The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19890411AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE April 11, 1989 - Tuesday 2:30 P.M. to 5:30 P.M. FIRST FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS City Hall 2:30 I. Roll Call and approval of March 28, 1989 minutes II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Final Development Review: 432 W. Francis The Hallet House V. NEW BUSINESS A. Minor Development Review: ARA Kiosk B. Conceptual Development Review: 525 N. 2nd St. The Shilling-Lamb House - Public Hearing C. Ratings: 1004 E. Durant and 17 Queen St. Public Hearing VI. COMMUNICATIONS Sub-Committee Reports: Aspen Historic Trust Staff report: Preservation Incentives Issue Paper Project Monitoring PLEASE MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO BE AT THE MEETING UNTIL 5:30 P.M. AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE April 11, 1989 - Tuesday 2:30 P.M. to 5:30 P.M. FIRST FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS City Hall 2:30 I. Roll Call and approval of March 28, 1989 minutes II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Final Development Review: 432 W. Francis The Hallet House./(A), FA bu~+ 12 6 V. NEW BUSINESS A. Minor Development Review: ARA Kiosk 0 E- A.Zvj> B. Conceptual Development Review: 525 N. 2nd St. . The Shilling-Lamb House - Public Hearing â‚¬-.19PY 6/-,~-c-*f ._k -1 / C. Ratings: /1004 E. Durant/ and 14 Queen St. Public Hearing 4,1 A VI. COMMUNICATIONS J Sub-Committee Reports: Aspen Historic Trust Staff report: Preservation Incentives Issue Paper Project Monitoring PLEASE MAKE ARRANGEMENTS.TO BE AT THE MEETING UNTIL 5:30 P.M. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall March 28, 1989 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Nick Pasquarella, Joe Krabacher, Charles Cunniffe and Zoe Compton present. Charlie Knight, Chris Darakis and Don Erdman were absent. MOTION: Charles made the motion to approve the minutes of March 14, 1989. Second by Georgeann, all approved. Discussion on interpretation of brick work approved on Bank of Aspen. Charles Cunniffee will talk to contractor, Gary Moore. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC HEARING, 201 W. FRANCIS ST. CARRIAGE HOUSE- GEORGE VICENZI Chairman opened public hearing. Roxanne presented the over-view of project as attached in records (memo dated March 28, 1989). Roxanne: There are concerns that Bill Drueding brought up concerning an abandoned unit in the brick carriage house structure. This unit will need to be brought up to code or eliminated when the building permit (certificate of occupancy) is given for the carriage house. Ord. #47 states any abandoned units can be brought in and legalized with no fees, they waive every fee which is quite an incentive to legalize the units as long as they are deed restricted. Bill Drueding, Zoning officer also looked at the plans for the dormer and in the R-6 zone district it requires that any accessory building, that the maximum height can be 12 feet. In other words you cannot increase a non-conformity in height. Therefore, Bill Drueding is reading the plans that the dormer is not allowed by code. Charles: At our worksession we need to discuss the ability to allow variations if it is conducive to the proper use and is compatible with a structure. Bill: This board has to deal with the way the laws are written and if the applicant has a disagreement with the interpretation he can discuss it with the zoning officer. Roxanne: I had a public inquiry from Mr. Berrell Erickson. He would rather see the carriage house demolished and start over or left as is. He also was concerned about the garage being able to accept cars pulling in and out. He was concerned that the cars would be driving onto his property. The Eng. Dept. evaluated the radius etc. and had no problems. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 28, 1989 Roxanne: The applicant is recommending four flat roof skylights and Staff finds this excessive and recommends only two. Changes on the south include overlap siding, operable sliding glass doors to replace the upper hayloft doors and two new garage doors on lower level. One of the garage doors will have multiple panes and the other would be wood in a diagonal pattern. The proposed entryway has cottage like windows which Staff finds appropriate. The west elevation is receiving a number of alterations. The cow shed will be demolished and a new gabled entry added which will have the interior stairway in it. The height to the ridge is 17 ft. and width 17 ft. The entry is recessed approximately 2 ft. on either side. A variation is also required even though you are demolishing a non-conformity, the applicant wants to replace into the setback a new structure, (the addition). There is a triangle gable peak window, flat roof skylight and double hung windows on either side of the door. Staff is recommending that the gable peak window be eliminated and that the dormer be eliminated. The east elevation contains two flat roof skylights which staff recommends to be eliminated and a lower level entrance door and bathroom window. The north elevation will retain its lower level barn door and the window openings and another triangle gable peak window is proposed. Staff finds the total number of changes to be significant and are concerned that it will loose its character as an historic structure and more study needs to be done. We are recommending that conditional approval be granted with the provisions on page 5 of memo dated March 28, 1989. APPLICANT RESPONSE George: This is a house that has been lived in since it was built. At one time this was a dairy operation. There have been many changed on the main structure and carriage house as needed. The roof of the main house and the brick garage were tin roofs originally. In the 40's the roofs were changed to wood shingles. The wood structure to the carriage house was added. I need light to make the project work and be functional. We need to come to a compromise. No one will put money into a building unless they can use it. I have tried to preserve the original openings. One garage door was added after the other as it is bigger. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Zoe: Take out skylight on south elevation. The garage doors be diagonal above and below the windows to match adjacent garage door. Eliminate the east elevation skylights. The triangle gable peak window should be eliminated on west elevation. The roofing material should be further studied and there has to be something that is reminiscent of what sheds had originally. The carriage house is very Visible everywhere. The west elevation 2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 28, 1989 two double hung windows should be made narrower similar to the south elevation double hung window. Georgeann: No problem with metal roof but keep it one color. On south elevation I agree with the diagonal siding but have no definite solution. On the sliding glass doors, instead of a thin slider do 4 or 5 inch thick wood around the sides. Possibly use a divider across the center. Skylight acceptable as it is on the south side and not seen a lot and he has a need for light. The west elevation double hung windows need to be thinner. I have no problem with the skylight on west elevation as it is the least noticeable side of the building. The dormer needs to be smaller in every direction and possibly a little more vertical. No problem with north elevation. On the east elevation only approve of one small skylight and it should match the roofing. Charles: Metal roof acceptable but would prefer roof to match main house. Sliding glass doors on south elevation be divided light as picture presented. It breaks down the scale of the doors. On the garage doors possibly they could match, both doors having angles and windows. No problem with triangle gable windows. I also agree that the dormer should be smaller. On the east the skylights are OK if smaller. Joe: The dormer is appropriate but could be smaller as the other members have described. Minimize the skylights on the south and east elevation. Garage doors and sliding glass doors are appropriate. Nick: No change should occur to the massing of the building and that eliminates the dormer. All the doors should match and I don't think skylights are part of a carriage house. We are gaining something interior at the expense of the exterior. The sliding doors are uncharacteristic to anything that resembles a carriage house. Bill: I'm concerned with the garage doors but do not have a solution. More study needs to be done. We should address skylights as the guidelines state and if there is a problem with light we should address whether the guidelines need to be changed or not. Roxanne: Skylight are acceptable as long as they are not on a principle facade. Bill: I am opposed to the dormer also, any changes to the roof change the significance shapes of the structure as they were historically designed and used. On the west elevation I agree that the windows should be more vertical in appearance and if 3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 28, 1989. there is not enough space they should be more square similar to the south elevation. On the sliding glass doors we need to retain the opening but I am not sure of the solution. I am also opposed to the windows in the gable ends. MOTION: Charles: Motion was taken from Roxanne's memo dated March 28, 1989 with some modifications. 1. The treatment of the three large south elevation openings should be further studied. We are talking about the two garage doors and the sliding glass window. 2. The repair rather than replacement of significant percentages of exterior siding be accomplished. 3. The two east elevation skylight be eliminated or reduced. 4. The roof dormer be reduced or eliminated. 5. Remove recommendation five of memo. 6. The west elevation main floor entry double hung windows be narrower, possibly divided into two-over-two. 7. The roofing material be wood shingle or metal/asphalt. 8. The Final Development application include a complete description of the partial demolition activity to be performed and the sequence. 9. The repointing of the attached brick carriage house be accomplished at the time the frame carriage house is being renovated. 10. A variation be granted for the rear yard setback. 11. The dormer is subject to the zoning officer's approval. Georgeann second, all approved. Chairman closed the public hearing. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT, 204 S. MILL, ASPEN HARDWARE Roxanne presented the over-view of project as attached in records (memo dated March 28, 1989). Roxanne: The applicants first issue is the restoration of the Collins Block of the facade, storefronts etc. A third floor 4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 28, 1989 addition is also proposed and to construct an infill. The 1904 Sanborn map indicated a very strong street edge and strong streetscape along this particular block. At one time there was a one story structure that was existing in the lot where the infill structure is going to go. At the pre-application Feb. 14th Staff contended that any addition would be visible and that the historic integrity of the Collins Block would be gravely diminished. At that meeting most of the members thought that it was a possibility to have a third floor. Following that meeting members of the Board had called and stated that a third floor addition was not approptiate. We are highly pleased with the restoration activity proposed for the storefronts. In support of the third floor it does appear that the contemporary design does not destroy any significant historic elements of the structure, however, we find that the third floor is incompatible with the established character of the property and we maintain that the historic character of the two story Collins Block would be diminished dramatically with the addition. It is visible throughout the commercial core. The infill proposal incorporates very traditional "victorian" storefront design which we find appropriate in scale and alignment. One of the arguments that the applicant continues to make is that the third floor addition to the Collins Block of 2,000 sq. ft. is reversible. It could be argued that anything is reversible, however, I find that difficult to support due to the 2,000 sq. ft. size and cost of that addition. The sidewalk covering is proposed to remain. We recommend that the applicant consider transferring the density from the third floor Of the Collins Block onto the infill structure. We find that the third floor clearly detracts from the cultural value of this National Register structure. Staff recommends that every attempt be made to maintain the Collins Block in its current form. We find that the proposal for the new wrap cornice does not Â·meet the guidelines or the Secretary standards which state that alternations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged. Staff is recommending a full engineering report and detailed information on the excavation and shoring up (or replacement) of the foundation be included at the final development. Recommendation on page 7 of memo dated March 28, 1989. Chairman opened public hearing. John Beety, Aspen Hardware: The committee should not assume that the infill will be used as a hardware store. Nick: If the third floor is approved that the appropriate arrangements be made to get people off the third floor without going through the interior part of the building. 5 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 28, 1989 Wayne Paulson, architect: Arrangement would be made. The greatest portion of our investment would be in restoring and repairing the existing building. The infill structure will be one level with a full basement. Harvey Baldwin: There is the possibility of doing a hardware store/ dry goods store in the infill structure. Wayne: The architecture of the infill storefront is 19th century Main St. storefront. Georgeann: At the site visit we talked about concentrating the FAR of the third floor on the infill building. That space was designed to have a two or three story building originally. Another possibility would be to push the third floor addition back further to the south and further to the east. Harvey also talked about lowering the bathrooms. Flag poles on the roof were suggested so that we could get a visual sense of what would be seen. Nick was dismissed. Wayne: The design of the storefront was to respect some of the directives in the guidelines: recessing doorways, windows, use of materials. The concern about the third level to be non- visible from principle street view. The structure as drawn will not be visible from street view until such a point or distance away as the building itself becomes part of the general street scene and therefore it is not an obtrusive issue. By the time you see the third floor structure you are already seeing the general street view and therefore it is much diminished in its effect. Roxanne's second point was she found the third floor to be much more than "minimal". It is hard to say what a minimal alteration is. We think because of the minimal visual effect that it will have to people passing by that it is in that sense a minimal alteration. We will have to demolish and rebuild both existing floors and the roof and in the process restructure vertically with steel the interior of the building. After that is done the little third floor structure can certainly be removed at anytime without actually affecting what goes on the other two floors. We feel it is clearly reversible. Harvey: You are not going to see the addition, we have done everything we could to hide it. 6 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 28, 1989 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Zoe: I read the letter from the National Park Service in Denver who have done extensive work on this and I feel the third floor addition should not be visible. I also feel the infill building should be set back and not line up with the old building. Possibly a second/third floor could be worked out on the infill building. Georgeann: If we are to consider a third story on the hardware building at all I would like to see that made "significantly less there" . I would also like to see the height of the whole addition come down four feet. On the western side it should be pushed back significantly. I want to know what you see from La Cocina. Our main problem between the applicant and this Board is at what point in distance does this building become only part of the townscape, at what point is the addition significant. On the eastern side I think wei have to build the parapet up and it should be kept as simple as possible because there was no parapet there before. I don't think the balcony that comes out over the inset is appropriate. If you had something there the shape should follow the shape of the inset. I don't have a problem with the sandstone cap depending on size. Charles: The third level smaller and perhaps pushing it to the south and possibly the east would be helpful. If possible, I would like to see the height reduction. The more appropriate place for additional space would be the infill location. I am also concerned about the view from across town because that is where the building is most impressive for view and you see the principle facade of the building and seeing something come up over the top will look a little disturbing and disturb the character and serenity of the original building. Wayne: The Park Service is responding to the elevation that they were sent. One of the major elements of our presentation is that the roof top construction would not be seen from anyway so near that one could distinguish the historic quality of that building. The addition itself is below the height of the adjacent buildings. Bill: I am concerned about a third story structure compromising the integrity of the original design and am opposed to it. The job of the chairman is to come to compromise and keep the process flowing. If you want to put up height poles that might satisfy concerns of view angles. 7 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 28, 1989 Charles: We are all here to try and make something work. If the cornice is approved it should be kept simple so that your eye isn't drawn to it. Wayne: There are many things that I can do architecturally to mitigate the issue. Zoe: Our job on this commission is to think about the historical character of this old building. To put a brand new building on top of an existing 100 year old two story building is not what we are here for. Bill: In the interest to help the Committee make a decision the poles should be put up and we can all look at it. Georgeann: I would like to see a study of what could happen if you put a building on the back of the infill building. Possibly you could find something even better. Wayne: This building is a working building and when renovation is done it will last another 200 years. Harvey: We don't know if we can put anything on the infill. If we put the massing on the infill I wouldn't have enough FAR from the 2,000 sq. ft. of the addition. If we were to redirect the massing I think we would have to take away half the mass of the hardware store. MOTION: Charles made the motion to move to continue the public hearing until April 26, 1989 and give the applicant time to erect poles on top of the building and that the parapet height should be indicated and further study their submission. Georgeann second. All approved. Zoe: The design is appropriate on the infill building and I only have one comment that the entrance portion of it is overpowering and over powers the working class building of the Collins Block. Georgeann: I agree with Zoe that the entrance is a little massive and the eagle and flag and too large but generally it looks nice. Charles: I waiver between the two. I like it and think it is fun to have that right to make something fun but on the other hand it is not understated enough. I'm between the two. Bill: You show it in the rendering but technically the elevations don't show the horizontal line over the windows of the infill project. 8 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 28, 1989 PRE-APPLICATION 204 S. GALENA ST. THE SPORT STALKER Welton Anderson, architect: This is the only one story building on the block. In the guidelines it states that second floors should be a rectangular mass with vertical openings spaced regularly. Zoe: It looks top heavy with all the windows on second floor. Georgeann: Will it be boarding on the second floor. Welton: Yes, the same as below. Georgeann: Somehow the windows on the second floor have to relate to the windows on the first floor. Welton: The heavy awning breaks it in the middle. Bill: You have the determine the potential historic significance of the existing building, if it does exist. You might find that the existing building does not have any potential historic significance and allows you to add a second story being a product Of its time otherwise you are going to be contradictory. Roxanne: Does this one story building have any integrity and if it does what are those character defining features and what needs to be brought forward on the second floor. Georgeann: Its horizontality is a contrast to the verticality of the old building. Bill: This building is only a year old. Roxanne: The goal is 4 deed restricted affordable housing units and one free market unit. I think a bolder statement for the second floor might do this structure well and might be a nice infill on a critical block. Georgeann: I like the mass and bulk and the use of the wood. I have a problem with the relationships of the windows and the curvilinear shapes are not carried upstairs. The building is becoming too victorian. 9 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 28, 1989 Bill: In the guidelines you tend to imitate rather than interpret. The building is very western and should not be imitated of a victorian element. Welton: We are going through GMP. I will be willing to come back and do some modifications on the windows. You can approve this with conditions. Roxanne: The concept is good. Meeting adjourned 6:00 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 10 4/. 44 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Final Development Review: 432 W. Francis St., the Hallet House Date: April 11, 1989 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: HPC's final development approval for the renovation, partial demolition and additions proposed for both the main structure and carriage house. SUMMARY: Staff finds that the applicant has addressed all the concerns and conditions of approval HPC made in their conceptual development review. Several significant aspects of this project require careful consideration by the committee, and are discussed in detail below. These are: Foundation repair, excavation, carriage house relocation, carriage house shed roof dormer, and west elevation light well. An exterior lighting plan, if any, should also be addressed by the application at this meeting. PRIOR COMMITTEE ACTION: Conceptual Development approval was granted on February 14, 1989. 15 conditions, as specified below, were placed on the approval, which the applicant has addressed in the final development application. Please refer to the applicant's letter (attached). Staff's responses follow each condition. CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL CONDITIONS AND STAFF'S RESPONSE: 1) Review and approval of revisions to the east elevation as suggested at January 24 meeting, i.e. stepping back A the garage, bringing into setback conformity, 0 < fenestration, etc. C I iÂ·(ar- w a.1 Â· Response: This elevation has been restudied; the revised plans indicate a wide one-car garage, with adjacent concrete parking slab. Due to the reduction of the garage, this portion of the structure has been reconfigured. A small one-story hipped roof projection with a large 16-pane window is proposed. Staff finds the window somewhat out of scale with the projection, and recommends that HPC request that a smaller portioned window, possibly with fewer divisions, be considered. We find the remainder of the revisions to this elevation compatible with the historic structure. The main house's basement will be expanded to include habitable space for a playroom and bath. A large (weet â‚¬ 4 07- elevation) light well is proposed for egress, ventilation and light. Staff is concerned about the visibility of this large light well and recommends the applicant clarify the design elements of this light well at this meeting. 6- 2)0 Restudy the "breakfast room", (north elevation) gable roof form, french doors and windows in relation to the existing structure and carriage house. Response: The north elevation is reduced in height due to the incorporation of the hipped roof one-car garage. Staff finds this restudy to be appropriate with the guidelines. 3) All siding be retained and repaired on the structure, with the exact replacement of only those damaged <_clapboards due to insulation installation or 6 significant dry rot. A minimum of 80% of the original siding shall be retained. Interior vapor barrier installation methods shall be studied. Response: The applicant has addressed these issues in the attached applicant letter, which staff finds acceptable. However, staff's concerns remain with the repair rather than replacement of the original exterior fabric of this historic structure. The monitor should offer their assistance to the applicant in this clapboard renovation process. 4 j~._ Complete, detailed foundation, basement and structural studies for both the principal structure and the carriage house shall be submitted and approved at final development review, including either a bond or letter of credit, sufficient to replace elements or repair any damage incurred during excavation. Sequence and working drawings are required as well as proof of insurance. Response: Both structures are receiving new foundations. Please refer to the attached letter from Ryberg Construction addressing these issues in detail. The letter states that the company carries special insurance coverage for projects like this, and he will write coverage for $150,000 for this work. Staff recommends that proof of that insurance be submitted to the Planning Office prior to work commencing. The carriage house will receive a new crawl space and foundation, as opposed to simply slab-on-grade as previously discussed. The proposal includes the lifting and relocation of the carriage house while 2 excavation/foundation work on both structures is underway. The applicant indicates the carriage house will be placed to the east of its existing location, on the parcel, and relocated when the foundation is prepared. Staff recommends HPC request more detailed information on how long the structure will remain in its "temporary state" and if a maintenance plan has been considered while it is off its foundation. 5) j~- Rebuild the existing central chimney, using original \ materials. Response: The applicant proposes to do just that. 61 0 1 Retain all original windows on elevations not receiving ~''Additions. Replace only those portions which have deteriorated beyond repair. Specifically address each window repair or replacement in final development application and consider utilizing insulating glass. Response: Window repair and replacement is fully addressed in the application. Staff finds the proposal acceptable. 7) Obtain approval from Board of Adjustment for exceeded 0Â©- site coverage; obtain recommendation from B of A on zero lot line variation for new attached garage Response: The Board of Adjustment denied the applicant's request for site-coverage variance due to the new two-car attached garage, finding no hardship in the proposal, therefore, forcing the design changes noted in the final development application. A zero-lot line variation is not required due to revised set-back. 8) Shed dormer proposed for carriage house shall be restudied, with a recommendation to make the width 9 narrower and not have it extend to the roof ridge. All small divided lights in carriage house to be restudied; revised window plan presented in final development application. Consideration of two (2) alley-elevation \ flat roof skylights should be given in place of other, less appropriate new windows. Response: Staff still maintains that roof dormers are inappropriate additions to carriage houses and tend to diminish their original historic integrity a great deal. However, to provide more head room and usable space in second floors, they may be necessary in some instances. HPC's request for a restudy has resulted in the applicant submitting Plan One and an alternate. Staff recommends that the alternate plan be approved if 3 a dormer addition is approved at all. The alternate dormer is smaller and narrower than the original proposal. The windows in the alternate plan are very horizontal and undivided; HPC should consider whether these are compatible with the remainder Of the structure. Staff recommends less transparency, and divided lights, if the dormer is approved. 9) All existing landscaping features shall be retained, v- including the fence. Response: The applicant has addressed their plans for landscaping, which retains mature trees, and sets aside many bushes for transplanting after excavation and foundation work is completed. Staff finds this to be acceptable. Great care should be taken by the renovation crew in working around the large front- corner tree, located very close the porch slated for removal. 10) Variations for rear and side yard setbacks, finding 4-- such variations to be more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirement. Response: HPC is required to include this language in their final approval motion. An encroachment permit is required from the City due to the carriage house encroaching into the right-of-way. 11) The south elevation front entranceway be redesigned to utilize an existing opening, preserving as much as possible the original log cabin walls located within the structure. Response: This has been accomplished. 12) Eliminate proposed shutters<bX- Response: This has been accomplished. 13 k Either preserving the existing front porch brackets or th--replace with appropriate, compatible brackets. The applicants should determine exact bracket design through research of historic photos. Response: The applicant intends to tepair and prese]zy_~ the existing brackets and reutilize them on the restored porch. 14) Final Development Approval shall meet all conditions of Conceptual approval. 4 Response: Staff finds all conditions have been met. Please refer to our Recommendation for clarification. , 15) Exact material samples shall be included in the final 2 development application and presented at the final OAL review meeting. Response: The applicant has provided catalogue samples of windows, and Will be providing additional information on materials at this meeting. Additionally, clarification should be sought from the applicant with regard to any exterior lighting plans. ALTERNATIVES: HPC may consider the following actions: 1. Approve the proposal as submitted 2. Approval the proposal with conditions as listed in Staff's recommendation 3. Table approval finding the application is incomplete and further information or study is necessary. 4. Deny approval finding that the application does not meet the conditions of conceptual approval. 1 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that HPC grant final development approval for the proposal at 432 West Francis Street, subject to the following conditions: 1) Proof Of insurance provided by the applicant from Ryberg Construction to staff for all excavation and foundation work prior to work commencing. 2) Clarification and HPC approval on the length of time the carriage house will be relocated, the method employed for such relocation. A reasonable amount of time might be 94* weeks. ~~ The--use of a roof dormer in the carriage house be -Staff' s--recommendation---is that -the *#<-iLdormer be eliminated entirely.-to preserve the original -roof dform-and-Â·integrity of the qarriage house. 4 y".0 -0 4-2-k v A 3.3 4) Clarification and HPC approval of the design aspects of the west elevation light well, and how it relates in compatibility with the historic resource. Â¢ C JFF 5 5) Variations for side and rear yard setbacks and Floor Area Ratio for the project, finding such variations to be more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. memo.hpc.432wf.fd 6 CHARLES CUNNIFFE &ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 520 EASTHYMAN, SUITE 30], ASPEN, CO-81612 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, ALA. HERNANDEZ RESIDENCE Planning Staff conditions required for Final Aoproval (Refer to Planning Staff Memo to H.P.C. dated February 14, 1989) 1. As discussed and reviewed at the February 14th H.P.C. meeting, the east elevation has been modified as previouslv requested. The master bath addition steps toward the east; the garage, now one car, steps back to the west. This allows for a playful east elevation which defines existing from new. The garage setback along the alley is now also as requested. The new fenestration is playful and in keeping with the existing fenestration around the house. The round window will remain. The r-oof design of the addition derives its form from the existing master bedroom roof which will remain. 2. As discussed and reviewed at the February 14, 1989 H.P.C. meeting, the breakfast room has been restudied. The new floor design derives its form from the garage and master bedroom, thus allowing a one story form to wrap the north east corner of the original two story addition to the house. The fenestration has been simplified, but is still playful. This restudied fenestration does relate better to the carriage house as is illustrated in the drawings. 3. It was indicated to the H.P.C. at the meeting on February 14 that the siding will be retained and repaired on the structure to whatever extent possible. Only those clapboards damaged due to insulation installation or dry rot will be removed. A waterproof membrane (acceotable to the local building department and required by code) will be applied from the inside of the structure. 4. Complete, detailed structural information for both house and carriage house are provided in the drawings. The house and carriage house will reouire total foundation replacement; the house, a full basement, and the carriage house, a crawl space. After demolition, of those elements required for the renovation, the house will be raised approximately three feet to enable excavating equipment to work under the house. At the same time. the carriage house will be raised and moved to the north east corner Of the lot for temporarv storage. This temporary relocation is required because the only feasible location from which to stage the heavy equipment is the north west corner of the lot (the permanent location of the carriage house). It is not advisable to have dump trucks traveling along the alley, and less disruption to the local community would occur if heavv equipment staging is from this north west corner, as indicated. Page Two Hernandez Residence After the new founoation twork i E complete. the house will then be lowered into place. AS preV:OUE ,V indicated to the H.P.C. at the meeting of February 14. the finished floor will be no more than eight inches higher than it presently exists. 1-his is reauired to correct a current drainage problem at the south west corner of the house. At the same time the house is being lowered, construction will commence on the (carriage house founaation. When finished, the carriage house will be moved back onto its new foundation. Also. as previously indicated to the H.P.C. the existing stone foundation will be dismantled and reused aso veneer on new founoation for the residence. As requested. the â‚¬tone will be restored by chemical process or laid so as to exoose the non-Dainted surface. Additional stone reouired will matcn existing. Please refer to the drawings for additional information. For information concerning structure moving and insurance, refer to Exhibit A. 5. The existing central chimney will be reconstructed to code using existing masonrv and will be large enough to house the relocated mechanical flue. The masonry corbeling will match the existing chimney. The chimney at the north side of the nouse will be closed and the masonrv r-epointed as required. The new gas appliance fireplace. i- eaul :-ed Dy Scal zode. can vent through tne enterior wall. 6. All existing windows to be reused shall have new sash with insulating glass. This sash will match the existing to be replaced as discussed at the Februarv 14, H.P.C. meeting. The existing w:naow frame and trim will be restored. A detailed presentation concerning each winoow will be made at the final H.P.C. meeting. Please refer to Exhibit B and the drawings for additional information. 7. The Board of Adjustment reviewed this project on March 16. 1989, and denied the additional site coverage required. A new garage design is now included in the drawings and no additional site coverage is required. 8. The shed dormer has been studied as requested by the H.P.C. on February 14, 1989. Two options have been developed and Will be discussed at the final review. Please refer to Exhibit C for elevations for these alternatives. Paoe Three Hernandez Residence 9. All existing major trees or-e to remain. The snrums adjacent to the house and carriage house will te removed and stored during construction, then replanted if possible or replaced. 10. The variations for setback have been approved by the H.P.C. at the February 14, 1989 meeting. 11. As discussed at the February 14, 1989 H.P.C. meeting, the entrance door will remain as existing. into the living room. The original log cabin walls shall remain intact. The new windows are located in the old door opening and in the area of the existing mud room demolition. Refer to the south elevation in the orawings. 12. The shutters shall be eliminated as reauested. 13. The front porch brackets shall be restored and reused as requested. 14. This final development application meets all conditions of the conceptual approval. 15. As requested bv Roxanne Eflin. Planning Staff. exact material samples will be presented to the H.P.C. at the final meeting. WE ARE ALWAYS PROMPT...NO MATTER HOW LONG IT TAKES! RYBERG CONSTRUCTION CO. EXHIBIT A "SHORING & STRUCTURE MOVING CONTRACTOR" 9900 E. FLORIDA AVE.#2 DENVER, CO 80231 H. CARL RYBERG President & SON Colorado House Movers Assn. 13 February 1989 (303) 755 - 3426 Over 35 years of Service BOA Construction, Inc. Mr. Timothy G. Pleune, C.R. First in P.O. Box 20127 Area to Denver, O0 80220 M ove 3rick and Masonry Buildings RE: Recommendations for foundatin replacement and general scope of work for the Hernandez residence located at 432 West Francis Street, Aspen, Colorado. emolition Dear Tim, xcavation entention First, I will cover the pro's and con's of foundation replacement. The Systems structures as they now sit are not level around the perimeters nor through- out their central areas. Their existing foundations have settled unevenly and basically have no structural strength left for spanning and/or lateral Shoring movement forces. The uneven settlement around the perimeters of the struc- derpinning tures indicate soils that mandate a foundation system capable of spanning and resisting lateral movement (reinforced cast concrete grade beam founda- tructural tion walls.) Reinforced spread footing with dowells should be adequate for pstoration a bearing system for the grade beam walls. The only and recommended way to perform foundation replacement for these structures is to raise the structures up and/or move one or both out :undation of the way for proper foundation replacement. When I say the only way, olacement there is an alternative to replacing the existing foundation section by sec- tion. The alternate method will not provide working strength effectively where there is uneven settlement, frost and water problems, and existing oundation structure elevations that are below extensive yard area elevations. Reason -xtension # 1 - uneven settlement around perimeters and attempting to .raise lower set- or Down tled areas of the structures up level section by section will literally rack and structually destroy the structures; #2 - the existing yard grade eleva- Free tions slope toward the structures in approximately 50% of the side areas stimates causing a water pooling effect along the foundation areas. Sectional foun- ' Denver dation replacement always has waterproofing problems and most especially Area when water pooling occurs along sides of sectional foundation replacement; #3 - sectional foundation replacement will not provide adequate bridging Free and/or spanning strength for soils where uneven settlement is occuring. :ructure After personally viewing and inspecting these structures and their location existing conditions, my recommendation is not to consider using the alter- amphlet nate sectional foundation replacement method. Future liability for end f or products that are not adequate, most expecially foundation systems that fail stomers or give problems later, will haunt you the contractor, designers, and the entity that allows it as well. My company either raises and/or replaces 15 "WE HAUL OR RESTORE YOUR MOST PRIZED POSSESSION FOR YOU" Page 2 of 3 ; to 25 foundations yearly and quite often I am subpoenaed into court regard- ing liability from inadequate foundation systems and hear the judgements handed out. A real future liability would exist in this project where a hundred or so thousands are to be spent on these structures' rehabilitation without adequate foundation systems. I realize that historical and/or preservation committees have a fiduci- ary duty to preserve -- to allow some change is always questionable and/or sometimes emotional. However, my experience af ter working with several hun- dred committees on various historical structures is that their decisions are to preserve in such a fashion for longivity and general esthetics of exist- ing conditions. I understand that the committee in Aspen is concerned about the Hernandez project' s foundation replacement. It is my bet that as soon as they realize the benefit of an adequate foundation system that increases the life of these structures considerably their vote would be do it. With- out foundation replacement these structures are not economically viable for use and/or their rehabilitation cost and will sit there continuously deteri- orating. Scope of projected work which includes recommendations are as follows: preserving the trees and the yard areas facing onto the streets will require moving the carriage house east then later move it back bo its original site. In so doing you need to replace its foundation with a crawl space reinforced cast concrete foundation system. The wooden garage floor is contaminated with oils and etc. and will need replacement which can be accomplished dur- ing this phase of work. You supply the materials and we will replace the floor throughout the lower level of the carriage house during our work phase. By moving the carriage house out of the way there is working roam to ramp down under the main structure and excavate under it after it is ade- quately supported and raised up some. Excavation would be from underneath the structure and would not affect the yard areas except for over excavation around the sides of the main structure. I need to raise the structure up a minimum of 2-1/2 to 3 feet for initial clearance of the excavating machine and then lower the structure back down after foundation construction is com- pleted. Plan on crawl space area foundation wall height being approximately the same as the basement area due to machine clearance under the structure. The room on the east side will be separated and moved out into alignment with its foundation when the main structure is set upon its new foundation. Tim, to guarantee exact alignment of structures to their original placment, set up offset batter board off the south and west corners of the house and on the north side of the carriage house. Set these in such a fashion that they are not easily moved and/or drive steel pins further out for farther alignment references on all corners. After excavation is completed I will set both structures in exact alignment still raised up for forming and cast- ing concrete clearance then later lower structures onto their new founda- tions. At that time we will place floor support beams and level floors for you. However, we usually do not supply the beams or columns (note adding and/or floor joist replacement should be considered at that time, also.) Re- leveling a wooden structure that has settled and warped the frame structural members connot be accomplished in a single phase of work. During the time of raising the structure some corrections are made. Then during the waiting period for its new foundation further corrections are performed. Upon and after setting the structure down further corrections are performed. Usually over that brief span of time a structure can be releveled almost perfectly to its new foundation. Page 3 of 3 At this time I will not get into how the structure raising and support- ing is accomplished. You have one of the albums which shows the primary methods used by the industry which is self-explanatory. Nor will I firm up the quotes until you have a solid plan. However, I will mention insurance and bonding. Recommendation is for insurance coverage. I carry a special transporation floater insurance for this type of work. Coverage is all risk with a $1,000.00 deductible clause and is in effect from the time the struc- ture is raised off its foundation until it is set back onto the new founda- tion. I can write coverage up to $150,000.00 before going through the com- pany (Safeco); cost is $.50 per hundred dollars. By going through the com- pany this insurance can be acquired as a builder's risk policy from start to completion of the entire project. For futher information call my insurance agent - Highland Agency, Ltd. and ask for Denise at 303/233-0787 here in Denver. Time to accomplish the raising and excavation phase will require 2 to 3 weeks, foundation construction 3 to 6 weeks, and several days to set struc- ture down thereafter. Starting target date is late April or early May 1989. Also, due to future contingent liability I will not bid a sectional founda- tion replacement request on this one. Sincerely, H -02 %64 H. Carl Bwbe,24 / f / Ryberg Const. {00(. / U EXHIBIT 3 WINDOWS A. While the Owner would prefer the option illustrated and numbered 2. we reaiize that wnere muntins occur thev would be larger than would be historically correct. Since that is the case we have proposed using the profile illustrated and numbered 1 for both replacement and new windows. E. If these or-ofiles ar-e not considered approoriate, the contractor -1 5 Drecareo to offer windows manufactured by alternate companies. E-Z TILT PAC MARVIN -0.- GLAZING OPTIONS WIN~ ~ ,)<9 SCALE: 3' : 1'-00 01 .1\ 07' -07 1 L T T--m* _1L 1 ~1440 1 \4/A' 1 1~4 43-11 2/1 -LI 11 Â«- Ny th- 4% :L 1 1 1 1 7 11\ - 1 j C-Â« 1 / 4 -2 i-/ 77 j - / W - vt '4'kit-1/ j il -2.L , f--451 . W 09 FÂ« Â«U] rfu 44/ 1 UL_ i j 1 1_r -77 =f ))) j C C L ;-% Single Glaze Single Glaze Single Glaze A.D.L. Single Glaze Insulating A.D.L, with EP A.D.L. with EP Wll-2 r/74 Litio 041 4 MARVIN -*- E-Z TILT PAC WINDOWS A ~,2%* GLAZING OPTIONS SCALE 3" : 1'-0 M-7 97Â» 1.1 7/1 , ,/v, ' ~L~ L./L.3 2.1-, a I Iff // r . Single Glaze Single Glaze with EP 7-39 LA]Ed ./ 713jbfEN---177 22-zp-n r--ip -1 rx / S c._uy-' V;-23 771+7*â‚¬77 Single Glaze A.D,L. Single Glaze A.D.L. with EP Insulating A.D.L. SCALE: 1 1/2" : 4 ' Al' L'J Uum D= 00 2222I 1_3 1' c_3 = 0 6 <) 2 11 c FJ [3 O E-3 Ed 234 0 C 8.0 r C 009 UJ all orc ES=GE 0 0 (2 20= 0 0 0 0 H GLAZING OPTIONS GLAZING OPTIONS Wll-3 T.V E-Z TILT PAC Â£ dRVIN -04- MEASURING/PARTS LIST WINDOWS k 494 HOW TO MEASURE SASH OPENING HEIGHT - Measure from the < LHEADER PART STOP outside of bottom sash to the header. f WIDTH - Measure from the inside of jamb to the inside of jamb. 1 MEASURE FOR SASH OPENING ~ ~ / ~ HEIGHT |L JAMB 71-// /1 / //, ''.4 4/ 9-1 Pb.wa 1 I / El='t / 3 / 1 41 hi / . f OUTSIDE OF ~ u- / r BOTTOM SASH~ / 2 92 \ MEASURE FOR | ~~~~~~7' / SASH OPENING WIDâ„¢ -1< A. Top Sash .......'.'-I'l * (25) ./ . ,+ L -- 4-'la,-11 B. Bottom Sash 9:94. 1. "' 2 '0. --77 1 . - F- j/,7 1 C. Cam Pivots D. Left Vinyl Jamb Liner li f v E. Right Vinyl 1,3, Jamb Liner *. :>*i V.ji- 1,1 44.1-7 F. Header Part -732~2~~ Stop d G. 2 Plastic @ r-mr--- - =~~~~~~==--/ Sash Stops tEÂ«IUJu...0*100*r~'~--553--.-v- --3------u#..Â£.7./.-=----;---1- H. Metal Brackets Â©<~~~~= ~MK-Oxl~/~L~~ ~ (Number varies with size of Unit). W11-4 E-Z TILT PAC MARVIN -+0- WmIDOWS l. ti? MEASUREMENT & INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS -Â·14. HOW TO MEASURE YOUR WINDOWS FOR AN E-Z TILT PAC. 1. 3. Measure the width of the Measure the height window from inside of , of the window. Run the wood trame to inside -- the tape from the of the wood frame. - area where the top of Measure three points- , the sash meets the 4" below header, center head frame when and 4"above silk All ... fully closed... three measurements should be the same. :411/H' 2. ---I.I."4-4 If yourold window .to the point on the has Â·noden blocks outside of the bottom Â¥ -r~ hold C, sash where it meas the upper 1 ,~ sash in place, remove - the sill when fully ~ them. Then lower the .- closed. 01 top sash a few inches. - SAVE MONEY BY INSTALLING THE E-Z TILT PAC YOURSELF. .1. 6 1 3EE.1122 3. Carefully remove 4 Slide the new sash \4 1 the old inside stop . . A. into place. and sash. ~ f.~11 I.----J-- /A ,.2 ./.i--- ....De 4. Nail the Tilt Pac clips Replace the origin.3+1 '-P~ to the frame and snap ~ the jamb linerin place. %0, Insiae stop. For complete, detailed instructions, see the installation instructions packed ~ - with each Tilt Pac. >-i w 11-1 EXHIBIT C CARRIAGE HOUSE SHE ROOF m I m ! l t W . .-4 i I 1 1 1 1 ALTERNATE ELEVATION HEW A* FHALT t]25rger LAS *H I KI Crl.le 0 *3.'5 - \ -A - -44 -- v-\ 0= -- - lÂ« [al--131 - l - liveA - - \Vl/te---u ------------9 ' e ------Ill---1.--ill-- - 12:Of-/-*--i-1 1 ~ *C'&O7riTE'zvJ.F--- -~- - .- - -IZIP ~ 107;-rful v.<FO --1- - - 1@1 - /1211!99*=m== -- 2===1111<a 111111Â© 1424 eic,1 *4-72, 1 EHAI hi 91Â£71NA- f3_Pic *ALVA 4*P - LXMCa' P IN G, 8 B 14 BW 61PIL.ldiÂ· --- -- - ~! I+EU' 1.0 M<64] A<'4. _ ---3321 [I{~3 6 TO, MIR.11944 kil* .---"------- -- - - -31123170, FIRLIN-1 rl-R. A TE.L.9/4 211_3__10_1~---- - I _1_-121*/78:0* 1 1 . 1 1 1_ ------------- ----- - -_3__ _--_-___-_- -~ -SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4-=1'-0- . 34â€¢Â¥/ Alâ€¢PH,in- --3,~fOTE'Â°'-'43 *girÂ·1'rl-ee 1- - \2~ Non r. f 1* 1 1 31 lirw 61[7'KekÂ· 2_MIU.ge Tb 337 / _.z ~ 07 ~41 i (g,> LIb ~ \ A 2- . 2--_ -El-- lo:14 11.LM],f, -~7 i k~*-1 -7- i 4, Â·- Â· f 32 - , --./.6-==Â£,=3 1 3-/ 9- ~ 4 : 51 8< -_* emÂ· 1,-'1*914Â»H re- 12*rl-ACEO 20.2% 61171Ncr -Tb le..EMIA' A /5- *le'Hct 12> 45 Â·5â€¢*l-*Ad.ED 4 11 x= - DKA _Â»WtHA-_OK NENV Z LIES9*-rNUADD Â»V+TOR EL. , r-'- - _13-2 *720,IF[Kilw Fl.A. ELL. 98'-22' 1 1 1 - EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4-=1'-0- -Â· ~,7- If I l ./4 4 - fj Tra''',-'.V//''&:&1. 1 1 ; 1-V : &1111,0 !4 'li i 11 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . ALTERNATE ELEVATION . 197.0 4 96â€¢LO' t - 1 1 1 J \ ALLEY \ ~ 4:3>hÂ·kS. CS,ARACrE A-KE-4 le-rÂ».4 LINE. -1 4 Pâ‚¬)2.lk#*YAC-t- 10 #L *sk)-.'ELT&0 - 1 - 6 â‚¬\-7,50 0Â°11 11~'5 -10.22 -I. -- 1l EX#STING CARmAGE ; b , ~ y .2 ~ p.,~,vt-----â‚¬-r- f Â· ~ Â·~ 441 ~ T 1 *~ . 44 -, 1 1 XXXXXXXZyUX /# 042,~ 4 1 0 Â· 1 .t &9 x XE=.AMA.,.C,' 44â€¢U.!4'0 ~ Â· I v>*<AVv\A'hAAAA-i f Â« Ct Â«AAAAA/\A/\AA/V li \.9 -b . 1 : ,++CO 24.0 -- 4 0 ~, I /UVELIC-[50 1 Â«A/V*V*V\*---'~ ..'- 1 j , ./At-kc WK- -G U ILEMo~ED; 1 1 *5 - â‚¬ AX)000Â¢V . - . \./ -9- -- r 1 :@ -,iÂ·, -txXXXX 1 -- - Y-1 11\ 0 -- -- -- 1 1.11 A.AA ./1 PeR 0 02,9,5-r- ~ , c_ 120 * M.MO"Ph \ A lili ~ . 1 K.,1/ 1,/21- Â»Â»l i:'1{ . 7 dAA .4-2/' i'x 1 ' -D 1 "0~ Mtff '1;92 AA -tg4\ 1 eÂ¢*STING HousE LÂ» R p;.zii-* r,=1.G'-- , - -4 0- 1- 42,& *4... 024. * 4064 . 1 1-1 = 01 .1 1 liu#Â¢ \A txf 1 4 1 Ir \ 11'X' P. 11 1 \ 0.1 li I t - -i i<.Ct*i, -14(:,43 J A; 1 \ e.< a. g.,--4~~4- ir--' \ 20â€¢ CH /000 \ 11 - 11 -4 -.- \ . 1 V "r,1 -- ~- . lei-0,1 / i , Â·11 - / COVEâ€¢-2-3 i ' 1 r . 1 - , ./.L-1.,/ *-\ .\ 0 - -,1 \ 2 \ V 20 K 0- H 75Â° 01' Il" W 90.00' f\Â· ,0 \ \/ -1 / --4 / \ 00' TOP 02.- ' ...< I - - N --- - - -- -t ./.1#A: tx . // 0 # *rN'- Â·Â·mÂ· licâ€¢-~c r ~Â»F .3 i 11 /-+ irs, 5 1 lili CIA#eR-,~rE -00.5 1 -/L ........... E-/F 4 -I ........ N-' o ~ 24%~4-e ..... /1 9 - 01 L U - L L-L 1 0 0 -- .,I'> 3 -1121Eli*cl/ mo, L 1Â·f i Uj I A!=MiI ./ RE'"..0 LAUâ€¢.pr' -1//: .....T f E F U 1 2. 7- lill 2 1 '1 U.=91.1 , 1 0\ - lu, If o EÂ® i.j - 'L 1 L R.-f=vt i J L.ukk,Â·.Â·rT eÂ»Â·~c.-t..rr -- U - - ~ . I ./Alts i. 11 1 . 0 22=ZEr , Â·,1 9 1. 1 Â·Â·-Jacrea 2.In.,1 M 1 70- i CE i ./.0/. I ./ In:221.' 9% 1 A 1 ----1 N...t) 2 j ,!r -1 ... E.WIATI'e 'll' .....6 K.1-r~45 C '- . <-61121.V'. Col :-% O .2 .'1 1 liu 11 6-r <=' : #:l L 2-F- 1/ 0 4,-Nt-l-p. ~ I 1 efv-- ---'&-- - . 4/ 1 F i 1 1 1 :lau 1. Â©!1 EX 1 --1.G ..r.44- 4 -1.0 â€¢4Â· Â£-r -1=ver f r * 06 IP- FOWâ€¢Â·4241,04 - 0 .AC VE C) 1- F~ "re 1 -,9 f Lâ€¢-- ALâ€¢Â· 7 ....A 4. r ID 1.1/* Ir//Â»1 Aw#ANQ 0 1= 1 5 1 )1 - p .... * .......1-0, ./.11.1,- ~.,eorÂ»/.vE . --1 1 -ID. 4.....0 ~ I -1 rf 2-- CA--r I 3 - 1 I #.:r ./.1- 01 11Â£1! 11 1 /1.N 1 1 11 9 C DEMOLITION 1 =4 1 - . Exls-3313133_LD 1/ 1ii , 00.] 10 SCALE. 1/4-=1'-0 -1 -/1//fi/58=-a j ' ,51 -- .... - Elss:722 'Â°0- Te> 4 d r*iâ€¢.Â¥Wâ€¢=Â· IZ:â€¢Â·-rtâ€¢~t~,eÂ·U 7 71 E I . 53'- E' * - --- --- -1 -- --- - - 6.2.Â·kwÂ·- bPACÂ·E .n 9 1 .--- -- - -- - ----- ---7-----/4 4 1 1 02.1 ' - c' ' v,1.p FbdgE 0 4 LÂ»25 1 ...VS- 1 ---- 1 fl , 151- 1, 1 MIE-'Ii'/IM....11/,1.'i,"Ira-i....&.r -I-:,h~-7--*TA ' '11 ,24 11Â®L,/ 1 2 /.1. F r 1 Fen; 1~0 11 -,1;-4 3 r- 448 i 1Â£0-lly=:Al , 1 -1.-1. 641/VE. 1 11./. 'IM 1 1 .w# 0 r t.6.-, 11$ 4 i â€¢t-,Arr/4,521 1 .I @Rd (Â© 1 *E f 1 11 ~ -41>~gr- E v Â· - r-Te ' ft.' J. 1 -E u Â«.otÂ·t=E -%317 @/\ . i 1// ~22 | , 11...,1 1 .. 14'- .'hi Illâ€ž. 1 1 *r IL'. 092â€¢ 1 1 1 .1 46 1 Â£Ettl:J: rk+ 5.-6. /1 1 >re 1 1 1- . 5- -Rhe:#'f-/ 1 M \L\\1\\ ..1-Â£Â· lef~ *t FIL.9-6, - Ar,Â»1-Fp 1- %25Â· ~ ~ hle=.s,+Ae,CAL 1/44 ~ . .Z23. 44 ' -'1 I L kl> P' 2 C > /1 E /1 - 1 Â·STÂ»CAA E- IM 1 1 1.- 1 -91 C 4 1 1 -fillâ‚¬, 4 1 1-f-\11-~ 1 --- u i , 1.- 13 1 1 .. 1 11 2 Â» 1-0,Â·er,0.-- O.-- 1 1 11 'Ce &~--4 1 NkÂ»./. - iYT. * L. . I . 1 L. 4=Â· de.viwrÂ·ri ,~/C.*Phz. C.'11'p 1. rÂ·, CÂ» alt, AE-,2 -1Â·'lAT*KJAL'.0 TD Atâ€¢CT'511 e><' 4, -- --- K.,6 4,171.k; 12> trf-1,Â«th] -- --=EE==-- --~:Ilt.L_- -Lii---- ----4 1:* Kgr'rl,94â€¢0-Â·PAMAAIFF 610lkÂ·16â€¢ 1Â» er. gF['1Ae...r CP %/ == -~ / SALÂ»*ALD EXC. SIC'1Â·36' C.F. -i--Lti=t#-3304*23 - .-2-/_60--Gtn- KiEW Â·910'Ikuk MILL- 18> MAT?JA a Or -RD PE "1.1 4 2 /\ 1 PEW â€žPlk-16.Â·HIFIEÂ£.----=---- --~ u'lltr.p - rK\FIAGFp -iD HAfcal 15>< ar. I, p.,r- e'~rt-+CEr7 - 1 1- ./ â‚¬4&=0 rkeR +PI'li . <Alll- T- \ 4~-L~~ff E_- - 11 -_____n__ /// - . KIEÂ».' OrÂ· t*K 9-11,16 LIP, TAL- Ft Â£ 1 ik}6~ 0 3 ./799.-_ 8/7731-6 _ Â« :* --I- ---- --- 411 â‚¬1---.-3- .1#J 11.91 - m -3 2< 1Â£07 14 **/ r.,1 ETA L- F eâ‚¬f I U Ar Â·,- 4 ~-â‚¬~â‚¬EEE522222â‚¬3~FEED_~~ OF-E. 11 11 - --------1 -- - z >z-i-~ -~-Â»mfrll E-r -- iN,~un- ffmt-Ill ff ~pi~~ - - 11 - 4 AC3131 Â«t--1 -_Â·- i' -----Â· IAL_j_il -1--]ll-L__ 31 - ----HI 11 1 ]11 1.111 I------. 11 ==..." LOU_]1I --- -4-11 -- - -- --- -0- - -- - 3 -t - 9 --i. =11-=5+ .. 1.--r~ 1- .-I ,- 1 VE-0 1 1, FlillÂ·5,1 c:,r-8 E.Â« rtÂ«-Ft Me#t\Â£1'T~' 172 '# FEÂ·â€¢441 4 *45. M..tr'h,1,94[P 1 1 \1\1 01 0 111 1 1-Â·PKI'.rlk.10,- 0~*AC'E ':- 1 -\ D<'6, ro.o| CCLUMMA Te> P,HAN / 1 11 1 11 i. 1 -F~-AIPL A* FIEce-4*AF-Â·'[ /~ 1 K - -1 | | -|x-- MX~Gr 41/lk,17 125 Icir,1-thl * / 11 1 1 -Er g -3 5 --- rÂ·,6 P-:2Â· Ft KI I 4, IM r7 -Â· CT/,617-1 44 1.-C, 1 M ANÂ« TED FF F.. 1 -AC Â¥ 0 44/ | 4 SAL,VAG. P EMÂ». 4 0 ING, 4 PX'Â«TING 0UIL-~th-1-9- btr-' . 4 E X 1-4 T 1 1 , P NEW --3/-----*---- cou,TFU,Tlet | * Mull"fr-46r 3,447-racl S_O_UTH ELEVATION ,/el SCALE: 1/4- = 1'-0- Al EW CE PAIC- 911 96, LEÂ·17 AW kitnes FLAst}IKIA- t<,trT-1 14 cl-11~~Her -612.aMA lk-1 /'-lb Elt- ctiVEMEP V,7 - -- -,12> Hâ‚¬- 4- L.C.1. 6 [7 Â»// C-r CEPA,1 611'13#L-*b 1 KE)*t p.,12 A, bit#E PET:7 -- I--- + --M.-- IER111 -- ---. --- -- H 12.14 Â»12.1Â»L- Re-Z IFI'l - \\ /iDA 2211~ -1- ~ 11222220-1-- 1 Â»1 y - .*hie./ LE PA@ - -------- 41'HG.Le. - - _1915 172Â¥mt 251 - - - -- - -- -Â°-- "p=Â¤-'i'--- 6- '11~~I--ff--f liti--f -~j_ Â»13 #-9-. --- --6 ~-- ---- 09 - - 14 -U L . FI~rur-37--7~--69449 1 7 --- - I .-' | ID<-'Â«rl,44 elolhÂ·16 -bBEMA+1-/ PAW C,Id,kek I Hâ€¢W -/11)lit. - 4-Ill lip , 4 A REF 1.-11*HEP . FÂ»4,&(Er, 1 11 1\\\\\2 I -1-0 HA 1241 Ex'cir . 1 â€¢GIPIAck 'b RE Bm PLAC .17 MT EKIÂ«rig G ARM[:4.r 1 -*Lv*GriP Ex'* 610146.- -Fk 4 4 KIEW *101,49 MILLED Tb f/Ar 416.-Me ve w .19 M -Tb -- ,-16*./ 9'Tb+42 VeNEER- 1-0 1 H *Tal Ex' 4. rli, T .4 82Â·912>gE OP-Â·16,0.0\L 1 r -1 /141614 leA' CT BEE; ~4 LF.[32 - REFÂ·fe-N/E -' F--= F114 ItH 1 1 1 , 11 1t 4 4 ---- _L[EWLEERREME!led ~, 0%1#71~14 8-91 LPINdiÂ· ~ AInATH Fl -EVATION 6 f. triT A 1 2 - r t.47 i 4,/.4-; -* EL c p: 4.'' I/ W > CAY -1-' Pt,Â«1,0 E-X,CA. Â·Â·\ ,-/- 4 12&Â«I~Ec>' 4, , / 61"Â¢ 64 6 0- c =Â· v E Le e,r-' rte 'Caf'NIAH:12 1-\ t.4-|lk-1*LE.4 -Tb If k | 942 LA-1 0 I] LE ps,Â·141,1 J -7 1.*Â·A Sv,/Al.lic. 43 g /5.1 h.ltÂ·W ~-ed*'41 -L, r.,4EALE& 11, t--fA !-4 Eao. AM *t-A CP. \ I] i)= 11>0>2J#h 244 /-0 Â«-21<35%12-26Jft ~-- - 4 24- tri.-~,hilÂ·>,1-lE-P IÂ·.â€¢J,IAU,6-[7 ./A\\ 7.l EK'ar â‚¬.1171 'G -b izctÂ·+ki M -- &4/6/AL\,AG,#9 86 6- 4 7144 \ 1 - -- 6,~pl,#Gr Â·ro tâ€¢E KE tlboic, - t.-- - - 1 Lt--3021Â·33x---1, 60/'-- =-= --Â»4 -2-41-94---7 ~3- Â»Â« ~1 1 1 U C. idi | . F> - 1 *- - -L 0/ .'01 /All- \16/ // / / I *-la O \91 1 V .11 ' /, c 'll 'i l ),J>AViA - ____ maw oeVAB =-jun_- Vib91 1 L " 43>X - CD k V, %-- --lill-h --_--- i.f.'2-Li-<.A, " '*~~, -- - - ---- --- - --- -~ 66:Al.E>.4 -- / - ~4,*6* bliTAL- 2.Â·36Â¥ 7-3 4 -- 11 0,== 1- - -Lorqi-J-f~Â»2 11 -3 -ro ~___ _______-_CL- '1 - - 6<Nst-/8. 0 ~- 9 00*Off ~ -9 -3-_- f- 92 - - - - - r---- -- il#1 77- ---- r..1 .-1-41 1 - -11 - -4 - -1 11- t ...131-1-2=LUL . - 1 e.7 r -1 , ' | < k "e- 047- 1% E'24 -UP'*Gr Â·-rbet,EÂ· IfE,1-14:,1 1 1 1 lili 'il -111 1 I L - 14- iti- '~'ill.6)_.IN --1161 lid - ( 1 -C/Â»L'J,te 9,91,4.24 1Â·D f,E - | IL~-. 2; 1.im, :w-itk_p= rlj' L = -liu =all I R' 21,6, 0 1 0 5Â¥ SAL-vÂ»-, Ep - 4 .Ntâ‚¬I., D I 1 E.* A. ..10'r-Â·16' 012. hit.# i.boi -* 4 - -- - \ hi 412.1 MIL.L.*9 T: riAÂ·ra ticâ€¢. f I 1 1 , 1 E . 1 + Exor â‚¬010.,NE VE ALâ‚¬12 -2, 61Â» KE Oet[P ~ 12; 614Â· , -rÂ»MT -tb BE Fave.VE O -4 KIK!-1-ILL!~L ,I PIN IE+1 AurokE P ] 1 1 1 -1 , < E.>04.T-i,1Â£.r 25LD,=E, ~ KIEW dc>pltrl #Uc TI,n,-1 1 > j EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4- = 1'-0- . 1 F. , rir < '>'4 alli,+Irl tint.F. -12)'Â·Irr' f w.-1'.reÂ· r'. 4,#IT <1111'Â·ferT 1' 'r rrâ€žMT 0 Â£ 6/1 yo, Al Fri -6<.~4;ZI~E. it< 449 4 F.1/1,<. Al' MATOI EKG /h- 11 Â»/54 \\ " I r I ; I i Â·Â· -rr, r frAP F L..44 11144. 6,.f P F r r-' ftâ€ž", lue - -----1 - 42*TE.:I>'* r. r,1,â€¢iâ€¢Ir-Â·1Â» 9"-ryÂ«.. 9/1.1,4-t.... t:.'*I A J 13-4> -=C- 3226 - 91--Ti 4-2 Fliw i â€¢r,Al .IIiÂ·MI Wi v'/ / : f Â·:'itill Â«'4 11 r i Jes, 13 Or,Alh; - - 4.41.7 1 4,"crÂ·,/â€¢.,1/0 p,Â»t.4/0 *1 -02 r--- i / %431:26,92 MULN' - -~-~ i-*i~ . WN .fr TAL r' . 1 1.1 4 1 - .--- ----CT -- . -=2 . Â·- L ~3--- _ r- Â·1';41â€¢1 '/ r i - /1 L X.\1 U 4*44 .- *2 -75=Q? 42.z-u-_-~fl -- - --U)---__.. 7-==r. ! Â·Â·1.Kull liD -.:.. 0 Â® Â® 1 671 - ilidle _ ' 0) 1 --- r=Â» 73 r,./81 r : / 1 11â‚¬/Â· 41 N 1.71.:1 ... 1 / -Â·11 r.,Â·,1~.1~1 -1+ jl I ~~~~Ai~il r.~i,.~,i,-| 1 --- E -le,-T-1,44 12.Ar'r- | 44.A 1 - - - 1 P vi -.12Â·id I . 1 ht r r p. | f ' . 1 4 .V UlÂ·AL ng'..,. 1 1 F v-,1, n 1 - P.r p - Â·- k \ F ru' f. L T..Fr r 11 1 311&11 / "#-' 6,-, I' TRUÂ·-Il- ,1 , r 91"Pit,4 1'1 0.. ~ ~ 1 > fbi'%)1 SCALE: 1/4- = 1'-0- WESI_ELEVATJ_ON ./~*14'i, /\1 5 Irun' p L--Â· 1-*EW A*PHALT - MISEFal-At, 6141#CLE-6 . A 43 4 Ft <56.ki'fgaR' .4 4. 1 Â»19-IÂ»,9,-21_~Â·NX 3 -2-1 [9-1 1-9=-_- - .... 1-7 o. Fl-tÂ»,â‚¬ 21-74Â·42Â· --_ i.*2.- 222-hi.2 --2.1 1.-_.- __. EdÂ©107'-Il"VII,F.<r ~--- 17 WÂ»4 - - rn ~ | /-7 &1014.4- -10 ICE-HAIâ€¢J 1 61*Â·Ft#114-INC~-prirl-Acke --- ------- 4 16 0% Â·5AWA 4/P :PIHIA OF- VEÂ¥4 41[PILIC --- - ~ - -c - r - r\Â©-~ - 2 1062 rlÂ«TZ+1 M )<'4. *14312.9 _FLP-0 ------.--- ~-A,ZI'le'-*" - ~ - Â· ~~Z~K- I U L_ 212.21-1-I~ - 8 b '- b" 12:. ElÂ®+ife- J E 1 1 1 0 -LI SOUTH ELEVATION ; ~ SCALE: 1/4-=1'-0- 11 C w M+Fwirr A /A< Cx40.wÂ·* Â·bwriAL,tip 3 12 1 - 12 0 CÂ«Zif~ Klev' 61[2/MIC, Â· r ttlt#O T b 7-~-~ ~ ~-~~ - /9/22-- 15- 22-1*0' 221_ I \,7 -_-7[2%04- 1- 3 --J f - le , 2 E L 10 7- 111' 9 1 -7 +2r Â· - Â· -- 19 V Â® 4 Ef, E F. F Fl AM, It t{2 - 1-ACEO '* â‚¬-'el,Ic, Tb te. *AL-ttilE P trk-'4 9 i (71 04 -lb> p f rÂ·Â·Â·'142 4 -----.2.---- PX'o. 4101,44 c:Dle r]EW - - --- 61 el,451 rliLL.EP Tcpt-1*le.41 ex';r i Ol - - 4 TO, F I k. 191 f LA , -*f_-_1211 - EL.- 10'rei 1 1 1 E .<J,-,Tl,16,- ~~ 4/ WAL) E. 1 1 1 11 -_______1__ ______1 EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4-=1'-0- .0-.t-=.,/ 1- :31VDS NOIIVAE!131 HIHON 1 -,9/KA ~ 4 -21-Yl-,1 tl aL s| 12 90-1-701 9 9 -7 L Â· 4, fo --CO' 17 0-Wl / 1 -go<af *r.11.lhog | ' ~*30VWS -9141191 >CRÂ· -210:20 #rd.16-1,Â¢21 . 1 - - - / B,96 ' 1-2 f~- Â·913 11*1 rvig-Â·0.1-- - - - 'a-\ A-\Â¥1\'M\1 01- ' 9 , *-a ,-Â¥Â·11>Â·, W 491." 1-19LV,14 cou- 41*1~104 -t>t,Lic - cal a I11114 t,ph<jig. a I VA-lv* -34 â‚¬L -â‚¬4304 /-4rl -21<P '91â€¢11(149*21 ------ -~thÂ·~~2~z-33Â· -------~ ~~j) ------ 'Nâ€¢drt -210 -9141014 91*-3 ---- 02'OVAÂ«,; 10 0..4 1/1-11,=11~ j,>'4'~~d~~~ttrU,al ta . _ p,v'ria,d czl- -KIril,JI+ 5,3 3 - --------- -,---13,7vlharl - 0,1114114* 13 -30 ./ d '1 A,il 1 -2 1. 2.J 13 *,11-9,21'-IM ---------- - --, ---- - - --- - 'CV--Li@ Â·6:1 . aâ€žÂ»78 <2-1 ---6Â« E 11 - --- - -- 44 9 E-El M Â©6 /'32 111 I l 1 4 l -N L- 47414)Nift,G .,ult>AN' 4,3Vrlj,V /Abiti WJ F: 9 8.06 1 1 -- - PI~~Lj~ ~IMALY, f - IL acn k W .. w LU * z ll,1 --- 1* m %& -Er. Fl-rw[7 , 4-, 10-71. '1,1 V. 1, E ~ --12; ~---~ig--1 On AV.'N'G | 22.AFFI,A,im- HOL-lfÂ·A 4 , To. F 1 411911 r L.R.. NEV E.L.g-VATI eNg -7 - - 2.4 lei. eli ' 1 0<J:brl â€¢-15, ABAC>m- 1 1 1 Joe No. 00 29 OATE 1 - 1 9.65 T NO VVEST ELEVATION ~~ SCALE: 1/4-=1'-Â·Â· A3.3 CARRIAGE HOUSE SHEET OF 1301 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Minor Development Review: Aspen Resort Association Information Kiosk (on the mall) Date: April 11, 1989 APPLICANT: The Aspen Resort Association, Tom Hinds, General Manager APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor Development approval from the HPC for a semi-portable six-sided informational kiosk, which will be occupy a portion of the mall at the southwest corner of Galena and Cooper during the summer. ZONING: CC, Commercial Core, Historic Overlay District PROJECT SUMMARY: Last year's kiosk received a great deal of criticism in its design compatibly with the Commercial Core Historic District. It also was subject to vandalism upon occasion. The proposed design is greatly improved in quality over the previous kiosk. It incorporates horizontal overlap siding (redwood), wood trimmed information windows, ceder mill roof shingles over a flared conical roof topped with flags, and wooden brochure racks on two side of the structure. The maximum height to the roof peak is 12' 6"; it is 8' wide. The materials are proposed to be left in their natural state. Three informational windows are proposed with one access door. One individual will be occupying the kiosk at a time, seven days a week. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS: The review standards are located in Section 7-601 (D) of the Land Use Code. Snaff has the following comments in response to our review of the standards: 1. Character compatibility within the district and neighborhood: We find that the design is reminiscent of Victorian elements, with horizontal siding and roof form. The materials are proposed to be left natural; staff recommends that the HPC consider whether painted exterior surfaces are more in-keeping with the Commercial Core Historic District. 2. Enhancement of cultural value: We find that the kiosk will serve the pedestrian element of the Commercial Core very well, and its design does not detract from the adjacent historic landmarks. The Guidelines do not address temporary structures such as informational kiosks, however, we find the general applicability of new development within the Commercial Core Historic District to be appropriate. The structure will be highly visible during the heavy tourist season, and we find its design help to present Aspen in a compatible way. ALTERNATIVES: One alternative the HPC may wish to consider is requiring the exterior siding and trim to be painted, which is more in keeping with the Commercial Core Historic District than natural redwood. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant conceptual development approval for the ARA Kiosk, with the condition that the exterior siding and trim be painted, and clarification from the applicant on signage. memo.hpc.ara.kiosk . MEPI - 4 4 - / 22Â»rÂ» X.<7 ,#ik M , CEARk VUL\- 5, ,/UG\â‚¬-9 Â£1' 6" um#gr:,i~.,~am;f v ;,:.4#a.m, r t; Reu L.006 b S ,d,N G -3 31 73 Al -2-2- R Ly(- HE + f 7'3 " 4-1 IR, 12-7 1 ~ . - 13 3 [-2 )~K\FOr N.67-454 ~ALK i - - -- - 1 ./ - . U p LeueL VISITOR CENTER KIOSK COOPER & GALENA MALL V I ASPEN MOUNTAIN DOOR . 1 1 WINDOW WINDOW A /7 I. 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 74 E. 7< 7. 1 , 1'' 1 : ! :: t 1- 1 O -- 2,1 t. 1, WINDOW 80 - }- COOPER AVE. LU Li-1 CL C/3 Ld <C CO ; \ , . ! 1 1 \\ 1 1 1:i, 1 1, ,~X. N. '.1..,1 I \ \ 1 1 1 , i i 1 , .. i.. . .... i , 0 ' 1 1 H i 1 -*-r--LI ~-rl;:?jj' Â¢ 1 ''â€¢ I Â· 1 1'1Â·'i 1 , i / 1 lilli ~ 1 i 1 i ! 1;! / 2 ' 1''e '# i I 1111 1 1 'f 1 *i ' Â·i i Â·iÂ·, 1 1 , , 1 2 1 1 .. - --- 1 ! i , 1,1 t '' 4,1! 1 ATTACHMENT 4 a. The proposed Visitor Center Kiosk is compatible with other historic structures located on or near the proposed site. It is temporary (June 10, 1989 through August 25, 1989), it is Victorian in style, it is natural in color, and it does not detract from other buildings or businesses in the area. b. The Kiosk is consistent with the character of the neighbor- hood and its function of enhancing the visitor experience blends well with the business character of the surrounding buildings. c. The Kiosk has cultural value because it provides information on music, ballet and artistic functions located within the Roaring Fork Valley. d. The Kiosk does not diminish or detract from the archi- tectural integrity of any designated historic structure in this area. The structure's building materials are of the highest quality, and the design is compatible with other buildings in the area. In addition, the Kiosk is temporary. r Queen Spons laylor Creel Fi, Shop 01. 41th. Allit ,ndola . IMayÂ·oct.} Spons Fantasies L 1, '&6-Â·4.1,./814*U. A h.1. AVENUE A"11:0=*..i.M#p 34*AY';-0.624: Pomeroy Blue Corn ' * Sport Squash R*EttE/Ze:*Relll:ill:Im'#ric32/FbfrwrAJdfs te Sports ByrneÂ·Getz Gallery Kaelin Blossom LF?.$.. 7.*2Â·i;Ilr~~....2.1*984-*.2.*% t# Select r 'I. 1,Â·Â«'Â£79'~ / 1 Blazing Geraniums'n Sunshine Ski ~ -'443- s Â· '- "' ~ ' Paddles Ralting Just Paper ' Rentals Â£-04&12&. I,~,*~#~ i6,begTPa #4Â·3{1'2491*4* 51, X...0.,441 -2. Mogul Shop rix'EBUS STATION}I~ Polo Ralph Lauren ismitl.*24% ree)14.2-'~Â·.f-*Â·114441*: 6 1 Shirt OIl My Back Shirtique ~J.f f>#a#*MARÂ·*4...6 4- 4- ) Â·Sii.4.99:22*44.Â§ 111 Freudian 01 Slip Aspen 12-:2:.t~ ~~; i: 1 McDonald's #R , Aspen Grove . Fine Art â€¢ Pitkin t Gallery 7..~. %:'. ...) County Â· t Chepita - Dry : Joanne Lyon Gallery ..' I Pitkin 5 ScandiÂ· Les Goods i Guido'$ Swiss PoppyÂ· navian Chels Leather Local Color ' Crossroads Swiss om i A k# itome Cocks Design D'Aspen Store + Aspen Grove Cafe Drugs Inn Shop McDonoughts ' Goods -1 Wt 1 . 4 AVENUE Â¥ MALL r'* A Step Beyond Boogie's Hibachi Eastern Cooper Paradise Sabbatini'; Special Red Sport ] Aspen h Unicorn J ~ John Atencio Diner Winds St. Bakery }- Pinocchio ,; Occasions Onion Kaelin Sports ' Books 01 DownÂ· Odier LU stairs LU Concierge i 1 J Golden EE Horn Passages Service Ul ' LU of Aspen 1 'i Menaluna , ' 4 On :3 ..7 :.. I , a ~1 06:!. .. 1 ' . Ebbe ~- 3 -1 4 4 Ozzies Shoes ~ r: Holy 4 N U "t .. 3 4 . j Andre's ~ Shirl 1 4 1 , .~ .t.'-Â· -Â·eÂ· fl Baggage 1 . ....:.4 1 Sweet Dreams ~ , 2 . Ute MoutÂ· C 5.'{ 4.:.1 Â· Claim Dudley'$ Cale LU taineer Lauretta'$ . 1 j ~ 1 Kidding Around ' Â· Â· Â·Â· Â· : -1 - 7 D -~ 4 - i 0'Learfs Little Ute City Â¢] Antony Video -Â· 3 - -Â· Â·4Â·1 - ~~, ' Pub Annie'$ i Banque Williams Arcade -~ ~-j Â·~ :.,1 Blan Biazlt AVENUE j MALL Fountain 21 ' ' A Esprit + Ben' Stalker Aspen Bright Upper Curious ' Aspen at : Best 01 -1 ' Mason 2-7 2 A**ti,i-- , All 1 & 111*.IRPOniFIRA"m Ltd. Mine & Image George Fine Whi Worlds Morse /11*Â¢2â€¢1 imifil[.ficd*ilwi} Co, Shiny Art Mid/'MTMH-~ii-Frnlimie Things ' ] Gallery ~- bÂ· Takah 2 3 A" Ill L . sushi kn C -3. J... 1 '1 ,( UU ~:& f. 1 Elk's Club. i :,O ; Vi } ic /' 941 Building -4 3.-C f .1 -* ' 40; F. 41 ! W t. ,- 48 Aspen U) Cruise Szechuan Richard K. Ff.t- 1. :1 1>...1 7. 2,-,f:.6.3,5.1 Unes -~ Gardens GouWS Jewelry Lf-c .E: f-tÂ·:,: Fo-Â·.;'yijt-ID f.f-iÂ· - F S: 1 i Fast [ Sportstalker ~ Eddie's Kid's ' Timberline - . Hats , Bazaar Bike Tours 'E NUE )11 City The PRE -1 - - Hall Miller CO. Ilir.t-'-Et-1 Aspen Volunteer Fire f./3 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Conceptual Development Review: 525 N. 2nd St., the Shilling-Lamb House, Public Hearing Date: April 11, 1989 LOCATION: 525 N. 2nd St., Lots P, Q, R, and S, Block 40 (a/k/a Lots 13-16, Block 40, Hallams Addition), Townsite and City of Aspen ZONING: R-6, Designated Landmark, National Register property RATING: Exceptional APPLICANT: Catherine M. Conover, represented by Price & Partners, Architects, Travis Price APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual Development approval for the project, which includes two small one-story additions to the structure. Variations are requested for side yard setback and FAR in the amount of 242 sq. ft. SITE, AREA AND BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Please refer to attachment. The total amount of new FAR proposed is 549 sq. ft., which exceeds the allowable by 242 sq. ft. Existing FAR: 3,533 sq. ft. Allowable FAR: 3,840 sq. ft. Proposed FAR: 4,082 sq. ft. Variations for FAR and north side yard setback are requested. DISCUSSION: The Standards for Development Review are located in Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Code. 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. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the rrinimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in according with dimensional requirements. Response: Guideline VI.B.4 states: Locate additions to original houses so that they do not alter the front facade. Additions should not be designed so that they obscure the size or shape of the house. Staff finds the proposal meets this guideline, and generally meets the review standard. Two additions are proposed: One off the south elevation, near the middle of the structure, and one off the back that includes a semi-covered balcony and incorporates a wrap porch/deck on the lower level. The rear addition's covered balcony is very small, includes turned posts and simple railings, and has a hipped roof to correspond with the hipped roof of the addition below. The materials will match those existing: narrow, clapboard siding (painted), narrow double-hung wood windows (one over one), wood shingle roofing material, and wood trim the match the width of existing trim. Railing details are simple; wood diagonal lattice will be included in the ground-level panel below the deck. Staff finds that the remainder of the alterations proposed (please refer to the applicant's letter, attached) meet the review standards. Clarification should be sought regarding landscaping and fence features of the site. 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 finds that the proposal meets this standard. The neighborhood consists of similar-size two stories, with additions. The two additions proposed are compatible in nature to the neighborhood, by retaining a low profile and utilizing materials that blend with existing. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: The Shilling-Lamb House is revered as one of the West End's most significant, unaltered Queen Annes. While it seems unfortunate to change this original National Register structure, the two additions are small, and necessary to provide expanded living space for the owner. Staff feels that the sensitive design of these additions mitigates, as much as possible, impacts to the cultural value of the Shilling-Lamb House. 2 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure par part thereof. Response: Only minor partial demolition is involved with the development proposal. The south elevation addition, with its hipped roof and compatible fenestration, does not detract from the large character-defining two story tower, in our opinion. Staff finds that the size and design of the rear elevation addition and wrap deck do not detract from the architectural integrity of the house. The applicant intends to repair and restore exterior deteriorated elements. The entire house will be repainted following the addition construction. Applicable Secretary of the Interior Standards: 1. Standard: Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which required minimal alteration of the building, structure or site and its environment, or to use the property for its originally intended purposes. Response: We find this standard has been met by the proposal. The house remains as a single-family residence. 3. Standard: All buildings, structures and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged. Response: While it may be argued that the design of the additions utilize significant Victorian era detailing (materials, fenestration, roof form, detailing), we find that any "contemporary" design for these additions would be a great disservice to this handsome Queen Anne. The Planning Office finds that the additions proposed do not necessarily seek to create an earlier appearance, but have been designed in an extremely compatible way to enhance the established historic character of the structure. 10. Standard: Whenever possible, new additions or alterations 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. Response: We find that minimal partial demolition necessary to accept the new additions may be considered "reversible'l. The original form of the house is not altered; the one-story additions project in a reasonable architectural manner and 3 are low-scale in design. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following actions: 1. Approve the proposal as submitted 2. Approve the proposal with conditions as noted 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 development review standards RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant conceptual development approval for the proposal at 525 N. 2nd St. as submitted, with the condition that landscaping alterations and fence "renovation" be approved by the HPC. Further, the Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant variations for side yard setback and Floor Area Ratio in the amount of 242 sq. ft. hpc.memo.525n2 4 ~14.a ~ClaL FPFrFÂ«3131 310 I Ic m - b al 1 4 1 MAR 2, k 1/1/Mil.& t.,t,1 RESIDENTIAL DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY L Legal Description: Lots P, Q, R and S; Block 40 (AKA Lots 13-16 Block 40 Ha Ila ms) Zoning: R-6 Lot Sq. Footage: 12,000 SF Lot 1*ngth: 120' Lot Width: 100' Bldg. Coverage: 1,510 SF (existing) 404 SF (new additions) 664 SF (decks) -----0--- 2,578 SF Total 22% Coverage (incl. decks) - 25% allowed i Side Yard: 60' + 6' = 66' Total Side Yard - 40' required Rear Yard: 31' (10' minimum required) Front Yard: 30' {10'minimum required) . I Front tand Rear: 61' 130' minimum required) FAR Existing: 1,510 SF first floor 1,510 SF second floor 513 Basement 3,533 Total SF FAR Allowable (per lot size): 3,840 SF + 242 SF (credit for historic designation) - - 4,082 SF Allowable Existing Floor Arear 1,875 SF first floor 6.day 366â‚¬-ff) i w/additions< 0}(ijile<- 4 7 4,510-SF secondifloot~ C a-,figge - 697 Spbasedihht(@ 35% above grade)~ld&' li34-3~.fÂ·fj). r. 3 ----0 - 14,082 Total SF i '. \. 15% Greater (3.v 9 6-T. ft- mila~y-,Â«-~ 1411 -- j ~9 ~LGIHHIS HH ' ORIGINAL COPY SENT VIA FAX 3/27/89 4 Price " 1 Partners -- 0 1 .: 0 - I 442%*,SM 7050 Carroll Avenue - Takoma Park, Marvland 20912 301-270-9222 VIA FAX (303) 920-5198 March 27,1989 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 525 N. Second Street -- Variations of F.A.R. and Side Yard Setback Dear Roxanne: We are requesting a credit of 242 SF beyond our allowable F.A.R. Our existing F.A.R. with the credit is 3,533 SF. The new F.A.R. per our proposal including 185 new SF of basement is 4,082 SF. This is a large lot of 12,000 SF and we believe this difference of 242 SF on the rear of the house is negligible. As well we are requesting a side yard setback to the alley at the side and rear of the house of 3'-5". The existing house per the survey is set back 6'-1" at the rear side yard and the current setback requirement is 15'0". The new addition would be 11'-7" from the property line, well past the existing home. We believe the addition size and specifically its symmetrical location on the rear exterior is far more in keeping with the diverse and complex character of the existing Queen Anne house design. If the setback was adhered to precisely it would not only require expensive and complicated interior wall demolition for passage, but more importantly it would center the addition on the rear making it more overpoweringly stagnant rather than musically diverse, This solution requiring a 3'-5" setback variation is in keeping with the existing house location and the preservation of the large open field. It is also more in keeping with the existing house character. Sincerely, Travis L. Price, III, AIA 07-Eflin.32789 LDp _ 5 , D .1 C #I.~ 1+ 1 - 0j@242 Price 4 s Partners -- ** 7050 Carroll Avenue â€¢ Takoma Park, Marvland 20912 301-270-9222 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS March 2,1989 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Aspen House (Shilline-Lamb) Renovation, Aspen, Colorado Dear Roxanne: We have been working diligently on the addition and renovation of the Shilling-Lamb house. This is a second design submission based on revisions by our client. Please disregard the first submission. We hope that you will find the enclosed documents useful for review. Attached are plans and model photos to initiate a discussion with you prior to our conceptual application. We hope that the drawings and slides may be sufficient for a pre-application conference on the phone with you. We will be calling you about such a phone conference as soon as you receive this material. Please return the original blue book to us so that we may revise the photos in it. Our design for the additions to the Shilling-lamb home is in the same vocabulary as the original building. Wc would hope that had the original owner required these spaces, the design would have been executed no differently in 1890, both in form and material. The design consists of a rear study addition and a small sunroom on the Smuggler Street side of the house. Side decks would be constructed around the perimeter of the rear addition and the existing south deck would be widened. The decks would be constructed at a height low enough above grade to avoid the need for railings. The south railing at the front door currently falling apart would be rebuilt. The design of the addition matches and complements the existing Queen Anne style and materials of the original house. Matching shingles will be used for the rear addition roofing, and turned posts will match those at the front. The roof slopes of the rear addition match and align with the slope of the hipped portion of the main roof. Window styles shall remain long and narrow to match existing windows. The additions are i stylistically consistent yet also enhance the original design. The undistinguished rear is augmented by the rear addition and while two-story in nature it is substantially a one-story i structure in bulk. We have attempted to down-play the second story porch roof as a small, 1 delicate fragment similar to other varied gables on the existing house. The small shed entry dormer on the rear discreetly cchoes the same treatment as the front. The small sun room fills the awkward blank area at the side of the front turret. The front turret continues to dominate the front and south facades. The windows pick up the existing rhythm along the south and the front, creating a continuity at the corner that was lacking in the original design. tl Letter to Roxanne Eflin March 2,1989 Page Two As the ca. 1898 photos attest, the south side is the "people"/living side of the house and yet was curiously blank and unlivable. The additional fenestration and sunroom will enhance the living nature of the south side. The one additional window on the south elevation upstairs improves the quality of the space within the house and enhances the lively composition of the south elevation. The small decorative rails on the addition roof tops are necessary for code, however these small rails will be simple in design and reflective of the restored porch front rails on the house. New trim will be identical to the original construction and the undecorated Queen Anne qualities will remain intact. Finally, the additions will not hamper any future ability to remove them in order to restore the original construction of the house should it be desired. 10 We will schedule a conference call after you have a chance to review the enclosed package. Sincerely, 1 Travis L. Price, III, AIA - f ' 9 1 ,1 Chas G. Pow-7 ~ 1 ,~1Â»Â«u â€ž i Enclosures: Plans and Model Photos CC: C.M. Conover P. Brownell 07-Eflin.1489 11 f '- -~:Â·~ ' 1 449.&9: ... ~i 243#Â·47.-~I;.U'. .: I. 7: . .' 2.1- 6443Q;-i.'<.Of-fliE#~;Â·- - - 4* . ./: / ,-fatil#&0&441%648~.}13 - .P .:- ., 'I, 1 - tÂ· ' 72'Â·1Â£, .i - >DIU:-Â·i,; F.*- -12 ---*t- # '- 7 . r ah â€¢. . 3Â·'F: 71:023: 2Â©Kke,KE... ~ 1 4 ~ UÂ»~ lt:j..=.9~?3004,~4; 11' 1 1 Lip : 2 4494 - - 1.34*Mi*>1 - & >.AL;...42 1: 941 3 :. - E+2-Va 4 1 0. r I 44( F Q.ff-.43Â·12 .%86.1.9.3 4 11 9 - b. 8...r::..~,3.2.1-tÂ·:fd#f ;Â·.41 4 1 A 4 171,~49.â‚¬9944 1 . p. 1 â€¢ -- 4'. 5774.#Â·,223 3-4..4 #74. ' :*0 2- - 1,~39[;bÂ·tkNO1 - n 4 . V. -1 z :-Â·17%142 Pilfi : 1" . ... . 1 . p -LL f, ,Â·Â·Â·Mk:ork<:A:k ~Â·.6 & ..,1 --. . r - # + 4 -I --~.#492...'Â·. --'9~. fll'- i 4.04 . . .Â¢0.74 -â€¢1Â£' 4 O . - ~jk. Â· .. k Â£ I Â·f... 44*Â· :Â· St 1 :; :. 4- i ._ . 0.1... . r - ... ft T. 7.9.' ..: .....4. 4-496.2./-4 . f IÂ·.4,7.2 2%44*43Â· : -. â‚¬U-,di Ver. 4 0 r.*f.flu.,4 2.12,jÂ·:Li- - 1 1Â¢ â€ž , 616- I:wit *;Â·f'.,f.' 1 ''14 Z J ..53>4433â‚¬0492*,1 ill 1 It 31. T ...; j: .11Â¥13.374: ft 3. .. -7, T 4 . *442: :,$* EJZR Â·. tÂ·Â· '1 Â·Wir'.~,2.L~ k.. t..., 9 2.7. :. 4 7 'D.3 9: .,,65,j?= 3,5--,- I<:.3 f~Â·:â€ž749*4 :7, f.+41 t. 1 .0 , 0 ' E -,1 .Â¥Nâ€¢r -- 17, U-1 U Ilimir 7*% 6 91 mle). Am IF j, , , - .-, :.MA? . .~-l - 1.:1., -- fll,I,j-~-1~611--':~1'. jl~~~*f.79#254.5 7.IiÂ¢ fit-fi: t?-,A Â·,1.' Â·:,4.%1.'::..... Â·Â·./'Â·9'.52Â·:-0.2..4:,@;3...it:?i - 47- ~ONT / EAST ELEVATION dill"Ir-rl---7,74 ..6/'. 101/'.'- -b'./.0 .../. .Ill' ....- .Ill. D--I. -,- -Il-- --*-* 1-*-,a- --Il- -....1-- -' I- 4 1, + I . 4-Lip - - . , :474 '04: ..11_:- 9â€¢=22:~ 1 -Ill. 4..-- F a ' r ~ '23#72. : , 12'%9 4 . I , -2 k. , ir - -1 th#b Â¢32Â£EEE~ 77/Allill:il ' 7~~ '2 1 1 441././.ly . 4 -* 512 =al I- ./immbshlllllllllllllllW... -1 .J~ - +4 9 ' Â¢,2 11/ / I#*1 1 - 1 .V . - --- -SE-21 1.-=1-14 1=1Â» 22 540'A-= m -- 7- _ A - C ==-,~ - I .1 -- . -_IZIZEirr--r hÂ·4Â·41,-4 4Ln&/7937-1 ~ . 'li~-~.VT-p"ll-"Pr'-7~1E,-Wi~'~d'--'-lap-~ 9~..../ - 6.- - 6 22~21 .'. 7 - ,~al:1 - I 13'417Â» 1.-, 4 .miÂ©<r~ f.... %:t ./in*$/IL- 3~ 1 - L i \ 1 kill.' Lilli' 2 -. L-_ 1 L....-* ..51 1 U l 1~u-,1, *2.1~kb,-i:~14 ....'- 2/*84 -Â·.i..Â£*4'11' 3 REAM VEST ELEVATION' - - I -- - -- , i. ./.' - $ P..â€ž : 1.......2,5 0 +4.-LI ~Ii '>974.4 <r:Ii,4~~1>~. '9 ' -*44Â¢ 24.'i;~36>z.5,~SW#kictmid...b....di C-+I - 1.1 ...r â€¢41 1 41=.1 , MIL"m.Â·:1 ~,4.(;Â·1Â¢,~;~Mp~,Â¥ 4 -'- .'112~ WT â€ž1 1 - 5.f-i,4,434-43%90Â» -=m ~16*24** -1 -1 1 "IIIIIMJTE-*-lillillilliA/5 j; 0 - 21,1 '1 /1 .~1 1~1, '1..l~bL,=,LAI-4- #addli -~ -.'*jr 2 -449 .1- 13~ ~ --= ~ . -Â·i 1 111 =1 t.=M -9 0,1 .7 11. 1 - - r . - I 9 --r." 21(-~ "Alll . '.t â€¢,R H il- , t==0-=----1 I < 1 I ta -, , 7 4 . - 1 #k.il ib&.LAA,#AVAA,SH 1 HT I*:83[i23]wIINIMNINmt*th~a - tit.5 --, - ~. f 3.- ..Â·\ --'14 2, Â· fl . 3,1.~.-i, ;-, ._., -*~-RE.,~ 4 1 2.5:1111,~,9-~; 6.....,c .,...=7<g;7336Â· - ~ . I. , + 1 719Â¢\Â·*ag<(di-mrkikka.. Â·..Â¥ 4, A ..1!11..,(flv.,.63*12'1. ~.Â£.4-41.~**4~*2~/* 4. i 4 4/imil/Mil'll//8.........Int'&-f#,-Bn45/.. ' ' k\< 1-3--1= 1 i.,4 7- UL 1Â·: ----- j SOUTH / SIDE ELEVATION 4 L 4..FT ..:'.23*9Â·m 1â€¢ 9 - 24.1 i . i . . 43 1 1'. 1/ -3 1 x j NE- **6 ' 9-.tis, 1'..~:p -3.* v 24 , 03 Inti $ -11/ .-- 2 4 â€¢- 4 '1 j ,>1.2 1- : jÂ· - k -,1 -*-1 ; /P '. 10 119- 1 4 i . A 1Â»245.Â¢11,1 - I: 2-â‚¬4 , ' M. VT'uie,n,j W 24,52 : / d 4/ L 1+911. '196*1%&~.1,~f' 14111111 1 1 11ii??* 1 -VA , C .1 ~ 4]-1-1 Id XE ' ' " ~ j. .. t. rl =250 hawÂ»... 28 1134~ W 11 bl U -I ----- . _ 1- 1- -- 1 3 -- - - 0 ..1 ti n El . _L==pg=- â‚¬1921 MO'fsÂ»- t= 4 1**M - 11 -I....il'- - I.-I.- ., ,-4 ,441Â·~Lr~i.4.tIÂ»Â·2~ i--~95// 1221:keRM:21-1~1-- 11 1 ' 617'T'749-I-zf +GI~~Cj rs@j :Ewpy I 617" . & V f I I 4 t..~ Ep-- ly/1!YFI/â‚¬t- 'Illillillillihiak6tw -fl.i;t:if .' 42;21&. :tdililillillillillilillilzillifr e/~ICE 'Â·tff Â·- 9. -9.FASW*i/ 1- - :--â‚¬ Ill '44f*(01:taillillill c .7 ~ - 2-4 4-4 i L ~L , 1 -51/ - : I 1 ~IN:91 -1, - Al 1- . 4 12Â»-1 L.~11- ...6 glutâ€¢ - --- - :=11_.U--_1Â»-2;- -hal/.Ill-./. ..,1:Fy.%*.4 ~==:r -2- - , ' â€¢ '-MIL, - - -- ---- - -~ 4 L ./ I * 6-F 1-_ifit ~1121 v v.Â· , d , + r -L~,1 1 I -- f -3-1 1 1 1 - - 1 ~|IrhÂ·' , Â· r.,1-7 - . 4 . 1 k'.1.,~14 NOR SIDE (ALLEY) ELEVA.TION /imf% 90 ....6. ./+ : Ag.,1 1 . Â·. -31- KWil- 2/ 4 , INA.4 .* /.T I $ ;al,~24 ~ 1. 0;-4.-4 '4. %9' :t)34r Ti -L--:Ze 4 1 11 1- 1,1 4 1.:' . 1 1, .11, (1 f. 'hol .& - - -I - ------7-4 . -3. Rt ,- 4.â‚¬.. 4 .. 4 ~ Â·' :l' ''.5,Â£/ -,<M#jk:i,Â§1 ; 'fÂ·ja;.\ .- ..44; râ€¢'412 1, 4 i --Â· a= , 12Â· --- . i. 1 -- LK- .%Â»t. , 1 5: â‚¬ .1 - .., i# t .- 'tiÂ¥ A 1 111&'1117 - #- 11" 464 4 -, 11.111- 'â€ž1. ... wriv"69Â£164,1 .m--- 46 0 , , 'Ir.- i ] i< -: AÂ¢b (*ilf':Reff,#Fl.k>2 .nfraili,& : -1~ 1*0 11" 2121531*1121 21~ ; u \ -1//.WI""45/ Ulpki~44-El-L- 1 m. Â·-16,1, I ; 64,i. 7. - 5,- .1,~eli'.. I - p 'Er.4.'a . . 4 1,,i ~ 1 .. 1 I 1.0,0 . It '! ... ffi - -it.1: - 1,01.... '14 24.. 11.4#~7 . . Â·Â·'rfei~//< 4. . .. â€¢ Â·'~jtâ€žF ..:br :â€¢_ -+-2 ~13 Tt, - ~. ti Pwr , .~ ..6 4 1 /1 i Will. -/... 3 . id..6 I I Ii. I 1 lu .. , 11 tsial 1:11"1i i IblE'Im - 1 6 orÂ·.nqp C O.TIV F Â· I .,A 94Â¥,42;GA -. . S BA I 10 3 diS 8 3 d l Â¥ N 0 111 ~~ *Mt<444*4Â·.iÂ·~%4.9 yi.,Â·~0 % i - *kti#44.:Â· 1/Ve#&, ,~~.pwÂ·.,# *23â‚¬11.4.#21*.,1.:MI*.1(4,Â¥092Â£....N...â€ž. 9&'38293%* .44936* Z, fi / IT-65.r u--5-ht --2- c --31 FT/ ~Tj 4 4 . f... I, f...t ill ida 1 - 2 : -'.63; ' - W 51.4/ i- UU ~ Ent - . y 1 1 1 --49 ....i. r. \ ti- = 7.4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ 1. 11 1.1 1 *Al 6 4. 1111* jdA Allir <re < 1 Â»49 .4.m......% &099- ~~~|~~ ~~~ ~~~ 1~ ~~; ~ ./*/ ay ..1 42%.WÂ¢ . 9 f Â·Â·.IÂ· Â·. 74 Â·Â· . Â· ... 94& 3/. l.,1Â·~~.Â·â€¢ alt , , .7 *UM / PE .' 14Â·Â·14*.A :. 4 +Ja . ... .tÂ¢*0*.leÂ·Â·Â·rÂ·,1 * $ 0 ., 9 Â· Â· I %,4 '- 1, -!N * 'Â¥â‚¬f> Â»1:9 -020 + &~ 7.. ' Â¥ 14:1 464' 4 Â·* 3,Â©f....>i .. 4 ~ 'P~'Â·44; . - h 3,4 . k.7 I. --"~*41'~~, ..i,~:~v.~ 1.0~,i'Â·t; ...A*Â«itÂ·ti..Â· -~'44#MQ~d#.4;~(litio~*t;#NiAâ‚¬6{ %-17}0.74**wk:Al,#4 - : 14 .. *1.2.12 . 0, '-4&&2#4#LEÂ· 1 it.i,?Â·* * .,;Â·45 Wr -D>Â·.4.'.<,Â·Â·!~â€¢131' ' ~ Â· li. 5-;4*52*fiGit.D-Â·.Â·%141*34?*5<'.ir'.'- - <:21 0,â€¢r ':,9:*%Â»y. 9.-':WFur*fll~ ~ ~ Â· t. :< P . 1 .: Â¢ .... Â·1@kb - 411.bl' Q*& M#*. -- *Eli Â§i: ..; 4; f. i: 4 ' /2 ' 1 41/4 i Â»Pul 9.2 7 . 1.571.r- 1 12 0 - .., 4 5 " EEP *.4 I ' S:.5.,7 2 K.,i: ----a K fl ' . , , ... :U p'- L.3 DOE: 1 4-Â·- 'it k.4 I Â· , .'.'1/1,Â·Â·4~/ E 1 1. *Mr,; idh 'Ye,lept r bl . q. ~tht. -11. . f 4_~47. 3, 38~*# - - O.lt:-Â·ki.1 1 >7 *fii.9-21 I 01>-=-6.1 . 1,3 4 1 --Â·44Â» rn-Â«329 ' J<*#ist' ' 52 ./ 0, A < 0 ts.re r 4 4.,i, il#f -=-Â»fariff- 0 " " , I ?, "..9 . .Ryâ‚¬21 C ./ I h. 2 .1 : i '' 2 14*a 1-62.Â¥ .t':..94 - Â·111 5 , D *, I k.: .'.t-t IÂ·*7Â·::,.,E #5 . 4. 'â‚¬ 0Â¢451/I Â·.Ii: ' 4-0. ~~;(~[(>, f ~ ~-~t - --bit~*( 6, i 33<51 5Â·' 1. e t '. 1 ~ b \ 1 -v :,4 -#k-~ ir. ' , 2 Af..4 + '* 1. â‚¬ ..241-"AGE+67(' FC .44497-911rf/~.11,172.?wk Â·Â·.15...â€¢Â»... t:Ki,65-52<*Â·Â·46;f+4:144.L$#.i.94 ~.~6~,4,~:~:~ti,~4,21,l~kiLIL~ ~14246.~-""'.11Â§.3,4~:. Â·i:#-~t:.0..52:.fd 1~1*13-"Â·.319}t - n . 6 14,21$144,~.,31~~4.-4L..Ny'-4954.'f,jt~~3.19%M~.' Â·-Â·, ,~Â·::-ic..;, F>1~4' 4"1412,.:t,%;24920.1 9-- ~';~ f~'? * '#~'-'fÂ·f'~% ifitit vir,4!~~~''G ~St ~, , 2=-Â£~~,~11~Ti::iÂ·%43~,*9*f~2;Â·tilifj :~..~.#*~:~fR~.~~~Ti#44Â»G,cratiÂ¢*iÂ·: ;47*itit-Â· 1~Â·2Â·* Â·: 4. :1.l~Â·~'~' .~~;T ~':~.>.~.~:t, f..tf~VI':â€ž 9 {Tr:. ~....>..(~.14449Â·~':Â·)~:~ ~~~ ~~ - 9. 4% *0:-1 \ I RISIDINIIAL_IZIIACIIED-51MG-l.SÂ¢~tkY- L..1 De",1,11â€¢â€¢: --~s P, Q, R ind S; Block 40 (AKA Lots 13Â·16 Block 40 M,!tams) 4 4 7..1.. 1-6 3 L., S.. .../.1. |'fs SF AM~,0 L A.. -7 r--9 .$ Â£16 c..,_>02 Â·'4q,=~K3JEEZ*.fti<,0-gihr-+1 (~747. 14%,7 1.0/ 1,4/b: /54Â· Â»Â»*Â«23 1.1 â€¢1416: r---L> 249491Â»1930*1~424% 1 632 S.~ (existing) oFF. 404 SF (new additions) 664 SF (decki) Al h. 57 )41 4701 SF Total Â¢R1 9 14 2096â‚¬overite (in,1 decks) - 2496 allowed 0- 1,Â·12 I 6 / 50' + 16' -66' Total Side Ylid - 43.21' required ~~~~~~ *~ 17 E. 237110. minimum required) 93,91 F...1 Y.â€¢4 3211Â¢ minimum required) fE-- 34(1 F...1 ..4 R..c 57â€¢ {30~minimurn required) /Al Allâ€¢-â€¢61â€¢ (Bâ€¢ 101 'li') 3.910 SF + 300 SF (credit for historic designation) - ; 4,4*<% Allowible /01â€¢11â€¢* Fle- A... i.9 17 shin, r,00. ~~~ 1,344 SF'iecond floor 711'05* balement (@ 3396 above grade) / ~ NEW ADDITION ~ / 4.171 Total SF 01 ; NEW DECK ' _ 1----- -11 I . 1.' 0, 46 J | r - --- --- -~-; - d -- L - 4 c- c, C. clk('cr 1~~~0.~), 2_, 4 9 - - , 1----- 1 4 . 120 - '11, ftiÂ»~1. :| 1 ~ 7 1 1 EXISTING 1 ~,4 - ~~ HOUSE I -1 NEW ~ 3 ADDITION - . 0,0 Kil $ a 13' 1, 61- . 4 1-- 4/ . 1 AlÂ·v_~ _ 1 121-, 'h - Al ... / 0 '\ 2 : j,< 14 f 1 - .. thu e 1 / - I- -- ber - x. 2 2 . 39> 0 4 0 e, 1. f 1% 21Â» L-?V /, 93 u J JJC it-i->Cvu.;:L,'.327,4 223340Ej~'.1-.+ 12, Â· 4~~595 f.j J,0 D : W. SMUGGLER STRE 1 i -- 1 1 - -- -Ll rter-*13*221 112%2.11- ------ fowy - 1--W- - TIN-E-E---3, --_ 2229 i- wic=-=Â£11111 lf}Vt_ - - i lili-WN / ||||Â»LI.f371= lilli i 7'dj"~91*Â©~4 ==32 ,/ t\ C \ tzz--\ *luntrull / 4 11 - lili k==2! Ljo 11111/ /=779 . \ -4 L -- N 1 1 i-_u.-410 -1 0 1 1 41~ to~ ~~' 1 11 1 I 1 1 ~_-=7 1 1 ---- -- ~ 4 b - / POU ref==i :1 ---1 Lul 1 1 94 44/4 1 - 1 1 1 --3 k- 04-'ll..-- 4 1 44 L==Â»4==l] I 9 Ill - - / I FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR \ l / 1 / 11 4 1 1 1 4 1 - 1 1 1 19 1 1 E--1- 1 L__ 15-04 , r 1 1 1 11 - 1--i [--4 1 E l. - -1 U 1 CL 3 1 1 1 L_____1 - BASEMENT 6 0 \ / 2- \ - - -44 1 . 4Â«.34/bef : 2-2-- -2=Â«- [91 ----1 9 _-- E~1 iLL_~ - 1 - L___1 eÂ»- r I) ed - -- /54/ / Â£22~ /.4\ 1/k t< h 1 Lil fo~~ _~ FO O - ~ 1 - .1 9. di -~ r.- -f. ' F â€¢ 1,11Uly.UUUul REAR FRONT R A --- U 1 1 Â«i 12_(%4__=_____4 -i_-~ -1(1 - 1- 3 -- It 11 --Lt - y_ - - ------6 1 --- 1 -1.1 -1- 1-1-144 I I t, 1-IliN SIDEYARD Â·ft - 'll.IL* & IC LI 0 F= Â«i__F__ifÂ«-i--1-j--_~90_t lt--41Â«EifTEÂ« = - F 1!=11- 1 - ;L+TTiI .~ r...1 L-1 -1 J j--T ..- 1 -- -r-i- -1 L -7 ALLEY ' Ial r----1 1 1 Lri i I -35 F , -- m / T--1 3*Â«C . 11 9 - 9 9 27 3 -1 1 l- 1 1 I Il 11 -1 ic, // - f L -izir-11 =v- C c '1 1 J ----1 L=IP Â«F--14Â»1 5 =3 1 DN (F Pfu 0 1 r [.; 1119 lt, 1 NIC.Â»-CE=67 1 H u U FIRST FLOOR - SECOND FLOOR f 444,72X -2.- 0 ---1 L -ht - LI ---- Lliza 771 7 I -n .......~-- . - GON' i.. . 4 -- --F- 1 1 0 , 16==!1 g - . 1 M n 1 2*-- TZEZZE 0 - -L .I:Il REAR FRONT -- El - P E L L ---- -------- E J E ff--- -3 -- - --1 T.P==i=,~*6-1-38**Â¢1**TT~--------- 1'1 1-2-Â®2 MIÂ¥&4 L -1 - .L-,L Â· 4 .1 SIDEYARD il n 0 ~,,64124\ ~ r.T 1-rir- T 7 'AV 1 Â¥ r T' 11 \ /'rrut' r -1 Â«Â« 0 ---- 4 . Â»jff/9 . ALLEY MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office ~0 1-f Re: Ratings: 1004 E. Durant Ave. and 17 Queen St., Public Hearing Date: April 11, 1989 SUMMARY: At this meeting, a public hearing, the HPC is requested to assign a numerical rating to two historic structures: 1004 E. Durant Ave. and 17 Queen St. These were added to the official Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures by you on March 14, 1989. PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION: On March 14, 1989, the HPC reviewed these two structures and added them onto the Inventory. These two historic structures were inadvertently missed in the original Inventory survey and in the 1986 update. Their official numerical rating is to be assigned at this meeting. Section 7-709 addresses the "Establishment of Inventory Of Historic Structures" as follows: A. . . . "The inventory of historic structures sh:11 include all structures in the City of Aspen originally constructed prior to 1910 which continue to have historic value and such other structures identified by the HPC as being outstanding examples of more modern architecture". C. ..."all structures shall be evaluated by the HPC as to their current architectural integrity, historic significance and community and neighborhood influence. Structures shall be assigned with a rated value of between 0 and 5, based on guidelines established by the HPC and ratified by ordinance of City Council"... DISCUSSION: 1004 E. Durant: As staff's memo of March 14 discussed, this small cross-gabled (c.1890) miner's cottage has retained much of its original detailing, form and overall integrity. Importantly, it is the last remaining historic structure on Durant Avenue. The 1893 Birdseye View map cf Aspen illustrates Durant Ave. as one literally filled, in every block, with small one and two story cottages. It is amazing to believe that this is the last remaining historic structure on this historic Avenue. While the neighborhood historic context is essentially gone, and the structure has received a significant (though somewhat separate) addition . to the rear, staff finds that a "4" rating is appropriate for this structure. The owner has expressed an interest in landmark designation, and would be eligible for $2,000 designation grant from the City. A "4" rating would mean that any demolition proposal requires's HPC review and approval. 17 Queen St.: (c.1890) This structure, actually fronting on Neal St., is evidence of serious deferred maintenance, however, has retained much of its original form and (it would appear) materials. It reportedly has its original "two-seater" out back! Its somewhat shabby appearance may be a deterrent from rating this structures as high as staff's recommended "3", however, we find that its original quality may be "discovered" with proper renovation. An even higher rating may be warranted once renovation was accomplished (a possible future review along with the remainder of the inventory). It has received additions to the rear, which we find do not significantly detract from its original "T" gable form. The front porch appears original and is in need of structural stabilization. Staff recommends a "3" rating on 17 Queen St. A "3" rating on a non-designated historic structure does not require HPC's review and approval for demolition, based on the current Aspen Land Use Code. GENERAL STAFF COMMENTS: Both of these structures are best described as "vernacular miner's cottages" and no known association with a historical person has been found. The Planning Office's copy of the 1904 Sanborn Map does not include either one of these two sites, however, the 1893 Birdseye View Map has been researched for original location accuracy. It appears, although it is difficult to determine exactly, that both structures are situated on their original locations. Staff's recommended ratings have also been determined through comparison of other "2"'s through "5"'s. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider rating each structure higher or lower, utilizing the standards as outlined above, found in Section 7-709 of the Aspen Land Use Code. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC adopt staff's recommended rating of '14" for 1004 E. Durant Ave. and " 3" for 17 Queen St. memo.hpc.ratings 2 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Aspen City Council CC: Aspen Historic Trust From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Date: March 31, 1989 Re: Issue Paper: Historic Preservation Incentives INTRODUCTION: After many months of research and preparation, I am pleased to attach the draft of "WITH HERITAGE SO FRAGILE: Examining Aspen' s Historic Preservation Incentives", an issue paper that takes an in-depth look into the current state of the incentives program and analyzes future pro-active methods to preserve Aspen's historic resources. This memo summarizes the document and its recommendations. PURPOSE: The purpose of the issue paper is as follows: 1. To review the preservation incentives which currently exist in the Land Use Code, 2. To review other preservation and incentives programs which have been identified through extensive research, 3. To determine the specific application and methods for implementation of these incentives as incorporated within the Aspen Land Use Code, and 4. To determine if further research in new areas should be pursued and implemented. SUMMARY: It is clear that Aspen's historic built environment is in danger. Aspen's rich heritage and varied historic architecture set it aside from most other resort communities in the world. This irreplaceable and vitally precious identity must be maintained to insure not only its place in the market, but its place in history. All of our current preservation tools are still not enough to protect our heritage. With the rapid escalation of land values, we cannot be fooled into believing that all existing historic resources Will survive into the next century. In lieu of outright down zoning which is not supported by adopted plans, the following proven incentive methods are detailed in the paper: A 1. Existing Code Provisions: An overview and brief history is included in this section to bring the reader current on how renovation projects and public opinion has effected past incentives. Designation grants, conditional uses for landmarks, GMQS Exemption, variations, etc. are discussed. 2. Sliding Scale City Exactions Waiver: A private initiative, this code revision is a by-product of the 1988 "Berko" project, and encompasses incentives to encourage smaller scale development by utilizing a "sliding scale" to assess fees associated with new development involving historic landmarks. Development fees (exactions) for affordable housing, parking, and open space are reduced. This code amendment will be coming before Council in April for ordinance adoption. 3. Transferred Development Rights: TDR's have been successfully utilized in such well-known renovation projects as Grand Central Station in New York City and Union Station in Washington, D.C. The success of a TDR program lies in a "receiving" area that can accept, and desires, higher density; density that has been "transferred" or sold off a smaller-scale structure. Unfortunately, Aspen is a community where no one target area or site is appropriate for any higher density as an incentive for economic development or housing. Therefore, a Purchased Development Rights (PDR) program has been recommended in its place. 4. The Aspen Historic Trust: Last year's feasibility study indicated the need to create a tax-exempt, non- profit organization designed specifically to accept conservation easements, facilitate a Purchased Development Rights (PDR) program, assist in relocations, and possibly manage a Revolving Loan fund. A Board Of Directors has been chosen and legal assistance to formalize the organization is being donated by attorney Joe Krabacher. Dick Butera has donated the Hotel Jerome's second floor Board Room for the meetings. Similar "Trusts" are Historic Boulder and Historic Denver, both well known for their work in the field. 5. Conservation Easements: Also known as "facade easements", conservation easements have been considered a vital, effective tool nationwide for years. Based upon the appraised value of the facade, the owner of a landmark property "donates" the easement to a charitable, tax-exempt non-profit organization and receives in return a Federal Income Tax deduction. The Aspen Historic Trust becomes the "holder" of the donation in perpetuity; the property owner continues to maintain and insure the structure. 6. Purchased Development Rights (PDR): An innovative tool, which the Planning Office believes will be the most effective, PDR's have been utilized mostly in rural settings. We have taken the basic theme and adapted it to Aspen's unique situation. The paper examines PDR's in depth, focusing on potential funding sources, the critical issue. We believe a PDR program will work most effectively with an active conservation easement program, most probably managed through the Aspen Historic Trust. 7. Investment Tax Credits: Again, a tool used by commercial developers for years, the 20% (cut from 25%) Federal tax credit for certified renovation projects has made a significant difference in preserving America's historic resources. Two projects in Aspen have utilized ITC's: The Hotel Jerome and the Brand. The Planning Office is encouraging every possible project manager/owner to investigate ITC's with their accountants! RECOMMENDATION: Our study indicates that a blend of incentives are necessary in order for Aspen to realize its potential in historic preservation. With the formation of the Aspen Historic Trust, the utilization Of conservation easements and most importantly, the Purchased Development Rights program, we will begin to see a significant change in the preservation of Aspen's historic resources. The course we are currently taking is good, however, historic preservation cannot be simply "legislated". Benefits must be actively incorporated to insure property owners are afforded as many opportunities as possible to protect and maintain our heritage. memo.issue.paper.2