The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.HP.400 W Main St.77-1A (CLD<. 2 77- 1 400 60 R.a:A St - Block 37 Lots P.Q. R. S . CASE 7 1 Z~~ Floradora Bldg. West Main St. 1 F u -â€¢-6 -JU~~~.JI*Iw--*f'-d < 8/2 / i A.PA p tr â‚¬049 Ast e.-- 84 Ki~ UP- 96 l. &12.)1<4& J S ~2 G 1-z z- P 1 7 :.' W. r./fil /. I. 4 64 %31%: fi *4-7- CITY + SPEN 130so <galena street aspen, 4(3 ~~ 81611 TO: Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Planning Office RE: Proposed addition to the Floradora The Planning Office cannot recommend approval of the proposed addition to the Floradora as presented in the drawings and model . presented at the HPC study session on July 19, 1976. Our con- cerns are as follows: 1. The Planning Office proposed an amendment to the review criteria of the Historical Preservation Committee that would encourage new buildings to be of a contemporary architectural statement rather than a duplication or imitation of Victorian Architecture. The exception to this criteria would be considered for a minor addition alteration or repair to a historic structure. The addition to the Floradora constitutes a major addition which, based on discussions between the committee and the architect, should appear as a structure separate from the existing Floradora. The design as presented introduces a physical break between the Main Street facades of the existing Floradora and the addition. The design of the addition incorporates various Victorian details of the Floradora, but does not support the concept of maintaining the integrity of Aspen's Victorian structures separate from structures built in the present era. 2. The larger residential structures along Main Street are characterized by more open space than exists with smaller residences or non-residential structures. This open space is usually either in front or on the side of the structure (in the Sardy home and the Elisha house). The proposed addition to the Floradora intro- duces another structure of generally the same size as the Floradora. As such, it does not allow sufficient open space for the Floradora to maintain its prominent appearance along Main Street. As a suggestion, more open space could be created if the facade of the addition could be located behind the plane of the existing Floradora building, thereby creating more open space to the west of the existing structure. 3. Several details of the proposal as presented require additional thought and refinement a) the complex of roof shapes on the new addition do not appear as an authentic reproduction of Victorian building techniques b) The proposal does not present any landscaping plans c) The north and west facades present an excess of blank walls and as such are unattractive. jÂ« te.,4 -C 11 A. PIELSACK. ARCHITECT THE FLORADORA BUILDING GARAGE- OFFICE- BASEMENT RESTAURANT RESIDENTIAL Original Building Basement 521 First level 14881 Second level 10805 2568 Third level 546 546 Plan as Approved by H.P.C. Basement 4029 First level 52591 Second level 3930J 9189 Third level 2966 2966 Plan as Approved by P El Z Basement 7901 First level 5109~ Second level 3818J 8927 Third level 618 618 Note: All areas in gross square footage (outside dimensions) 1 1 8927 /46 j 8149 Â».01\ 757-U -9*99-/ 13< ~.~ / 11 L'02,lt 3200 SUITE 205 Â· 520 EAST COOPER ST. ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 303/925-1666 .'t, Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galenaltreet aspen, colorado/81611 Li,v' January 25, 1977 Mr. Stephen Dennis Office of Administration and Legal Services National Trust for Historic Preservation 740 Jackson Place, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Dear Mr. Dennis: Listed below is the information you requested regarding the pres- ervation and expansion of the Floradora. 1. Final approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Historic Preservation Committee (H.P.C.) was for an octagon shaped "gazebo" addition to the first floor of the historic structure and a two story structure adjacent and connected to the Floradora. Number of floors - two (formerly three) Total square foot addition - 6,431 sq.ft. (ex- cluding basement) 2. The first approval given by the H.P.C. was for an addition of 9,041 square feet which was later reduced to 6,431 square feet; a reduction of 2,610 square feet. The existing historic structure has 3,114 square feet. t. 3. Owners of the property have made several minor alterations in the construction plans, and therefore, have not received a building permit. Plans will be submitted this week, and a permit will issue in about two weeks assuming no hang ups from the Building Department. The building permit is valid for a period of 120 days (not 180 days) during which construction must begin. , . f I . Letter Stephen Dennis January 25, 1977 Page Two All square footage figures do not include any existing or planned below grade space. If you have any further questions please contact me. Sincerelv. 4 il *1 Al J , v (Ar ,/,/John P. Stanford /7 6/ Preservation Planâ‚¬er JPS/bk - . I-. lei ...ErÂ· -. r..9 - W..Â·. 'A % . Â· ' Wafe A 1% '.. 11 *1Â·'L#Â¥ 1 1 I . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~<~ C. F. HOECKIL B. B. a L. Co. J . Regular Meeti,ng Historical Preservation Committee June 22, 1976 ' Meeting was called to order by Chairman Lary Groen at 1:10p.m.rwith members Bob Marsh, Florence Glidden, Norm Burns, and Terry End present. Excused was Jerry Michael.. Also present was John Stanford of the Planning Department. Approval of minutes Burns moved to approve the minutes of June 8, 1976 with the following correction: page 1, paragraph eleven, change "resended" to "rescinded". The motion was u seconded by Glidden. All in favor, motion carried. 9 Floradora Stanford explained that Russ Pielstick, architect of i Pre-application the Floradora is present, and has submitted his drawings for review by the HPC. The proposal is to build a rotunda on the southeast corner on the existing structur and to extend the west facade of. the structure across the next two lots to the west. Stanford suggested to HPC to have an informal discussion about the drawing and comments of the building. Stanford asked Pielstick to explain his concept and approach towards the - solution. Pielstick introduced himself stating he was the archi- tect of the Floradora for the owners of the building. The Floradora sits on four lots. Two lots are within the existing structure and has precluded the possibility of treating the site as two separate parcels because of the requirement that two lots have to go through a variance on a subdivision. The approach was to study how to utilize the existing victorian particularly with a restaurant in mind; and provide office space which would be relatively low volume traffic. Pielstick elected to build an addition to the victoriap. Thi#; -~ I---1... decision was mad@ pfibE- to th<HPC9-decision that 1 . the_attempti_should be made -to keep-separate id-entity for- q'alit_Y- victorian_ltind_of _buildings-7- Th@re will be a restaurant on the mafn floor of the existing structure, the second level will be toilet facilities / for the restaurant; however there will be a tenative toilet facility in the new addition for those in wheel- chairs. The top floor of the new structure and the existing structure is small apartment housing. The attempt would be to make it long term housing. There will be two levels of office space on the lower floor 22 of the addition. The members and Pielstick then went over the drawings. :5 4 Glidden asked how many apartments there will be. Pielstick mentioned there will be two one-bedroom j 3 apartments on the north side and one two-bedroom apart- ments on the south side, and one one-bedroom apartment on the top floor of the existing structure. Groen asked Stanford how he felt about the addition to K the east side of the existing structure not considering the addition to the new office building. Stanford_ Fasponded that his concern was it is_ a c.opy_of victorial *tyle and suggested it have anotherlook to it _an# Ealld like-Â¥O_.see thereâ€žaurank_come_off the eait f#~74 0.4-_oppositd--to off_the corner. Pielstick tdntioned he didn' t want to feel like it was crowding that street. Stanford mentioned to HPC what they are concerned with is the visual appearance of the building. Groen suggested not to have such a massive facade 3*Main-street. Pielstick thought that brEFEREGE {-4 the continuity of the facade on Main Street it would j. then appear to be not so massive. ,. ....4. 1*< 2.9.,17% ..... ......9. nistorical Freservation Committee 1 24; June 22,-1976 -1 % _tanford--also_suggested to ..ave_the facade connecting a 34 the two_~91-ements_he__recessed. Pielstick responded *there would be difficulty in dealing with snow and .. ice between the two buildingl. Pielstick felt it would be easier to break the scale down using contemporary architecture aesthetics than victorian. t . â€¢.Â£4*ti;.0. Â· 7Â·' 24,-r - he Groen mentioned the main conbern of the HPC is with the . M.11*...Wh .L =7 k center section with the three dormers. Maybe it could be reworked to create the feeling of two structures. Â· 4/'gl .2 + Â·i. p pielstick liked the idea of making the added structurps Â·Â·. .1 4. with non-victotian -detail. t Stanford mentioned that it is important that the signing that is decided for the building be looked at * by the HPC. Pielstick_mentioned there will be no signing. Peilstick suggested this be considered a study session and to come back again for review. There were no r further committee comments. NewÂ· Business Graen mentioned he had received a call from the National Trust for Historic Preservation in Washington , . and they wanted information on Aspen's historic zoning and would like a copy of the legislation that created the committee and a copy of the HPC criteria. Stanford mentioned he would write and send all the requested information. Marsh moved to adjourn at 2:10 p.m. All in favor, motion carried. ~1 * 111 .IL - Li]Ae a. I~ynt, ' Debut*:l i City Clerk 4, j 1 . 1 . 4 1 1 1 t 4 2. 4 - , '' i . c j. . aL-- ~ 751- .i. 1 2, Â¢., 4.1.,J.4.4 :u.~2.... 1 . ..r 1 '' 6 - --Â· /*Â·: 4-Â·.4.Â·4"0,Â·--4 : I ~;fÂ«~3'R:m )3 -'13~?7-Â·figy 724Â·I ~Â· 1'Â§E. .., Â·Â· Wl:Â·'=j- --rr%'-- . 4 ' : -' . I - of "o", no importance ; " 1" moderate importance ; " 2" - significant importance; and "3" exceptional importance. The extent of modification to the original design is also considered under architectural. The physical also relates not just to the building, but to the grounds around it and to the neighborhood as a whole. 1 LA/99Â·Â· 1 t - After the Planning and Zoning Cdmmission gives their '.4 approval for the recommendation of designation, then a y ~~' - 6'. public Hearing will be set. The letter of reply will then be mailed out to all property owners on Main Street. Ms. I .7, - Frost stated that she had one recommendation on the consent for historic designation, there should also be a place on the letter for not giving consent. This was generally accepted to by the committee members. There was orie change on the proposed zoning change, from professional business . offices to read "...professional and business offices". 3 Stanford asked the committee members to ask themselves if , they were confident enough in the historic designation process to give the recommendation for the Resolution. It was the general consensus among the committee members 1 that the process has come this far, don't stop now. Groen brought up one part of the map that designates the area by Papeke Park, but the letter stated that it stopped 0 at the alley, and this should be clarified. The committee would like to see it taken to include the park. Ms. Frost asked about the status of having the name Garmish changed to Center street, and Groen stated that possibly after having it historically designated this process will be much- easier. Chairman Groen asked for a motion to request City Council to consider the two properties, 125 W. Main and Arthur's Restaurant as historic designated buildings. Marsh so moved, seconded by Ms. Glidden. All in favor, motion carried. Chairman Groen asked for a motion to request approval :44 ' of the Resolution on Main Street Historic District. Burns so moved, and Marsh seco~Ided. All in favor, motion carried. Floradora Pre-Application Stanford presented Rus Pielstick, representing the owners of the Floradora, and reviewed the process that has taken. place up to now. Pielstick has appeared before this committee previously, and upon their recommendation has 49 worked up three additional sketches of the proposed ex- pansion of the Floradora. One of these sketches is with . 2 the recession of the facade connecting the two elements. The other two sketches were trying to incorporate a more modern type of element in the building addition. Mgs, Papeke Spoke at this point, and strongly advocated trying to restore the building as it once was. She pointed out thatÂ» the first sketch that was presented is almost identical tae the building that originallystood there. She is a past Â» owner of this property and is very concerned about the + development of this property. She went over the background 3 of the property and the development of the zoning in this area. She is strongly opposed to the other two contemporar sketches and feels they are "pseudo" type of art. She doeF not feel that a marriage between the contemporary and the Victorian can be achieved in the same building. If it was I I 1. 5 two separate buildings, possibly but not in the same building. In Williamsburg, houses have been authentically reconstructed very successfully. gr. Comcowich. Is the owner of the building next to the Floradora, and 3Â¥ t totallagreed with exervthing-6-Ki. Papeke stated. He personally feels that it_yguld be nice to be next to a- building_as well_Â¢lone_as theÂ®*iginalIs Eeteh. FE@ls that the other sketches wouldletract from both buildings. .. f -4. 1 ..9 *'il. I . 1.1 ./ ... ' /6/)1/ 13 -*C ... 1, & 7- - , 0Â¢94 -. . .- JUr,r Â· :7' 14 -- ...' 31442 1 1, t/4 .: 11 . I r-. 4,1 1, W. ....... 4 . &' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 24 8 /MI I., CA. HOECKEL B. B. a L. Ca ~ 14' Historic Preservation Committee Regular Meeting r>July 13, 1976 J. Baxter The owner of the building across the stredâ‚¬'el front the Flaradora. Stated that in looking out across the street from him he sees- the. Victorians, and this ia_beautiful. ~ He_knows_if_Helmuth does__this-*_it_ wi 11_be--something_we can al] be groud of, Would recommend the fir&&_21:98 as bl-6*d- ing in well with â‚¬he atmosphere of - Main Street. - Jessie Morris gxner of the_blue_Victorian_across from the Floradora, and strongly urged keeping the architecutre-in-the-atmos- .Â· ihefie of the -Victoriahs. 11Â£ Eus Pielstick stated that they had tried very hard to wome up with an alternate plan that would blend in well mith the other buildings, such as Dr. Comcowich's and tthe blue victorian. Groen asked if the buildings do have Ao be tied together, and Pielstick went over the fact that they are below the minimum lot area for a separate tructure. 95998_Feiterated th_ak_lt_wag- th* general feel*n gf_-the_cammittee_lhat in-.havingâ€žj:his all_one structurewoul- areate_such a lagge mass_ as_ta-oxeK-dQminate the entirf 4 Main Street.area. The committee was concerned about this, and felt the visual break in the buildings without the actual separation would help. Groen brought up the spgagstion of cutting down in- scale, the original building that_was _removed_framihere_was_much smaller. Mrs. Papeke suggested Possibl_cutting dqwn one story in th, middle - gonnecting_RArk-- 'i?,4 21@el â‚¬: 21 Stanford spoke briefly, and stated the feelings of the 9Â«1 Planning and Zoning office. If_you cannot_ achieve a 9 marriage of two types of architecture. which he feels caa 4 tie-26*62-t eiE*Eanthen,irÂ·, 1-ha W, 11 i Ams:huriL-route. Ms. Papeke was very emphatic about the sketches showing the contemporary additions to the Victorian and feels that . 1 they are nothing. they are bastard madernal. Groen suggested possibly using contrasting colors attractively j tio create the visual aspect of being separated. Mr. Piel- atick stated that considering_Dr._Comcowich's building o '4 amd the-remaining-Ploradora, he cannot comfortably put .f. , aE modern structure inbetween the two. Burns suggested }Â¥aving Pielstick build a m6del of the Floradora, with a gartition that could be removed. Possibly, also a study f Iession could be held to work out some of these problems. 9 41 . Mill Street Playground *~. and Public Restrooms Cony Coleman, architect for the mall, presented a model icl of the restrooms and playground proposed for the Mill Street area. This will be in the area between Golden ~ Es[rn, Wagner Park and R.Pea's. Coleman showed the Â·members 4 11 baw the playground flows from the mall area, with the burrm going right up to the toilets and being covered with gr ars. Related that the playground had been designed. with Fedtmal Regulations in mind as well as State Safety Stanlaards. The wood that will be used is non-splintering, . i th inside of the toilets will be masonary and- easily madratbtined. There will be a drinking fountain and tele- phÂ©mes. Ms. Frost asked about liability in the park area, , and Coleman stated that if the accident was due to faulty t equipmhent, then yes the City would be liable. That's why H 1 +9 the equipment is being carefully chosen. The outside of the toilets will be a panabode type effect, and the wood will weather to a slate gray. Groen asked how the wood Â·! plock paving would hold up under weather, and Coleman m.. di ... i.5 ./ + I. . . 14 k ' . - Ne!.3,0** Â·Â·F,Â·1Â¥1*1qe~:.''Y.",-.92:11 .IrÂ·I t., 0: 41, ~2 1, '1~k Â·Â· 1 4 t. r .: .. i,4 -~- ,4 2- .Eln . 0~66,974,422Â£.:..i:c..... 42 U Â¥ . .1.re, .. 4 1'. -A-â€¢ ' * 74Â·:. ..=11 ~. - -1.-1 1 -*~ap . h & Ll .28 .. Â·P' ~~~M, ~RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~ I C. /. â€¢OECKEL I. I. a L Co. 4 July 27, 1976 i!!he -regular meeting of the Historical Preservation Lunmittee was held at 14 00 in the City Council Chambers. Those members present were Florence Glidden, Mona Frost, Bob Marsh, Norm Burns..and-Chairman Lary-Graen. Also present was - =John Stanford of the Planning -Office. - -Approval of minutes The minutes of the July 13, meeting were unamiously approved. -Old Business Groen asked if Tony Coleman, architect for the Mall, _had brought by the plans for the playground, as this committee had given conditional approval upon his doing so. Groen was told that Coleman has been out of town, but would be complying within the next few days. Groen stated that the Freemont County Planning Commissio had requested our help in establishing guidelines for a Historic Preservation Committee in Lander, Wyoming. We will send copies of our Criteria. - NEW BUSINESS Stanford confirmed that the Public Hearing and joint ' meeting between the Planning & Zoning Commission and the HPC was set for August 17, 1976 at 5:00. This will be on the Main Street Historic Designation and 125 W. Main and Arthur's Restaurant. Groen brought up that the County has requested to be able to enclose the bus stop at Rubey Park, add food vending services, telephones, heat and light. Groen --feels this is an extremley small structure for all this plus passengers. The City owns the structure, and the County wants to lease it. Once it is decided by Council to go ahead with this, then it will be coming before this committee. FLORADORA Project Review Groen opened the Public Hearing. Stanford reviewed the application for the extension of the Floradora into office buildings and a restaurant in the existing building. Stanford reviewed the process up to this point, and pointed out that the memo included in the packet related to the proposal presented at the study session that was held. There have been some changes since that time. Stanford went over the probler that the Planning Office is having in determining their criteria. They_have, so __far,-advocated.lhat any new building being built should not imitate the_Victorian, but should .be in the contempprary umore modern stylev. But what do you do when you add on to an existing Victorian building? This was one of the main problems facing this committee in reviewing the application for -'the Floradora. The Planning Office had originally asked that the expansion appear visually as a separate buildil but be connected to the existing building in the rear part of the lot. @tanford does not feel that the model -presented authentically duplicates the Victorian style -especially--in__thefloof-planiT-Pi@Istick -went over tlie . changes that have been made:'the area between the two gabled structures has been moved back; lowered the roof in the link area; included thelandscaping; and reduced _ =the floor area to where they are about 1200 sq. ft. - below the FAR. This has cut the square footage considei - m _ ably. I r * iKÂ·â€¢. * .#A#-FV .1 1 11 4 Jf,, - 1 . .... - ~*. .-- . -04.. 4 -3 +-19 ./ .4, ...4. - - Le . , 42.Â·.4.-Â· Â·tÂ· 40.j,.,QUeÂ· Â· .Â· >, . . -4 ...1 y.'.; Â· <â‚¬43-~.. Â·7 t Ms. Glidden asked how far the building was set back J; . and Pielstick replied that it 'was about 32 feet from ; the property line. Groen asked if by reducing the square footage they had reduced the parking requirements 7Â· 2 and Pielstick stated that there were still eleven parking spaces. Mr. John SchUhmacher, a member of the i Planning and Zoning Commission, asked about the parking 0 ~ 3~ .1. 41:.*44 n. # .' -I .'. . '.... ..U ' .. I. . I im the rear of the building. He is representing the uwner of property to the North of the Floradora, and ~ Â· 9 is concerned thit there will not be ample space for 3 t ... adequate parking without someone hitting their fence. I. :' ' This was a requirement stipulated, that there be off- street parking. Burns reveatedly asked if the_mqat Â·Â· could be made of the floor space area by us ing_a 29.atemporaFY -style: This wolfa be so, but Pielstick stated that- he_would not put a contemporarY-Bkxle_go this beautiful Victorian. Pielstick also went over the problems of trying to put an addition on a non-conforming building, and trying to meet the code. The stairwell must be attached to the original building and be fire proof. There was_a_gamovable_piece in the_mgdel_presented_by, Pielstick in the adjoining part, and Stanford_felt that this_was more _what_the committee was trying to adhi@Yd- _.in asking for more "open soace". There must still be some work on the elevation. Stanford, on behalf of the Planning Office, recommended having another Public , *.2 Hearing and another Study Session so that some of these finer points could be worked out. Groen suggested polling the committee members on their individual com- ments. Marsh-_stated_ that he_did_not feel,_ in_view of the feelings and recommendation of the Planning Officer - that the committee could grant epproval at this time. i._Frost--stat-â‚¬Hht she liked the-model being presented much better than the ,revious one. AShe likes-the-piece missing, and feels it makes it lodk_more like a -separate very haid and that the_set-Â»ck helps, but the removable structure. Ms. Glidden felt that Pielstick. had-tried- t. , piece creates a Pr-oblem. and_then_again there is the loss of floor space with that piece being removed. Burns 4 . is-skillin=favor-9-f a contemporary style. adaition, and liked the model presented at the Study Session as ~63 cipbosed_to this. Ms. End likes this model Iere than the previous one, but_feeli-evervone needs more_tim.q_ke work_this_putÂ£_and would like another study session. Stanford did not feel the question of Victorian_ys Contemporar-had--6@en settled, and suggestel_pollpig 4 _the members-on this quegtion. Marsh would rather *ee i:' L contemporary; Ms.- Frost voted for Victorian; Ms. Glidden was unsure, but would like to see a model of a contem- porary style to decide; Burns would like to see a .,Jild contemporary style; Ms. End voted for Victorian and .7- 4 . Groen voted contemporary. Stanford stated that he was 31 prepared to go with the Victorian style at this_Roint. 2 THE-criEeria ror the HPC was didcussed by Marsh. Green a felt that it was basically up to the architects and Â«J 7 owners to determine the style, this was not up to the 44 HPC. Stanfori_suggested that the specific areas that i need to be refined be well defined prior to the study ~ 1 -imss:Lon and the_recomniehdatiofEDe based-on--these /- These awa areas were more defined as 1 )_ppgn ..space 2) land- 0 %1!EMPing._ The members were polled as to whether they G wanted to continue the public hearing and have another Â» 1 9 -- latur~ session. The members were generally in agreement 1 r. witht this. Ms..Paepke did not feel that the members had: rf tÂ· --6. 4-*I,â€ž-, .4,--';- ... the Fight_to_dictate_the _criteria for this building. She,1 asked if any of the members hadiany idea-how muchâ‚¬his J whole continuing mess was costing Helmuth. He is de- .43 4 and she feels the committee is dwadling over nothing. pending upon that restaurant being opened this winter, ' ~ rh . . I. ,;1.. f.f., .fr> 49//4 Â· 12:mk. --Â· - .e.Â·2;246 Â·I ..~04~;-44,~-:Â·-~Â·-Â·,~Â£'C.;'Â·-f â€¢â€¢~iâ€¢.2., 0 . - ' Â«4 . D, .. . 3 M..421 {. i .1 * i RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves F 010 N C. F. HOECKEL 8. 8. h L. 50. 4 -,6- i HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Regular Meetinh July 27, 1976 i Ms. Glidden asked if another public hearing would really - resolve anything. There have been quite a few of the surrounding property owners present before and we have heard all they have to say. . Chairman Groen entertained a motion for a continued I 4 /1 public hearing and another study session. Ms. Frost so moved, sec onded by Marsh. This has been scheduled as a study session to be held immediately following this meeting, and a special meeting of the HPC on Friday, July 30, at 1:00 in the Council Chambers. All.in favor, motion carried. PARAGON Stanford introduced the application by the Paragon to put windows in the front of their building that would open out onto the mall. -- Mr. Louie Koutsoubos made the presentation on behalf of the Paratron, and explained to the members what he would like to do. Being able to open the front windows onto the mall would enable the Paragon to participate in the new mall and add a new dimension to the mall. These windows would not be like french .4 windows going all the way to the ground, but would .i be a couple of feet off the groundi There would be oak dividers and framing in between the windows. - The noise factor was approached, even though the HPC does not have this in its critera, they suggested that this be considered by Mr. Koutsoubos and he felt it would not be to their advantage to over step their bounds in this respect, and would try to keep things down within limits. Stanford stated that the Planning Office has no problem with their application. Marsh moved for acceptance of the application, and Ms. Frost so seconded. All in favor, motion carried. -; BRAND BUILDING Randy Wedum was not present to go over this application. . i Pre-application review The committee moved to come back to this item later. i PARSONS BUILDING 1 Pre-application review Stanford went over the plans that have been submitted on this application for a new building on this property. i Stanford did have one question, and this was that there i are three lots involved in this application, and the small brick Victorian is not in the place where it now 3 1 stands. In reality it stands on the center line, and in the drawings it is on the Eastern line. Stanford ' went over the previous time this was brought before the HPC, and that the Planning Office had recommended against demolition of the small brick house. Mr. Peter VanDomlin introduced Ron Rinker, the architect who will make the presentation. Mr. VanDomlip went over the previous application for demolition of the two structures. This was denied, and it was in- idLcated that the applicants should return to this committee with plans for those three lots and the com- mittee would address the matter at that time. He stated f that they had continued e fforts to see i f some charity group or group of concerned individuals would be interes ted in taking and moving the brick structure, but have had not affirmitive response. The offer is till open. *f Im 1717~Â·~*~ -Â»w,vr75';F-wrr.rv',â„¢* irr/-# - - *4:5" 'â€¢ Â·Â§:â€¢n-Â·:Â·23,Â· Â·~Â· Â· Â·70e'~1Â· tÂ· "9'71~(W~4-Â¥rrr':~ 12 13Â·ZÂ¥??8~tirÂ¥-4Â·w-~-â€¢â€¢,â€¢974.mmerÂ·~M~~71' w r.ff ..... '; 17.'.:: 4 . ' ...I#E . ' ' / ./ -' 4/; . . . 44,!â€¢Â·â€¢ . -Â· I ~.I - ... Ill - 44 , 3 , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves '10% W C. F. HOECKEL 8. 8. I L. CO. 1~Â· HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE ~ Special Meeting July 30, 1976 i A special meeting of the Historic Preservation Committee was held at 1:00 on ~ July 30th in the City Council Chambers. , Those members present were Bob Marsh, Terry End, Lary Groen, and Norm Burns. Â· Chairman Groen called the meeting to order and opened i the Public Hearing on the Pre-application review of the Floradora. Pre-application Review Floradora Mr. Pielstick made the presentation to the members and went over the changes that have been made. The front wall has been moved back and the top two stories are now on brackets so that they overhang in the rear. Fifty square feet are lost in this new design, but Pielstick stated that it averages out because they have gained a few feet on the second floor. John Stanford of the Planning Office stated that it is definitely an improvement. He_does recommend heavy lan47 scaping around the area in front of the connection between the_original building-and_the addition. It was the generdl feeling .qf the Planning _Office and the committee members~ that this--Aesign_is_more_wbat they have-been striving for in tluti-greated_more.,.gf_an_22,0_ space impression, and- r pulls the addition back further. The rear of the-building hasbeen greatly improved. Stihford did state that Mr- -Pidlitick should--contact -the Planning Office so that a t conditional use hearing can be scheduled on Tuesday. Groen asked for Public comment; and there were none. Groen closed the Public Hearing. t ' Burns moved to approve the project as presented with the following conditions, that the commission see the final working drawings for final approval_before_final_review ta_ make sure that what thfy are seeing ends up on the final working_drawings, and_that this_be_a final approval of the _plans:_ If there should have to be a substantial change --- it would have to be presented to this committee again. t :1 Marsh seconded, all in favor, motion carried. As general comments, the members felt that by pulling the addition back that additional feet, it brings the original Floradora in to a more dominant space. Marsh moved to adjourn. Ms. End seconded. The meeting adjourned at 1:15. 0 1 Eutu Otbuij , Ellen L. Atkins, Deputy City Clerk 6 1 .F , I. 77 *r,7~ .Ff,fpri~ '5"-tt . 11~~14*YfeC:pr- Â·'Â·'9*!â€¢rÂ·~.1...re/,7-17.'.Â»-. -r.*-I 'i t. -.---- - . . 1. . . . ,?4 V. ... .. -0- 3- -- 7 j R 1---Tw~lic~ ~Ii, .1 '. 11 I E--2 1 - -7 -,4 1 El-il[]1~- 1~ 1-~-6*-1~1~ ~~1~1~~1~11~~~~~1>Â« - -t --'.- --m - kz::~2 Lj 1~11.1It~BR~ Â».. c w "tÂ»--a iÂ·%~9~~~~~~~~i~J'Â·~~~< 41 mi 1-a-- " 7-,2.-0-H . . 1 .f - 19 d 1 fi. 1. , Â¢tâ€¢ 424 .1 Â»41 , 44 ' 24. mi 1 1 . . .1 . 4 ' 4 4 A 4 t 1 4 L 4 4 V f- , ....... b. . f A A h -- 0 0. .... .. 4.- - ... A . ......:. .. ,. ... '. Â· .B &*.* 61â€¢Â·.:i;1-2 4#44Â«*.%*NA; mA ......,. H. 4,'I. ./t.'t+Ly>:. 1 .4* . f +~i ~ 1 . - I. 1 -2-L3 5 4> -94 1 4-Vvt .h "-i; - 31 ...7 - --'p 9 A- 1--2 b.ca rn i ~:ttil. iiiÂ·,4 1-33- .- .pu . 43 Â·102Â·2Â·3344 : 2-N .1 6 2 i 2 f . , 1 AN i > 1 -Ky 111 -7 I r .1 : I -. : i# 1. .2 -4 r 0. t X .7 4 J It' 0 4. I u 10 -5. 1-,P ' .- ' 1~ : 7 r , Z E 7- _-- i.. + ,r. 07 1 r -m F -m :. 1 Ic O 1 0 ~2Â· 4 l# 1 1 m I =r . 1 AHM 6 izt 92_,7.- G Ill k- 17 1 I. OK 9 1 16 C , 0 -tr - fil L 11. .1 . - .... I 01 - /,4 . h . ./ 1- Â· 1 - 1- -<-Un -- -Â».-Â·4*- S ~ ..Fi; ~..tltt'I~'~Â· -XM:--Ar.11 '*.-3-C -1~~.:25 :24 -1 Ut VE I b ./. K - -- . 9 i e,>;2296* ~99Â¥Cr=; 5â‚¬reÂ»0<5=Â·36.-Â·.-Â·2.5- ~. ~. - â€¢2/ --ft .9 2~i~.2- . ~~~-- . ~.. . 44Â·Â·1&1.11'TY'Â·6 Â·Â·iâ€¢Â·1â€¢Â·911,1'llit.ilitt..,.64 11.Â·11Â»'Vi"-*41,1 d v h 64 E 97 -9 8 1. 1 tur , I K i L/..; T M I KIP 5,1-KECT- i G 1 0= -2 o - f~ \ Â»Â·06G0-7 Q& 4> ut r 1 - .- -D -9 73 1 5 3- P e *P, 0 V U- Q F/ F LOR A C Z DK A O U 11 -01 K IG R e v .Hz/-174 7-90-16 RUSSELL A. PIELSICK, ARCHITECT i WEET- MAI Id SER.EE=r Drawn 024 SUITE 205 Â· 520 EAST COOPER ST. 5 Checked: ,&Â©FER, COLIP EA129 DateÂ· 7 -/1- 76 Job No.: 6|TE- PLAKI Scale: 1..==-10' ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PHONE 303/925-1666 ~ ~14 20 Wadeog ....~ - /Â«~t ~16 ~ 6-<67&147;t#64~ 4--ll 7721 11 : lili 11 1 1111111 11 11 4 lilli P 6 - u 11 1 111 dill 1-11 .i -- 11 il . ill 11 111 11,1, 451 1 1 @91' 1 th - b cv81 ;lili '5 11 lilli 1 1-11911111 1~1 1 1 00Â§ moll : 11111 Â·111 Ill fill Iii r=- 1 I lilli 1 111 1-lillit lilli HIll '.1111 1 -:-~ 11111111.11 1 It my ' 11 111 ~1 1. 11 JI ~1 ldp I F 11 1. 1 11 -11!11 lutil 'litillj 1 '-1 -U-L--1-9 Itill . till! 1 1 , lil i ll 111-11 111 I l i l l i . 1.- - # . -, 1 r----<39 j lillill ill 11 '---- i INX"'fill 1 1 1 I i.1 , 1 Elli ! 11 '177 r 'Ij : 1 --- 1 -- Ir-==~f====7 1 12; - 10 11 ; lili' il'' 1 lili 2411 dll 111 1 11 1!11 11'llill .1: 11'll Ill , 1-9-- 11 11111 ~11 ~1~~1 EU 1 i i 1 & 111 lili 11 -- 1 i ' 11 -1 MO i '111 Il~Ill ~1111 i 4 1 11 '11; Ill I / LUil_li_L - .. li lili - 11 4.411 11111 11 E\*Â· 1 III IF, 11 1 I rx 7 EkFURENT -1 1-t III 1 jill 11 11 1 -1 - -]1-l' 11[ 1[---Ill 11 'il '/ .1''ill'I|il, 1-l --9.:. 40 11 101111 1 $ FF. -1-Li-i_11-1_1 1-1--1_-1-11_ _ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ WO 1 111> -]l 1111 ~82 t ---, 11 1 1 111 iiI 'e lilli' 1 1 41 f N i 1_ 1--_. 11 H 11 ' p=q 800 i i r ----1 -7 9.11 [Ig 1 -#2 ---- 1 1 lili 11 11 1 '~~~Â·tii ,; ~-~ 11 aill lili lili .; 111-1 11':ill li 1 11.libill Ilillillill. Ii. ; -41 . 1 3 4: L J tÂ· j.1 lili.. 2 ! I '1 1 1 ift i i jiTi. R'ri i iTT i ;.ir;llijillili r .1 1 1:l~ i i ili~1111{i,t./ 1 61111 1, Â·irij Â£3:; 1 f 1 1, 14 .i?il y 1 lEal -6-1 - i i + 1 1 1 1 1 ) 1-1* 5-li E i ! 11! 1 1.1 illl 1 1 41~~r~iNNE--T-1 S u Il ' Ll_1_ili Ii' 11 III gil,111 lilli , 1 1 1 1 i 11 i Il B.,1 i 4.....il.../.5 1 1 It . lili-111 1 r LEJI lilli 111111111 L --i . L.'.. ---U lilli 11 11 L--Irl 1 1 iti; 11 11 1.11 1 ' Li_. i : lili 1 1}1]11}pl , 1,1 1 lili I 1 4 11 - -- - m i lili 1 4 11 1 1 Ill *-Ir 91 i i *131 1 1 lili; 1 11 .4 -10 1â€¢'1 1 111111. till' ill-1 1 1 lili UIL, 1 ill b.lilli 1 1 -- 1 -111 11111 6= 4 ~~ 1 c Illili! 1.111 1 1. 11 1 11 9 118 , 1 1 [It 1 1 1 111 1 111 1 1 li 1111 e i r .1 r.- 1 ?' 10 4114 i #12 I 11 , IZ 1 1 'In'11.1 1 - 1 I i * 1 1 i ' ' *111 , 11 9 1 ' t- 11-1 illi '11 1 -7 :11 1 \ I 1.1 It |; 9 "IN ' 1 11 1 - 4 L tizil-~Ii' "* ~ 1 ~~ ~11 1 lilli 1 5 41[ 1 11111 - 12 - lili' 11 L L -11-1! 1 4 i 11 1 1 ---Il--1- I 111 1 11 1.llll 111111 111 11 1 111111 1 r-- ,&1rL2E&2*11[L:21.LIEr- Rev. RUEELL A. PIELSOCK ARCH ITECT ~- %775 9 9, R.)1>. 81-21<- 57 E-3 ~ * -< W cs-r k/lk KJ Â«TRE*Ir~ 1-67*WRE~*KF SUITE 205 Â· 520 EAST COOPER ST. bee,Â·*17 60,1094Â©0 [Dair-=i.7533922-1 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PHONE 303 / 925-1666 rel ~ C-[ZMATIOklo *~1Â·3~ - 60,_ O*, 20'-r> / 20'- 0'' 4 1 -7 - Â·- Â·7-G-#-- w ' - 4 4 -0 1 Il + <St-1 -- 1.4-4 , 1- '- t. Ir' -Â«---3-- - -- i Â»292:z . 2-4 'U=29 -1- 1 - - --. - 1 , 211 63 ~ 9 1 3 Â» c 1 F ' '7; \W 1 - 30*68 ... C._ \'71 3%4 i-- i 1 73 1,1 1 1 11 P 4 h . O 4 1 1 i 1 21 1 -, ./lerrwt 1 f- 1 0 6 1 2 0 S 3 0 41 1 .1. f - 0 -1 M r 1.=Lk . -u- --- -- . -/ .~ ' 11 - ! .? 1 1 + 4 r -lt 46- f. 1 I -an 11 1.- 4 bo I 0 81 5 1 3 ti ,\ 1 1 0 .1 r 19 . UN) 1 + DED / 0 4 #..1 2 ~. I - Â£ 4 y rE -1. p l 1 07 0 . 5 FT 00.-f-! F====57 0 -7 1 , 9 r , 1- .y 4 7 1 ZIzzmrir ~ - 44 41.- 3 01 0 p F 111 W K X Â·11 0 Â· i. 1 1 1 8 2Â£â‚¬â‚¬â‚¬13 K 11 < 1 1 03 .4 & 2 1 O -rl --4, - $ - 7 -1 96Â¢29/4,4, 1 -- j 4 16 - 0) 03 1 4. Ezil i Ll U it E . A ~322:-I - 1-- $ coNvevest < 5-. u r 1 tegh.-fl< 4.4 1 1 i '.7/ 1 11,(% %4- 9-Fic,) 1 1 & t..r 13 1 1- 9 - 1 1 ~> 44 3 2% 1 1 . 5 1 4 .1 4 t 7 '1 1 6 ' TI -- i 4 -h i 1 1 >4 8 = 9 zzrg 42 r 3 f -2 --.__--- j ; ' W r 01 q -0 -- 0 L 11 I . --1 Trf _ 1 -0-1._Al * 0 n ---- t, 0 f 'i 1 1 0 1 + . 11 9 1 t- 1 12== A 7 i 1 1 1 : '' r ==rt ! S' 7 r V ! 1 111 1 -- 0 1--- -- 3 1 1 1 1,4 1 I E- - - - - - - -- - - '0 - 1 % A L.--1 - . j 1 t -- 1 b#@:a=4:ze&*15:4 , 1 4, . *=9=*.04 (L . -t 0 a - i Â· - 0Â«2 - 1 'r; 4 A C m 5 --- - - . -T" 1 z ~- IP rn 1r I 0 1 0 - 21 4 '1 R i - 3 +1 43 N P 3 z .13 B E ! 8 -44 tb 131 9 4 4 4,R 8 .1 4 ~- 0 1 791 z - f , ' 4 UP , L idp e - p Z 6 - 0 0 : 11 , -tt--7 *-rt 9 0 1 -id . 9 1 -r I P - fl-I I ' 1 . 2. -7,-24 10" r' . -'llti 01 4 3 /,I. ic Ot a J , 1 . - r 7-n \ O 1 >C j E-i â‚¬ i 0 1 1 1 ' 1? 42 t--+ 3'" ' r -1 , -f 1. 7 L 4 + 4 1 bCD t 9/,r. 1 4 J --------- -4, 43 ~ gr- 1 1 ' e Â¢ 1 >.5 : 6 44 r. 2 + - -4- t/ OR - 8 , Z C e Z 5 4 , b 4 - 6 1.4, , 0 + d 1 1 Em" 4 0 1 1 -â€ž3 4 1 7 -~4'42 r ~ 641 & 1 O 1 0 - 54 V c 2 1, 1 6 i \82 1 ' 0 16.1 4 rh Â¢:4 <) & -- E .4 91; l.. 1 . 01 I ' 1 1 h / - 0 1 - ..1 r.2. . -f 1 ~ -- --=-u-+2 --i :T-Mr 0 0 030 : 7 1 \\4 : 11 1 - L/>' O i . Or f \\ H 49 0 1 +OLL 27 / , h - \: I '. C 1 . Â»D. . , P. 7 15 --6-/P [ _--1 -.~CLj:f-~ \41 0 0 1. -406- 0 al,4 17-4' 8 Â· Â£6' G # 4 4 1, 8,936 Â· 4 12Â·54 ~ .Â·, e'94Â· t 17'10"-- Â· 13'09 30'0Â·Â· . FLORA DORA BUILIDING Rev: 7-/9- 74 -7 - 27-760 2* RUELL A. PIE15nCK. ARCH ITECT ---- ACTÂ© P,Q>60- 6'OCK 37 7/ty>Â·14 Iei 2 W %57 MAIN 51#ET- Drawn: tl;:4. SUITE 205 Â· 520 EAST COOPER ST. Checked: ASPEN) COLORACO Date: 4,2 +10 Job No.Â· 167 LMVEL FLAW Scale: AK"- i,-0,0 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PHONE 303/925-1666 ill %1&4 - i ..f.Â·.4*~t':illtdath*EW;6*Al,Z/'QVA - 4........: . .1Na.16 511Â· c...'StÂ·Â·..Lky'UL Â·36*114~,iÂ£/1*.milÂ£0 -11 Â· 1 -------.9 01 9.01 -- Â· NY-Id â€žli ,+9 ri n 025Pa2-ilaS /4 /1 1 - Il 1\ 17 /-4. 5 .IM -_, i L er-2--1.-;--.-2--.~- C 1 1 . b\- 6/ 1 -7 0 ' 5 0-1 1! _ 71, P 1 0 1 1 1 A 1{ 1 \ 77 .t 1- .. ...1 Â·-1Â·2~57--IÂ·~ ~~~~.irl*: t,m-J . ,- -=- -k--'-2=222.1.->*&-- H#M- & --& --- 1 - I ./ ---\ - 1 1 1 iff. Â· - KE 0 F 1 9 4 4 4 6 k - m W - V , 4 - M 4 % 1 AÂ»%%:kt! 1 4 -9 1 . E- 1 -8 4 - - 41 4 -bl h ZZ-zigg 1 ' 1 . FFEEâ‚¬39 N'~6. REF ES;RENCE- L.1 kIE . ~~ ' 9 2023*ia m 3 -1 1 - . R 98 1,8 1 - * 1 - 0 2 \4-T . l! -{Ad~ i -A C B *t I ' C - 3 f B Kil /1 4 - 1 ON, Fo 22 1 2843---i< - = 1 t O. 1 1 1 1 , r 1 1 : 4 0 4 - -1 1 1 \Ir -------- - 0 - /1 t~ 4 1 b .- -'-------#*- T / I. . 0 11 1 t 1 -t 1 -- 1 1 1 --Â·1 0 V 1 It . 1 i - 01 > . .1 4/P y Â· 6 .... 1 4 11 11 i ./0,\---// \ 1 lÂ»:2>1 4 7 Â· - , In 11 ' 21 0 L 1 11 1 1 *R 1, 1 -__.-1' 1 si . \ 1- N $ I 1 1244 1 1-t ' i I 1 111 n 1 1 -\ 1 / i lR E In In \ 1, - ' 4 i FLOKADORA DO ILDI KIEr Rev: 1-1?-76 RUEELL A. PIELSnCK, ARCH11-Eer ~~ LUTE 1249,12.,6- blT.67 \NEST MAI N *Tleur Drawn: [2F54. SUITE 205 Â· 520 EAST COOPER ST. Checked: ASPE-KI, COLO EADD Date: 4-28*76 Job No.: [ 21 â€¢ 2kIP LEVEL PLAN Scale: 04"=r P -0* ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PHONE 303/925-1666 Â·t,4 7 Â£ . ' .~ f. Ok\ 4 07 â‚¬ 3 '.4 17 &3*r-24<51$95TrittEEcoaff#~s-3*5:G.-- /4=mf-c -r 40 1 1 0 --* i Â·i 4\ i & 3.---------'-LMO.F*---1-4*--#*#-7-----I)27%-.%W/.~-------* I U . J 4 --3. i -- + -13 11 F 1 . 3 1 9 .m 0 ' 3> r. - - : f 3 1 1 13 1 9:2::==a;11 . . ' L I , t__-1 . 1 9 : 1 1.1 <-<-* %4 \ 34 1 --7 - 0 9 \ A 12 1 -1} 1 0 - fl- 5 1 ..:i .. 1 ' i 412-N - 1 4 1-1 . 1 14 1 1 F Â·3 r _ 61 , 11 -~ 2- 1 - 1 3 - 9 1 1 \ m -1- _ _ ims 1 i j 1 -Â·---......... 1 rl- , 3=ZE A 1 22. 11_ rir . 8 TRAER PKE 1 - R 2 p~ Z4&* N/6 KEFEREKICEL 1-442- 1 9 Z. ,; 1 -0 ~ - - *.25#.-:,~3~Jil L I " _ 1 & i N - r - 1 Â¢ -- 8 %934 ~ - ~ " -t>zi~**22 .., hEPÂ¢r=-Â·Â· *-,z;--1.1 1 :U' =- 1*Â«-4 &8Â§Â§; 26 . 2 -9 MER b g 111 79 C .13 lt- - Al'Z-- i. , 8 4 - - R li ji 2 , 30-5 0 Z~- V -- " 2 4 .-/ 1 . . 1 ./ 1 0 4 1' - T 1 12 1 ! t EM 1-- 70 r 5 .3 11 - X 1 1- \- C It 0 \ i - /1 - 1 4 'r \\ . 0 1 0-05*RE> /1 ./ - , ..ul~*VJ~A Z .4 I ~D t. 0-- / \ 3. P \ =IL- . 1- '1 /// 4 - / 1\ - I & 1 9,1 1 1% ./ / , 14 14 1 - + 1 1 1-\ \ C \ 1 â€žIIi . J 1 ' 41 ~44 - -~ / 1 -9 44 f.7.3 . i 1 1 J 511 '.. 10 ..4 1 1 - 44 .ELE 14 / i .41 1 / Z -9/ . 1, ...,t 44 [p KD 1 . ri-Z /--'I FLORA[DORA bUI LPING Rev: 4--26-7,1 7-/9-7 L RUEELL A. PIELSnCK ARCH ITECT LOTE> F}QAS- 5LK, 57 lu/1 ~ 1 WEE MAI N 61-KEET Drawn: P.F.* SUITE 205 Â· 520 EAST COOPER ST. Checked: ASPE+J , COLORADO Date: 423,14 . . ~4 Job No.: 3 IRC LIMEL FLA kl Scale: J,4/4, 1.-0" ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PHONE 303 / 925-1 666 1-1 .Aq L ' /12-Â©â‚¬=:2.-I- 11# t j ,I.Â·