The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19890124AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE January 24, 1989 - Tuesday 2:30 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. FIRST FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS City Hall 1:30 Special Worksession with Alan Richman, Planning Director - Historic Landmarks GMQS exactions Code Amendment 2:30 I. Roll Call and approval of Dec. 20, 1988 minutes January 3, 1989 and January 10th minutes II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS - NONE V. NEW BUSINESS A. Minor Development - 520 E. Hopkins Pitkin Center Building B. Conceptual Development - Public Hearing 432 W. Francis St. (the Hallet House) VI. COMMUNICATIONS Project Monitoring Reports DON'T FORGET THE SITE VIEW OF THE HALLET HOUSE 432 W. FRANCIS MONDAY AT 4:30 P.M. AT THE SITE. 6 AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE January 24, 1989 - Tuesday 2:30 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. FIRST FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS City Hall 1:30 Special Worksession with Alan Richman, Planning Director - Historic Landmarks GMQS exactions Code Amendment 2:30 I. Roll Call and approval of Dec. 20, 1988 minutes January 3, 1989 and January 10th minutes II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS - NONE V. NEW BUSINESS 1.2~' \A A. Minor Development - 520 E. LA*Mttii-s Pitkin Center Building B. Conceptual Development - Public Hearing 432 W. Francis St. (the Hallet House) VI. COMMUNICATIONS Project Monitoring Reports DON'T FORGET THE SITE VIEW OF THE HALLET HOUSE 432 W. FRANCIS MONDAY AT 4:30 P.M. AT THE SITE. 1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall January 3, 1989 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Nick Pasquarella, Charlie Knight, Chris Darakis, Donnelley Erdman, Charles Cunniffe and Zoe Compton present. Georgeann Waggaman, and Joe Krabacher were absent. COMMITTEE MEMBER AND STAFF COMMENTS Roxanne: At the P&Z after this meeting the code corrections will be presented. There are a lot of historic issues that are going to be dealt with. FINAL DEVELOPMENT - 605 WEST MAIN Roxanne: On the 6th of Dec. conceptual development approval was granted with conditions that were specified in the review memo. On Dec. 20th the applicants came back informally to HPC with their model and some informal member comments were made at that time. We find that the conceptual conditions have mostly been met however after a brief review of the model we find that the north elevation porch overhang does not meet the porch guidelines. The roof massing is very dominant and does not maintain the historic orientation and dimensions of porches found throughout the Main St. historic district. The overall design is an significant improvement. Because of our concerns of compatibility in this historic district the Planning Office recommends tabling to allow the applicant to further study the north elevation in its relationship as a porch overhang. Stan Mathis: The effort here is to make a quiet facade along Main St. With the comparisons of roof masses I don't think this is out of character with what is going on Main St. Charles: On the east elevation why not stop the roof line and have a porch roof off the base of that. You would see some wall and a porch roof off of that. Make the mass of the roof seem less by dropping the roof on the east elevation. stan: Behind the wall is storage space that we feel is critical to the upper level. We would have to change the pitch and that defeats the detailing that I feel is important. The applicant and the Board had discussion on roof massing and the entrances. Mac Cunningham: With the use of textured material the roof will not seem large and keep a simple clean building. HISTORIC PRESERVATION MINUTES January 3, 1989 Stan: I have done several buildings and I don't necessarily like it when I have to change roof pitches. Donnelley: I think it is the policy to somehow maintain the scale. When you look at the gable ends you have trim that is a good foot thick without any articulation. Stan: We intend to use a shadow board. Drawing this at 1/4 inch we tried to make the fascia scale at 10 inches. Donnelley: One of the principal characteristics of victorian was the very thin detailing. The applicant and Board had much discussion on the appropriate fascia thickness, ten inches as opposed to six or eight inches. Charlie: Initially we had wanted an entrance way on the street to keep the residential element along Main St. Do you not want french doors as you might want to divide into two offices rather than have it appear as one entrance way. Bill: Historically victorians had entrance ways. Zoe: Is there an element missing in the elevation in reference to materials such as iron or stone as it seems too sterile. Mac: It doesn't show the trees which are significant. Stan: Possibly I could bring the roof all the way across and make it more like a dormer above the entry, then it would bring the porch element to the entry. This would depend upon approval of the Bldg. Dept. Mac: We are concerned about the face of the building and the face of the porch and taking the neighbors into consideration. Donnelley: The feeling of enclosure is always nice when you have and entrance and it seems strange not to have it. Stan: I agree. Nick: I was satisfied prior to the meeting with what we had. Charlie: I feel it needs more continuity right at the doorway possibly an overhang, french doors etc. and that would make it look more residential. Charles: I still have concern about the north elevation doors. 2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION MINUTES January 3, 1989 Stan: I can put that as a double door and if we ever need to split that space I can work that out. Mac: In reference to scale the scale works on a structure of this size. Donnelley: Having a heavy fascia is a definite change of attitude. Charlie: I personally feel it is an element of the architects design and should be left. Stan: I have never liked small fascias. Donnelley: This committee can review scale because we are talking about the scale in an historic district and maintaining that scale and also material size. Trim around windows and trim that has to do with roofs is an issue that the committee needs to deal with. Roxanne: Donnelley is saying that the fascia is too wide. Zoe: You mean it is not pleasing to the eye. Donnelley: We are to address whether it is appropriate and compatible for the area which we are addressing which is the historic district. Bill: Small fascia's do tend to look more residential but I also agree that it is the architects particular style. Stan: As you look down Main St. we have so many different styles of buildings. Charles: It reads like a clone of the house in the west end. Nick: I feel we are vacillating and I feel comfortable with the design. Zoe: It is not noticeable and there is no consistency on Main St. and I don't think it would help Main St. one way or the other if the fascia were skinnier or fat. If an architect is expressing himself we shouldn't judge that too harshly. Nick: If it was an existing building and they were making changes then we could be objective. Bill: We discussed the issue of getting the north elevation to 3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION MINUTES January 3, 1989 look more like a porch entrance and we discussed the front entry doors. MOTION: Charles made the motion to approve the project at 605 W. Main for final development as submitted with two conditions: That the front porch roof be carried across the front entry doors even with the fascia of the front overhang and that the front entry doors be pulled together to read as one or as a double set of french doors, that type of approach. Further study the fascia for their own benefit and staff can sign off on that. Nick seconded motion. All approved, motion carries. INFORMATION Roxanne: Field study Feb. 21, 1989 at 2:30 p.m. I will try to acquire transportation. MOTION: Nick made the motion to approve the date of the field study. Charles second, all approved. RIO GRANDE - INFORMATIONAL Roxanne: This is an informational session only as we know the Rio Grande project is not within any of our districts and we don't have any legislative purview, however, it is an significant enough project to warrant some comment and review from HPC. Gary Ross, architect: We are getting a lot of disagreement concerning the north facade and it is the most prevalent in reference to size. At the conceptual level of the SPA process the P&z wanted us to soften the edge and make some step backs in the building and pull it as far back away from Mill Street as possible to eliminate what they saw as a canyon effect forming between the Jerome/Mill and Main. The P&Z also wanted a major entry tieing the roof plaza with the library. In compromising we eliminated one whole quarter of the building and that gives us the south west facing courtyard as the entry courtyard into the building. Council had a different view and instead of minimizing the building and stepping it back their comments were that the nice buildings in town are four story high flat facades right on the street. We hope to bring the historic character in the two story high entry element to meet that desire. We have not spent 1 a lot of time on window details because there does seem to be a wide area of input between what the P&Z says and what Council says and until the massing is resolved I don't want to spend a lot of time on window detailing. ; Roxanne: I explained to the P&Z that our concerns were 11 4 i HISTORIC PRESERVATION MINUTES January 3, 1989 compatibility with massing and scale etc. The P&Z wants the building to read as a public library. Charlie: How large is the building. Gary: 18,000 sq. ft. Donnelley: Aspen wants to be a world class city and on the other hand Aspen can't get its act together to design with integrity a major public building. Bill: This building is very closely related to the Jerome, Wheeler and Court House and has a very important location. The building needs to be compatible. Charles: We have to find some way in this community to allow great buildings to occur and we have a negative environment right now. Charlie: I think it should relate to the court house and the Jerome considerably and all sides should relate to the other buildings particularly those on Main St. Bill: To me the building is more horizontal in nature and historically the majority of buildings are vertical in nature. Possibly the building could be broken up a little more in massing to have a rhythm. Staff should give them a copy of our guidelines for them to review. Gary: With the entry we were trying to pull that back so we didn't have a long facade. Donnelley: Can you tell us how you dealt with major pedestrian circulation as there is a lot of pedestrian traffic down Mill St. and we want to get people involved with the library. Gary: Our main elevator will run down all the levels to pick up people from the parking structure. There is a plan to redo the alley and its grade. Chuck Videl, Library Board Representative: I would like to make the alley one way. Gary: In creating a south facing court yard it opens up and creates a pedestrian pathway and will bring people in coming down Mill. Charles: What about a mother dropping her kids of at the library. 5 HISTORIC PRESERVATION MINUTES January 3, 1989 Gary: We would like to eliminate the 5 parking spaces on Mill and have a book drop off but the Eng. Dept. is resisting this. Donnelley: When people walk from the post office to town I don't see something that will draw them into the building. Gary: There is only one entry to the library and we had discussion about a lower level entry but security and personnel were an issue. Donnelley: The architects should take advantage that there is a lot of pedestrian flow from thepost office up Mill to town. This is a very important corner. Chuck Videl: The pedestrian flow is important and possibly we could do a covered walkway behind caps or an overhang that would give people shelter. Donnelley: In regards to the piazza; in the summer it is too hot and in the winter it is cold and there is no commercial activity. Charles: With all the pedestrian coming up Mill and using the library facility you will need to have a light put up on Galena and Main St. Bill: In closing historically the Court House the most important building in any western town, then it is either City Hall or the Library so this should be a dramatic piece of architecture and should be a building of the 80's. It has to relate to buildings 100 years old. The guidelines talk about setbacks and general alignment. You should look at the rhythm of other facade details and try to get a rhythm that is compatible. Also look at the massing as it is too horizontal. Our buildings do tend to have a lot of life along the street and you will have to create some kind of interest. We have a very strong horizontal base that is very transparent when you look into store fronts and this should have something like that with a texture above it. You have to look at the street and possibly set up your own rhythm. Donnelley: This being the 2 or 3 public bldg. in town seem to me to be very "fussy" right now and possibly we will loose the opportunity to make a major public building and people are not going to "read" it as a public building. Zoe: When you go into an historic town anywhere in the country the larger buildings do set the tone of the City and this is an 6 HISTORIC PRESERVATION MINUTES January 3, 1989 opportunity to do that because that is a very "bald area", underdeveloped. Gary Ross: I am hearing you are saying to add more of a statement to the facade and P&Z is simultaneously saying break it up, it is too massing etc. P&Z gets into massing. Thank you for your comments. Meeting adjourned 4:30 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk // 7 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall January 10, 1989 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Nick Pasquarella, Charlie Knight, Joe Krabacher, Charles Cunniffe and Zoe Compton present. Georgeann Waggaman, Chris Darakis and Donnelley Erdman were absent. COMMITTEE MEMBER AND STAFF COMMENTS Roxanne: On Jan. 23rd at 4:30 the Board will do a site review of the Hallet House on the corner of 4th and Francis, 432 W. Francis. On the 24th before our regular meeting a worksession is scheduled from 1:30 to 2:30 with Alan Richman on code amendments. Joe: In reference to the Wesson bldg. I wanted to attend the final development approval on that building and couldn't because there was a Special Meeting scheduled and I had previous commitments. Scheduling special meetings in addition to our regular meetings is something to think about. I plan my schedule around two meetings a month. My second comment is on missing meetings. There was an article in the paper about 90% of the committee members missing meetings but it did not differentiate between what were excused etc. Maybe this should be something we should talk about when we discuss the by-laws, that it doesn't count against you if it is an excused absence. Roxanne: Special meetings are difficult for staff also and that is why I told the commission they would have to vote on scheduling the meeting. Bill: It is important to have continuity in the review process. MINOR DEVELOPMENT 113 E. HOPKINS-BUCHER RESIDENCE ENLARGED GARAGE/DWELLING UNIT The applicant was not present. Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office did the presentation. Roxanne: HPC had approved a one car garage with storage. Since that time the applicant has decided to convert this storage space into a small studio dwelling. It has been enlarged 105 sq. ft. and two windows will be added that are required for a dwelling unit and the applicant is also requesting two sky lights that will be on the south elevation. This is considered a minor development because it is not over 250 sq. ft. and there are few changes which meet all the standards. The skylights would be approximately 22 x 30 inch flat deluxe skylights. My recommendation includes the condition that we receive the revised scale drawings that would include the skylights. The skylights HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE January 10, 1989 minutes would be placed on the further west end of the garage, over the living area. Charlie: When does the applicant intend to start work on the approved plans. Roxanne: In the spring. I have reviewed our guidelines and these skylights meet those guidelines. They are on a completely non-historic structure, a detached element and are not visible from any street and are flat. MOTION: Charles made the motion to grant Minor Development approval of 113 E. Hopkins subject to the Planning Office receiving a revised south elevation scale drawing indicating the exact placement and size of the two flat roof skylights. Nick second, all approved. DISCUSSION OF ITEMS TABLED FROM THE DEC. 20TH MEETING. REVISED BY-LAWS CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AMENDMENTS TO LAND USE CODE Commission discussed proposed changes and clarifications in the by-laws. Clarification was made that alternate members are to be present at meetings and are seated for formal voting if there is a vacancy. There are three provision in the conflicts of interest section: Written notice of interest to be given to the Chairman thru Staff and shall not be discussed with another member of the HPC. The number of excessive significant projects any member may bring before the commission will be determined by the Commission. Commission discussed absences. Joe felt that the board should be able to plan out the two regular meetings and it shouldn't be held against a member if they could not attend a special meeting. It was determined that absences should not exceed six meetings. It was also determined that regular reErgE A-allsted:et5:(I) pm ad,aleESEicrset 4:3) pm MOTION: Charles made the motion to approve the resolution adopting the by-law and amendments to Article 4 of the Landuse Code. Nick second, all approved. FINAL DEVELOPMENT-SMITH ELISHA HOUSE Charles stepped down. Roxanne: At conceptual there were a number of conditions and the applicant has met all of them. The following changes are now presented in this final approval: The relocation of the north 2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE January 10, 1989 minutes elevation skylight on the carriage house; the hay loft doors have now been split like dutch doors and the bars have been removed. The south elevation includes the enlarged dormer along with keeping the new window. I talked with Jay Yanz and he feels comfortable if HPC gives approval of an enlarged south gable as long as the details do not duplicate the north gable. It should read as a change on the carriage house. He has not approved the new window on the south elevation. Welton: That window will be removed. Roxanne: Jay Yanz will not approve the gable dormer on the north elevation and has recommended that interior floor changes be made. Maybe instead of making a wall between the bedroom that there be more of an open space area so that it could be considered a sleeping area but they could still have access out through that egress window on the north gable dormer. He has recommended that maybe another skylight be added back there if in fact the applicant must have more light. The grade change has been approved to level out the terrace. I have talked to the Engineering Dept. about the partial demolition over the outside back stairs and they would approve the two parking spaces to be reserved for compact car parking so that an encroachment license would not be required and to keep that element there and not allow its demolition. I also support the Engineering Department's decision. Welton Anderson: Basically everything that HPC had asked for at the last meeting I incorporated in these drawings. I eliminated the two dormer windows that are flanking the central dormer. I reduced the glass in the carriage house door to only the top 3 panels. I took out the railing bars and split the doors in half. East and west elevations are unchanged. We had no problem with elimination the north dormer and replacing it with a skylight. We eliminated the secondary window on the south elevation. I am pleased that the State Historic Preservationist could compromise on the dormer. On the site design we are only proposing to fill in the lower terrace so that we can extend the existing concrete terrace out with some cast stone benches and landscaping. Bill: What happened to the skylights on the main house. Welton: They got moved from the west side to the north side per HPC's recommendation. Zoe: What is the use of the carriage house. Welton: Residential above and office below. 3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE January 10, 1989 minutes Bill: Can you use the tax credits. Roxanne: Hopefully, the skylights on the north elevation of the main house are a question. Jay had no problem but the National Park Service may. Roxanne: I recommend approval with all the conditions which are included under alternatives on page 4 of my memo dated Jan. 10, 1989. Joe: You are going to eliminate the new window on the south elevation. Welton: Yes. Joe: I voted against conceptual at the last meeting because I felt you should keep the south elevation the way it was. I still don't like the fact that the dormer is being changed but I will accept the reality of the situation that someone has to live there and go along with what the State Architect has approved. Zoe: The south elevation being changed bothers me but is acceptable since the State Architect has been working so closely and has done the best he could. Roxanne: You don't have to approve what the State Architect recommends if you feel strongly against something. Joe: Given the trade off that we aren't going to have the dormer on the other side and the original dormer will be on the north elevation it is acceptable. Nick: I concur with Staff's recommendation. Zoe: The doors will remain the same and the window is removing. Welton: That is correct. MOTION: Joe made the motion to grant final development approval subject to the conditions set forth in the memo dated Jan. 10, 1989 to repeat: Allowing the enlargement of the south elevation central dormer to match in size the north elevation dormer with compatible, not duplicate details of the north dormer. Elimination of the proposed carriage house south elevation main floor double-hung window. Elimination of the carriage house north elevation gabled roof dormer, and replacing that with a flat roof skylight. Retain the rear stair covering on the main 4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE January 10, 1989 minutes house and also to approve the site improvements. Nick second. All approved. Adjourned 4:30 p.m. 5 \NOR-â‚¬-sess,O 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Historic Preservation Committee A cl FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Director .... RE: Historic Landmarks GMQS Exactions Code Amendment DATE: January 19, 1989 We have received an application submitted on behalf of Jack King, owner of the Berko Building, requesting amendments be made to the exactions required to obtain a GMQS exemption for an Historic Landmark. Attached is a copy of the language currently in effect and the applicant's proposal. We seek your input on this proposal prior to the initial review by P&Z on February 7. In essence, the applicant seeks to waive the parking and affordable housing requirements imposed on additions to or change in use of an historic landmark. It is proposed that when development of the lot is limited to no more than 50% of the site's allowed FAR, the requirements be waived. As FAR increases from 50 to 100% of that allowed, the exaction rises accordingly from 0 to 100% of the Code requirement. While I am not yet prepared to make a formal recommendation on this item until the P&Z hearing, I offer the following comments: 1. The Planning Office staff agrees that the cost of these exactions needs to be reduced to insure that historic landmarks can be renovated and adaptively reused. 2. There are several aspects to the applicant's proposal which appear unnecessarily complex or could be rethought. First, on the bottom of page 2 and the top of page 3, the applicant suggests certain historic design guidelines to be met to be eligible for the exaction waiver. These guidelines should be evaluated by HPC for inclusion with your other design guidelines, but do not belong in the GMQS. Also, while we like the concept Of the sliding scale, to encourage applicants not to make excessive additions, we are unsure about how it is proposed to be applied. Possibly, a scale which is exponential, rather than linear may provide more incentives for keeping additions to a minimum. Moreover, a tool such as a "permanent conservation easement" will need to be part of the solution if we are to waive exactions in exchange for reduction in allowed FAR on-site. 3. An alternative to the applicant's proposal would be to assess historic landmarks for affordable housing at the price level which is least expensive to the applicant , the so-called "middle-income guideline". This option provides less relief than requested by the applicant, but could be combined with a sliding scale as an incentive to keep additions small. 4. There is a built in bias in the proposal toward our smaller landmarks which are underbuilt. Will this kind of exemption approach make it more attractive for developers to buy these structures and make modest additions, for which they pay few or no exactions? What kind of incentives can we provide to our larger structures, such as the Elks Building or Aspen Hardware, which are virtually built out but also need protection when adaptive reuse proposals are made? Should the scale be oriented toward both percent of total buildout and percent of the addition to the building, whichever is less, in order to address all historic landmarks? We look forward to a productive discussion with you. Your suggestions will be presented to P&Z on February 7 when they begin their review of this application. hpcmemo 1 Supplement #1 Sec. 8-104. Exemptions. The following development shall be exempted from the terms of this article by the following decision-making entities. A. Exemption bv Planning Director. 1. General. Development which the Planning Director shall exempt shall be as follows: b. Historic Landmark. The enlargement or change of use of an Historic Landmark which develops not more than 500 square feet of commercial or office space or which increases the building's existing commercial or office space by not more than fifty (50%) percent, whichever is less. The enlargement or change of use of an Historic Landmark which develops not more than one (1) residential dwelling unit or three (3) hotel, lodge, bed and breakfast, boardinghouse, roominghouse or dormitory units. Enlargement or change of use of an Historic Landmark which occurs in phases shall not exceed these limits on a maximum cumulative basis. B. Exemption bv Commission. 1. General. Development which may be exempted by the Commission shall be as follows: C. Historic Landmark. The enlargement or change of use of an Historic Landmark which develops more than 500 square feet of commercial or office space or which increases the build- ing's existing commercial or office space by more than fifty (50%) percent. The enlargement or change of use of an Historic Landmark which develops more than one (1) residential dwelling unit or three (3) hotel, lodge, bed and breakfast, boardinghouse, roominghouse or dormitory units. The applicant shall demonstrate that the development will mitigate its impacts on the community by providing employee housing at the level which would meet the threshold required in Section 8-106 for the use; providing parking according to the standards 8 - 45 Supplement #1 of this Code; meeting the project's water supply, sewage treatment, drainage control, transportation, fire protection and solid waste disposal needs; and demonstrating that the project's site design is compatible with surrounding projects and appropriate for the site. 8 - 46 61Â¢99 0 2 --Â·/ LAWOFFICES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION TELEPHONE BOX 10001 AREA CODE 303 GIDEONI. KAUFMAN 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE. SUITE 305 925-8166 MARTHA C. PICKETT ASPEN.COLORAD081611 TELEFAX 925-1090 December 30, 1988 Mr. Alan Richman Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Proposed Code Amendments for Historic Landmarks Dear Alan: We are forwarding for review by the City the attached proposal to amend the text of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. On behalf of Jack King, owner of the property at 309 East Hopkins (Lot C, Block 81, Aspen Townsite), we are proposing these amendments to offer preservation incentives to owners of Historic Landmarks. As we agreed, the fee that Mr. King has previously paid for processing of his GMQS submission can be used for processing of the Code amendment. The amendments included in the attachment are to Â§Â§5-209, 5-213, 5-602 and 8-104(B) of Chapter 24. We believe that a waiver of some of the fees such as water tap and building permit fees should also be included in the amendments, but we assume that such changes would not be included in amendments to Chapter 24, but would instead be incorporated into the Building Code amendments. As I mentioned in our meeting, various City exactions, many of which have been added or increased under the recently adopted land use regulations, have created a situation which makes renovation of historic structures (as opposed to new construction) in commercial areas practically infeasible. Based on our financial projections for various alternatives for the King project, we believe these exactions add somewhere between 42% and 74% to the cost of construction. Put another way, a building which would otherwise cost $100.00 per sq. ft. to build would cost between $142.00 to $174.00 per sq. ft. with these City exactions. The areas of additional cost include: Percentage Exaction: of Construction Cost 1. Employee housing 20-35% 2. Parking or payment-in-lieu 15-30% (presently CC only) 3. Open space payment-in-lieu 2-3% 4. Water tap fee 2-3% 5. Park development impact fee 1% 6. Building permit fee 1% 7. Application processing fee 1% Total: 42-74% 0 0, Mr. Alan Richman December 30, 1988 Page 2 You agreed that the costs might be excessive for Landmarks, and suggested a very simple alternative of lowering the required employee housing commitment for proposals involving Historic Landmarks. Our observation about that approach was that it not only offers limited incentives to owners of Historic Landmarks, but also does not encourage an applicant to propose development which is either sympathetic to the original structure, or which is below the sqaure footage allowed in the zone district, since the "break" for Landmarks will be the same regardless of the buildout proposed. Our proposal attempts to offer applicants who preserve Landmark structures more significant relief from exactions. However, in order to take advantage of these incentives, owners must limit enlargements to the area at the rear of the Landmark structure (or structures), or to a separate structure detached from the Landmark. For an applicant in the CC zone district proposing to preserve a Landmark in the prescribed manner, the open space and off-street parking requirements, as well as the Park Development Impact Fee, would be waived. The employee housing requirement would be reduced, and if the FAR square footage is reduced to fifty percent (50%) of that allowed in the zone district, the requirement would be waived. For an applicant in the 0 zone district, required employee housing would be reduced as in the CC zone, and the Park Development Impact Fee would be waived. Parking requirements would be reduced if the FAR square footage is reduced below the maximum allowed. For your convenience, current Code language is shown in upper and lower case, deleted language is repeated but marked through, and new language is in upper case. Other Code requirements for the processing of this amendment are also attached. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, P.C., a Professional Corporation By L *LLC Giddon Kaufman Ij DORÂ·EM~2 ,& JÂ¢LLS LAND PLANNING Sy''iâ‚¬_ 0,4 L.E.C.Z~ f joe Wells GK/bw ..1 - C PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT LANGUAGE Â§5-209, Commercial Core (CC) D. (9) Percent of open space required for building site: 25%; may be reduced by Special Review pursuant to Art. 7, Div. 4. FOR HISTORIC LANDMARKS, WHEN THE REQUIREMENTS OF Â§8-104(B)(1)(c)(2) ARE MET, THERE SHALL BE NO OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT. E. Off-Street Parking Requirement. The following off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each use in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District, subject to the provisions of Article 5, Division 3. 1. Residential Uses: )40)40/9-71/)71,#-0%001-0/J#<FiANIATK0/ 1 space/bedroom ill/077/0%000/00170%000 which may be provided via a payment-in-lieu pursuant to Article 7, Division 4. 2. Lodge Uses: 0.7 space/bedroom which may be provided via a payment-in-lieu pursuant to Article 7, Division 4. 3. All Other Uses: 2 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. of net leasable area which may be provided via a payment-in-lieu pursuant to Article 7, Division 4. 4. FOR HISTORIC LANDMARKS: THERE IS NO PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL USES. FOR ALL OTHER USES, THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE PARKING AS REQUIRED BY Â§5-209 E.1, E.2 AND E.3, ABOVE; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, WHEN THE REQUIREMENTS OF Â§8-104(B)(1)(c)(2) ARE MET, THE PARKING REQUIREMENT SHALL BE WAIVED FOR ALL USES. Â§5-213, Office (0). E. Off-Street Parking Requirement. The following off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each use in the Office (0) Zone District, subject to the provisions of Article 5, Division 3. 1. Al)[ Residential Uses: 1 space/bedroom, %0000/000000 141 1-**10*071-***/Ny# 1 %**01*11-tÂ¢Â¥ 21 / tht***03-1 3-%/UÂ¥-1-*10Â· Il A 91* 10-%*/ U /1-44/74-Â¥4-*10/1****rk#/ *ty# A 2. Lodge Uses: N/A 3. All other Uses: 3 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. of net leasable area; fewer spaces may be provided by Special Review pursuant to Article 7, Division 4, but no fewer than 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of net leasable area. 4. FOR HISTORIC LANDMARKS: WHEN DEVELOPMENT AT THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA PERMITTED UNDER THE EXTERNAL FLOOR RATIO (INCLUDING ANY BONUS SQUARE FOOTAGE PERMITTED BY SPECIAL -1- C C. REVIEW) IS APPROVED, THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE PARKING AS REQUIRED BY Â§5-213 E.1, E.2 AND E.3, ABOVE. HOWEVER, WHEN THE REQUIREMENTS OF Â§8-104(B(1)(c) ARE MET, FOR EACH ONE PERCENT (1%) REDUCTION IN FLOOR AREA BELOW THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED UNDER THE EXTERNAL FLOOR AREA RATIO, THE APPLICANT MAY REDUCE THE PARKING COMMITMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT BY TWO PERCENT (2%) (PROVIDED THAT FEWER SPACES MAY BE REQUIRED BY SPECIAL REVIEW AS PERMITTED UNDER Â§5-213 E.3, ABOVE). THE EFFECT OF THIS PROVISION IS THAT FOR DEVELOPMENT AT FIFTY PERCENT (50%) OF ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA, THE APPLICANT SHALL HAVE NO PARKING OBLIGATION. Â§5-602, ... Park Development Impact Fees shall not be assessed upon the following: E. THE ENLARGEMENT OR CHANGE OF USE OF AN HISTORIC LANDMARK IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF Â§8-104 (B) (1) (c) (2) . Â§8-1048, Exemption by Commission. 1.c. Historic Landmark. The enlargement or change of use of an Historic Landmark which RESULTS IN THE develop%MENT OF more than 500 square feet of commercial or office space or which increases the building's existing commercial or office space by more than fifty percent (50%). The enlargement or change of use of an Historic Landmark which RESULTS IN THE develop0MENT OF more than one (1) residential dwelling unit or three (3) hotel, lodge, bed and breakfast, boardinghouse, roominghouse or dormitory units. (1) The applicant shall demonstrate that AS A RESULT OF the development, 0%-Il mitigatAION OF %00 impacts on the community WILL BE ADDRESSED by providing 00101/0y00 AFFORDABLE housing at the level which would meet the threshold required in Â§8-106 for the use; providing parking according to the standards of this Code; meeting the project's water supply, sewage treatment and waste disposal, drainage control, transportation and fire protection needs; and demonstrating that the project's site design is compatible with surrounding projects and appropriate for the site. (2) IN ORDER TO ENCOURAGE FAITHFUL RESTORATION AND COMPATIBLE ALTERATIONS OF, AND ADDITIONS TO, HISTORIC LANDMARKS, IT IS THE INTENT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO OFFER INCENTIVES TO OWNERS OF SUCH PROPERTIES. THEREFORE, WHEN AN APPLICATION IS APPROVED FOR A CHANGE OF USE, OR FOR AN ENLARGEMENT WHICH PRESERVES AN HISTORIC LANDMARK ON ITS ORIGINAL SITE THROUGH ANY ONE OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING TECHNIQUES: - ANY EXPANSION WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THE EXISTING HISTORIC STRUCTURE, OR STRUCTURES, IS LIMITED TO THE AREA -2- C C BETWEEN THE REAR WALL OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND THE REAR LOT LINE; OR - ANY EXPANSION IS DETACHED FROM THE EXISTING HISTORIC STRUCTURE, OR STRUCTURES; - THE EXISTING HISTORIC STRUCTURE OR STRUCTURES MAY BE RELOCATED WITHIN THE SITE, PROVIDED THAT SUCH RELOCATION IS TOWARD A PUBLIC STREET BORDERING THE PROPERTY, AND IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE YARD PROVISIONS OF THE APPLICABLE ZONE DISTRICT; THEN THE APPLICANTS' OBLIGATIONS WITH REGARD TO MITIGATION OF IMPACTS ON THE COMMUNITY SHALL BE LIMITED, AS FOLLOWS: (a) AFFORDABLE HOUSINGi FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OR CHANGE OF USE AT THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA PERMITTED UNDER THE EXTERNAL FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR THE APPLICABLE ZONE DISTRICT (INCLUDING ANY BONUS SQUARE FOOTAGE PERMITTED BY SPECIAL REVIEW), THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT FIFTY PERCENT (50%) OF THE LEVEL WHICH WOULD MEET THE THRESHOLD REQUIRED IN Â§8-106 FOR THE USE. FOR EACH ONE PERCENT (1%) REDUCTION IN FLOOR AREA BELOW THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED UNDER THE EXTERNAL FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR THE ZONE DISTRICT, THE APPLICANT MAY REDUCE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT BY ONE PERCENT (1%). THE EFFECT OF THIS PROVISION IS THAT FOR DEVELOPMENT AT FIFTY PERCENT (50%) OF ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA, THE APPLICANT SHALL HAVE NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING OBLIGATION, EXCEPT THAT REQUIRED FOR ANY BONUS SQUARE FOOTAGE APPROVED BY SPECIAL REVIEW; AND (b) PARKING SHALL BE PROVIDED ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS OF THIS CODE; AND (C) THE PROJECT'S WATER SUPPLY, SEWAGE TREATMENT AND WASTE DISPOSAL, DRAINAGE CONTROL, TRANSPORTATION AND FIRE PROTECTION NEEDS SHALL BE ADDRESSED; AND (d) THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE PROJECT'S SITE DESIGN WITH SURROUNDING PROJECTS, AND ITS APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE SITE SHALL BE DEMONSTRATED. i 1 \king\alternat.3 -3- v. A MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Minor Development: Pitkin Center Building, 520 East Hyman, 3rd floor balcony/deck Date: January 24, 1989 LOCATION: 520 East Hyman Ave., the Pitkin Center Building, Lots 2 and 3, Pitkin Center Subdivision APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor Development approval for the addition of a new 3rd floor balcony/deck at the southeast corner of the building, the conversion of two existing windows into a doorway leading onto the deck (south) and the addition of a new doorway also accessing the deck (east). ZONING: CC, Commercial Core; within the Commercial Core Historic Overlay District PROJECT SUMMARY: Staff finds the application satisfies the development review standards as stated below. Development Review Standards 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark. Response: Staff finds the proposal to be compatible in character with the district, and the existing structure. The proposed balcony/deck will appear very similar to the existing 3rd floor balcony at the southwest corner of the building, utilizing identical materials. The deck will measure 8' x 14' (112 sq. ft.), and will be accessed by two sets of doors: one sliding glass door converted from the existing window openings (south elevation), and one set of French Doors (east elevation). Both openings will have sandstone lintels and trim to match the existing windows. The portion of the building receiving the new deck is set back from the sidewalk edge approximately 30 feet. The deck is rectangular in nature, not curvilinear like the existing southwest corner deck. The Guidelines for New Commercial Construction state: Window openings above the first floor in infill construction should maintain the vertical proportion, if not the exact size of openings in historic buildings. (page 41) Use building materials that are similar in texture and finish to those found historically. The majority of historic commercial buildings are brick and stone. Staff finds that the proposal meets these Guidelines. The use of metal guardrails introduces a modern material which the HPC previously approved as an approximate materials on this structure. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Staff finds the proposal consistent with development in the Commercial Core. 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 structure is not historic; the nearest historic landmark in the block is the Elks Building, three doors to the west. Staff finds this review standard inapplicable to the proposal. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Staff finds this standard does not apply, as the structure is not historic, nor immediately adjacent to other historic structures. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant minor development approval for the application at 520 East Hyman Ave. hpc.memo.520eh 1. 1 t. rl 12 La 1 nul - a i-71 - Al WliNEK+2../7&>.1/ 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN,COLORAD081611 TEL (303) 925-4755 1 000 J a nuar y o i .I. . U 7 'nxanne Eflin lanning Office ity of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, 6olorado 81611 Re: DecK audition, 520 East Hyman Dear Roxanne, The new oweners of the aoove referenced project wish to add a deck on the southeast corner of the third floor. This deck will utilize the same materials and details as the existing deck on the southwest corner. They are metal gaurdrails and i " /1 L 1 Â·-9. 4-2 1 '.-1 i a gypsum board soffit. The deck will be rectangular approximately 8' x 14' (112 s.f.). Access to the .. deck will be accomplisheo by two meansâ€ž First, the existing window on the sourn elevation will be replaced by a slidinn lass door matching the one at the southeast corner. A new pair of french doors on the east elevation will also provide access to the deck. The new doors will be glass panel doors similar to thm - doors on the ground level. Both openings will have sandstone lintels and trim to match the existing windows. ir-icerel . I 7 'i ill Poss and Associates 4329 Kim Weil KW:gak Enclosures CO III 0 -0 n ' 04: '. 6 t /3,4 1 g '1 r 1 605 EAST MAIN STREET 711 1 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 .,; 41'1 1 TEL (303) 925-4755 January 16. 1989 Roxanne Elfin City of Aspen Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Pitkin Center Deck Addition Dear Roxanne, In response to your request, I have enclosed 2 more copies of prints +or the above referenced project. In addition, I have enclosed smaller copies for your memo packet. I have aiso completed an area take off of the existing decks. According to Section 3 - 101, Floor Area of City of Aspen Land Use Code, a building is permitted an area equal to 15% of its 4 . loor area a F uncover- ed above grade decks. The exi sting decks total 185 square feet. The new deck will be 115 square teet, bringing the total deck area to 300 square feet. The building is permitted up to 1800 square feet of deck (15% cÂ£ 12000). If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to call. 5 1 rt C (1' r- e 1 \/ , Bill 'oss and Associates Kim Weil Project Architect 40 T . 2 . J. " I - ,4 '.. , - p.Â· I . 1 21.10 -1 . , fr, . . 1. 1 - 4 FÂ»FIC.FET --I- -4~ ON 0 1 - * 11 1 r C . 1: ....:. ...7 '1 1 f"U.Fer 1 . ~ .1 /1 b., U. A. 16*- 101/1,2 - v i.,-Â· 122>F 2TIOâ€¢ LOWL . ' Ht_~~~ <-*- 4 4 +49'New Â©ANIC)*TONÂ¢ TH *TL. MATE!, Â·â€¢â€¢rÂ· -' Â«Ii< 2 .J - 941PPORT r L'- I 7, '.. ... I .; '.-1 1 r 0 -41-1 - 4 NON FAIDIND JE.3- eÂ»RA 0008. i.1 . - -+--.~*----i--..I-Ii--M--Il---li~ ti 1,3 .1 0.-: 7 eTI,Â· 1+++it)RAil, 2 X.t 12 -1 1~z , z .t 1 1: Â·4 1 4 ~ * . 3'-O" A.F. 06044. Ill 11 2 :~.r MATCH ExiSt. â‚¬84*-ERM - -t . < 1 69~ 7- 1 :J'3Â·' '/ 1 1 4 100Â· 0*6 -700 to colgo. 66; 111.4 6, hiE#W DBOk 3 1 - - -~- -- .---- --- + f Â· FIKAMINe . - -A - - ---1 - r- A, = - - 3, a - -- - 11--1- -- - L , - t,1 -2 31 i - .. N 4 1 1! 1 i . .â€ž -*+ I $ -a 00 rl ;i' i t 1 1 1, 1 L . .4. i . .. 1 , 1.1'ACAL 1 LE 166 500 T.0- c.ol~Ic,. 1 Plxrl-IR.D>--- - - -Â· , DA,Â·459â‚¬k:GL Jr i - al,-It '.-E~-------.--~ JUITION }bo. A>W -1 91 1 1 .1 -3 - It U EA OPE,RAT E D -TiL_i_ - - ll_---1'~~f *; AkINNG. 7(1:'0 2 ALL 11 -\ i --1 --1 1 AWN IkICâ€¢ LoCAT ION'S - C - a r - 1-kk 16 61.-6.>Â·/AIT 1 2=> 1â€¢J . 1 17 1. 2 P . 11.3 - ter i I ' l' i 1,1 - 1-- 1 1 bl i - 1+16! 06 1 1 101 7. 4 - -- Â· 4 00( Il TE 1 1 1 9\ 1 24 6 :i - ittil P. , 1-' i i - 4 LIP. 1 iii il-- 7. i hi M iliZill Il. 1-tlj-Z-ll f 1 1 1 1 1 AT- R 6179 E e T-i 1 -- _ r 62.3 R 14.1 12- 1 J 1 6â‚¬46-%_300_ZE.-EZE_-*2 BL... 100'.CV T 4 001-H *2 1 *If>b-TUNE , ' 7: A I l.-1-, (TY[2 1 Crt-Â«) 1 . , Â· 1 U - .... 6 S 11.-- - >Â£-23--322&~Â£8*741>-1_ , - - 1- -@T@4.-UNTOk- . -- 7 -A.t..'.Ary.Mr - I -#V/* '-I - j i - i . 11 I C ' . - r 1.- . M 1%9:em,ifb--11_ _R- L 2 i Itt .1 r , i + \1 1 0*012 98+11*6 - il 1 It . 2 .: . 19 60 4120 BA;60 + 1-4 ADOVE> M N. 00*14 -~:tr =@4 I ti JE@ 24 UL P f *.rt -,7-7~ C-7 -rrl"--r-"- 1- 17 -- 4 - I ~~~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ ) ~ ~~ ' A. 1/n . - 4 4---|t- 'Â·&Â·d Z 4 t: !, 1 1!, tr-lr-:1.- 1 - ~ Â«lk 4- 1 41 4 1 1 W 4 i N. 0 - 1 11 11 1 --3 9 l. 1 -111 11 A 4. . ~Â· 7 - -41 r i .! i. 1 FAC-E le>12.I<:-ic-, derp) ._-:--- I d' 2 hi >1 .T . 9, - 1 3 -1 3. 9*=-w *46 7F*M-t : -47 4#42-7 4 1 1 ---- 11 tt - 1.â€¢i.,=0/F' - 64 NOÂ«TO K.4 E>; , 11 M h Â·--[- 3/Â° Pre?92_. i-- - __ t--.- Vit-2 14-.- 7427-- , 1 U . # ~ -Y -f- f - -1144 + . 11 1 ! Ii:i:l 1 1 k 1,1 1 4 806 +F) 1-= 2 - - ---~- -- I=--- '1 -n, . 7 -. L . i Fl,AeT gil .CD I , 1 !11 -7 1 --31 7-7 EL- -[1 -=Â£ 1--=- ]--- - --1 ~~1 :!U. .1'E J i . -- =- =3 -- t--- 1 1/ 0, R -- TON G 6-r.ONFO Lk L It ..1/ 1 jr=-7----=T 1 1 4 -4/ - - p j \ /!t '7-., 1 ~ ~ - ==4< Â» @ . 1 1 Â· 21 .i - 11 179 211 1 Â· --131 - 1 1 r .-- -. i n A 1 .1 1 . 43) 7 ' 1 3 CO 3 tolot' / a'-oil e -Dil lot.oil --4 4 # LS" 1>'-4"M.0. 6'- 63/Â¥ 41.4 - A./. 0 - 22-_319" -1-211~ ! >e - R.O. i ! 1 1 1 A PO KI el,4 01,101146 66. TPOOP. 1 4 P.456 1 OF- P.H. pl INPQNS Â· 1 4 1 - f f / 4.24 1 1 ./ .VA: 1 -NEW DECK I -. 4 /. ,_-2- T $ TÂ«6Â» 4,4 G bILTE 84 212. O 29 [JEC+L - APO HEW 1-04 H i I.- BTL- AAN Q B.ll, To ./-1 1 < - -MATOH ExisT. - 1 . APP HIEN 1,1000 4'-4' M.0Â· i L i GlheS FAN 4 ,- f . ;-f 1 (*-'Â° '+414" i C P-,9 5 j 1 AL UNIT E 3 CE, //\â‚¬33/43, 37 FO12 14 EAD><<* * a 9 6 L-Ev. 13Dor. 023 7-** a. C-Pr, ~7-44 21 -1 611Â·1 1 , ; 1 '~9, 470 3) . / 1\ / 4- 4 1- 1 - LU 16- -- - ------- 4..p/ ---- --- ~~~ ~~~~ ~- 1 r----N-r ~ A \4 rÂ» \ Ft,â€¢oeroke 1-1 Le Ceâ‚¬-4 :--- > 413/1 6 1 M ---- 4 tiv i-- - - ---- --- --- cir-t*Â·.1 - -- -- ~1 - 1 - 14 , f i j -\414 1 1: -- Ph '' 0 1 -,~ 1 11 4/A I , -A 'lili i IPLEVATE'@ 4.t -L L P ' c '\ 1 1 ,Â· 7371 j ; - ''i \ / 1 ./ 1 -7 . c. ~~5 R â‚¬ 7, 3~ Â·= 41 1 0 5/61 0 : /' . / 1 7-22 '01. 2 5,_lei j LA 1 1 t 1\+1-v i -- f -- |/2 5-0475-90 N E 1 lili, THI Nt 0.-T 04 I & . . 1 I k]Aft U.PRCX.>112:2 1 - 0 J R MALI COIDRADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY The Colorado History Museum 1300 Broadway Denver. Colorado 80203-2137 January 20, 1989 Roxanne Eflin Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Hallett House â‚¬D KA,lk)Â£- Dear ~Ms.-Efrin: . At your request our office has completed a review of the proposed project for the Hallett House which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Based upon our review, we offer the following comments and opinions. As described in the National Register of Historic Places nomination form, the Hallett House "is significant as one of the pioneer log cabins which was incorporated into a wood frame and clapboard house; a change indicative of Aspen's growth and rising fortunes of its residents during the 19th century silver boom." Based upon this information, the original log cabin portion and subsequent historic additions all contribute to the significance of the property. Therefore its character should be maintained and alterations to the physical elements and features discouraged. The proposed work as indicated violates the essential character defining features of the historic property and is not in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Specifically the proposed work does not meet Standard Number 4 which states: "Changes, which may have taken place in the course of time, are evidence of the history and development of a building, structure, or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected." It is our hope that our opinions on this project will serve to clarify confusing and difficult preservation issues. If we can be f,grther assistance we remain available to you. Sincerely, Statdbtistorical Architect JY:jc MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: 432 West Francis Street, the Hallet House Conceptual Development - Public Hearing Date: January 24, 1989 NOTE: AN ON-SITE WALK-THROUGH IS SCHEDULED FOR THIS PROJECT MONDAY, JANUARY 23. AT 4:30. PLEASE MEET ON-SITE; BRING THIS MEMO AND ATTACHMENTS WITH YOU. A PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST IS ATTACHED FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE. LOCATION: 432 West Francis, Lots K, L, and M, Block 34, City and Townsite of Aspen, a/k/a the Hallet House ZONING: R-6; H, Historic Overlay RATING: Designated Notable, National Register listing APPLICANT: Cecil and Noelle Hernandez HPC PROJECT MONITOR: to be assigned APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual Development approval for the renovation, partial demolition and additions proposed for both the main structure and the carriage house. Variations are requested for side and rear yard setbacks for the carriage house, and rear yard setback for the proposed attached garage: as well as for an increase in FAR of 53 sq. ft. above the maximum allowable. The applicant also wishes to excavate, expanding the basement area, and completely reconstruct the foundation, raising the structure while such work is underway. SITE, AREA AND BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Lot Size: 9,000 sq. ft. Main House Existing FAR: 2,831 sq. ft. Carriage House Existing FAR: 1,515 sq. ft. Total existing FAR: 4,346 sq. ft. Main House Proposed FAR: 2,939 sq. ft. Carriage House Proposed FAR: 1,294 sq. ft. Total proposed FAR: 4,133 sq. ft. Allowable FAR: 4,080 sq. ft. (Current FAR exceeds allowable; applicant is requesting HPC variation for the 53 sq. ft. over allowable) t Total Existing Site Coverage: 3,050 sq. ft. Total Proposed Site Coverage: 3,185 sq. ft. Allowable Site Coverage (30%): 2,700 sq. ft.* Total Exceeding Site Coverage: 485 sq. ft. (*Board of Adjustment approval is required for Site Coverage Variance; the proposed attached garage while exempt from FAR calculations is a factor in calculating site coverage. An application demonstrating hardship is required for approval before the B of A.) Allowable maximum height: 25' Alterations proposed do not increase height PROCEDURE FOR PROJECT REVIEW: HPC approval for this project involves two steps: Conceptual (Public Hearing) and Final Development Review. Side and rear yard setback and FAR variations are required at Final approval. Additionally, a variance for site coverage percentage must be approved by the Board of Adjustment. Special Review for parking reduction may be required by the Planning and Zoning Commission, which Bill Drueding (Zoning Officer) will discuss at this meeting. Special Review is allowed for historic landmarks pursuant to Art. 7, Div. 4 of the Aspen Land Use Code. HISTORY: The Hallet House, located at 432 West Francis, is an excellent example of evolving historic architecture, common in Aspen and of this era. Its humble beginnings as an approximately 22' x 18' log cabin (1885) are still evident inside the clapboard and plaster walls. When Samuel Hallet purchased the structure, it began its evolution into a "Victorianized" cottage beginning 1888. By 1892, the structure had grown into a more substantial one and two story home, with a significant carriage house located at the alley, replacing the cruder horse stable original located off the alley at the center of the lot. It is through this historic association, the original enclosed log cabin and its significant architectural evolution that the Hallet House has gained listing on the National Register and local landmark status. PROJECT SUMMARY: The project is extensive. The alterations involve partial demolition, extensive structural, foundation and basement excavation work, as well as enlargements of certain elevations. The carriage house is being converted from storage to one caretaker studio dwelling unit and a separate guest bedroom and study. A two-car alley-accessed attached garage is proposed, which requires Board of Adjustment approval due to exceeded site coverage percentage. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Due to the scope of the project, and its National Register listing, staff met with State Historical 2 Architect Jay Yanz and reviewed the plans. Barbara Norgren, State National Register coordinator, was also consulted; Barbara was responsible for writing the original Register nomination. Both Jay and Barbara concurred with staff that the primary reasons the structures were considered significant enough for National Register listing are: 1. Historic association with Samuel Hallet 2. Original log cabin existing within walls 3. Architectural evolution of additions/expansions Further, Jay and Barbara feel strongly that attention should be paid to maintaining what currently exists, working within the context of the existing structure and respecting this contribution to Aspen's history. They suggested that for authenticity a "date" be chosen, i.e. 1902, with renovations and restorations accurately reflecting that particular time as opposed to the variety of years being represented with the proposal. For informational purposes, the National Park Service generally reviews Rehabilitation Investment Tax Credit projects with a 25% guideline; that is, approving alterations which involve no more than 25% of historic structure. Jay feels that only 25% of the structure is not being altered. Staff concurs with the State Architect that while the changes may individually meet the guidelines, the extensive number of changes, from a historic standpoint, do alter the historic character of these structures. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Staff has reviewed the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, the Aspen Historic district and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines, the Standards for Development Review and has consulted with State Historical Architect Jay Yanz. The Rehabilitation Standards have been attached for reference (see Attachment A), as well as the applicable Guidelines. Review comments follow. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS: 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 minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. 3 Response: For ease in project review, staff has broken out each elevation and summarized the changes proposed. Please refer to the specific "existing" and "proposed" elevations in your packet for clarity. It will also be helpful to refer to the "existing" and "proposed" site plans to determine the footprint enlargements and partial demolitions proposed. Main House South Elevation: (Francis Street facade) Many alterations are proposed for this primary elevation, some we support as renovation activities, others we unable to support. The smallest truncated gable peak which was altered in the early 1900's will return to its original 1887 12/12 symmetrical roof form. The original roof framing system was discovered under the existing altered roof. The air-lock entryway, added on in 1947, will be removed and the front porch will be renovated more closely to its original 1892 appearance. The decorative brackets are removed; it is not clear if these are original. Staff believes the brackets were added on later. The main entranceway doorway will be relocated to nearly the central portion of the porch, requiring a new cut into the original log cabin walls located directly behind this portion of the clapboard. One new double hung window will also be installed near the eastern corner of the porch. The existing cottage-style windows in the eastern bedroom addition (existing) will be removed and replaced with double hung windows. Shutters appear at every window. Staff supports the restored gable roof form on the basis of its original, logical balance with the front facade. We also support the front porch renovation and removal of the air lock entry. The other changes proposed, primarily the new entrance doorway, are not supported by staff. Any further destruction of the log cabin walls is not recommended for historic archaeology reasons alone. We feel strongly that other choices exist for locating the doorway utilizing historic openings. East elevation: Research indicates that a squared bay window was added on in approximately 1902. It consequently "fell off" (in the applicant's words) in the 1970's, due to poor maintenance. The proposal indicates that this bay window will be reconstructed, with French doors accessing the side yard, an important egress element to the applicant. The 1902 one-story bedroom addition is proposed to be enlarged, and the original small-paned cottage windows will be replaced with double hung windows, again with shutters. The entire length of this elevation is extended to the north, to accommodate a new attached two-car garage. The existing hip roof form will be carried out. Additionally, three more windows are proposed; the center window appears 4 square and Out of scale with the established narrow, vertical fenestration pattern. Staff supports the French Doors as mentioned, however, does not support the extent of the fenestration changes to this east elevation. The unbroken length of the addition due to the attached garage is dominant and extensive, requiring further study in our opinion. The total length of the bedroom/garage addition is approximately fifty (50) feet. We feel a stepback or some kind of relief is more in-keeping with the structure. HPC must grant a variation for rear yard setback for the garage, which sits at the zero lot line. Garage setbacks (5') are defined in the code for safety and egress reasons; Bill Drueding from the Zoning Department has stated his concerns to staff regarding granting this zero lot-line variation. Staff recommends that HPC request B of A recommendation on this variation prior to granting same. Attached garages are rarely, if ever, found on other historic landmarks in this neighborhood. North Elevation: The partial demolition proposed to this elevation is of the small 5' x 12' shed porch, first determined in 1892, enclosed in 1895. The applicant wishes to remove this element, currently utilized as a closet for the bedroom, to install a chimney for a new fireplace. The other existing enclosed shed porch will receive a new gable roof, circular window in the peak and one pair of double hung windows, replacing the existing pair of square windows which form a horizontal band, and the rear doorway. The remaining three windows will also be completely altered and reoriented. The garage doors are 2/3 solid panel , 1/3 glass. This elevation, though not relatively visible from any public right of way, is changing significantly in character, we feel. Staff would support fewer overall changes to this elevation. We feel further study is warranted on fenestration in particular. While the partial demolition proposed removes a relatively obscure and somewhat insignificant architectural element, staff recommends HPC consider closely the cumulative total of the removal of these elements in relation to the overall historic character of the structure. The alternations may in affect meet the individual guidelines; we ask if the overall spirit of the historic guidelines and the established historic character are being overlooked. West Elevation: The changes proposed for the west elevation (4th Street) are minimal. The wrap porch decorative brackets are removed, shutters appear at all the windows. The original portion of the house remains unchanged, including the windows. However, from this elevation the 5 . back enclosed breakfast room is very visible. This existing addition is being remodeled to include double hung windows and double doors. The attached garage also contains a door with transom window above and an adjacent double hung window. The cumulative changes to the rear portion of the main house are significant, in our opinion. INSULATION ISSUES: Insulation was blown into this house from the outside many years ago; numerous round holes approximately 2.5" in diameter appear in many places in the clapboard siding. The applicant will be removing this insulation and replacing those damaged clapboards. The existing central brick chimney is shown to be rebuilt to a larger size to accommodate the new chimney flue. The other stove pipes protruding from the roof are shown to be completely removed. FOUNDATION: It is obvious from site inspection that the structure has some foundation failure which should be remedied quickly. The southwest corner of the site is higher in elevation than the southwest corner of the structure, causing site drainage problems to the house. The proposed methods to alleviate foundation failure are elaborate, involving raising the structure, basement excavation (desired for the enlargement of storage space), and new perimeter foundation faced with stone. HPC may consider required a bond from the applications, to insure such structural work will be accomplished without damage to the historic resource, and repair (if necessary) will also be done. MATERIALS: The preservation (repair and maintenance) of historic materials (siding, windows, roof, etc.) is always preferred over replacement. With the exception of the damaged clapboards due to insulation installation, the siding appears to be in good condition and should be preserved on both the main and carriage house. The applicant has stated that every window must be replaced. Staff does not support the replacement of windows found to be worthy of repair. Only when such extensive dry rot exists that repair is prohibited should windows be completed replaced. HPC members should take note of all existing materials condition upon site review. The applicant wishes to replace flatter portions of the roof with standing-seam metal, finding that metal (tin) was historically utilized in these areas. Wood shingles are proposed for the remainder of the main house; decorative asphalt shingles are proposed for the carriage house. An exact materials sample is required for Final Development review. SITE: The existing fence, trees and landscaping are found to be positive elements to the Hallet House. It appears that every effort will be made to preserve these elements. The existing site plan does not indicate parking spaces; however, the architect has stated that "technically" no parking spaces exist 6 on-site. The two spaces within the carriage house are undersized, and parking has historically been off 4th Street, within the City Right-of-Way. It appears that the two spaces being provided on-site in the new attached garage Will accommodate the parking requirements for the site, however, staff Will defer to the Zoning and Engineering Departments for final determination. CARRIAGE HOUSE SUMMARY: The original 1894 Carriage House has received many alterations over the years. Beginning as a 16' x 24.5' two story structure with second story hayloft doors, the first addition (12' x 18') occurred in 1895 to the west, connecting with the earlier one story stable. Shortly thereafter, another addition (12' x 18') was made to the south, forming a large, nearly square structure. Typical for historic carriage houses, this one encroaches slightly into the public right-of-way, both to the north and west. HPC should grant a setback variation. The Zoning Department may require the applicant obtain an encroachment license from Council. The distance between the final carriage house addition and the main house is approximately 6.5' at one point and 4.5' at another. Should HPC find the partial demolition of the final addition to the carriage house to be inappropriate, a variation should be granted for the minimum distance between buildings. The proposed use for the carriage house, which is currently utilized for storage and includes undersized space for parking, is a separate studio caretaker unit, plus a guest bedroom and study to serve the main house. Adaptive uses for secondary historic structures are highly recommended, providing the use does not force inappropriate design solutions. South Elevation: The proposal includes two significant changes: the partial demolition as previously stated and the addition of a large, 19' long, shed dormer, containing four undivided windows with decorative smaller panes at the top edge. Staff does not support the addition of the dormer, finding the original integrity of the carriage house to be diminished significantly. Previously HPC approved carriage house renovation projects have clearly demonstrated the need for sensitivity and conservativism when altering these structures. Secondary historic structures are just that, and the addition of non-original elements are discouraged. The shed dormer, while providing head room and southern light into the upper floor of the carriage house, is found to be an inappropriate design solution for this structure. Staff recommends the applicant further study ways to provide light into the second floor 7 without diminishing the original historic integrity of the carriage house. The partial demolition is proposed to allow for some open space and "breathing room" between the structures, which also might be argued to be appropriate for fire hazard reasons. The demolition also allows the reorganization of square footage for FAR purposes. The applicants are proposing that by taking some off here, some may be added there. While that argument appears logical, HPC should consider whether the loss of this historic 1895 carriage house addition meets the intent of the guidelines and is a preferred preservation activity overall for this project. The cumulative square footage of proposed partial demolition of historic features is approximately 343'. This calculates into the enlargements proposed. East Elevation: As with the south elevation, a small pedimented entrance cover is proposed over the .doorway. A multi-pane door is proposed accessing the caretaker studio unit. The original main level window located at the south corner is removed, replaced with a double hung window in the center. Staff finds these alterations acceptable, with the exception of the window removal and replacement. North Elevation: Presently, the north elevation contains the original hayloft doors (second floor), three narrow main floor doors and a two-part window. The proposal presents significant changes to these historic openings, by eliminating all the doors and converting them to windows, and installing small multi-pane glass windows in the existing hayloft doors. Staff does not support the extent of these changes and recommends the applicant further study ways to retain the original openings and integrity of the hayloft doors. West Elevation: (4th Street) The only alteration proposed for the west elevation is the addition of small multi-pane glass windows covering the upper 2/3rds of the two doors. Staff finds this fenestration approach incompatible with the established transparency patterns, and inappropriate. One alternative may be to install large paned, less busy glass which will simplify this elevation, still allowing light in. Staff supports the applicant's attempt to preserve the west elevation doorway openings and the north elevation hayloft door opening. CUPOLA: It is not clear if the small cupola is original, however, Staff supports the applicant's desire to preserve this element as an appropriate decorative detail to the carriage house. 8 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The immediate neighborhood contains a blend of historic and newer architecture. The two adjacent historic structures are designated landmarks (420 and 500 West Francis). We find that the renovation portions of the proposal meet this standard, however, the number of changes proposed and the garage addition may not be consistent with the character of the neighborhood. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structured located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: We find that the cultural value of this historic structure to be directly associated with its "Victorian envelope" around the original log cabin, and the significance of its evolution. Any further destruction of these original walls is not preferred, and is considered detrimental to the preservation of the structure. We also find that the cumulative effect of the changes do, in fact, detract from the cultural value of the structure. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure of part thereof. Response: While there are portions of this proposal that staff supports, it is, again, the cumulative effect and the extent of the changes that staff finds somewhat overwhelming for this historic structure. The referral comments solicited from the State Historical Society match those of staff's. While many changes proposed may be aesthetically correct within the guidelines, HPC should consider to what degree the entire project alters the original integrity of the Hallet House structures. Staff generally feels that while the applicant is attempting to "renovate" the structure, the very scope of the project indicates somewhat of a lack of respect to what currently exists. The Planning Office is recommending the applicant take another look at the overall project and restudy the intent of the guidelines in a preservation context to consider a softer, more sensitive "renovation" approach. PARTIAL DEMOLITION STANDARDS The Standards for Partial Demolition are found in Section 7- 602(B)(4-6) in the Aspen Land Use Code. 9 Standard #4. A demolition and redevelopment plan is submitted when required by HPC, or for any partial demolition, that mitigates to the greatest extent practical, any impact that occurs to the character of the neighborhood where demolition is proposed to occur. Response: We find that the aggregate effect of the partial demolition does not directly impact the neighborhood character, however when taken into consideration with the scope of the alterations and diminished cultural value, we find the demolitions proposed do impact. Standard #5. The demolition plan mitigates, to the greatest extent practical, any impact the proposed demolition has on the historic importance of the structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. Response: Staff has combined responses to Standards #5 and #6 below. Standard #6. The demolition plan mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact on the architectural integrity of a structure. Response: Staff finds that the enlargement design and the maximum FAR constraints are forcing the partial demolition of the historic elements. As previously discussed, the architectural integrity of this structure's evolution of additions is its historic importance. To remove these additions is to impact its architecturally integrity, in our opinion. HPC should consider the historic significance of the elements proposed for removal and the total affect to the parcel. ALTERNATIVES: Alternative actions which HPC may take are as follows: 1. Grant approval for the proposal as presented; grant variations for rear and side yard set back and FAR. 2. Grant approval for the proposal subject to conditions such as: a) restudy specific elevations, fenestration proposal and attached garage b) bonding for structural/foundation/excavation work c) eliminate shutters 10 d) restudy front porch bracket detail e) recommendation from Board of Adjustment on zero-lot line variation for attached garage f) exact material samples be submitted at Final Development review 3. Table action, to allow both the applicant time to restudy to intent of the guidelines in relation to the extent of the alterations proposed, and to allow the HPC additional time to review the proposal. 4. Deny the proposal as presented, finding the application does not comply with the Development Review Standards and/or the Partial Demolition Standards, and that the scope of the project significantly alters the historic character of the structure. RECOMMENDATION: The applicant has presented an extensively researched application, and should be commended for the time invested in historical research. This is complex project involving a very significant historic structure. While it is clear that the applicant wishes to "fully renovate" the structure, and certain elements of the proposal demonstrate that desire, staff feels the number of changes proposed are overwhelming and inappropriate. The Planning Office recommends that the HPC table action to allow the applicant to restudy the proposal in a "preservation context", integrating suggestions made at this meeting by the Committee. Further, staff recommends that HPC offer their assistance within the context of the Review Standards and the Guidelines, and work with the applicant to reach consensus on those elements which may be approved for renovation or alteration. NOTES: hpc.memo.432wf 11 ATTACHMENT A Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation: 1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which requires minimal alternation of the building, structure, or site and its environment, or to use the property for its originally intended purpose. 2. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, site or its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alternation of any historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible. 3. All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations what have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged. 4. Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a building, structure, or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance int heir own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected. 9. Contemporary design for alternations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alternations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural, or cultural materials, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood, or environment. Staff's response to each of these Standards have been incorporated within this memo. DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES Staff brings HPC's attention to the following Development Review Guidelines, which staff has reviewed and found to be applicable to this proposal: General: "When looking at a residential renovation it is important to look at the history of the residence. Many residences have undergone extensive remodeling, some of which may not have been respectful to the original character." 12 Guideline VI(A)(4): Locate additions to original houses so that they do not alter the front facade. Guideline VI(E)(1): Located support facilities at rear of lot. Garages, shed and other support buildings should be preserved to the extent possible at the rear of the lot, and on the alley. Old surviving outbuildings surviving from the mining era contribute to the character of Aspen's neighborhood and should be preserved whenever possible. Guideline VI(E)(2): Preserve existing scale in new construction at the alley and wherever possible historic outbuildings as well. Guideline VI(E)(3): Off-street parking should be at the rear of the lot. Guideline VI(F)(1): The existing roof type and pitch should be maintained. Additions should attempt to use the same roof type and pitch as the original structure. Guideline VI(F)(3): Use roof materials that were typical. Wood shingles or standing seam metal roofs are considered appropriate. Guideline VI(G)(1): Maintain the original position of main entrances. The original front door is generally an important design feature of a residence and contributes to the sense of neighborhood. The located and orientations should be maintained if a new entrance is designed. Guideline VI(G)(3): When necessary replace doors with historically similar designs. Original doors should be maintained whenever possible. When the door must be replaced, care should be taken to select a door keeping in character. Guideline VI(H)(1): Make every effort to preserve and repair existing windows. New windows should match existing windows as closely as possible in size, configuration of panes and profile. Guideline VICH)(2): Maintain the original number of window panes. Retaining and repairing the original parts is strongly encouraged. Small pane windows, snap-in muntins or frames glazed between two sheets of glass should also not be used. Guideline VI(H)(3): Avoid changing the position of the windows. The relocation of windows may alter the historic character of the residence and should be avoided. Guideline VI(I)(1): Maintain front porches as an important facade element. Unless reconstruction is necessary, do not remove original porches. 13 Guideline VI(I)(2): Preserve original porch materials. Turned posts with grillwork and brackets are found on more decorative houses. When these elements must ne replaced construct new wood members that match or resemble the original. Decorate elements that are not known to have been used on the residence should also be avoided. Guideline VI(J)(1): Match materials as closely as possible. Pay particular attention to the scale of the materials such as the size of the brick and the width of the siding. If existing materials have been damaged, repair to stop further deterioration. Guideline VI(J)(2): Preserve original architectural detailing. These details add historic value to the building and visual interest to the rest of the residential district (neighborhood) Guideline VI(J)(5): Maintain original siding. Match the lap dimensions of the original if portions of wood siding must be replaced. hpc.memo.432wf 14 HERNANDEZ RESIDENCE 432 WEST FRANCIS STREET ASPEN, COLORADO rity '- .5 HPC REVIEVV FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT JANUARY 3, 1989 4. I. GENERAL APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS (Sec. 6-202) A. Letter of Consent by the applicant is attached as Exhibit A. B. The street address and legal description of the site of the proposal is: 932 West Francis Street Lots K, L, M, Block 34, Aspen Townsite C. Disclosure of ownership is attached as Exhibit B. D. A vicinity map for the area surrounding the site is attached as Exhibit C. E. Compliance with Relevant Review Standards 1. Compatibility with Design Structure: Through the years the miner's log cabin, which earned the National Historic Designation, has been remodeled and added onto thirteen times. The carriage house at the rear of the property has been remodeled and added onto four times. Some of these additions are awkward and detract from the more historic building. The remodeling proposed for the Francis Street side of the building will restore the front facade to more closely resemble the building at the turn-of-the-century. The addition to the east side of the building will restore the Bay window which fell off in the 70's. The addition toward the alley takes it's form from the existing bedroom wing. The carriage house at the rear of the building will also be remodeled to more closely resemble its original form. 2. Consistency with Neighborhood Character: The modifications proposed will result in a building which more closely resembles the turn-of- the-century historic residence; because of this the building will also be more consistant with the character of the neighborhood. 4 3. Enhancement of the Cultural Value Of the Structure: Since the Francis Street fascade will be restored to more closely resemble the turn-of-the-century structure, the miner's log cabin location will be defined by a restored roof form. This will enhance the cultural value Of the designated structure because the miner's log cabin, which earned the National Historic Designation, can be located within the structure. 4. Enhancement of the Architectural Integrity of the Structure: The modifications proposed will eliminate the inappropriate additions made through the years, thus enhancing the architectural integrity of the designated structure. II. Existing Conditions Plan: A Building Permit Survey prepared by Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. illustrating existing site conditions is attached in Exhibit I. III. Exterior- Building Materials Foundation - Existing stone laid against new concrete foundation wall Siding - Existing to be salvaged, new to be milled to match existing Trim - Existing or new, milled to match existing Windows - Existing frames and trim to be resotred, new insulating glass and sash to match existing Doors - Wood panel with glazed lites where indicated Garage Door - Wood panel sectional roll-up with glazed lites Roofs: House - Sloping Roof - Wood shingles Shallow Sloping Porch Roof- Metal to match historic photos Carriage House - Asphalt or fiberglass to match historic photos Masonry Fireplace - Rebuilt to code using existing brick IV. Statement of Effect of Proposal on Design Historic Structure and Neighborhood Character The Restoration and additions we propose for the Residence and Carriage House at 432 West Francis Street, Aspen, Colorado, will enhance the character Of the existing structures and also the neighborhood. The Francis Street facade will more closely resemble the turn-of-the-century residence which, with the restored roof form, locates the old miner's log cabin inside. The Fourth Street facade is to remain the same, except for additional glass in the Carriage House doors. The east facade will restore the bay window which fell off the house in the 70's. Also the large expanse of lawn area along Francis Street is to be maintained as well as the historic fence restored. The resulting restoration and modifications to this property will enhance the character of the neighborhood. - Ii- ~ EXHIBIT A We hope that this letter will serve as an introduction of Noelle and Cecil Hernandez. In submitting for approval our plans for the renovation of our our home at 432 W. Francis, in Aspen we would offer che following information. We have been renovaring homes for the past 10 years. This would be the fourth home in that time. The three homes that we completed were a Cape Cod, i940's vintage; an English Tudor, 1930's vintage; and our current home an Italian Mediterranean Villa built in the 1920's by the prestigious firm at that time, Fischer and Fischer. In each of these renovations, we feel that we were sensitive to the original architecture and character of each house. The English Tudor that we complened involved a good deal of restoration to original interior woodwork, floors, and exterior brickwork. The Cape Cod, our first hcme was c ; -=4/ U The renovation. work there was more of the painting, and general updating variety. Our current home was a particular challenge because it is one of the premier properties in the Denver-~ Country Club and it had been severely neglected over the years. This was compounded by Ehe fact that there had been some remodeling to the house that was not in line with the original character cf the design. This also was the most extensive renovation that we had attempted. The project involved extensive demolition, and some structural work. We have included some befcre and after photographs of the project. As you can see from the before photos, there were several areas that had been remodeled that simply clashed with the architecture of the house. Now that the home has been completely remodeled we think the photos speak for themselves. It is also our desire to renovate our home in Aspen te mirror the quality that we have achieved in each of our projects. We thlnk that we have shown good judgement and taste in each of these projects, and r..ore importantly, a sensitivity thai is reflected in the completed product. As an additional note we are looking to make this house in Aspen our permanent residence. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, /7 1 C-9 //7 1 7 l fl Cecll and Noelle Hernandez ~ EXHIBIT E December 29, 1988 Current Hernandez Residence 432 West Francis Street Aspen, Colorado Historically referred to as the "Hal let House" "HALLET" HOUSE SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION 1885 - Cabin of squared logs built by Thomas Anson. Original brick foundation is still under the house. 1887 - 1888 Second room has been added and is visible in photo of city from Red Mountain By this time a porch has been added and a stable is visible at the rear of the property. 1892 - 1893 Records indicate that Samuel Hallet has undertaken a major renovation - an artist's rendering of the city indicates the two story addition has been added in the back and a porch has been extended across the front of the house and the west side. The porch on the east side has been enclosed. The front entry door has been moved, and a new roof built over the old one on the east side, over the original cabin. Portions of the original shake roof are visible under the added roof. The Aspen Times rendering of the town in 1893 indicates that the carriage house had not yet been built. 1894 - 1895 At this point the carriage house has been constructed - inspection seems to indicate it was built in two sections at separate times. 1896 - W.C. Willits map of Aspen indicates the house exists in three sections with a porch. There are three fireplaces at this time ( or- two fireplaces and one wood stove) with brick chimneys for all of them. The carriage house and attached shed are shown. as well as the stable along the alley. 1898 - Sanborn's map of Aspen shows that by this time a rear porch and shed of some sort have been added to the house. EXHIBIT E Page Two "Hallet House" 1904 - Sanborn's 1904 map of Aspen is the next record. By 1904, a one story bedroom has been added to the east end of the two story element of the house. A bay window has been added to the parlour on the east side of the house and the shed at the rear of the main house has been enclosed. 1904 - 1940 No records of the house on maps or photographs exist for this time. The Hallet family sold the house in 1935. During this time the west end of the two story portion of the house had been altered from a curved end to the existing square bay window. The stable was removed. The front porch was extended toward Francis Street approximately 3 feet on the east end. 1953 - The porch at the rear of the house is extended toward the alley and enclosed. The shed on the side of the carriage house is enclosed. A closed entry room is built on the east end of the Francis Street porch. 1960 - The stairs to the basement of the house are enclosed and a bathroom is added to the rear of the east one story bedroom. Mid 1970's The fireplace and chimney on the west side of the living room are removed and replaced by a wood stove. At some time in the 1970's the bay window enclosure on the east end of the house falls off the building and is not replaced. It is noted that the fir trees at the front of the house and in the yard ar- e included as historic aspects of the house. The trees in fact do not show up in any photos of the house until the late 1960's. HISTORIC RESIDENCE CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE FLOOR PLANS 1885 ORIGINAL LOG CABIN F.J 1 t, ! STABLE ~ 1887 ~ I 1887 1 2 i i i i ::: ::: :i: : 1892 ENCLOSED 1892 i 1 1892 3 r' i i ORIGINAL i CARRI AGE i HOUSE 1894 ................... | COVERED: I : SHEDi . 1 i : A , . 1895 : : : : 1895 : i ENCLOSED .................... 1895 : i i -2-1 : : -I.I.Il< I 1 1 :: : 1902 1902 : i 6 : : : : i : :: : j REMOVED 1930'S~\ 1930'S : : 7 .' ENCLOSED 1953 11953 I .i..4 1947 . ................. 1960 FELL OFF 1970'S -2 9 .. HISTC)RIC RESIDENCE CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE FRANCIS STREET ELEVATIONS m 0 -1 11 *'T]Ill ~ 1 91% I i bl 0 0 0 1 ~~~11 Ir]11 Â° HERNANDEZ CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS + ; ~ RESIDENCE -6 i 432 WEST FRANCIS ST-REET ASPEN COLORADO t PO BOX 3534 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925 5590 NOLLVA3121 SI j trit Ch-401 CPU 12 97 U 0 \\ \ R = -=21 r-1 - 1 1 -1 1 Null S === i 1 02 *8 -- - i 1 - Z- , 1,1 Ul 3 z LIU " w I. 93 WEST FRANCIS ELEVATION 1893 0....4..40 n v 3 m. - 0665-526/EOF 3NOHd3131 Â£1918 00420101 N3d94 %5Â£ XO8 Od 103.LIH)Hy/531Â¥DOSSV 9 3.ldINNfl) 531HVHJ 00Â¥b-40-1 1 4 1 1 F -6 00 1 00 '' f 1 E 0- 0 ! 1 -4 1 U : HERNANDEZ CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS i N i .6 RESIDENCE O % A 432 WEST FRANC!6 STREET . ASPEN COLORADO . I PO BOX 3534. ASPEN COLORADO 81612 TELEFÂ¥IONE 303/925-5590 NOIIVA 313 SIC)NVE,=3 -LSEI . 1- 4 1 Il U -4 r Inre=rm'-Inrfl:f~ m 0 -1 71 .Impirium...1'll'[Int't 1 \ Z WS 4 0 F -1' 1=111)1 1111 5'En:Ir- U I a - LU M 11 11 r - nÂ·mimmirm= { ~ 0 -11-11 1 1 39 1 HERNANDEZ CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHNECTS 6 RESIDENCE 6 A 432 WEST FRANCIS STREET ASPEN COLORADO 1. PO BOX 3534. ASPEN COLOFDO 8lbl2 1Â£1EPFIONE 303/925 5590 NOIIVAE113 â‚¬,so~ 1 ) 2<:DO r- 2 Ve t- 7 1/r74 *-04 - =55Â«94 44 Er M \\\\N- 1/ -7 511 - 1/ 0, < KI- f = 4-- T--7 = -& I l. O %6 1 1 +9 NW EN | 1 <01 1 - 1 WW 3i \Â«0 r IC 5 3 WEST FRANCIS ELEVATION 1904 & W 4 -V U Sl)311HNIV/SEUVIDOSSÂ¥ 9 3331NNfD 53121VHJ 0655-526./EOE BNO,-613131 ZI918 OC],30101 N)dSV HiE X09 Od E-Â°-4-i 4 i i h 4/ m 0 -1 11 I " 1 1 -6 > Z 0 0 ' 01 8 . -17===~ - 1 231 l â€ž_=t_j ----3 ft- 11 1 1 1 6 1 HERNANDEZ CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHFTECTS -6 RESIDENCE i : i 432 WEST FRANCIS STREET ASPEN COLOAADO PO BOX 3534 ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925Â·5590 â€¢ NOI-LVA3131 EXHIBIT F Historic Photographs in Chronological Sequence 0 I . â‚¬-1.. . 7.k. 1-4 4 .. .4. 9. 0 , ...6 A. . 1 9, t,9.9 ..... .5 .. 24, -r . .. . . A. 1 I I I V. I. I I I ./Wawl:-I-- -4 -Â· -' 45 .,Mat.:.Ir 'rk,N,14Â¢e I 12 4.0yi. . 1.... 9 .. I t.Zel ,/imil.- . -7...42. 1 ~i-. 34Â«4913'-3.iffi.{~p:*-*'0 ~-2.-Â¥1*4-4- . I I . 44-b:..7412*'3.4-Â·-1'2Â·.:'~Â·'12 1 '~' :. e .dÂ·Â·thaitz.41&8/AN :~2 4).%.'&--/.7/:U#4/4.Â£4, 4.:tmt*Wrfwi .9. 4:1 ' w ~ .~~ :- -p.4. I 7 4 -*.21, 'Â¢3.?Â·fâ‚¬, 4*Â·:* f H x.9:*t?t;~,b40,4â€ži . ./ *At ..92~k< +i-Â·. Â·~ ~.4Â·Â·Â·Â· -Ga *.- di e '2, *4:KÂ·39Â»*2>g! 1 . . 1!Â¥71 4- . . . . ..1 â€¢ ..VÂ· .'4*11#&Â·-2 .Â· . Â·' I. .........,I 0 .5 .-Â· ..U , f.. i.?PÂ·..Â·'Â·.'~ Â·Â· ' L i,~.11 -5241' â€¢ . 1 9 1 1.91 122 A. .: 14 Â· . C 1 ... n '*15.J.taa- 1 4,2. 4 * .4- 16 ' : I J Emb , 4, i - I +1 07 -1/0 'Â· *AifÂ·Â·:*, c.48: 44<.Â·.41-F~'.d:. :':.P:2,1., :' A r ,=...I- lat. r f.44-. -t 48, Â· , -3 1~Â·'S~,-1- .' -1 .Â· Â·Â·,0 4. A A ..A : 1 5 4..1~1 . 1 , . 2 2.i~ 2 ' ~ IL . .4 640 1*$ - .. Â· r:d ./ - 544 *5#*bl 31*+44:.....31 1 , . , - t.4.+ , C...'. r :.4 ..4. . 4 W Â· 4 Â· Ed' /,r: Â·,Â·'94/p ~* Â·Â·35Â·.g~. ~Ii,.- 03(44, ' ': Â·36:.'.-~ .'f./ Â·Â·Â·..J:'i*Â·,X.i.1.-Â·..26 ~ . Â·Â·; Â·ep.. /, 4 %' ' - t'. ' .% i 4 9 0 '' 1~4 Vt'.n:* Â·0-' Â¥A.4# 04.41 9 .12. .le/, 2,7 4... 0 I / -ill'.F *.. 41* , ri 00---.~1'0Â·itÂ·~'3Â·Â·1:6-64&2.4844,Â»0*,1 ~ 4 j ~91'f:*raGE~x~ , ul...2 â‚¬ 4. 4 ;Sk. . k..4.4.-yz:;... ...,Â£ el~*t Â£ : I"e#. Â· '-f- '4~thl. , 644.. . r . U . Ilr#*Pke 5 1 . ~â€¢..7 it . ~ .;c 2 1. Â· $ Adiilt'11,1,1,;,1 z i ': .ilf 1*; . 42.;- J... .. 4 ir i .i Â·-Â· .,. .... 1 &4*F 1 Â·ir;f'. ~ 4. met '. ....1....1 '1 % â€ž LI ~ ' .-1.--19$.1.'' . Â· . i ./ I ...: Â· 3.: Â· ,+ t.44 W: . - .' 7 !.. I' ./71 , 7 1../ I N: 140. .tiÂ· .-444)2Â·,9 /*AL; 3{yri , 9 ve 1,62:8~// f . â€¢60 . A-Â·- '99' 1 N..0. *9<'.7,4 Â¥:44Â¢13aErÂ·< : . ...rn. A ia. i ...44 ... .. 45* Â· L... .' 0 : . *Â· //EN/.~4141- â€ž1*: , Â¥.13:*F~0%3 2. .deh i'â€¢,U. . 1, 17 Â£ Â¥*vt-, ~4~ -1. ., . . , -,4. 6 : 7 L 4 â€¢ *f V/6Â· 1 - J. C ...pâ€¢. 1 -u-~r A, 4~ .1 2.76 - - C , a.of .r . 4:. <.7.~/ 1*4 42 Â»34\ **4742' , r 2.4 2:41:M# . ...e. A-dah/Lf.+11 I-'' Â· ...... 11 Q..4.7 -/Ir I i . . T-7 . 7 " ,5 -a-Z'diâ€¢~ 4â€¢4.J . p#jig"= ... ...... ....7 ' ...7. I I - m ..... ' I..'.-*4/ 9 y % - -,le.ar.~* %'. I. - , 1 -I ' " I ..... , 0 fl.*t.A-*.li - -- 'Mr fiwâ€ž/4~,p,-â€ž, r:== '2 ' I. / ' 2..26= A . I...A ... .1.-\.tmt'.3*3.4- . - . .r *.fÂ« i ..>Â¥~2~yl#.. - ---Il. 1 --4 7.26 7,Â¥ 1 0 '' $ 9 '' 1 Â£*t=14. 0,%f? 422 4 1 , i ft?i Â·tÂ· ~ tÂ·, . %1.~.it .. . i fÂ¥ '. 9 1 Ull'' 1 11 'U .... I , in ..B:* I #/ ; ...1 ' -Sil? 1 .,1 1170 .:4-Â·: $ - - - - .4....Â·'Â·..1Â©2.'.9..il 8 *t 4.3.':9 , (1 .... .., t . 51 .: ':-'ll .Â·Â·4 '2346: Â·Â·-Â·k. . 1 .,4. I I. 1 . . 1 2 ..1 k 'i U fE411 1 : 4 . . . Lff.id.K .- 2 1 r i w t., s. " 4 . Al-i J M.1 -1.-: 4 kÂ· Â¥Â· 4.17 5 , _ ..... 1- r 1 1. t.~ 4 4 .2 1â€ž I 8&20.02.9...Al 1- /1 .0 art' 0 . t' t, 9 LM f' ' il '11- , . 1 0, , 0 1 ; i i 1 4 i : r $ ; Â· .Â· 1 5 e r E b L::, p 1 9 I : i ; :. 0,1 :l: 2 ' f 2 - '.; ':1.,1 $.>1~fillfpp t, . , #,Q:.,t Â£ I . - *Ii t.Â· :~ ' c:g k34Â£Pi.'t. 3*LE..rer , . I Â·/ Â·t ./ I /. t~ ~- 79 - Â· , 4. 3 14 I -32-41 . . .... I i:qi 1 1'. . Â· 4%'. .0 Â·*i,Â·r ~.. <$>1 --w/ 0 14* .-Al - 1% 4..t -40 .=*r .1. .. 64.-:,#p.0. f #43.Â· Â· 4~ I . . % 0 ... le'. > 224.44 14* St t,Â·t'Â·. g.'<,1: ,':+ tri..Â·Â·Â·' I. . . . ,=.,14 i:.I: I /* I C f. Â· f,2,6e- Â·,Ii ik...'.Â· L. 'fi.3.{95,1Â£ ..r: . , .-. I. , #h 6- 1 .- . .â‚¬.4 4 :D- " - - -â€¢%42.428 944Â· 4 - ~4Â· *4*.4~ * 4 *9 ' . t 4 Vt' .-4040 1 5,2. 4 â€¢â€¢-p '7 4 .~ .7744%1 ' ~ 'd. Â·.:'Â·Â·' r, -' ~*,t -*r . 44.2 '461- ' .... ..;'i : 4 1> 2 3.-4-~~*~- ,?.'td.,ty..19>PtfÂ» '12' .'d~.- - ill=V -Qi *12/. li~.,1 . T , 41-Â·'.Â·Ce'.2 -,42 ; t:L'44:~*brt 942:Â· Â· 1#79*....:Qi=*,1 kli),2,4 *.:4211..,r..44*,1., -r. . -, 51 . . 73.(,4*: :1:~5:14: i,g.- -,<#:as . ix. -2 Â· a:..â€ž~leaws?4=V,:6xi')%~14 1-â‚¬73,44 f f... * ,7*'Idlt*.*f~ Mi'jp;, 41,41': 9,7 5 ..., - Â£:=14.52 L ,4., 0,5 ...,1/44 , , ~ 34Â¥ . 4- m.70ni!/g:/:4--92..j---I- .' 1.5.: . fÂ· 4 '0 . /1 -/ t... 'â€¢Ur - f - 4, ~ ~~ ~f~ 3- .~*.Â¥4142El~r..Â·t~, 4ffc.2%~.o,Ii~.:31* ,~.3~--~.:0Â°j-:â‚¬~~~ji~,Â·.~R43Â¥4. :.12.Â· -~ ./.. '6 .'.'r.Â·~3:~'331(;toift,'48?*Af{441?32 ,.:~; ~ 0 Â·14':*WA lilid*i,'Â·1...,.~12J'~..44'fi;'2~3%Â·.Clc':'cu. ~lMA/-4 ':7 + 7 1 *- .,0.~ 'N, Â· 4,9 61â€¢ 1 :i ' ....Ii .115 - d '43*> .p . - A I â‚¬ Â· 1'3 teÂ· ' '~W:!4r , ;. 27- Â·- 4 -2.- ~11111 k,49332{439{irkfifi:1... v 6.2.Â· 2.-. .f .. f.;e~x,ke.*Â·*~*-- .i. . . 2 :,A~Â·&'2 2.R-20'K- 1,$..2-*2. J.,G,53,+4./.191.1.U :. , ' A 1' 4 7- Â·Â· RK:t:iÂ¢>9Â·4:4Â»jÂ£ p . f,Â©f.' 'r Â· - 1,). '-Â·'Â·el'Â·-Â·If'.1:4.7,-â‚¬2 0.Â·fy/,1.1 3~~,9,%43 'Â·"N .4 1. Â· u . 4 .. . '1 V. ' . fÂ¢-rf . ' . 3. 1., p. 1 ' 1 .Â·.4 I -/ 2 ' 4/V I'.~ re: 1. '1 J . .'.4 ''' .39 4 .';... / 0.' r T- ' Met 1.&, I ./ . 1 ..,3...1'., 1.e:;4.1,4:*445240 - 'se.. - T': '~-Â·-1*: r 14 3~ , ~9 1't Y..314.:730/f ...;.~Cit.t,j'Â· ~ F~~ 1,~ .:t t. >.tÂ·. .' ~ .~ . ,; ' 1.~- U-~ittik#AAMâ‚¬f~~fÂ¤iksÂ¥- 3,6 f ... C, . . .. - IK' 4 , 4 . I . I . . . 0.. 4.... .... ...,-':. 8.4 L * 4 t.... I . . e. . â€¢ I. I . ., . .. r . I . Â¥ I /'.1 J- I. 1.,N,16 i # 'g 4 . ~ -~~''~ :4Â¢i I '4.Â·'.' 13.Â·Â·~ .4%2 ...C . 427*0 . . V 4..2 - .i, , .9. . 4 4. , C. I.L... -I ' 4 4 .0,4 . . Â· . .e . 1 : : Â¢ .240 â€¢..Â· ., . 1.- ..I Â·.%-4.11 14 1 . -. .... - , 4. ~~. U.Â«r 149 - /4 ... - p 4 "18/â€¢,WI , ....4*31 4 D#*. f 0, ..& 1 3:.:'74 :Â· 2.-'*..432 ' ry? 1 , I U~ 4/ 1 4 ... A~~~~~<~~ - ir 1. -4.-0-4.*/* 4 ' <A Â·//*e.4-4 : I ./02Â·kil'b .d"./9 4/1//7 .0 k ' 1 .' J ./ f . - . A.....hz.i/0,4 - %1 1- t ,--,Er -Truivt**r' ...1 +5 - -, -0/2-t.: .4 ..7 .4 ' 1 "-4 7.4, . I. .. li 1 -' 1 4 <A - â€¢<6 1 . 'r., f ':A '1 Q# 61 / I Â·r: I i ...46'...2 -10* 4/ PX j , I . . 1 .k. it rr. Â¢ W ...1Â» i.e 1 . . , .t.,9 7.7 , . I .. 4 . . .. ~2... I .I. . I 2/4 ... top Il /, J i/.9, 'C.N. i Â£/ENJeO: Til fâ€¢'. 19'. N ,-2"Ibil flx' e'l , h &89/A Iift,O-. 6â€ž i ..4 I ./.5 .. .4! C 5 . i Â¢79. , R#*F/6068/ :,b .13, . . 77 1 "4-/ . 1 ./4 ftiAâ€¢e li 1-31 . /01.ings,Â® -2:Lf,J' Â· .W .Xt, 1 2%1Â·i' 1 .iÂ» C '44â‚¬ V. 6 7 2 ' 4â€¢*â€¢â€¢91 .. ,Â· 2 4 Â·' , 4.4.. . .1 . -- 1 +13 ..U Â· . 12-00 1 . ~ . 9, 4 ' .*2 - . I i Â·4,4214-J 9 di.* I. fÂ·46:,4 Â· Â»r : .9,-12Â·Â·'Â· ': ti:.Â· ' . Vt f r .. *r:?4*w. . I <1*El / / '- 1 : . , , . .1 - . r , a . . - 46, '0 I ... I 0 4 ... â€¢t. Â· . Â· It.. r. 1 & 0 0 - ... t.- â€¢ 0/ 2 â‚¬ h /4 ' I 1- . ...00 ... 4 1 1 I ./ 0 ./.'-r.. . . a . . 4 ./ t i- .. ./ , 4, 4. F.' C.fii:'81 'E'irrr~]t ft* 4 1- %:â€¢- 14(,i *,11 .11,4NtiÂ·-~~itil;<14 :i~~!iji?tj~~A 0 . . 2: , 9~1 6 2 11 ' +~' 3 2 ' ~1 ;/; '1 072~ 511 t i t ' " ~ ~ 1 hi;; ; It :'Â·'?#zae BY * i A w f,64(~i j i -i<'} 1~1:AA'l li k.-1 ... Â· Â«ReÂ·ti.Â§41191?1 14 /4, 4 2 1,1 ,1 1 ... / 1 4 . 0, it p:-+ .. 4 .4 1 .. '. . ... 4 P t.3 i Â·Ait. a Â· , 9-':-2,:,4*' C .. , I *16 . : . rin..R -zff:Â¢ fÂ·t Â·i. 4; ..~Â·r +i.V~-,~*F 5 :'*f 1-1' 4 - C~.1::741 ~:Â·y: 4.-,4-34 :;*-~ .2. 7 2 V t'lf**2 ~ ' i/:5 44'kltÂ·Â«,~ce i'; viT.*.1~ - 4..lizqi -&,8,/6/'/3/, L 5''IFWBVIL $:. 09,17*,116 1 . + . â€¢ 4 ..b't *t. 3 - '-1%'C Ffi.Evoll'~...3 2: ./1 4 #64.* . --' I'l:'./'ll./+I.' --A I y 4Â£43- . ./..4-2 42..- 4 : - Al... 61'- 41 Â» Â· - /496/ A:,fi,#~ .. >2 c. 1Â»:câ€¢ip,~5 1 4.1. I . J *tili#,fir . r , 1~9~14 1 4 4%11,6.F9L... 1.': .4 .: '-l it , . . Â»fe<1 16 -. a .7 CAbi~#t~O 4 4%,4 . . . I ......-- 4-#,0 1 t '~~b~~ ~;~il . BÂ¥/i X ... 1 . Jill. . 09 .. I : -9 .Ct.- f..3513.7â‚¬ ... 1 - *14 .. . #. . 01 Â·'t V - I .L . 1,43 ' . 14.4. 4 - El/3// 40/flill//IMI"lliti'"Fi . 4. 4.4.. 0.1. Â· 0 1 , . '97 , Fâ€¢ *11:~fl.'Il:. ..6 14>1. ,/ ' '1.. I....4 I. .. -*-~ 7/k4wlil/48**riT~.. ,..i utâ‚¬4 r E '.9. '.. -,4 :Â·-.3-Â·4 ..1,~: Â· c,Â·41/ . â€¢Â· ' â€¢ 11*. . Â»Phy" .'t .~I~**brii- 4,1100 4Mairlipti, d#am:jaitririge#IÂ·./42- 4/bil*Ish< Â·- J I. .... .....t .... ALLEY f -7 - 1-3 1 d i le )-- L 34' 9 5 Ul 4 EfrÂ© 2 --. ..75 Â· r. - 1. .1 11 Ir 1 - .5 . Â» 9-5--1 LL 0-2 Â·9hN*; U 3.-3-- - - ---- -- I lili !1 , 1 911 I 0Â» 1 ... SY Nw We ZILI 11 40 e ,0 LU LU 94Â«-4 -- I m - I t.Px- M V. . -,0 1.3 ftj/t h iqof4-<A ./.WING -2 --- UATI Colo '15 20 25 WEST FRANCIS STREET EXISTING SITE PLAN AE"SoIl ALLE-Y / X C . - \- 43-'17-: i 9- 14 w fÂ»1 X 99>14 i 16 - * 9- 1 - U 1 /. 11 lili 1 U I AN ' 41 vII N U.1 9 & 1 . 1-u, 02 5Â§ ZW R - <Qa 1 W Bz % or 9 5 / i~11 1 / 1 34. t 1 1 I- M -A x -IX ---.7.x -Ang r - -- J \ .....ING tic],AlÂ¥\ -Cle NO [DATE 0 6 10 15 zo 15 SHEET ./ WEST F KALICIS STREET PROPOSED SITE PLAN . SHEE r 00 065â‚¬.-526/EOE 3NOHi 3131 ,t9[8 OOFO103 N119,/ 'DE f XO8 0 J 5TMET .. .... .. .. . % >*4& f 5 0044,11 1. 0 4 49>#6 4 .... 1 11 - --- 1 1- f 1 - % 763*7 txn,1--_ / ' . -4 Ai.. 1%%**d AREA TO BE ADDED 1 OUTLINE OF BUILDING WITH PROPOSED ADDITIONS I - 1 1 L- i-r. Â· 'I'L ~ '~~~ I ./ rf - EXISTING_UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1 /4Â·=1Â·-0 NEÂ® D 00 0 NEE O= 3 = m 0 0 -1 I f m 0 0 m -1 m r m HERNANDEZ CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS mn RESIDENCE | | ~ ~ ASPEN COLORADO pO BOX 3534 ASPEN COLORADO 816 I 2 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 432 WEST FRANCIS STREET T FRANCI TREET ELEVATION 1-1 j -7 h 4/ - EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION _ SCALE: 1/4-=1'-O NW SN ZE F O 591 0 02 U Z Z- V t===7' i mu) 0 \ 4/ w W 3 Â£ -- ==e -\11 -.r' 1 11_I 0....Â·NG Ix-t...6. ----- - E _ F VA- O ./ ./29 CDâ€¢'E EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4-=1'-O* 9,Â·EE T Of 5031]HDUV/S31Â¥IDOSSÂ¥ 9 3:IdINNn) S31UVHJ 065% <,26/FOF 3NO,lcjj131 ,~'Ic)MOCJ'e1O 101 N.3.19 Dic,8 XO8 Oc /4 . erg' 14$ ~J~ LI U / - --21 1 - 1 F eLL-1 LE U r ]ME[ 13 inru ' j 1 .- -J - 0 1.L 1 --1 - -1 U U EXISTING EAST ELEVATION SCALE. 1/4'=1'-O" LC NW 85 u,10 E 2 171 0 Z 02 - ZLL! 9 0<. 1 r Ir== -- Â« Z- t 1,41 - U /-'-.- ======== EN - La Lid oma*ING I.:/102- 5._EVA- 0-6 4Â£30.L rezâ€¢ CAÂ¥E EXISTING WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4-=1'-0- 9./.' 7 Ubbt *6)/El,4 al\JUEW j Jit /17<M U JVME) RJ_J [Nlibl . bt 'Ut IiI 7-7 E-1- 1 / F= Â»% M - j I U -, i W E--Bai -4 1-JI~ H ~'~ --thr 1 -nump - -" 6-7-mul --- 22=-1 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION NW 5~ U,10 ~3 02 5~ <0 g - Z- 4 - men K 1 /,+ lfEEE~y "..= ___~;0, ww 3~ 79. re &0 1 Ill_ 1--- L 1=272 --- -I- 1 . PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 6-E E. O/ 06>56-5/6/FOE BNOI 613131 719:8 OOVAO1O3 N3Â£19\0 De,f XOR O d 9 emNNAD 53-1UVH) ll __ t K\1 ,- - 4 IIM A W -- -- m 33- 4 - - - D-. 1 12 1 ...../.*.- ............. U. - PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 8 m NW te W < 0- F WO B~ r 7 DZ :8 Z LU ~ _0> 7 - 0 40 a Z 132 m : 13 UJUJ 2~ I r=== <RK*-Al-2 Tor 9% 1 - D./*ING . - 0-1 - JOG NED ./.6 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION SHEET o. 0656Â·526/EOE ENOIW3131 21910 OOVNO 10-3 NEdSV 'DEM XO8 Od 1 .-phi :m :m :x EM rAil 11 4.fÂ»lih . 0 \ -I , /r v t -2 8 Z 119 4 0 40 41 -,i>/5 l Z 0 i Pdj :0 H I IÂ« i lououtÂ©lit, < 1. . -W r m H z 1 -1/39*[> Ji r r i ._ - *11 r _L--11 [722 i ~ U 341 00 00 r.. r" 3-glul m- 10 4 H mÂ» t 2 1 CLUE 4 0 33[]24 0 NE 4 33 Ell m 0 -1 m m 1_11_12 A Â§ 0112 3 0 Z 1 1 9 3 8% i HERNANDEZ CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHFTECTS :572 RESIDENCE 9- D 2 V:. 7 SOUTH ELEVATION NOI-LVA373 -LSE, c,SAOH aDVIWEIVO AEVIS,ON .0 11!,1 ' 1 1,11111 11Â©\ 0 / t) I lilli 11 m 11 ~1 0 0 C I m m g M />14/ 0 m 0 11 lITTE :c -- Z 1 n 0 -0 S \\\\\I~ m 0 cut> m -1 m r m ill V 0 Z HERNANDEZ CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS RESIDENCE 432 WEST FRANCIS STREET ASPEN COLORADO PO BOX 3534. ASPEN COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 1 1=-7 ---3 1 1 1 1 1 1 11220 1 1 1 a L ...... _ -__ 1 r- 1 1 1 - 11 H 1 1 H 0 L- N Ill E 9 1 "c- OU--Ih~E C-I' HO... 9.-la 1 - 1 LU O B E 1 L- 3 OZ E~ Z LU U 1 1 40 8 i &gl 1 Z _ a 1 L--1 1 LU (C N ~ 00 6 1 ) 1 1 1 1 1 1 0..WING Exigs-TIN* 1 1 BADE/&11- 1 11 EXISTING BASEMENT PLAN -,Oe No Â®ell L---_--1 1-- - - -1 SCALE: 1/4.= 1.-O. 04Â·r. 11/+/6, I S-EET NO S-,EE T 0. SD311HDUV/S31VIDOSSÂ¥ 9 3331NNn) S3-IHVHJ 0665-5/6/EOE 3NOH,11131 719?le OCJV?1010) Ni]JSV 17Â£5â‚¬ X08 Od ;4EV,SION 7 --- 1 - -2 f 11 91 1 L- CAMIA.4/ t*DU t b --7 1 01 1 1 C- 1 ~ft_C- 3-- v L - P-J.- 15 L - 4 Lte=-92 4 - 44/ C e. 1 - 1 0\ MUPKOOM~' E------1 -*UNOR-Y 7 En=[--Mod 1 _IICI 1 1 1 1 alÂ« L i 11 L---- 1,- -1 t=~ 1 + i h /1 1 1 =*.NECr--~~.. w-r- LL -- 1- --1 # 1 1 3 arar 1 1 3 f a P-t- - - Â£EBEL 1 _d r imailal ~ ~ 11._ L XE22/I - -- L.:zzÂ©l ~~ 1 ht t g al 01 1 21*Â£[ F L c F * i ~ 661 w i --1-TT[Tl 1 / %111 11 1 02 5~ | '1 Liaa ~ ' - 7 / 14 H-fur I '-11 n 1 -2 r-~-1 r C r----- Z Lu g 1 < p Z-t -/1 .0 6 1 1 ' 1./.fl-/c , ....LoU./...... 0 1 1 I 1 ~Vt,4/ .-Â»V./.le..t~ L. 1 1 E 1 1 0./,A'ING L 4.-V 1 1 2.--- I. -/WE 2 li - 11 EN-rptÂ·r rÂ©RcH O 6 41 ~~ I EXISTING LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN -ne Â·./ le./Â°1 ~ SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0~ 7Â»4 6/ 4/ Et C==U==nu 1 1 -2/. 1 1 rt n n C___________1 Â»â‚¬ E ' Cy S1031/HDUV/53.LVE)OSSÂ¥ 9 33=IINNn) S31UVHJ 0655-676/FOF BNOHd]131 /1918 0(3'OjOIO 3 N 3JSV tf SE XOG Od r-'c ~ IrL.~'~ 1-1- 1 Z.IN/<Â£- AOUIC 4//r 1 1 I 1 - I 1 - 1 -- 1 -- , 11 ;1111 'll X 1 11 2 1,1 -- U . .1 4114 lili , '4 1,1 1 A- N LL' 6 ~ 1 11= & 1. 771 CZ 58 Z LU R C~ j L ci- A' 40 4 * 0: 0 m ~W RE F == 9% A"-Ic ef/RÂ» E 1 11 11 1 '|V .....ING 1-.65*INA -'PER- EVEL Flog P-AN EXISTING UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN .JLJO N. B.r'2'1 SCALE: 1/4-=1'-O- DATE 495 1-==1 I 4 \\ SHEET Or 0654-526/ECE 3NOHd3131 t.8 0(]VqjO103 N3dSV DESE )(08 Od ---- - i- 1/ j- r - =Â»Â«*f 3 -=-1 1,1111111 111 11~11~ (11 Il 7- EL - 11111'li~ 1 -6 -1- 4 11,1 1 \ 123 + h %1Â» lillil - n !11 *J / 11 11 -> - /11 , ilil,1,1.1,1,1,1 1 11 M 1 lilli 111111111 i 111 1 -Â«> 111111'111,1111>h,nill,Id'11 1 11 11111!~1111!41 ' 6 +11 -1 1 n 11,11,11 11'111/11'11 111'111'!11111 1.11 *111 O tl~ iIi 1 11 1 111111, lili 111 1 11, 1111:111,1 11 1 4 11 Gil. 4- --Â« m - n â€¢41 41 - /1- X 0 d Z 60 -21 HERNANDEZ CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 1 r:% RESIDENCE ,' 7 2 11 Pcl 432 WEST FRANCIS STREET , _1 ASPEN COLORADO PO BOX 3534. ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 ' 31VO 1.=.//1. :31/OS ON i33-â€¢S W 243 o. lor NV1d =lOU . 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 %1 1 El 1 0 1 1 m 1 I r---- 1 101 T m 1 1,1 m I 1 101 1 -4 % 1 1 11 1 ----7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m 1 tz 1 1 1 1 30 1 1 1 1 10 1 m 1 1 1 K Z OIZ m 6 1 i - mi 1 Z m m OZIE 1 1-m 1 Z V Mci 1 I I r|l g 1--4 1 -------7 , 1 11 Il 1 1 1 1 m 1 JO-4 1 5 I r---4 0 1 1 I I j I 0 1-______1 1 0 1 O-.m ------------4 0 m m Z -1 v z. r o , , 31 7 ZI/ HERNANDEZ CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 9 8 RESIDENCE - G 432 WEST FRANCtS STREET ASPEN COLORADO PO BOX 3534 ASPEN COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 EAC)89 3SnOH ON,1SIXa E T/STORAGE 92 Oe 9 L 01. s Alvis<JN â€¢L 'I 0 -1 C 4-~ n f RF 000 Â· o O 1--1 Z Z C I Th < U -1------ Z 1 Z . O -------1 0 2 1 0 < 1 Ph i -, D --1 121 1 18 1 1-W 1-1- N 7 0 Mi , Itvll -0 - 0 0 9 9 0 E i. 5 - --1 1,-~ EA' 1 r 1 1 I C 0 1 C. 6 11 ; 111 1 j .d] cn &Â·rtril 1 3 11 e 8 +M_____ /4 ij LA-a n 0 U Lfi 0 r m m O 1 1 1 0 4 6 2101 m XI L_/1_1 120 U 2 HERNANDEZ CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS , .6 i RESIDENCE 432 WEST FRANCIS STREET ASPEN COLOAADO 1>0 BOX 3534. ASPEN COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925 5590 00! BATH LIN; illi.'I SE 07 AEviSION -1 2--1 Â§----1 im/ 1 -11%3 m m 0 omn - ----TJ -- ---- 1 .3-~~ 1- -- U=-1 i <511:, 1 0 NO,-4 CO)) m 09 0 8< 0 0 43 z ic) 1 48 1 0 1 Z I ~ EDIE] 1 1 1 T- -1-10 51--1 c=1 -IÂ» 0 0 t== 008 / m 0~ f m vii g 01/ 8 Z o 0 1 1 1-'-1 C ~0 '0 m Il 0 U1 Z'\ 0\ 1/ 8 & NA HERNANDEZ CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHKECTS 8 1 : RESIDENCE : 432 WEST FRANCIS STREET ASPEN COLORADO PO BOX 3534. ASPEN CO.JEADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 I'll~'241 NV-Id 23001=1 13Aa-1 97 03 'EVISION