The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19970528AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION May 28, 1997 REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5:00 I. Roll Call II. Public Comments III. Commissioner and Staff Comments IV. NEW BUSINESS 9:10 13*514 North Street - Conceptual Development - Public HearingI lI-71 6 h L 0 6:00 (29: 303 S. Cleveland - Landmark, code amendment Lb -0 /c CON,4 - 6:30 A â‚¬, Food and Wine Banners 314 2 < 9.30#7 4- 6:40 D., Workshop topics 7:00 VI. ADJOURN NOTE: James Howard Kunstler will be at City Council Brown Bag lunch Monday, June 2, 1997 NOON. The lecture is at the Wheeler Opera House at 7:00 p.m. that night. We hope all HPC members will attend. NOTE: Nore Winter workshop - Monday June 9 th - 3:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Dinner will be provided 0 OJECT 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) ISIS 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) 411 E. Main - Cantina 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) /hlbert Sanchez 420 E. Main Galena Plaza (not active) 820 E. Cooper (not active) 411 E. Main - Cantina Jeffrey Halferty 939 E. Cooper 325 E. Main - Baang Cafe CONCEPTUAL 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 ofthe Aspen grove Cemetery; Ramona's involvement in HPC and charter member of the historical society) MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development T.,3-- Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Dire FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer V RE: 514 N. 3rd Street- Conceptual, Partial Demolition, Ordinance #30 PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 28, 1997 SUMMARY: The property is a designated historic landmark with a Victorian home and carriage house on site. Each building is a dwelling unit. The applicant proposes to make an addition to the main house in the open space between the two structures. Staff recommends continuing the application with some areas for restudy. APPLICANT: Don and Karen Ringsby, owners. LOCATION: 514 N. 3rd Street, Lots 1 and 2, Block 40 of the unrecorded Hallam's Addition to the City of Aspen. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks, must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. Response: The applicant proposes to create additional living space for the historic house and a new entry. The addition is one story and will infill the open area between the house and outbuilding. Floor plans have not been provided, but it is staff's understanding that the addition is a living room and that there will be no walk through connection between the two units. 1 ... 0 From historic maps of the property, it is apparent that the house maintains its original form, except for additions on the east side of the house and the enclosing of the porches. Similarly, the carriage house has had a lean to addition made to the north and modifications of windows. The proposed addition, for the most part, attaches to the existing buildings in areas of more recent construction, therefore limiting demolition of the original structures. Also, the area of connection to the historic house is minimized by the creation of a "hyphen" element. In general, staff finds the addition to be a minimal expansion of living space. There are several areas of concern in regard to the design which must be addressed. The addition includes the removal of two fairly sizable trees, which requires the approval of the parks department The historic house is nicely preserved and is typically Victorian in the complex intersection of many roofplanes and use of ornamental detail. Because the porches have been enclosed, the house no longer has the feeling of openness along the street facades that it had originally. The outbuilding has also been protected and was modified in a contemporary manner for use as a guest house. Staff finds that the carriage house remodel is successful and not competitive with the historic resource, at least in part because the two buildings are detached. Staff finds that ifthe two buildings are to be linked, thatthe linking element must be very simple in character and should not introduce a third "style" including the peeled log posts and eyebrow window. The designer is taking the right approach in wishing to create a subtle distinction to the new construction, however staff feels that these elements depart too much from the historic buildings. Staff finds that the main ridgeline is unnecessarily high for a one story volume and that it along with the porch element, encroach too much onto the historic carriage house. The addition should infill between the two structures, but not wrap them together into one building to the extent possible so that it becomes difficult to indentify the historic structures. Finally, staff is not in favor of relocating the main entrance to the house into the addition because it removes the focus from the historic resource. Because the existing construction is one story the new addition exceeds the allowable site coverage. The maximum allowed is 40% and the proposed site coverage is approximately 41%. HPC has the authority to grant this variance for landmarks. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character ofthe neighborhood ofthe parcel proposed for development. Response: Although many concerns with elements of the addition's design have been stated, staff does find the proposal in general to be a minimal change to accommodate the owner's needs. The project is still well below the maximum 0 square footage allowed for the site and is of a pedestrian scale which is much more sensitive to the historic character of the West End than has been the surrounding development 2 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: No demolition of the original structures is proposed, therefore staff finds that this standard is met. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: This standard may be better met with some modifications to the addition as described above. PARTIAL DEMOLITION Section 26.72.020.C, Standards for review of partial demolition. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: (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 ofthe parcel. Response: The area proposed for the addition seems to be the most appropriate location and causes limited demolition. 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: The applicant proposes to connect to elements of the structures which do not appear to be historic. Staff finds this demolition to be appropriate. 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: Issues related to the project design are discussed above. 3 COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE #30 Response: The existing windows on the carriage house are in the "no window zone" area and therefore carry an FAR. penalty which currently puts the house over the maximum allowable floor area. Staff recommends that HPC waive the standard for these pre-existing windows. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any ofthe 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. 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: Staff recommends that HPC table conceptual review with the following recommendations: 1. An opinion on the proposed tree removal must be received from the Parks Depaitment. 2. The addition must be very simple in character and should not introduce a third "style" including the peeled log posts and eyebrow window. 3. Restudy the height ofthe main ridgeline. 4. Do not continue the porch element across the front ofthe carriage house. 5. Do not relocate the main entrance to the house into the addition because it removes the focus from the historic resource. 6. HPC may grant a site coverage variance as needed for the addition. 7. HPC waives the volume standard for the windows in the carriage house. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to continue the conceptual development application for 514 N.3rd Street." 4 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name R)N658Y M0V5ET ADDITioN 2. Project location 5/4 N 620 512â‚¬EÂ¥ ASPEN 1>ors I and 12- 1560 0%1 40 off#â‚¬ UNAâ‚¬GoNOâ‚¬0 RAU,AM'S ADDrhhN To TRE â‚¬'IrraGAW,EN (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) O - A 3. Present zoning 1.6- 4. Lot size 6/ 162 5auAAE ArET 5. Applicanfs name, address and phone number PON-4 1<Xe.EN K[N636Y CN Asfe-n- 914 N. ge.p gre~er ASPLN COLOW*00 920-16 95 04 301,7499- li~/14 _ip DÂ£-AftrÂ»687 E, CEDAR AVEr PENVER, CO 902.09 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number Gel c 1@ 1 N 6%6 tf 514 Al. SAO GREET ASPEN CoLOBArDO 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA ~ Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD 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 SpliULot Line - Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. DescMption of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) MAI w 14-AUGâ‚¬ - Af'FBOX 1/46% 6. M 2- 8612124001 '16 Skr,4 - Livi,/ 6 -K/ToNâ‚¬v 6 u EST Pfolâ‚¬E- APP '20 5$61 9. P 1 BED Bo M M 41 VIN& / 151 <6146+1 t 9. Description ofdevelopment application L-/MIC -Alâ‚¬ 17â€ža l.jauSEM u,i-ra (301 6.eUAFF. . 969-C OA/lâ‚¬ Slb#Y LI'w,Je~ ALEA- - AND /veld H Al M â‚¬Nl *Â·AN câ‚¬ -r-6 MA'IN Woo SE 10. Have you completed and attached the following? ,Â£ Attachment 1 - Land use application form Xf Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form -57 Response to Attachment 3 % Response to Attachments 4 and 5 11111111 ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant: - DOR) ~3 1<#4)269 2-!Al&56 ~ Address: 6 14 4. 3 2.0 q -rle. 6 651- AS mEN, 28 91 611 Zone district: . A- G Lot size: - (>i 'Cof 4auA'.6 FEer (A#*04.1 AA - Existing FAR: 2-,919 Sm ALâ‚¬ F â‚¬Ef 3.2094,â‚¬ Allowable FAR; 16 , 161 6 4 044*E #687 Proposed FAR: 9- 9 20 -rafâ€¢t- 5 0 AAâ‚¬ 4 86 T 319456+>Ex isting net leasable (commercial): U A J Proposed net leasable (commercial): Wh Existing % of site coverage: 54.5'7 c;tf Â¥04.11% pro29Â§9*laf-site.coverage:. 4,7.?> A Existing % of open space: N /Â» Proposed % of open space: NVA Existing maximum height: Princioal bldg: 14 - 01 1~ Accesorv blaa: 2.0 L Gil Proposed max. height: Princioal bida:'21-t,L -AeeesseÂ»bider 12-6 " Proposed % of demolition: 0 90 Existing number of bedrooms: 8 02. PRINCAÂ¥'LE BU)6, 1 ACCE-5. 8406, -'~) Proposed number of bedrooms: 4 Existing on-site parking spaces: On-site parking spaces required: 11 Setbacks M A\N f 610*r Existing: Mougle ~ H.01<F i Minimum required: Prooosed: O f ADull,00 0}Ju~ Front: 1-5 f_25.-_1 Front: to' Front: 25 Rear: 4' 1 0' 2 Rear: to' Rear: 61 Combined ro74(-1 , 1 Combined f Combined 1 Front/rear: 19' 1 2-5 Front/rear: 30 Front/rear: 31 Side: 10, .821 Side: 4 1 Side: 4<1 Side: 43 1 121_-, Side: 5 1 Side: 20, Combined 1 1 Combined Combined ~ Sides: 63~ 1 -81---1 Sides: !9 ' Sides: 66 Existing nonconformities or encroachments:~ 6&,59-r N.ous â‚¬ IAM 4 861(61- IN TIAâ‚¬ \%1 0% AND Wors RuiLT oP EACK. AND 9 iDE, FAof'â‚¬2.1 Y ut Al*5 sk, ~~V~n~at~n~s requested: NONE- NGâ‚¬060 15Â£ ADD,-710AI 69 - (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings, 0 FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.R., site coverage variance up to 5%, height yariations under the cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O zone districts) ATTACHMENT 4 item #2 2. Conceptual selection ofbuilding materials to be used in the proposed development. The rooling material shall be asphalt 3-tab shingles and shall match as closely as possible the color, and style ofthe existing asphalt shingles. The main siding material shall be bevel cedar siding ofthe same width and cut as the siding on the existing buildings. The siding will be painted to match the color ofthe existing siding. The "fish scale" shingle siding used under the gabled ends on the existing main building will be matched as closely as possible on the new addition using cedar or redwood shingles cut to match the existing size and with the same level of finish. The shingles will be painted to match the existing main building paint scheme. The windows shall be top grade such as 'Marvin' or equivalent exterior clad aluminum frame windows painted to match the existing. All operable window shall be the double hung style to match the existing. All windows to be double pane which does not match existing but has higher R-Value. The windows in the gables ofthe new addition shall be fixed. Exterior doors shall be solid wood either natural finish or painted to match existing. The hardware shall be top quality with a brass or antiqued finish. The wood posts supporting the new covered porch on the East Elevation shall be 5" diameter hand peeled and lightly sanded pine logs with a clear/natural finish. There are no peeled logs in the existing buildings but this is a common site in mountain Victorian architecture and it would set offthe new addition as being different from the existing. The deck material of the new covered porch shall be redwood with a natural finish. ATTACHMENT 4 item #3 3. Written description ofproposal. compliance with review standards. and impact on neill 1 'rhood. The new addition shall be a one story space that links the existing main house with the cottage. The new addition shall contain the new main entrance for the main house and share a common wall with the cottage but the cottage shall remain a separate entity with its own entrance and no interior access to the main house. The new addition shall be 601 square feet ofcovered space with 193 square feet of covered porch. The existing house and the cottage were built in the 1870's. Both houses have been added to several times and the main house has already doubled in size since its creation. 99% ofthe new addition will not touch the original buildings. The new addition adds on to parts ofthe main and cottage houses that have already been added on to. The back ofthe main house and the side of the cottage have been added to using a shed style rooÂ£ The new addition as a general design is compatible to the existing structure in design in its use of similar but not equal to the original gables on the East Elevation. This is the main elevation to the street (North Third Street). Two ofthe four existing pine 50' trees will remain and are located in front of the new addition blocking most of the new addition from the street view. Very little of the new addition will be visible from the alley side or from the view from North Street. The other direction to the west faces a neighbor who has a tall one story house only six feet from the property line but with no windows at all facing the new addition. The gable facing west on the new addition is a shed style but curved like an eyebrow to add some interest and character. This gable will be visible from the alley. The new addition shall be two feet higher than the existing and only twenty two feet six inches high at the top ofthe peak. This is not to detract from the existing houses but to show where in the general mass ofthe whole where the new main entrance ofthe house should be. The mass ofthe new addition is consistent with the existing and remains much smaller in scale than the new huge two story neighbor houses to the north and south. The roof pitches in the new addition shall echo those ofthe existing houses for a sense of harmony. The covered porch on the new addition is to bring back the covered porch ofthe original main house entry which was enclosed with glass many years ago for more interior space. The posts ofthe new porch shall be round hand peeled 5" pine logs with a natural finish. This is to highlight the new main entry and to set it apart from the existing in a humble yet tasteful way. The gables ofthe new addition will have fixed windows to allow light into the vaulted ceiling ofthe new living space. Although the peaked gables ofthe main house have no windows such as the new addition will have it is a common Victorian detail and does not detract from the original. The roof material, windows, and siding shall match as closely as possible the original buildings. The intent ofthe new addition is to add to the charm ofthe existing without trying to make too much ofa statement. A few choice elements mentioned above will subtly show it to be a new addition and similar to but not overwhelming the original building and the simplicity of its design. As far as the neighborhood is concerned this house and new addition will help retain the original Victorian character ofthe neighborhood much more than most ofthe surrounding 4,10 neighbors. The unfortunate trend oftearing down old Victorian houses and putting up ugly, Neo-Victiorians is out ofcontrol in the west end. There are three such new houses within fifty feet ofthis proposed addition. The two closest houses across North Third Street remain original Victorians but both have had extensive additions much larger than the mere 601 square feet we are proposing. The house to the west is a 'mountain style' with no attempt at being Victorian or historic. A few years ago the existing house became a historic landmark because the current owners wanted it to be. The new addition will not diminish the historic status of this property. The growth and many extensions and additions to Victorian houses are a part ofhistory and are obviously preferable to the bulldozer. .'i -- 2 3741.,2,%6."t i *44 "p~-VI lea 11! ..r-Â·Â·12.9Â·+I )h.3%47. I. 0 ' .1 I -3 1 -- it-/al~.. f -11, -'~O .,1=7~~5 0% 9/ r '5 F., 1 Â· '16-7/ 6227 - 1 f KI 41 5 1 2 121 ' . , '4'AW , I mir ' 0 . - 4 / 04 . '4 .1 ..... -7. iN, 4. .,- 2 1 - -- -=t .,Lt - , gr - 1 2. ; 1 1 . -1.* P r.47.7 t.~ , 4- - . ~ f , ?Â·~~ s 41,; t=Â» 4 4.71 f .1 ' 4 4.1~ , 42 /i- -. f. , . 1 -/ . .t . I..' iIi: . -i,. ; 1 , . : -Ar A p, *. - . 3 *il f! ) 1 i ,~ 22 ' 1 t' '--:* B F imr-il -Â·- 01 :!L ji ji i .' li:i e'fj! i.. '9 '.41 . 5 ~ ~:..,pr. .J.~ .~ . 2-944> 2 , Â·+14%8 43>79~47~:tyÂ»~Â·Â·-- .p.:t ~......... ..... r .5 ... 4*le*-2-- . ' 4* 4'# ' - : - 1 5 - I 6 -- . ..14-s~ ' 4$.it P ~0612:41" .- Â·Â·- . .54'VJ 91.. ' 671Â·< .- W - 1 1- 2 0 ,, f',t m @1* 001" |-------Â£~ E)(1511146 -NEW APPITION - E)(1511NG ~-| 2,9 - hu -74 _W~UU-LIV-AT_I-Â« 5CALE 1/ 8" - 1'-0" 4% 394 ti,3-â‚¬L 4-)%~44- 1,1 1,1, 1,/ 1,0 1,0 1,0 17E] Lfia 171 [a mill' mi ----1 E)(1511NG NUWAPPITION-EXIS[ING 0 EA5f ELEVATION 5CALE 1/8" 0 1'-0" // 4 '04/' ''' 40 , 1 0 NORTH ELEVATION 5(:ALE 1/8" - i -0" 11 'Â·92<Â·PAEÂ·*93%'941934)/lakL e1 50UfH ELEVATION 5CALE 1/ 8 11 mell-All $$ A fÂ« < Â»~ 1 J ival~. Â»41 ai:-Â·4:4**Ri4!fi~i:*Â§*:49:2*#i#{*i*4%:9?*Â¥6*46*EN \\:*44 L 4<,7 V -> V 1 1 ROOF PLAN 5(JALE 1/8"-1'-0" HATCH ArÂ¢A 5HOW5 NEW ROOF APPITION - 4. /4 PUBLIC NOTICE . 1.i it ; #r: DATE t! j.7 *144 'I *Â¢10 - TIME ,,), 1 0 .i. , I.9 PLACE â‚¬ 2. 10Â·*.' i Â·18' PURPOSE Â».fr' ' 334Â»5 #: 41 -= r I ; ..f d. A Â¥ Wep 1 1 -- 1 t' County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVrr OF NOTICE PURSUAL.....-/ } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION State of Colorado } SECIION 2632.060 (E) 1 62 -7~ , beingorrepresenting-mr -- Applicanrto theCityof Aspen.pers4111ycertifylhatIhavecompliedwiththepublicnotica requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060 (E) of the Aspen land Use Regulations inthe following manner: 1. By mailing of notice. a copy of which is arrached hereto. by first-class. postage prepid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicamdon [he arrached lision the ~6.~ay of ~4~, 1999(which is 0 davs orior:o [hepubiic hearing dam of 5 9 9. FE - 4 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subjecr properry (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and char the said sign was posted and visible conanuously from the ((B day of /4~ , 199+(Must be posted for ar least ten (10) full days beYore the hearing date i. A photograph of the posted sign is artached hereto. - = - 14/7//~ (Attach photograph here) Signature 0 0 Signed before me this day , 199_by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: Notary Public Notary Public's Signamre -- ATTACHMENTS PUBUC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS There are three forms of notice required by the Aspen Municipal Code, these being notice by publication in the newspaper, notice by posting of the property, and notice by mail to surrounding landowners. You can determine whether your application requires notice, and the type of notice required from Table 1, attached to this summary. Following is a description of the notice requirements, including identi'lying who is responsible for completing the notice. 1. Publication. Publication of notice in a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen is to be done at least 15 days prior to the hearing. The legal notice will be written by the Community Development Department Administrative Assistant who will also be responsible for delivering the notice to the newspaper by the deadline. The City pays the cost of publishing the - notice. 2. Posting. Posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the property is to be done 10 days pMor to the hearing. It is the applicant's responsibility to obtain a copy of the sign from the Community Development Department. to fill it in correctly and to bring proof (preferably a photograpn) to the heaMng to show that the posting took place. 3. Mailing. - Mailing of notice is to be made to ail owners of property within 300 feet of the subject parcel by the applicant. It is the aoplicanfs responsibility to obtain a copy of the notice from the Community Development Department,. to mail it according to the foll8wing standards, and to bring proof (in the form of a signed affidavit) to the hearing to show that the mailing took place. Standards for notice shall be as follows: â€¢ Any federhkagency, State, county, or municipal government service district or quasi governmental agency that owns property within 300 feet of the subject property must be mailed notice 15 days prior to the hearing. â€¢ All other landowners within 300 feet of the subject Rroperty must be mailed notice 10 days prior to the hearing, unless notice is given by hand delivery, in which case it must be given 5 days prior to the headng. â€¢ Subdivision applications only also require notice by registered mail to all surface owners, mineral owners, and lessees of mineral owners of the subject property. â€ž, I#...I. 1../.*.) /7/n/g -y--- - The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than 60 days prior to the date of public hearing. PLEASE NOTE THAT A PUBUC HEARING CANNOT BE HELD WITHOUT PROOF OF NOTICE PRESENTED AT THE MEETING. .. 1 6-- 2735-124-16-001 300' Radius List 15-May-97 parcel # schedule 4 owner name 1 owner name 2 address city state zip 2735-124-12-002 000385 ADLER SAMUEL I AND BERNYCE UNITS C1205 AND C1207 3 GROVE ISLE DR MIAMI FL 33133 2735-121-08-003 005670 ALTEMUS E A PARTNERSHIP LLLP 640 N 3RD ST ASPEN CO 81611 2737-073-00-801 013950 ASPEN CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL 100 PUPPY SMITH ST ASPEN, CX) 81611 2735-124-16-002 005657 BLOCK FAMILY TRUST 44.5% INT BLOCK QUALFD PERS'L RES TRST 5 311 W NORTH ST ASPEN CO 81611 2735-124-13-002 000275 CHISHOLM STUART C 50% & DANIEL W TURES CHRISTINE C 25% 1063 CENTRAL ST SE OLYMPIA WA 98501 2735-124-15-003 000684 CONOVER CATHRINE M 1666 CONNECTICUT AVE NW STE 300 WASHINGTON DC 20009 2735-121-10-002 005703 CONYERS W O CONYERS SUZANNE 3838 JOHN LYNDE RD DES MOINES IA 50312 2735-124-88-001 008701 COTSEN 1985 TRUST LLOYD COTSEN T 12100 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 905 LOS ANGELES CA 90025 2735-124-16-001 005702 D W RINGSBY ENTERPRISES A PARTNERSHIP PO BOX 7240 DENVER CO 80207 2735-121-08-002 005680 DAGGS JAMES K DAGGS GAY 640 N 3RD ST ASPEN CO 81611 2735-12+02-002 005662 DUDE HARALD 6585 DILLMAN RD W PALM BEACH FL 33416 2735-121-10-003 005665 DURAND LOYAL Ill DR AND DURAND BERNICE BLACK 4314 FAWN CT RTE 1 CROSS PLAINS WI 53528 2735-124-14-003 000457 FIGGE THOMAS K CARRIAGE HOUSE C/O ROBERTS AVE DAVENPORT IA 52803 2735-124-15-002 000525 GATES CHARLES C GATES JUNE S 990 S BROADWAY DENVER CO 80217 2735-124-11-002 005663 GREEK ISLES LTD WYLY SAM C/O 8080 N CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY STE 111 DALLAS TX 75206 2735-121-28-001 013866 HUME ANTHONY 6440 N CENTRAL EXPY LB3 DALLAS TX 75206 2735-124-11-001 005664 KELLNER GEORGE A KELLNER MARTHA B 117 E 78TH ST NEW YORK NY 10021 2735-124-12-003 000747 KIENAST CHRISTIE A 406 W SMUGGLER ST ASPEN CO 81611 2735-124-11-003 005700 LEWIS MEMRIE M 72 ZACCHEUS MEAD LN GREENWICH CT 06831 2735-12+02-001 005668 LUBAR SHELDON B LUBAR MARIANNE S 3380 FIRST WISCONSIN CENTER MILWAUKEE WI 53202 2735-12+16-003 005674 LUNDY VICTOR C LUNDY ANSTIS B 301 LAKE AVE ASPEN CX) 81611 2735-124-01-002 012593 MARSHALL RONNIE 320 LAKE AVE ASPEN CO 81611 2735-124-02-003 005699 MC COY JOSEPH H MC COY LILLIAN M AS JOINT TENANT 315 LAKE AVE ASPEN CO 81611 2735-124-14-001 001465 MC MAHAN JAMES A MC MAHAN JACQUELINE 2 OAKMONT DR LOS ANGELES CA 90049 2735-124-14-002 000995 NICOLA BETTY B UND 1/4 INT LUBCHENCO NANCY N AND 621 17TH ST #1215 DENVER CO 80293 2735-12+03-003 005688 NIUE WILLIAM A 355 LEXINGTON AVE #8 FLOOR NEW YORK NY 10017 2735-124-03-002 005689 NIUE WILLIAM A CHARLES PRATT & COMPANY INC C/ 355 LEXINGTON AVE NEW YORK NY 10017 2735-124-12-004 001171 PERLMANITZHAK PERLMAN TOBY 21 W 70TH ST NEW YORK NY 10023 2735-12+07-003 012603 PERROS DIMITRI AND DIANE 79 LOCUST RD WINNETKA IL 60093 2735-124-11-004 005697 PHELPS MASON 201 S LAKE AVE STE 408 PASADENA CA 91101 2735-121-10-001 005683 PINES DAVID AND PINES ARONELLE S 403 W MICHIGAN URBANA IL 61801 2735-124-01-003 012594 RANDALL ELLEN MIDDLETON TRUSTEE OF E MIDDLETON RANDAL 600 JEFFERSON STE #350 HOUSTON TX 77002 2735-124-03-001 005666 STUNDA STEVEN R 515 5TH STREET ANNAPOLIS MD 21403 2735-124-12-001 001315 THALBERG KATHARINE 434 W SMUGGLER ST ASPEN CO 81611 2735-124-95-001 012170 WALTON S ROBSON WALTON CAROLYN F 125 W CENTRAL #218 BENTONVILLE AR 72712 2735-124-15-001 000074 WELTERS ANTHONY WELTERS BEATRICE WILKINSON AS 919 SAIGON RD MC LEAN VA 22101 2735-124-07-004 012604 WOGAN JACQUELINE T PO BOX 158 ASPEN CO 81612-0158 2735-124-95-002 012171 WRIGHT STEWART REX WRIGHT EMILY GRAHAM 111 SIERRA VISTA REDLANDS CA 92373 1 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: RINGSBY CONCEPTUAL NOTICE IS IIEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, May 28, 1997, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 pm before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission in the Sister Cities meeting room, basement ofCity Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application submitted by Don and Karen Ringsby requesting HPC Conceptual approval for an addition to their house at 514 N. 3rd Street, Lots l and 2, Block 40, of the unrecorded Hallam's Addition to the City of Aspen, Colorado. The addition will require a site coverage variance ofup to 5% and a waiver of some elements ofthe Residential Design Standards. For further 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 May 10, 1997. City ofAspen Account .. - 0 311 W. North Street, Aspen, CO, 81611-1350 (970) 925-33 May 23, 1997 Ms. Amy Amidon Mr. Jake Vickery, Chair, AHPC Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Dept 130 S. Galena St Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Ms. Amidon and Mr. Vickery: This letter is in response to the public notice that we received re: Ringsby Conceptual. We are the immediate neighbors of the Ringsby property at 514 N. 3rd St. They are lots 1 and 2 and we are lots 3, 4 and 1/2 of 5, Block 40, Hallam Addition. Unfortunately, my work at Northwestern University prevents us from attending the public hearing on May 28, 1997. Please read this letter to the Commission, and make it part of the record. 0 We are the people most seriously impacted by any addition to their property. As it is, 4 years ago they have added (as far as we know, without a permit) a shed that runs up to our property line and is not set back the legal 5 feet. The shed' s roof drops its snow accumulation onto our bushes, wrecking them. To allow them to increase their holdings (already two large buildings on only two lots) would be a grave mistake, and would harm the neighborhood. We are already infested with "monster" homes on 2 sides (courtesy of Mr. McCoy), and we don't need any more in this historic neighborhood. Please preserve it! Sincerely, Martin Block Beate Block Tom Issac Pitkin County Assessor 19 -0~- 506 6-St Main Street, Suite 202 eric RligralvESibEafn41 1 R---i bjs~/ V.aY B he- 4-6/1 ars 4-4*- nOLLARS R.1=360'261(Â» la-ApPO#-- Account Total m â‚¬ {* 0 Amount Paid 'F 5-(&36 Balance Due m A. d egge -aÂ» "THEEFFICIENCYÂ®LINE"ANAMPADPRODUCT :/% 1 1.. 10 . , >4Â£ \ NORTH r , r )64,1.r s 11Â«Fl-1- , 1 4*:44 LS,>*11 1, t-Â¢<44; *Aff,- Â«\\Â«-Â«Lfp*4- EDGE OF PAVEMENT / 1 / -14 ..4 .4.4.~ /4. \\ ~*Wmi .Â· FOUND St.1 .4".gh OLD SPIKE . 1.13. 5 ~ ~02tjÂ» 6 ' 4. 14 , PLAST IC~/ O 5 2376' 5. N 5 0 ~24 N 7 009, i 0 1 1,41: 11.\ : i'..,2 .Â·40Â· = 4.2.b 1 l i,U :71.' YELLOW #LAST 9. CAP 'LS'2376 r--r ' O DK ./ 8.9 41 ..2 4,4 4. ELT 7.5Â· 7 1 L.,key i. LOT I 3.4. 6.25' Â·4,'-4-44 1 4~--2 1.3. 3* Nk ':41: 4. '11 ..1 111 !1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ '~PiftlkA cd U FE- rp it . 1 4 ., If. ''feÂ¢?11 PORCH . 11 0 0.-, Itt,117 \1 1 -4.Lâ€ž~ 1 -~T %+_5 SILL - 100.0' ~ /2, t. 1 ' PAVERS --1 ~1 ~ , Â·Â· ~Â·.-*Af) / 1 #.18. ... :. 1 r ...4.E 1 /021 k;4 /7 J. LOT 2 O LOT 3 '1 J4 , 1 p. / // 1 1 - EAVE Ile.9' ' < 3 ~ *7- ' ~ ~ 1~ 1/2 STORY WOOD FRAME HOUS r .4..:...r; 4 CO 0 G * , .9.4.. ''Y';Nt:'K , ~ ADDRESS 514 1 I Â· Â·-tnce= Â·. e '12%.1,14 w 'Â· 474.~4,11,4 8- CO 0 I v I J : Ch .Â·'Â· 'fielt)#0~ 1\ n 1 , 7.19>1 , ' -,?.Â¢3~16 ' 1 41 1 Â·ff. 1 $ 1 1 -4, 1 4 .,1322.12% . .' R j' i l; "Â·95 4. 9,01 - g Â· 1 19Â¥11 ,Â« 5.. . 4/. 1?lillil . f ...1. /1 LeÂ¢111 1 6* 0 C 1 1 8. 1 1 U A GRAVEL 0- ' M /0,12 '4.901 It I ..,1:,PZD':41* I PARKING 1 4 A A A 5- 8 , 1 - . -it#, 61"1%,tâ‚¬11 1 1.-4 '. r ..1(ilÂ¥4 4 10- 18..k.-2NV'/ 10 - 1 , , , 141: 11,1 .i '.1~.1.. â€¢ 1.--:11:Â· ' b],%80 Y.".42,r f 7% ~ 1--i ~7-91.1 j'%4?* 1 AA t~ 0 v V PAVERS 4 i-Â·ns PLA*Yff -1 1 =:epÂ·. ' 1 *' 1 ../.4.I- 1:1(-f21,11..~ 1 1 /2/ I -~2:Â«Â»23 i 9..a- 1 1 1.v 44 ./ 7.~4 1 11 I,J 49:4.e- 1 == 10-0 / it .112** 1 1 1 11 911 1, ''IUM'#E 6 - 9 :5 - 1 1 '1'' .i. 14*K.G..1'ANp-b':W [ENTRy /00.4' Ch TIC -- ~ 1 Â· 4,11rl.-mairm 1. .- Or El.1. 5. , ...9. 0) 9 4. 4 8Â£ 00* 1 f. ~.it 18Â·14Â· / ~ ;}~Iik #19.6' CARRIAGE HOUSE ADDRESS -510' 1 - Il / 8 73'09. 6 -- A 75 ' I -e UJ, ---- . 30,C EDGE OF .. 4 , #4,-412=.121 0 1 *09'11'W-- -30 ELECTRIC OJ 6 TRANSFORMER 01. GRAVEWT -1 -- -- - A - 08'4 1. ; 04'.. 91% /4 EAVE 111.5' 2, 4 THIRD TREET 08'00-W 8ACK OF CURB OF BEARINGS MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Dire Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Amilon, Historic Preservation Officer 7 RE: 303 S. Cleveland Street, Landmark Designation Residential multi-family Code amendment referral comment DATE: May 28,1997 SUMMARY: The application has two components; a request for landmark designation and a referral comment on a proposed code amendment which would be applied to future redevelopment of the site. HPC previously discussed this project in a worksession format. APPLICANT: Chuck Tower, represented by Glenn Rappaport. LOCATION: 303 S. Cleveland Street, Lots H and I, Block 35, East Aspen Addition to the City of Aspen. HISTORIC LANDMARK Section 26.76.020, Standards for designation. Any structure that meets two or more of the following standards may be designated "H," Historic Overlay District, and/or Historic Landmark. It is not the intention of HPC to landmark insignificant structures or sites. HPC will focus on those which are unique or have some special value to the community: A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Response: This standard is not met. B. Architectural Importance. The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type (based on building form or use), or specimen. Response: This standard is not met. 1 0 C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: This standard is not met. D. Neighborhood Character. The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: The structures are located in the vicinity of several other historic resources. Although the cabins are of more recent construction (1948-1952), the buildings contribute to the character of the neighborhood by being similar in scale and massing as the Victorian historic resources, and by representing a type of housing which became more common in Aspen in the 1950's. E. Communio, Character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: The structure is representative of the modest scale, style, and character of homes constructed during the early development of the skiing industry in Aspen. There 0 are a limited number of"kit" log structures from the 1950's remaining in Aspen. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT STAFF REVIEW: Currently, the land use code defines "multi-family" buildings as a group of three or more attached units. Multi-family housing is generally allowed a floor area ratio of 1:1, meaning that the building may be one square foot for every one square foot of lot area. Recently, there has been a growing interest in breaking large building masses into smaller components which are more pedestrian friendly and more compatible with historic resources where applicable. The definition of multi-family as stated above does not allow the units to be detached from each other, but the general affect has been created in the Langley project which made use of a complex group of subdivisions and rezonings. This applicant, who owns three cabins and wishes to retain them with minor improvements. proposes an amendment to the definition of multi-family to allow detached units. Multi-family housing is allowed in the following zone districts: RMF (residential multi- family), RMF-A, AH (affordable housing), C-1 (commercial), O (office), and LTR 0 (lodge/tourist residential). A hotel or lodge building is not considered multi-family. 2 0 Staff is in support of the proposed amendment because it offers a massing alternative which supports HPC policies and Ordinance 30. Some discussion must be had on how to establish an appropriate FAR, since 1:1 will not be possible within established height limits and setbacks if the buildings are detached. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC forward a recommendation of support for landmark designation of 303 S. Cleveland, finding standards D and E are met. Staff also recommends HPC support the proposed code amendment. RECO1MMENDED MOTION: "I move to forward a recommendation of support for landmark designation of 303 S. Cleveland, finding standards D and E are met. In addition, HPC supports the proposed code amendment." Attachment: Ordinance # , Series of 1997 0 0 3 ATZAaMNT 1 1) Project Name C MABLES 'G.w/2. 2)..Project location %03 8Â· CleVelaND Lots M 4.& JE 13 lock -35- ~ E. As pew 440(; 06 - -7 indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) 3) present zonirg g M-â‚¬ 4) Iot Size 4 00 0 9 W Pr. 5) Applicant' s Name, Address & Fbone # 61'ARLF, 'Gwu B Fo. Box 10/4 Aspe,1 Co. 9/412- ('9 70) 9251. 5<q vic 61 1%,presentative's Name, Mdress & phone # 6 likIN RAÂ·~AfÂ·02- AK-Â£ Illl-EcT faÂ·,low 276 Aâ‚¬f//41 00 9/6/1~ (970) 72 7'Â· 06 31 . 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use - Cencept,al SPA - Conceptual Historic Dev. - Special Review Final SPA - Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual POD Minor Fri ctoric Dev. - Stzeam Margin - Final IPOD - Historic Deivlition - Mountain View Plane Subdivision _L Historic Designation ~ __ki T#ct/Map Amendment _ QCS Allotment - Iat SpliWIot line - QCS E]ompticn Adjustment 8) Description of Existirg Uses (number and type of existing st=ructures; approocimate sq. ft.; 1=ber of bedrocms; any previous approvals granted to the propergy) 0 fAREE E *151- ING s<.Me,1-{Ake S â‚¬) / SED Roo~ â‚¬01 56 Fr g) P.plix -STE'060 â‚¬44 5~ FT- <27% S~ Fr ,.cu*~ (D D. PLEK C,0610 5-9? S~ FT' ~190 s~ Fr ,Ac;4.~ 9) Description of Develcpmerrt Application 11 fc 6-44 0 HAe k "0 1 EW AND RE FECRaL oN ACOOE AW\END MeNl- 4 4,2812 A MUL-rt FAMILII Ze,JE DIS-re.,Cr Â·rk,<r ALLâ€¢ws DeTACMÂ¢74 5f2 ucrb fie s . 10) Have you attached the following? ~ Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Corrterts Response to Attachment 3, Specific Suhnission Corrtents Response to Attachmerrt 4, Review Standards for Your Application GLENN H RAPPAPORT ARCHITECT POST OFFICE BOX 276 05 / ASPEN COLORADO 81612 19 T 970 927 0635 97 AIA F 970 927 0654 Amy Amidon, HPO Historic Preservation Committee 130 South Galena Street Aspen Colorado 81611 RE Charles Tower Landmark Designation and Multi-Family Code Amendment 303 South Cleveland Street, Aspen Colorado 81611 Dear Amy and Committee Members: We are seeking Landmark Designation and referral on a code amendment to create a detached multifamily option for the three cabins located on lots H and 1, Block 35 of the East Aspen Addition. We intend to leave these cabins in their original locations on the parcel and eventually build a new duplex (detached from the cabins) on the site. Our response to the standards (Attachment 4) defines the importance of saving the cabins and the role of their character in the community. Thank you for your consideration, Glenn H. Rappaport AIA Architect \1 Ln -'te#~ 1, t, ~ 3 0 omes ic f~.1\ 0 e. - . Oe 1 '44- '04 6 - 44 0 5 ro 0 Sm 1 r St c' ve In A -4 > - G;Fr is St O - 0 4 84 1 0 -. ..0 G> '4 0 ... 402 04 Ki t M in St â‚¬ U E Main St Ucen St 13 fi B .. -, ..0 - Sawmill M *FE U Ct U. n Ave 2 9 00 . 1 .C 28 00 /6 0 U I. an - ...4 JU 1 2.05 u e Gil *St* 1 Judaki / 1 0 0 0,0 1 Ch 1 1 1 'r 1 0 7 / i 01 \ 4\<ti llc) 'Ped C 0 Hyman ave. 5.16' I Cabin A 1 1948 1 aRm. 501sf. Cabin B 1950 Studio Cleveland st. Studio 544sf. Cabin C Â· , 19 52 Studio i Studio 559sf, 1 TOWER 0 â€¢ .- north Alley 1"= 20'Â· LotArea 6000sf. Zone RMF BLACK SHACK ARCHITECTS 00X 276 â‚¬ ASPEN COLORADO 81612 ATTACHMENT 4 This proposal seeks landmark designation for the three cabins located at 303 S. Cleveland Street Aspen, Colorado. Response to attachment 4 (Standards for Designation) . A. Historical importance. The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associatel with a person or an' event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. It could be argued that these cabins at the time they were built were a direct response to a significant cultural and social change in the history of Aspen. Small dwelling units built during this period 1948 - 1952 were specifically Intended to acknowledge the beginnings of the tourist industry created by the establishment of skiing in Aspen in 1946. B. Architectural importance. The structure or site reflects and architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant of unique architectural type, (based on building form), or specimen. Although not magnificent examples of more glorious architectural styles. These cabins do clearly represent an architectural type that was both practical and easy to construct. The -stacked log" style was extremely cost effective and become the predominant architectural style during the post war beginnings of Aspen as an international resort. C. Desianer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Does not apply. D. Neighborhood character. The structure or site is a significant component of a historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. The small scale of these cabins was very much like the other small miners cabins that once dotted Aspen's East end. This character has changed dramatically over the past years as lodges, condominiums and large homes have been developed. Even though these smaller structures are no longer part of a larger context they help to retain a sense of the past and point out differences even in Aspen between the kind of development that occurred on the West end verses that on the East side of town. E Community character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location, and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Aspen continues to fight to retain some of Its small scale character. Smaller structures can still be valuable as housing for Aspen's work force as well as insuring a diversity of population within neighborhoods. As well as preserving examples of an important series of social changes in Aspen, these structures can allow a few members of the local work force to live close in to the downtown area, an opportunity that where it still exists should be protected.