The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19880412Â»9 AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE April 12, 1988 - Tuesday 1:00 P.M. to 4:15 P.M. 2nd Floor Old City Council Chambers City Hall REGULAR MEETING 2:30 I. Roll Call II. Approval of Minutes of March 22, 1988 III. Committee Member and Staff Comments IV. Public Comments V. Monitoring Projects VI. OLD BUSINESS 7 1 2- 7. 1,~ al.tf al-" 't.,-2â‚¬54 0.-1--. A. Amendment to Conceptual Development Review: 334 W. Hallam, Approval for sunspace/greenhouse and Carriage House Renovation Plan Trish Harris - Cl,praAA-V B. - Amendment to Approved Plan: 101 S. Mill, Elli's Rooftop Equipment,g/Â»+CLL-, C Heidi Hoffman and Wayne Stryker C.. Public Hearing, (Continued) Conceptual Development Review: 300 West Main St. 152 -4--Â¢:C_ Caroline McDonald Scott McDonald VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Historic Landmark Designation: 212 W. Hopkins Charles Cunniffe 999< 0 V VIII. Staff report on Nat'l Hist. Preservation Week: Nominations for awards sought, Preservation Forum Planned PLEASE NOTIFY KATHY STRICKLAND IN CITY CLERK'S OFFICE WELL IN ADVANCE IF YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ATTEND ANY MEETINGS IN APRIL OR MAY, NOT THE PLANNING OFFICE. HPC.MINUTES. April 12, 1988 222 E. HALLAM-AMATO REDEVELOPMENT PLAN .......2 334 W. HALLAM-GREENHOUSE SUNSPACE AND CARRIAGE HOUSE RENOVATION ........................4 101 S. MILL, ELLI'S ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT ............10 300 W. MAIN-CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ....12 212 W. HOPKINS AVE. .....................20 23 VIA.- MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office RE: 334 West Hallam, amendment to Conceptual Plan Approval for Sunspace DATE: April 6, 1988 PRIOR COMMITTEE ACTIONS: On March 8, 1988, HPC reviewed and approved conceptual development plans for 334 West Hallam, based on the recommendations presented by staff, adding the condition that no changes be made to the windows on the south, east and west elevations of the original structure. The recommendations made by staff, approved at that meeting (specific to this amendment request) are as follows: "The greenhouse addition shall be redesigned to be a inconspicuous as possible, with no damage done to the original historic structure. Attaching the greenhouse only to the newer addition and limiting its size and scale in relationship to the historic building shall be studied." "The cottonwood in the east side-yard shall be retained. If it is demonstrated that the tree cannot be saved, a landscape plan shall be presented showing transplantation or a new tree." Also at that meeting, HPC approved historic landmark designation, siting this structure has been determined eligible for the listing on the National Register. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The applicant states the sunspace is a very important element to this project and creates the interior space which the property owners desire. It allows a transparency that diminishes the bulk of the addition, and allows the details of the original structure to be seen. Staff refers again to Section VI.K - Greenhouses -of the Aspen Development Guidelines (page 59) states: "Generally additions of this type make such a strong impact that every effort should be made to mitigate the effect that its installation will have. Greenhouses should be placed where they will not obscure the details of the primary facade." The plans submitted have not been changed from the original, and show the sunspace in the same location, attached to the original structure with the removal of the original lower level window.-. By attaching the sunspace/greenhouse as proposed, original historic architectural details will be destroyed which is not in keeping with Guideline VI. H - windows, stating: "Make every effort to preserve and repair existing windows". In staff's opinion, alternatives for the placement of the sunspace have not adequately addressed and the applicant has not met HPC's requirement as stated above. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends the HPC uphold its original motion requiring the attachment of the sunspace/greenhouse to the new addition, no changes made to the south, east and west elevation windows, and that, if necessary, further study of the sunspace attachment be made. NOTE: Documentation of the carriage house plan is also attached for your information. HPC.memo.334WH2 1 . . ./ i Â·0C~~SL./.-- i 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 APR 5 TEL: (303) 925-4755 April 5, 1988 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Planning Office City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Amendment to Conceptual Plan-Approval and Documentation of Carriage.House Renovation Plan 334 West Hallam Avenue Block 42, Lots K, L and M City of Aspen Dear Roxanne: The purpose-of this letter and presentation to the Historic Preservation Committee is to obtain conceptual approval for the sunspace addition to the main residential structure at 334 West Hallam Avenue, and to further explain the renovation of the existing carriage house. The sunspace addition is an important part of this project. It provides a way for the clients to fully enjoy their yard, and opens up the east side of the house. This addition also allows a transparency that diminishes the bulk of our addition and allows the details of the original'structure to be seen. It is mostly glass with insulated roof panels outside the vaulted glass areas. This space is very important to our client's program. I would like to clarify our renovation plan for the carriage . house, which was conceptually approved on March 8, 1988. We are removing and restructuring the existing roof along the historic lines to carry today's loads per our engineer 's recommendation. Due to the poor condition of the existing siding (which suffers from extensive dry rot damage), we will be removing and replacing most of it with new to match the 2# 1 1 20 9 9- - - ---- Ms. Roxanne Eflin April 5, 1988 Page two AFR 5 , existing. We have investigated the existing foundation and found it, at best, minimal for the proposed loads. We will need to supplement it with additional foundations as our structural engineer recommends. In summary, this is an extensive renovation project, leaving a skeleton of the s'tructure as it now stands, and adding 3'-0" to the east (yard side) of the building. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, A--3, 1 r r 1- i (>,\91 t+G.L'*ufvt Patricia Hdrris Project Manager PH:dem <WED l Â»-3 1 ..m' j (/UN M,*'M l B 1 -1 6- It--1 1 75 ~Rrijit_ ~~_~ .Ef-m~tf~ - 1 1 -0-vmT MEJ 47}~ U -- ff___-==~ #-1- - It *-- 1-17 Lf 1009 111 3 11 r --- tt I J fr m . 7 ]1- l rfft= fly -1~:99-% ~33- -11 -uFF-Â© m *Ffi o F. 6 4 ~ }-=a . 1 1 1 222= LOWER ILEVEL IFLOOR - PLAN A2.3 . 1... . \ I --,Â»00 202 F Ski:113.29 TO lÂ«2-f l 1 Eic 1 27-4~9. r -- ;.71 La L BAVE TE:,M U ,/\Â«M BACTG .. L \ - 4/IMWN,5 1 Tgth 7 /ATCk E-yarb. ------ 7%:44- 1 961:1221 - NEÂ¥ Wriâ‚¬00,4 /4001-PH '//0613'1-, MEN- 00 F PANil,5 - 9,070 1- 1 IL 1 1 1 i 1 ~} .1 L 1 1. - F4OÂ©1. HAR,OW<3' ) CLPFbo.ku IF 1\ 1 ix~,1. 312[ne TO 'AA-[04 EXI,FB p. 1 : 1 1 1 EAST ELEVATION architecture and - planning Â®0 UIT -â€¢ r.efT / Aspet ca .1811 /.03.Â«~47,6 334 WEST HALLAM Q.di"'*Ill r VER MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Amendment to Approved Plan: Rooftop Equipment on Elli's Building DATE: April 6, 1988 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval for the duet leading from the most easterly positioned evaporative cooler and for additional rooftop mechanical equipment associated with the Sushi Masa Restaurant. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Architect Wayne Stryker has presented plans for three (3) pieces of restaurant equipment serving Sushi Masa and located toward the northwest corner of the second roof. In Wayne Stryker's April 4 letter he states that the equipment will only be visible from the north side of Main Street and only from Carl's Pharmacy and west. David McBride of Aspen Survey Engineers has submitted a letter stating the equipment does not protrude into the Main Street Viewplane. Staff believes that the equipment should be placed somewhat further in (to the east) if possible to further reduce the visibility from Main Street. However, we believe that the equipment, which is represented to be no higher than 37" from the roof surface, will have a minimal impact on the sense of historic proportions of the building and is acceptable. The easterly ductwork has been painted a blue/gray color. While the approved rooftop plan does not show this duct, which has been installed, staff finds that it does not have a major negative impact on the appearance of the historic structure. What remains a problem, in our opinion, is the accumulative impact of the three very large evaporative coolers and the fairly massive equipment for Pinion's Restaurant. Please note that most of the Pinion's equipment, installed between Swamp Cooler A and B and extending north approximately 15', was installed without HPC's approval. This rooftop equipment viewed from the north side of Main Street and west of County Road is very open to view, and does effect the historic Elli's storefront. We Still have a problem in working with the applicant to assure that changes to this building only be done after HPC has approved them. The accumulative impact of the swamp coolers and Pinion's equipment has again brought us to reflect on the design flaw in 1 creating false parapets and stepped up roofs on this building. We believe that the upper parapet idea should again be considered by Hpc to help mitigate the negative impacts caused by the large assortment of equipment on this building. There is no other building in Aspen that we have identified - least of all of this most busy corner in the City - that has a comparable amount of visible roof-top equipment. HPC reasoned before that as long as there was not much more visible roof-top equipment than the three large swamp coolers, it is better to look at the equipment than to add bulk to the building through an upper parapet. It is a close call now, however, staff still believes it is preferable to not add bulk to the building through an additional parapet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning office recommends HPC to approve the new roof-top equipment proposed for the Sushi Masa Restaurant on top the Elli's Building. sb.roof 2 APR 4 WAYNE STRYKER ARCHITECT BOX 10991 Â· ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 Â· (303) 925-2254 4Â¥> ri l 4-,Â· 19% E th,/60Ute-ill 6, joiÂ» FLA A 61 Ih 01 Pff - 46241 G. abll fk_Uy C)'[tvt , 4~ ~& / Â£ tter k 40 4-tato iLl <fL 90 fottej tool- -4019 0.-0,~4 0\Alled Â£,0~-Vl~AAF/4 .el-- r t)(74:6, i /4 acc,c - ~#lic 4*L,2<rovd-- u, Ru~ f li t L b Cclo : &u,~ .c Larppl61 4 th~, (F tr ~fluu f l A ht Ificivi,r 1,41.24 M Â¢01 62,4. d 01/\ fl A o C V LU clog Â·6 ot- 4vre Â£ \/ /1 /E/7f'.//7-â‚¬Â£1 /-~5~ (~<5<5 df~3 c~Â£4~~06'1 22: 4 wÂ·FL /~5~/7 A-Â« 2--4 (// c,4/unt w ( U 001 4 k vi 4 6 1 fiNA, fke- dor 6<11 4 14- 4- *46 034-# ancl fll,E4 on lo froan 4 //4 ~04>/>04'7 '19'' 43'GL flar/ fULâ‚¬47Â£ (~4~rk/44 2 M j \U, 14 /*) po i*nt fir- fAt 569 1(~.64 0,6 40 bÂ£ tri " or liet? Ct lo ovt *u-- 4 v r i- - A et- ot- dtu,- ro o L (Â« 014 0%4Â«-1- 6 01 A. 190. c . ft,Cl f--41 f k kettl-te#ALL ~ . /091 blirelÂ© f , i 1 ILC I(li~ Il/-( ~~ R-421_ 4 - M V ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS. INC. APRIL 4. 1988 210 S. Galena St. P.O. Box 2508 JOB NO. 16360 Aspen, Colorado 81611 [3031 925-3816 C T Cl .47 R1 1 0 c. 1- Er T Al CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING OFFICE 1 7,1 C In 0.. 1 ClÂ·-,1 d Co T U . .-01 1,-LI.,1, W.- COLORADO 61611 REFERENCE: ELLI S - SUSHI MASA RESTAURANT MECH. EQUIP. DEAR MR . ... , ..... I. . .1 â€ž R I [ c, 12 19 T t...1 . - 7-1-1- Al --'. HAGMAN-YAW. LTD.â€ž ARCHITECTS FOR THE . mE HEWUEST Or 1.71 1 T ' C: E>,1 ITI n T I--,1:2 .0-Â·DC'!-al-Â·.1 " WE !-1,Â·2,4.3=- ra.1 r'i u ,8.7..131-Â·1 1.-1-In= 0.11 1 fl'LI,ABL F 1-1 1.2- T (211.-ITC-~ in ..0 . i I ..... L.1 i .-- I. ./.-A 1 1.- &/ 1 - 1 1 ......... '-/4., ... - , 1-- .. .., i 1 J BETWEEN THE EXISTING ROOF ABOVE THE SUSHI MASA RESTAURANT AND THE MAIN STREET VIEW PLAIN AS SHOWN ON OUR SURVEY OF LOTS G,H, & I BLOCK 80â€ž CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: 1 3 FRESH AIR INTAKE - NORTH FACE LOCATED 4 FEET 2 INCHES SOUTHERLY OF THE NUMBER "3" COLUMN (PARAPIT WALL> THERE EXISTS 2 (trl=.1- o T 1.11--'1-liz,C: 6-!{r 1-1 (r,2,12,01...lein (:ir"rli.11272-Al "Ful:- E'mr,Ir 1Â·/'iriÂ·-' 1--'1'1â€¢ Â·-2, 'Ir Â·-, 1Â·[r; Ti_'C ' 11 . r.-1 1 1 ' -'-* ' k.. I.' ./-/' '..I-.-I .i.' t.._, ~__ 1.-- ' ., ' 4.-f - 6. 1.- 1 I. 1-. 4 .... , .1 . 'U ...4, i PLAIN. Ir Yl-Â·101 ICÂ·T '- J C h 1 -'- '- , M:n=11-1 K.2.10Â·52 1 !"1 0 2, -r E '01 7 Ir LE' 13 -1- .1 T Nol-lire , 4 '.... . ,--- .--I ,eDO! IT HERLY OF THE NUMBER "31' COLUMN (PARAPIT WALL) THERE EXISTS 3 FEET 2 INCHES OF CLEARANCE BETWEEN THE ROOF MEMBRANE AND THE VIEW 1=11..01 -1 1.1 WE TRUST THAT THIS WILL MEET WITH YOUR APPROVAL AND THAT WE MAY BE br run.nan SERVICE TO YOU. :- 1- 1 1 '".1 7-1 i T- rÂ·. SINCERELY YOURS; 3 j DAÂ¢41-Li. REBRIDE RLS 16129 0~ f 16 123 "F:' r " / 4, f- 444 ,$ I 4 t L . lih /1/ .Al 1 6Â« 1/ ) lizz- /,/Â»221 1 \ 6%7 **HyÂ«_ GBILMS. Lx- 40 n-N E R- Â©F l MINAF-5 14>VI UWN Â£7 - // I - Li , ~-nuug , -Amt 5.0 1 vit' d\RIÂ¢ckÂ« Â·Â·-11; 1 6041*3~--~04 n hu< 1 ~.6-\.\Ed - 2/ 17- ---1--.- . - 41 m -i. V / 1 e.CA-, 2 8 C / AdÂ¢42 et,OFORER '--2 , 1 2 14 t / / 4 /Â» %4600 17,99 ////1 --- -2 - 2-14/1 â€¢a 43 4 il Ets i?ty /NÂ»+L. I - -- 1/ ' 16/(1 p -X - ----- ---- 0-1- toodfll~ )-- 4----\....C -----I. 14Â» 11 1 99Â·91 91 ti 0 6, 11 1 # . _Vig lu /~00/ ,1-1, \1;'' 1 .6007-N- 11 1 11 1 ' ABC HEATING & SH ET METAL INC. 0195 VENTNOR AVE. - ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 - (303) 925-7944 1 1 1 CL--fo PN , 1 . ' 1 u/ 1 . , 1 , 1 ' YOU 1 -u - - 1 31-go *I 07 .--3,--. risrz"- i ., 0 * e-- -- 1--\---234 L- N 402 A rn c_Or r 412Â· 2 - 9 .- . -1 .. r - 1 1 ~ arly 4 1,-1 1,/~13\3 1 1 / r.r--0 -, 11 J 0 a L~=2110\161. 0 ---7 /721/ f 402<X 290 - . - 1 DAYTow 76187 Â·ad BX/*44/57- HOOP 1 h:. J D I SC M A &&g Ve;en CALÂ£~/ 442:;ZE . . I 0./ Â¢ A M] L -Fil_._1 94 2 . 51 4 KIT~HEN -Pl/\ DpyToN Zeâ‚¬54 11 1 11 . . /03 ' ~ 7 -1 h 1 . 6 2 1 -1---DIC.}461"d- -9 - # 0&,bouTALL'r< 03 - 1 ,4 6 . v =1 -1- 1 6 .SUppLy.1 1 -6 - t>OCE.... . L. C Mop - 1 r .SINK.... 4 8 7 7\ 1\ & m. 0 Q f.wah . p r '-Ir' ..i 4 4 D-- 8 . el 11 11 James D. Mcrall McFall - Konkel & Ximball William R. Kimball Consulting Engineers, Inc. John E. Parks Norman G. Almquist Robert E. Sidwell Denver. Colorado 80222 Stuart D. Monical 2160 South Clermont St. 303-753-1260 .James H. Konket Fax # 303-753-1312 Senior Consultant March 15, 1988 Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001 500 E. 1Kth Street 307-634-7647 Ms. Heidi Hoffmann , Hagman Yaw Ltd. ... 210 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Ellis of Aspen Our Job 5104 Dear Heidi: I reviewed my sketches prepared from the meeting we had with the HPC Board and find no mention of entering the building on Column Line D with the ductwork off the eastern most evaporative cooler. We discussed moving the evaporative coolers all to the west and revising the ductwork as shown on our enclosed sketch. We also discussed the possibility of ducting the eastern unit directly into the building but, we explained that existing ductwork revisions would have been very extensive and the amount of space available in the ceiling made this possible revision impossible. The design as currently constructed is taken directly from the sketches prepared and presented in the HPC meeting. Please call if you need further information. Very truly yours, < I / Ujilbl,* R. E &14 William R. Kimball WRK/kal 2, A DATE: APRIL 11, 1988 TO: HPC FROM: SCOTT AND CAROLINE MCDONALD, 300 WEST MAIN ST., ASPEN SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO 6 ITEMS PUT FORTH TO CONSIDER BY MOTION DURING HPC MEETING MARCH 8, 1988 THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES THE SIX MOTIONED ITEMS OF THE MARCH 8TH MEETING AND A SUMMARY OF APPLICANTS DESIGN CHANGES CONFORMING TO HPC DIRECTION FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS. MARCH 8,1988 MEETING. #1 MOTION ITEM - MOVING MASSING - STUDY FENESTRATION SOUTH AND EAST ELEVATION, SIZE AND SHAPE OF GLASS PANES. APPLICANTS CONSIDERATIONS: MASSING: MOVING THE MASSING DOES NOT ACCOMMODATE THE WORKINGS OF INTERIOR; FAMILY NEEDS AND RESTAURANT REQUIREMENTS. FENESTRATION: SOUTH ELEVATION. SHED ROOF OVER GROUND FLOOR: PITCH INCREASE. RESULT: DECREASES EXPOSED WINDOW AREA AND COMPLETELY HIDES 2ND LEVEL PORCH. REF. OPTIONS A,B,C,D. 2ND LEVEL BLOCK OF 4 WINDOWS (2 DOORS) BROKEN UP TO 2 BLOCKS OF 3 AND 1 WINDOWS. RESULT: BREAKS UP EXPANSE OF GLASS. REF. OPTION A,B,C,D,= GROUND LEVEL. BLOCK OF 4 FRENCH DOORS BROKEN UP TO: 2 FRENCH DOORS BOUNDED BY 2 DIVIDED LIGHT DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS. RESULT: GIVES IMPRESSION OF ENCLOSED PORCH. FENESTRATION EAST ELEVATION: SHED DORMER OVER 3 TRUE DIVIDED LIGHT DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS. RESULTS: SHED DORMER ACCOMMODATES THE NEEDS OF BATHROOM AND BEDROOM WINDOWS. REF. OPTIONS A,B,C,D,. ; 1 #2 MOTION ITEM: STUDY PITCHED ROOF TYPES SOUTH ELEVATION. SHED ROOF PITCH OVER GROUND LEVEL INCREASED. RESULTS: HIDING COMPLETELY BALCONY. REF. OPTION A,B,C,D,. SHED ROOF OVER 2ND LEVEL BALCONY DIFFERENT PITCH THAN WEST ELEVATION FACIA GABLE. RESULTS: FURTHER BREAKS UP SOUTH ELEVATION LESS MODERN. REF. OPTIONS A,B,D,. 2ND LEVEL GABLE ROOF WITH ATTIC DIVIDED LIGHT WINDOW. RESULTS: GIVES A VICTORIAN EFFECT, MASKS ELISHA CARRIAGE HOUSE EAST FENESTRATION, CAUSES THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE TO BE SUBORDINATE TO THE ADDITION, DECREASES SUN TO NORTH NEIGHBORS, INCREASES MASSING ON NORTH ELEVATION. REF. OPTION C. HIP ON SOUTH ELEVATION GABLE (NOT DEPICTED) CONSIDERED BUT DEEMED TOO MODERN. 143 MOTION ITEM - DECREASE/BREAKUP MASSING ON EAST AND NORTH ELEVATIONS. - REMOVED EMPLOYEE HOUSING. RESULTS: LESS THAN 1/3 (30%) OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE IS OBSCURED FROM VIEW BY THE ADDITION, AND THAT IS ONLY ON THE ALLEY AND ELISHA SIDES. EDGE OF FLAT ROOF N. ELEV. REDUCED TO 27 MAX RESULTS: GIVES THE IMPRESSION THE FLAT ROOF IS A SHED ATTACHMENI. - FACIA SABLE NORTH ELEVATION OVER GARAGE DOOR. RESULTS: BREAKS UP 38' CONTINUOUS WALL IN 1-IALF. REF. OPTIONS A,B,C,D,. - USE OF MATERIAL OPTIONS: USE OF 4 SIDED LOG/CLAPBOARD AND CHANNEL LAP. RESULTS: FURTHER BREAKS UP 38 WALL, MASSING. REF. OPTION D #4 MOTION ITEM - ELIMINATED STAIRCASE: WAS ELIMINATED AT 2ND HPC MEETING, MOST LIKELY NOT REQUIRED BY CODE. #5 MOTION ITEM - SHAKE OR SHINGLE ROOF: SHINGLE ROOF HAS BEEN INCORPORATED ON THE HOUSE FOR 2 OR MORE LAYERS IN 44 YEARS. THE CURRENT ROOF IS TAR PAPER (AGE UNKNOWN) AND LEAKS DUE TO THE SNOW CATCHES ON THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. ICE DAMS FORM UNSEAT NAILS AND BREAK SEAMS. REQURED SHOVELING (ROOF NOT TO CODE) FURTHER DAMAGES A SHINGLE OR COMPOSITE ROOF. THE ONLY LOGICAL ROOF IS METAL WHICH RESIST ENVIRONMENTAL AND SHOVELING DAMAGE,AND CONFORMS TO HPC GUIDELINES. #6 MOTION ITEM - SOUTH WEST CORNER, (COVERED ALSO BY #1 MOTION ITEM) - 2ND LEVEL WEST ELEVATION, TRUE DIVIDED LIGHT WINDOW. RESULTS: FOCAL POINT AND BREAKS UP MASSING S.W. / CORNER. REF. OPTION A,B,C,D,. - WEST ELEVATION: FACIA GABLE. RESULT: FOCAL POINT AND BREAKS UP MASSING OF S.W. CORNER. REF. OPTION A,B,D,. - GROUND LEVEL WEST ELEVATION: DIVIDED LIGHT DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS. RESULTS: FURTHER BREAKS UP MASSING OF S.W. CORNER. REF. OPTIONS A,B,C,D,â€¢ - WEST ELEVATION MATERIAL FRAMED BY FACIA GABLE. 4 SIDED LOGS, REMAINING WALL CLAPBOARD. RESULTS: BREAKS UP MASSING If\IFERS Â·WES1 SHED 1 1-L_ f-4 1 J ROOF WAS AN ADD ON. REF. OPTION A. - WEST ELEVATION CHANNEL LAP FRAMED BY FAC I A GABLE. REMAINING WALL CLAPBOARD. RESULTS: FURTHER BREAKS UP MASSING, INFERS WEET ELEVATION SHED (FLA1) HOOF AS AN ADD ON. REF. OPTION D. - WEST ELEVATION ALL CLAPHOARD. REF -. OPTION B. OTHER ISSUES FENESTRAT ION: DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS USED THROUGH OUT, MOST REDUCED 4 / i DIVIDED LIGHT AND ARE FRAMED BY SIMPLE 1 N M t< L. Pi , 1X4 MOLDING. FRENCH DOORS: DIVIDED LIGHT CONSIDERED BUT DEEMED FUNCTIONALLY INAPPROPRIATE ON SOUTH ELEVATION DUE TO EXTREME ROAD DIRT FROM MAIN STREET,AND DIFFICULTY CLEANING. UL_Abn Fihiftl SOUTHERN ELEVATION REMAINS UNCHANGED JUSTIFIED BY. - ONLY SOURCE OF DIRECT SUNLIGHT EXPOSURE. - 25 DIAM. TREE LOCATED DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF OF SOUTHERN EXPOSURE LIMITING DRASTICALLY SUNLIGHT. - ADDITION IS SET BACK FROM ORIGINAL S[RUCTURE 8.(SOUTH WALL TO NORTH) AND IS BORDERED BY A 43" HIGH WALL ON THE WEST SIDE, AND THE ELISHA CARRIAGE HOUSE. - 2ND LEVEL, GLASS AREA REMAINS UNCHANGED FOR SAME REASONS AS GROUND LEVEL GLASS AND FOR PASSIVE SOLAR CONSIDERATIONS. DECEMBER 8, 1987 PRE-APPLICATION MEETING RESPONSES TO: 1. ADDITION HEIGHT LOW: (19'10' ABOVE GRADE TO RESPECT THE ELISHA CARRIAGE HOUSE FENESTRATION AND KEEP THE ADDITION SUBORDINATE TO THE ADDITION. 2. SOUTH ELEVATION SETBACK RELATIVE TO THE CABIN 8 FEET 3. MATERIAL: UTILIZE 3 OR 4 SIDED LOGS. 4. ROOFING: PRO-PANEL METAL, IN COMPLIANCE WITH HPC GUIDELINES. 5. ADDITION AREA: KEPT MODEST, LIVING AREA 2000 SO. FT. 1 1 F FEB. 9, 1988 MEETING RESPONSES TO: 1. REMOVED SKYLIGHTS FROM CABIN. 2. WEST SETBACK INCREASED FROM 4 TO 5' 3. SOUTH ELEVATION: SOFTEN FRONT OF ADDITION BY DECREASING 2ND LEVEL BALCONY AND BY PARTIAL COVERING WITH SHED ROOF. DECREASES THE 2ND LEVEL GLASS EXPOSURE. 4. DIFFERENTIATE THE ADDITION FROM THE CABIN BY PUSHING THE ADDITION WEST ELEVATION HALF GABLE NORTH 2' RELATIVE TO THE CABINS WEST HALF GABLE. 5. NORTH ELEVATION MASSING BROKEN UP BY GABLED BAY WINDOWS AND CLAP BOARD SIDING. 6. SOUTH ELEVATION STAIRS REMOVED TO WEST ELEVATION. 7. DROPPED OPTION OF SLIDING GLASS DOORS ON SOUTH ELEVATION FOR OPTION OF FRENCH DOORS. 8. EAST ELEVATION 2ND LEVEL ADDED GABLED DORMER (LOW PITCH SIMILAR TO CABIN) TO DIFFERENTIATE IHE CABIN FROM THE ADDITION. AND SUPPLY A WINDOW FOR PROPOSED EMPLOYEE HOUSING. 9. DECREASED LIVING AREA 300 SO. FT. FED. 23, 1988 MEETING RESPONSES TO: 1. NORTH ELEVATION CHANGED WINDOW FENESTRATION - OPTION OF DIVIDED LIGHT WINDOWS GIVEN. WJNDOWS MORE VERTICAL. 2. EAST ELEVATION BROUGHT OUT ADDITIONS EAST WALL 1 FT. TO DIFFERENTIATE THE- ADDITION FROM THE CABIN. C 7 EAST ELEVATION, REMODELED GABLE DORMER, INCREASED GABLE PITCH, WINDOWS MORE VERTICAL. 4. CHANGED WINDOW MOLDING. 5. WEST ELEVATION: STAIRS REMOVED IF OK BY CODE. 6. WEST ELEVATION: PAR T I AL F AC 1 A GABL E S . W . CORNER POINTING TOWARDS THE ALLEY. TO DISTRACT FROM FLAT ROOF. 7. WEST ELEVATION REMOVED 2 FT. OF WEST WALL AT SOUTH CORNER. REDUCE MASSING 8. WEST ELEVATION S.W. CORNER. WINDOW DEPICTED A TRUE DIVIDED LIGHT. h include: 1. Move to direct the Planning Office to draft a resolution giving conceptual approval to the 300 W. Main project (Alternatives A, B, or C) subject to specific conditions of approval directing the applicant of what must be done at final development review. 2. Move to withdraw and deny conceptual approval for the 300 W. Main project finding that the applicant has not met the conditions of the February 8, 1988 conceptual approval or the conditions of the March 8, 1988 extension of the period of conceptual development review. Staff continues to be impressed with all the hard work that the applicant has undertaken to make improvements to the project that would hopefully satisfy the Historic Preservation Committee. We believe that Alternative A is the best design so far presented. However, none of the alternatives shown respond adequately to the design challenge put forth in HPC's conditions of approval and extension, in our opinion. The project massing as relates to the original house architecture, the roof types, fenestration and effect on the Elisha Carriage House are not compatible. PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the HPC withdraw and deny conceptual approval for the reason that the applicant has not met the conditions of conceptual and extension approvals. The applicant would still be eligible to reapply in the future with a new design. sb.300.4 5 |-- -- ---- --- 32'/" . --+15.3, -7-* 1 5.0/ - COACC. 4401\\It i LROPâ‚¬ a _-~D-DLL Qi LE DLCK-- - ~ 1 CALAR:,prbs raNE - ADDlT/ON\ i RED _ I Z... 1 - - - Bul LDIN6 1/Al F 2 .CIMPROVEMENT- S 444 , 5AffAAE 4 38' \ BODE_LINE OFFSET ' 2/ 11 - ORIG NAL NOUSE &**sm. i /7 1 \\t -// 1 1 ./ 1 \\\ 1 1 47' 1 33.6' ' ALLEy *P 3 Po w ,MI R,n A JA'.han 5 ; te P IM A & Roof i jn , j - 4 4 i OR' 6 / R AL_.w-81.tcTURE__ _ ___ _ 12 21 . 0 7 u, C.K , , 1 A Â· 1 11 1 1 #111_ Il_L_J. i _LLI_. 1 1 1 11 Pal Li-JI El-3 III 11 k--1 . 1 .1 - - IM-1 -I '...'. i 1 1*Cut==J=EULUE 1 1 1 <._--=- -emn.-70=1-733-9~r=:57=Er'11 1- 1 " - - -=27 = 29-21-1-22=ILECUIEL ' - 1 - , .1.1. f==== == =i. p i I i |-$- 4 I ..1 1 | 1 14 . 1 1 +Igj 103Â« 1. LL-1--Ll__1~. 2 :-- t.:i j- =ZE~ .1 1 1 Â¢ - -____01Â«_- f-f-1- ilt=-14-42 _-. A 1J. 1 -- -- * C . J --7--7.-22_27-- ---2-1/ EA31 8 1Â£04-i;Dn A jlernG-f;ve,Â· 4, O 0- C -4-0 k CL 1 13 I 0 - Ev - -t----- -- -_....GB-IULNAL 578ULTURE - --- Tlll; 1 71 Â®Aut -44[ 1 73/:.2/1-- . -- f i || i loty - I I E . 1 1 1 1 i 42231_~ i--1 '- - -'- F 1 &%/MA 6 1 YY '63-1*, Â·:I 4 1 bill--~4940-=24 U =9=Els ! --f; 1; 11*_ 1 r -1 - ruou li L~ . . I 2 - - 2 1 -- - -U:35601 -IUL- 1 1 1 1.- ___Â£_ ,_42=---Attlf-*31 ---[=-_ u - - til , - 1 . 1,1 -- i 4 111 7--3-yur= I_ ]__[Eryn -x,-,(r-lfE.-Â»r. r z -- . U 11 1 r, --- -- l_ - - - --, 1 - -- - Ant fL r - EL /4 /2 Lal DATUM j o,0,4 6 2 1 C v. Ti D h A IfffA<tive A 41('; FADj t.'t.' E \L ORIGINAL _ 5.IUCTURE I- -- - 1 2 FT NARLaNTAL REAF AFâ‚¬FT ; 1 114[' .---- - 8ETWEEN ADDIT/8/v 4._p,R,61/yALL?Ii-Â£11.,2'El 12[1 LD I / 1 *.----i-/- -I t- - ELIZIZIE~ZEZZIZZIZIEZZIEZZIZEZUZZIZIn / r 1 1 11 11 r $ - ---===== - ---------------11- -' --1 "-il 11 r---1 11 1.11 ~--=Jr--1 .0- Â·It - - -~ MI~----1 Ll_ . _~grl-=29==LE:--_L__- ---1 I lili "' __L....=-----LL_ 1- --~-- ----3-----,f-z--1 7=7 L===6=&=f----=&.1--r--, 1 11 " 1~ '----- - I , --~Â£Â£210_ L tz+69.9.f;.~-fÂ·RI-J-f--- - - u_-s- -aUD E f - .62 . . UVI 0 1 1 -- F i 1 1 -rt==-------------------------------053g====k E--1 1 A l / /,- f -il "-tÂ»-t-' 1 pu. - . . .U_L 1 ! rvIT'*+1 (A) k 64 2 1 e v 6-tio n : A lt' A mace#:e .4>. :Â·: I \\ ef.1 -(03 (3) -t 0/3/6(NAL.. .SIZ?UC.7241 RE.- --- --------------------- ------ 222 i . ..W-- -- -I 9-Â«---Â«37-34 F-3â‚¬3~. 1- 1 j # 1 i -0 -1 - --11 > 1 1! : -EA Ar LibL- '!, 4 '444=2-=3~ 0 1 - I! 1 | f /9.f -- | . 6 3Â« 1 61--- 1 .-I 1- -- 1 1 --I-- ti Â© 1 r- 1 -1 111 - 1 - 221 -b'r ~Ul_-_1 1 r. . 1 --. - 1 1 220 , 1. . DATUM 2- FLÂ· .1 /2 L=. f S vu-1-4 11}fvxtioh-- 4 11 8 ---- 1 521-2.22>11Itr-2 j AN'~t' i#*.#24+4 . 1 . , 1 - f , OR ]61 NAL ---STUCTURE \ - 1..., . 2 FT /JAR IZAN7 At RLAF AF/EFT -- 1 1 - 8ETWEEN AOD/7/8/V 4 CNR,614fA.L LTALIOJA 1 1 11 - 7 ;4-- .-4 -LUL . --- 11 1 Â£ 1 1, M 1 1 a-IJ..T , 1 ' 1 ~ 1 -1 1 11 b -- j' -=---7===E==Tr7 -=p - " -- 1 2 - Â·-- FEET-11/, - 1 -- --*17.30_ - c.._._L--=1.---Â·--=~~- '.*-----2--e,-a*DE.- I-1-UL.-_iL f_.- 1- - 1981 1 1 ' ovest ly le vAl-1 % A . A 11 . 13 AL ,Â£,toi}AL - - --- - ---- , 3. CK ) ~ l?fC/al- Z~-Le.2 7===7-27=5--.' 14 - t' - --- -1 j 0 7-2- /- - 7 1 --I . 1 , ---- ; 1-,11 - 1 - --1 8!irl GRADE - ~ -.Â· - ' E>172&M -- /9 D r t 1 F 1 244 04 4 11 e Y h 4-M vej 4 8 0 1 1 6 I . ADDITION *_EL.hi - - @ ORIBINAL 57-/RUCCUR.E. _...__. ...-_.-.-__._.- . .......- \ U! nt_' =1 ~ ~l ~ -~ 9 1 t , 111 fli 111 ---0 1: 1 -- 11 1 , - ---------4 -0 4. lit Z .Iiid ki .4 9 1 -- --- 4 5 !! P 1 g- - trit..7 . - ... 445-117-99- ------ 1,41 - ~ - -. li 11 i , i x ?04 4 1 ,/ .:1 1- 4 ~t 'f 2 -11 . 3 21- - ----r.- *---F------- Y- Ict__ *L_ - 2- 45 3 4 4 , - - ill -----Â· -3,-0-73Â·=rÂ·: On *.,FEE-*----r-- -----1-- -- .- E-+ 4 3, I 4 5/./.- . - . - . I El~AL- , 5 4} 1/12532;U*~t-CD- - ' ~ ' FL - -4-22__ . . . ..1 -=12 3 1-1/ 8/2 - DA,Tupt '. ~ ft/}-1 E jewDÂ»fi, *Qji~â‚¬y-Mt-tivi C J ' //Illil 7Â£* I \ I .> I . 1 1-1-- [---[---1--4-1 --[-r- F -]--I-- 11 ~ i 1 ~ i -Pr] 0 11 11 1 11 41~ 111 111 . 2 FT NARIZANTAL RAIiA- AFI-5FT ~- *IwEEN ADDIT/AN 4 ~Rit,NALSTRUL-Ila liE.OVEd?HANS - - 1-WEA NODIT/GN J 1 ~ - 5-fiEmT-WALL _ 1 - 1 -- 5---7-T---LECIEZIEn~1.1~z=au__ / 7--- 1-223---- -- -7- = .-3--Â·- --.-t'-3 - - -11 1,1 11, ..._292_Â· LI ~-B--IP -- E-=-IZZIZIEZEEZZIEiE--0.'H=---==+--L=.-I-*-P.----) - DAT Ll M 10,0 0 -7 1 3 ecitiv h A j iCl y) i-,,C f C i 1 - 1------- Â© . f I i 7 h f //EEÂ»- \ - :1 f - 1 ZI~~-*~W~Jmr<lImm~4 1 .22==1 It 11 47-9\ E- -----~ 111 I_1--_ ~L-_[_: E~ - --- ------ --i.,--&-=1 -: 2---IL1Lr--1; _~~Ir-----*-T--24#22 2,rz,Ty-30-ki----2---- 2-271 b-*_-1 -- 010~1 P'.// --- --- . 1- ------------~,~~~~Z~Zb__ _1 , - -----1 1 I .- IV'11 1 1 1 IM===-4 - DATUM fjoith Fleg41-104 - A liernativf O f VII, A. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office RE: 212 West Hopkins Avenue, Historic Landmark Designation, Demolition and Significant Development Review DATE: March 28, 1988 Location: 212 West Hopkins Avenue, Lots P & Q, Block 52, Townsite and City of Aspen, Colorado. Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting Historic Landmark Designation, Demolition of the one-story lean-to shed at the rear of the house, and Significant Development Review. The total new addition floor area is 687 sq.ft. The applicant is utilizing the Variance Setback Incentive allowed with the (proposed) historic designation to encroach into the rear and side yard setbacks. Applicant is also requesting a reduction in required parking one off-street parking space per bedroom in the R-6 zone. SITE, AREA & BULK CIIARACTERISTICS: Please see applicant's letter attached ZONING: R-6 HISTORIC DESIGNATION STATUS: Rated "4" SUMMARY: At this meeting, HPC will be reviewing this project for historic landmark designation. Conceptual Development Review was not properly noticed for this meeting, and will be heard on the regular meeting of April 26. PROCEDURE FOR PROJECT REVIEW: The applicants next step is review by the Planning and Zoning Commission to obtain their recommendation on historic designation. City Council would then hold first and second readings (two meetings) of an ordinance to accomplish historic landmark designation. Applicants are also requesting partial demolition; application must meet the standards in Section 24-9.5(b) (4) through (6). The HPC shall hold at least one public hearing on its consideration of the application with public notice published in the newspaper. The two-step Significant Development Review process involves both Conceptual and Final approval by the HPC. Special review for reduction in residential parking requirements must be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission. i PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Planning Office has the following comments in response to the standards for historic designation stated in Section 24-9.3(a), standards for demolition stated in Section 24-9.5(b), and standards for development review stated in Section 24-9.4(d) of the Municipal Code. Historic Designation Standards 1. Standard: The structure or site is commonly identified with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Response: This structure, dated 1888, illustrates the family/home environment and life styles of the average Aspen citizen during this era. 2. Standard: The structure reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. Response: The historical significance of this structure is that it is a typical Aspen Victorian Miner's Cottage (see pg. 9 of the Development Guidelines - II. Architectural Summary). It represents the built environment of Aspen during its Mining Era. The existing addition, to be removed and replaced by a new addition, is a remnant of the original carriage house, apparently built the same year as the original structure (1888). Attached to the rear, this addition does not possess historic significance, nor does it detract much from the original house. As discussed below, -Â·A the new addition should be more compatible with the architectural style of the house. The front facade of the house has not been altered, to the best of our knowledge, except that the porch was enclosed. Restoring the original porch would help a great deal to reveal the original character of the house, in Staff's opinion. 3. Standard: The structure embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. Response: This home's special features are characteristic of the Victorian Miner's Cottage. They include a front gable with projecting bay window, cut shingles in the gable and horizontal clapboard siding. The windows are typical long, narrow double hung. 4. Standard: The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: Although the architect/builder is unknown, the historical integrity of this original 1888 structure exemplifies early Aspen architecture. Demolition Review Standards: Note: As this is a partial demolition, Standards 4-6 apply. l~-"1~ Standard: A demolition or redevelopment plan is submitted which mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact that occurs to the character of the neighborhood. Response: The demolition proposed is of the one story lean- to shed at the rear of the earlier addition (1974) and is primarily visable from the alley only. The historic integrity of the original facade remains unaffected by the demolition. The redevelopment plan is addressed in the following conceptual development review comments. Standard: 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: NO important historic association has been identified with the house, nor would be effected by demolition. ~3 - Standard: The demolition plan mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact on the architectural integrity of the historic structure or part thereof. Response: The historic evaluation rating of "4" recognizes that alterations and additions have previously been made to this house, however, staff finds the proposed demolition plan to be sympathetic to the original structure. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 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 a Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark. Response: The Planning Office finds the development plan appropriate in many areas. By locating the addition to the rear of the property, as both adjacent properties have done, it lessens the impact on both the historic structure and the streetscape, which Staff finds to be more compatible. The applicant wishes to take advantage of the incentive in Ordinance 42 (Series of 1987) to build the addition encroaching into the rear yard setback. Section 24- 9.4(d)(1)(i) as amended stated: "The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic strctures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels...In cases where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks...HPC shall find that such variation from the underlying area and bulk requirement is more compatible in character with the historic landmark than would be development in accord with the area and bulk requirements." The application is requesting a variation be granted based on this finding. Staff's analysis: The original house is encroaching in the west side yard required setback of 5.0 feet. As it sits now, it is 1.4 feet from the property line at the southwest corner and about 1.6 feet at the northwest corner of the house. The proposed addition will be located 5.5 feet from the rear (north) property line. Current code requires 5.0 feet rear yard setback for the garage only, but 10.0 feet for the principal building. The proposed second floor bedroom and bathrooms would not be in compliance. The applicant states the siting of the proposed addition helps to avoid competition with the original structure, and provides the optimally functionaly floor plan interfacing with the earlier addition. In staff's opinion, the siting of the new addition encroaching into the setback is more compatible with the original structure. Staff finds the proposed roof pitch on the new addition in keeping with the Guidelines (page 51) and is compatible with the original structure, and may lessen the striking difference between the original and the earlier 1974 addition. The proposed height of the addition at the median point on the pitched roof is 24.5 feet (just under the allowed 25 feet) is much higher in comparison to the original structure, and seems to overtake the original house. However, as it is located at the rear of the site, set back approximately 60 ft. from the street and screened by vegetation, its appears to be less dominant. The proposed contemporary-Victorian details such as the arched windows, the divided lights, and open balustered balcony reflect some of the styling Of the original structure, and by using compatible materials as the applicant has proposed, should blend well. Staff strongly recommends the applicant renovate the original facade by restoring the front porch, which Will allow the true historic structure to stand on its own merit. The Guidelines discuss the importance of porches as a common element of the residential steetscape (refer to Page 57 in the Guidelines). 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Response: This particular block exemplifies some of Aspen's early neighborhood architectural styles, as well as Page Two Re: 212 West Hopkins Avenue two spaces would require a curb cut on Hopkins Avenue for a driveway and parking area in the front yard which would require removal of four large cottonwood trees and a twenty foot spruce tree. Obviously, this would destroy the yard and be a detriment to the neighborhood. The following outline addresses all the considerations for this review process under the guidelines Of Section 24-9.3 of Ordinance II for Historic Designation. 1. Historic Importance Not much is known of the houses's history except that it was built in 1888 and was owned by Walter Paepke from 1948 to 1952. Refer to attached Aspen Historic Sites/Structures Inventory. 2. Architectural Importance Architecturally, the original house is significant in that it reflects the traditional Aspen character and the Victorian style prevalent when it was built. It has been given a 4 Rating by the Aspen Planning Office. The addition, which was built in 1974 is a boxy modern two story structure that sits at the rear (north) which fortunately dimishes its negative impact from the street. 3. Neighborhood Character The house is flanked on both sides by Victorian houses Of similar character which also have two-story additions situated at the rear (north) Of the lots. The remainder of the neighborhood is predominatly Victorian style residences. Page Three Re: 212 West Hopkins Avenue We submit and assure that the proposed addition will be in compliance with the standards set forth in Section 24-9.4(d), Ordinance 11 and 42, for Development in H, Historic Overlay Districts, as follows: (i) The proposed addition will be compatible in character with the original house through similar roof slopes and matching exterior materials. The addition is in the vocabulary Of the Victorian style and compliments, rather than imitates the original. Also, placement Of the addition to the rear and extending into the required setback is more appropriate as explained in item 4 of the Program Outline at the beginning of this letter. Refer to attached drawings. (ii) The proposed addition is consistent with the adjacent houses, which also have two story additions to the rear (north) of the original buildings. It will be in scale with and reflect the predominantly Victorian character of the neighborhood. (iii) The proposed addition will enhance the cultural value of the original house by partially obscuring and diminishing the impact of the 1974 addition, which is not in the Victorian style. Thus, it will improve the integrity of the residence and justify the 4 Rating, as a "Typical Aspen Victorian Miner's Cottage". (iv) The proposed addition will enhance the architectural character of the original house for the same reason as listed in (iii) above. With regard to proposed demolition, a small one story lean-to shed at the rear of the earlier addition will be the total extent required. We will be in compliance with Section 24-9/5(b) of Ordinance 11, as follows: 1. The lean-to portion on the north side of the existing j building is actually a remnant of the original carriage . house that was incorporated into the 1974 addition. The foundation is in poor condition and the original carriage doors were merely covered over with siding to create a utility room. Page Four Re: 212 West Hopkins Avenue 2. The space occupied by the structure will be enveloped in the proposed addition as part of a new mud room and the north wall location is incompatible with the new room layout. The new second floor will replace the shed roof. 3. The structure is only a minor element of the existing house and relocating it would be impractical since it would be unusable in a different location, having only two exterior walls. 4. A demolition and redevelopment plan is irrelavent for reasons stated above. 5. As stated earlier, the proposed demolition will not impact the historic importance of the house due to its location and the fact that it was already modified by an earlier addition. 6. The architectural integrity of the house will not be impacted for reasons stated above. If there are any questions, please give me a call. Very truly yours, aLl 4 Charles L. Cunniffe, AIA Principal cc: Charles A. Smithgall III CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A.I.A. March 16, 1988 212 West Hopkins Avenue Lots P & Q, Block 52 Aspen, Colorado SITE, AREA & BULK CHARACTERISTICS ZONING (R-6) Lot Area: 9,000 S.F. Existing House Floor Area: 2,205 S.F. Proposed Addition Floor Area: 687 S.F. (exempting 500 S.F. for garage) Proposed House Total Floor Area (FAR): 2,892 S.F. Maximum Allowed Floor Area (FAR): 3,240 S.F. Proposed Site Coverage: 2,243 S.F. Allowable Site Coverage: 2,400 S.F. Proposed Height of Addition: 24.50 Ft. (at median point on pitched roof) Maximum Allowed Height: 25.00 Ft. (at median point of pitched roof) Total Front - Rear Yard Setbacks Proposed: 23.75 Ft. * Minimum Allowed Total Front - Rear Yard Setbacks: 30.00 Ft. Total Side Yards Proposed: 7.00 Ft. * Minimum Allowed Total Side Yard Setbacks: 10.00 Ft. *With regard to the encroachment at the rear and west side yard setbacks, we are utilizing the Variance Setback Incentive allowed with the (Proposed) Historic Designation. GHollÂ·VAN-1-2 adv~]9 1016 431Â¥Oldhll O'(201 ~ 05 'crloorAJ.Hrloo Ht>Illd 'higa*V * Allo'ze >100-le c ** J elorl 05 *72* 09.1.wdclrl + +9/41/9490â€¢619 HI O-aftlâ€ž ,Ag o)/Vj-79,d 1/ang V Ho 016% 91 NÂ¥12 -31-le elrtlt+0 14/â€¢,00* tiollÂ»/10=1141 'L 6 GaleN -1VW)HND 9 | ~5~ |~|V7d 111 9 b g n H a Av Gh'l>'JOH . gwil 'dold 0Â·09 O- tul-7 '' + CLEf : 10 D- Â»10,â‚¬1-gG 0 th P 02IVA Â»f33 1 J. HO'Nd ' ;HIG'Woo,OÂ·04 *ta,=~ O... O -2 <900 00 2/1 HO-Z lfÂ·r,Zfbit,2 - 0 e 1 4 7Â»vqlg G.J.L Z *1Â·41161*Â·a ~+Â·140 Ir--7-!-111 / 27---r 9 1111 1 LIli il; 2 1 11 1 1 ~ 1- -3--- ~--< 1 E- - - -- - ~ 11 U. -1 0 1 - !~ :~1 6 34+01'J blxg-Â«411 4 i Â·; im z daylk'1039 21.hil lugw - .>+9*21:3â‚¬ Â·ady/# 1 (420_1.f~4~ ~ 1 L _14 3 - Hovel ONÂ·g tpixÂ·a Â· a-ztd f@ â‚¬),193( 1 Â©1*1 1.. 1"-Id 21>cg-Â·2-h ~ Â·l- Perle)*310 10~'>CS 0 m @-38* /243 --4 C 3-9016 0061 ) 1 \ - 11 4-1.& 17 . - k -If-apTPTM'. 11.3-*:71*0 MaN-2~ '' ~ , Ni~ - t- 14 42{ 4 1- ~ lyl 4 Â»3 0 37 4- 9 *rÂ·,ING= 1Nt-2Â¥WMO P . Â·*=*ela 6 19+4 Id-1&1141 r. , ,+04'kid <0.91 IMÂ¢99'21 - - 91 :5 1,1 th -'SE o Hot.LAWNXE Â·P'd'H -S'001 + 0 ;WIr,29333 ->OVâ‚¬1Â·SG / D.01 /4,;11 )642.91.14 -PRI 1-1 210Â»1 0'09 ~ '~ 09402106, EJ<Dilldâ‚¬19 J | A 694 + 9 â‚¬>v*Â·00 2#51 hi Â·>,Ove.las 1313* -7041% â‚¬1 ;ZP921, gâ€¢'0-19ANg Â·19019 â‚¬15321 - 2.5 2409 2,5.. ada-EAN.2 Â»0 1 100.0' FROR LINE 3N ll dold 1 0 '001 76.2.5 ' Im . erÂ·Â·10\/RELTE.0 cotÂ·40, APROM *00,25 Â· i ~r- ftp tia>.16 1 , EXISTIHOr U'fIN-IY 02%Â¥1 | 90,4 *1 ./ 11- HL.42 p,ze 1 *17- 6..f'ee 0. 11'041010â€¢ > 1 / - , 1 @IR-b,Pg,r4 4- Â»-,4=100.0 13im.26 1 / ~---31% 109261 1 \ |Â·~ ./'* 1 94/WMECTED ./ 1 / 4 1 '3-6, 51.Ae aE / le.26 9+,0 ' / / ~<1*TINA LiVIK~I leorl \ / / f 1- 9-J~ - - -- -- ExleTINGÂ¥ t_1___ ~ BEPRCOM -1 EX' eT IN,5, CO 11 KIP+ItutÂ·,1 00 0-0 D-3 2>41*TINO' f -3 ~ f - RAT-H 1.rÂ·R'~232 MAN. Â· 1/4"01~Â·01 Crl fl B*15'TINC, Di NINOT RaTNJ 0-XleÂ·rINA 1 *16.---1 1.1 , D E P R.... /1--1-1-STI *u LE ~ ~ fit 4-. 1 k . JI_ . r~I 1,2 4=)11 Â» 101*11 1 exteTINA Â¢(30!6:ta.1 -1.2% n- 3'tw+{4kar~ */-/,1 1108,6 -- -~1~~~1H*441~ < OX'a p~=,wÂ·Â·r -Y- , en 1Â·Â·'0,9,ree eec,Fa, h.1 Fll/,P, XMl/2 1 12 - 41&* - NEW pecÂ·)L 1 L *~-71'01 lok ki 9-1111KTrmlit#flt 1 1 1_1_13_ T T H U T 11 1 _ 0DFIE, FLAN - 14"- 11 0 u f 0655-526/EOE 3NOHd3131 2l9IS 06]~0100 N3dSV 'DESE XO8 o d Odvzblo-leo flqgdGV CNINJOH'Â»313 ' 0 L 2 0 9 Gh,101192131-ly + â‚¬440111<lav ~Â§ iC)311HDUV/53.LVIDOSSV Â¥ 3=1:IINNrD 53-121Â¥H) NON'Eal GE N -1-1 9 9Hll IÂ»I 9 &8 0 S i 12 El .= ii; 4 J: ,dj 1 ~ ZW :% Fi 222 .f 3. 11 1 4 537 3Â§& 38 &R L L 4 Â·Â·VT---2 -7 - _ ---- 1 ;it Z 9 1 60. , I 4// ~Â«/ p. -43 --1 -*=9 1.t--11 ~~ 24 1 1 1;'OE-1-57-7-3--4 +51 A di 4 -- n----- - =-Â·- I --1.Â·'ti , 1 11 ~B VVT_JL- -AL = 4-- _- 34 1 0 L 11 1 r lit 1-- I _Ul , 144 :-24 -12~ .;Â·Â·/ -Tti------2 1.L N.J'r '4 C 1 11 u,1.- --It 11 1 f -- 9. ; 6 1 -A 0 le=1 =t 11 . .Llry-t ~ 99/gl' AEVISION A.FRA 1 4 * b IC]le Coo,A -' t- NOI.LVA-3 7-3 glt-log Noll,60'Â¢ N,aN -391-10,4 91 *a WOOW *NiAll 9,8 JO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Colorado Preservation Office 1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 ARCHITECTURAL/HISTORICAL COMPONENT FORM |~~4~ â„¢PORTANT: USE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GREEN INVENTORY RECORD FORM FOR -'4~~ FOR RECORDING HISTORIC STRUCTURES AND DISTRICTS. USE SEPARATELY FOR .~ RECORDING STRUCTURES LOCATED WITHIN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES. v-Ii)) Resource No. 5PT-158 2) Temp No. 177 3) Name JESSIE BIGGS House 4) Address 212 West Hopkins Ave. 31 District Name none I. INTEGRITYP 61 Condition: Good * Fair Deteriorated 7) Original Use Residence 81 Present Use Residence 91 Original Site * Moved DateCs) ef Move: N/A 10) Unaltered * Altered - Explain: N/A II. DESCRIPTION; 111 Building Materials Wood 121 -Construction Date 1888 131 Architect/Builder unknown 141 Architectural StyÂ·le(sl. Typical Aspen Victorian Miner's Cottage 15) Special Features/SurroundingsÂ·: Jvpical Victorian Miner's Cottage charactprigticg: front gable with projecting bay window supported by wood-sawn brackets. trimmed out with tooth-sawn shinqles in qable and horizontal clapboard sidinq: cross gable with double front entry (one for main entry: the other for parlor room/special social function usp); gingerbread porch with ttirned posts; typical long, narrow double-hung windowg. 161 Archaeological Potential: Yes NoÂ· Unknown * Explainr III. CULTURAL ACTIVITIES: Â·Key the resource type (ie: house, barn, shed, school, church, etc) to the cultural activity theme and sub-theme category associated with it. 17) THEME Residential 18) SUB-THEME Urban 19) TYPES Single-family No. 5PT-158 1 / /M,zew â‚¬339 J -1 - 0/&0~09'90'-6. ili.ORKH,J#41+414,1 - - ..,1 Frame Number Roll Number 6 1 4 Facade Orientation Front . ' . ...4 *â€¢â€¢ 4-Â·"~-M 1 ' 1 1, 5. Istorical or architectural merit by checking appropriate categories and justifying below. Include any relevant historical data. 20) Architectural Significance: 21) Historical Significance: Represents work of a master _ Associated with significant persons Possesses high artistic values Associated with significant events or * Represents a type, period, or patterns method of construction Contributes to the significance of an historic district The historical significance of this structure is that it is a typical Aspen Victorian Miner's Cottage (see details on front). It is not so much who owned it or lived in it but that it is representative of the built environment of Aspen during its Mining Era. It illustrates the family/home environment and life style(s) of the average citizen of Aspen which was then dominated by the silver mining industry. 22) List Any Associated Cultural Group: none V. REFERENCEQ: Pitkin County Clerk's Office - Abstract of Lots Books (title search) RECORDER V.G.Kirkpatrick DATE Oct. 30, 1980 MEMROANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office RE: Update on National Historic Preservation Week activities DATE: April 5, 1988 As previous memorandums to you have stated, National Historic Preservation Week is scheduled this year from May 8-14. The theme is "Historic Preservation: The People's Choice", based on the momentum and enthusiasm of national political campaigns. I have met with representatives of the the Aspen Historical Society, the Pitkin County Library, the Community Church, the Wheeler Opera House, and the Aspen Times to discuss their interest and involvement during National Historic Preservation Week. I am pleased to report their interest level is high and the following activites are beginning to take shape: "ASPEN CELEBRATES NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION WEEK - MAY 8-14" Banner across Main Street, to be coordinated by Aspen Historical Society 1) PRESERVATION FORUM, MAY 10, (TUESDAY), 7:00-9:00 P.M. PITKIN COUNTY LIBRARY - DOWNTOWN MEETING ROOM Agenda to include slide presentation from Aspen Historical Society and historic photo display; Overview of Preservation in the Community and the Role of the HPC presented by HPC Chairman, Bill Poss; Aspen Historic District and Landmark Development Guidelines by Roxanne Eflin, and a report on Annual Preservation Awards made by HPC. Time should be available for questions and answers and refreshments, which are to be provided by a local restaurant. 2) WHEELER-STALLARD HOUSE OPEN HOUSE, MAY 11 (WEDNESDAY) 6:00 - 8:00 P.M. Free to the public. 3) HISTORIC WALKING TOUR, MAY 14 (SATURDAY), 11:00 - 1:00 Walking tour to begin at Wheeler-Stallard House, with the route to encompass Pioneer Park, the Elisha House, the Glidden House, the Judge Shaw House, the Red Rowland House as well as the smaller neighborhood cottages in the historic West End. Refreshments will be served at the Community Church, and a brief tour Will be made available by Architect, Graeme Means. $5 per person, payable to the Aspen Historical Society. Tour will not be marketed until volunteer tour guides are arranged through the the Society. MEMROANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office RE: Update on National Historic Preservation Week activities DATE: April 5, 1988 As previous memorandums to you have stated, National Historic Preservation Week is scheduled this year from May 8-14. The theme is "Historic Preservation: The People's Choice", based on the momentum and enthusiasm of national political campaigns. I have met with representatives Of the the Aspen Historical Society, the Pitkin County Library, the Community Church, the Wheeler Opera House, and the Aspen Times to discuss their interest and involvement during National Historic Preservation Week. I am pleased to report their interest level is high and the following activites are beginning to take shape: "ASPEN CELEBRATES NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION WEEK - MAY 8-14" Banner across Main Street, to be coordinated by Aspen Historical Society 1) PRESERVATION FORUM, MAY 10, (TUESDAY), 7:00-9:00 P.M. PITKIN COUNTY LIBRARY - DOWNTOWN MEETING ROOM Agenda to include slide presentation from Aspen Historical Society and historic photo display; Overview of Preservation in the Community and the Role of the HPC presented by HPC Chairman, Bill Poss; Aspen Historic District and Landmark Development Guidelines by Roxanne Eflin, and a report on Annual Preservation Awards made by HPC. Time should be available for questions and answers and refreshments, which are to be provided by a local restaurant. 2) WHEELER-STALLARD HOUSE OPEN HOUSE, MAY 11 (WEDNESDAY) 6:00 - 8:00 P.M. Free to the public. 3) HISTORIC WALKING TOUR, MAY 14 (SATURDAY), 11:00 - 1:00 Walking tour to begin at Wheeler-Stallard House, with the route to encompass Pioneer Park, the Elisha House, the I Glidden House, the Judge Shaw House, the Red Rowland House as well as the smaller neighborhood cottages in the historic West End. Refreshments will be served at the Community Church, and a brief tour Will be made available by Architect, Graeme Means. $5 per person, payable to the Aspen Historical Society. Tour will not be marketed until volunteer tour guides are arranged through the the Society. OD - + 4. J.lo 4 (00 ------.--...GB-la[NAL 578UCEURE 52 ) -p *m rf-L.$*2- 9 'A-<I . I LÂ»~Â»a 1- -L 41 . 1 F t !/ 0 5 9 '0'1*B' 12-1 . 1 1 1 1 ....~ ~ . 75 3 - ...A 1 11 :11.. 7.- 7-1-- .Aâ€žÂ¥tp.==== ---- 754:/ - Â· - ....1 --- 1 ----7 ---r--- 19*u ..- .6 . _.___ r' C _ L - Poon I i ~ | 1.1. -2-19-7=L=GLZE .=iatfisr -7, LM -- _, 6 73=rive2- _ -- I r : i ' . --- 11 - -- 1 1 YS -*.---* /15 1 ---*-Ii- - 1. 1 1 1---- if' . 1 . i /IA .: - --- I I_~Plt- 12-01_ A 1. 1 ..222.-i Ili 1 1 - - 12. I Ati- Â·Â·- -- ---- - 11 7. 2 . , 6Â·r U t- - - - Â· El- -r) -1 C 9 L EL Ap /2 DATUM son,-fl, li lev. TiD h A 1-1-ern*-tive Air (AL 4 1 1 . 1 31 'll ply r /* 21 1 .4 \L 14 1 - j 1-J / O R 16 / Al A- L_ .WitiLLCTU. R E- - - - -- - - - h- ADD;TION - -- - - -- *All,--â€¢â€¢0~--/ --- - - ---- --- --- 2 21.---Â«7 2/'C-K L_.22_22___ [5~i~i~YÂ»-r-T-T-T--r- 11 i:' 1 0111 1 1/ P . 4 r ; 41 a , 21 /1 1 I [22232] ____ ' _____ El v 4 1 + Ptu /1 ; 0 li !1 FE/--/ , 1 1 / i :7 lilliaL 1,1,1/11!,ull'- - 1 -/1 -- . -22Â».- - 1!ll 4 2--4-- --- r --202:1222_-1_Ia_-=__Izz--cÂ·tto- 1 Il 0 1 4 u 1 1 g /' ----~ - I -I I.*-- - - -1II--[--1-14--1-~I I -~2â‚¬7 9.29-1.~1=16.2-1-TILE:31 Il 1 - It 3 - - I. 1 - ... 1 1- 277~TEE--F- CÂ»-C.1. ===EZ==1 4 - -1 j[ 1-1 0Â» Â¥.-- ' I | le ' ' tu | t Â·. 1-3-373EILE:=22. --12_11 j 1 / i., . - .- tl I - --Â·_-Â·-1- _iÂ·FRIE---.L_q--E~~~~~~~"~~T'~1E- in Â· â€¢1 - 1. DA flt-ft>_-_ tor} Ele 094;Dn A jifrn#tiveJ- 4, 0 0- C