to lift the house. Tim Pleune: Ryberg Const. has something similar to a hom@owners insurance policy that will cover the full value of the building for the time that the process goes on. Nick: For clarification the house will be raise up and when it comes back down it will be within 6 or 8 inches of what it was originally. Board and applicant agreed on #5. The class A flue will be installed in the chimney and the chimney will be relayed and come within a few inches of its present size. Will look exactly the same. Board and applicant agreed on #6. Board and applicant agreed on #7 to obtain approval from Board of Adjustment for exceeded site coverage. On #8 shed dormer on the carriage house. Georgeann commented that if one of the windows was removed on the dormer it would appear less dominant. Applicant stated there was a minimal light and ventilation requirement for habitable space. Roxanne stated that she contacted the Bldg. Dept. and they are flexible in regards to this issue. Joe stated as between having the shed dormer or having the skylights on the alley elevation he would rather have the shed dormer. Donnelley and Nick had no problem with shed dormer as head room is needed. Donnelley also felt that possible the shed dormer could be reduced in width to three bays which would make it more appropriate. Chris had no objection to dormer. Bill stated that there are no other shed dormers on the other house but head room is needed and if it could be made smaller and not as prominent that would be appropriate. The Board recommended that the shed dormer should be restudied taking into consideration the above statements. 6 Historic Preservation Minutes February 14, 1989 Board and applicant agreed on #9, #10, #11, #12. Board and applicant agreed on #13. Board agreed that brackets were on upside down and that the existing brackets should be used and if that was not possible to eliminate the brackets. (No replacement brackets). Further discussion to be done at final. Board and applicant agreed on #14 and #15. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to approve the conceptual development approval for 432 W. Francis St. noting that the conditions either have been met or will be met on 1, 2, 3C 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 with the submittal of the architect at this meeting. #5 and #8 are reworded. #5, to rebuild the existing central chimney retaining the existing materials and general aspects of the design. #8 Said dormer proposed for carriage house shall be restudied. All small divided lights in carriage house have been restudied; revised window plan presented in final and have been restudied and accepted. Nick second. AMENDED MOTION: Joe made motion to amend #4 to require instead of a bond or letter of credit, insurance and to allow Roxanne to sign off on the foundation basement and structural studies. Georgeann amended her motion and Nick second. All approved of conceptual approval as amended. . Donnelley was selected as monitor of this project. 204 S. MILL STREET-ASPEN HARDWARE-THE COLLINS BLOCK Roxanne: This project is going to be a very concise storefront renovation and really utilizing the storefronts as they were originally designed to be used. The troublesome part for me is the third floor addition and whether that is appropriate. There are issues regarding open space as to whether the vacant lot beside the building is considered open space and if there is going to impact fees paid which will force a design one way or another. One design is a recessed plaza area that includes retail and a restaurant. Another possibility is to have an actual one story retail building that might contain a hardware store. The third floor addition is setback on all sides to diminish its impact, has a low profile roof and is going to be utilized for two penthouse apartments. Wayne Polson, architect made presentation as attached in records. We will be working within the existing structure. The conceptual review that we are req uesting is for the additional areas on the 1 Historic Preservation Minutes February 14, 1989 roof and the redevelopment of the side yard. We would upgrade the roofs, awnings and storefronts to continuity of the existing building. Donnelley: Making a comparison between the section which shows the view line from down the street and the aerial perspective something is not drawn to scale because there isn't in the section a great distance between the parapet and where the proposed roof top structure begins. Secondly it is politically not architecturally expedient to show any planting on the roof, it becomes strange to see a building with numerous plants on top of it if you are trying to be consistent with what existed in the past. The proposed penthouse structure should stand on its own and not be covered by any form of vegetation. The intenâ‚¬ion of the penthouse is to be a fairly low perspective. A model will be very important at a later stage. Wayne: The addition of the parapet gives an unobtrusive effect. We are proposing to bring it up 42 inches above the roof and it is about 36 inches right now. It would be about an 8 inch addition. Georgeann: I agree also with Donnelley on the planting. A penthouse is acceptable but this should be unobtrusive and not noticeable. Plantings "flag" attention. This is a classical building. I like the proportions and setbacks on the west elevation. I'm concerned about the north elevation because clearly your penthouse extends much closer to the edges of the building and will be seen quite clearly from the street. You might want to pull those back. Wayne: The parapet is so high that you only see a tiny bit. Georgeann: 4t the stage door of the Wheeler you would see it clearly and that is a prominent angle of view. On the back entrance, east elevation, I feel it is getting a little elaborate in relationships to the other sides of the building. The windows have changed and possibly the metal railings are in conflict with the rest of the building. I am not unhappy with the concept. Nick: What is the plan to get the people out of the penthouses down to street level. Wayne: There are interior stairways on the second level. Bill: I have no problem with the penthouse roof and my concern is if it is visible how is it seen from Mill St. Meeting Adjourned 5:30 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 8 IV A MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Minor Development approval, 435 East Main for Kentucky Fried Chicken, tabled from February 14, 1989 Date: February 28, 1989 APPLICANT: Rick Duffy, represented by Arian Ocean of Ocean Architects APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting HPC'i approval for the minor development application involving the storefront remodel at 435 East Main. BACKGROUND: At the February 14 HPC meeting, the applicant presented plans to remodel the storefront (previously occupied by Great Western Liquors) for a new Kentucky Fried Chicken. The plans indicated an enlarged storefront/vestibule, projecting window seat, arched awning, numerous windows, a half-circle "cut out" in the brick wing wall and numerous other changes. The HPC found these to be inappropriate and disrespectful to the existing structure, which is not historic, however very indicative of 1980's architecture for the uses it was designed for. The HPC tabled action, allowing the applicant time to further study the issues and return with revised, more simplified plans. SUMMARY: The applicant has submitted revised plans for the storefront renovation, indicating the following significant revisions from the first set of plans presented for review: no enlargement of the existing storefront awning has been eliminated window size and number reduced window seat extension eliminated sidewalk extension reduced wing wall basically eliminated (7'); 7' wide brick planter will be located at sidewalk edge the existing door east of Nick 'n Willies will be removed The following amendments to the original plans are proposed: o brick planters added at wing wall and along east elevation facade to soften brick expanse and hide concrete base o exposed concrete base (east elevation facade) Will receive brick facing o existing protruding lighting conduits above arch will 0 000000 be removed; replacement lighting and signage will be upgraded brick facade will be cleaned with solvent exposed conduit and dead end electrical wires removed at wing wall sidewalk extension to be bricked Separate doorway entrance and two windows added for Nick 'n Willies Pizza; a brick planter will be added below the windows PROBLEM DISCUSSION: In reviewing the comments and direction given by the HPC, staff finds that these amendments to the original plan are more in keeping with the guidelines, and are more appropriate with the existing scale and design of the structure. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may wish to request further study the planters and sidewalk extension. Exact lighting and signage style will be presented by the applicant at this meeting. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office finds the revisions greatly improved from the original presentation, and recommends that HPC grant minor development approval for the project at 435 East Main. hpc.memo.kfc.2 00 00 7 & 27 i X v OCEAN ARCHITEC'S 2 ....4-:EL ? l j j 1 BOX 10607 FEB 21 1 ASPEN, CO. 81612 303. 925-9514 -.. - Roxanne Eflin 2-21-89 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, Co. Dear Ms. Elfin, This letter Will serve as an outline of alternative design options to the original H.P.C. submission of 2-14-89 for the K 14 C. proiect. K.F.C. consessions to the original proposal: * Existing store front at arch to remain as is. Eliminate awning. * Reduce size and quantity of windows. * Eliminate window seat extention. * Reduce size of sidewalk extention. K.F.C. amenities added to original proposal; X * Add planters at wing wall and at building facade to soften brick expanse. * Brick exposed concrete wall at Cleaner Express. * Remove existing lighting conduits above arch which protrude from building. Upgrade Yi~hting and sifnage and clean brick surface. Clean up brick at wing. wall and remove conduit and dead end electrical wires. * Brick sidewalk extentions. FEB 21 Sincerely. OCEAN ARCHITEC'S : 94- 2 UA Â·5-1252.-1- e 0 I 411.-1 e. 0.011 1.11 : ..lib....g â‚¬2 0.-'.L. 1. - 1 0 .000 I 1 1 I . 1 (# 1 // N 111 / C /1 F 1 =r 11 L rh . i I r 1 mil 4 0 1 1 1 1 1 293 1= -1-- I 1 'Ji 1 1\ / I 0 1 1 \\ /1 1- ---/ f i I 2 // 1 I 11 I:=Un . A i r i 3 1 1 H E Uzzrt. : f a > 3, E..1 1 I r 1 1 Â»h.~ - Fi u f 7 1 U Lj j - - --LM f~ 1 ~- 1< U t to 7 0 f I. - m k) - P. 5 \ O 031 \ , KI 1 /11 ~ .* Ilk i // mE t 1 Â«LE I=-1 ~z Eli 1 16 L 4* 0 - -- I t 1/22 AP 44 4444- 08 . OCEAN ARCHITEC'S ' Dll#Bit 0 ~ 4-EK*Llc,LY FY-,80 64171Â£24 BOX 10607 ASPEN, CO. 81012 303 926-9514 7 v-lal 31 9 VEÂ·Ely ep --Â·1~.6. 2 6 4.// Ja /4. c /-O â€¢ 64 -O 9101 - Lâ‚¬ -119 0 valÂ¥ â‚¬.al.- 1 - 61.211 T --- - -- *.et- -- -0-- 1 12.1 i.../.1 6/1 + W... *' '. t ~.i J --- - C /%<.t\\ EL:*lz=%10-:\ 1 0 //9- 4;.louh 4 r) 1 1 Â«-- // HE '6/ \\ 6-2-212 *ST--Y AV I \1% , i 'L' 2.--Â·- 1~ 1 ~1 1 .----1 1 J '. 3402. ./0/ L--r--11--1 .4 ..... 1 4 7 \1 -- --- wee =2â€¢ Exle:~T: i i . -- - r---4' <-4*20 6-6- \ 1 :'17.1-. 4/ ||/ 1 / | | -- MEM-ve EX 15~ JALLS i ~ 1 -- --1 1 Â·~ '\ i t______ 11, / I 1 1 111 ED. E I. Exier de - < , -di EQ.2.0 CLL- 1 11 1 1 1 11 ~ ~ dIA-C-UILLIES i , 4-EL|TLICAL-< Fla ED UNIC,4Ekl -6-MA-Age ~ < Gao *49 - -7. ~ 1 14Â·64, 4/ . Pr 1 1 1 5935,31%112..J 2 1 11 1 1 - 1 , , 1 1 1 VE-~-J W.-ALL -| -1- 1--- 1 1 1 1 RETÂ·, Â·- c c... 1 11 - .ir .j~~ =9Â»AA,Â·, i --A -1-rÂ·r - - - 1 ' . ,1 ; hly)- j 11 2-' m~rum,4-~ i,- | ~ l1 11- 6-~ 4 U.=I- --11 m I li , J 1 1 . 1 6,2,-1.. â€¢Bot.-1-/ - 0 Â»â€¢60- UE #.1 [22Irt' 1~ 1/ I 2 1'/4'11 7.61Â£.D 0Â·0#p 844 ,SIN' 1 Il 4.:â‚¬_ 8 4-4â€¢,44 1 9 4.' 1 0.:41 - ....1 - 4Â·, le D.4 â€¢'/4'a ~9*U- 1:1'bll 17/t lili . 1 1 1 4 f '.2 0- - ------ - -- ..... -- ... 1 6*OL.JUD FLOOR FLAL| -- r,7 9.. i 1% 21 5,031IHDNV NV330 ~ [9.3>luirtu U I Adul'1112 3 lili L.E ofÂ· CAN O Â¥ A.- V - 'e t. A 11 1 . 11 1 9 1 5 1 1 3 1 1 - ==3=f =EEEiEEEd-- L- i, --- - Â· 1...8.f W'~'/#miE========== - '.wUjjAud#,~1 . '211 ~~EIEEETTEEz~ - /// m- 2-,9 4 1/ // - - #U'/7 1 / X. Nul--19-4* I ) -& ./11+Vi 1/ /6--- - -- 1 NORTH ELEVATION 4 A 04.. â‚¬~f b 1-1 9 - 7-1 1 3 ~~LJ~U4 *. - ,/ 1 - i- --4 -- . 1/ - EAST ELEVATION 11-11111111111-1.111111111111111 111[Ili'1111['11'.111111 : i 1 \14 i n ' 1.i==-1.6='i- ... NORTH ELEVATI AT STRBBT 9 09.01 4/ i \ 002 c,2, ~-~ Ck-f// 0/9 4 J c 0 4-7- 2Â«' CI D 1 9 8. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Pre-application conference; 430 East Hyman, Woods Building courtyard - Carnevale Restaurant (formerly Toro's Restaurant) Date: February 28, 1989 LOCATION: 430 East Hyman Ave. (Hyman Avenue Mall), the South 75' of Lots R and S, Block 88, City and Townsite of Aspen APPLICANT: Lorenzo Ricci, represented by Bob Walker of Walker/Grob Enterprises, Inc. ZONING: CC, Commercial Core; CC Historic District (not a designated landmark) APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant wishes to begin a dialogue with the HPC on the conceptual design Of this courtyard/storefront remodel. A Significant Development Application is expected to be submitted for HPC review at a public hearing within the next few weeks. PROJECT SUMMARY: Please refer to the attached architect's design summary, which presents the background and considerations in designing the remodel. It will also be very helpful to do a "walk by" prior to the meeting, to j og your memory on the existing conditions. As stated in the attached summary, the previous Toro's image is being upgraded, to incorporate a new Italian restaurant in the lower/basement level. The problems of creating an inviting, traffic generating basement level/courtyard space are many; the applicant is presenting one idea combining a rigid (wood) walkway covering canopy that will be indirectly lit, leading down into the courtyard to the new "traditional" storefront restaurant entrance. This wood canopy is "L" shaped, the lower portion containing a metal standing seam pitched roof. A portion of the basement level will be enclosed (approximately 150 sq. ft.) to provide extra interior space for coat check. The Don Quixote mural will go the way of other great works of wall art, and the stuccoed wall will be repaired and repainted. The conceptual storefront entrance materials will be painted wood, glass and stucco. A new rounded awning is proposed at the first floor mall entrance. The courtyard trees will remain. No changes are proposed to the original historic storefront at sidewalk level. OTHER BOARD APPROVALS REQUIRED: As this is an enlargement of commercial space of less than 500 sq. ft., a GMQS Exemption application must be submitted by the applicant for review and approval by P&Z. Landmark designation would be required for GMQS Exemption of commercial expansion for any amount over 500 sq. ft. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Staff has reviewed the Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines, "IV. Commercial Buildings - Renovation and Restoration" (pages 19-33) and brings the following thoughts to your attention for consideration and discussion at this meeting: 1) Wood canopy: Is a structure like this appropriate in a courtyard of a historic commercial building? Does its design enhance or diminish the historic structure? Is it appropriate on the mall or within the Commercial Core Historic District? Is the addition reversible should the historic structure be restored in the future? Is the proposed lighting appropriate (page 29, G-8)? Does this covering crowd the open area too much, or eliminate it? The roofing material for the canopy is proposed to be standing seam metal with an option of a glass skylight; consideration should be given for wood shingle or other material. 2) Restaurant Storefront entrance: The proposal indicates a nearly replicated "traditional" 1890's storefront (large glass expanse, lower kickplate panels, recessed doorway, vertical columns, transom, etc.) Will be incorporated. Is this appropriate for a late 20th century lower level courtyard of a gutted portion of a historic commercial structure (page 27, G-2 and G-3)? Does this storefront/entrance design enhance or detract from the original historic structure? Does it compete or confuse? Should a more modern approach be considered? 3) Materials: Stucco and wood are proposed. Stucco is not a historic (late 19th century) material; is its usage appropriate here? Is it different enough to blend with the existing courtyard modifications , yet read as a modern material? Should consideration be given for other materials? 4) Details: Planters are proposed, and railings are being modified. The proposed awning does not attempt to match the building's existing awnings; consideration should be given to require all awnings match, or at least be compatible, on the building. 2 RECOMMENDATION: As this meeting is a pre-application only, staff recommends that HPC use this meeting to discuss the design issues presented by the applicant. Please refer to your copy of the Guidelines, pages 19-33 for guidance. hpc.memo.430eh 3 Walker/ Grob Enterprises, Inc. GENERAL CONTRACTORS BOB WALKER PHONE (303) 927Â·4262 DARRYL GROB PHONE (303) 923-3428 February 20, 1989 Historic Preservation Commission , Aspen, Co. Minor Historic. Development Woods Buildihg/Carnevale Restaurant 420 E. Hyman Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 Scope of Project: 1. Enclosure of approximately 150 ft2 under existing balcony and stairwell; removal of stair from mall level to basement level. The additional space created will be Used for an entry foyer and coat check room for the basement level restaurant, to renamed "Carnevale" (formerly "Toro's"). 2. Addition of entry facade, doorway, and windows in above mentioned space; remodeling of existing bar (South) facade. 3. Addition of courtyard planter, steps into new entrance, additions to existing railings for stair lighting. 4. Removal of existing East wall graphic, stucco repair and repainting. 5. Addition of awning at front of Woods building. 6. Addition of Wood canopy to cover existing stairs in center of courtyard. Preliminary Design Considerations: In addition to the design criteria to be addressed in the review standards below, the architect and owner consider the following to be relevant to our design program. There is an inherent problem with basement level restaurants - how to make the appearance of the restaurant attractive and friendly enough to bring in the customer. Unless there is an established clientele, a shabby, ill designed entrance will certainly affect onets business. The courtyard of the Woodsts Building is at present not particularly inviting; the existing facade and entry Â·~ are dark, cramped and in general unattractive. Toro's restaurant succeeded for years because of its local loyalty and relatively little competition. That has changed. The present owners wish to replace the Mexican menu with an Italian one, as well as to change the perceived image of the restaurnat. The name "Carne- vale" refers to the Venetian Carnival and the festive atmosphere which this celebration implies as well as things Italian in general. Rather than opt for a "contemporary" or highly designed look we felt that something fairly traditional ( especially given the existing building) should be used for the remodelled courtyard facades. The "storefront" design with its large windows, bold lettering, details in relief, kick panels and recessed doors is a common architectural device used throughout Europe and North America. The materials may vary from painted wood to more exotic finishes, but the type remains generic and recognizable. By using this type of traditional facade in the lower PO. Box 12369 Â· ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 , 1 1 1 1 , Â·courtyard we feel that we can establish an image that will be attractive and be a positive symbol to potential customers. This type of facade is . common to the Wood's Building as well as many other structures in Aspen, and is consistent with the Historic District guidelines. While the character of the facade may speak to the hoped-for respect- k '.~ ' ability and high quality of the eating establishment we are still faced with ,. t-he problem of drawing people into and down through the courtyard. A festive i :I , canopy seemed to be an answer. By physically turning the existing building facade into an interesting, lighted, curious and friendly entrance to an ~ 'Â· ~ otherwise dull *pace. The existing building shows a somewhat whimiscal i- 3 ' character; we see the courtyard as one of those places one happily stumbles ' ' i: upon and is driwh into because of the light, color and promise of good food. ' , This is not intended to be a marquee blaring out for attention like a Â·. ~' circus, but rather a glowing indication that something pleasent awaits. The trick is not to oveedo the thing. For this reason we are taking our cue from the existing structure (although changing the colors), keeping the lighting indirect, not harsh, and being somewhat exuberant without shouting. The proposed canopy does not encroach on the public mall space and would be primarily noticable in the evening as a lighted entry to the courtyard. Compliance with Review Standards: a. The existing Wood's Building is a wood, brick and stucco structure , three stories plus basement. The facades are rectilinear, arcade- and grid-like, using columns, wide architrave bands in wood, glass and brick and employing Victorianesque detailing. The area of proposed development occurs in the enclosed courtyard and lower level of the building. - The proposed development can be divided into the following areas: 1. New facades at the entrance and bar; at present the entrance and bar facades are wood and glass affairs having little in common with the existing building. The proposed facades employ painted wood, glass and stucco detailed and proportioned to create a unified wall area; similar elements in the existing building are addressed; relatively large glass areas, columns in relief, recessed entry door, painted wood kick panels under windpws, wide horizontal architrave/glass spandrels, and pat- terned cornice molding. These details, while not directly copying the existing, are intended to recall or suggest a a similarity and give some consistency to the hodgepodge that exists in the courtyard at present. 2. Entrance awning; the awning is proposed to delineate the restau- rant entrance. It is compatible with the existing facade since there is an awning (although in need of repair) at the retail store to the West. 3. Canopy at stairs; the purpose of the Droposed canopy is to cover and delineate the entry stair to the lower level restaurant. The canopy is essentially a turning of the existing facade into the courtyard and down the stairs. The column and spandrel details would be similar to the existing (with a less brilliant color scheme). The wood columns would support a roof structure with glass spandrels; the roof would be indirectly lighted with a valence running the length of the roof. We feel that proposed canopy is compatable with the "arcade" quality of the existing building. 4. Misc. additions to walls and stair railings; the existing stucco (2) work is to be repaired and repainted. Indirect rail lighting is to be added. Rails are to be painted. b. The proposed facades, canopy and awning are intended to be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood in detail, design elements, and proportions. Their purpose is to give character to an otherwise dismal courtyard using elements common to the existing building as well as neighboring structures. While there is admittedly no pre- 4,-4 cedent for the canopy (as opposed to that for the awning and facades) ' there exists a strong link with the architecture of the existing , structure-and the canopy becomes an internal part of the courtyard ' without insinuating itself upon the mall. It is a continuation of the existing facade in another direction. c. We do not feel that the proposed improvements diminish or detract from the "cultural value" or architectural integrity of the existing building or its neighbors since we have included design elements similar or consistent with those surrounding the courtyard. Resp~y- S*f~tte#, ~ Robert L. Walker /f Project Architect 1 9 /7 ./7/\/ 114 ~ ~~ ~~ PL-A'S,~72%21 CORN/CE ~ axier, UFF'22. C22:Nexi 8%4 2-~i --~ 3 54053-5,44Â«3 f 1 ~.*- 5,-zicco el//161 - /4--El glo tr< r-~-A ~Ree Â©FAN:)ML% ~~~~ 4 1 1 4 VVDOS) 7-2./th / - ..).0.52 fir I 00$249 Â¢ 66 .41 - m' 1 ~p 4 1 i.~~~~yr-#0*0 / 2, g L 11 t - .*.0, .\\ 1 - rguer t--1 1 7 =r (im ~4 f \ A 2 3 //111 8 1 -T V 1 -- \ T 1/ Pri ____#1 - 1,â€¢li - axit,r eâ€¢Â·CA\2-< FAIL \\11 \ 1- 1. 1 99090469 =04/t/e,Â« 2009 " 660-noR A.Â·k / ELEVATION 'W .11-0 122=:====-I~ -lizz#~1 - - 17-2/- Il 0 20=:=1=2Â«4 ---- -- Ifil =EAP-*-1â€¢ Â£ 1 239%6 3.-S ----=IMIi,2 -Â· 1 \\ -- 4 7 4 1 11-- =9 \ < PA /,V752 ppoop ~ 4.446 2Â»Ah./2 â‚¬â‚¬r /ME- CAD /ZA}62~-refhA - i Extâ‚¬E â‚¬,Tobta NAL-L EXP'r. 9-Tucco WA-_ /19*AL â‚¬,/4-4-6 r . 1 -- 4-0. - r 1[\ 1. t .. . 4 ' -2 - C. / j 2 22# - . - -4 - --1 Ze - 82 .~ 0 1 , ' 1 G i 0. -- l.Â»15-*61 A kt / --- r.rl 1 1 C -- --- r - ki.* - - \ ~,4 ky -- -22--2--<-i-Eff 13-fr_Â»-f=. + -'- - g V . 7 t. . - - -:.2/ ---*b. -/ - - ---270 11â€¢ h ' 4 b # 3.2 tklitte#t=-114=Â·Â·- Â· m IT- .fj - -r-,f~~ i . 1 \ ' 63 4 ---li=JI-LJ IL-li -Ll , 45- 1 1 = , & 3 h Â£ i, --r----24 F r- + A- +=-14(I - 1 / y R. 91 3 ---27 i h .ii=C-=--=, . 30 1 m b 0\-Uk\--1-- }1% 2 9.- -- 1 . 1 ' 0 It, 1 0 ' U- P -1 , - Li b 0 9.47 Â£ 22 1 L 0 3 1\ Â· 1 /9 1 r 0 2 k P h J 1 -- STUCCO WALL' ed-â€¢400 504.ve, 6><1/07. AA,L. r aCUT. Deck_ V,V\ 0-31Â¥0,04-6--2+709 NOt.LVAE -19 (6 <9 l Â¥21 0 YLâ‚¬al p#U -7 AA 3-/ /4 -69 Â£ i ex / 4,-r. *22 / L -3 U / 4 i l 1 1 1 1 -1 / 2 1 1 /z' 2/ 1 f 4 2 4 9-2-- I = --C=ni 1 Â£*Ain _ IL 0 -- 4 1 4 - te hEE.: 9 x< i 11 f 6 // 9 ..4 r. ti'F!-i,11 1.11'il,1 11 ='1 Â»mÂ¢Â«AÂ»fÂ»EEPRKÂ·Â®7 1- ..â€ž- - -. ---E. r--9--. U e & 3 : . 1 '-1 it ' "4 1,/ 111111~1111~~1~11111'111111 ~:111,11~1*'1111~11'~1~111, 1 Â®**EMN 14*9 111111!111111111~11'111111111Â· '~ill'll'll'111~111'111 M 111 11 11~ 11'm'IP.,1 1 !~11.1,~, 1 9 222.KE[litÂ®Ek"' ' 11''li ~,i Ii,ili r' 4,1 .Id'1,0,Y':49,42,0 hi ,Â·?,i~'~'~i~~3~1'R;~Ii,~1i.,~;428"~'~, 144< - 9 il; 1 - 4:- 3-1 4 . I 0 0 Opag.Ati-6 2 PiN EO O P 62 456â‚¬ | REÂ«>14.40 CT PUA 1 g , d- 4,-f ' Â· 41 2/ 5 41-1. â‚¬3'- t. P I D Coue-EVAZO WALL - 400-EIA (BARD) ELEVAT\ON 60 U 9/1 Â¢77.P rn.6 leXF Za 1 11 1 , 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 111 11 1 1 4 r 111 j i III 111 i NA.U. 11 1 - 4 1 f 0 1----- r--7 21 T 17-El. - d r-~ m- 2 - F.1 111 1111 1 11 111 , -,1 1 1 I j l 62; cÂ»na~=Â·t-Â£4.--/ 1 4 1 2 1 1 0 . 4 1 1 1-1 11 11 ;VuiaD5 Ba//2-2/645 - .g=70'779 EZ_2 l./M 77,52/V j|~ -6=/ =-1-9_-A C->J 22,/.1\ L 6 " AAi tÂ·4 1 R e ill' = f-,O" ---------- 1-17* ' PAY NVW/Â« -A-aiN= .s. . 1% m 0 t t'I N S - A IN . C g 1 1 Q l1i L c. 4 5 A. 0 ~ 1 1 ' 4 112 - ..1 1,1 . r /1 4. 1 3 , b 2I . .0 9 6 B \ \ t tim -~A # f \1 3 71. 8 4 -50 *, 5 222 - - LÂ«-- . 0 43 1 Â«fc) g 1 -J-1 f A A 40 U : â€ž> A ) - 1 = 2 31/ L 2 , Lw-- \ f 0 2 i - -:p;,- Â·~ _Â·.,-- ... . _ 2 , 41 FO O - 2 k Bi-7 Â£ -- --~ I ' 1 14 1 I 9 2 & 1 3 E il n f rf->9 41 Â· â‚¬ W 2 0 4 J .-- / 4 7 4 I d 3 W h e q- m ..41 r) rl .1 -1 .7 F) D Al 2 9 4 4 I J ,-3-1 1 - ==& 3 : 1- 1 01 3 E m :W i 3% OW 2 ' 4 144 1 f 1 1 5 , 4< 1 - -- - Â· g F * 0 '4 , 4 4 0 0 N 2 b 4 2 -1 2 - ''i. 2 42. O 0 1 90 41 f 4 1 - 7 - ,. .r Â·0~*0Â§Â»...:W...,'4,,241Â£42â€¢4:Â·,- 44 0.4-:1Â»- rl 32 5- 20 - -- i 2 5 4\ 1 W 1 U 402 El 33 42 4 ed-Â» 4/ 0 671,40/ M ONV ><.VA/1 1 2199)ning* 90001 . F'11 61 1 '94-3 Â· C>20 Â£1 - 4:04 110>/9 O-0 1 -22 Â«V t.-Â· /1--i- fâ€¢-Â·it..:.1-E- 40&; Ginie NMN 'P lit ~4~<~~~~~~ --1091, HS>z:V -19*-7 9/VI '7 -22191303 m.2-Â·3*MI~.C,# 6Not.Lidor 6-Dikl.:*noo 069030-8 3 1 --- 7 *L--m 46 049 b 09Â«71ONal 80 a. 29Â¥239 11*I,<2 ~/~ < 6 94ov.923 9,2 05 -3 1 V-LÂ« 3.6./XP 7- AutiN 2 .Xee/â„¢2 /w szy ~ 1 11 / 47-Xa ' Â·2/Voy GUEL 9'57,/ , 0 - 3 7 113-. J f- .....8 6 - Â·Nki....'M'1.1 4./.Irl...1'11 1 U e==V Ul 133 12/ \): | 0 7 / 3 1. 1 i. I,-1 1Â»1 t -12 / 36 e VE ~ \ F f 2'53\'t~19= 9 NO--- -> M 4 0 4 .6 t~ - 5 Ir f / t- 97 r.,w..;-,es .> ~f a acczat C 1 1 1 I I. 1 r 1 - 1 1 I ./ 4 1.- ...~, 3. 1.... 1-li 1,-9.-4.., 1,-1=0.n.'*.-----..er=, . --Â· rt,29.EmitaN-1 Vr-1./.- ANINN\V AAÂ·eN 7 9Â»"2 <:ON/-7,Â¥29 r;OOM A.AP/V,?3<47 *1#2#v- NIVWPY 01 92~1 j ~ 19/Â®969.9/-1/YM-:W 413/F 01 1 4 r. rs an.4 v-W '3Â·927 . tv'26/ c,GAN I C--2 L.1Na .~.. Aâ‚¬>PEN-92-39- NEW AWN ING, a <Ls, 0 0. 2 j k Â·1 NEAABAZANE N/~AU-Aâ‚¬ - .E ------ 2N +1 2 -- 1 0 0 I -, 0 .- E B r 7 -I A bleTAL- F.oop= \1 - j 3. hÂ·STAND/Ne 0644 exÂ»Â·r. gA Ill 4'9 ) 561.0. -1'-O t (6 nALL LEVEL ~ 1 M/21 x 0 4,42,%67 NOTE - A LTEMNATE Room - a=,4-44Â·5 61Â©fute,HT Â· 99Â·090Â®69 C-OUB=YAg.p DANOPY 8=p PLAN.1 \he =\ '. o. 1--Inv 'am h:*A'-44 i . - /4/ 7/ p DAN ~ PY /N 0 1 2-â‚¬CV L I GHT] tÂ·.4 B 66*-4EMA-7- JO N cr.6 . 1 4 , / j Of C LOW Vo crAGE 12AIL-/6,kITee" Cko\UN Ll 0*47 4-+ Poer -2 6-/Ate..RAIL LIBATING 664-4aAArr} 6 N. -1- .4. M. 11 1 KITCHE=hi t *4 .f < E></97; 072:1'Va WALL j i 60 *42*M'--s-p==_, IT.pi_23Eâ‚¬3/1.21423'mtâ‚¬36/2<544.:=9Â· 4-AM i,r -~Mof.-t;vI,r@7:V -rt rt..mr==f l.â€ž Cr .~wr 17;â€ž . 1 40 :Â·Â·Â· 72=4Â©- ,---- - ZN \NOOD caL. t/M Al 1 El T [0 i.xy u -4 e 1 826\9<. 02,6; * , - â‚¬7,4 .N 4 W \UN j 1 La E X aug--r-YACED /2-04 WAIL) tc 5 M 129.Â· --"----19'1 f Â·4 + liLli Â·. mt.Uy'L= 21 0 -- 11 1 ENTLy \ Ki f V W. - 4/7 7 < f ~ 2 ap i LIL --- ... k-L- - . - 1/ 1 IND; CAÂ»GE> PHO-10 EXZVT<&407 Cou=TYA20 f ENTRY PLAN Aut--- 9 9-09(, 1% 04" r 1202>agT L. 0/AL-Aa,2-, f Appl-rioNÂ© 1-0 COUCTYA#20/4...434. "OARA/EVAL-a" 52â‚¬97-AUY.AN-7 6 ~Goom<~00'COICI]CM El AA 1-11 a , A,AA 1 h.4 Ou 1 -re 044-,10 6. 0-er'MAN AV=. , A<GFEN <00,1 ~~***0*tf*~ ~ ~ rA'6'F'Â·E /Â·J , CO 25/42/1 '1, A :te. 1 1 A ' â€ž4 .f:, . "4. I ". ..,feR,4,41"43''ry"": tpâ€¢24*94~"1 P.,4",i .. 0 , '5Â©.54444 - ' i Â·Â· 0 ~ 2Â·4Â·:j.equ~~.SUA+Y.Â·Â· '14*,yA,--3 '4:44:*V*..4*44.23*.Â·Al'4' Â£45 -,i. i: 0. *f f,4%5f2;. ~+~2w - ~~~ .*.+*z*.~.**5#~~~1# il **~*-,*#**1 x 9* wh#.:*~ * .~Â· ,+.s,0, < ~ a*Agi , 19Â£I(6u 41 89*<mt#- . 43 ' 1 34+:Ang,1/41 Â·9:1.,4.' *61:3% ir'., ;:844:&04 / ., . . 41442*tili.-4.,'f'# p 0 MA**24 Mt p 'rÂ© Â· W .,. .11 P 'C '19 , 4 I I , 6 9/:44, 2 Â«9 .*41 '' 9 ..4 k I . Al Â¢ 9, 170 41,1 4. .. a '......... '. ' 'ru-/'"til ' .. # . . ..r ' e f , 1 -11 -Lb *~~ .Wl I -*fl )Â·4:,1,"00. 7.4 4 (. 82 .'/ I / , th /=1.-L. PL- 11..=i=0 9. \'.. + 90 , $ .," , i{,f 1 I ./5 . I & , Init'22 - . 1- -- .*t aw* 2 * 2. , . ., )92â‚¬f ' f. A N S .'244., 1 1 A'ilt, *MIL. 2 t.<#i - r# A# Tr'r-- ,/39,1>5 . >flar -~,c,cht: .' dFA,.,d'tja,se . - ry,4 4 i. I 'F:.~94*E ..2*1)34 0.} .dy 4, .; r .141~-.'9 'A -~.I . I# 1 11 l,, 4.'2,~' 42|; 4 #4* 11 024)41;'t. 24 e *,a' 6, e 4/I-> *f~'' 904; 5- tâ€¢ O**9 1 9- p.1.i . - . 0, 95.*=444Â£ ;66, 31 1,Â® .. 11:~ 1.71 2 , ., 5% ..0-,1.1. I , 4 B.[ 1....... 113{:.0,};01*~t<Â£~<,~f~~~,0~ ... I. 14.,7.'.4,1.0 :* Â·rf ' > U.' 1,1113 1, 6 1,Â·,ifir'A 342##Wafif 2 -Â· i .4 i k *4# 0 L '~*.Â·*r.tÂ·~AMmi,7, ft',~. , .4:9 +6 4 â€¢. r...>t#442Â·9'*33.>,p:~ 0, ~, , -<*ilf' . ''. , FiseÂ®': e ..,3â€ž >p,4-94* 4,*Ar *- /:641''A. '~339fU{*342*- ty 8 /4 :49% 4. 1 L '~fiti .. r '11 '~ f ' *alkÂ»(31:-, t%*4 244 - e gÂ«*14,2 1,7.65 **~,1*144'Sf.il:L 0 -1, 4 . 6. 4,14'.4.:64. 34%2Â£.3 ! 1; I . .- ...:WAA.aft# Â£ + Â· 44-*118% j...91 '11, 0 1~ v . 1 LME . 209:11 4 I ksÂ» 2 Â« , 'W4-19~ -~ ~a~&%*-;4*K ~ ~1; tju 9 'â€¢pr. 4 f ,Â£~ Ek' . f. I. , 4 ...1 ' ILIO.*gâ€¢â€¢'a- Ob : 1...1 ....,4 4 - >R . ./-4 5 M /*'*' - . - -3 ''.'I 'A - ., u. : 1&-7 .1 . + b 1.11*li~,:21.11 r ; T . Â·tf:fift; - PA A]wâ‚¬'all==, .1 1 + L ' r.b 14'f, E:u ' 74?2Â¢%*, ., 411Â·-r = Â· ..,4,2*LAT#4: :LY -f#'#* i /f: 1 1 , I. .11''134!,kt-49= -t- - V..1Â» 1*r.' 29 ;,0,3"erb,Â·, W â‚¬ 1 .3 Y/*f . 1 . *ew- 1 k t. . \ 7./MI f * ,. 1-54/,1 4<4 1 . li, d P , 1% . .d 5 -2 . Â·944': :+ .1 0 ,-1 . 0. 4 tti - 2 :140 K +f 6. '74 .- ., , t .1 44' Â·45324;17, . . fl--. ~ ' I . 42 fl ~AR, KI '. , a 5.).d?,.,1Â¢25 34*Jâ€ž I.:~- 1-,Cjitics . 6 ' '''L 'mp 4~ ' 0;â€¢~ '1" I ~Â·d*3~\4 ~:~~ ~ j2:.,~1~14Â· ;~.f] ~:45,9 #,t,i.St:;tu'F,~ , 4$4*4 *' I. b .. .. Â· Â·,M' "â€¢*e '~ ~ :43>ip ' .+.5, ,<'Fk,"., 4 . /2 69*t.:3. C ...1.Air~.~'*.5'.'4#:~#''~.5.~'p' ~'F''.~~:-~/' .r $13. LtD , '' 44 . 72*5* 'Dt <41:Â·5~% 144 I ' 6 f I . bqfY '*tia..,4 *' , b 'Â· 'f ':' *4:4'*E ': 6~r,C:' r J'r , / : j':7' 'iÂ»*Â»Â«Â»bÂ»77--Ical- Â·0:2~VI A#RÂ«a :441,1. ; teor:' *gA,t~/4. ~~1~ . 9 .'~v ;4~1:~.'0~' .' I , .Â·..\00 :=:LM'-f 12,{D,- 1 /,4 4 :5= .NKâ‚¬t /.*~'~ .r irk,1,72.VE, - ..,~44 .,t - I . 0 '4?4* =, , . <(2;,~q, ~,t''r Lt , 1 li, I )FAC./ 14/FEEEI# '.efilt; 71. ,â€¢,P L: . .,.* . 2 4, ril. , r e + v'I L,~ 29% ,,. I <*i.'- 2./.At~*9321 -1 31tL~~~ti>11:1~~1.1''W~ f.::,11,~'-;~ i --1; ~~~ Â·kXj L . 4 94*24~zE : ' ''7''ft '13,1.,t .lfâ€ž 7 2 61Â·4%1-,179.2 .4,1 1 . 119 'lit . . Cillt:.4,61 yt~,?t<:e~40; 444 : 1 1# . + 9 2 , 41. t' V. t 4 6 . 15 h ... -- 7.-; 4.18 19.11 4 J . '..~'./ : Â·Â».. i.t 1#4 â€¢~,;.~ i~A * 4<Jur6~-f,~.1,& : ,â€ž.4 i-4, t >It . -Jec r.~ 0 - - -Il./.p *F,4*: ~ " 1 3.. 4 . 46.-14,9 .4 1 / .4 49.6te,5-3,+A 1,14 ~IMM".9 'j *1 ~'~ -Lit#AM:7-4 -44,~ 4 = : 1 4 ... Â£*P-Qt,9424U&, r'.A .Ni241 (i~ fAk~~P 14/'9''84'Vt, 0444 1 l.,3' 1. I Â·iet #I.-1 1.-': t~Kt,%<aL'~~~~~<~~'~~ ~~r~~ Â»de 0 ..p : 4 6.05 t...c 4 4 it' .:â€ž4445:4' ' ,- A .3<.1 rfA~la rb: f 2,9,:iNY-Â· 4 1 ... . . Â»Â»=33Â»- I . -, trtt,;,46,42 , 46;49,4 4 , -U ~tiaÂ« ,\ . 1"18:~Al m, .4.P &,P.Â»mi,1120 9*24â‚¬ 9.1361?r +~4 ? \ ; . -. am , Ii'' 141 1 1'Â·~0 f, " J *91 'f k 4/0 1 1, '1, . allilittqlir -Â»,.71'7/##eq~49 ' ' ' '..A .4,5 , 2 .. l'/14 '/.#' 2 LER~94*1;WUMY"9~41{4.,9/4 â€ž,'1:.4Â¢ '1 1 .1 -1 -Â£511.-6 ..C,j< 3 ..z...:r't r , ' ~ 51.1,119#1Â£#Iff,~563,2:-:~-9 â‚¬1*kilt 91734Â»to :1 -: P.N. i . 'A !4 - -' 2*f: A- - 424*-7 e . 4 /'tfit,1 diE .. .4 4 '4'::A 14$; '. .0-'4244*yr Mt/InGÂ·16, 'AB '.'Â·c . . 4 .13*- Â· 05 5%4. 4 1 4-D...3*Gfi;.392*9 0 ,~-- -ik.+ r 4â€¢' ' â€ž I ' ,* f-ii!' - /0 ' FL a. n â€¢46 12â€¢"1 le-vill'&0.<ph.v ,*f Wil'. Af- 8***<Pvm#Â£%FLif~~-~,*/ 1, -, kisÂ¢ , 'U-~ 1'4 '*4>fff-4 9.1 -,-47;3Â·Ctifff'f. 'Ul'tÂ·< 444'nesi- 0 -12 - I .2\-Â·evt Â»4*Â»Â»*31~444Â»Â«<tt'>:T~ ~%3&~-t>i-i*g 5 41~14*90.-itt-Â¥*424.1 #te~2414#59%25*424%3*Iwy/ 4&Â·...,turÂ«*f nkfi 44*91 iNt.~- 21 4 3 31 -f; *79 6 ---5 /1 Er]*f~*i},-54{R:~348*tf 3Â¢424* fl~ #49:429*4 36 *7Â«*Ar:'Â· A- U - -I *Ffi~Â»1 4- tÂ·';~*- t! m , 1 .1 441 Â· Df . 44 e * t, ~,7 2 4 A 33'd - 1.54263*4 Â£ ~~~XY),9,1J ':0â€ž1 '70 #- /-- 4. 1 , PA- ./. I . e*42-. *69 h .. 9514â€¢8 4 - 'AU. : AL z . -6 , t, .0.10 9 2#1 44 . , al, A '4 L' 4,4 Fir~.1 :1.5 V>. 4, 1, - b , 6,1./ 7,74.t - +f &1- L .9 f W 4 Lq' ..Â·wo 1 tit *%4:61*71&/5.f;'i .tt ' 3 244 - I , . I -â‚¬ - ..6'' 10 *543)-.-Â·t #4<~f,:. f *tlie-4 Â»~(3124E k./ 9. =Â·g ~~- . . : : t 4,(64Â· 449*':r#Â·5:. 4 ~~ 3-e.iÂ°-i j Â°it:~0 13:,5-~41Â·Aa: ' a .4'2Â·'-'Â·'2-IE; iâ€¢ # * :I/*t,V)<Ai'#.4949:47:,fi'72.- â€ž ' i k 1 , - - 9.,>24*Atff-{A"Â«- -:.4/24 -7 :i:i-:Â·',:4,4 1 - 34.*": 1 A - 10-. : - 11.2,Â· 4 2.7 4 4 0 Â· ' th ' 03Â· Â·,2067%~~199 4-2 44f~33;Jt..0,1<i:<r - ': ..1-,f: -:.61-. -, 0 -gen PAMbil~1*hium,311,27,14 3 -, . 4-I- 1-f)~,~I .kwbi' .. '641 -62.,lk. 9 5 - -* Al:'51'*Â¥}- . A *. 5 I /4. Â¥?1. ....gl . 1108 ' 1 3-- Â·~ - Â·.-3- -41.2% 5'..<C'' 'rt].41Â¥.Itq# ./: ,_ili ...Pt, . Â»493#i t- I .,AN A."14+ -2. irf .7,0..2-,51:2-07' ==26~ â‚¬21' ..3 i , z i.ft~~,jâ€¢,Â·~ti :--ji.~ 4:1~~**~ Rhir*39 hF## c,49; # zi.-adik#bna*4%~blA,9 1T44*K tpkE? tÂ·<0 .Â£ :,t' . 0%:lj.ffif,38: b ##11". ti "Â¢ ~Â· F - I â‚¬103 .14/4 .6 1:'32 1,1. .,t 1 924,1.- di.eft.5439?OF' 04?2 ---j:*32% :5fF'-tliftittil'if?fi:i) ~ j . - -/ â€¢ .'f t. r , 1 1 .- - r ' -' ~ '--.:r ; N ,â€¢â€¢ ),4,82'41 21.7 . I. . ,-ffÂ©: 0 2'i~-14â‚¬~%619 I .... : . . 13. A.c:620*Vil . 2 R. V - 22%,r & : 2 - 74*57 KeÂ¥:217 (.9.2 > n 03 -: ; -- tri ' - I. . 281321*0/ - 1,/4 ... e '. .1 -.r..4 ,49-lt ,:3,4-- '43>?til,ili-~6*>7,6- 1.'..4-"""- - Â£ 3%,46{.43.j 48-{*~i#2~"44 1vi/7 /4,1-f--,mr- r . - ~ -**7~ ~d#"40~206' 67. . t'. b (29Â£44'2Â·,Â·/////////////////AN I .-2~jA,4,1 e ' ' ':4 6<:t . ' : + -:F'...r.7 '.- - ....: 9. 46. â‚¬ /,SE, *4913Â»*2.1*%*REEMEÂ¢*~3'49** foffibr#~#~8*Upti,#f~.-:-Na#*.%44-325# 159#*~54r529.-,4.,- 1 *:Â»5.-21#*~tky'Nk**~*-41Â¥12~ifiltat: 13;93-23-tif~f.1- 3,4*{4(., f? 4 i 1 it ''ad .... 7 A -.'.::<.#.~:..9224~~.':~~.*.'.i#$ ifilti-i 'I <-* ' --fÂ·-- ir I , 61**f~.2 , .urgi~45'*5*~p,.*'*ti~ 4.t -3 1.-41 t fh.-,~~e,/. ~ ~4â‚¬;716.04~ijd:N?t%~vt+2444 , =9.G* - ~2.442'â‚¬>56~Â·A~~,4Â¥e I â€ž, ..r- . Y.. I ...C.'-<Rge*I*:2+~ 7-' i, 4, I 24* 9Â«12 1 4.:--Jil-fiE.3-8 4:r Y# I -4 t. /' 2Sg A ,k '1 -2. : 1% P a -1 1 1,3 f .i, 1 . f- 4 -2 574, - -i-23'tret r .., 1. 4..4... ' p)#*~",9.*:t F . 91:4:73 f... - 2 . . y I - :' 1.~33 3 9 i ... 5 - 1 4, .3,2.-: 1, Jf~*~~~~L~Y " j. 2%90 r 4*f - 4 .24 4 .- ..'WA 141â‚¬9 , 14 : 9*49.49 1.- ..4 -44$/4/&5 > . 92%14 1 ,#13} i.t:'TY. *1 i i ./,3 W :elt'Â» -- - â€¢7* 4Â»Â·.- 9 Er i....,ARLS. 4 r r .t 'i~.9 1, I . '...~2. 9 1 Â·25-7 %5#*Wit#w'f ?pr 6 :i;:,2, , :Â·a-: uÂ»<249?A*2*Â·015*19-~ Â».' .., 0--rigifjÂ·Aff.11-bâ€ž I.C..149-0 \4 .41*-:~ - ,-34?6-3<*,~49Â»1--~~~,~:~:1-<=+4~';_'1 1 *.- .._ lili Â¥'9 -r. *tÂ·/7 .r*â€¢. 64~,f *.j. i QELL...i-: im/339#:2. i.;~60==im ; t - . -7 *MERPYW'hopx,mu""'/"950.2644*.V#qf'ZV.t~~i~V-Ri* brrepe'. . =7===L -1 4.-Â¥Â»t-2Â«94112 , 4 11.-3342,Vf..iÂ». 55,1.--9 93.5,9-hA@WE~ 41 . .ffl Â¢91~:n79 F 1 --Â·90 33%1-flofi:1:tgjg#*:r.d<ZI:- f.- 11-Â¥'~'.Ars ,c. i ... P 4.AY*1:- i I.f 4 .... I.â‚¬7>, ,-- ,Â£tkt'*46*&..1 . 1 6/ Lk:A 4-.u+16 - ; p 41Â£1* ...2 1. i -'-.:92:22-firs.:-9.1 1 aim#/*FAirlip,E' ..7 ry=4L *-19. , . e Â£=. + *-fir. im;c.=-:'34: *93:7*1414*.2 4~ - -â€ž- 4 , 4,0.- 0Â·~'> tÂ·3Â· .Â·:UNi:'44'**3.&4- 42 . '%.I:Ty'l"Il. L; 1. .i . 142:Â»zeitip.,â€ž.P -/ +,wÂ·*9 AL:1. i**#*seÂ· ;/'CT[ 0*% P -,ti-R.j'f~(i'.i~ 4.-ir.':L: 12'It .- -4'79%71 4jpffâ‚¬ 4 4<,2/ 47 14> .., :7 &' *9*Mr.ti-r 27_i 7 : HAh. - ' Â·:A I R-I . e 9 %73?' 3 9. ' *.J 4141,11Â·a; HÂ·Â·' , - 62'3?.ze#44Â»Â«~*~Â»f~Â·).34*meÂ·424 Â»4**t-1-~<ce#%445;264Â«* .a:*. Â¥4,6/1, 1. . .5:i*.ir j Â·Â·3%39- -W - t '19 ts:Ogik . ,~Â£:5~*6*Ur Â· ~~ r. 2.-23%293#G-PÂ·.4.1 :17...: / Â· . 1 - 22* 40. /- :Ip #r.2,7- 16 - 0 * - /57>41 M23,92:'?CÂ»'-.,/147-.2*..& .idfi.fs.05'll//0 19, 295{28.fr- j./'4*.)+.-i-, ..f'.: .4~,**#-L&dI.Wbil. fÂ«'39490;..Â»1*2â‚¬52~4 ~ 1~~ itige,ki~~:#2:9#42::~: AC -- 4"*6 W- ; )19(2.3 f futt - t:ot ~31 7 Wi, 1 1, Â·:ta 1 : I K Â·Ir.. E MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Discussion: Feasibility Of Historic District Expansion Date: February 28, 1989 BACKGROUND: From time to time this Committee has discussed the possibility of expanding our two historic districts or formalizing the three proposed West End districts. A couple years ago considerable discussion was given to a city-wide historic overlay, which became the driving force behind the re- write of the preservation ordinance and the creation of strong demolition standards when it was determined that an overlay of that size was not feasible to administer. Last summer, staff studied the feasibility of formalizing the three proposed West End districts, and prepared an extensive report required under last year's CLG grant contract. The findings were clear: to protect the integrity and character of those special areas containing a concentrated number of historic resources, "districting" would be necessary. However, it was determined infeasible to overlay those areas already diluted with significantly higher percentages of newer structures. The areas needing our greatest attention lie in the West End where historic integrity still exists. During Public Comment at the February 13 City Council meeting, Mary Martin brought to Council's attention her unhappiness with the size and style of the new residence under construction across the street from her home. She requested Council onde again look into a city-wide historic overlay or initiate an architectural review board. Council moved to have the item brought back before them by staff on March 6. DISCUSSION: The purpose of this memo is to initiate a discussion with the HPC on the feasibility of "districting"; we have a few new members who were not directly involved when Ordinance 11 was being created. Alan Richman's concerns lie mostly with the administration time and expense of such an undertaking. My cohcerns lie in HPC's ability to dedicate the time necessary to effectively manage such a task. Should Council choose to initiate a large overlay project, other planning work items will have to be postponed, such as the incentives study involving the (yet formalized) Aspen Historic Trust. The time involved with public noticing is extensive, and public education will be critical. THE DISTRICTS: Three distinct West End districts have been "proposed" since 1980, when the InventorY of Historic Sites and Structures was determined. Last year's study determined that these proposed districts should be enlarged to interconnect, with particular focus on both the "Hallam Lake" and the "Community Church" districts. These two contain the largest percentage o f historic (contributing) VS. non-historic (non-contributing) structures. The required minimum percentages for district nominations for the National Register of Historic Places are 75/25 (75% contributing), which is a good rule of thumb for local districts as well. Many elements determine a "district", such as similarity in scale and style of architecture, uses, topography, social history, etc. In studying the West End, one finds differences between the far West End, Hallam Lake and the Community Church neighborhoods. These differences Will determine specific neighborhood Development Review Guidelines, for what may be appropriate infill or enlargement in one area may not be in another. THE GUIDELINES: It is already clearly evident to staff that our existing Development Review Guidelines will need amending soon. Projects such as carriage house renovations, commercial courtyard remodels, open space development, and "industrial-type" structures which fall outside the norm for review, are not adequately documented or supported. Guidelines are working documents, requiring amending from time to time. It is obvious to the Planning Office that specialized supplemental sections of the Guidelines Will need to be created to address any new districts which become formalized. ALTERNATIVES: Numerous options exist. Mandatory landmark designation of all historic structures identified on the Inventory has been discussed, which does not adequately deal with non-historic structures or infill projects. Methodical expansion of the two existing districts has been discussed. Creating an Architectural Review Board, independent from the HPC, has been discussed. Telluride's "H.A.R.C." has found themselves overwhelmed with city-wide project review. Meetings have lasted for hours; some agendas contain some 35+ items. Boulder's new 250+ structure residential district has created the need to streamline their review process, allowing staff and a two-member Executive Committee to sign off on many minor projects. CONCLUSION: For over nine years the idea of West End districts has been tossed around with no formal action taken. The HPC should consider the options presented in this memo and any other ideas you have, and be prepared to attend the March 6 Council meeting to voice your opinions. A unified approach demonstrating your commitment to the historic preservation goals of the community is highly recommended. hpc.memo.districts HPC FIELD STUDY Significant 1988 Projects February 21, 1989 Listed in order of site visit Please use Checklist for reviewing each project Back of Checklist may be used for comments 1. 516 E. Hyman (formerly "Mouse House") One story commercial infill, with approved second story Good points Bad points How could this project have been improved? 2. 411 E. Hopkins (sculpture garden) Good points Bad points How could this project have been improved? 3. 134 W. Hopkins (Wyckoff/Carley relocation project) Good points Bad points How could this project have been improved? 4. 212 W. Hopkins (2 story "L" addition to cottage) Good points Bad points How could this project have been improved? 5. 300 W. Main (The Log Cabin - addition) Good points Bad points How could this project have been improved? 6. 320 W. Main - The Smith-Elisha House renovation Good points Bad points How could this project have been improved? 7. 715 W. Smuggler - two story addition with tower to cottage Good points Bad points How could this project have been improved? Â« Field study, continued 8. 513 W. Bleeker - multiple additions and garage to Queen Anne Good points Bad points How could this project have been improved? 9. 334 W. Hallam - Carriage House reconstruction Good points Bad points How could this project have been improved? 10. 222 E. Hallam - demolition and new construction Good points Bad points How could this project have been improved? Notes, thoughts, comments to assist in future project review: n hpc.field.study -243-ell Â«9 -- 02 2;r ..c - -r-Â»9 Â«Â»73/-7.. 4-A*rn--7 Volp 7"'7~,- , 447---JO al-.73 ..123 -- - --------57-r-dÂ»---9 y~Vy/9 -"9 -Â»f 30, 4 . _tkI?1-+2, -- -b 9-4 *~4 - - -- -k *1-rd yrirty,k n'rl -4:Uf -- ---7-1%3 41~7720 .0 -0~--r Â«177--47 -- OUL I Â¥r7>7Â»Zf-- -(7~r~>- ir.-97~VO - -.-- - _0 Fy'l - .,17 r.'-jit.EE<--- --- - - -p- 73*j- -1 t'.9*70-~Â«341--9-- -0Â»-tr,--- -Â»tÂ»~Â·823>-- ya.N-Â£ - - 7--_- Â¥ V a . __lzeÂ» 0 -L -rr~-4 . -7-61, 7*/. -t-0 ADÂ»-F~ ~~UL -&0- 4/.fl)*5 -3.--212~~. - -- 7-237.7 -*. 1-4 79-ysm - i 9~22Â°-7 T, crjifi ir'* rn .*.I./3) 1'c X . ~.-~ j,A277Â»9 -7 ./dty- 4322 =af -3 --2744-tne*~70Â£ - 2-7 Â»--47 -*p 91-17 -7Â« ~_Â©+49 W.-Â»ye V I -b,â‚¬ _*vvt -)Â·772-22A 1 --- 3 2 Lip -1- 2-7~ -Ff 42/ /4 1/ 12 x-,-7 1-n~A - 177-13/ 3* 7=2327 - -pr -5;g~-mg J-rrâ‚¬:S 4 0 9 -73 if r 88 839 1 t.3 6.1 ..ty; 0. s .1 z Â·: c..r.; Â·2-' ~ '- .211 FEB 28 2 8 It- E A LAIA .. . 3, LiP*U-J-Â« 43 &3362249 ~~dti Alu _ 44u-/ 4 Or ,4 /23 Z~ dl--7 71-60 667 6.-CLâ‚¬- 2 8 - 4 ly ___ -t.:f tioly -24... -Trig- /r2.TifIE1.-#...#- 23 -fw- ~*~â€¢Li- (2.--1/2-S (2/51*.2//62/ Likik-<- cU 7%u~ . i L-*.r=- -NG> 4,3 Â¢ Â· LÂ»-0- /ce-Â»Ca_ C.u LID.~~ ~~~~~~0'~4 -UU ~U *du~~ 'CG C Limt--1- - --4 71-o 6-71/t~ - - <20#/98 Â»1.â‚¬_ .25- Â£~-4UJ. ----- -:- //LA-6.-0/ U=y -6-- -Zzle B-~an_c.30 7- LÂ«_L nu.,-,t- I EÂ»~-Â·.1-u 'L e-V- 4- 42_731*14-_(50-ew__Anat _AÂ»>0.~Â¤--a,wj '_ 'YE< dS-- 0 0 iÂ«uÂ«-4-~ , P 1-LO~-~9"~-~~- -4 11Â«_ a,ru,_ _ 4(24*/1----el------41--------I----2444*5r7.*0....725/6/&,4/,T/L<.cl-) i.- _I- 1 -_ _ __i A..c-4.câ‚¬,al _ 4.04 -/*ALUL -3* 42Â»-2/ C d#_0Â«_-9 09+~~ --9'Â» 44...97 r ~f- ---'< :44,-i -*if tfut-4- %- x6sI-2 -23-3 - - u Tl-dq 4*84 (2+CA-~-, Â· ri # virf--- Â« 12--:- u~-1 f~ :*v-ji Lg- 6 - 214-.4 4.--41-, 4.-#1/1 ' detÂ¢ 4.-Ain-1 Lu-j--4- (u~k_ _ Â»al- 44 Li--640- - 4ftj-UL Ae_ELL--