The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.232 E Hallam St.HPC001-98175,/9 & A-Ub CASE STATUS SHEET Case No. /&00 00/ - 96 Representative' s Name: M att 1 ko o-e R) tty-Â·j TeÂ«juu An-1-4*1 Representative's Phone: 94.1 - 35-J-G x 3 2 Fax: DATE ACTION OR ACTIVITY Uill Me.t .2/rA~Jtf ) f(J. f-J 1+U,-2. t.13.4, .02 rul.2 Df--A lAr'd.fiÂ« tu )46.-1 1- kl 4 1.â€ž- . 614 7 -1~-:., %09 j C 9 - NÂ» 4.4 6 C .10 3 Ma k (7 â€¢-rÂ»J; 4 , .., .T.DR 1->-1 r . L -U~ f 0-2 -3 9 4 6' r .f-14<35 G~.4- A -,cry .,6 J b,Â·06 Â·"r Â·'+ -~ ) '5 Cl-fif . 9,1 14, A 56 JA t 79 Z- I -4 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 232 E. HALLAM ST., ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 6 SERIES OF 1998 WHEREAS, the applicant, Linda Pace, represented by Matt Sholl of Harry Teague Architects, has requested final approval of a significant development for an addition to the property located at 232 E. Hallam St. The property is a designated historic landmark; and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design. massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the 5, subject site is in a "H, Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character o f the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and WHEREAS, all applications for partial demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay district, must meet all o f the Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.020(C) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1.Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel; and 1 2.Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a.Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. b.Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. WHEREAS, the HPC in considering this project did determine that the requirements for final development approval and partial demolition have been met; and WHEREAS, Julie Ann Woods in her staff report dated June 24, 1998, recommended that the proposal be tabled for further study; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on June 24, 1998, at which the Commission considered and approved the application with conditions by a vote of 4 to 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That final approval for significant development and partial demolition at 232 E. Hallam St., Aspen, Colorado, be approved, with the following conditions : 1. The materials proposed for the addition shall be those indicated on the drawings in the application dated 6/24/98; 2. That the commission grants approval of a variance from Ord. 30 for volume, related to window height between 9' and 12', for 9'- 8" for the bay window in the south elevation; 3. All conditions ofthe January 28, 1998 conceptual approval must be met. 4. That all representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 5. That the screen doors and header on the south elevation of the proposed addition be resolved to the satisfaction of the HPC monitor and staff. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 24th day of June, 1998. Approved as to Form: City Attorney HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION <--â‚¬f~irman - -~--22xi~d-0\P \ AA <rAN r -\ ATTEST: 4 6646,5-.3 1-34-kir-=7 'Chief Depu~y/Clerk g./planning/'aspenhpc/reses,doc/lip.232eh TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager v - 4- Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director A i AJ [Acting Historic Preservation Officer] 9 ~ - - DATE: July 6,1998 SUBJECT: 232 E. Hallam -- pending demolition of non-historic addition SUMMARY: The Historic Preservation Commission approved (by a 4 to 3 vote) the partial demolition of a non-historic addition (1984) to the Pace residence located at 232 E. Hallam at their June 24th meeting. A new addition will replace the old, which received approval at that meeting. Staff does not object to the partial demolition of the non-historic resource. However, staff did not support the final review of the project as staff felt that the new addition did not fit within the neighborhood context, and was not subordinate to the historic resource. Attached is the staff report and drawings that the HPC considered in their meeting. As required under section 26.72.040, the city council has 14 days to give written notice to the HPC as to whether they intend to "call up" this action. The 14th day is this Wednesday, July 8th. A demolition permit cannot be issued until 30 days following HPC action to allow neighbors within 300' to appeal to city council regarding the action. I f you have any questions regarding this partial demolition, please feel free to call me at 920-5100 as soon as possible. g:\planning\:,spel,\cases\hpc\partialdemo\232eh.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson. Community Development Director - 1 FROM: Julie Ann Woods. Deputy Planning Directâ‚¬Ntk'' Acting Historic Preservation Officer IJ & i 4 RE: 232 E. Hallam Street- Final. Partial Demoiition. Ordinance #30 DATE: June 24.1998 SUMMARY: The applicant requests final review. partial demolition. and Ordinance #3 0 approval in order to remodel and make an addition to the existing building, which is a designated historic landmark. A side yard setback variance was requested. and granted at conceptual review (January 28.1998), in order to place the addition in the same general area as the existing addition currently sits. APPLICANT: Linda Pace. represented by Matt Scholl of Harry Teague Architects. LOCATION: 232 E. Hallam Street. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (FINAL 1 PROJECT SUM1MARY .AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design. massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic slructures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). 1 Response: HPC held a worksession on this project ar the January 14.1998 meeting, and granted conceptual approval on January 28. 1998. The applicant's proposal is to substantially demolish an additiOn made to the house in 1984 and replace it with a new addition. which will sit in approximately the same location. The architeet has provided a new application (Exhibit A). including photographs of the model which HPC viewed at the worksession and public hearing for conceptual review. and some diagrams which address the scale and massing relation between the historic resource and the addition. Staff has summarized the changes rhat have -been made between conceptual and this final review for your reference as Exhibit B. Staff still does not support the assertion of compatibility between the historic house and new addition in this proposal. or the compatibility of this addition with the development on adjacent parcels. Although there is inspiration taken from the massing of the original struc=e and the abstraction of the plan form (please see diagrams A and B in the application), staff still recommends restudy. HPC has long been supportive of allowing creativity when adding onto historic structures. however, there are criteria for compatibility that must be met. for instance similarity in roof form. window form and solid to void ratios, detailing. and materials. Although the applicant has attempted to address the basic premise of historic preservation that an addition to a historic structure must ultimately be subordinate to the resource which is to be preserved. they did so simply by scaling back the vertical features of the addition, making it more horizontal in proportions. Subordinate should also be addressed in terms of "not calling attention To' an addition. and distracting from the historic resource. While an argument can be raised that there is heavy vegetation around the site that screens the addition. staff feels that the design approach must be valid as though it were going to be a part of the streetscape because trees do die and can be removed. It should be noted that the rear portion of the addition will not be very visible as the house is located on the bluff above the Clark' s market commercial center and separated by landscaping. The apparent reconstruction of the original house does not diminish staffs concern with the compatibility question. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The site is located in one of the West End's more intact neighborhoods in terms of historic resources (the Community Church neighborhood). Many of these structures have been renovated and continue to successfully contribute to the character of the area. The neighboring property to the east, the half house. has since had an addition constructed which is more in keeping with the neighborhood's context and architecture than this proposed addition offers. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The proposal does not involve any further alteration to the original house. therefore iE significance as a representation o f Aspen s history is not diminished. The addition could be wholly removed at some future time and not take away from the historic resource. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Staff finds that the proposal does detract from the architectural character and integrity of the historic home in that the addition is still visually competitive with the resource. though less so as what was presented at conceptual. PARTIAL DEMOLITION Section 26.72.020.C, Standards for review of partial demolition. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: (For the purposes of this section. "partial demolition" shall mean the razing of a portion of any structure on an inventoried parcel or the total razing of any structure on an inventoried parcel which does not contribute to the historic significance of that parcel.) 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. Response: The applicant proposes to demolish a portion of an addition built in 1984. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: A. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: No original or significant features are proposed for demolition. B. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Response: This issue is discussed in detail under "Standard 1" of the Final review criteria 3 COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE #30 The proposal does not comply with one aspect of Ordinance #30. the 'volume standard: Volume: Areas where there are -...facade penetrations between nine (9) and twelve ( 12) feet above the level of the finished floor. and circular. semi-circular or non-orthogonal fenestration between nine (9) and fifteen ( 15) feer above the level of the finished floor" are counted as 2 square feet for every 1 square feet of floor area. Response: The applicant already exceeds the allowable FAR for this parcel by 257.2 square feet (this is considered nonconforming). The applicant cannot take the "2 square feet for every 1 square feet of floor area" penalty. so they are asking for a variance. The large bay window on the south elevation of the addition minimally exceeds tile 9' standard by 8". The applicant did bring down the height of rhe bay window to more closely conform with the 9' standard. In order to be eligible for a variance from the Design Review .Appeal Committee. the HPC should determine thar tile exception would: 1) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan, and 3 more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to. or 3) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. As mentioned earlier. the applicant has brought down the height of the bay window in this final design to within 8" of the standard. However. staff does not believe that the proposal meets any of the above standards. and therefore cannot support the variance request. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any ofthe following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the Development application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) â€¢ Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC table the application to allow restudy of the proposal. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to table the final significant development application for 232 E. Hallam Street." 4 ALTERNATIVE MOTION: "I move to approve the final significant development application for 232 E. Hallam Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. The materials proposed for the addition shall be those indicated on the drawings in the application dated 6/24/98; 2. That the commission grants approval of a variance from Ord. 30 for volume. related to window height between 9' and 12', for 9'- 8" forthe bay window in the south elevation; 3. All conditions of the January 28.1998 conceptual approval must be met. 4. That all representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions." 5 - F ofu.,u- 1-u.., 4- 1-,L yl.=20- 6â‚¬ re..-:,eal 4-du ,+u,~1 Â¥ na-Â«+Â» Attachments: Exhibit A - Application dated 6/24/98 Exhibit B - Summary of changes made between conceptual and final 4 tpl=umwispeâ„¢hp=-/signif/234â‚¬hn doc P 0.10-Â«- 4-to 3 . 5 . EXHIBIT B CHANGES MADE BETWEEN CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL - 232 E. Hallam 1. Site Plan The site plan indicates two changes: the terrace that entered into the Audio Visual room of the existing house to remain will be rebuilt: and the terrace along the south side of the new addition appears as a covered porch with new post spacing. 2. First Floor Plan The connection between the dining terrace and the breakfast room has been slightly shifted. as well as the steps leading from the terrace to this room. In the master bedroom suite. the bedroom has been slightly reconfigured so that the door entering the terrace now faces south. There is also a new door to a new private terrace off of dressing room #2. A new vent has been added along the east eievation. Along the north elevation adjacent to the Master Bath #1. a shower porch has been added. 0. Roof Plan The round, raised. turret-like window structure in the master suite has been removed. 4. East Elevation The light turret is removed. A window off the master bath #2 has been modified so that it is not as wide. There is a new door to the terrace. The window in the master bath #1 has been shifted to the south. 5. South Elevation There is a new south-facing door off of the master bedroom. There are four (4) posts where previously there were two (2). The bay window to the master bedroom has been reduced in size, and is more horizontal vs. vertical in scale. 6. West Elevation The sloped roof of the new addition has less exposure (height) from this elevation, but has been slightly extended to the north, beyond the garage. There will be a new window added and the door shifted to the north in the mudroom area. Windows in the kitchen which had more of a vertical orientation will be replaced with more horizontal windows. These changes are made in the previous addition which will remain. There is no change to the historic house. 7. NQrth Eleativn The light turret has been removed. A new window has been added off the master bath #1. Translucent panels have been added above the stone panels of the living area. A full basement has been indicated in dashed lines below the elevation. 6 8. Basmmt.Elan The basement plan indicates that the area located under the master suite will no longer be a crawl space, but will be used for a bath. storage, and mechanical equipment 7 . MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Direct Acting Historic Preservation Officer - - V RE: 232 E. Hallam Street- Final, Partial Demolition. Ordinance #30 DATE: June 24,1998 SUMMARY: The applicant requests final review. partial demolition. and Ordinance #30 approval in order to remodel and make an addition to the existing building, which is a designated historic landmark. A side yard setback variance was requested. and granted at conceptual review (January 28. 1998), in order to place the addition in the same general area as the existing addition currently sits. APPLICANT: Linda Pace. represented by Matt Scholl of Harry Teague Architects. LOCATION: 232 E. Hallam Street. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design. massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). 1 t Response: HPC held a worksession on this project at the January 14. 1998 meeting, and granted conceptual approval on January 28, 1998. The applicant' s proposal is to substantially demolish an addition made to the house in 1984 and replace it with a new addition, which will sit in approximately the s=e location. The architect has provided a new application (Exhibit A), including photographs of the model which HPC viewed at the worksession and public hearing for conceptual review, and some diagrams which address the scale and massing relation between the historic resource and the addition. Staff has summarized the changes that have been made between conceptual and this final review for your reference as Exhibit B. Staff still does not support the assertion of compatibility between the historic house and new addition in this proposal. or the compatibility of this addition with the development on adjacent parcels. Although there is inspiration taken from the massing of the original structure and the abstraction of the plan form (please see diagrams A and B in the application), staff still recom-mends restudy. HPC has long been supportive of allowing creativity when adding onto historic structures, however, there are criteria for compatibility that must be met. for instance similarity in roof form. window form and solid to void ratios, detailing, and materials. Although the applicant has attempted to address the basic premise of historic preservation that an addition to a historic structure must ultimately be subordinate to the resource which is to be preserved, they did so simply by scaling back the vertical features of the addition. making it more horizontal in proportions. Subordinate should also be addressed in terms of "not calling attention to" an addition, and distracting from the historic resource. While an argument can be raised that there is heavy vegetation around the site that screens the addition. staff feels that the design approach must be valid as though it were going to be a part of the streetscape because trees do die and can be removed. It should be noted that the rear portion of the addition will not be very visible as the house is located on the bluff above the Clark' s market commercial center and separated by landscaping. The apparent reconstruction of the original house does not diminish staff' s concern with the compatibility question. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The site is located in one of the West End's more intact neighborhoods in terms of historic resources (the Community Church neighborhood). Many of these structures have been renovated and continue to successfully contribute to the character of the area. The neighboring property to the east, the half house. has since had an addition constructed which is more in keeping with the neighborhood's context and architecture than this proposed addition offers. 2 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The proposal does not involve any further alteration to the original house, therefore its significance as a representation of Aspen' s history is not diminished. The addition could be wholly removed at some future time and not take away from the historic resource. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Staff finds that the proposal does detract from the architectural character and integrity of the historic home in that the addition is still visually competitive with the resource, though less so as what was presented at conceptual. PARTIAL DEMOLITION Section 26.72.020.C, Standards for review of partial demolition. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: (For the purposes of this section. "partial demolition" shall mean the razing of a portion of any structure on an inventoried parcel or the total razing of any structure on an inventoried parcel which does not contribute to the historic significance of that parcel.) 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation. restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance o f the parcel. Response: The applicant proposes to demolish a portion of an addition built in 1984. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: A. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: No original or significant features are proposed for demolition. B. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Response: This issue is discussed in detail under "Standard 1" of the Final review criteria. 3 COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE #30 The proposal does not comply with one aspect of Ordinance #30, the "volume standard: Volume: Areas where there are "...facade penetrations between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level of the finished floor, and circular. semi-circular or non-orthogonal fenestration between nine (9) and fifteen (15) feet above the level of the finished floor" are counted as 2 square feet for every 1 square feet of floor area. Response: The applicant already exceeds the allowable FAR for this parcel by 257.2 square feet (this is considered nonconforming). The applicant cannot take the "2 square feet for every 1 square feet of floor area" penalty. so they are asking for a variance. The large bay window on the south elevation of the addition minimally exceeds the 9' standard by 8". The applicant did bring down the height of the bay window to more closely conform with the 9' standard. In order to be eligible for a variance from the Design Review Appeal Committee, the HPC should determine that the exception would: 1) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. and 2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to, or 3) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. As mentioned earlier. the applicant has brought down the height of the bay window in this final design to within 8" of the standard. However, staff does not believe that the proposal meets any of the above standards, and therefore cannot support the variance request. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the Development application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) â€¢ Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC table the application to allow restudy of the proposal. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to table the final significant development application for 232 E. Hallam Street." 4 . ALTERNATIVE MOTION: "I move to approve the final significant development application for 232 E. Hallam Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. The materials proposed for the addition shall be those indicated on the drawings in the application dated 6/24/98; 2. That the commission grants approval of a variance from Ord. 30 for volume, related to window height between 9' and 12', for 9'- 8" for the bay window in the south elevation: 3. All conditions ofthe January 28. 1998 conceptual approval must be met. 4. That all representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions." i 9- cka,L- GLe.&, i 1-â‚¬/eÂ£/ J/t.....2-2 0 4 /2.pf<*3 l,z.â‚¬L,Â·â‚¬-, ,Â·h.,~10( 5- /9.1.<4,Lk/, Attachments: Exhibit A - Application dated 6/24/98 Exhibit B - Summary of changes made between conceptual and final g:/planning/aspen/hpc/cases~signif/234ehfi.doc P+-Â« 4+u 3 5 . EXHIBIT B CHANGES MADE BETWEEN CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL - 232 E. Hallam 1. Site Plan The site plan indicates two changes: the terrace that entered into the Audio Visual room of the existing house to remain will be rebuilt; and the terrace along the south side of the new addition appears as a covered porch with new post spacing. 2. First Floor Plan The connection between the dining terrace and the breakfast room has been slightly shifted, as well as the steps leading from the terrace to this room. In the master bedroom suite. the bedroom has been slightly reconfigured so that the door entering the terrace now faces south. There is also a new door to a new private terrace off of dressing room #2. A new vent has been added along the east elevation. Along the north elevation adjacent to the Master Bath #1. a shower porch has been added. 3. Roof Plan The round, raised. turret-like window structure in the master suite has been removed. 4. East Elevation The light turret is removed. A window off the master bath #2 has been modified so that it is not as wide. There is a new door to the terrace. The window in the master bath #1 has been shifted to the south. 5. South Elevation There is a new south-facing door off of the master bedroom. There are four (4) posts where previously there were two (2). The bay window to the master bedroom has been reduced in size, and is more horizontal vs. vertical in scale. 6. West Elevation The sloped roof of the new addition has less exposure (height) from this elevation, but has been slightly extended to the north, beyond the garage. There will be a new window added and the door shifted to the north in the mudroom area. Windows in the kitchen which had more of a vertical orientation will be replaced with more horizontal windows. These changes are made in the previous addition which will remain. There is no change to the historic house. 7. North Elevation The light turret has been removed. A new window has been added off the master bath #1. Translucent panels have been added above the stone panels of the living area. A full basement has been indicated in dashed lines below the elevation. 6 8. Basement Plan The basement plan indicates that the area located under the master suite will no longer be a crawl space, but will be used for a bath, storage, and mechanical equipment 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 24. 1998 The entryway on the back. The trash and painting the foundation. The roo f top painting. The railing. Light fixtures and planters. Roger suggested that council send the applicant a letter with a list o f the violations and to request a date for those items to be completed. His suggested date would be July 3rd and if the work is not done council should close the building. - Roger relayed about the painting on Le Chef s andthat the city does not have a system in place to protect the resource to make the owner do it right. Charlie Tarver spoke in favor of the 920 W. Hallam project. The project increases density in town and keeps the structures very similar in size. Heidi stated she will step down on 920 W. Hallam worksession. The majority ofthe board members brought up the unsightliness of Gracy's with couches etc. out in the public right-of-way. Melanie talked about the 918 E. Cooper /Aspen Custom Builders, John Davis as there is a layer o f rock there and a light-well is being dug. 232 E. HALLAM - FINAL DEVELOPMENT - PH - VARIANCE FROM RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS, ORD. #30 Jeffrey was not seated. Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer stated that the affidavit of notice has been provided and HPC has the jurisdiction to proceed. (Exhibit III). Harry Teague and Matthew Scholl were sworn in. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 24. 1998 Julie Ann Woods, planner relayed that conceptual was approved on January 28th. At that date a number of issues were brought out by Staff and they continue to hold that position. They do not feel that it meets the criteria related to the significant development approval primarily as it relates to being subordinate to the historic resource. Regarding compliance of Ord. #30 they are 8 inches off in the volume standard. The applicant has provided changes per HPC' s direction. The design review appeal committee which HPC is sitting as does have to make findings regarding the criteria in terms of yielding greater compliance to the goals of the community plan and more effectively address the issues or problems or- more clearly it is necessary for issues of fairness. Staff feels they could comply with the eight inches. Staff is recommending tabling. Harry Teague, architect stated the section in the middle has been lowered and he provided diagrams explaining the proportional relationship o f the two. To address Staffs comment the role that this addition plays to this building is adjunct and adjacent and not necessarily a visible connected addition. That is an important issue. The site of the addition is Set back so far from the street and it has vegetation in front. The purpose and nature of the yard is to be an isolated sanctuary and be invisible from the street. If we felt this was distracting or detracting from the historic quality ofthe structure it would not happen. The historic structure presents a very clear facade to the street and is surrounded and framed by vegetation. An addition of the quality of the original structure would detract from the original. Harry said relating to Ord. #30 they would be happy to make it nine feet. It is 9.8 because it matches the proportions of the original house. Susan asked about the tower. Harry stated the tower provides light into the room. Harry addressed the material selection. Black metal for the windows. Roo f top is a gray metal. It is a material called astro zinc and it is weathered, it won't rust. The mansard roof is a mineral paper which was used in Aspen and it is black. The mansard roofs in Paris are made with the astro zinc. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 24. 1998 Matthew stated the screen doors are proposed and originally they had sliders but they were pushing the financial envelope and changed to screened doors. Harry stated that the breezeway is glass and transparent. The addition must be subordinate to the house. Harry also provided boards to show the evolution. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing regarding Ord. #30. No comments from the public. Public hearing closed. COMMENTS Jeffrey stated he disagreed with some o f staff' s comments as it is set back 44 feet and the vegetation has always been an added issue. Most people do not perceive that this house has an addition. The proposal would be a better replacement. The historic resource is maintained on all three sides, the primary sides. There is no competition between the two. The historic resource sits perched out in front making its presence. Jeffrey had no problem with the Ord. #30 variance as it is stepped back off the hill. The project is a fine example of how to make an historic resource prominent and how that demolition does not effect the historic resource. This is a positive and strong relationship to the historic resource. Heidi stated the addition is simple but grand and agreed with Jeffrey's comments. The east elevation might have too much going on and might outweigh the historic resource. Melanie' s concern is the dark metal framed window. The east elevation roof shape needs restudied. She feels the addition doesn't relate. Susan feels the addition does not fit with the historic brick house and the only thing that combines them is the wood. 4 ASPEN HISTORIL PRESERVATION COMMISSIuN MINUTES OF JUNE 24. 1998 Mary stated the addition is terrific and she recommends loosing the 8 inches to comply with Ord. #30. The materials work fine in the addition and it will be a well done project. Gilbert stated he is excited about opportunities to have modern solutions to these kinds of problems. It is a good solution. The south and east elevation are successful and eloquent. It is a great site for this project. The fenestration is also appropriate. You have three vertical elements that pick up the proportions o f the windows o f the building and the two square windows make it all sit nicely. Gilbert is in favor of the conceptual scheme of the south elevation rather than what is proposed. It all comes back to the notion of verticality. The mass of verticality on the east end is lacking. He feels the south elevation should be looked at one more time. Roger stated EIizabeth Paepeke gave him an book on "vision" and that inspired him to get o HPC after their discussion about this particular house. He concurs with Jeffrey and there are three key issues: 1) it is 44 feet back 2) adjacent and adjunct 3) allows the historic resource to remain on the three sides 4) use of materials is acceptable Suzannah feels the addition really sets off the historic house more strongly than what wood siding would do. Regarding Ord. #30 the 8 inches taken away would detract on that elevation. We are talking about that piece being more vertical than it is. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the final significant development application for 232 E. Hallam Street subject to the following conditions: 1) The materials proposed for the addition shall be those indicated on the drawings in the application dated 6/24/98 2) That the commission grants approval ofa variancefrom Ord. #30 for volume, related to window height between 9 ' and 12 ',for 9 '8 " for the bay window in the south elevation; 3) All conditions of the January 28, 1998 conceptual approval must be met. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 24. 1998 4) That all representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 5) Header and Screens to be resolved by Staff and monitor. The header should disappear and the screens should not cover the stone. Motion second by Heidi. Roger, yes Suzannah, yes Mary, yes Heidi, yes Susan, no Melanie, no Gilbert, no Motion carried 4 to 3. Members who voted no wanted the south elevation fenestration to be restudied. The applicant stated he willlook into the south elevation. 920 W. HALLAM - WORKSESSION - No minutes MOTION: Roger moved to adjourn; second by Gilbert. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 6 f 11 ' I. I, 1 / 4 6... 2. 4 ... .. 1,0 rÂ«' , I . ' , . . . I , . : .. 1 ...158 *â„¢119 -.. . , . , -*. . , 212.* \ 1 . 6' 2 r-. 0 \ 9,1148 6-1/ 1 I! 1.4 111 11 : . I + '- it -i' 1 -- 11- I % I I . I . 4 11.7,11-1 . 4 11 ' E 'fo , f , . 4 ~1 -4 li~11 fli -1-3-~1 r 1 - r-- 1 11 -'-./.- -./ 7 . 7970 + - - ----- I --*-I-- f Ill , I x ... 1 -111 r 11 % I % 1, . . 4, 196 45.24 ..,11 I 1,4 6, 4,1, 6 /.X %' .' 4 4 1 11 11 - 1 , 1 ---- ------\ ------= 4 1 1- it''t 11 . , I ./ 1 ./ ' i:Â· 1.3*4*~*3%&33~i**34.(.Alti: -41 11.- lili 14- . 1, 1 -31 -- 1 2,1 . I , 1 . ' A :14.AL/MES Â·; 44*9,Â·Â·ty'63#f . 4,14 ~~.1 ' y - *,- fie . 4. i:Â·13 tls 4 -i>fli,trÂ·.*,.iw: 434*1:4~R'. Id , ,.11* 1 1 11 111 , .: ' '' # , ' 1 104 4., .... t.*14- ..6,24 -44: 1.11 -,6~Â· f -,1 41 14.-4, ..8, ..1 -> Rk N $ 1 +11 4 1 , 0 AÂ· ' .: 3622 3:,-1:*3 49:1,5,4Â¢04-'it.r;~%1~3.,~ .~~9~I~~.,, ~:tit;~ 4 Â£. MV' 45,hkA 7411**WA 1#,i,?iÂ¥ . 1. 1 , C M< ' ' 1 .i , '. 1 1 ' . , 1 7980 1 , , N 1 .11 1\ f :441: :~:?*Â»f-D' 4'.Fc.Ii.71it"AM#*TC~i#ZiRK:'6"-4;91 1- -- \ 0% . :4.#6 &*b. Mtfy' i /'*'4 4. 4* .-r.Â·+24 i I 7- 444: - .*21'*0'. *41#.0,1/Zibifw'iljÂ»* i 6 i tâ€¢.'Â·.,=,3/<4~*#GicetÂ·ti ..,1,10Â·A w kiuM*~4.4314/4. 1'' '' , : fritio~*52..... - #'ti?4-I'~~RÂ·C*k & Â·Â· +413~,ris~ , 0 0 fl 1Â¢~ .1. / 1 2 h...-- 10*i-f,yÂ·%:ij j~it#*4%42*ij?i;-.*Ir':4; \ Ip ' 4 '/ I. I IC Ef -; - w#~,*i#.64:4.-2- 1 ' '=i. \ . bi: Â·:6Gfill Â¥.0*W. 1 4 1/ I -3,1'/4 ./ 0'. ' ~ ~ ' I , , *r~,; ~?<f4'~t:t- ~Sc~~yfe/>C~~ 4v *'tp' * V iIA. % .1 04*-1 4 . '1~171 ~ -,90." 'â‚¬.91 ,-~; .,1 -1,6 L< I. 1 (< il \ 11 . # 2. At,. 4 ft; h g " 854 : 1-*7- . . ' 1 ..V:, 4'A Â¢ e*Â·, - ' ~ ,Â·," ., , 9. 9 k 8 1 -63 1 A . 1%.4 - I - 4 . '. 1 ,. 4 N .;ri. *,7).4 4;: 23,Â« 4,9, 11:043,409'. t.:fUÂ· ~9("~< :~~i''~ " ~ ~ ~ , 2,9 ... 1.\, 1,11, .'... 74*elkft'*i:4'..2 I.iÂ¢:4 .112&~i,#AjitÂ¢;it#,Â·4,2:Â·Â·*tif 'f ffs-';93â‚¬3~2,6-94Â·*Sadk'flip '82Â«L:,4 ,1* f# 13Â·*Â· ~ 0 -% % .. . , 1 'r . ..f':ifftlitty,40 i :. : 2% 4 . F. . ./.*; 1,4.-22,4 i F.P>~ 9~.- 4.U.f . 4 4,1,~. tr~ %4*:t~W~~~ 2.1>. '- ., . 1 1 .rf#M~ ~232 --*Flti#*t.t-,4:4!f~,fp},111*.1 d T: t: 9 5 . rir.*44Â·2 3, 4% I. ' 91.... . . . 4% 1,41. 8%? i .... 1 1 4, yf,y, 97*4.SH: ..44-0~Â·:.*;~iÂ© 512t~94 4*'.4.,4 ~~,<~'fi, 114., 3Â£.1 -~ t:-F & .MAT 4.474-,~ ' ,4 ~:041%--r- , '08* ... ./. ./ I../# 9/ â€¢~5'W ./.*' . .let. \ t ' . 9 ,4,4 y..-ii,t f,i~24. r:. ik.k#Yx si *.4'644&.I ' :. .1 ~ *642 64~â‚¬Â»f 92Â¥f@â‚¬4- " 13 4<,Mt 19/5,72Â· 4.a. ~63+~ 9+ 1 184. 4 t Â·- 1â€¢Al 1 1 4 **6'.. -- .' 9 . * p .:rf,-33 ~ 40-01**'49Â¢;itÂ·Mit \ ..1. $15> - 1 . 5.1.] - | ||5 .i.:6**f U..:- ~~ 41 f~XIA, 3* 14 .~4..~~. ~** I~, . ~~:.~. . . -~E:311%~ ~.~~v.~p~~.,. I ' 9Â£ 4 4" ' ...'. ' I ....'a, ;~ i,I... I 1..., 4. N.. '.4,- ~ 14.'..9 V ,.4 . 0,1 31 " . Â· ' th I , â‚¬l , i 1 + ~ 11 44 - 4, 1' Â·Â· 1 A,1 . ' ' 1 1 >h,. Ii,Mel.: D. 1 . , 111 -(, 'f/".13.-61?(-litakfait 169*~1~.1'~1*; Â·-r:*2..Ai Â·Â£.6, Â· -1.38r ' 1 ~41-x W-- 1 \ 1 %7 44 ../. 1 1. I. ' ' ~ }i'f~ i I :12, 2,Â£.9.:...AN..A 1.. 5.4 'A . ... 6 2 -iry: . :16; ..:4*Â¢4 :, IÂ¢t,~#213'' 1 - , 1 1 biE ./ ~ 9U"â‚¬Nlif'Â·CE i ...131 .-1: 9--- . C Â· 4, Â· :01. b,hj.k 4.-~~*i:,iÂ¢*Â»-Â·Â·Â·,~. .1 'i<. FÂ»3*5Â·iÂ·tz,4:.91''t-- t ~ %, 12' | / ./. 24 .* u./ â‚¬ 867.v' '6'Â·i'~ g.,2. : 4.44'fu 48) f 63*4. B 1 . I I 1 .3 y,Â· 18, , 1. 1 Â£ r.:41.- i :.tki: -#'77 %:i?32j.~Â·22:,~,122â‚¬t*1;~P Â·*;~i-'.': . , 1 I -1-----1- SETBACK LINE f 043*'17,0~4:~Rq*~.%144*44 . 4 1 I , *' 4 e. :0064Â· 284~:A . W . #Ah#Ma. ' r 1./3*0â‚¬2 Ic'" *-;3~ :3'~-ff ki--~Â·c:,j...9Â·'9~.1 k.: ' t~44'lpÂ·,*~*~~Ffidef%ijmlle Â· I N 2. ..1 Â·i# . .,.4, 4, ' 92 $3%Â¥4~r.. .1,31.. 1 '.2 ' '* 1 1 - ., Â· t.*. - F21*24,-..1, 1.9....ty ..5 lip .4. 1, 'Ey'*18*f7 ; ~& f,ziÂ·p, iy, Â·1~ i , , 3?4(fty.4~4#0~QA~Z*j 1 66114>< ' 4 E g t. 3% .-4 1 ... 0. I ' ffs'.4.21411 (4*44#04:97 1 2 -3, I : ./.' , h , 9 '144$01 A ~,1 l. , ~ - 1 X 'U. AlÂ¥ .t t.. 2. , If : 43 ~44.-6 4, S . %,9 57.WL#f NK ' I . 5 ' D- /-F~ ~Abe ~401' . 3 . râ‚¬: 14- .W :Â· U J , 2.9 . % 4. 5, 4-5 .#a ..:. 0 2 a, 2 *, 4 4.K 1 '71 ' ..0 -- t~Â§%. i...> 5 1 f. **99 . 1 '~ , . - * 74 4 J - .*v#re ..r .':<24451.W~'6" '4 ... E:..1. - ..., '...1 1 . 4 -2 '2 E â‚¬ .â€¢ . d Et .0 7 + i.: & i . LIC 4 hi Â· I . 44. . Y~ PO)' ' - 'EL> , . :e 47 - 4&:W/% :417 - . /'Mi' U.-2:-.0~04#: ) ... 1 ./ 6 -4.9 2. I 51, I . - 2 / 4 41 .7% :.. 7, - ... , , I. I ....5.1 .1. M ; /'11 I 4,/ir ....34 .49 ., '" 1, p ..7 ' ,Â©ref: ' 'r eÂ·â‚¬4 41 1. . 7.'. I -i.1 . t ~ , . % 4- F â‚¬ V. :ft,k:Vq~:0 ~0:76?f ki,(2,1>~.:f:~,4 -sf49- 1,4.YÂ¥*4Â·- A -~4*~.Â·* , r .1 .. .. 4 Â·Â· 4 43 0.1-: 64 - 4 '. 4 1 122. 4 2 /K 44 i , ,-,9Â¥-7 ..44 & PROPERTYLIN ' 94. Â»fE'* ..4 I I , ' . , la 1 1 k 1 1 . 9,3 Wha, - i ,:10, ~ # 1 ' 15 YRA{ 1, #nn! /311 9 â‚¬6 , â‚¬ 4 '9:(6,3.+ r 9,7 - .. , , 1 49.94* 2.79'Mi- 0.., 7: - 7- - 4161...Idâ‚¬fwi Â· 4, ' 4,19 1 , - *:' J I t I %1 * :,4~./240 1 1,4 3%30.2 1*i-~914, . 13 - ... 1.1 'e 0 1 , . . r r,Il 100'-0" . I Â». , . , >;2 1.li,4 <Il ......1 , -- i.%42342. 2% it*44*. .1 I 14 :*1. 4 *20 '' 1:3%6--= . h % ; *- ~~- ~ #929~.I ~361*44Â©*Put:* , .Â» w- '12 1*1â€¢ ..A K, 24.4: , A" ,>614- .1 ng, 1 ' 4 I A- 42 - Â·' .",ya..0,-Am-1-4 '04. '*i , . : .. MA: 79 K 154>5' ,35t Â·12**M bÂ· -Flri kb 4 '29' '-AMAA,vt@*,01 1 3.>.... -:444=18.: . / . I- 0 1 . 1 ..% /â€¢ I.% - c=,Â» *. 'A-1 2-24.â‚¬TÂ¥:"AÂ¥ 4.,4, 1 j J<'25.; ~~i'Â¢-,10;'-4,Â·1*09 f **02Â· WÂ·'r , . , .9.4,- 11 .Â·'i ."N . ... 748: .'4@ga Â·'.w..1,- s <r : ~,v 22,99* 6 *' ~ 4420;~â„¢It â€¢*52.jir , 4,4.44-4-0.ze,1.kctit~IÂ©. 2 4 , 1 4. 78 .'128,, -12 4/* . %;tÂ·%%40 am :=FL .i , 4440.- 401 1 1 1 7 I/,6. Â· I Â· ' 7Â·,:fâ‚¬* * / i A Â£1Â»' :Â» ~ ''41 --4,Â·: L_____-1=/ V Â·74,2 4/ >, i.Â«2.Ft.%1 - I. , , 9 12,21%4:, Â· A. p 'i, , Wit:- 2. 0 ': Bdu*i 7890 Â·Â· :I;*R-T~ J 4:/1/AW-h)!Â·Â· 0, *.3 4-4 1 ' ' I ' i ,':. 9 I ' . , 1.r' , 1 : 5,41 1 -f , ' 1 , ' '40*341 t , ' 13,94/ SITE PLAN ' . St, 'Â· 9, r 1 /--*' $ ~ , 1--- 1 / 4 -1 " 1 1 ' ' 1 1*16,10 J I =IO 1 - 1 .* 4- \ I , 1 , . . cÂ° EAST HALLAM STREET '/ 'ht' I' PACE REMODEL . I. I .*01' . 4.;t, I . I . 1-2 ; . , /74 Â· ' ' . 1 A,47. 232 EAST HALLAM MONARCH STREET ~ . i 0 0 1 0 1. 1'.4,; . . 0 0 0 0 pâ‚¬- , k , . 3Â» be . ':'-7-OV. 4 ' r.r 0 ... '- 1 , 4 *9.-t\,r~fry/4~)--p<7~13 9-1*15)~/7 -S - Er/*,1-V-vE. ~. 71Â·rÂ·v ....,1 _,_r'"9* -/& . 4*43 6 -- 5 6 606'b - 445/9â‚¬) 232, E., Ita,lia,,v. j CEd-220 - -. -FF.4-1 l -7 AL..4 + -f â‚¬-4-<riv oewl-1 > 30, 13. 9, 34 6.A .s-Â·db,a-. 1 - 1(7 Q l9 9-r-w 2 0<10,/ss- '*, d f 6' G,-758 c..,~Â» C LL r-4 Â°fe'cA 1 f> + 04 kaÂ»-Â·4 -hb- -- ------- 6 Cer'6Â£4 4 ;f G-L .t<:A le . 7 MA Th bji - . 4 \ b tte U / Od--3,9 4 13,3 (,ajl-6-~ a-u-j> 9 - I t ' ~9 f l 5,_. f _ 6)Â·0:y,1- Of_L LvILk 0/--/// 1 %14 DUA /Ofc. hpt,-1 4 N.â€¢9 3:6- (0014; 930-4 -7'b rÂ·Â·d 0/77 , "7 Â© , L W-C~~ 60 ; 11 "a lÂ»t' 64 J â‚¬-6'k -A-- ~4--2*-2. A.1<:27 --A,~.24 't MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson. Community Development Directof 0>0' FROM: Julie Ann Woods. Deputy Planning Directâ‚¬YG k./ ' ~ Acting Historic Preservation Officer \4Xy S 9 RE: 232 E. Hallam Street- Final. Partial Demolition. Ordinance #30 DATE: June 24, 1998 SUMMARY: The applicant requests final review, partial demolition. and Ordinance #30 approval in order to remodel and make an addition to the existing building, which is a designated historic landmark. A side yard setback variance was requested, and granted at conceptual review (January 28, 1998), in order to place the addition in the same general area as the existing addition currently sits. APPLICANT: Linda Pace, represented by Matt Scholl of Harry Teague Architects. LOCATION: 232 E. Hallam Street. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). 1 . Response: HPC held a worksession on this project at the January 14,1998 meeting, and granted conceptual approval on January 28, 1998. The applicant's proposal is to substantially demolish an addition made to the house in 1984 and replace it with a new addition, which will sit in approximately the same location. The architect has provided a new application (Exhibit A), including photographs of the model which HPC viewed at the worksession and public hearing for conceptual review, and some diagrams which address the scale and massing relation between the historic resource and the addition. Staff has summarized the changes that have been made between conceptual and this final review for your reference as Exhibit B. Staff still does not support the assertion of compatibility between the historic house and new addition in this proposal, or the compatibility of this addition with the development on adjacent parcels. Although there is inspiration taken from the massing of the original structure and the abstraction of the plan form (please see diagrams A and B in the application), staff still recommends restudy. HPC has long been supportive of allowing creativity when adding onto historic structures, however, there are criteria for compatibility that must be met, for instance similarity in roof form, window form and solid to void ratios, detailing, and materials. Although the applicant has attempted to address the basic premise of historic preservation that an addition to a historic structure must ultimately be subordinate to the resource which is to be preserved, they did so simply by scaling back the vertical features of the addition, making it more horizontal in proportions. Subordinate should also be addressed in terms of "not calling attention to" an addition, and distracting from the historic resource. While an argument can be raised that there is heavy vegetation around the site that screens the addition, staff feels that the design approach must be valid as though it were going to be a part of the streetscape because trees do die and can be removed. It should be noted that the rear portion of the addition will not be very visible as the house is located on the bluff above the Clark's market commercial center and separated by landscaping. The apparent reconstruction of the original house does not diminish staffs concern with the compatibility question. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The site is located in one of the West End's more intact neighborhoods in terms of historic resources (the Community Church neighborhood). Many of these structures have been renovated and continue to successfully contribute to the character of the area. The neighboring property to the east, the half house, has since had an addition constructed which is more in keeping with the neighborhood's context and architecture than this proposed addition offers. 2 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The proposal does not involve any further alteration to the original house. therefore its significance as a representation of Aspen's history is not diminished. The addition could be wholly removed at some future time and not take away from the historic resource. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Staff finds that the proposal does detract from the architectural character and integrity of the historic home in that the addition is still visually competitive with the resource, though less so as what was presented at conceptual. PARTIAL DEMOLITION Section 26.72.020.C, Standards for review of partial demolition. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: (For the purposes of this section, "partial demolition" shall mean the razing of a portion of any structure on an inventoried parcel or the total razing of any structure on an inventoried parcel which does not contribute to the historic significance of that parcel.) 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. Response: The applicant proposes to demolish a portion o f an addition built in 1984. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: A. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: No original or significant features are proposed for demolition. B. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Response: This issue is discussed in detail under "Standard 1" of the Final review criteria. 3 COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE #30 The proposal does not comply with one aspect of Ordinance #30, the "volume standard: Folume: Areas where there are " ...facade penetrations between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level of the finished floor, and circular, semi-circular or non-orthogonal fenestration between nine (9) and fifteen (15) feet above the level of the finished floor" are counted as 2 square feet for every 1 square feet of floor area. Response: The applicant already exceeds the allowable FAR for this parcel by 257.2 square feet (this is considered nonconforming). The applicant cannot take the "2 square feet for every 1 square feet of floor area" penalty, so they are asking for i variance. The large bay window on the south elevation of the addition minimally exceeds the 9' standard by 8". The applicant did bring down the height of the bay window to more closely conform with the 9' standard. In order to be eligible for a variance from the Design Review Appeal Committee, the HPC should determine that the exception would: 1) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan, and 2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to, or 3) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. As mentioned earlier, the applicant has brought down the height of the bay window in this final design to within 8" of the standard. However, staff does not believe that the proposal meets any of the above standards, and therefore cannot support the variance request. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the Development application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) â€¢ Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC table the application to allow restudy of the proposal. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to table the final significant development application for 232 E. Hallam Street." 4 ALTERNATIVE MOTION: "I move to approve the final significant development application for 232 E. Hallam Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. The materials proposed for the addition shall be those indicated on the drawings in the application dated 6/24/98; 2. That the commission grants approval of a variance from Ord. 30 for volume, related to window height between 9' and 12', for 9'- 8" for the bay window in the south elevation; 3. All conditions of the January 28,1998 conceptual approval must be met. 4. That all representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions." Attachments: Exhibit A - Application dated 6/24/98 Exhibit B - Summary of changes made between conceptual and final g./planning/aspen/hpcycases/signif/234Â¢16.doc 5 EXHIBIT B CHANGES MADE BETWEEN CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL - 232 E. Hallam 1. Site Plan The site plan indicates two changes: the terrace that entered into the Audio Visual room of the existing house to remain will be rebuilt; and the terrace along the south side o f the new addition appears as a covered porch with new post spacing. 2. First Floor Plan The connection between the dining terrace and the breakfast room has been slightly shifted. as well as the steps leading from the terrace to this room. In the master bedroom suite, the bedroom has been slightly reconfigured so that the door entering the terrace now faces south. There is also a new door to a new private terrace off of dressing room #2. A new vent has been added along the east elevation. Along the north elevation adjacent to the Master Bath #1, a shower porch has been added. 3. Roof Plan The round, raised, turret-like window structure in the master suite has been removed. 4. East Elevation The light turret is removed. A window off the master bath #2 has been modified so that it is not as wide. There is a new door to the terrace. The window in the master bath #1 has been shifted to the south. 5. South Elevation There is a new south-facing door off of the master bedroom. There are four (4) posts where previously there were two (2). The bay window to the master bedroom has been reduced in size, and is more horizontal vs. vertical in scale. 6. West Elevation The sloped roof of the new addition has less exposure (height) from this elevation, but has been slightly extended to the north, beyond the garage. There will be a new window added and the door shifted to the north in the mudroom area. Windows in the kitchen which had more of a vertical orientation will be replaced with more horizontal windows. These changes are made in the previous addition which will remain. There is no change to the historic house. 7. North Elevation The light turret has been removed. A new window has been added off the master bath #1. Translucent panels have been added above the stone panels of the living area. A full basement has been indicated in dashed lines below the elevation. 6 . f 8. Basement Plan The basement plan indicates that the area located under the master suite will no longer be a crawl space. but will be used for a bath, storage, and mechanical equipment 7 HARRY TEAGUE ARCI~ECTS [~7172[ *F' 7[EZE[M]Â©[M]OVEZA[L 412 N. Mill ASPEN, CO 81611 DATE JOB NO. 303-925-2556 , GÂ· 16.1% PÂ» C- E Fax 925-7981 ATTEN-*N 1. _jut,+ *A. LA]a 0&1**, -1 \h 1 L--0 6 *A k Vt i -1.-11 LALUâ‚¬.1 0 f UVL â‚¬â€¢tA-'~~~' JUN 1 8 1998 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WE ARE SENDING YOU \2(Attached U Under separate cover via the following items: > A m Shop drawings C] Prints U Plans U Samples m Specifications U Copy of letter 0 Change order U COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 11 W 11 Hfc/FI NAL FACKAD-G 1 24*64, HYC/ FI NAL 1 i/1-" ScAL-e THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: m For approval U Approved as submitted E Resubmit copies for approval P For your use U Approved as noted m Submit copies for distribution >00'As requested m Returned for corrections m Return corrected prints El 'For review and comment C] m FOR BIDS DUE 19 C] PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS COPY TO ~~ Contents: 40% Pre-Consumer â€¢ 10% Post-Consumer SIGNFD: RECYCLED PAPER: k~k--91. 1 1 If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. JUN 18 '98 10:1611 HARRY TEAGUE P. 1 HARRY TEAGUE ARC HITE C T S 41â€¢Â· H. 1/MILL'A ASPEN. CO t. ~FAX TRANSMITTAL '" 8161Â·: -'Â»ta 170,925-Z-* ' 6 FAX-925-7931 DATE: 4,/16.96 ro; Klm. 320 4 Ark tkrki) 0 4,6*6 FAKNO _122 6-_ST.~_1.A-------1 FROM: A, 4-Led # b e..$*+ 0 11 .1 COMMENTS: .IL-e 1WEAZE 3Mr- k 4-_..1361,6 -14.6Â»__O-9 A--- _ -- # ~k 24%_14-6 TOTAL NO OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER hAGE: . .Z- .1 -.+ ___Z~<f"U~TZ____"- ----_. , If you do not receive an pages or If they ace not legible, eSA 970 826-2556. Thank you. JUN 18 '98 10: 16AM HARRY TEAGUE P.2 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 STATEMENT OF FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: The propomed addition to the historic remource located at :43: east hallam @treet is & response to the predominate arckitectural clemenu which define the existing house. The black shingle *narisard roof, the projected window bays, and the scale and proporhons of &11 these elements expressed both independently and in unigon were respected and reflected in the articulation of the new form, and space:. The final development plan conformts to tke reprementations made ducing the conceptual review by lowering the mof height of the "link" between the historic house and the bedroom structure, thereby Bubordinating the new to the old. To further preserve the integlity of the historic structure, tke architects would like to request a variance o f *n additional 8" glass height increage to the ';Volume standard's of Ordihance 30 C ".fa,ade petterrariong betweerk nine (9) and twelve (m) feet.." ). So that the datum elevation matckes the existing O'8" height of the eximting street facing window bay. NOTE: Diagram A, 8, & C indicate the proportioning system usÂ®,1 in the expres<ion of the new forms ofthe addition. A ) 354Â» 3 Cly* * 7- >9 t - PO A JE YE-g nout CO 0 0 JUN 1 8 1998 04;Cip i 1-1 1 ..1,4 COMMUNITY DEVELCPMENT 9 9 1 0 + E_ 11 41 . 1 g =*9.41 ICk JOR CÂ»4 - Fab p-7 El _[2 HPC FINAL 6.24.98 * dt:cM- 9 0 0 =0 PACE r-1 1-1 rn , -L n O Ura -32-FXE - 1 -7 1,~9 -- - -l fi,0 4 23*AST HALLAM STREET . 4 911 ,â€ž) t - .â€¢ r : *~ ,â‚¬ 43~4-41 -2.2 2 := 2- fi- st#1:1411- 4 2 . : :7 _6' Asy]*1; COLORADO 4 A i 4~=Â©~4-:r. .'t,=01 i , we><iB:z>t, ~ .02 1 4 fir, lilli ~~ L ' + Â· 2Â£. .F - 1 24--4 - .2, :1 -fli' 13-4 . 27+0 -m -Ef# ..4.y 11- 14 tf- 046+ -1 -ar t 11 4 +t..11 0 -- ---*/21'/P.I.'Il'- -2~- -1 I.-~ I ++44~, 17 -- -1.--VI .4 1 . - pr' 9 .ZJ= '34.4~ f-,K~ 1+ 4- . 6 4%1 .4 + _ .... ... <*- + - "Et f -$5 *i I ... -4,1 Â¥1 j .4. : -1 ..t T 2 147.-+ - 4- ... -- 1 . - I -4.1- AÂ¢ 1- 4 =--11 .. .' LL A / r,Mn . M n. U--m.....1 - - :p .:Â· . . le - -1-= 41' . 21 . ' [-1- -1 L--1 L- 0 - . 11 1 U 1,,.1._ ) ~ 1 ~ --" .-- '*& 1 rim- 8 1,711 , n-#...Jr- 1, - 1 41 - 10.-=A 44 A E.* O 1 C ... -fifilp,irmiua-4 -$11 1 -1 4*. L -7 .- - - - 24 ...--- - -. " -boo t tr 99+ . â€¢ 4--- ~ -1 H A R R Y TEAGUE ARCHITECTS \i 412 N. MILL ST. ASPEN, COLORADO (970).925-2556 ,f r-Q _.1 1 1-- E~N--71 I .T PACE REMODEL 23z EAST HALLAM 1 90*%.\41 - a,r:ze ~ - 1 upÂ«* - 3 4\ 9-RE? 0 ~ PROJECT LOCATION ,-1 1 1. 951&86049*btl -6- -1. 1 L . L_Cr $.i -I ' - 0 1= 6 f370,â€¢. 33 PO R/BEWEER?1 -cpoll 22!j.)(: 9 N 2 j r. LA Â«11# 7â€¢es=62 2... re#*-*6601. : f. HE 090'Plky[P -96*1K)4 4?. 004.15:7,91 09Â°431~~-~_-~--,p. ~ U rd a Alm -Roti-u.MA mgbile,Q 1*%41140Â» 11*cor ?49 012 Cl L.-1 - 4 4%%. 9 69 4]In ~ rlyÂ·Al ['(Jib\22 - - - - ~~9~00~*fg\1,214%*-# ~ ~ al=2*?4[99'17Â° R. ip g f*Gal :* 3 16 22 1298] @Cltillid{Â¤[214 UN.: k .4 47 r- - 7 9 190 -jEE EZT 4%2@,Er- KicÂ¢,! ori-3i =7 rm W. Â·r lipÂ°ir p~ g:~ c Â©11 0342. (-ve 4 9 824. It.5111 *EQI 1 921 est- W -1 &669 126 1=OBIE[40514340 5-1:-ta= Ilj~- IllÂ» FEJEPmon?,5 M rECI ., S'c 4-Â·~,-FAJ. yotÂ» &07. 01Â© OU 3 b [1 ' ;10[L ~ ti:IY34 twa &/I:4 -L 51148 4.11 3331 Eurl KWE twffl wi .&293 A C _-4. T- Il[ZI ET-Al FEINNIP I'c4 EBE-> ' 11* : 1*1 =9 EFar---Ig=PJ,-imm [R@~1!0* blp- A 00 = Ld I 'LI' A ** <274873WM#~id 2 55 992** 4 841 v h\,*'49*'**h-j/,-.-- -bosi - 1 ./ 399 235&3 /01-,Abr~FM,4- b 0\ b <4*j~-~~-12Â· ~:~ <11 SITE LOCATION MAP L-//j y Â· 00Â· 20. JO. loo ' ATTACHMENT NO. 5 STATEMENT OF FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: The proposed addition to the historic resource located at 232 east hallam street is a response to the predominate architectural elements which define the existing house. The black shingle mansard roof, the projected window bays, and the scale and proportions ofall these elements expressed both independently and in unison were respected ' and reflected in the articulation of the new forms and spaces. The final development plan conforms to the representations made during the conceptual review by lowering the roof height of the "link" between the historic house and the bedroom structure, thereby subordinating the new to the old. To further preserve the integ rity o f the historic structure, the architects would like to request a variance of an additional 8" glass height increase to the "Volume standard" of Ordinance 30 ( ".fa,ade penetrations between nine (g) and twelve (I2) feet..." ). So that the datum elevation matches the existing g'8" height of the existing street facing window bay. NO TE: Diagram A, B, & C indicate the proportioning system used in the expression of the new forms of the addition. . ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPUCATION FORM 1. Project name Pace Ranodel 2. Project location 73? FA c:+ F-al 1 Am qtrpot (indicate street address, lot and biock number or metes anc bounds description) 3. Present zoning R6 4. Lct size 19555.6 Sq. Ft. 5. Applicanfs name. address and phone number Linda Pace, c/o Hondo Partners, 445 N. Main Ave., San Antonio, TX 78205 i Representative:s name. address. and chcne number Matthew Scholl, Harry Teague Architects, 412 North Mill STreet, Aspen - < type of acclicaticn (cneck all thar acclv) Conditicnal Use Conceptual :SPLy ~~~ Sceciai Review Final SPA - . nci HgID 8040 Greeniine CCnCEIUal PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin Finai PUD Reaccation HPC Subcivisicn Text/Mao Amend. Hisicric Lancmarx GMQS ailormenr GMCS exemoricn xc/P-Eral D View Plane Candominiumizatiofli Design Review Lot Sclit/Lct Line 4 Appeal Cammittee _ j Adjustmen 8, Descripticn of existing uses (number anc type of existing strucures. acoroximate sa. 1. number cf bearcoms. any previous accrcvals granted to the proper'Ey) 4880 Gross Sa.Ft. (including 2 car garage) , 4 bedroom. Single Family House. 9. Description of develcoment application Partial Demolition and Remodel. 10. Have ycu ccmpleted and attached the following? x Attachment 1 - Land use application form x Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form Response to Attachment 3 Response to Attachments 4 and 5 ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant Linda Pace, Hondo Partners Inc. Address: 237 East Hallam Street - Zone district R6 Lot size: 19 999 ~ â‚¬q Fl- 0/\ r- Existing FAR: 4505.0 Sq. Ft. - 3 Allcwable EAR: 4247.8 Sq. Ft. D Prccosed FAR: 4505 ./9/94 Existing net reasable (ccmmercall: Na- Proposed net leasacle (commerc:al): N/A Existing % of site ccverage: 19.7% Prc[:csed 3/0 of site ccverage 12.8% =ing % of open scace: 80.3% SCCC sec 34 of ccen scace: 80 - 2% =<!Sting m EXImurn le!gnt: Pr'r'C:Cal JEC: 25 ' .0" 1:-ce-Af Tic:r N/A U #vuL Â· . Pr--ne-- -9-- U 4. u JCL 1 1 1 . heignt: -pFC:Cal ZICC- 99 ' n" ACC.=SECT./ SICCI N/A 3,-,q-bc=,9 0/ .40% 1 ....UJUU ,c cf lemcliticn: Existing,iumber of jecrccms: 4 P==csed nurrier cf jecrccms: 5 Existing cr:-site car'Kina scaces: 5 Cn-site caning scaces recuirec: 6 Sertacks E:isting: -Minimum recuired Proccsed: Frcrn 17'.0" F'-CrIC In' n" F.crT[: 17'.n" Rear- 13'.0" Rear: 10'.0" Rear 13'.0" Ccmcinec Camtinec Comtinec Frcr-Urear:30 ' F. cnrirear:30 '.O" Fron#rean 30 ' .0" S ice: 15'.0" S ice: S ice: 15'.0" Sider 35'.0" Sice: S ice 35'.n" Combined C.ombined Ccmtined S ices: 50 1 . on Sices: 76' n" Sices: Cin '.n" < Existing nonccnformities cr enccachments: 257.2 F.A.R. Sq. Ftg..Overage. Variaticrls requested:..si rleyarrl spi-hark _ (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings. FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.ft. site coverage variance up to 59'6, height variations underthe cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC. and O : zone districts) 1_~| [-L l 4 . I. 1 G= 4245' ,~ - 1: h -/02-- \ \ -#\ / N \ i ' / I / 1 '000 T j \ \ \ 0 1 - 5 ./ 0 1 5 / 08,!97,lhG AJ Tti: 5 v/ -,-Re 1Â£-A Cy -C,7 1 *LOCK 7. 0 LEGAL 1365(AllÂ°TION A:elriAL *rfEr) lowNVITE Â· THEM:f N â€¢4-80'41Â·Â·E 1.5 32 '1111 4-033 THI NE5TEALT L!,-16 OF 8410 LOT 91 4*10 1-i[ 1,1:h,E 5 22-Ke'CE)'r .4 11 FUT. Tâ‚¬NG- .5 9Â·51 ,71-yV E-<Tth'510,5 TMERLOF THENCE .5 78-,DÂ·-0 : -- J. ; tEl 75 0. F=EnT Z TrIE MOKT,-1 LING 04' .+Mt-LAr'/ 575.E.f.T PA,11'72~~Ar S EXTENDE-0, .HErÂ« H 75Â·67:1 ' 11'W !39.65 FEE-T ,-u,316 2"33 . Inry-TH L.-Irit- -RED 7,15 PED,Pil Cr ept<31'Â·9/Â·121Â·4(~3 ,-1741*~'NI~ *INDITION ~+' 'CA 1 912 21 F r KDAE OR. L.[55 \ / 3 Jul ' fr.â€ž / =1- I . 7 1 . A 411 6*/1 /Cul'tina * 1%0 9-VE. i .Cl" 2 M 4-4 1// i. e 1 :.3# : 1 , . .1 <Â« ' t fi .'~TOAr â€¢- : r .-'.. Â· - j r.Â©0,54't/'tâ€ž , Â· - _ j... , ,- tÂ·k> -i , N 1 , C r--Vh.---- 3'1 <CTION'â€¢ve,00 e . ....43"+ ./"E'C> 1 r dicALED 1., 0, tÂ¥.5,5 OF DEAAIrÂ·16 Â· FCAPIO MIC,MUMEMTO ..5 0-lowrl 1 4 8 , 5UAVE-YOR',5 CLATIFICATE 5 1 i MEKEDT CEATIFY TH/U Trit.5 Ple MCUIV\TELY .25-rl.27.5 , 57 ~ ~ 2-5-C=Â»Â«.0-6 + -2 A al.JRUCT MAOT J,Noth 1-,T ZO,PELÂ· ~5ION OM JUNIE :6 ;770 8 4:oR 1993 , , .7... t....e 1 .... OF TME FIOFLATY 6HOWN AND DE.52&1 ID[.0 MLM.LON -) 7-3,0 --/ - 7 3. i.4 *4* A o 1 /0 4 v.. I I - / .'* '; I. R kfu~v- n-2 / I, I t IN \ ADRIL IS,!993 L 5 . _ a .. Â«JM ' blf Al.r~ NE OumA'Db, 11-16 FDT , / . 75'.1611. IN>'SPREAD L. 2 7/ N .4, /f I.'/0 AEÂ·6'A I 'LA.. /. 2 ! 0.6. i k 1 1.~Jj 2 4.43115Lf) : p + i 75.H, 1,5 \ f j U :7 e . 8 NOTEâ€¢ â„¢ELS TAKEN FI,cr; 8-15-82 aAVEX CONIL 57.4'tri[ SURVEÂ» ; 2%Â·C 9 / DA-TUM PLANE ASSUMED 100.00 AS SHOWN 1 #.0,1,1 /--1 N. 1 . , HALLAM 5TKEET -9.65 , I ;DU"-O â€¢ 6' 1/ CONSKITE EW AccoN-9 ~ Co~nec -- *-T t-I ~â€¢, ~g- Ien o~-~ Alpine Surveys, Inc. Surâ€¢eyed ; I i r c c piNA*OCS 4-1+ 93 ADD -TOPO Title /FOATE SAVEY Job No 52-lot-E Drafted / 2/ 13 LA Post Office Box 1730 Aspen, Colorado 81611 M / 6 TMACT Client Z>TArkfA 303 925 2688 orT,Qlri COUNTY, COLO~CU '22 3 h 'LG.ZI m EXISTING AREA TO REMAIN 6ATH 11/'STEK.. 1 PL,i,TE,~ I.â„¢ GArASE PAT~0 FAI.ILY . 1. MUDN UF . Fl- MIJE CEL// . 4 9,01â„¢ BAF , ' ~23 ~.,frE t UP MEOL 140 cl 8-4< PING./ - Li - (2~7*J 1 51.0 F / 1/ ST = I 25 ENTrf POKC' ~~J EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN 111111 1 1 O 5 I0 30 PACE REMODEL 232 EAST HALLAM O EXISTING AREA TO REMAIN KOOF loof 14 0 CA,-4.* 1 goof 55 r----1 -bro ~4 1 02/2 00/3 1 1 1 CA el:72-2 1 r- \Ultinnx, trâ„¢ 1 1 80.1.1 KOOF | LLU' 1 ~~ EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN 111111 1 1 0 5 IO 30 PACE REMODEL 23~ EAST HALLAM I " COOF KOOf r-------------1 2 0 <4/ KOOF ' 1 1 yo r- C - KOOF . - 1 EXISTING ROOF PLAN 0 5 IO 30 PACE REMODEL 23~ EAST HALLAM p~ O 447 LHA -4-7 - 1 1- L Â»A- W W 2/3 75 25 7 1 \H tar-U Â»An 0-0 JIn EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION r 9-f - <3314 - 41 _ U [1 [1 [1 [1 8 2 -1\- 1/ - i cin 715 10 0121 EXISTING EAST ELEVATION PACE REMODEL 23z EAST HALLAM SCALE: 1/8"=t'-o" 14 0 CAn . < L.N.07 7<463 <20> <f--- r I 00 EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION 7 7 1 9 C /---\ 3 T .- 10 - _ 8 - j U ]17 9 1/1 11 Â« h I[=1 E mi EXISTING WEST ELEVATION PACE REMODEL 23z EAST HALLAM SCALE: 1/8"=I'-o" kle u Ok FENCE nol 4-f-2+ D-f . / - Extend % \ , 1-4 / 42 98 1.---- r C- CU.* F 1 - - ..X I \ 100 I %2\.I 1 - , \ X % \ -- 1 / 41 % I 0 11EW.]00 AND \ 0 /- STEEL SCREEN WALL '"t,~~ \ - F â‚¬ 10,21-1- +CaLi i m---------i.- %\ I \ Â» DISIEKE--_ 1 / - \. - - .%\% \ I FENCE ANO ---hrÂ·-- -- - GATE Y - '%, HEATING SOURCE FROM / ~EX191-ING CONSTRUCTION FOK DEMOLITON T..h~-~ \ ''~, ~ CUSTOM GUI#TE HOT TUB. h< Lf * 1DEPENDENT BOILEK LOCATED ~ - j I~ASEMEITT IECHAI1ICAL ROOM I = i \ \100 ' Ec-/ruk, v'~ 1 4 et % 4-0 \57< co,Â·V. f. 1 / r . 1 I A:.\ 1 r : 13 3: I it .\ 1 .=I :1 . 1-- - % 1 1 J. 1 - . I 32. f-= 7-2- 5-- 4*: 1 1 1 1 1 Â·Â· ./t \ FOCE EX1Sn,10 I. . EASTING CONC. CpE ..# 0 -- .- A I (40 VOKK) I -. = I Â£~Cli Â£Qscti g.',- -- 3- -4. | r "-1. i~ â‚¬ - - s -5 . LKEIWELL 1 1 . ..3 0 1 . 1 - 1 -L- A Aftifitt~~iff{----234935<15L=,t~.=.7- 9- .* 1 0 f 4: *p--#*#p#- ::./A= #- /- , .. 4 - I -- -:// : '8189'48-0 \ 1 ~ / :3 - 2-- FRENCH MAill Wj ~ \ -t-1- -41 ILE TIE INTO COICT. PEKF. O... 1 ~ %* -., 423.-er-tifff-44--4*44:-7073--liff-2-fiff-3111 PEKII.fETEI FON.DUIN ILL 1 5 - -LL 1 IE: WALL SECTION *3- A-=2 1 SHEET ///2 Â«U -- ti-N-â‚¬22'4@449 j.z :31-y-4 -37::24 -4.-1 ------2=-2-=I -1 -1 =:- i 2: ~EXISTING b4&-4.Fhqpt-< 04 *- - :- V-- - -Â«73 - - CONSTKUCTION 11 -4 1 - ----U TO REMAIN -\ *P 1*5.- 274-UY.7,77â€ž ~ 1 I.--- -- - - - ~ ~I-3 8; 21 rkâ‚¬ / / 1 1 - DenNG STO#E GARDEN , :1 | -- .LS UMÂ« . L~~ I . . - t.- --. -- 1 Â· Urni i Â·Â· 22 , E-, . 1 -- ... - -- ./ . -. 0 A--1 â‚¬9 - - ..e- 1 fize,687 1 1 -/ 141Â· 1 1=7-33 5.-:F- ' REQUILI L TEKKACE ......... Â·Â·294%71Â·;1144:t 4.Â· 1 . . 1 1 ..N. 1 1 1 . 1 . 1 MATCH UNE - ! - -U-=. = - MATCH LIE -2 1 1 W PLANS I ;9& 1 / 1/4't PLANS - 1 :0*4Kt_ 'h. E-1 - 1 1 a O 1 1 1 J. 1 273 1Â¤ 1 In,111 A LOSING CATCH BASIN / 1 01-1 f. 1 1 2 0-2 2:. L EXISTING STONE STE/5 ---20 - - - F C.* h- GE _--~ -EXISTING FE11CE -I----Il.-- EISING STONE GARDEN 1 1 (--M-- i EXISTDIG SPKI/KIEK f / 1- <4--CONTIOL BOX extsrubeL. 1/7 SECOND FLOOR PLAN (NO WORK) STE FLAN / FIRST FLOOK FLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-O - EXISTING -... 11 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-01 ~ \ i STEEL FENCE ~ ~ AND GATE 1 - (NO WOIK) % l 91031(HOBY ; 0 ~ V k~ Y H E([622[ ........4 * ... 8 : : 11 ,, , 0 f - - - - ': **t#4***4-aft-M#*1 ~ 0 t 3 | 1. . - i 00 : 17 oi B OB Â»0 rtif 4 A D~ 417 4 011111111 -- 0 (< PACE REMODEL HARRY TEAGUE 232 EAST HALLAM STREET ARCHITECTS ASPEN, COLORADO f EAOSTING SLAB ON GRADE SCREENED FENCEE 1:1QL.12 E6 X7/ I \ O Ljacke U : ./ 1-1 3 3 4 _>L.-: C/ C C CDÂ»4 LU J CD a L I I.'E- a: ~ MeTR MATH .1 - CE - BALL -1 ~ ~ : =C 2&62 Â· PRESSING #1 L EQÂ£21 . 1.12!IWELI, FORCH | rTl w 12*MEZE~ --Ir -- -g - ~ CIL,1 - PKESSING #2 i n En 20 dj 14 f U- 25/ Emil FNTEY ; M=Fy I .t TE] f WI = 3MMA 1 v Iii -- 1 -- M 01 TUA_ 0 #% M 3-JIBL. ue- o m U =1Â« Â£6222 ble J P= 27 k Lit c EjO I' 0/3. 07 49 LENQ - I V V \ reN-k ~ f bir 31 ... ......11 ~ ~ ~~~~~1---- _ .2......11 re c~"f ]Ld...4.. :77 l BREAKFAST ~ - 51IgiEN 618=K- nEQEQQM 104 ---- ---- 2!NINQ- INE&62 .. . FZNTKY gmal,1 -- E qu .. 8 e VJ 4 0 Af-J O 01 001,Â«-<310_ : A 2!Milt/2 3 11 & i k ENST. r,voKA Il ~/'~~~ . 11~ ~ORK) U 1 FRST FLOOK FLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-O" ~~ AUDIO /VISUAL -1 r 4 (tIO WON H " - ~~91021fH0W O0VNO7O3 'Nad 1 1111 'f~ ~ 3 ...'4':-Il-I- 1 . 5 '#... 1 1-1. 0 ----0- 0 0 1 1 1 / -4-1 1 L_ ' 4 ., , 1 1 Eli i 4 . 9::'6. Â·Â·. r''' : ~~~;.tu..;t 't.it ' Cg!. -1.1 1 1 1 tf.2>~r.,=i ..._ 7, v ' 51'' 1. 21, 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 : 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11~11 1 1 0) 1 6o (B 4 2-91 k ez U ~ PACE REMODEL TEAGUE HARRY < 232 EAST HALLAM STREET ARCHITECTS ASPEN, COLORADO . -' Â«-,LA' 0 Iii 1 OGVHO'103 'NEIdSV l ) gi031IH0WV ~ .LEE[NIS }NYI'IVH ISVEI ECE 3ADÂ¥3l ./1///j/j~--~ AUUVH < 13([OFFE[kI El)Vd -~~ 93 54-# e 31 Z I 9 111 3 M I --- ./ ............................. a - 1 0; 7 - -/d 0668 ~ 0~ Eli 0Â¥Â¥3 A Z 1 - I Ii--I--0-Ill--2-0- li.ITII tvL Lful m /t--4-4-2__ 8-f ?141 1 1 1,1-711 f r-/ 1 1- 1 4 - 1 : 3 Wi 991 .3 h- 8 :1_ , m v 1 : 14-4 1 1 1 1 \ lifillf-j 4, , , --2 r-- r- - 0- * fi -- 1 3 )4 - 4 1 I- -1 -3.te'%2-Â£--11.--O.---0.---- . 0 f-- . a. 7-\,-/ - 1 - 11--!r--C ---- 34 3 -4-4 L -4-- 4-6 -11 2 & 3 i. ro t 4 .Â· 2: + â€žg't :341 5*1~ Â» 1 2- n EM :Â§ 9 e: m" it 1 m -1-t 4 -* Eff- 11 iii 9-2 11 /- ---~ 1 3 4 . 1 0 1 7 e. : r..1- - ~ -1/~-f ~(91-7 faf - mil i 41 1142 M:B EE -ZIZZE J-1 4 11111111111111 9.-rj r -1711 . [ -------------- -- --------. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J/ ==0 L.71 -1--------------- 2 26- 1 1 0 1 1 r - El < 4 ch aE / v h- 1 V.,1, El / 3%6 ---- n ~ 1 ./. ~-k~~~1-~- 1 1 1 mi F A V . C< 1- 1 9-- 1 1 1= M 1 L___.. 9/te O 1 10 0- 1 = â€ž2/1 31Â¥06 lnGN 913NVd 00 :i, FEVELED WAGU -InG,41 T - i "C ]IOUCE 110 111,111-441Â·JN!11' UIMM//15/ %=-1 ' -LfÂ·* 52Â»-f e S.-A- ~Leu- u.rt<r EnenNG BOILER FLUE (NO WORK) Cru coLY CO ~4,11Â« 0 Ul 1- r 0 LLI cr D 0 G HOUS N bv REQ KED 4 UL NOTED E LU ExtenNG GAKAGE DOOK C -NOWORK- CI 010 0 00 91 6-3 uo,\-#ou-* hâ‚¬ LJ- In-W-1 -2Â»-1 r 1 0 60 *9.-2 LJ-- N Â»21 WEST ELEVATION Ul hprtk j C . Y) rÂ».,0 1.-fj 6 1/ SCALE: VE = 1,-O, 1 /~' ) 0 EXISTING BOILER Â¤4 FLUE (NO WOEK) W G 00,/r LL) 5 re W'en> . < 01 4 0- 45 N CO EXISTING USE NO A WOKK 51-ACK UTHE FLAT SEAM METAL- F T PANELS e j < - UNLESS M AL ' ~T~eAM METAGNÂ·.4 ~ .-: *Ii TAL SOFF[I PAN 8Â°teÂ» 7 7 TRANSLUSCENT PANELS 9.42.>'O'.. NEW 1.4 CLAD NEW WOW. BEVELED WOOD SIDING W/TKIM .236,Â· STEEL O 3*B@t: HEAD & Â· INSUL SIP. FOK FAINT TO MATCH EXISTLNG ... 1 (31155 --- -' PANELS cN 0 00 2 V.7 O.D. 85. rÂ»pt COLU NS SUPING SCKEEN : DOOKS EA. SIDE Â» 1 1 , i , 1 Â· SLIDING INSUL TEMP. GLASS ' , [. "'i" ~"Â·'0*5 EX.'51* ':f- -~ 1 if \2* - V 1 1 1 1 .111"111,11"11,1,1.1111,1,111"11'lili". -INORTH-993EL__-_______79% 11 1 1 .. 1 13[HN.LS INVIUVH OCIVHO7O0 'NHdSV d jo-r'*j*v ' -- 1'../. - l L __r- I .t ~ftÂ·ab <52 4-titi Tle- --1 f--7 71*Â» 02 25 keâ‚¬e , Diagram A ,Â¥21:EE.I. j /1 1 0_-----,â€ž .i _~- #6--44LHI~ml~~t~ rv'. i - I~ :In.iinÂ».Milbil.,1414â€¢bilm,!W-.1---11*111-la 1 i N , 1 .* -*'plr- i|~ I.'ll' . ,/ 11 1 +1 4.--.11,Â¢,7.7.,1 - El ' . r T %1.~ .- pt#4.4.,.441% A..1-fÂ»â€ž1â€ž'..6 26Â«3 i 1%,1.'17 1, 'Id,~ 14111 - 9 M D *1 0 409 1 r Â· ~1 w<,7 B Â¥ 4 t, 1 4 4 / (1 4 / .-lili i- 8 3 ., 4 i Lj I .4 ? 16. I I I B - I. I 'll f S I 1.1,1 ......'-1.â€ž-1111-11â€ž.11â€ž111-1.1 ,&** V. 1 Z a .%.=.Â·I,...11/ i...#1.-/..*4-w. -,0.,fri 41'L 9 1- 4 .Af ---,-.-t 1 1 1 1:hi 1 5 gr L.11111. *, -) 1 1. D .' 1 -- m .46 Dll#d"%*I0Bm*.**& 0 1 1 60..9, ~~dI.i~*~~~* :'W.....W.- 4 1#1 1 1 *1 1 1-1 11 ... .. ...1 r * i~fi' , ~' ,Â¢1,~1 1 .%111 8 lueitie!0 r t .. '--1--â€¢-~eeah.-~- W Â»r-â€¢-**4 1 11 , n Â» 11 i 1 t' 1 1 il /1 = '' 1 1 r ' -:-1 r 1 4 - i il -1 11 \t - 1. 3 0 4*-- -C,Cx>. -I' p Â»*U,~.-I~ . -* .4.1--/.---L--//*.$4./*......,--- -Â·.al -2-t VALJJ ~SL*l 4.+ dE- Diagram C 4-4 2 Â»-1 1- ). t - F = 4 7 --27.- =---- I -kij-lu r 444 : ' It'-7. '- - - i i. i.i- -- 0 --4 7 Â·iÂ» 4.3 TO- L , i- */ 4--6. -1 < 7 . I- 1 ... = al 3 3 - =91.29 ,,4 15* I.'~i - I F 4--12 41 =allilim 1 a,#.1. 1 - 0/11-' i-41/, 0-9 - 1:. E L L , /731// Â¢ : Â· 19...:Â· e, f - - -Fht C... .: I : >~ Â· ~ I-. ~: . ~..i~~i I pir . 0 1 -- 243 Lf .. 7 ...-m... 124 - - A-- li_ . . 4.:7: ri E- - - - 1 .. U. 0 . NKÂ· 4 5 E Â· i, 449 . I 2 1 .. P . + 1 1 1 I re)j.>d h3-12 (p>rd 000 1 --pr?wil 14, .6 -0 0 â€ž. t,â‚¬. I 1 ... I 1 .6, ". j * D ' 6/0. ".lilli'*.a--1 1 4 '. Y. 4 Y , 1,%11 1 f , ./ ....1,1.11,1. 1.,11% .1,1,1.1 Â£ ~ 1,1,11 1.1.. 114:9Will<" 1/lili 11 'i :> 4 , 3 , 11, 1 -*Â·Â·1' 40â€¢111 , 1.1.1 #141 4.,1 11 .., 'h .1, " lillie, 1 11, 1, 1,1 11 1 ' r , 4 t . , . m'll'Ilill'/mix '-IM!~yp t-tia-1-10-6. t .. C ..... t. 4. .....4(,4- j 1 2 I 925/ I. . W I - I I. I * :t ''' ". ; 2.*& 041[1 ~9 + 9~yÂ« >**%.00. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods. Deputy Planning Director l. RCLO /1 - FROM: Amy Guthrie. Historic Preservation Officer ~/ RE: 232 E. Hallam Street- Conceptual, Partial Demolition, Ordinance #30 DATE: January 28, 1998 SUMMARY: The applicant requests conceptual, partial demolition, and Ordinance #30 approval in order to remodel and make an addition to the existing building, which is a designated historic landmark.*A side yard setback variance is requested in order to place the addition in the same general area as an addition currently sits. APPLICANT: Linda Pace, represented by Harry Teague Architects. LOCATION: 232 E. Hallam Street. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). 1 Response: HPC held a worksession on this project at the January 14,1998 meeting. The applicant' s proposal is to substantially demolish an addition made to the house in 1984â€¢ and replace it with a new addition, which will sit in approximately the same location. The architect has provided a thorough application, including photographs of the model which HPC viewed at the worksession. Staff finds however that we cannot support tho assertion of compatibility between the historic<house and new addition in this proposal. Although there is inspiration taken from the massing of the original structure, and the abstraction of the form is very interesting, staff must recommend restudy. HPC has long been supportive of allowing creativity when adding onto historic structures, however, there are criteria for compatibility that must be met, for instance similarity in roof form,â€¢ . window formandsÂ£10 to void ratios, detailing, and materia14 It is a basic premise of historic preservation that @ addition to a historic structure must, , ultimately be subordinate to the resource which is to be preserved, which does not appear, / to be the result of this proposal. While in fact there is heavy vegetation around the site that screens the addition, staff feels that the design approach must be valid as though it were going to be a part of the streetscape. The apparent reconstruction of the original house does not diminish staff's concern with the compatibility question. Staff wishes to acknowledge the tremendous contributions of Harry Teague Architects in exploring the idea of a new "Aspen vernacular," but must recommend looking to previous examples of historic preservation that have come out of the office, most notably the Sardy House addition and renovations at Anderson Ranch as a more conservative and more appropriate model. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The site is located in one of the West End's more intact neighborhoods in terms of historic resources (the Community Church neighborhood). Many of these structures have been renovated and continue to successfully contribute to the character of the area. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: Jhe proposal does not involve any further alteration to the ori*inal housq. , therefore its significance as a representation of Aspen's history*is nat diminished. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. 2 Response: Staff finds that the proposal does detract from the architectural character and 4 integrity of the historic home in that the addition is visually competitive with the resource. PARTIAL DEMOLITION Section 26.72.020.C, Standards for review of partial demolition. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: (For the purposes of this section, "partial demolition" shall mean the razing of a portion of any structure on an inventoried parcel or the total razing of any structure on an inventoried parcel which does not contribute to the historic significance of that parcel.) 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance ofthe parcel. Response: The applicant proposes to demolish a portion of an addition built in 1 9840 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: A. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: ,No original or significant features are proposed for demolition. B. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Response: This issue is discussed in detail under "Standard 1" of the Conceptual review criteria. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE #30 The proposal does not comply with one aspect of Ordinance #30.the "volume standard: Volume: Areas where there are "...facade penetrations between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level of the finished floor, and circular, semi-circular or non-orthogonal fenestration between nine (9) and fifteen (15) feet above the level of the finished floor" are counted as 2 square feet for every 1 square feet of floor area. Response: The large window on the south elevation of the addition does not meet this standard. Staff has recommended restudy. 3 ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the Development application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) â€¢ Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: jltaff recommends-that HPC table the application to allow ~ restudy ofthe proposal.- RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to table the significant development application for 232 E. Hallam Street to February 11,1998." 4 -0 8 Flfl CO 1 . 1-940 j , / # 1 EL. iL--4 E- a CO %'Ig [0 b=< f]81Â«3=3 CZG\\L 1 - El _Ize o=- W f CE-Zi> - f dIYF-- -p d [F Â«3 Â·---~~~ PACE v-1 r-7 m 1 -/-11 - I r - A 231*AST HALLAM STREET E /1 + - . .ASP4Â®1, 1FOLORADO r 1 . ' I $ 1 144064+ I il ./. *% :'1 ./.L I447- . - ---4 -. 12 -th eÂ° 0 04 --1 . ..L - 1 - 1 -4. . I 't= .__ 14!7 * 3. r Alt. VA Â» *?t Â· - . ==234 +~ I kit '- .. 411 _ : "*AM*I , 6& Wi - ..1 21- 4 .140,6=_ t-_, -474%**Aff#6... * C. -0 FI I . 1 ;- - - 9 4,@~@f.~11/, - . t.- r OEIE - . Te - 91 2.:%4.-Ft.. -*4 - ~14. # 1 4 4-:6: C â‚¬ 1 - ...r.+11 - = 7 1111 111-1 4 k.11.'.1, -tl*t*0â‚¬ * -2~4:1 r C : Ill =-- 1 - + i . - 111 4,111'lili - 1+ - 4. .*4 a n n n 1% n n,7- = ** 1 . -- i e.t 1 If 1 /-10'r- r .~--'' - - + .4 1 1 1 L.j U LL-- 5 [1 r'"19-7 It + , - 1 - - + - 1.. .. I I LÂ· 1 '. C I - 2 .Â· =134~5, r.,4 - L - I - I - Ung 931 -O[BJ I 6=:~ 1 2~0- --~ HARRY 6.- - -- TEAGUE ARCHITECTS 412 N. MILL ST. ASPEN, COLORADO (970).925-2556 1 * A Lrh A Wi r=71 '-Jrl * fn HPC/ATTACHMENT NO.I&2 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 2 LAND USE APPUCATION FORM DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM 1. Project name Pace Remodel Apolicarm Linda Pace, Hondo Partners Inc. Address: 2 3 2 Ea cit Hall am Street 2. Project location ?39 Enc=F Tailmm qtrAnt Zone district R6 (indicate street address, Ict and biock number cr metes anc bounds description) Lot size: 19 699 6; gy Ft Existing FAR: - 4_505.0_Sg-. Ft. 3. Present zoning R6 4. Lot size 19555.6 Sq. Ft. Allcwable FAR: 4247.8 Sq. Ft. Prccosed FAR: 4505 5. Acclicanfs name. address and phone number_Linda pace, c/o Hondo partners, Existing net 'easable c ccmmercat): N/A 445 N. Main Ave., San Antonio, TX 78205 Proccset net leasable (commerc:al): NIA ExistIng 36 of site coverage: 19 . 7% 6. Representative;s name. address, and Â®cne number Ma-tthew Schol-1, Prc:csed 36 cf site ccverage: 19.83 Harry Teague Architects, 412 North Mill STreet, Aspen Existing % cf open space: 80.3% Prccc sec 16 of ccen scace: 80.2% 7. Type of acclicaticn (creck ail that accly) Exist:ng maximum heigrt: Pr.r'c:cal ticc: 25 ' .O" ACCESC:v Tic=: N/A 1.-*neÂ·- M-v - r.--,--1 5 1CC : 7 9, n " i ......I/(... 11 a~. helcri: 1 Libel 1Czesscr-/ INCC: N/A Conditional Use Concectual SAA x Cor,cectual HPC Prcicsec 3% cf remcliticm .40% Sceciai Review Final SPA Final HPC Exisunc numcer of becrccrns: 4 3040 Greenline CanceCIUal PUB Minor HiPC Pe-.cs=c numcer j jecricms: 5 etrearn iMargin Finai PUD Reiccation HYL Existinc cr:-size carKina scaces: 5 Subcivisicn Text/Mas Amend. Hisicric Lancmarx Cr!-size car#ing scaces recuired: 5 GMCS ailotmenr GMCS exemoricn x Demc/Partiai Demo View Plane Candcm iniumization Design Review Sertacks - Existing: Lit Sclit/L-t Une Appeal Committee - -Minimum recuired: prcacsed: Adjusiment 17'.0" - r B e.. - 1 . ...... 1.Ul il. lAi A" r <CriI: 17'.n" Rear: 13'.0" rear 10 '.0" Rear 13'.0" 3. Description of existing uses (number anc tyce cf existing structures. Comcinec , Camcinect Ccmcinec =corcximate sc. 1. numcer cT zecrcoms. any crevicus accrcvals granted to rhe Frcm'rear30 ' Frcndrear:30 ' .O" FrcrI/rear 30'.0" property) 4880 Gross Scr.Ft. (including 2 car garage) . 4 bedroom. Single S ice: 15'.0" Sice: S ice: 15'.0" Family House. Sice: 35'.0" S ide: S ice. 35'.n" Combined Ccmbined Ccmtined Sices: 50'.on Sides: RE' Al' SiCeS: . 50 ' .A" 9. Description of development application Partial Demolition and Remodel. Existing noncnicrmities cr er:crcachments: 257.2 F.A.R. Sq. Ftg. Overage. Variaticrs requested:_Si rleyarrl c:plback, 10. Have ycu ccmpleted and attached the following? x Attachment 1- Land use aoolication form I (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks. distance between buildings. FAR bonus of up to 500 sq. ft.. site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the x Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form : F~esconse to Attactlment 3 ; cottage intill program, parking waivers forresidential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O - zone distncs) Response to Attachments 4 and 5 11111111 HPC/ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 APPLICANT: LINDA PACE 23z EAST HALLAM STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 8I6II 970.9z5Â·2709 445 NORTH MAIN AVENUE '' SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 ' 2IO.zz6.6663 ARCHITECT: HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS 4~ NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 8I6II 970.925Â·2556 CONTACT: MATTHEW SCHOLL p k 6%1 2 s inc. December 18,1997 City of Aspen Community Development 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 232 East Hallam Street To Whom It May Concern: This letter is to authorize Harry Teague Architects and employees to act as my representative in all City and County needs as related to the proposed addition and/ or renovation of 232 E. Hallam. Sincerely, Linda M. Pace 445 N. Main Avenue San Antonio Texas 78205 . ta lindap\City of Aspen 121897 letter Tel 210.226.6663 Fax 210.226.6669 re 39gd H 69999330 IZ t'Z:II 2.66I/BE/ZI ./ COPY GENERAL WARRANTY DEED [0 W )-1 (D E GÂ· C 01 RICHARD W. ROBERTS and LINDA PACE ROBERTS, whose address is 4040 ,--1 13.-1 1) {.n Broadway, Suite 450, San Antonio, TX 78209, for the consideration of Ten Dollars ($10,00) O and other good and valuable consideration, in hand paid, hereby sell and convey to LINDA D PACE ROBERTS a/lda LINDA MARIE PACE, whose address is 4040 Broadway, Suite 450, Al C 0 San Antonio, TX 78209, the following real properly in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado: # UJ 11 CD A tract of land comprising all of Lots R & S, Block 71, in the City and Townsite 11 9 5 K of Aspen on a portion of vacated Hallam Street, according to the Willit's Map rk recorded December 06, 1949 in Plat Book 2 at Page 37 as Reception No. 97096, n BEN 4 and a portion of unplatted Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the -1 M E-1 0 6th P.M., the entire parcel being more fully described as follows: r 1-' 8 Q â€ž.41 1-1 Â®1 Z\ t.4 Mi Beginning at the South West Corner of Lot M, Block 71, City of Aspen; Os Dol O thence N 14Â°50'49" E 163.12 feet; C 41 0\ thence S 78Â°23'00" E. 66.08 feet -4 Z (71 thence S 22Â°58'00" E 116.19 feet; -< G lâ€¢.1 thence S 12Â°59'00" W 75.09 feet to the Northerly line of Hallam Street; 1- Q 0 " thence N 75Â°09'11" W 139.65 feet to the point of beginning, 32 -O m q IK also known by street and number as: 232 Hallam, Aspen, CO 81611, with all its appurtenances, 9 G) and warrants the title to the same, subject to and except for: m O 0 1. General taxes for 1995 and thereafter payable in 1996 and thereafter. 10 0 0 71 fri 2. Building and zoning regulations. X] Dj 3. Reservations and exceptions as contained in the Deed from the City of Aspen providing as follows: That no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws, recorded ~ f in Book 59 at Page 329. 0- E 0 Z aG ; ~ W~ 4. The right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, as reserved in United States Patent recorded in Book 55 at Pfige 2, ~ ~4 5. Possessory rights outside of fences and fence lines as shown on the survey of James F. Reser, L.S. 9184, dated August 16, 1982 and updated August 01, 1983. 6. Rights of way for driveways and water lines, as shown on survey of James F. Reser, 0 Z L.S. 9184, dated August 16, 1982 and updated August 01, 1983. PEN U a,97 Rl:00 DOC GJ 0 Â¥T Any loss or damage as a result of the Statement of Lien filed in Book 740 at Page 754 0 0. by Stryker/Brown Architects, P.C. 01 ALL REFERENCES BEING TO THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Signed this 22-day of September 1995. ~A_K ~ *4_~ il---= Kichard A. Roberts 8 c 12 --f*Â»2~1-3- _ - ~ju,dELE-- X.1 LK- r Linda Pace Roberts Great Britain and Northern Ireland ST*TB-OF ___1:undor[7England( Zss Embassy of the ~nlfhd States of America / CeeNTÂ¥-eF -Second Â· Twenty The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of September 1995, by Richard A. Roberts 0,~~6 .~s. Witness my hand and official seal. Rcrvi Condodai j Vice Consul of A.e AM United States of America /4 \ \ C\Â« - london, England ...... %41 Nomsy?#9. tC 1 K D.....41 LA .., '424-3 1 X kâ‚¬27 - - STAT~-NEXAS ) ) SS. COUNTY OF BEXAR ) r The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ ~ day of Ll lotâ‚¬,u , 1995, by Linda Pace Roberts. Witness my hand and official Real. ~,Uall- CLUM 0(*~A. AEBA TEREU ARVIDSON - 2 - Notary Public ISLAND NOTARY PUBLIC 1~M,6/ State of Texas 9\Â£) '~ Comm. Exp. Of$-11-98 1723 hle document consists of PageR â€¢aoh Initi#llod by the iz~ / grantor B-798 P-64 10/30/95 03:07P PG 2 OF 2 \0 I PACE REMODEL 23z EAST HALLAM 7.46 422.- L 13 J LP 8 â‚¬\ 112 51 11:1 1 11 Â£4 f* Â©gdtD~ PROJECT LOCATION A.J U Â»e*.0- 22, /4 (4.) -20(Or#3153(itijrfjel- -- r\*<t ,Â»/fs rp bkupe#g 'Â©Eal@*2123\ FILRB'nE,fe -'-- a GJU]<3501117 DJ MÂ« | 01} 011 *tfl Ed~ C . 0~ f [3?d= U yileali5 3221 022][3333)1,0 r 2 / Â°V/~~9~ r ., /; . 01 -=.===, '58Â» E-o 7-R/hop:(. ~ve 'gOE~ Sda &00 -*cqllicl?;09:Â·LRY 190'(PIKIEIDIEE~&1~'Sci=' A /-L-, - 1 9 451*2 -=- 9 67-F 1-0 . RUI "3511 FE toÂ¥liLli 0 1 -4 49Â«4 33Â«- 4 9 AME46r Ige.1 1.2-6 hilk * 3 .6 42 (7 0* lidolliT Id 17 10,1.04 4- rEarl 1 -- -Utta Â«)// - 140 4177-7-7-- \ . - La k=% Caot 'cm c~'3' 59Â£ 100:21 VUPL? 191381 fC] L-,U: E]o u~ ItE~ ~~: 24'2*' 4 ' IUb i1~22),SE-- Am 1 -- =8 9. b]0 E=LE=11 9=1 'ENIC-ft~; 1*5 :11 r.-7 rimFr:, Iript,1 1~.7=. 1<31:-1H~ L ti~~~~:PÂ· de ' U.M] mal D.Â«i ol la R;1*iltal; 1*IEQI ' 0021 Cal g Liu r=[Za E:Llul PC_~e U,4g leÂ¢I .11=grflai[131940 / .tÂ»z i u--1 [ll" A..PMZLÂ°%*-52'26*6 ~ 91--r I Fi 41 Irw 9134 rÂ·n "p ' 7'Ya#FJ.11-40-4 853 ia:Ill F jigi ih ARJEPE 9 UC=Â£0 \ 9 f ruv V kp N r Ir kt jfÂ» 04(:Â·- 1%11 -.4 #Â·90 F-Er[Â·11 '.Â·d-=' uu,7 1--/,4~4-1. [30 im 1 11 0 VE<21 6. CT) SITE LOCATION MAP ---6- SC / OS / . jf '-2 HPC/ATTACHMENT NO.4 rr ATTACHMENT NO. 4 DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPEMENT APPLICATION: The developement proposed consists of a partial demolition, remodel, and new addition of an existing single family house with attached , garage. The application also includes a request for a partial If-o" sideyard setback. . 1 i. . ' 1 1/. â€¢1 t .'. '42 4,4 , 1.:, 1 1, + .76aa i r ./.:r - 1 Al . :,/ 9 , i t.:P,Â¥4'f /9 f 0 1. 011 4- I , Â¢ f 1 A. f I Mg I.-f..LI #I....Illill//0//INT-A--0 The Glidden house: a U-4,4 C--6 - -*A.-'.h...ualt i-zi - ,S iesson dearly learned 4-- .=- .-- - 2 .LL 1 1 .... r 1 A 926 I . f'.01'31 . 9 44 by Pauli Hayes where Fred typed his western There are times when the pay- manuscripts became skeletons of .0 -1 J . ;33,GiD*2 ment exacted for a lesson - no surviving two-by-fours. , 4: i,4 / ,Â» matterhow needed- is justplain Incidentally, other restorations , 111111.- r ------- --- -/ i;Â·r '. 7- too dear. had been done as completely and '+, Vial/~0 1 1-- - it--- -- - ---- - t' There are also times, as Aspen's ruthlessly - though less obvious- Historic Preservation Committee ly - and never were subjected to : b. ./.1 ~- 11\ 11#&2211111712-22--3-LF&'fr.* r,j)4-fliTI ff- - - learned recently, when the value such a public outcry. ..11:1. 1 ~ /*t .A k J_ F kit ' / * hip:..1'. k .K.. &'n~ L~ 1 F. ELÂ· ~*Â·.' 'BÂ· k t Â·r :i .4 i i Â·Â·e.Â· 1.- I and sense of loss in such a lesson is Take, for example, the Shaw . d id iii.I.Ii ' 1 1%1 4 04 t. :I understood only too late. house on Lake Avenue, restored ' ..1 *] 1 4 +4 44 .8-Â· - 11 11,1 {'1 01 .,1 1.1:, . 11PC members this week can by Jack Nicholson and Lou Asner, The Glidden house as it looked in January before the restoration began. only concede that for the sake of and the historic house that is now ~ . 13'Â· 4 Â·\ M. 6 ' an important lesson, an impor- Chez Grandmere in Snowmass. -.1 - tant and historically significant Perhaps because it is more visi- 4 - , ,~-- r ,Â·zÂ·/ -i~~Â¥6. &4. 3 structure may have been sacri- ble and better-loved by its town- A. .., 2 f 4 d at the expense of education speople - perhaps because the N t., #<AL NU 1, 9, , il --- not just for the committee, but restoration methods seemed more Â·44*' ./7 Ad#473;~ . f <pt. M i, i / also for the community in brutalandmorefinal-forwhat- -44.42 . 9'.1 4 ; 4?~EN 14 2 , , 7< generaL ever reasons, the Glidden house is - -'Â· .' ...... *. 1 I i he subject of recent lament is the object of a battle. Â· -er , E# . the Glidden house, longtime Neighbors and other concerned ' tâ€¢# home of the late western novelist citizens are asking whether Vigo- I . ,-LT , 0 4 4 Fred Glidden (I.like Short) and da and her representatives have 3 e. + his wife Florence. furever destroyed the historic in- i , "h Their stately Victorian house tegrity of the house - whether ; a " b al the corner of Hallam and the HPC made a wise decision in ,/ ' ~91 i 1, 1 Aloi~arch streets was before the allowing its reconstruction ---, --Â·â„¢â€ž - f +./6//f 7 't turn of the centilry - und re- whether the old house can be ,0 444 mained until March - a land- viewed as anything but a tragic mark in an abundance of Victo- sacrifice to proverbial progress. b W .5-41, J rian landmarks. It's a classic case in which the ' ~ c Its mansard roof and iron para- wisdom of hindsight may have 4 + 1 4*: , I k. S pet were as much representative dawned too late - too late for the Y of its historic importance as Flor- house, too late for the guardians . 7):flt:f ence's myrtle garden and ancient of the historic, too late for the y.. 325 : stravings of wild iriA - and of community - too late, even, for . 4 A./ 3 #as a favorite stopping pointfor Something Positive fl/gripal//r- ~ 5 .i r every season's sightseers. But a Tuesday HPC meeting ,~ i~~ K- Through Hands proved that positive change can 0Â« pt' r r~-0/., --Â·'0,Â·Â£*6:J./'.;f -ty When Florence died in April of come of the Glid(len house tem- ~ :... 4 4 '.C :/4- 1981 {after Fred's death in 1975), pest. In March the house was gutted and stripped to a bare skeleton of surviving two-by-tours, the house passed on to the Glid- A healthy (for notoriously un- den children, who late in 1983 attended public meetings) turn- *.9.41 . #34 *i , 4 â€¢6'2.:iII suld it to Denver developer and out of neighbors caused HPC ' 4. AL' -Im .-f . hi:,toric preservationist Louise member Terry End to cheer Â· 4 1,%<77 , 1, VllillrY rt.i 'd/ar~/1/k'viV Vigoda. Mathis at one point that "this Â·I*MEI 1,2*02 + BEW-Â£&, Early this year, Vigoda hired a really isn't the Inquisition, Denver architect to prepare plans though it may seem so. , t <' . Â¢ Â¥*. .2.XE, 1 wiIA-M L fur a complete restoration of the Mathisdefended tearing theold . I N. I. -WY:i*#h; 41 f.. k ./ ~r.*HIT 1, historic house - and a contem- house down to its barest skeleton, , : .1 ./- 1 . ./.n a pulary addition of more than noting that its advanced state of I /,30&TU' /9// 448 1.600 square feet adjacent to the physical deterioration forced his 4, *H<. F historic structure. responsibilities into safety mea- . , 1-6 5 .., '* â€¢mviv 4/,4 , 1. r. She also hired Aspen architect sures instead of preservation for ' ; ' ' iliA li f t ..,.. Stan Mathis to coordinate con- its own sake. iction and restoration efforts In a dramatic presentation to ~ ''' ' .. 1 - . .tal,q 1 represent her to Aspen the board, he crumbled rotting 4 v JIll ,.,....4 boards. In February, the HPC siding and pulverized crumbling 4 1 approved the plans Mathis pre- bricks to demonstrate the extent ; a Â£' '11 ,r f: {Fle,0.1 '1 + Pld ' .ented for both the restoration of the deterioration. 4 '. 1 ,1 T . .t Â·, a.,2 . und the new construction. And he promised, on Vigoda's Â·4 :47 1 ' 14 1, F i 4.2 M.. i '9 .ii Â¥: li x Ulilli li :ill sounded fine in theory. behalf, that the old house will go . 1 , 4. ' E; eryone involved seemed to "right back up the way it was," ' 1 1 hil r *1Â· 0.7 #l share a pleasant picture of the with one exception in a slightly ' 1 -'11 1 4, 1 1.113 WWL' 7, WI new owner restoringthe old house different parapet (because of the Just the way it was but up to code prohibitive cost in furging an -14 '1. 1,1; k and with safe new materials - identical one). and offsetting the historic gem That didn't completely satisfy ~ ' ..0-2 il& V . Wir. ' t ./ /4 Â·.. with a strikingly contemporary }IPC members End, Gretchen I .146* Â·9 -Â» 1.- 4., U. ea,& addition that would not mock it, Greenwood and Nick Pasquarel- ' not copy it, but stand on its own in la, who chided him for failing to -. 41.L #:ws.*& 66 4'i-< mutual respect. inform them - in advance and ~ Brutal Realities more thoroughly - of the extent I ...... . Nobody, however, was ofthe demolition plans. By yesterday, the house was beginning to flesh out with all new - and safe - materials. apparently quite prepared for the Local friend of historic causes control over alterations of histor- to have Building Department have made the same decision to ' tai realities of restoration. Heather Hopton summed up the ically significant buildings. staffas well as IIPC members fre- approve the restoration." .,ipped away were the quaint present objections, protesting "we Penne suggested thata consult- quently monitor significant pro- And Aspen attorney Gideon Victorian moldings. Down came think things went too fartoo fast," ing architect ( with preservation jects. Kaufman, speaking in Vigoda's the mansard roof and its myste- Better System background) be required for ap- "It might slow down the con- behalf, concluded the meeting rious parapet. Laid in neat stacks It's too late, of course, for plicants proposing to remodel or struction, but this proves itwould with the observation that "the for future use were the gables and academic questions. restore their historically signifi- be worth it, she said. issue should be finding ways of the inviting bay window. But in their wish to avoid any cant structures. She added that even if the HPC preventing this from happening rhe red wallpaper in Florence's future incidents like this, HPC Planning Office liPC consul- had known in advance, step by in the future Â·-- and not trying to sitting room was reduced to wisps members are looking into how tant Culette Pennesuggestedthut step, ofthe demolition and recon- undo something that's already trailing in the wind. The rooms they can devise a better system of in the future, it would be helpful struction plans, "we still might been done." TH: ASPEN TIMES SECTION B Art Pages 3-7 Business Pages 13-15 April 26, 1984 lb' 56 S,Ckb' /% I -/02 -- \ / N \ \ 1 \\ 1000 / \ \ LEGAL DEXAIFTION - 0 Â¢ 3,0 j 2 11 M.S,Mmir-,6 â‚¬ Er-!L & u .-9 1!f t. y _1" %-1 '-IL -DCK ': w.:c,Â·râ€¢.AL Â«Â·71'f 7(3Â·,/MOITEÂ· -HE>ia >4 iÂ·nc'49'E ;,b 2 r '21- A.10 :34 Trt ,VESTULT LUNE Â·C, 54 0 22- - .riT, 1-iE ENTE.tiON Â»LUEF TMENCE .5 3-27.-2 2 .4 .A Â£/ r thÂ·.8 0 22-Â»I'-5 .4. :1 FEL' PENCI 5 2â€¢59, ,-2-ry, 79 01 FEET 122 TrIC POKI',4 .4-44 Or ,Â·14LLAr'/ Â·STAL!.T PNE - , ~ ExTENED[.0, THErâ‚¬L M 75-01Â· ! Â·.9 39 65 - 21-En .DIN'c? 22# S /- 'g4d7 57Â©A'r T .-Cfk LI!-JP. U TME -t.2!ri 7- Cr MCD:h,Â·N '-10 ~UN.?A,NI, 49 44 ' N 2. E /VDDITION p \ I / 1, Â·91 2 68 F r 1084 CA LESS 8 h k , Z 1 4 7 - I . 22 4%, ./INCollb etÂ·97 4 -f\? e. O - P 2/ 1 , \ 76\ 12+ L *\ 2% 1% '4 0 / / - - - - - -6- >- 1 1 1// \ 9. ---- 1 , 4 F" , 4/ 'A f.:: ~ift ~ '' 41/ r . 4 ~ -4 2,5 241- ' H I' =TIon./,ceic X . . 36 20 60 .b ,~> fr - ~,0 Â¥Â«38. * 9'Fâ‚¬+D _ --- ,Â·blb GIF DCAA!,NO Â· FCU-40 MOMUME-MTO .#3 -bele.VIN JOILEÂ· 1.- O - 7 - 17 Â·1,6.. iÂ·' 'I- BURVEYOK'e CCATIFICATE: i . I'/L. I 1 MICAEDÂ·r ZERT IFY TH/Â«l T,-1,5 fl/V ACC'j!%ATLLY 'DEFICTO ' 4 OURVEY FIAO[ U'>Ir.>61 rY l'FEG'15!ON Â·319 JUNE 11, 1110. A APR 1993 OF -rUL fl~FLATT 51-OWN AND DE.Sc,ilIDED MEN.ON .5 dz'Â·-0,4 tr' i.â‚¬ . -, -Wi .*t 3 : 7 '~'> ':' ~Â·r. 44,0 'c,%* 0 0 - ,)LI-V - l..,4 -/ r 0 ic. rÂ» --r--C ~7 I s, ur Al 'IDIC OUNVEYO, INC 057 AORYL 16,1993 .5 -----.-- I ./Â· MI<IM' illâ‚¬E.I. 1,Mi 5114 7, N LE 92/'.r Â· Ue,Â·Â·~A . 't-Â·e. Al : .,1 1 1.. 2 LLEO'.Lf' 75'.' 1Â£75 ~ ~ 1 f toi i 4 -1 9 8 k 'Zi 8 NOTEâ€¢ 715245 r.Â«52,1 Flul 5-,3,Â·82 5-AVEr CÂ©rÂ·ln 7 / , DA"JM DIANE ASSUMED 100.00 AS SHOWN -"Ly 4 7 / J / 0 3' 7\LF,>,5. 51)AVEND. >C U 73.09'UÂ· 159.65 HALLAN 5TKCET .../.m ~00-â€¢co Â· /../ ce/4/Ktr E- .'.' .CO'op!/.-el-*I...C~meÂ«â€¢â€¢e.-9â€¢.'ll....d Alpine Surveys, Inc. 11 0 5 TRACT aient 'T A-r/f' Surveyed . 11 10 J/ ReNK/6 + 14- 33 ADD -7-020 Title -9,/TE. 5./.tr -,Â¢â€ž~ n,A inm * C.'. 01 - l...n.glo~ *:* Post Office Box 1730 Drafted . 21 42 EA Aspen, Colorado 81611 Job No 82 - 'CH - 5 303 925 2688 an<.71 COUNTY, COL,22<.I EC 0 CO"/C I ..... 8/7,0 8 EXISTING AREA TO REMAIN 3/TH 1 Â¢/STEK ./.1. P!/dITE' 5ATH 0Ama FATO =.11.Y 01. 6â€¢UD a, 211 . MUE CELL-C * , , 1 1 KNO'EN , / 1 , .. 4%041 9â€¢11'G i. 331*1Â¢, FATI 1 -m th'NG 10/ =9 â„¢ter e POKCH ~-~ EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN Illiil 1 1 0 5 IO 30 PACE REMODEL 232 EAST HALLAM El EXISTING AREA TO REMAIN I.OF KOOF r-------------1 1 200. I r----1 ~ 8/1 2 -0 1 1 1 ... J I r- C | 'FL 'Â· IBAN Jkj GAIH 1 -, 1 KOOF It , ~~ EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN 111111 1 1 0 5 I0 30 PACE REMODEL 232 EAST HALLAM toof 1~OOF r------------n ' KOOF 1 r - '00' f- EXISTING ROOF PLAN 0 5 I0 30 PACE REMODEL 23z EAST HALLAM '-3 1 <2363 t 1 li f - t 1 - 1- 15-\% 1-5 n - LE-0 7~-4 n/--h n Cl 1 03 3- 00 E 0 0 11 IL EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION r . <5~~4:7 F Â· 1\4 - 1-1 U 8 0 0 8 I.1/ 1 1 5 5 f- Â» n -n LO =00 EXISTING EAST ELEVATION PACE REMODEL 232 EAST HALLAM SCALE: 1/8"=i'-0 <Â« <ff - 1 U - 1 010 EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION f - kf <2Â»37 LU- - 0 - -f Ly i 7-f \ f~ M 1 21 ~ n 12 - 0 1-1 0 2 Ll-LI EXISTING WEST ELEVATION PACE REMODEL 232 EAST HALLAM SCALE: I/8".I'-o" r / EXISTING GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE Level One 3362.4 s.f Level Two 1014.1 9.f. Garage 503.5 S.f. r- 4-01' REARYARD SETBACK- | Total 4880.0 s.f. gross i ~ ~ EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE AS CALCULATED UNDER CURRENT L.U.C. - - Level Two 1040 1 Q.f Level One 3362.4 s.f. 128.5 I ------ Garage S.f. r ~ ~ ~ Total 4505.0 s. f. 1 '' 1 , ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE. t JNDER Ct IRRENT L.U.C. C F.A.R.) R6 ZONING 4247.8 S.f. , ~ Tomi 0 EXISTING ADDITION LU CE FOR DEMOLITION -~ | , ~ ~ Difference 257.2 0. f. D C \ ' ~ GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTtNG CONSTRUCTION TO REMAIN AFTER 0 1 1 1 I . Level One 1866.1 s.f. DEMOLITION Â« >- i.u t Level Two 1014.1 s. f. .# I ~ Garage 445.7 3.1. 1 'r ~ Total 3325.9 s,f. gross I . \ 1 I . 1 I ./.*I -' 1 r---a. GROSS SQUARE FOOTACIE AFT-ER DEMOUTION 1 " L:Ji\ /6. 1 1 Existing Grog s.f. 4880 0 S.f 1 TERRACE .A Sq.Ft. to remain after 1 1 " 41-29/.: : 13-0" PROPOSED SIDEYARD demolition 3325.9 S.f. ,\, SETBACK Difference 1554.1 S.F. | , GARAGE tl?Al "S ~ | LIGHTWELL 1 \ I s.f. gross 1 LTHI I ,1 ' GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE 1554.1 1 , REQUESTED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION 1 1 '77 ,*.a 1 , |~| ~| KITCHEN &.-1 ti.Â·.7 1 - 1 :02-2 1 1-2--1 0 1 1 1 TERRACE ~ ~ 1 12 - L â€¢ â€¢ BEDROOM ~~ MAS-I~\\1~ 1----_-%<-------~ I i 23 1 VISUAL 8 AUDIO/ 1 '1~- t 1 1 En 1 1, 1 1 1 - 35-0" SIDEYARD SETBACK 1 Fl ~C LIB ADDITION ' , NEW - ~1 LIVING i /5':' SIDEYARD SETBACK -- f \\ , 1 : f _116[ 1 1 -ENTRY J> PORCH 1 1 1 1 1 1-~ 1 FIRST FLOOR , ~-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --~ PLAN 1 1 t PLAN r SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0" ~ 1 --ev" FRONTYARD SETBACK i 1 '398 50/Ob'.11EI L r-1~~3~1~M~7~V~41~V~~C~ 9 V H OCIV-NOUOD 'NEidSV IHOUV LE[HNIS INVT[VH ISVH ZEE 3ADÂ¥31 73[00*31>I E[OVd ~j AUUÂ¥Hf M U --- -- m b . Ld 00 1 -- - 1 . -------- 1 .1-PZ / ' 2 4,1/ ' ~ -- -- - - - - ~17 f=I- Z 0 'T Ef B , I Z 0 0Z Kg Et LEI ' 05 I O LA 1 NDVE[13 S CIMVA3(IIS i,Â°.5Â£ I3 -o" PROPOSED SIDEYARD EXISTING AD 00 N3d%v UGHTWELL. 5 ~ , ~ CKAM-SFACE -] A ' rTi w - 41 41,0 O Eo , Cl AKT STORAGE - E 0 i 1 ./ 23 09#11 / 04 % i , U < LAUNDKY STORAGE CL03 /86-84 < W~*Hi <R 4 E-~4 -6 O M EMETiNG CRAVISPACE -~- -. I -- - - 77 FLOOR PLAN BASEMENT FLAW ~ SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" t.3-98 90.'OWN[2 EVIEW A 2.1 S.1031<HÂ°xgv~ ~VN()103 ' HOT TUB C-3 tr <â€¢9 -â€¢ â€¢.' kE.':4*n': 9. '.* +4Â»** :+6+71 .4. Â·1:Â»Â·Â»:47~ ~49. r., . 'r BATHTIle W r D < NOKTH TEMACE 9/1 j W -h 1 \ HALL â‚¬ 4 Z 1-1 0 f. ~ LIN 1 OU â€¢ , 4 1-, 01 BUILT-N + 1 GARAGE Â» LIGHTMLL i 231/-1 / 2 Â· #.6..pâ€¢Â·;4Â·'4 ..4Â· Â·,>r.'441 ,#:T~ Â·4''~Â·>1.' ;'Â·-"Â·I'F 4- ~ ~~ 1 --1 - 4 CU ill 1,1 Ill 01 7 Pul 0 8 MUD ZOOM DENCH cueÂ£LE S-TOK - ENRANCE O% --DINING _1 a.09 I I cos. mm PulÂ«-Lj E ~-1--1. CL.095to:yi . LA Prf \V'. r 411 a w P , 4.G' -Il- Â·~--ON ~ ~ 2 -. </f\\1///M (*85U- 1 KIT 0 #4 4 43 - w.- 1/52\.m Ul / 1/ 1 _ -------1 : U L <g ON -~- 1 2-1 01 KrTCHEN , 1 SEEAKFAST / ~ illillillillillillill (/.-1 ~cz~ .3 Cd./2 027\0 F == 2 / MING 115Â£*WE~ < : L--2 r==Er --1 i____ 1--__-o-1-a 9 -1-_-_ j t__i= 07 k Q 4 1 AUDIO/VISUAL Â· - 1 1 i I frtel/V.:--, 4,- :a,~ 4 (C l FIRST FLOOR FLAN 1 A t r ' ' FIEST FLOOK FLAN SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" OFFICE 1.3.98 90/06$Â·" FEYEW 4-4 - 1 0 3 IK. 1 Ho IHHNIS INVU NHJSV -"Â«0*trÂ»VfalrCy-,~~4~'~~~ ~~~~ M.%.43-/.Wi METAL ROOFING SHINGLES -1 L, . f WOOD SIDING /////// 7 -- / Â«42 id 00 - STONE 1.-1-__ f _ i 01 000 0 0 . 4.74% 7.,--11- -:ID= 1 0 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 'F . METAL ROOFING SHINGLES ' T 1Â·c_ 1 4 1 -1- - .1 - I . t. 59- 1 1 1 - - - I.---- - 1 - -r i -r< 1 1 - 00 CEll- 0 1 1 -- L I........=4 1 4 .--1 1 . , I // WOOD SIDING PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION PACE REMODEL 232 EAST HALLAM SCALE: r/80'=i'-01' 7<501 <2334 <203?f METAL ROOFING SHINGLES 1 1, 1 -1 ,-aeÂ»=7~77>*Fgar- -- 9 - _ - A-9.16 n r. - -911 ' 1~F + 3 / I f r : Ill:illilimaillllmlillti 1*%6+3,12/,6/4,54 . La E1llilillillillillill WOOD SIDING IF 'l - ==_: --/.r%.- Sâ‚¬&0~P* 0, STONE ~ k--1---I- =UjL I titt- r I i ,$Em **'5*T,t' >33&;li~ ~- - le'' 1 1 1 ' 1 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION n 1 1 fE 11 1 1 F 1 j. 1 - 1 - L - - 3 - ./1@ -1,// 1 ..Â·ti 21 3 -1 n 4 4 7--n % \71/ i n - f f f 10 - 01 10 n 1-1 I i I-ILL-1 1 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION PACE REMODEL 232 EAST HALLAM SCALE: 1/8".I'-o" + 'r *F .1 2 . .. AM=Il< 1 1 hil â€¢ I + + 1 /;>*Â£=gÂ·kati mill; . F. ' 16. 1.-1.- I Â·Â· b la . WL + $ .4 . I . . - '. .$/' .... .. . I . I + .. . 9.==11.-laJU f . . k'41 . + %*f ...al .: d & 1 .. . 7 1 + . R 1 Â¥R. *. .1 I .1 if. . 1 R $ /2 $4 $4 . ; k * ~* 0 / Â·Â·Â· Â· U 'i- :, . 1 + f . 5.-6.0. - LU FJ: . r-- I. 4 ; .. + r + I. - .. 1. I . . . 14Â· 1 .. ...laaÂ· *-2 . i ='=Ill-,&/#. I. .. fÂ· -4 *SY:F~**all . I- ...9, . 1 : 7.9.-I--I-.I=*0- . . . -40Â» P. + '~ - ... /-/ 4 ./ el................ i.=Elaa. I ... .. . Ir --4./. I + I. Â¢ *. + ** '+ + * 14- 42Â®* * f' 1 -2 - .. t. 1Â·- 7 â€¢ . "ta.* 4' ri - itt .3.~~~~~~~~ -*, S tri .. 1 .. b.2. .0,2 2 . . I + . 0. 4 4.-12 I. - .0 1 . 4 t'-,9 .* + I , I â€¢â€¢4 Â· I *P I ... $ I. - *: A t-,'-4;:* + -Â®~ ~ . .... I - . . - - 4. , I ... :. I I + *0*,.al #w. : 4Â¢ 15 I * â€¢ .k ti- ..â€¢*9 0-â€¢Ld . ..E.... .-= - ---0-- ......166*.4.L 2%l .*..r#Z =-9 0 0 0 CO r Â£-2 IL-_ L , M *r- ----- --J =EN q_,4 fla 44%=B CO CJETED ca r-\ L..1 Fljibi- IM [iD(jOC~ ri-7 0 co= : ~~ LL ,2/- PACE V-2 0 =43 2 r--1 n rn , 1-==i r=7 r-Â·--- -, k 1 7 ch. 99 1 '* 1 ASPEN. COLORADO - 1- tr - 23213ASrT HALLAM STREET Â¥ -1- 0% 1 r ~~---~__3~~y -11,!- - - 111111 -'#2-1 ;, -Â·Â· Â· 11, 1*! I . i A tEl 4 J' *#2 4. 4-* f i I - 4 ,$ L. -'1-1 Ci --I--+*. r . iii 9 1- 00Â» f : le_ '_ _I . ;7 ,-y i + -- - 3 - ' c 1 + 1.-â‚¬k - + - i + -- 1/.&4=,F,1111,1. I -L.41 hillii//7,3 1/'diwill:"m""Ill:i . 1. - Ii,4.- rl , . i I - z E â€¢- . I M*. ;DA p 1 +, I I + I .1... - & .4 1 -4*/g#51/'FL~~r 11.1.- ---It ., L ; r--7 - : < i 4 4 Fin n arp no/ *- + ' _ ~ ,~ tÂ· ~: 4 '~ ~ '~1 0 f - b. -1. . T. 1 F 7 -54-4* 1 2 1 : f ...SS.,%@-:1."Imi + I.*d> -..........2 t............../ /A r----~ n 1 L_j u 1.L L 1. I' + 1 . f @TO ~ cil joi=7~ -1 11 4-- - L -2- 1 - + &lillillillillilill + . ./ -0<1/ /' i .h .. - -2 0 + ' lili : ,:.; fLE.. 9 11, - ..4 Â·111 20411 165% --Iii le .1 - 'FOD EUU 't-EL] _.: 1 I ' . 1 4 6.....00/'B 4.r r'.""n r.*..1 d ;iiARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS 412 N. MILL ST. ASPEN, COLORADO (970).925-2556 C rn ..mA m = fl--1 1,13 i *- IO 1 9?DEYARD SETBACK AS DETERMINED BY ASPEN ZONING 0 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 - /0 Â· ZONING: R6 2/JIX Â· LOT SIZE: 19555.6 SQ.FT. Â· FRONT/REARYARD SETBACK 30 Â· SIDEYARD SETBACK 50' MAX. (58.9') Â· EXISTING GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE EXISTING Â· FIRST FLOOR: 3362.4 SQ.FT. BUILDING Â·SECOND FLOOR: 1014.1 SQ.Fr. Â·GARAGE: 503.5 SQ.Fr. Â·TOTALÂ· 4880 SQ.Fr. GROSS Â·CURRENT F.A.R. 4247.8 SQ.FT. 35'_0" l 15'-0" l _ SETBACK _ 0 ...4 ~ SITE FLAN I OF 3 I0/I2/97 SETBACK DETBACK VARIANCE REQUEOT SIDEYARD SETBACK 19 CORNER OF EXISTING 19 BUILDING TO BE 11 10 DEMOLISHED 1 SETBACK - - - -- -mi 1 910 ............................ t-â€¢/ 1 - PROPOSED ADDITION WITH VARIANCE - Â·SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 4880 SQ.FT. GROSS EXISTING BUILDING Â· FOOTPRINT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 2368.6 SQ.Fr. GROSS BUILDING PORTION TO REMAIN Â· FOOTPRINT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 1497.3 SQ.FT. GROSS BUILDING PORTION FOR DEMOLITION EXISTING BUILDING I PORTION NEW ADDITION â€¢ FOOTPRINT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 1497.3 SQ.Fr. GROSS TO PROPOSED ADDITION PER K p KEMAIN L.U.C. # 26.104.030 1 41 I El 15'-0" U - SETBACK 0 r-1 ~ SITE FLAN z OF 3 I0/I2/97 SETBACK CORNER OF EXISTING BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED i BIDEYARD EETBACK AS DETERMINED BY ASFEN ZONING : PROPOSED ADDITION 0 0 WITHOUT VARIANCE , Â· SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 4880 SQ.FT. GROSS 35 EXISTING BUILDING .- Â· FOOTPRINT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 2368.6 SQ.Fr. GROSS BUILDING PORTION TO REMAIN Â· FOOTPRINT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 1497.3 SQ.FT. GROSS BUILDING PORTION FOR DEMOLITION EXISTING BUILDING FOKTION Â· FOOTPRINT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 1497.3 SQ.FT. GROSS To PROPOSED ADDITION PER REMAIN ------------------ 1 L.U.C. # 26.104.030 1 41- b 441 NEW ADDITION - SETBACK LL-~ I ~ SITE FLAN 4-11 20 3 OF 3 10~ I2/97 17'-0" I ' pk ond o RTNERS Nâ‚¬ December 18,1997 City of Aspen Community Development 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 232 East Hallam Street To Whom It May Concern: This letter is to authorize Harry Teague Architects and employees to act as my representative in all City and County needs as related to the proposed addition and/ or renovation of 232 E. Hallam. Sincerely, Linda M. Pace 445 N. Main Avenue San Antonio Texas 78205 Tel 210.226.6663 ta lindap\City of Aspen 121897 letter Fax 210.226.6669 . ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name Pace Remodel 2. Project location 737 Raqt Hal lam Cltrpet- (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes ana bounds descnption) 3. Present zoning R6 4. Lot size 19555.6 Sq. Ft. 5. Applicanfs name. address ana phone number Linda Pace, c/o Hondo partners, 445 N. Main Ave., San Antonio, TX 78205 6. Representative~s name. address, and phone number Matthew Scholl, Harry Teague Architects, 412 North Mill STreet, Aspen 7. Type of application (cneck all that apoly) Conditional Use Conceptual SPA X Concectual HPC Special Review Final SPA Finai HPC 8040 Greenline Concecrual PUD Minor HPC Stream iMargin Finai PUD Reiccation HPC Subcivision Text/Mao Amena. Hisicric LandmarK GMQS ailorment - GMCS exemation x Demc/Partial Demo View ?!ane Concominiumization Design Review Lar SoliULot Line Appeal Committee - AajusIment 3. Description Of existing uses (number anc type of existing structures. accroximate sc. 1. nurncer of bedrcoms. any previous aporovals granted to the property) 4880 Gross Scr.Ft. (including 2 car garage) , 4 bedroom. Single Family House. 9. Description of development application Partial Demolition and Remodel . 10. Have you ccmpleted and attached the following? x Attachment 1 - Land use application form x Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form . Response to Attachment 3 Response to Attachments 4 and 5 ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant: Linda Pace, Hondo Partners Inc. Actress: .23? Eaqt Hallam Street Zone district: R6 Lot size: . 19655 6 97 Ft Existing FAR: .4505.0 Sq. Ft. Allowable FAR: 4247.8 Sq. Ft. Prcposed FAR: _4505 Existing net leasable (commercall: N/A Prooosea net leasable (commerc:at): Exisring % of site coverage: 19 . 7% Prccosed 1/0 of site coverage: 19.8% Exisiing % of open space: 80.3% Prcacsec 16 of cpen soace: 80.2% Existing maximum heignI: Pr'rIc:cal oicc 25'.O" Accescrv Clac: N/A prCCcsec max. heignI: 7 r: n c: Cal DICCI 99 1. n " .1CZeSSCS./ INCCE N/A P=coseaÂ°,4 of:emcliticri: .40% Exisang number of becrocms: 4 P~=ccsec numcer cf jecrccms: 5 Existing an-site car'King scaces: 4 Cn-site parking spaces recuirec: ,M 6 Sertacks Existirlg: Minimum recuired: Proocsed: F fc r I: 17'.0" F :-C rEC 1 n ' A " F.cnI: 17'.n" Rear- 13'.0" ,Rear 10 '.0" - Rear: 13'.0" Cern cinec Combinea Cambinea FrcnI/rear:30 ' Fron#rear:30 ' .0" Fron#rear 30 '.0" S ice. 15'.0" S Ice: S ice: 15'.0" Sice: 35'.0" S ice: S ice: 35'.n" Cambined Combined Combined Sices: 50'.on Sides: iG , n" Sices: 130' A" Existing nonconformities cr enccachments: 257.2 F.A.R. Sq. Ftg. Overage. Variations requested:_si ripyarril qpthack, 257.2 addition Sq. Ft. to eliminate non-conformiÂ£y. (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.ft.. site coverage vaMance up to 5%, height variations underthe cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O zone districts) DEC 15 '97 11 : 31AM HARPV TEAGUE P.2 1 . GENERAL WABBANI]LDEED RICHARD W. ROBERTS and LINDA PACE ROBERTS, whose address js 4040 Broadway, Suite 450, San Antonio, TX 78209, for the consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) 4 and other good and valuable consideration, in hand paid, hereby Â®11 and convey to LINDA Â·- PACE ROBERTS alk/a LINDA MARIE PACE, whose address is 4040 Broadway, Suite 450, 4 San Antonio, Tx 78209, the following real propeny in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado: 11 A tract of land comprising all of Lots R A S, Block 71, in the City and Townsite of Aspen ort a portion of vacated Hallam Street, according to the Willifs Map recorded December 06, 1949 in Plat Book 2 al Page 37 as Reception No. 97096, and a portion of unplatted Section 7. Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Rt 6th P.M., the entire parcel being more fully described as follows: Beginning at the South West Corner of Lot M, Block 71, City of Aspen; thence N 14Â°50'49" R 163.12 feet; thence S 78Â°23'00" E- 66.08 feet; thence S 22Â°58'00' E 116.19 feet; thence S 12Â°59'00" W 75.09 feet to the Northerly line of Hallam Street: thence N 75Â°09'11* W 139.65 feet to the point of beginning, also known by street and number as: 232 Hallam, Aspen, CO 8161 4 with all its appurtenances, and warrants the titte to the same. subject to and except for: 1. General taxes for 1995 and thereafter payable in 1996 and thereafter. N I m 2 r 2. Building and zoning regulations. 3. Reservations and el,coptions as contained in tile Deed from the City of Aspen providing as fbllows: That no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession heid under existing laws, recorded 1-6 2 in Book 59 at Page 329. , r e The right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, as reserved in United States Patent recorded in Book 55 at Page 2. ~~ 5. Possesscry rights outside of fences and fence lines as shown on the zurvey of James F. Reser, L.S. 9184, dated August 16, 1982 and updated August 01, 1983. 6, Rights of way for driveways and water li~cs, as shown on survey of James F. Reser, L.S. 9184, dated August 16, 1982 and updated August 01, 1983. l Do .0 4 57 SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK ECO _ .DEC 15 '97_. 11: 32AM HARRY TEAGUE Â· - - P. 3 04 ir Any loss or damage as a result of the Statement of Lien filed in Book 740 at Page 754 by Stryker/Brown Architects, P.C. ALL REFERENCES BENG TO THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Signed this 22.-,lay of September 1995, A Ak 1 *WAUA2.7- !(iclikrd A. Roberts ~L&-44. 4#07/_ -, Linda Pace Roberts STATE-OF Great Britain anÂ¢Northern Ireland - ~,mulanÂ¢ 1 95 CetÂ»eÂ¥-er Embassy of the l~n|&d States of America I Â¥52&. . 7,4509. The foregoing instrument wam acknowledged before me this day of September 1995, by Richard A. Roberts aldmi~â€¢dillâ€¢â€¢1â€¢Illlâ€¢ts. Witness my hand and official seal, R 9- Candadal Mce Con,â€¢1 of *e United Sto)00 0% Ameriw teâ€¢don, E.gland *IWribiJAittly,4 Netil-PubHc SS. COUNTY 01 BILAR ) The foresoing inetrument *an ieknowledzed beforÂ® mc this It_ day of , 1995, by Linda Pacc Roberts. Witnesâ€¢ .y hand and official meal. ~41'k /Uu'ld*fk 2. Notary Public NOTARY PUBLIC State 01 TeÂ®05 1 . In Com#. EXp 06-1 1-98 .Â· ht. docum.nt conâ€¢'64 01 l,|~,A-# 08- goh Initial led by th, 4,~4~ 1 grtnts, Â« 386865 B-798 P-64 10/30/95 PG 2 OF 2 4 --1 I- i I | |'I IT-/ lili - 1/1+11 - - 1 04 4 B.-48 1, Fll ' 4 :;f . - 1- ; . ':,Li'*l-'-4-> :P> .1 11 - 1. 16.11 7 1 11 14 1 1 -9 - R... 1 1 li4444~2734-073-14-0501-1 +2 DATERCVD: 01/21/98 #COPIES:~1 11 1 Li CAsE NO~HPCOO1-98 I 'ld 1 1 t.1, ,6 , 11 ...1-7.-1 11,9-4-9.71 *Cl'+-= + 1.-1 NEA#ER#MNPace - HPC Significatit 1 4, PLNRVAmy Guthrie 1-1 I, .4 . - I .... --- I I .'I////$' .1--â€¢/ 1. 9 411? ~232 E Hallam F CANE TYHHPC Significant ~h STEP#: 1 lilli j 1.4--4.1 1.1 .1.1. ----- 1 - I.-- i r â€¢w :,i-I Â·iÂ· - =3:7,773--9. --- 1 1 - * 1 ' Â·Il.Â·,~~,iii ' - --I:- . I I 1.â€¢. . 1 ' fÂ«Â»*1Â«*el Pace, Linda - c/o Ho ' ADR 445 N. Main Ave C/S/Z: San Antonio, TX 7 ~ ' PHit (210) 226-6663 . 1 :18?kiMatthew-Scholl - Harry Tea ADR1412 N. Mill St ' C/S/Z: Aspen, CO 81611' PAN<925-2556 1 -1.. ~!.HiFFES~NU~ $600 ~ I f 't~-*~~~~~~4OA 14.1 1.Â¥.,1111. -1.. 11"ll-; 11;111~4~,1'I:'fil-. ~1~r ..1 , - -- - I Lit' - NG*ft#**Als| A' - 1/ I. Ly. 1 1 -Â· .r Â· -Â· -- --- - Â·â€¢Â·r,+ " '-A-FU-- Â·---9,4,Â£'-,/_t)77:,Ar--r:A~1-Â·'-r-Â· - 1.-Â·-11-1 . 1. ' .- ~14~f~ 41-17~y~-6-C r~- REF:~ - - i-- BY~~~~"~"~~~'~~ r DUE:~ - 1 11 1 1 It - 41 .1- I - 'It- Il' ' 11- 3-11 11 1. 71 5'JMTGDATE REV-BODY PH NOTICED /1 1 1 11. 181 1/,AA Â£ dpro l: 9 - Â·~,+14 1994 ZI - Â¥1- ..11 1 1 - I 83.-0 - - 4 21 Ii- 1 DATE OF FINAL ACTION: I (--./. I I I 1 IIi I ' 'i--_7-L- lili-/I 1*44~m~41141,22~ 4,â€ž~ A/ . ~~ ' I' CITY COUNCIL: pz: I .... . BOM i#Lbatbi~ ~ BY:| i 14 HRG OFF: :,1 8,8 UBMITD; PLAT (BK,PG):r- | owl i .- ADMIN: 111 1 I - '4.-, ~ ,*~ - t -, ' 414Â« VI 1 11.1. . -1 '. . . L