The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19960228I ' l f Â¢ AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 28, 1996 REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL BASEMENT 5:00 I. Roll call. II. Commissioner and Staff Comments III. Public Comments 5:10 IV. OLD BUSINESS B. 939 E. Cooper, Unit B- Final 6:00 C. 820 E. Cooper- Amendment, Public Hearing continued from February 14, 1996 6:45 V. NEW BUSINESS A. City Attorney's discussion on HPC procedures 7:15 VI. Adjourn NOTE: February 22nd meeting with City Council was cancelled. Council now proposes either Thursday March 7, 12-130 or Thursday, March 14 at 5:00 P.m. It is time to start thinking about HPC's annual awards ceremony (held in May). Where would we like to present the awards this year? (Last year was at Howling Wolf. Traditionally it has been at the Hotel Jerome). 0 PROJECT MONITORING Donnelley Erdman Meadows Collins Block/alley 624 E. Hopkins 220 W. Main - European flower 930 King Street 420 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 Holden Marolt 303 E. Main 520 E. Main 107 Juan Martha Madsen 132 W. Main - Asia 435 W. Main - L'Auberge 706 W. Main 702 W. Main Stapleton 525 W. Hallam Wyckoff Linda L. E. Smisek 229 W. Hallam Pinnington 316 E. Hopkins - Howling Wolf 0 939 E. Cooper Langley 801 E. Hyman - Elmore 0 Sven Alstrom 624 E. Hopkins 712 W. Francis - Orbe residence 918 E. Cooper Susan Dodington Melanie Roschko 918 E. Cooper CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: 520 Walnut (Greenwood), expires March 22,1995 834 W. Hallam (Poppie's), expires April 26,1996 123 W. Francis (Vickery), expires May 24, 1996 406 W. Hopkins (Isis), expires August 23, 1996 820 E. Cooper (Anson), expires September 27, 1996 939 E. Cooper (Langley), expires November 9, 1996 0 ly B. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission rn i Thru: Stan Clauson, Community Development Direc From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 939 E. Cooper Avenue, Unit B- Final Date: February 28, 1996 SUMMARY: The applicant requests final HPC approval for "residential unit B," a new unit to be constructed to the west of the historic house. Conceptual approval for the entire project was granted on November 9, 1994. HPC has since granted final approval for "unit A," (the historic house) and "unit C" (the historic bam). At this time HPC must also extend conceptual for the two remaining dwellings at the rear of the properly. Conceptual approval may be extended for one year and for this project, staff recommends it be extended to Nov. 9, 1996 (two years after the original approval date.) The two remaining buildings should be brought forward for final approval by that date or request another extension of conceptual. APPLICANT: Sandy Schonwald, represented by Mark Ward. LOCATION: 939 E. Cooper Avenue, Residential unit B, East Cooper Court Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen. 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. This project was submitted for review in 1994 therefore the HPC standards as they existed before the series of revisions in June 1995 are used for this 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 "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: Attached are the memo from November 2nd (the first meeting for conceptual review), along with minutes and drawings from November 2 0 and 9. The conceptual review discussion of "unit B" focused on avoiding direct imitation of the historic structures in the design of the new buildings. The design submitted for final is generally consistent with that presented for final (the architect has changed), but includes a greater amount of stone and changes in window forms. From the conceptual review, stone was shown on three structures, the historic house, the middle unit in the back ("unit D"), and "unit B." "Unit D" showed stone on the entire first floor. Staff recommends that that amount of stone may be acceptable towards the rear of the parcel, but that "unit B," which is directly next to the historic house, should have a foundation treatment similar to the historic house (a copy of the north elevation of "unit A," which is currently under construction is attached). In addition, staff recommends that the windows on at least the north and east facades of "unit B" ought to be more vertical in proportion, like those on the historic house, in order to maintain consistency. The historic house and bam have double hung windows. Finally, staff recommends that the garage door on "unit B" be covered with clapboards or some other material to help it blend into the building walls. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the 0 character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: HPC was in favor of the project because it resulted in the preservation of two historic structures and divided the new construction into small buildings of a compatible scale. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: Staff has recommended some changes to this new structure which will make it more compatible with the adjacent historic structure by reflecting similar materials and proportions. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The project does not directly impact the architectural integrity of the historic structures on the parcel. 0 0 ALTERNATIVES: HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) - Final review approval as proposed, finding that the Development Review Standards have been met. 2) Final review approval with conditions, to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action, allowing the applicant time to revise the proposal to meet the Development Review Standards. 4) Deny Final review approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant final approval with the following conditions, to be approved by staff and monitor: 1. Conceptual approval for 939 E. Cooper is hereby extended to November 9, 1996. 0 2. Limit the stone to the exposed foundation walls. 3. Revise windows to be more consistent with those on the historic structures, vertical double hungs. 4. Cover the garage door with siding or some other material to make it blend into the building walls. 0 AmnCEÂ£NT 1 LAND USE APPIICAMCN REM 1) Project Name THE SCHONWALD RESTnENCE/POWER PRAPVUTTEC * - 2 ) Project IÂ£=ticn EAST COOPER COURT, UNIT B 10 939 EAST COOPER'AVENUE' (indic=te street address, lot & block noirerâ€ž legal descciptic.i =hore apprcpriate) 3) Present Zcning RMF 4) Iat Size 6,000 S.F. (COTTAGE A Z B) 5) Applicant' s Name, Address & Phone # SANDY SCHONWALD 1717 OLIVE STREET, ST. LOUIS. MO 69103 (916, 691-4498 6) Regreserrtative's Name, Adiress & Ebone # MARK WARD, 2945 CENTER GREEN COURT, SUITE A, BOULDER, CO 80301 (303) 442-1201 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Corxiiticral Use C=nceettal SPA - Ccoceptual Histacic Dev. Special Review Final SEA X Final Historic Dev. 8040 GreerÂ£Line Conceptual FUD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Firal PUD - I{ist=ic Delilition M:xmt..in View Plane _ Subdivisicn Ifistoric Designaticm (kr,3,Â·,9 frrilm' 4 ,;,tion ------- Tect,/Map Amarifnet =-- *CS Allaberrt Iat SpliVIct Line - acs E=Etion Adjustmerrt 8) Des=ipticn of Existing Uses (r=ber and type of edstingÂ· structures; app=ximal:e sq. ft.; *n=ber of bedroccs; arw previous approvals granted tb the p=perty). VACANT PARCEL, PART OF A 5 UNIT DEVELOPMENT. PREVIOUS CONCEPTUAL HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL. 9) Description of Developert Application FINAL HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WITH FURTHER DEVELOPMENT Â·OF PLANS AT 1/4" SCALE. 10) Have you attached the following? X Response to Attachmerrt 2, Minimum Slkmission Corrterrts X Respor:se to Attad=~t 3, Specific Suhnission Ocrrtents Response to Attachmerrt 4, Review Stardards for Your Application 111111.1 I i t 1 . . ATTACHMENT 2 ~ 1 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM / Applicant: SANDY SCHONWALD i I : Address: 1717 OLIVE STREET!, ST. LOUIS, MOr 631Â·03 iiI Zone district: RMF Lot size: 105' x 58.02 Existing FAR: 0 ' 1 1 Allowable FAR: 1,800 i i Proposed FAR: 1,800 1 Existing net leasable (commercial): N/A i Prcposed net leasable (commercial): N/A ! t Existing % of site coverage: UNIT B~ 1 Proposed % of site coverage: Existing % of open space: 1 1 Proposed % of open space: i Existing maximum height Princinal blda: 25' Ackescrv bldg: N/A Propcsed max. height: Princioal bida: 25 ' Ackesscrv bldc: N/A 1 . Proposed %of demolition: 0 Existing number of bedrooms: 0 : Proposed number ofbedrooms: 4 INCL. 430 s. F j ADU i Existing on-site parking spaces: 0 .1 On-site parking spaces required: 2 i i (PER APPROVED SITE PLAN) Setbacks 6 Existing: Minimum required: 1 Proposed: Front Front: 1 Front: i Rear: Rear: Rear: Combined Combined 1 Combined i Frontirear: Fronurear. 1 Front/rear: 1 Side: Side: 1 Side:. i ; Side: Side: ~ Side: f Combined Combined 1 Combined : Sides. Sides: ~ S ides: r Existing nonconformRies or encroachments: i Variations requested: , (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, di~tance betwebn buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.fl, site coverage variance up to 5%,height variations}under the cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6 R-15. RMFUCC, and O zone districts) Â¢ TnIA' p.01 WARD and ASSOCIATES inc architecture and planning February 1, 1996 Final Historic Development Review Applicant: Sandy Schonwald Representative: Mark Ward 1717 Olive Street 2945 Center Green Court St. I.ouis, MO 63103 Suite A (314) 421-4498 Boulder, CO 80301 (303) 442-1201 Re: Cottage B, East Cooper Court, 939 East Cooper Avenue The proposed plans have incorporated the massing and scale represented at the conceptual review. Some minor adjustments have been made to roof lines. The footprint remains the same as the conceptual plans. Exterior stone is proposed that will be carried through on the other cottages in the East Cooper Court project. Lap siding and verticle ~ with the same semi-transparent stain is proposed. The roofing will be all wood shingles and the fascia a two piece of 2x8 with alx4 trim. The intent per previous discussions is to make cottage B non-competitive with the historic structures. The do not intend to replicate a Victorian design in detailing, but compliment it. We feel with the proposed massing and scale of cottage B is in keeping with the neighborhood and compatible with the approved conceptual design of this project. Mark B. Ward Architect 2945 Center Green Courts Suite A â€¢ Boulder, Colorado 80301 â€¢ [303] 442-1201 6 RILER ATIOVAL FORE5T kRK -Ret--22 --- Red Mountain .2'tairl / Mountain Ridge of -*.-â€ž- Red's 1 48:/*4= w .tte i Black 0Â· v. a..rul 5 ~ Birch c &*---=- -1~ '000 - Mal tr ... - ...35, 01 -4, 6.:E, A . ~\ - - U Â£ Pitkin YX--*, t ean .1 ila 1, .- -0 , - (/Uk\t.-- l: A - : ReseQ-N:Z#Â§ 4~i'~%'4Moun~a~~ -t~~- .â€ž r Â· 1 .2â‚¬IMy 44 2 ~ .â‚¬2 Cj- -~ Pitkin <07 0,9* '., --- Green %492> --~ C. 73.4, 42. 4> 34. t 1 49 W.i" 0 3 e %'. 1 . -. . '768> 6% 4.. . 4 V 4- . I. Asce" tp, wte: - instic:/2 9 $V&* * - -k 11 * - 7 .7.~1 1 C 47- \_ c. ** ' - * ~7'ki L_-- C 0 - V 23 . g I. -I r , Ascen \45: %/tam r 4,1 -* 2 .e 1 . 05 0/ 7.- --f ..... 1 BERÂ· Tent :mmunity - - Gates#te St Int ~ Rc Emnce Ceâ€¢.ter 4,4 5<'*, 1.Â·1; -Ci 4*,~I.-I.. 1 Tel M:ri F. 2- 1 - Z Ulte 04. - 439 ..0 2 .AÂ¥ ./ . ./. S'UC:/Tâ€¢' 32 . Oklahoma - 4 Race 2 St Â¢,32118 :7 - ..,CI * f 42/%/azh..*.:r. ~ ~ 1 :c L 9 05 _ Smuggler,Vountatn &*Â· . C.- ss c Â¢ 2 Â· S. 44 22- West Â·td * ./':..... F,Iris St â‚¬ ~nuggler Ha#,m D Me Â·4<~Â·I Dants D . '4( 8,vs, ,#~4, Â·, 4 \ E 848*re, s, 1 ---_. 1Â·1 Vt> f i Weir. 9 Of ' J -'. 7.447 . / GIl-E Â·* , 01 01 6 4 Mascott, h,rorÂ·r 05 9 3 \ 34 4. 9 LIP. s e = 05 1 . Tch <1 oate ; Aspen M /' Ave 4 Â», 05 Â·~ 46" GIgiâ‚¬ Dale 1 ~ R Q=42 ~4. Grove M,e PA- * 3 be 4.e 6.44 A 5 4,3 PARK ; Durint # ff RLBY 4 A St. 1 : f -4 PARK Dean Ave. - .4 9. i 0 G#but St S.ark ;hj , -06--LI- Â¥ St. > 2 /2 :5 : 1. 40.- . 4 Sl Joli:.1( Cr i .r, Gmve lid. â€¢ Waters 8 Knoihvood <' ~ ~ mok IC..RSÂ· Gof. "~ m + 16 1 .i C Ritz St Carlton Calderwood 1 . >% 9 *r. 14;221 '6 00'4, P Ood RO 9 -4 16/.P.% 11/ .PARK -- - Eastwood u # lake R m I . 34=.2 CÂ» ve.J Ralrn $ 04 Asptn Club A'ccrt A- 4 9 Aspen Mountain 0 ~ 44 Ski Area n v U: , d* 0 j 9> ~A 11- V /5 0--- -.. .. .- .- - . I f i ,~e,~~,;~.I, l; 0 400 RA Â£ %4 Â¢... P Sneâ€¢,4 1 n 44 vimmin ?Â·'Â· ',/.1,6 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOV. 2, 1994 i 0 939 E. COOPER AVE. - LANDMARK - CONCEPTUAL - SPECIAL Jake stepped down. Vice-chairman Donnelley Erdman opened the public hearing. Donnelley: This is a public hearing, landmark designation, conceptual development approval including on-site relocation of the historic res6urces, partial demolition and special review to exceed 85% of the allowed FAR. Amy: I am recommending approval of the landmark designation based on it meeting standard B, architectural importance, standard E, neighborhood character and standard F, community character. There is a victorian structure that has been modified on the site and also a shed barn from the 1930's and both are to be retained in the proposal. The property is zoned residential multi-family. Rather than do the typical buildout which would be one large structure with a number of units the Langley's are proposing to do five detached buildings. They range from 800 to 1700 sqft. each. h The historic structure will be relocated and it currently is in the / center of the lot and it will be moved to the east. The shed will move to the west. The concerns I have with cottage A, the existing ~ building I think there needs to be a little more accuracy in the changes. They are proposing to move the siding and restore the clapboard and replace windows and also there is an original addition on the back that needs to be addressed in terms of how it is going to be demolished. Cottage B you received revised plans based on comments forwarded to the applicants and I think this is a major improvement in its relationship in terms of form to the historic structure. Some of the victorian detailing really isn't necessary and it could even be more playful than it is and be compatible. I am still concerned about the fact that the garage is the most prominent feature as it is the closest to the street but I understand the applicants have points to mention that I agree with. Cottage C is the historical shed that is being converted and a few other alterations in terms of windows. Cottage D I recommend not to have the heavy stone. It is not a typical or native form. Cottage E was fine s proposed. There are a number of setback variances being requested and those are listed on the supplemental sheet. Also a number of parking spaces will be asked to be waived and that will be clarified. The project will exceed 85% of the FAR and they have to comply with the neighborhood character guidelines. There is an historic building listed on the inventory directly to the west of this one. Impacts to that house need to be taken into 0 3 k 1 0411L.,1242Â·E- , u/t HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOV. 2, 1994 account. Bob Langley: The genesis of this project was for us to find an af fordable way to live in town. We are famili~ar with the Aspen Area Community Plan and with the Neighborhood Character Guidelines and we wanted to re-inject into this are a @ense of community and sense of neighborhood. There are not a lot of people living in the area on a full time basis. Our idea was to have a community within a community. We have three free market homes. We will be glad to work with you in anyway we can and we have tried to listen to everyone that has an interest in this project. We do feel what we are doing on the conceptual is compatible in character with the ' .designated historic structures located on the parcel. We want to make the historic house more livable. With the revised guidelines we are allowed 7200 sqft. and the project which we are envisioning has 6900 sqft. We are not trying to squeeze this for every dime that we can get out of it. It is not as dense as other projects in the area. To our east is the Villager and to the east of that is the Chateau Roaring Fork and then on the west Mark Thai's house. We are trying to recapture the essence of the community of the town. The Brass Bed In is right behind the property. The homeowners association will take care of the property. 80% of the units will be occupied by full-time locals. We are retaining the historic outbuilding and complimenting it. ~ Bob Langley: Under partial demolition we would like to not maintain the back 66 sqft. and we feel it is not that significant and is not seen from the street. If we keep it one option would be to move the project forward by four to six feet. The offstreet parking requirement states that it shall not exceed one space per bedroom or two spaces per bedroom whichever is less. Most of the traffic that comes by is pedestrian traffic and there is presently no sidewalk but we will incorporate one. Darnell Langley: Visually when you look down Cleveland Street towards Aspen Mountain you will look into the courtyard and visually see it. Sewart Lusk did the art work and Marsha Goshorn put- the packet together. Donnelley: We should start with cottage A and we need to determine what is going to be removed from the cottage. Darnell Langley: It would be a total of three or four feet off the back. Donnelley: We can assume that the historic element is the taller element and you are stripping the garage and the shed in the back of the historic house and stripping a gable form newer addition off HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOV. 2, 1994 the south which is the back. The demolition of the 66 sqft. is demolition of the historic resource. Darnell Lancrley: With the lot split we either had to get into the -t setback ar cut part of the historic building off. Stewart Lusk, architect: The garage shown is on the setback line and the main part of the house is a few feet back. Donnelley: Cottage B which is a new structure is misleading. It is trying to pick up a victorian structure and it is in opposition as to what we are trying to get at. It is busier and there are a lot of added on design features which could detract from the historic resource. Bob Langley: We could go back to the original cottage B. Donnelley: You have a wonderful situation here. Tom: I like the concept of the site plan and all the wonderful amenities that the sit plan reflects but it concerns me and it has been the criticism of the-neighborhood guidelines that people are lead into doing this miners cottage vocabulary and I would rather see something different. Aspen does not presently have a miners cottage character. If you walk all over town there is almost every period since 1900 represented. In Cottage A it seems fussy. Donnelley: The buildings should be subservient to the historic cottage and should not cry out. You have wonderful manipulation of volumes and roof forms and if one took this totally as a monochromatic project and just looked at the light and shade plate in these forms you would be well on your way to success. This project will present a welcoming picture of what can be accomplished in Aspen and what has been accomplished'i.e. rather blocky commercial situations. Darnell: We just want to give you what you want and we just don't understand where to go now. Donnelley: We are not looking for replication of past structures. Stewart Lusk: We started off with the garden court and we feel strong about that. Then you get the shape of the house. ; Donnelley: No one is criticizing the shape of the houses. We are talking about historic references or non-historic references and trying to distinguish between the historic resource and the newer resource and you may be creating more of a problem for yourself than actually exists. 5 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOV. 2, 1994 Les: The process will work for you, us and the neighborhood. Saving as much of the original building is what I like to see and you have done that. The neighborhood is the scale and massing. Linda: I do not know if what I have to say will make it more clear but the confusion comes when you look at the victorian and you try and make everything else kind of like it but if you look at the group of houses and have the historic structure be the most prominent and the others taken down into a more simple structure or level. Bob Langley: We need to make it evolve and show some transformation through town. We want to set the tone for what.is coming after the miners cottages. Amy: I feel this is too complex and it imitates a victorian house and that is not the direction we want you to go. You find a common line of the things that are important about that historic house, mass and scale, rhythm and you work from that. We are not asking you to reproduce a victorian. Martha: I feel cottage A is appropriate. Donnelley: In Cottage B it is not clear what is intended. How do you deal with styling within the site. j Darnell: Also the historic barn, how do you deal with that. Tom: Why can't you make them all different. The barn is appropriate. Marsha Goshorn: We were lead to believe you wanted it to look like an historic victorian, flashier. Amy: Compatible does not mean it has to look like something and it does not have to be victorian. Donnelley: You also haven't talked about shingles or siding. Tom: I do not want it flashier. Donnelley: We are on the wrong dialogue. The quietest building in the world could be contemporary. You are there in scale and massing. Don Crawford: There is only three feet of buffer between the building and I can reach that far. We need more respect for the neighbors privacy. My major concern is the people density on the neighborhood. If this project is not designated and remains in the zoning that is now you could only have ten bedrooms above grade. 6 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOV. 2, 1994 In this particular designation there will be 18 bedrooms and only ten parking spaces. I feel it should not be designated. Lisa Miller: I live in #8 of the Villager on the alley side right f next to theirs. I would loose my light to the downstairs. I also , feel 8 feet is not much of a variance. Density is a problem. I see more congestion and noise occurring. I also feel the parking is a disaster there anyway. I feel the concept is good but the density is our main concern and what is going to happen when the parking comes into effect when people already park up there that work in town. Donnelley: Does anyone.know what the set back is on the Villager on the west property lie. Bob: It encroaches and the property is elevated three feet above our ground level. We have seven bedrooms above ground. Also everyone has two parking spaces. Darnell: We are also on the bus route and people will be taking the bus to get to work and leaving their cars at home. Marsha,Goshorn: This kind of development discourages the use of cars. Donnelley: Cottage D is taking something and trying to make it different just for the sake of difference. Darnell: Our concept was because that was between two barns we wanted to keep the board and batten and on all of our units we wanted a stone foundation that will have the continuity throughout all five units. We wanted it to look more like a farm house because it was sitting between two barns. Donnelley: The competition comes from detailing. What is hard to understand is D and B. Linda: D and B need to be compatible with the historic structure and that is the challenge. Donnelley: We are also dealing with other issues such as designation, setbacks. Amy: I feel we are near but fdel tabling is appropriate. We need more discussion on how the project effects the neighbors in terms of the setbacks. One of the reasons we have three foot setbacks is that the left the historic barn in its existing orientation. If they twisted it they would have all the room they need but I do not think we want to see that change. In the front they could move the buildings close together and not need a variance. - 7 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOV. 2, 1994 0 Les: One of my considerations is the setbacks which can violate the flow of the neighborhood. Donnelley: In this particular, ca~se we might want to rotate the barn in order to provide a better setback. Darnell: That would cut down on the parking. Tom: I agree with rotating the historic barn and it might be an advantage to turn it and get the buildings away from the property lines. Martha: I would like to site visit the property before I approve rotating the barn. Les: Saving it is my concern and if turning it is a benefit for the project and neighbors on either side and you can show me that then I have no problem. Martha: It is worth exploring. Amy: I haven't seen a structural report On the barn to see if it can be moved. ~ Darnell: I concerned about the exterior finished of B and D, what can we introduce that will not clash. Donnelley: Stucco, shingles, corrugated steel are possibilities. Amy: I feel stucco is not appropriate. Tom: It is a non-material and is positive because it is not trying to say something about history. Donnelley: I agree with the use of stucco. Les: I also don't mind the use of a few logs. Martha: Isn't giving approval of the locations on the site for the buildings enough and he should work from that. Sewart Lusk: The historic one sets the pace. Tom: On the three new buildings your architect should use his imagination. We are not trying to guide you to make a horizontal siding or anything. Your architect should give you an imaginative design. MOTION: Les made the motion to table Landmark Designation, - 8 0 1K HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOV. 2, 1994 Conceptual Review, Special Review to exceed 85% and on-site relocation for 939 E. Cooper to a date certain Nov. 9, 1994; I.. second by Martha. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Donnelley made the motion to adjourn; second by Martha. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk C ) - C 9 1- r.1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994 is next door and we have got a three foot setback and have pulled back five feet where the windows are, so there is a ten foot open area and being sensitive to the neighbors the building spliks right where the windows are so they are not looking right into a building. If the property were to be maxed out you would have one flat wall and you would have less light than this configuration. As far as turning the barn and looking at the parking situation it is not a prudent step to take. We feel we have accommodated the historic nature of the property, to preserve the barn, to maintain setback sensitivity to the neighbors while still designing a project that works economically and socially. There is a lot of inner action between the buildings. We are asking for an additional 489 sqft. of FAR and we are asking for setbacks on the front of 9 feet on the AH and three feet on the multi family. We are asking for rear setbacks of five feet and side setbacks of two feet and combined front and rear setbacks of 14 feet for AH and 8 ft, for multi family. The current FAR is 10,500 and we are requesting 7,200 and we are only trying to create a community where our children can live. Joe: Is this going to be rezoned. Bob Langley: I can't go to P&Z and get rezoned unless I can go ~ through the conceptual process of HPC. By giving me conceptual you are not approving the final plan and by designating the parcel you can. have design review. I have to have a project that works and is both sensitive to the historic nature of the project and the things that we tried to be in line with which are the Aspen Area Community Plan and the Neighborhood Guidelines. Amy: The back part of the lot is going to be split, 4500 sqft. zoned affordable housing and the front 6,000 sqft. is to remain RMF. Roger; Is it possible for cottage A and B to on the Cooper Street to have garage doors not look like garage doors. As you drive into the garages will it be paved or is there a way to deal with something else for that area like grass in between. The lines where the buildings boarder the adjacent properties, are they broken up. Bob Langley: They are absolutely broken up. Darnell Langley: There are some three foot setbacks and five foot setbacks. Donnelley: We fundamentally gave approval to a lot of the project and what exactly should we be reviewing today? Lets deal with the 14 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994 +1 issues that were left up in the air at the last meeting. Amy: Unanimously everyone felt good about the site plan. Passed ' around were computer generations of possible massing etc. This was preferable solution. We are retaining the historic cottage A and the historic barn and the cottage will be restored. There was discussion about cottage B and D and what was discussed was a misunderstanding between HPC and the applicants and what we are trying to get out of new buildings from the applicants. The cottages seemed very stylistic and the Board was not comfortable with them. We wanted to look at cottage B and D further and the committee wanted consideration of the adjacent property. Donnelley: I have a question that concerns cottage B and D. Why are there three different siding materials and two different roofing materials on the plans presented today. Architect: I would like to see it all horizontal siding with no ginger breading and possibly a copper roof for the porch. I feel that keeps it simple. Use a palate stone base that has been carried through the whole project. Donnelley: My first impression is that it is a non-meaningful use ) of different materials and that leads to the questions as to / whether it competes with the historic resource. Stucco usually reads heavier than wood and you wouldn't put it above wood as it is heavier. It is also basically in the same plane and that doesn' t make much sense in cottage D, to change materials just because one is below the roof line and one above. It appears that added complexity and added confusion has developed by throwing in a lot of materials. Bob Langley: Would you say that the structure as it stands is more compatible with your personal vision of what you would like to see and are we talking about exterior material. Donnelley: I do not have a personal vision because I am not designing it, I am reacting to it. The forms as a committee no one had any basic problems. There was an intent to encourage making these other three non-historic structures, noncompetitive with the historic structures. We also said maybe you are trying to read into this more of a problem than it actually is. In other words in terms of light and shade, in terms of what is happening with the mix of forms in this very tight little area. You have enough going on. Architect: Cottage B is basically the same roof lines and cottage D had roof line changes mostly the north L without the peak and I 15 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994 feel that helps. The siding material we had gone over as a group and I feel the simpler the better. I would hope we could get past a conceptual on the shape of the structure and to know we can really detail this out. Bob Langley: Because we are landmarked if the forms and shapes work and there are concerns with the siding and materials I feel the committee has a responsibility to do is show the good faith in me that I have shown to the committee. I am responsive to anything you people would ask me to do and I will continue in that same vain. I; need to get conceptual approval . Amy: They are asking for setback variances for both sides, parking variances. Darnell Langley: The setbacks have a lot to do with the AH zone being so cramped and it is cut across. They alley them becomes the front yard. Amy: The historic building has now moved further forward, it is seven feet off the front instead of the required ten and that is because of the discussion about the rear addition of the house which is historic. I feel the drawings are appropriate and you ~ still read that the addition on the back is one story although it has something on top of it. It is a good solution as opposed to demolishing it. Yes, the buildings are tight but as opposed to one large mass this is more appropriate. Darnell Langley: They are all below the allowable height. Joe: I am in favor of the project and we will do what we can to get conceptual approved tonight. One of the problems that I see here is that there is not a model. I do not know how they relate to each other and we always require quarter square drawings. I am in favor of conceptual but with the caveat that it is not final until it is final. I can't get a good feel how the structures relate to each other on the site. Looking at four different sets of elevations it is hard to see it. The model will help a lot. In general I like the plan and the idea of a variety of structures used on the site. It is difficult to review five structures at once. I need the opportunity to dissolve it. Martha: Will the historic barn remain where it is? Bob Langley: It will be moved. Chairman Joe Krabacher opened the public hearing. li HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994 Lisa Miller: I thought the barn was going to be on the villager side. Why can't you pull back five feet on the entire side as I . will not get any light and we are crammed in. On the west facing window that is all the light there is. Why can't it be switched. Bob Langley: The barn has to be moved one way or another and I am going to be living in cottage D. In order to preserve the view of Smuggler mountain I do not want it switched. Lisa Miller: I would like to see a model also to see exactly what .. is happening here. Martha Goshorn: If it stays where it is it would have to be moved twice, one to move it off for the foundation to be built and then moved again. If it is moved to the other side it is going to be less difficult to move it one rather than twice. Right now they can dig a foundation and move it once. Darnell Langley: I feel we have addressed that in ever way. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Les: I feel we are close to solving this and the applicant has '~ moved in a few feet on that side which we requested. The site is tight and would explain again why you cannot move it back anymore. Darnell Langley: We took their concerns and we went out and measured every window that they have and from every window we came back five feet, we gave the full five feet. If someone came in an and what you are able to build is two monster homes you would have a ten foot setback on front and back and it would be all building from the front property line to the back and you wouldn't have that little slot. It would be like a solid wall. There is a five foot set back on the side. Also keep in mind that their ground level is three feet above our plane level and that will make a difference. Donnelley; I could give conceptual approval only on the building massing and the site plan. I could not give approval to the three non-historic structures because they have not been presented to us today. Martha: The conversation at the last meeting centered around cottage B and D and I feel we are headed in the right direction. Amy: Everyone felt comfortable with what was happening with cottage A, the historic barn and the new barn. Not that you would approve every aspect but that you felt good about it and that B and 11 0 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994 D still had problems. Donnelley: It this gets conceptual cottages R aAd D would have to be presented to us in a much more detailed form. Roger: I could approve conceptual based on general massing and site plan and I would request a model not only of the existing and new structures but of the Villager and property to the right that it be incorporated on the model plan. I would also be willing to sit in on a worksession. Joe: My concept is a massing model. Linda: I agree with Don about the business of B and D and that they should be simpler. I agree with the site plan and basic shapes of the buildings. Joe: Does anyone on the Board have any problems with the site plan. Donnelley: We would have to have a revised site plan. Amy: The variances need to be taken care of with the conceptual ~ because this is a public hearing. Joe: I feel this is difficult to evaluate in the absence of 1/4 inch drawings. Amy: There is the possibility at final that the variances could be reduced. They are requesting a 489 sqft. in the FAR for the affordable housing. Marsha Goshorn: There would be an FAR increase on that one 1500 sqft. parcel but it will not increase it on the entire 4500 sqft. It is not an increase over the FAR allowable for the AH zone, just for that one particular house and it is just being moved from one site to another. The Planning Office came up with that idea due to the layout of the site. Joe: AH will be three lots 1500 sqft. each and one of those lots needs the FAR bonus. Also one is under. Amy: I have been in this process with you for some time and this application is not complete but because I want this to happen as opposed to what could happen I feel OK about it. We need to discuss at length general compatibility. Bob Langley: We need conceptual tonight because we have a P&Z 18 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994 0 meeting coming up. Donnelley: You will have to redo the drawing correctly for P&Z. Les: The solution is here and we won't like part of it and you won't like part of it but it will work. Chairman Joe Krabacher closed the public hearing. MOTION: Joe made the motion that HPC grant conceptual review, partial demolition and special review approval for 939 E. Cooper with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant understands that this is conceptual approval of the site plan and general scheme involved. 2. That the applicant submit a model showing this project as well as the adjacent two parcels so that we can get an idea of the setbacks affected. 3. That we have 1/4 inch drawings. 4. That we approve the variances requested for FAR of 489 sqft., setbacks in the AH of 9 feet in the front, 5 ft. 0 in the rear which is 8 feet at the decks and two foot sideyard and 14 combined front and rear yard and in the RMF parcel a front yard setback of 3 feet and rear yard of five feet with 8 feet at the decks and side yard two feet and combined front and rear of 8 feet and a four space parking variation. 5. At final a revised site plan, landscape plan and accurate representation of all materials etc. 6. HPC finds that the four development review standards are met. second by Les. Martha: I feel the model is number one and the detailed drawings second. Donnelley: Maybe we should have a worksession before final. Bob Langley: Amy and I will dialogue about this tomorrow. Vote: All in favor of motion, motion carries. 0 12 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994 Donnelley did not vote as he had to attend another meeting. MOTION: Roger made the motion to adjourn; second by Joe. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 20 1 . MEMORANDUM U TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee ~ FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 939 E. Cooper Avenue, Landmark designation, Conceptual Development including on-site relocation of the historic resources, Partial Demolition, and Special Review to exceed 85% of the allowed FAR DATE: November 2, 1994 1 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval for Landmark designation, Conceptual development review, partial demolition, on- site relocation of historic resources, and special review to exceed 85% of the allowed FAR for the property at 939 E. Cooper Avenue. Currently there are two structures on the site, a Victorian house, built in the 1880's and an outbuilding built within this century. This project involves a Planning and Zoning Commission review for a lot split which creates two parcels, one which will remain zoned RMF (residential multi-family) and one which the applicant's wish to rezone to AH (affordable housing). Three new units will be built on the site through the GMQS exemptions for historic landmarks and through the allowances of the Affordable Housing Zone listrict. APPLICANT: Bob and Darnell Langley. LOCATION: 939 E. Cooper Avenue, Lot A, Block 37 and 75' x 100' of Cleveland Street, East Aspen Addition, City of Aspen. Landmark Designation PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Landmark Designation is a three-step process, requiring recommendations from both HPC and P&Z (public hearings), and first and second reading of a Landmark Designation Ordinance by City Council. City Council holds a public hearing at second reading. LOCAL DESIGNATION STANDARDS: Section 24-7-702 of the Aspen Land Use Code defines the six standards for local Landmark Designation, requiring that the resource under consideration meet at least one of the following standards: A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of 1 1 . historical significance to the cultural, social or - political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado of the 3 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. Response: The house is a simple Victorian miner's cottage with major alterations. Original windows have been removed, a garage was constructed on the east and the whole structure has been covered with asphalt shingles. The applicants intend to renovate the historic house and outbuilding as part of their redevelopment plans and to make material changes which will return the house to its earlier character. From the 1904 Sanborne Insurance maps, the historic house was a one and one-half story historic structure with a one story lean-to on the back. There are two outbuildings shown on the site in 1904, but neither is in the location of the existing shed. These, along with two other Victorian houses which occupied a portion of the land which is now 939 E. Cooper appear to have been demolished. The existing outbuilding has become - historically significant and is not proposed to be i demolished in the current redevelopment plan. ..-. C. Architectural Importance: The structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. Response: This standard is not met. D. Architectural Importance: The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: The architect or builder is unknown. E. 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: There are a number of Victorian structures in the immediate vicinity of 939 E. Cooper. These buildings are mixed in with some very dense multi-family development and are the only remaining evidence of the 2 historic character of this neighborhood. F. 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: This site is representative of the modest scale, style and character of homes constructed during the mining era, the community's primary period of historic significance. Concentual Development 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 "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark than would be development in accord 0 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 5-508(A). Response: The proposed project is dense in terms of site coverage and results in a greater FAR than would be allowed in the type of "traditional" multi-family complexes which fill the East Aspen neighborhood. However, in terms of building mass, the proposed detached units are very compatible in scale with the historic structures on this site and neighboring sites, ranging from 800-1,690 sq.ft. The attached map of this area showing 939 E. Cooper in relationship to its surroundings shows that this proposal is much more sensitive to the history of this area than many more recent projects have been. Because of the applicant's proposal to split the lot horizontally (a lot split line usually runs perpendicular to the street), the alley becomes the frontage for the AH parcel and the lot split line becomes the rear lot line for each parcel. A number of setback variances are 3 being requested in order to accommodate this proposal. Both of the existing historic structures will be retained through this proposal, including the outbuilding, which has been of concern to the Committee. The applicant proposes to relocate the historic house to the west of the property, so that the porch is exposed along the courtyard and to move the barn to the southwest corner of the property. The asphalt shingles and modern windows will be removed from the historic house, to be replaced with double hungs. Any information which can be found on the original appearance of the structure through photos or physical evidence would help in making the changes more accurate. The proposed picture window on the first floor of the north facade does not seem to suit the other Victorian features on this structure and should be restudied. New windows are to be added to the barn in order to convert it to living space. In general, the proposal does seem to preserve the character of this structure in terms of its form and materials. The design of Cottage "B" is particularly important because of its location between two historic structures. It is the only unit in this proposal which uses a different roof form than a gable, which Staff finds should be restudied. In addition, the garage is the most prominent element of this house. It should be recessed so that the main entrance is more prominent and should also in some way acknowledge the one story element of the neighboring historic building (although it is not an original portion of that building). Both Cottages "B" and "D" also have heavy stone foundations which have not been used traditionally in Aspen. In general, Cottage "D"'s form and massing are compatible with the other structures on the site. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Today the neighborhood is characterized mostly by large multi-family developments, with a few single family and detached structures. Several historic properties surround 939 E. Cooper. 939 E. Cooper is a particularly large vacant parcel for this neighborhood. Although additional houses existed on this site in Victorian times, they have been torn down and Staff estimates that the parcel has been open for at 4 least the last fifty years. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: Staff finds that in general relocating historic structures does negatively impact the cultural value of a historic resource. However, the historic house currently sits in the middle of the site and relocation does allow a more sympathetic grouping of small units around it, rather than constructing one new mass similar to the Katie Reid project. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposed development will improve the architectural integrity of the historic house, by removing incompatible modern elements. Converting the barn to living space will require a good deal of "beefing up" of the existing building. Every effort should be made to limit the impacts on the exterior character of the building as much as possible, SO that it will continue to read as a historic outbuilding. Partial Demolition PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: No partial demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to section 7-709, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless the partial demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the applicable standards of section 7-602(C). The applicant proposes to demolish a portion of the one story rear portion of the historic building. This element was constructed before 1904. 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure. Response: The applicant proposes to remove 66 sq.ft. of the rear portion of the building and to put a second story on top of it. Staff finds that the 66 sq. ft. does 5 , not need to be removed. The addition of the second story - is not ideal, but may be unavoidable, given the courtyard , 4 configuration, which is a benefit to the project. The architect should find some way to indicate that area of the building was previously one story. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: A. Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. Response: This may be accomplished as described under standard 1. B. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel. Response: The character of the one and a half story house with a smaller element to the rear should be retained as much as possible. Special Review- Overlav Zone District SUMMARY: This project is located in the East Aspen neighborhood, therefore both the general guidelines (Chapter 1 of the "Neighborhood Character Guidelines") and the specific guidelines for East Aspen (Chapter 2) will be applied. The special review process is mandatory as is compliance with the Committee's findings. STAFF COMMENTS: Please refer to the application for the complete representation of the proposal. Planning staff finds that some aspects of this proposal should be restudied to be in compliance with the general and specific neighborhood guidelines. Rather than discuss each guideline (including those which are met), only the elements of the proposal which warrant further discussion are highlighted below. The applicable general and specific guidelines have been grouped together by subject. Mass and Scale General Guidelines- 2. New buildings should appear to be similar in scale to those in the established neighborhood, or to the scale that is desired for the neighborhood. Response: Although Cottage "B" is in scale with the rest of the proposal, the windows on the east elevation (which are not very detailed in the drawings) appear to be overly large. 6 Site Desian Specific Guidelines- 19. Provide a front yard in all development. Response: If possible, the outside parking space on Cottage "B" should be grasscrete to limit the amount of paving. Garages General Guidelines- 12. Minimize the visual impact of garages. Response: As described above, the garage on Cottage "B" should be less prominent. Also, the garage doors on Cottage "D" could be "divided" so that they appeared to be separate. Service Areas General Guidelines- 14. Minimize the visual impacts of service areas as seen from the street. Response: Little information is provided about service areas, and Staff is concerned not only about their visibility but also that adequate area will be provided for trash, storage, etc. Impact on Historic Buildings General Guidelines-16. New buildings should avoid negative impacts on adjacent historic properties. Response: Cottage "B" should have at least some one story element which steps down to the adjacent historic building on the west. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve Landmark Designation of Lot A and 75'%100' of Cleveland Avenue, East Aspen Addition, City of Aspen, finding that standards B, E and F are met. Staff recommends that the remainder of the proposal be tabled to Nov. 9, after a thorough discussion and evaluation of the project by HPC at this meeting. This is a complicated project with a lot of detail to be reviewed. Additional study should be given to the treatment of Cottages "A," "B" and "D" and the site plan as described above. Additional Comments: 7 t 0 EAST COOPER COURT LAND USE APPLICATION HPC LANDMARK DESIGINATION CONCEPTUAL HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION SPECIAL REVIEW NOVEMBER 2, 1994 ----Il .---- r 1) * Project Name ~ENET C.OC>PE2.-.C_2>02-~ 2) Pnoject Iocation .9 89 E C.-oc,PEL 49 -9 LOT A FLOU. 3.a:..6 -\S' *ICKb' cil:- C.CE/El-*ea <E57Â· EAsq- 44:Pgu kxzc>~-rcÂ·Â©.tl~Tt-QF AtiEhl. Unlicate street address. lot & block'Ilmber, I legal descciptian whete approgriate) . 3) present zoning 'Arn N 4) Iat Size 1 b ,~SCS3 1~ 51 Applicant's Name, Address & Ehone # l'Eh1121 CapLAJE Sbu:22- OF bJI.(32:NE~1 - -93 ca+ALD Chou 065 \76 -t:EEZ-TiZAJ L '2>0\3LS:i<n C.c:3. f<HEE.1- Â©4Â©NE=Boa -4+Y+4559\ 6) FÂ®resentative's Name, Mdress & ax,ne # 9Â£36 E Bu#ELX- L.62*ji>? P.C) Â· 201 9%95 ASER 8. 96\ 2- 463:32,-=\JO -#M 2, 7) Type of Applicati,n (please check all that apply): Cor*,eptial Histcnic Dev. Cor*litional Use Cmceptual SPA . ~ Special Revier - Final SEA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline .-I Conceptual POD Mimr Historic Dev. Stze= Margin - Final EUD - - Historic Demlitirn M:untain View Plane N_ albdivisim ~ RiUâ„¢ic Designaticn oond,ninilmizati= ht_ :reck/Map Ametanent _ GOS Allotment -:L Iot *Uk/*&104, f * r - #V QCS E-r'-'m Â· Â· fr - .-I....* I- . .1 te-L. t : 1. ... L. . / 4. Mjustnerit .12-1-' . -7-- .' 8 ) Descciption of Existing Uses (rm=bek, and type of ecisting- structures; app=cinate sq. ft. ; n=ber of bedrocms; ator Previa= approvals granted tb the pmperty)- \ S\DQ*XE Â·ENAUW NOME- APP?.SA ME=r\.9 \450, SC?.1::JÂ· . . ub \TH 2:,EED222MS k.2 IN \ iNSPA . \ Â«GAE.0 2.C>' *22)' uxur-A A 5HLLL LOPT Â· 9) Desc=iption of Developient Applimtion 92Â£%923EleD ci= CÂ»EN\Crot kAb M\Â©ER.5 Cla*Eia th.,6,1 CÂ»bE OU.3- 2,\3\LDVD?% ADO 500,9AÂ· -r*EJEE ADI:AllONAL 940\ thaDA& -ro C.28;brP. A Â· MBS - C-01 MON i~W . C.g:*32,\ ST~ h.36Â·j 06 AT~AL OP b FREE Ma2-tel- %. 2 EMPLONE.t' BONES : 10) Have you attached the following? ~ Pesponse to Attactm=:t 2. Minimum Slhnission Contents -x; Response to Attachmerrt 3, Specific Submission Cocterrts 50_ Response to Attactment 4, Review Stardards for Your Application ... lili SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORICAL PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of clead,111Â¥_labeled drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than 11")<17", OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 11"X17" format APPLICANT: ' ADDRESS: ZONE DISTRICT: AN- RAP 729715 LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET) 46OD GOOD ID,600 EXISTING FAR: 6603 ALLOWABLE FAR: PROPOSED FAR: 661 6 8447 EXISTING NET LEASABLE (Commercial): DIA Mil. PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (Commercial): EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: EXISTING % OF OPEN SPACE: PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE: EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 10 1 0 +Atu EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: 0 2- ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: ~ 7 SEIBACKS: EXISTING: A* .2/Wf ALLOWABLE: *~ AMP PROPOSED: Front 10 1 /0 Front ID (O Front 2' /O Rear: 3 3 Rear: /0 /0 Rear: 5, 6 Side: 0#)96*U) 4â‚¬ 4/ Side: rr Side: W 56' Combined Frt/Rn /8 /8 Combined Frt/Rr: 10 20 Combined Frt/Rn 4' \.1 E EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ ENCROACHMENTS: VARIATIONS REQUESTED (eligible for Landmarks onlv: character comoatibilitv finding must be made bv HECK 4# *1 tap Ati AFF FAR: 609-1 Minimum Distance Between Bpi!#ings; 4/ SETBACKS: Front '10 Parking Spaces: ( b - 7 6 ) S. 1 6 (7 -1 9 3 Rear: b . 16' Open Space (Commercial): \ Side: 4 , 2. Height (Cottage Infill Only): . 1 1'\ Combined Frt/RE.,4, â‚¬-' Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): .1 6 9 014 FM. koucâ‚¬.0 ACColt.Di Wk(4. @ .. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ~ The East Cooper Court project is designed to inject family oriented energy into the Aspen Area Community. The project will provide 5 families with free standing homes in a configuration that promotes socialization and interaction. The project is working to use the best intentions of both the Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines and the Aspen Area Community Plan. It is sensitive to the historic nature of the property by preserving the existing house and outbuilding and responsive to the community concerns by providing family housing as well as 2 deed restricted employee units. The East Cooper Court project proposes subdividing the 10,500 sq.ft existing parcel into 2 parcels. The first parcel, consisting of 6,000 sq.ft. would keep the relocated historic house and R/MF zoning and under the guidelines of the Historic Preservation Incentive Program a second home would be built . For the second 4.500 sq.ft.parcel we are requesting rezoning to Affordable Housing to allow the outbuilding to be relocated and remodeled as an employee deed restricted unit. Two additional units would be added, one free market and one additional employee RO unit. 0 fv REVIEW STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION The Cowling Court Project meets standards B ,E and F. for historic designation. B. The structure or site reflects and architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. Response; The style and Architecture is a one which has so often been lost in the past few years. The redevelopment of this parcel would help restore some of the past charm to the neighborhood F. 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 ther structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: This site represents the modest scale, style and character of homes consructed during the mining era and it is a feeling any style that we wish to preserve and recreate in the additional structures. E. The structure or site is a significant 9 component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintainence of that neighborhood character. Response; There are a number of victorian structures in the immediate vicinity, mixed with the results of redevelopment in the past few years of larger structures. The Cowling Court proposal could bring back some of the lost charm to this neighborhood, which is a major entrance to Aspen in the summer. 0 0 10/24 '94 09:27 ID: FAX:303-920-1628 PAGE 1 0 October 24, 1994 Amy Amidon Historic Preservation Committee City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Amy, The following is our response to the Special Review request for our project. An historic miner' s cabin that has been sensitively and faithfully preserved and expanded will set the tone for the East Cooper Court Project. Occupying one hundred and five feet of frontage on the north aide of Cooper Avenue, the project gita stands at the eastern entrance to the traditional core of Aspen. The successful preservation of an historic barn, in addition to the miner's cottage,will be complimented by the addition of two free standing â€¢ingle family homes as well as a new replicated barn that will also function as a single family home. The middle third of the property will be preserved as open space to a depth of fifty feet to provide a permanent play area for the children who will live in the neighborhood. The East Cooper Court Project responds positively and specifically to the design goals for the East Aspen Neighborhood. The five single family residences are all small in scale and done in the interest of preserving the existing character o f the neighborhood. The project is two lots east of the Ritz-Carlton employee housing project, a modular three story affair that has a negative historic connotation. In contrast, the East Cooper Court Project wishes to create five free standing homes in harmony with the original character and intent of the neighborhood, rather than a large multi-family unit or several duplexes. The entire project will be designated an historic landmark. Eaot Cooper Court will take advantage of the flavor provided both by the miners cottages in the area, as well as the ski lodges that surround us by employing the â€¢ame type of material and architacture. East Cooper Court will provide a sidewalk to enhance the walking experience in the neighborhood. The East Cooper Court Project will serve as the single best anchor to maintaining and enhancing the design character of Aspen'm eastern acceâ€¢sway. Sincerely, , . ~~ Bob and Darn/il ihgley 9 10,21 '94 08:58 ID: FAX:303-920-1628 PAGE 2 OC:227.3. 12:33 F.OM,LAW OFFICES IDâ€¢3034435470 PACE 2/2 October 17, 1994 Leslie Lamont City of Azpan Planning and Zoning Department 130 S. Galina st. Japan. CO 81â€¢11 *â€¢: 93 9 8. Cooper lvâ€¢. D.â€¢r $*eli" Xy mother, Jenny Cowling in thâ€¢ owner of record of the above r.forenced property, whose logal domeription in Wl of Lot A, in Block 37, hat Aspen Additional Townlitâ€¢ Entry. a, thown on tha plat r.oardld a. document No. 108453 in bitch Book :A at page 252 of the rooords for Pitkin County, and that portion of Cleveland Street lying aoutherly of the south ling of Coopir Avenue and northerly ot the north line of the alley, lying adjacent to and viaterly of Lot A. aaid Block 37. and lying aaâ€¢terly of the last line of lot 1, Block 118, Upen Town.ite= I hav. power of attorney from her. and *inage thâ€¢ proparty. My addrese 18 118 Diar Trail, Boulder. CO *0302, my phone number 11 303-444-0591. 0 Bob and Darnell Langloy arâ€¢ Under contract to purchaâ€¢â€¢ the property. Z understand that they an going through thâ€¢ progess of having the property subdivided and demignated an historic lanhark. le agreâ€¢ to 1.t the Langleyo. institute the authorization prooâ€¢â€¢â€¢ with thÂ® undentanding that final approval will be granted only if thly â€¢10â€¢â€¢ on the purchase. 8*SMÂ£ 2Â¢72.wd:- hnny /cowling by Richard cowling Pover of Attorney 0 ASPEN To Snowricni vilage ,/'thc,Reld Rd ' -9 '5~ Sonâ‚¬/ ~1 WEST ASPEN;0 /1 g'"02!Ea243~/WE~MEADOW ~1/: 1 Â¢ Mouttain view Or / ~ 4 / \SNOW . BUNNY c,e>-\5' MEADOWOOD ---~ AVH â‚¬5~ 99**#11 - â‚¬15/ 3 /---E*ware,*acs Câ‚¬k-:@69 CASTLE CREEK BLACK BIRCH / -Callte Creek -=*/--\Â« BAARSNOBBLE JANSS Meodows Rd 1* 7th Street ~ O PITKIN GREEN \1 Music Aspen 1% Tent 0051#ute ath Street -49 \1 - 50 St,eet ASPEN/ 7- ell / 4, . f i tiv # + Street 1 1.---0-1 \/9 . 1 2 4 6 2nd Street /4 Macm 2 1:t Street % 2 0 --400~ NW1 Gamth St LAKE VIEW N. - f i ADDITIO / m 4/.spen St ' OF RED fa/0/ 'Ill . i 1 j .,tft - \~MOUNTAIN v MOUNTAIN i rit=n-- Red Mountan Roo# -11 4 \ 1 , J pt - s 1 1 i Wagner --T-1~R Mal - 1 it c*--U 1 49 Aspen 4,-1 i e Gdenc St / Creek iI 47< A WILLIAMS /2 1. + \RED \ rÂ·L/MOUNTAIN RANCH ..m==1011.R -*< s i 1 *oomON OKIAHO 2 Mountain 4/ FLA'IS .p 01,:,St , . %..1.2 e- W.,End 9 . 0-0- 0 CALDEMOOD 1 r.. POMfON prQI kt j â€¢Aveâ„¢O SUNNY PARK , ic 041*on ~ ---ms,AV'""*#0 ASPEN GROVE <'1- zUNTAIN KNOUWOOD ... I.lilli.-I.I... ..... C lelk-l GAR& 6-1- \,U -e. 6 43 9 Le 4, RLE 39(6 a44_- Lot A , A LE. b 7 â‚¬Q â‚¬T- 61 9 01Â£L Â¥Â·. 1~06 u) ns i T--t .. COOPER AVE. .....T â€¢â€¢0â€¢1 -or-â€¢,i ..... - , O=1' 1 1 1 t 1 1 7 â€¢,tâ€¢ ofle" 0 ~ ---* 1 16.11 10..1. .0...., 10. SRI L Â· 1 1,1.In , 1 13.0.1 â€¢ET 1/' nEEL â€¢Oe ,1,1 ..1.1.11 1,1... ANÂ·-- ...ET.... I.,... $-- 1 1 ......1 - . 1 -1 - - J I f .1 I 1 .0.1. ..: LE , =1 601 1 Z eal.INAL ..... 1 1 - L. A / 6.. I .60.... . i,7 .i 7= - I . .: 4 1 r 0 11: . g / I . 1 7/ L. 5 0.1. . 1 â€¢r. In,ill e-/t. .t,â€¢Brl... ............. .~:tw n. e., ...1-.10 1,1.0 .r. N.11:16:0:.mÂ·. les ..' I ..... ........ ........ â€¢,ir ...1 ..... ...'.. ..... 0.-0 ...1 - .\ 44. N. 0 1 1 L_L_ 1, / 4001: 1 1 j V N . I I * -- 1~ :1 ' ll 1{ J 1 l, .I ~ 1 \. !) i--7.'!lili, !11 '11114?1~141-lt/N.. ~11-' - zizizE p==1 d=:f- ng Â» E.lilli E *-, 0 - c= -t _2 \\~9 ~91 2 0 2 -r M ELF v /4 L I O N - + Inifi~A \7-4-1 I -uAl I '-. / *922-OhFL r Iy'g - mu~Ck--- -- - - tÂ»A-Rzl -7 i , --M= . -- -t/,il 1743 Ill 'IT 1 1 11 -I ~ : Il Â·7 Al i -Tr Â«947 i / ~S-k-~_~~~_~~ 97 - -- I e U m eAAI___.-2-1. E v A T-_L O N 60 7 T & CrE B L I /7/71- 1_3X / *Ir EE lu ]1 1 1-Eli 1~ 1 11. .1 1 11 111 . 11 i ! 4 l1l \.111-1-1 i .VETUNHIlll // ill i Fi iii i ' ' !:1 . 1,1 1 1 j=bl- - 1, I ! i : i .. f \N EST EL )24 1Â¥ TION 60 TrPror E i'2>r 49 199 111111'PU Eli HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994 520 E. DURANT AVE. - CHANEL - MINOR ~ Amy: This is a Chanel jewelry store as,opbosed to the boutique that we reviewed previously and they are proposing to make similar changes to the door and window. They are not lowering the window ceil. I recommended approval as submitted. Brand Allen Architects: The window is opaque and is 288 sqft. MOTION: Les made the motion to approve the minor development ~, application submitted at 520 E. Durant Ave.;second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. 210 S. MILL STREET - FOOTLOOSE AND FANCY THINGS Amy: There are awnings on the building and these will match the existing except they will be collapsible. I recommended Â·approval but the awnings are going to be at the second floor level and there aren't any on the basement level. It is not an historic building and it is inside the courtyard. Les: It might even make it interesting. ~ MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC approve the minor development application as submitted to 210 S. Mill; second by Les. All i favor, motion carries. 0 939 E. COOPER Amy: The committee was generally in favor of the site plan and asked for some restudy of the treatment along the sides, the setbacks because we have an historic resource on one side and neighbors on the other side that were concerned about loosing their light and air. There was a request for restudy of the new buildings B and D and those are provided tonight but Staff has not reviewed them. The board thought that the houses could be contemporary and playful and did not have to try and replicate the historic house next door. Bob & Darnell Langley, owners: We have a project that we feel is in absolute harmony with the best intent of the Aspen Area Community Plan and the Neighborhood Guidelines. We have been working with the HPC for 1 1/2 years. Les touched at the last meeting that the process has worked. We have come to point that we need conceptual approval and we have done everything to accommodate the concerns of the HPC generally. I'm the developer and I will be living there. Recommendations at the last meeting were to remove the gingerbread and we have done that. The Villager ) 12 C .) Ap-49 t 1 4 : . 30 C_ t; 1 --- LC --7 /~ 1 th< 3 - - ))7 1. 'L-- il gr S C-72 / 2 9-1Â·441=-- - =- ' ====:=======r- - - ---Â· 4- If' It 4- 3222 m*44_-_-- . =11!183-- 1!1 -1= -9 . 4 c .-- - L ---==- -- 1 - -- - --9-, ---- r= - -- #r-- 1__] j # 2-1-37/_= - _ 11 ft-, ... 1. i J.1 1 r-71 1 , 11 . r 11 , I. 1- T A- er EL F i. - . NDKn+ (coopER) E.LEVAT/0;l , 1 , -1 ~. f.. , yÂ© 1[[1]111 , . --*---1 - - - V.- 5 - 90-4 9. f FU. !1 1.li' 11111' 11111 -gi-h-- ==1.- - .--- h 1= ; r , . -%421 =t-i_ --31 - 3 -1.--22_ .2--11-2 j 1 -4 - e 04. ..i . . I. I 0 0 TE /4 6- E 1 4 4-1, E-PesT l(-ouR-rfUD ) E-LE-vAnDA/ ./ . . f L.Â· /0 t:t L. 1. \ 141 4 . 0. 1 I X -:ri :*tu .3:r. 1 ' 44~fIX.- 1 - :.1 1 %:. | D E-L.C. i -CÂ· 1 *--1 -19 Gr ' â€¢ I t- 111 li i k *N-..\ i far 1- M 7,2- - 31 --=-- E . 0:1 -C:ki- 1. il 4--iN. M . 11-L +0 0.04 ~*â‚¬5:3-9 1711014rl 4 ILLÂ·f j~~ Â· 14 f -r z.- 1+. s N 1--=Ff- h ----1'F -2 ov 11 ; -JI i. I. Li--Fl 1,2~,8 '1 i 42 v T.../\.\ ri : r - - .1 1-ld 1 1 1CED * Â«ru o Y -- I. . I MN:$-rE.iL BPE 17 g epe- iÂ«L.=2_2 _1_- - ~~_ 4Ar l -. 7.-92 i . 1 - n 1, 1 , i ,/ - I. 1- .LL - 22 i Â».ftil<%:4 J ==4, 4/ir)(llilli~ ----I - *~ ' 0 P F.ER.. -L E V 8 L - 2 \ 9Jll-/ ' I.*-,0 91 =f~*r, c.2- baâ„¢El --- or =- -111111[ i 939 EAST Â®OPER - i W illin --- E. % L 4 F KwaLÂ¥ COTTAGE B 1 I h r 46 -- -*Fls. P,01"t , 1 A Eoft - i 1 , 47 I. -VT . . - 2 4rutr< ~st 4 ?p 1 1 E -1 .- 1.It --- 'ADU --- trAÂ¢Al.E 1 1 . PARK\NLT == L ill>/11- 1 , '44 11 li f- - 1- -1 4 Â·--[-1~X ~6 El IE .. 4 -I.--.. - I~ 1 . .--Ill.- -. -- . IL 1 1 1 - 4 1 a - C==a W--+ EL - I.I.- - - - 11 -1 - I....Il :. 1 - # 11 :-- --4---6'u-T. It --2-Â£--Ctr.EN_V Ar I..,1.0 14 eT- pr s_ IE E--L- E- v /4 1 _1 9-6/_ - 4 939 EAST Cneâ€¢Ew - .._.-rew r nitc--I Â·r--=rf,-1:1 dOTTAGE B . - 0 . - . I 087 m 1. /' 14 .. 4%/.1-3--~E~~ - 11 - - -1 - 1.- . 11 er b 1 -1 - 1 fri M - 4-Â» El El n 2 . 1-__ C.L= 1 4991 .t -J It 15 1_ E- V A.1~4 1- , A- hi M b 14 7'-1* --- E Lue Y 4 1-3- 0 hi -9â‚¬ E. 56 -1- U -- 4*9$54** : - dy 1111.D ;St)U121,31,1,11 Â¥ ti livi, A- ./1 0 :6. 9.811 Ek I.1~I.1 - ..fur 1-J.- -91; 4. 1.- 1 ..7.-19 ,.1. -'12:9~ ' agi Neigw-rr LIMT 1% --*- -- r.,CY, 'A' Â£1 2 - f. 17.4 1 . e ; t.*imm:Trd#*4)3.-1 -i /7..19.201. - = er 1. - 5--fet.-t /14?44,*1 -E V. 1 //6/52/2,610<'Li. - I:;Â·*t-..2 . - 0,1 42% T l.(Arr - - *. -Ill-- . -I --Ill---I---0 - -.....--I.- . L p --:': 2 0,70 - 1.- 7.....Be) *7--4 . - I .7 111 4 - .-11 . 1 1*+* I -Â· :4/ iF.'41 -t 1 - - &+tÂ· :oil --- I ~ il .4 - 4... 7 :-IN Ill- . \ .:'AL. 1 r---5--- /~Ni4615952ijj' - 4 1 ItuZZLE: \ N .. .:4/1 1 ..... A.. 4 J ~ JUN 2-81995101 ,- - , '1 :C . , Building LAD V / -- .... 1 ..1 - * 'bgo,2.AL -r .u:. - 1 1 -Â· :(Ak (TrA-k)/*i d.! ~' ~,~~ t~<2"6;4 1 * i .. 1..I. /~vibir ....... . . - 0. - 1 1/ 1 ....... -.- 1 1 - -I .... - /2 --7 4../.a--h. Â· ./ 1 4 . 11 .1 1 ,-- ' -* lu.:,dal i 13.* ; ~ Li-,3 '--. - . 1 - , ... ... -I l .1/ - ./ r. f '-=21*1714,-: 4/ CJ. h . .. :.. RitÂ· ar-t;IU-~7.1. 27,2 - i' L - ~- 1: i 1 0 * 16fwi'kifir#263 :fin-zz,Â£4 . ' Â·Â· N- t . /1 . iti Â£ .* . 1 - 7 ' 9 - 8 Ve5 -31 4 2 * .' * All" 4 :Â· I- -Â»Z . It-91 - 41 + 1 P 9. I I. : - 4 44Â·4 1 1.-_ . r I . - ...... .- - .- - --ar.:94-94-146..ALMAf/1.film: - â€¢'CÂ· - , â€¢ I L.Â·" . --- 1 v -0,Â·t.Al-7 0.- Â· f.mr-jÂ¢209*HA<Na#2854*,7--t - I I .... I . 2 99-â€ž,7 ..... -Â· -Â· Â·-Â· Â· >'. -i. Â·-,42Â·=:+ns.WAA'7-3 21.4.4-- - -- --,-t-~ t-,-t 9~G~- :Â· -v- 4-'t â‚¬7* ,i-- r.--+ - *=:6 Â· Â·trÂ·:t * - - - 4">-,r==:.-- -â‚¬~~ er-Z'*-4.-0.2 ~.: . ... : -7-Ce==-2.7 -kt- 4.4* I *. ' 9 .:.:~Â·.9 +.../. .59 1 -, .- . . . - ...u--*253'1- :~ 1 .4.2t4.- 1~...4. 1Â·Â»Â·-1-21. -,i:'~72&-34.QT=7& 9, r 4 7 -91/S>*4.- r Ilk . - -- 1 jt &1;liw,J.0.44~- JEj-I.--4:=9#.fVr.--*-2n.VÂ«1=Ur-U r.rÂ»,-u--6=1EAG~&1J;~ 4 .4 . ... rl) 2-- 1 1 I : 4-: . - .... ... ..i -I -1-I- -4 - - - C ... . . 1.7... 51Â·. M:. ?4-2 .y - ......'.5. - /1 . -9- .4*;f- â€žC f.),aM. ,e, 4* ~i . - ~*-if *a~. - c.. , . . . ..., ~ 0 -39 <29* ' 1*- - . I t f 10- --- 5 i. - 1 - 4 . ..3* --13 - - 4.. . ~~~~~~~~~~214.04~~31*.4i ..I-.2,~~~it-fjL-Â·.lf-44Â·~~~3.i..f~~ .â€ž~I- -. . , . - . - ...4. 2,2 4....7 12.- . -"1? J. . .2Â·2.-LT-2'21'4Â·42'2212Â£215~4?!87!2*9*_- : -Il.. - t..:1.- r.-1.2...4436/fi:. 1r#~3 --- ,=-41*4:y#.W///.. Â· .. r . -t ./. .W Â·- 75Â·~Â»19> r-Uâ€¢4â€¢~'>--44+H - ~-- ~ ~Â· *-m#4**A4pat - - ....3 :70~Ket&#eftel . - ...46- .. ...... . -:0 -I . - - - . - I ..... L.,.0 5*:60 -->64*43'*;il~Â·JA~Â·b- 2 -. -I- - -- e. -' . -' ->..:. -L L.~-.Â· ~513:Â·J Â·:.-Tr.'7.3.7â‚¬tz)*34*2-Â·*.977 .321~...1-2~4:13>Vprewse*2*66** er - -I Â· . -*~ -~- ~f -Â·4/7**-:72 3/ g.keÂ¢,9*i,aL .2 1,6 K: .-3,i:Â«..~+.Â·*2511%Â·~~~2-96 .. - 21.6 - - Â· 34.315<. 1 D Â· . ' / 2 1:244â‚¬76 7 -25!~ Â·Â·-- ----:-4~7--9#i~3#%&*TWI# . r + - I : '& I -i 1 .Â·-4~*-~ .45,F'F#2771*6*ell"AtiAP'golit:66,3,+ ft'ttia'. . 19'% 112 4 4. : 1 '. <,2:1:'. ly C. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 820 E. Cooper- revisions to conceptual approval, PUBLIC HEARING (tabled from February 14) DATE: February 28, 1996 HPC granted conceptual approval for the redevelopment of 820 E. Cooper Avenue on September 27. At that time, the proposal showed an airlock entry porch 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 0 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 proposed to be 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: Combined front and rearyard variance of 18' (30' is required, 12' is 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 sideyard setback variance (10' is the minimum required) An FAR bonus of 500 sq.ft. (Staff has not confirmed the applicant's calculation that the gable end windows create a shortage of 590 sq.ft. HPC can only grant 0 500 sq.ft., so some revision must be made. Staff's quick estimate of the FAR shortage is over 800 sq.ft.) 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: The changes proposed at this time are outlined on the attached submission from the architect. Staff finds that the requested variances are necessary in order to provide egress wells along the sides of the building. The house is now proposed to be moved 4' back from the street, to give some distance between the house and highway and to allow the project to meet open space requirements. (35% of the site must be Open space which is visible from the street. The addition at the rear makes it difficult for the site to reach this requirement, as most of the yard space is taken up.) The architect proposes to raise the building 2,' in order to allow more light into the basement and to bring the house nearer to the height of the sidewalk. Staff finds that this has a minimal impact on the character of the historic house. Lightwells are proposed on the front and sides of the structure. In the front, these lightwells are only 30" deep and will be screened with small plantings. Staff also finds this change minimal in terms of increasing the livability of the structure, while still preserving its essential character. A new dormer is proposed on the addition to the house, on the east facade. Staff finds this change has no impact on the historic house, however, if the issue is additional light, a skylight might be used in order to preserve the simple gable roof forms of the entire project. Finally, the applicant has re-proposed the entry airlock. The owner wishes to have a weatherized entrance to the house which also provides some storage. Staff again recommends an interior solution or the use of the side or rear for this sort of "mudroom" entrance. The proposed porch does reflect many elements of the existing house, but in staff's opinion, the most problematic aspect of this airlock is the fact that it is glazed, as opposed to an open porch. This will result in reflections and will obstruct view of the existing front door. HPC has discussed at length the idea that this house is characterized by simplicity and that adding a new element in this location will disturb that character. 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 parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The proposed project does not detract from the significance of the historic structure. 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 is concerned with the addition of the entry airlock. When identifying the character defining aspects of the building, one of its most basic properties is its simplicity. Staff finds that it is preferable to direct new construction towards the rear of the house and to maintain the historic structure "as is" in the front. The architectural character of the structure and its prominence along the streetscape will not be diminished by the proposal to raise the building 2'. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve the proposed amendments to Conceptual approval, including the following variances: 0 Combined front and rearyard variance of 18' (30' is required, 12' is 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 sideyard setback variance (10' is the minimum required) An FAR bonus of 500 sq.ft. Staff recommends HPC not approve the entry airlock finding that it is not compatible with the historic architectural character of the house. 0 0 RCHITECI,1 TO: AMY AMIDON FROM: JAKE VICKERY JAKE RE: 820 EAST COOPER - REVISIONS TO CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL VICKERY DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 1996 100 SOUTH SPRNG ST. 03 Please find attached revised Conceptual Drawings to be consolidated POST OFFICE Bok !23h(1 with the previous application and which include the following changes: ASPEN.COLORADOF! 612 TELEPHOâ€¢J / FACSIMILE (970) 925-36 0,(1 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 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) . r - a . . tj / " . - - 1 .I .... ... 1 - I 1 'f ./ .Â£~l .. I. 1 . -=-~~~L_L_ .. \01 111 -1 ./.T: 11,M, L--- J t-~ '.0 '. / Â· ' ht i I 2 -7' Â· iii ! -. ~ fill I. Â· .. I. .... ... -. ... ..9 . I. L -f i 1 rn- 7 11 . 11 Â· :U . It U.1 . MIA l Ii 3/ /2 .. N14 , r N3' --. ' -. . 1 . li ~ ,~ PARKING AREA lig~Â·- .. .. .... o ALLEY Â»000 . -. . . -- Sw 4â„¢__=~=rrj -I ...... - I ..| - :FRZ/096,- ... - 11 S5 6 Sl ~ S4 J < Â· s2 -,- ... MÂ¥Wow- . 6 . . F - 1--- .. - -7 fAL.Â·pe 6-.. ING . . ~ * ,4. l.1 +18Â·' <-\ 1 ;~~ -Â· .(wei ... I. 1 Â· 1 . 1 N2 Ni Â· ' N4 N5 i 6 1 -â€¢ 1\ an},4 /4 - c -11:%-0257 - l. . 1 . . .f. I ... . .. . . I . . ... EAST COOPER ,/ / .. Ll Â· n 1 . - I . .. brn!Â·. I . .1 . 1 jS5 S4 L S3 'S2: sl ' ~ rÂ· . 1 - . l . . . F- .. . 1 It I I 1 11 1 1-711 . 1412*<*;Nk 0Â· Â·clul Â·no. 15.24 401'.erâ€ž1.* 4,-- ft. 6,41'r..0091. 40143 " 7/M tkl Â· - 5 1:0. #.2 MSTA.B.K . 7 1191-0. . ~ \ X[' i.-lili--1 l .1, 10Â· & BMM/.4.0. Â· Â· 'Vâ„¢11 i Â·Â· t A \2<31 71 22 /.=I=') L - A f.0. 8.# EM,161 . 7 1.14' S : 1/ , ====1 , VS' -Lp MMF.-1. * - Â· * MerK. 8-1. . \061 - 60. . c 3 2 Â»696//Â£ . 1 = 1.3 4 i F - 1 . 1 1 & r lili ..,4 liE' 1 1 , 19600 . I 'Li - 9 0 8â€¢4,t:r M. -_ - 1 11-6.4=, 1 1 1 . 11 1.11 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 -1 1 1. 1. 11 4-- 1 4 il__ 0 4 i _J --3 Â»14 4~1 -1.13 . UM Irs/mp,4. e et'.O, Y eece. Llis-1- - ~ 7 - - . cioq-tH **M*EF*Ar low __. _ f>@41,64, Â«~Ul-4 61-8.VAT1961_ 0 _ Â»85'F *00 4*pvl~U> 9 0.-0 - /. 1- - LLÂ·Â·Â·:91 14 020 -/2% Pdmbos'n,PH 2,23,90 PEPP "$72 -- ll 1*tP U. â‚¬-- . 1 6 - 1=-1 - 1 h 06 1-Â· 1*F+L . , 7 1.-v F--- Â· 1 . 4, 101*.Dâ€¢,W Â· r// V 10Â·764â€¢ - -- .fl=== - 1 I--I ...J,1 5 -InÂ¥ 91. Â· . -1 P 14'-00 - - la-. I â€ž-0 - ....I IM 4 6 - . 4 4.4&.de ; i -7-Â·- -f'' ' frhrÂ· '00-00 1 v -~ '1~- r , i -~*1*22##- -Ii 1 - - -. ,L -In- ...*. 1 ....... ..... ..... .- .--- - . 1 11 J. 1 i Â£17'REE .--- I ' I I - -.. 1 i , I __ 'FWUHOÂ«11 011 1 | -= r 1 1 1 . 1 1,5 STL' 02=, -- r.--. p - 1. 1 ' 1 -- D 1 17FICA.. I , a.t =â€ž'.1 - -- 1 .1. =--- - 11,4â€¢-Ir (uâ€¢rf 23 - 1 -------------Irlilu--- -- -I--Ill- ~re 4- -1-J -5 . 0 - \Or.r \A/EM,r---tellevarl-Chi - ----- L 290 0 9.0.0 -F 4~ 1 V. * 0 76 0041 4 \\ H~ lie'-O. 'Â·Â« tl 4 . 1 f.0. 6 6 0,1,46 Lt,J . ,/ 94 Â· 4/ I . .-1 1 MomÂ· Dotâ€¢ .- Ypv I 7 W'-1 40 - r- 1 - . Â»-411.- 19 eb AUNO, T 1â€¢01-0' -- Jrm==mail 06 04,Â·r /- A 4â€¢44# -1.-11-L === I --1 - . 791&0' - - - ...R""89.#."1,".00,"IZ'"EZ"U 4 .- ~11 , 1 11. 1 + 11 1 1 2 1 1-1- 11 1 ~i 11 . 1 . 1 11 1 â€ž 11 il. Â· It . 11 1 1 1 ..111 1 1 1. .kww,Â·re/6:v,â€¢4* 01 | $ 1Mlfâ€¢/~MI!.* 2 6* .=I== -J 1 1 1 1.l 1 1 71. 1 4-/-1.1 mt- -L--u ... --- --1~ _ _ 40 071.0â€¢ r -79 , -- 1 . 7* rl. 1-_1_ 1 11 No2114 3Â¤12Â¥41-loN ~04 64 - 157 8>36 2#71-- 60:)Ferz- 7 ,Â«:1 INX- 2 .32 Â·16 t 1 . 25 '' 1 1, 0 \13 M. i -. i =17 Â¢ 1 - 1 N Â».70 Â¢ I 1 . - i 1 r - Â·Â· i, . 7; â€¢11-Ii--11â€¢ - 349 1-71 1 1 . . , 6,â€¢m-,SeÂ· Mlie.) + I ../.- li - 1 1 4- - 0. li 1. ' 1 1 1 1 11 1 11 1 1 11 1 113 1 1 11 Vt-O' r r--7Ir -- -Il# L.4 P r-7--- 1- 1 1 6--, . 01/A~,#Pbtr-Mf 1 ~ 464< 9.*EMA-T7O~I.r- r----------IT- ---.U --7 9 0,4, 64*r - A c I. 6-6, -= . - 11 5 - 0 . / -- 11 . - 1 ji -21- r=DE - .1 1.â€ž'TE . -/ ----6 1 I L - I A~ag- L=i r 1 1--U-- 07 71 - 0 - -7 -- 1 -- -11'.1,"---* 11 77 /\1 0 -1 Â£-"'FT r i 'r-1-~" M . &11 12-41 I= L.fl . I -. PE =Ii",11*minial -- 1,01/0 Pl> Pwoe- 'RA+J 0> *Aorr U.feÂ®' 2,2,3 .16' -- . 0 1 . .. - . 1 D 2 -nut 1 Ir .- .. --- --1 o.w Iii 0 1 1 34--4. 9.Lullim= -1 rf-7-~ NT --' 1 1! m 0 ~ 0- T l_ ~11 i 11 1. 1 - 4 --- Dr- 1 1 ~1 1 1 - L.L . ; 1 1 1 - -4r 1 : 1 1 J - 1 '1 1 1 --- .1 i - 1 1 1 1~ rh Al/ . ./ -Al--,R--94- -11~_ 146.-1,6.-turl RGE 111- 1 1/~'/==m.'-I...r-; m 1 .1 ..e Â£~2#UNIP Pt,Q:512- FLÂ»), ; 0-20 S, 525*8Â¢- 1 2,12 Â·90 Jb' 6 l 1,00 . 0 .. . . - A, --- 0- oi F----,9 ... - .T I LM L I 7- I fl 1 .... 1 1 1 1 - -9-li 1 1 1 1 11 - 1 . . 1 L--- - 1 A .\: i /1\ / 1. \ , /1 \ 1 - . 1 \.1 1 ___ ...11 1 ' 1 U FADO- F(x:!9Â¢2- 12*KJ 1 6-20 13#~*r- COOft>la 2,21.96 . . 0 1 . 0 W N ./ i. C. 2. i. 0 'i 1 1 U * 1-- 14 0 1 4. :1 1 1 /0,1 1 b a=f A_ 0 7.-1.. . .-- 0 L . 1 1 ..Il - I . /1 W'K. 6009*9- - - - fk@V P/5150+PLI + 15#1#t1 11 Â¢150~ 1761/lÂ»'* 4 ' .. .. 260" 22 4 . 0 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 820 E. COOPER AVENUE, LANDMARK DESIGNATION 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 Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 0 Published in the Aspen Times on January 26, 1996. City of Aspen account. O ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1995 0 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 FAR 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 Kequires very little demolition of the existing resource andj can easily 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". 0 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. Jake: I am amenable to find something 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 Lhe 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 B 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 0 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. 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 i ,111 9 , IN., - 1 It ... , / ,(5 r j1LDS~)~T--21 iii 1 !11 -1 i -:-4 i :i '1 0 ' 1 ii':1 li .i | N !1!It i lili. 1 1 :t: : ti ! . 1 1%11 -~~ity'Itt it -;1/1. 1 1 lili A lig' il'll. .1 1.i 172Â«iNZ2EFEÂ»aLE*UCH+3420-73 --- ZIL--.zEzzq-'---/.-.L- - ----- ---_ --_. _ -- 19Â·,h-r-., li l 1 i lili 1 1 i E '- El 000 ---L_LI r-----.1 1 - 1 I It 11 1 . - . .1. lili' i: ML Â·! 11' f' 1:1 111 11 1 1 1Â·<.. = 7 i 1 820. AST COOPER, -f---f-~Pâ‚¬E_<-* ELE VÂ»371=2Nrf_ -1______ - __a__1_ __-j _1 _'_. - - - ---__- __ --_- ---__- -.-160-568%H--*RING-somi#T #3 ASPEN, CO 81611 970 925 3660 , El.\4 = fit [I] fri . -- i f i ' li 1Â· 1 i It. , 1, + 1! t' . Â·1 ' 1 i. 1 6 4 - 4 :., 4-J 1 . 1-\ 1~ 1 .- ati - _ 4_2 18-~-------Â·r I /5:fl- r-1 1 -----P- 11 , - - 6.~ 4 04--1 L -ZIL'<~C'C-: . ; - - --EL 19- - - ic- . MEFER. SeLL; 621.,1, i rbi . 1 J. , 1 CLDEE- ..i 1 0 # I -- -- - -4 8:~66 ---Frfil*q- _ _721-2 *-4.-on -- - SAEETâ‚¬ 820 EAST COOPER JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 100 SOUTH SPRING ST. ASPEN,CO.81611[970)925-3669 \U t 0 91.6 1.-10. 0 10 20 ALLEY . dLOCK 111 GRAVEL ELECTRIC E TRANSFORMER POSSIBLE A EASEMENT . 96. 9.1 0Â· HOUSE 201 1 -. 0 BOARD 96. 9 & 00 */ILA >4 . 8 0 0 g. 9, . CONCI Ao . 0 Â· gq.9 04 *3 0 96.6 . 099. . 9 A )2.6 0 0 0 02 2% 32 0 4 0 . 099.1 6 6 .. le- m 0.9 --- e .- WALK ENCROACHMENT HOUSE 00.0 <4. U 0 O 4 2~ a- a 4.6 99.1 IOO 6 10* - 20. S 5,4 01. 00.7 11,00 5 4.9 99.8 s aÂ° 0 11. CONC. IVALK 30,00 \00. 6 GRAVEL PARKING 6)8( 100. 0100.9 EDGE OF PAVEMENT Uu.PEK) ./0/, 3: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL . 6 4 REA ir r 1 BASED UPON ANY DEFECT ON THIS PLAT WITHIN THREE YEARS YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION 4 VUE UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS PLAT BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN FROM THE DATE OF THE CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. THE :ICATION IS VOID IF NOT WET STAMPED WITH THE SEAL OF THE 'OR. . . ARCHITECTS 17Emol,(Â£**D DEMOLITION PLAN ~ 97 86 820 EAST COOPER '00.001 BRICK BUILDING 3.64.05041 N 3SnOH 10.7 -5 A<k)#-- \ / 2212*I~k~A#,4=--2 1- . ' , 1 -\ -Â« . .-0.. 0(mER-M-ILIL- - .. - ---* Al-- 3 1 lizziE ' L_--1 .1 - 0-3 t: i- 1 -1 -1 1 â‚¬Â«f[H fe-LINAJE{of<1___ILILIP_ - u - 1 1 h ! 11.1 1 1!il'i - l i r Â·Â· 1, iii ;/1 ,i:Iii ' 1 4, _li h â€¢ i H n 11 ': : .6- L .1 1 1 1 4 111= Lilla ' 1? . 1 *-4 1-4 - *51+4- 820 EA T COOPER - ' -- -JAKEâ€žWICKE ARCHHECTS -100-SOUTH-S#RING STREET #3 -4- ASPEN, CO 81~11 970 925 366C i Â· Â·,9 ' Â· I '/3/424Â«*34~. . -1 ~ *. - . 4.3/1.Frfrit:*dille-T*...<Ziful,jilmi'/PYTV..- 0 -0 2&35*EASfia*-I. : ' ... '. - - . ..... . ...'*.-'0.347 --: - e.*- -Lk/.0= 2 ...... -Â· Â»'*2957*-=imi<Fil'M. . . i - ..7:11 544.1.......... -2:.:tr---50*4Â·4Â»4-Â·G Â· I ./' J--Â·:rNS.:Â·.:Â·r*:Wl r.2.3 Â· 1Â· Â· 'PI=S=.-=A:471*75â€¢â€¢ â€¢.... 1;~Â·. .. . 0 I ~~(~iI?I~?2?FiN~-FÂ·.~Â·*.* - . Â·Â· ~ . 4 . -- p . li i - Â· , f.3 ,.. : L J . r 4' j t- e'-: 1 - g-.- .1 44041, i J. > fl ~Ttiot ... -<----% ~3 , v---- . ..r -' i ' 271 {3.... 1 /5.- I f I 412*0713Ft I Â»Â»ras . 1% :0/37 , I . . - _1- CH v~latEâ€¢B- k 1 1 . Â· Â· 9 1..- ' - 9/1 . 1 /,- 0 j . 1 .1 1 .. W041*1 1 I 1 I . I 1 - -1 1 -â‚¬.:21 . 1 1 1 . i 1 I . 1. (IN) . 1 f... 1 - 1 . . . i 1 \1/ 91+*6112,6 25-1- - ty. Z. -. F 1/Â«.1 l I , + a -- I .... t . 8 1, . #:ayic,eÂ£7 02 Â·6 , 147 ---- -- . 4'L i lan . I 1 -4 - /2 1 :1-7 Â· -_BÂ£:71~; *042. Â»Prftle-LAJ,1+20185; -2*1- -113*69*41#N-r 'p>04-I ..21. - - . . . . 4;455. 40 820 EAST COOPER JAKE VICKERY ARCE[rEECTS 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET #3 ASPEN, CO 81611 970 925-3660 . - .. .....t. ../ . . - - - 1 . 4/ ... I . -2.12*<=24â€¢TNE<92*6- /352482** -w evÂ»Â·e Â»-eet(r*ew:fe-JAWMAL--- - I ' 1 i . 1 l -3 41><C~ Â·. .i ; li: - - - . / 1 - '1 Â¢ 1 - -*- Jel- O- , .. 36.-04Â« 6 1 1 .1 â‚¬ )--Â· r-. , _IL 2- - i : Â· . 73>14,0:~: 2 :1 - -5eo gaort .D:x - .. s IL-/>v .1 * . :CO.4-b. i_ - . 1-/ <---- =;,~:~4 4 - * t-u UN CE '2. -ILE.fÂ« . 'i i - . 1 1 Li - I .: I teD ga:?1 l? 1 - 4--usap ~61,1 - -L 4 71-1 -- . ,; /7<~&- 11322Mr,-3ZA-Go;de ez:3,( 14 ~ - .11 1~,~.. 36"2 - .npr r Mr -4- 1 . - ., Â© Alu- o a .-- if-'Ff:z:q-ttO~ ~ l*. 1%Â¥01 7 7 111 i 1 1 ' $ Ii---4 I Â· 0. 1 1 1 - 1. . . . =0 - - 1 1/ 9,Â»fl Â· 9 1. . - . 1 ./ . .1 P . P 1 11 -12, O 4,0 --7_ --31'2.67 r . I .. 7 -_04Â«RfENIC- INEAN *. . ............1.- - VEÂ·Â£Â·-Â·ly'll ... 1206>41 *SEr -2:-6-7=RG . 1. 9.4.ar:*i _0_ w,#Â¢264128 1*4 02â€¢54 - WeU-4Â£2*E2041 PEE -â‚¬,1 -t::Wr:,Wo - YpywaNS Â· .fi 2....6 _iÂ® Fe#,0-~ f72&02_1-426Â£:li.1 $8,[1412Â£22 peoN-tZI**AAr.2*042-_-*Pr02*522.- \2*121Â»16Â». 820 EAST COOPER *4Â·4:Â·.,-4,4'au-t - - @ 41404,1Â»v 1-1-4 kFFW9-46 ~_ W/'-46*5219 .7~Â©Irl 4.4, _ JAKE VICKERY ARCHrIECTS 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET #3 .. ASPEN, CO 81611 970 -925 366C . Â»f-~ j.,tf*4;2.*t;932.{'* Â· 'Â· -, ?13: SECE*-/Â·:Â·45:Â·p:-9.t :~..033*.FÂ·p. 64:.:iÂ·Â·.. *.*. - ..... â€¢ I ..... . I. . ...21,4- lifita#AffÂ£-47623*. . e Â· ...ifir. 21.-I I ./ . .,..1 7'.7 11 ...- l getr ... .. 4 4 . I . . -- f .- . --1 6-ltk:Â£)3*El-*.---- 0-/3 - .. 9. , -//Al . 1 . 1 1 .*0* .-1 .1 . 1. . .1 .1 iI> * 1 4. \.1 0 . 1 . 1 ...0 A E-2 I J T .1.h@----7-Â·c.[VIN~M-- Â·Â·*-:- 7 = cu -r-2./ 1 .iÂ·. IL><d 1 1 1 . 1 C ,!1 L--+ ., . ----ZE 04042--- 1-4 9 NAUL 1 \ h 1 1 1 1 .I.. 1 : 4 1 - . ..+2122.FEAMILT -* .-* Â· il I ~-- u -2-- \JI~,ALW=- 1 -- .01 1, -O 1_1 1 1 -.. Chi M. -_-* 1 M . 10 0 1 6 1 -- le --. 4- 7 --1- 9 : 1 - 8062 1 1 800, :. 1 - Oil] -1 3-5 - 11 >2 3 0 0 12 . .-Â· Â· 9 1 ,- 11~ \ , C â‚¬Â»1=8 1+1 W=tac-/ 1 U ftF6reâ‚¬,t 1 3. ' 4, : 6 ROU-FJD---FLab R.- "fE ANY .. ... 7 7 : 72.J ..le"kto.11 . Il I. I.-./ Il...0--I. ... ----983@f\eâ‚¬o- 1 Â· G_ 03?1~ __ _ --- = KId'[8Â· : SeS - ~171Â£21-1 K!,s_ hUg,CEÂ¢S _t)NIZEÂ¢5*51%46+T -_--FLAM J. - . . L , -.9*grt -8 -44-89---1.-61220* 1/851-11*Ul-* _ - 4-1---7 - 820 EAST COOPER I . ... . JAKE VICKERY-ARCHrrECTE 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET p ASPEN, CO 81611 970 925 36â‚¬ .. 1,9 ..