The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19960508AGENDA 1~ ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION May 8, I996 REGULAR MEETING SISTER CITY ROOM 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of April 24, 1996 minutes. II. Commissioner and Staff Comments III. Public Comments -, IV. NEW BUSINESS 5:15 A. 320 Lake Ave. - Minor Development /6,4 0- Mi ,/_ 0 M 0 5:30 31 St. Mary's Discussion Â¢~f' V~ OLD BUSINESS 5:45 <.A. 939 E. Cooper Unit D- Final Development Boan - ttle (anic_j 04 6:15 < B. 426 E. Hyman - Final Development /. Â£ 6.1 k- 6:45 ~ C. 123 W. Francis - 112iW{Wi o~conceptual worksession ~\2 -}70[ 5-60< 3-6 u.>.1 60-,-,1,(5 -Ays 7:15 VI. Adjourn 90 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 303 E. Main Kuhn 930 King Street Roger Moyer Holden Marolt 4/ 21 F)9/1 h (/,Of,/04Â£ 0~z,.y_/ 303 E. Main 520 E. Main 107 Juan ISIS 939 E. Cooper Martha Madsen 132 W. Main - Asia 435 W. Main - L'Auberge 706 W. Main 702 W. Main Stapleton 525 W. Hallam Wyckoff 316 E. Hopkins - Howling Wolf Sven Alstrom 624 E. Hopkins 712 W. Francis - Orbe residence 918 E. Cooper 820 E. Cooper Sven Alstrom 939 E. Cooper ~ Susan Dodington 612 W. Main 316 6 6160*1Â©, S -k~he| & 430)0 j...~ Melanie Roschko 918 E. Cooper ISIS 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 824 W. Hallam (Poppies), expires April 26,1996 0 3 4 22Â« n YX(l h 4, <4_ -~ 3.0-0 i_gl k~_ k>/2 - 4 14. 8 4jj L - f Ptl'u. L g) ~ \ 171/-. - i 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APR. 24, 1996 1012 E. HOPKINS AVE. - WORKSESSION 1 426 E. HYMAN- CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT f COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 1 PRESERVATION HONOR AWARng TENNIS TOWNHOMES, ASPEN MEADOWS 3 10 . ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APR. 24, 1996 Chairman Jake Vickery called the meeting to order at 5:10 with Roger Moyer, Martha Madsen and Sven Alstrom present. Excused were Susan Dodington and Melanie Roschko. Sven was seated at 5:20 p.m. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Amy Amidon, Planner stated that St. Mary's would like to consider new windows and I indicated that HPC would prefer retaining the old and add an interior storm. Jake stated that they would have to make an application as it is a major element of an important building. 1012 E. HOPKINS AVE. - WORKSESSION Amy stated that this property was located by the pedestrian bridge and the issue is whether the house can be relocated offthe property. Dave Mylar, attorney representing the owners Rae and Roland Marasco stated that he would like feedback from HPC as to whether the house could be moved offthe property. On-site relocation was discussed in addition to relocating it offthe property. Relocating the house might make sense as the house was not originally located on this site. The house was moved from 420 W. Francis and secondly the neighborhood has changed dramatically. The house is surrounded by huge new buildings and an apartment complex. This resource might show better in a different location. Dave also stated that the City's water plant housing is a location that might be considered for the house as an affordable housing site. Upon research the house could have been one of the sears catalogue homes that were shipped out to provide housing for miners. It would be good if it the house could retain the work housing roll. We are seeking HPC imput before investing money in engineering to see whether the house can be moved without destroying it. Jake stated that he felt another site in town would be better than Water Place housing as it is located by the hospital and out of the city. He is concerned about the compatibility of the house with the employee housing. 1 . ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APR. 24, 1996 0 Martha stated that it should be moved to an area in which it can be enjoyed rather than just tucked away. The building should be visible. She also asked what was proposed to be built on the property after the house is moved. Dave Mylar stated that nothing is proposed for the property at this time. There will be other housing projects being proposed in the city such as the Snyder Property and the Ted Guy and David Gutherie project. Sven stated that he was in favor of allowing the house to be moved but it should be in an area where it is compatible. He also stated he was unhappy with what happened to the historic house at Juan Street. Roger asked if the purpose to move the house was in order for the lot to be sold and any new prospective buyer doesn't have to deal with an historic structure. He also wanted to know ifthe house could be incorporated into a project on-site. David Mylar stated that the site is very narrow, only 45 ft. wide and 120 ft. 0 long. It makes it lot easier to develop the site without the house on it. It is programmatic to leave it on the site. Roger stated that the small cottage would be in front and a larger addition to the back. As the house exists, it does not fit into the neighborhood. The house came from the Townsite and he could consider giving approval to moving the house as long as it was within the City. Another condition would be that the house be restored back to its original state. He also stated that the applicant should explore the Sanitation District, ACES and The Aspen Art Museum. The house does add charm to the neighborhood. Amy stated that she is not convinced that there is no reason why it can't remain on the site and developed like all other historic houses in town. If moved it should face the street. Jake stated that he would like to see investigative sites within the city limits. He also stated that it should be demonstrated that it cannot reasonable be used on-site. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APR. 24, 1996 Â· - TENNIS TOWNHOMES, ASPEN MEADOWS ~ Amy stated as part ofthe SPA area for the campus HPC was given some element of design review over aspects of the proj ect. The trustee townhomes as well as the tennis townhomes were reviewed. There is a potential developer who would like to purchase the property and build townhomes and they have a slightly different design. Stan Mathis, architect for project stated that the original proposal had seven townhouse units and the proposal represents the elimination of one of those units. The setback has not change but ten feet will be placed between the three duplex units so we have a less massive program. The square footage of the unit that was eliminated is then divided into each of the six units so that we maintain the same allowable FAR that was specified in the SPA. The units have been shortened by 18 feet and they have been pulled back from where they were originally located. The underground parking still remains. The difference in the proposals is that the entrance will be on the side of the units. The original proposal had the doors facing the driveway. Since we are changing what was previously approved we have to fall under ordinance #30 which dictates that if we don't have a doorway directly from 0 the street we have to have a porch of at least 50 sqft. at the front and side of the house. Bayer's architecture had huge cantilever structures and on the east side it extends out five feet to form the porch but ties in with the Bauhaus program. The drawings show vertical siding but it could also be stucco. Bayer is symmetrical in the design and in order to understand it one must be symmetrical. We are pulling back the homes from the stream side. The buildings are stepped on the site plan. This proposal is less bulk, less mass and we meet most ofthe items in ordinance 30. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Roger stated that the buildings have been shortened and the height has not been increased because of the removal of the gabled roof. He also asked if they were on a street. Stan stated no and that they were set back further than the existing proposal. 0 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APR. 24,1996 Jake stated that the agenda states that the application is an amendment to final but there are substantial changes from conceptual. Amy stated that the determination from the Community Development Director was that this would not be a public hearing. It is an amendment from a project. Stan stated that they are seeking an amendment ofthe SPA that the P&Z can grant that will allow the applicant to go forward but in the last meeting of P&Z they wanted the HPC to review what was proposed to make sure we are going in the direction that HPC deems appropriate. Amy stated that she was unclear about the street facade elevation. Stan stated that it was unclear as to whether there was a porch at all. Stan stated that he was trying to pick up elements of Bayer that he might have done in the design. He also stated that Ordinance #30 is a Building Dept. check list issue. He also stated he needs a statement from HPC that they are not that far of as to what was previously approved. Amy stated that if the Board could make a referral comment that was appropriate but that they still have to come back to HPC with material and present the items that are within question. Sven stated that he finds the bulk and mass favorable and the reassemblage of FAR on the site and the rectangularity overall references appropriate. He also stated that he has concerns with materials shown. He has concerns about the mechanical etc. and where are they on the rooÂ£ The roof should be as clean as the building forms. Roger stated that the over approach in the design is compatible with Herbert Bayer. We would need a full description of materials and a good discussion of that and that the roof element is clean. He also stated that he felt Ord. #30 is not applicable to the Hebert Bayer design. Roger favored the spacing between the buildings and this building does not sit on the street and in that regard Ord. #30 would not apply. 4 . ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APR. 24, 1996 0 Martha stated that in broad terms she has no problem with the presentation. She also feels that the HPC should reapprove the materials. Jake stated that the solution proposed is less consistent with what was initially proposed. It is too far from the original design in terms of massing and the way the columns and doors are handled. There are a lot of large roof overhangs. In some ways the old design was a good solution because it stepped down the hill. The stepping helps the WL. The WL doesn't have the kind of overhang visions articulated between the units. There seems to be a lot of glass. Sven stated if you look at the conceptual approval you now have a different type of space. Give an interpretation of usable balconies that are more sheltered. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC encourage P&Z to accept the overall mass and scale of the amendment to final finding that it is fitting within the Herbert Bayer design. HPC requests that the applicant come 0 back and we look at landscaping, materials, and possibly some redesign of porches before we grant any final. Regarding the HPC support of Ord. #30 a better functionality of porches and decks meets the requirement of Ord. #30, second Martha. Motion passes 3-1. Roger stepped down. 426 E. HYMAN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney stated that HPC no longer has four members present and in order to get approval a positive vote of all three members must occur or the applicant can request continuation until the next hearing. Chairman Jake Vickery opened the continued public hearing. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APR. 24, 1996 George Lathan, applicant decided to proceed. At the last meeting it was recommended that we redesign the front due to the elimination of the stairway. Amy stated that at the last meeting we talked about eliminating the staircase and centering the entrance door. Dick Fallin, architect for the project stated that new drawings were presented at the last meeting and the majority like #2 but Jake wanted a combination. The impression was that the building should stand alone as far as design goes and that the historical references would be materials and the alignment ofthe windows. Amy stated that Jake was concerned with the height ofthe thirdfloor. Dick stated that tapes were put up on the building to identify the two new facade heights. We lowered the building on the third floor a couple feet. A new packet was presented today and the first floor proposed is changing the floor plan on the mall end of the building to reflect the new elevation. The second floor proposed reflects the two story opening in the middle of the building after we were allowed to now count the stair as FAR. Dick stated that the owners need enough visual display on the second floor from the street as it will be a separate retail operation. The second stair on the west end has been eliminated entirely from this scheme. There is a recessed entry with windows on both sides. The connecting element between Sportstalker and this building will be the unglazed openings on the first floor that go into the stairwell. There will also be an unglazed opening on the second level that goes into the Sportstalker on the half level and that element would be a stone facing sawn grid pattern. Basically the facade is brick and stone on all three levels. Sven stated that he was concerned about the alley side and what was proposed on that side and had a few comments on the front facade. He also has concerns about lighting. Dick Fallin stated that the existing yellowish tone brick will remain and there will be an elevator element added. There would be a wooded picket 6 V ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APR. 24, 1996 railing painted. The second floor wall will come out to the balcony line and we will build a new balcony that comes out to the stair. Sven asked about the mechanical equipment. Dick Fallin stated that there is meetering and gas lines exposed in the back of the building that will remain and air handling equipment we do not anticipate any changes and if so it will be on the back of the building not the roof. There are a few things on the roof that are abandoned and they will be removed. Nothing will be visible from the mall side. Jake went over the seven recommendations from the last meeting and all were addressed. Amy stated that there may be windows in a no window zone which relates to ordinance #30 on the third floor but HPC can waive that standard. Dick Fallin stated at the last meeting it was mentioned that Ord. #30 could be waived. Jake asked if anyone had concerns about the changes on the mall elevation. Sven stated that the applicant definately responded to the imput at the last meeting. The use ofthe stone emphasis is appropriate. Sven commented on the second floor fenestration with regard to compatibility in an historical sense. He stated that the second floor windows should at least look like they were operable in the same proportion of more vernacular historical buildings. The windows should be of a more vertical proportion and the grouping needs restudied. The windows should read as functional and possibly use an operable sash on the second floor. Dick Fallin stated that they could look at a stone mullion between the windows. Five windows could be incorporated. Sven stated that he wants to see the proposed lighting on the building at final. 7 * ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APR. 24, 1996 Martha stated that she preferred the proposed windows. 0 Dick Fallin stated that there is a compactor in the alley that will be used and he assumes that the trask regulations will be waived due to the dumpster. George Lathan stated that the tenant downstairs wants to put a cafe in the alley to draw people. Jake stated that the scheme was a great improvement. He also agrees with Sven that possibly the use of masonry between the windows would increase the verticality. The building is an infill building and should have flexibility in the design. The recess cornice on the third floor should be a little plainer and less dominant. MOTION: Sven moved that HPC grant conceptual approval for 426 E. Hyman Ave. with the following conditions: 1. At final bring a restudy of the second floor windows. 2. Restudy of stone banding. 0 3. Address Jakes concern of the upper cornice being plainer. 4. Present a lighting plan. 5. HPC waives Ordinance #30. Second by Martha. All in favor, motion carried. Dick Fallin stated that the square footage has been revised and has been presented to Amy. PRESERVATION HONOR AWARDS 0 8 - 0. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APR. 24, 1996 Amy stated that the awards are the week of the 12th. 330 Gillespie Scott Lindeau 229 W. Hallam Scott Lindeau 409 E. Hopkins - Poss 520 Walnut - Greewood 202 W. Francis - Greenwood by Paepcke craftsmanship to preserve all the original. 955 King Street - Harry Teague, Curtis house 130 S. Galena - City Hall Benedict Commons Paepcke Award - Francis Whitaker Markalunas Amy stated that a ballot will be mailed out. Martha asked if Sam Claudhill was recognized for anything in the past. MOTION: Sven moved to adjourn; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 9 -lE 03 MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 320 Lake Avenue- Minor DATE: May 8,1996 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to add a hot tub and extend the existing deck on the site. The property is a historic landmark. APPLICANT: Ronnie Marshall, represented by Jim Cook. LOCATION: 320 Lake Avenue, Lot 1, Marshall Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or development involving a historic landmark must meet 0 all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 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.... Response: The proposal is to add a deck and hot tub behind the existing house. The location of the hot tub is affected by the Hallam Lake "Environmentally Sensitive Area" overlay, which requires development to be set away from the edge of the slope. This issue will be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. A The extended deck and hot tub will not be visible from the street and have Â· no direct physical or visual impact on the historic structure. The applicant must provide an elevation of the proposed railing for review by staff and monitor. 0 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 0 Response: The proposal has no impact on the character of 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 deck and hot tub do not impact the historic significance of the designated structure. No demolition or direct attachment to the historic house is necessary. 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: There is no impact on the architectural character or integrity of the historic structure. 0 ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the Minor Development application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the Minor Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) â€¢ Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the minor development application with the condition that an elevation of the railing be submitted for review by staff and monitor. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "1 move to approve the minor development 0 application for 320 Lake Avenue with the condition that an elevation of the proposed railing be submitted for review by staff and monitor." ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 0 0 L.' U Wr- i L. .2, LAND USE APPIEATICN FUM -F>* Z 1) Project Nanie ~ a u k) i G. b'l A.29rAC:4.-4- 2) Project Iocatic,1 329 L AÂ·ke dE,r-285â‚¬ AsÂ¥â‚¬,1. G> 2)144 1 1 * Sae A-1-1-AC HED Suewâ‚¬V (inlicate street aairess, lot & block Iunber, legal description Viere amrripriate) 12 6 3) Present Zming 4) Iot Size 70 76 9.9 5) Aplicant's Name, Jkkiress & 2=le # ~~51Â·-lbdiE= U/104 12.944#-LA- 929 LAÂ¥22 sreeer. Art,v:ew/G. 24(011 69103 428- %61 6) Repm=tati~'s Nmie, Address & Phone 0 -~ I M t5052:>E- 040 4,NONMA'5'9 68< FO, 'GUOWMA,89, Â£50 8\604 4';i 70~ 127- 432-7 7) Type of Aiplicaticn (please check.all that awly): (hditic,al Use I.--i Conceptual SPA - DY,F41tial Historic Dev. Special Revier Final SPA - Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Ccnceptual FOD ~ Mirm: Historic Dew. Stze= Margin Final POD - Historic Demliticn Mountain yiew Plane Subdivisicm - Historic Desigraticn rext/Map Amendment - ag Allotment Iot Split/Zot Line.-~1- 50- U......4 L-<C GICS R-rd-i.v Adjustment Descripticn of Existing Uses (m=ber and type of existing strnchnmas; appmxi zate sq. ft.: runber of bed=ms; any previous 2Wrovals granted to the property). -TLJO STOZY SAKJGLE FAM \ LY 1Ze6\DeklCe Afl'to>C \4809â€¢W THPEE IBErrnnokl - 'Ser E>,-SM- v Â»42.1 4-&1(G -ger 210 1 &36 763490 0/ ADJusTMEMT doug Â©P #99 \ 9 ) Descriptirn of Develq=nt Applicaticn PeL,0 r-Â»:nod ow- Alokb COkjfb2 W\LOG +40-r- -r-C96, ADD\ Lks ca.rEp.71,>2 -C:Â¥2-*1 1 â‚¬ 2-n kiekl T -T+WBEE, -To . 10) Havg you attached the follcwir:g'? 2 Response to Attadbment 2. Mininm SU~mission CIItents tr/yihes,Â»ise to Ai=tad=mt 3, Specific ailini=zint antents L/' Iesparme to Attachment 4, Review Staridards far Yan: *plicaticq ./ 8 111'lll ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant: 20~41\8 k[F-/SAA\1_. Address: 40 l-AARAE <cG~e.Ger Zone district: A -G Lot size: 10-16 9. E Existing FAR: Al.A Allowable FAR: 14 .AÂ· Proposed FAR: Al.A. Existing net leasable (commercial): U.A Proposed net leasable (commercial): 0 -A Existing % of site coverage: Â·21 01 Proposed % of site coverage. 2G90 Existing % of open space: N.A Proposed % of open space: ALA. Existing maximum height: Principal bldg: U. AÂ· Accesorv blda: Proposed max. height: Principal bldq: AlÂ· A . Accessorv bldg: Proposed % of demolition: U.A Existing number of bedrooms: 3 Proposed number of bedrooms: -â„¢***45- U. A Existing on-site parking spaces: Al Â· A On-site parking spaces required: U - A Setbacks Existing: Minimum required: Proposed: Front: as Front: 1 0 Front: 2 6 Rear: 6 1 Rear: ic=) Rear: 1152*-8 Combined Combined Combined Frontirear: 747 Frontirear: 23 FronUrear: . 64 180 Side: -24 VA- Side: 6 Side: 2,4 #A. Side: y.-CZAES Side: S Side: M+21 554 Combined Combined Combined Sides: 24 ,Â»Â·r. Sides: 11 Sides: 16 Â»Ae les Existing nonconformities or encroachments: ex [6Tk U.eose - Ser E..c.t- UoerÂ·H S i De - exiSE G Har TUS Variations requested: 2el-OCAT-l kki UOT- TUS 4 06(W:Â· Tb CoMlpl-X 14./ (ZEGil.ATiobit (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.11., site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O zone distncts) U. A. War Aqff#-i c Â»-SLE= FROM THE DESK OF JAMES M. COOK APRIL 19, 1996 REF: HOTTUB RELOCATION RONNIE MARSHALL 320 LAKE STREET ASPEN, CO. 81611 THE FOLLOWING IS IN RESPONSE TO ATTACHMENTS 3 & 4: ATTACHMENT 3: GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS 1. SEE ATTACHED LETTER. 2. SEE ATTACHED SURVEY BY ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS. 3. SEE ATTACHMENT FROM STEWART TITLE COMPANY. 4. ATTACHED. ATTACHMENT 4: SPECIFIC SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS - MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 1. SEE ATTACHED SURVEY. 2. SEE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION ITEM 4. 3.SEE ATTACHED DRAWING. 4. THE EXISTING TWO STORY VICTORIAN STYLE HOUSE CONSIST OF PAINTED BEVELED BOARD SIDING WITH CONSISTENT ORNAMENTATION, WITH WOOD PORCHES AND DECKS ATTACHED THERETO. IT IS INTENDED THAT THESE DETERIORATING EAST DECKS BE RESURFACED AND EXTEND TO ACCOMMODATE THE RELOCATION OF THE NON-CONFORMING HOT TUB. THE MATERIALS WILL BE PAINTED AND EXPOSED REDWOOD. EXISTING HANDRAILS TO BE MODIFIED TO CONFORM TO NEW DESIGN. THE NEW DESIGN IS A FORMAL APPLICATION ADDRESSING THE SYMMETRY OF THE EAST ELEVATION AND GENERATING OFF THE CENTER LINE OF THE EXISTING KITCHEN. THE DECK AND THE HOT TUB ARE STEPPED DOWN FROM THE MAIN FLOOR ELEVATION TO LESSEN THE IMPACT ON THE EXISTING. THE VISUAL IMPACT IS MINIMAL TO THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EXISTING HOUSE WITH NO IMPACT TO THE STREETS CAPE AND PUBLIC VIEW. THE PROPOSED DESIGN WILL HAVE NO INFLUENCE ON THE INCONSISTENCY OFTHE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. 1020 SNOWMASS CREEK ROAD SNOWMASS, COLORADO 81654 (970) 927-4327 q* APRIL 17,1974' DAVE MICHAELSON DEPUTY DIRECTOR ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 REF: SUBM[ITAL FOR RELOCATION OF EXISTING HOT TUB 530 302 LAKE STREET ASPEN, CO.81611 DEAR DAVE, THE FOLLOWING IS MY AUTHORIZATION OF JAMES M.COOK ASSOCIATES TO REPRESENT ME CONCERNING THE REFERENCED PROJECT. THEIR ADDRESS IS AS FOLLOWS: JAMES M. COOK ASSOCIATES 1020 SNOWMASS CREEK ROAD SNOWMASS, COLORADO 81654 ( 970) 927 - 4327 MY MAILING ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER ARE: RONNIE MARSHALL 302 LAKE STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 ( 970) 925 - 5551 1 TRUST THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO PROCEED WITH THE APPLICATION. < YOHCE-RULY, RONNIE MARSHAU . TA 6 Â¥ 4 . I . i HALLAM LAKE BLUFF ESA 0~*. Al .' 0 \/\ j A Vâ€¢V 41 .. >Ar . 6 >V approximate location,f 7850' elevation N . -. 100' wide ESA 8 eles, r ..44.- 4,2, . WAÂ·\ d U.1-1 - . p PUB 1.8 0 .. . 0 .. W. SMUGGLE< *11 - .- GID ~ ~lll~W[IB - SCI , ETF 1 0 SCI- - (SPA) W. FKNIA 11-0 ' Ii@ Â· I [14[I_11] Elim - Il[W-Ilin mU[[[Il ~- I[[WI]I 1.*S mil Â· ---7 1]511101 - mnumÂ·.3- . ASPA) NC C MALL- rt *8 - It *111 11_{WI[[I Â·:-T-I- Â· -4 1 \- 91 -. E ITI- . - mlimt[ 0 e. I. 8///2/ 'r. . -1 (6 ... 6'-O. 8'-O. 7- 4- 15'-0" 1 * 1 , D ' ' ' ' ' HLBSENE,1â€¢C,6. ' lot \ 1 EXISTING - 1 - EXISTING ~ -~Â·..... HOT nia ~- TOP OF 1 \RELOCATED BANK \\Illi /1 ki- -1---- EXISTING HOUSE 9//2 /// 40 6 / REMOVE EXISTINS HOT TUB 8=RESTORE EXISTING ' ~f NE, 1 <1 - C HILL SIDE yOOD DECK PNOOD ' / DECK V , \ 1 -1 1 / L_ PLAN 4 i 32-10 north ~ 1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN DESIGN li 1"=10'- O" RONNIE MARSHALL 803;2-LAKE STREET ASPEN, CO &1611 ........ Lor *FLA-r~ L.-1 U E- ' *f -9.-~3.-7 4. L- O CÂ£'lfohMAkT,1 -1~Â«4226 014Â· of -Azokhe- 45 96k,~4!24 4/= .L o C. 02 1 Pe-Â£_ -T*te-- 4 Fe,Jae- 61 kle_ An 4 , 46 OVE-0.-BEAO 1-ha l.-t-fi t..,Je- 0 1 + 1 1 69 Z.576' ALUM i*LW . .371 Ltâ€¢ 1 14,0. TOP OF 'I l_ 9 91 1- â‚¬13tz-. Ae:re,L_ 1 MEÂ·:ra-L . 11 : i.~/ 10- 00' '574*1 9 #BAN K. t 4 907 .- A-* ALUM. car 4 0- S 30*. ce Woor, powleg. POLL \ -B HORZ . CNT- u io OELÂ£-k. A A:-=- 4.lf:p. 1 {57 I . FE-2.3h~,l-<1072..9 ) 'El * g. lo 0. 1 00 . 46.,4- rr. 4 20*te_ 1 ~ f 10.47 ACk* s.1,019 43â€¢Â£R pC 0 \41,1 I k Â£70-1 ' At-- ' L* 18-1 .i " r PC*ED ADDRESS 320 I $ I- C 02-f pr: - PAFFEL I SPA < pECK. ~ -rldc, 411-0 Â« A \ P11.41 .Age-Â»i :14/co ri 914 'Ae- , 0.4 ..t:# d Quee-- W/7,0. 1 t. . . 502. 4 0 4 22(.44 .. r 1' g.cpop o,JQ,LUAJ A -r'(PÂ· < \ 0 : 41 0 2 - I 4 1 4 1,0.17Â· , 8 16/ze 1 ..1 1 4 9 1 06,2-' 3,ES Pt'Â£Â£4 4 1 4 . ,- .. â‚¬ I e.5 4-eÂ».0~ %6 1 \I 7 # Ait= 6,6. cO 4 .% . . -1 \ 'MY H/, Al FR e , 9 0 â€¢- c ats &416 08 1 Lit,9.J 0. 1 0 , .F d 4 0 . 1~C~-11712140-EL. .. 9 13/3Â« 0 1.2- 0 90448-rt- O,1 *. %00 , ' f 'A KLE-L- IE I. Abit'. /1Â£MOUT t I .0141 - $ ae ; 029.1>4 . . . 1 . ... MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Thru: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 939 E. Cooper Avenue, Unit D- Final Date: May 8,1996 SUMMARY: The applicant requests final HPC approval for "residential unit D," a new unit to be constructed in the center of the project, towards the rear of the site. Conceptual approval for the entire project was granted on November 9, 1994. HPC has since granted final approval for "unit A," (the historic house), "unit B (new house)," and "unit C" (the historic bam). APPLICANT: Bob and Darnell Langley, represented by Studio B Architects. LOCATION: 939 E. Cooper Avenue, Residential unit D, 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 26.72.010(D) 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: THe design which received conceptual approval for "unit D" is attached. jSta'ff finds the final design is consistent with that approval. Minor changes in window placement have been made, along with changes in the material palette. The material selections are generally consistent with those used in the rest of the project. This design is in keeping with HPC's interest in new construction which follows the massing and general proportions of Aspen's historic structures, yet is not imitative of them. The use of traditional materials in non traditional ways also distinguishes the building from the historic structures. (A color xerox is provided showing the exact 0 material selections.) 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the 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: As described above, the new building is compatible with the historic structures, while not be imitative or detracting from their particular characteristics. 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 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. 1 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant final development approval as proposed. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "1 move to grant final approval for 939 E. Cooper Avenue, "unit D" as proposed." j a, 0. 4'T 0 11- c n int,inn- n rL| 3 U : US I lfÂ·Â° U ;2 0 architects P AUR April 29, 1996 :14. \Ny ...>/ Langley Residence HPC Final Review: , 939 East Cooper Street Aspen, Colorado The Langley Residence sits at the alley of this site and will be visible from Highway 82 at the North elevation. It shall serve as a contextual link between the historic renovated barn, (Hatem Residence), and the two new projects at the 82 side. It also acts as the terminus for the landscaped courtyard. The exterior materials are composed from a historic palate to include; rust-colored red asphalt roof shingles, standing seam dulled metal roofing and siding, stained white vertical wood siding, clad wood : windows, and some indigenous stone veneer at the North elevation to unite the three visible structures. (Please see the attached color Xerox). Imagery, scale, massing, proportions, materials, and mullion patterns are all consistent with historical and typological references. Materials and color have been transformed in somewhat non standard applications to evoke historical references without re-inventing them. The roof pitches are at 12/12 and the entry shed porch is at 5/12. This final submission maintains the previously agreed upon building footprint, FAR restrictions, setbacks, massing, and overall direction. It should be noted that a dormer has been added at the non- visible alley side to obtain view and light into the upper level and that there are two skylights that shall have the minimum 4" curb to maintain a low profile. j . 555 n. mill st. aspen co. 81611 970Â·920Â·9428 fax 9*70Â·920Â·7822 t3 r,1 1 L 11 1-1, 1-1..1. 0.1 L :11 -1 r 4 -- Z k T ' '10:1 1,111111,11' F.EPP , *12,10% 1 ~'lilli t... .4, 1. . 3.1 1 - 1 . 4 11.- 1 - 1 - 1. I I ' f i 'N \ - &-7 .1/ 6: '12.,â€žIi- 350/-ii'/6:6:4'JUV*k 1 / /// : râ€¢t' -ir'-.' . 141=Imp, 1 0. 1 - . 1 ''l lilli 1 / 11 1 1 I I L' ;A 44~1. 1. 'Ill'~111. rt /9,1 ' le 2,1 . '*11 1 fli J 1 1. !4-1 ' ./ 1, --111. ' . â€¢Il â€¢ $~i.Â· â€¢ â€¢ L 1 FÂ« %414-, ' f '(.1!41 1 .. Â« 4 . '1 . 4 I. 'lili 1 16 . i,1 rr. 'Ei~; 22\ I 1 Lâ€¢ â€¢ . . */ 7.: .'...4 ' 4 '%. ~ Eli t2/ ..F '1 r,1 ~. ..1, P .4 . 1.11 r IL ' .1, 'It. 11 1. 7"I.*53 44. ~ 1:1.1 mil 4 1.111;' . - 71 4 r 44*9 :5 '111:.1 1Â¥ 1 1 i. 1 - -- ~ 0 I :-4 -44- 33 ~94-Â«1. 1 - 1, 091.1 . IW rd 1/4, ..44 08 25 41 12.-1 9.FFâ€¢'P :Ul*Z .-, =3:9 11 11 .Ill :13-4,5, --441\ h ,1!1 1 I t Ill + Â¥.1~.441- - - O go 40 0 3. 4 7 .3 1 11 1 ; i - i I! . ti 11 $ 11 , * PL- - 1 -ullul 1 iL=a 13.-6 --1</i.tA-*3flf.3 1 ; fiTF.il-Â·-"t.:2/i < 111, Ii:L??-6-7 Al/:3 .,Er - a :0'-'Â·" ji Â° 66 4 9 {lEi , 4 , #.47 s 1 1 ,1 , 121 I Â·'f ," 9 i ~1&Â©. !4 --Â·Â·Â· i:-- !1- u- 1 L D P*Ze 4 0 26 4Â°o a Â£30 4 47.Â·4~947.6 %~MFA#=~7*=-, Â· ~0 -i ~,7r*4;; t=~li vaÂ·.4 â€¢,1 -:W.url 1 i/4: Y': T- 11Â· ~ 49 :i.'Â·;I'lldiM. 1 . ='-I:-7 -Al --I- 1741 , 1 A> r- i 1 b \ AU-242-4:41 2 3 f- Pv)9 q -flro . ~-7*1<4 1. rn 'LJ -U\*.imp-7 , 410 0 .,im 0 0 - ' '.5 . -% 1 rlâ€¢l .Jit>:..,/ /':f /1 11& I , It. . . ard e '- Â° tÂ·Â·.'i 9 ..J,. ZZ ,dy (1:11 . . .5 - A.. ~L~j~':~~~~i.~- H 1- 4/ 1, U *It- ..40...ty +,1 43- 7 - g .0 19 -- BT.. I. A lip Fu 2 1 11 . 11 -2 11 '' 9 192.11 (2 52 9 1 . . 21:+ Â· , i m{ 4# - 1 ' d.'UnÂ· 1 , : 33& i Ig 1 1 ' 1 . 9," ' 1 #t.4 I J 7.,..9== 1! :0.8 .N t, 3* Â· Â· 04 -7,- 11 26%141 . â‚¬76) MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director t./ FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 426 E. Hyman Avenue- Final DATE: May 8,1996 SUMMARY: The applicant requests final approval for a significant remodel of the existing building at 426 E. Hyman Avenue. This building was built in 1969-1970 and is located within the Commercial Core Historic District. It exceeds current FAR allowances. HPC granted conceptual approval on April 24, 1996, with conditions. See minutes of April 24. APPLICANT: L and M properties, represented by Baker Fallin Assoc. LOCATION: 426 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot P, Block 88, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: "CC," Commercial Core. Conceptual Development PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historip Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. j Response: The project involves remodeling of the existing structure, to create a new street facade. 1 0 Currently, there are two stairs in the building, one in the front corner, which is a shared required egress with the Sportstalker building, and the other which is on the alley. These existing staircases control where the floor levels for the building lie. Staff is very much in support of a remodel of this building as it has none of the typical features or characteristics of the adjacent historic structures and does nothing to strengthen the qualities of the historic district. The project has received conceptual approval, with a few conditions to address. First, the applicant was asked to restudy the second story windows to make them more vertical in proportion. Staff finds this condition met. Secondly, the applicant was to restudy the stone banding and lintels. The stone has been replaced with steel lintels and supporting columns on the ground floor. In addition the lintel corresponds to the dimension of the window opening instead of carrying across the facade. The third floor is now shown as stucco to make it recessive. The lighting plan is addressed in the written description of the project. Staff finds that the applicant has met the conditions of approval and that final approval may be granted. Additional information on materials will be presented at the meeting. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: This remodel has the potential to significantly strengthen the character of this side of the block and the mall in general. 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 proposal does not affect the historic signifipance of any adjacent parcels. j 0 2 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Because the Commercial Core is a historic district, recognition of, and reflection of established architectural patterns is important to the preservation of the architectural character of the area. The project has accomplished this goal. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Development application as submitted. 2) Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (specific recommendations should be offered) 4) Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. Recommendation: Staff recommends HPC approve the proposal as submitted. Recommended motion: "1 move to grant final approval for the development at 426 E. Hyman Avenue as proposed." J 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APR. 24, 1996 0 Martha stated that in broad terms she has no problem with the presentation. She also feels that the HPC should reapprove the materials. Jake stated that the solution proposed is less consistent with what was initially proposed. It is too far from the original design in terms of massing and the way the columns and doors are handled. There are a lot of large roof overhangs. In some ways the old design was a good solution because it stepped down the hill. The stepping helps the WL. The WL doesn't have the kind of overhang visions articulated between the units. There seems to be a lot of glass. Sven stated if you look at the conceptual approval you now have a different type o f space. Give an interpretation of usable balconies that are more sheltered. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC encourage P&Z to accept the overall mass and scale of the amendment to final finding that it is fitting 0 within the Herbert Bayer design. HPC requests that the applicant come back and we look at landscaping, materials, and possibly some redesign of porches before we grant any final. Regarding the HPC support of Ord. #30 a better functionality of porches and decks meets the requirement of Ord. #30, second Martha. Motion passes 3-1. Roger stepped down. 426 E. Hyman - Conceptual Development David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney stated that HPC no longer has four members present and in order to get approval a positive vote of all three members must occur or the applicant can request continuation until the next hearing. , Chairman Jake Vickery opened the continued public hearing. 0 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APR. 24, 1996 George Lathan, applicant decided to proceed. At the last meeting it was recommended that we redesign the front due to the elimination of the stairway. Amy stated that at the last meeting we talked about eliminating the staircase and centering the entrance door. Dick Fallin, architect for the project stated that new drawings were presented at the last meeting and the majority like #2 but Jake wanted a combination. The impression was that the building should stand alone as far as design goes and that the historical references would be materials and the alignment ofthe windows. Amy stated that Jake was concerned with the height of the third floor. Dick stated that tapes were put up on the building to identify the two new facade heights. We lowered the building on the third floor a couple feet. A new packet was presented today and the first floor proposed is changing the floor plan on the mall end of the building to reflect the new elevation. The second floor proposed reflects the two story opening in the middle of the building after we were allowed to now count the stair as FAR. Dick stated that the owners need enough visual display on the second floor from the street as it will be a separate retail operation. The second stair on the west end has been eliminated entirely from this scheme. There is a recessed entry with windows on both sides. The connecting element between Sportstalker and this building will be the unglazed openings on the first floor that go into the stairwell. There will also be an unglazed opening on the second level that goes into the Sportstalker on the half level and that element would be a stone facing sawn grid pattern. Basically the facade is brick and stone on all three levels. Jj Sven stated that he was concerned about the alley side and what was j proposed on that side and had a few comments on the front facade. He also has concerns about lighting. Dick Fallin stated that the existing yellowish tone brick will remain and there will be an elevator element added. There would be a wooded picket 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APR. 24, 1996 railing painted. The second floor wall will come out to the balcony line and we will build a new balcony that comes out to the stair. Sven asked about the mechanical equipment. Dick Fallin stated that there is meetering and gas lines exposed in the back of the building that will remain and air handling equipment we do not anticipate any changes and if so it will be on the back of the building not the roof. There are a few things on the roof that are abandoned and they will be removed. Nothing will be visible from the mall side. Jake went over the seven recommendations from the last meeting and all were addressed. Amy stated that there may be windows in a no window zone which relates to ordinance #30 on the third floor but HPC can waive that standard. Dick Fallin stated at the last meeting it was mentioned that Ord. #30 could be waived. Jake asked if anyone had concerns about the changes on the mall elevation. Sven stated that the applicant definately responded to the imput at the last meeting. The use of the stone emphasis is appropriate. Sven commented on the second floor fenestration with regard to compatibility in an historical sense. He stated that the second floor windows to at least look like they were operable in the same proportion of a more vernacular historical buildings. The windows should be of a more vertical proportion and the grouping needs restudied. The windows should read as functional and possibly use an operable sash on the second floor. Dick Fallin stated thai they could look at a stone mullion between the windows. Five iwindows could be incorporated. Sven stated that he wants to see the proposed lighting on the building at final. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APR. 24, 1996 0 Martha stated that she preferred the proposed windows. Dick Fallin stated that there is a compactor in the alley that will be used and he assumes that the trask regulations will be waived due to the dumpster. George Lathan stated that the tenant downstairs wants to put a cafe in the alley to draw people. Jake stated that the scheme was a great improvement. He also agrees with Sven that possibly the use of masonry between the windows would increase the verticality. The building is an infill building and should have flexibility in the design. The recess cornice on the third floor should be a little plainer and less dominant. MOTION: Sven moved that HPC grant conceptual approval for 426 E. Hyman Ave. with the following conditions: 1. At final bring a restudy of the second floor windows. 0 2. Restudy of stone banding. 3. Address Jakes concern of the upper cornice being plainer. 4. Present a lighting plan. 5. HPC waives Ordinance #30. Second by Martha. All in favor, motion carried. 0 8 -. . 0 IE CD -U m O > -0 0) O -. -1 0 . Im -< 0 F K f , Z > 032 0 . 1 C - 1 P m 1 mi =m 5% -1 1 -... O 1 . -7 .1 - 1. ..1, i Â· â€¢ Li I . -1-, .. 0 -# . r i t.1 , 6 T *---t! 1 .1 ; 1 41 1 1 i.. .. Â· - 0 1 1- .....%*. Â· 1 . ... 1 - ... 1 11.:; ' 1 . 1 . OD - 1 0 D 1 -1 111 11/ 9. 0 - s l . . E. 1 4.1 Il Â·Ird: 1-5 I. * --14* .Ii.. 1,4/: L 1 11 11?.1 1 / 1| 110 r --* h , u i â€¢ ..... .. . Il ' 11 4, ==== 0 . ) li .11!' 1. Â¢ : 11. 1 b; 1. 00 5 . 11 3 I Â£113 .. FT==,-- irr- 1 h; : 1 - i Ul=* 4 * 5 p~Â· *: 1 - + 1 I'll liE t. . MArcti uNa IIi f itt. MATCH UNE 4 ' lilli . . NE 4 11 11 1 1 11,1-9 1, . , Ph 2-* di<:11/gy APPLICATION FOR FINAL REVEW HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 426 EAST HYMAN BUILDING MAY 2, 1996 j Response To Motion Bv HPC 4/24/96 1.) The second story windows have been redesigned for HPC review. The windows have a more vertical emphasis, contain one picture unit and four operable units with a steel lintel replacing the initial stone lintel. 2.) The stone banding has- been restudiect and-steel-beams and columns Â· have been added to the mall street facade. 3.)- * Thelhird floor cornice"has been-eliminated The-original stoneand brick material at the third floor has been changed to stucco. $ 4.) The lighting plan-is- addressed onthe proposed mall elevation. Alighted hanging sign is above the entrance. Recessed can lighting will light the recessed doorway: Recessed carr Hghting will-light the- storefront display areas, Acl a recessed can light will light the upper floor hallway entrance. 5.) NA ... 1 + j j 0 .0 , Kn V 1-27 1-M .. . 1. . . 1- :57-22 (co . . 0- + C.b 7Â«-47 . '... ... .. FAv/>'72ELD - . f .. *9577,4_ .4 1 14\ - ill 1 - 3 i -,=, - *. - -451 .Ct'Ger> roâ€¢~957 -570â€ž6 -1.-2~ . 2 -1 - -3-820,= * -- 9-1 ~~ .1 8 1- txT 0.4 - -1 .7: P:.1 1 1 , 1 ,. 11 1 Â£ 2.4 Â·,1 ; .. / . - 1 .: 0. ...V:.....> .... . f.:,4.: .., ..A--'., 2.- - . 1 D70/72 le,-0 6 547 . 2 ---I 1 - TZ:44,/2. Ina. - ~ - .. . I . e . .. . . - .ify-,t--L 3 7 -- - 115725,E~C---1-,5'>~72:ZC- r--- . ... I. . 2.- ... - 71 01 11. r- - - - .1- . I,Of - -1 1 -. Ill-- 0 -.-I-- .. . I - I .lilLi t.'Lk tang,~W7424 - . - - - 335/4.- 797CI,8,94- 656257-79Â·97 av JI --4 . 2~ZC772- ...... .. I . 307015- â‚¬/,4- . un=r-- -- - 1.77 : 35,9ckE/-5 27EEL *54Â«--- p 1 i . l b. EL/EME=. P.-9.- -' ~-4 i - - 01~ / 10!1 1. IICI . 0 ... a ' i - .. -27735.5- COLL#Â«A -- 1 .. . 1 F l . , , 1 1 li ~- -- I ", 1- I j 3(/500 23.550:~c> Â£3*/1.- 1 , ------ 1 -* T-1:Ra k . . 1 : ---- -1 - -- t)'u'- 6.7 U eâ‚¬7- I -1 ---------71 Li j _ 1 I . I , . . -4 - 1 /:% .. .-1 1 -77/267-FE/<. . .-4/ 1 .. 1 - - . ...... I . .. â€¢ 1 .2 - U -0. - . . / C . -- PROPOSED MALL ELEVATION . ~ '426 EAST HYMAN BUILDING . :- j 9 1 . I i . -1 â€¢ Â· . ;Le.1. .Â·i<~_,--12--- --1-Â·. 1*71~-/t<~-L*~-'-2~1~.2Â· 1-â€ž' * "- S~Â·27~~~ 't~ ''qf~/ ~~--J ., . ~ " '' .. .. I I ! 1.I Lim ~112.222.-- ~_iJJ~ 1-1 p .1 1 . Â· - '*.-/-1.. '6. 4 - . ng , ~ LL./ 5729 610 -- 0 ' ,. -7 . ' . 1 . -22/ .... , -a 1 ...1 I F-4* .:-, . .. Ii- f . . 1 ..... . -0 1.,-4.Al.:1 K /*f>f | / *. I. 3..'-5:V . ~*- 1,3 -- 94-C-.8./. ..--Ft. li. F d -4 - 1@-OGN= 124; | ilâ€¢ Ir 21....t//'/I'll./.-- L i .... i f '2 k. ' -0- 4 " 0. F; W - ~ 1 1 . ' *884 Â· Â»-42 1 I -f- . 0~ ..fi~ ~ ~iÂ· . -t 1 -: ! . 0 1.t. '4 H i f-*24.-1 p.. A ; b ) *4: + : -1. 1 I .... I . .... . 1.Â·.- .7 - 4 1 070/76 /LA 6 - .. . rt,4-9Â£/2- i - -=>00-k *-le -,. . 2572550 L/>97ZZL - I. 1/~Â£/r#*St...4 21-ttl FLE FLA.,- Â· - !]141+1 1 il i!< r Â« - + u 596Â·,- #- *b- 1 - - g.4 . 3/127Â»C.Â»//9,~ 14 --1---) .r- jSS/>ES77â‚¬â€¢477av J -<I \7 - ~ZZE,EL /59't. Bv4/6 i , - , 9. -i . -. I-=7.077<1* ... 27I:>702.-1-2-2-__- 1 -STEEL. eÂ» i -6.Â»c-Aar,5 27~ESL 4LAÂ«- - 3, r 1 1 f //~ 21-M El FUk - 10 3 ,yod - 11101 . .0 - Â·2.. i i er 1,12449:,7Â»047- ..ti-:--:Â·.31 0- .1411 -k--261 , Ft, - -67-ZEZES COLL/41/U - feÂ¢7 1 4/PaR:Ffrp-=-~ . ..2 .=4=.1.â‚¬=*1â€ž ' 9%&2<62Â·-'15.4,*~- :f 11' ~L#'.Jgti24*AF 4% 4,j-' I -AI- ..2.Mti.impt.=~-,flite- *42<- -- , :Ir- 1 1. - - Â¥ r . , â€ž. .1 --. _ B:IC::i."27.-tra-AXÂ·t -9/20.0 435*0 te.0 1 - , 1 1 $ 3,Â»:-*47:'-/JÂ· .... -9â€¢ T-8 1 UN 1 1 1: 1 9232Â»13-*<.. , j 1 72*Flf ' 1 . I E---4,'' di;11--'i~ii J i;: ./ . .. ....i .4 t 4,9 :7.- 1 , -,1 )~ ' dUL- I f 111 j i t # % -~ f< 4= 92-041*= f. . F t R=r FUA ' PROPOSED MALL ELEVATION 426 EAST HYMAN BUILDING . .. . --Â· -- *--t- -..: ----- Â·Â· ----- p. - . Â·. Â· Â·Â· , , ./ -.- '. -'-Â¥..... --.---~ : O - a C m 4: 0 8 , 6. /9 1 r! I liK. 4 ,Â·1 ? -r- -. 1 ' 4,01 4 44 31 ' 41.4:1>1 ifid, j. , M 4 'i r~t[:;1 P.44 . P,46 tli... 4 - 1.84 - Ell i +./ , P, -- . .11=a-/ 1 9 4 Â·922 1 - # 0 31' i 4 'ilt':L'' ' i . 01 7 MI#4 , Â· 1 j. ty . ..~ Â· Â· 7ep . .. 404*U rn ta râ€¢ v w,Ar, 10 V J OG F 11Â¥K JV NOI103S 1Â¥!18Â¥d 0390dO Eld ang ,-133>9 141 I - t 24' 76, 72, A . 1 ~ 1 6 1 - 1 2 C- 2-Â·- --r- â€¢--- Â·Â·:r -aÂ·-Â·+U -4... - - Â·J; 4 ~ ' i yio-=2--9-.1-.1-_r'_- -= i-i'i Q.= Zit-6-e-Zi~ i r-1 . 1 1 , . r--I - --I---.--0--- . 0 -. - I- .-I - -- - - - -- ./2 -- rl - : F- . 1 71 4 (i \ -y J:/Irr~ Er--zz.-li.--. .. . 1 i ir /,4 1:1 1. 1 !- 11 0 1 1. .!1 - 3 - - - 141+AH 42 2 .:. 0 - - j ; 4 )1 11 121 11 11 1 1 1! ; ~ lit 11 11 111-1.. 1.i _ - - -+1 1 U.-1: .- INAL . . i r ii 11 ! . i Â· s 1 ' i - I, - --. . 1: 1 !1 = - .. 1-1 i 4 1 1 2Â·i , 101 6 Â·ci Iii- .1 // 1 1 1 i .1 :11 t - , -L . 1 -! b . i . :-Ii-9 ill j el 1 - - 1 Ii: 1 7â€¢ r'.1 1 - 1 11 1 2 ii --.1 4- -Ii 1 -Â· Â· i 1 1 -3.1.iltiliÂ·:Ill:111;ile.1 i ~ 1 1 ..i i.#Ii...11.!,;,11 ..1 1 I ! 1.1 . 1 i . 2 ! 11 . 1 1 , I 1 1 1 - 1 P . A 17 0 Lor q U. 1 . 0 ... B + ti . 1 *2 + ----. 1 1 Â· , 1 1 j PROPOSED MALL ELEVATION 426 EAST HYMAN BUILDING 9,1/ 1.= - - 'aN/9 HD1Â¥ 94 WNn Nog\#H - 1 KN210 7.,2/ ..4 4. 1 - . 0 .44-2 1 0 4 -- f 1.- --r- 1 - 1 -i 'It ; 4 ' 1 ,Â· 1 1! 3 5,- â‚¬ i F il * t , 4 *f I .. . :-1 li 1 1:1- 1#11'ilil 1 1 1 . 1 - 11 1 - . it 1 1 't: 10 . 1 1 1 .. 1 1 -{ 1 I '-2----- 9-UT--TUr-1-7--7-â‚¬JJ--T,z~.=r-=1=1--T---1 -M---$----T-,97~ -7-7- --p ~ Eli 4 1.I [Il , il It -!! ilitu .. Â¢ il i ; 11 il -* 1 .1- d 31 : - 9- 1-1 7 1 - . 7....9 1 - - Il -I -- -- -- - il - - ---- - 1 68(0,213,3&,er . - - . .... ....Ill 1 1 1 . ./- - i. -- -- ----- . I 1-07 2 - .7..= .9 r -2- T .2-~72: -2.-21----f E--r-i-Â·077 -2 S -M---722.-Irr-IL.--- ....._J . A , j PROPOSED MALL ELEVATION 426 EAST HYMAN BUILDING lify:Â»c> 4- - z,4-9, .' ~ /9/1 1=4" Â£./445,-~ Â· ./ 91 7-. Lot ... . =d >W--- .. . e . ' _-uÂ·_ t. 1 4 LON-- - -- 4-- _-1.- - --. - FACE dF 14*'1+ EXIST'A WALÂ·l.2,4 Â«--=7782:buge - 40 ' Hr. LIM IT 2 TIPr OF NivA !71&+FET- --2-_INEÂ« Ra'Fl I ~ -_ THAT le Ft.-,4499 .:44tra \ i . /' 2 Sft>ET-25770CEK i - BE>er.JO -u us.-c)*1-e,Â£,sr*Â£4 - -4 EXISTU ..=23>F~ 1 , 11 - 43 -I . - 4 P--- --u_ -_ 164 -*- H .*MEE,4 5,3% 1, H ENA.000|22 ~ EXIST~4 --1--r ___ - /' 24 -----=-~-71-- -2:>P (1 Nae *KAFET O A TA.*cr *Â·9 Pik#.ALED * Â·Pire, i:~ -/ f ' 2<#'574 11: 4 01 +1 ; \ . >rf 1-r --13. 0-/ Â¥ - r- -- 14 Â£ --- -92-24 EKEÂ¢4 11 -- - trutolo AFT. - r. -1--.- 262: frr__=_12.1 --.... 111: \Ty 1 ",i I Â·. - -9 R-17.-P>121 +1~ : ZAONY" I ., . 1 - 1 li - t - f 1 i /11 1 1 . 0/1 1 .1 00. 11 , J '1,9*711- td/,â‚¬6.Le--'. _ . - 1 , : . rn! - 4 -tÂ·4Ew-: '-.- - 11 , i Â· /1 . TZ - .2282-Pt-120 - +45 te:SUPer"DE e*#91-6. 84. 1 1 -zzzin ..OfÂ¥, 4>0 --- -2 /1 , 4 . 1 ! t II t / .i . f ,/ ! 1 ,; 1 / 71. . 91 - i 0 4 4 -i -----T i' '' ~ 1 1 .i\! E--1 1 er t:=pe- i .' i - A AL,EY B. 1 1 -1 0- L--4 -4 AL.WiSTAT +1 I k -1-LU 3. ! j PROPOSED SECTION LOOKING EAST 426 EAST HYMAN BUILDING _av 0-0-14, .r Â·Â· Â· -- i//BilbÂ» - -1 .1 I .1 /: : it \2 Off- /lll + fli 1 1 ~ li k U # 7 -7 k'~19.Â»-~4 1 1 illill 1 + 1 i , 1 j 11 ./ d - %.-li : 1.11 ti ~- I _ 1 % - : il In- ! lilli- ". 7-I --\ 11 1-7- ' 1 / / 1 | ~~ i - ,LEW 46444. 1 Y I r zilif I 1. lit t . ----rk[Ewt (EvA-DeR_ ~(ft4*;**~te . i zÂ».,aeog--r P_-- K - - ... 2 . , - + PROPOSED ALLEY ELEVATION 5-1-9 ip 426 EAST HYMAN BUILDING ---- 444 pfj- I .....2 1 . 0 4 l.1. - 8 11 1 1 , i i; ! 1 !! .: ; 1. 1 - 1 11 ' 1 .: !1 iii , i ..Â·-i ill i i 1 111 !- 11 1143 1174 -ET 1 1 B j !Â· 1 11 i t i 1 1 11 !14,1 11 1 i i il . '. I 1 0.~iii /Â· 7,\, 2 1 c Â·Â· 1. - 0-=-1 i , N j It I i : il i i ?i . 1 It h t i \ 4 I 1 - 1! 1 1 11 1 . 1 | i '1 1 . 1 1 1 . . / 1 - i . -----1. , I / ! 1. 1 11 , 1 i b - j CVI O L-/\: O TING ALLEY A EMCION 426 EAST HYMAN BUILDING - .70 1 1 1 XE--1 . 6TZ:>KAAE- 1. --11 : - / a.2'L B*EK i. 1 1 1-1 i ; . - 41, *Â£2#MOW . - 1 1 1 - . 4 . . 11 ; 11 . 1 1 . U i ; /1-h--1 1 -1 t ,. 1 11 4 0 1 i I. i -1 - 1 i.; f. Ii* 1 i - 77Fio a 1 --Ihizr,3 - 6 - tii ./ r- .1 1 1 ,/---h : ~ .# i_ *j 1 (' ! C- 1- . it â€¢ j gh BASEMENT PROPOSED ~~ 426 EAST HYMAN BUILDING R b/,bep 4 - 2.4 -9 1 HoRTH - ./ . f. . I 1 , , 1 1 1 If $ - 1 [ i i ; 4--Â¢IN RAMP 1 1 1-- - d d 1 - i.,11 1 u. 1 by' i . 8.-2 1 -, ... 1 Â· w.. I , 1 -- | 1 Â£10 :i 1 1 42 1 0 1 - i 1 1 Â» 0 ell .UK.=L 0 - i 1 1 1 1 1.1 1 //21 - 22 -CA% lu E-4 /*/Me- -0= : -:~1 4 . 1 i T x (65 .,ve ovE IL f . j j 0% FIRST FLOOR PROPOSED ) 426 EAST HYMAN BUILDING ged:SEc, 4 -24-10 Amefve_- Â· I Â· eÂ¢'* .1.- I 1 1 'j, -t- '7341:'37.-i.,-,uk :-TAL-Le.- 1 1/2 F Lak 1 1 ,/- 11 It 1 1 ...... 1 122 -:. i -5,2 , 1 - -71 i_ = I J i 1 Â£+ .. . i . , i+ Â« i l.1 N / i OFF'Ge ... -7 . W it \ li - . . .Â»200?Mky._.70.- .// -Tr.. . /U = - 31 -4,2 44'V- 2. i - \F- F-**E 11 .. 1 1 - 0 ' RETAIL-.3-2 1 K \101 - kl / li 11 , , !1 oppi Â£/0 . 1 . 1+ ROOF , i. 4 1 t I ~ D., AA. KÂ« 5,5. 07-*/AS , Â· b , ES)/PH. Ot Or-'SÂ·+J 'CA Nol- 44 F.4*<.----7 _ _' \ 69' a,2, 37>/,C //9 F.-:C, Ch Â§#COND FLOOR PROPOSED c ~ 426 EAST HYMAN BUILDING . F'.EVIDEG, 4 -24-10 7 --1 A-F2~~..73 2-2, 1 .a.. - ..... - 11 _ 5â‚¬X-737-742-,kE B, ,+AL-6 2 24. pre<9 t iri 11 -L E-9-3 :p" 6 i. 1 1 - ;i; d i i i' , 1 1 t. . 1 1 .-Il.- LU i \ 4 ~ TA- SUD/o Aer . 1Â·L 261 6 1 . ..\\ 1 1 - 21 /7. 1 *Dop, .02<54_ .316Â£40 2 2- Â· 2Â»Z>gao A/\ 6,Â°71 - 'E~1 -8,86641 1 - \ 7241<53#672_1 1 . 1 , ..1 \ 1 - - 1_8.00Â» i L I STUDIO P.Pr, - 77W:r/4561; .u_. 1 ' 1 -â€ž--=4 2 111 + C 71 t ~~) THIRD FLOOR PROPOSED ~ 426 EAST HYMAN BUILDING -fZERVPPDO 4Â·21Â·1& N p RTIA -- - -- 0.73 - 'VV ..1.-Â· ~Me'lt.erÂ»FAMER Ju - -- - _ g--OF eavot...~ +1 C RAIÂ·CEP ARAPET: 2 -y i - , 4 1 ..--5-7 - ./ h / 1 = FOC,9 406%92/ 0 0 0 0 . 0 < _U= ' 0 0 4. - 1 i rh //.\4 4.vg I.,/ %,u#ED r.%Aper- -- ~ gA'<ZO-ZpAg,aper: . j / EXISTING ROOF PLAN < )426 EAST HYMAN BUILDING 5- 2-Â°lu 1-1 SCE14 .Â· 1ce , -ry 'sqi>Â· 4 .7,1, .4:- 21 1 <~ â‚¬prcm=~r*Mar _ _ RÂ¢74?E-- eLYÂ¢PKIi#>p r~ V 4. Ex/â‚¬TIC; ROOF-,~7 - UD-,1 â‚¬,1.*11;t - TOI'-Eg. 9 - --Â·- 1 1 7/ 1< O . -4 1/--- LI kIE OF- ExrÂ· 82 I , 1 JJAIA- vEL.*hl. 4. /1 / 1 1 \ / \ 1 I f . ' *--*907,2 - EX ItiT~@11*243:2 0 020 0 7 -}>lEAl. 4(OOP- f | ~ kIEAL -I>t>644â‚¬z-zE 1. 2612=W 1 0". .C.- 22.k - rÂ»K--r 1 O lap 1 / / 1 . MI X 1/ 1 - 1 C 1 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 0 1 11 / 426 EAST HYMAN BUILDING 5-2-90 Nogrrt ..,V ... aw :ev- - 0 \ \ -1: L X f '- 1/ 1 .1 . i , i /1- 7- 11 : i ?; f ; . r.Â» . . , 4 it ZE--1 -JAffE-----ZIL_ 1 1 1 i 2 . Â· Â¥ I . 01 +0.- i . , f -\J - l t i! 0 01 it 11 i 33- f 1 3- -2*20,lu---r-- ~ i -- 1 i.: 1 - ' I 1 1 1 1 '1 t A. 1 J T f .11 - , 7-/ 1 1 \ 11 V it ; I ti 1, 1/1 1 C 1 -r t4 1 .4 C V'-1 --I FT- 'bl 1 .1 0 - SECTION THRU BUILDING LOOKING EAST 426 EAST HYMAN BUILDING RaditeD * 4 - 34 - 969 --En MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 123 W. Francis Street- Extension of conceptual approval DATE: May 8,1996 SUMMARY: This project received conceptual development approval on May 24, 1995. Section 26.72.010 (F)(3)(c) provides that an application for final development review shall be filed within one year of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Unless HPC grants an extension, failure to file the final development application shall make the approval null and void. At this time the applicant, Jake Vickery, requests HPC approval for a one-year extension of conceptual approval. The intention is to file a final development application for the next HPC meeting, so the extension is a backup measure. The conceptual review packet is attached for your review. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conceptual development approval for 123 W. Francis Street be extended until May 24,1997. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to extend conceptual approval for 123 W. Francis Street to May 24, 1997." 913 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 123 W. Francis Street, Landmark designation, Conceptual Review, Relocation and Partial Demolition, and Special Review to exceed 85% of the allowable F.A.R. DATE: May 24, 1995 SUMMARY: The applicant requests landmark designation, conceptual review, relocation and partial demolition of existing structures and special review under ordinance #35 for the property at 123 W. Francis Street. The house, the Mathews House, was built in 1888. Three outbuildings are found on the property. The project will also require review for two accessory dwelling units and a gmqs exemption. This will occur at Planning and Zoning Commission. APPLICANT: Jake Vickery. LOCATION: 123 W. Francis Street, Lots C,D, and E, and the East 1/2 of Lot B, Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen. LANDMARK DESIGNATION PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Landmark Designation is a three-step process, requiring recommendations from both HPC and P&Z (public hearing), 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 asspociated with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado of the United States. Response: This standard is not met. 1 B. Architectural Importance: The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. Response: The Mathews house is a simple Victorian miner's cottage with some alterations. An addition has been made at the rear of the structure and there has been some alteration of the northwest corner of the house. Lt essentially retains the original footprint and a number of original features including windows and decorative doors. From historic maps, the house appears to have some features, such as two front porches and entries, which are not common to other local historic resources. 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: The surrounding neighborhood contains a number of significant historic structures, Aspen Landmarks, and National Register of Historic Places properties. This house has had deferred maintenance, but can be rehabilitated to further contribute to the character of this block. F. Community Character: The structure or site is bcritical to the preservation of the character of the c Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of j size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. i 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 2 historic significance. Conceptual Development 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. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan 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 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: This historic house has suffered long-term deferred maintenance and some incompatible changes in materials. Beneath these changes the original house is almost completely intact, inside and out. The applicant has the opportunity to discover the original character of the structure and restore it. The property is 10,500 sq.ft. Currently, the code allows two dwelling units to be constructed on a property of this size. The units would have to be owned by one person or could be condominiumized. The applicant is pursuing a code amenglment at P&Z and City Council to allow a lot split in' such a case for historic landmark properties. The Lot split will allow a more appropriate distribution of the allowed Â·F.A.R. for the site, resulting.in a smaller additidn to the historic resource. The applicant must have HPC approval to relocate the historic house in order to make the project work, but this action will not result in any greater development rights than are currently allowed. The proposed code 3 amendment specifies that in these cases, the maximum allowable F.A.R. for the parcel will be the duplex F.A.R. (4,170 sq.ft.) Usually F.A.R. would be calculated for each individual lot that is created (here a 4,500 sq.ft. lot and a 6,000 sq.ft. lot) instead of looking at the parcel as a whole. This would result in a net F.A.R. of 6,060 sq.ft. as opposed to the duple* F.A.R. of 4,170 sq.ft. used in this project. Staff has no concerns with the compatibility of the addition to the historic structure or with the new structure. From examinations of historic maps and site visits, it appears that a significant alteration has been made to the northwest corner of the house. Originally there was a second front porch here. The back wall of the porch appears to still be in place, along with the original front door: Changes have been made in the roofline and the porch has been enclosed. Staff feels strongly that the applicant should determine the original configuration of this area and restore it. The house appears to be a somewhat unusual design, no other examples of which exist in Aspen. The applicant does show a lightwell in this location and reconstruction of the porch may cause some problems with the basement floor plan. An early addition exists at the rear of the building and a rear porch has been removed. The applicant means to restore the porch, but will demolish at least the roof of the rear addition in order to add a second story. Staff can support the addition of new space in this location, but recommends that the applicant allow the original one story form to continue to read. This is accomplished to some extent in the proposed design. In terms of the restoration of original materials, the applicant proposes to side the structure with clapboards. It is unclear at this time if the original clapboards still exist under the asphalt siding and what condition they may be in. Original windows should be restored where possible and the original front doors and porch details should be retained. The existing house has a fairly large footprint. With the addition of new living space and a garage, the j applicant requires a 5% site coverage variance. This is available as a landmark preservation incentive. The applicant proposes to retain the historic barn, but will demolish or give away the garage that sits at the front of the site. The historic barn will be converted into one bay of a two car garage. The outbuilding will still 4 read as a separate form as there are breaks between it and the rest of the building. The applicant also requests a side yard setback variance of 2.5' on the interior lot line. This is necessary due to the width of the existing house. The overall parking requirement for the site is 9 spaces. The applicant requests a waiver of 5 spaces. Since the application was submitted, the code has been changed to require only 2 spaces per unit, therefore the waive would be in line with new regulations. A 500 sq.ft. F.A.R. bonus is requested in order to make the historic structure a more livable unit. The original house is 1,363 sq. ft., and the total addition would be 587 sq.ft. The existing structure is not easily viewable from the street due to large trees on the property. It will be more visible after its relocation. The applicant also proposes to relocate the smallest of the front three trees to allow the new structure to be viewed from the street as well. Alternative floor plans for Lot B (the new unit) have been provided by the applicant, showing an octagonal element at the front of the structure. This is intended to offer a connection between the building and the street. Elevations will be provided at the meeting. The applicant requests a 5% site coverage variance for this structure as part of the Cottage Infill Program. This program encourages "over the garage" A. D. U. 's. Without this variance, the applicant intends to place the A.D.U. below grade. If it is possible to relocate the westernmost tree, the' new house will be moved forward slightly to align with the neighboring structures. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The parcel is surrounded by inventoried properties, historic landmarks and National Register structures. The applicant has made a very stvong effort to respect existing development by stepping the new house away from the adjacent historic landmarkj ,This project will contribute to the historic character.'of this area. I . 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. 5 Response: The structure should be considered very significant as an example of a fairly unaltered historic resource and of unusual details and form. The proposal should protect these characteristics and improve the physical condition of the structure. The existing outbuildings at the rear of the property appear to be original, but have new board and batten siding. They are both to be retained but relocated. The garage at the front of the site is not original to the property. The applicant proposes to demolish it. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Minimal demolition is proposed and the project will involve significant restoration effort. ON-SITE RELOCATION 1. Standard: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. Response: The relocation and resulting development is preferable to adding approximately four time the existing square footage onto the historic house. 2. Standard: The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Response: The applicant must submit a structural report for Final review, or prior to applying for a building permit. 3. Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of.* the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physidal relocation. Response: The applicant must submit a relocation plan 6 and bond prior to Final review or prior to applying for a building permit. PARTIAL DEMOLITION 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure. Response: Minimal demolition is proposed. As discussed above, the rear addition to the historic structure should be preserved in form as much as possible. The existing garage should be salvaged in whatever way possible for use on another site. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: A. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: Only a limited amount of demolition will occur, at the rear of the structure. B. Impacts on the architectural character of integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Response: The architectural character and integrity of the historic resource will be preserved through the new development, which is of a similar mass and scale and which is placed to the rear of the structure. SPECIAL REVIEW TO EXCEED 85% OF THE ALLOWED F.A.R. This project is located in the West End, therefore both the General Guidelines (Chapter 1) and the specific guidelines for the West End apply. Staff finds that the proposed project is in compliance with the Neighborhood Character Guidelines. i. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any Of the following alternatives: 7 0 1) Approve the Minor Development application as submitted. 2) Approve the Minor Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (specific recommendations should be offered) 4) Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. Recommendation: Staff recommends HPC approve Landmark Designation of Lot G, Block 19, City and Townsite of Aspen, finding that standards B, E and F are met. Staff recommends that HPC table conceptual review with the request that the applicant provide new elevations for the structure on Lot B and that the applicant document the previous appearance of the northwest corner of the historic structure and provide for its restoration. Staff further recommends that HPC subsequently find that the project meets all applicable standards and requests for 0 variances should be granted. 1 j . 0 8 123 WEST FRANCIS JAKE VICKERY too SOUTH SPRING ST. â€¢.1 ' POST OFFICE BOX 12360 JAKE ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE / FACSIMILE 6 *vil.C:Kt.EFRÂ¥ (303) 925.1660 0 May 8, 1995. Amy Amidon Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 123 WEST FRANCIS Dear Amy, Please find attached our combined Land Use Application for HPC Landmark Designation, HPC Conceptual Review including relocation and partial demolition of existing structures, Special Review for Ordinance #35, GMQS Exemption for additional free market unit, and Conditional Use Review for 2 Accessory Dwelling Units for proposed development at 123 West Francis. Information provided for Review: 1. Application Summary 2. Combined Land Use Application Form 3. Compliance with Review Standards for Landmark Designation 4. Supplement to Historic Preservation Development Application Form 5. Compliance with Review Standards for HPC Conceptual Review of Significant Development including on site relocation and partial demolition of existing structures. 6. Special Review Compliance with Ordinance 35 7. Compliance for Conditional Use for 2 Accessory Dwelling Units 8. Specific Submittal for GMQS Exemption by Director for a new free market unit 9. 50 scale Adjacency Map and Neighborhood Photos 10. Vicinity Map 11. Survey 12. Disclosure of Ownership 13. Owner:s Authorization to Represent 14. Applicant's letter requesting designation grant and waiving of park dedication fees 15. 1 set of 1 1"x 17" reduced (1/8" scale)copies of all drawings including existing and proposed site plans, floor plans, and elevations. 16. Check for Review fee. + 1 Sincerely, Jake Vickery, Architect ~ PROPOSED LANDMARKING & 2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES 123 WEST FRANCIS APPLICATION SUMMARY May 8, 1995 1. The applicant would like to create two single family cottages and two accessory dwelling units, one voluntary and one required. 2. The applicant is proposing to Landmark the property and conform to preservation guidelines to achieve this goal in the most compatible way. 3. This is consistent with the R-6 Zone and the AACP. It supports the ideas of smaller scale houses and historical preservation. 4. The existing cottage has changed little over the last 40 years with the exception of a incompatible addition to the rear. Existing outbuildings are non-conforming and this situation would be improved by this application. 5. Using the R-6 Zone requirements for Duplex, 4,170 FARsf are available. This FAR has been apportioned to the two building sites identified on the plans as "Lot A" and "Lot B". lot A" is apportioned 1450 FARsf, 'Lot B" is apportioned 2,720 FARsf. 6. The land area of the site has been apportioned as follows: Lot A is 4,500 sf, Lot B is 6,000 sf. Development on these Lots has been designed to conform to underlying zoning as if they were lots of record as much as possible considering the adjustments necessitated by preservation of the historical structures. 7 The two dwellings units have been separated to maintain the historical integrity of the existing historical structures. This is preferable to adjoining new square footage to the small scale massing of the historical cottage. The proposed plan is to create separate, independent and compatible structures off mixed scale and architectural interest. This protects the integrity of the historical resource and adds a variety and interest to the neighborhood. 8 This fragmentation strategy would require a 500 FAR bonus from HPC available to Landmarks and a finding of"more compatibility." A 500 sf bonus is being requested for the historical cottage. Currently it is 1,680 sf. Removal of the incompatible addition reduces the square footage to 1,363 sf exclusive of garages and sheds. 9. Two'ADU are applied for. One is for the Historical House and is voluntary. , The second is for the new single family unit and is required, These units arje proposed subgrade because of the limitations on FAR and coverage. 10 Have you attached the following? YES Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents YES Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents YES Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application 0 0 . LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1 Project Name: 123 WEST FRANCIS 2. Project Location: 123 WEST FRANCIS (Indicate street address, lot and block number, legal description where appropriate.) 3. Present Zoning R6 4. Lot Size 10.500 SF 5. Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # JAKE VICKERY. 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET #3. ASPEN. COLORADO 81 611. 970 925 3660 6. Representative's Name, Address & Phone # SAME AS #5 7. Type of Application (Please check all that apply): X Conditional Use - Conceptual SPA X Conceptual Historical Dev. X Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final PUD X Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane Subdivision X Historic Designation X Condominiumization TexUMap Amendment GMQS Allotment Lot SpliULot Line Adjustment X GMQS Exemption 8 Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures; approximate sq. ft.: number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the property). SITE IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH HISTORICAL MINER'S COTTAGE OF 14:,So APPROXIMATELY C : >SF. WITH SEVERAL ADDITIONS AND MUCH DEFERRED MAINTENANCE 9 Description of Development Application . TO DEMOLISH A PORTION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURES. PRESERVE REMAINING STRUCTURES, RELOCATE EXISTING COTTAGE TO ONE SIDE OF SITE AND CONSTRUCT A SECOND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. 0 APPLICATION FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION - ATTACHMENTS 123 WEST FRANCIS May 8,1995 (attachment #, Item #) (2-2) Street Address 123 West Francis Aspen, Colorado 81611 (2-3) Legal Description Lots C,D,E, and East 1/2 of B, Block 56 City and Township of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado (2-4) See attached Vicinity Map (2-5) Compliance with Review Standards This property meets review standards B, C, E and F and qualifies to be a local designated landmark. It was built in 1888 and much of 0 the original materials are intact. Vernacular in nature, it suffers from several incompatible non-historic additions and deferred maintenance, and is representative of Aspen's Victorian past. (3-1) See attached Boundary Survey (3-2A) Jake Vickery is acting own his own behalf. See attached contract to purchase authorizing Jake Vickery to act as Owner's Representative. (3-26) See attached letter requesting designation grant, and waiver of Application and Park Dedication Fees. 0 SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of clear, fully labeled drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than 11"X17", OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 11"X17" format. APPLICANT: JAKE VICKERY ADDRESS 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET # 3. ASPEN. CO ZONE DISTRICT: R6 LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET) 10.500 SF EXISTING FAR: 1.680 SF HOUSE + 364 SF SHEDS + 228 SFGARAGE ALLOWABLE FAR: 4.170 SF PROPOSED FAR: 4.670 SF EXISTING NET LEASABLE (Commercial): N/A PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (Commercial): N/A EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: 21.6% (2.272 SA PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: 37.5% (3.937.5) EXISTING % OF OPEN SPACE: 78.4% PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE: 62.5% EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: 25 FEET MIDPOINT PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: 25 FEET MIDPOINT PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: 36% (877.5 SF) EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 3 PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 9 EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: 1 ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: 9 SETBACKS EXISTING ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: Front: 20.3 ' Front: 10' Front 15' Rear. 27' Reac 10' Rear: 15' Side: 31'/ 65' Side: 15'/ 36' Side: 59 . 1.51 Combined FrURr: 47.3' Combined Frt/Rr: 30' Combined Fr#Rr 30' EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ GARAGE IN FRONT AND SIDE SETBACKS, SHEDS IN REAR ENCROACHMENTS: SETBACKS VARIATIONS REQUESTED (eligible for Landrdarks only: character compatibility finding must be made by EEC.1- j FAR: 500 SF INCREASE Minimum Distance Between Buildings: SETBACKS Front 1?arking Spaces: 5 Rear: TO 5' Open Space (Commercial): N/A Side: TO 9.6' Height (Cottage Infill Only): N/A Combined FrURr: TO 10' Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only). 10% 1 Sheetl 123 WEST FRANCIS 123DATA3.XLS SITE WORKSHEET 5/6/95 LOT'A' LOT'B' EXISITNG SITE AREA 4,500 6,000 4500+6000 10,500 FAR Underlying Allowable 2,820 3,240 6,060 4,170 . Assigned/Aportioned 1,450 2,720 4,170 HPC Bonus 500 0 500 500. ADU Bonus (P&Z) 350 350 350. Total I 1,950 3,070 6,910 5,020 COVERAGE Underlying allowable 2,250 2,400 4,650 2,887.5. Assigned/Aportioned 1,450 1437.5 2,887.5 HPC Bonus 525 1,050 525 ADU Bonus 525 525 Total I 1,975 1962.5 5,700 3,937.5 i j Page 1 90~~ G0 E W:HAti:AM=- ..=-C--=6.-.-- -.....I.I- 42./K /'/272' - 100 - - 11 6 - - 124 134 4 75' 0 t- 4 .% 1 â€¢10 - 0 51 ;* $ i JI -1. 4[4 Â· , U .J L_ 00 rweAD A LLE L___ 1 113 A 4 9 ow k k k 6 4 1 2 $ 5><-: F-KI.. .2 nk~ - 0 01 61 G>Â§1Lri ICI fÂ»f 2 i ~8~. 4 52751 t 0 't '-4 . r. . ./ i , -1 1 i c-: f--- -. 1 ci Z I -393 1.7 - 1. EA-gl N fil-EXAT 1 . u .rr 23-1 r:= 1 --1 r 1-1-2:P -4 + 0211 . 11 ~ 1% ..., - --0 - 11 " 2- 101 123 129 I35 CD . W. FRANCES i 1== h 120 t'LG 134 - 1 -- - 1- 7L 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 - 1,- s--9 2 Flll_.1 i . td Jek- 6 F i 14 0 -1 CD .,â€ž 0 - * 1 4 k A 6 0 7 ;* . 4 4 8 to b 2 , 1 1 [=-1- ~r-=1 Ir-7 41 {>1#{.1*(4 - 75' 0- - >Â· 1- ,- -W - I -ill- Ch i<-0, ===%= U = == == === === t= = ============ == ==tai= *====t=*===, 42' u W. Pipe Â«72 412 420 434 0 .14 61 1 -T---7-- 7~ 1 1+ 0 75 ' -Â· joi Â·. 'OZ 109 -gg. 1 r 12- N - )1 1 01 -1 0/6) -- r Y\\ /\ N i th 1 1 9 rl=q 0 1--4 1 ; ---- -1 - L--1 _-- 0 9 - 1-1 'Â°,#0~ ic --- 114 ----i - --0 - 8 , 123 !19 135 W. FRANCES 4-0 W. Pipe - b 110 12 G 134 4 A 0 ===b 7- 4 X % AD, . 0 1 li. f 1013 9 fra *aÂ« 3-1 .a T -1 N.lsy ST. 71 APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT - SUPPLEMENT 123 WEST FRANCIS (attachment #, Item #) (2-1) see attached Ownefs Authorization Letter (2-2) see attached Legal Description (2-3) see attached Disclosure of Ownership (24) see attached Vicinity Map (2-5) Compliance with relevant Review Standards: P!ease see Application Summary for additional information. Phase 1 of this proposal relocates the existing house and back shed on site. It removes incompatible additions, particularly on the south east corner and places the historical structure on a competent foundation (basement). It cleans up areas of the structure that are deteriorated and restores important elements of the house to improve its integrity and contribution to the streetscape. It preserves existing trees as much as 0 ppssible. The front garage would be demolished because it is structurally unsound. The small shed would be preserved as a play house/gardeners shed. The existing large shed would be relocated and used as a one car garage. The presence of the sheds and alley elements of this proposal as well as the desire to use the yard area for people instead of cars requires the requested reduction in required parking spaces. Phase 2 of this proposal adds a compatible second detached single family residence to the property. Because it is separated, the placement of the additional square footage on site impacts the historical structure the least and affords more flexibility for the design of the new structure. Phase 3 of this proposal demolishes the rear portion of the historic structure to add a secondary tallish element with additional space needed to bring the historical cottage up to current livability standards. The new 8 addition would be of current technology but derivative and subordinate in , style, design, and treatment. The tallish element preserves useable open ' space valid addition giving the cottage current relevance. The proposed ADU's would add on-site housing for two to four local residents. j Specific Replies. (4A) The roof forms and general massing are similar to the historical resource in shape and proportion but smaller in scale. Detailing will be related but thinner and lighter and will be clearly 0 distinguishable from the old. It is compatible in character to the historic resource. (4B) The neighborhood is predominantly renovated Victorians and a few Neo-Victorians,. There is a non-historic two story chalet style structure directly to the East. The proposed development is extremely compatible and sensitive to the neighborhood. The placement of the new Phase 2 square footage in a separate structure and the new Phase 3 square footage in a hyphenated a "secondary" massing is consistent with HPC directives. It achieves a high level of compatibility with multiple structures occupying other similar historical parcels. (4C) The proposed additions are to the rear and side of the existing resource. In addition, its placement preserves and utilizes the existing front yard alignment created by house on the West and preserves side yard and side yard trees. Preservation of the structure intact is far preferable to adding on or corrupting the historical resource by adding to and adding a massive upper level. In this manner, the cultural value is maintained. (40) The architectural integrity of the existing structure is kept intact with the additions clearly separated and their own architectural elements. The Phase 3 demolition is interior to the property and has minimal effect on the alleyscale or streetscape. It is the least impactive demolition alternative and maintains in tact the primary facade. (3A-1) see attached survey and site plan (3A-2) Materials will be similar to existing but lighter and smaller proportion. (3A-3) see statements above - paragraphs 5 A through D (3A-4) This project falls into Category C: erection of a structure greater then 250 gsf. 111 j 0 0 123 WEST FRANCIS 5-8-95 EXTERIOR MATERIALS SPECIFICATION Existing Naw Exposed Foundation concrete stone veneer Sill Skin existing (lx10) 1 x 10 cedar Watertable existing (2x3) 1-1/2" x 2-1/2" beveled Typical Horizontal siding existing cedar ahvg (1/2"x 5-1/2" 1/2"x7-1/2" 4" exposure) 6" exposure Typical Vertical Siding n/a cedar ahvg 1 x6 T&G Vertical Wainscoting n/a 2-1/4 cedar beadboard Typical corner trim existing (1"x4") lx4 Typical window and door trim existing (1"x4") standard brickmold Rake Board existing (1"x 10") lx6 Typical Fascia lx6 lx5 Secondary Fascia n/a 1 x3 fiat Soffit 1 x 3/8" ply - cedar beadboard Exterior doors existing Pella Wood - full light Typical Roofing asphalt shingles cedar shingles n/aa metal standing seam - 12" Secondary roofinp Window - single ; existing wood Pella Wood Architect Series Windows - Array n/a Pella Wood Architect Series 0 COMPLIANCE WITH NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER GUIDELINES 123 WEST FRANCIS May 8,1995 Information submitted elsewhere in this application is integral with this application, particularly the section on HPC Conceptual Review. Please refer to those sections for additional information. Below please find supplemental specific replies to items enumerated on the application. 5. Applicant's Description: The neighborhood is mostly upscated (literally!) renovated Victorians and a few Neo-Victorians. The structure directly East is a 2 story triangular chalet style structure probably of 50's vintage. It is a classic West Wend Neighborhood and is located on the pedestrian route to the Music Tent. The facade line is approximately 15 feet back on the side of the street this development is located. There is a mixture of scale in the neighborhood. 6. Compliance: The proposed development meets all of the goals (A through D) of the Neighborhood Character Guidelines. Because of its high level of compliance with the neighborhood character guidelines, this development warrants approval at maximum FARsf. Please refer to attached checklist. Guidelines are complied with unless otherwise noted. 7. Please see attached drawings and photographs j â€¢ GUIDELINES CHECKLIST General Guidelines for all core neighborhood Mass and scale 1. Human scale 2. Similar scale as neighborhood a. setback large masses b. divide into modules, use hyphens or connectors if necessary c. step down in height and scale towards smaller adjacent structures d. locate floor area in secondary structures e. human scale windows and doors 3. Street elevation scale as traditional 4. Entries scaled as traditional, no grand entries Building Form 5. Roof form visual continuity a. compound and varied rectangular forms b. gable roofs, overhangs c. simple character with appurtenances, dormers, bays, wings, recesses 0 (d) no large or long uninterrupted wall surfaces (f) solid to void ratio as traditional Site Design 6. Entry oriented toward street a. primary facade pedestrian scale and visual interest b. respect setback and alignment patterns d. yards and entries at street level e. reflect grid if applicable (f) semi-transparent fences, low walls, walks, hedges, screening/buffer (g) front yard as neighborhood 7. a. Entry at Traditional level b. avoid sunken terraces 8. Maintain solar access Building Materials 9. a. human scale materials b. native materials c. durable materials 0 d variety in trim, native preferred e shingles and standing seam metai roof Architectural Features 10. Pedestrian friendly Features a. window and doors and details inviting b. creativity and personal c. distinguish old and new if appropriate d. trim as traditional scale e. primary entrance clearly defined. (f) variety and playful appurtenances (g) porches (h) variety of window and door designs 11. Minimize solar collectors and skylights b. away from street c. flush with roof Garages 12. minimize impact of garage a. detached preferred b. locate to rear first or side second avoid front c. small size door, blind doors Â· d. garage facing front<50%. single preferred e. slope driveway towards garage (no) f. minimize wall area used for garage doors Driveways 13 minimize visual impact a. rear or side, no front circular drives b. no pull in front setback parking c. minimize hard surfaces d. porous, decorative drive materials different from street Service areas 14. a. locate service areas to rear b. screen with fences or planting Impact op Historical 15.j preserve b a. mirÂ·imize impacts b. see historic guidelines, contemporary interpretations i 16. minimize impact on adjacent historical structures a. designated properties b. step new larger buildings c edges of historical areas APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE - 2 ADU's 123 WEST FRANCIS May 8, 1995 (Attachment #, Item it) (2-1) see attached Owner's Authorization Letter (2-2) see attached Legal Description (2-3) see attached Disclosure of Ownership (2-4) see attached Vicinity Map (2-5) Compliance with relevant Review Standards: This proposal is to add 2 ADUs: one bedroom required unit in the new single family cottage (B) and one voluntary two bedroom unit in the Existing Cottage. The existing cottage structure is an historical resource. The proposed addition will accommodate 2 employees or an employee family. The new addition is placed above and to the rear of the existing non-historic addition to minimize impact on the historical resource and the site. Please refer to other sections of this application for more detail regarding the proposed development. is Piease see Items 4A through 4F below for a more detailed explanation of conformance to specific standards. The proposed work is under review by the Historical Preservation Commission and additional information is available in the related Combined HPC Landmark Designation and Conceptual Review Application. (4-A) The Aspen Land use code permits a duplex or 2 single family houses on Lots of 6,000 square feet if the property is a Designated Historical Landmark. This property is 10,500 sf and can accommodate the proposed development without significant impact to neighbors. It provides smaller scale structures in units of ownership more accessible to local resident families. b J (4-B) The ADU's provide an accessory residential use in the R6 Zone and mix in a variety of housing types in the neighborhood. They are compatible with other residential uses in immediate vicinity. The massing of the addition units into separate and distinct forms located on to the rear and side of the property is similar to the multiple structures occupying some of the near-by properties. (4-C) The proposed location below grade maintains open space and minimizes the mass above grade. Light and air are provides by generous light wells. (4-D) Services will be an extension of the services already in place and are adequate. (4-E) This proposal will not generate any new employees and provides on-site housing for two to four resident employees. (4-F) This proposal conforms to the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and other requirements of the Code. APPLICATION FOR GMQS EXEMPTION ~ ~ SPECIFIC SUBMITTAL 123 WEST FRANCIS May 8,1995 GMQS EXEMPTION Request is hereby made for a GMQS Exemption by Director pursuant to Section 8-104-A-1-b-3 of the Code. The proposed development complies with this standard in providing only one new unit of density on an historically landmarked property. (6-1) Description This request for exemption would allow the existing historical residence to remain in its current location on the site, with its primary street facades unaltered. This proposal does relocate an out building to a different location on the property allowing it to also be preserved in tact. New floor area has been added to the interior of the property in such a way as to minimize impacts on the integrity of the historical structures. New square footage has been placed subgrade to minimize any impact on the historical structures. The resultant configuration allows for only 4 additional parking spaces on site without detracting from the historical resource. Please refer to other sections of this application for additional detail on the proposed development. (6-2) Complete set of architectural preliminary drawings are attached. ~~ (6-3) Contained herein are applications for Landmark Designation and HPC Conceptual Review. (6-4) Copies of recorded documents which affects development: None. ' 2 j 0 . t /9 - 1 L - 1. C f ' f- -------71 1' ~ L___1 /lj' 1/ 7 \ h/ , . 0 V Z 60 ------- --2 11=1 - - 11 X H . 1 1, -1-$ U.1 -Ff *n 1 i Â· - 1 ' I _1 J . 11., Al grâ„¢9177Â¥a . .,1/3/Villiz - 1- - h: 14- -./ tâ€¢-init'.] -2/40 1 -/11 Â· it . -,Alle . 1, r â€¢ 4 -- . - 1 11 , . I. 1, râ€¢-1 1 1 . M VT . 1 :2; 1 4 . i J. ' IEWâ‚¬1 f-:-4Â·72.,.Â·t ~ *Â· '0Â·-& - i t 1 -- .. 1 ' 1 . . Â¥321Â¥ ONIMHVd& t. . - OAR, 0 0882 / , A\40 A f - f t. , 1 1 1 - i. , i 1 - t . --1 0 - 4 f r I al 'Sf ' 4. ' C=Â« j * n I. 4*4 0 1*f, '' ASpEN n 4 ~94Â° fy Â© /p 91 U \ 21 INSItturE ,\/Â»- imk \ A 1 I I HALLAM (pxtr~ vy Sate 12 - LAKE \4Ji Â« \1\ % LONE ANE---7 \ leo 00\ F LU''P A/*-all 44 tyÂ· ki Yfre-===UU 94 018SON Nontli : 44 --1 F ..7 27] CINE,rvi==1 1 L \ ).2\ 'Ce Ig~> 2.~ 11 5.-3 57.3 E-3 0223 Ch:-EL] h SMUGGLER bRAPTAÂ«.4. 1 \Â«1 1 R Ll ~ --LI).C*.LL. *Iv[Z....3 CZE] CID [ZE] [ZE] IME;51~-~;.71~ ,\4 iiI -\ Â« --191- ...]EL... ]%2twiTÂ·.] CZ] C=] 2 rt-AL++-7 %Â§\~ - " /7 n 4 - ---b Il i ~~*t ~Z]10,-3.23 .1 [*' 1 EL-1 ET] CE] 0 g~ 0- 1 ~~ OKLAâ€žoMA FLA! 1-=\ 04 1%144 331?MHE~Sual'311]90~ ~:-~=6~.~ ~ PAHING ~77 4 by HALLAM \#- '44t Â·3/ - 5 - 1 CIEi IC=3 EFII~-3 l- -rL_ _1*1 -_ 1 czz~, L_4 1--]06 1 1 [:a mi-i~1 E.~~,.'7 ET=-- 1 CIL E '.IAIN 1 [11] [ 2.3 [33] CLE] Im~rl Immml I)IE~ L.11 CZE] ED ECI] FE[ZI CE; [ZIZI 110PKINS 4. r---1 [--TTE] CIi54 I--___Il.:fl__I I--~-7=i-lori--~rri:F--f?~111.,~:r~uu~Â·ii-rui--~i---~FiR' X / f-- - 121 1 IM 131 1%1 rE-1 5-T--1 [--li niTin . C//22/TIAAE---7' "1 Iii . HYMA 4 m .1 E - - m 1 " 2 r--12 rriFTI [-1-:71 rgir-1 i iii 1 121--lultL_- JA.._19[9.41 rn--1 : liT;irl [-1:71 -~ CLE] cz] [-TaliffÂ·=F,1 El'-IC!~1 8F*lIT~A il/L The .-.......... ............-- Aspen i [35 &[23 " Â®iEER@3[3 LL]il--5-] Cf.73 EL_.In -tky** Appraisal IJ ' ELE LE]EL I CED [--73 032 lilLI3 EL]P Group, Ltd. rE[iD FT-1 [imifi r~-7 12; E--1 N I CIZE] U :12 L JE i I butr--1 E-- rET-17 11 E 12.1.01 '-I . t , -7---7 56,1 9/ ff Q' 1/4 MILE LI--' ltD H 19% waer PUANC,47 '21 - ~ ill J , A : MW/VICÂ¢ N (74 VWN,4 mob A â€ž0 08 L_21(Ld>0 -- Amencan LAnd Title Agoociatioa Commitment - Modified 3/78 -. COMMHMErr FOR TrrLE INSURANCE ISSUED BY : STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY STEWART TrrLE GUARANTY COMPANY, A Texas Corporation, herein called the Company, for valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in : ; Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate E - e or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to tile Conditions and Stipulations hereof. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either : at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six months after the effective date hereof ] failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. Signed under seal for the Company, but this Commitment shall not be valid or binding until it bears an authorized Countersignature. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Stewart Title Guaranty Company has caused its corporate name and seal to be hereunto affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY ~ - -r-4443- 49* ~4:~fÂ» -J Chairman of the Boarli I % L l,. b. 1308 74:1 .cultersigned: \CÂ£22/' 499391Â·~8 Â»*a .:92.?47>-foi....:4.4.117.-K.),1. 4%949Â»394% e OE (FAOET,Z% Â»%55'4*:c: '.:5; ''3~:~;~ ff~449?044~I,5:53~~'.". ; 4 :1...:9-41<;hf;FiÂ»Â« AuthoAÂ»d=ti~rsigna~4--- *Â»yi-Jil:Â·3.311Â·~:-- 3-44:23- 4'p. 1::9%0-':fit?X*ly,3.9 : 1 Â»â‚¬94ftÂ«Â»:.*39Â«ateÂ»Â»aÂ«39314Â»*apy:~-i- ~ . STEWART 1-TELE OF ASPEN, INC. 924%92*94%992 2 Ace st [D r060 11 A *49*autt*24%94?~E: ~ / . 9.HAM?<M*%%*Pas.4%66*j%*1*9 - - 1,0,*aa,&3389,15/f/EMB#,4, v ~ 7. la,ZÂ®=@mm6:4*62: n~~ 00021768 -C2 ' 1- I.-5-4 -~e: April.20, 1995 at 8:00 A. ~4% r 4~ Policies to be issued: *- Amount of Insur .;~. Owner's (Standard) . Â· $ 940,000:0-@ .4.4 44;~ Insured: -- r..9. 49.64. ~ , .... .A rkÂ·.Â¥6~. - -~ H. VICKERY . t 4.1. 3%.9.,f .U- Â·.(b) A.L.LA. Mortgagee's (Standard) 1.3 4.Kw.-.4 . , . * Proposed Insured: 1 , .42...ttgf./ 4. 4.7 3Â·Â·Â· 9.r'Â·4 Â·.-Â» n - -'1 ,â‚¬(i,Dot~* '75 ..I~.i.,11% .44. i -+ -- 12#Atjzh#hwov . ' + #b:eÂ¥Â·~7 . 1~' (c) Leasehold .. Proposed Insured: 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is fee skple 4. 'Elite ro the fee estate or interest in said land.is at the efective date hereof vested in: HAROLD QUAM AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 1/2 INTEREST, VERONICA M. MARTIN AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 1/6TH INTEREST, CARROLL QUAM AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 1/6TH INTEREST AND LORRIE CRUMLEY AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 1/6TH INTEREST 5. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: The East one-half of Lot B, and all of Lots C, D, and E, Black 56, Cizy and Townsite of Aspen County of Pitkin, State of Colorgdo . I ./ I STATEMENT OF CHARGES These charges are due and payable before a Policy can be issued. 1 1 Owners Premium $ 2,207.00 i Tax Certificate $ 10.00 1 0 EW.ART TITLE~F ASPEN, INC. i - 01 ,Au:r.N: Zed Counlersignaiure UPDATED: 04/13/93 10:20 AM C:\WINWORD\CONTUCAVICKERY.DOC r THIS ADDENDUM HAS NEITHER BEEN PREPARED NOR APPROVED BY THE COLORADO REAL ESTATE COMMISSION. [T MUST BE REVIEWED BY LEGAL COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. calendar days from the date this instrument becomes at contract or the date specified herein, the seller may, at seller's option, declare this contract null and void. 10. ENTIRE AGREEMENT - Buyer hereby agrees by way of Buyer's signature hereunder that Buyer is relying solely and exclusively on the statements, conditions and warranties set forth in the Contract and this Addendum. Buyer hereby agrees that Buyer is not relying on any oral agreement or written representation not contained in the Contract or this Addendum, including, but not limited to, statements or representations made by agents, advertisements or brochures. 11. FUNDS AT CLOSING - On the Closing Date, the cash to close and any other funds required shall be delivered by the Buyer either in cash or an electronic transfer funds and no other form . of delivery of such monies shall be acceptable unless they represent immediately available funds. FURTHER ASSURANCES - Each of the parties agree to execute, acknowledge, deliver, file and record, or cause to be executed, acknowledged, delivered, filed and recorded, such further instruments and documents, and such certificates, and to do all things and acts as the other party may reasonably require in order to carry out the intentions of this Contract and the transaction contemplated hereby. 12. INSPECTION - Seller has negotiated and contracted to sell the subject property in its present condition. Buyer acknowledges that Seller is conveying all improvements on the property in their current condition "as-is' without warranty either express or implied. It is incumbent upon Buyer to inspect all aspects and intended uses of the subject property, including but not limited to HPC Designation, to Buyer's satisfadion during the inspection period. Buyer may inspect al! aspects of the subject property pursuant to the terms and remedies of the Inspection Paragraph. 13. INTERPRETATIONS - No provision of this Contract shall be construed against or interpreted to the disadvantage of any party by reason of such party having or being deemed to have requested, drafted, required, or structured such provision. 14. LAND DEVELOPMENT FEES - Pursuant to the Inspection paragraph, it shall be incumbent upon Buyer to investigate any and all fees related to the development of the subject property. 15. LAND USE APPLICATIONS - Seller hereby permits and authorizes Buyer to submit during the Inspection and Closing period any and all land use applications for proposed development of the property so long as such applications and approvals are contingent upon Buyer or his assigns closing on the property. Costs related to such applications shall be the sole responsibility of the Buyer. Seller makes no representations or warranties as to land use or development potential of the property and this contract is specifically not contingent upon approval of any of such applications. In the event that Buyer receives any such land use approvals, zoning changes or the like and does not close this contract pursuant to its terms, Buyer agrees that all such approvals shall be the property of Seller, including but not limited to any renderings, conceptual drawings, designs and architectural proprietary work product used or filed in any approvals or pending land use applications with the City of Aspen. 16Â· LEGAL COUNSEL - This is a legal instrument and joshua & Co. of Aspen, Inc. recommends that you seek legal, tax and individual counsel before signing this agreement. 17. LICENSED AGENT - Buyer states that Jack H. Vickery is a licensed Real Estate Broker in the b State of Colorado acting on his own behalf and shall receive a credit towards the sales price . equal to a co-op fee of 2.5% of the Purchase Price. j 18. NATURALLY OCCURRING ELEMENTS - Radon has been known to exist within the State of j Colorado and Aspen. Buyer may investigate such pursuant to the Inspection Paragraph. 19. PURCHASE PRICE ADJUSTMENT -The purchase price shall be reduced by $4800 per month for a closing that occurs earlier than the closing date indicated herein, but at no time shall the purchase price amount be less than $915,000. 20. RENTAL RATES & INCOME - The Buyer represents that Buyer is not relying on Seller's or Seller's agent's representations of past, present or future rental income in Buyer's decision to purchase the subject property. pagc 2 0. 6, t May 8,1995 City Council City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 GRANT AND PARK DEDICATION FEE REQUEST Dear Sirs: We hereby request award of the $ 2,000 grant for having the property at 123 West Francis, Aspen, designated as an Historical Landmark. We further request that any Park Dedication fees be waived. Sincerely, 42)1(ta/' - Jake Vickery, Applicant l 100 South Spring Street #3 Aspen, Colorado 81611 b , . 1 , 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995 Chairperson Linda Smisek opened the public hearing. Amy: This is a 10,500 sqft. lot and the historic house is in the center of the lot. This application also involves the P&Z. They would like to relocate the historic house and propose to do a lot split creating a 4,500 and 6,000 sqft. lot. This is a code amendment that would only be allowed for historic landmarks because you are creating a non conforming lot you usually have to have two 6,000 sqft. lots and part of the idea is then less FAR would be directed to the historic house and the 6,000 sqft. lot could be developed as a normal 6,000 sqft. lot. The code amendment is not under your purview but if you have comments P&Z needs to take them into consideration. Even without the code amendment you would be able to do two separate structures on this property. You can do that on 9,000 sqft. or larger. The difference here is that ownership can be attached to two separate people. The total FAR for the lot is being held to the duplex FAR which is 4,170 sqft. If these were two legal lots the total FAR would be about 6,000 sqft. and that is not what is being proposed under the code amendment, they are restricting it to what the duplex would be to the original site which is good. I am recommending HPC support the landmark designation as it meets standard B, E, F. 0 CONCEPTUAL Amy: We are being asked to review an addition to the historic structure and a construction of an entirely new house. I find the two designs compatible and sympathetic to the neighborhood and the historic resource. I am interested in the resolution of the front corner of the house. The house is essentially in its original form. There is a front door that has been closed and you can see bead board that was the roof of the porch inside a closet. The proposal shows replacing the porch and building on top of the addition and it would really involve removing the roof. The applicant is adding a minimal amount of space. The total addition zo che historic house is 587 sqft. and they are asking for a FAR 0,1.1, 1 C of 500 sqft. so that they can add on. Kazherine Lee: What would the total FAR be on that lot? Any: 1450 plus the 500 bonus which is 1950 sqft. That does not include the garage at 500 sqft. There are three outbuildings on the property, barn, shed and a garage stall. The barn will be turned ard made into a garage stall. I feel that is an interesting selution. dne of the trees is proposed to be relocated. The house has a FAR'of about 2900 sqft. which is small than what is usually allowed'on a 6,000 sqft. lot. The applicant has revised the plans 0 slightly and added an octagonal element to address the street. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995 Katherine Lee: What is the size of the second house? Amy: $2,900. sqft. The project meets all the neighborhood character guidelines. They are asking for a side yard setback and it is on the interior. They are also asking for site coverage variances of 5% on each lot. They want to keep the open space and I support that. Also if you put an ADU above grade you get the cottage infill variance of 5%. If they don't get the variance the ADU will go into the basement and Staff supports that. They are asking for parking variance of 5 spaces. I recommended tabling because I did not have the new design to review. The issue of the porch may not be resolved until a little demolition occurs. Les: I am worried about someone coming in and saying my house is not historic take it off the inventory. Amy: That occurs when there is a lot split but we are designating this from the start. Greg Prickrell, architect presenting for Jake Vickery: One of the ADU's is required and one was suggested. Melanie: Visually the interior setback is on 2 1/2 feet. Someone could go and put a fence up and then you have 2 1/2 feet to the *A fence. Is there a way that you could get five feet. Amy: Not unless we demolish part of the historic building. They have created a 45 foot frontage. Greg: You are not supposed to create non conforming lots. Melanie: We are creating a squeeze in the past in allowing houses ze get close. Can't we build in a variance of a couple of feet. I am opposed to only seeing 2 1/2 feet to the lot line. Amy: We could put in a condition of approval that no fence can be 46--L, Susan: It seems to me that is destroying the character of the neighborhood by squashing the houses together and loosing the side :ards. 2 p -r= F If another developer comes in and buys the property what is che maximum square he can put in with the two buildings? Any: He can build a duplex or two detached buildings or stay With one building and add on. j Â¥ if it is a duplex 4170 sqft. is the max and one per unit. AC--1. 25 che lot split is allowed what is the maximum square footage Allk allowed? 4 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995 Amy: 4,170 sqft. plus 500 sqft. bonus from HPC. Roger: By doing the lot split you will have 500 sqft. In your opinion with the neighborhood does the lot split offer a better project? Amy: Yes, in my opinion. There used to be another house there and this is re-establishing the neighborhood pattern. Jakets wife Della presented their history of living in Aspen. Greg Prickrell: The due diligence on the property terminates June 15th. We would like to know if HPC feels this project is viable. We have done a thorough investigation of the project. We desire to landmark and we have broken down the massing into smaller scale modules creating smaller ownership modules which preserves the small scale of the neighborhood. We want to reduce the historical forms to basics with the topology of a cross gable miners cottage. Each historic part has to be evaluation for the extent and nature of its historical value and contribution or detraction to the character as a whole. There also has to be architectural integrity. We want to put the new development on the adjacent 0 parcel. We want to add new accessory functions to accommodate today's need to the cottage. We are asking for the 500 sqft. bonus for two bedrooms above grade. Lot A will have the historic cottage on it and we will utilize the outbuilding as partÂ· bf the two car garage with new construction. To the rear of the cottage we are doing a second floor for a master bedroom. We are proposing an ADU above the garage. On lot B, 129 W. Francis the ADU will be below grade. QUESTIONS Roger: Why should we encourage the code amendment? Amy: It is another incentive for landmarks, that you could do a Lez split even though it is less than 6,000 sqft. and have separate ownership. It does not result in more FAR. Kanherine Lee, neighbor: There is a garage right across the alley and I do not feel there is enough turning radius where you have zurned the slped. 2 ,-2 7 Â· U - V M . Ijwill check it. Rever: I want to be clear on the code amendment? 0 Amr: It will include how the FAR will be distributed for each Rue a. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995 Martha: If the person sold the house could they get more FAR. Amy: There would be no more FAR available. Melanie: The other lot could come before us and ask for a FAR bonus. Amy: Yes they could but only if you found it compatible. You could also state in this approval that that would not be allowed. Greg: We are getting 250 sqft. reduction for doing the cottage infill. If we were not doing the ADU we wouldn't need it. Les: They could do the same thing with a PUD. Roger: I would rather hear public comments before our comments. Linda: We can change the agenda to reflect your concern. Martha: I am concerned about the bulk of the project. Roger: By making it a landmark we can control the bulk and making findings that the bulk is not compatible with the historic structure. PUBLIC QUESTIONS & COMMENTS Brenda Bigelow: I live on the corner next to house B and I Am here representing the landlord. I feel much better knowing if it is designated the board has more control of the size. Roger: They could have asked for a setback and moved the house closer to you and instead they moved it in. Katherine Lee: The old house is moving east. Do you have to have che ADU on the new house? Amy: They are creating a new unit so they have to build an ADU for -his property. Katherine Lee: Which is the more desirable of the two as it creates more mass. Amy: Only one creates mass as it is above grade the other is below grade. Martha: Except for cars and the impact to the neighborhood. Those are considerations that should be discussed. 6 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995 Melanie: It is a two bedroom ADU so the possibility exists that two more cars will be there. Amy: There is an income restriction but I do not know how many people can live in one. They are small. Della, owner: We are doing the ADU on our house for income to an employee. Roger: Are the new elevations sufficient information for Staff to not have to table and we could grant conceptual? Amy: I do not have any design issues with the project. I am more concerned with the restoration aspects of the historic building. Della: Jake is really concerned about the restoration himself. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Martha: My concern is the second story to the historic house. I am not comfortable with the design and feel it detracts. Roger: With the information so far I would encourage the code 0 amendment. I would also recommend that conceptual be approved with conditions. The concern of the neighbor can be addressed by moving the house forward and thus having enough turning radius. All the design aspect are fine. We need to address the tree removal and make sure that it can live. To address Martha' s comments if the trees are left alone you will hardly see the addition. The impact would be greater if the trees were not there. I would demand restoration of the original right porch. I would also put the window well someplace else possibly on the west side. Landscaping between the house should be addressed in the motion. Susan: I am also concerned about the second story and do not like zhe height from the front view of - the old house. I certainly wouldntt want to see the trees moved. If there was another house on the property it had to be a small house. I hate to see the sideyards disappearing. Amv: I totally agree with you but I would make the argument that having a number of smaller structures is better than having a szructure with four times,the mass added on which really disrupts zhe rhythm. J Linda: I am in agreement with Roger on the front porch. When I size visited it looked t6 me that someone in past history might r.ave taken on a border and that entrance was for that use and I 0 feel it has a lot of significance to the time and to the house. I highly recommend that be restored and the lightwell moved further 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995 0 back to give the ADU in the basement some space. I feel comfortable with the massing and scale. I am a little concerned about how satisfied a new owner will be with the new house plan and what we will be up against. I feel Jake has done a good job with coming up with new ideas and introducing a new concept for historic preservation and restoration. Les: I feel it is a good plan and it will work. I have difficulty recommending the code amendment until I see it. I am not concerned about a new buyer as they will have to work with us. Final will not be easy as everyone has considerations such as the tower. If there is not a worksession before final I don't want the applicant coming in and saying we got conceptual now we need final. We are granting conceptual with a lot of considerations. Amy: There is an existing addition and it shows up on the 1904 map and has the original windows and doors. There is a back porch and we have debated whether it should be retained. It will not be visible from the street but Linda made a good point recognizing the boarding unit. We little by little are not going to have examples of the evolution of an historic house. There has to be some way to indicate that there was a one story element there. Katherine Lee: I have been here 14 years and the entire back has been changed so many times that I couldn' t begin to tell you how ~ many. What are the side yard setback requirements? Amy: In R6 you have to have 5 feet on each side with a combined total of 15. Katherine Lee: Is the new one 5 feet? Greg: It is at 5 and 10. Chairman Linda Smisek closed the public hearing. MOTION: Roger moved to recommend landmark designation to Lot C, D ahd E and the East 1/2 of Lot B, Block 56, City and Townsite of Asuen; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Roger moved to grant conceptual approval as submitted to include partial demolition of the rear addition as show by the removal of the model at this meeting and that we grant the interior sideyard setbacks and site coverage 5% vah.ances on lot A and B as requested with the following conditiorls Tor conceptual approval: L A worksession with a monitor will be held before final. No moving of tree or trees on the front side of the property. AIIIA 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995 3) That the restoration of the right porch occur to as close as possible to the original. 4) No fence of any kind either structural or landscape between the interior division of the two properties if in fact they are divided. 5) Study the rear garage access to determine if there is sufficient space to enter and exit a garage on the alley. If the study shows that the rearyard setback variance is applicable then we will grant 2 feet on the rear and 3 on the alley side. 6) That we grant the 500 sqft. FAR bonus to Lot A. 7) We waive the 5 parking spaces. Motion second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. 130 S. GALENA - CITY HALL - MINOR Amy: We approved a lightwell in the back of city hall so that we can build a basement. The basement will contain city council meeting room and the Sister City meeting room. What is being proposed on the south side is to cut the wall back and light would drift down to the sister city room. There is a sidewalk and traditionally you bring light into a lightwell and if you cut into the sidewalk and relocate it you will put people right into where the roof dumps snow off. I do not find this a compatible solution as it does not respect the rhythm of the windows. Possibly this could be a trade off of the basement as one of the rooms does not have natural light. Someone has suggested a lightwell with block glass across it and that would be my recommendation. Les: This is a landmark building and I do not like what is going on. I went to Breckenridge and they just finished their city hall and it has no windows in the room and they did it on purpose. The lighting was designed well and I talked with members of their council and they indicated that their meetings actually work better. They do not need the natural light for a city council meeting with people distracting them from the outside etc. Cris Caruso, Engineer: Council likes the feeling of the light shining in the room. Council said if I could provide.natural*,light to that room they would consider having the present sister,city room moved to the basement with the council chambers otheilwise they are against it. If that doesn't occur we can use the,space as storage space or office space. It gets difficult working a full week without natural light. 9 I . ,. ./ I . h .. . I .AlÂ£87 -I--.Ill-'Il=-I..Il.-Ill- I. . 1 .... - fAtiNâ‚¬-1--' . , 1 4.4.-L, 5454 '~Â· 1 I l ft , 1. --1- . - 1 1 . . 1 i , ;1 I . .- I .*- 1. \ ..6 . . . ' k Â·Â·A '-~1-:197[Ati-~3-41~01:3: . 1 1 I l 1 . . 1 . W -i........I.-I----4--Ill.- ; I. . i fl --0-4-W *- -1.-..1.4 ....... .- ... f.-4 -0.- .... 4 -, . f . .......... ......-1 1 /1 J I . 1 1 .[PIFF'~~41 . .1 , 1 . &61 1 , *!21*3- 1- ' ,Â·1 J - .. 1 Â· *~* Â·L-r_ ' . 1 ' I 11 1 -- l , 94 . .Â· .44 '06(*gpo Fs#**F~11 94-E-F .. . 1 1 I - 6 /. I I . ....P- . LIP7*20 Fld)2. ttAN. W, 82*AJole --' . I . .. . 1 i Al, 4 - '1 4 ... . I 1 ' 1 1 0 i P. 4 4 1 I . 1--- - - dsl-â‚¬== 1 . i 11 1. 14,1 1 , . 41 , 31- . --77 Fvr' Wol 440 f ftu pt 0 -- 3-1- c Ull' 6 --1 . r , -1%\\ 1 -, i -1- . 0 h -- - - .i l .T 1 1 462 21. ti Â· 1 - 1 .1. F _LAUNFer -~ / Ar . i f r L 1 1 J -'- - Ce .*##. 80Â· rAMIL>r /MelÂ» ./- - 44 f 4 .1 . . A , . emig- 1 /\1 4-1 1 .1 \ 1. *r / ' /1 I . - lp,2..1 - . 210 . F , - ~ .2,1$t:*M-243. n 1 ... . 1 11 0 1 -- 94*W*t 898-AR. , h D lu'Ad 14 4. m 0 /1 . jA-1--re~ *1 ' !0 \\ /5 01 1 134 -19 /% 1 1- AMimwMmM E Ji M m Mum l. -r-â‚¬0~11111111iliiliI!111iHITA iÂ·~- .i,11 1/,/,lin i -.. ..#-----I - illii'4-f=1- 11111 4'GN9 -MI ! *10" 160'62.- t. ....."7". 1- WEÂ«.- Pl.69*04 - 9 1- 4,0*-+13+ 801*/4-fleÂ»I 0 . A 271Â« , Ill-- 1 4-. Pekk ~ /,7-*750 1 ,Â¢43Â¥21*Â».XX>DOOe,251 n t d ,/'\___,1 ill Il Il Il f *=f[=*1 i . i M i l m il i m i l i l ' t i r i ti lililil litilu.lill~:HI 1.3.i:it 4-*.4.:~'m7M~-77;-/ /r,=.=*Stki . . - 22 41 121 N A 6.1 *t { C.~12. i m m + *-41 1-4 2215=f 11, E fl . Ilti:11Mr--1.H~ i illIBiul 1 : 1 111'111/1.-, - 1 #Aer *it wâ€¢11Â¢44 1 94 ent FtÂ»*1Â»19. RBWAr| 014 Â»mep erpe B JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECS 6 129 WEGibPR*Ne!3 - 44- - MAY 8,1995 . 0 .. . .. 1 - . ..4 4 23 - . f -. b.*Â·ill:' +. â€¢' Â£- 1 i - . . . 1 ... , ... ... .. 1 - 1 .. -. . - -. 1 1--- 1 . 1 1 !111 1 . Â· i 1 1. i~' 11 I . -] i . 1- lilli 111 1 . . 1 . Ilir 'lit . j 411 .1 ' t 11 1 1 . Â· / lilli Ill 11!li -3 S . - i 1 .. Ii I: : R[la .. I ..1 . . *1 9 1 -J râ€¢ p Â· . 1111111 -- .laii- -\j : 4 , lili 12. - /1 - 11 1 lilli 1 lili .1 1 , 7-1. lili .. u - - 41 - 1 - 116 W . RDANcle , .\ - Â· /7..1 11 - . - \ .. \ . 0 , .. 7 1~~/~;*~CLA/3â„¢tw\ /7 4 . \ 1 i ./ : At>Ll. \ 424-=t 9 f 1 . ' iii Â·1 . ./ *: :P j 0-1 4 :.â‚¬h. . M 065 1 i I / :- ./.-- 1 --i r 12 7*r- 1 T ~ - -- 1 . -6. : 1 ' ..7 t , . 4,1.8/ 44Â· i 7. 4&!f"BAA.g . 1 1 - 1 . , t--- : â€¢ 11 E 1 14 Â© -- t , , 11- 2 Â£ 1, .r -9 . 884' ' WEd, 1 --T 3/ . 1 - *. .. it . -1: .-t \ , ' " . UVIN 1 - 1 t . Â·2 1 Â·Â· Eet:321â€¢41 ; , 1 1 1 . 1 19 .4 . 1 /1.'I \ . .Eed .~ 1 i- M ~ 7- 1 1 ts--- 14 -,i , i : - 1 ' . 691[ I WHW\\ 1Iii . 1 I / 1-1 L . Wwâ€¢OP M 04 - 1 1 . . 1 1 r-IL__4 Ju ! . 7 . 12.1"194 i L . if-h .MEL 1 1 . 1 HÂ¢W tz:FM#,12 T ' a 1 U: a. 1*f_. 1 '<2 A--,4 . ex -25%+Re * ~ !6421.0,27 -Nk vrrvwâ€¢ r i ; :: 816< '.. elt- 1%. 1 \' li alÂ¢1144 i --4 4 \ 1. i C + i 11 1\ //fl: . 1 1,1, 1 MÂ®6â€¢ i I 1 1 1 4 : 11 -t . r . / h / \i i I . 2 1 i -- . Wl:9*FÂ· 11% n.,44 i .+ 2 ~aout-ID Fl-ig.fl.41 < + j e:*Repl #H-1 rl." rÂ»tÂ·4 . k.------ 1 / 1 i / . \4 / 1 . ~221 ~Ng#f Fl~H#46 Â¥poposED aftt"PAE A * be Cam>Â«S Â· 799104600 123 WEST FRANCIS 32 JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS - Ha'Pr#.\ . MAY 8,1995 ~~1004 * 4 . TT .-. ADU LIVIA)& - 1 1 7 -- 1 1 . 61*RE 800. EIANÂ·l r--- ., 0 - ! i 4 1 I 1 0 e.zw ho= - 11 -: & . ao. *1TV-- 1 -M$[f-- cepREEL U - l 11 r-- #11- \ 4.1 1 , F[12:Hew c,~tok / Aill' e,01+ CQEâ€¢I~ 512- . r.i 6295.J + ! .... ----....-. - : alie#Ake -- . I. r-: -1 - - .. . 1 1 1 15&2Â»agi- i - 11 og-+4 Fls-â€¢24-4 1 21 Â· 51 0941. 7 11 , -1 ,. UPPER F{ZE,fâ‚¬- . (51 2>U Al P A.CE>FZ- - . 1 1 . , LeN- 6 123 WET FRANCIS JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECIS MAY 8,1995 - - 111[1111111'IN-*1 1 i i , . 1 --~1:-~11-m~ - 4-%.4.- ---*. -4. - . bil I n' _~u-iti:!Â·tfHir5Fg-Fflii~'I~ 1 - : 1==.'....= 1 i 1 232===SSh 1 ~~41 J 4 Â· z~~=n=r---4 r--- -1 Â· , 1 1 ..it. 1 .: 3. 3: - i.: E-: Â·~i r* R. . -Â·-- ili ..Â·, Â· :.IiiÂ·L...i Â·i & d :!bli!' 1214;z::13+1 ! 8 ~1 - 0 i .. /4. ~} F .- , 5Â¥' ; .: ...1 ; *==Â· 44.*:i .iti./44.-*: i fi!08.4.4:. '1:ilf:!til , 22_30 3411-342% --1 L--4 . - lilill:!:41:E;;:14 :I :11.1 . r .1... i: i:' i.,1..!16 Â® --- I.- 0 1 . J Â¥:poleÂ»13 901/Arvrs 6517-M 0 6. 123 WEST FRANCIS JAKE VICKERY ARCHrrECTS MAY 8.1995 d . i.- i . .1 67/ -i . Â·â€¢ //1.1 . .7 t Â»r . - 1 C . - iyll: --- ..,1 - 314(6444341#%4 1 - . - ---- .f - . 1 7, ..1 I.L.--- & 41 1.1 9 4 -- i .. . 0 . -.. 4. 0 - .. D . . ..2 - 1 "~ ..UMNEIrFLVAÂ·tic-jixl :.. / .. 4. . . 1 I ./ i i I k.. -... 1 .9 - . # .0 -1.. ... 1.94:,1 -32:Â« 2 .-v . . , .V FttÂ·V*t:*:~ .:_ 1 C . .. .. - . . . I - 0 - ... 1.1 - , i 1 r . . 1 Â· e .-14,-Â·Â·-- I 1 9 -:.. I 1. 0 .Â¥r . I . 0 :3:72 --1- 1Â·-1-*~r-----4. -f-,-T-i-:CE--~~-3-*Â°-~----7 :I.~- ----: j*kÂ·i*~~ 204Â¢~:ila-s - = --- -:-64;fiELE*ID-N- . ., .... I. 10 - .. :Â· . . .. Bi -. . '. a --1 ~Â»541Â· ' a'neit<.66,711- Â». 'P 10-92 . 1 - i.'ll t Â· - + -7 . 0 - . - . , 1 . I r . - S / . I 1 - 1 -1 1.- 1- . r Â· --11 - Fxpmul Ull/6112 1 4 l -7 123 WEST FRANCIS . 1 . 18:1 ./1.4 . JAKE VICKERyARCHITECTS : MAY 0, 1934.-' ., , . W -12+1 â€ž iII L . bH 1 1 , 5'., 1. : 1 11 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 .111 1 A- 1 1 1.1 1 i 1 ill f 2 L L _i.t- A--- 1 .1 11 1 /1 1 1 11 1 r 1 ! \0/ .151 1 1 1 i lÂ·.1 L -= J_ i r -1 1 1 1--4- - --_11. 1 1 1 1 It_-t. 1 1 1. 2, . 1 11 1 A.. .11 i 1 1 ' 1 /1 1 1.-\: 1 / 4 , 4==- 1 1 7 \ 1 / 1 1 1 1\It , - ------- -4 1. 1 . \ 1 / 1 B 11 .1 1 11 .11 11 4----4-----------1 1 1 Il 1 1- --ill' I.1 0/ - 1 1 1 -1\ 1 / 11 12-223 1-1 1 ./. 1 ' r .1 - 1 1 : p / 1 >t.. .//1 \:\ 1 1 - il . \1 \ 1 1 rIL- - - 0- -0 - - -~71 ~~ ..1 - ill 1 11 1 11.. 016 0 . G If . lilli /1, i 11 1 -17-1- 1 1 - 11-- . 1 - 1 1 . 11 1 1 4(2-11- il 1 1.--11.1: 11 1 1 1 . 11 1, 1 -44--L-- 1 , J | 1 7-1-- --1 1- = =r n L*.L.=24!U ' . / --â€¢ 1 r- ---4 / 1 -7 1 -- 1- / 0 0 1 / 1 91 I . / / .-1--. / / il 12* 1 14.11 + 1 121 . f i i. 1 + / \ 1 \ C --- i / - 4 rly> R.AN ./ 123 WESr FRANCIS / JAKE VICKERY ARCHHECrS J / / MAY 8,1995 -- Ii-. A.U.$* 4 -1 -- i i . ' i ' . ae 4= 1 1! 1 . 1 . i 411 1 -4* tÂ© m.-9 3-4 1 1 .79-* St polj~ 03=4 440 â€¢ *lupto -2 ; 1 1 ! 1 . 1 , t i 1' 1 y i i ; I- e-1*a- 1-~!Â£ 11 1 ' S i 1 16 r== fl 4 i 1 - 1 1 Ut - 14 / 4 1 WN.i : 1*MIL,r /1.10t:NA - i 1- --4 / : 1 \ 1 1 :~ 0 i ,i 1 emi* 1 !1 1 2 1 1 . It, 14 t k 1 4 \ i 1: 1 + L-&- 9292- 2&2 i 1 .=M 4-1- f 11 i 11 - 1 , i . - , -- 828494*/'r FUE'# RAN. 1 VJ.. ftz#,106 820FeED FPEUVKINP#Â©1 , Flag 'RAN6 - " LO'r- le ~201 - 1 123 WESr FRANCIS JAKE VICKERY ARCHIFECIS â‚¬ a MAY 8.1995 4 Act,-EM AULT 1-1 1 1 1 -1 1 : i 1 . i Â· 1 Â· ! i. --1,1 . _tM_Ek_- ' il I - . 1- ilÂ· . 1 I_y-Â£142.. ./- 1 &14 1 j 1-1 -222*EL- -2:ZMME 1 1 P----4- 1 . 615Â·ff 1 .. f -- 1 I ; 6.1 1 hu 5 F 1 - 1 0 . r.1 -- 1 l -- i .-* i. It 1 1 1 ! - . 1 1 - 1/1 1 - 1 I I 6*tr j _MaÂ¢!22Â¢12 i Aur. 1 1 1 1.26% 1 - ] .1 : \4 j. j.- - L Y- 1 Â· I. z-. Â·. 1, .1 /1 .1 \1 . t 2 1 '16:Iir UM'.e,Â¢212. : 1 1 ! 1 1 M.Â£12- *Her- ' ! 1. 2 .1 Â· I .1 1 . 1 .. 1 : 4 t - --~ 21/L-:4 - 1 4 - 1 , . . t . 1 : 71 1 1 . 1 1 -t +00.Â¢9. L 1 1 - FÂ»A&-11 2 -- ---- . 1 1 i 1 1 i i ~4129(,INO yu,z:,fi FI.*f4 U~Â£Â· FUOe MAN . i 1 U. Â¥Â¢ANC,(4, 19. flaAijct, f!*FDGED PEW'MINAÂ¢q R.2 70446 60T B. 621) 123 WESr FRANCIS JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS. g MAY 8,1995 1 . 9--77--~~~~~1 Â· .1 1 f Â· jÂ»Â©*Â«._;,ACIJL 11.'. 11 , Â· 1 tl .9/"HISCATR'*im liE-Ill-1-11,Â¥al=41' ll'Imil ill 1 lillitem i i r Â· Ill.&~' H I; 1 9 11!111! :11!111111 ~ itit~ELLI--=------=--c:a~ kilip. 11 . 19:4/26 ,:f titt~M:0:idi~fil" I~/:' litidi----1 *16?41/018 61.14 4.8 Y . ] 1 011?kll':tilililtii<Illufflilli 1==ti 1 1.41 1 1 7.2. 1.:fi:1 4 1: : 1 lilli IIi. ||11!1~s,41!,!. IIiÂ·[1114-1 i I |11-vi,IL!~ 101011Â®'Im \NeÂ«r- #be>/%024 47 01+11 MugÂ»1-1 Old . Ill --.Ii . --_... i:174:11 .INiWiA- *-~*Â·Â·*'1'!::ility' 1 1 1=~: lili.,lip . < ir*r'! LU_U.ll ' l i l l i 1 V.144,1 li ll i,44111 I l l*H c=rm ' i [Ir~v-ruL-1-Lr-r--mi : ' I FT-1 "' l' i..&.7'1:1"1 1 111111'zillrn '111 $ 4 1,9/ .: L; lili . - 7-1121 - Mal I mun~[10littl'1~1[Ittililillilll linl ; .li1 '' . . - .----t, i in . 111*ttktt#$$*tM~Utd~ : 1 . eÂ»-r . 131,es/Â»i-104 - Ideptl-1 #LEÂ»-floh| -===========j=======================================--- 15(,E.VA-1-14~14 i Fleweep OrlPÂ¢*-6 - 150 WEST FRANCIS JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 6 MAY 8,1995 Fav ~*p M Ati MA?5 * 1 r O to m LEGEND AND NOTES le,All- &ASED Ol FOLÂ»I CITY MOIUINT, AS -Â«-1 11 31*0,â€¢11-1 RANCIS STREET re" F O â€¢-O â€¢un~ mâ€¢uâ€¢â€¢rr . 0â€ž=i.. *A O UTILITY Doot . . Alic, WOOD OR AFT,L --- TITLE 11â€¢00.TION, A.,11- ov, STEWART TITLE OP ASPEN. "C. -011- - 07.t---_ Â· ORDER 110. 000:tiu MIED, 1/.al Â· 11.0 E.C.6.04 INTO ALLEY CITV Mo,0.-T I. 3 1 4 5466 d /1 e -7--- , -- -2/ 76 \ .. 0 ./ 1 1 1 /4. . . f rk.6 \ 1 .1 1 1 1/ 14 1 I IC e 13 1 F \ 1 2-4-* \-f/ ... 1 1 1 / .14' - ~ - GARAGE 1 I / 4 1 //li-- '7.. 1 . 1 1 1 -- / 1 4,1 HOUSE. 8 . I .1 . t - - . 1 . 1 1 .7. i 'i . I. 0 1 ' "-5-9 4 . 1 1 1 5 1 3 .0 Imzl l CEITIFICATION 0 ~ * ME "Illle'll OVATES n#1 1- PROPeR- 01,CRI,1, "Ull" IO 1 1 Fi e f ,ia.,u"na ell,DIL_-DE~1-=li-i*p No 11 *=*Â¤ . 'Al= I "â‚¬ 01110 6Â¥10â‚¬110, M .12- AMI IN, T-1 Mt- DISCREPANCIES 0% REColl locÂ»CARÂ¥ LIAâ‚¬ + 1 0, ~~M!:aN:lgo: '~9 &Â¥:ma:q:*E~ : Aspele L -1 lkÂ·: BETE,69EEMEFÂ·=,=iv.1- ...4. . - . N.t .+ 1 1 .7. #4 h. Ho,ORâ„¢ Eil 13947 .i Â· . . ; -1 1 1 ~, U 1 .... 1 : / 'BED I.1 f ASPENS Â· CS-~7 9 Â¥'TH SECTION 1~-Di-,02 COLOI//0 AtvoIED STAâ„¢h. l ~ FRE,WE/Mi.P.-Â·Â·.u".fi.(Ple/ni*Fil. U.ZJ ske 1 ~ ' lac!,Clt %1. 1,0-,w H â€¢C,Int. a.,4,~ e â‚¬*1 - 1,~ 4,1 - ' 2 -- "...... ....... . -. CO-1, CL:RK AND ./0Â«DER ........ %. N. L .... ......kt los.00. ...t m. ALUÂ» 4,7 IMPROVEMENT SURVEY 1 . 2'YE= mid 5 k#J: t.?,W-C=,6(40Z:.. 1L0CZ Se, . CON,Allili 10/300.0. IT. 4- , ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS, INC A.,0.01.-/' .1*11 - DATE a NORTH FIRST /.--// ~ 01 2 -' 'cÂ·r y.; . "91-"- FL'.7.1. - -,4 1. . - - 1-271* -r.7- =-- -r - - A ,2 , - .4, ... - '' V-, I . e. 1 -', , I S ..1 , ; I . 0 1 . r 4 A, , 9%.1 ; r -iâ€¢ r..1 I . t'rÂ·'y,? 1 .-012 + A i:2' 10,4/ 4 L -- 6 ' 4 #. A'' E -61* . . . , . "2 5 - . .. 1.1. 11 4 + - Â·2*4., 14 -* -:y 4 1, 4 . r - '-w '9 . Â·' f.Â·)Â· ,.' ',1~ ~'iÂ· i ~' :~' 14.'Â·.t 2Â·r i. + râ€¢-Isef' , , 4 1,4 -I,ph 0 , - I . -, . 1 ..l - ~ , .- A':41. , .~-'--/ 9#:,I . / 0*'<: ~ I~ -.- - - .-''d .2 -l- 2 8 0. ' I ..., . .. . . . . 1 4. . - . , 1 I .J-/1, 2 6 â‚¬ Â· 1 12'..94. - , - . I , 4 LAN ..... , 4 tr r . . . , . I . ./ . . , q. .'' : ' '' I - ' . ' . ,/ 1,1 . I ... ./ Â·t , . - .,%1 % , , 4 , . , ''. . 1 . t. 1 -- 26 48 .... . ' r'. I 1 I , 1 f .4 41 0 f :Â·i. # , I. . , , f, 6 - . 1 I .r I. 6 - I , , I . . -0. /. . f Â· 4 ' - 1 1 ..' . 1 ' 1 + . . - 3 '~ ' 1.' 0 ' 2*.â€¢% . . :r :-L .4 -. .- ./ 1 I .4 - , :/ 1 , , r '' - W - . c -AAâ€¢ 9. 9 . . " I . I 1. f .0 p.. - I , ... . ,Â¥ i ...2 , . 1/ 1 1 . . - -"t: 4, , ..1, 1.. ..f 0 , '.: e. . lili. * I - I . , . ./ â‚¬ . 1 .4 1. , , 1 . . 8 - - . . I -- I I K.- . , I k Â·' . â€¢ .-1,/1 . . .1 I . . + -- . .11'.- 3 J & I - - f , 1 9 & - 4 , 116 - f. 1 - 0, 1 20 p ... 4 6 ..D= 91 6 . 1, .4- , . '...V 1 4 . " 1.- . '9 . ' ./ I , Â·t-.1/"4 %;A,;P ....I - 4 Â·Â· .- - - I 'â€¢.~2 .**tj 2.+; 14 ' . - 4 I - . . 1,-, - . . - ' ' 0 1. :,4U...Berrqu / 4 , 1 *4 , -3, ,#,eâ€¢eâ€¢v. i ,.'. A4â€¢ 4 1 - . Ul , 'I - . P . I.......... 2 .... ' 4 - , . , ./.' i I. 9' . M. â€¢â€¢ 1 .1 --'4Â·e' t<.1 . 4. ... -. -- k - . . . I . , 1 . I I I . . . . flu .1 ' I. I I I., I ' r + 'l Jr , 4. ,~ .1 ' ~fÂ·.1 64.. 1 1.44, 1 -4 1 - â‚¬., .4 4 , .4 , :.. ./. . t , I. I r I . 41% 4.- . 1 2 . ' , fet 7 1 ~ 3.44.11~ . .:.9 41 - I. e / Â· '--:.:4 2..'70 1 - - 'I ....'.... ./ I. .6 . . I. *- ,#~* I. - *I'l-.. / /--'.I '* I - G. I Â¢ I.- . . . 1- ./ .6. 1 6 '. ..,1 D 9 - I , ..32} .- 9 I -'. J.:r , 1Â· J Â·. . -17 . .~. . Il : 1 . - -. j , Â£1 .... I . 4 1 - el . ...,4,16: 5:........ . I. , , . I. ..,-- 1 Y.ei ' I + .' - ' r- r 4 2.1 - I. 6 . 1 ..%4. I , , . 9- . r A h j ' 9 ' 4 41 , . 4 ..2 4/4' '- - ' 9. 0.1 4 . 21 J 1 .: 4 . 7 ,.. . . . . 11,1 .b J.~'.,â€¢ Iâ€¢ ~"0~ ~'~-, 4 - . I 6' Â· t... . . Â· .2 )I/H)t :ir 1 2 1 , t. , .. .. . . ..t '14 #f- ::4~:-% ,.' '.'.*. i .te . -4 t . fl( LiNG LEry REA~kÂ«*fs â€ž '44 I e . . ' I I : .7. .2 L & . , â‚¬ te.4% ' Â· ,,0 - Â· + -3. ... . . -- 1 - ,. , t. . 9-4.- ..' 7 ...r: ; C . 1 .. .. , 1 . Â· .0 4 .5/ ., . I : el.I* . e -1 60. 44 4.7 . A V li :I. / , - .2~i # A . 4 , 1 - . t . - # 1 --p- . 1 ' i: 0. '- 1 . '' . ... . -tr , ..r:. ,- .1 - ASPEN, COLORADO -1 I // V. -#V 'I ' ) , 1 . I J . '. I a. ' , 7 1, . I , . r I. I 4 I ' /4 , . - I , 7 1' . -1 ., p. '-4~ -' ' y I. ' ,Â·j,i~ts Â·' 4 : . 9 . I - - 7 . . 1, I I I.- .|Il-/1/ ... I I . 2. . , - , - 243 9 V : 5 .., I ' . t f. k.7Â¢: '4 1. 1 - .fi: 5 . . I . â€¢ ' ': ' 3 ...4 ,...a> .f Â· . ' .. . I . 1... . I 1 0 4 ..1 . . .,1,0,1 F ..... J - 4 ' I . :APRIt 26, 1996 Y. I 2 'tr 1 k - f . . . I , / 1 1 , , l. 4. .7 -- 4 - 4./. - 1 9 0, - , ...6 A . 4% .1, ~-7 1 .Â·STUDIO B' ARCHITECTS - h . ?51, 3 - h ' . 1 : 1 I . , . I --9. . I I ...1 , . I, . I F - - /4 . , .+ , 1 , , 1. I . ' 1 . .22 . '' - N. - ' / . + ..rf. - 1 . 9 ,,-7, . , ' Â¥ 4- t .P , , ' .1/ r. / . -17- m - ., .%. , . - 1 - - . .: I - . .t . 1 4 . I b I : : I '. . . - - /1 ' "22,4 . " , , .. ' .5 . .. . f : 1 6.. . 4/ - e 1 0 h . 1 I 4 ./ 4 .' I J I . ~ ~ I Â· A'~~ 1 wi 4, 1 0- - 4 4.. S , / I . 5 I . 412 - ' . E 1 . . / '42 ... : e P.-r.. 1 ' . 0.2. V -, 1 I. I * A- ' 1 -: - I - 'al- 1 4 AP. , .... .It, 1 - ~- -. . I -2 - p '4 - rÂ·, 4 i , I - P . I - .a i a,Lua EAST ..OOPER STREET . .. . 1 h- 1 , . i.4.&.' & , 0 . , - 01 1- .-1 '15. 4% 4, W , C I. :..& - .1 , R , . I :, 2 f 1 ..4 .. . , 1.Â¥,4 . ,, 1, C.:.- 7 . 1 ., 4 7 I . '.. . 0 '' ..t . '' 44 i.. , 1 , . , K + ... ' , . 1.- r # .: -. , 4,1 ' I.- b > L .. . Â· 3,4 . r ./.1- 4 <44. 1 . .:41 4 /7.4. j. i 2 6,9 Â·Â· . Â· Â· , M.4 ' + 'IL.. & .'. 2,11.- I 1 - I 4 - .. - . . 1- 4 ~ , ~ k -- + i I _ - , . *r I ;' I ...1- Â£ ./ 2,9 -11...//P , =.... U=AD.,44. i 4, ' i g - v I -' i i . â€ža, , --. ,"4 4,-t Â».4. f , 0 'r,2 '0 4 _ f./.~ 44 ..... #; I h : "-f, *'.0 2,'4 66 7 E./2 I L "'* - 1 . 1" t >,h L - C: r.$ ..: . ' 1 7,~ -' 4 -"'.4-- k*- Â¥ --- 1:, _ ~ Ir - 06--24 . . 141#1~ .: , . , .4 1. X I 'I / f .' ./.* 9, ./ ' , * + t ~4 1 - 2.,d" - , .iLL\:1 .. f : 1 -L ' . r 1 . 1 Â· Â· I / 8 1 - 1 0, / i; 1 ; f .1-~ 1 i !1 i 4 1 1. ' **rH 1 ... 11 -6 - 1 , ~. Â· - i Â· - i 1 ..h\\ 0 ----y i 1 2+1 U L -1 j 91,40 nt 1 ELIP - )1 - 4 E J t*-4- 1 4- r MolA C 4 ... .1-, 1 rn' ;1.--- j.nd A .1 4 0,1'M *f_ f . . , 1 It- -N. - -1 limu 1 Jr- - -1Â¥ 1! 11 , , 1 41 ~ 11 L , F .Â·Â· .r '~ Il Â· i 1 1 J i t..iri~ ---1--.- I. L #M 1 / r 71 + 1 ' ./1 -* B 4 j 1 / 1 7 . . j r - i L ' 1 i r /' l; --1.- 11 1..4 iÂ¢' .. U MAI 0 '.1 1 0 iiI . . - N.,T Â°-11 ! 'R / 1 1 F --4.0- 1 1 - t k 11 , 't -11 41 Â· i lt--1- -1 - , 1 1 - d i 1 . I. 1 Vi C. . 11 IN . 3 b 1< , 6.fiÂ¢PM>17 -4 1 *-r 4--*I 1 ~/5/ 090 14 - . i . /j k 6Â¥(AlfÂ°V" 5> . 964# - ' 01 I 1147.1 4- 1 ./ A =rt - Â· i , 1 iirl4i 1- F*VI * Â·f:19 A \ 1 1 ! j 1 j N , ~14 1 ' 1 ~ j TE 911: :06;Lii ! d 1 I. V'*&,L, 4 1 ti e *taij~ li, -1 ./ k f i 5(41 - - 1 -Â·- -- -- ..... -Â· - Â·Â·Â·Â·-- 1 - 1 1 '41 / 1 It: . t . -4 . 1 1 1 1 T ; 1 1 , 11 : 1 .1 11 1 i i 724 ~i ~ ~k /" . 1, 0 .W r R. 9 6 A rl - Â· 9 6. I. , . - .1-7 . - , I . . 1, 1 1 4 0. 34 1"' 34 F.44*41 . ... d -721,3 â€¢ .- 1.92:7...5--*I'lÂ·:...ag A - 2. !> f ht Â·~Â·Â· Â· 1 4 . t '...9 4 I t . h... -le 1.. . 0 1 1 1 0, itÂ£1--7'V- 11, 1 1 I / --1 1 1 - 1 .- 4- I.-L...,--a--4 V. , - 1. : V. , 6-41 +4 7-1 1 i ' â€¢ , Â·te , (-1-96* 1 401,0 b ~. . M-6,Â¢+b - i , 11 i $ 1 - f .41 i Â· '1 . . 1 0 . 1 H . i Â»lut i > Â· /It ve - --I 11 1 /4.- 1 PL_ 4 - Â»14% --6.7 6'Ul,fkm,--F , I I - i j Ubi_j~ ~ , 1 57 j A . f - 6-*--4 .-1 E--1 1.kÂ®99Â·Â·f 1 , 10 0*0 - . 1. 1 6Hvt; 01,1 4-0,4 Ta i411 1 4--1 I . 11 Â· 1 -4 ---- 111- - 0, ' \C LI 9 $ 1 B '4:Tr-' 1 -â€¢ 1- k./ \ 61 ., Â· 9 -9, t. 1 1 04 f .i . 1 - - 1 .~. ~ , / '1 .r~_i 11Â· 5 i --,- f *tÂ¥ ' lili Â· ,Â· p t. i Â·" 7 1 . -.- . . 1 */749'Ma 7.-> 1 i'~~r n=*01< 2/ f-. 0 1 --- 00164 : . . -PRe l M (f i .. - li . * 9. ' 21.-li & f U I * i i ~ (-6055,1 04 f ~ . 1 1 >Â» + 1 . p -1 i - , . 76!>-0% - 1 1 . ,/ 94567'54 . i / I ' , 51'21 Tb i \..' h _....r-,A. . Â·74 1 f + 1 LE=k; Rto i e V '-1 ' .Â· 1 1 1 r. 1. , / 1 11 / 1.1 / 4*, -- 19+ , ... - 1, f k -1 Â¥ff' ,%<4 : I . I i I ./--i. - 1 6.--A f --i-1 j 4.... A 4 /4 r ; - --i r.- 4 '.6. f \ ' j === i ' f l 1 , , . #'-* i 1 i ' ./ . 2 - 4 ; ; .. i â‚¬ El. '. \ 2 . 9 0 --,--4 - ...~- 69 ' '1 . f 1 -r *AfR i , -6 . A \ 1 2. \ 5 - UP] I /- 1 j W. , . ----0.---- \ - I . Ir I \ lit .1 1 :f f j 1 +1 1 y .t , - ** 1-- Ob 1 < M 4 *T 6 GA 7 -Pre 7 014 4% I P LY'61 2 --6-4,HeÂ·Vt,3 7.- % 1 , \ â€¢t /1 - . 7 1 1 1 ---.ik70Â·Â· l -- - d 4 . W 11 Â· ., I -L il, 3 U 1 -4 -- -- H 14 lt-' Â· 91 Lot, â‚¬ -6 \ iW . . 4,; , 0% 2 4#OUM P PLAM le. \-0 - - 0, 0 0 Â·:f' 52- 0 34-0 Â·p - .-9 Z. - 1 2.' 4, ....2.1 1 - t 3 -1 Â¥ r , -1 _ 11 L t Wift*w 46*r Â¢ if 1 - 3 f O, ill- - ... tof 94Â· . 1 . ... 1 14 1 7. C~Herl l -I I l beldÂ· FMT I: . ...Â£1=1 FAM'0100 . -08 44 .IN. I.. f . 6-- ' . \ A , i ==4 - t . -\ L ~-1 4- -Â»722'.I . ';76/----- I. .1. ..7 1 flit.-14-2- - 1 j \ 27--17-467-ty- 4/ 14 / 1 0/14 1 / L / - # 4/ M 46- ' ! \Iii cw*r I . ~ PAR,rÂ¥ tr 1 1 1 4-1 -rt; 1-42 T.--4 Â· =It 1 i T 1\ L * 11 i /1 1 i ti 6---6 0 7' 1 ~-7~ blri,444 1 1 1 &Â¢.9/4 1 . - - Ii.--* ..ill- -CI 4 Al 1 - 7 - -6- -1 - t-1- 1 1 - 9091052. 6 /l\ 94 , 21]Illy - 141\ 9, -4 1 1 1 R L--4- L.._~ ... F 4--it.- 1 t 5.- '44--11 \ 1 47 / L-0--12---7--4 \ C 2 71 \ 4 1 1\ : 111 ./ i \Xi * 1 ill q \ I I! 1 \ 1 1 1 ...T~ 1 1 . . A=--- -=-r=,--L- _ _ -4 - a -= \-In__-_ )#--1&-:;-21â€ž2Â·U 7 1 4-6=/ 1 1 t 1 1 1 1- ! --i ~----1 A i i 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 & 1 411* 6. 1 , 14 1 1 70,42 L 7 1 1 A---1 - 4#848 - .r- 2 -- 111 -, 9 . 1 946 Fy,JA -17>.3 3 I .~-----x j - U f f 0 11 p l. A n r .... . 1 1 1 .. ... i./i - b, , p. 1 .4 1.'. 1 1, ' 1 11 t 1~ 5 , 11 1 1 .. .. I. . . . ... 1 ; : 3 .1 b. 1 j .2 . 1 I k r . 1 1 4 '19 1 'Â· i 4 ' ,. f 1 i.,1 CIL i , 4 . 1 -Fr IS -f- -i Â¢---- ----> ; .. 1 '' f .. 1 r i 72 ! i! 1 ' ~.19 J i -1- ---1. . 1 / i / . ... 1 ' . 0 - /- -a 1 / l 6 1 1 9 " / 4- \ ..,4 / 'A / / t..: ~ i. , i t 2 - 5/1 . 1 1 N / ELI N , \\ 1 \U + t f -i I - -* , / 14Y 44 ../ 4. I . D 6,2. 1 0 t/. 6 626 1. E / 4 J Â· k ....:tÂ¥ f. . 1 . i - F <K 4 . ki. J t. & 1 ' 4.: 4 M k ' . I 1 -- 4 . . k.. v ~' Â¥ 1 1 41,8 a 1 . I . . %,/. . 1 , . I- - E- i 1 1-/It 1 /4 ---1 33 . 1 4 1 21 Â¢ 441-- 1 . 1 4 .% .3 -:.. ..Â»\ , 1 r./0 1 . . . 1 42 .-i.., -A- .... r --- , *4/14: 1 1 I 3 11 - t- - ---- , t., ~ 01Â·1.- i ..1 - I\ A*- _.1 ' l& I i" \ /20 1 .~==Lf-----FJ .1 A*M*~r SM/H Plfi# . , f i - k 1 1 1 1 4 4.-- ,-1 1 t- Â· 5,14*rit'11>t> Ft#-,tletr 1 j 1.1 1 }lili 14(plelÂ·6 34 .~1, - f 1 , , 1 1, i. 1-indp-Litz.z-ti t.; .. .. ..~4 ---- i. U .1 44} !: j.1 '' , 1, pir--- ' t~ . i I .1 ; w pe,6217 UNT+2 i1 i. 1 -1 lili 1 4./ 1,1 te,ble Ill i L f 5 11 1 - 1--- Â· Â· Â· Â· iÂ·lia=4.2..rm -- -11 1-t ' 1 # Fl-- --f, . 1 1 3 6 4 9 -1 .. 4 5 YA/*fl Vil {11 6,7814'9 .1Â· ' . i I 1 -1.. Â· :, 1 1 I -71,4 Ur ill 1.-11 1- 2 i -"-Â·- ~ r ~ Â· -Â·,- -4~4_ ;14;, TIf 1 rl- . - : 4 1- i i 4 6 1 V.- -0=-- / 11 - i 1-1.'','',2.',1 1 11 ' ./ . 1% '. i i 5 - 1 1 3 Â¥ I f -- 4 *47.51) oft. 981 rÂ·1 159 .- > 1 -- 1 1 1.1 4 ILL. 7.- --- .. . . . . . 1. 1 1 11-.: 00,47 4/p lp,6*Â· . b i. 1 1 i . i i. r- 7.~ - - , Â·i j. 1 , T-0.Â».1 1 j ,; 9 . ; i :' 0 - A 'tr & 21 I. 1 u it U 1 1! /...1 1 1, 06*4 t rt f * 1- I $. -#/. *. - --/ I j. 1... ; 1 1/. 9, 2 F ----- 11 Ki ! 0 - 1 .-d ... - 1 6 . , 1 . .. 1- i i i ~ 1 .'~- : . w Â· i., , ic -4 6.. < lili.i li IL---1 . IIi.i C 1 1.~-Z-...-..... . - , ~ Trp-) -----~"-- Â¢44Â¢ 8% 6+041*r *ri.u, 6 1 1 i II i ii i r . .- 49;:NU t10 i.-- L /0 1 - . - r------ - -4 ----- ----------- . - 41 - 1 .1 7- - 1 " r 9 I. '1 - 7 0 M o z f - H - I . 3 1 %Â»i . .r . ..49 . ...... 4 161 6 zi. .. W. - -I----- - -I -I I - . * . I. -Il -' /*. I -#i'...,1 . - - .. 9 / I' 1/, .4 - r. t ..Â·-4, ~" Â· 44 . I i 3>-94 , 21 QL ... , , , 7 62/02 ' .lk.4 rou <i i rv ' 4/ 1, 4 1 1 1 - , 10 . .1.1 r..1 ..,1 It. L 1 1 ' " r 1 1 Â· bi:> . r .L 71*77.-f-9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f . 1 1 jilig J. L- 1-1'.. ~ . - 0 ./1 1 , 1 I , -1.. t ' 7111Â¢i-~T -.....,- /1 Ul 1 - 1 .. 1. ,-I f L.i.. ]I-- Ill\ ' 1 . ./ , 3 & 1!1,1 ; . Â· p- -: 4 *..,-w . .#.*-u4#.*'*....:.t-r I 7 1 ~. , . . ' ... -'*It i 0 4 / i / Ar---4-- -- 19/ r 1 - # , ., , 4,2 - .*-.1 '. : j 1 , 1 1 4/ ti. 4 i i ,. I. .1 .t t. I i. . I ' ...1 f -' - 1 t ; 7 1, I . . 4.4.â€ž-I. f . tÂ· - . 4/ 7,6- 11 j. $ - 1, - 1 1 1 1 1 1 i. ;1 I & , , " 1 .1 1 1 ' Z 1 r ,. ,. 6 -1.L ---- 1 . ; -1. -:.11- 4-12** 1. !, , . 1. Â· -4.1 , '1 -1 Kf-'~~ ... '.-1- '. J 4. . , \ 34 4- =.Z-2 --- . . .1 ,$ . I. 1 l. , 1 â€¢ ' , ' C.. I 1/... 1 .: \.\ 111\ 0, tz .*..- #..-4.--19. . .-- h , 111, . I \\ i \\ - ...1 UJ 1 691 - -. . j ... ltd. 1 1 j . . i 42 7 # I . It - 54-24 - + L-t y> fÂ·+T-_ 3 ..4 4 -#_Ll.. 1 ' 1 f '= 1 :. 1 I 1 j 1 ;4 -: Iit i I [ 1-ttl 1 h---,6 1 0% -lit.Ft--114 117 /7 /fl i l i I 1 0 11 1 #N'Hmr 9,1 tribÂ· 1,6'0 // / 1 . 1 1 \946/ 1 11 1 1 0 \ AX .5 - #7 i i , i , L , 60Â·41 94 rtÂ· 140" i.t i - 1: AL,4 Al 94*11' 1 -1' . r 1.--- ~Â» 1 i-I-li -1 1-1- - 77= NE>-- 1 00'*M I>1 rt 1!~ 46Â·0~*1 '[Irttl,1 j i 1 1 0.-- 12-12--3- f, *f:Â·; r t~ 1- :!1 1/il ... H . ; I. it r *Â· 441 f.6Â·9 # A PA, H rOD 1 N .9 1- '. 11 1 T 1 1-1 -01 1 J 4' Ve*1 Â·fltÂ· 919!Me i f i lki Â· t '-1 il :i - P - 1, --4, 1 . 1.1 1 11 5 -4 '... il ~ i -- .1+. ... r.-- - 6 11.111 1...1 !1 I I t 1 .I , - i 93-4 's i 1 4.1.;-1-1-4--t-4-- i 1. i ~ 2 . 4 ' : 1 1 : 7~ ' pilIT! 1 11 iii . 4 : 'll Lki , i litill iii 1 1/1 1.1 1 1. ili r f \1 1I 4 - i . C C 0 N Pul,(4 0 41Â·414 t. i'\ 1 t- Aff)?r,16- 1 I , , r~--4.f--9 , 4- 1 ' - --- 2 1 14. 11 '\ 1 1 rt j t..t' 4 11 1,1.--------- r--+I 11 ' : 1 1 1 / i / t - -; i / 1 Â· i â€¢ , 1 It, . . 11 1 E. i 1 ' 1 { i .U c f,1 - 1 4. f f i i Â£ t ...... i i kl . I .-4-, h. -;T â€¢ .Al . ; S .- 4 4 r. - H ., 09.- i i e. 2. 1 tr'. ,Â· 4-- 77'-:1:'-Â· t; i Â»U- -Â· . __- 7* rit-t--te 1 AN '11 ''t- 11 ! 1 1 4 \ 1.-4-,1-4 . 0 +Ut-! -1-5 ~11 311> \ ; 1 1 1 al \ ! 1% n . 1 11-0 --14- .0 .1 1 1 ; , . i + 1 ' h . U 1- i 1.- 1 , 1 1: 4\ .,2 11 11 : A . , 1 1 Bili : / ,- 1.1 9 , t 1 2 1 0 : 1 2 . f 1 , $ *It :' 1 . 1,/Â¢ 3 :\/ I . /7 t! . ' 1 --r-t /~ v-1- i Â·~ : 1 '{11 -11 .i liilliti y * ----1-- 1 - iN, , 4 - . 3 i It: j i 1 E l c 1111 1 1 2, 1 1.1 Ii'f .Â¢ 1 6 Ic#th;$ Ifill -31 ./.* 11\ 1 2 i 4- 1 . 1 5 1 4 ! i /.. 1 {i . . , 1 IIi .1 .1, . a tk . _.1 i j Â·' '' :l i..1 1: f.: i! 4 ! '14 Fri 1; -1 blit 1 111 ..t 1< 1. p > 1111 1./. 1, 1- ,t ~1~ if- ~- - ---- - --i ,. =4: , 1 4, 11 7 +1 ;i'. r 1 1 j.i 14)* / 1 ' ' s 1-4-9 3*21 1 H ; -f ' E h-13 1/i:, F 1 '' ,/Â·2 ' r Â· P ' i Â· 04 1 1 0 1. -I 4â€¢W 1 Â¥ 5. f 1 . " i . ! r , 1 , % 0 3 4 ,. 1 11 11 f . 11 I 'f 1 1-71 4 1 1 1 ' Iii! ! 4 j , 4 r- 4 1 L liE 1 P - 4 t- I I. i : 1!i 1- 4 _.J -~ Fl'-+ 1 ' i :ti;j ' ./ 1 LILL)' 1 : Elijil.it - i t-- 1 111 .1 - i ! Li I f..1-HÂ· 1 1 1 1 1- . L] L.1.1 1. 1 1 - -- -- # - 4 ; ft---i.-4.-:.:.-,\ U- I- .Uii -Â·1 Â· 4./4.\ i: 2 iii '-' 31'.Â· 11 8 i \ i i ! it ./ i.~ . ..!i J I tic . ~ â‚¬D . 146 I-:._:t. W * .\{4/ / 0, 1- .T 'fiÂ®.I~ 1 . 6 46, 1 44? r \-0 t 1 - ' 1 1 4.1 r . , 0 0 0 9~ 0 0 0 U /..