Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.hpc.19960214
AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 14, 1996 REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL BASEMENT 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of January 24, 1996 minutes. II. Commissioner and Staff Comments In. Public Comments 5:10 IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Isis, s#e visit to review materials- 311 €- kno 64« ft«14 4 a< 1 5:45 B. 918 E. Cooper Avenue - mass and scale review for Lots Mc'it & N. Reconsider January 24th motion i.e. Lots O& P 6 Ic- 6:15 C. 820 E. Cooper - amendment to conceptual PUBLIC HEARING h-Ue-£0 - 314/, - 6:45 V. NEW BUSINESS A. 616 W. Main - Landmark, Minor, On-site relocation, Ordinancce #30 compliance, PUBLIC HEARING SY,e n ly- rta r « 9 A I of, n , g 4,6 D- 1 7: 15 VI. Adjourn 3-0 SITE VISIT - 616 W. Main (barn) & 820 E. Cooper whenbver you can. REMINDER - February 22, NOON to 1:30 lunch with Council PROJECT MONITORING 0 Donnelley Erdman Meadows Collins Block/alley 624 E. Hopkins (CD: 3-8-95) 220 W. Main - European flower 930 King Street 330 Gillespie 426 E. Main Galena Plaza Jake Vickery Meadows 130 S. Galena 520 Walnut Street - Greenwood 205 W. Main - Chisolm 610 W. Hallam Leslie Holst Holden Marolt Aspen Historic Trust 303 E. Main Kuhn 930 King Street ~ 939 E. Cooper langley - Entrance to Aspen Roger Moyer 409 E. Hopkins Holden Marolt 303 E. Main 520 E. Main 107 Juan Martha Madsen 132 W. Main - Asia 435 W. Main - L'Auberge 706 W. Main (CD- 4-27-94) 702 W. Main Stapleton 525 W. Hallam Wyckoff J Linda L. E. Smisek 229 W. Hallam Pinnington 316 E. Hopkins - Howling Wolf 939 E. Cooper Langley ~ 801 E. Hyman - Elmore Sven Alsrom 624 E. Hopkins FD 4-12-95 , Susa Dodington Melanie Roschko 9(1 8. L« 1-9 c- j 0 3£2 80 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic·Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 918 E. Cooper Avenue- Mass and Scale Review and Ordinance #30 review for Lots M and N DATE: February 12, 1996 SUMMARY: HPC granted final approval for the development of the historic landmark property on January 24, 1996, but tabled the mass and scale review for Lots M and N (currently on the historic inventory) for more information. A model and photographs of the neighborhood will be available for HPC review at the meeting. APPLICANT: John Davis. Mark Ward is the architect. LOCATION: 918 E. Cooper Avenue, Parcel 1 of the Phillips/Gordon Lot Split, aka Lots M and N, Block 35, East Aspen Addition to the Townsite of Aspen. STAFF REVIEW: Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with Ordinance #30, Series of 1995, and finds the project in compliance, except for the two small windows set high in the gable ends on the alley facade, which seem to violate the volume standard. These will need to be revised prior to submitting for building permit. In regard to HPC's mass and scale review, HPC raised several issues on January 24th (minutes attached). HPC recommended that the plate heights on the second floor be reduced. They were originally drawn as 10' and have now been reduced to 8'. The ridgeline is 25 1/2', which is lower than most of the surrounding buildings. HPC asked for some articulation of the duplex units as individual units. The wall surface between the units has been slightly recessed. RECOMMENDATION: All remaining conditions from January 24th still apply to the development of Lots O and P. The condition for mass and scale review, · has been satisfied and staff recommends the project be allowed to proceedito building permit submission, with the revision of the rear windows to meet Ordinance #30. 1 RECOMMENDED MOTION: "1 move to find that the condition placed on the development of 918 E. Cooper Avenue on January 24,1996, requiring mass and scale review of the development on lots M and N, Block 35, has been met." ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 2' FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 918 E. Cooper Avenue- reconsideration of motion DATE: February 14, 1996 In regard to the final review approval granted for 918 E. Cooper, Lots O and P, on January 24th, 1996, staff recommends that an HPC member who voted in favor of the approval (all but Sven and Susan) make a motion to reconsider the approval. In the reconsideration, staff recommends the following condition be added to the approval: "The applicant shall submit structural plans for the Lot P unit for review by staff and monitor. A clear representation shall be made as to how the existing framing will be retained and how any new members necessary shall be added. 0 HPC expects the original framing to be retained, with new members "sistered" in as needed. Any variation necessary from the plan as approved by staff and . monitor shall be immediately brought to the attention of staff and shall be approved by staff and monitor prior to the change taking place." ~R< 1 94&- ji--; ,4 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 24. 1996 Amidon stated that the Board should look at standard one; that the project is compatible in mass and scale with the surrounding structures. Materials are not to be disussed unless it has direct correlation to the scale ofthe project. 91 Vickery commented that he could hot do the review without the streetscape. Roschko commented that the drawings somewhat indicated that no trees would be left on the site. Ward stated that three large trees exist on the site; two are being moved on the site and one off the site pending coordination with the Parks Department. Roschko indicated that she would like the duplex to read as two buildings. The stone covering makes it read as one house and she feels it is out of scale with the small houses next door. $ Moyer requested a streetscape and model for the next meeting. Davis agreed that a model would be helpful for the Board. Dodington agreed that the use of stone makes the house look heavy. Erdman stated that the choice of material is not within the purview ofthe HPC but the scale ofthe material is. The stone on the drawing may not be the same stone used and the drawing is somewhat inadequate. Davis stated ifthe Board looked at the side elevation it would look different. Alstrom indicated when a heavy material is continued from the first floor to the second floor it does get into mass and scale. He also stated that the project should conform in terms of height. Davis sai¢ th& next door duplex has stone and the streetscape plan and j model will solve many of the issues. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 24, 1996 Alstrom indicated that he feels second floors should have lower plate heights, 6'8' or 7' as itpulls the scale of the building down. Historic buildings usually have eight foot plate heights. 2, Davis indicated that the second floor plate height was ten feet. Amidon stated that the review should include ordinance #30 requirements etc. Madsen stated she is concerned that the project will dwarf the historic project. She also stated that a model will help her see visually what is happening on the lots. Moyer stated that he was in agreement with a separation and the differentiation was good. He also stated that the concern is the overall mass and dropping the plate heights would address that concern. He also agreed with Roschko that a residentail flavor should be retained or incorporated if possible. Erdman summarized that the Board felt there should be some articulation between the two halves of the duplex. That there be a reduction in the plate height. Erdman stated that the stucco gabled ends facing the street have a scale problem and it is the relationship between solid and void. There should be a scale consistency within the building itsel£ Erdman stated that there is a need for surface redesign rather than interior. Alstrom stated that he likes a duplex to look like a duplex. MOTION: Moyer moved to table the review of Lots M & N, mass and scale of 918 E. Cooper until further information can be provided by the applicant to February 14th; second by Smisek. All in favor, motion carried. 1 11 BUILDING DIRE *I---- . ---- ALLEY PERMIT SURVEY 9 73• ·1 *W f . 7 f - WITH TOPO I - /3 'GrE 44· ' f ' a,4-3----- - - - . l a rLDINGr -.-:- -01 . - # ORy 7 i?. . - i. .... ' Er -<.74. s·. :/. S D. · 44 ' 460: - . * -4 7 I· ~ 1 /7 · · I , . . - -I- th 0. 6 7 - D»..1 . tf.... .... ---- t .0.6<. >9 .... m 04 ELECTRIC ... 4. --- .4 +- <C I .t r..4 .' 'I -P€* Slm¥E¥ a,SUED. -m e . -7 -Ar-4 - - . 0 . TM , 'W N..i *' di -3- Oa 6,AmelL~~ ; LOT N LOT O - m· S . - 1- 0 10' O - 1 m 6•2 3 3 OF nEAR IN@ - FOUND MON-ENTS AS SMO•N < f . . 4 m 4 10 P. . i - ': te ' NOIS: 12 1,0<9 6 2%* O,1 GROUND C 2 AT Th€ OF suRIEY 76. TOPOGRAPHICAL :NFORNATION 15 L«li. - i 1- -i: BASED ON TE 9ENCH MARK SHOWN 01 A©·15 IN TWi FOOT INCREMENTS U £ 4/9 H S,1 \%\ i L T P . -i 94- 4 0 #44%: 1 t 3 - -: TREC 9 9, LD 1 N G ,\ . f ¢: i i .1. 2 N. 2 i. O ' / V, 4 .: 5 \ . grA~: 2 \ 1 PIN '1-1 /.. ,<111 : I Asa TIWE + I I f~ L L h ..A 1 9 ZAN -•i. I.Na f i I 4 5, t..1®.2 - 4 - - I---0-- -- I-/ f......2 ----*-*--*-*...*..4-(/*u- -- .«0422 -- - .aA•- MZ. ioo.4 54-= lil~ZIZZI~ - \*4.- k.00. - 4 ¢¥ ¥ 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION - · W O ... > 0 918 AST COOPER < e 2-*#7522£~--~~~.-*F_·in--=~*/FC- ~04· I 4 - BLOCK 111 EAST p N- . + . . 0/ 'EAR { 4/1.. · LU = i PITKIN COUNTY 0- W O I . . LOOPER AVENUE - U Ja ASPEN. COLORADO 40 0 O rouND' he 5 TRI '06%¥Y . 4.- ... SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE < 25 ---- <1-, . f -h..0..R 5 , C i Z 0. i. 0 AS»E) BURVE' Eli. -. iS LOTS M.N.O, AND P m . ---1--It :0 6, UJ W Z 1 HEREB) CERTIFf THAT .•41: MAF 15 A TRUE AND AC*dbE;:*f~14441,~4 + 1*90'VE¥ z DERFORWED UNDER NY SUPER·.:StioN Ob .:ANJAR'* 9. !998 1 --2 -4/--TET-2-JU.T.-I~-„-li-T~£--21;h ¥-4 /' tai~»24? \ j CO 11: · CARMICHAEL SURVE'.46 iNC bv: 1 . .44.4.-*284 -.A '' ,:.- JANUARY 9. 99$ 64. R. ZA*CHAEL'PA.4 24303 & ai° 24303 '189· CD. q , ¥- 9 0 - VA .4 :.E CARMICHAEL SURVEYING. INC. DRAWN P -010 br:,A., DFS i GNS Box g.·SNOWMA,3. COLORADO 8.654 !9701 923-2794 20.,0.• com-•c. ca¥ i. c. option be..2 9/cr 1.1. 5-'.4 .2/96 ,~ihi O P Q. 90/ ;367 ,d.;~~ 8,;o,coo~'~h~.-. y.0,. all,r Yo.* 11,9. di.go,•r ..ch glot z•. CARBONnALE. CO 61623 •ar 04, et•ie, be•.d .por oer o•f•el 'a '6,i .1,..1 b. com.....6 -or, -1 frt• .h. de·• r¢ i•~. 6.:T'ricclie. iho.n h.r.9, 070-963 - 075 7 ' :ATr D-T,6..,7/90 LATA ' 1 LE NUE. W. 04 - i '.2,0 ™62/1 -A,H edna: ON Wr 21H 91,/,0 31¥a OKRETE ... loco, 00¥00,00 'Haa,nou ¥ 31!ne 'lunoo Nam,10 agiNao 9,01/ ing wois 1 6 1 Zdj .5 0 B /01 3 - ,¢t»· Pulme=-diL M /4 7 WI /7-9~ ,~ '217. - .3 1 -f. - ·\11- I. 1. . \ rn d . .. 4,£.1 1. - - :ril,7 . 7 /1 L~:·» . - 1_[%~1 . M . . >~k .Ill 111.1 '..EZ] El ./rh#*Fo,/,ri -L" 4 N+14·iII -1-031[1111~14 41(111[ID - -~ZE]?Ud M I.'t! 7 LK fra _ \ 12-1.- #Il'16=1,_ ~ '~ E~1 /, 1 *&; ek' 1 1 : i re, HY ' L it 'L Lst # - 11 /' 11 ' 1 1. 1 1 Z. 1 1 . t . 12-33% 0.1 .1- . " 1 39" c -06.21!BehOOR...26:mv. Cl 1 1.-alit.-1 I..... T O UPPe R LeveL-1101-01 .. + . . ... I. --h«-- 1 . . 1 Eli[Il .g! J! • 1 51 a 11 --1 1 1---4 H L p i 1 *F42«44«44 40 0~ SUBOLOOR ELEV. 1 & 1 - T O MAIN LeveL-100'-00 ¥ - . 1 ~ I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 ' ' SOUTH ELEVATION i il 1 1 ' / 1 | 1 SCALE: 1/40 - 1,-00 1 1 It I - 1 T• LOWER Level-0060' * ' 06 r.0- .RONG. SLAB 1 . 1 1 .c NORTH ELEVATION I 111/il SCALE: 7/4 I . 1·- 0 ·* ~ fy * i U'4\ - ~E=~11,2 ;Lp-625~4, EjeL _ M 4, \ L.·-- - 1#1111 1'.F- ' . - \U ble :I \ v. · - rl 1 93 1-TTT 11 .4 7TTT E-- 1 1 . 1 SUBPLOOR ELLBV. t, ·nLE -t---- T e UPPER LayeL-110'-09 /11!111111111'}11111111; .1.i:!lililillill':.;;fill#'11111'!T-15 . -in &1 Ad .• ' L---1 90 MU legil 9-1 ...9 8.- a.. f~------ -I-- ~ LEI ,.f.-4, 0 2 f -- L._1 I 91 -7W-~AIN LeVeL-100'-7 32 1 SuseLOOR ELCV. a. M :E 70 9, O 50 1 1 0 0015 1 0 62 i i WEST ELEVATION 1 1 SCALE· 1/4. 1.-0. 1 1 1 1 leAST 81 De SIMILAR) iniine~a=- IlillL 1 1 1 1 1 1 , , 1 7.0. 50!•IC. SLAB | | OLOWER LBVeL-0060» A4 4. 'ON I '931VIOOSS¥ puB GEIVM Xildna inNIA¥ 111 e einloel|40.1 10508 00'Aepinos v •Uns w,00 00 'NadSV 3AV H3d000 \PROJECTS\95-08\ELEYS Thu FeD 01 17:00: 40 !996 '04, .. A bt - -~...: Di 4 1!t I. 1 lf-- 1 t 6 ·. 7· 3 4 - 1. 11 - C - LA . 1 12 3 5 'f . ---- I. ,- - i 1 4 0 ---1 i 2 A -- ---* 6. lili 7'- 1 -- 1 447 - -77 - 419 i 4'6 .7 - o CL·L- , 4 .. 4 --11 1 F' ~1,1- CIO ..11. . 0 . 'Lk .111 ii- , m ,14.-4- /'11 $ + 41 I p r 4 1.I .1.1 1. 1 W ii .7 9 1 & O 8 --- t- 1, lipqpr M~; - 2 1 1 L.: l -1 - tly *1.14 A/ t 4 7 ZIETE~L._ . .--K· J I 1 - 9, . I . . r 211 . 4-- 1 ' - 1 U - 4 3 - . r . 1,1 . LE 7 F · 1 . S 1 ' 14 1 g 1 /1 1 i , 'lit - h 1 , -BE- -- 00 -2 - 11/ 1;- r, 6.' 1 El -&*i ~611=- 1 31 6 9 , . 01 4 I. , #"€ 1 41 C 1 - . Oil i D 1 : 9 :, '6 1 EDi -3 =1 - ··· ' I d ' . = a iii 4 3 atic- M 9 918 EAS[ COOPER AVE W ID>3 1,1 1 71 -0 111 REV. il:i/16 WA VVARD andASSOCIATES 9 DATE' /11/16 P 1~ ASPEN CUSTOM BUILDERS 1 architecture & planning #p JOHN DAVIS 970-927-9700 442·9201 @1 '2945 CENTER GREEN COURT. SUITE A BOULDER, COLORADO 80301 . e'",1.S•:~ -,-·--· 2:171.-7.-222-1.- .1~ 18--r * 2 5 -4{4914 - _-doa n 0 . 9 0 C \PROJECTS\95-08\PLANS Thu FeD 01 It 38: 37 1996 02 IN 11 n c. 0 0 -111 11 · I - 1 UP liliE e 1 '- 1 . --- ------ LF-1-7, . 1/ r ITI j 0 1 A i - / Ila 1111 --1 ---- 71//44 VE=. K F G , K 11=41 r 1/ ir L___ J er 111 1 i.-2@.~01 n/.) MI 6 /0 A blo if O 1 Q0 0 1 1 8 1--1 1 O 70 1 1 PM 4 1 n --6 »4,1 Eje- Il 1 111 L . r-~6 1 ~ LINEN / ·· M . lei LINON -1.1-1 - .. fj 1. 9-i' 1 1 .11 1 0/ [[ 7. 17 YL./ 1 - JI Il Il r 0 1 0 U 1- 1 r K O 1 rn r 0 4 tw - / r---1\ / IL/2 ° 3 t (V t 0 K L O K 1 1• i + IZ t R - * -- .------ -'.---M-----7 1 . 0 11 1.-11 i re® L-------1 I f || 1 1.- 5 00 t 1 ..1 ., 11 11 1.. 11 0 1 11 U · · .... 02 112 1. Ired,Ii" 5 ' ' d ...1 4-4 6 it·„:3···£41 L- - -·-'--·-- -:- ---g t.. *• ,,/-4·i.1,"'..L-L-~It-",ti,·(, '.Li.*4-1-,-L,Lr- '-,t f_ 1. _-., ~. ,~~ -1,5 q-- d Ill 4 11 / 4 1 k 1 It ' 8 1112 1 rl':.1,7.11 = Th~JI * 1~~ 0 li ~ 0 8 1 - 0 1 K » 0 r W.,----------- 1 2 \ =5 0 > . PO 1 k • . 0 Iz O 1 K 1 1 I 1 11 1-1 1 O 1 .Z re-NUE 1 1 1 1 1 11 '• F COOPER AVENUE DUPLEX ~ ~ M. WARD and ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB NO: DATE· architecture and planning ~ ~ 918 EAST COOPER AVE ASPEN, CO ~ " 2 (LOTS M AND N) 2945 Center Green Court Suite A Boulder, CO 80301 Tek (303)442-1201 Fax (303)443-4898 f f 22-tvoe - ../1 :21'06 V 1 d hi O 0 -1 0 72Aml N I V 01 N V -1 d hi 2 12A21 N 2 M O BEDROOM •·s· Lit 2 CAR GARAGE GARAGE - woowagg wgisVW WOONaug Nalsvvi 0 9 C \PROJECTS\95-08\PLANS Thu FeD 01 14: 42 07 1995 1 1\ ~ <J C> / L_ __ _11 ¢j C> 11_ _ 1- 1 1 b= 1 1 r-- --3 ~ It 1 1 1 ./.1 1 / 1 1 1 3 1 liD L___ 1 1 r / 1 1 0 1 1 0- 0 01 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 \ I. ¢21 0 i l- --- ------J ------------------------>04 r- t---------7 r 1 1/ / 1 1/ 1 1 1 1 1 llc- 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 E---Li L 01 I 1 1 1 / L___ 1 / -7 1 1 LA E-ftt /----- -- -- -- ---0-7-------4'0 L---- -11 L__ _ ___ ______ ----1 h 1 1 .., . IE. 1: 1 . - 1 1 9 3 "F 1 ~IL=11 2 1 ;r. =1- - It! M % L--1 t t L 0 1* 00;1 - -- 33 - - - i I I r 1 l.==7 0 :-. 00 Of-.--- 12 0- . 1 f 1 0 1 111 tz *2 9 TJ'Lu-, : 1 - L Ir 1 L /2 1 E* O • n , 11 1 ~ L~=2 1 1.. 6------I.I------Ill.------- - 1 p JOB NO: 11. T COOPER AVENUE DUPLEX F ava M. WARD and ASSOCIATES, INC. ~ 71 DATE architecture and planning MI ~ M 918 EAST COOPER AVE ASPEN, CO 1~ ~ ~ (LOTS M AND N) ~~ 2945 Center Green Court Suite A Boulder, CO 80301 Tet (303)442-1201 Fax: (303)443-4698 h i :2-1.09 .0-11 - O./t +21VOS NVnd ¥007=I 32Aal big n N*ld U 0. W 11 12; , - 1. . 11 .it + + tt ' Ell€ 1 , 1 %1 1 1 1 P Z. \1'.1 11 1 1 117 ill 4 i Iii i III 1 1 4 11 , 1 1 + j . - a l;li~ 1 1 11 ~ Iti lili . .1 1 1 . 1 1 + lili 1 ..7, 1 . .11 & 31 l! :il~ 1'· It 1-1-·-- 1 1 .11.11 -1 9 L-0 1 ; 11:ill .l! I , t iii'/15,i i ./ 1 11 11 1 *14-. 1 .. + Irl J - 11 li \111-11 1 ' .1 . ,f i 1+ 1,1 · i. ' 1 i f · 1 . 1 ! 11 i bl'·79 t M 4 1, 111 -irl- 11 i ill k D 'M 41 lili k 1,9 - , 1.1 111 1 1 i thi 4 1 1 b 110~01 Itll r I W·i ji litillil 1 - 1* lili< . lili 1 1 5 11> 111 1.lilli 11 1 411 4 .! ii.1 'i ' il i Ill Q '' *itil,06 M W !* Mt 1 1 11 1 1 + . 1 M: ' ik"3 11 11 1 1 1 111/..241" 3 31 j :l! .1 4 Ilitil€ i Ii}1% 11: - C!1!4 i;1 , ~ L ' IL i ' ~f~ jiki 1 1 ¥ , iii 1 , '1 1 Ill 1 11 1 1 1:+ , + ....3 1-1 : 1 Iii '' t 1 F 1.1 . l: 21, 4 iili. Rim ·· i i 41 , 1 liT '1; 1 • 1 r 11, 3 1 . 1 M : 1 1, I i,h 1 111111.2.-- , 1 1 11 11 H 11 1.III.. LIA, ..1 11 11 . 1 1 L ., il - · 71 j lili 1 :. IIi . 1 . i ! J ~ 11 .1 1 1 1 i tll-b-- '11 4 11 ji'! ¢ 1 1 1 r lib ; 1 1 C= 1 $ 1 ' ill' 111 !1.1: .-- 11 -4 al lit 1 1 11 ; t 11: 11 1 1 1 1 f 11 1 i;1 ~~1>! ' '12 - - 1 11.11111;11. 11 i. i' 1 $ d 1 1. It I. 1 1 H N '1 1 - • U · 11 · :1 1 1 i - 1, 11 ili ' 1 9 1 t + ~111. %1 4%%11 1 Al 1:!11 1/1 i t: il 11 0 elli . 1 1 . i. 111 1 , b !, 6/ , JOB NO. 918 EAST COOPER AVE mAIA/A VMARD andASSOCIATES DATE I/'V16 H PC Il /~ architecture & planning REV. '/09/94 24: i ASPEN CUSTOM BUILDERS p ~~¤~~=< t JOHN DAVIS 970-917-9700 /2045 CENTER GREEN COURT. SUITE A BOULDER, COLORADO 10301 11])9 0 1 4===i L 1 . 1 1\- 1 1 1 I t 1 1 1 y--2-7 1 1 1 1 - | 1 1 1 1 1 1 6- ll . 1 1 -7 1 1 1 L 1 r--r 1 1 1 I 0 1.--- r 16 1 1 I Iii m I -- - - 3-3 A.2 1 1 /~~ 1 I ..... 1 CP 1. 1\ 1 2 1/ 1 1 1 1. 1 I ' L -7< 1 1 1 INC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 F - 1 - 1 1 1 1 - 1 - 1 --- 1 : :i 1 1 1 1 1 l l 1 1 111 111 I.I.- .I-- 'll-.* -I.I - --1 - I.--.*- I-.-.- ---i. I--- - iI ./#0791•~ JOB NO. 918 EAST COOPER AVE '6~/1 W..ClandASSOCIATES DATE 1/11/16 H' |ASPEN CUSTOM BUILDERSi ,/I, Alll architecture a planning 1 REV. f/09/4 4 ~, ~JOHN DAVISE ~ '- 970-957-970,0' 3 442.1201 '1 ~2945 CENTER GREEN COURT,SUITE A' '·BOULDER, COLORADO *0301; - / 1 m m LUE 1- 'C 4C - m rn . - rt._ -r-1:1 27~ r -- , 0 0 /1 4 RELOCATION PROCEDURES .0. --- - --- - 4 b 1 Z ~ \ L- 31- / . CO 1\ r EME 012 Ir £ ' 1 Existing soath side of minets conage tobe relocated to Ikt P. Possible 40 1 L -- 31 , A 3 LOT M iLOT N LOT O /8 B. Existing historic barn building to be temporarily relocated to ut O - 4 14 during theconstruction of duple* unit on I,ots Mood N. Final location tobeon ut P and utilized asa one-car garage. ' ---0 - E*Isting addition to rear of minets cottage; which is bon-contributing, : shall be demolishedL Fl -- -377 1 LOT e _ ' D. Existingshed,per}*PC,sballbed}sassembled,cratedandstoredoncity I ... )<fl $1* lot. Each component of the shed sball be documented and labeled for future reconstruction off-site 1 /C. i £ Existing shed is non·contrihuting and shall be demolished. tt~- - -W i X 1.// 11 A \ Ill O I. ON 1 Ja 1 / 0, / 0 m > Z I Z temporary relocation to Lot O during construction of duplex on M and N. Final location to Lot P and incorporated as living room. 1 -4 4 1 1 AL O 49 - ... . .... . .. & M-lm-_..4. 32! 1--9 W'F--* 6 V ,· - - I- -1--2 --·--2 - - 7-7- --+ e L-..DIC h. T.1.*47: 1dn 210-12/K--K!2.-7---- - 3-it £.Al_& A .1 22-. L~ 2 -=_-==*-22.1/ )*/pt-'*21 1 'ON nor i H Ob/LIA 3*Va 3AV 83d V3 916 d '96/62/, •j|~ma Loa.·at.D 0026-ZE ',0808 OaVMO100 'Haa,nout i¥ alins 'lkinoo Nnalle Halll30 9,68~ Moisno N3dSV I.- ----1---I-------1- ----------- 0 mW -ALLEY r EXISTING TO 95 / 62 RELOCATED TO #918 P I r- eXISTINGTO--BE 2- -L _ _16 --- / RELOCATED OFF S ITE S75¥11~ 3 r- k' OR DEMOLISHED -t~ -- ----7 - - Il --11 --1 -- r---4 11 1 1 If 1 1 11 9 1 k----1 1 k 1 / 1 1 1 DRIVEWAY _ 1 11 608 /1 .1 -V . IL- --2 X =-2 1 l 1 CrieR - , AREA ~ ~ 1 1 1 NE 1 ./ WELL 4 1 -1 In a ga . 1 71- 5" ~ GAR. GAR. 7,-6'1 L -1 - 1 Rot i V - -1 * 1: PROPOSED 1 : SINGLE ' - E-----3 FAMILY <® + 08 11-1O118jl_ 1--- ---3 PROPOSED .0 6- CJ 1 - 1 SINGLE -8 -4 £I# FAMILY 1 00 i.ia R ~| CLA I *,0 1 - 1 1 4/E i 1 > r*vi 4/ 2 - 3 d' >O . L -1 -1 - 1 UNDER 1 HI !11111 ,&-A ®11 lili # 1 1 EXISTING CONSTRUCTION Et F DUPLEX ~ (12/95) 1 - ki--10/\3-1 nil A- 1 1 1 1 1 El - Mv Et L 1 1 1 1 A 0 0 0 017' Il* 1 1 I--1 -- I.*- -21 -1 1 X L MBR MBR 1-V-~ A I 1.1 1 1 L AREA| ~- - --ZE WELL \ 1 - ------~ --..I- 1 NEW -* -TYP.~ U- PORTION OF 1 WALK EXISTING STRUCTURE ~ LOT M ~ -TYP. 1-01- N 1 TO BE RELOCATED · ~ ~ TO #918 P , N75*11-W 60.04· EXISTING • SIDEWALK #918 (M & N) #918 (0 & P) #928 al &32 O 3592 EAST COOPER AVE. SITE PLAN/-w 8 22 SCALE: 1/16"=11-On .2 1 1 L-------~ NORTH 0 8' 16' 32' 641 :AEIW 00 'NEIdS¥ 3AV H loWe 00 '*Pma V eutls #100 XE'Idna inNE 1¥1.LIV4809 0€ 30NVNIC]HO 1[[-11 \I 1 \0> - ni 7 V Lf 0 1> 0 A 0 z -4 g O 1 i' 1__/ O 00 k 1 20 K - -0 90 1 Z F o Ill - 1 4 -ij J_T Ill 0 e 1 CEll 0 *91 0 h # f 0 0 =Z ~ COOPER AVENUE DUPLEX ~ ~ M. WARD and ASSOCIATES, INC. ~7 JOB NO: DATE: architecture and planning 11 REV: 918 EAST COOPER AVE ASPEN, CO W /J,El (LOTS M AND N) f 2946 Center Green Court aliti A Boul-, CO 00301 Tet (803)442-1201 Fax 003)443-4098 ~ ORDINANCE 30 SUBMITTAL ~ NON e OI VA939 1 G g hi iS ' 2 A V 1+9 tz€ ,9 L (d 9 0) 9 LE# iteL/L 1V1.LIKERS OE 30NVNIOEIO 9894-9»(Coe) Xed lom-Ellitoe) 401 tocoo 00 '-PInou V etfle 2.nos ue•,9 Juvueo 9+80 (N ONV W 8101) 'Ama Buluueld pue einloelluOJe ¥m¥ 00 'N3dSV 3AV Elad000 1SVB me alva :oN aor;~ ~ 'ONI '931VIOOSSV PUB al:IVAA Vy Xaldna lnNIA¥ HadOOD 810 01- 31 z Q & 4• m. + 1- - eJ El - A~-RJ [pu c 1 1 0 Z- 0 o f o i INE /21~ <:%53·~~ 1 1-·Ed] / 14 ur 4-j [*1 REI Ut z li ic# Hypn 0 02 02 E- 1/7-uj' bM 1 1 il 1 11 r 111 » - 9, El[I] 1 1 <1 1 III e le====i =i _ .31.Kn flia 1 LU - [ti OPE] 40 0 --1 1 . 1 -1 - 67TJU %82 2 1 -0 [-3 444 7- - - It) w - -E- 9> DE]/ f - - - 1 il i 11 - ill *0 12/ f - 9 0 1-Fl <00 I - _ (D NE '1 33 H - lE r-NX \1 - 1 1/ U 1- 1 \1 \\ 1 - - INE ~+ 3> 11_] ~U) Xii r. »43 1 il -41 [1-fl d 11 - 0- 001 : <*1 W fi 1 . taig -- .- +4 il 1 1 1 M , 1 0 1 I- I zi 9 7 ' qile 1 1 % . 4 3 1 / 1 - 1 -- \-7- g,-1 6. hi 4-0 1 i 4 ./ # ..1 -- 1 ·l i : 1 12 - Eli 1 Q · - a I CJ LN I . al: 4 4.. ......L-.-- 4™- . 1 - 11 1/ 11 / 1 1 ' ft #i 1 - 1- . 4:11 · . t n . 1 R P - - 4 _44~ _l /f U .L Z f 1 1 0' 4 · - 1 U .1 . . 41 11 id 1 1 11 1 1 11 4 11 i i 1 1 1 - 11 1 0 k=- 1 ...+ 1, i l LL u JOB NO, 918 EAST COOPER AVE v ~a/A VVARD andASSOCIATES DATE I/'¥16 H vI/ Alli architecture s planning iASPEN CUSTOM BUILDERS REV. 4%9/9, , JOHN DAVIS' 970-917-970.0 442.1.01 /2940 CENTER GREEN COURT, SUITE A BOULDER, COLORADO *0301 '5. , W | | &0900 oavao,00 'una,non ¥ aline '4•no, Nalus agiN,O 9,60; 1 60.6.... ~ oble-2;6-025 SIA¥0 NHOr 41 .Alli W swaoling Nolsno NadS¥ Sujuueld e e.annoen!40.•e VAA d ON *Or . ·t 4,- :i ·?.- fbi £ , $ m.i 9 1 + IgE ' 11 2 0 1 1 1 t- - -- - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 lili 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ;1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 L-1 J r ri rd r-t-1 ?A Al v .. 1 lid .3 1 1 1 i i l'n 17F ; 1 1 j 10· < ,-1 i - 71 11 1 4 7, -I * 1/. i . t '· 1 1, % '1 + 11 %?ell -~~ IF . ..0 1% 1 1 1 -1 £ 1 li /1 0 ----- r--- . 1 11 l --4 1=--11 11 1. 1 1 *R G. 1 11 11 +-411 1 U ' 0 1 .1 1. 1 01 4 1 I - .-I ---1- - 1 1 1 1 , t~- 2 L-- -- ----2 - '1 . P. 1 .1 , 1 .rIA ~ <ad- 4*m=- _ _- 1 , , + '14'-1 7 27-*4iFs'Ains . =L 1/ ! B L ta. 16* --M--- Alt.~. 1 , - ----- 1, 3 - -- 1,·00 m 01 ' 6 tu c ... - - - 71"91-1./2-----*--- - ,/ i - - ' :21:M~%~Er-3~F,6. -lit-- I- -0 --- 11 - - 1. i 1 1 -*.#-..--- ----9- - --- 0 4 1--I-il- 1 - m . - -- - -11---1.04 i -. 2 00 - 0 -1-ownl,N~-sr : Ci'- , - -- 1 --1 - .=am=,dal="P L mil Co i-IN- -t;1441'Cl •rele _-- 0-e - an - ------- ----- -- -*,i. - i O Ul A-__nl-*Ly-CLU-E-Cl .---- - -- -_ 21...__...71-1-230'-2.-WE.ST..:ELEMAZE-lre ---- - -......- - .---il----*---f*~#=0-0.-"I".i- 40 - -2.--iKZ*BEEE======14'.190.. .i-.. / I I I . 0 0 . 00 , 0- 1110 . -- ... 0 r. U -le ---- . J .-. - - 4 1 - 0 LLI 9--4. --< . - 00 O 00.11 -Wa-FTH'- 51-1,4+TioW .. o' a.A.BI.-- ·- EL EVAT-Le.N| 1 122.-ZE_ -TILE , , 1 . 1 lt--LAN/%404 - 1 1 -r .............. ..... B0 L - 9 1 ' 1 --- · ·'K-ZIZEY:ZEZZEZZEZZ- :-3-Z'737:174'"- 4 0 k.1.-6.31.12--1-_-2.1 221© ON mOr 1 96/10 alva 3AV 83 3 *BM 'Aall ¢ 60.6. , ODLe-£0 - ISIAVO. NH 10*00 oaveoloo *820,000, 4 211ns 'linoo Nual,O 831Nao 9,8,~ Ina woisno N3dS 7,7 11- C- MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 820 E. Cooper- revisions to conceptual approval, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 14, 1996 HPC granted conceptual approval for the redevelopment of 820 E. Cooper Avenue on September 27. At that time, the proposal showed an airlock porch entry and two lightwells added to the front facade of the house. HPC unanimously voted in favor of the conceptual approval, but specified that the lightwells and porch were not to be constructed in that location. Comments found in the minutes of that meeting include statements that these elements are out of character, attempt to make the historic resource a more complex architecture than it originally was, disturb the facade that best represents the historic resource to the public, and that a visual problem is created in the adjacency of the lightwells to a public sidewalk. In December, the applicant approached the HPC with some further discussion of these elements (minutes attached), and some members indicated an interest in looking at the changes as revised, in addition to the possibility of raising the house. A public notice has been posted to deal with some changes in the setback variances (the house is now moved back 4' further from the street) in addition to an FAR bonus to deal with the issue of the gable windows which double the FAR in those rooms. The variances which appear to be needed, in addition to those already granted at the conceptual review are: 1' front yard setback for the airlock (If approved. 10' is required, 9' is being provided) 8' rear yard setback variance (10' is required, 2' is being provided) 5' on each sideyard for the lightwells (5' is the minimum required) 10' combined setback variance (10' is the minimum required) An FAR bonus of 500 sq.ft. A number of pieces of information were not submitted by the application deadline, namely elevations which show the proposed raising of the building, the foundation treatment, the appearance of the airlock if it has been revised, the steps leading to the airlock, and the new dormer on the east. The project may need to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments, as it is 40 sq.ft. short of the open space requirement (HPC cannot waive this requirement). In addition, staff has not confirmed the applicant's calculation that the gable end windows create a shortage of 590 sq.ft. HPC can only grant 500 sq.ft., so some revision must be made. Staff's quick estimate of the FAR shortage is over 800 sq.ft. For HPC's reference, following are the four development review standards and the staff response based on Conceptual review. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Section 7-601(D). Development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, and all development involving historic landmarks. No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale, and site plan with the designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to a historic landmark. For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to 500 sq.ft. or the allowed site coverage by up to 5%, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to section 5-510(B)(2). Response: In general, Staff finds the proposed development to be an excellent solution in terms of compatibility of design, massing, volume, and scale. The applicant proposes to demolish two small additions and an outbuilding, which Staff finds is acceptable (see further discussion under partial demolition review). Much of the owner's space needs have been allocated to the basement, decreasing the impact on the historic resource above grade. Staff finds two elements of the proposal warrant further discussion, the shifting of the kitchen addition to the east and the glazing of the gable ends in the new addition. The latter issue will be discussed under the Ordinance #30 review. The kitchen addition appears on the Sanbome maps by 1904. It is a typical early addition to a minefs cottage and helps to show the evolution of the building over time. The applicant does not propose to demolish it, but instead wishes to shift it to the east. This is done primarily to create some open yard space and a deck, and to take advantage of views to Aspen Mountain. The property to the west has open space in the same area, therefore the two projects would work together. It would be Staff's recommendation to retain the house and addition in their original configuration, however, HPC should weigh the value of maintaining as much of the integrity of the structure as possible against the benefit achieved in livability for the owner. Also, the proposal places the kitchen addition so that the comer of it is visible from the street, which would not normally be the case. At the least Staff would recommend that the addition be pulled back towards the e west so that it is not visible from the street. Some other portion of the addition could be shifted to create a break in the east wall plane. A number of setback variances are requested. Staff finds that they assist in the proposed design, however it is recommended that comments be requested from the property owner to the east given that his property will be highly impacted and it is a historic resource as well. Finally, the applicant proposes to add an airlock vestibule at the front of the structure, in the forrn of a glazed porch. The applicant should consider an interior airlock (although the interior space is tight as it is). The house never had a front porch, so this element is a change to the original facade. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: As stated in the application, a number of surrounding projects have been substantially out of scale and character with the historic resources which still exist in this area. The proposed development is respectful of the historic resource and the neighborhood. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the p?rcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. j Response: The proposed project does not detract from the significance of the historic structure, however, as mentioned above, Staff is somewhat uncomfortable with the relocation of the kitchen addition. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The architectural character of the structure and its prominence along the streetscape will not be diminished. The applicant must provide further information about existing materials and plans for their preservation. RECOMMENDATION FOR FEBRUARY 14: Staff has included the information available, but recommends tabling the application. J RCHITECT~ TO: AMY AMIDON 1E. FROM: JAKE VICKERY K E RE: 820 EAST COOPER - REVISIONS TO CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL VICKERY DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 1996 , Please find attached revised Conceptual Drawings to be consolidated POST OFFICE BOX 12360 100 SOUTH SPRING ST. #3 with the previous application and which include the following changes: ASPEN,COLORADO81612 TELEPHONE / FACSIMILE (970) 925-3660 1. Shift entire structure approximately 4 feet to North to improve front yard setback, improve alignment with adjoining structures, increase open space and mitigate and allow space for proposed shallow light wells and air-lock vestibule. 2. Concurrently reduce rear yard setback form 5 feet to 2 feet. (requires variances) 3. Relocate and provide oversize egress wells (3) in sideyards. (requires variances) 4. Provide shallow (maximum depth 2'-6") light wells with screen planting below existing structure and located toward South. 5. Elevate the structure approximately 2 feet above existing elevation and approximately 18" above sidewalk to accommodate drainage, shallow light wells and improve presence of structure to street. Site will be filled slightly to relieve depression. 6. Provide new gable dormer in master bedroom to resolve low headroom problem. 7. Provide new airlock transitional space at entry, necessary for rehabilitation to deal with highway noise, dust, pollution and to place coats and boots and sports equipment prior to entering house and to improve sense of entry. We mention the following evaluation points: a. relatively small element only 4 feet by 6 feet b. simple basic form c. transparent, glazed d. requires minimal demolition e. easily reversible, especially glazing f. minimal obscuring of existing structure 9. Reduce sideyard setback at East side of garage to 4 feet to allow for 18 feet clear width in garage and 3 feet clear width in ADU stair. (requires variances) 10. FAR Proposed FAR is 2,211 + 189 for loft = 2,400 sf. Allowable FAR is 2,400 sf. FAR increase for gable windows is 596 sf (entire upper floor) (requires j bonus) 11. Open Space: Proposed Open Space is 1010 sf. Required Open Space is 1050 sf. Open Space variance required is 40 sf. (for lightwells) 251.--- I . e . . 1 . -.. N C jr .. . iy 7- 1 .. . i/ . -1-Trp=- - i.- U \1.n -' Br' <r '/ I i.9~ · . i u! L--11,-2 hh C-~11---M -11.v - ; till * /i,rn._.._-__Il ., Ii· lili . 1 /44 -1 1 . 4 . -. f /. ~ . *11-. ... ..rr . i ii I i-M- 1 r 1-. n ·-1.1 . : u. . - . . . L· -/-Jul - L N:1 - - Nll i N3' -- - 1 1. - - p..1 0 . 1 .: .. .1 - .. . 009. 1 PARKING AREA ... C ALLEY €6 00 - 10~ 9,03*,0&--=f= -14 *-·S5 1 S4 --/ .:p · SS 6 1 W?909 - G. 4. .. ... .1 . :lig. / 1. N2 /////#A N4 N5 . N i'- 1 '11,11,11,1 /U=3 1 C,/ .. /.- P A,Tctk 11 - 31 - -Fl- I ..1. . .. EAST COOPER / ' I * a- i .1 1-_- ,1 - 1. i , jS5 S4 * SS ' S2 ~ Sl li . .. ---1 .1. L.- 1 . I .1 1 &26 FA .r caoF#A- WINID\)6 ¥08, 4404 ¢4 5FA* 4/ D hif . 02« il, , --fil , \444. 1 0$5' , 3 .t=25* 1-Lj=- -1 .-. . . 11 i 1 1,1 H I (,1-1-A=: 1 . . 4443 ky¢ . -. r 1 -1 rl:| Ell-4-Fli . . I. .. A . .. . ~ ~ ~;_1-_-4-- r .- 1300 4*P N * j . ll) *ff Wl/, -4 . PUBLIC NOTICE ~ RE: 820 E. COOPER AVENUE, LANDMARK DESIGNATION 3' NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, February 12, 1996 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Wes and Susan Anson, owners of 820 E. Cooper Avenue, Lot P, Block 111, City and Townsite of Aspen, requesting landmark designation. For further information, contact Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer at 920-5096. s/ John Bennett, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on January 26, 1996. City of Aspen Account. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 820 E. COOPER AVENUE, VARIANCES REQUESTED NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on ~ Wednesday, February 14, 1996, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, Basement, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider a request from Wes and Susan Anson, owners of 820 E. Cooper Avenue, Lot P, Block 111, City and Townsite of Aspen, for the following variances, which may be granted by HPC due to the property being a designated historic landmark: a variance of 7'6" on the front yard setback for the purpose of constructing entry steps and an entry vestibule, an 8' rear yard setback variance for a garage, a variance of 5' on the east sideyard and 5' on the west sideyard for the purpose of constructing egress lightwells on the east and west sides of the building, a combined sideyard variance of 10' due to the lightwells, an FAR bonus of 500 sq.ft. to allow window placement which violates the City of Aspen's "Residential Design Standards" and causes portions of the building to be counted at 2:1 FAR. For more information, contact Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer, at 920-5096. s/ Donnellev Erdman, Chairman j Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on January 26, 1996. City of Aspen account. 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13. 1995 10) HPC recommends landmark designation of lots O and P finding that standards B, D, and E are met. 11) HPC recommends Conceptual, Partial Demolition and onsite ;' relocation approval; second by Melanie. Les: As usual I have a serious problem granting EAR bonuses on any project. All in favor, motion carries. 820 E. COOPER RESPONSE TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Amy: There were two issues on conceptual that are back for discussion and one is the lightwells in the front of the house and they are now to the side; however, the architect is showing a different proposal where the house will be elevated 36 inches and there will be windows in the foundation and an excavation down to 30 inches. There will be no fence required for it and plantings will be in front of it. This will, I assume require a waiver of Ord. #30. The other issue is the canopy over the door. Again I feel it important to save examples of very simple styles of architecture. The biggest protest I have about this particular element is that it is meant to be a porch that is glazed. Yes there are examples of porches glazed but I feel this is a very different element on a house. The glazing gives a strange reflection to it and seems like a very new element to the building -- so I feel we might want to consider a canopy similar to the one we just approved but I am not certain about the airlock entry which is basically what they are asking for. Donnelley: I don't see the porch on this drawing. Jake: The porch would have to return to the committee as a public hearing because it requires a setback. I would like to talk about it though. It turns out to be an important element to the owners of the property and the vestibule is an important element, an entry buffer from the noise and dust and activity on Cooper. It also acts as a transitional entry to this modest structure. Jake: Miner cottages start out basically as a box and then they start to tell a story. Going back to the Secretary of State Standards you will find in a sense that this is a rehabilitation and that they certainly allow changes of a structure to accommodate utility and current use. I also mention that this is an added element that requires very little demolition of the existing resource andi can easijly'be reversed. In my discussions with Amy maybe a canopy would work. This provides an enticement to the street of pedestrian scale. I would like the board to look at these issues and I refer to this house as the "house with no nose". 18 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13. 1995 This side of the street is a major pedestrian traffic flow. Jake: The other issue is the lightwells. The deep egress „, lightwells have been moved around to the side of the existing cottage. They will have a grate over top. They have been made larger and we are requesting that they be able to accommodate a six foot wide window. Because they are placed perpendicular to the south a larger window helps contribute to the light and air that they would get there. Only one of the five bedrooms are above grade and all of the other four bedrooms are below grade. The bedrooms should have as much light and air as possible. I am trying to bring light in from two sides, both the egress side and south facing side that has the direct sunlight. The property sits relatively low to the sidewalk and street and by increasing and raising the structure some 30 inches from where it is now increases the prominence of the structure. The basic window structure is mitigated by low evergreen shrubs 18 to 30 inches high. Donnelley: At present the floor level is how far above existing grade? Jake: At present the floor level is on grade or inches above and the existing grade is probably below the level of the sidewalk at this point. Donnelley: I can agree that perhaps the existing floor level should be raised but I cannot agree with 36 inches because it presents quite a different image. 1 Jake: I am amenable to find fomething that makes sense for this project. It was intended to be 30 inches because anything over you need a guard rail. By doing 30 inches which is only 12 over the allowable of 18 I feel we can get reasonable windows in there and have a minimal impact on the structure. Donnelley: I agree that it provides a much more livable and an attractive amenity to the below grade situation. I agree that it is inappropriate to have it sitting at or below grade both from a structural and aesthetic standpoint. Les: I feel we need to do another site visit because this is a totally new ball game. Donnelley: Lets discuss this entrance element because it is an issue that we have been dealing with on commercial buildings; reversible airlocks. On a residence this would probably remain as f permanent entrance element. On the previous project we were talking about an element tacked on and whether it should look as if it is something that has been added recently and is light and insubstantial and of our time or should it look like one that might 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1995 have been on the front porch of that period where you could glaze in between the structural elements. There is a philosophical issue here and as a commission we should talk about it. /501 Susan: I thought they were going to use the back entrance. Jake: As a practical matter they were going to use that entrance. They will use the front entrance after skiing etc. Walking around the side is not practical in the winter. Susan: I understand what you say about the houses being added onto as the person had the money but this is an example of a poor person who never did add anything on and there are so few of them left. The "boxes without noses" are the only ones left. Donnelley: This leads to what the addition should look like and what if it were quite transparent like a greenhouse structure. You would be taking something that is obvious and adding on and all of the historic elements would show. This would be like a little glass enclosure. As an energy advocate I think this is a great idea. Les: Possibly this is something we need to look at further. Melanie: It is such a major element on a small house that it has to be either look like it belonged there which I do not agree with or it has to be something light. It is so big for that size of house and I would like to see ideas first. Donnelley: We are establishing a precedence here and whatever we do has to be something that the people can look at and either emulate or we don't want to do it at all. Jake: The thing for us to do is return in a public hearing. Donnelley: A fairly large scale. Regarding the windows etc. you would have to prove to us that 30 inches is appropriate and compatible. Roger: After we look at it we may determine that the impact is much greater than allowing a lightwell in the front of the house. Les: You will have to make a point that it is compatible. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Les: Within the parameters of my experience on the historic preservation committee I do not feel I can do my job anymore because of the way the ordinances are written. We are spending 80% of our time giving people variances and FAR's to get them on the 20 /0 1 X , 1/7 1 A 1 P. it '' -1 ~-1 -1 -1 1- - 1- 4-111 1 lilli 11 . 2 1 1 114 - 1 1 1. Iii iIi ; ·i ~i i 1 1, 1 , 0-311-LiN-62*E-MIELmuoumst--7 ---- ---......... - iii 1 t! 4 It I It · - . f : : ' i , 1 i~ -11 . 1 /1 1 7-7 L_1 - L] U 0. 0 1 . 1 11 4 . i I. . i .i h . . . . . 9$ 114 · ·-f 0-,K+,m ; . *I::.. I. ly: -I , ~ 4:4-4 I : 't:y .„Vel'.1.'Iy..' rt .: ...4-1.7.. . ......++!E ....4.... . ...P#vi"41,~~1~M~. .0 i :1 4.4. 4·tb, ~-4419914-,I 1 1 - F ROM* 4 329/ CNDG' y ~r/2 - W .- . .I. '-' . ~~ 1 -jb .=Den . r ' G-*i:Lite/11&51 -ir' --~E*« -- -e--·'u ,Ali E ver. 0, : 11 970192<5,886 . 1.362·.4.#72(fu·····~~~ ' N i 1 1 1 1 1-1 lit -O + 1 / I 0 - - ON -- ..1. z.:.1.-2- C . -- 2211.bSER- ime{2014. _ u . CriA<5*Ell/ELT 1 - - - . i --~-11-999-ffU*bs--«LAN-i -_~-_ - - j 9*Er:4 820 EAST COOPER "•'3/W•* JAKE VICKERY ARCHFTECTS 100 SOUTH SPRING ST. ASPEN,CO.81611[§76)925=368[ rT ·. 5 091. 1.-10. 0 10 20 ALLEY h 095. dLOCK 111 GRAVEL ELECTRIC E TRANSFORMER % % POSSIBLE ,A Nio ' EASEMENT . 95. 9.1 0• HOUSE 201 1 45 - I K + S 0 A BOARD 2 *ALK 8 21 ./ . a .4· 0 - Ao .CONC o @ i 0 5 %%~· 0 999 A 00 1 P \ 6 095. O 0 .. O 0 0. 1 0 · 099 0 I. m k . 0 0 .0 0 6 . A -33.6 2 04. 0 2 - , 099., p, 66 9% 0 . 14 0.9 0 lu ¥ 8 t 6 2 WALK ENCROACHMENT 0 a HOUSE 9$.6 LL 4 2' a 8 100 4.6.99 10 %0..6 - 20. S SUP 9 10010 /1,00· 4.9 D , S 7500 l!. CONC. WALK 30.00 90. GRAVEL PARKING 611 100. 0 100.9 EDGE OF PAVEMENT u U.PE!13 005 3: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ~ 6 AREAD- r 3 BASED UPON ANY DEFECT ON THIS PLAT WITHIN THREE YEARS pYOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION .4 vuk }UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS PLAT BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN 1FROM THE DATE OF THE CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. THE ;ICATION IS VOID IF NOT WET STAMPED WITH THE SEAL OF THE fOR. 0 6 . 1 . - ARCHITECTS IAL DEMOLITION PLAN 20 EAST C ER W.42-p.-#I.n'' 4 ~•. ~ ·•'· '• '~Il'.AW,>04,4,¢3&WI,WU,JU,JWW„WUWU-6~...~a-W,~a,4£••,~~AA,--'*•---0---a---- J.-· 10.7 )11¥8 'ONOD 04........*.&..„·2 2,1 1; 1 - A/>feIA ------ 1337.---*arlifiL-kic.241/1/»-I-7-- F------ li : 1-2--«MWMA#,932 -3 2-- - . · u - - 1 - --*trreit_MILK. -_ .%11 -1 - t .71 : 1 1 - 0 1 , ! 1 - ]073 1 - -- ; OCRLD H 1 12]IM«t-li>NU==--= 4 . I /- / i - - 1 1 ! 1. C , 1 1Iii 1.- rt . +1 . ... I - 4 t. *I. I: Ii. h + 1 1.1 11 .. 1 · 9 1 - 11 1 1 1 Ill 1 21- u.ji-1 ·6«4. ..2 59. i --/Li-/;-7.- 1.- 820 EA. T COQBEJ¢ I. -1 --JAKENI:" FARCHifIE©rS ,/ i ---- ----- --1-00-SOUTHKS RING STREET # ASPEN, CO 81.11 970 925 366 • -<: -*10**449%07**21 -:.*- : . HE~261· frt~t€·4.-· ./4/ u.OCE¥¥¥€-'·rE#4£*-11*ju.. .. :... Rk *479:.... , . . . · . 16: ...4 -4~~-,.0~.A~-th..'-.~:~.~:~ ::r 6~;.432344*I-·4.1.f:* . .:j....·· · 41' I . . - i :y,EMGWre-gwmvjvt 4*31:a · 1 1 . 2*9~ , - .. 24256. . :=335=411*-:.491... . . ..4: 41-9;i7.644*34663- , .r. 7 )·*4~- 71 . ·e . ....L K ..~t,Dka:}4431:.-~ ,·Xe4(*:~ . . :.0: ..1- .: ...Py/WS#~4*.~I--,C.. . 1 . . . . .3902 r.:ri83,· ':;1~·:7 -4-:-F...zse:.'. i %1%4*64-:50242*./ . . 0·Nv.-:¢2*.1¢40·~kt.61·-* · i t, - 1 . 9 . . t . - 1 .... . i - .-I r . . 4' j t· re-1 -*00- . · 1 -· -- -#. 1 - •91:He i J.....1 1 . I t fur f.j --- 1 12=p· ~ 09- . + ~ - 1 . . *42*#crn.3 . 1 -1 ... 1. A 1,1 Vej#.t'8·12- -f, , i,< £ 1 . ..1 . 1 1· • .. · -- , 1 .. . .. 1 -1 . . Ir . 1 /4 . 1.WK- F 3:.' 4 : .. 1 1 - 1: F.: i k. WA i - ,, C |b") '-p,i i . . . 4 , I. 981112,6 bu · · · : 32-- f~:- .Sj ~:'... . .. 4 1 ..... - I .0T0000102402 ¥ 45:. e [16' 1 . . . lili - 111 /41270 , 1 1 . 14- ·in z..= 21:0- AG'»~i «Fk--_k>c:>Ytl-eAAE»*-206\- -_2*4,54·4#47. 94*et-\ _21-2. 1- -,*7-- -- 4*04¢10 ,. 820 EAST COOPER JAKE VICKERY ARCHrrECTS 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET #3 ASPEN, CO 81611 970 925-3660 ' ~ ~--<~ ~~ r~,1.71- 2 . , ' 3*112*33.*I.-i - 11·ft?Zizi"ti: 4...4,41, ·Il -.: :' . 4..t-.;.. ... 12*44/*2* · . ' · .:r . I . . j - 1**FL.F40-Triftze&/M/:.t#.0 A:.3 -~ : 19 . . ;.:. I .a,4 r . ~I. *: . ... · . ! i SLE#GL;.,mfind.*¥€24...:.0..2. it»A *cs*-52·52*9·99... V I . . . . . . 1 44*?*.49:4.... · ' .. i 1// ..:-:. fei-I'Iif.*7 : . 4 . . . - - -3 1€*474.1~FI232212;*i~i . C/Twee**_w @44-0 »_«-7~40E »TE#J ~~ . - 1 . . .0 .A 1 il i. -- 7 1 li - . /00....LM - .1. 1 i j ic»I . .. . -. - 11 7 t 3_.tikcl. . I -- h # . 4 1 . 1. A ... i . 10 ( licur--i .' I 1 . ...f. e' : Af--66/1 gc29M .. . 1 V.h/- . .r- . . . - 111 51 . - -1 L .. .-I . I .1 .: -/.0. 2 lue-- hi f 14i li C *031-2 LIN n- 1. 21.-1-- Is - 36-r , £ {13 Lk- Fre,ID h®>rn ' / RUCE**¢29 tair 20/l 24241.- 1 IMV 2%(BA-trj - . ® 1311- . 1 . -AfU-*OC?* 0 .. It . . 1!, i I - - . 4 1 4 . 1 -.1 ..11. f .. . . ..30.- .. 4../--*'Nt:f -4 - ... 1 1 , I. I . I. I . 1 11 ,.1. 11_ /1,0 2 .- --_ ffle/23- 49.:-0..„772- . 1| t -.. ' -7 J04£2*fEGIE_- IN€Aixl _ -. .. . 7*1€.2.1.27 1 , I : . 1 120.E V 1 45£2 -2723-7=RG ' 1 1 -6- a~*4*28~-942*%2*09*¥5224\22-222*t2E~r#P Y-88(%922i-__--_n . 11®-00*21*022#2~avt*[Rteizfea--»pzo-- -epre#*u<Liv,kylagoe.. - - . 820 EAST COOPER •... 22 *__*14*U·2«'-4-1-4 HftIvvt9l,1-€' ----W ~~6512-869_~-_f'>MifI N_Ct . -_--2- . JAKE VICKERY,ARCHifECTS 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET #: . i . ASPEN, CO 81611 970 -925 366 .. . - ' ..42':DU'gl#50*184:.f,3/ 2. ~. 61·34:42*92?t:%.1,4 3...:.. . - ( '*494%~ ·i -' . < - . . .1... =;jul: 2*$- u I · it·thA~ ~U .~' ~.~~~ . , c.:; ·~.witp74r.:.·:- -:- U.... 0./. ·· ·/' . :.. . 7. I I .-.. .:.. I ..4./ .~ . · ~· & I ..· · -·- .i.r/rvl'<7€·1 · 7,1 , *- ' I . . . . .. I : - --• 6 1.00&*' · It ..11 i~.-lt:£I&!AL€]- *-I.~- - -~ , 5 /0 . · r - -1 04 i. 1 ill.- 1 · zu- //:56000«-- W .2 . 1 , \1 . 1:t / \' 1 , 1 1 OIl> 1 1 t . ·-T %.*LA)13--lr--4.4:424.----r.f Cht = .---=-=27-40#Ae--- 1 -:t < 1 PAAL < ¢19. 1 1 I I et} · ------ 841 te[ - - - - --\MM,1- 6. 4. .b.... .o U - /711412:- 1 . 1 MI - > 0_44.-»[2+IFri!--75122139#JJS-fPrtXj.J26'12T. ~-~?----7------ :- 42> 747 1 - ~°14~ M Gr . 1004 1 . . .. -! Of: It -*-3-1 ! 1 9 0 - lip/ . hy. - .9, . --, < ell 04*lk__._ - : 1 11 - #Wre 6, -- --- --------- I --- -- t.<2.- 0 1 . . : 6 Fog-19-D----FLco A fL ANS- .. ...... - ,. ... - '.OIl. j F+*A-~t~tur 1 · 6 ' 16~ · j --7-- - -7 - 9\·¢2*,I:f SE,SUCgln=744 Mi Fvred - 94 8>PeeM¥&Al_¥1.M·4-__ -- sH=.ert . ---®__+k«--p[~>f--004«128*Irleut» . 820 EAST COOPER I .. 1 . . 3 JAKE VICKERY ARCHrIECT: 100 SOUTH SPRING SIREET ASPEN, CO 81611 970 925 36 .... MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 3t FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 616 W. Main Street- Minor, On-Site Relocation, Landmark Designation, Variance Request DATE: February 14, 1996 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to convert an existing historic bam into a living unit. Minor development review, on-site relocation (in order to raise the bam onto a foundation), landmark designation, and variances are requested. This building is currently on the Inventory, and is located within the Main Street Historic District. APPLICANT: Jeffrey Aaronson, represented by Jake Vickery. LOCATION: 616 W. Main Street, Lot N, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen. HISTORIC LANDMARK Section 7-702. Standards for designation. Any structure that meets two or more of the following standards may be designated :'H," Historic Overlay District, and/or Historic Landmark. It is not the intention of HPC to landmark insignificant structures or sites. HPC will focus on those which are unique or have some special value to the community: A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Response: This standard is not met. B. Architectural Importance. The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type (based on building form or use), or specimen. 0 Response: This house, built in about 1891, is a typical example of a cross gabled miner's cottage. From the Sanborne Fire Insurance maps of 1904, the house appears to be in it's original configuration with one small addition at the Z: rear of the building. All original materials and details appear to be intact. The site also contains a bam, which has an unusual piece of trimwork in the front gable end. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: This standard is not met. D. Neighborhood Character. The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: The house has been moved to this site from across the street, on the vacant lot where Christmas trees are sold. It is generally inappropriate to relocate buildings from their original context, although this one is at least in its original neighborhood. The bam also appears to have been moved from that site. 0 E. Community Character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: The structure is representative of the modest scale, style, and character of homes constructed in the late 19th century, Aspen's primary period of historic significance. In addition, this house is located on Main Street and is important to the perception of the character of the community when entering town. MINOR REVIEW PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 0 0 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale, and site plan with the designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parceis when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to a historic landmark. For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to 500 sq.ft. or the allowed site coverage by up to 5%, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 5- 510(B)(2). Response: No changes are proposed at this time for the historic house. The barn, which is currently used for storage, is to be converted into an ADU, including a basement, ground level and loft. The proposal includes raising the bam 4' above its current height. Staff finds that this increase in height is too significant and detracts from the area certainly improves the livability of the unit, but at a high cost to the building's original character as a simple outbuilding. The upper floor loft integrity of the barn. Staff recommends requiring the building to be raised no more than approximately 24", which probably eliminates the feasibility of the loft space. The bam appears to have seen the addition of a slider window on the south elevation. The pair of doors on the east and the double hung window on the west may be historic, as may be the doors on the north (alley) side. The applicant proposes a number of fenestration changes. On the south side, a projecting bay window and a double hung window are shown. Staff's recommendation to decrease the height of the structure may result in the elimination of the upper story window. The bay window is a residential type of element and detracts from the building's character as an outbuilding. In addition it competes with the very decorative bracket which exists on the south elevation, but is not shown on the drawings. Staff recommends the bay window be revised to be a simple pair of double hung windows. On the east elevation, staff finds the new fenestration appropriate, but suggests retaining at least one of the existing doors (the one furthest to 0 the left) if possible. Again, the dormer may be impacted by the suggestion to lower the building height. An exterior stairway to the basement is proposed on this side, in order to allow easier movement of furniture etc. out of this area (as opposed to the spiral stair on the inside.) The stairwell is protected by a new overhang. This overhang should be a different material than the main roof. St On the north elevation, the large doors are eliminated. If these doors appear to be original to the bam use, then the applicant should consider retaining them, in a permanently closed position. On the west elevation, the window has been removed. Building code does not allow windows to be more than 3' from the property line. The following variances are requested: a 5' west sideyard variance, a 3' rear setback variance, and a height variance to 16' (allowed through the Cottage Infill provisions). The setback encroachments are existing, but need to be formally approved since the building is being raised onto a new foundation. The maximum height of an outbuilding, measured to the distance 1/3 of the way between the eave and ridge, is 12: The applicant will need this variance even if staff's recommendation that the building be lowered is followed. Information must be provided regarding proposed materials for the exposed foundation as well as new windows. Staff recommends that the existing metal roof be retained, along with all exterior siding. The building should remain unpainted. A structural plan must be submitted for Staff and monitor approval, representing the exact nature of all alterations to the existing framing. Any variation from the agreed upon structural plan must be approved by Staff and monitor prior to undertaking any work. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Conversion of existing outbuildings into living units is an appropriate reuse for these structures, contributes to the liveliness of the alleyscape, and is supported by the Aspen Area Community Plan. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: Putting the structure into use will ensure it is cared for and may be preserved for the future. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Staff has made several recommendations for changes in order to preserve the architectural character and integrity of the barn. ON-SITE RELOCATION Section 7-602(E). Standards for review of on-site relocation. No approval for on-site relocation shall be granted unless the HPC finds that the standards of section 7-602(D)(2),(3), and (4) have been met. 2. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation: Response: The barn is being raised onto a new foundation, in its existing location. This will help to arrest further deterioration of the building. 3. The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Response: This report must be submitted before application for a building permit. 4. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: The bond and relocation plan must be submitted prior to application for a building permit. j COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE #30 Staff evaluation: HPC must waive the following design standards: Building orientation: There is neither a door, nor a front porch on the street elevation, since the unit orients towards the sideyard. Staff finds this appropriate for a secondary building. Building elements: All residential buildings must have a one-story street facing element the width of which comprises at least 20% of the building's overall width. Again, these elements are not provided on the street facing facade as access is not from the front of the property. Build-to lines: The bam is remaining in its existing location. Primary Mass: This rule was created to force larger structures to divide their mass into smaller modules. This building only has a 360 sq.ft. footprint. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: • Approve the Development application as submitted. • Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. • Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) • Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve the development application for 616 W. Main Street with the following conditions: 1. The bam may only be raised 24" in height. Revise or remove upper story windows as needed, to be approved by Staff and monitor. 2. Revise the proposed bay window on the south elevation to be a pair of double hungs or some other window type, placed flush against the wall. 3. Retain one of the two existing doors on the east elevation if pdssible. 4. Use a different roofing material on the new overhanging roof on the east elevation and door canopy. 5. Retain the large doors on the north if they appear to be original to the barn use. 6. The following variances are approved: a 5' west sideyard variance, a 3'rear setback variance, and a height variance to 16' (allowed through the Cottage Infill provisions). 7. Provide information regarding proposed materials for the exposed foundation as well as new windows. Retain the existing metal roof, along with all salvageable exterior siding. The building shall remain unpainted. 8. A structural plan must be submitted for Staff and monitor approval, representing the exact nature of all alterations to the existing framing. Any variation from the agreed upon structural plan must be approved by Staff and monitor prior to undertaking any work. 9. Submit a relocation plan, indicating how and where the bam will be temporarily stored during excavation, prior to submitting for building permit. 10. Submit a bond or letter of credit prior to application for building permit. Staff recommends the value be set at $2,000. 11. HPC waives the Ordinance #30 review standards relating to building orientation, building elements, build-to lines, and primary mass. 1 12. HPC recommends approval of landmark designation for Lot N, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen, finding that standards B (architectural character) and E (community character) are met. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: l .. Il · ... · IABU) USE APPI;[CAnar FORM ' 1{ .. 1) Project Name .... T .BACk z 4- r Z., 7- /4 0/1////9* AfAD./ /DOW,/*/4 2) koject Iocation (DI(o \4186< Malkl Sreper (indicate street aalress, lot & block ninter„ legal description where - aEprcuriate) . 3) Present Zoning D EUE 4) Iat Size 3000 50 th -fy,/ 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Ehone # eja¥1221 AA€oldSON.1 0 *>c loS I Aspa.1, CD Stio &2- · 9Zd -:5574 I 6) Represenative's Nane, Address & 26£18 # i ·A€,€ ~~ &6#Cg¥141 ~*4+1 · . i 18 94. t™N# AT *92 -3,996+1 9 - tb . 91(011 -~.-i . 7) Type of Application (please chedcall (liat awly): . Oonditicnal Use - Ocncept,al SPA - ocnc~Ptial Historic Dev. .1 Special Beview Final SEA - Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline .- Ccoceptual FOD . _ Minor Historic De~r. .1 ~ Stream Margin Final FOD Hi:storis Demolition ' Mintain view Plane Subdivision · V'Historic Designaticm ~~- Condaniniumization - Text/Map Amendment (2US Allatment .. Iot split/Ist Line. - GMOS Ehemition - Adjus:tmerit 8) Description of Existing Uses (n,=bet and type of ecisting· st:nx*m:es; apprriximate sq. ft.; nni,er of bedmans; anor previous agrovals~%ranted tb tha propert¥)...· Pesl ©12krT-lAL. 9\| SO FE. 2 E<DEWLS. . - C.*deED,f - *SlbeAErE 369 60 Fi- 9) Description of Develc,rnt Appli£:ation Als-me,ic I,AWOMA€t 0981(WAT-10&1. ., 10) Have yal attached the followin42 Respcnse to Attadment. 2, Mini== Suhnissica Contents Response to Attachment 3, g,ecific Submission Ocnterrts Respcnse to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Agplication . . 0 0 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 616 W. MAIN ST., ON-SITE RELOCATION AND LANDMARK DESIGNATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held oni, Wednesday, February 14, 1996 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, Basement, City Hall 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Jeffrey Aaronson, requesting approval to raise an existing barn in order to construct a foundation/basement. The following variances are requested: a 5' west sideyard variance, a 3' rear setback variance, a height variance to 16' for an accessory structure. The applicant is also requesting landmark designation of the property, which is located at 616 W. Main Street, Lot N, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer at 920-5096. s/ Donnellev Erdman, Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on January 26, 1996 City of Aspen account 0 j 0 N W .... ...., ... I......:..5. L. .1 . i Tritififfiriff:friffifilitt. -Ii. g 4. 4:*-i#i ir#trin!·1iI 'itp:-1 i i Creek * :. ? F t . (7 * W.0 1.7 1 7 1 3 · / 711 . . ·22% i 22 =L ay,: SivE:P gEEEkE# 1 . M..do.Ood Dr v,10 -1,3.,r'..ff.,,...1,6,!.lf'.Ct ~j'%,~.,~4' '*· t'+'L %, 'i· , 'icifififtfiffifififirti,irlirio><711 , 4,2*i ' 1 . upttld 'a.... e 4 i :Wa,- *ir :. # FER/5°*/0.Qi:*77' 100,0 *01.0 1, 1 ~. ..1 - 1,10'l,~~~/ 1 .' 05 1 lili .......- - C#,la~& fH * -W--- I.-.V.L-*-I -4 . '. ...... 4. + e , , . , r. 10 . 1 , 6. ··· r q{HHHilillitiH,fli#,141'i{IHH 1111! w 11*'#Fgal'PQPFA ; ¥ .t .... , 7 8% , 1 J. A 1 =Jl - 2 1 = LL - [-plkbilicitr-+-:i-·I 07+9-- . 1,21«- ---3 0 .4 . Ir e 2~fi; vr~ ~*.0 4.1 ' 'th:'t ;4'. 4:3¥70 ~ >,0/ r f tl:lc•2*71 P F¢'7171 .g=91 4 #&&:4*. t- 0,-/.6,-*6-66,-&34 ./., W- 4 f~;· j,* ·i: i . i, k.1 Dif {11{HTIL- -, le 4+4*.. *Siv· 1 MEG/:44 9, 0 , p'.i• ·f. 4 9 q ~Ee•u 4 4 : ':"/'. ' 2 + ..1 ..4 ., -, A ·*A,•- , 0 6 9(4 p;N; p, 41+EL L .. f.7. , 39 '/ , ' R•d 41004.6, Rd *~ 90 ; . C~ t:i·i· ' · :t ' '#,1. A i. V 4 r, .4 · , -- . r. .4 0 . ...W LE v , , 16% 1/Iff/ffitifi ·-6· P# tie.~·,; ir ,148 . r , Ati. M,0.4 4.,04~-4:36·' 9" 4 7/ 1 4 P ituater i 9.4., '. 0.1 -. 4 L . 2 Dimificti.4.: 2 1, t. 414.4.If / 41 :F r 4.4 .€....4. f lilli .6UU:..- - ' ;~'~4 4 A- >$1l 0% Ilg g· iHI' c ~2 - f JO *n. ' -*-'AL.U-J 4•,1•.4.•··.~~A-...W·~• i.~1:,.g,~,~.~:;,WA»N4419,;4010%*L'41:u;#w#JMWA . PM ' 3 19 494/ *M Oll Ssed ALLEY ~ BLOCK 24 f.6 075•0,1,11.( r..2, 9 *, 'to . t J L M 0 l1ib 1 1 P /,20 / ·@,3 10/ //, .Ill ///b -lilll'llis ////////3 e / 01£ STORY , //r 1/~'NT ~4 6 0///// / / /1 0 lilli l l h twooo DE CK 4- 10 0/---- ENCRnACHHENT N 75•09'11' W 90.0' 0=teLD 89.989 11 Dete CF BEABNG €XJNC' REEKK ; CAP N 75eol'lt•W 90·01 u OllesteLE) MAIN STREET A 599 614 W . M 41N 'r, ' NO•nt ' 0 J 1 te v j ONe. v N M' 50'49* E 1000' N 'VAA 0 0 0 '11 Wgf#D r 1 -- 0 L 2*- - 11 10 - U.1--/ C MIEW}+ · «PIe- 4 AL'-- 21 WBVI' . 1 . 121-1. RA»r'I KNT Fl» d 1 o f 9-' 4 616 WEST MAIN ]1-10-96 00 : JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 0 0 0 L_ 4 »le Livid LE, -V » v '1 3>77 upt) 1 1 I I fF e = // *1\19641 C 49 1\.., C |2·1- KI»!0EJ 016 59 100 /Fr i L rn,9 **&1 (319 J C ku747 4 I 3 Bju A- [3 · 3. : 1 : 1, 0%1Foudy w#v 04* r»ki *ft' = 1'-O 0 1-r--9 1 o r 1' 2 616 WEST MAIN 1 1-10-96 JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 11 4 0 - - 1:'.11,1J 4 4~1.'gr -- 4-gly &425 // 1 \\ /l\ - 9<IN 11 1 1 4930-1 \»o« '/4,0 =1 L o " L.--Er] 11 oe¢ 6 }116.WEST MAIN 1-10-96 JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS Ea 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 . I . . IRAI Al 1... 1 E--4 1 Ir----1 616 WEST_MAIN_-_ det-H ~*»rro d 1-10-96 1/4 It- 11-011 1.-==1 ~ .~ .JAKE.MICKERY;ARCHIZECIS.t u % 4 1. 1 t .. 1 · -' j ' 1 jet I li 11 11 11 11 615 WEST MAIN *:u[Ff p.»,Apod i 1 41=10-96 11- 94'= 1 L,911 =16 f 0 1' 9 ' 5 I JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS · 0 0 0 -7 1- It , 1 1 + 1 I i : ./-....l'.1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 - 1" - 1 1: L L--1 .A . A. 0/1 - k Wrr % 1,*VAflot,3 1-10-96 B_16 WEST MAIN - 03 JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 0 0 0 .. 1 1 11\\ . 1 . it . 1 ./ - _14 - 4 4 1 1 - 0 616 WEST. MAINE .1-210-96 9,1,11 = 111/ .11 5~172 · 4, . I JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 16; M,36 0%1 --ter: - - f i / 4 1 1. 391'i $ , . 1 I. i. : i 1 / -6 . f I - . 4i . -1· I /:I . /vvl = 0 i V. j i 1 1 1 1 1 e 1 1- FL174 -Searl £264---f ---- 4 »=== #16 WEST MAIN 11=10=96 - LL== 1 I O 1, 0 4, 1 -JAKE VICKERY_ ARCHITECTS 14 4 .- - h 4 t I 7.1 P 1 '"" 1 4 14' 2. hl of.TU EC~k*-ArIOi<1*- f-1 5 oulnrl E-LEVAT-ION.-1 EUSJ1410-r b '4 '· 1'0' , E * 1 Sllk[~ 2 *PA l.1.<6 fxg- 4 1 :1 i ! 1 1 .:i ' . 0 ' . , , 3 i , ' 1 4 1 i ©1--1 1 '.. - -1• r .- 4. + - »-.. ELE.VAT»J. 1--Exl€1-10 6,-2-, 4 - - .1- . J t. : 1 + ..... 1 - 1 - 1 6 1 812 j\-6IUU-65-E l-+64*R FL-AK-1 ¢ 1 .1 ' L 11 :