The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19880510") )I & 66Â·61--. - 304 (ptÂ« 1- 6-1 r-4-"- ./, t~ tjt- pÂ·7 -, fl.-- A-_j AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE May 10, 1988 - Tuesday 2:30 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. SECOND FLOOR- Old Council Chambers City Hall REGULAR MEETING 2:30 I. Roll Call II. Approval of Minutes-April 12, 1988 III. Committee Member and Preservation Awards IV. Public Comments V. Monitoring Projects VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Conceptual Development Review: Public Hearing Afi"0.4,4 (continued) 300 W. Main Scott & Caroline McDonald 1%42Â·Â« B. Conceptual Development Review: Public Hearing (continued) 212 W. Hopkins Cunniffe and Assoc. Redevelopment Review: Public Hearing (continued) AÂ¢00*.2 222 E. Hallam Cunniffe and Assoc. 0-,13 1-EL Â© VII. NEW BUSINESS 'GALL_<A. Significant Development Review: Public Hearing 513 W. Bleeker Welton Anderson VIII.ADJOURN ASPEN CELEBRATES NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION WEEKI First Annual Aspen Historic Preservation Awards Presentation: Aspen Community Church, Pitkin County Courthouse, Hotel Jerome, Wheeler Opera House, F.M. Taylor House (Showcase Properties), 131 E. Hallam (D. T. Reynolds House), Wheeler-Stallard House PLEASE BRING YOUR PACKET FROM THE 4-26-88 MEETING FOR DETAIL AND REVIEW OF 222 E. HALLAM AND 212 W. HOPKINS. i L~ 1' 0 h ~101 4 (.0 <11 9 IM o <p- i~202Â¢ 6/ 11 1'1 4 #~ â‚¬ 771 63 f ' Le. 8 w - MEMORANDUM TO: Historic Preservation Files FROM: Steve Burstein RE: HPC Special Meeting on Demolition Review DATE: May 10, 1988 On April 5, 1988 HPC held a special meeting to discuss the historic preservation demolition and removal review. The following general points were made by the Committee. Two questions asked by the Committee are answered. 1. The Committee believes that the burden to demonstrate that there is no practical re-use of a structure and the structure is unsound has been correctly and workably placed on the applicant. HPC understands that if an applicant presents information that appears "suspect" in its reliability or depth of investigation, then tabling or suspending action on the application can be done. The depth of studying structural and financial alternatives to demolition depends to some extent upon the historic significance of the structure. HPC is willing to require a more thorough study - and possibly City Council authorization for funding of an independent study - if the structure is considered to merit such or the application is insufficient. 2. The Committee feels confident in its ability to evaluate the technical and financial evidence presented in a demolition review hearing. HPC understands that in some cases staff may make the determination that expertise and time beyond staff's ability may require a staff request for additional support. 3. Review of redevelopment plans as part of demolition review must follow sequentially the other standards of review- demonstrating first that the structure cannot be saved. In review of redevelopment plans, HPC believes it is appropriate to determine whether the new structure is compatible with the historic character of the site and neighborhood; however , the procedures and standards of review are not SO detailed as "development review" within an H, historic overlay district or historic landmark. 4. There is a concern that the decision on demolition comes down to the financial issue of cost for preservation. HPC discussed the approach of looking at the ratio of: rehabilitation cost/land cost. 1 While this may be an interesting piece of information, there was no consensus that there is a specific number where the cost of rehabilitation (or preservation) is too much. Additionally, there may be appropriate, less expensive ways to approach a preservation project; and HPC must determine whether such an approach has been considered or should be considered. 5. The question was asked what enforcement is there if a building is falling down by willful neglect of the owner? The City does not have a pro-active "anti-neglect" provision. Standard 7- 602. B. 1 of the new Land Use Code states "the structure proposed for demolition is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure." This standard allows HPC to look at the owner's effort to keep the building in reasonable repair at the time that the owner requests permission to demolish a building. Indirectly, this places a burden on the owner to maintain the building, understanding that neglect is not considered valid reason for demolition. 6. The question was asked whether the City continues to have review authority over new structures approved through demolition and redevelopment approval. The City Attorney reported that yes, the City does have the ability to review amendments to the redevelopment plan approved by HPC. sb.5.9 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office RE: Preservation Awards, Nominations and HPC action DATE: April 27, 1988 Seven nominations for the 1st Annual Preservation Awards were made and voted on at the April 26th meeting of the HPC. On April 25, City Council unanimously approved the funding request of $250.00 for this awards program, stating they felt "this was a very good idea" and they were pleased to support the program. Four of the seven nominations were made prior to the HPC meeting (letters are attached for your reference), and three nominations were made by committee members during the meeting*. Each will receive an engraved brass plague, individualized with the name of the building and construction date. The plague awards will be presented to the winners at the May 10 HPC meeting, during National Historic Preservation Week. Letters will be sent inviting representatives of each building/project to attend the May 10 meeting and receive their award. Those properties receiving awards, exemplifying excellence in preservation are: The Wheeler-Stallard House The Aspen Community Church The F. M. Taylor House (Showcase Properties) The Reynolds House - 131 East Hallam The Wheeler Opera House* The Hotel Jerome* The Pitkin County Courthouse* A press release will be submitted to the media for coverage! Thank you for making the 1st Annual Preservation Awards program successful. A REMINDER: The Walking Tour of the Historic West End, sponsored by the Aspen Historical Society and the Community Church, May 8, Will commence from the Wheeler-Stallard House at 11:00 a.m. Tickets are $8.00, refreshments served at the Community Church. Preservation Forum, co-hosted by the Pitkin County Library, is planned for Tuesday evening, May 10, from 7:00 - 9:00 p.m. We hope you all are able to attend and introduce yourselves to the community-at-large. A slide show ("Historic Aspen") will be shown by the Historical Society. SEE YOU THERE! - 429 i o F ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY 620 West Bleeker Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-3721 April 19, 1988 Planning Department City of Aspen Re: Nominations for preservation awards The gracious Victorian house at 620 West Bleeker and now open to the public as the Wheeler-Stallard House Museum was built in 1888 by Jerome B. Wheeler, .silver entrepreneur, to be his family home. Due to family circumstances the Wheelers never occupied the home. It was used instead by Wheeler's mining executives as employee housing. After being sold for back taxes in 1904, Mary Ella Stallard purchased the home in 1917 as her family home. The Stallards lived there over forty years. Walter Paepcke purchased the property in 1946 at the beginning of Aspen's revival. The Aspen Historical Society, incorporated in 1963, purchased the house and opened it as a house museum in-the late 60's. In 1973 the Wheeler-Stallard House was included in the City of Aspen Historic Overlay District. In 1975 the property was entered on the National-Register of Historic Places by the State Historical Society of Colorado. The Wheeler-Stallard House maintains the mood of Aspen at the turn of the century. The three-story Victorian house, built of locally quarried brick, is furnished with a collection which has been donated by the Aspen and Roaring Fork Valley community. This fine example of Victorian architecture is the house in Aspen, furnished as a residence and open to the public. Museum operations to maintain the only historical museum in the valley are supported by admissions, memberships, foundation awards, and a grant from the City of Aspen. The museum is staffed by three employees and a corps of dedicated volunteers. As the Centennial Anniversary of the Wheeler-Stallard approached, the Board of Trustees realized it was an appropriate time to do necessary exterior repairs and renovations. A Wheeler-Stallard House Renovations Committee was appointed. The Committee determined that three areas needed attention: broken and loose masonry; deteriorating wood trim and window repair; and the painting of exterior woodwork. A total project budget of $75,674 was prepared. The committee was aware that all repairs should be in keeping with the historical character of the house, its current use as a public museum; and prevailing local historic guidelines. A local architectural consultant advised*the committee. Irrdme,lillitililill .1 2 1.Ebfli page two Private donations from the community in the amount of $20,000 enabled the masonary repair to be completed in the summer of 1987. An Aspen Foundation grant of $20,000 for the repair of the windows was awarded in 1987. Approximately $7,000 of additional donations have been received. Efforts to raise the additional funds needed are underway. Future plans of the Aspen Historical Society include expanding the educational program to include a lecture series and slide presentations, rotating exhibits in the house and Carriage House, and a traveling exhibit which will enable outlying areas of Pitkin County to share in our rich heritage. Plans are underway to establish a new building which will be devoted to mining, skiing and classroom space. The Wheeler-Stallard House is the only Victorian house, furnished as such, and open to the community and visitors alike. The Aspen Historical Society remains dedicated to preserving.the house and artifacts for this and future generations to enjoy. .. - 4- 4 1 ... 4, - , 1, - A 4 ./--mt - f - lk:. -- 1 1- ~ 3.-:. r ..7 9.._ Nt":r- E 74.. 1 ... . - 1/ @i -t-t mr r Fr4 . 1 â‚¬7, -- 1 -4 r... 1 .1 I . a.m .m .m ./.- s. 2=U 05 4 I. I. â€¢011 AbrIN :1:3 , L'-~ll-r.. SDC}E MUSEUM 3[* - 1 ORE,+ 0 -1 PAVia == . I 1 ....1. 40:1 9 - *'40'/m , */7 + 1,11 '. i..., 4/4 1 . W:;27&': f.'.51 f 1 1 1 1 . r 1- - 7 1 t I ' J I. . J . t'.I ' r â€¢U.'* .f -1Â¢' 3 le. . AWâ‚¬b .2,34 294Â« 4 I 't i f-,1./:2%+130 ; I **7.~~.aft' '~Â·.fh#-9 ?60.~24 I. I , ~ 3g:*"M '' 2*-3%31-te.'23Â«i.lf=,2--1,4,2 - -7, 2 N. ....': ,,7 LO,>?471}. .his.t...;.4: 4:,9 -~~7.-i,~429641~02LÂ·f..k ril . â‚¬f-'~41,~9:Â·Ilyx t:Â·~Â»93 â€¢9:T~:t ASPEN COMMUNITY CHURCH APR 2 0 >1 MARYANN DOWNS, PASTOR 114 N. AspEN ST. SAC UNâ€¢.CO - --- ASPEN,.COLORADO 81611 I (303) 925-1571 ,M ~~c..uRC.1 April 20, 1988 4 I 0 0 tn Historic Preservation Committee 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Co. 81611 Dear Sirs: Standing proudly on the corner of Aspen and Bleeker Streets in Aspen, Colorado, is the Aspen Community Church, a grand old edifice that has been the site of many important events throughout the history of Aspen. As it approaches its 100th birthday in 1990, the restored structure continues to enhance the entire community by its stately presence. The church has many outstanding features, such as numerous stained-glass windows and the original woodwork throughout the building. The original archi- tect, Fred A. Hale, was also the architect on the Wheeler-Stallard House. In addition to being a place of worship, the church building is signifi- cantly used as a public meeting place because of its close proximity to the elementary schools and the center of town. To date, we have completed major restoration work over the past two years at the cost of $187,500, all of which is completely paid for. The re- maining interior and exterior work is estimated to cost $298,000. Our next phase of restoration will begin in early May when we have con- tracted to have new shingles and repair work done to the bell tower. On May 8, we will be a part of the historic walking tour of the West end of Aspen, which will be sponsored by the Aspen Historical Society. We invite you to consider the Aspen Community Church as a nominee for the Aspen Historic Preservation Award. Thank you very much for your consideration. sincerely, Maryann Downs, Pastor MD/sm G1 AF: ~ and associates 605 EAST MAIN STREET , ASPEN.COLORADO81611 TEL: (303) 925-4755 April 26, 1988 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Planning Office City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Aspen Presentation Awards Dear Ms. Eflin: In regard to the above-referenced program, we would like to nominate the Sutton Residence at 131 East Hallam Avenue. Located on the southwest corner of the Aspen Street and Hallam Avenue intersection, the house was originally built by Dexter T. Reynolds in 1892. During the next 95 years, the house underwent a series of minor additions. However, in 1986 work began on a major remodel, renovation and small addition. Inside, the house was almost completely gutted and restored in a true Victorian style. In addition, the structure was strengthened where necessary to meet current codes. On the exterior, siding and trim was replaced and/or repaired where it had deteriorated. The Victorian detailing, particularly at the eaves, was also restored. Finally, the entire house was repainted in a Victorian scheme. The property was also fully landscaped and new fences and gates were built. A new garage was built to replace one that was structurally unsound and encroached into the alley. Ms. Roxanne Eflin April 26, 1988 Page two Thank you for considering this project. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, 1 h hi Kim Weil KW:dem P.S.: Project Team Architect: Bill Poss and Associates Interior Design: Karen Day Hudson Landscape: Design Workshop, Inc. Structural: Theodore K. Guy and Associates, P.C. Contractor: Pioneer Building and Constructions Inc. ; and associates Showcase ~Better Properties : , i. pornesÂ® A and Gardens 332 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 TELEPHONE (303) 920-1500 April 21, 1988 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Committee Re: Historic Preservation Award Nomination Dear Roxanne: I would like to nominate the F.M. Taylor residence, built in 1888 for an Historic Preservation Award. Located at the southwest corner of Third and Main, this one hundred year old building has remained one of Aspen's grand Victorian homes. This home has been well maintained and recently painted. Currently occupied by several professional groups, I feel that this property is often overlooked by the Historic Preservation Committee. As an owner of the property, I can assure you that this Victorian would make a lovely addition to the Victorian Home Tour and that we would be agreeable to allowing groups to visit. I have enclosed a rendering of our property along with a backpage historical summary. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Gary M. Feldman President GMF/tos enclosure m Ans REALTOW' . 1ST ANNUAL ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARDS in honor of National Historic Preservation Week May 10, 1988 (Chairman's presentation speech at the May 10, 1988 HPC meeting) The Historic Preservation Committee would like to congratulate all of those individuals who made this first Annual Preservation Awards presentation possible. We had excellent response to the call for nominations. Seven distinctly worthy projects are honored this year with an engraved brass plague. The plaques are designed to be mounted to a base of your choosing, then securely fastened to your historic property in a prominent place for viewing. The importance of historic preservation in Aspen cannot be underestimated. In the words of Mayor Stirling, it is a "pivotal and fundamental phenomenon here in our community". Each of your projects serve as an example of preservation excellence which will encourage other property owners to do the same in the future. Historic Preservation has long been considered a particularly important factor contributing to the quality of our environment and life. The seven projects receiving awards represent seven different elements of Aspen. They are: 131 E. Hallam - the Dexter Reynolds residence, built 1892 This is a newly renovated private residence - (635 7 a 6-30' D r- 332 W. Main - the Taylor House, built 1888 Now the office for Showcase Properties, representing a renovated historic residence adaptively used as office space in the Main Street Historic Overlay District The Wheeler-Stallard House, built 1888, The Home of the Aspen Historical Society, the restored historic home of Aspen financier Jerome Wheeler, now a house museum and community showplace, listed on the National Register of Historic Places The Aspen Community Church, built 1890, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, currently undergoing restoration The Wheeler Opera House, built 1889, representing the arts in Aspen, about to celebrate its centennial next year. Listed in the National Register of Historic Places The Hotel Jerome, also built in 1889, representing the Commercial Core Historic Overlay District and an outstanding example Of commercial renovation, and listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 1st Annual Aspen Historic Preservation Awards May 10, 1988 Page two The Pitkin County Courthouse, built in 1890, representing the public sector, and is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Three of these projects are also being honored by Colorado Preservation, Inc. with a statewide historic preservation award to be presented in June in Denver. The Wheeler-Stallard House for its contribution to the community in history and preservation education; the Aspen Community Church for its contribution to the community in architectural style; and to our own Zoe Compton, for her contribution as Interior Designer for the Hotel Jerome renovation. The Historic Preservation Committee looks forward to continuing this annual awards program in the future, and would like to again thank those of you whose projects are being honored here today. 9-32 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office RE: Conceptual Development Review (continued): 300 West Main, alternations and additions DATE: May 3, 1988 PRIOR COMMITTEE ACTIONS: On March 8, 1988, HPC passed a motion to extend the period during which the applicant can meet the conditions of conceptual approval by one (1) month to April 12, 1988 with direction to the applicant to study and present revised plans concerning six (6) elements (please refer to previous memos for these details). The applicant returned with three alternative plans on that date (April 12), with a fourth plan presented at that meeting. Welton Anderson assisted in the presentation, retained by the McDonald's as consultant. After extensive review of those plans, the Planning Office recommended that the HPC withdraw and deny conceptual approval for the reason that the applicant did not meet the conditions of conceptual and extension approvals. HPC voted at the April 12 meeting to extend the period of time for conceptual approval by two weeks, to April 26, with the condition that the applicant present elevations addressing the Committee's concerns stated in the conditions of extension on March 8. Roof pitch, the northwest corner of the addition, and the second story porch and massing on the Main Street (south) elevation were of particular concern to committee members for further design change. On April 26, HPC reviewed new plans which addressed most of the Committee's concerns. Ten (10) primary issues were discussed. Please refer to the April 26 Memorandum for details. The Planning Office was encouraged with the plans presented for the April 26 meeting and felt that, for the most part, the areas of concerns stressed by HPC were being met. Recommendation was given to HPC to table conceptual approval to the next meeting of May 10, and direct the applicant to further study the issues of fenestration, shed dormers on both the east and south elevations, gabled dormers on the north elevation, and roofing and siding materials. Staff also recommended to HPC that they give direction to prepare a resolution granting conceptual development approval for HPC's consideration at the May 10 meeting, which resolution will incorporate the concerns discussed by HPC at the April 26 meeting. HPC ACTION: The following motion was passed at that meeting: Page 2 300 W. Main "That HPC table conceptual approval to the next meeting of May 10 and direct the applicant to further study the issues with Option A; with the dormers on the South and either the dormer or a reduced shed dormer on the east, looking at the following items: 1) window and door fenestration, 2) the siding as presented is appropriate but the height and joint should come as close to matching the existing siding, 3) that metal roofing materials are appropriate but the actual materials to be used shall be presented at final, and 4) that the window trim of the new windows be furthered studied. Floor plans, site plan, roofing plan and exterior elevations shall be submitted in a single packet for consideration on May 10. Also, that staff prepare a resolution granting conceptual development approval for consideration at the May 10 meeting, which will incorporate everything in this motion." The motion was amended to remove items 1 through 4 from conceptual development approval, and require their review and approval at the final development stage. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The applicant has presented revised plans, which the Planning Office feels have incorporated every issue HPC has discussed and recommended. Staff is pleased to see this plan and has the following comments in its regard: 1. The plan presents a south elevation gable end, with upper floor divided lights for the windows and doors. The roof height and pitch remain the same as presented at the April 26 meeting. The apex of the gable is still shown off- center which creates an out-of-balance window and door opening pattern with the lower level. This gable pitch relates to the remaining elevations, and is setback considerably from Main Street. Staff finds this gable end approach responsive to HPC's concerns, however, we would recommend further study of simplified upper floor fenestration to be presented for final review. 2. Further information has been presented regarding second egress and handicapped access. Code requires direct egress off the main restaurant area, and does not allow access through a kitchen or garage. The north elevation proposed a new doorway with handicapped ramp extending out of the original log cabin, very near the garage. The existing north elevation window will be covered over due to the enlarged two-car garage. The proposed new access opening reflects a solid door with windows, with the doorway opening cut into the original logs. Staff has expressed concern that no irreparable damage be done to the primary east and south facades of the original log cabin. Great care and sensitivity should be taken by the applicant regarding the construction of this new doorway. Page 3 300 W. Main 3. The east elevation shed dormer has been somewhat reduced, with the upper level windows balanced with each other. 4. The north elevation upper floor dormer windows are presented smaller, fitting nicely within the gables. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends adoption of Resolution 88-3 (1988), accomplishing conceptual development approval. RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE OF ASPEN, COLORADO GRANTING CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO 300 WEST MAIN STREET Resolution No. 88- WHEREAS, Scott and Caroline McDonald (hereinafter "Applicants") have applied to the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee (hereina fter "HPC") for Conceptual Development Approval for the purpose of alterations and additions to their property at 300 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado, Lots Q, R, and S of Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, HPC has heard this application at regularly scheduled public meetings on February 9, February 23, March 8, April 12, April 26, and May 10, 1988, at which time evidence and testimony was presented with respect to this application; and WHEREAS, the HPC finds that this application complies with the criteria for conceptual development approval, pursuant to Section 7-601(D) of the Land Use Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the HPC that it does hereby grant Conceptual Development Approval to the Applicants for plans presented in Exhibit "A" attached and dated May 2, 1988 subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicants shall address in their Final Development Review submission further consideration of: a) Simplified south elevation upper floor dormer window and door fenestration b) Detailed plans for the size of panes in the true divided lights and all window trim 1 2. The applicants shall present in their Final Development plans an accurate representation of the siding materials including channel lap or logs, which height and joint are to match existing siding as accurately as possible, and actual roofing materials, including shingles or metal. 3. The applicants shall provide in their Final Development plans structural analysis of the house sufficient to assure that the proposed alternations Will not undermine the structure leading to major reconstruction or demolition. APPROVED by the HPC at its regular meeting on May 10, 1988. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE BY Bill Poss, Chairman Attest: KKâ‚¬hy g*icEland, City Clerk'2 Office reso.300 2 7.. ~ i' ct,21' ./)30 Lij j Â·~4 L i ) C'i ll C/1 .. -L CAL , : 1 Y 4 4 (' 141-Â«3 Irt,-02 G t..1 L l; 94~ ~ ilt- 1 I 4(2 *41 L 2.2 3,0 2-0 i. :4 , .. t -)1 i (< 'ffc -ll'.,) .1 Â£'t; j. L 71.6.6 +L / 2 /1,62-- l. C. 1 2 ./ 1\ I 6 4-9 L- & J -2 .. luCCL.'Â·' L'.Li/.,o~, C er)(-7.1-(Coci.\ J .642. . i,c,OCÂ·;1 91Â£ 1 - -Â·c- c,9(-/ t. f i (IC+Li >1)....')L~,0, 2-9, 4 ' 7.-f. . , Â· 1 X L :4 . 0 1 1 1 ,- Â· - i f /Glf(68 c.,1 L.4 76 2;C. 0 41) f 1+ 14 i Z.1>746 3 oc g b 6 4 ' -6. 3 ' 7-0 2.4,57/20 6 .iK{26(Iâ‚¬ 5. CITY OF.fASPEN 130 south galena>Atre et MAr: - .: aspen, colordi16281611 C L 303-925-1010 CITY OF ASPEN PARIS DEPARTMENT Things to think about when construction occurs around trees Do not fertilize trees around construction sites until mid summer or until the tree has fully leafed out. Then only give the tree a light fertilization to give it time lo naturally harden off before winter. Also baracade 2' to 3' outside the drip line to prevent compaction and any other damage to the tree's limb's or bark. Never change the grade around the tree's trunk. Try not to change the natural drainage patterns around existing trees. j 4 CITY OF ASPEN MAY-2 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 303-925-2020 Scc c. N ,?, 4 ST. ~ The Parks Department is in agreement with the MCI)onalds ( 108 West Second Street) that digging within (2 -31 of the drip line of the 80 to 90 year old spruce trees would be detrimental to the trees. Two of the negative affects to doing this would include: *Cutting the roots on one side of a tree will kill the leaves or needles on that side of the tree. * It will weeken the stability of the tree against winds or heavy snow loads. Also these trees being so prominent in the neighborhood would have a negative affect if one or more were to spiral and die because of construction damage. Therefore, we are in agreement with the MCDonal(Is to not disturb the root systems of these prominent trees. ~A I 'f (X, . 01 C,reE Ng /~-1 / C.] Cl W Cl-l V NOCI<UI ~ -N V74 90077--771UT-UNZ (13 1 915 ON 21 Â· 16Vj Â· 1 f - . - H 14 6 .>,314 , 39-Ir]H EiN/15/13 1 9, 14.1$ 1 1 ' .. 1 1 2-1 1 , --, [ [k 3 l IVJ t /9 ly ON i . r- 1 11 .1 1 i := :v .ove,d 1 . L - 1 ! c== ~* fl ill]111-S N I\1 1,4 3 ,. . I -19-97/--0/)~ i /411101 -:; 1 9 . . U \/Il .U-'-7.-f_,1 i 1 _1 9 9 0/\ t: WEST - 1 , 2. t \ & 1 50 ET/9 \ EflA /-At.._67 3 . 3 1 F/,1 1 1/ ~A/00/7/0/V /1257, i f r 9 tÂ«718'6-4.-- $ NO /1 f ff U li I--27._-- ._ ~._ __1 CALL Ei ] 1 69 /Â· 0/J - EL+ -.., 00*,L EXYST/N 6 H 13 1-15E 1, r 4. 1 .. 3., 24 EAST UND_ 5.71 9 N 1/UY GR OLLN D LEVEL- FLOOR PLAN, PI'.,3 Ml DONALD ADDIT/DN , SCALE: 7,5": 1' 4,Â«,a 3 0- w - 1\Act,n .. - / I 4914 1 L.===b.>-- -1=41 /ek \ 11 1 07-=Â«-4 7,Â«1-1--S / /52+-211 1 11 ~1~--~~-] ~%=Â»1=~~ i -==a h Il-- 1 -----.-.- F~~~~~~*.-'~-_ UL__ 11 1 - - -------j 11 , u'---/.0--4--:1L .1- *Linic.-I------6/2/flk Irr-L.*- 1/ Â» --=P.=.==$,p--I~P-ni / 1 1 1! 6;-j--i= 4-Ir==ir= 1 - --- Er-1 h '1 .=*<=---4 6 4 -33 -----4#11 LUJU-02-23 J'-1 , 1 ---- DdlallE___=__-- -..i-----I----*-4---------1.---.I-- 4 " 4-k E/U.U.Cbo 4 3 04 W. Nud 4 /- f J n 1 8 RIGIN AL _ STR [12.ILL. i RE ADDITION , 1 -| h 1 130 1 _ __IL-1 - 3-_ L__L.._.- 1 , rk q ~ i~--1-1 H . t 4 ~ W .44. tâ€¢ A~ -I= 413-2-1= 94 --- 1 4 4 1 | ---1- --22....-EEr~1.143:9=Â»5,k-f5filt-e--1 -/ ; 1 - 6, I . .. ir; P . . 41.3 4. 4:7.a' 1. Y r-.=Â·-- ' 1. 14-0. $ . -' ,. 4 4 , . - I:. . I DAnt,1 ------ -- 2 ATT- â‚¬1*u Ao . 350 w I nÂ«; 1 tr 0.10094_0 luse_ 1 1 1 08_/6 LA/A L STRULT.URE 1 1 1 214-'I Lp 1 / lir - rr- -4 - ./ 'i ' 11 1.=291 1 .; ? 1, 1 1 ./ FÂ»-1 _.__. _t-----nXN[ Er=-1/ 1 " i,t gak 11 1 1 1 ii ~ 11 1 2,12(\A.f < -0 ==1 r 1-= -9--111 241> - 113/ 1 . 1 1, I ~~~~-~~~~4~6 -==- E Z 1 1 4 LItk. 7,721312*f-_-4- 3%=--7. ... .-! 1, 1! 14'jiri-,-Enti --=-27- 314-'4*FL;--ilip -9.--i --4 1 i 471 19 -' .-f_ 1-1 1 )Qll i i/ --*th-7-22=:.I- - I.EE-Â·.23 1 ' -I--20559 ...1 , --./ .Ir-./4 -/ I . -7=5 -I----" 'TE-I -I- 0 ;* F ! --~--JI~ IM~-Â·1 1 . :--.=. -pr:~t~11 1 1 Â«2Â·Â·t445 *-1 Â·Â·Â·-_-j:--- 17. 15 + a D 6, ~ ~ li r d 1 - 1 1 - l i i 1 1. 1 -----2'.,1, - 1 A- 4,# -f-ri, 1 4.1 2 .41 V 1-- 2 t.'72-77-7.-2--Â·rÂ· -2-Â·-Â·~--EIT--9-:Â· .-77.- ,- Â· Uj-WL' R 'Hk ==P - ~ ~, .1 11~ }:~.344/08 9*;3-5:3 *1.032.-2-*4_- -+â€ž.: .._2__-_ 20--L-*4;~ /~ . .1 . Â· EL t /2 'Â·Â·Â·-: 1, - t=-4 DATUM 5oct4 â‚¬-14".rhoh 30-0 w . FAu: _ C .Al<li t 1\ td ,Â·4 11: tâ‚¬i tal O i l Ni i --il .- --.t /2=- 1 4 1 11 h )Ell il, ~ J 1~7*==Â«nk 11 i I /6.1.-==111111==---- r: 1.11 4 1 1 ; 1 i i , 1 J 1 1 ! Ilb'.11 11 2.- 1.22r_=z-ur---T~ZF=L -- .~_Tr-,2--- -. _- )1- I~ A || j & # 5- - 1, 4. 4- 111=r-UnT=m=:,~~ \Â»~-th<L --~4.---1.---i---I.--t ==4,=:.:A,-P=-=?r--==772 -Unt-4---'---i-aW=rITQ.-lm=â€¢E--aUR/li H 1 k.---*_m-Â·Â·-------1 1----A -=-=.=t..7-72-==V.1-~Sn.7.2--IV- p-1--- Â·Â·2-*# -=t.- -7- -1. /+-cr.Â·.~- .4.-;Cm'.+ 1.2-73/ '.t .i''-CZ-;r~1~~' Ii_|1 1 '-1-Â·-Â·Â·--- 1-1 I whip \Al,11- f lk'u,% O 4 03 5 Â© Lo. Mat A EryT.......TO'll-Â¥Eq/-.*.<+.i-/y-/ .Ut-11 UNE 29.5, 20' 1 i I -/0-Dll 3 1 1 \ 1 ' I././ COUG. 1 ' Â£1421 n. - /9ll/92 1 ' _DEC-K_ ')1 el' CALAR.' REOU-% . -ADDITION . ', . L' 1 REÂ¥ - . ' ' ' FLAT 20[lF' Â· . -Z... ----- h EUILD/N6 L /k .C/n PROVEMENT ,.... 1 4 RETAIN/NS WAI, . .~ --f :20%4Â·f- t" , - 4- 1 1 $ . -t . 1 I .r 1 ; # 42,5 .9. 5 4-6 1422 ct. idi ., Â· /6, Â· ., 245 ~ 40.1.:..... 4 t.v: ~ ' '1 . V .2 > ..i -- 1 7Â» 1 al 't : 't., d. I : Â· 4 GRAB AGE , 0 ... L 2/. 5 ' X /8 U r n Â¥ _Â¥ . , 4 . .- 1 r - 4 /2 3 ' i--il. ---1 -~~--+ k--1 .-~-- 1 0 -'- 6'jO. - 1 33.6' . Allf.y - ' F LMIVI.1/99.- if+ '. __ d W VW /DEWALK V 2-4 4 - MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office RE: 513 W. Bleeker, Significant Development Review, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 2, 1988 LOCATION: 513 W. Bleeker St., Lots F, G, and the East 1/2 of E, Block 30, Townsite and City of Aspen, Colorado APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Conceptual and Final Significant Development Review at this meeting for the garage addition, connected to the main house via a 3 foot by 4 foot breezeway. The total square footage of the proposed garage and storage space is 486, just under the 500 sq. ft.maximum for exemption from FAR. The existing carriage house will also be connected to the proposed garage via a similar breezeway. The existing carriage house, which serves as an existing dwelling unit, will receive new roof shingles and interior renovation. SITE, AREA & BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Lot Area: 7,500 sq.ft. Proposed Floor Area (garage): 460 sq. ft. (23 X 20 ft.) i (attached storage): 29.6 sq.ft (2.5 X 11.4) Proposed Maximum Height: 15 ft. Proposed Front Yard Setback: 75 ft. Proposed Alley Setback: 5 ft. ZONING: R-6 HISTORIC DESIGNATION STATUS: Designated, Rated "Excellent" PROCEDURE FOR PROJECT REVIEW: The application must meet the standards for development review in Section 7-601(D)(1). The two-step Significant Development Review process involves both Conceptual and Final approval by HPC, which the applicant is requesting both approvals at this meeting. Required public notice for the Conceptual Development review process has been made. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Planning Office has the following comments in response to the standards for development review in Section 7-601(D)(1). 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. The proposed garage is a one story structure with a shallow pitched roof matching the nearby new breakfast room porch roof. The roofing material will be wood shingles, and the siding will be wood bevel with decorative cut shingles in the south gable. All materials represented, along with detail and trim work will match the existing house. The breezeway connectors between the existing carriage house, the proposed garage and the main house link the three structures together. The Planning Office finds the proposed garage and breezeway connectors compatible with the existing structures. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Staff finds the setback of the new proposed garage and the renovation of the existing original carriage house in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and consistent with the Guidelines, Section VI. Residential Buildings - E: Alleys and Parking. This section states: "The traditional residential pattern placed...support structures at the rear of the lot at the alley. Buildings on alleys have an importance of their own, and give the alleys a special character." Entered off the alley, the location of the garage tucked behind the large, main house prevents it from being significantly viewed from Bleeker Street. Its low profile is also consistent with the Guidelines (same section) #2. "Preserve existing scale in new construction at the alley and wherever possible historic outbuildings as well." 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development. Response: The proposed development does not detract from the cultural value of the designated structure, in our opinion. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposed development does not detract from , the architectural integrity of the designated historic structure, in our opinion, and its design lends itself well as a link between the carriage house and the main house. Although the lot itself is largely built out, and minimum open space remains to compliment the structures, the low profile, siting and simple design of the garage allows the historic structure to stand out architecturally. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of Conceptual Development for 513 W. Bleeker St. The Planning Office also recommends approval of Final Development provided the accurate representation of all major building materials be approved by HPC. Final Development approval shall also include a statement of how the plan conforms to the representations made during the conceptual review and responds to any conditions placed thereon. 18 C Welton Anderson & Associates Architects TO: Historic Preservation Committee RE: Barnett Residence, Garage Addition, 513 W. Bleeker DATE: 4 April 1988 Please find attached drawings for a garage addition to the Barnett Residence at 513 W. Bleeker. The new garage is planned for the Southeast corner of the prooerty, setback 5 feet from the alley. It is to be a one story structure with with a shallow pitched hipped roof of low profile. It will be barely visable from Bleeker Street. Thank you for your consideration of this amendment to the Barnett Residence application. Sincerely, Wd/U ** 5 I. Welton Anderson, Architect Planning / Architecture / Interior Design Box 9946 / Aspen ,Colorado 81612/ (303) 925- 4576 C Welton Anderson & Associates Architects Historic Preservation Committee Ani ) Â· Â· 7 City of Aspen Mra :' 1 27 April 1988 RE: Garage for Barnett Residence, 513 W Bleeker Dear Committee members, Below is the additional information requested by Roxanne: Effect on existing structure and neighborhood: Of all the thinas that have happened to this poor house in the last year, this semi-detached Garage will have the least effect of all.It is located in the southeast corner of the property, 5 feet from the alley and set back 75 feet from Bleeker. It is one storey with a shallow pitched roof matching the nearby new breakfast room porch roof to which it is attached by a 3 foot by 4 foot breezeway. Apart from the practicality of this link and a similiar link to the carriage house, they will visually tie the three structures together while allowing them to be separate. The effect on the neighborhood will be negligable due to its large setback and low profile. Materials: Roofing will be wood shingles, siding will be wood bevel siding with some fancy butt shingles in the south gable. All materials and detail and trim work will match the materials, details and trim work of the existing house. Thank you for your consideration of this application. Sincerely, %11Â»- C. Welton Anderson, Architect Planning / Architecture / Interior Design Box 9946 / Aspen ,Colorado 81612/ (303) 925 - 4576 - IM L.,id . .,r Allâ€¢?At..2- -- IN Â·/6 -9 : 4 2Â£7'. * .Ki --- V -- 7-my f 1 U IN t J - r i . :4/4 ./#I.. ' 1 * i ' 14 . .1 . i : 1- 4-- -- - -!~- 26Â«, Ok,1 0* A.lÂ»/ ... 1, 9 - OtÂ·1 64.~ P 1 11 1 1..7 f lt - 25*Kup- 414.*4~ 1 C.*.1 'Â¢1 ii 1 M L 1 19 1 t' . +7 VEâ‚¬rr E Leâ€¢ATION.- *ECrION -74Â£0 *E E.2 eVAh/ 7 *R 4 .416- 1 lott 1 Â·'Â·UUL---' .. 1 I . 11.- . . I. ...' . , I Â¢ . , '200 Bl,ull- , IN#U-Tiv U /5 /,DWÂ·1Â£47. c*.1 -To D 9-6, \,0/41 .. CAK.*, AGE. tellâ‚¬ t , - - - -- C - 1 / 1296 i X ' 1 1 11 1 11 1 14 11 4, 1 4---------- ------- --------1 -----9 NOÂ¢-FU ELE:Â»770< d 1.21:'.1 Le, 4 ..... I 1 .4 ~' Â· $ Â· -4 : ,/ 'I' Ir I .-# '- I: ' I. . ' ' I.' ' 4 Bu.HDU 4 Â»-17 , 444.44- câ€¢-â€¢,JGâ€¢utt, -40 HA-,2,4 , , a.'Rect. E.1<197 4 4 %04>4 - -- -% FDOF- -42 ,-.rÂ»/ GA~,1,5 - P - 1 . f - -Z=:1\ \ ,M't.y #dEW Fâ„¢ziA .-- -1 --6 - *11.4â‚¬ OÂ¥16,Â·91/4- \VA'/ .-'~ 1 - . 0' ~- #. - ,$~ , \ 4.- - , /4 ~A Â¢W-Er 'otÂ»E- , En-.- Â· ----- - I.- 9=h. , Â·Â· i~ i 1 / 1 1 1 1 , 5'60 6. ~ 1, fv,< , 1 1.. i 1 : :L 1 1\ .\ 2 + ~1 ; 1. i . R ili .' T ~. ~ If -R 4 94891 92,4%#harTIed L r '/d 1' = 1 ~c) 1' idj\i avmid f 1 1 -1\ 140-3 9 N 1 i 1 i I , 1 . 7Â»Â»- - 14 L-_ -.. ..+ ---- --. ............ 4- h .. .. --. . --- * :2>.4 i * 1, f '#44410 i. 1 1-1 3- ~-------1. ,%&- I N E-1 L. 2- - in-1 .6 LL~ i i nF-]l. 41 r-- - - 1~ 11 w L U vn-=4Â·~rÂ©f: f- -14 1~-- -Il_ 1Â· 1~~ 1 ._. 42 1, >7' 0.4, 41AiA,*C -1 L 5Â£2012. 4- ;13 -t- 5,2.464 Ch*25 Fl Vt. :M-71 ; ; ]L---Il-_123 13] KL -1 A.[476 AL t.. 1 liz...]2 ..It...... _1:.~ 1~ .Ell F- r--1-)~1~ ~ 1.. I .1.-- 1 1 1 1 - 4 1 -t 4 - - -- 1 f <5428456 ARK 1 ' Au:Ast E L \ 1 -4 1 '' . l 0 t. ILA: D dEHOPELÂ£Â£2 +Â»Jiâ‚¬ . Â· Â·Â· *L , 11/ ; . 1 1, ex ' .... - 2> b * . I .1 1 f i ..1 . , 1 + r- 4 6 1:<67 + - ZÂ»1 ..0 : 20; 1, / A CE Zed OlkEE-T 0 IT E FLAH Fâ€¢-4 4 1 %5 -1 1.5 1 '-10. N>' 1304,9.).C~â‚¬. Lic r. j L.