The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19970409ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 9, 1997 REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 12:00 I. RETT - Ron Erickson 12:10 IL 303 E. Main Street - construction issue IJ-- i-*t . L,+ 12:30 III. Site Visit - 611 W. Main 1:00 IV. Adjourn The HPC agenda is very long tonight so the determination was made to get a few issues addressed at NOON. Bring a snack or something for tonight's meeting. 04/03/1997 10:40 9709274813 THEODORE K ,GUY ASSOC PAGE 01 THUCIOGRE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC Anc,41Â¥icÂ¥, ANO ST=UC!7UNAL ENOINGERS Apri 3,1997 Ang, Amidon Aspen listoric Preservation Officer 130 S Galina Street Aspen, Colorado Lal 81612 Re: 303 E. Main Street Dear Amy; Perour conversation earlier this week we would like to beon the agenda fortheapril 9 th HPC meeting. We wauld like to explore the option of mo,4ng the historic houie at 303 E Main to the corner of 7th and Main atring the excavtion peliod to save about $140,000. Sincerely Yours; * I The& -=. ...9, AIA,PE, President , AR THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC 717 cc: Nildaus Kuhn TKG/*g 95607 U 23280 TWO AIVERS ROAD P.a eax 1 840 SASALT. COLORADO 81821 (9703 827-31Â§7 ... - -, ....; ...14''A.t.. .' ...... "<./*' /Â·-: 9*... :~ / ...I -,/.....' ./1 l.Â»1... :=.. .. 1 .... 1.; .... ..I;... 4 Â· .- 1 ~~~ PRESERVATION P NEWS ,> 1 No Backtracking Â¢Â¢. l, 41.1 Hingham, Mass., wants to derail a train proposed for an old in-town line. 4: BY TONY MAURO 2 THE REVIVAL OF A RAILROAD LINE - / 44.-, would normally be cause for celebration ~ i among preservationists and others who , 4 want to control growth and reliance on automobiles. But in history-minded Â» Hingham, Mass., the planned return of the Old Colony Railroad within its bor- Â£ dem has prompted alawsuit bythe board ofselectmen aimed at halting the project. k = And many of sprawl's usual opponents *10, I . r are behind the town, not the railroad. t_74- "We're normally very supportive of transit projects," says Elizabeth Merritt, associate general counsel for the National Trust, which plans to enter the case as an amicus curiae. Â«This is very r*/6 awkward for us. The planned Greenbush branch of T kto: . p , .Â· *2 the Old Colony project would run right 3 through Hingham Square and the Lin- coln National Register Historic District. The area is rich in historic houses and a The rail line, at mid-ground above, would cross 14 Hingham streets. downtown shopping district that still 5,e works. It would be subjected to com- The reconstruction of the Greenbush But the state's mctic for avoiding fed- muter trains two dozen times a day-with branch was one of four rail projects in eral preservation review is tantamount to all the attendant noise, vibration, and Massachusetts that were scheduled for "thumbing their nose at the process and traffic disruption that could drive shop- 80 percent funding by the federal gov- circumventing an act of Congress," says * pers and tourists away-at I4 crossings. ernment. But in January the state sepa- Andrea Ferster, a private attorney in 4 But the lawsuit against the state and rated out the $2I5-millioli Greenbush Washington, D.C., who filed suit on federal agencies behind the rail project is line, waived federal funds for it, and behalf of Hingham. When Congress driven by more than local concerns. insisted it would be paid for exclusively built sakguards for historic sites into the Until the lawsuit was filed, the Green- by state funds. Department ofTransportation Act, Fer- bush plan, part ofan $800-million tran- Without hesitation, the state said its ster contends, it did not envision locali- sit project to alleviate growing auto aim in reconfiguring the project was to ties defederalizing parts of a project at i traffic between the South Shore and avoid the delays and costs on the Green- will to avoid its requirements. Boston, was moving forward after a bush line caused by going through The issue is not simple for courts. sleight-of-hand taCtiC by the state. If Hingham's historic district. Under fed- Rulings on similar disputes have failed widely duplicated, the tactic could erallaw, transit projects that receive fed- to draw a bright line; the rulings are undermine federal preservation reviews, eral funding must consider and execute based on specific circumstances more preservationists charge. "prudent and feasible" alternatives when than on general principles and seem to d r What Massachusetts did is called historic sites are endangered. Without turn on how much time it takes between / "defederalization" or Â«segmentation" by federal funding the project could pro- the discovery of the preservation prob- & lawyers. Here is a plain English version: ceed unimpeded. lem and the segmentation ofthe project. 5 26 PREEERVATION . . 1-7. -~ -- -- , In Hingham, the issue is less legalis- tic: It is ~'the impact on a historic district -* Ir **mzi., ' that gives our town its character,"in the * - 1#--Illill------2 1 i . words ofAlexander Macmillan. Macmil- . lan, a lawyer appointed by the town to 2 I ..jT coordinate the Greenbush battle, remem- .,2-' Â·49#F I. ~ Â·I bers when trains rumbled through town -64-:- ..... c. '-7- 0Â« \ 4 along the same right ofway that the new jit Â«Â·:-,Â·~46 NÂ¢*&Â»9 - 4 J. project would use. First opened in I845, .- 7â‚¬ - . ... I theGreenbush line waspopular until the I 1,1 2 - rise of the automobile in the late I94Os. ./.- The train last ran in I959. ,Â®i- -~ Why is the rail line such a threat now, â€¢4 . Â· - 4 ke after the trains coexisted with history for - I.T.- t. ...1?3- ' 2 decades? The hiStoriC district has ;y .:Â·:/ Â·-'11. I .4 0.6 1 become more worthy of preservation : 4 2.4, 1 ... , . ..r D $ I -1...3 - .. . 4 - because t:he trains stopped running, . .P - Macmillan says. The houses along the rail line had become rundown. When -2 n*.2 -I'l the trains stopped, homeowners began Jim Flournoy maneuvers a log reclaimed from the Alabama River. putting more money into restoration, and the downtown historic district flourished. The Greenbush iine is a crucial part Sunken Treasure ofthe larger plan, its supporters say. "Of all the lines in this project, trains have Original-growth timber resurrected from the greatest potentialÂ·to alleviate car traf- waterways is better than new. fic on the Greenbush line," says Terry Fancher ofthe South Shore Chamber of BY JAMES AUCOIN undisturbed for as long as Ioo years. Commerce and chairman ofa state advi- MOBILE, ALA.-When Mount Vernon One log, more than four feet in diam- sory commit:tee on the project. "A lot of wanted to reconstruct George Wash- eter, came from a I,500-year-old tree. businesses and people say they'd move ington's I6-sided wheat-treading barn, We're using cypress because Wash- to the South Shore, but we can't get architects faced the first president's ington used cypress," explains Dennis between there and Boston because ofall insistence on cypress roofing shingles Pogue, Mount Vernon's director of ofthe highway traffic." for all buildings on his Virginia plan- restoration. An added benefit is that Macmillan is careful to say the town tation. Seeking historical accuracy and the older wood is much more durable. does not oppose the return of the rail durability, they consulted a wood Old cypress lumber willlast four to line altogether. A more expensive alter- expert, who recommended virgin eight times longer than modern native that would meet the "prudent and cypress logs. Original-growth cypress cypress. "Some of the logs the dealer feasible" standard of federal law exists, is rare, ofcourse, so the chance offind- had were as big as a Volkswagen and so he says: construction of a tunnel that ing the necessary 2.0,000 board feet of dense you couldn't even count the would bring the train through tOWn lumber from growing trees was slim. growth rings because theywere so close below ground, eliminating the grade The Mount Vernon barn is now together," Pogue recalls. crossings and at least some of the dis- constructed, however, and covering the While the reuse of beams ripped ruption of the historic zone. roof like an antique guilt is, indeed, a from old buildings has been fairly com- "Public transportation is needed," he thick layer ofcypress shingles, made on mon, those who restore and recon- says. "But our downtown is fragile, and site from original-growth logs. The struct the buildings ofAmerica's past none of us wants it destroyed. It's much logs weren't freshly harvested from a are increasingly turning to the bottoms harder to bring it back once it's gone." Vilgin forest, though; they were pulled of lakes, holding ponds, and rivers for , from the silted bottom of Lake Mau- once-abandoned logs. Three years ago, Tony Mauro is legal ~#airs correspondent repas in Louisiana, where they had Mount Vernon restorers used cypress jir USA Today. sunk en route to sawmills and lain logs reclaimed from a Florida river to NOVEMBER / DECEMBER 1996 27 1 , 11 JAMES AUCOIN AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 9, 1997 REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS FF' 23% 02., 5:00 I. Roll Call and approval of Jan. 9th and Jan. 22nd minutes. .D II. Public Comments III. Commissioner and Staff Comments 5:10 IV. 611 W. Main-Partial Demolition-:*Zk 2 6.13 - 534 - 0 '45 (1 u 1Â© 5:30 V. 715 W. Main - Minor Development ~~EN-, A, ~0 ,~3 57-0 o K. 3-Q ffr-'Qt[ ~ 611l'td r .45 VI. 132 W. Main -Minor Developmenit=@~I~-)<* ~r~ --2- 0 - Â£907- /5-a--7 rÂ» - 4 -h LU-,t,0~Zi- 6:05 VII. 514 E. Hyman - Minor Development Mason Morse Bldg44-oF - 42/6 # N o M. MO 6:25 VHI. 218 N. Monarch (Half House) Finat312 9,11 1 33 ,Â·-PLÂ·Â·~L...... . ~"30---~,-4- Â£ ok,-240 7e- 0 6:55 IX. 10 minute break 7:05 X. 1008 E. Hopkins (Ice House) - Conceptual - continued from March 26 Information to be presented at the meeting. 7:30 XI. HPC Awards selection 8:00 ADJOURN PROJECT MONITORING Jake Vickery , Meadows (permit to be issued soon) 935 E. Hyman Avenue (under permit) 520 Walnut Street - Greenwood (not active) 435 W. Main - L'Auberge (not active) Roger Moyer 303 E. Main (permit to be issued soon) 420 E. Main (not active) iii;11#%41: 2/.: AiliÂ¥!P,11$1: ISIS 4** 939 E. Cooper 426 E. Hyman- Curious George (under permit) Susan Dodington 616 W. Main (complete) 316 E. Hopkins - Howling Wolf (complete) 712 W. Francis (stalled) 918 E. Cooper (under permit) Melanie Roschko 918 E. Cooper (temporarily covered by Susan and Mary) ISIS 123 W. Francis (covered by Suzannah and Mark) 706 W. Main (not active) Suzannah Reid 320 Lake Ave. (active?) 303 E. Main (permit to be issued soon) 702 W. Main (approval expired) 315 E. Hyman Benjamin's (trellis not completed) Mark Onorofski 426 E. Hyman (under permit) 123 W. Francis (under permit) 517 E. Hopkins (project abandoned?) Mary Hirsch Meadows (permit to be issued soon) 918 E. Cooper (under permit) Gilbert Sanchez 420 E. Main Galena Plaza (not active) 820 E. Cooper (not active) Jeffrey Halferty 939 E. Cooper ONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: 939 E. Cooper (Langley), expires November 9, 1997 - Unit E 520 Walnut (Greenwood), expires March 22, 1998 834 W. Hallam (Poppie's), expires April 26,1998 123 W. Francis, Lot B (Vickery), expires May 24, 1998 Awards 1997 550 Gillespie - Beck House Amy Amidon thoughts: Elizabeth Paepcke award for Markalunas's (care of the Aspen grove Cemetery; Ramona's involvement in HPC and charter member of the historical society) MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: HPC awards DATE: April 9, 1997 Each year, during National Historic Preservation Week, HPC gives out awards for outstandingÂ· projects built within the last year. There are no set categories, but usually there is an award for restorations or renovations, and for infill construction in the historic districts or throughout town. Additionally, there is a "lifetime achievement" award for an architect who has made a significant contribution to Aspen, and an award for a person or group who have promoted preservation or local history in some manner. Please think of projects you are aware of which may be deserving an award so that we can discuss them during the meeting. The awards will be held on either the 13th or 15th of May at the Hotel Jerome. Ideas: 515 Gillespie (Beck house)- restoration 525 W. Hallam (Wyckoff)- renovation 616 W. Main (Aaronson)- barn renovation 939 E. Cooper (Langley) Jim and Ramona Markalunas Charlie Patterson EXHIBIT MEMORANDUM lili [7 TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 60 1 THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director.A , Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 611 W. Main Street- Partial Demolition DATE: April 9, 1997 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to demolish a shed. Although the proposal is to completely demolish the building, HPC has typically reviewed outbuildings under the partial demolition standards because demolition review is more restrictive than may be appropriate for secondary buildings. The property is the former Shaw house, is a designated landmark, and is located within the Main Street Historic District. APPLICANT: Dan Levinson, owner. LOCATION: 611 W. Main Street. PARTIAL DEMOLITION Section 26.72.020, Demolition, partial demolition, off-site relocation, on-site relocation, or temporary relocation. No partial demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, shall be permitted unless the partial demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the applicable standards of Section 26.72.020(C). For the purposes of this section, "partial demolition" shall mean the razing of a portion of any structure on an inventoried parcel or the total razing of any structure on an inventoried parcel which does not contribute to the historic significance of that parcel. 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. Response: The applicant proposes to demolish a shed at the rear of the site. The shed does not appear on the 1904 Sanborne Maps, so it was either moved from another site or constructed within this century. The property has had only two owners in its history, the Shaws and now the Levinsons, who have owned it for almost 20 years. In a letter attached from Dan Levinson, it is his belief that Harry Shaw built the shed from materials salvaged from other buildings. The shed was built in two phases and is collapsing on itself. HPC has generally been very interested in preserving Aspen's outbuildings, because carriage houses, barns, and outhouses once were an important part of most homes and because these buildings contribute to the character of Aspen's residential alleys. Often outbuildings are preserved through conversion to another use, such as a garage or living unit. The barn at 611 W. Main is particularly large and probably not suitable for reuse. Additionally, it restricts the amount of off-street parking which can be provided for the main house, which is currently used for doctor's offices. 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. 0 Response: The construction date of the shed is unknown, however it is not original to the property. B. Impacts on the architectural character or 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: No addition is proposed at this time. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the Development application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 0 â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) â€¢ Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDED MOTION: 9 move to approve the partial demolition application for 611 W. Main Street, to allow demolition of the existing shed. Historic Preservation Committee 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Members, In the late 1970's, my wife and I purchased 611 West Main Street from Harry Shaw, the grandson of Judge Shaw. Until then, the property had been held in the Shaw family since the late 1800's. I have had no communication with Harry since we purchased the property nearly twenty years ago. He explained to me, however, that he had put the shed, which is in the back yard, together himself, using leftÂ·over old construction materials and barnwood to provide some protection for his "collector" automobiles. The shed has nearly collapsed a number of times and I propped it up with some 2 x 4's in the interim. The structure is and has been dilapidated for many years with no formal framing or foundation. It also encroaches on the alley to the south of the property. The old survey (attached) shows the outline of a different structure, perhaps an out-house, which seems to confirm Harry's story that, in fact, he built the shed with old materials. The construction also seems to bear this out. We now request permission to remove the shed and hope that the information provided along with some field observations are sufficient. 1 1*spectfully submitted, l Dan B. Levinson 24 11 % /45*49. 1/ X 1 / .1 al 61 p' 6Â£-al 2 1 Me 3 /71 1 C 11 * A ~ Â£Â· " 3 %< N. 0. P Q. 11 % 7-f- S NAâ€¢ - Â·faa , V *4, Â¥ til:5. 11 - / /3 11 ~ H257 -311 IZ - .PL_* OZEL 71 -L j i 0 . a=--1 Â£-2-i: .'2Â· ' /:kÂ· / * 1-_lz:Zi 11 % 2---* 1 1 1 4 Al 634 632 â‚¬30 628 6& 58& 6%% 6%0 618 6/6 6/4 612 6/0 608 606 604 602 600 534 42 6 O ONÂ· f 6/8) 2 'k=x L =- = - I -== - == - -- - _ _ - ======= il J i L -9 - 0 1% 6,14>Av~,*4 )PY.$4'rt 1i 11 (Er 25) (624 - 635 25 53/ 629 :T- 623 6/5 6diW=Ell~*~IqV7 605 503 60/ 11 h~ 0 1 1 / g 1 9, :D 4 -.i ~-9 ~-7117 1 *L 3 *f '=. 5 -3 LE .iMP-1 4 & ~ Kit i.f 1 2424 . 4 4 1, ,% 1 PT - 1 1/1 . Ij -- G. , 2- 1 1.~ ~I~ 7~~ ~ P~-~ ]77~ 22 ~ , /â‚¬ i , H. 1. R. / M X 011 1! . 1 14// /1 - 124 .<Â£X i 1 8 / /1 / 0 -12!M- 1! L. 1 0. 2 4. R. L-1 ~ M 1 / E ~ N. S. TE O-77 4 II S i n/1 10 1/ *1/ 4 --' - - 4 - E S 1 B -2,1 , 1Â£ 0 1/ 12 A 3 75 E 14 w .LL 1.6 -- 15 634 632 630 628 6 2 9 m 620 6,8 615 (614 61%) .0.H. 606 6/0 604 604 50% 600 534 532 530 U === 1 ~ Scale of Feet. r A 30 .0 30 20 'r . 50 100 i50 1 Â£01 101 601 60/ 201 001 001 901 30; - 011 11} 6/1 911 2,1 11% 110 %[i ' 07 l \ W . F/\Â« i 0 5515Â°09'trb 135(10 , h , . -. . j / 6 to .--.-- -~i*-- E OPUN PORCH - \\\ 4 / -- - / , 1/ 4 , :45 "' 01 , 2/ 9 1 1.,Â· tol R L O-t- 1 4 L.O- 1 - , / / . /.,1 Â£ 1 1 6,1 ' 2 STORY FRAME MOUSE: 8 . _ 8_KIE_ ' 6 LOCIA 1.1 5 1 6, . I In ' 18 9 tn 0 + U N +01 a i 8 # 1 1 1 .1 . 4 5155' . . -.- r. . I 1 6- â‚¬ fi 1 1 1 -- -1 ! 1 ; ~5142' V-Â£AA/(2) U.2.Â£:3~ F ADD,Â·r,01.1 2 1 â€¢Â·1:â€¢~' 1 1 Â·, 35 - I 1 OR~CAE}4L 5/ED N Â· 11=h"64"' R 155.00 EXHIBIT MEMORANDUM E TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission . rk , THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Dire( FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer ' RE: 715 W Main- Minor DATE: April 9, 1997 SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to enclose an open staircase and existing roof deck. Additionally, approval is requested for a new standing seam metal roof. This building is not historic but lies within the Main Street Historic District. APPLICANT: Warren Ryan, represented by Sven Alstrom. LOCATION: 715 W. Main Street PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or development involving a historic landmark 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 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 applicant requests HPC approval to enclose an exterior staircase and the second floor deck which it accesses. To accomplish this, the existing gable will be extended towards the north and the wall will then be glazed. Please note that the far right fixed window as you face the building is set recessed back from the gable end. The building is not historic, and staff finds that the modifications do not affect the historic district. The new roof may be approved as long as it is a neutral or earth tone color, to be approved by staff and monitor. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The proposed changes have no effect 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 proposal does not directly affect a historic structure. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposal does not directly affect a historic structure. , 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 as proposed, with all new construction to match existing materials. The new metal roof may be approved in a neutral or earth tone color, to be approved by staff and monitor. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "1 move to approve the minor development application for 715 W. Main as proposed, with all new construction to match existing materials. The new metal roof may be approved in a neutral or earth tone color, to be approved by staff and monitor." 91:{ 7 -r ....i ATTACHMENT 1 < LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. project name -7/E' UP, mA /A//~~7AA EAk:,Ld>565'2 , 2. Project location -7/9 01 o M\Al 94' , SUK /9 La-7-5, b EF# 6/-rf gF A-SPEN Â· (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning 009=/CE 4. Lot size 9Â«ED JF ' 5. Applicanfs name address and phone number RÂ»Wa) F)+R71928 5 CPD. Nt )4041 7/5 lA), /h.4/ N 92'5 5589 % 20+ 6. $~te~~sye~tative's name, address, and phone numbeJVBAC '46 579*14 AL fiRMr TR C, )21 3 , eALENA Ol>/7-2 5 *91='EN , CD '61(01 / 925 /745~ 925 45-70 T:0?A 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual HPC Special Review Final S PA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD 1/'Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. HistoMc Landmark GMQS allotment - GMQS exemption - Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Ccndcminiumization Design Review Lot Split/Lot Line _ Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) OFF:Â£62 8Lt:0 ~cre,)< 504 g ne, luce:. 666 93#74~ 9. Description of development application 78 ENG 66.SE .EX/5077*13 EXEr J734 /FR. Ck)~ NOR/* S lt,E *:rÂ©9. SAFETY 12â‚¬MCAS PÂ¢kln N\MNTENA**ZE, 10. Have you completed and attached the following? V" Attachment 1 - Land use application form 1 Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form 0 -7 Response to Attachment 3 10'' Response to Attachment 4 lilli111 99 - - -i *11.)19 CATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant: sym:e FAACTNERS 67Â©. NO XXIL Address: -7/6 0), /M/N A.5 PER Co Zone district: . opple E Lot size: 9060 3â‚¬.1 +/ Existing FAR: 3/0 & -7-1 SQ.PT. Allowable FAR: $750. 00 561, P 7-, Proposed FAR: 94 30.1-7 St , FIT- Existing net leasable (commercial): Ne c,+081** TO NE'7- LEASABLE Proposed net leasable (commercial): N/,4 Existing % of site coverage: AtÂ© *2~11/8,8/Â¥2Arr Proposed % of site coverage: Art Re Â©/)1 Remarr Existing % of open space: en 42*E 4302*4\817 Proposed % of open space: NO RE QU/meÂ¥\ENT Existing maximum height Principal bldg: Â· Accesorv blda: Nâ‚¬) AE)6+~r - Proposed max. height: Principal bida: Accessorv blda: (01#1*& S Proposed % of demolition: N/A Existing number of bedrooms: N/A Proposed number of bedrooms: 'A Existing on-site parking spaces: Al D ~tÂ»leES 70 NEr LEAS ABLE On-site parking spaces required: OR. */SaN. PA-~UNFQ . Setbacks Existing: Minimum required: PGbosed: Front /0 FT; Front. /O Rear: 3%95.5 FT; Rear: /IE, Rear:- Combined Combined 29 - Combined 41.- Front/rear: 43. EFT, Front/rear: Front/rear: Side: 5#ST--5457- Side: ~ Side: Side: 7,527- 602S7- Side: Side: Combined Combined Combined Sidesj2. 6 S ides: /0 Sides: Existing nonconformities or encroachments: MNE Variations requested: Ne NE 0 (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.ft, 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 districts) .'. - L * -6.43Â»ZE.i ..Â»*c 2 ~ r-Emerr . 1 rl > 1 B -AJ 1 INSTALL OX 17 5/Nhee po Llet/!Ne rN S-DAIK 1 k. 1 1-1 -uzu -mo MIST, 5-KR ANC> STRINeasts REM*N / RmvINS tvrmâ€¢15)â€¢RE 1 02 A9,-r,MisÂ» Sâ„¢R /0 82â€¢N, Â· \\~ 0 M Z- ,~"ION Lr J Â¢{ 1 1, L.1/ Slolka 4 Col-,r'tra- -1 - - \- ex=-nNe ~A 111'A m>45TiN. m>(TEND r- 5 Â®<,5,1 Ne 01.1-OB Roor 10 2,/li S Z -r U.11-7 r- -raNÂ»IT Dect< 1 0 PNGLOSUES | 1 - 1 , 88\15952 1, 7 1 4 * Z 5-9.18 AND /6/ IST 000. ./ <Z 2 4 11. 11 U. A miE.-1'.. L ~ A--grL v v zm 34 98 rv' Fâ€¢445 k j NUN =*T- DA, 1 rA R 5UMMAFer *A ' NAâ€¢il-RE~â€¢â€¢D TIE ST-281 ADD.710*â€¢d- 5.a . <53 BEM'LACS 04/CON,0 MOR 51~1&/ Decs. . 6ANC>iNO ,â€¢â€¢MC) 15-VS . PNCL-O3UBC - 12# 144 FTÂ· ser #Ae- 0,4-721,10 R Fi.EVA-TION :L 7.4- AS me<b (70 Â© 3 W,RCH ALLOWABLE BEVG*INe 1 ,Lo. . i . 1â€žAÂ¢Â· #*-reFK;08. PL*\6â€¢mON .~ 439. 93 - ( 1:2066 003 FIRST FLOOR PLAN TMRTIAL- F6,4,N SIS. 23 ALLOp+456.2 BeN'Al Ne ROOF PLAN S#BiAL NS GORNER SC:1/4'=1'-0' MAIN 51-0 51DS NoFâ€¢miÂ· ,â€¢F"MER -Th'S SC:1/40-1 'Â«0' Ne CORNeR PF204 ECT ALSTROMGROUP INTERIOR DESIGN ARCHITECTURE & BENER:52 121 SOUTH GALENA DOOR SVVIN) SUITE B ASPEN, COLORADO 970/ 925 1745 TEL i ../1 / 970/ 925 4576 FX U GENERAL NOTES proleâ€¢t 715 WEST MAIN 1. Gen .. . , ..... -14 all 1997 IMPROVEMENTS / B,VAG ' ALSTROMGROUP P.C. m eiar= .D= =-Con- Â· Â· -- PHASE ONE 1 --- 9 EX.3-r 80-0 . ... 96 . ... AR(ZMITECTURE and INTERIOR DESIGN d.'. . 6 . I ./ . 121 SOUTHGAIBM/SUIEB 10 MAR 97 Ree/PH 2, ARâ€¢,0*â€¢hals=* 'lh appll=ble 19=10 1,4 ant adenal ed, and ~EN Â©OtÂ£Â»00 *'*" Â®0925 1745 / 970925 4570 FN[ *90$%* mls \1 2. REVIEW WITH OWNER WHiCH FEES HAVE BEEN PREPAID ./1 1 & 1 i ~ 0- Building>,mâ€¢,79, .4 -11'Mil. tabqr. f~N-: cl'~2 10 -CH 1997 - #,i,4-==,El,000 A & All ~- ' '- . -r .-... 710........ i Co-,dion~ AIA Docu~,t A2O1 1 1987 Edmon) shal ba part of thme -1. cal.-0.611 contract docum-8 - 17 Â»5 -17 1 Â· i j T L.< I. r. ir ' I 1"A--14 1 " Flwi<F 4â€¢10, . 8.0-A'r'"~'0!. 6.6,h;kiL j- *, f *W NINCON ~ â€žir , 0 .. 1 : ca.ug,0:adq....,k.0d...,#r. . .. .2 80.6 t.,cousâ€¢ f.~,leâ€¢â€¢al d,arg, ordes.,Th.con:rogincludes all -=L- 1 L r *r - k I 1.//Â£...'/0,//*.'I'/// 7 aff...Im:,3:,i:BLI. | 6 -*,sh~ 4,60.-1.11. A,chilia and di,Ier whol -- 1///ta"q'/al. /NEN a- '.: WI- d-led 1.bm-â€¢ 1, 1=Ung. C.-cior 6.1- ..011 .0-l-1 I ... ./ .. L / 1 -= -0....... P N 0....'-"llet Archti@,1 ' - il-4/d' 15:1 -D looo,4//e,/,0/I /5.1780.1 '. 9/ dass. ....imi=dilyan.Il*li ........4 1-101 . . . 9. For th. 0.,-'s recold; submÂ» copl. of p,mes, 110*. Â¥4- Id .0.- -, SECOND FLOOR PLAN' -,6 Mle#. J . : ..I . - maa---1,0,#11,- slallil.-l- . SC:1/4'=19 L . -' Conc-. Wood, 2.2 bod, and A,4.,dano, dâ€žJgn .. .' . ,, ARCHITECT gmele-r. 'SNIN1*Vd ODNVAN 3331Â¥ 1 . el. 01 1 . 0*r=ND -1+NS RY]Or- / ZZ:m'~~~ 70 COâ€¢JER. DECTâ€¢- I 90*dS BNCLOSUme =-jaa// 1 0 rimv r-=- 10 /999*en 11 PIXED 1,7,91 06 eL- Nal-- 5z ~ED.3, ...% / NEW (943 G..sm.1...C . :S *,41â„¢ Â·TC>6Â· ; i .& =X =Te imt,sr* Â»4[-1 #===1 1 EXIST~ EEFI - M 11 41 ,-4 . Z - .1 - 1--t -- I l. "-----1 4-- - 2 \ A Z= UJ -- ' 1 1. - - I . A EXTERIOR ELEVATION SC:1/4'-1'-0, ALSTROMGROUP ARCHITECTURE & INTERIOR DESIGN 121 SOUTH GALENA 1% 4 coNST ASPEN, COLORADO SUITE B 141/-1 pH-DENrr' INSD.L.L.- 970/ 925 1745 TEL 861 07", 80, Neyv 547Â° 970/ 925 4576 FX f NaN 0LAZIW DOCR -TD Arr O,-ce kâ€¢,Al-L. STDKAÂ®% RMI K. 02<TERIOR ~LL meTWEEN . 715 WEST MAIN 1148 AND Â®42% , protect Filimt Â»4.1.1, I ..' I 1997 IMPROVEMENTS /.i Bar'/84-7 AND PHASE ONE i I .3/ tbian#dap& i d... N$?toop : ... *9,imr=â€¢In, a,9,8 f 10 MAR 97 6 , - : ir ..1,15 -ti: F '- 4 4 Rml& 1-1 119240) 1% 1=Move m<IST- =OR. 80194 1Ft PRYNÂ« 6- > \k_ / M.m U , PArmTON KNS / aâ€¢UNT- CA, SIDE h - Â·Â· , Â»8 N 0.. /_r-" 17 MAR -17 =4 1. HAL =tâ€¢3~6- \ - ~9ts - 9##drne'.5, , 8-TOR,ve- /,3-0 sc \_m MOOM 1 - Haw .2./2tul=,=k mci"'1G==:~7 W 1/3 2'*ST . . 0,<157!ha r m#.4,46*580 70 â€¢te,6â€¢â€¢IN DrrE},O 8,19,11* WED r\EN. meTWO wkrat Ung -10 +401- WA,ER IE.â€¢11&.K NORTHEAST CORNER or Di#S=MENT 1,5451, MecHANICAL AND SECTION THRU ST-AIF~ E:Na,OSUBm 5TO8Aee BOOM FL.AN A SC:1/4'-1 '-0" 1/41 .11-00 NORTH HEIN.UIVd 11 N3213Â¥M 00 'N3dSV '13331S NIVW 193M G l 9) - MEMORANDUM F ==-- TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Developmei Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Din FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer V ' RE: 132 W Main- Minor DATE: April 9,1997 SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to make window and door alterations to the former Asia restaurant building, which is a designated landmark and which is located in the Main Street Historic District. The remodel will eliminate the restaurant and make the main floor entirely office space. APPLICANT: Tom McCIoskey, represented by Ron Robertson. LOCATION: 132 W. Main Street PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or development involving a historic landmark 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 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 applicant requests HPC approval to change a door to a window on the west facade and to add six new windows on the north facade of the building. Staff has no concerns with these modifications since the door on the west was a window up until about two years ago, and the north area of the building where the windows are to be added is not historic construction. The replacement window on the west should match the existing double hung windows. This building is actually two historic houses which were joined together in 1980. The houses have undergone many modifications and joining them has seriously affected their architectural integrity and identity as separate homes. The applicant proposes to eliminate the entrance into the east house (the Freeman House), presumably to limit confusion when entering the new office. Staff is not in support of this change because it further destroys the character of the Freeman house, and further eliminates the suggestion that two houses have been joined together. Photographs of the Freeman house, as it appeared before being attached to the adjacent building, show the extent of the changes that have been made to it. The house used to be approximately 1 1/2 feet higher than it is now. More importantly though, the front porch appears to have been extended to be 12 feet, instead of about 5 feet deep, and has been glassed in. The original south wall of the house is now an interior wall and the original 6ntry no longer exists. The porch posts which exist now may have been salvaged from the original porch, but do not have the original spacing. Turned balusters on the porch rails have replaced the original flat balusters. While the existing entry therefore does not reflect Â· the original entry accurately, staff is strongly opposed to eliminating it and allowing any further decimation of the house. In fact, staff would be in strong support of any effort that the applicant could make to restore the character of the front porch, although this clearly may not be desirable to them because of lost square footage. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The proposed changes on the west and north facades will not impact the character of the neighborhood. Staff recommends against eliminating the front entry on the east house. 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 to eliminate the front entry into the east house does detract from its historic significance by further eliminating its identity as a separate house. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. 0 0 Response: The architectural integrity of the two houses which were combined into this one structure has been seriously diminished. Staff recommends that no further alterations to that affect occur. 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 in terms of the proposed modifications to the west and north facades but not approve the elimination of the front door on the south facade. If necessary, the applicant may create a sign directing people alway from 0 this entrance (a sign permit will be required.) Furthermore, staff recommends that the applicant consider restoration of the entry area on the east house if feasible at some time in the future. RECOMMENDED MOTION: 9 move to approve the minor development application for 132 W. Main Street in terms of the proposed modifications to the west and north facades, but to not approve the elimination of the front door on the south facade: 0 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPUCATION FORM 1. Project name /00 0Â£03;e,7 0>*0*Â£:IN: ,4.61+LO,Ods.L 2. Project location |15'2. *e-47 /Nrt N $ T., AIPâ‚¬14 , cO. BLOCK. 58 ; LOT, A, L, /vt, N f wâ‚¬er 94 of O. (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning O - OFFICâ‚¬ 4. Lot size /8,+98 18.07: 5. Applicanfs name, address and phone number 070>01 /00 -730 6. OOP*NT , POITE Gel , A-=rper, ,CO 8/6If 920.2//2 . 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number B. c.f964F772534' ,42$517607' /,e 4/1 AA#r,N Tr.1 STUC>to'A* cy#leON#rle, 00Â·8/6,3 963 0967 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD X Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision TexUMap Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review Lot Split/Lot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing strtictures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the properbi) 6~de m el,1- : 2.801. AfT. I OFFICE i *Â·f w. ~m#Lers i *Ge#,lf rto,#ae.Â· Â»Alk Ftook 1 OF-I Gler*L Agth*AL#47 UPPep- PLOÂ©lk: 9- BlÂ»- AFL 9. Description of development application 88/S MeN T: ADD l OppfCâ‚¬ ; EXG#Clfâ‚¬ 8*f. 1 1. t-Â©c,42#*PRevia 340*f. ~0,/19 FLOOR: REMODâ‚¬i To OPPICâ‚¬ CAo 978Â·OCWFAL 014 NG*! h uppepÂ· FLO~21: NO CAANG*f 3 FAcADâ‚¬ CHANSâ‚¬-5 10. Have you completed and attached the following? / rouTH Faove RopcmÂ¢Dz, K Attachment 1- Land use application form - ADD GLASS MID 86/L 1-0 /AA.!41 G><15.,ta.~ x Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form 9. W â‚¬,f T : PGAACE â‚¬*1 54<& Lbak _M Response to Attachment 3 PrrH NER P /1,DOW -1-0 x Response to Attachment 4 MATCH GÂ«979 W. w/NOOW . 3 ./ OPÂ«0 1 6 Bew N i NDOW-1. . ..../- c-. . .14 ' 0 lillllll ..4 ATTACHMENT2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant -rOAA AW 0101/4-â‚¬1 - PpeÂ·/Derr - 00*#r eNG##AL AEOCIAref Address: 132 *G<rr /v~,4 iN rT A IPâ‚¬ip , ce. Zone district: O - OFf{ CE Lot size: /5,498 30% Fr. Existing FAR: 71536.7,1 re PT. Allowable FAR: 45 : 1 -lo) 12'52*.rT. Proposed FAR: 8,0 0**MGâ‚¬ ;0 072 70 7-7. Â©KIST PpoMAL/,60Â¥=(CE aus. l993 4 Existing net leasable (commercial): 70-7-5 + Proposed net leasable (commercial): No CH*f'Ge Existing % of site coverage: 308 7 Proposed % of site coverage: No 0/*rN-G>â‚¬ Existing % of open space: NO & PeltsÂ¢*76 FG*ANT Proposed % of open space: NO C#*A*GE Existing maximum height: Principal bida: 2.54149'r Accesorv blda: Proposed max. height: Principal bldg: 0'0 4'elm:Af.Accessory blda: Proposed % of demolition: /VONâ‚¬ Existing number of bedrooms: 4 Proposed number of bedrooms: 8 0 CAA#GÂ·â‚¬ Existing on-site parking spaces: /4 On-site parking spaces required: No C",Ge. Setbacks No c#-A B (P-E- Existing: Minimum required Proposed: Front: 10! Front: Front: Rear: /9/ Rear: Rear: Combined , Combined - Combined Front/rear: 25' Front/rear: Fronurear: Side: F' Side: Side: Side: Side: Side: Combined Combined Combined S ides: Sides: Sides: Existing nonconformities or encroachments: NA Variations requested: NA (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.ft, 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 districts) .-;ewi .. . . '.-7 I. McCLOSKEY Â£11'41Â£.arIUOID, INC Thomas D. McCloakey, Jr. President April 1, 1997 Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Re: 132 Main Street Office Remodel Ladies and Gentlemen, I am authorizing Ron Robertson, ofR.C. Robertson Architects, Inc., to be my representative for the 132 West Main Street Office Remodel and to act on my behalfthroughout the HPC approval process. Ron's address and phone number is listed below. R.C. Robertson Architects, Inc. 417 Main Street Studio A Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 963-0567 If you have any questions regarding this matter please let me know. SincS@lff 1,0"1Â» Mail: Communications: Courier. RO. Box 7846 Telephone: (970) 920-2112 730 E. Durant. Suite 207 . ATTACHMENT 4 SPECIFIC SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW All applications for minor development review must include the following information: 1. If determined appropriate by the Community Development Director, a site plan or survey showing property boundaries and predominant existing site characteristics. 2. An accurate representation of all major building materials, such as samples and photographs, to be used for the proposed development. 26 â‚¬ ATTheato Pt+OTC r OF e'-tpre BLDG 3. A scale drawing of the proposed development in relation to any existing â‚¬ISUS:hZe. SeE A-rrpeÂ·cfft A I ; A Â·19 A-4 4. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application, including a statement of the effect of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structure (if applicable) and character of the neighborhood. 0 4. The remodel of the at 132 West Ma:6 Street will be primarily an internal reorganizaticrt.. The shape and the footprint of the buildings will not. be changed. Three areas of the. remodel will affect the exterior facade. a. The existing entry porch and Door at the East side of the South elevation (1-A-4) will be removed. replaced by a window and rail to match the other 3 bays Of the East side of the South elevation. b. The existing door near the ramp on the West elevation (2-A-4) will return to its original double hung window to match the other double hung windows on the West. c. The North (alley) elevation will have 6 new windows. These windows will bring much needed natural light to the offices inside, while screening out the parking lot below. These changes will bring the building closer in harmony with its Victorian roots. 0 e,39' 11 \ \7 It=.M, -1~, ''.4. V. L'~ ,4-,Â·94- t ~"lf#' C# 0 - 4*<N My-~ */ $ Flouu, *4~4 68)7% 1,4 â€¢1304 L. -- - *ff \3&1 ..!15â‚¬.6 417 MAH, STA# L 0Â¥UB . i '4/'~66!J, R. C. ROBERTSON Â· A ~, CARBON@!ALE, - . 81623 , 0% #N>Qr 970 Â· 963 Â· 0* VICI W IT Y MAP <4 ~9914 4 970 Â· 963 Â· 8936 F 46> 30 1 NA.I.A. A C (to SM&9 6'431 Â¢~ P..4*10. 4 I. 321: ti q 42\ 7 , r Nighthaw* 0, ~ 00.44* - * I . 0. D = D 4%44/ 1 Moll=96â€¢ \0'461 9 46* 4, 1 16 u 1 70%.blc, 44!794 V 4 '1 f Bidge 47 + 4 4/- k.1, O 9 / 07 - 0/0# N J N 04 â‚¬ * salt Hunter 0 1 .a 294 4Â£ / JAW .4/4/2 '=-Ph S/< 11:,1 ,-i L Wood Duck to "4 ~ >/7 , . c..Not elistrefts c, Icaes I 1 1 f n Â·Â·Â· \ 2.0/ câ‚¬*. -- 1Â¥1 W. MAIN . /are Shown on,gaps or â€ž2 ', 00!f Course ,.7 *3, j&1 -4 44-T.*, I 4, ,/, guies. Construction ot 7 streels and roads niay.n 'l '' A-;Lir,â€¢Â·c,4.42 1/ 4,~ 4/Ine Sf ~~* ~~ progress in cenam arna# 2#t 4 ~24.~, 2,1 . 2*, '41*4) *:4%#t* 8.RIZQG 0 0 1 . 9 '('76'oonEreek-Ry-----I ..2 - ~ Pa% 12;25*<: 3*-1~ qt lf.,ie/Â·- .-2-1 8 18 ./1 - 4 2 %, b ?*4 'C/74184 % 4 1 1.1 If 4.. F. , - / Mi 18 t i~ FA' 44\ ~' } l//1 %12:...~ff ' .Pk * : 08Â¥44 ': 1/614/,e, ~ < .C-11-1-2 I Matchiess Dr..... f.#JAv ' I 4 4 4 1 fo~4 4'-'4' li ed 1 Maynower a........ .....H.17 : 4 11* 1 1 1 --. 1 - - 4_99-- 4/hoo Part,row f#~j#~ ~ ~-4~~ 1 < â€¢ f' i.nu . L.ike MÂ¢Skimming Rd..........11Â·1Â·7 , ~ Mendowm. %,1~4 i.~. Â¢ Dootinte cir, Dy... M.dows Rd Â·Â»40-7. , EMall 4.- Midland Av. 1 1 Rts 44 ' 12*81 2- 672 1 D.Int A....... .....,.. ....114-6 Â»21 65 2 301 lie., tl:Ell pr*"laine 0/ Mesa ~ ... ......11 Monarch St............ Prancil St .0-3.6 Mount#in View Dr. Al" Ar 06 Med L.., ..,.16-7 Mm Leurel Ct. Dr. ...IÂ·J-8 Summit St . 1 (155 - , 1/19. or 1/ biI- 22 Abee tn ..... 11.7 Free Silver Ct 0-6-7 Mtn Ooks M............ .~..H-2 %i Alta Vi.ta Dr..... F.2.3 O:len, St..... â€ž~. ... ~,}1Â·5 N*Av.......... ............H-6 Ardny- Cl. Df. ... ItÂ·7 Oam,!:ch St............. . O.H.4.3 Nicholl, 1.n......â€ž...1(47 ' 0~ w10; St 4 1.4 AVIn .St ... . r;.11.5 Olbson Av...... ...0.11.3-6 Nighthawk Dr..... ~~ ~....5-3 ( 41 -LY I 47'rj'*04 A'Rn Al, M....... W.7 â€ž.....1.5 North St...~......~ ....... .F-3-4 Rlier Dr. , 44< Se.LIWSm- r 8.1/8 P.k CL .., ..GÂ·) 3%N si.' ...........F.4 Oak In. .. ...0.6 River,ide Av......... . ...H.6 t' Â· 41.-"liu-I Bay St..........................._ G.5 Grove St...... . ........H-2 Ott:Inat St................, ......1-1.6 Rivenide Or.. . I.tipI.3 00 0 ~Â·514*64, Am*'~~7~-=4/ 1 ~ Bennett Bench Cl. Pl. Rd.~ ..EÂ·4Â·5 Hiltlm St.. ..,,0.3.3 Overlook Df... ... ....E-3 RÂ¢=ing 14/k Dr. Black Binh Dr ... ...EÂ·FÂ·2.3 Heather Ln/....... ...0-H-2 Park Av, Cir.... ....H.6 Roaring Fork Rd. 2'2~291 CEWN :zz Kylow....+ .+3+.443 RNAn _ IM 52â€ž%,1 .1 ..i,Ei SouthAv.......,..04 3 42.62 0 2~ 9 4 D . 4. Wl 9 ld- Bluebonnet Ti... ...............H-2 Homestalfe Dr. .El Pitkin Wy. .....EÂ·F-4 $4' et +.+ +.+ . ...F.Â·2 Sp,ing St. ..0Â·HÂ·34 i 1 w,sls,Ni~]~l- Acce- R---:->00- Brown Ln...... .................O-6 Hopkin,/Aâ€¢..... ..G-HÂ·36 Pitkin Mell Dr. ....DÂ·E.2 S.lvati,N, 0, . .112 9[Muce St. o f. BullyÂ· L........~.... . .FÂ·2Â·3 HunteÂ©St...4 . ... r Placer t......~.....â€ž Saw M+11 1-1 (; 1 .Summit SI .Ill .......H-3 Ollie Creek Dl .... F..3 Huntd Crrel ltd . . .1: 1,6 Powe, Plant Rd. , .C; 4 setan. st ... .'ill.7 Team. 0; ef 1,9 94 -Ce-=: f Cnitte Creek Rd. ... GÂ·HÂ·4+5 Prinumite Patt~. ...HZ Shadr-i~â€¢1 Di 1Â·)Â·7+X Ti,hy 1...... .....11. m Centenni'ICir... ....... HÂ·43 +G+3 Shady Ln........ . ., 1-NG., rrus~, Ptl.~...... E.F. 1-2 2%11:12 s' Chatneld ltd.... -Â·Â·Â·H-6 + 1:Â· 1 SIM Ct........~~ .. G 6 1\â€¢in Ridge Dr. ....+11-1 V i CiNUM AV.Â·+Â· ...1.7 . Lac' Ct. 1.n.. 4 HIÂ·67 Queen St.... 116 Silver Kilig Dr. . E.2 1 Jie Av. M.... Clevetand St .~~ ..~ H.6 / Lake A. ..+F+GI Ract St.........._ sWImmIng 1.n .~ ..... H-7 Vine St. . {; 6 C.x,Mr AA .11,4.5 1-ark,pur Lii ....11.2 Red Bulle Dr... ..... ..D-E.2.3 Simiggler St.. I 1-G 3.5 Whlnut St~. Gb Â» 1&.6 C.ton' .,1 C.+ ./.# LsurÂ¢' Ln ....H-2 Red Mountain Rd. D.O 5.6 Smuggler Grove 11,1 + ~ . It 6.7 Wolen Av . 1-6 D C0!lortâ€¢iâ€¢,3 La . 'C,. 1+06 Lone Pine Mil 6.3.6 . RedÂ·:Rd... D. F.1.6 Sm,#ter Mmi,in Ed E-lt 6-lt Wes: F.! St. +11-1 6 Cry,lal Lake Rd... .........7 1.upine Dr .... . 01,8 Regent St...... . It (,-7 Snark 91. .11., WeldÂ¥,CUÂ· 1>r... ....1-7.0 rUle St.~~ . .. H.6 MqnilkÂ·â€ž Rd ..... E-4 Ridec M. Rd... ... .... E.5 Sneak, l.n..., ...... 1:.6-1 willoughby Wy .EÂ·FÂ·3Â·5 Dealt St. .+0...4 ....11.3 Main St 0.11.3.5 Rio Grande Pl .... +.0.11.3.6 9. 11"nny n. + .H.3 Wright Rd .155 5 A ~ a a a a , a a . /4:~-1 + - i A . 11= - 'I. 666& ..4, 66666& .-. 1,01~42. Â·Â· 6666666 ..... I r I f-/_2- .- 0 666666.. :Im, I. 6 - 0 + * R an= 2. 1 .m 11 Twill d#W 1 ---I- I. 1~42 k ..1- ---71~U.,1 .... 1 4- ... . I I 9*1/. L. 1.44..../ 1 k 11 t,9 30 -r- t, .a ,-2,Â»/913. 91 1 . J .4 gg - L, . --1-- 1. 4 5 -.0~ , -- - I. . I.*.I .+,1 1 l. b.Â· 1,*41Â»4.21*52$5~-:di~*fi~IM -, 1(4%12*Â« 1.:-,9.1 3234 7. â‚¬*0 t.-~.113-, k i. --%Â·:Â·-Â·Â·Â·g* U. - 4* 0gat) - If. 2,713Â·11. v tic'Â· . 4â‚¬ ...9954+1 - - r FÂ·' 1/8'iÂ· ~ 1-6 - -. . 2.0 *... a . 4 .ser . ....40,2 . I , E --9-6 -C ri. i Â· - .-0- I Â¥ 4 . 1 I -.--Il- .... 1,1,111 '1 0 - r - L ---at - 1 ....1 ... f -I 0*2 0 96:t % 9 ' 32 -tkyÂ· i----" mmli; 15&1#ilif H , /1 11111Â·14& VI"qt 1-1 itt .. i.<t e . . -. 4,1,411; '1161 . A . : 14 I =16 . 25 - Â£-----*--- =--48*%54 . 3 A ./. 335:- .r . . -..1&; /4/ . Â· 6 ~t, . . L. . -*. L I - ..h- , T - I 01 -179/- ,/20 - 60.I i,-92, 6/1 3 0, A.--549 4-L Â«*A; 14 5-T AfFEN R. C. ROBERTSON Â· ARCHITECTS INC, 417 MAIN STREET, STUDIO :A' CARBONDALE, CO. 81623 970Â·963Â·0567 970 Â· 963 Â· 8936 FAX m A.I.A. tor 3 . R. C. ROBERTSON â€¢ ARCHITECTS - 417 MAIN STREET, STUDIO 'A' CARBONDALE, CO. 81623 970Â·963Â·0567 970 Â· 963 Â· 8936 FAX a A.LA. . 4-.Arl Â· - + - L . 4 .L 'A , ./.,h . .L 43*1 . .. 1r 5/ - .21.3:.8#A&0 - - I I y . .'A .... U - - - , ~t, I e Al. . 4 Â£31 I ~ 62 - -, p. I < Â·dÂ· * . Â· Â·'Â·*Aa. 7-2- ..1.1-1-*r J'.r + '1-*f#'1 693 A.,64. aul â€¢. E- ' t*Â·.2*4Â£2:..4%* ~ t31 W /0'Ally rr Apperâ€¢.(3~ . 1, - 3. Pdr. 3 R. C. ROBERTSON â€¢ ARCHITECTS INC. 417 MAIN STREET, STUDIO 'A' CARBONDALE, CO. 81623 970Â·963Â·0567 970 Â· 983 Â· 8936 FAX I A.I.A. --- t j â€¢U . I - . I ... -4.44:h 1.- al... * Â«r44Â« ~. F ~ J - 1 4141 : -* j â€ž-23.:. oeety{40 .. 1 Ell.. 5- 4 al/'., 6 + t . . P K. l :-3.: 1. C. rÂ· "11 , 2"Â· ! 14 a.= I .â€ž 111;11 .. 3 'jill C - 7 1 1. + - - ic, , 4. I. - . t. ' + 4 > - I ./ ..//if2/â€¢ r. r. -52 . 1, , -r - 129,1. .-je . 3: MCCWLEâ‚¬1 mfcâ‚¬ A,ke \11.'#6076# PE 7*kr en ca. . 9 4..i~ta.- ./.t,"-'.7, -*.1,-:I'. 3â€¢P3 * IN 1,14. rv V + r re* \.1 r 4 - EXHIBIT d -LJL---- ./ f t. 1.2~ 2-1-1. 1. ..1 ' 4 , ' - t . )1* '11 1 1 /4./.- 1-- \Ilp... 2 1 -I--[ 1,-Itqptilll APR 9 1997 R. C. ROBERTSON Â· ARCHITECTS INC. Li----1... 1 417 MAIN STREET, STUDIO 'A' . CARBONDALE, CO. 81623 970 Â· 963 Â· 0567 970 Â· 963 Â· 8936 FAX m A.I.A. 1 + - 1 PININA 1 1 .. 0 1 1 1 . - 1 1 .4-Lo, ,- i i........ i......./.==m-*E ~d L1 91 M- . . N t=It -- -- -~- 7- i 1 1 - A â‚¬ 1 100126'H PIN I KI,5, --Â© 1 - R i i t r_ _IR+-*7 - -~_IE 11[= _ElL -0- . - FIE -- -m--------AL I / 1 .4. P L A 14 0 1 P.. c, 1 9 90 .- 4- UF A 51,8, P.BNOPE CHAN-ES CUNNIC'f -AND Aff,Xe'APONTE 1~31= ArpÂ©/N C .Â·- kldf I : 4/Un. . I.2952Â·13. M ~ Â· . 7 .1 P/Le/ + Â·. 91 - #L E Â» 8 C. / S TeRAGE --lire. I /27 j F r t' f TM - L/3.J ) t \U91 1 f , Ca 9 /28 44 - 1 phi -F+ f i 1*9.*41 i U 0 1 :r I 1 t F.Â» 1 â‚¬ =0=li=e= 44~>- -.- 1-op? - 1 . /95 i 11 /, /96 1 -. 1 - L .- Sre 1 ' . C -,- 7--:-'*.=-4. 1, A/8- i ' -* 41 . .i p 23 . l -- - R 4 9. =Â»- r --4 0,4 ~ i f \ 1 O F A C E /29 I L 4~1 Rec,or/V t ec 1 1 1 30 Â· - * ./4/ f K 019 .1-- Â¢ rv 1! 97 0 r -1 . _14 +4- - 4-0 U ' 9.6 - 1 â‚¬. 1 ~28Â£00472 ENST# AGOA - 640 WINDOW A . 6*11618 AD,acH _ 4 - To RWAN APR 9 1997 p L A N cl ,Â©A 1997 R. C. ROBERTSON â€¢ ARCHITECTS INC. 417 MAIN STREET; STUDIO 'A' AU el.D.f,Cel OrplcE CARBONDALE, CO. 81623 p--62 k O D 6- L 1 31*AAAIN rT. 970Â·963Â·0567 970 Â· 963 Â· 8936 FAX A-r p GR) C'D I mA.I.A. d & A-,0, r & 1 7. N ' \eqsne , \N-.Jr SID IN G Â¥ TP-#AA TO OE B,PAINTâ‚¬O APR 9 1997 .:' 'b. Â· +3. 1.4 - R. C. ROBERTSON Â· ARCHITECTS INC, /9 A. X 417 MAIN STREET, STUDIO 'A' - -- CARBONDALE, CO. 81623 - 970Â·983Â·05@7 6 /, c ,- 4. l- 0 4/2 /,7 -,i 4\ Lt.A 970 Â· 963 Â· 8936 FAX . /5 1 I /' ' .Â·l '\_ ) (f m A.I.A. , \ \-7 /19 1 -." 1 . / 1 1 1 1 1 4<./7/ 4 . 9 V... li .. L UA - . ' -3-7 r-r 1- . ' Â· 1 -,4,/ /, 1. taL j ,) 1.. 4| UL 1 -Â· OfiÂ· UL, L A L.LU 1 yow . , I.A.Uk --~-9-4-Ttr---- --- 60 6. 1'141'I ij.!+I*'21 / 'PI, 1 2-1 11: 1 4 1,Â·/ - :111!it + -4 1 .: 1 : 1 IT*-fr -0'- 1.f Â· ! .1 - . [14,+I r-!-- ill '11' --- - r.11 '' i 1 1 Â· 1 11 ~ 1-1 L 1 1 --.1 Q 1-- I i [ . 1 --. l - 11 1 - #-7- 1 3 fift U 'b. ,/1 , \ 114 4. 1 i i - Â£4 1 4 +1 4 â‚¬ -- 11 1 . , 3.4 .gr 1% r:. 5,-,93. . iLl_L_ L 0. 1 ! _ 1~ ,..4~ i G .-+6- 1 1 '>29 \ ex/.STe #MAAD 5. 3 h %&>AL 3 \4 a=02.0, To 'AG-1,4 ..1,0 It. 0'25 Ate "1 4-'4/8/T ~ BY -1 -I- - A- - 1 Ed I CAl & al . 6!2 0 s c mc I lii 111 0 11 1.-.1 IN In, LLI CO - L 'ELLI u=, Unii -J Cl -5 2 0 4 4 -0 1~1--~1~~' I'/ fIU- LU E LU - LU 6 ...1.1 . ....1-lili-i---=-*I--- I...- L LU Â· _ ntÂ©094,2 9 0 O 2 2.65.09 <Â£ CO -1.95 lill-:9....Iii...ilis.:11!1'illill'I~--- 0 - "*IMEN:illi........ 11 Lâ€¢*ID 1 ./1 1 -1 """"""""""""""""lllllllllllll fi,1,7 ilmli #IllIlliz illlmIIIIFIIE Allilig~~I*------------------------------11 11. il 1.... .//../..../ ./.. 1..... - . 11. 6*..1 jjEIilli~11:,1,~EIZ'~:-~"1- 1.- -IiBEENE./.4~ll'.~;- .-'VI~imil= ~11.1" 1/11 1/1,1/11 1.-Â» -Ill - m,111 11'.111 --~1 dilliillivil al. 11 1 1. 1.1, . 1~.- '11 mill i -In.- 1 i 241 .1 ..... 1 10 ...111= 1 L -~MI O1 1 --; 1 1. 1~.p I. . . L U g @.11 k L.1. r \ 1 1lll 1- MEMORANDUM ILE TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission TIIRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director 4,2~ Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director Ath 11 FROM: Mitch Haas, City Planner A|~ Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation 61 RE: 218 N. Monarch Street, Final Review for on-site relocation, partial demolition, and an addition to a Designated Landmark (also known as the "Half House") DATE: April 9, 1997 SUMMARY: The applicant requests final approval to relocate a designated landmark structure on-site, to demolish a portion of the existing building, and to make an addition to the existing building at 218 N. Monarch Street. A floor area bonus and a waiver of a Residential Design standard are also requested. The HPC granted conceptual approval to the proposed addition to, and relocation and renovation of the Half House on March 12, 1997 with conditions. Staff finds that the applicant has adequately addressed the concerns in the revised proposal and recommends final approval with conditions. APPLICANT: Barbara and Donald Zucker, represented by Katalin Domoszlay. LOCATION: 218 N. Monarch Street, the noitherly 38 feet of Lots A, B, and C, Block 78, City and Townsite of Aspen, together with all that portion of vacated Hallam Street lying northerly of said lots, easterly of the east line of N. Monarch and southwesterly of line 4-5 of the City and Townsite of Aspen. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development involving an historic landmark must be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of Section 26.72.010 and Common Procedures, Chapter 26.52. The specific sections of the Municipal Code that are relevant to this review include Section 26.72.010(D), Review Standards for All Development Involving Historic Landmarks; 26.72.020(C), Standards for Review of Partial Demolition; 26.72.020(IE), Standards for Review of On-Site Relocation; Section 26.104.030, Nonconforming Structures; Section 26.58.040, Residential Design Standards; and, Section 26.28.040, Medium-Density Residential (R- 6). With regard to Sections 26.58.040 and 26.28.040, this memo will include discussions on only those requirements that staffhas determined will not be met with the proposed plans. 1 SECTION 26.72.010(D), REVIEW STANDARDS FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT INVOLVING HISTORIC LANDMARKS: This request must meet the four (4) standards stipulated in Section 26.72.010(D) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval; an analysis ofthe proposal with regard to these four standards follows. 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 five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, 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 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: Staff believes that the proposed addition is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale, and layout with the existing, designated historic structure located on the parcel, as well as with development on adjacent parcels (See Exhibit A - Applicant's submittal). There are, however, two remaining areas of concern to staff. Specifically, the final development proposal calls for the addition to have a standing seam metal roof with clerestory windows, and for relocation of two original windows on the south elevation. As this development review standard addresses a multitude of concerns, the staff response to it is broken into sub-categories, with italicized headings indicating the content of the subsequent analyses. Roqfmaterials. The existing structure has a cedar shingled roof which will be replaced in kind, and the proposal calls for a standing seam metal roof on the addition. While standing seam metal roofing would provide a clear distinction between the new and original portions of the structure, staff is not sure that this would be the best or most appropriate way of addressing this concern. That is, the goal is to be compatible without competing, to coexist without conflicting, and to emulate without mimicking. Staff feels that the architecture and detailing of the addition is strong enough to provide the desired distinctions and that materials for the new construction must allow the addition to recede in terms of the overall project. Staff feels that it would be more appropriate and more desirable to use either matching wood shingles or high-profile, shadowline asphalt shingles of a matching color on the addition. This case is made stronger by the evolution of the design through the conceptual review process into a very contemporary addition with asymmetrical roof forms and clerestory windows. Staff feels that the combined result of the standing seam metal roof and the clerestory windows is an incompatible design that competes with the historic structure by calling undue attention to the addition. 2 Window Relocation. The other remaining area of concern to staff, with regard to the final proposal, is the fact that the application calls for the relocation of two historically significant windows on the south elevation. Although these windows are not prominently located (i.e., in an area that would not be readily visible from the public realm), staff is concerned that the relocation would leave "scars" in the areas from which they would be moved and would be an unnecessary alteration to the building. The applicant would like to relocate the windows because the proposed floor plans conflict with the existing location of the windows by calling for new walls that would either cover up or cross through the windows from the inside. Again, staff feels it would be appropriate for the HPC to review the merits of the proposed window relocations. Design, Massing Volume and Scale. When viewing the street-facing, or west elevation, of the proposed addition it is apparent that the design, massing, volume and scale have been coordinated in an attempt to be sensitive and subordinate to as well as compatible with the existing historic structure. For instance, the roof pitches of the landmark structure will be replicated on all portions of the proposed addition, but will be lower in height, and thus subordinate to, those of the existing building. The window forms of the addition have been selected to be compatible with, but not confused with, those of the historic structure. While there will be no question as to which parts are new versus which are old, the two will visually coexist without conflict. Site Planning The proposed site planning, or layout, of the addition is also sensitive to character of the existing landmark. Part of the addition is proposed for the rear portion of the historic structure in order to maintain the landmark's integrity along the streetscape. This siting allows for the vast majority of the existing exterior walls ofthe structure to remain intact while only a small portion of those walls that are currently visible from the public realm would be demolished as part of the addition. The location of the additional living space and the garage creates a courtyard area which physically and visually separates the new construction from the original house. Staff finds that the proposed location of the garage compliments the existing structure and is consistent with other outbuildings in the West End. From a streetscape perspective (i.e., looking north down Monarch Street from its intersection with Bleeker Street), the garage would appear as another building that maintains the West End neighborhood rhythm of building to open area established by the existing structures and their associated side yard setbacks. Because of the various site restrictions, such as the grade falling away at the back of the site, the required setbacks, the lack of alley access, and the existence of a water line easement along the north side of the property, coupled with the desire and need to maintain the integrity of the historic structure and streetscape, the proposed location is the only sensible place for the garage and addition. Changes Since Conceptual ApprovaL Since the February 26th meeting, the applicant has deleted the ADU altogether and has moved the garage three (3) feet further back from the street, thereby eliminating the need for a front yard setback variance. The garage door is to be covered in clapboards. The deck at the rear of the house has been reduced in size to eliminate the need for a 3 setback variance, and a recess in the rear wall plane has been added to create usable deck space without the need for a variance, and to break up the mass. Finally, the front porch on the existing ~ house will be preserved in its existing condition, as an open porch. Other issues brought to light through public comment focused on the relocation of the historic house and the ability to expand upon it. Planning Department records and the fact that the house is on a concrete block foundation indicate that the house was moved on this site; however, Sanbome Maps and testimony from the public suggest that it is original to the site. At conceptual, it was proposed that the house be moved ten (10) feet to the south; since then, a compromise with the Water Department regarding the sewer line easement has been reached, and the current proposal calls for moving the house just three and one-half (3.5) feet to the south. The house may be expanded to the maximum FAR allowed for the site through the Land Use Code provisions for non-conforming structures (see page 7 ofthis memo). The house is a nonconforming structure because it is a duplex without the minimum required lot area for a duplex. Placing an addition on the structure would not increase its nonconformity, for it would still be a duplex, albeit a larger duplex. The applicant has provided a detailed explanation of how the FAR for the site was determined, with reductions for the vacated street and steep slopes. The total floor area allowed for the site is 2,372.4 square feet. With a floor area bonus of 497.6 square feet, the applicant proposes to build a total of 2,870 square feet. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood ofthe parcel proposedfor development. 0 Response: The parcel is surrounded by inventoried properties, historic landmarks and National Register structures. As described above, the applicant has made a very strong effort to respect the historic character of existing development both on its lot and throughout the neighborhood. This project will contribute to the long-term maintenance ofthe historic character ofthe area. 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 adjacent parcels. Response: The existing structure should be considered very significant as an example of a relatively unaltered historic resource and of unusual details and form. The proposal will protect these characteristics while improving the physical condition ofthe structure. 4. Standard: The proposed developmeilt enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Minimal demolition is proposed and the project will not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of the designated historic landmark. In fact, significant 4 restoration efforts will be undertaken. For further staff analysis of the proposal's compliance with this standard, refer to the response provided for standard 1, above. REQUESTED VARIANCES: The Community Development Department has reviewed this application for compliance with the "Residential Design Standards," pursuant to Section 26.58.040 of the Municipal Code. Staff has determined that the proposal is not in compliance with the "Garages, carports, and storage areas" standard, Section 26.58.040(F)(4)(c), which reads as follows: All portions of a garage, carport or storage area parallel to the street shall be recessed behind thefrontfacade a minimum Of ten (10) feet. The proposed garage is not recessed ten (10) feet behind the front facade. As the slopes of the site, the lack of alley access, the existence of a water line easement, the required side yard setbacks, and the desire to keep the garage separate from the existing structure do not allow for a ten foot recess, staff feels that a variance from this requirement should be supported. Pursuant to Section 26.72.010(D)(1)(a), the HPC is empowered to make a determination that such a variance would result in a development that is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than development in accord with the above stated dimensional requirements would be. As mentioned earlier in this memo, the applicant has moved the garage three (3) feet further back from the street, thereby eliminating the need for a front yard setback variance. The applicant has also eliminated the prior need for a rear yard setback variance by reducing the size ofthe deck at the rear of the house. Therefore, no variances from the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district are requested or required. As the design for the addition has evolved, it has become apparent that many windows have been added to the proposal, and the location and sizes of these windows would result in failure to comply with the "volume" standard (Section 26.58.040(F)(12)). This standard penalizes facade penetrations (windows) between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level of the finished floor, and non-orthogonal fenestration between nine (9) and fifteen (15) feet above the level of the finished floor by counting all areas with an exterior expression of a plate height greater than ten (10) feet as two (2) square feet for each one (1) square foot of floor area. The newly submitted elevations clearly indicate that many of the proposed windows woukl result in the 2:1 floor area penalty. While some of the windows, particularly those on the north and south sides, may not be problematic, staff is concerned with the east elevation. The east elevation will be quite visible from Clark's Market, and there would be a high degree of light spillage resulting from the addition's heavily glazed east facing facade. 5 SECTION 26.72.020(C), STANDARDS FOR REVIEW OF PARTIAL DEMOLITION: No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds all of the following standards are met. 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure. Response: Minimal demolition is proposed. While the application states that 27.9% of the existing structure is proposed for demolition, it should be noted that this percentage includes the basement and attached non-historic lean-to structures. In essence, roughly 22% ofthe exterior first- story perimeter of the existing structure will be demolished, all of which is located toward the rear ofthe building. The second story of these walls will, for the most part, be left intact. The structure has been undergoing rapid deterioration over the past few years, and the applicant will only engage in restoration if an addition is allowed; thus, the partial demolition is required for the restoration of the structure. 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. The primary, street-facing facade will be preserved. b. Impacts on the architectural character or 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 yet subordinate mass and scale and which is placed to the rear and side ofthe structure. For greater detail regarding the proposed mass and scale of the new addition, please see the foregoing response to Standard 1 in the discussion of Section 26.72.010(D), Review Standards for All Development Involving Historic Landmarks. SECTION 26.72.020(E), STANDARDS FOR REVIEW OF ON-SITE RELOCATION: No approval for on-site relocation shall be granted unless the HPC finds that the standards of Section 26.72.020(D)(2), (3), and (4) have been met. These standards read as follows: (2) 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. 6 0 Response: Given the site constraints, such as the slopes and required setbacks, moving the existing structure three and one-half (3.5) feet to the south is the best and most sensitive way to accomplish the proposed addition in a fashion that will preserve the character and integrity of the landmark structure. The relocation will not diminish the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood or adjacent structures. The applicant has worked with the Water Department to minimize the required water line easement to the extent possible, which allowed the building to shift slightly to the north and west from the location proposed at the February 27th Conceptual hearing. This allowed for a fourteen (14) foot setback from the southerly property line which, in effect, creates an approximately twenty-eight (28*) foot separation from the structure on the adjoining lot. (3) 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 proposedfor relocation. Response: The applicant must submit a structural report prior to applying for a building pennit. (4) 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 (ifrequired) ofthe structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: The applicant must submit a relocation plan and bond prior to applying for a building permit. SECTION 26.104.030, NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES: The existing structure is nonconforming because the underlying R-6, Medium-Density Residential, zoning requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet per single family dwelling unit or 4,500 square feet per duplex unit. The nonconformity of the structure may continue since the use is permitted in the zone district and the proposal will not increase its nonconformity. As the structure is an historic landmark, it "may be enlarged, provided, however, such enlargement does not exceed the allowable floor area ofthe existing structure by more than five hundred (500) squarefeet." Thus, as long as the proposal receives development review approval as required by Section 26.72.010(D)(1)(a), this stipulation, in essence, provides the proposed addition to the nonconforming duplex with an FAR bonus of up to five hundred (500) square feet. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the staff recommendation (below), as well as any of the following alternatives: 1) Grant Final approval to the Significant Development application as submitted; 0 7 2) Grant Final approval to the Significant Development application with conditions to be met prior to building permit issuance; 3) Table action to a date certain in order to allow the applicant further time for restudy (specific recommendations should be offered); 4) Remand the application back to conceptual review, finding that the proposal is not in substantial compliance with the conceptually approved plans; or, 5) Deny Final approval to the Significant Development application as submitted, finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Regarding the application/request for final approval of the on-site relocation, partial demolition, and addition of/to the Landmark Designated structure located at 218 N. Monarch Street (the "Half House"), staff recommends that the HPC grant final approval of: 1. The on-site relocation of the existing Landmark Designated structure, subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant must submit a structural report for review prior to applying for a building permit. b. The applicant must submit a relocation plan and bond in the amount of $60,000 prior to applying for a building permit. c. If it is found that the structure is not capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation and re-siting, or the proposed relocation will not work for any reason, the applicant will have to bring the proposal back to the HPC for conceptual review. 2. The partial demolition ofthe Landmark Designated structure as proposed by the applicant. 3. The general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan of this Significant Development, as 541Â£12-, 0-, proposed by the applicant, including the following waiver and condjtions: 99 LEÂ»<- DE-K-a. *'Roofing ofthe addition shall. be high-profile, shadowline asphalt or wood shingle. 3-'~ 11 Historic/original windows on the south side ofthe house shall not be relocated. c. A variance from the "volume" standard (Section 26.58.040(ID(12)) of the d Q.+U-,/ east sidee*dw Residential Design Standards is granted for the windows propo,ed on the north ahd south sides ofthe #tructure, b d. A p - reservation of existing exterior materials and for structural improvements necessary for the historic structure shall be submitted to staff and the HPC monitor for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. e. A waiver from the requirements of Section 26.58.040(F)(4)(c), Garages, carports and storage areas, ofthe Municipal Code. Â£ As required by code, all structural features and/or support columns will remain within the required setbacks. -7-' -2_.u,~ --f 7 -=12 9 r,6 8 4. A five hundred (500) square foot floor area bonus for the proposed addition to the non- conforming duplex structure, pursuant to Section 26.104.030, Nonconforming Structures, of the Municipal Code. 5. A condition requiring that, prior to execution of a Resolution granting final approval to the 218 North Monarch Street development application, the applicant shall submit legal documentation detailing the resolution of all issues related to the water line easement on the north side of the property, including a signed letter from a qualified representative of the affected water utility company. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" - Applicant's Submittal Package 0 0 9 44/ y /0. I eaaÂ£Â£42.zzr- 1 '24 .Â·f.4 . 2.- ., Ho ' t_ Wir r=- -11 21===='Jl i .4 liv743 1 09/ -1 1 1 45>6*lici.YAf,6 'Ad.. _mal--------1---r-----m-., -Â·e. -- 19 N ~id,INI--1 P. i - ililli~la ' Am;i :~ '42 t'r Alll:-~f' VI I i *~~ .- Mag##+ 3 . 3 r Â· 9 '?- UeKER- E-aâ‚¬-r GLEYÂ· . I hÂ· Â· 11. 'I . . ..4.49 11 ,Â·99 1 /1 .f Elf. - 1 f ' I. 1/ 60 ---1 4 - 11 t 1 - UL ------ - 1 - 5 : t f - . 11 11 1 \ t .. I ,~4019/f~Q..LA-bt,>0.. .. -4 1 1 .h - *,01*.. 1 t. * 74+ '' - . . 1-~ 1. :14,7 .f.,1~ t- - 0Â»< , 11 7 AW L NF. 411.1-2---- - J---'~ - (=77:-v-r=r=#3~~-~ l * -/1-- L , 3 17 4 .-4- 1 3==32:3 7-1*--7 1 1 --4 - 1 ".. ... 1 1 1 114 . 9 t.r ~ /L - Â«-24-1 .. i I i 1 I jlutio 1 1-1 l ,1 l E %44 1 ill? ~91 ... f \ - \ \ c \ NON - M til, \ \ = \ 1 \ 1, - \\11 \ \ 4-W . mlu At- 3-2 -1. \ \ j 4 75*-// 1 1 Z m t \4 .f V 0- 1 47 - / 1 1 \\\\11 1 - 1 - , I %Â£- i . 'l - . I. 4 \ ''- i \11.\ \ 1 I 1 1 \ ** 00 9 \ \ % 2% , 7-- \ h 1 \\ 1\ 10. 10 1 1 1\ 63 l i 1/ 12 1 1 r- 7- am 1 50 01 ~ f ~4~ \ ~,t ~1 59 l 21 1 2% 51 il,0 - NkAL \,2/â‚¬\4 --- 1% \ 9% ti .Dz I %* - 7Lm -081 r 8 -- 33 \.944~\ \- I 1 1 ~9 3 P t -1 -4 4 9 -1 -05 ri 0-1 44 'ER C _ 7 4 ----_ Z 0111 4 r + 1* 6 ff n _ / .4 Q -Â· v rel Im 4.41 - 3 \ . 0 \ \ 1 r > ,1 i 7[ 1 \ 5 i 1, \ 1 I- , I 1 I \ d H ID-O -1111 2-8% 1 Nee,RbORED\ \ \\ I \ 20 -07 I ji 4 i egratc-K- 0 412Â·reASR \ 1, i 4:1412 , Al-l-0*Ga *\ 1 . 4 1 ENCRO"H..M~ i 1 3* 52 >70 I 1 1\\2\ # - 1 ..4, 1 1 i ZI-oil iii :3 4 . 1 \/. 1 x. - i \\lilli \ 31-- \1\\\\\ 1 11\ 1\ -- -\- i \ \ 1 1 1 . -1 i A f.4 - j 1 3 i *& y om pix 2 0 - 9 (10 -0 0 A ' 6/ f L 0 4. Flo m 2-\ u 1 1 BE m 08 m I. 4 9 0 V .--- \\ 'r 2 13 4â€¢ 41 u r ZUCKER RESIDENCE 3 CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 21 - Z : RÂ¥. c. ) 1 0 7.. ..9, 5. 218 N. MONARCH ST -6 1. 91 0 9- 128 1 _5. fu O= e. 53 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 + _1 520 EAST HYMAN Â· SUITE 301 Â· ASPEN, CO 81611 Â· TELE: 303/925-5590 Â· FAX: 303/925-5076 220 EAST COLORADO Â·~RIDE, CO 81435 Â· TELE: 303/728-3738 Â· FAX: 303/72~7 , A '19 HO'ke'HOW ' N Â»1Â£151449 . p- --,O+31Â» EXHIBIT --â‚¬ ... . 36 /5/ i 11 1.1 \ . S. â‚¬. \\ \\ 4\\ * 11 \\ . 69 1 \\ 1 +E \\ 1. b \\ It 3 11 11 1 11 r 1 11 1 I ' Il.. 1 1 -Dll 1 1 1 1 q ~====-=4 L__1 1 1 1- -1.- h 1/ h 1 1 gil 1 11 1 13 1 1 11 /11 lili I r- - 7 r.. I-,/ * 1 L-9 11 11 11 ~ 1 1 - 11 n 1 | 1 -----r_--4-3 - - Uâ€žL ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~" ~ ~ Ill-1 - 11 110 1 11 11 11 U lili 0 - 1 11 11 lili 11 11 lili P~&4 8 1 1 1< 1 11 11 1 -1 11 1 Ld f 1 1 11 , 1 1-1 1 11 1 4Z L----- -1 r-i r------- _ __ ___ ___r- 22-1-UTIL _-4-- ____ ----- -Tr- 1 Il lili , 1 -11 11 1 L.... _ -yjj-i _-1 J .. C 1 1 fl 1 1 1111 --1 f -hll f 11 f r 1 .4#1"-Al' 1 - - - 21-2 - - -1Â£11 jill 11 1 111 / 1 p--r_ 4 I i i. AL-7 -- - /11 1 ---11 1 ---IL -1-41 I 1 .--- 17/ 1 'Â·1 - ri i / 1 .[12 -2-1 - it')%Â» 5 11 - r 7 .4 1 1 1 / .4 U L - 0 9 Z aÂ· -1 S 1 1 11 . E-: 2 4,.t 1 I 11 1 1 C 111 11 - 1 # 11~'7 7-- - 3~1 11 3% i 1 -JII 11 L '2-Â°fr--4 ~1 1' L.IL/ 1 11 ,-2 = -2-21 4 2 9 i Ir---IL-- 1 1 11----11 -1 1 C-/ 1 r 711 11 r -- IH--_-1 1 -- ---- - - --- 1 1 i 3 It 1 6--- C.-21 1 A-1 <lili 11 1111 11 ~111~ El lili 11 . Â¥ 9. III- 11 "'1 11 11 111 11 r -1 11 --- - --11 41 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 r ---7 1 1, 11 11 A 1 1 Li JJ iQ 0 11 F 11 - f li 11 \ i 11 21 - 1/-- - - \ 11 3 0 - E 1- 22 - - C ELI-4 -1 ---1 r - OZ *- 2 1 \ 11 11 11 1 , 77 - 0 1 1 %29 f ZUCKER RESIDENCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS AL 1 0 1 1 1 1 '11 7 11 1 . - 1 - 11 11 -- - - J i, 1 1 rn Z ~ ~,1 N 4 0- 2- 64 14_.1 2 Â· 218 N. MONARCH ST 9 1 JO- J N J ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 JO 520 EAST HYMAN Â· SUITE 301 Â· ASPEN, CO 81611 Â· TELE: 303/925-5590 Â· FAX: 303/925-5076 = e. 220 EAST COLORADO Â· ~RIDE, CO 81435 Â· TELE: 303/728-3738 Â· FAX: 303/72~67 7 V . 1d 13]AE!1 HEIAAC)-1 hivway 01 47-IMM 4,*a SNV1d NOIillOIAIEICI oakovvgrzl Â·a o 51331:HJHV 333INNAD S313VH.) 1HDIMAdOD @ 'ON 133HS DNI/\AV>IC] 2* 0 96'. O" . . 12 1- i I I 1 r. i 1 12 re- 01= L_ -- 4 -11 . 2 -41 24- 0. Ti -1 an 0. 1-lvll-16~ _EIRMEBL _ 1 3 Â· Â£ V#ov, / Â«ov'ap - . 0 Â« 41,1,0, B#EP' le.Ii' 1,Â»UHPZY * C I. Â¥ 1 1 i --- -- 1 UP 11 1 1 1 1 li 1.1 11 1 r i i 1 1 1 1 I il P ! 1 - i ;111 1 Il IIi' It 11= -- 4-11 19 ;1 11 4 . 0 4 1 1 'kl- liz 4- P 11 .7 Ell 4. . 11 11 r. , Ill IL i 1 Tti . !11] E *1 4 35 111Â·- -- 11 1.1 : 1111 - lili 11 1 11 1 Eli lili . 1 1 li 111-~ . lili i I $ 11 1~ - Pill 4 11 11 1111 = 11 11 0 i 111 N 1111 , jill ti_ , - - .ti622 lili lili 111 i , l i lli i j I 1 111 Ir , 11 4 lili 1 1 11 i DRAWING 0 --- 21 1 , t ----- --~-- SCALE VA; 19 01 JOB NO. 1101 DATE 5, Zl' OIl Cj r .4/ LOWER LEVEL PLAN SHEET NO dofere 63 1/4- = 1'-0- A2 -2 ' 4, OF SHEET , Â© COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS Sl)31ll-OZIV 33:IINNFE) SB-IMVH) 33NlaISHM 33>DOZ 9~6/EOE :XVH ' 0655â‚¬6/EOE :3-Ell Â· [[9 [9 OD 'NBdSV [OE 311nS ' NVINAH 1*3 025 Z/EOE :XV:I ' BEZE-9ZZ/EOE :3-Ill ' 52+19 OD '30[Mf-~ OCIVNO-IOI) 19Â¥3 0ZZ 19 HONVNOW N 9 LE OCIV3O1OO 'N3dSV - , 9 1/ 1 + 44. 1. t - rl If 1111 1 1 : 1 , til Â· 1.Ill , 1: 1 4 +-=' 1 '-i i ji '.-l 1 , 2 i ' 1 . qi . 1-k' . 1 1/ : .1 1 11 : 0 t + IDE.OIC. , /' / 1 i.Â· i 1 1 ..LI. ,..i . 1 ~1. 1 + . i 1 $ i it 1 1 . 1 3-- 1 1]il Vifit R 4 i Il I. - ;. 1 19. . m 1 * 11- 1- I -~ 7 / 11 / JO 01 1 tilt 1 li lilli lili 1 ' i'111 . 11, 11 1 C.!11 - 1 ...I--7---1/lillill \ #"Affher PlfÂ»1%14 _--- 0 0 0 C = f G - OC g - .. Livil-16~ / tpltÂ»-14 --- 1 -1 I , i O 1--- i 1 F H Â·r"t i ftwe< ----1 05 DO -1 1 Z <O QÂ¢ ' /'Al 4 2 e 7/1 .E n L. , 00 i 01 04 141 1-0 04 Â«14) 1 - -9 I , 1 16 *-IM'B~ -0- 414404 ~ 1 11. UP 10 14â€¢ i t-'T igtz-7â€¢-7 ".2 -1=, : TV d j ~ i : i ; '1 I ..le .; 1- 1 ~ 1.-469 1 i, 11. Â¥ mlr-~- 1 ..4 1 Il l 1 r ji'.111 fl, 1 6.-1'N \ ~ j ti r l i if { f "1:Â·~ 1 1 11 --1 ',2 -~ A '1 1 S 1 41 :/ ---~~ ~Lod"All ~11 ' 4 , COAT 06.1 114-1 1-i ' 4 li I j..11 -.- BHTIZY ./ilikill' fl MA4TAX I 1 11 4. 1. 1 ~ lili ~ 1. 11 i L i ? 1.1 .I.-Il BATH ./- 1 - Ff . i Hj. 5, 3 -s r 0 7-4- 0 04 9 A X.A 41 Â£- 4 r Â·. 1 K 1 1 9 . le [ 1 - M *41-gle- 15*521=00 MI AX|#T|*49 .-F:4.L.-,6~,Â·,Â·'.-ti,t~ -Â·. ' -2*G.Â£.1.12512*i,LEsbalate= 1 1.- 6 .4 .Â·% 1 1 -*.1 1 - , DRAWING - 1 - -3 -0 k I ' SCALE 1,4 " Â» 1'-01 0 JOB NO. 1102 DATE 3 Â· 21 ' 11 14 L oâ€ž :2.42- O" 19 Low 4 4 , NEW APP [TION ' 69'-O" E-*tepTI NG, AQUit / SHEET NO. MAIN LEVEL PLAN i 4 Exle,-IN(*ALLe Te *EN1*IN I"""i~ HEÂ»*/ *Al-1,9 A2.3 1/4-= 1'-O" E, . Â¥ c SHEET OF Â© COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS Notlic<!VAAa N 301 Â· ASPEN, CO 81611 Â· TELE: 303/925-5590 Â· FAX: 303/925-5076 Z~EOE :XV~ 9EZE-9ZL/EOE :3131' 5Â£*19 01 4013 A~~ Sl)31IHI)2IV 33:IINN 33NBaISBM k13>!DrIZ t .4 * LW.M; HI)21Â¥Now 'N ALZ O(]Â¥80103 'NEIdSV . ... - 1 1 - 1 . \ i -1 % i it - 1 111 U L C 1 111 - 7-- -- m -- IjA TA r - 0 Fm 47 78 r y 9 m- 0 1- . m 3 - r NU-- \ .- - - - --- 11 - rk-- - -- d 1- r . I. . I ' ly i 8% , 1 ' - 42'- 62' 9104 EX \ SPT' 1401 euGE Nle=w APP 'Al 4# 5114, -VI I In i3 -4 fZ 3> .D r r 1 - -p th Z !f t . 7, ri,-.-7- ' .-5,;:r m I % 33 1 3 t; ZUCKER RESIDENCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 9 . Z to - .... J Z N ~~ P I nic) N _1 1, 9% : 0 â€¢ 90= 4 4 218 N. MONARCH ST j m J N 4 , ~ ASPEN, COMpRADO . 81611.94 - 520 EAST HYMAN Â· SUITE 301 Â· ASPEN, CO 81611 Â· TELE: 303/925-5590 Â· FAX: 303/925-5076 220 EAST COLORADO Â·,-LURIDE, CO 81435 Â· TELE: 303/728-3738 Â· FAX: 303/71-i67 .. . 4 64 gar C-_--7 -,gnat# 91-4*1*lha - MeÂ», ROOF; - 1 14Â¥Â¢i i 51.)31!HDHV 313INNfl) SINV}-1.) 1HDIMAdOD @ 4 & 1% r N 1. 1 . 4**T-'01--Hou4eÂ· I. 1 1 Â· 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1-7= 1 - 1 1 1 1.1 1 T.... 1.-1 1 I- 1,0 ' .' . .i . - - -139-- L-' -- ,-116-3JZL-;2176;L.L_,---,7=+3lTT1~7-J~7-#15777,~wii ~~14&~~T , , .. -L A 1 r-~ x< \ Er--Â·~-EL-~,_1~~*EF~C--- 1- '~-.r -r~ i --1--7-LILT-'r Tv-+-1--1 -41 41973773-r ---- .. -71 1 - 1 111 1- r.1 - 1 3- - - , tax,AX ' a.17 140+41240416 4 1215* 7 1 1 1: r ,: /1-0 -- 41.--Â« . 4-1 1 U.f...",;-r-1-Lr -7- u 10 -----------~ -------*---*-- --v-7 - 7- --v- 717-T--r---1-- , 111 111 ~| ..11,11|11|#11.1.1.7 --3-/11 I-f. -2/t --27I._.IJJI- ---*- .T 21-1_22 - Y--221 .Ff-TILTIE~FZZII~2~IIIÂ©*I. Â· Â· Â· ~ A - -027 1- Â£ 9 - L-- / /-_111 111_--_- 4/VINGY H/+ME. 4,01HG~ 1 *\ ,Â· -~ji-.i-..-.---*---'----- 1*W <4991-450 a"OVE- 1 1 ....... N 1 HI r-~. -1-3-2-7 1, r -7--7--1 A.6 120 14.TI NG< mIEVE.6 / - ~ -1 - --EL]IHI4 \ ~~~'41H -~ ~ '~ 46'PINÂ«FIH'414 -7 1 1 1 ,\. 0 Â·-'--17 7-crivotninzfnJUA 7--1----T---F-7-r-T--T-- 1*'rav 8/14.FING, - ID IN t\ /A Ch A 1 \ LL LL r -7- V 'I , -r--3-~1 , 4 -1 1 ULÂ»L -i-Â·L L 4 4. Cleâ€¢â€ž..._ 1 1-F 1 /,-49-/6-- ; Fi/ .'Â·/ ' ~ '~~~~Â· 1 t' ~1~Â»4.9. t :%79 - 1!__-11__-[ -11 _]_-_1~-_- ~ i . t. -Ii h nul <Ati---- ~ 1 ~---[ -- r |Â· , 4 i i ' *41 !1 1 A 1/1 1~/ ~ i. ~ 1?11.01 1-1 1 -1 , 1 1-- 1 } 1 17-M_ t...1 -- -: /24 1 1 41 - 1 11 11 a -- --- *MÂ»â„¢Af 09 -2- 11 1 I _ -11 1 - tjip.---1.-~to : r-----,11 - -411--- i 1 .-.- 11 E rl f.------- M--4--7521 i 1 1474) . 1 - 1-11-J i Lial 7 - -*---------- -- v-] 1-;-:I-=---- -== ir' 4= ----- [L--41 7 1 1 -- - 4 Ln 00 , -- -- ----/ . Ho Â£--WlÂ»U- OF Elq4~Â·i Nd ............. - T -, --- th.,4.- --- tz u I . . Hou'leâ€¢ MtÂ«o#6* - - 066912% O R? u..7 11+5Ip,EAd#11*01-[ 1014 12&0 CATE P 1,11 ttpo W Li<#f~ OF 1%0,4.0.(6 *HIP --. HE+1 rugNEÂ·t, 1.Â·IP, Foer-5 2 alpiN<a, Tz.IM'f~4%2, 254!f' acr 4 0 p.15-FIHIâ€¢60 15%16fIN# IND BEVEL- -- 0040& 444,A~Â·12> Trpic*wr - -7- Â»O 01'PINIee 7 18/ *Fr|Va k. He.14 eolfl ON alpING, ,#AVE-4 , d.<21=HEIC- 49 .-8,<wer'F,9 9"-~~ HIHC'*4 /pootz. 112411 . _ex '4T 'Hol Cf*'pe t NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION - 1/4- = 1 '-0- 1/4- = 1'-O" 1441 Apulfl ON f- IN 7 - _ 1 1 -.1.Â·' i 1.._2.-_la .It~L.. j , IF .j . 1.flÂ· 1 _ i-<~._ail~Lf Hek CE:PAIC '681#4 L.E.8 ro J /A\-21 ' lili I .6 . Ill --. -- , _. A , , 4 1 1 7-_ -1-121-, LjMATGH 4122:~uÂ»~06 6><1_MI] H, _-// ,.A _- -2 _- -- METÂ»,12*FIN+ -MAHDIN# em.AIM --- . .-- ~31-- 2 .L.' i . 1- 11 IV - 1 1 L l. 1 1, 1 11 11 in - - Z 281 1 1'. '11 ' i . 1-:.1 1 1 1.1.11.11 211 'f 1.12 234:-1 :Frp,na wew// Ct Â· 01 Â· KleÂ» W WIP, Â¢4UKEDÂ».11, 41 4.-- - .-*----- -I-- Â¥ .----'- - -'-I . t- ... ' - 12- 7... --. --C- .1.---122 --* 1 1.T--7- rl ' 1 4. I p --13 lilill 1 1111 *1 i 11111111111 11 ~ ~ -~ - Il 1 1 8 . 4-le- 1 ! i , 1 m i l' I | i i 'tli 00 CÂ·lÂ»p NF WIHIP4164 ~ ~i 000*4 - -- -__- -_ -- TI 4- "711- --*- 3 ---- Ir----~n, i - 111.-7 -1-â€ž- 1 1 - HINPo ,Â·4 4 2201= T,1 MJ & N 4. Ht-ki !40012 COIZKIEI= 3 - -1 1 1- To 4vA*Fc H *>< 1471 hlf -i -3---6 - - 1 -LJ+22--Ii .11 3 - - 6re<90,/le. 415)ING~ -1/ F d . I *496,- .,. ... e t...Q. 1 - 1 Â£4 -1' ..4-2244>_E'*.-1., J 1-18+1 CHÂ»NKIBL 6Â».Me. 4FecilÂ·|Gl Re -- I -1[.1_ &><i&f I KjA PEÂ·Ve.6 - 1 Â· MArcH e.><16.F~ ki~o - ~ 1======================4 -- -I-#-.1.-- -+ + -6 . A. 1% MW-.4 --*i#--4,Â£. 1. r"<*['Rf 9@Al'& 4-1-06Â«t WINPol,46 L RE &015Â»TE P Â»10Â»1- p -1 FE=E-----~ PAOM 400*TH Â«pa- --- L- W.4'FL OWL *er'l-Bit, *< 14.71,01 --* 41011Â·Â·Â·1* , TICIM 41Â·11441.2.6, f~Â·161RkÂ»/ E<:2Â·T ~22322222JI~ ap B FIHI+1 9 *<161' lt,4,9 C-ol/90 / â€¢bc.1-1121-reÂ· 1-YFIC-Ler. / 1421 ljOBNO. ri~ia- 1 : DATE+3**~-i-~--~ # B SHEET NO. SOUTH ELEVATION A3.1 1/4- = 1'-0- SHEET OF - Â© COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECIS 51131IH)ZIV 33:11NNA) 53121VH) 3)NEIGISEIPI GEZE-QZZ ' 00Â¥30100 15Â¥3 02:Z 0655â‚¬6 Â£0Â£ :3131 ' I.[9 [9 O 31IAS * NVWAH 15Â¥3 OES 2-''t .1 fsÂ·Â·L1-9 1-9 avkl N3dSV ,/ h F / 1 1 1 1 -- 1-85+4 ADPI -ro N , 1 --1---- 1 1 1 lili -- 111 '' 1 111 1 1 LEI 1 1 -- 1 i '1// 2 i , 11 1 - / - 1- 1 - 4--4 = - l 1 1 - k .1 _______ 1 91'34. *j-1 1 .. 9 1.11 7-.2 j 1?- ~~ ~1 It, E 11 \ 1 1 ..1 41*]..1 M 1! i ' ' i I J I ir---n----Â·~i F,Ir====n' -2 lu X I 14 1 W HI][ dr, -- < L \ - lili= p~IJA ---- - 1. - r I - / 0 , ~ E- 11 / 1 ,1 1 ~111 -- 1- -tr.-n-rind_ _l - _ 11 31 'lit -1 0 W . I .A. 1 J ....11_! 1111 H -- f , [ *Fl:39 - . 0 It , P 11 1 1 , - Il 1.- r -Il-~-fl---v _ --c u - 1 U 'f IN -i.#~1. -- \ 1!U My jt' 0 1 g rpr==T==r==11 1 1 1 11, 01 ILi=4:=*====11===::=:=tb===U W ILJL1~1==JI \ 11 Fli Il f Li-- 1 1 r- U ]1 + F 1 111 LA -4. k D I - 1 Iii , b 111-11 Eli.j -1 - - lili k i- 3 11 11 li r )1 1- , - . lili 1 fl]1 1 1 .1 4 d -- 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 X i h I d\ 1 '4*; ' 1-7 1 I Fl 11 1. 1 41 5 11 11 11 1 Z IM III'% i li 1: fl ff' 4 FIf V 1 _ 3\ r 1 [-= - 11 'lili 11 i .11 ib L t? 1 1 1 - 11 11 1 111. It 1 #1 1 1--- 1, /ly # 3 11 1 1 1 13|1 -11 1 11 901 1,3 - - -- 10 1 1 1 'pIi I 1 A- Jr--- 1 1 , ~ h -- --- -- 1 1 : 1-Ii \ 5-- -- 1 \ \63,\4 \1 - 11 1 -J 11 1 11 1 M j i Ill 7 J 1 1 7=11=\\ 1. 11 Ir - ~\1 ~ tik M, 4 :1 4 ~ Im 1 -j * < 1 {1 1__ \ / 1 \ f'\ .2 U./ 1 1 1 1 -- j - ' " Id 11 in \\\ 1 1 -1 1 .-1--4 U .- ~ 1 72 J- I & 4 1 j 6 =i 1 i - - f 4 0Z 4 41 ! 11 , r /1 / \ - ,./ IX -3, #-2 B 39 AL 30 lk , , .. I 29: i -*f 13 - 5. -4-3Â¢-4 f Alip 8 39%1 }9#Â£ 0 I-\ 1Â¥E 29 1%-Xex -j-niz- _~ 0,0 It L -MAN --49(win 3-A-,8 Ve Ze\Â£ o rit 1 0 1\ 144 9 Vid Â¥ I titi 2 *t gj ~1 j 1~ ?Â¥ - -3-BA*u r 12> _P X L I Â» , 3\ Il *% O 4 -1Ii 14 1\ I 4 O y I -210 1 ' '+J --1-109#F'~1'U~97~:54Fre-r'â€¢1Â· M-Â·Â·7 2.-1-2. ~ ZUCKER RESIDENCE -* CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS I k 11% 1 m In, 1 4.1. 11. Â·, iÂ· k Z 1 160 1.) Ililli -Imtj-. 14.1.. 218 N. MONARCH ST 1 1-401--1 1 -z4 5/3. 1 1-blf' i Qg~ ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 n . 2 j 4 i N i M R ' 520 EAST HYMAN Â· SUITE 301 Â· ASPEN, CO 81611 Â· TELE: 303/925-5590 Â· FAX: 303/925-5076 220 EAST COLORADO Â· ~RIDE, CO 81435 Â· TELE: 303/728-3738 Â· FAX: 303/7~7 51)31]HI)HV 3djINNn) 5313VHD 1HDINAdO) @ -ON-133HS EXHIBIT .. - 0 - 1- + 7~22 1 1 - .. r.. 1.4 Â£ ~ Â· ,*: r:Ai. Lf f hfa:45 4 1*42*A , Ul .L- m 1 - . ..4... IIi t 01.4 , 44 J t, 0 F J .I 1 9 1 - - 0 0 - 1" 1 EXHIBIT ,1/m' 4 - 469 Kinj PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 1008 E. HOPKINS - LANDMARK DESIGNATION, PARTIAL DEMOLITIONmN- SITE RELOCATION, CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL, RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS APPEAL, 500 SQUARE FOOT FLOORAREA BONUS AND SIDE YARD SETBACKVARIANCES -NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN thata:public hearing will be held on Wednesday, March 26, 1997, at a me6ting-to begin at 5:00 pm before the Aspen.Historic Preservation Commission in the Sister Cities meeting room, basement of City-Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application submitted by Arthur Bellis requesting approval for landmark designation, partial demolition, on-site relocation, conceptual approval for an addition to the house, appeal to the residential design standards, a 500 square foot floor area bonus, a west sideyard setback variance of -* 5 feet-and-a combined sideyard setback variance of 13 feet The property is located at 1008 E. Hopkins, and is described as beginning at a point 12 feet west of the northeast comer of Lot L, thence northerly to Lot B, thence easterly to the southeast comer ofLot E, thence southerly to the northeast comer ofLot D, thence westerly to the place ofbeginning. For finther information. contact Amy Amidon at the Aspen/ Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, CO. (970) 920-5096. s/Jake Vickery. Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission ~ Published in the Aspen Times on March 8, 1997. City ofAspen Account -- r 4~1*ZY <L 0 94 0(fo se f- -1-Â° t-Lpt 2&(=512 / 5 ..-A i wk oeve-{~ (gl /1+17 / bod,~L â‚¬9- 9 0 9 ~~4~f j, us 3- 1 1 J 1 -- 144 9- ra W â‚¬- ~L- c.e th,1 /( 90 11Â·Y 7 96 44 44 -3- ~4 1,20 LeeÂ© 400*c s .c- 4444 Clv â‚¬ O L~,46 'A 1 C " 9, < . D<' 69 l a u\~Clt-jo-~_i 1 8 5- 9 e 2, , aNE.C.,fo (4 ?644 L L' 1 RECEIVED ~ r ke k e ,~/?l/~ MAR 0 6 1997 BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES ASPEN. COLORADO 72- s _23 3 9 6 1 EXHIBIT 1/ 0 Or L do*15 0 '. . 4 -- D .4 - , I . .. - 9-1 2 ..1 , 1 -7 - .. ./ I. . 4. 4.- I ..1 I. .. . ... C F ..4- 9,Â» p . . - 7Â· -q S . ~ M .. I .: +I. I . ... . ~ Â·L. ... ... 1 V ,â€ž. 4 . . . 2.4 . t . I . /2. a . ' H . .. .I 2 + Â·I .4 - r ....t -7 . 1 ' 1 -- -4 . 1.-1-2 I. -, , 7 I t'. L 1 11 . I - 1,â‚¬ 1 1; 1.1 . . _tnt :. 1.---1 C===+ .. I r. in,- 1 -' .-fecrueÂ· Â· rd .1 1 4... . Fily-7 --t,fil.:,4 .1 - - '.44:.210. . ., 0 . 7 . I ir.4::4-.L~f- - f--7 -* . I. . - . ..... <ImmÂ·Â·19-1 14--i , 6/ . 4..... 2,> .. - . -4..... '. . -,1 .- tE':%9. Mr.Tr-+ . t. r p. ,â€¢21 / 1â€¢ .-1 1 - ' .4 V :wv . - 00 1 - 1 Mwilk 11/ - - ixii 1 >|- ,EAÂ·Vftf..9 -.n / K-- ... - - I 1. T n I I. 1 - - ..,--*~*- -1.-- --= 1 SOUTH ELEVATION AT STREET =-= pg 5/&72' Â· . 1- '2 ee'llia.IÂ« PLENC P 1 2/ ---I 21.- L 2.. I - -- ~49% Â¥<31 .m,AR,iNOF:.% 2 APRIL 5,199-1 PROPOSED ELEVATIONB I 0 . - 1 --' ' '~''I .i-vic :- 1 -I. E---- -Wfit .1:2@= . /O d j . r-1 Pr-,di. I. /-4=1 A Z.1.i'j . 2 0 e Cb - 1[ .n/0 1 - 1 , 4 . m - 1 , 7 301. b. CTL, ' SOUTH ELEVATION AT ENTRY Â¢-36 -Â·47Â·36 r. r, 1. 90=uâ€¢249=-' 02> -~~~~~~il Lr -9 2-1LE 22>223>LE IN/1 -7 -4 ~ 2--17 (.4.- 2 - ls:J andai:.72:Â·rs 3 :, 5 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS APRIL 5,1997 1 .--9.-r- . 0 0 . PO ... 0. 0 ciO ... .6 2 00 OR .. . - 12 1 . . O ~ 9 0 1 9 9 . .. 6 /0 b . .... .. WEST ELEVATION 1111]2 2911 ~ENCE BELLUS 1-lt 1-lp 63 1-[ r--NK-/-1 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS APRIL 6, Iqq-1 â€¢ . e 0 0 PO 0 cio ... - : 00 - . - 1 - 1 .0 0 . I ai.Â·43,Â· . 9 . .9.80 0 6 b .-Il D Â·Â· . WEST ELEVATION EELLI[& RESI[~33iqCE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS APRIL 6,1947 / I ,, r. 4 . 1% b ... . I. 0 . -1 - .CE.Z=,1 NK- 1 K"i m,LA. 1 - I '.-*-- -t -2 i .s, I/1.m" 1 -44 -I'..'-'-'-'- .Int.1:-I-a 0 Â»adÂ»3131~ 1 -1 -r. .. 1 0*.R im. - . . 1 6 . NORTH ELEVATION -%-7- - - R N -9.~ -31(91-3)-Epl.(01 -3 _jÂ£i.-1 8. t-.IP..32?Ty: 1 -2-21 -29 .- -- t ---,V '"I. I-#.I *21â€¢~064.2 . 10/2 CUL,9-r-- 1 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS APRIL 8,149-1 0 10 . . . M F 1 AST STAGE T UN /9 , 31 0 {t 0 1 11 F~--7Â¢ b -t N .1-- '.1 L.-2 2-- ---- ! Lli . -~~2â„¢~- 1 - ---i......C- Â· 7 Â· -mINT-, 171 1 - 4,1: :t ' 0 A- 2 -. -4, 1 \ 1 . ~1111 1. -.E 6:kil li; t! , 11[Il.Ill 'a. 0 /\ 1 1. 1,!11 j 1 4.'.>-j/-- 1 11 1 11 111'b .r- 2 -'.- 1 1 , 1 03 :1:1 r- 2 11,1 1 4 111-1~ ;ijlf.:i:i. k Ir 1 1 6 - r lili ' 4 e Â¥ 51 > 4 1 i 4 ~ , In. - ..J 1 11 -1/r All i--- - 1 %27 11 1 02 1 i m OI 00.-3 -3 ' , - 4*- 11 . 1 - .-- - ....--3 m 4 1 1 Â· 1 77 1 111 ~ 1~ ..4 9%1 k *:,1-Â·Iil1 Iii Xm 11 <11 21Â£1, It!,1,1Ill,4- 6% - , h - Â¥ 4 Â· O,7 00 --1 . - 1- 4 0 1-2 1 !1& - .1 1 -,,---~- >A-- 9--- 21 -/ 1 111 119, r /1 w'4 \-210 U- /1 111 11/1/ rÂ«Â«12 -I~"-_ ~~{#~~~>f'~1 ~~1 1 .1 7 1.1 i %44 b .- - -- - - 6.--- 1 1 l' Il IJ i i 'Lit i 11':1 E--- pi,ill :!::, 11 1 44 1 2 !11 1 0 --- 9: -- --- 1 1 1 1.1 It 2 -- 4 3 1,1. 499 0_ *C=-14 : ' " 112Â»<1 1 1 IIiÂ·li- i 11-t? 1.11,14 r 1 -- . 11// . \1// - f ,3 I -1 ---- 0- \ Pcl) 1 r \ f 1 / 1- -22 / 1--' I I / 1 \ A le- O C AC CLOSSE' OFF ICE R. C. ROBERTSON Â· ARCHITECTS * - 417 MAIN STREET, STUDIO 'A' PEW T 139 W. MAIN fs T. CARBONDALE, CO. 81623 970Â·963Â·0567 -SPEN COW 0, 970 Â· 963 8936 FAX C Al.A 1. .. .fRAM#*84:zws ALL G 7 7 0 01. ... I .. I ./ . ... 1% 1 2 ' - -1 1 1 1 1; - 11' j '1 i 1 1 1 . . --L- I.- 1 1 4 1 4 71 [ 11 1 HA#'0104 F RAAA P '- 1-rti bilÂ·Â·-----lital;1 I'lirll Â· IN[ ..0 f 1.11-: 11 11 ;t rn *- - Er --fi +;= i.fi. ' lit 1 11 11 41-1 1 1- . 1 147 0 11 i 1 -1 Le - 4- 4- 1 11 \ 1 1! . 1 1 24 1// n t 1 , , 1 119 11 , . ~~114* Am /1 -0 r, 1 '! -1.1 e,-1- CO F- 1 1 i<' 1 9 1/ -1 t- b '1- - O . 1 1 3 f t, ! - 11 - 0 1 -0---f K.-30 - 0 /. 0 1 F M fo -4 11-1 - -4 -L I J 1 =r- 1 I p 1 + ,' . 1 511 1 ma 11 1 |0 -. JL -/ r 13 2 9 1 1. 1 y m 1, 1\11 1 - N,9 1 / r--i' 1 ;0 1 1 m 11! F i M 1 1.49 1 Z J 7 \ 1-2. 1/Â· 11 pfu .30 4 :----4 . 11,1 m 11 .-14 - .\ 1- 1 1 Pr -31 1 ' i / 4 1 1 Il 4 . r.: :~r - -- - 1 / m. 1 1 1 NI' P- 7 r -,1, i -- --1 4----- ---4-- --1 /71 3 0 \ A /. 1.C 91 / I N 2.-tr 'FE=t It - i Â·Â·4!41 i 4 4 tt 1 " 1 4--7- â€¢1- Â· 1." 1 l' c/-1 1 r v 1 ----- -- - -i ~ Il 1 4 - 5.-r- -0 41 ': i ,; i ' 1 V 4 1.. 1 m \ 1 1- b r ./ F 1 1 6 - 11 -- â€¢-__ -_/0 %- N A h i' 1 . * 1 1 1-1 1 ---1 1-1 Â» z 1 .1 Jo i ; BÂ· Myr . F ---Â·. 1 ./ . -1 4 -1-/7 11 lilli *f. 1 4 0 1 Â· '1 . ' -1-{ - 11 % 1 t= 11 7-1 1 1Â·! --1 ~ - 1 1 i , 1 -2 -- 1---u i U 0 11 9 * 8 m N 0 / . ilt abu~ i / Pe 1 0 i 3--*.-- 4 th 1 1 A-_ C | 2%. 1 4 - 'i 4---- 11 t th k 1 1 0 i. - m - 0 0 1 d 1 - fl 1 / -11 - - -4 9 ' 0 1-1 2 -1 |L 1 â‚¬1 IIi# 1< i â‚¬* Z f 21 f- ---1 --------6 7 -11 -- F - c=1Â· 9 Â·1â€¢ P . m m 1 , It 11. 0 1 1 1 Z 1 ANC CLOSI<~67 0 F, F { 0 9 417 MAIN STREET, STUDIO 'A' R. C. ROBERTSON Â· ARCH&7BCTS *C R'E M OP EL A T 1 3 2, W, MAIN 5 T. CARBONDALE, CO. 81623 - -- - -- 970.963.0567 A5PEkl COLORADO 970 Â· 963 8936 FAX I A.I.A. 0. 0 01 0 . w/'274 - r JANET LÂ£>Â·1--bâ€¢ *~>-d-H 4 Â¥ 4 g 2 .. Z 0 R 3 3:9 0. .30 22 t. 2,95 EE m Crt a 4/.,11\ .. I:ill \31 , . 1 \1 $. , 1 7% /// 1 / / l. 1 - / \.4 1/. h 1 \ E-= _ - 0. t--- -V -r-- .- - -* -- hq j' "k. - - ~- -- --- -SL.L.=~ri ---29 A- ---- - - : -r===90 P.....HT.7~11-- 1 I----- 0 - -=5-9 1 11 -1 01 d L N . 11 - ----1! 1 Ill -- ---- "1 1--.1 - --1 1 -- ------1 LL- 111--- ------- - .-------7 1 1.-1--1 1 --1 1 - -1, 1-1 - - - oil- 4 6 /,6 . â€¢ tw Dow r. NAN VPWO S/O/AG, 4 -1 4 9 ,-11â„¢ fC> NA61O 0*Â·(97â‚¬h 70*4TCH 6</3-79 11 11 +1 4 N O R <~~ H / i -4 1'. 01' 0 4% 4, 6 h|g -1 --- l [L] a m 0 1 - i.-I. -.--F.-I .. -.I.#.1-- - Z</=-;=fi-- 7 _ j*---1~ H- ----2 ' + - -.- .---*-. - -.+-- ----- ---------------- - I k - 11 + -1--/ ---1 -4 1 0 1 - L 1 1 al 4 IL+Ii ppi =3& 1 F+1 -TI ~ -777-77~_ tz==1 I _il 4-- -----411 1- 16-6 -~~ - M 1-1 .L---11 -4 , 1--.---.-----4 - ~=v-' F -44 1~ L=u=zR r----]1 E=I=JUILL-ud *-71 -- 0 Cruzzl -----------1 ~ F- O- - L-----1 It g -1 11 e 1-li' 1 1 4 31[i i! lili i m -- --100_11------- - 1' -Â· L - _ 3 1 I~ 1 L ' --11 -- - - -- - --- - ----- -.-, -A, 6 - -I---' - *, -h--------n l " L-â€¢--------41 t-" -----Â·~--4V' --/0 --'"u-----â€¢----Â·---~. U -*&- l Oe.579 ttANCAVP 844'P f.(Â»Al,20~/L t-j 8â‚¬/Of< ENST DUOR -n> W *M 1 . '84.ACE */ Â¥4{NDOW 70 MATCM â‚¬*15-re ~~WEST, 94" -It.OP , \ ////416\\ 401>4-1 - d /10 J I l Ittill lili 111 --=1~1 /9 /,1 1 11 1 . //L. \\\\\ 225/ 4 1 h' \ L.' 11 - /Mtv 01/NDOW JO *'\,ATOH C *.1 219 111 6. 111: 6 1.1 -- H. P. C 4Â·jÂ·91 T - --1.=L.li_i._4...El.1-.11-_1-__lili _.h ..1_1.._ aiLU_1 --f-723-2 1 1 -11 4 6- 0 / 0, Fl F I --i ii-3: - 11 1 1 8 r f - 1 1 - It- â‚¬. 4. 0 1 1. 1 1 -f ...4 - 9% P T . R 0 CÂ¢*ANGG Nâ‚¬W W OO D PA 1 L 8â‚¬/00/Er EXISTS WOOD FOFC# A+NO U T H te /MAâ‚¬* 6>4519 â‚¬â€ž1117 Â£Â»98. 1 EZ9t8 2, OlanlS ' 3381