The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19880628A k AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE June 28, 1988 - Tuesday 4:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. First Floor Council Chambers City Hall REGULAR MEETING 4:00 I. Roll Call II. Approval of Minutes-June 14, 1988 III. Committee Member and Staff comments IV. Public Comments V. Monitoring Projects k; tud ; 3,0,t<u.--vu- - Ad..#3Â¢e OCIA_7 VI. OLD BUSINESS I A. Final Development Review: 134 W. Hopkins renovation, removal and relocation B. 334 W. Hallam-carriage house renovation Marta Chaikovska and Frank Peters F Applicant request for discussion VII. A. Staff presentation of Marolt Barn Project: a) rating, designation and grant request b) State Hwy. Dept. meeting c) HPC endorsement of Historical Society's barn renovation plans B. Discussion of additional inventory update and rating projects, i.e. 1986 Castle Creek Power Station C. Staff presentation of State CLG Historic District Report D. Review and discussion of Historic Preservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan: request by chairman Bill Poss (please bring your copy) E. Renovator's Handbook and Network list of professional preservation craftspeople (memo attached) F. "Developing a Local Historic Trust" presentation/ meeting at HPC July 12 meeting (memo attached) 2 L G. Historical Society's Centennial Celebration of the Wheeler Stallard House in July. r h HPC. MINUTES June 14, 1988 MAROLT BARN/RANCHING MUSEUM .........3 FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 113 E. HOPKINS AVE. .....3 FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW-334 W. HALLAM AVE. .....5 FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW-212 W. HOPKINS .....11 FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW-516 E. HYMAN AVE. ..........11 - 15 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall June 14, 1988 2:30 pm Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Nick Pasquarella, Augie Reno, Charles Cunniffe and Georgeann Waggaman present. Zoe Compton was absent. Excused were Patricia O'Bryan, Charlie Knight and Joe Krabacher. MOTION: Nick made the motion to approve the minutes of April 26th and May 24, 1988. Charles second. Motion carries. STAFF COMMENTS Roxanne: We have been receiving a lot of public inquiries from California, New Zealand and New Mexico requesting copies of our guidelines. I am working on developing a bike route through the west end and both the districts. I have reviewed the mechanical equipment on the roof at 520 E. Hyman. There is one shiny aluminum stove pipe that projects only visible from across the street. I talked to the Bldg. Dept. and they never granted a permit. Augie: To clear up the retraction, Madelyn said that the Amato residence was an unanimous vote in favor of the project and I wanted to clarify that there was one person against the project. PUBLIC COMMENT .Mary Martin: I have to make a comment about moving any 4 or 5's out of the historic center. I worked hard for an overlay and one of the reasons was to protect those houses in the City's district. Even though you go by State guidelines, National guidelines they are not mandatory and they cannot be made mandatory to anyone historic preservation citizens group. This is a small town and the historic part of it in which you are to take clrarge is very precious and it is slowly eroding. That doesn't mean to me that you can move an historic structure 4 and 5 out of its site; it relates to that site to make the whole historic district. You are charged to preserve not just the house but the district. We have seen houses and buildings changed and it is slowly eroding. It is time for us to say no. I would fight for the Berko building moving it up if that helps for the alignment of the street and it helps the builder to realize its potential out of his investment. I feel these big victorians right in the heart of the City are what make Aspen and give it its distinctive flavor vs. any other town in Colorado. I also feel you have fallen back on your tolerance of an addition, of a victorian style addition and I don't think that is fair either and I'll come back and talk with you every time you have a meeting if that is what you are going to do because this Board is over staffed with business people right now and not the people HPC. MINUTES June 14, 1988 who live in the victorians. I think it should be put in your code that a portion of this Board should be a layman who lives in the historic district or an historic house. I also would like you to put in your demolition standards a strong rule on demolition of 4 and 5's in the historic districts. The houses belong where they were built. You could pass an ordinance that deals with the historic commercial district that would preserve more. Also in the demolition standards the wording needs changed to include the historic district. Bill: Roxanne would you look into that. Bill: The Berko project has not come before us yet. Charles: When we came before HPC there were several suggestions and one of them was to move it. We have not decided what we are going to do. Each situation has to be reviewed uniquely. Mary: You should pass a law that it cannot be moved that it has to remain on its site. Roxanne: Do you specifically mean the commercial core site. Mary: I think Main St. and the commercial core, both districts. Charles: On the Marolt property you were in favor of having the City allow victorian houses to be moved to the Marolt property. Mary: They were the old miners cottages that were given a 2 and 3. Charles: A two and three you can just demolish. Mary: In my opinion no four or five ever should be moved. Nick: I do agree that in the future there should be a non- business person added to the Board. Nick: There is nothing objectionable about Elli's roof as it blends in quite well and the colors look good. Whatever has been added for the restaurant is hardly noticeable. I am signing off as monitor of Elli's as everything is in compliance. Augie: On the Barnett residence I talked to Welton Anderson and he looked at the corner in question. He thought there was a framing there and some cornice trim work below the roof that the carpenters didn't allow for. When you are looking at the 2 HPC. MINUTES June 14, 1988 building straight from the street you can't notice it. When you are looking from the northwest corner it does curve a little bit. I told Welton the Board would get back with him. Welton would also like to add a window to the east side of the garage, a double hung window. He will be doing a sketch and to me it seems insignificant. MAROLT BARN/RANCHING MUSEUM Roxanne: The Historical Society is very interested in obtaining the barn and turning it into a combination ranching/mining museum with a concentration on farm implements. The project is now encompassing the 1.9 acres immediately around the barn. The entire project is open space owned by the City. Our focus is in support of the Historical Society's efforts with regard to the barn structure itself. It is not a designated structure therefore we can't take formal action. I am recommending that we go through a designation process which we can recommend. Mark Fowler, Aspen Historical Society: We met with the interns to see what development had come along with the property. Five options were given. It is open space vs. the employee housing vs. a City park vs. the barn. We didn't think there would be so many other interests. One of the biggest concerns is that Tom Baker does not feels if we want 1.9 acres that we will get 1.9 acres and it would have to go back to the vote of the people. If we want to restore the barn fine but as far as anything else it is questionable. With the acreage people could actually see the machines. We are looking at $40,000 for restoration of the barn. Another concern was access parking. Another issue was moving the bike path as it exists to avoid the congestion that is there right now. These are ideas that we would like to see. The barn would have to be moved if the alternative highway straight shot is taken. We do not want to see the barn moved. Roxanne: This was the barn that was connected with the Lixiviation Project that closed down in 1893. It is my recommendation as preservationist that the barn not be moved and maintained on site and preserved. I would like to get a support letter from HPC of what you would like to see happen on that particular site for next weeks meeting. Nick: I'm a past vice-president of the Aspen Historical Society and will attend the meeting Friday also. FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 113 E. HOPKINS AVE. Roxanne: On March 22nd HPC reviewed and approved the conceptual development plan which included a partial demolition of the 1972 addition plus a plan for the two story addition, a demolition of 3 HPC. MINUTES June 14, 1988 the rear shed off the alley and its replacement of a new one car garage. The motion passed granting conceptual development with the following conditions that the applicant provide alternative design studies in respect to the dormers, porch and windows of the front elevation and that the applicant come back with detailed samples of materials which he has. Also a letter of structural integrity which is in the packet. Gary will explain the change and new location of the one story garage. It is moved slightly to the west and with access off the alley. Staff finds that this is not a major change and is acceptable. He will present new garage elevations. Dormers: HPC has required that he restudy the front elevation dormers. He has presented a second story dormer that is reduced in size which nearly matches the adjacent dormer. We find that the reduction is more in scale with the remaining fenestration. The front elevation porch was discussed at conceptual and HPC found it to be more of a "mirror image" of the original historic porch possibly as a conflict. The applicant restudied that entire front facade going so far as to remove the porch entirely which they found complete unacceptable. He prefers the porch design to remain as submitted. That particular addition does step back about 20 ft. from the facade of the main house. It is screened by a lot of trees and vegetation and staff agrees in part with HPC's opinion about the new porch being too much of a replication however in restudying we feel that a certain balance in detailing is necessary. One alternative you may want to do is ask the applicant to submit a detailed drawing on simplified details such as the brackets, turned columns. The material structural analysis letter is included. We find that the application meets all the criteria of HPC's conceptual development approval and we would recommend approval along with partial demolition. Bill Drueding: Are you reducing any bedrooms in the existing house. Gary Bucher, owner: No, there are three bedrooms in the house. Bill D: What parking did you have there before. Gary: There is a shed behind and we want to put the car in the garage rather than let it sit in the alley. Roxanne: You had no on-site parking. Gary: There is a head in one parking space on the property. Gary: We are trying to keep the garage a low profile for view of the mountain. I brought a sample of the metal roof with stainless steel in the center and the turned coating on the outside. We are going to use the rabbited siding to curtail any 4 HPC. MINUTES June 14, 1988 possible curling. The other concern was shifting the garage over where it might possibly be seen from the E. Hopkins side of the street. I took pictures and you probably wouldn't see the garage at all just the tree on the side of it. Roxanne: You are demolishing the back addition that has two bedrooms. Gary: Yes. Bill: You are demolishing the shed entirely. Gary: Yes. Nick: On a on site view you can see the definition between the new building and the addition. Gary: The addition is masked by the two maple trees in front as well as the pine tree. Bill: We have certain issues that need to be looked at: the front porch, the garage which is being relocated, materials and the second story dormer on the front facade. Augie: On the front porch is there any access. Gary: On the side. MOTION: Bill made the motion to approve the application that -meets the criterior in the HPC's conceptual development approval and recommends approval of the partial demolition and final development application for 113 E. Hopkins Avenue. Nick second. All approved. Motion carries. Georgeann didn't vote. FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW-334 W. HALLAM AVE. Bill stepped down. Roxanne: 334 W. Hallam is before us for final development review for the partial demolition, the alterations, the addition and the carriage house renovation. On March 8th HPC passed the conceptual development approval and on April 6th the applicant returned requesting an amendment to the original plan which HPC approved. It went last night before City Council and has received its final designation on second reading and the $2,000 incentive grant was awarded since the property was rated #5. Primarily the issues we are dealing with are the carriage house. It becomes very close to being a demolition however in reviewing it with the state historic preservation officer she agrees that it is a partial demolition and a reconstruction. The plans 5 HPC. MINUTES June 14, 1988 remain very similar to those that were already approved. It is a two bedroom dwelling with a four ft. expansion to the east. It does have a small west elevation porch, very simple; however, it does encroach slightly into the setback and that does require HPC to grant a variation in the motion that such encroachment is more compatible with the historic structure. The gable peak height remains identical to the existing height. The lines of the four foot extension are exactly identical to the carriage house. They intend to keep the structural members in place and remove all the exterior fabric and replace. It was my original recommendation that they try to incorporate as much as they could into the new. I am not sure they can do that at all as it is in sad shape. The materials will match what is there. With regard to parking it is required in code that for each new bedroom that is created that one new parking space must be provided on site. The current site contains two spaces that have served the existing four bedroom home, those are fine. We need to make sure two additional spaces are provided for the two new parking spaces. The applicant submitted a revised site plan option B in your packet which shows the two spaces are encroaching into the City's right-of-way. This is a touchy issue with regard to the Engineering Dept. in that they are not OK with just signing off on that even finding that the preservation issues connected with the carriage house make it OK for that to happen and 3rd street is sited for sidewalk and gutter because it is a major route into the music tent area. Therefore any development that goes on along 3rd street is required to have that upgrade going on. There are several site issues that the applicant is dealing with separate from us and they are going to be taking it through an encroachment license through Council and that is recommended through the Eng. Dept. That is not in our preview to review. The alignment of the carriage house does not change and neither does the garage that connects the two. It is a matter of whether they go before P&Z, pay a fee and go through an application and request a reduction in parking or whether they provide the parking which is certainly our recommendation on site but encroach into the right-of-way. They are dealing with that right now. The main structure and the addition, no changes from the conceptual development approval and the amendment have been proposed. The main house restoration facades are considered phase #2. The owners plan to occupy the carriage house while the renovation of the new structure is taking place which includes a basement which they will be excavating under the new addition, the demolition of the 1960's addition and then adding on. We have received the structural letter that states that the main building is very sound and that in their opinion there will be no undermining of the structures stability with regard to the addition. The allowable floor area is another issue. The calculations of the entire project have been recalculated by the applicant. It shows that it is exactly 500 sq. ft. over the 6 HPC. MINUTES June 14, 1988 allowed limit of FAR which HPC may approve a variation finding that the FAR is more compatible with the historic structure due to the renovation of the carriage house into a dwelling unit. We are trying to preserve carriage houses as much as we possibly can and therefore by increasing the square footage it throws us over the FAR. That needs to be included in the motion. They have a Phase II restoration. We strongly recommend that every effort be made to preserve and carefully restore those details that make this property a true historic Aspen landmark. The materials will match the new siding and will be painted. The existing siding is in very good shape and will be repaired and painted as suggested. The wood windows will also be repaired and repainted. The roofing materials will be roof shingles on both the carriage house and the main structure. The windows are wood easement and double hung. We recommend approval granting the following variations: the encroachment of the new porch of the carriage house into the required setback has been found to be more compatible to the historic structure and that the FAR limit has been exceeded by 500 sq. ft. due to the adapted renovation of the carriage house which HPC finds to be more compatible with the historic structure. We also recommend that the carriage house not be lifted up for foundation repair or replacement purposes but remain situated on the site. There was a possibility of that going on. We are concerned that it will not withstand any kind of major lifting. Trish Harris: With regards to the foundation we have talked with the owners today and they are saying they would prefer that there be a basement under the carriage house. As long as they were going to pour a four foot foundation wall they felt they should just go ahead and do a basement. In order to do that we would have to move the house and the structural engineer said it could withstand some movement. You could keep this separate from the final approvement if you find that necessary. Roxanne: You are already up to the limit on FAR; how many more square feet would you be adding. Trish: A lot of the additional square footage was in the sun space are and we would try to trim that down that area and put some storage in there but it would be underground so I don't think we have to count that as it would be totally subterranean. Bill D.: The basement would be exempt from floor area ratio as it is 100% below grade. It adds to the impact and must be used for storage. The entrance would have to be through an inside stairway. Trish: We are adding a basement under the main house. 7 ' f HPC. MINUTES June 14, 1988 Georgeann: Roxanne is concerned about the moving of the carriage house. Trish: As far as moving it the structural engineer thinks it should be moved anyway. We are digging a four foot trench to put in the wall and he feels it should be moved because it would be very hard to dig under the house even the four feet and to pour the cement. We thought of moving it to the rear yard. Bill D.: If you can move this house and put in a new foundation then why shouldn't it be moved out of the setbacks. The reason for allowing setbacks is because things cannot be moved. Roxanne: I would have a problem with HPC approving something like this without a clear site plan and how it works. Georgeann: The historic designation is on the whole parcel. Charles: We discussed before adding 4 feet to the carriage house and HPC approved that. Looking at the site plan I thought the sun space was to be moved back further. Roxanne: The applicant argued that the sun space had to be that way and we approved it. Charles: Before the sun space was not flexible and now it is? If it is a trade off between the sunspace and the carriage space as I understand it, the sun space is flexible so that the carriage space can work. If they are willing to do that then we -should consider that the sun space is not a dead issue. Georgeann: We would be more inclined to give them the basement if they would keep the sun space small. The client said originally that it would be a major hardship for them without the sun space. Trish: I got this dropped on me before the meeting and I do agree that the sun space is very important to them. I have not discussed this with the clients. The sun space and the 4 ft. were already approved. Georgeann: This issue now is final and the basement under the carriage house. The concern of Roxanne's is moving the carriage house. Roxanne: If we are resetting the carriage house all the issues change and perhaps we should table this until we know what the clients want. Trish: I would rather you not table it. 8 HPC. MINUTES June 14, 1988 Roxanne: Final means stamped approval. Georgeann: Then she would have to come back to us completely for the new basement if they want it. Roxanne: If in fact they are going to move this structure that is considered demolition and that goes through a public hearing process. Bill D.: They are going for variances because they say this is where things have to be because they can't be moved. Now they are saying they can move it. How many considerations should they get. Should we deal with the fact that it can be moved. Nick: You are going to move it to put the foundation in then move it back. Charles: That was the idea. Bill D.: The point is if they are going to move it off then they could put it back somewhere else behind the setbacks. Georgeann: If you have to put a foundation under a wood building I have seen them in a lot of cases jack the building up and pour a foundation beneath. Is that more or less hard on the building then it would be to move it. Jacking it up has to be hard on the building also. Charles: You have to jack it up to move it horizontally. Georgeann: So the shock to the building is 70% to jack it up and 30% moving it over. Augie: You could under pin it. Trish: There is under pining and that is a possibility. It is much more costly but is feasible to under pin one side at a time to pour the four foot wall. Charles: They could take the siding off and jack up the frame. Trish: We presented it to you before that it was going to be a skeleton. Nick: The vertical 2 by 4's can be saved but the siding is in bad shape. Augie: If what I hear happens we are going to maybe have a skeleton, move it, allow them to change the length of the 9 HPC. MINUTES June 14, 1988 building, change it by adding dormers etc. so do we really have a structure that is historically renovated or do we have some new building? Roxanne: It is reconstruction. Georgeann: This sounds like the ramifications are complicated. Roxanne: If it is moved it is considered demolition. Georgeann: Possibly we should approve the plans as presented from conceptual and if they want to alter the carriage house for whatever reason then they would have to come back to us. Roxanne: You could approve it as is and if anything is altered they couldn't get a building permit anyway. Georgeann: In Roxanne's memo why are we giving then an encroachment on the new porch. Trish: Because there is a different entrance, it is an entrance porch. The way it is now is on the south side next to the existing car port. Georgeann: If she didn't extend out beyond the existing building line why would she need more of an encroachment. Why wouldn't it be just grandfathered in. Bill D.: There is a five ft. setback minimum and is probably 7 on this lot. The house is already encroaching into the setbacks, the carriage house by a couple of feet. You cannot increase an encroachment without a variance. Georgeann: We decided that it was more compatible. Georgeann: We are inclined to give them approval as is without moving the carriage house. We would also need a motion that would incorporate the encroachment of the new porch into the required setback and eliminate the FAR. MOTION: Augie made the motion that HPC approve the partial demolition and final development of 334 W. Hallam St. granting the following variations: 1. The encroachment of the new porch of the carriage house into the required setback is found to be more compatible to the historic structure. 2. The applicant meets the required parking requirements and should be reviewed by the Eng. Dept. 10 HPC. MINUTES June 14, 1988 3. That the carriage house not be lifted up for foundation repair or replacement purposes and remain situated on site and if it is moved or lifted up then the applicant is required to come back for further approval. Nick second the motion. All favored. Motion carries. FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW-212 W. HOPKINS Charles stepped down. Roxanne: No changes have been presented from the revised conceptual. He did reduce the height of the building and it came up 5 3/4 inches almost to 22 ft. It is still lower and staff finds that the additional inches are not a negative. Jan Derrington: The shingles are charcoal gray and match the shingles that are there. They will be using Marvin windows with a factory baked on white finish. Windows will be single glazed with storm panel on the inside. All the others that don't have true divided lights are 3/4 inch insulating glass. Bill: I have no problems with anything. Bill: Roxanne is the application in order and do you feel comfortable that you have all the back up material. Roxanne: Yes. Bill: I will entertain a motion that recommends final development approval of 212 W. Hopkins finding the setback variation to be more compatible. MOTION: Nick, I so move. Georgeann second the motion. Motion carries. FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW-516 E. HYMAN AVE. Bill stepped down. Roxanne: This is for the final development review of 516 E. Hyman, the mouse house bldg. phase I and phase II. This includes the entire demolition of the building and includes the redevelopment of a commercial building, a one story of 2,250 sq. ft. for the first floor which is considered phase I and Phase II which is subject to GMP allocation is 2250 sq. ft. It is my recommendation that if a motion be made that it include an approval for Phase I and an approval for Phase II which includes 11 HPC. MINUTES June 14, 1988 Phase I so that the applicant does not have to come back before HPC after they go through competition. Georgeann: In other words so they can either build the whole thing or build half of it either way. Roxanne: At conceptual there were a few concerns: that detailed representation of materials be made which they have done. That the second floor central window be studied as to how the window spacing may better relate to the historic upper story window pattern and how these windows may give a stronger sense of verticality. The windows originally presented were more contemporary and were trying to read as a separate structure but the revised fenestration shows picking up more of a design in staffs opinion of the Pitkin Center Building and does address in our opinion HPC's concern. It is an improved fenestration. Also further study of how all the materials relate as to whether it was picking up too much of the adjacent building or that it wasn't reading enough of a separate structure. Also how the steps and the railing go up to the Mason Morse bldg. which is next door. I would like to deal with the triangular parapet issue. Kim Weil: The building is 15 ft. back from the property line and I brought a model for the Board to review. The code says it would have to sit 5 ft. behind Mason and Morse. Under the final landuse code we do not have to conform to the open space rules. We are able to reconstruct up to where the old building was which was a 3 ft. setback. We need a 15 ft. setback. It is just ahead of Mason Morse building but behind Pitkin Center. We would start construction late July and early August. Sept. 15th we submit for GMP. Roxanne: As a one story structure it reads as OK. Staffs concern regarding the parapet is yes they are found throughout and they are used in new commercial structures to replicate some victorian detailing. Just as an option maybe it is a little dominant and needs softened. The parapet above the center floor window I personally feel is a nice design. You will notice that there are a double set of doors at the Main entrance into the center area. The molding was square and rectangular which reads more historic. The transom windows will be operable above the doors. Kim Weil: We will have an awning down below. We had thought about using two different bricks so it appears that the center mass comes through another mass. All four of the buildings are relatively new. We want to keep it brick because it is in-fill and it is only 60 ft. from Hyman and Galena St. Brick and sandstone is important in the historic area. There would be 12 HPC. MINUTES June 14, 1988 sandstone and brick banding. The back area one color and the part that sticks out a complimentary color. Our thought is to make it an understatement but stately. Roxanne: The tile has been eliminated from the plan. Nick: How will the wall look at Mason and Morse. Kim: They have a real narrow stairway and we had to put the wall up as we don't know if the tenants will be compatible. We will do a planting area to soften the corner of the wall. We would do a post type of sign in the planting area rather than attaching something to the building. They have not seen the design yet (Bob George). Somebody told me when he built the wall it was to hide the building that was there. They did say they would take it down when the development happened but I have not been able to get a copy of their GMP. The side of Pitkin Center is a finished wall. Georgeann: I don't mind the parapets but I find the top of the windows unfinished as most windows are capped. Kim: I was trying to make it pseudo victorian with a serious victorian, the double hung windows. Georgeann: Which would be the light brick and which the darker. Kim: I go back and forth but the darker brick is in the center. Charles: We didn't get into the paving but that is part of the recommendation. Kim: I am going to do something to break up the concrete other than just score it. The tinted concrete is not acceptable to CCLC. We will do gray concrete with divided strips, possibly turning the brick on edge. Augie: Since the plaza area is contiguous, the Pitkin Center, I think that yours should be the same and I would think the CCLC would be in favor of that. To switch to another material would be out of place. Charles: The building would have more strength if the paving blends in with the surrounding sidewalk. Nick: Do you plan on snow melt. Kim: Yes. MOTION: Charles made a motion to recommend approval of the demolition and final development at 516 E. Hyman Ave. for Phase I 13 HPC. MINUTES June 14, 1988 and also recommend approval of final development for Phase II which is subject to GMP allocation with the condition that the applicant further study the plaza area paving issue with modifications to the approved development plan being submitted for staff review and approval. Augie second the motion. All approved. Motion carries. Adjourned 5:05 Kathleen J. Strickland 14 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Final Development Review, 134 W. Hopkins, Lots K and L Date: June 28, 1988 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting HPC's final development review approval for the following project: to renovate the existing house and add a 4' addition to the rear at 134 W. Hopkins, Lot K; to move the house presently at 120 N. Spring to the property, Lot L; and add a two story addition and garage to the rear of the house to be moved. SUMMARY: The project involves a variety of issues for its successful completion, designed to rescue an endangered historic resource returning Lots K and L into a semblance of their appearance in the 1880's, preserving both structures. Lot L at one time contained a miner's cottage which was removed in the 1940's. The proposed setback for the relocated structure on Lot L is 13', as required by HPC at Conceptual Development approval. The separation between structures is shown to be 8' 3" and is aided with landscaping. Other issues with this project are: 1. Historic Landmark Designation: Accomplished by Council June 13, 1988 at 2nd reading of the designation ordinance. Designation runs with the entire parcel, both lots K and L, therefore, both structures are designated on the one site. 2) Condominiumization (Conditional Use Approval): This was accomplished through Council approval also on June 13, 1988, after P&Z recommended approval of "subdivision exception for the purpose of condominiumizing the two residences on 134 W. Hopkins" subject to a variety of conditions. 3) Special Review for parking reduction: also approved by P&Z. Four on-site spaces are being provided; a reduction of one. 4) Area and Bulk Variations: Specific to the rear setback encroachment for the Lot L structure addition and the exceeding FAR due to second structure added to the parcel, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. This finding must be included in the motion for approval. PRIOR COMMITTEE ACTION: HPC approved the Conceptual Development Review for this project on January 6, 1988. The HPC Final Development Approval is the final step through the planning - . procedure for a building permit to be granted. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: For ease in discussion, each element of this project is broken down as follows: Demolition-Removal and Resiting: No changes have been presented from the Conceptual Approval in this Final Development application for the removal of the structure presently located at 120 N. Spring. It is threatened with immediate razing due to the 700 E. Main Project, which final plat should be approved within the next two weeks. The timing and coordination of the 120 N. Spring relocation is critical to the entire project. The applicant states the actual structure removal from 120 N. Spring will probably occur within six weeks from Final Development Approval. We understand this may be too lengthy a time for the 700 E. Main developer's project. Staff STRONGLY recommends the applicant immediately begin (or continue) a dialogue with the 700 E. Main developers to coordinate efforts, as it appears both projects are getting down to the wire quickly. Staff finds the standards for "demolition" (removal and relocation) have been met, as thoroughly discussed during Conceptual Development review. The Planning Office is extremely supportive of the relocation option over complete demolition. This project takes advantage of the designation incentives excellently, and the Planning Office feels the 134 W. Hopkins site (Lot L) suits the shotgun-style miner' s cottage very well. We also agree with the applicant that "this development will increase the prominence of renovated Victorian houses in the neighborhood and allow the public to continue to see examples of historic structures and neighborhoods illustrating the family/home environment of the silver mining era." Staff finds the effects of the proposed development on the neighborhood positive, historically and architecturally enhancing the West Aspen Mountain neighborhood. Site Prep and Moving: Staff is concerned regarding the physical moving of the structure, recommending Lot L site prep be completed prior to lifting the 120 N. Spring structure. The applicant states in his application that all site preparation work Will be completed, including utilities, foundation and concrete work prior to lifting the 120 N. Spring structure. Some interior demolition work is apparently required to allow for proper bracing and connections of the house movers girders to the floor system. The house will be moved by truck south on Spring Street to Hopkins Avenue, then west to the site. Again, site prep and removal coordination must be timed well to prevent any mishap to the historic structure being moved. Spruce tree relocation and landscaping: The plans show the Lot L spruce tree is to be relocated west into the South First 2 Street right-of-way, adjacent to the three parking spaces in Lot K. Staff has concerns regarding the methods planned for its removal and relocation. Per Chuck Roth in the Engineering Department, details must be worked out with the city regarding locating trees in the right-of-way. This parcel is within the "5' wide sidewalk district", and therefore a 7' high trimming requirement is necessary to prevent the canopy impeding pedestrian traffic. Spruce tree roots spread out laterally, and its close proximity to the proposed paved parking area may prevent needed moisture to penetrate, causing stress to the tree. The Planning Office recommends the applicant meet with Bill Ness with the City's Parks Department, or his representative, regarding the tree relocation issue, to find the best alternative possible. Responsibility of the right-of-way is required of the adjacent owner. Landscaping is an important element of preservation development, and staff recommends every caution be taken with the existing vegetation and newly added plant materials. A visual buffer hedge is proposed along the west side of the parking area, which staff finds mitigates the visual effect somewhat from the view along South First Street. The applicant will address more completely the entire landscape plan at this meeting. Review Standards for Development: 134 W. Hopkins, Lot K, (existing) Summary: Owner Julie Wyckoff has chosen Welton Anderson as architect. The plans for the structure's renovation include a 4' addition to the rear, creating needed kitchen floor area. The primary aspect of this structure's renovation is the removal of the incompatible asphalt siding, replacing with new wood bevel siding. This specific renovation work is a condition of the landmark designation. The entire project will be phased due to economic considerations of the owner. Staff finds the development activity meets each of the review standards. Lot K specifics: The Conceptual Development approval contained four (4) conditions for the detailed rehabilitation of the existing house. These have been met in this final development application and are reiterated with additional new staff comments below: Condition A: Method of removing asbestos siding (now determined to be asphalt), restoration of existing siding and replacement of matching siding. Response: The plans do not address the possibility of the restoration of the existing underlying wood siding, which is a preferred activity. The application reflects all new bevel siding will replace the removed incompatible asphalt 3 siding, and will be painted. Staff recommends the applicant .- restore that siding which is capable of restoration, and replace with matching material only where necessary. Original historic fabric should be retained whenever possible. Staff recommends this activity be primary in the project's construction schedule. Condition B: Plans for new roofing, alterations to front porch, and any other architectural elements of the rehabilitation project and materials shall also be presented. Response: The plans show the roofing material to be new black asphalt shingles as opposed to wood or metal. Staff prefers the use of more historically accurate wood shingles, finding that material generally softens the appearance of additions to historic structures. However, this is a material which may be used to replace the proposed asphalt shingles at a future time. The removal of the asphalt siding alone is a tremendous improvement, enabling the character of this historic home to, once again, be revealed. The front porch will receive fairly simple turned wood columns, replacing the current iron columns. Staff finds this simple alteration much preferred, and recommends the applicant research the original column design, with the goal of accurate replication. Other architectural changes include the new 4' addition to the rear at ground level, creating a new 14' extension to the upper floor, to be used as the second bedroom. This is a shed roof addition, not visible from Hopkins Street. Accessed off this second floor bedroom is a 8' X 11' roof deck, located on the northeast corner and visible from the Lot L addition. The roof porch railing and spindles are squared and simple in design. The alignment of the addition follows the general outline of the house, with two slight 18" undulating stepbacks along the west elevation, helping break up the massing along the South First Street side. These two stepbacks create three 14' lengths, broken by two new upper floor gabled 1-to-1 pitch dormers decorated with fishscale cut wood shingles in the gable face. Wood sash double hung windows appear on all elevations, shown to nearly duplicate the historic windows in scale and size. No changes are proposed for the existing windows, except restoration. The rear porch is an adorned shed-roof entrance into the mudroom, with two columns replicating those proposed for the front porch. Solid standard size double doors are proposed for this rear entrance. The dormers are further discussed in the response to Condition C below. 4 Condition C: Plans showing the new east-facing dormer on Lot K to be reduced in size to two small dormers. Response: The new plans reflect this required change, an improvement to this elevation, in our opinion. The plans propose to remove the original shed dormers on the front elevation and the east, rebuilding with gabled dormers. Some speculation by staff previously as the historic accuracy of these shed dormers was put to rest by the previous owner stating they were original. Whether they are original or added at a later date, the problem remains with lack of head room, available light and floor space into those second story rooms. The owner wishes to increase all of these areas, which the proposed plans would accomplish. HPC should again weigh the historic accuracy issue vs. the current owners' requirements issue, AND shed vs. gable. In our opinion, the gable dormers are probably more architecturally pleasing, and are of a small enough scale to not be an overwhelming "new" detail. The two smaller east elevation dormers vs. one larger one is an improvement, in our opinion. Condition D: Structural analysis of the house sufficient to assure that the proposed alterations will not undermine the structure leading to major reconstruction or demolition. Response: The application includes only a structural response letter with regard to the relocated structure, Lot L and does not address the changes proposed for Lot K. Staff recommendations that HPC require the applicant to provide a letter meeting the above requirement prior to approved plans being released to the building department for permitting. Lot L (Relocated Structure) Summary: The architect for this site is Roger Kerr. His plans reflect a 13' setback and the removal of the approvimately 18' spruce tree. The two story addition includes a one car garage, accessed off the alley. A 10' X 18' ground level patio is located near the center of the lot next to the gallery connector from the original historic structure to the new addition. The gallery enters into the courtyard via two sets of French Doors. The addition's maximum height at ridgeline is shown to be 22' 6", with the median pitch height at 16' 6". Staff finds the development activity meets each of the review standards. Lot L Specifics: The Conceptual Development approval contained five (5) conditions to be met at Final Review, which have been met and are discussed below: Condition A: Detailed moving and restoration plans for the 5 house at 120 N. Spring St. shall be submitted for final . development review including the method of moving the house to assure that the structure will remain in tact. Response: This has been previously addressed in this memo under "Demolition: Removal and Resiting". See Page Two. Staff again stresses the importance of utilizing proper stabilization and moving methods, which the applicant has addressed. (No doubt the entire Committee will be on hand to witness this one!) Condition B: The front yard setback to be a minimum of 13 feet and further studied regarding compatibility with the existing residence. Response: The plans reflect this change, which staff agrees with HPC makes this a more compatible siting. Condition C: The east side yard setback shall be a minimum of five (5) feet and further studied to incorporate in the design sufficient space for vegetation and separation from the next-door neighbor. Response: The structures are 8' 3" apart, meeting this HPC requirement. The applicant states landscaping is included in the overall project, however, Lot L landscape specifics have not been called out on the plans. The applicant will address this issue in more detail at this meeting. Condition D: Total site coverage of the proposed development shall be studies to be as close to 40% of the site as possible after they move the setback. Response: The site coverage has been recalculated for the entire parcel, reflecting a slight increase (73 sq.ft.) over the desired 40% coverage. Site coverage is now at 43. 6%, which staff finds reasonable with this project. This is due to the existing house 4' addition (Lot K) to accommodate a more functional kitchen. The Lot L house on the other hand has been decreased in size slightly due to the increase in front yard setback. Condition E: Lowering the height of the addition shall be studies as to how the addition relates to the height and massing of the original house. Response: The precedent for two story additions the smaller Victorian era homes has been set in this community. Their impact in relation to simple one story historic cottages is a sensitive issue. Even more dramatic is the impact a two- story addition has on a shotgun-type cottage, revered for its extreme lines and simple ornamentation. It is, 6 however, our opinion that the height of the proposed Lot L addition is adequate in compatibility to the historic structure. To provide the needed floor space in a 30 x 100 sq. ft. lot, preserve a relocated historic home AND add a compatible addition is difficult at best, and Staff is pleased with the plans as presented. Staff feels the applicant has met this condition. The front setback from the south property line to the beginning of the addition is over 71', and from the south edge of the main facade is 58.2'. The massing of the addition in relation to the historic resource is lessened due to front setback, in our opinion. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends Final Development approval for the property at 134 W. Hopkins, Lots K and L, including the relocation of the historic structure currently located at 120 N. Spring to Lot L subject to the restoration where possible of the original wood siding to the Lot K structure. With the approval, HPC grants the rear setback variation required for the new addition to the Lot L structure, and area and bulk variation, finding such variations to be more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. hpc.memo.134whf 7 roger kerr and associates architects 06-G pacific avenue aspen, co 81611 303 925-8289 June 13. 1988 Ms. Roxanne Elfin .AN 1 4 1988 Historic Preservation Specialist Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Re: Final Development Plan involving a Historic Designation for Lots K and L, Block 59, City and Townsite of Aspen Ladies and Gentleman: Julie Wykoff and Peter Carley, owners of subject property request review and approval of the following project: the basic plan is to remodel the existing house situated on Lot K, and then move, pursuant to the incentive provisins of Ordinance 42, and additional historic house to Lot L. Both houses would then be extensively remodeled in a victorian motif. Details of the plans are enclosed. The plans prepared by Welton Anderson represent Julie Wykoffs renovation for the existing house on Lot K. The plans prepared by Roger Kerr, represent the moved Spring Street house, addition and renovation for Lot L. We are also requesting relief as permitted under Ordinance 42 for minimum setback, site coverage and minimum distance between building variations as set forth on the plans which are generally within the spirit of what the H.P.C. approved at the January 12th meeting. The following is a breakdown of the Site, Area and Bulk Characteristics: Lot Area: 6000 s.f. (approx.) Existing House Floor Area 1301 s.f. Addition to Existing House 256 s.f. Remodedled Attic Area 165 s.f. Moved House Floor Area 748 s.f. Addition to Moved House 803 s.f. Proposed Total Floor Area 3273 s.f. Max. Allowed Floor Area 3240 s.f. (excluding 500 (Without Ordinance 42) s.f. Garage) Existing Site Coverage 1048 s.f. (18%) Proposed Total Site Coverage 2617 s.f. (43.6%) Page 1 5 . June 13, 1988 Page 2 Following is a summary of the issues we were requested to address at the HPC Conceptual Development Approval meeting and are numbered to correspond to the Conceptual Development Review Standards: 1. Regarding the Front Yard Setback: We increased the Front Yard Setback from 10 ft.to 13 ft. as discussed at the meeting. This is more in character with the existing 16.5 ft. Front Yard Setback at Lot K. The Site Coverage is at 43.6%. An increase of 73 s.f. An addition to the existing house on Lot K, is shown to accomodate a more functional kitchen renovation and addition. The Conceptual submittal was at 2,544 s.f. and this submittal is at 2617 s.f. The square footage is at 3273 s.f., an increase of 47 s.f. to accomodate a more functional kitchen for Lot K. The Lot L house has decreased from 1560 s.f. to 1551 s.f. The scale of the new addition on Lot L is smaller than the existing house on Lot K and the profess- ional building across the Alley. The second level of the addition has been designed with 5'-6" high walls and dormer windows to reduce the building height. This and the proposed landscaping will provide for a very harmonious development with its neighborhood. The house across the street on First and Hopkins is also very similar in scale to this addition. Some side yard relief has been incorporated into Gallery portion of the addition to break-up the east wall. The roof also breaks at this point. Theses two features will improve the feeling of "breathing room". Landscaping will be provided at all yards. The moving of the Spring Street house to Lot ~ has been reviewed by Thomas House Movers and a Structural Engineer. A letter is enclosed from the Stuctura] Engineer stating the feasibility of moving the house and re-structuring the floor and roof systems to conform to codes including snow loading. Thomas House Movers has moved many homes similar to this and assured us this one will be moved in tact. We do anticipate doing some interior demolition before moving the house to allow for proper bracing and connections of his girders to the floor system. They will move the house on a truck on Spring Street to Hopkins Avenue, then west on Hopkins to Lot , r June 13. 1988 Page 3 The renovation plans are to maintain the existing detailing and character of both structures. The detailing of the addition will match that of the existing house. The enclosed plans specify the materials and detailing to be used. In summary, the Final Development Plan is very close to what was approved at Conceptual Plan review and have been expanded to detail the renovation plans. We appreciate the opportunity to work with Roxanne Elfin and the Historical Preservation Committee in refining the renovation plans to provide the community with a development it can be proud. Enclosed are the following: 1. Owners letter of intent, dated 7 Dec. 1987. 2. Statement of Architectural Importance. 3. Statement of Neighborhood History and Character. 4. Vicinity Map. 5. Sanborn Map. 6. Composite Photo of both houses. 7. Renovation Plans for Lot L, by Roger N. Kerr. 8. Renovation Plans for Lot K, by Welton Anderson. Very truly yours, - 71-,At~ Roger N. Kerr CC: Peter Carley Julie Wyckoff John Kelly Welton Anderson - , pi LAR o N B W E 1% 1 roger kerr and associates ti J}t -12 16rchitects . - 'I 1 406-G pacific avenue aspen, co 81611 303 E325-82 20 June 1988 STATEMENTS RE: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMISSION ' The effect of the details of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structure: The detail and , character of the addition on Lot L will match that of the ~~ ' .i, moved house. Exterior siding, trim and fascia details will match the moved house. Roofing is to be cedar shingle to match existing. The effect of the details will be such that the existing house victorian character will be maintained and renovated in a manner that will preserve it. The existing house on lot K will have existing asphalt shingle siding removed and replaced by new wood bevel siding. Decorative wood shingles will be used in the gable ends. New fascia and trim and window details will match that of the existing. Roofing is to be black asphalt shingles. i Again, the effect of the details will be such that the existing house victorian character will be restored, maintained and preserved. The effects of the proposed development on the neighborhood: The existing house on Lot K is a good example of a miners cottage. The house moved to Lot L is a simple unadorned , "shotgun" style structure. Moving the structure into a neighborhood with other historic victorians and renovating both structures will enhance the West Aspen Mountain (Shadow Mountain) neighborhood. This neighborhood contains some 16 scattered historic structures within 22 blocks. Seven of those structures are within a block from the intersection of First and Hopkins. This development will increase the prominence of renovated victorian houses in the neighborhood and allow the public to continue to see examples of historic structures and neighborhoods illustrating the family/home environment of the silver mining era. The plans for movina the Spring Street house to Lot L are: First, all the site preparation work for Lot L will be done including utilities, moving the existing spruce tree, and all of the foundation and concrete work. Approximately 6 weeks after start of construction, the site will be ready to move the Spring Street house onto the foundation at Lot L. Before moving the house, some interior demolition work will be done to allow for proper bracing and connections of the house movers girders to the floor system. The house will be moved on a truck on Spring Street to Hopkins Avenue, then west on Hopkins to Lot L. - Sincerely yours , - Roger N. Kerr ENARTECH Inc. Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists June 10, 1988 Mr. Roger Kerr 406 Pacific Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 -I~Wil.M~.p-- RE: Carley Residence A.ink Dear Roger: We have reviewed your preliminary sketch drawings for the Carley Victorian to be constructed in Aspen at 134 West Hopkins Ave. The design concept is to utilize an existing 45' x 18' Victorian home that will be relocated onto the lot. A new 25' x 23' addition Will be constructed at the rear of the lot and connected to the Victorian with a 12' x 6' causeway. The relocated Victorian will undergo major structural modifications as part of the project. The house, which will sit on a new foundation, will receive a new floor and roof structural system to support the live loads specified in the 1985 UBC standards. All existing structural members that are to be utilized will be inspected for soundness and replaced if needed. A competent house mover will be employed and his methods will be reviewed to insure that no structural damage will occur during the move. In closing, in our opinion, your design concept is feasible. With careful planning and construction, the new home will meet current standards and be an asset to the neighborhood. Please call me it you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, ENARTECH INC. 64196Â£3 Charles Peterson P.E. Structural Engineer 134-06 302 Eighth Street, Suite 325 P.O. Drawer 160 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 (303) 945-2236 ARCHITECrURAL IMPORTANCE As one can read on the attached Sanborn map of 1904, the residential blocks north of Main Street were all 30' x 100' size and for the benefit of ~ smaller or working class houses. There are no larger historic houses of any architectural significance in this irrmediate neighborhood, and we find no record of notable architects or builders having designed and built any landmark houses in this imnediate vicinity. It is interesting to note however that the house constructed on Lot K is of the same design as that on Lot S, Block 52. It has the same unusual flat roof and the same roof gables and large living room windows facing onto First Street. These houses look as though they were designed and built by the same person, and by conclusion of many of the original single story "miners houses" could suggest that the house on Lot K, Block 59 was originally constructed as a larger two story house. The construction of the existing house on Lot K has a strong rock foundation. The entire house is wood.frame. The exterior walls were originally wood siding, but thege have been covered with asphalt shingles, similarly the roof was a wood shingle, but has been covered with asphalt sheet. There are undesirable wrought iron supports at the front porch. There is no exterior ' 'Victorian gingerbread" on the house. The windows are single pane, not insulated. It would be desirable to remove all asphalt and wrought iron, and recondition and/or replace the wood and roof siding to return the house to most of its original condition, and this could be readily accomplished which will create the true sense of the house when it was first built. The existing house on Lot K is not significant when compared with some of the major historic residences in Aspen, however, it is certainly of the 1880's era and is also certainly of a design that for that immediate neighborhood is large and unusual and therefore a historic preservation in the "as is" condition is an important consideration. L. , NEIGHBORHOOD HISIORY AND CHARACIER Research into the lot subdivisions of Block 59, and in fact several surrounding City blocks, show that this was obviously a "working class" area with small dwellings of the period to house area workers, probably in the mines. The lot size of all these dwellings was 30' x 100'. A title search of Lots K and L, Block 59 is attached (Title Chain Summary) and the first records show Lots K and L being owned by a George Pearson in 1886, and there being two buildings thereon. No location of each house is given on each lot. A copy of the Sanborn map, dated 1904, is attached. This shows a dwelling on each of Lots K and L, and although the dwellings are not specifically indicated as to their use it would appear that both are residences. It is absolutely clear that the dwelling shown on Lot K in this 1904 map is the same as exists today. It is clear also, from the Sanborn map, that this whole neighborhood was for residential use. We find no designation for different zoning, commercial, residential, industrial, etc., however, from the lot layouts and all the individual addresses, we assume that all the buildings were for individual residences. . ... <16, th4*- TAVkbbl Â· - 9-6'AD.4444' ..: . ./ eÂ¥. ., -.tez.ree'llill":i",e'.1,,liftilii;Li"tfi.~Ja,2.0...'...,1':01<616*,11*15gjoijfailf'lie#~~.:fi.~'A '93.- ...1-.bc:â€¢.*&0te:*0..Em'.~~.4.-*. '~ .Â· *#e': . . .,4 ' *4 .44.... I -1 4 '18*441*2*.. T.--- ... . r .. . . .. , 1. r- 9 - - 5.f %9 1. Â¢.Â·Â·0Â£Â· a .. 1,1 4. . - A Â¥1 - 'F 74231 LA,*A-b*.Al*,9â‚¬-n -14Â¢F:j:*:r "~ - Â· 1,0 - ....99.G ... .16 L M 'Â¥ .4 4 F . , 4 . .42.*9 01/4 .2 0,4144" 19,20 r.r .% . I â€ž. Â¥44414*44**:ltÂ«Â»%4.*Miwe* _ , 1317Vt-,i:, i....f . , ht-,- ..C- -Â»*723124449#2/4. 3&:~-4Â·.4 .atâ€¢e Â· Â·4* tâ€¢~,L.-:Â· ..Â·Â·Â«a- a, -' Â°; ~PH<'8649 I .. 1, , 121.- - ' g. - .Â· t.4.4 -1.4,Â·'.:Â·fl . e .1, 2.7* . m 4 . ' 'lt: W Â· ir,;64 ... -- . ...1-4 726.7 3 i .., I . , .4- . d.- . u-4 ./.1767,/ 7*Efhed*,1.-4"d~~~b#3'Peikr ~ ~4-' .' 2.f,21 3...>29#Â¢ FÂ»H':Â·44'4Â·04... .... . 444.iu ,~ * . g , Â£,~41,Â· E -7 1 -' 4 . '' r . -lvia#, $7 4/ I-- ./ Â£*ilit E. i i.Â·* 7 X. 234. u. . - /: ...-:i. - :, TA.< r:i:re:/AF "-1 ~.12/-91.fil .... - /3 , 14"r 4 lei t.1 2 . 1~.22.440.1.'. I 'Â·31Â·,1~** I ./rM,/fat .N.. L 4â€¢ * EL,--Â·â€¢.,6,Â·I Brd941#JaÂ·=r,1- . 4-/ ./.1. .FfdÂ·hCle . .4 . .> ..2 +IA* Â»r Lievt, ik â€¢22Â·.2....4 ./ ly . ..... I. 'll'-- I .) - ..A ..4.K..00~Â»,Ng :A -,7 .- 8 0 ... .. I.-- F , , $ .. , 1 . . : ,. Â«'WÂ»4Â¥I<,LUMMFgs<4*, ejt<* < . ~Ad, b ti;~9111 -A 2'~% A' j 0-$ - ...4,pwArÂ·54.-6,#RtÂ·.r#*F. - 4 4Â¢. ..... lf>Â·Cit,â‚¬Â¥.7...Â·$ Â· -:'. I .â„¢A /9 -- -99*4*89 9 '....2*Ut,Â» R â€¢L.. ' #Â·44 : t>.CL tÂ·-4~Â¢41:4~'02*.04 Â· *... 4 2 * ..,t~6*k,ji~~.*8719:~.Ai~.~4.~:i,3- ~S~.4~#45*B~R~*~.'~Al:~iâ‚¬5%94Â·4{;4~4Â».1,0~3. 1 - 6 /.4**Rlitr:,~.0,'~-24:Â«feirt";Â·39' 4 .R Lil'th' - 1 *-0 492220 ~y /.1.,-1-I. I'\ ~ -Ihift --4 - - 9-/'4 \1 14 , 9 2 1 -. 07 Â·-r. 19 -in aa EL_ ~~ ~ Al 1 El] 03 4 =-1--rrt. LOT K LOT L COMPOSITE ELEVATION t 1NtkldyÂ¥313 MOODI NO 631NIWd >.9 444 ' 0/Â»4 41111#,6/1-1.rl 1/1Â»MI '/ 33*-*14 -'U , a, re #t , 11 ' 6,7 .# l- 5 0 .. 0 l i It,70, - i i - Â·. .. 334Â·<tit<I-Â·'.-Â·,0,~~(s;,-, :4 /,fift 44 ~ 4 0'10 4 0 4 -141 11 ' -01\4 , t 1 dillf#Al 41.41141 4~ 0414,44 4 1*reft\ 1 L 1+,bl,tt.71A 4 0. # 1Â»1 b .. -31 M .27'r'.7 1- 4, 'eq -1 444.:079 - ./.......:.f<'j 3-*Ter/# - 0 - ,-40 U J 'f~,53â‚¬ 0 2 ou--1 0 0- f# 9.wâ‚¬'.0,4 4**4**a.V I I . /1 -Ii#0.1 \ 1,70.al/4110111 Â»11 3114Â¥ 3 brt.,1 (~- Ct*J,_134 463< I \31 \ I \ \\/ 6? ..Â» 3.33~ . 4_..1 r*Gl-1 IddÂ« ~ ~\ 6.1 01% 9.0 J f, vv. (VÂ»14*84 , rti 34 74 4#Arid 007.7 4039/9 - - - 2,-U\{ 0-ri? b 0 0 ,00-04 M 011 ,1,o,GL rl (*,IM'12,12:) 6 6 91/767141 kai-11Â¥/ 31(11 LEâ‚¬EVE) , 00 -001 a ,64 +00 .*| 74 5. FIF,yr *r: <ty. +6' 641.*) 1-9 -- -pl - 11 , 1 J .. . J 11 1 1 .Â·# < 12 4-+6.16 9 1 . /+ i ------ 111 41 .1/0 Fl 11 1 -- 1 h.-Up 1 1 , 1 17' "U /12a-l 1 1912-[r~ i 1 \ 1 1 J, IF==.11, .1 1 0 1 i Alt- | ,Â¥ff*Â« p.â€¢0Â»'"1 1, ' p.<erÂ»- -=6= &.'.-I--r /Ill . ' 3 -r 11121-r PAPH'oH R -3, 1 79 '59mt.JA -1-1--I , 0 1 1 ill - -1-edi p!=t=~ ~ ~ < FEEI ' &-JF 101*:tzE[ 1 .0 1 1 - . 1 \1 1 . 1 1 U 1 1 $<- 1 //1 - rri.-1 / 1 1 66 1- a o .%7./1 1 1110 A O L__-t-f--- 1-3111 1 7-L . luigi it : 1 4 d.,11 g 1,1.1.0 4 F,3141 41 . 4''Fr,rr -:.-4-.-111 1.-t 'u-Â· 1 ' 'll 6 . .1 IN!11! i ? I 1 8 E i-. ----11[ A.:1>in f ' 111: ~i '~ Â· ~ 3 . C: rl.. .4-1,- : .- --+............It ...,t. Ul 0 1 1 -- ----I ----- -. Â»Lidip--4 4 11 . 4,/ FY/Â·lwi 1 0,-2111)9' 7; ; Ilf-G-71" 1 ELL--- -3-7-i#*rifiBLAG #'.1<' 1 1 111'11: 1 0Â¢ 2 - I llull,r,Â·,1- I Â· 1 4 CIo 1 1 - I . â€ž,pÂ»1,â‚¬H r -1~~~= 1 11 ~ Ili 111 0=1[lID 1 1 - r 1 .(f-L.1. P-) 7\70' 1 . -4 L! | . r. r *fEEP... 1 -- 1 1 1 1 & 1 / lilli! 11Â·11 1 1 Â·Â·lilli 2 liBI -â„¢-r 1 ' 14 r--- .: - r 3 t: 11 721' - -' .. 1 1 1 1 + 1 Â·1 27 ' ".ti~i 11 I. -i 1 1 1 + 1 1 1 4 1 --- 6/ .11 1 4* 8 1 4, .Oll,/+I' ' 1 1 111111 1 1,1 1 11 11 r - I. 1~5:E:~Feâ‚¬ i lilli 1 1 ! A--- 1 11 1 .I 1*'42 1 64. Mi/>2 1 .t'-11, r ... .. 101-, , r 1 . O..... D"794*gr I 10 9,1 rÂ»n 04 r 1-,-t r.Pir.1 rLÂ·a:'1Â£- p|-1-+1 Urrmz. PIÂ·Â·Â«P F'k"-' .....El AM F- DATI 9 549 0 e* â€¢CALI 42 - I'-0* I O I . 0. I-I.T A-20 O1~lovd 90 NVIUOJOIA A311~45 SNV1d 80013 InNIAÂ¥. GNINdOH 192* 00Â¥U0100 'Njdgy 1 0 . . 1.I-1 '!D.t,; i i :15 ]11; 111+ ; 1 L 4- M 1 - 1 1 1. 11 lit 1 1 1 1 -I 1 : --4-a ___12__1 ~ 11 1 f It -11 - IJ' 1 i 11- 1:1 1 1-1 ' - - I -I i ' ~ ~-___1_J_-_12-_-i '~-1.tIINIVI~/1 Ill,/ IIi?11! 3- Il .h , .lili 1 1 bn Il 9 Ill I[ -- 41-- -1 ! 6 inte, p.-M,â€¢11 1 -1--1 1 -14 /-4.w,Â·U- 1 , 02-â€¢A , . L 1 1 . t=========i-1. 1 Arr 141 fl 1 0 -1 --- 1 Voit i 11113 : /-1 2 lilli 111 ;1 1 11 1 111 . Il Hi. p. i.l-â€žLA- .. . 1 1, 1 i LI- Â·3 - , I } 771 #114.1 14- -111 Fl: - 1 ... I -L 1 -i 1.--1 1--2----[- ~ -3-1 9*4-Â»PÂ·.i'*., ... 1 14>'4 f Ill. 1 -1- - - ,--,6,2-7==-3.--i M M. 1 Â· liti~ 10 1 '3.-11 . \2-o' y.,1.- to â€¢ 1~Leâ€¢ - 1 1 111'Il :3 FL p ~~-~ -Â» .7- ~* -_~pr--~ 77--4.- i-42--LE-lf . , ~, tâ€¢ it - 1 = 1 h I z 71141 2744 1 '---- 9 031+417*,4, ]Fir~[=-~4 Li---- 1 L -[ 1 - 1 1 11-1,0. 14- DA 1 - , L i . bâ‚¬ FLOOR PLANS *, ROGER N. KERA CARLEY VICTORIAN ARCHITECT 2 0: .4 : 7% 40â€¢ PACIP,O 303/925.02.0 IV 0 . 2 0 â€¢UITI (1 AIPIN. COLORADO WEST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO r-6.411 4001~1 40=1.1,1 -id 4- 41-4-1 T+1'1 1-4(1-1*r-Irlig /61-1*4Â»/4 2.2 ga...te Â·07> ar 4 112 -2 *â€¢earF+10 9- Mpr2 â€ž P'.4 9=7-+ -- 3 4 ~ZE-- - -U =L 4 $ M.: prr~~t- .m Livgt- 4717 - tÂ».~b=9.--- -6 LOIS-- i- Ad - - - 7 Â· r-r Ir--h==41 --Â· 112'14 Â· 1 - 71% m~ Â£3_-4-41 ----MEd- UW 1.1]11-1 2 -U-1 --7 -- + *Â· 11'-*' 4'f'Â¢10/"T, rt.â€¢â€žc- .- -- -- : mO ,.i,gr' r~Â·~ Lpâ€žst 1,05,11 $ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 [I - -d 7 b = 1.. 0 --.L-- 1 2 1 - - Ir , g Illok M W R 4 0,-r M LeÂ»--rio ,-1 it E I -- WO e 0 .EESÂ«-211-3-* 2 -22~31- Ir mt fA=k-Â»Â«~2Â·6Â»Â»6771Â«- -249=Â£~2322â‚¬â‚¬â‚¬-g-7 0 3 --- - 111 _JILL.-1.4 \>&14111==7=Â·=21--Â· fi=-9.)-/-- em --. |* tâ€¢â€¢~,4 urd, f.*I..,61- . :Â£E~ 7.-~~-55==-- ~wJ*0 *eFÂ· FU+ Ke.Â¥!- _-- -- -9.- 73--=-JEGE.Lyf.02.7 , -4-=-t:. fEEJ,=3199- ir-- . - FLUE.l~~ *** ___ _ ~- _ - / M.â€¢-1 A-1Â»4 Mâ€¢+14.- ..U, It- - -- Â£ -- -- -- 41"1'ke* 1.-1 p.6.10.N -9 - ---- - -- , wl-/ r:.4 rl,Â¢" L...'*6 - Ruid=M ZEEA=----- - _ 1 - - 4 19-4 rt# r[-,c, A,A_ _ - --1 - - - --..--- 111-: 4 1- , 1 1 1 1 1 1 211--31=tz=====4 1 E-------------ner ----------- Â¢ 1,0-*' p,Â·Â·Â·,Ad.tr %0% [4.1- 1 1 ..... 50\>-9& 4-Â»(tÂ«,OrÂ·1. _ r!,#14 ELev~Â»1104 ,- I I r.v leÂ»+ ,=rn..14 1 -5.---Sd~â€ž2=-1 --013.-l ''4 ,/,A ,â€¢4L' V~Â·C.nug POPEL-E' H.â€¢4:r H *f~ut-1:9~'r1 00 9,â€¢1 k.l~â€¢,7,4.~~ rr rÂ·Â·t,~+Â«MÂ· kl,r,Â·H &640 ( 4#;1 % - tinâ€¢44 -n-,r W.-1,:~0 1,â€ž,p - f*r'A; E-*1>TIN*Â· -- râ€¢ D. b y '4.-IM/6-1 NEET ,u,TÂ·* : 'w~,W,â€¢.W M....AlÂ»*4 P+Ir Minfs - --=. 7 0/ c:Jur#,-Fri R r- i A LT uq#41 U.TWROC- r'WW.41 ------- 2 ..AWN -1.14Â· i - 1 +MI 0. CHECKED ES En=n=(62.-;21 E - --------2=-,0 -----_--LE-_2 ----0, DATE 1 1 10 -*14 15: SCALE 1---------__-U ,[* P. 1'-~'~ ~ r,41 9 T'i $ 4 I h.1*hi .00 NO. SHEET FÂ»71- El-FA//-T-1,4 A-3 1. . 0. SHE: Pool CLEAMPRINT 90-100 'NmdeV 01=1'OV 71-.:.â€ž,7 .4..w.,w. SNOUVA313 NVIE!O13IA A31EIVO 3 n N 3 AÂ¥ SNI>IdOH 1$3/A -4 7 099 t ; f- 0. g n Â«iyt____;t~_i~_027-0--1 f-TEZY 6- f ... I } 2 - , 2 E E~~9 7 1-* - 1 .. T râ‚¬ ; 3 ,/\ i j i . 1 ..3 . 1 4 r 1 1 01 i , 04 1 -# 1. , t 1 - 4 y /i 22 3 L1 - , 1 (11 -4 i A - - i , \ 9 <* r 1 , - , 4 j / f 1 F , P 1 , A K i i H 01 ; .-I. ./ f 3 F V =0 I FJ ( 1. 1 f '4 1 -/ 7--7-7-- 1. 1/ 1 A-% fLO*hz 4 , f f ' ~~~ ~ C I/~elk)n Alde,~~ %9* / Al- n re~d 1 9 JUNE 8, 6*CE- FOÂ¢,5541 1"15NNE ! -- 1 + . 1 estÂ»Z L /,9/h ......~'_ ~Â·r i. 2..2-L.4.h 2 2 --- 3 1 / 1 ' f / r.1 f - - 1-7 1 / it , 1 1-301| 4- I ' .L --7 ' ;- J. 1 %71 f 1 I. ' -IA , . . 4 \ . .. . 11. . . i- 8 , lE U t. M - 2 , 8 4 f 1, 1 Â· 1 U.--4 4 Z., i I , 3 f i 1 1 1 -...... V 1 - -- 1 i 11 I - , ' i '' A I / ' - I.. i li V 1 â€¢ -/ I .1 1. 1 > T.25. .k-. ~-~~-11 !1 ' . u.... ..- OF 1 . 1 'A LÂ£* AC + 4 4 1 1 3* 2 m 44 i 1 . 1 1,1 T=li . 11 420 Ju\At as n C 14*lion kiderson & Assodates 4/\/CLOFF 2,661 OENCE - 12,51*OEL CAXA Ad*â‚¬Ch / Â¥Â¥Ily,11 15 DOME 08 . ; 32 \1 / , 1 - 4 0 00â€¢ 0946 / Aâ€¢Den.Â©010-0 -12/(303) 925 - 4 576 .*Al f P.1117/12 1*1528 114 15BB #Edulli) :9166> 27Â¢.rIE29 1 16 )44 RABLÂ·Ee goe-016Â¢2-9. - 9/ 1 \\1/ LACAGEâ‚¬. CE>u IDLE- - - . - 2/ 0 14 UN & Wthlook/5 1 I -t 04(KIALE.4 -- '. ' 4-~--- 1-- -- , m .lÂ»Â¢G,GM- 5,121:KIE, dal/8,46) 1WIRIC) c./ DY Â£4/NEÂ£- *A *AOL M>9442 1.Vt-â€¢ACC FIXE-O 41-16 Nithlev \V>/ 4 ':. 4 1- I ; 1 (1\ , FA..4,>1' BU77 5%3: 46â€¢Le.6 lb| akebEE, -1 *'ll j 4 " / IX,6 U.,ZEÂ· FEE11.250 - - .'I-y.... f--1 y t 1.-1:4 1 111,1_U -1 ( T. T. C i~ 1 -1 ' ----,V , fil.ll. fIr Fi--0-1/ t T 1 171 #4 - - .. -- -- 22' / L L H Â·29 4 - --241-7 j- 4 - 7-4. 1'.. Pr - -- -- 01 i I --06,-40/E .ae,AACT 5,41+45,,64 4 1 -1 | E.EEPLACE \*/ IB>eVEL . i 1 1 Â·1 2-1 1 %<--1*4 60Â¢NE,2. 2042{2 + -Iye 1 .1 - 1 1// 1 -1 f- EEAAE@ leel LotÂ» \V/1116!EO .voe> 42164 u.--- I _ I 1 1 - 4 -- - - 4 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 ,- it r i Â»18%'vvt>Ek: U â€¢42 55Â¢. 0Â«y jh L F . . EE,Erre>6~12 62â‚¬ CORÂ»--r,VE. it Â· f. 1 -t I '1 1 :.. i } dj ~ ! y t 1 1 , - D : 1 . 1 -- . 600-[R ELE.vÂ»7[1 ohi 1/41'= i l.oil deellilÂ·0 911 67 votplEÂ·10 14 , h.112<4 U 5492- FUe,2 i. Ikt'TD GABLEU CE*lei \W L.&26â€¢841 peaMPAIVE â‚¬>4-4 NA LE-5 // Cot-10UE kul Nal WI,JCD'*/4 . 1 4 6.6*LE i 1 f - v'k i -- - -- - - - 1 ~1621 - 7 - - 1 39/- --- - /3--44-5 ~11 ------ J. 4 -r jfÂ¢11> - ---1 ----- - -- - I i t .. - - 2,3 1 '4 1 Ir - 1 - fj=-5 jEtÂ·- . f , -'. 1./.1 2 .1 1 4 111< 1 2-2 1 '1 1, 31 111-,- -- 1 -Ii -i- - 2 -- - _ -J. Â·;1:4~ ~=: IC '160--1 ~ id.Â«7.i-6-6 -: ==-47.-t 4,--46.i -=f:Â£*i.=cai=23 3 ':1-2._...Â·-_.;2.==- .... _ .1 - ...4 - - 1 'Â·.Â·il' 5 Â· ...4--- - - <ZE. i .. C !Â·4 - _ L .6 1 7-771. 1 --1 i== -_--=-4 i J 1 j illitilitt it , 1 -:. 1 * - - I .t 111 -' 1 -i' - 1 â€¢ , r ' I 'tl i Â· Â·1 1 - 4. t. 11 1 1 , 1 ..1 - i. 1 Â· 1 ' '11 1 ' .' 11 -- . . 1 li; i 'ii - ~ - 1, 1 , -1/ i 11 - 1 - A - 4 1 . . . 1 1/ ! - L.-1 1 .-. 1 1 4---~r-------p-- - -~ rl '---- -- 1 - 11 1 -- .1,; c 80*XN'.ION _ rilgerT ELLD.4~-TION - fUuve kt,~t 1 -.*~~~0-~+1 T 't Dll 51988 . --1. 1 - J -4 1. - , - L- 1 1 4 , ./9 -4 I - t %,4 - -~~- -~lj - 1 *9%=:=:0/ 12 1 . uf .-4 -- 2 -2 -11Â·9 -Â£1 -- 1 1 , 1000000-0 f r. --3 i , il Â·- â€¢ il . ; i 1 i 11 1 E. . 61 2 ija ' V % . i 1 ; ;1 Yll. 2 0= 11 - L-==:1 1 9 -Â·... 7 40_41~4 0~EWAT @lj _ d; ... tly I - ,> 14' Ofefe 1- EVE l- EX RANS i ON p P r - h.1 EÂ»/ rÂ» EME 16'7 /- ..1.-0 u,(0-4 Elz - /.4\ - - /6 * -1 1 Z 1-1 - A , 41> . 1 1._ _Â· /1 - 432.& i 4 1 1.- / i + 1-4 1- 1 1 r-----t d i iii -- It 1 1 1 1 L 1 2:- --ii 11 r -- -- ' .. k Z .= !1 11 .. 1 _ i_i- -_-- Â·--=1 1221 ! 7 f - +I- 1 - - - - -- 1 11 11 1,4 1 11 .. l ----- --- - i t[----- ll-1--,-1 5- [-4 1 - T -2. --- - r . . 1,1 . 11 1 J i~~ 2314Â» . 1. / 1 . 1 . ' .Ii:'Â·,1,9 J.~1-I 1 1 1 l---4 1 .1 4 i --- - ' t ./ --~.-/ 1 1 1 11 1 1 i -2.-1 1 1 1 4 1 1: . .1 1 1. -1 . ---9 - . --- t ... , 4- .1 IE><1 9-6 Â»16 Â»/1 rÂ·4 Un/~2 1 - 1 1 41.1 441,1 2-â‚¬4 EX iÂ»JAON maÂ«-r- _ ~ e LEÂ»An- torj 1/4, a. 1 4 . 1 ... r MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Renovator's Handbook; Networking list of professional preservation craftspeople Date: June 28, 1988 In the Historic Preservation Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan some discussion is given to the creation of "Restoration Know-How" booklet, along with a reference library of restoration techniques developed to assist local homeowners, builders and architects. Although I have developed quite an extensive library here in the Planning Office (available for your review), I am always seeking additional resource materials. Especially items which may be handed out to interested property owners. One possibility may be for us to take the lead and actually create such a Renovator's booklet. Some questions for you: What is the possibility of the HPC developing a printed booklet available at a fee for distribution? Could a project like this be incorporated with the Historical Society? What is the feasibility of including a network list of local preservation craftspeople, whose names we obtain either from newspaper/media solicitation or through HPC members? This list would not be an endorsement of their work, but would serve only to help property owners and other professionals in their search for assistance. With regard to the third questions, my fear is this could appear commercial, which would dilute the effectiveness of the booklet, in my opinion. Please communicate with me any ideas you may have. A Renovator's Booklet is an excellent idea, and I would like to scheme on its feasibility, contents, usefulness and cost at this meeting. Budget time is forthcoming, and I would like to examine the possibility Of including this project within next year's financial scope. Thank you very much for your interest! 1 '.. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Special Presentation at July 12 HPC meeting: Rebecca Waugh, Administrative Director of the Summit Historical Society "Developing a Local Historic Trust" Date: June 28, 1988 Many communities all across the nation have taken historic preservation one step further. By developing local "Trusts", communities are often able to save endangered buildings that would otherwise fall into photographic archives and memories of the past. Is Aspen is need of a local Historic Trust, a creative private organization with enough funding and dedication to task to protect buildings where others cannot? How does such an organization begin and is it a network of public and private? Questions like these will be raised and addressed at this July 12 meeting. The reason for this advance notice is two fold: 1) Please be thinking about the benefits to Aspen with the program of this nature; bring your comments and concerns with you to the July 12 meeting 2) PLEASE BE SURE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING. Along with regular business and action items, this presentation will kick off the creation of a feasibility study, as chartered by our CLG grant contract. Of critical importance is the starting point for dialogue between the public/private sectors of our community regarding a Historic Trust. If you are not able to attend, PLEASE contact me at 925-2020, ext. 223, to discuss your thoughts on this topic. I am in need of feedback! Thank you. . 1. . -'-1 I- b â€¢ Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 south gale na) treet aspen/colorado" 81611 Â·14.*.Â·:/79 June 16, 1988 Mayor William Stirling and the Aspen City Council Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: The preservation of the Marolt Barn Dear Mayor and City Council: The Aspen Historic Preservation Committee wishes to go on record endorsing the Aspen Historical Society's efforts to restore the 1880's Marolt barn for the purpose of a ranching museum. The barn is of particular importance to our community as it is the most significant structure remaining of the Holden Lixiviation works, in operation from 1891 to 1893. To preserve the structure on-site is a goal the HPC strongly endorses. We wish to assist the Aspen Historical Society in their endeavors, and are pleased to see the comprehensive renovation program they propose. The Holden Lixiviation building, now known as the Marolt barn, did not receive a rating in the 1986 inventory update, however, the HPC is prepared at this time to complete the research and rating form for such action. Along with the rating procedure, the HPC is requesting the City apply for historic landmark designation. The barn appears original in exterior fabric and siting, and would probably receive the highest rating of "5", making it eligible for a historic designation landmark grant. If a grant were obtained, we suggest funds be targeted for purposes of exterior restoration, and could be granted to the Historical Society to aid in their efforts, under their proposed 99 year lease. We understand this is a unique approach, but one which we recommend highly, showing City support for the protection and preservation of Aspen's historic resources. The City of Aspen should be commended for its wise acquisition of the 70 acre Marolt-Thomas site as Open Space. Many options face the City at this time for site development. Whatever choices are made, the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee recommends the Page 2 - June 16, 1988 Mayor Stirling and Aspen City Council historic Marolt barn be preserved on-site, and funds be allotted yearly for its maintenance. It is through joint efforts like this that Aspen's unique historic resources will be protected for future generations to enjoy. Sincerely, ~71i ~ t h, v - i william 6. qgss, chairman Aspen Hiikeylc Preservation Committee CC: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Carl Bergman, President, Aspen Historical Society Z . ..,di ':' 2.4~, M Â¢ I kt- Rill k'-23M 41 , -- 41 i- 24 51Â· 1 4/1 Â·U12 I me" U-m~-~2~~ 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO81611 TEL: (303) 925-4755 June 21, 1988 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Planning Office City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Chaikovska/Peters Residence 334 West Hallam Avenue Block 42, Lots K, L and M City of Aspen Dear Roxanne: I am writing to you on behalf of our clients, Marta Chaikovska and Frank Peters. They wish to incorporate a basement in their carriage house, and would like to present their concept to the Historic Preservation Committee at the next scheduled meeting on June 28, 1988. Could you please schedule this into your agenda for that day? If you have any questions regarding this, ,please contact me at your convenience. Si_acer-ely.< 17,__- 14~ 0 Patricia Harris Project Manager PH:de in 61 I A , MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: 334 W. Hallam - Carriage House Date: June 28, 1988 The attached letter was received in the Planning Office on June 21, requesting time on the agenda at this meeting for further discussion of the carriage house renovation plans. The owners, Marta Chaikovska and Frank Peters wish to address the HPC with their concept regarding the basement, etc. At the Final Development Review (HPC meeting of June 14), Trish Harris, applicant, verbally presented a few options she requested the committee consider. The property owners had just presented their ideas to her that day, therefore, no sketches or scale drawing were presented at that June 14 meeting. In summary, the owners APPARENTLY wish to increase the size of the proposed carriage house basement, creating the need "to lift up the carriage house, set it aside to dig the basement and pour the new foundation then return it to site". The Final Development Plans were approved, showing only a partial demolition and reconstruction, with no relocation of the carriage house. Specific direction was given by HPC to the applicant to use great sensitivity in the foundation work, lifting up the carriage house only as much as need be to complete the work. Any relocation of a historic structure is considered "demolition". This creates the need for a new application addressing the demolition and redevelopment standards, public hearing, and HPC review and approval. Problems exist regarding the parking issues. Four spaces are to be provided on site per code. Current site plans reflect two of the four spaces encroaching into the city right-of-way, which requires the City Council review for an encroachment license , per Chuck Roth, Engineering Department. The other alternative is to request special review before P&Z to consider a reduction in the required spaces. The applicant is aware of these issues. These parking issues tie directly into the renovation of the carriage house. Per Bill Drueding, Building Department, IF the carriage house is moved at all, the opportunity should be taken to bring the entire parcel into compliance at that time, providing all the required spaces completely on site. This would eliminate the need for any special review or request for Council action by the applicant. I J. 1, HPC memo - Page 2 334 W. Hallam - Carriage House June 28, 1988 The preservation issue remains: Is the reconstruction of the carriage house on its current site the preferred choice? Does the resiting affect the historic integrity of the entire property, specifically the eligible main historic home? Does the entire adaptive use plan for the carriage house alter ITS integrity negatively, or does the reconstruction plan mitigate the alternative of complete razing and relication construction? Is the carriage house of historic importance in its current (altered) state, AND as it will be losing all its historic fabric down to the structural members, does the possible relocation issue add more "salt to the historic wound"? RECOMMENDATION: Although at the time of this memo writing , the Planning Office has no formal application or (even) concept sketches to review, making formal recommendation to the HPC impracticle. However, it remains staff's opinion that the carriage house should remain on site, as the location is of primary importance to the integrity of the property, particularly being on this corner lot. We are aware the carriage house was moved many years ago to its current location, however, as it is so close to the 1904 Sanborn map siting, its current location remains historically important to the integrity of the entire parcel. However, Staff is also sensitive to the economic factors and the adaptive use practicality. "Secondary Historic Structures" (Outbuildings) are of great importance to the historic character of Aspen, specifically the residential West End. We remain pleased with the plans to renovate and put back into use this structure. The project as approved should serve to set a good example to neighboring property owners of what is possible in the way of preservation development. HPC should address all these issues during this discussionary meeting. RECEIVED J lJN 2 7 1988 Patricia O'Bryan BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES P.O. Box 613 ASPEN, COLORADO Aspen, CO 81612 June 24, 1988 William Stirling, Mayor Aspen City Council 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mayor Stirling and Councilmembers: It is with regret that I have to inform you of my resignation from the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee, effective July 15, 1988. At this time, my work schedule does not allow me to attend day-time meetings. I hope my four years on the committee have been of some benefit to the community. I've enjoyed serving and, perhaps, someday will be able to again. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Patricia O'Bryan CC: Bill Poss PB:cb