The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.HP.210 Lake Ave.HPC03-931/CVC-LUFLLLCUL 2735-124-88-004 HPC339.3-~ - ~ 9Â« A PN H P 4 1 3 COTTLE GRAYBEAL YAW ARCHITECTS LID APR 1 6 893 April 16, 1993 Ms. Kim Johnson City of Aspen Planning Office Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Window revisions to 210 Lake Avenue Dear Kim: Per our telephone conversation yesterday, we will be revising some of the windows in the rear addition from double hung to casements. As I explained, 1 spoke to Roger Moyer, Project Monitor, about the revision. He did not have a problem with the change provided the windows did not change proportions. We agree and do not intend to change the proportions of the windows. Attached is a copy of the elevations with the windows to be revised noted. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, 4304,3/92- Doug Graybeal u Principal DG Attach. JOHN COTTLE. AIA DOUG GRAYBEAL AlA LARRY YAW AIA MARK HENTHORN. AlA 510 FAST HYMAN. SUITE 21 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PHONE 303/925-2867 FAX 303/925-3736 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Kim Johnson, Planner Re: Approval for Temporary Relocation of the Structure at 210 Lake Ave. Date: May 12, 1993 On April 14 1993, the HPC approved the Final Development Plan for 210 Lake Ave. Included within the application was the statement that the structure would be temporarily relocated on the,site while a basement foundation was added. temporary relocation of the victorian at 120 W. Francis. Staff missed this reference .,to the relocation and the HPC did not act on the criteria for relocation of an inventoried structure. Prior to issuance of a foundation permit, staff seeks HPC approval for relocation it with the following conditions: Prior to the issuance of the foundation permit: 1) The applicant shall provide to staff detailed information from a structural engineer regarding the actual methods used for the relocation. 2) The applicant shall provide a letter of credit, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, in the amount of $100,000.00 to cover the costs of repairs needed as a result of the relocation of the victorian structure. 3) The applicant shall provide as-built drawings and photos of the original structure for the HPC file. 4) The Applicant shall submit to the HPO a statement of how the temporary relocation site will be prepared for the structure. HPC Vote: *7 for C) against 11 DJ 93 . Bill Po'*, Ch~rman Date( i . t - VEB 26 \993 6 - COTTLE GRAYBEAL aw ARCHITECTS '. 3 U.U.,-1 - LTD February 26,1993 City of Aspen Planning Office Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Planning Officials, and Committee Members: Thank you for your time and input during the Conceptual Development Review 01 the Schermer residence at 210 Lake Avenue. We have reviewed the Developments Review Standards and comments again and propose the enclosed design revisions. The concern we heard from the committee was the application meeting the development review standard number four. This standard reads as follows: "The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof." We have examined many different options for the project based on this standard and your comments. The options studied included separating the building into three different structures with thin connections, to exploring the use of different materials such as brick and stone for the three components of the design. After several late nights, reams of flimsy paper and many faxes to our client, we offer the following design changes. The addition to this historic structure has been moved as far back from the existing building as possible to reduce its visual impact, without violating the Hallam Lake Bluff Review Standards or adversely impacting the existing large evergreen trees. The dormer element on the east elevation that encroached on the existing structure has been removed and the adjacent wall area recessed to become part of the addition, not a separate element on the roof of the existing building. We also carefully examined separating the addition with a hyphen. This was discussed with the client in both graphic and verbal forms. We both strongly feel JOHN COTTLE, AIA the best way to create this hyphen is by differentiation of the parts such as DOUG GRAYBEAL. AIA LARRY YAW AIA MARK HENTHORN, AIA 510 EAST HYMAN SU[TE 21 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PHONE 303/925-2867 FAX 303/925-3736 Page 2 material sizes and detailing rather then an actual physical break between the parts. I know of one residential structure that has successfully created a physical break. The residence across the street from the Baptist church. This is a corner lot and the break is clearly seen from the street. The break is very appropriate for the scale of the structures on that lot. Our lot is larger, mid-block and pie shaped which creates little sideyard visibility. Such a physical break would not be seen and is not appropriate for this project. One of the other review standards is "The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development." A physical break is not in character with the neighbors. We strongly feel by changing material size, detailing and possibly direction, an appropriate hyphen will be created between new and old. Similar or no differentiation in materials were used on the neighboring properties, which we are endeavoring to relate to. The change in material and proportions separate the building into three parts. Siding direction can be vertical, or horizontal on the rear two masses. This change adds order to the original randomness of parts creating unity of masses and clarity of old and new. It also, breaks down the whole, eliminating the feel of "big fish eating little." A hyphen is used to divide or connect two elements (words). The division of the old and new elements of this design is the change in material scale, design and color. The connection is the physical abutment of the structures together but with a change in plane for separation. Wood siding and trim were milled smaller during the construction of the original builder. Today, wood is milled in larger sections and profiles. What better way to separate old from new then a historic material separation. We have also revise our study model and look forward to showing the design to you. We believe you will agree with us the design has improved and the addition does not diminish or distract from the architectural unity of the historic structure but enhances that structure. Attached are revised elevations showing the change for your review. If I can provide further information, please let me know. Sincerely, 413-1-9-â‚¬01- Doug Graybeal AIA Principal DG: kj Encls. -4 1 2-1 , r i ; 1 -- - h - /* 4 'A . . ~*..:#- r ! f 1 -1 -- P i L---t-- --- _ ~i,il . I. - - .- l . : . .- 1 - rFC:=fl= " D. . 11 m--31 1=1=3 471 11 1 - 1 1 - . 1 11 1 *31 i - , bI. 1 1-41 --it - -4.- 1 EAST ELEVATION 11 'f U ' .4. - - h - - - 6- 13- 4- - - 9~' 7 " ..< A , - -Eli 3-2 1-9--kt-- . 8 44': 1 6'.Er< 1 . 1 41 %1 1Â«>a. i . -- 00.-0 S. % . ~%1,22 iii li 11 1$ 111- .1 1 1 - , 1~ 1 ,1 - WEST ELEVATION i u--181 --- 1 - T. 14 -4 , .LEd --- 11 1 - 1.1 11==11 1 -- I y= -- ----- ~-E 44 -3{ NORTH ELEVATION d -1 t ?t 11 L 9i 4 gi -.--_- :4 f/A \% . .t 14Â£ ---Â· _11 Â· 1 - - 1 1 1 - - -- I '-4 7~' I 11 -- - 1 --- SOUTH ELEVATION ESCROW AGREEMENT THIS ESCROW AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the 18th day of June, 1993 by and between Lloyd G. Schermer and Betty A. Schermer ("Schermers"), THE CITY OF ASPEN, a Colorado home-rule municipal corporation, ("City") and the BANK OF ASPEN a banking association as ("Escrow Agent"), with reference to the following facts: WHEREAS, the City has requested Schermers to provide a performance bond for the relocation of an Historic House at 210 Lake Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the City has agreed to enter into the Escrow Agreement in lieu of receiving a performance bond. NOW, THEREFORE, in order to implement the security provisions of said Agreement and in full satisfaction of Schermers obligations , relating to performance, Schermers herewith deposit with Escrow Agent and Escrow Agent herewith acknowledges receipt of the sum of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) (the "Escrow Fund") . With respect to the Escrow Fund, the parties hereto instruct Escrow Agent as follows: 1. The Escrow Agent shall, deposit the Escrow Fund in a separate interest-bearing account, which account, Escrow Agent has confirmed, shall be insured to the extent of FDIC limits. 2. Schermers shall, upon its written request, be entitled to be paid monthly all interest that accrues on the Escrow Fund. 3. Escrow Agent shall cause the Escrow Fund or portions thereof, to be released to the City only upon the occurrence of an "Event of Default" as defined below, evidenced solely by a written demand and request for release by the City to Escrow Agent. Written demand must be documented with an affidavit from the City, acting through its Planning Director, stating the Event of Default and that: (a) Schermers have been issued a building permit for the existing building and new addition at 210 Lake Avenue Aspen, Colorado. (b) The City, acting through its Planning Director, is notifying the Escrow Agent that Schermers have failed to successfully perform the moving of and/or the required exterior or foundation work on the existing historic building in accordance with the plans and conditions approved by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee dated , 1993. (A copy of which are attached hereto). (c) The City has given the Schermers thirty (30) days written notice of the failure of Schermers to comply with the Historic Preservation Committee approvals and conditions, and the Schermers have failed to perform necessary corrective work. 4. The City shall have the unconditional right to the Escrow Funds, upon ( 10) days written notice to Schermers, to draw Escrow Funds in an amount necessary to correct the unfulfilled approvals and/or to correct any damage done to the historic building caused through its moving, or the exterior or foundation work to the building. 5. An Event of Default shall include the following: (a) Failure of Schermers to correct the unfulfilled approvals and/or to correct any damage done to the historic building caused through its moving, or the exterior or foundation work to the building. (b) Failure of Schermers to successfully perform the moving of and/or the required exterior or foundation work on the existing historic building in accordance with the plans and conditions approved by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee dated , 1993. (A copy of which are attached hereto). 6. At the time of acceptance of the work by the City , the Escrow Agent shall release the Escrow Funds to Schermers only upon a written demand for release to Escrow Agent from Schermers and the City. The City shall execute written demands for payment in accordance with this paragraph only upon Schermers' s faithful performance as set forth in paragraphs above. 7. Any fees of Escrow Agent shall be paid by Schermers and City shall have no responsibility therefore. 8. Escrow Agent may resign and be discharged of the obligations created by this Agreement by delivering to Schermers and the City written notice of its resignation as Escrow Agent subject only to being able to appoint a successor Agent as provided herein. Upon receiving such notice of its resignation, Schermers shall endeavor to appoint a successor Escrow Agent. Any resignation of Escrow Agent shall become effective only upon acceptance of appointment by the successor Escrow Agent, and if a substitute Escrow Agent is not appointed hereunder then Escrow Agent may not resign and shall not be discharged of its obligations. 9. This Agreement shall by governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado, and any dispute or action between the parties arising from the interpretation or implementation of this Agreement shall only be brought in any federal, state or local courts in the State of Colorado, and the parties agree and do hereby submit themselves to jurisdiction of said courts. 10. Escrow Agent shall be bound only by the foregoing written instructions, and such further written instructions as the parties hereto, under the conditions herein imposed, from time to time delivered to Escrow Agent. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, Escrow Agent shall not be required to determine the performance or nonperformance of Schermers or the payment or nonpayment by Schermers under any term or condition in any Contract Document between the parties to this Agreement. 11. All notices, request, demands and other communications hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given when personally delivered, or if mailed, on the date three business days after mailing by United States Postal Service certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the parties at the following addresses (until such addresses are changed by notice pursuant to these notice provisions): " Schermers" Lloyd G. Schermer Betty A. Schermer P.O. Box 5837 Snomass Village, Colorado 81615 "City" City Manager City of Aspen City Hall 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 "Escrow Agent" Michael T. Taets President The Bank of Aspen P.O. Box 0 119 South Mill Street Aspen, Co 81611 12. If the Escrow Fund is not withdrawn within twelve months following the acceptance of the Work by the City and is not subj ect to litigation, this Agreement shall terminate and the Escrow Fund shall by forwarded to Schermers. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Schermers, the City, and Escrow Agent have caused the execution of this Agreement by their authorized representatives as of the date first set forth above. "Escrow Agent" By: Name: Title: "City" By: Name: Title: "Schermers" Lloyd G. Schermer Betty A. Schermer 41014 A 4 8/103 agen)'d Moll*rall 1412!OA 3Oria019521 'tl~31Â·4'231409 r. F ---*I -- ---- ===== 1 1 11' 11.11[-1-1- -- - "- 11 1 I LEHLE= 1 J 4.-11 ., M WU [E[ el \ 7 5- Vii--* 1 / , . N- it/ i ' li AGENDA ==== ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MARCH 10, 1993 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM CITY HALL 5:00 I. Roll call ~ II. Committee and Staff Comments III. Public Comments ~ IV. OLD BUSINESS < 5:1Â© A. Continued Public Hearing - Conceptual Development 210 Lake Avenue Attached is Roxanne' s memo from last meeting for your background information V. NEW BUSINESS NONE 5:30 VI. COMMUNICATIONS A. Project Monitoring B. Sub-Committee Reports 4 C. Neighborhood Character Guidelines 6:00 VII. ADJOURN Itt ~1319 '(fACT IvA y , , 1., I j \J-<20Â·1,1 71 L =le M ., It ' f 1 l...i .2. '2,7 1-,N 4 HPC PROJECT MONITORING HPC Member Name project/Committee Bill Poss 413 E. Hyman County Courthouse Highway Entrance Design Committee Character Committee-AACP 601 W. Hallam (app. liaison) HP Element-Community Plan Aspen Historic Trust-Board Member 534 E. Hyman (P.C. Bank) CCLC Liaison 214 W. Bleeker St. Mary's Church 533 E. Main PPRG 715 W. Smuggler Ann Miller 700 W. Francis Donnelly Erdman 501 E. Cooper (Independence) 210 S. Galena (Elk's) The Meadows (Chair-Sub Comm) 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer Park) Collins Block/Alley 620 W. Hallam Wheeler-Stallard House 700 W. Francis 624 E. Hopkins Leslie Holst 215 W. Hallam 212 Lake Ave. 210 Lake Ave. Holden/Marolt Museum (alt.) In-Town School Sites Committee Aspen Historic Trust-Chairman 17 Queen St. 824 E. Cooper 210 S. Mill 303 E. .Main Alt Joe Krabacher 801 E. Hyman AHS Ski Museum HP Element-Community Plan Aspen Historic Trust-Vice Chairman 612 W. Main 309 E. Hopkins (Lily Reid) 414, 401, 413 E. Cooper Jake Vickery The Meadows (alternate) In-Town School Sites Committee 824 E. Cooper 716 W. Francis 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer-alt.) 204 S. Galena (Sportstalker) City Hall 627 W. Main (residential-Jim Kempner) Roger Moyer Holden-Marolt (alternate) CCLC Liaison 214 W. Bleeker 215 W. Hallam 334 W. Hallam Aspen Historical Society 302 E. Hopkins - Beaumont House 409 E. Hopkins 520 E. Cooper (storefront remodel 303 E. Main 311 W. North Karen Day 716 W. Francis (alternate) Rubey Transit Center 334 W. Hallam (alternate) Cottage Infill Program 134 E. Bleeker 435 W. Main Swiss Chalet 311 W. North Martha Madsen 620 W. Hallam (alternate) 100 Park Ave. (alternate) 214 W. Bleeker (alternate) 627 W. Main (residential-Jim Kempner) Linda Smisek 316 E. Hopkins (salon - La Cacina) 134 E. Bleeker 1 MEMORANDUM To: Historic Preservation Committee From: Kim Johnson, Planning Date: March 10, 1993 RE: 210 Lake Avenue - Continued public hearing for Conceptual Review Summary: This item was tabled on February 24, 1993 due to a notification error regarding the request for a variance to the s ide year setback. The public notice has since been accomplished. The project architect, Doug Graybeal, has also submitted drawings showing revisions made since the February 24 meeting. Staff Comments: Please remember to bring Roxanne's February 24 memo and the original application packet to the continued public hearing as it contains the project' s background information. Although Roxanne recommended against approval, it appears that HPC is more supportive of the project as long as certain changes are made to enable the design to achieve compliance with review standard number four. Mr. Graybeal will be discussing the updated designs particular to the HPC comments made at the first meeting. Please refer to the attached letter and sketches. The Applicant requests a 3' variance to the 19' side yard setback along the eastern property line to allow for a stairwell. The HPC may grant a variance if it is found that the proposed variance is more compatible with the historic resource than compliance with the code. Staff believes that given the depth of the required setback along this side of the parcel, and that the variance request is for an underground feature, the variance does no harm to the resource. One concern however is that the stairwell will need a railing or wall around it. The design of this element must be reviewed prior to final approval. t MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee CC: Diane Moore, City Planning Director Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation officer At__ Re: 210 Lake Avenue: Conceptual Development for rear addition and request for parking reduction of one space, demolition of outbuilding, temporary relocation on-site; Public Hearing Date: February 24, 1993 (Note: A second public hearing is scheduled before the HPC on March 10 to review a sideyard setback variation request for h rear (below-grade) egress stairway. This variation request was missed by staff as it was not included on Attachment #1 in the application. A second public hearing notice was prepared to cover this variation request.) SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting Conceptual Development approval for a rear 1,842 sq. ft. addition to the landmark at 210 Lake Ave., a parking reduction of one space (from five to four), the demolition of a detached (non-original) outbuilding at the rear, and a temporary on-site relocation for construction purposes. APPLICANT: Betty and Lloyd Schermer represented by Cottle, Graybeal and Yaw, Architects LOCATION: 210 Lake Ave., Lot 19, Block 103, Hallam's Addition, Aspen, Colorado SITE, AREA AND BULK INFORMATION: Please refer to the attachment from the applicant. ADDITIONAL COMMISSION REVIEWS: None are necessary, as the lot meets the minimum size requirements for a duplex unit. Ordinance #1 impact mitigation applies, and the applicant is reminded to meet with the Housing Authority regarding this. Provided the ESA height and setback requirements are met, no further P&Z review is necessary. Development Review Standards REVIEW STANDARDS: Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations defines the four standards for Development Review. All four of these standards must be met in order for the HPC to grant approval 1 for the proposal. The applicable Guidelines are found in Section VI, beginning on page 47 of the Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an 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 of exceed the allowed floor areas, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Response: The proposed duplex addition is being added to the rear of the landmark structure. Our primary concern and responsibility is in either the contribution or deprivation the development impact has to the landmark, neighborhdod and community, within the context of historic preservation. The addition is large (1,842 sq.ft.). In a pre-application meeting held previously between the applicant and the HPC, suggestions were given to the applicant to reduce the impact of the massing and height of the addition in relation to the cottage. Connecting the addition to the main structure via a hyphen would significantly lessen the impact. Although the landmark is not particularly noted for its pristine architectural quality, it is a strong representative example of vernacular cottage architecture, a critical component in reviewing the appropriateness of this addition. It is also immediately adjacent to one of Aspen's more significant National Register resources, the Newberry-Shaw House. In addition, Lake Avenue is the summer pedestrian route, which greatly highlights historic resources. The HPC should exercise great care in reviewing this addition's compatibility to the principle structure, the adjacent landmark and within'this immediate Lake Avenue neighborhood. Staff disagrees with the entire addition approach shown in this application. We find that it completely disregards the cottage, its historic integrity (vernacular form) and small scale. We feel strongly that this proposal is completely wrong for this parcel; we are barely able to discern the original resource from the addition which is a complete violation of preservation principles. We find that the proposed development is not compatible with the designated parcel or the adjacent structure, and that this Standard has clearly not been met. We also find that a simple tabling is not appropriate due to the major number of design changes that 2 must occur. We are, therefore, recommending denial, and ask that the HPC support the Planning Office in this. This proposal illustrates a significant misunderstanding of "compatibility in addition design" and will require substantial revisions. We conceptually support the parking reduction request from five spaces to four, however, cannot support the setback variations due to the incompatible design. We find, however, that the applicant has not made the argument to support this Standard, i.e. that the proposed development is more compatible to the historic landmark... In order for the HPC to grant approval for any variations, a more thorough discussion of this standard must be made by the applicant for the HPC to consider. We find no information regarding the temporary relocation of the structure, which requires bonding or a letter of credit prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: We do not disagree with the applicant's argument in favor of a duplex on this site, however, their design approach must be entire reconsidered before Planning Office support can be given. The HPC should again study on-site the project at 620 W. Hallam and 700 W. Francis and remind themselves of those design review errors (as discussed in numerous previous HPC meetings) while considering this proposal for 210 Lake Ave. Mistakes previously made should serve only to teach, not to set precedent. We find this standard has not been met, and are recommending denial. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: The cultural value of this landmark is found in its vernacular contribution to the history of Aspen. It is representative through both form and style of the mining era' s family home environment and lifestyle of the average citizen of this community. To expand that small scale form completely out of proportion is to deny and detract from the historic cultural value of this landmark to our community. We find that this standard has also not been met, and are recommending denial. 3 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The applicant makes the argument that the cottage has been significantly altered in the past, therefore, additional architectural changes will not impact its integrity further. Due to the significant nature of the proposal, staff disagrees, and reminds the HPC, the applicant, and the community, that what was wrong is the past should not set the course for the future. Actually, we find that the previous changes that have occurred to this structure did not disrespect its small scale, cottage form - they merely altered its original vernacular integrity in ways that are commonly "Aspen-like", i.e. larger porch and additional detailing. .. The HPC has strived for many years to keep the appearance of additions smaller than the original resource in order to meet basic preservation principles. Numerous good examples of this are found throughout the West End and elsewhere. 126 W. Francis, 201 E. Hyman, 1004 E. Durant, 17 Queen St. and 100 E. Bleeker afford the HPC good design solutions from which to learn. In order for the original resource to read through and not become secondary to the addition, issues such as height, massing - (bulk), scale, proportion, fenestration, materials and detailing must be carefully considered - always with the preservation of the landmark foremost in mind. Conversely, it appears that the material choice is compatible to the resource, and that the general fenestration proportions meet the Guidelines. To conclude, we find that this proposal diminishes and detract from the architectural integrity of this resource, and therefore, the Planning Office finds that this Standard has also not been met. In summary, the Planning Office cannot support this proposal as presented, and asks that the applicant work with the HPC, the Design Guidelines and Development Review Standards to redesign an addition that will be compatible. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any Of the following alternatives: 4 . 1) Conceptual approval as proposed, finding the Development Review standards have been met. The Final application presentation shall include material samples. 2) Conceptual approval with conditions, to be met at Fina 1. 3) Table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain, to allow the applicant time to revise the proposal in order to meet the Development Revi ew standards, as stated in this memo. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, f inding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC deny the Conceptual Development proposal for 210 Lake Avenue, finding that all four Development Review Standards have not been met. Additional comments: hpc210LA 5 111111111111111 fl=a COTTLE GRAYBEAL ' YAW ARCHITECTS 1 LTD February 26, 1993 City of Aspen Planning Office Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Planning Officials, and Committee Members: Thank you for your time and input during the Conceptual Development Review of the Schermer residence at 210 Lake Avenue. We have reviewed the Developments Review Standards and comments again and propose the enclosed design revisions. The concern we heard from the committee was the application meeting the development review standard number four. This standard reads as follows: "The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof." We have examined many different options for the project based on this standard and your comments. The options studied included separating the building into three different structures with thin connections, to exploring the use of different materials such as brick and stone for the three components of the design. After several late nights, reams of flimsy paper and many faxes to our client, we offer the following design changes. The addition to this historic structure has been moved as far back from the existing building as possible to reduce its visual impact, without violating the Hallam Lake Bluff Review Standards or adversely impacting the existing large evergreen trees. The dormer element on the east elevation that encroached on the existing structure has been removed and the adjacent wall area recessed to become part of the addition, not a separate element on the roof of the existing building. We also carefully examined separating the addition with a hyphen. This was discussed with the client in both graphic and verbal forms. We both strongly feel IOH\ COTTLE. AIA the best way to create this hyphen is by differentiation of the parts such as DOLE GRAYBEAL AIA LARRY YAW Al.A M.ARK HENTHOR\. AIA 510 EAST H\\1.AN SLITE 1 .UPEN. COLOR. DO 81611 PHONE 303 923-2867 FAX 303 925-3-30 Page 2 material sizes and detailing rather then an actual physical break between the parts. I know of one residential structure that has successfully created a physical break. The residence across the street from the Baptist church. This is a corner lot and the break is clearly seen from the street. The break is very appropriate for the scale of the structures on that lot. Our lot is larger, mid-block and pie shaped which creates little sideyard visibility. Such a physical break would not be seen and is not appropriate for this project. One of the other review standards is "The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development." A physical break is not in character with the neighbors. We strongly feel by changing material size, detailing and possibly direction, an appropriate hyphen will be created between new and old. Similar or no differentiation in materials were used on the neighboring properties, which we are endeavoring to relate to. The change in material and proportions separate the building into three parts. Siding direction can be vertical, or horizontal on the rear two masses. This change adds order to the original randomness of parts creating unity of masses and clarity of old and new. It also, breaks down the whole, eliminating the feel of "big fish eating little." A hyphen is used to divide or connect two elements (words). The division of the old and new elements of this design is the change in material scale, design and color. The connection is the physical abutment of the structures together but with a change in plane for separation. Wood siding and trim were milled smaller during the construction of the original builder. Today, wood is milled in larger sections and profiles. What better way to separate old from new then a historic material separation. We have also revise our study model and look forward to showing the design to you. We believe you will agree with us the design has improved and the addition does not diminish or distract from the architectural unity of the historic structure but enhances that structure. Attached are revised elevations showing the change for your review. If I can provide further information, please let me know. Sincerely, A 9 1 11 L kf):><:10 5-- 99011 4 U Doug Graybeal AIA Principal negg~ 06(il DG:kj Encls. - '~. -- 41 Unk ~Â»j.uat I -1 041 1 // 1 â‚¬ 1 4 - ' -N.=/6 h -:w. -.* w# & . , - 1 1 1 14 ..III I -1-2- 9.4, 4 , i~~ - * - - --- N . ] 1 - - 4 .r' 1 ,\1 - - h -1 60!4,W - Y-. -.~ --- --- 3 f ------e- ..pil----- - - -- 2 - -- 1 2 bal EAST ELEVATION 0 er 9 1 4, 64 4~ 4 Vly#7 49 l T 1% , , - 1,----1 ~1 kj"/ , -~ 1 11./ 7 ilETi N - --4 1 lili 9 . 'I 1 3% 6 1 1 1 1. I 113-3 1 1 ..Pei ; 1 , S ~ . .... 4 1.- N . 4-1. 1 - 001 -0 .. -Aly k - --Ji --1 -r- 14. . 11 11 1.11 1 ir I lilli 4 1 1 - 2 t>1.- - 1 1 ~i WEST ELEVATION 444 Â«I__f 1 sUS - 44 ~ R -- - - H 4.52 1 1 Â·Â· ... 3= '1 -- 1.2 6,1 - 1 1 2\ I 1 - - , NORTH ELEVATION r i-t 23 1 ! 1. 4 9 i -4 - 27. . . ..A i 04 <... - Ei . 1 1 - - r 9 - - - SOUTH ELEVATION It:li:ill lilli: 1 1. H 'lili 1 -1 .1 ' p 4+1,~ ' uzi.i , ,; :' , MEMORANDUM To: Historic Preservation Committee From: Kim Johnson, Planning Date: March 10, 1993 RE: 210 Lake Avenue - Continued public hearing for Conceptual Review summary: This item was tabled on February 24, 1993 due to a notification error regarding the request for a variance to the side year setback. The public notice has since been accomplished. The project architect, Doug Graybeal, has also submitted drawings showing revisions made since the February 24 meeting. Staff Comments: Please remember to bring Roxanne's February 24 memo and the original application packet to the continued public hearing as it contains the project's background information. Although Roxanne recommended against approval, it appears that HPC is more supportive of the project as long as certain changes are made to enable the design to achieve compliance with review standard number four. Mr. Graybeal will be discussing the updated designs particular to the HPC comments made at the first meeting. Please refer to the attached letter and sketches. The Applicant requests a 3' variance to the 19' side yard setback along the eastern property line to allow for a stairwell. The HPC may grant a variance if it is found that the proposed variance is more compatible with the historic resource than compliance with the code. Staff believes that given the depth of the required setback along this side of the parcel, and that the variance request is for an underground feature, the variance does no harm &2-f-bt*asaurce. One concern however is that the stairwell WilleÂ¢i@Ect-arahor wall around it. The design of this element musâ‚¬-be-ri-Viewed prior to final approval. Â» blypd 54>05 6*k f cult - --jcr- Â¥4546 --P D~ Sfut 0"Ae.,4- CO - kn@ 16 set- A.~T *, 4449 44- uuQIÂ«podeud Â«L-Â«y 0,1- 14 741\ te,~ ro-Â«UN '-~02â‚¬ 6.-M' W /4-2 474 -ID wâ€žt *c,4 w Ut : 82,8-- MnÂ£4 Â¥if i,4#4550 A=*.:61 *cat arp.,<0 7 -0 b. 4 4 #4.A. 140 iw 04 fal~Â° Lopo -Â«24:4 6 44-4- MUrd 4-4 (Aa<N %00, *D triati ILIred + w#a dc 40 1421 4: 4-Pc 4 Al'Ly f 1&40 /,4 -t-D be- Fl~ 44 k* â‚¬L fga. Ad- Ji.*d~ -1 4 /ylf u â‚¬10 a.6 4% 4 ntt- t TJ, Ii. 4.-J J C~.Ce #foon'aU . I. gte 74 - 48& foke /U f A-4 4- 24 1 + *44 --1 7.,F pra vf 94/ 4 Â» /Â»A 193:~ *f n~tlf *' 50- AÂ» date - E. Ce G.,4- Lo w'o An.~4/6~,AC)1 Â» bull -14:r fÂ«- mA.t - 6Â£ft-Fkf 7 :4114 44Lt 9 481,~ el<Â£ /tal. pez.6,M f 4. IJL-.ct.~ Eiff * 4_.Â£ M-' LA- ';-20~" 95- -64 4[ig#fj IffÂ« r"4 4 54*Â£g ILL (* 422 coqU 64 fuk.46 # 6 93Â¢ le U,*02 0-%012Â«fâ‚¬Â»/42 @ A44*~ f sU Attkrk AFFIDAVIT This affidavit is to verify that proper public notice was mailed and posted for 210 Lake Avenue Conceptual Development: Three foot side yard setback variation for egress stair from below grade habitable space. Public notice was mailed more than ten days prior to public meeting with last meetings notice to names and address attached to the last affidavit on this project. Public notice was posted on the property ten days prior to meeting. Attached is a photograph of the sign posting. 4&14 Doug Graybeal Date; JA/01~> Partner Cottle Graybeal Yaw Architects Ltd. 1 ' PUBUC NOTICE DATE 3 49. TIME_ILL PLACE PURPOSE 4%.1 , I 1- I - PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 210 LAKE AVE., CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT: 3' SIDEYARD SETBACK VARIATION FOR EGRESS STAIR FROM BELOW GRADE HABITABLE SPACE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, March 10, 1993, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee in the Second Floor Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application by Betty and Lloyd Schermer, represented by Cottle, Graybeal and Yaw, Architects, for a 3' sideyard setback variation necessary due to a below grade egress stair for the parcel described as Lot 19, Block 103, Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, referred to as 210 Lake Avenue. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office at 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, 81611. (303) 920-5090. s/William J. Poss, Chairman Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Published in the Aspen Times on February 19, 1993 City of Aspen account pub.notice.210LA.CD.2 a, 4*.LA+A ~~~ - -AL _ .. AFFIDAVIT This affidavit is to verify that the required notice for the Public Hearing ofHistoric Preservation Committee meeting at 5:00 on February 24, 1993 for Conceptual Approval of an addition to and duplex for the Schermer Residence at 210 Lake Ave has been posted on the property ten days before the hearing date. Attached is a photo of the notice posted on the residence. This affidavit also verifies that public notice ofthis hearing has been mailed to surrounding property owners within a three hundred foot radius on the property as identified in the attached title search ten days before the hearing date. Â»97Â£ Schermer s Representative Date: 2/aq/98 Doug Graybeal Principal Cottle Graybeal Yaw Architects Ltd. . 91,6 014 DATE- TIME__~_ PLACE - PURPOSE-_ 11 - -F l- PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS, 3RD FLOOR Vincent J. Higens ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Christina Davis President 303-925-1766 : 303-925-6527 FAX Vice President 300' OWNER'S LIST Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado, hereby certifies the following list is a current list of property owner's within three hundred feet of Lot 19, Shaw & WPW Jt. Venture Subdivision as obtained from the most current Pitkin County Assessors Tax Rolls. NAMES AND ADDRESSES TAX SCHEDULE NUMBER PLEASE REFER TO LIST ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF CLU.JX. ja--0 AUTHORIZED S IGNATURâ‚¬~ ANDRES JACKSON FI MAN NIT B, SECOND & SMUGGLER AND BELINDA B. FRI.,HMAN CONDOMINIUMS P.O. BOX 465 ASPEN CO 81612 ARTHUR B. TRENTAZ LOTS 11 7 12, BLOCK 102, AND AMELIA TRENTAZ HALLAMS 315 LAKE AVENUE ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES METES & BOUNDS 100 PUPPY SMITH ROAD ASPEN CO 81611 CATHERINE M. CONOVER LOTS P-S, BLOCK 40, SUITE 300 LOTS 13-16, BLOCK 40, HALLAMS 1666 CONNECTICUT AVE. N.W. WASHINGTON DC 20009 CHARLES C. GATES LOTS M, N & O, BLOCK 40 AND JUNE S. GATES LOTS 10, 11 & 12, BLK 40 HALLAMS 990 S. BROADWAY DENVER CO 80217 ELLEN MIDDLETON RANDALL PARCEL II, MARSHALL LOT TRUSTEE OF E. MIDDLETON RANDALL TRUST 5005 GREEN TREE ROAD HOUSTON TX 77056 GEORGE HAMILTON LOTS G-I, BLOCK 41 C/O BFG CORPORATION ATTN: CARMEN 1875 CENTURY PARK EAST, STE. 1300 LOS ANGELES CA 90067 JAMES P. HUME HUME LOT SPLIT 1120 NO. LAKE SHORE DRIVE CHICAGO IL 60611 JOHN J. NICHOLSON LOT 20, SHAW & WPW JT. AND LOU ADLER VENTURE SUBDIVISION C/O ROBERT S. COLBERT P.O. BOX 67006 LOS ANGELES CA 90067 KARL ZEISLER AND UNIT A, SECOND & SMUGGLER JOAN C. ZEISLER CONDOMINIUMS 990 LAKE SHORE DRIVE APARTMENT 30B CHICAGO IL 60611 MARUICE N. NESSE] ,OTS F & G, BLOCK 48, (/O 919 3RD AVENUo ASPEN NEW YORK CITY NY 10022 PAUL F. BARNHART, JR. LOTS H & I, BLOCK 48, ASPEN SUITE 333 2121 SAGE ROAD HOUSTON TX 77056 PETER B. LEWIS UNITS A & B, 212 LAKE AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS 6000 PARKLAND BOULDVARD MAYFIELD HEIGHTS OH 44124 RALPH W. BALL LOTS K & L, BLOCK 40 SUITE 103 LOTS 8 & 9, BLOCK 40, 215 ST. PAUL STREET HALLAMS DENVER CO 80206 ROBERT M. PRICE, JR. LOTS D & E, BLOCK 48, AND MARY W. PRICE ASPEN P.O. BOX 0 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440 RONNIE MARSHALL PARCEL I, MARSHALL LOT SPLIT 320 LAKE AVENUE ASPEN CO 81611 RUSTON TRUST 10% INT. LOT 16, SHAW & WPW JT. SLATTERY TRUST 90% INT. VENTURE SUBDIVISION HOUSTON TRUST 10% INT. 333 W. FRIAR TUCK HOUSTON TX 77024 TERCERO CORPORATION LOT 19, SHAW & WPW JT. ATTN: JOE ROBERTS VENTURE SUBDIVISION (SUBJECT PROPERTY) 4400 ONE WILLIAMS CENTER TULSA OK 74172 THE BEATE S. BLOCK LIVING TRUST LOTS 3&4& Wl/2 OF LOT C/O BEATE S. BLOCK, TRUSTEE 5, BLOCK 40, HALLAMS 311 WEST NORTH STREET ASPEN CO 81611 THE HARMON GROUP, INC. LOT 17, SHAW & WPW JT. ATTN: D. MULLINS VENTURE SUBDIVISION HARTZ MT. IND., BOX 1141 400 PLAZA DRIVE SECAUCKS NJ 07094 VICTOR C. LUNDY El/2 LOT 5, ALL LOTS 6 & AND ANSTIS B. LUNDY 7, BLOCK 40, HALLAMS 301 LAKE AVENUE ASPEN CO 81611 I Â¥ MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee CC: Diane Moore, City Planning Director Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer At__ Re: 210 Lake Avenue: Conceptual Development for rear addition and request for parking reduction of one space, demolition of outbuilding, temporary relocation on-site; Public Hearing Date: February 24, 1993 == (Note: A second public hearing is scheduled before the HPC on March 10 to review a sideyard setback variation request for a rear (below-grade) egress stairway. This variation request was missed by staff as it was not included on Attachment #1 in the application. A second public hearing notice was prepared to cover this variation request.) SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting Conceptual Development approval for a rear 1,842 sq. ft. addition to the landmark at 210 Lake Ave. , a parking reduction of one space (from five to four), the demolition of a detached (non-original) outbuilding at the rear, and a temporary on-site relocation for construction purposes - APPLICANT: Betty and Lloyd Schermer represented by Cottle, Graybeal and Yaw, Architects LOCATION: 210 Lake Ave., Lot 19, Block 103, Hallam's Addition, Aspen, Colorado SITE, AREA AND BULK INFORMATION: Please refer to the attachment from the applicant. ADDITIONAL COMMISSION REVIEWS: None are necessary, as the lot meets the minimum size requirements for a duplex unit. Ordinance #1 impact mitigation applies, and the applicant is reminded to meet with the Housing Authority regarding this. Provided the ESA height and setback requirements are met, no further P&Z review is necessary. Development Review Standards REVIEW STANDARDS: Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations defines the four standards for Development Review. All four of these standards must be met in order for the HPC to grant approval 1 111 , for the proposal. The applicable Guidelines are found in Section VI, beginning on page 47 of the Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an 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 of exceed the allowed floor areas, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Response: The proposed duplex addition is being added to the rear of the landmark structure. Our primary concern and responsibility is in either the contribution or deprivation the development impact has to the landmark, neighborhood and community, within the context of historic preservation. The addition is large (1,842 sq.ft.). In a pre-application meeting held previously between the applicant and the HPC, suggestions were given to the applicant to reduce the impact of the massing and height of the addition in relation to the cottage. Connecting the addition to the main structure via a hyphen would significantly lessen the impact. Although the landmark is not particularly noted for its pristine architectural quality, it is a strong representative example of vernacular cottage architecture, a critical component in reviewing the appropriateness of this addition. It is also immediately adjacent to one of Aspen's more significant National Register resources, the Newberry-Shaw House. In addition, Lake Avenue is the summer pedestrian route, which greatly highlights historic resources. The HPC should exercise great care in reviewing this addition's compatibility to the principle structure, the adjacent landmark and within this immediate Lake Avenue neighborhood. Staff disagrees with the entire addition approach shown in this application. We find that it completely disregards the cottage, its historic integrity (vernacular form) and small scale. We feel strongly that this proposal is completely wrong for this parcel; we are barely able to discern the original resource from the addition which is a complete violation of preservation principles. We find that the proposed development is not compatible with the designated parcel or the adjacent structure, and that this Standard has clearly not been met. We also find that a simple tabling is not appropriate due to the major number of design changes that 2 must occur. We are, therefore, recommending denial, and ask that the HPC support the Planning Office in this. This proposal illustrates a significant misunderstanding Of "compatibility in addition design" and Will require substantial revisions. We conceptually support the parking reduction request from five spaces to four, however, cannot support the setback variations due to the incompatible design. We find, however, that the applicant has not made the argument to support this Standard, i.e. that the proposed development is more compatible to the historic landmark... In order for the HPC to grant approval for any variations, a more thorough discussion of this standard must be made by the applicant for the HPC to consider. We find no information regarding the temporary relocation of the structure, which requires bonding or a letter of credit prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: We do not disagree with the applicant's argument in favor of a duplex on this site, however, their design approach must be entire reconsidered before Planning Office support can be given. The HPC should again study on-site the project at 620 W. Hallam and 700 W. Francis and remind themselves of those design review errors (as discussed in numerous previous HPC meetings) while considering this proposal for 210 Lake Ave. Mistakes previously made should serve only to teach, not to set precedent. We find this standard has not been met, and are recommending denial. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: The cultural value of this landmark is found in its vernacular contribution to the history of Aspen. It is representative through both form and style of the mining era' s family home environment and lifestyle of the average citizen of this community. To expand that small scale form completely out of proportion is to deny and detract from the historic cultural value of this landmark to our community. We find that this standard has also not been met, and are recommending denial. 3 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The applicant makes the argument that the cottage has been significantly altered in the past, therefore, additional architectural changes will not impact its integrity further. Due to the significant nature of the proposal, staff disagrees, and reminds the HPC, the applicant, and the community, that what was wrong is the past should not set the course for the future. Actually, we find that the previous changes that have occurred to this structure did not disrespect its small scale, cottage form - they merely altered its original vernacular integrity in ways that are commonly "Aspen-like", i.e. larger porch and additional detailing. The HPC has strived for many years to keep the appearance of additions smaller than the original resource in order to meet basic preservation principles. Numerous good examples of this are found throughout the West End and elsewhere. 126 W. Francis, 201 E. Hyman, 1004 E. Durant, 17 Queen St. and 100 E. Bleeker afford the HPC good design solutions from which to learn. In order for the original resource to read through and not become secondary to the addition, issues such as height, massing (bulk), scale, proportion, fenestration, materials and detailing must be carefully considered - always with the preservation of the landmark foremost in mind. Conversely, it appears that the material choice is compatible to the resource, and that the general fenestration proportions meet the Guidelines. To conclude, we find that this proposal diminishes and detract from the architectural integrity of this resource, and therefore, the Planning Office finds that this Standard has also not been met. In summary, the Planning Office cannot support this proposal as presented, and asks that the applicant work with the HPC , the Design Guidelines and Development Review Standards to redesign an addition that will be compatible. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 4 1) Conceptual approval as proposed, finding the Development Review standards have been met. The Final application presentation shall include material samples. 2) Conceptual approval with conditions, to be met at Final. 3) Table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain, to allow the applicant time to revise the proposal in order to meet the Development Review standards, as stated in this memo. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC deny the Conceptual Development proposal for 210 Lake Avenue, finding that all four Development Review Standards have not been met. Additional comments: hpc210LA 5 January 14, 1993 COTTLE GRAYBEAL City of Aspen Planning Office YAW Aspen Historic Preservation Committee ARCHITECTS LTD Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Planning Officials, Commissioners and Committee Members: On behalf of the Schermer's I summit this application for Significant Historic Development and Hallam Lake Review. Attached are the required documents for these reviews. Please contact me with any questions about this documentation. My clients the Schermers have recently purchased the property on Lot 19, Block 103; Hallam's Addition Aspen, Colorado also known as 210 Lake Avenue Aspen, Colorado. They intent to renovate the existing single family residence, add a basement, built an addition on to the existing structure and use it as a duplex. The two units will be used by family members and not condominiumized or sold off as separate units. The existing structure is the last in a series of single family residences in the neighborhood to be developed into duplex units. The lot is within the WPW Subdivision approved in 1978. The lot was purchased by Nancy Oliphant after the subdivision. It was renovated and added on to in 1979-1980. Part of the front porch was enclosed, windows replaced and the house resided. In 1981 a new enclosed rear porch or greenhouse/hot tub room was added. These are two of many additions made to the property through time. In 1990 the house was investigated by the Aspen Planning O ffice for its historical significance. At that time it was determined the "Integrity has been comprised due to substantial modification" and "the significance of this residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived in it, nor of its architecture, although this structure is representative of Aspen's mining era. It is of historical importance by illustrating the family home environment and lifestyle of the average citizen of Aspen which was dominated by the silver mining industry". At the time it was also noted the house has had as many as four additions. In 1980 another study provided similar findings "represents a type, period, or method of construction and contributes to the significance of a historic district." At that time this was a minor category finding. See attached information. I understand from Nancy Oliphant she tried to have the house designated as a historic structure after her purchase and was deigned. JOHN COTTLE AIA According to the attached documents she was told by Sam Caudill that it "wasn't DOD G GRAYBEAL. AlA worth it". In 1980 after a renovation she successfully achieved designation as a LARRY YAW AlA MARK HENTHORN, ALA historic structure. See attached resolution by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee. This designation was achieved after part of the front porch was enclosed 510 EAST HYMAN. SUITE 21 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PHONE 303/925-2867 FAX 303/925-3736 Ne? 111'IM'111111111111~11111'W and the rear porch enclosed area was added. In 1990 Nancy Oliphant was granted an approval by the Historic Preservation Committee for an extended back porch and a second story addition. The improvements were never made. See attached letter and information from Nick Mc Grath. During Nancy's renovation a new foundation was added to support the structure. Unfortunately the crawl space under the house was dug out further to accommodate a mechanical system and adequate ground support for the foundation did not remain. To remedy this situation we intend to temporarily relocate the structure on the property, build a new foundation and basement then replace the structure on the new supports. During the 1979-1980 renovation the house was totally resided and trimmed, several of the windows were replaced, in one case with a bay window and a metal roof was added. We intent to remove the metal roof replace it with new wood shingles and restructure the roof to support current snow load requirements. We also intent to remove the bay window and part of the structure. Appropriately scaled double hung, double glazed thermal windows will replace dilapidated and inappropriate windows. There are several manufactures who are replicating older windows with current technologies and energy saving features. We wish to take advantage of these improvements. We also are relocating two windows to work better with the space inside the existing structure. Several windows appear to have been relocated during the previous renovations and our relocation will enhance the overall appearance. The existing siding which is not original will be replaced with new siding of the same scale and proportions. To accommodate some of the difficulties of the site and the desire to provide off street parking for the property that current possess none, the latest rear porch addition and one or two of the earlier additions to the structure will be removed. This will allow the duplex layout to be configured so we may share and improve an existing driveway with the neighbor to the west, 212 Lake Avenue. The removal of these later additions also allows the duplex to be configured so a visual break from the old to the new is provided. This will also allow two very large evergreens in the rear of the property to be retained. We have meet with the owner of 212 Lake Avenue, Jonathon Lewis and he has approved of the share driveway and layout shown in the attached drawings. With the sharing of a driveway to create off street parking on a property that currently has none we request a variance from the required five parking spaces to four spaces. This is appropriate for the property location. We understand surrounding properties have received approvals for less off street parking. On the front side of the structure we will be removing the enclosed porch addition and returning this area to its original appearance. As stated in the research document produced by the planning office the house is of historic importance by illustrating the family/home environment and lifestyle of Aspen not because of its architecture. We are holding back the addition to the structure so the original shape of the cross gabled roof is still evident. Behind the crossing of the main roof a dormer element has been added on the east leaving the existing eave line exposed. Where the original eave line ends the addition has been stepped back to differentiate between old and new. On the west the new addition has been stepped forward with a change in roof form to again differentiate between old and new. The main roof element behind the original cross gabled roof form is another higher cross gabled roof to reflect on the unique character of the original but not to mimic it. In this case different roof forms from the different elements of the house intersect the main roof breaking up the massing adding interest. A small shed structure exist on and over the rear property line. It was renovated into a garage, small office and bedroom space by the previous owner. In a conversation with the previous owner she indicated a nothing substandard structure was severely modified into useable space. In a conversation with Tom Caradome of the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies he recalled the shed renovation being two smaller sheds converted into one larger structure. The shed violates the require i building setbacks and the Hallam Lake Bluff Review standards, plus many Aspen building code requirements. We intend to remove the structure. In researching the original subdivision of the property, the original survey shows no shed structure(s) in this location. The documents do show and discuss a larger structure on this and an adjacent lot. This structure was required to be removed during subdivision and was done so. In researching the historic records in the Aspen planning office with Roxanne Eflin and the records of the Aspen Historic Society no evidence of this shed(s) existence was uncovered. The renovation and addition proposed to this property will allow the preservation of the home environment of the residence and its historic importance to the community. It is the last of several structures in the neighborhood to be renovated and added onto. The size and scale of this new structure will be smaller than the adjacent structures. The ratio of building foot print and building size to lot area is smaller than two similar structures directly west. Being an infill project between two larger residences and the last in a row of renovated single family residences into duplex structures, this project is appropriate and consistent with the character of the neighborhood and the community. It preserves the character for the original structure and clearly separates old for new. The architectural integrity of the structure has been enhanced and the addition does not diminish or detract from the original structure. Because of the constraints of the site and the desire to preserve the integrity of the original structure we are requesting the approval of a variance to allow a stairway from the lower level basement to encroach into the east setback by a maximum of three feet. This request is appropriate since the stairway serves as a code required egress from the lower level and is a below grade encroachment. Per the City of Aspen Planning Office request this encroachment has been discussed with the City if Aspen Building Department and they feel the request is appropriate. We appreciate your time and efforts in reviewing this application. Our request are reasonable and comply with the intent of the code and the preservation of historic structures as they have been classified for the benefit of the community. Sincerely, Doug (~aybeal ~IA Principal Attachments 1 . - MID USE APPIXCRE-al IKEM 1) Project Name . Schcrmer Residence 2) Project IDCation 210 Lake Avenue, Aspen, Colorado Lot 19, Block 103, Hallam's Addition to the City & Townsite of Aspen (irxlicate street adiress, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning R-6 4) Lot Size 10,760 sq.ft. 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # Schermer 3990 Cuervo -Avehue, Santa Barbara, CA 93108 805-569-3151 6) Representative' s Name, Miress Ec I?hone # Doug Graybeal 303-925-2867 Cottle Graybeal Yaw Architects Ltd., 510 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 7) Type of Application (please check all. that apply): Conditional Use - Conoeptual SPA X Ocrâ€¢~nt-nal Historic Dev. - ( HPâ‚¬ Review) Special Review - Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual RID - Minor Historic Dev. Stream Mlgin - Final RID Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane Subdivisian Historic Designation eondaniniumization - Text/Map Amerâ€¢irrÂ¥~â€¢rit CM@S Allot]I]ent Iat SpliVIot Line X Hallam Lake Review GMOS ExaIption Adjustmerrt 8) Description of Ekisting Uses (Innber and type of existing- structures; approximate sq. ft.; I-*.mber of bedmans; any previous approvals granted tb the property). One existing single family residence, approximately 1,500 sq.ft., no garage. or driveway. Historic Designation July 14, 1980 (previously deigned). November 14, 1990 final approval granted for improvements not built. (See attached information) 9) Description of Development Application Owner wishes to renovate the existing building, add a basement, add on to residence, and use as a duplex residence. 10) Have you attached the following? Response to Attachment 2, Mirimum Submission Oontients Response to Attachment 3, Specific Sulnissian Contents Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application ./. SUPPLEl . I - NT TO HISTORIC PRES 1-1 1 JATION *-- DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of clear. fully labeled drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than 110<17", OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 11"x17" format. APPLICANT: Schermer ADDRESS: 210 Laki Avenue ZONE DISTRICT: RZ 6 -: LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): 10,760 SF EXISTING FAR: 2,208 SF ALLOWABLE FAR: 4,186 SF PROPOSED FAR: - Approximately 4,15(~ SF 1./6- - 71 h. 1.24, r - 44 2 . EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commercial): NA ~ ~ xj ./ 1 PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercial): NAr EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: 16% PROPOSED % OF S[TE COVERAGE: 24% EXISTING % OF OPEN SPACE (Commercial): NA PROPOSED %OFOPEN SPACE (Commer.): NA EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Principal Bldg.: 25 Mid Point / Accessory BlÂ®: 2lft &: 12ft PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Princioal Bldg,; 25 Mid Point V Accessory Bldg: None PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: 25 % including r-eat.slidd,~.-21%"without rear shed EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 3 PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 5 EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: None ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: 5 (4 proposed) SETBACKS: EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: Front: 25 Front: 15 Front: 15 Rear: 44- Rear: 15 Rear: ?3 Side: 15.5 &24 Side: 1 5 Side: 183& 19 Combined Front/Rear: 69 Combined Frt/Rd & 37 Combined Front/Rear: 37 - EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ Fencd over proprerty lines and anxi l ary ENCROACHMENTS: - hivilrling is nver propprty linp anrl pnerngrhpq into rear yard setback VARIATIONS REQUESTED (eliaible for Landmarks Only: character comoatibility findina must be made by HPC): FAR: Minimum Distance Between Buildings: SETBACKS: Front: Parking Spaces: PravirifnE.1Â·~ldss.: than -21.1-7- Rear: Open Space (Commerdal): requiYed Side: * Height (Collage Infill Only): Combined FrtiRr: Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): *below grade egress stair encroachment - PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 210 LAKE AVE., Conceptual Development: Duplex addition of 1,842 sq. ft., and variation for parking reduction of one space NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, February 24, 1993, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee in the Second Floor Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application by Betty and Lloyd Schermer, represented by Cottle, Graybeal, and Yaw, Architects for conceptual development approval for duplex addition of 1,842 sq. ft., plus a variation for parking reduction of one space. The parcel is described as Lot 19, Block 103, Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado and is referred to as 210 Lake Avenue. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office at 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, 81611. (303) 920-5090. s/William J. Poss, Chairman Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Published in the Aspen Times on January 29, 1993 City of Aspen account pub.notice.210LA.cd CASELOAD SUMMAX SHEET City of Aspen Historic Preservation Committee DATE RECEIVED: 01/19/93 CASE NUMBER: HPC3-93 DATE COMPLETE: PARCEL ID#: 2735-124-88-004 PROJECT NAME: 210 Lake Ave/Schermer Significari~Development Project Address: APPLICANT: Betty & Lloyd Schermer Applicant Address: 3990 Cuervo Ave, Santa Barbara, CA 93108 REPRESENTATIVE: Doug Graybeal, Cottle, Graybeal & Yaw Representative Address/Phone: 510 E. Hyman, Suite 21 Aspen, CO 81611 925-2867 TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: ~ 3 STEP: HPO Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: HPC Meeting Dates: < 0119)e,91442Ptr*i-FILL=Â«/A#4 94â‚¬ P&Z Meeting Date: CC Meeting Dates: 1st 2nd REFERRALS: Planning Building Zoning City Engineer Parks Dept. City Attorney DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: DUE: FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: City Atty City Clerks Office Other: FILE STATUS *ND LOCATION: 11 1 1*0 L COMMENTS: k OBUWA f.m\ - 3- 7 03 c o<) 4 )#L .44 - %(k _ 111 1ffILAD-Â£142*4.- 1At CeÂ»~, _ 6 pum fÂ«.2 9450 Grant Creek Rd. Missoula, MT 59802 January 2, 1993 City of Aspen Planning Office City Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Ladies and Gentlemen: This letter authorizes Doug Graybeal of Cottle Graybeal Yaw Architects, Ltd. to act as representative for our property at 210 Lake Avenue, also known as Lot 19 Block 13; Hallam's Addition, Aspen, Colorado, before the Historic Preservation Committee and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Sincerely, Grant E. Schermer 1- 1, i [3\ 13 Â© E 8 V [-3 1 R I lilill 12 lili hi, < NOV 2 3 892 lit til J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, P,C. Hi j '' 600 East Hopkins Avenue A Professional Corporation Attorneys At Law AL_ 113/,1 Suite 203 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone (303) 925-2612 J. Nicholas McGrath* ---- Telecopier (303) 925-4402 Michael C. Ireland November 20, 1992 Jeanne C. Doremus Mr. Doug Graybeal Cottle, Graybeal, Yaw, Architects Ltd. 510 East Hyman Ave., Suite 21 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 210 Lake Avenue. HPC Dear Doug: Records at City Hall and the building department show that the front porch and siding replacement was approved prior to designation of the house as an historic structure. The permit was approved and fees paid on September 25, 1979. Interestingly, the permit is also initialed as having HPC approval on September 20, 1979. The HPC recommended historic designation by resolution dated June 9, 1980 and the city designated the house as historic on July 14, 1980. With the exception of a hot tub and some electrical outlets, the only major improvement requested after designation was the addition of a back porch and second story addition of about 500 square feet. The plans for that work were reviewed by the HPC and final approval was granted on November 14, 1990 but Nancy did not do the improvements. It is likely that the photographs obtained by Roxanne Eflin were taken prior to historic designation in 1980 and prior to the improvements in 1979. Incidentally, Nancy recalls attempting to obtain historic designation prior to 1990 and being rebuffed. A note in the building department file confirms that the owners of the house sought designation and were told by Sam Caudill that it "wasn't worth it." I enclose documents showing that the front porch approvals predated historic designation. If you have any questions, please call my associate Mick Ireland. He did the research in this matter. Thank you. Sincerely, J. NICHOLAS McGRATH, P.C. Lok BY: J. Nicholas McGrath ce: Richard E. Wright, III, Esq. Arthur C. Daily, Esq. m9.2 oliphn20.ltr *Member. Colo. (1971), Calif. (1969). and D.C. (1966) bars 1: ' 1 Date 2/627 Time /0 1 /O .~ P.M. While You Were Away M 774,4,1./ch, 04644 1 4/0 Uha. A vul vo Phone No. 91Ks- l 99/ s m Area Code Number Extension Telephoned 4 ~~turned URGENT Please Please Call Was In See Me Will Call t; Again Will Return Mesiage 6 u>Â·uÂ«-*Ut, 4-o #24.- EjhdtvÂ·u>Al OJ.ntiÂ»â„¢ *-i-ign 03~~ :?11>~:;~~ CM<Mt Q,U- -SLJ I ALâ‚¬. B}jihin#ill lim}1) 12)130138}38191% ;i ji 1191)11}i Â».1 ke W-a.02. (.**011*. aNT *Al,64- pAA,_ Signed .Liff. 774,ca l Y PADMASTER v-8003P U 50 SHEETS' C. :A' I ..':.:f.:. '0. . A : / 42 ylÂ·--,bil'kh ; Â¥ 4 ' 5 -3 t ' A; i W. ..ilawl-loolot~ illoal="b . .Â· *4Â·is Â·;*w~~~am#:14'tr '"' ~ !p IR'* '1,- 9 4 ' -min 3 930.DINAtiCE NO: .;0 _ ''" 6001(392 pAct;158 t * (Series of 13#OT- W 4. AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING AS AN IIISTORIC STRUCTURE AND SITE THE LOCATION OF THE OLIPHANT RESIDENCE CONSISTING OF LOT 19, BLOCK 1 103, HALLAM ADDITION WI1EREAS, subsequent to receiving affirmative recommendations from the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee, the City Council has determined that the designation of the Oliphant Residence as an historic site is appropriate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That the following described area and structures thereon are hereby designated as an H, Historic Overlay District, pursuant to the provisions of Article 9 of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Lot 19, Block 103 Hallam Addition to the City of Aspen - , Section 2 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or por- tion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconsti- tutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion ' shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining por- tions thereof. Section 3 A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the ,/2' -1-' day of (Iilf ,/CL, , 1980, at 5:00 P.M. in the C J V City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen days prior to which hearing public notice of the same shall be i + k . -< t 1 7; .1 . .b 9%4Â¢1 j 34 ' ./.-,-9/9...UÂ· 4.t ....U--- ./4/ i. /1 ...Ill'.r /4 0...Â¥*1 â€¢â€¢1~01â€¢/14â€¢ ./,a:,A .n,a .3.1,}~ .~.Ti,4,~iI). i.t.,~?4:j.,fpÂ·.,~Â·, .i', Â·t;p U.1'.- 1.- :. .j.e ,. INTNODUCED, READ Nfl) OnDERED publ i shed as prov ided by law by ,Â»413Â·' 13 2..1 40.:01â€¢41 4, the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at its regular meeting held on the ,-53 day of ,/c.,>-,a-- , 1980. U Herm*0 Edei Mayor -: &F 457-5 i ~ EXTTEST': 4.1. .,9 2*EÂ· : 04-16 1- 4-au Na#hrÂ¥04. SWY Koch cityr.cidrk 4(AD FINALLY adopted, passed and approved on the /1/ day of , 1980. 0 0 1 Herman Edel Mayor ..Â· i 7 /r .:ATTEST:' / ., f r. 1,Â·u y. 7 3 a.nryr, 0 /Koch & i Uj. 01-4.4 2 . --- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ASPEN 1!ISTORIC I'RESK;(VATION COMMITTEE RESOLUTIO!1 WHEREAS, evaluation of the Oliphant Residence, located at 210 Lake Avenue, has determined that the guidelines and standards of Section 24-9.3 Standards for Designation of the H, Historic Over- lay District has been met for designation, and WHEREAS, the 1Iistoric Preservation Conunittee has received the present owners' request for such designation, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY TIZE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESER- VATION COMMITTEE OF THIS CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: That the structure located on Lot 19, Block 103, Hallam's Addition to the City of Aspen, is reconunended for a H, Historic Overlay District. Dated: 4 \ 442 f, / fgu ? / PL I , 45 c acLkl URANSÂ© i ) / / , Secretary to the Aspen 1 1 Historic Preservation Commit tee ~~0~0 certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Historic Preservation Coininittee at its meeting held TKy'la ~ 47, , 1980. f 4Â·480.-0 L-- F|14(64 Secretarxy U - 17.75 -0 1 9.4 5 %9 0 3.0 3.0 753--1 t.s r 145 1 (A iF I Net,}PgRÂ©H , i , ' 14.8 f:{i 19.3 6Z . i t. 17.75' #D 1 X 9.95' t l - t 1 . 15 4 O - ONE STORY FRAME H OUSE 1 .0 ' i o' ~4 -acI . p I . ' 'I 57 ./ 1.5 to- 5.9' 5.5 N U' UL 14.8 ~ 1 + 1Po + e 9O 90' \4 ,. FENCE R â€¢ 401.20' Ls 65.00' LAKE AVENUE . 1 1 , vuLY 13,1979 ...vr,ADO 81615 - 1 SCALE: I c !0 - )--1-*--7-7-----1 it.W ~27g.1.---.--.-I-_. 3 N r.*J" 15.3' 6.' 1 1, HAROLD W JOHNSON, (JOHNSON-LONGFELLOW 8 ASSOCIATES, INC.} A REGISTERED SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COI.ORADO, DO HEREBY CERTIFY . THAT ON THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 1979, A SURVEY WAS MADE UNDER MY ~ AMENDED SHEET 3 SHAW, W R W SUB. EXEMPTION PLAT SHOWN HEREON .. SUPERVISION OF LOT 19 BLOCK I 03 HALLAM'S ADDITION AS SHOWN ON AND TiE IMPROVEMENTS WERE FOUND TO BE AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. At.L EASEMENTS OR ENCROACHMENTS IN EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TO ME ARE SlloWN. SAID SURVEY IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIER JOHNSON-LONGFELLOW 8 ASSOCIATES, INC. BY: ,- -/ L... .,- . Af'.< Iâ€¢ Â£/1/ HAROLD W. JOHN@ON L.S. 9018 <r44:**Ui *G:'1 1 ... 493-9â‚¬9 IMPROVEMENT SURVEY LOT 19 BLOCK 103 HALLAM'S ADD. AS SHOWN ON AMENDED SHEET 3 SHAW, W. R W. SUB. EXEMPTION PLAT JOHNSON-LONGFELLOW 8 ASSOCIATES, INC. BOX 5547 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COI-ORADO 81615 JOB NO. 90-170 SCALE: Ill= 10 JULY 13,1979 11.W. J.- G.R H. 'r Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Nov. 14, 1990 , 210 LAKE AVENUE - FINAL DEVELOPMENT Roxanne: We have found that the applicant has met all of the conditions that were put upon the conceptual development application that was previously granted. We are recommending that HPC approve the application which shall be met and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of a Building Permit: Restudy use of metal roofing with the goal of re- roofing with wood shingle, stained dark. Submit a basic preservation plan for remaining original elements and materials of the historic cottage. Bracken Raleigh, architect: We propose to take off the sunroom area and extend the porch out. In further study of the roof there is a ten inch differential that was found and I reapplied the back of the building to what was the front of the building so that is indicated on the different elevations throughout the house. The rest of the Rlan is the same and I modified the windows in the back to allow for interior centering of windows and to allow a transition around the corner in the back. There < are two new windows since the Board last looked at the plans. The sloped area has now been leveled off and the deck extended. We plan to match the existing roofing and I will study a wood roof but the existing building is 2 by 6's that are awfully old to be thinking about having four feet of snow sitting on top of them. The roof was put on as it was leaking. Les: The only neighborhood comments were about the deck. Bracken: At conceptual we did agree to make it a solid railing around the deck if that was deemed necessary by the Board with a baluster look. That will create privacy between Nicholson and Nancy. Roger: I am fine with the proposal. Don: On the south you show deck that has a solid railing? Bracken: That is not solid and will not be altered at all. MOTION: Les made the motiorf that the HPC grant final development approval for 210 Lake Avenue subject to the following condition which shall be met and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of a Building Permit: A basic preservation plan shall be submitted for remaining original elements and materials of the historic 2 ! , Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Nov. 14, 1990 cottage; second by Charles. All in favor of motion, motion carries. 824 E. COOPER - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. Barbara Long & Ken Moore are the architects for the project. Roxanne Eflin presented the over-view of the proj ect as attached in records (see memo dated October 24, 1990). We are recommending that HPC grant conceptual approval subject to the following condition to be met at final: A representation of major building materials shall be presented at the meeting, with a complete narrative included in the Final Development application. All original lap siding shall be preserved where possible on the original portion of the cottage. Only those sections that have deteriorated significantly shall be replaced with duplicate siding material. Barbara: We flipped the building around and moved the bay window into the front and the forty fives onto the back. The cross gable is now in the back. We included the chimney on the east side and I kept the corner on the west side. Ken: We also brought the bottage up one foot and the addition down one foot which is represented on the model. Barbara: It was suggested that we add our transom window back in but we would prefer diagram 3A; larger windows which really make the addition different from the cottage. CLARIFICATIONS AND COMMITTEE COMMENTS Charles: It seems like the roof is too thin in terms of an actual roof material. Will the roof material be closer to where the windows are. Barbara: The inside would but we wanted to keep the outside a thinner fascia. A thin fascia coming out past the wall to kind of replicate what was on the cottage. Charles: I personally feel #3 is a little less fussy. Georgeann: I think the thin fascia works on the original building but I find it uncomfortable thought with the 3 3090 Lundy Lane - Bettendorf, IA 52722 January 2, 1993 City of Aspen Planning Office City Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Ladies and Gentlemen: This letter authorizes Doug Graybeal of Cottle Graybeal Yaw Architects, Ltd. to act as representative for our property at 210 Lake Avenue, also known as Lot 19 Block 13; Hallam'sAddition, Aspen, Colorado, before the Historic Preservation Committee and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Sincerely 1444- Gregiry P. Schermer - rc.~4 1./. 681.11 ' tft-Eff&~c~TES AND STRUCT}.M~~:Â· 1- .1./.,râ€¢. ..... _LEGEND -0- ---- - i ;1986 UPE),~~~E E.ra,91%556 , I'lapel COL- 43 not y.t o":Ft.d O , 1 .. ~ E=.=t_mock"1 , ret OrSâ€¢,u Â·-5 a desolited I - - - '1 . %.-t\OIPA p,0, yet des;ntÂ®4 0 - /l Vm 99223~-95/Bils 0 \G. - - 1,~2/ C<'*t,â„¢ ShriE= 0 \ 2 cr~-1â„¢reâ€¢â€¢' coe 3.west bie.le,/hitarn street EtS TOR,C [CSTÂ»-TS IN'Â»=77 <.fÂ·â€¢44Â·Ff A Tng T//, 4-haL,rn W.. D-- - 5.00-ru,My cluÂ·ch .Al rn â€žSt*.i N---V %233â‚¬ 4/ h -\ â‚¬-Eft 1 \ . 00 ,..T-U]liI[h miC.0 Ullk.L:J Itivi:1.-2,111--7 tf]KIBâ€¢'U?22%4:~rmi#Mjl , 47-%21:;~~~~~ 2~ 127 1,&,ILIZI/'+ 9-~UPÂ·,5-1,,1 ,VE .i-ZIE I,j,L Lod:--2TTA9 234LJ * EFRNS).\ r---- . -- Â·-pr,=AÂ»/ 717 -â€¢'a=I.-\-2.224=<42-v TWE ENTi ituÂ», 79-Flmts-~ 133!1:7 /Â· . -- I Â·'1~ El#C:I'iliwi.ma_andiiaIiN Eam lilm lij:q.Â·::I'lman >*â‚¬F ' f~ *401~ F*IT-In.Unt *,<Â·<Â·Â·Â· I , @WIEHile ip,1 *gnijammigiE !Â£:ru mUI'!U 29;!Â·fl 1:'ill h 1 1 1 --- 7 .74/-1-qMhL=:64:4 III[ [[TNED [[1Id[il'FICE!:Br"Dil :EEJOID iZIE[!1 00'41,12EtiE $ CiEE !633E f EWEE illnihf@GEE.idfimnifirÂ£2#16/4.7 1 -05- 1:EL;J - Jit Elli] w.ii,41 Lutat:lilt.Ual.Â¢litiliS l3211.1Â· [lit.it:j-lkS[lilj; Lili:Â® iÂ»Jiti'L.LE.j Eill.J 6519:d ILL[!.2-li 2.1114Â£2-)379(*- -e= O -2 ' TES[[[ 11200 03110Â·EIED OW[[DÂ·NUED [I[WEe Er!3 -. CEP ~ Em]13 CirE l.2.26@ Eliith :zEâ‚¬ZZ:nO~~ ........ '~L:E[Eol'lyi~,i EZE]i[REE,E~23Â· Er [QUE[D 'Tic.ITI TEN~~#8<f#WgB EZED ENif~FI ....lkiiI~ mililill.EYÂ®-EE. inilliTTI Em-in [228 IfiriT*EÂ®In RTIÂ®m nri-[Til [IEÂ© ujudgÂ·FiT[UN; -A-- . - F--- r -gEILITUIM Egul ELIE Firm-11 El[El [IUM.mINE mWITTI,thEI[I. Aarmy=im !Â®25{fif elm: uaw - [TED Â· EED Gil Elit i 11 19 11' b -TiT:Ihffimil FIGNITI, fl'OFITT'-431*TJRT' 1 -% -/ 1111 LEELEW]3 ! u.uj J i _ : ' 'Â· ' Â· -WTM FETi9 EfiED - Â®Im. QEURN.U.Lwlll.71 DECE liIELF'l"bm L__)!0?231 5*TI RETITI ETifill EMiti [7--Tui.-114(\ 21[EE Eymâ‚¬El 1=13 4;,tifm !11.11,{jjl ~121JW OMILiI]Ii*EP,A~ Â· IliwHII ~Imillro. .tu-#T'- 1 .1.67110= * IM Â®13-r I._11 - ' 0 -,1% 7733 V - 4 / 1 ASPEN VICNITY MAP 245'fu 7.2 ' 11111 40 41 11 1 , 44.49 11.--- . ... 111.19 - - ~ - HOLLAND & HART - ATTORNEYS AT LAW DENVER 600 EAST MAIN STREET TELEPHONE (303) 925-3476 DENVER TECH CENTER ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1953 FACSIMILE (303) 925-9367 COLORADO SPRINGS ASPEN BILLINGS BOISE CHEYENNE JACKSON WASHINGTON, D.C. December 30, 1992 ARTHUR C. DAILY Doug Graybeal Cottle Graybeal Yaw Architects 510 E. Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Lot 19. Block 103. Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen Dear Doug: Record title to the captioned property is presently held a follows: Lloyd G. Schermer and Betty A. Schermer, as life tenants until the death of the survivor of them, as joint tenants with right of survivorship, and Gregory P. Schermer and Grant E. Schemer, remaindermen, each as to an undivided one-half interest. 145Â«-0 Arthur-CO-Daily 1*r Holland & Hart ACD/caf CC: Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd G. Schermer O _/ 3990 Cuervo Ave. Santa Barbara, CA 93108 January 2, 1993 City of Aspen Planning Office City Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Ladies and Gentlemen: This letter authorizes Doug Graybeal of Cottle Graybeal Yaw Architects, Ltd. to act as representative for our property at 210 Lake Avenue, also known as Lot 19 Block 13; Hallam's Addition, Aspen, Colorado, before the Historic Preservation Committee and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Siliperely, 91Â»* ija.Â£;\ 4 *U-1.'L-- Betty and Lloyd Schermer - I . BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION General CITY OF ASPEN Permi t Construction 1 130 SOUTI-I GALENA STREET ASPEN,COLORAD081611 344-79 (303) 925-2020 0 Applicant to complete numbered spaces only. Ch/Z JOB ADDRESS Zm 210 Lake Avenue LOT No. BLOCK TRACTORSUBDIVISION (U SEE ATTACHED SHEET) - ~~ ~ LEGAL 1. DEscR. 19 1 03 ifc= - 0= OWNER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE , V, 2 925-]026 -1 > Nancy Oliphant Box 8854 81611 923-4968 m CONTRACTOR MAILADDRESS PliONE LICENSE NO. 3. I owner/builder m ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER MAILADDRESS PHONE LICENSE NO. 3] 4 self m ENGINEER MAILADDRESS PHONE LICENSE NO. 5. USE OF BUILDING 6. single family dwellinq 7. Class of work: o NEW '6 ADDITION o ALTERATION 2% REPAIR o MOVE o WRECK V 8. Change of us@ from ~ PLAN CHECK FEE VALIDATION Change of use to $28.00 PERMIT FEE PD.$28.00 8/15/79 -#3759 9. Valuation of work: $ 11,000 56.00 10. REMARKS: sid ing, roof, underpinning TOTAL FEE *b #SleÂ« 9/as Ni=A -%93 + $84.00 foundation. Replacing part of bldg. WATER TAP FEE rear of house, replacing porch in rear, replacing porch in front & roof. Typeof Construction Occupancy Group Division BUILDING TO CONFORM TO BLDG.,ELEC., Size of Building No. of Stories Max. Occ. Load (Total Square Ct.) PLUIIBiNG & INSULATION CODES. Ingpection rpquired of frame,drywall Use Zone F:re Sprint<lers Acquired F:-C ZO'e O Yes 0 No , t=th, ing,ilation.Fler.8 phimhing need to obtain permit. APPLICATION ACCEPTED PLANS CHECKED APPROVE,D FOf ISSUANCE OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES: sy sy d/ l~ ~1 tl), C- No. of Dwelling Units BY L}f,l - Covered Uncovered DATF DATF DATE~ ~Zi 'f/~ 5' - / Special Approvals REQUIRED AUTHORIZED BY DATE NoTICE Her 4,1,â€¢/4,/4/ '50~JU; | - ZONING SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR El-<d-rRICAL, PLUME~~~,~r HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING; HEALTI-1 DEPT. THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION - FIRE DEPT. AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 120 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUC- TION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 120 SOIL REPORT DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. 1 HEnEBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION PARKDEDICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS - AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WATER TAP WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT - PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ENG. DEPT. ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PER- - OTHER (SPECIFY) FORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. _ Plans attached. SIGNAT IJ AE OF CON T RACTOR OR AUTHORIZ DAGENT . (DATE) AID-Â« (90. bLA- 41-4-5 31' - SIGNA1URE OF 04â€¢NEA (IF'~WICIER,8UILDER) (OATE>/ WHITQ/[ INSPECTOR'S COPY YELLOW - ASSESSOR'S COPY PINK - BUILDING DEPARTMENT FILE GOLD -CUSTOMERS COPY - 1 RTED ITHOUT PERMI T.WILL BE DOUBLE FEE PERMIT ONLY r : 4.1 ~3 4 1 159* EatÂ»5 Maig, Street /3 ..5 Â» .- Aspent,ColoradJ-81611 BUILDING-PERMIT APPLICATION --11. 2.1,4:--Â·>4,0'Lk' ; -;~~-~- ) 3O3f925*99~ i.Â·1 -0 6.44. ... - . I C Â·r.-Â·Â· Â·Â·.Â·Â· : Â·Â· Â·,~- Â· Â£ 4 . ' ~ \Â· #**-04*>Nt t Â· 't ~20~*#0:23iP.*5.LIÂ·Â· Â·-' A*PEI41*PITKIN 9,tt-4*'tz=z.13*41Â·Na:>1 0.-2:2 ,Forlstruction .0,3., 1 ~:1~ :,1. , .. '. Permil-42~.12~!!~2 AEGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT :, -eak. .4 1Â»*-â€¢6444:1*64,40~ r,. 9-~44â€¢T=2 i * 'Le-I'â€¢' *&444--&-MÂ·.r ~ Â·â€¢-ri ./. = . irÂ·.4-...:'Â·e-Â·: 'Â· --AÂ· 4Â· ? M-Â·~~*' 1,41 t,.. *t Â·... - -Â·p:.iÂ·Y:,; , Jurisdiction of *Â£~ 1 >53 . NA; :..-Â·.5 ~LI*1;E~ ,.,4M;N,- J -7- r~E- Â· ijw.. 3~. *937Â·Â· Â·I. SE<irkM/g.Fa.FFrNM#'Â·17'*1 - -- :. . ~ ;. Â£,1./1/.4/**Ii/:UtÂ·* Â· i ~2~22:rant tocomp/ete~numbered spaceson/y. . E- ':9 -1 .A , th" . LEGAL LpT NO. BLOCK .. . TRACT OR SUBDIVISION -,- 'L,t.. 4 - . . ... - 4'*644/8/i/6. 1. DEECR. Â· Â· Â·Â·-â€¢Â·Â·.Â·/.9 Â£ nk.Wi~,25--t~<1.; ~~ ~C,0.6.4.-1 ': .. ..~ 11. ..:12 - - t:.:A Â·~~7.~,-Â¢Â·/-47/-1-4.: - Â¥'~ * OWNER - 11 . - 'f '4. MAILADDRESS --lfh#= t'? 7'-NE Â· -' '' r 2. RAN (9 C )16 216' LAL<.{F -.*42,F2 -8161 1 1~F429-403,4- 9.8 714â‚¬ZE},~ , Â· / #4),wr.#wi~~t-,1 3' CONTRACTOR -1.94 ,- 1 - < 111-' 8,0 ; .3 MAIL ADDRESS 4 PHONE :+ + -LICENSE NO.' ~ p i'+Â· Â»Â·vÂ·Â·Â·Â·- -'-- 4 3. I, I I.-'- '' ;./. 7 Â· I f + -...=.1....... . V - . Â· Â¥,--ua&-,Â·'1.:.. .. ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER . MA.'LADDRESS z. , 7 j: PHONE Â·Â·Â·Â· Â· *.Â·-: Â· 1. ~ Â· LICENSE NO. -~Â·= A 'I y.. "'42.-Â·31Â·Â·."" .i 5 1. / -.-.4-,I - 1-vv-.': - : --e 54 . I- ~6:,:28 %. -- '3=re:,<I-- ENGINEER Â£ MAIL ADDRESS . PHONE f 5. 17- 3- , / USE OF BUILDING , i . - 6. -- 1.1-61- T t. :'-4 . j-'-' + I 4/1- 6-govâ€¢-.../ , .., i. ..y.,9-5.- ,~ f ... 1% -: 4 - 1. 1. { V.:., -~1.;f ,. --..A.--1077- . .7- 1-342,2=3=3 7. Class ofwork:.- :c]NEW ~'ADDITION ...+D ALTERATIO~.4-, -0 REPAIR fy.o MOVE -"76'WRECIE..:g...1'411~-+1412 4:1~ :217 8. Change of use from Â·Â·Â·f. r r. A 7-' 41,4:4.~~ ~ ~--=-a'*,De<'Â·â‚¬ti:'fÂ·A~:-~ '-~-~?' 3.: gl: . PLAN CHECK FEE Change of use to - ' PERMIT,FEE 1 Â·Â·:2 Â· Â·c.....Â· i,~ TO'TAL FEE 44.'.....2*'.'... A.:t .24 ' .f=l <Â¢.14,0JL~/*~: fl---t,-$: 1 ;ti;~ 4 . 49, 9.#-121//I. 9. Valuation of work: $82900 20-~ 'L< 4.-Â·;6Â·/ Type of Constru~;ion Â· .: Ocpupan~y 'KT'LE,~ Ii;;%4 <~i,isylf.~rs*-4*22?4* .2: . 10. REMARKS: ~ . 1 -,1. .yh. 4,- *Â·8' 1.1.'1~~ ~2 '~ '; ' â€¢Li.44*17 'Â·Â·9Â·.4 '2'~~Â·i...~-*MZY,freftle f. Size of Building . . No. of Stories .Â· (Total Square Ft.) C -1 - - Â·-'Â·-Â·Â· Â·BÂ·~'Â·' P'U,â€¢9Â·,1- & . Â·./-1'~1~-â€žu-6g#,~~â€ž*0,4,%.Â·. -I ... . .. . ....;-1.-1,0-- Max. Occ. Load- .~**,~ .2Â·~ ./6 S-LiÂ·-TZ#-44 /52.. 0.Â· 'Â·Â·7.,02<0ew/44 42- Fire Zone. 2>'. '",1 r. - Use Zone 5 Â·Â·Â·. , r., .6.â€¢ 1 . Fire Sprint<lers Required ~639Â·; -,5, . .1. ./.--#*-~ - Â·Â· 14 n Â·NO . O Yes Â»6..33 0. h.. * .LAP' '0' ' r- . 1 .44.' I No. of Dwelling Units . Â·, - OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES: .* Covered. '46 -5 ' ............... Uncovered .Â· .Â·Â·Â·- Â·cli4;dr- Â· Â· ': , .:1- e . 1 7 P Â· 4 1 Special Approvals REQUIRED Â· AUTHORIZED BY 'e - DATE ' ZONING . 72 44,0 - - --- APPLICATION ACCEPTED Â· PLAN~CHECKED, / APP,BOV,Â·b.FOWISSUANCE HEALTH DEPT. ./ +. h , r I - Â·Â·1 L - r 09 3 311â€¢flÂ£ '-+; S N--~/,~ 6.Â¥1.1 -â€¢ FIREDEPT . Â·Â·u- . 9.7" BY s>< f.:â€¢~,84â€¢0'4 1 *th,44. ag râ‚¬ 4-0 s * 2,41*~~ t,/st/#2/1 SOIL REPORT--9 - .- DATE DATF / DATE " tÂ·-- Â·Â·Â·~ a / ' PARK DEDICATION NOTICE - SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, WATER TAP 1:2:21 P! Av k- Hotth HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. ENG. DEPT. THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION / -4 -0 .. 1 ....... OTHER (SPECIFY) AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 120 DAYS, OR 1FCONSTRUC- Â· %-Mifi- i ;kÂ· 46 4--1 - Li .-..4,1 - 1,J-~2< Ir&.v.~ .'7?_I TION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 120 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. / 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THISÂ·APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS. AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH '. - WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT THIS FORIVAS A PERMIT ONLX,INHEN VALIDATED.22.- PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF 1 . Â·7 ~LA #ft_4V t, V 9-rpe â€¢ ,~ . Â· ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERÂ· - ~1~0/ORKIST,487184? t@thfOUTPERM/I.f~-1. 06 80/813&152â‚¬JREFE*- - FORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. - 5, r- *-----:# TEL/5>ex - - . 1 3 -1Â£46Â»57 2 . .3- i, u.Â·4* 1 . -.. - lirn 1 , SIGNATURE OFCONTRACÂ·TOR OR AUTHORIZED AGENT - Â·-Â·Â· Â·Â·i"l :. (D~TET - | ~- Â£4-1,42 .Â· ctik-Yoffavil.Â·1 .' m.... TE-*-.LfÂ£(Efilif . M# 4 - 1 01.'-Â·Â·,1-1 1.4 -.0 4-QI. 8 1 .. lili t i , 1 . 1 , U. 1 -6 2.-C . SIGNATUREOFOWNERCIFOWNERSUILDER) ' (DATE) n.,PITKIN COUNTY 7.--4-:Â©AUT-*y;3Â§:*&Â£3*jilou'' LJ. 11*12-i*i#-~ . VALIDATIOAL- Ekmer --1.-1-:v=.Â·t .=rm ~PERMITCALIDATION ;. CK.-d,f . M.O. ~ , 7<SEEN. COLORADO 816177' '-' .. CASH O r-- PLAN CHECK VALIDATION CK. ~0'~ MAO 94YCASH'O'~~50~~!NEN --7..-35-73Â·~ WHITE - INSPECTOR'S COPYyYELLOWaSSESSOR;S COPY '-5-PINK'.1 BUILDING DEPARTMENÂ¥ FI-i.-E-7'bdE[dfCOSTEGERâ‚¬EEFÂ¥~9~~ 1 V 4-4- f L I.LI I . . HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM State Site Number: Local Site Number: 210.LA Photo Information: ASP-K-30 & 31 Township 10 South Range 85 West Section 12 USGS Quad Name Aspen Year 1960 X 7.5' 15' Building or Structure Name: Jessie & Cordelia Waters House Full Street Address: 210 Lake Avenue Legal Description: Lots 21 & 22, Block 103 Hallam's Addition to the City of Aspen City Aspen County Pitkin Historic District or Neighborhood Name: West End Owner: Private/State/Federal Private / Nancv Oliphant Owner's Mailing Address: 210 Lake Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Building Type: Residential Architectural Style: Cross Gabled Miner' s cottage with rear addition Dimensions: L: X W: = Square Feet: Number of Stories: 1 and 2 stories Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): Irregular Landscaping or Special Setting Features: Some trees, one native deciduous, northwest corner; wrought iron fence around yard Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material and Function (map number / name): 2 historic small wood sheds at rear property line For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in the description as appropriate: Roof: Cross gable, rear shed, standing seam, corrugated type metal Walls: Horizontal wood lap siding, clapboard i Foundation / Basement: Concrete Chimney(s): None Windows: One-over-one double-hung, some replacement Doors: 1/2 light over wood panel; none original Porches: Wrap around front, front shed with turned posts and balusters, cut out brackets General Architectural Description: Miner' s cottaqe with dominant front facing qable, decorative trim at porch and gable ends, hipped side additions and bav (rear). _ . Page 2 of 2 State Site Number Local Site Number 210.LA FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Current Use: Residential Architect: Unknown Original Use: Residential Builder: Unknown Intermediate Use: Residential Construction Date: 1889 Actual X Estimate _ Assessor Based On: MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS Minor Moderate Major X Moved Date Describe Modifications and Date: Replacement materials, windows, doors, additions; dates unknown Additions and Date: Minimum of 4 modest additions to residence (dates unknown). enclosed porch NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA Is listed on National Register; State Register Is eligible for National Register; State Register Meets National Register Criteria: A B C D E Map Key Local Rating and Landmark Designation [-t Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register Contributing: Resource has maintained historic or Â£1 - architectural integrity. 0 Supporting: Original integrity lost due to alterations, however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort. Locally Designated Landmark Justify Assessment: Integrity has been compromised due to substantial modifications Associated Contexts and Historical Information: The significance of this residential strucqure is not of those who owned it or lived in it. nor of its architecture, although this strucgure is representative of Aspen's mining era. It is of historical importance bv illustrating the family/home environment and lifestyles of the average citizen of Aspen which was then dominated bv the silver mining industry. Other Recording Information Specific References to the Structure/Building: Pitkin County Court- house Records; Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps Archaeological Potential: N (Y or N) Justify: Recorded By: John Sweeney, Intern Date: August 21, 1990 Affiliation: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee - City of Aspen Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer/Planner *'.4 4 1.. J..1 .a M .,ORADO .CULTURAL RESOURCE ....'EY voloba36 Preservation Office 1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 ~RCHITECTURAL/HISTORICAL COMPONENT FORM IMPORTANT: USE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GREEN INVENTORY RECORD FORM FOR FOR RECORDING HISTORIC STRUCTURES AND DISTRICTS. USE SEPARATELY FOR RECORDING STRUCTURES LOCATED WITHIN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES. 1) Resource No. 5PT-116 2) Temp No. 91 3) Name JESSIE/CORDELIA WATERS House 4) Address 210 Lake Avenue 51 District Name Hallam T ake Hi stori c District I. INTEGRITY,: 6) Condition: Good * Fair Deteriorated 7) Original Use Residential 81 Present Use Residential 91 Original Site -3 Moved - Date Cs). ef Move: N/A 10) Unaltered Altered * Explain: Original porch has been changed. II. DESCRIPTIONi 111 Building Materials Wood 121 -Construction Date circa 1889 131 Architect/Builder unknown 14) Architectural Style Cs} Victorian 15) Special Features/Surroundings: N/A :0 7,4 4,1 ' it *fefâ€¢> : ' . V..& I I ; . 161 Archaeologicakpotential: Yes Nt 'Unknown - * .Explain: -- p,4*â€¢yÂ· rÂ·-- -- - - III. CULTURAL ACTIVITIES: Â·Key the resource type (ie: house, barn, shed, school, church, etc) . to the cultural activity theme and sub-theme category associated with it. 17) THEME '>' 7 Residential 18) >SUB-THEME - Urban~ ~ 19) TYPES ~- Single-familv . I.*.% . ?Pire Â· .. . -4. ..tat.,2%1 Â·, 4#.4 . 1. RESO'CRCE !40. 5EP-11~~Â»*2%{â‚¬4.4 =-2,Â·NAS,T~ J ' 1- Â· c 18 *9.*rug~:37 ...I -vaail 2. 4 4~ - 1 .-/:/k* - k, 744*,'4Â· p b ' =.-Ii'L'*) - 124"Â·-Â·,6 . 6 --â‚¬:R-~tic.*E.-: ~922 4 1 4 /#27..N)\19/// &- 3 'F' *~r t.. Â·'7%1"lm }31 4.,t=4 M 7 3. 9 ~ f TI- 3441-- se--- . 1 *PA*WIMI'll 0- ..2 Â· Â· - 35.tekg V. : 22 r.. 9- 4.. 2. Â»44Â· ifill Frame Number - 0 '. L. 32â‚¬3.: /- 7 - ,Â·-1.2- . Roll Number ar. 22. - . :11 .*- Facade Orientation Frnnt ~111~|Hilimil ....1/.lillillillipwil"441/Wr:SC *. Ar . r - N -- t .4 . Â£ 6 ~ b*64; 4 1 - ./ . 4- L Â«- 4 :â€¢ L ia., , /226 1 .. I . -- j K -,8., ...t - e -- IU.- SIGNIFICANCE: Assess whelher or; noâ‚¬<the resource has- any historical or architectural merit by checking appropriate categories and justifying below. Include any relevant historical data. 20) Architectural Significance: 21) Historical Significance: Represents work of a master Associated with significant persons Associated with significant events or Possesses high artistic values aL Represents a type, period, or patterns * Contributes to the significance of an method of construction historic district The significance of- this residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived in Â· it, nor of its. architecture, although it is representative of Aspen's mining era. . It is of historical importance by illustrating the family/home environment and life style(s) Â·-Â·Â·~t'~44 e./.al of the+ average citizen in Aspen which was then dominated by the silver mining industry. ~; -I I -'I= 4. . '.' - : 22) List Any Associated Cultural Group: none V. REFERENCES: . Pitkin County Courthouse records f RicORDER'Â· V.G.Kirkpatrick DATE Sept. 30, 3 980 -I iÂ· r. .u-r...r ..4-' . . "v.'--'Â· 11* r~ .r . . .1 ... .........:/..2... ......7-0........ } 61 . I - ASPEN HISTORIC SITES/STRUCTURES INVENTORY , 1980 103/ 2112.2. 2-0 LA Ke .AUEE . BLOCK/LOT(s) ADDRESS ' 11 INSTRUMENT/DATE GRANTOR GRANTEE YEAR/TAX ASSESSMENT ~ 612,D (2~34) * A-ALLAAA /.AL.lfÂ° b: U ),oÂ·w2/ LKL-Ak->R, [Retjan 3 1)88 J46! LAÂ«\ LAUD Co. JESSIE liJA:TERÂ« , g p 6 J (01(INe CheDel-3 A WA-i-ueÂ·~ C_AT}Â·41â‚¬211.--)6, E,441_)A HÂ·[94 bli D 5 }20 C,LACA <79-1 0,PLAAD J - L.c ~A),12.-FE U.) P 11] a : 8- L. U_he-e f* A-n c +tuatiÂ·Â» 0) D Clf,4124 1Â»uois +JugtÂ»5 Wry).â‚¬.614*-60 . RESOURCES: 1. Pitkin County Abstract of Lots Books Grantor/Grantee Books Grantee/Grantor Books 2. Pitkin County Tax Assessment Rolls (on microfilm) RESEARCHER: \lee.A G. Ki AMPA-r-gicaL- 1 0-A I tij CONCLUSIONS: r ~"/7:72Â· 79- .9-4 - 3"-1..~.VI' "7-'-7. .-r-7 - Â· 1 â‚¬.f 11 19'3-3/4' 24 101 - COTTLE 115,63/1*L UlL.&.1 57/6/9-5 L.__.____-1 7 0 1992 GOTTLE WAYBIL W AMOIDECTS ' 8, :1= 21 w H or.w al i - 1:4 1 1'.11 1 K 0- 1 .... -J; , -, "' V.-::~*~*~~~'~~~I~~I-, -00 0--0 - 0 0 -.i~li-ili-i= 11-11-1 lili////fl .... --,11.1. , -. â€¢ 0.â€¢ .~IEEME'-==- 7~i$~~-2,6j#mi*i-m........l..).1,~|2.....,1- - ilill-1 - 0 . /11 - - 0., 11-1 - D 1-1 ~1 '-0 . . 11.1.~1~ - - - maaa=Wa=. BE--.-80aamaae-ageammiam I W . .l. I ' I , 1, A ' 4 r.... 43 + . -,1 i 0 0 A - : I. . I I . 4 . -- O.4. 0 - l!!Tu!21! '-', .---, amea mam , 0. 11 . 0 A I -a . m ./ .........4.....- 'lbix<m-40*0404.4.- - '011 ~**Mt***Ii**Ii*kiI-*-I~~ . 0 ,./ 0 0. 2 ... . 4 - Lj'!111*~'~~*I*I~-Il~ - . :1=11 111&::e:- .... . I. - - 2- ~1 .. 4 ' -- . 4 I ... 4--6 ' .~.ill'-111~ .=*- AIIIL .... - Im!. . . 00, , ......,41-- -- : 1...1.1111111111 ---/-.-=.1 1= 1. . 1, 1, " 1.1 ---=.===:111111,1 . .. 0 0,0 ..... - 11 1, 6 . 4 It)' f . e 34 1, 1 A . . I 0 1. 134 5 - e I ~ ~ ~ I 1 1 1 3- kAL J ECTS I, SUm 21 0 81611 2867 - 36 - MER ENCE :i:2. EN ADO 3/92 v i SET 94*f , R.' 001 / . PROPOSED SITE PLAN NI 56;ALE: 10-10'-67' 1 t .: 1 1 ..1 1:.4.. 0 1992 COTTLE GRAmAL YAW ARall FECTS ~~ 11 1 , 0 0 : A . 1 '. 1 1: 1 1 ': 1 11. 1 1 , ''', 0 1 . 1 0 11 42474 ... / . ..0 0 /1 ., I . 1 . t , VI<. - I . 1 . I 1 ... 7 1 0 0. 0 ./ 0 0.0 .'. .. 1 1. .... L. .. . . 1 1 "'. , 0 1 â€¢Â·2vk Att. r 2 .. 4 (-3 (9) 4 9 9 9 - 3,7, ] 6,7-1/4' ] 6 4â€¢/ V/F V/F VIF~ M V/F L L/ME OF 2010' MA X . WE 1 G W T L/MIT COTTLE 120'6 3/16' -1 - -- -- -- -- 1 - -- -- I -- -- -7 - T.O.GUI MMET GRAYBEAL - 1 - -r- 1 -1 -- - -- - 1- , YAW -- WOOD SU I MGLE - 8-ooP ORMAMENTAL WOOD - SW I NGLE GABLE EMD 5 - 1 /2' EXPOSED - WOOD LAP SIDING i 4-3/4' EXPOSED - WOOD LAP SIDING (REUSED) 4 ' EXPOSED - WOOD LAP 5/DI_NG BRICK BASE & OW I MMET M LKI 6 '5' 610' 3,2' 616-1/4, VlF VtF VIF VIF 112,2-1/21- T.O.RIDGE 114'10-1/2Â» -------- T.O.RIDGE 4' EXPOSED U WOOD LAP St DING 11110-1/4' EAVE-WORK-FO-I NT- 10719-5/6, NT TUBMED WOOD ~ COLUMN & BALLISTRADE 29,5-1-/1-L~ T.O.DEOK. .--.- r---r--'rm - - ttr-GEER 11 '' 1 1 1 -STOME BASE OM I -I.--lil.-I.-I.-I.-I. --1 - 1 - 11- . 1 11 11 WOOD I STONE 1 1 1 EX / STING WOUSE I MEV ADDITION 1 1 1 1 11 1 - . I7.,- EAVE WORK POINT - 221.221/2_L 1 ~ T.O.GRADE I ' STOME L BRIMB| 1 '| 1 11 1 11 1 11 94'5_ 1/20 | | | ----- r-- - --pl -- ' 1 T.O.FOUMDATIOM lili 1 1 --- SOUTH & EAST r - -1 r-7 i i i ' L____-__-, L-----4 --- 1 ELEVATIONS 90,0, -_-L -- - -+ 1- T.O.FLY SCALE: 1/4'-11 -01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 ,--------- 1 1 2.-4402-j - EAST ELEVATION Cz2zgtnzgÂ«- ~---~~-.~--~---~--~ ' I .) {16'0*A--5k#WFC> Cl- . 41 & &41.,v.Â©L - SCALE: 1/4#1'-0' C - 7 64.4Â®03 0 19,2 COITLE (mEEAL Y/ /1011 leTS $~ Â£,U. #..~11. Â·~1...; . ==161-- . - .... ,=:i.ZatÂ£2.11:~,2 46.- ._- .a~Â·.11-.-eful- Fir---__-_____ [lr____ 51 0-0-LI li"1 4 1 - 9 1 I. 1. 1 'll : 1 1 11 1 , . 0 . - Aii' 4 4 - I 4 4 - 1-1. 4. 5P - J . 4, -- - Ii--&!di,M!=FI=frd!-1118 ... I ... I-, ......1.1....1.mil 1-1. ....=.. - 0 1 1 1==El ...' -:---I-Ill-ill-1-i---I-:--1-.- -Il - - . 1. I . . . 0 ; .I. 0- . 1 .. I ' I. I - 11 10 0 0 40 " e e ee e I .4 - 64 â€¢ ~11!!!!!!!!!!1 f, -magge A . ... A*hA- ----. . , 0.,10 . . - 11-IL ' 0 ... 9 ~111111.11111~ 22~1111â€¢11 " 4- I - . glillign:mii- . 0 1...Ii----Il----=-1........1 -1 1 - 11 -ill-~i-Fll':- .- I . 00, I ~I:,~.-I-.I.-~-.i'-1~~~ til,â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢.â€¢"lil - 1=======1 ==-l-Ill--ill--Ill.--lill/,Al 1111..............1111...7 - --~~~~-~e.Â¤~Â¤00Â¤...magameam~aamaaegoeemaaee~~*EENNE&2~~~M~~ :Â·'>46''f ' -1- - . . - COTTLE Ex.Amur - GRAYBEAL to Remaih - YAW f 0 _ ARCHITECTS LTD 510 EAST HYMAN, SUITE 21 1, V A 4 0 4 41 PHONE 303/925-2867 ParistkeeÂ¢Pine Irr v ~~L-4--;-fe X , - FAX 303/925-3736 to Remain - ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 1 EXIerING SHED TO BE 47 l 26 REMOVED Transplante \ Russidi 0 ves 1 1 1 4 ve ' i hok~h*7 , .1~ g Spruce 1 4 1 Elo ~Move < CIA che#y e - 1 a . 9-arl . - SNOW DUMP AREA LORADO SPRUCE TREES 01...I, Move 1 . 0 Â©0 e \ -fy=Ef 4 1-8, tlecone , Move ian Olives - / \I Existing Â¢e | to main 40â‚¬43 O~ 9e .4/ -- r---- jr Add - Crl 0 V Z 11 12' Cottonw 'move 1 roY. ~ Lijafto Remai~ I VII i r ./ PAR - 3 ' ' en 91 - ~0 1.0 11 1 41# t :1' 1 Pdf rwe tdliemain 4> 2 \ 1 7 2 1 In ~ ~ Existing Spruc~ 1 17\ 1 1 16'-0" drivewâ€¢* .T*44*r OC Screen 1-4 , . ~ ~RELOCATED Move Aspen /SETBACK LINE / - FENCE ~ / Â°OA ISSUE: 11/31/92 t ~ROPERTY LINE - / REV[SIONS: 1/15/93 , - 1* rol'_li 1 >-44.4---k i 1 212 LAKE AWE # w I Pk 210 LAKE AVE / -- ( lir, i Remove Broken C - -I.- 6 e Cottonwood . EXISTING yENCE- - - - - ---7-- ' =122-4Â« G LOCATION 7 ErÂ·-Â» ..4 - 4 SITE PLAN 0 F 9 -- . , r O 4 0 / 4 11 - J, SCALE 1"=10'-D" 1 b ) GRAYBEA~ YAW ARCH774- ilei 1,0 d OCIVHOEIOO NGIdSV GIAV GINVEI OI Z aISSIH FIGI*JIGIHOS . ,~timmimilmi .. . D .. ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Ilillillillilllq~ilillillillill ..... ..... -1-- 1 I-/i- ..... / 7. ..... 1 1- 0 li / 1. 1 111=: w . 1 1 . u n .11..1111 11.1 " 1..... '~ .......1 . .........1 m===== 1.1.111 -- === linlimilimil ' 11 1 - I .1 . 1 . 1 ... . I~ - -1 ..1..1 ..Ilin ir ..1-/1 1 .1.1 lillillilli ~~~~~~~~~~~~ i':im~ -IJ' : 1'00 11.-1.. 1 1-1 . = 1 - 1 ' lillilel .1==..11111111 . 1. 'Imill, .mil.In 11111111= illillillillillillillillillillilli 11'lilli ...1 - 11 .r J 4 - 1 .1. I -=. 1 0.4 1 1. Ill .....1 11 1 9 - '11.. -0. 0 1 .....1 imiarill 11 0, 8 .....1 I . 01 . E EAL rECTS AN, SUITE 21 LAI)0 81611 5-2867 736 92 1 1 /9 1 \ hiLE' LIVING AREA ' -L==23 It--1 11 ~ 1 1 lk- -- --- - \ ' 1 LOWER LEVEL PLAN MIDDLE LEVEL PLAN UPPER LEVEL PLAN - SA 1/ " 1' 0' 2 OF 4 â‚¬1992 COTTLE GRAYBEAL YAW ARCHITECTS. i OaVHOEIOO NSIdSV IBIAV DIVEI 0IZ rECTS AN, SUITE 21 ADO 81611 5-2867 736 L 15 9 1, 11; P' 1111 1 -- . . .1.11.11 PROPOSED ADDmON - _ ________ * _g#n'ING *DDITION. *- ORIGINAL ERUCTUBE- - - ---- 31 6, PROPOSED_OBIGINALSTRUCTUREir- PROPOSED ADDITION P % 7 ADDITION ' TO BE REMOVED PROPOSED : PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION i SOUTH ELEVATION 1 A 1/ " 1' 0' 3 OF 4 Â©1992 COTTLE GRAYBEAL YAW ARCHITECTS. lTD. OGVHOEIOO NEISV SIAV GINVEI OI Z Lu ~ in,Â¢immi,immi, .iiim,Â®mÂ®ti 1 ..; . . .D . 1 0 0, 1 1,01 0. ..... ..... 9 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..11 ./1.1. ..... 11 ..... =11/.1.1'il'~1 1 ikill.il/Il/l/i- 'illilili 1.11 1.1 1-11=1 ..... ..... ---- Ir ...1 1. -Imic~~illk=.â€¢eaill,M~9 ~~ 12!! Bmi=E--Ell - I.1.1 Imul .1 NEEB !~.lillllili~limllillllllillililillilillilitillaillillillid ..11-=il. 1-1. 0. 1 1 . 1 ..0.0/ D 11 0 .......1 11 0 â€¢'0'6 1 0, . , .....1 -~~ :- i.....................ial'll/1/.ililililii..., -UE!'~1'g=1111!~/////////////////////// 11111~ .....1 B -1 === a.---1- I~ ,-1 1 ,=1=.i .....1 . 11 ... 1 .11... i=~ ...,4---ilimill iniarNi. 11--==11 ~11.11.1. 1,'â€žâ€žâ€ž4 ~rwi,zÂ£1116yin,i,|iiiijiâ€ž41,F~imlililiimiiiiii,lillli .....1 .....1 i milimi'-Id...~:,[in.ill 1 COTTLE GRAYBEAL YAW ARCHITECTS **M - LTD 510 EAST HYMAN, SUITE 21 ' ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 1 PHONE 303/925-2867 4 FAX 303/925-3736 rÂ· 1 1 lilliÂ»11111117Â«1111 1 1 y[>FAN - 22Â¢94*4( 1 ~ 1 11111 I i 11 \111 ~--1-~ lilli, 1 1 11| 1 1 1711, 14 / 11..-IT NÂ»[ 11 1 i li Â«44-- -----1----------T-=======*r--------------1 CD Z 01 a EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION EXISTING EAST ELEVATION CO @a # Cd CD 00 /041 1 ISSUE: REVISIONS: /1 / -Li-" 1 lill i l ' 111 l illi Fh,i... Illillill !111Illl16ill-N --,, ~;j' || -1 - - I - EXISTING WEST ELEVATION EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION i OF 4 t Â©1442 COT-ILE GRAY,EAL YAWARCHITVCTS, LID OGVHOEIOO 'NGIdSV HAV ${NVEI OI 3